The church is anything but apolitical. We can act like it is all we want; that won’t change the facts.

Most church systems are as complicated as our local government. We have elders, deacons, pastors, board members, committees, sub-committees, small groups, discipleship groups, and youth groups—and that’s not the end of the list. We’re not sure who is in charge of what, or whom we should direct our questions to—outside of the senior pastor, of course. So the senior pastor remains distracted. The staff remains unfocused. And most people aren’t sure what those men called elders actually do outside of meet behind closed doors.

Order is good. Government is good; bureaucracy is not. Confusion will destroy us. I suggest a change.

We need to reinitiate Paul’s model for running the church. I think we can do so within the parameters that our government has set up for us. We can meet legal requirements and Paul’s requirements at the same time.

I serve as the board president of a church plant here in Bellingham. And we’ve been subtly experimenting with this idea—more by the leading of the Spirit than intentionality. That’s exactly the way I think church business should be done. We should be intentional about letting the Spirit do His job. Acting according to the Spirit’s plans should be our goal. Business is something we do out of necessity; the Spirit’s work is something we do because we are called to it.

Paul says: “Now you [all] are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kind of tongues” (1 Cor 12:27–31 ESV).

In the church, God has appointed a hierarchy of offices:

Today, God willing, the highest ranking office in our government will pass peacefully from one man to another - and not just from man to man, but from political party to political party, and under circumstances that would have been unfathomable just fifty years ago.

In 2000, when the election results were decided after a wearying month-long court battle, the results thrilled some and infuriated others. Those results are still disputed. But I recall feeling very proud of my country, because although emotions were running high, there were no riots or flag-burnings, and nobody burned the Supreme Court down. A peaceful transfer of power in the midst ofheated disagreement is something that not many around the world get to experience.

Reason to hope #2:

In my grad school media theory class this fall, we spent a lot of time discussing the power of social networks, which are still in their infancy, and particularly the networks set in place by the Obama campaign that translated from the Internet into real action. We wondered collectively what would happen to these networks once the election was over. Would they be abandoned, since the campaign got what it wanted? Cynical, perhaps, but that's the way we've been used to being treated by political parties and people.

But then last week, I found out that the soon-to-be-president put out a call to these networks to spend today, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, in service to their local community. That seems to me to be a fine way to use these grassroots networks - especially since many people have today off from work. It's also the first time in my rememberance that a president has used his influence to ask people to serve their neighbors in a very specific way. (For those who are older than I: what other times has this happened, besides the efforts during the World Wars?)