Sectarians vs. Realists: The Return of the Sectarians!

Lee reminds me that I promised to reply more fully to his blog and links to an article by Robert Benne, which is supposed to be a contrarian view but feels to me like a good summary of the "Neo-Augustinian" position with a reminder to not forget about the world.  To which I'd say, absolutely.  Benne argues that "the prospect of creating a genuine 'people,' not merely a collection of political or psychological activists or, worse, religious consumers" and "incorporating full persons into a full ecclesial culture that can overcome the terrible fragmentation of modern life into semi-autonomous spheres of existence" is more of a temptation than an option.  If being the body of Christ ("a genuine people") and experiencing salvation in the form of wholeness overcoming fragmentation is not really an option, then to hell with all of it.  Seriously.  I don't see what is so controversial about that - isn't that what the Church is all about, whether you're Catholic or evangelical or sectarian or whatever?  

Benne's main critique is:

"If God is indeed the creator and sustainer of the larger world of economics, politics, and culture, then we as Christians are called to witness there. Our salvation is not in that witness, but our obedience is. And though we know that much of contemporary culture is debased, we also know that it is not beyond redemption. Indeed, reminding ourselves of the illusions of perfectionism, we might even grant that, relatively speaking, it is not all that bad. In any case, modernity’s own norms of procedural justice and individual rights offer openings for Christian witness."

I agree!  We are not all about letting the rest of the world go to hell while we're holed up in our alternative or parallel culture.  If I was, I wouldn't be working in social work right now.  William Cavanaugh wouldn't have spent years working with torture victims and leading groups of students  on work mission trips to Honduras.  I could on, I suppose, giving all the "street creds" of the "sectarians" who are passionate about living out their faith in the world, but you get the idea.  

The main theological difference may be eschatological, as Vaughn points out:

"But the difference is that if we believe that Christ's work really changed the world (in some objective sense) and indeed changed the course of human history (that is, it didn't merely create "possibilities" for the few who believed) then I have to believe that the Church's reasons for caring for the poor, freeing the oppressed, and bringing peace among enemies is not because it is going to make the world a better place (i.e. a useful social strategy) but because we can't imagine NOT doing these things. We simply can't imagine the world otherwise."

I call it living into the kingdom of God, into salvation. 

Lee asks: "whether the sectarians (emergents) are asking the Church to be something it isn’t intended to be.  Is the Church really supposed to be a counter-polity, a new political order unto itself? Or is expecting the Church to replace the earthly political order a kind of category mistake?" 

I agree the state has a role to play, so I don't know that I would say the church replaces the earthly political order.  The Church isn't a political order in the sense that it will pave roads or pass laws.  In order to say that the Church is its own alternative polis, you must accept that Jesus, who we just celebrated as King, was political.  And that liturgy, baptism, eucharist, hospitality, binding and loosing, visiting the sick, sharing possesions in common, preaching, etc. are political acts that often put us in opposition to the claims the state makes upon us.  A quick example: baptism tells us that our primary identity is Christian and makes us brothers and sisters with one Father.  The state sometimes tells us we have to kill our brothers and sisters because our first and primary loyalty is to the state, which supercedes any bond we might have with Christians in other countries.  (The Benne essay doesn't even mention violence or pacifism, which I found odd.)

So I wouldn't agree that the state and Church always have complementary missions, or that "the state serves the Church by making possible its mission."  The life, death and resurrection of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit make possible the mission of the Church.  The state can help create a "peaceful" space in which to do that, free from oppression, but I'm wary of "make possible" language. 

I do agree with Benne that strong churches are more about being "bands of forgiven sinners than shining knights in the Kingdom of God."  There is a danger of idealism, of feeling that we don't measure up, and I hope that those recovering from strict fundamentalists backgrounds don't think we're about imposing more oppression.  I grew up in the liberal mainline church, so I'm all for a stronger ecclesiology.  But the vision we have isn't about imposing more rules, but about helping people realize that we are members of a household and citizens with the saints in an alternative community that claims our primary allegiance.  Here they can experience healing and wholeness in Christ and resist the evil in the world, while understanding that the world was created by God and is therefore good but in need of salvation.  We are "called out" (ekklesia) from the world, living in a different manner, as part of a certain movement called Church so that we may be the salt of the earth and the light of world.   

And yes, I stole Lee's blog titles.  I prefer to think of it as an homage.  I would've titled it "Revenge of the Sectarians!" but we disavow revenge and violence, so there you go.