It is also true that even (especially?) groups with the best of intentions fail to live up to their ideals. To the person who is disappointed that pacifism cannot stop violence, I might retort that neither can violence. But there are deeper questions here. Does this even work? Is it worth holding such a standard, which looks stranger and stranger as you poke at it? To this I can only offer a counter-example: most of us would affirm a sexual ethics of chastity — fidelity in marriage and celibacy for single persons. And most of us do so in spite of the fairly obvious fact that chastity is ineffectual against promiscuity in the world at large — or even among Christians, it would seem. Do we abandon the standard for this reason? Most of us don't.

The NT concept of the church always presumes an “outside” to which one might return (or be sent) if the terms of community seem unfavorable. It's true that this limits personal autonomy in the sense that one cannot be a part of the community on his or her own terms. But no one is forced to be a part of the community. This only works for a social group that is, among other things, non-territorial — hence the NT imagery of aliens, or sojourners. It is not a program for governing all people in a given geographical territory, but it still comprised a constellation of political claims that were made over and against the political claims of the Roman Empire.

It is possible that this is an unsatisfying view of the political, that it does not answer the big-ticket questions about good governance in a given geographical territory. Perhaps this simply means, as many have assumed over the centuries, that we must find those answers someplace other than the New Testament. But maybe it means that to make ourselves responsible for those questions is to pretend to the knowledge of good and evil.

It is also true that even (especially?) groups with the best of intentions fail to live up to their ideals. To the person who is disappointed that pacifism cannot stop violence, I might retort that neither can violence. But there are deeper questions here. Does this even work? Is it worth holding such a standard, which looks stranger and stranger as you poke at it? To this I can only offer a counter-example: most of us would affirm a sexual ethics of chastity — fidelity in marriage and celibacy for single persons. And most of us do so in spite of the fairly obvious fact that chastity is ineffectual against promiscuity in the world at large — or even among Christians, it would seem. Do we abandon the standard for this reason? Most of us don’t.

The NT concept of the church always presumes an “outside” to which one might return (or be sent) if the terms of community seem unfavorable. It’s true that this limits personal autonomy in the sense that one cannot be a part of the community on his or her own terms. But no one is forced to be a part of the community. This only works for a social group that is, among other things, non-territorial — hence the NT imagery of aliens, or sojourners. It is not a program for governing all people in a given geographical territory, but it still comprised a constellation of political claims that were made over and against the political claims of the Roman Empire.

It is possible that this is an unsatisfying view of the political, that it does not answer the big-ticket questions about good governance in a given geographical territory. Perhaps this simply means, as many have assumed over the centuries, that we must find those answers someplace other than the New Testament. But maybe it means that to make ourselves responsible for those questions is to pretend to the knowledge of good and evil.

It is also true that even (especially?) groups with the best of intentions fail to live up to their ideals. To the person who is disappointed that pacifism cannot stop violence, I might retort that neither can violence. But there are deeper questions here. Does this even work? Is it worth holding such a standard, which looks stranger and stranger as you poke at it? To this I can only offer a counter-example: most of us would affirm a sexual ethics of chastity — fidelity in marriage and celibacy for single persons. And most of us do so in spite of the fairly obvious fact that chastity is ineffectual against promiscuity in the world at large — or even among Christians, it would seem. Do we abandon the standard for this reason? Most of us don't.

The NT concept of the church always presumes an “outside” to which one might return (or be sent) if the terms of community seem unfavorable. It's true that this limits personal autonomy in the sense that one cannot be a part of the community on his or her own terms. But no one is forced to be a part of the community. This only works for a social group that is, among other things, non-territorial — hence the NT imagery of aliens, or sojourners. It is not a program for governing all people in a given geographical territory, but it still comprised a constellation of political claims that were made over and against the political claims of the Roman Empire.

It is possible that this is an unsatisfying view of the political, that it does not answer the big-ticket questions about good governance in a given geographical territory. Perhaps this simply means, as many have assumed over the centuries, that we must find those answers someplace other than the New Testament. But maybe it means that to make ourselves responsible for those questions is to pretend to the knowledge of good and evil.