Why We Can’t Wait & Why We Must: The Radical Timing of God’s Movement (by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove)
Zack Exley over at Revolution in Jesusland has been offering some careful thought and excellent questions about Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw's new book Jesus for President. His questions are well worth reading in depth, but for the sake of this short response, I'll summarize his concern as this: If new monastics focus on the small and local, how are we ever going to achieve large-scale social and political change? If people with power make the rules, why would Christians of goodwill give up power? Why not organize for shared power so that no one gets left out?
If there is a new monastic movement in North America, then I'm convinced that we can only understand it in the context of America becoming the world's "last remaining superpower" following World War II. For many of us young evangelicals, the Moral Majority and its demise unveiled for us the deceptions of power. We walked away from politics as we knew it because we didn't like who it made us. But we believe there is a better way, and we've tried to learn that Way from Jesus.
As I understand it, new monasticism is trying to learn what it means to live by the power of the Spirit in a world of competing powers. This means, first of all, that we give ourselves to prayer, trusting that there's time to listen in a world of urgent needs. The most radical thing we can do in a world wrecked by injustice is to open our imaginations to prayer. If we want to transform the world, we have to begin with our own conversions. As Gandhi said, "We must be the change we seek."
If there's time to listen to God, then there's also time to listen to our neighbors. I agree wholeheartedly with Exley that Jesus was an organizer, building a movement in first-century Palestine. His organizing philosophy, so far as I can tell, was the same the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) employed in Mississippi during the early 1960s. It consisted of sitting on porches, listening to people, becoming the beloved community with them, and helping all people to know that God loved them. The real power of Jesus' tactic was that it transformed rich and poor alike, setting them free for life together in a new community. It made possible a community that no one could have imagined before.
When we read the gospels closely, Jesus is obviously concerned with timing. Though he does not lay out a grand strategy for social change, he is a master tactician who obviously knows when to wait in Bethany and when to march on Jerusalem. There is a time for the beloved community to take its message to Washington. But you have to get the timing right, Jesus seems to say. The public witness is always dependent on the existence of a new community that points to another way.
New monasticism is not against political organizing or, as Dr. King said in 1968, "taking the nonviolent movement international." In an age of increasing globalization, it is more important than ever that we witness Christ's way to nation-states, corporations, and international organizations. But our witness there will only be credible if we've taken the time to be converted ourselves and to build communities of justice and peace where it is easier to be good. We won't end global poverty until we learn to care for the poor in our communities. Our cries for world peace will fall on deaf ears until we learn to live peaceably as Christians.
Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove is the author of New Monasticism: What It Has to Say to Today's Church (Baker).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
This is a fascinating and difficult topic. One of the things that makes it difficult is that we can't just pigeon-hole it into contemporary ideological worldviews. I believe the Bible and Jesus' teaching calls us to engage culture and redeem our societies around us. I don't think this limits Christians to either big picture, society-wide change or small and local change.
I tend to fall on the side of Claiborne's. Perhaps it's my conservatism that leads me that way. But the "small and local" philosophy is both conservative and radical at the same time.
It's radical in that it calls people to radically change their way of life. It rebels against the mainstream materialistic, individual-based culture. But it also appears to recognize that wide spread, society-wide change more often than not results in a whole host of negative unintended consequences. History is replete with examples. This is the conservative element of Claiborne's philosophy. Each community is different and has different needs. People on the ground in those communities best know the character of each community. Yes, mistakes will be made at the local level, but they won’t ripple throughout society. They’re contained and easy fixed. We need more radicals at the local level, but radicals in power at the central level scare the heck out of me.
Posted by: Eric | May 21, 2008 11:18 AM
This is a good line of thought to have. For me, it also raised the question of: Could Americans just want to be helping people to concrete ourselves at the "last remaining superpower"? It's interesting to think about. If that answer is yes, then there's even more need for a Christ-centered approach to change, rather than a "hey, look what Americans are doing" approach.
What do you think? -- Ian
Posted by: Ian Scott Paterson | May 21, 2008 1:48 PM
I'm confused about what your asking Ian. What is "the good line of thought to have"?
Posted by: Eric | May 21, 2008 1:58 PM
Obviously, I meant to write "you're" above.
Posted by: Eric | May 21, 2008 2:05 PM
sociologists talk in terms of Glocalisation in trying to understand where the world is going these day. Thing happen on a global scale but they are manifest uniquely on a local scale.
So to act locally is not to step away from power or dealing with large social issues and injustices it is to tackle them differently.
The power to chamge and transform does not come from existing power structures and hierarchy but through networks and connectedness.
You talk of USAmerica as the last world super power and at the risk of being contraversial can i say the way to attack a super power (not that i want to do that if certain people are monitoring this website) is through revolutionary cells.
Monasticism in England and europe bought change because new towns and cities, new communities grew up round the cells of monks who had gone off to pray. There monistaries became centers of healing, care, hospitality and vibrancy that attracted populations to them.
You also have to look at history to see how revolutionary it is to set up such communities. St Fransis was able to speak to the pope and bring change on a massive scale. Mother Teresa of calcutta certainy had a chance to speak on a global stage, purely becuase of her local action. Thomas Mccahill's rip roaring book 'the day the Irish saved civilization' talks of the amazing influence the celtic monks clinging to the rocky shore of Ireland has on western civilization as it went through the dark ages. They may have even discovered North America a thousand years before columbus.
Acting locally gives people a base and a voice nationally ans globally. Even this blog is evidence of that we are discussing the actions of a young man who is chosing to live in community in a poor unimportant neighbourhood in Philedelphia on a wesite of an organisation that started as a community in the poor powerless suburbs of washington DC. Imagine every poor neighbourhood and ghetto area with such a community at its heart. Check out the work of 'Servants to Asias Poor'(www.servantsasia.org).
The question that this article brings up is timing: God's timing. Whose to know when the acting locally will reach a critical mass that will bring change for justice and peace and... probably not the American way (sorry forgive me that last comment).
Posted by: howard | May 21, 2008 6:06 PM
I think a main conflict I have with this question is not local versus global, but is service and hospitality versus political advocacy. Those of us helping people drowning in the river eventually go upstream to find out who is pushing them in to begin with. Reading 'White Man's Burden' by William Easterly helped me see why large, top-down solutions rarely if ever are successful, though I don't see how this healthy criticism of large-scale solutionizing translates into the abandonment of the larger politic in general. We of course can still organize and be political and still do it 'from below.'
Hauerwasian thinking that calls for a 'Social Enclave Theory' is probably a good message for traditional Mainline liberalism urging them out of their ivory towers of protest, but I think it will do spiritual violence to the new bourgeoning 'Christian Radicals' Claiborne and Wilson-Hartgrove speak for so eloquently. We need push back against our reactionary distaste for political action stemming from the Christian Right's mistakes over the last two decades. Instead, we should both welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, house the homeless, and live in community while ALSO going to the local state house to speak on their behalf.
Power on its own is not inherently destructive and is not something that should be or can be avoided. All humans are bestowed with power. While we must remain focused on reconciliation so that the oppressed do not become the oppressor, as Christians I believe we are called to live on the margins and advocate from those margins to the larger society. We organize for the poor to regain their power that has been stripped away, so they can reclaim their humanity (and as Freire says, so the oppressor can also reclaim their humanity which cannot exist in a state of oppressing). Again, seeking the redistribution of power is inherently reconciliatory. Our life lived among the poor gives us significant voice within the larger community that we MUST ALWAYS leverage so that we do not attempt to heal deep societal wounds with superficial or shallow remedies.
Jonathan, if you read this Sam and I had a great conversation after leaving your place last week. Thanks for the Hospitality ;)
Posted by: Hispanglo | May 22, 2008 12:04 AM
Whether one is called to steward a family, a small business, a university, a multi-national, or the US Presidency -- is inclining one's mind and heart toward Jesus the Christ, in context of loving relationships with Brothers and Sisters doing the same, not adequate to remain a servant of the Kingdom???
I do believe the wonderful love of Jesus will compel many of us to 'move to the margins'. Life at the margins, however, does not guarantee a heart and mind seeking first God's rule anymore than life at 1600 Pennsylvania.
It is very possible to hide our fears of greater servanthood by proclaiming a simple desire to be servants/lovers of God. God might assign us to steward significant Earthly assets for good. Running out of fear, or lusting for power, equally negate a belief in the Jesus who got up out of the grave.
Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind....
Run with all we have--with our utmost
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 22, 2008 8:47 AM
I sense God is moving at this time on the hearts of many to turn to him and apply their faith in real, practical ways. Many of the corporations are adapting socially-sensitive policies towards their employees and the environment, even if it's chiefly based on sustainability crisis management and return on investment.
I believe we can change the world, but in regard to timing, we must keep an eternal perspective. Since this world is fallen and destined for destruction, we will never achieve utopia or heaven on earth. But we can keep God's commandments and love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
Individuals and Ideas make a difference. Individuals run corporations. Individuals run governments. If we take the example of Jesus Christ and operate according to biblical principles, we can be the 'light' and 'salt' God called us to be.
We all have been given spiritual gifts. For me, that means establishing a new economic theory based on the gospel. For others, it may be organizing a food panty; while others it may mean running for public office. We all have to take our gifts, allow the Lord to use us and do our part until Christ returns.
Anthony
gospelism.org
Posted by: Anthony | May 22, 2008 11:43 AM
After reading both the original blog on the critique of "Jesus for President" and Wilson-Hartgrove's response I have found only one idea-theme that I am in disagreement with. It just happens to be Zach's main point.
He states, "Jesus didn’t limit himself to the small or slow, and I can’t find anything in the Bible to make me think he’s calling us to limit ourselves now."
My only comment on the above quote then would be to call attention to the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus compares "The Kingdom" to a seed that grows in to a huge tree. This surely is a slow process with gradual yet eternal strides.
To condemn a movement of idolatry is serious business particularly when it happens to a movement of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Let us hope that we can find a way to unify and not divide.
peace and love
Posted by: p.a. kierce | May 22, 2008 5:22 PM
I think of Paul's image of the church as a body with many parts, each of which is important. This works itself out in different calls to different faithful people. We need to be wary of turning it into an either-or proposition.
I am convinced that Shane Claiborne is following a deeply felt call from God. This doesn't mean that all Christians should be making the same choices as he has. Rather, each of us should be prayerfully discerning how God is calling us, and following that call wherever it leads - not criticizing others for having different calls. We need to trust that, if each of us does that, God's power will shake an unjust social order.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | May 22, 2008 8:44 PM
I think the Religious Right, exposed the problem with religion and politics; loyalty to its precepts parted ways from Christ' teachings.
Jesus said the kingdom was within reach over two thousand years ago. I think it still is. He said some would look to the sky for the kingdom of heaven, but that to see it without we have to find it within.
I don't think he died to make us wretches, like so many of our churches make us feel as they annually recrucify him and smear the people with the blame, when it was religion insisting on government publicly executing him. How many of us heard that and thought we better shut up?
In acts it describes the risen Jesus' ascent into heaven and it says a cloud blocked their view of him. I think the cloud is in the mind. I think the 2nd coming is beyond time and place, but open to every generation and heart that wants to know the divine I Am, of all. Does it make any sense to wait to enter the Kingdom when we die? -After struggling against all odds to come into this world?
The best way to reform is from within starting with ourselves. All we need is for people to awaken to the good part of themselves and be godly to each other.
For US, the phalse profit is what chooses greed or desire and brings forms of angst into the kingdom.
Jesus said to take care of the husbandless and orphaned. How did making Jesus' message into a religion with a hierchy of men between the widows and orphans help? Personally, I'd prefer men to be husbands and fathers to inserting themselves between me and the Lord.
I think we are to be fonts of Christ, the perfect child in this world God so loved.
Posted by: Barbara | May 23, 2008 10:58 AM
Two years ago I moved to a Mennonite Brethren Community where they cherish and hold dearly to their anabaptist roots. They idea of community and taking care of those around you is in the DNA of people and in the culture, but sometimes I feel it doesn't move forward to the national and global community. It stays on a micro level even in helping abroad. Johnathan Hargrove states, "We won't end global poverty until we learn to care for the poor in our communities." My question is in taking care for others in our communities how do we catch a vision to end global poverty?
Posted by: Debbie Gray | May 23, 2008 11:19 AM
Barbara that was beautiful. Gives me a thought, that the second coming is the Holy Spirit coming into our heart, that the world ends when we hang our flesh on the cross with Christ and crucify it. A born again Christian is going to find living large unattractive.
Posted by: Oak | May 25, 2008 11:01 AM
It seems to me that New Monasticism is falling into the same dualistic trap that the 2nd-3rd Century church fell into when they started to accept some of the teachings of Gnosticism. The Hermetic and Monastic Movements are direct descendants of this dualistic thought.
Remember that there was the Ascetic and Antinomian branches of Gnosticism that could be seen in history. It was the Ascetic branch with its emphasis on "suppressing" the desires of the body to return the "gnosis." It viewed the material (fleshly) world as evil and the spiritual world as good. The problem is that God called this world "good" after creating it; "very good" after creating man and woman.
In fact, Marcion, an early gnostic, who believed in the God of the Old Testament, did not believe that He was the same God of the New Testament. He was highly Anti-Semitic which led him to create is own set of biblical canon excising positive comments about the Jews in contradistinction to the 2nd Century church. Thus, it required the church to get its act together and gather the writings of the Apostles and known associates of the apostles to determine the New Testament canon.
Thus, be very wary of any attempt to create a false dichotomy between the physical and spiritual realms. This is where he Gnostics faltered because of their belief that Christ did NOT have a real, physical body, but it SEEMED (Docetism) that he died, etc. The Gospel of John and The First Epistle of John combat this type of heresy.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
Posted by: Bryant J. Williams III | June 8, 2008 1:49 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?