An Interesting Conversation, Part 2

I'm stoked that Exley took the time to respond to my post about his piece on God's Politics. Woot.

He asks "If with God all things are possible, then why do we believe that it's impossible to serve others through our political system?"

I do not think it is impossible. But I do not think that the fact that something is possible means that it is therefore the best option. I do not feel called to this, and I believe that many of those who would identify with New Monasticism do not either. Beyond that, I am torn. While it would be rash to say that no one is called to it (see: William Wilberforce, et al), I think there was wisdom in the early church to avoid it entirely.

It seemed/seems incongruous for an early christian to have been a roman senator. If it seems less so today, perhaps that's because the church has been domesticated (I think Shane Claiborne might say 'baptized by the empire') and not because the empire has become any less of what it is.

Sure, America uses a lot of different words than Rome did. But with the words removed it looks an awful lot like Rome given the exploitation, violence, militarism, injustice, and inequality. Exley asks "Could it be that 2000 years later, the gospel has had some effect on our societies?". I hope that it has. But I'm not convinced that the world is any less sinful or fallen just because the church has been working redemption for a few millennia. Some things are better. But that doesn't mean that all things are. I guess I will believe the empire is less evil when it stops acting evilly.

Exley also asked, "Ever wonder who, in those times, who administered Jubilee? Some people had to take on the burden of leadership."

Certainly Christians are called to leadership. Though I looked at Leviticus 25 & 27, and the only sign of administration of Jubilee is for priests in intervening years to help decide fair prices for things. There's no instruction for anyone to administer Jubilee while it's actually happening, but rather, simply commands to the people in general. But that's not the point. Followers of Christ are clearly called to leadership and administrative roles throughout the New Testament.

The real question is: leadership to what end?

It's one thing to lead the church in seeking God's kingdom. It's something else to take government office and lead a nation (be it the US or otherwise).

Senators are required to take the following oath upon entering office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Beyond the immediate concern of taking an oath at all (Matthew 5:33-37), comes a whole lot of others. One must swear to bear "true faith and allegiance" to the constitution. Our faith and allegiance are to lie in one direction and one direction alone. Even if that were not so, to what end do we swear to defend a document written by sinful man? A document that will pass away. Must we defend the constitution against the second coming of Christ, as it will surely be destroyed then? What if the constitution and the Kingdom are at odds on an issue? Then one must oppose the Kingdom or violate the oath. Our goals are not those of the constitution, should we affirm it?

Can one serve two masters? Can you be part of the governmental body and the body of Christ at the same time? Ultimately, where does our allegiance belong? With our country or with the Kingdom?

We are citizens of a different Kingdom (Philippians 3:20).