An Interesting Conversation

There's an interesting conversation taking place online about some of the things happening in the church today. As best as I can follow, the most recent posting is here.

But as best as I can surmise, this guy, Zack Exley, is asking why new movements in the church are so averse to large, national, or even global scale organizing. By "new movements" he's pointing towards things like the emerging church and new monasticism. I recommend doing some research on both.

I think Shane Claiborne did a pretty good job of addressing this in Jesus for President but I think the question is interesting and worth addressing.

Why the aversion to large movements? Why the aversion to running for office, taking government or other authority positions, or government in general? Why the aversion to power?

I think, most simply, because Jesus calls us in another direction. We're called out of the camp, away from the places of power, toward the wilderness. We're called towards the least, to be the last, to consider others greater than ourselves.

We're called to let the Empire (be it Roman or American) have what belongs to it, and no more.

We're called to make disciples. And making disciples is a personal thing, a small thing, a few at a time thing. Jesus spends His time ministering on earth mostly with a group of twelve, and out of the twelve, spends even more time with just three.

That's not to say that the small group doesn't grow, or that the movement doesn't take off, or that the church doesn't spread. Or even that Paul doesn't go off planting churches in other places around the world. But he doesn't build a hierarchical structure with himself in charge. He doesn't give himself a position of power. He considers himself the worst of all sinners.

And lastly, in regard to taking political office, we follow the lead of our brothers and sisters from the first couple of centuries. They knew the empire was evil and they chose not to associate with it.

Exley says, "Jesus lived under an empire that ruled primarily by the cross and the sword. Today we live under an empire that also tortures and kills -- but that is not its primary mode. Our empire neutralizes its citizens with an idea -- one so fundamental to our thinking that we often mistake it for a law of nature: that any attempt by humanity to determine its future intentionally and collectively will always result in failure."

I'm not so sure our empire doesn't rule by the cross and the sword. I'm also not so sure that the empire tells us we can't determine our future. I'm more inclined to think that it tells us that we can, because it can and it is a democracy and so we are the empire. Maybe it tells us we can't do it on our own, but I think one of the fundamental prepositions of America is that "we can do it". With enough hard work, ingenuity, determination, and good american grit we can accomplish anything we set our minds to. And frankly, that is a lie. With God, all things are possible. But humanity on its own is sinful and fallen and the best of intentions are prone to corruption.