In the Pursuit of -ism

I am part of an online community and the topic of Christian Communism came up. With the new monasticism and emphasis on community within and even without the emergent church movement it is does bring a certain discussion to the forefront. This a topic with a potential to push some unedifying buttons, yet I think there is a point of the discussion that is missed in most of the emergent church debates on the topic. Granted this is not a technical or high intellectual response with supporting academia, credentials and name dropping, but it is something that I have been wrestling with. So here is my response to the topic and I do welcome any response. Especially from those who criticize the criticisms of the church, this is a good opportunity to start talking about what is right so it can move to the forefront of discussion – but then that is I suppose another topic.

The way I see it anything that becomes an -ism becomes isolated, exclusive and corrupt. Talk about a gross and unfair generality, but that is my initial reaction to -ism and the institutions of man that become erected as a result and the rule that becomes established.

To carry the book of Acts one step further, the early church facing persecution or continually falling to the horrific open sin of that day many left the cities and lived together in Christian communities, what we would call monastic communities. Everyone had all things in common, because they didn’t have anything as it was. Koinonia was a literal necessity for them to survive. This wasn’t a form of goverment or rule, but true willing partnership. As noted earlier by others, man is a big goof and does what man does takes a good practice and makes it an ideal and then a rule soon to become an -ism.

People sought to escape this and even went out into the desert alone to be ‘free’ of it all. These became the desert fathers aka monks. Because these men became sages and such others came to follow these guys and thus eventually the same thing happened new monastic communities came together and soon a rule and eventually monasteries which we still have today. Even these monasteries fell to corrupted man with absolute power corrupting absolutely.

Once rule is established it has to be enforced for the greater ‘good’ whatever that greater good may mean. So enforcement itself becomes a loss of individual freedom to give way to compelling compliance. It is funny, that one of my criticisms of the church over the centuries is it has done the same thing and does today, “agree with us or be excluded”.

Here is where it is:

“How can two walk together lest they be in agreement.”

This is from the prophet Amos. This is where our relationship on the horizontal plane of life is set right, because we are singular to God, not to one another. There is no deliberate ethic, government, ideology, just the consequence of true singularity and overwhelming love that is a consequence not an action of the Spirit filled life. So koinonia grows because I am the Lords and He is mine, you are the Lords and He is yours, together we thus see beyond all faults, love one another and act out of koinonia. As soon as we move to “we are the Lord’s and the Lord is ours” is where the danger of losing focus on the aforementioned declaration and we begin to somehow out of human nature have to rely on rule to protect it and what was an act of pure koinonia as a consequence of singularity to God, now it moves in the act of ‘rule’ and act of will as opposed to Divine Consequence.

Marriage is a good case in point. Discussions always get turned around when submission and authority are discussed. This is institutional and not of God and not even the point of the passages often used. Submission and authority are consequences of singularity towards God. I have authority so I will wash your feet because the Lord, Creator of Heaven and Earth and all that is in it washed mine and I will do likewise humbly and unto God. Even then this comes the rule I give to you to fill your need, because the Lord has given to me to fill my need. I weep with you because the Lord weeps with me. Now I am compelled to do like wise or somehow imitate Christ in will and not in consequence. The right thinking IMO is I have definable authority and right to that authority, but in consequence to my being singular to God I just end up washing your feet with my authority, I don’t think about it I just do because it is natural to me in my relationship to Christ – true agape made manifest.

It is a fine line of differences, but I think Christian community itself is very misleading when trying to define it – true there are great applications, but I believe they were consequence and not rule. We see that with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, they missed the point, it was a free will inclusion.

Sorry so long, probably a whole lot of words that didn’t say much. It seemed like a good discussion though to toss in on.

Blessings!