The Shape of Faithfulness
Do you ever feel like being a Christian is hard? Do you ever feel that other Christians are what make it most difficult? Does the wider Christian culture in which we live make you question what it means to follow Jesus? Do you struggle to be faithful to God in a world in which oppositional expressions of faithfulness dominate Christian culture?
I recently attended a gathering of the Ekklesia Project (EP), an ecumenical community of pastors, theologians, lay leaders, and church members who seek to encourage one another as friends and who share a commitment to bear witness to the non-violent way of the Cross. This was my second EP gathering, and I found it deeply restorative, intellectually challenging, and vocationally encouraging.
For me, one of the most life-giving aspects of the gathering is its truly ecumenical nature. As a collection of Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, other Anglicans, Mennonites, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, and a variety of non-denominationalists, we disagree radically about many things: human sexuality, the role of women in the church, marriage, gender identity, economic policy, sacraments, ecclesiology, and the Bible. Likewise, we worship in many different ways: contemporary and traditional, casual and formal, contemplative and didactic, sacramental and expository. Despite all our differences, however, we are united in our commitment to the Way of Jesus as a way of peace.
Still, what that way of peace means for us as individuals, as church leaders, and as a community of friends—how we proclaim it and pursue it—is subject to respectful disagreement within the community. I found those subtle disagreements particularly helpful and applicable for our life together at St. Paul’s.
The first presentation of this year’s gathering set the stage for deep engagement with our faith and contemporary world issues throughout our time together. Dr. Stephen Fowl, the President and Dean of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, began with a reflection on the primary call for Christians as one of radical faithfulness to Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament, Dr. Fowl noted, are Christians called upon to resist the forces of empire. Instead, he offered, we are called to bear witness to the kingdom of God by accepting the way of the cross as the way of our lives.
I understood him to be making a distinction of priority and not of substance. I heard Dr. Fowl, who finished his talk by noting the ways in which his regular participation in secular political demonstrations is an expression of his deeply held commitment to a just and peaceable social order, encouraging us to rethink whether our primary action should be political resistance or the formation of faithful communities. He noted that those communities, which are defined principally by radical and self-sacrificial devotion to the reign of God, are often perceived by the empires of this world as seditionist, but he argued that the fuel that drives Christian community is not first and foremost political resistance (a negative, pointing away from something) but faithful witness (a positive, pointing toward something).
The reaction to his presentation was fierce. Although I found Dr. Fowl to be nuanced and insightful, others found his talk to be inadequate and frustrating. In part, I think that was because he questioned whether a recent statement by Episcopal bishops regarding the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good and, more generally, the violence directed at protestors in Minnesota missed the mark. Using provocative language, Dr. Fowl asked whether the representatives of the church (i.e. the Episcopal bishops) who called upon the church and its members to support the Constitution and the rule of law were, in effect, a manifestation of Christian nationalism because they were asking a religious group to reinforce the apparatus of the state. His words seemed triggering for many in the gathering.
I may have adopted too generous an interpretation of Dr. Fowl’s presentation, but I think he was trying to push the members of EP to think carefully about what shape faithfulness takes in contemporary society. If we define faithfulness primarily in terms of what we stand against, we risk losing our Christ-centered bearings, which may have the unintended consequences of producing a church that is indistinguishable from liberal democracy. (Note that I mean “liberal” in the sense of a traditional, Western-style democracy and not as a reference to a particular political party or platform.) If the best thing Christians can do is advocate for the rule of (secular) law, we have lost our way completely.
One of the reasons I heard Dr. Fowl’s talk in that way stems from the previous year’s gathering, from which I left with a general sense that the talks had been too political—too earth-bound and not focused enough on the kingdom of God. Having never attended a gathering before, I was unable to assess how that particular year’s presentations fit in with the overall identity of EP, and I felt like most of the presentations were reacting to a specific moment in our country’s history and not grounded enough in what it means to belong to the eternal reign of God.
His opening talk, therefore, felt like a commentary on—if not a correction of—what had been offered twelve months earlier. For me, it was like a salve on an open wound, helping confirm for me that the work of EP is something I value deeply. As the gathering continued, however, several long-time EP leaders named that Dr. Fowl’s talk and reactions to it were signs that the identity of EP is in a state of flux—that some who had once eschewed secular political institutions as antithetical to the way of Jesus were now embracing them as a means by which faithfulness to the reign of God was manifest in the world. Although the gathering concluded before any consensus on that issue could be reached, I suspect that one of the reasons for that flux is the perceived need for a more definitive response to the growing influence of those for whom the Christian agenda is inseparable from their political goals.
I think the most constructive and faithful response is found in recommitting to an understanding of discipleship that Dr. Fowl’s remarks hinted at but left underdeveloped. Being a follower of Jesus does mean placing our hope not in the powers of this world (e.g. the right candidate, the right party, the right nation) but in the power of God as it is manifest in the cross of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:18), but following Jesus also means being led into places in which the power-through-vulnerability-and-weakness which defines his disciples will come into direct conflict with the powers of empire. In other words, although, as Dr. Fowl argued, it remains our primary duty to grow Christian communities that are radically faithful to Jesus, that radical faithfulness will inevitably lead us into conflict with the powers of this world. And, I suspect, as long as those earthly powers are veiled in a pseudo-Christian identity, the response of faithful Christians will feel as political as it does theological.
What gives me hope? How do I know what my response should be? Where do I find the courage to give my life to God? The more I read the Bible the more restless I become. Whenever I seek the companionship of Christ, the harder it is for me to ignore the needs of those around me. Whenever I acknowledge to God that I am not sure what to do and ask for the help of the Holy Spirit to act faithfully in God’s name, I feel more available to God’s will in my life and for the world. And, when I am stuck and do not know how to proceed, I seek the counsel of wise and faithful companions who can join me in the work of prayerful discernment.
Jesus shows us that faithfulness in this world takes the shape of the cross, not the flag of any nation or the emblem of any political party. In the earthly sense, a life shaped by the cross means humility, suffering, and defeat. But, from a heavenly perspective, it means life, hope, and peace. A cross-shaped faithfulness does not remove us from this world. It implants us even more firmly within it, but it also defines how we engage its powers. The cross of Christ inspires our engagement and demands our action, not simply as politically motivated Christians but as Christ-motivated citizens of a greater kingdom, to which belongs our true allegiance.
Yours faithfully,
Evan D. Garner
