In Resident Aliens, the authors Hauerwas and Willimon implore us in the ministry/theological/churchleadership professions to set as priority one the evoking of an exciting sense of adventure. The quote about theological writers making us feel “too dumb”:

Alas, too much theology today seems to have as its goal the convincing of preachers that they are too dumb to understand real theology. Before preachers buy into that assumption, we would like preachers to ask themselves if the problem lies with theologies which have become inconsequential

Resident Aleins , Ebook version p.201

brings to mind the question of whether all this debate back and forth about the level of faithfulness in this “activist” approach vs that “ecclesiological” approach, and who engage in “statecraft” vs those who “participate in true worship” is not just another pitfall to getting on with it.

The question Steve Bush asks in his latest comment to the range of comments on his paper re: when are Christians obligated to support a “movement” or an initiative thaqt just so happens to have widespread support for the sake of some sense of justice that just happens to be both moral and “widely supported” by lots of people who are moral-seeking people. Yes, I believe that the church is rightfully the representatives, the “colony” which is called to rightly embody this “otherwordly” morality; a “Biblical people”, a people formed by the workign of God in their midst. But there are, I believe, paths of growth at various outposts of those people who are seeking to embody church; paths which range from the ones who do not “notice” how Constantinian they are, or how accomodating they are. Do we “abandon” them? If the proponents of RO say no, I would ask what “formation” strategy we are to employ? What kind of “correction” and “teaching” do we encourage? Does it help our worldwide communion to be harshly dismissive of “activist” Christians by lumping them with “leftish politics” and accusing them of “ceding to the state?” There are certainly elements of truth to those observations, but how does the Church instruct and form rightly those who have entered into conversation with her through the invitation of those who are politically active as an expression of their faith, which has been instilled in them via the passion for feeling involvement in the alleviation of injustice and violence?

Bonhoeffer involved himself in the plot to assasinate Hitler. Many have said that this “betrays” his “practicality” in agreeing to “do what it takes” to stop Hitler; that this justifies the “just war” , “long-term” view for Christians. Bonhoeffer himself did not take this view. To him, he was being “disobedient” for the sake of others. I wonder whether or not we in the church are not called to our “activist” brothers and sisters to encourage activity which has at its impetus the alleviation of injustice via works of mercy and appealing to the state for concessions which help to alleviate SOME suffering and loosen SOME oppressive restrictions.

I believe in a diversity of gifts that God gives the people , to be put together into structures for ministry which address the world at some point of need. I also believe there is a role for the “activist”, IF this activism is grounded in misison and emanates from church. Jim Wallis himself testifies to the neccessity of a church home; a church base from which all this derives; the reason de etiere. That also does not mean that to merely acknowledge the “source” insures that we will not be lured into the “world’s way” of “getting thiings done”. As long as the world is the world, this allure and temptation will always be there. This is why the Church of the Saviour continues to emphasize and order itself as a “Journey Inward, Journey Outward”.

Back to that original quote from Resident Aliens about pastors being made to feel “too dumb” to be truly faithful. I associate some of this RO-based arggument with that tendency. I can and do agree with much of what RO observes about the church and the world, and how liberal democracy has subverted so many expressions of church into Constantinian outposts and operations. I also deeply identify with their emphasis on ecclesiology and that all TRUE justice and freedom and “values” are formed in the church, and that , as Resident Aliens observes, the church is a “Colony” set apart. But do we then use these stances as quick and easy delimiters of who is “with it” and who’s not? As if that approach is going to have much hope of transforming or “converting” anyone who has found that “seeking to speak TO” worldy structures has an impact or an effect for the better, to join with those who with them affirm that the city they seek is one whose builder and maker is God, and yet who speak of their “activist” members as if their whole agenda is separated from their “true home”.

I found Jamie Smith’s “I’d prefer Wallis to Falwell” less than endearing. I’m not saying Wallis is as “eccesiological” as I would prefer. But I also know that Wallis deeply believes in the Journey Inward, Journey Outward as expressed by the Church of the Saviour. IN fact, Sojourners and Wallis constantly lift up ministries and examples of the Church of the Saviour as logical outcomes of a proper balance of both inward and outward journeys, and that there may well be times that our activity that presents itself to the public eye will look to be occuring on the “stage of the State”. But it is also likely that any rootedness or locality of such efforts in the church are going to be the story which gets the headlines in society. I do believe that more needs to be said by those who “seek to influence” andf “seek to participate in and call for change” of their source of motivation, their source of mission, and that this acitivy IS mission. It is NOT the ONLY mission, nor do they claim it is the ONLY mission. I belive that there are some who are gifted for and called to some sort of “conversation” with the powers that be. But I believe that their reasons for being there are to be rooted in the church, and that testimony to that fact should be more forthcoming.

The “sense of adventure” of which Willimon and Hauerwas write should emanate from the Biblical witness to the Kingdom of God. THere WILL be those touched by that good news who will naturally take that and seek to “infiltrate” the structures and halls of the powers that be, since it seems natural to belive that it is through present structures that the message will “get out” that the people of God believe that something should be done to “tell a story” that needs telling so that the works of darkenss can be exposed. Some of these works (not ALL of them, just SOME) , if only they can be brought to light, could be dealt with. Even if it is true that this is making the world only “a little less unjust” , this is a direction preferrable to its opposite. Neither is this all that ‘s required; that if we can only get this or that bill passed, then the Kingdom would be ushered in. Of course not. But even to those who are “sucked in” by relying too much on “worldly structures” and “results” (as the world sees them), they need to be “welcomed in” by the church who represents the gathering center of God’s acitvity, and restored, and constantly formed by an ultimate hope in God’s Kingdom, no matter how dimly that may be refelected in the harsh “realities” (as they SEEM to be) of “the world”, …..”out there” . There is that eschatological hope which sustains us in our strivings which constantly seem to get rejected and subverted and seem to get nowhere.

I wonder sometimes how many RO-ers have come to that place out of “burn out” with the promises and escahtology of activism, and seek a new, more “who cares what they think” stance. I see the validity of that, and avenues for how that can be an approach that is a more effective forming structure; to listen to and participate in the liturgy and the Scriptural focus of the church, and seek to respond to call. I actually DO belive that. This is why I continue to read Hauerwas, Smith, and the critiques of “Liberal Democracy”: becuase I belive they’re right. Where I find myself holding back is in the style of critique they level at “other” approaches and theological sensibilities which are formed in them from other approaches. I just feel that are OTHER more serious enemies for the church to fortifyand “armor” against than those they criticize. The “peace and justice” folks in the Church may well include amongst them tendencies identified by RO, but they also include many who have found the church’s proclamation of the Kingdom as testified by Jesus and embodeied by Jesus to be good news, and they are seeking to tell the world, however naively and however “accomodationist”. The role of the church for these and all of us is to continue to lovingly embrace us and encourage us to bring us together to hear God’s word, and to wait for the visitation of God’s spirit and the gifts and call that result. I belive that the adventure that is the church is experienced a few “adventures” at a time. One adventure leads to and deepens the next one, and to a large extent, determines the next.