Thanks so much for the spirited “audience participation” yesterday. I was coaching last night and haven’t yet had a chance to get all the way through the comments. But something good has to happen as we listen to each other.
I’d like to recommend as a follow-up to the discussion Greg Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church
Here are a few words where he explains his position:
“My thesis . . . is this: I believe a significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. To a frightful degree, I think, evangelicals fuse the kingdom of God with a preferred version of the kingdom of the world (whether it’s our national interests, a particular form of government, a particular political program, or so on). Rather than focusing our understanding of God’s kingdom on the person of Jesus — who, incidentally, never allowed himself to get pulled into the political disputes of his day — I believe many of us American evangelicals have allowed our understanding of the kingdom of God to be polluted with political ideals, agendas, and issues.
“For some evangelicals, the kingdom of God is largely about, if not centered on, ‘taking America back for God,’ voting for the Christian candidate, outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, winning the culture war, defending political freedom at home and abroad, keeping the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting for prayer in the public schools and at public events, and fighting to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings.
“I will argue that this perspective is misguided, that fusing together the kingdom of God with this or any other version of the kingdom of the world is idolatrous and that this fusion is having serious negative consequences for Christ’s church and for the advancement of God’s kingdom.
“I do not argue that those political positions are either wrong or right. Nor do I argue that Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics. While people whose faith has been politicized may well interpret me along such lines, I assure you that this is not what I’m saying. The issue is far more fundamental than how we should vote or participate in government. Rather, I hope to challenge the assumption that finding the right political path has anything to do with advancing the kingdom of God.”
I’d still like to also recommend Balmer’s book.
This is why I get closer and closer each day to considering myself a “Christian anarchist”.
Being in the world but not of the world is frighteningly difficult. We should certainly take a stand against sin (eg. see Psalm 101) but that stand needs to focus on individuals rather than governments. At least that is what I think I see in scripture. The government has a role in keeping order (Rom 13), but should not be the tool of Christians in bringing about morality. That is done person to person, one person at a time.
…”evangelicals fuse the kingdom of God with a preferred version of the kingdom of the world”…
Kind of like the Pharisees and many Jews were doing at the time Jesus.
I love what he wrote…what concerns me right now that the left, however, is granted the right to unfettered political activism…while throwing darts at the right for trying to further their agenda. My perspective is that one should avoid using the kingdoms of the world to further “God’s” mission–or allow others the freedom to do the same.
Amen, Tim! Any attempt of the church to buy into the power structures and political games of the kingdoms of the Earth are misguided, whether the issues abortion, global warming, the ONE campaign, or gay marriage. I used to rail against the religious right about its attempts to legislate morality on their issues, but I was more than willing to do the same thing for “my issues”: poverty reduction, the environment, fair wages, etc.
The answer to the religious right is not the religious left, but a Christ-shaped community whose king is God alone and who see all political kingdoms for what they are (or what they are not).
I, too, feel a little weird with what many try to do to promote religion in regard to government and politics, but scripturally there seems to be some link between the two. Paul tells the “unknown god” folks in Acts 17, “From one man He made every nation, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” His purpose for a nation, and all nations ever made, is for that nation to seek Him.
I would think a nation that is pursuing God would not only have godly people but would govern in a godly way. People’s desire for anti-abortion legislation seems logical for godly people trying to be a godly nation. People’s desire for the inclusion of God in our national motto seems logical for godly people trying to be a godly nation. People’s desire for legislation that is friendly to the poor seems logical for godly people trying to be a godly nation. I can’t fault them for that. Any hint of God breaking in, whether it is a righteous law being made, an ungodly law being taken off the books, a righteous man or woman being placed in a position of influence, is a movement towards righteousness. We should be for that, I would think. And maybe a certain amount of lamenting when things seem to be going the other way.
But where it crosses the line for me is when people give up hope when it does go the other way. The kingdom of God should envelop a nation, but it’s not dependent on it.
I believe Christians need to seriously ponder the question “Am I an *American Christian* or a *Christian who lives in America*?” I prefer to describe myself as the later but I hear a lot of people who describe themselves as the former and I simply wonder if they have ever thought about the possible immplications.
(Oops! I hit the “submit” button accidentally. I’ll finish my thought)
God’s kingdom can still thrive in the midst of ungodly people making ungodly laws that lead to ungodly behavior. It’s the imagery of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue in Daniel, the statue representing earthly kingdoms being destroyed by the small stone, and the small stone growing and filling the whole earth. That’s God’s kingdom, the eternal one, one that is above all others. It can and will survive and thrive no matter what “the nations” do.
(OK. Now I’m going to hit the “submit” button on purpose.)
/- 87 comments.
Too bad I’m on the road today and can’t enjoy the banter…
What should concern us as a major part of this conversation is the perception the “unchurched” have at this point in our culture of the whole church right wing moral majority et al. I’m not sure they can tell one from the other and they should be able to see a clear difference. The best guage is to look in the mirror and see if we haven’t become just like the Pharisees in the way we attack and defend our positons. Frankly, if we even have a hint of that type of nature, conduct and blind thinking we need to make some serious adjustments. I’ve been reading my Bible for a long time and I’ve yet to see anywhere where Jesus had any words of praise for the Pharisees, so there’s good reason to want to make sure we don’t fall into their same traps.
The answer to the FAR religious right is NOT the FAR religious left. In fact it not only is not the answer, it is spot on the problem in many cases.
That’s why these topics bother me. People think it has to be one “far” side or the other.
God is good and true and in control. I have faith in his guidance, his leading, his will, his wisdom and his faithfulness.
For those of you looking for further reading, I’d recommend Yoder’s The Christian Witness to the State. It’s dated, but still very relevant. Fair warning: it’s academic, and will require some slow reading. Though Jim Wallis seems to have had his message polarized moreso than he initially claimed or desired, his book God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It is helpful, sometimes in spite of the diatribe to which he resorts.
In re-reading my wording, I want to make clear that I didn’t mean the far religious left is the problem. It’s the “far” part that is the problem. Either side.
Since the days of the captivity, God’s people have thrived on the margins of society. In fact the OT is filled with stories of people who have not only survivd as cultural outsiders but have thrived. In the book of Genesis, more is written about Joseph than any other figure, even Abraham. Many scholars believe thet much of this material was added during the days of captivity in Babylon and Persia. In Daniel we have the stories of young Jews who learned to live out their faith in the midst of a hostile culture. It seems that whenever we live as outsiders, we thrive and when we weild political power, our reliance on God wanes and ourspirits wither. We need to re-learn the lessons of Israel.
Also, Jesus could have weilded much political power. He had it at his disposal. But he did not consider it something to be of use to him. Why do we do the exact opposite and see power as something to be leveraged?
Steve,
I’m not sure that I agree with you, but I certainly appreciate and respect the consistency.
I certainly don’t think that political activism is our main duty as Christians (it’s not even close!), but shouldn’t we use ALL resources at our disposal to further the cause of Christ?
If by means of politics (for the sake of discussion, let’s pretend that’s not a huge “if”) we could get rid of the practice of abortion and take care of the poor (two things which are certainly in-line with the nature of Jesus) while still living our Christian lives and showing Jesus to those we come in contact with, what would be wrong with that?
According to the far left, a lot is wrong with that.
Abortion is a woman’s right so back off it’s her body and taking care of the poor is the sole responsibility of the government through entitlement.
According to the far right, a lot is wrong with that.
Abortion is never an option and taking care of the poor is the sole responsibility of individuals and churches through charity which are failing in their directive from God to do so.
Snapshot,
I suppose I should’ve clarified. Let’s assume that both of those activities (the end of abortion and taking care of the poor) are actually good things (which most mainstream Christians would agree with), and then re-ask the question.
Incidentally, I understand the point you’re making and agree: extremism is definitely a big part of the problem.
Well I gotta Amen that!
I think the problem is not with government. It’s with lazy Christian citizens. We’d like the government to do all our heavy working. We lobby for them to do the things we know we should be doing and then at least we can breath a sigh of relief that at least we tried. All the while setting in nice homes, driving our nice cars and worshiping in our nice technologically advanced centers for worship.
Serving is more than lobbying a government to do the work for us. It’s actually getting out there and doing the work. IMHO
We’d rather complain about government than admit about how lazy we as individuals and church families are.
What I find interesting these days is that it is increasingly difficult to forge compromise and have real political dialogue among many whose views differ on these issues. It seems like there is a bent toward extremism. I think many who debate these issues do so not out of a passion for people but rather for raw political power. That is where I fear Dobson et al has crossd the line. The seduction of power is just too great to resist at some point.
Spot on Joel.
Luke - I guess for me it comes down to some core principles, both theological and practical. Theologically, I see the responsibility of care for the poor lying in the hands of the church, and practically, I do not believe the government is capable of fully caring for the widows and orphans (for why, see my last comment on the “Pledging Allegiance” post).
Furthermore, is the cause of Christ really furthered through political means, even a little bit? The kingdom of God transcends all issues we have here and is far more holistic than, say, having a nation where abortions are illegal. Even if that were a reality, we would still have a nation wrought with hunger, murder, and greed, and millions of hearts walking in a way other than Christ’s.
The jury’s still out for me on whether “victories” for justice can be had at a very local level, such as in fair housing laws for the poor in a small town like Abilene or Searcy. But even if this were true, it would certainly not merit huge amounts of time or money or attention in the larger picture.
Have you read Lee Camp’s Mere Discipleship? If not, you should. He says it much better than I.
I don’t have faith in government to do much. I prefer a government to be oh so small. But some people have a problem with that because it takes away earthly power. I don’t believe God called on governments to do his work. But I do think that the directives government gives affects our service and even skews our view of morality. Some folks actually think if the government says it’s ok, well then it’s ok. And if the government is handing out checks from tax money, then I can set back and do nothing, even if the government is ineffective in what they do.
The extremes are the problem.
Mike, I agree wholeheartedly. The heart of the Gospel is the message that Jesus is Lord. During my first year in Brazil I would have said I was a very patriotic American, and a couple years later when I returned to the U.S. I found myself in a VERY conservative county of New Mexico where “of course” America is God’s chosen nation.
God help keep us from idols.
It bothers me when we try to use the government as a means to force non-Christians to behave like Christians. What do we expect to accomplish? We don’t believe in earning salvation, so it’s not like we believe that we’re saving a non-Christian by preventing them from doing a certain act (on the rare occasions when passing a law actually results in a change of behavior), so what are we trying to accomplish? Paul himself said, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Cor 5:12). So why do we try to brandish the law like a club?
The problem is that laws can skew our thinking on a lot of issues that ARE extremely important to our Christian walk.
That’s not judging those outside the church, that’s being concerned about those inside the church, especially our children. We are raising generations of lazy, “isn’t the government taking care of that” Christians.
“The answer to the FAR religious right is NOT the FAR religious left..”
Someone needs to get that memo to Jim Wallis and his cronies.
Agreed, P & C.
I would not disagree that conservative Christians have placed too much of their faith in politics in the last two decades. That is not to say I believe they should not exercise their rights of citizenship, free speech, etc. in the representative democracy we have. However, sometimes I fear the religious right believes the right president and the right congress will be the be all and end all and, of course, it will not.
When I was younger, I used to believe Newt Gingrich was the man (I know, some of you will quit reading at this point). However, we now know he was covering up his own affair while Clinton was being impeached. Putting your ultimate faith in men, parties, and political positions will never pan out.
However, I am noticing the very same thing with Christians who have an intense dislike for the religious right, but seem drawn to the left. For instance, I notice Boyd did not mention issues like global warming, sweat-shops, inner-city welfare policies (see Larry James blog), civil rights, and income redistribution schemes that excite some Christians who lean left politically every bit as much as the issues he did mention excite the religious right.
I would also mention that so much of the civil rights movement in the 1960s was inspired by Christian thinking. Remember that Martin Luther King was a preacher. We could also mention Wilberforce in the UK whose strong Christian convictions urged him to fight to outlaw slavery. No doubt it would have been easy to criticize Wilberforce of “political idolatry” in his quest to end slavery. What bothers me about a lot of what I am seeing (not necessarily here, but just in my general reading) is that I sometimes fear we are giving up on the ideas that some of these issues the religious right is associated with are actually moral issues. Are we becoming too sophisticated and too postmodern to actually say, yeah, homosexual behavior is sinful? Same with abortion.
I just wonder if our political views on our pet issues cause us to overlook the moral questions on other political issues. I think this happens with those on both the left and right.
Jim,
So far your remarks have made more sense than all the others put together.
RC
Wow Jim — you nailed it!
jim,
mlk was a non-literalist who used the christian church as a way of mobilizing a social movement. the civil rights movement cannot be defined solely as inspired by “christian” thinking. just as one cannot say that “christian” interpretation of the bible justified slavery in the nineteenth century.
http://jesusisnowhere.com
Jon, I didn’t use the phrase “solely as inspired” by Christian thinking. However, if you want to imply Christian thinking did not play a major role, you go right ahead.
lol. i read into your quote the same as you making an assumption about what i am implying. touché.
Love the conversation!
Mike- I think we are due for an Alex Rodriguez post. Please???
Snapshot
Do you really believe that Christians are lazy with their time and money because they think that the government is taking care of the poor, etc? I don’t see that. But even if that is the case I think the solutions would be to educate Christians on just how shamelessly little our government actually does for the poor, and to make sure that Christians take the concept of tithing (as it was originally intended, for the poor, widow, and orphan) both of their time and money seriously.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
~~~Inscription on the Statue of Liberty (just stoking the fire)
As Philip Yancey says in The Jesus I Never Knew, Jesus didn’t command us to change our governments, but He did command us to change others for Him, making disciples for Him, thereby changing the world God’s way.
IMHO, the more this “Christian” nation relies on the government to feed, house, heal the needy, the more we Christians here, citizens of USofA are condemned - we are ever more convicted of what we are NOT doing that Jesus asks all His disciples to do. “…when you did this to the least of these, you did it unto me [Jesus]” Jesus did not commission the government of any nation, He commissioned us individually to take care of the needy.
Ooops! The only part of above that should be in italics is the name of Yancy’s book and most of that first paragraph. The rest is my POV, not a quote from Yancy. Sorry, guess I didn’t close one of the gidgets completely. Grrrr! Sorry.
Relying on the government alone to do our charity work = lazy.
Using the government in addition to our work for humanitarian aid = the ability to change the world.
Kathy
I would agree with you except that our nation is a democracy. Each of us is partially responsible for what our nation does and does not do. I personally see democracy as a God given gift for Christians to use as much as possible. I think Christians should feed, house, and heal the needy, through their churches and their government. I think Christians can accomplish so much for the Kingdom of God using ALL tools at their disposal, and I think that includes using the power of government. No other body has the power to do so much so quickly for so many as government does. (either for good or bad)
Are we supposed to compartementalize our lives. How do you seperate values?
Seems like being decent, compassionate and honest in both areas would be a good thing.
Kathy, it sounds to me as if you’re saying that if the church did “charity” right, then the government would not need to feed, house, and heal the poor. This stance would require us to believe that the world takes a neutral stance toward the poor and that we can correct their problems simply by providing what they’re short of.
The problem is that the poor are not ambivalently neglected but hostilely attacked. The system created by the powerful accrues more power and wealth for the powerful and denies justice to the poor. If you don’t forcefully oppose that system, you won’t eliminate poverty. So the existence of government programs to aid the poor is no indication of the adequacy of the church’s “charity”.
We can then discuss whether or not the church’s mission should include encouraging the justice that the system denies the poor.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has also weighed in on the subject with a fairly recent book (March, 2007), Failing America’s Faithful: How Today’s Churches Are Mixing God with Politics and Losing Their Way.
Yes AMC, I believe many Christians, but by all means NOT all, use Government programs to make themselves believe they are actually doing something. I hear it from them all the time. So it’s not just second hand info. We’ve worked with churches over the years in benevolence programs, often times people will be offended when folks need extra help and will say things like “let the government do it, we’ve got a building to pay for or a youth event to fund”. Isn’t that a Christian response? It’s shameful. And when we as Christians do nothing but steer people toward government help, people begin to believe that government is the answer to all their problems. We aren’t leading people to Christ, we are leading them to government dependence.
And I’d like to agree with you that government can help many quickly, there are studies (shamefully many studies) that show that government only scratches the surfaces of helping and often times does more harm than good. I know many will disagree with me, but I know my facts.
I’m not saying that government should never help, I’m saying government is not helping in the HUGE role it is playing now. It’s hurting. I’m involved in a commission that helps women by not only steering them toward government agencies that can be helpful, but also by showing them churches that are willing to be Jesus to them.When we make Government people’s savior, we have it so wrong.
God called Christians not governments. For those who shout separation between church and state all the time, this is a time when they don’t like that separation.
It’s those extremes again. I’m totally sure that it’s the extremes that cause our nations the most problems. Because they are the loudest and media savy. Those of us with moderate level headed thinking somehow tell ourselves that it will all work out and there is nothing we as individuals can do.
And I totally disagree with your statement that “no other body has the power to do so much so quickly”. Yikes. Did you see Katrina? It was faith based organizations that mobilized and cared for many while Mayors, Governors and yes even the President waited. God called Christians not governments. His ways are higher than our ways.
amc & Jeff, my point is that it is so easy as individual Believers, to look to a large entity to follow Jesus’ commands. He said we individually will be judged vis our care for the needy, not the “church”. As has been said and written;
The tragedy is not that middle income and rich Christians don’t care about the poor . . . but that we do not know poor people.
We, individually must get into face-to=face knowing the poor and helping them. Unfortunately, I see ‘busy’ schedules used as an excuse for not going into neighborhoods filled with the needy. We have inner city mission churches that cry for helping hands to carry out the work, we can’t be bothered or can’t prune our calendars sufficiently, thereby giving us time to get into helping the needy.
If we as individuals are not willing to do Jesus’ work, how can we expect a government to do so - a government is, after all, a mirror image, imho of the general population. If WE change, the government has no choice but to change.
Again, Jesus taught a one-on-one solution, not a group of people called either the government nor, for that matter, called ‘the church’ - again, at least imho.
Now I must leave y’all and get ready for the Padres-Pirates baseball game. Yay!
In His love, grace and mercy
K
Snapshot
I think katrina would be a great example of how government’s inaction was devestating. I teach sociology at ACU and have found that when many students learn what little government does for the poor they are encouraged to do more themselves (in many different ways). I don’t believe that the government should be a person’s savior, but I don’t think Christians should discount the positive things that government is capable of doing. I also agree that God calls people into action, but I think that action can be political as well as personal.
Kathy
I comnpletely agree that the problem is that we do not know poor people, I think if Christians knew more poor people and how policies affected them they may be inclined to be involved politically in more issues than just abortion and gay rights.
Wow, when the pendulum swings it really swings
I believe we are a Christian nation in name…In deed? I don’t know…Should we strive to make this a Christian nation? Yes. We each have a responiblity to share our faith and the men and women serving in our military need our support. We need to keep them in our prayers as they fight for our freedoms that we enjoy.
Quick personal note: I just completed my first year of law school at Regent University School of Law. This, my friends, is Pat Robertson’s school and it was founded with a distinct mission to combat the continuing move to the left in higher education.
Regent requires students to take a course entitled “Christian Foundations of Law.” It includes readings from Aquinas, Blackstone, Cook, de Bracton, etc. It was a great class. But here’s my basic point: I think the bottom line message I took from the class is that there is a direct relationship between the power of the state and the health of the church. In other words, if the church is weak and ineffectual and divided, then the state will (more than happily) step in and take its place in providing for the people. Clearly, there are appropriate roles for the state in providing services, security, etc. But the future of this country is to be found not in its presidential elections, but in the sanctuaries of the church. With Europe as a model, we are likely in for a long and difficult struggle unless the church can meet the challenges of post-modernism and a strong tendency to blameshift.
So, on a final note, I would strongly advocate a “stop the blame” movement. It isn’t Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et al.’s fault (and, neither is it Obamas or Clintons or Bushes) that this country is in a crisis. Strife, struggle, war, and political divisions are as much a part of reality as physical illness and losing seasons from the Texas Rangers. They have been with us for thousands of years and aren’t likely going away anytime soon. The bottom line is that, in my opinion, we would do well to keep our focus on the planks in our own eyes and then good things may come. But even then I wouldn’t get my hopes up. (How’s that for optimism?).
AMC,
Odd, while you are moved to see that Government involved with more, I am moved to work toward Government being involved in less. I am politically active and strive to see government get smaller and smaller and citizen involvement get larger and larger. I can explain it no more simply than by saying I have more faith in God’s people than in government.
I pray that we see improvement in whatever way God chooses.
When we deal with the question of whether Christians should use politics to further the kingdom we must remember that the kingdom involves unity and inclusion of all people. When we make abortion illegal or use government to help the poor we neglect the fact the fact that kingdom requires at its core relationship and reconcilation. Making abortion illegal makes those who do it wrong and us right, we polarize people and make justice more about punishment than creating a heart of repentance. If we use government to help the poor we lose the gift of getting to know them.
Snapshot
I can certainly agree with that!
David: I think God is the one who made “those who do it wrong and us right” on the abortion issue (check out the Ten Commandments, where it says something like “do not murder.”) I am disturbed by a general lack of willingness to stand up for what is right. If our government allows the death of innocent babies, we lose the gift of getting to know them too.
David: Would you mind enlightening us as to the scripture that states that the Kingdom involves “unity and inclusion of all people” and its application in this discussion?
In other words, if the church is weak and ineffectual and divided, then the state will (more than happily) step in and take its place in providing for the people.
You see, that’s my point … Christ tells us that we are to strive for weakness by the world’s standards, the place of dishonor, to be like children, and only then will we be bestowed with strength, honor and respect. A theme I hear popping up among the politically involved on both sides of the aisle seems to be that the church has a responsibility to transform our culture/government (which is Niebuhr’s old “Christ and Culture” argument). The problem, though, is that to do this, the church must capture people’s attention in the same ways everyone else does — by out-yelling their detractors and rivals, organizing around issues rather than people, and even compromising core beliefs.
Basically, in order to be heard, the church must seek the place of honor and of power, while trying to be as least-childlike as possible.
The other assumption that is made among politically involved Christians is that the church is and should be in a central, publically influential position in our culture. (Sort of like how the church steeple was the central object in New England towns in the early years of our Republic.) If someone can find me a verse supporting that idea, I’d be interested to hear it. My Bible points to an exilic, marginalized community of Jesus-followers who gladly take the path of suffering over a position of power. I liked what someone above said about there necessarily being a “tension” between the church and government, but I’m not sure that takes it far enough.
There are two powers. There is imposing power and there is liberating power.
Imposing power is intoxicating and addicting. It is paranoid and hyper-protective of itself wherein the worst thing that could happen is its loss. Imposing power seeks to control the world. It is spread by force.
Liberating power spreads freedom and is disgusted by anything less. It has no fear of being lost because it can only be surrendered, but never taken. Liberating power seeks to control itself. It is spread by conviction.
Jesus was constantly tempted to seize imposing power, but he consistently chose liberating power. His power was evident in his ability not to be coerced, manipulated, or co-opted into imposing power.
Liberating power may just be best demonstrated in the refusal of imposing power.
The only thing worst than a pious “conservative” is a pious “liberal”.
David, I can think of hardly any laws we have that don’t make some wrong and some right. You are right; the law is polarizing. So is truth. So is Jesus.
Maybe we should just get rid of all law and we could evangelize the entire world in a generation. Do you suppose if we repealed the laws against incest it would help us to reach the incestuous? What about repealing all laws against pollution to help us reach those who are warming the planet to levels which are unacceptable to that vast majority of all scientists? Good ole mother earth needs laws though, doesn’t she? But an unborn child — ah let’s not say anything divisive about that. It might hurt evangelism. The same with all those other “sins” some seem to believe were never moral issues until the time of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. When you have to try and rewrite the moral law to justify a political position, maybe it is time to take a good hard look at the political position.
David said: “Making abortion illegal makes those who do it wrong and us right, we polarize people and make justice more about punishment than creating a heart of repentance. If we use government to help the poor we lose the gift of getting to know them.”
The only thing worst than a pious “conservative†is a pious “liberalâ€.
I think they both stink equally. Equal stinkage.
Aren’t opinions grand?
Be blessed ya’ll!
Steve for once you may be right
Steve for once you may be right
Awww, thanks, Clint. (I think) =)
Hi folks. I’m the author of Myth fo a Christian Nation. A friend told me about Mike’s blog and the discussion, so I thought I’d check it out. Just want to say I appreciate the level of discussion here. I especially enjoy the fact that so many see the danger of fusing the kingdom of the cross with the kingdom of the sword on the part of the religious right, but also on the religious left.
The Kingdom of God is as different from all versions of the kingdom of the world as Jesus is from Caesar.
Blessings
Greg
Great discussion.
I agree, Ken!
It’s interesting the history of Churches of Christ have had with this topic. We know that Stone, Lipscomb, and many others all had things to say about the Kingdom of God vs. the kingdoms of this world. It’s not a new discussion for us, just one that get supressed at times by certain leaders.
If you flip to the back of Boyd’s book (cool to see him on here!) you’ll notice the two sources probably cited more than any other are Richard Hughes’ Myth’s America Lives By (where you can find more myths than just the “Christian Nation”) and Lee Camp’s Mere Discipleship. Both are from our heritage.
I think it’s important to keep this discussion going and to keep it as one that our heritage/brotherhood is not afraid to tackle. Thanks to Mike for bringing it before so many readers!
I agree we should keep the discussion going…..
However, not everyone is being allowed to participate. I’ve been made aware that at least one commenter is not being allowed to post. Perhaps it is just a software glitch. Hopefully someone can check on it.
Allen, I read Boyd’s book last year (and it’s very good, by the way), and I noticed the frequent use of Hughes’ and Camp’s work as well. Haven’t read Hughes’ book, but Camp’s is great.
I want to agree wholeheartedly with the author but…..I can’t help but think that God might ask us why in the world we didn’t do everything we could to stop abortion. In my mind being pro-choice is idolatry because it places personal freedom above God’s will. And contrary to “a sin is a sin”, it seems to me that when people commit abortion, it’s all God can do to withhold his anger at such things. For us then to say, “well that’s a political issue and we are above politics” or to say that “being a Christian doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be pro-life”, well I’m just not seeing it. The fact that God loves us enough to sacrifice his own son, isn’t it easy to connect that killing a baby is abhorrent to him?
As for alot of the other stuff, I agree we take it too far. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a part of the political process but we should first vow to be Christians, then fathers/mothers/children honoring our families, then Americans, then Republicans/Democrats. I’m pretty sure being Texan fits in there too somewhere although the lines may get a little blurry.
I checked into it…I don’t see any comments being held in moderation.
Perhaps some have been deleted, but if they were, I’m sure it was for a good reason, and done by the owner of this blog, which is perfectly within his rights…
Turns out it was because I used a word in the post above that refers to an inappropriate relationship between close relatives. That’s my guess as to why it was blocked.
Jim Shelton: Well said. You communicated my thoughts better than I did regarding David’s comment re abortion and polarization.
To usher in the New Covenant, the sins that caused the original ‘fall’ of man had to be purged.
Scripture defines them as:
(a) exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25)
(b) worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25)
(c) disobedience to the commands of the Creator - “as through one man’s disobedience, the many became sinners” (Romans 5:19.
Jesus of Nazareth redeemed us in the eyes of God and negated these ‘original’ sins by:
(a) insisting on Truth and exposing and rejecting lies
(b) worshipping and serving the Creator rather than the creature
(c) learning obedience through his sufferings (Hebrews 5:8) and through this obedience the many were made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
Jesus of Nazareth lived and died for truth, as is evident by his statement to Pilate. It is encumbent on all who would be his followers to put into practice these redeemer values, as he did; to confront manipulation, deception, distortion and lies whenever and wherever, as he did.
Because these values are timeless and universal, they cover every sphere of human activity.
Through each invididual emulating his example and putting into practice the ‘redeemer’ virtues, the Kingdom of God on earth can be brought into being.
Politics and Culture - Tell me more about who’s not being allowed to comment. It’s my blog, and I’d like to know. Because I’m not stopping them. Wordpress does have a moderator to try to stop people from using obscene language or from filling blog comments with Viagra ads. But to say that “not everyone is being allowed to participate” is absolutely incorrect. I know one comment was caught by Wordpress because it used the word “incest” — caught because of the number of pornographic sites that try to entice people through that word.
Greg Boyd - Thanks so much for your note. Love the book and hope many will get it and interact.
For a wonderful essay Greg has written, go here.
the other thing that triggers a comment to be moderated is linking to outside websites too many times within one post (because the spam comments do this). i’ve gotten caught a few times doing this.
Mike,
For a new online magazine that addresses political topics like this, as well as science and faith, atheism, and Islamic-Christian relations, check out
http://www.christianfaithandreason.com
No need to get defensive, Mike. I realize my comment sounded a bit accusatory, and that was not my intention.
But for a while someone was not able to participate. It doesn’t matter if it was due to a spam filter, or the blog owner not checking on moderated comments — his comment did not appear for a while and was somewhat lost in the shuffle because so many came after it.
I was just pointing it out so that it would be corrected.
Sheesh.
(Rex, May 31st, 2007 at 9:39 am) Rex, I am a “Christian who lives in America.â€
This mindset of the U.S. being God’s chosen nation is a very scary thing to me. How arrogant can we be??
Abortion . . . I am against abortion. But I haven’t been in that place yet either. I want to hope I’d stay true to my beliefs, but like other things in my life, I don’t know what I do in certain situations. The thing that bothers me most about folks being so adamant against abortion is that they’re so proud of the war and the war dead. How can we bo so against killing in one instance and not the other? And don’t say it’s because the military has made the decision to be there and the unborn have no choice. When I was a teenager, hundreds of years ago (1970s), preachers preached against Christians being in the military, based on the “thou shall not kill” commandment. Yet today, so many in our churches seem to glorify the military and killing. I just don’t understand. And I’m being as sincere as I know how to be - it really troubles me.
Yes, it sounded a bit accusatory. I’ll let others read it in the context of the flow of comments.
As Christians we need to share the message of Christ to everyone. We should strive to make this nation a Christian natian. Sharing our testimony. Sharing the good news. Thanking the troops who have served kept our freedom of religous possible. I remember seeing a photo of a baptism in the sands in Iraq. Praise God that Christianity is spreading even in places where we never thought possible. God is to glorified. When we take God out of everything in the country we will fall and will be Judged like countries be for us. We must not think that America us above God’s judgements but be thankful that his blessings are up on us and do what we can while we have the time He has given us to share the message of Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.
bpb - one is murder. the other is sacrifice. hmm…not too hard for me to see the difference. by the way, the fact that a preacher happened to preach something doesn’t make it true. Have you read the Old Testament lately? Murder is personal. War is not. Murder is the result of selfishness or anger. War is generally the result of a desire for freedom for one’s country, or humanity in general. I see a huge difference here. There are countries (I’ve lived in one) where this conversation would cause all of us to disappear one day at the hands of the government, never to surface again. Is that what you want? Maybe you should thank God for those who are brave and selfless enough to fight for your freedom to speak your mind.
Politics and Culture: Who on earth says “sheesh” anymore? I thought that was out after 7th grade.
surpaz,
Sheesh has been replaced by the self righteous “WOW” when someone gets offended or doesn’t want to say “OH Yeah!.”
But according to JH on GKB’s blog all commenters on this blog have double digit IQs. So maybe sheesh is the best one can do with such limited resources.
Speaking as one with a double digit IQ, I may be offended at I don’t know what if I weren’t so damn stupid. Hell according to most commenters no one gets the real point Mike is trying to make any way.
I think everyone is missing the point of Boyd’s excerpt as well, by the way. He didn’t mention anarcy, or apoliticism. I hear some of you saying that we should not impose our Christian values on others, or that only the less faithful will be in the military or politics (or maybe some think that only the less faithful will resort to a line of work other than teaching at a Christian school, working at a Christian company, or being a minister). I believe (and this is just the lowly opinion of someone with a lowly IQ I am sure) that we SHOULD absolutely carry our faith, and the gift we have been given to understand the TRUTH of the incredible SACRIFICE that Jesus made for our FREEDOM to every place we happen to venture, whether it be CAPITAL HILL or THE ACU HILL. I also believe we are to fight for truth and against the mistreatment of all those who are less capable of defending themselves. Sometimes that may come in the form of political wrangling. Is there something wrong with that? I agree with Boyd, that the Kingdom of God should not be fused with politics or Americanism. Two totally different allegiances. I have not read his book (I will now) but from this excerpt, I do not hear him condemning (as some of you are) those who choose to serve in their country’s military or government. Maybe I’m missing the boat here, and I’m just not smart enough to follow this line of discussion, but it seems pretty simple to me. Jesus told us to share the truth of the GOOD NEWS to people AS WE GO into the world. He did not say to stop going. He said AS YOU GO. God may call some Christians to be involved in politics. I do not think a man must abandon truth to be a statesman. OR to be a lobbyist, or the like. If the calling is carried out in a way that is marked with the Grace of Jesus Christ (which is highly radical and polarizing, I might add) positive light will be shed on God’s kingdom and people’s lives will be changed. By the way, since some of you seem to think Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics, let me ask this. If there is a Christian candidate and a non-Christian candidate, who would you vote for?
I’d like to add that our forefathers who founded this great nation (I didn’t say God’s nation…I just happen to like the USA) founded it with God’s guidance. They actually prayed before every session, with many of the prayers being prompted by a man who normally did not pray, but realized the need for God’s hand in accomplishing such a mighty task as forming a government. I’m not saying the men and women of our country are perfect, but who is? It might not hurt this country if our leaders once again sought that guidance. God seems to like that. He likes it when any old person will seek him, including Congressmen, Presidents, and warriors. In the Bible, there are even places where God placed people in positions of power (Joseph) to carry out his plan. I think we are arrogant if we have decided that God is only pleased with certain people who are very moderate and get along with everyone without having a polarizing effect. This is what the world says…I was always taught to try not to listen to what the world says, and focus more on what God says. I am neither radical right or left, but what on earth is wrong with having radical beliefs? I think the problem lies in NOT LOVING the other side. It has nothing to do with DISAGREEING with the other side.
America is not a Christian nation. America should strive to be a nation of compassion and love (though nations fail badly at these things), but not a Christian nation.
Christians who are Americans living lives of love, joy, peace, patience etc make whatever place they occupy more Chritian. “Against these things there is no law.” They do it without the need for political co-opting one way or another.
My deep concern is that many American who are also Christians don’t really believe in love. They don’t believe the fruit of the spirit holds any power. And yet, Jesus held to no other ethic. They say “love,” but their means are political. They give in to the power structure of this world in order to make a divine end come about. We are fools everytime we mock love for politics.
How different is thinking of the USA as God’s chosen country from what the confused apostles thought about the nation of Israel?
Maybe we are more like them in their confusion than we sometimes think. Just a thought.
Kathy S
I am about to start the last chapter of “Family Man” the biography of James Dobson. I believe few people I know are more convinced that his actions are living out the ministry God has given him.
There is a great wrong being done to any catagory of christians to compare their enthusiasm to idolatry. You could just as easily say that those with a house and a car are idolatrous in their materialism. Or someone who is a sports fan is more concerned with entertainment than ministry. Any thing can take a higher place in our heart than God and we should warn each other about that. But let’s be very careful it is not our pride making us want to feel superior to others by accusing them.
It doesn’t take much reading of the old testament to see exactly what idolatry is, worshiping any other God but Jehovah. The majority of the people on this earth literally do just that. We do not need to be reading idolatry into every action or motive of our christian brothers and sisters. Satan has many wiles to snare us into destroying the unity in the bond of peace.
Thank God for the separation of church and state!!!
Think about when state and religion get tied together…. A few examples:
1) Henry VIII, as monarch, is the head of the church of England after breaking ties with Rome. He gets as many divorces as he wants, as well as getting the confiscated monasteries and other church properties.
2) Puritans in Massachusetts establish an intensely, intentionally Christian state. They require church attendance; they levy fines for swearing; they don’t allow people to wear costly clothing (see 1 Timothy 3–we don’t follow that part any more). They also, by the way, whip Quakers (heretics) through the streets and hang witches by the dozen.
3) The Taliban in Afghanistan. Everyone must observe Muslim law. No alcohol is sold. No work may be done on the sabbath. In order to prevent men from lusting, all women must wear burqas. Etc. etc. etc. Yuck.
***
Religion is to be practiced by individuals and by faith communities (churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.). It is not to be prohibited by nor meddled with by the state.
First amendment to the US constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ”
Yep. I like it.
the only religion whose free exercise is prohibited in this nation, in this day, is ours.
Christinaity is not prohibited in America. It is under great scrutinty because there are certain sectors (huge sectors) of Christianity that have abused power and given some people cause for fear. Hundreds of millions of faith-based government dollars are going to mostly Christian organizations. I hardly call that a prohibition on Christianity.
All religion is suspect when it needs political power to assert its agenda. Religion that needs politics is problematic. When government money is used to feed hungry people and a Christian organization happens to be feeding hugry people already nd is awarded that money to do better what they are already doing, that has the chance of being a good thing.
But let me stress, no one has ever said that Americans cannot be Christian. Why the paranoia? No one can take away your faith. If they can, then that is another problem.
While some have abused their power and caused some to fear, you are sadly mistaken that this is the cause for the all out war on expression of Christian faith. One only has to watch the news on a regular basis or visit the ACLU website to see which religion is being constantly attacked and which are given open passes.
I don’t believe those of the Christian faith should be paranoid but to say they shouldn’t be concerned is as you say “another problem”.
The political left likes to use the “separation of church and state” only in specific instances that just happen to most often be linked to the Christian faith. This is not opinion….just the facts.
Let the ACLU do whatever it is they feel compelled to do. They cannot take away my faith or anyone else’s. Some of the things that group and other groups do is biased and there are many axes being ground down to a nub. But who cares?
When you seek to kill faith is it not only raised up stronger? Is there no ressurrection power left in us at all?
My faith is not hinged on things that the ACLU can take away. If faith is hinged to things which can be legislated away or taken out of a person’s hands, then it is no faith at all. We must shed all things that wed Christ to the powers of this world. We must at least strive for that.
“When everything that can be shaken has been shaken, then all that is left is all that we ever really had.” -Rich Mullins paraphrasing something out of Hebrerws.
This is an important debate to be had and I am grateful that I have the freedom to enjoy it.
Mike,
Christians must be careful of trying to overpower the political world. In doing so, it becomes a us vs them. This is not the message that God’s people should be picturing to the world
http://www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org
Scriptures tell us over and over again to not be ashamed. In my opinion, bowing down at the alter of the politically correct ACLU and others is allowing yourself to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Letting a entity such as these tell you when and where in a free country you can lawfully speak the truth of Christ is a very large problem. No one’s faith can be stifled by the ACLU, but it’s that direction that they seek to go in. If you shut people up long enough, eventually they’ll be silent. Don’t be fooled, that is their (ACLU and others) goal.
I’m also of the opinion that this is not a matter of trying to overpower the political world. It’s a matter of constitutional rights as an American to live in religious freedom. Christians deserve the same constitutional rights as other religious faiths. The problem is that Christians have been too afraid and too ashamed to stand up for their faith.
No, my faith is not hinged on the ACLU, but my lawful ability to express my faith it is. Being against those types of organizations doesn’t make me any less faithful or mean I’m trying to be powerful. But that accusatory way of thinking is a tactic some like to play along with for the benefit of the left. Questioning someone’s faith because they want to stand up for their religious freedom is quite effective, it’s worked for years. But, for the future of my children’s right to express themselves freely, I’d like them to be given the religious freedom that our constitution grants we have.
Remember we are discussing a separation of church and state. If folks want it separate, then by all means, let’s be separate.
Cause if you don’t watch out, the ACLU and others will find a reason to shut down blogs such as this and the ones many of us write because we are saying too much and it offends other religions.
You are kidding yourself if you really don’t believe that this is the direction that they are headed.
Sure you can still profess your faith without a blog, but as a free American citizen, you should not have to.
Think ahead, think outside the box. Think “Not Ashamed”.
Snaposhot said: “It’s a matter of constitutional rights as an American to live in religious freedom.”
It is a matter of being adopted as daughters and sons that we are free to speak of whom we belong. Making such speech illegal will not shut us up. Penalizing such speech will only make it all the more creidible. Killing us for our speech will make martyrs of us. From a kingdom of God perspective, what’s the down side?
No, I do not want to be threatened or tortured or killed for my faith, but I am not going to count on the constitution, incredible document that it is, to guarantee me a right that can’t betaken away with or without it.
If the ACLU makes it illeagal to be a Christian I’ll just break the rules.
Fajita said “No, I do not want to be threatened or tortured or killed for my faith, but I’m am not going to count on the constitution, incredible document that it is, to guarantee me a right that can’t be taken away with our without it.”
Well, finally something we agree on. But I am willing to stand up, unashamed and fight for that right for myself and my children. The ACLU and others can’t shut “me” up (although others might be hushed) but they can make it awfully uncomfortable for everyone. I choose to fight the fight long before they make martyrs of us. Which is why I am involved in politics. There are fights worth fighting. Politics will affect me whether I affect politics or not.
Snapshot said: “Cause if you don’t watch out, the ACLU and others will find a reason to shut down blogs such as this and the ones many of us write because we are saying too much and it offends other religions.”
Do you actually believe this? And if so, who are you listening to?
We are about as far from having religious blogs shut down as we are from embalming the body of George W. Bush and enshrining it in the Smithsonian for people to fetishize.
Judges, professors and groups such as the ACLU.
You are pitifully mistaken to think this is far from happening.
Visit the Center for Academic Freedom website and just see what’s happening to our Christian students across this nation. People are already working hard to shut Christians up now. It’s not something that’s in our future, it’s happening now. But (imagine this) it doesn’t get media coverage. Shock.
Honestly though, if you don’t believe that its happening, nothing anyone can say or show you will change your mind. What’s that quote “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is already made up.”
You might not change your mind until it happens to you.
Edgar, it is hard to imagine that blogs could ever been shut down for having a Christian bent. But then again, it was hard to imagine twenty years ago that states would be seriously considering homosexual marriage. The ones who forecasted such twenty years ago were called crackpots. Turns out they were a bit more perceptive at reading the signs than the ones who called them names. So, Edgar, you might have a hard time seeing how such could ever come about, but I would direct you to take a look at what the left likes to call “hate speech” and the legislation that is often proposed by the left to deal with it.
Its not as far-fetched as you think.
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven…rejoice and be exceeding glad: for great is your rewrd in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” Matthew 5:10 and 12.
While I do not agree with your viewpoint on the clear and present danger to the rights of Christians, Jim Shelton, (I feel that I have much more to fear from some “Christians” themselves) I ask you: if what you fear will happen, DOES happen, wouldn’t that result in blessings being poured down on you from our Lord and Savior? I mean, look at the words of Jesus, above. (Sorry to throw the words of Jesus at you, I guess that isn’t fair.)
Well Nancy, I suppose we are afraid of different people (if afraid is the correct word). I never considered Jerry Falwell a big threat. I tend more to believe the aggressive secularists are more cause for concern than those “Christians” to whom you refer. If faced with the choice, who would you have preferred raise your kids: Jerry Falwell or Rosie O’Donnell? Call me crazy, but I would have picked Jerry.
Regarding your use of the beatitude here; far be it from me to disagree with Jesus. I’m not sure why you believe using the words of Jesus is not fair, but you can take that up with Him.
Yes, those who are persecuted are blessed according to Jesus. Are you saying that because this is true, we should actively bring persecution about in the form of government persecution or that we should simply be apathetic about it? I do not believe that is any more true than the idea that we should actively seek and bring about situations to cause mourning because Jesus said those who mourn will be comforted.
Regarding persecution, I do not know that it will come to the extent I fear, but take a look at the culture around you. I suppose part of whether that comes about will depend upon how Christians react. There is a slowly increasing hostility towards Christianity. You can see it in the sitcoms, movies, public debate, and academia. No, in the words of Jesus, we should not fear. I’m not entirely sure that means we should also be apathetic and seem to get a little miffed at those who are not apathetic. I suppose that is the crux of the debate between those who argue we should be salt and light in the culture and those who believe we should focus on matters of the kingdom and be totally separate from the world.
Jim Shelton said: “If faced with the choice, who would you have preferred raise your kids: Jerry Falwell or Rosie O’Donnell?”
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim - You’re right that there is certainly a growing hostility towards Christianity and a dangerous trend towards marginalizing Christians, but I tend to believe that this hostility is in direct backlash to the ignorant, intolerant and hateful attitudes of people just like Jerry Falwell. Non-Christians have a perception of Christians that is unfortunately skewed by high-profile Christian leaders who have inserted themselves into a political realm. It’s no surprise that many people in America grow angry when they witness a growing and vocal group of very political Christians who hold beliefs that claim that 9-11 was the fault of gays, abortionists and feminists and that AIDS is God’s punishment for a society that tolerates homosexuality. To many Americans, Christians seem like yet another hate-group. I don’t really blame them for being hostile towards us when the most visible example of Christianity that they have is the intolerant voice of Christianity that shows up in the political realm. And to answer your question, I’d have to go with Rosy. At least the child would learn to love other people rather than condemn them.
At the same time, because of the fact that in America WE are the kings, Ceasers and Pharohs. God said that leaders will be held at a higher standard. Therefore, we are the leaders. While I don’t believe we should legislate Christianity from a leadership position in government, at the same time, we should not give a platform or power to things that are OUTRIGHT wrong such as abortion, homosexuality and descrimination against Christians (or anyone).
Christian Americans are in a position of leadership because of the way our government is set up. Therefore, we are responsible for the decisions made by leadership if we voted for them. So a vote for a Democrat for example is a vote for what they stand for (abortion, higher taxes, the homosexual marriage and agenda, etc.). My point is simply that just because we are not to try to make the government actively promote Christianity, that doesn’t mean we lose our own morals and support things that are simply evil.