Greg Boyd on John Quincy Adams’s Delusion
A Fourth of July meditation by Greg Boyd in Q:
In Colossians 2:7 Paul encourages Christians to be “rooted and built up in [Christ] and established in the faith.” The American Patriot’s Bible, edited by Gerald Lee and published by Thomas Nelson, connects this verse to part of a speech by John Quincy Adams, America’s sixth president, concerning the significance of the Fourth of July. Adams says that “next to the birthday of the Savior,” the “most joyous and most venerated festival” is Independence Day. For “the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior.” Indeed, Adams contends that “the Declaration of Independence…gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from heaven at the birth of the Savior….” The birth of America, in other words, is the beginning of the fulfillment of Jesus’ mission in the world.
Several things are interesting about this passage. For starters, it’s a little surprising that the Fourth of July beat out Easter for second place in Adams’ rating of “venerated” holidays. One might have thought American Christians would find Jesus’ resurrection a bit more “venerable” than the fact that we violently emancipated ourselves from British rule. In fact, while I fully appreciate that many Americans are grateful to no longer be subject to the throne of England, I’m puzzled about how the Fourth of July could appear anywhere on a Christian’s list of “venerated” holidays. How can a holiday that celebrates one group of mostly professing Christians violently overthrowing another group of mostly professing Christians be venerated by people who are called to love their enemies and to be peacemakers, even if they happen to find themselves on the side that won?
But the most remarkable aspect of Adams’ speech is undoubtedly his depiction of the violent birth of America as the beginning of the fulfillment of Jesus’ mission. Let’s overlook for the moment the systemic and barbaric injustices done to Native Americans and Africans by Europeans as they conquered and developed this land. And let’s agree that the political freedoms to enjoy “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are among the noblest in history. Still, on what basis could Adams or anyone else claim that the birth of this nation has anything to do with the mission of the Savior?
As he made clear to Pilate, Jesus came to establish a kingdom that is “not from this world.” The kingdom Jesus came to establish is not a “new and improved” version of the systems of the world. It’s something altogether different. For example, while all versions of the kingdoms of the world resort to violence against enemies when they deem it necessary, citizens of Jesus’ kingdom are called to imitate him by sacrificing themselves out of love for their enemies.
As noble as America’s ideals are, followers of Jesus must never buy into Adam’s delusion — repeated throughout history and still widespread today — that political ideals are a formula for the Kingdom of God. For the Kingdom is not about enjoying “life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.” It’s about looking like Jesus, dying out of love for the very people who crucified him.
Hi, Mike (and company). Long-time reader, first time commenter…
I sincerely hope this isn’t a hijack… But I’ve spent all week with my Bible (and secondary sources) thinking about something seemingly small, but bothers me… what is the significance of the Pledge of Allegiance to an American Christ-follower?
I feel like our WONDERFUL country is a blessing… but we don’t pledge allegiance to the blessing, right? Don’t we pledge allegiance to the Giver of Blessings? Don’t we sometimes mindlessly allow the two to get (forgive the pun) crossed up?
I don’t read Jesus as a patriot, or specifically interested in offering up anything beyond what was already Caesar’s… but what if Jesus was drafted into the military? Or who would Jesus have voted for (if he was extended the unique privilege of living in a democracy)? Would Jesus have expected his apostles to recite the (seemingly secular– is there such a thing?) Pledge of Allegiance to Rome? (I picture them with their hands over their heart, and after the first line, peeking over at Jesus to see if he’s rolling his eyes… which, I suppose, is how I sometimes feel.)
Thanks so much for those thoughts, Long Time. I’ve often said that when I say the Pledge of Allegiance I feel the need to clarify for those around me that I want to be a thankful, loyal citizen — but that my true allegiance is toward the one whose kingdom is not of this world.
Here are some good reflections by Scot McKnight: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/07/for-july-4th-a-set-of-thoughts.html.
amen to the post
amen to Long Time
amen to Mike
Y’know, it sometimes sounds as if the Greg Boyds of the world want to have their cake and eat it. Sometimes, Jesus seemingly MUST be read politically (and therefore informs their social-”justice”/redistributionist politics). Other times, political considerations are to give Christianity a wide berth, and we are not to claim Biblical warrant for any political inclinations. Some politicians are viewed in prophetic, even messianic terms; others, especially the Founders, are presumptuous to suggest any divine action involved in their ideas’ ascendancy. Interesting, to say the least.
qb
Thanks for this post. As a follower of Christ and as a minister of his gospel, I’m very concerned about the radical nationalism that is integrated into the faith of so many Christians. This post stands in contrast to a youtube video that intereviews a painter who has painted a patriotic mural with Jesus in the middle holding up the constitution. With this nationalistic fervor so prevalent in the evangelical American church, it is extremely difficult for preachers and teachers to speak prophetically against this idolatry. Reminds me of the OT prophets.
While I don’t deny there are instances of “nationalistic fervor” in the evangelical American church that could be considered idolatry, I believe most evangelicals are so passionate about this Country because they believe that the ideals it was founded on spring from the freedom we are given in Christ and the dignity that Christ brought to every individual. I think they recognize that, flawed as it is, there is no place on this Earth that has made it possible for this many people to live with freedom and dignity, and that has protected our right to worship like this one has, and I believe they fear what will happen if we continue to throw out all that is GOOD because it is not PERFECT. I am not naive and I know the mistakes this Country has made, but with all of that, I believe it and its Constitution is a gift from God that we need to protect….that doesn’t mean my loyalty to it overrides my loyalty to Christ. My family is also flawed and sometimes downright wrong, but they are given to me by God and my response to Him is to love and protect them, not to throw the blessing of having them back in His face.
I just would urge those of you concerned that loyalty to America equals idolatry consider that perhaps our patriotism should take the posture of thankfulness and gratitude to Him for the incredible blessings we live with daily and could very easily lose.
Spot on, Jennifer!!
Well, isn’t it true that in baptism we declared that our true citizenship is in heaven? I live in America, I’m a US citizen, I’m thankful each day. But the strength of this country isn’t my great passion. My interest is in the kingdom of God, which knows no boundaries. I take great interest in knowing that America and the West are not the center of Christianity, either in numbers or vibrancy.
Just claiming that we don’t have idols doesn’t mean we don’t have idols.
Good words from Randy Harris’s recent book:
So loyalty to country, loyalty to family, loyalty to friends–all of those strike me as commendable things. The problem is when patriotism becomes nationalism. Now this is a different matter. Nationalism is always evil because it is idolatry. It is the point where we confuse the nation with God, where our primary loyalties become aimed at the nation instead of God. This is always bad news. And nationalism is often lurking just under the surface of much of what we do.
Here’s what I posted on this blog a few years ago:
The truth is this: baptism makes you a bad American. Of course, it also makes you a bad Brazilian, Ugandan, etc.
In one sense, it makes you a much better citizen, because you become a person of character and prayer as the Spirit works in your life.
But in another sense, you become a “problem” to your country because you are no longer identified primarily as a citizen of that nation. You are an alien and stranger, whose citizenship is in heaven. You have come to see God’s mission for the whole world–not just for the country you happen to live in.
You realize that nations come and go–just as the one you currently live in may one day go–but the kingdom continues to break in. You understand that the goal isn’t to produce a strong country, but to participate in the countercultural work of God among us.
I consider myself a patriot. And yet at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance (which I gladly recite), I usually feel like I should turn to people around me and say, “Please take this with a grain of salt. I pledge allegiance to the flag. But not my ultimate allegiance. My ultimate allegiance is to Jesus Christ–the one who loves ‘all the little children of the world.’”
I’ve known so many people who can get whipped up into a political fervor by some ranting and raving radio shock jock. But they yawn through the church’s assembly.
I believe . . .
-that there is more power in the prayer of a nursing-home-bound elderly woman who spends her waning hours consumed by thoughts of God than in the decision of important people who gather in city halls and state capitals;
-that I have more in common with an urban Kenyan who has never traveled a mile beyond his hut but who confesses the name of Jesus than with a neighbor who lives in middle-class America but who isn’t a Christ-follower;
-that as an “alien and stranger” in this world, my primary identity is as a baptized believer and not as an American (as thankful as I am to be a citizen of this country);
-that the church’s job isn’t primarily to wave flags in support of war (though, according to strict “just war” theories war may sometimes be reluctantly necessary) but to pray “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Oh how American Christians love scripture, not wanting to add anything to it until it comes to talking about the source of freedom. Suddenly, Jesus is no longer THE source of freedom. It is Jesus and…
The Apostle Paul would not sing “And I’m proud to be an ______ [fill in any nation or tribe in the blank] where at least I know I’m free and I won’t forget the men who died and gave that right to me. No, no… if Paul were here today, he would sing “And I’m proud to be a Christian cuz’ I know I am free and I won’t forget the MAN who died and gave that right to me.”
But then again, I suspect there would be much fewer of us Christians if we truly knew that we don’t have the liberty of replacing the kingdom focus of “looking like Jesus, dying out of love for the very people who crucified him” (as Boyd writes) and turning the Kingdom of God into the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness (as noble as those values may be).
Sorry but I just wish more American Christians would get at least as excited about the gospel of Jesus Christ as they do about Americanism. And yet, it is many of these same American Christians who wonder why the American nation is becoming more and more secular.
Grace and peace,
Rex
I think we judge our forefathers too harshly. These people left England because they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs…very violently persecuted. To come to a new country and establish principles that allowed for religious freedom for all was so ahead of it’s time.
Of course they viewed Independence Day as incredible important to them. They lost their lives to make that freedom possible for their surviving family members. No..in my view, I think the true shame that we don’t understand how deeply related to Christianity that this holiday truly is.
Christmas is very pagan in origin and most of our traditions for it are still based on winter solstice rituals such as bringing trees into our houses in December. Knowing that, maybe these early Americans viewed Independence Day as more important because of that very reason…it was about Jesus from the beginning.
I hate when the 4th falls on Sunday. Don’t get me wrong: I love the 4th of July. But when it falls on a Sunday, our congregation turns into the Church of America. It becomes Fox Nation. Tea Party Central. All things America.
Or, to use a biblical word, idolatry.
To extend Cheryl’s quote (above), this is from “America or Christianity” in Randy Harris’s God Work:
“I am a loyal citizen. At some fairly deep level I love family. I love country. I love friends. I love the church with which I currently worship. But if all those circumstances should change, I hope I would still know how to love God. God’s mission does not depend on the export of the American way of life. If I’m right about anything today, the export of the American way of life is more likely to lead us away from the king of god than toward it…. We need to become increasingly indifferent to that way of life. It doesn’t mean you don’t obey the law. It doesn’t mean you don’t love the country. It just means you have less and less invested in all of those circumstances. Because that’s not where God’s eternal kingdom is.”
Attagirl, Stacey. To establish the blessings of liberty for an oppressed people, they pledged their LIVES (John 15:13), their FORTUNES (e. g., Luke 19:11ff), and their sacred HONOR (e. g., Phil. 3:1ff).
Willing to lay themeselves down under the sword of King George to give birth to a nation of people who, for all our many faults, are largely a decent and generous people.
People who don’t believe that need to spend a week on a ranch out west, especially during branding time or during a harsh winter, to see how lives, fortunes, and personal honor continue to be the currency of self-sacrifice for the sake of their neighbors. Do these people profit? Of course they do. Some of them do almost incredibly well, having transformed their grandparents’ homestead into a vast and productive enterprise that feeds thousands (including most of us). And to listen to them speak of America’s promise over lunch under the aspens their grandparents planted…THEY are the rightful heirs of Franklin and Madison. Through all of that, their lives seep with Christlike generosity, compassion, and industry.
Perhaps it is true that loyalty to American ideals is not identical to loyalty to Christ. But the two overlapped tremendously (and fundamentally) in 1776, and they overlap still today among the Forgotten Men and Women of flyover country. May their tribe increase…and yet, alas, it is a vanishing breed.
qb
Can we not speak to the problem of integration of Christian faith and radical nationalism without being accused of being unappreciative of the blessings we have as Americans or the sacrifices made? It is extremely difficult for many Christians to have sensible and challenging conversations about America’s place in history without extreme, angry reactions. I do find it interesting that we speak with admiration of the sacrifices made to have religious freedom, yet we seem forget or haven’t been told about the religious bigotry, intolerance and even persecution that took place early on in this country (Puritans vs. Quakers).
Part of me agrees with Boyd and wonders at the veneration of the American holidays.
Yet, it is important to see this issue through the lens of oppression. How do blacks view such a holiday as Juneteenth? This holiday is often one of incredible importance, because it represents the struggle against oppression and slavery, just as July 4th marked the end of a long, hard struggle for the colonists. In the black struggle for freedom, spirituality and politics were almost inextricably combined. The struggle for independence was as spiritual as it was physical. I’m guessing the same sentiments applied in the colonies.
Who ya talkin’ ’bout thar, Butch-babes?
Cheerfully,
qb
I’m not saying it’s happening in this particular discussion, but many times those engaged in this discussion seem to fall into the trap of a “either/or” mentality. If you celebrate vigorously anything having to do with America and our history, you are deemed to be guilty of “nationalism”. On the other hand, if you communicate that our highest allegiance is to God alone you are are deemed “unpatriotic” and not worthy to be called an American. Why can’t this be a “both/and” situation? If you are living the life of discipleship that others can witness, should you really feel the need to explain to them after you recite the “pledge of allegiance” that your highest allegiance is to God and His Kingdom? Likewise, if someone communicates that a Christian has one Lord and King (which we all Christians agree on) which is ABOVE all earthly kingdoms, therefore our highest loyalty and love should be for Him and Him alone…….does that really make that person “unpatriotic”? I propose it’s not an “either/or” situation, but very much a “both/and” solution. The two don’t have to be exclusive of one another.
Just one person’s perspective. I love my country, and I love my Lord and Savior more! I hope a Kenyan feels the same way! Or an Italian, or German, or Bolivian. God bless America…….and every other country! After all, every one of them belong to him ultimately. DU
Daniel Gray,
I understand what you are saying and whether I agree with the idea of violent revolution (which I don’t), I do understand how the early American felt free from Brittish tyrany. However, I still believe that the language and symbols used to tell and celebrate the story of the American nation and its independence is incongruent with the story of the gospel (and the language and symbols used to tell that story). Stories shape worldview and our worldview shapes how we understand, worship, and live for God. No one with two or more stories. They live out one story and any other story they hear is subsumed to fit within the story they are living out of.
In this case, the American story, which is told again and again in the public sphere, the home, and (unfortunately) the church has subsumed the gospel story so that the gospel story conforms to the American story. I don’t blame the American story for that fact…it is just doing what stories do. I think a big reason why the American story has subsumed the gospel story is that the former is told in every sphere of our lives whereas Christians have allowed the gospel story to become a private story compatmentalized from the rest of life (i.e., separation of church and state…meant to keep the state out of the church now also keeps the church out of the state).
Grace and peace,
Rex
qb,
Not talking about anyone in particular, but I would guess that most of us have experienced the polarizing nature of this topic first hand. I’m grateful to live in this country, and benefit from many of the unique privileges we have. I am alarmed and concerned about the large number of “right leaning” Christians who have bought into the dogma of conservative talk radio hosts. This fuels the radical nationalism I refer to.
K Rex Butts,
I agree with you. I’m not condoning acceptance of patriotism, I’m simply helping to ask and understand “why”. Once we understand why, it helps us deal with the problem.
“I’m simply helping to ask and understand “why”. Once we understand why, it helps us deal with the problem.”
We are in agreement.
Alg, I apologize if you were made to sing America the Beautiful on Sunday.
[This is in response to qb and not so much the post]
qb wrote: “Y’know, it sometimes sounds as if the Greg Boyds of the world want to have their cake and eat it. Sometimes, Jesus seemingly MUST be read politically (and therefore informs their social-”justice”/redistributionist politics). Other times, political considerations are to give Christianity a wide berth, and we are not to claim Biblical warrant for any political inclinations.”
That is because the Greg Boyds of the world have their politics wrapped in a presentation of faith. This happens both ways, for sure, but on Boyd’s end; Jesus is a means to a political end. And when you believe what Boyd believes about God (Boyd is an Open Theist, depicting a god that is ignorant of the future, has no part in anything that we would not call “good,” is impotent and powerless, etc.) anything goes, really. Faith and god can take any form and most often what we end up with is a god and a “historical Jesus” made in the image of the individual.
Again, this happens throughout the political spectrum. So thus we have the social justice Jesus for some, the feminist Jesus for others, the conservative Jesus for some, the liberal Jesus for others. It’s political taste wrapped in presentation of divinity. And to them, when that political taste is interrupted, you are committing blasphemy.
As Senior Tempter Screwtape wrote to his nephew Wormwood:
“we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice.
The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [=God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner.”
—
Jr, that’s kinda funny…’cause qb is an Open Theist, too! A very different one from Boyd, it would appear.
And FWIW, although I agree with your central pionts, you’ve built a rather uncharitable caricature of open theism as your opening salvo. “Anything goes, really” is certainly not true of qb’s theology, and I doubt it’s true of Boyd’s.
Far be it from qb to defend Boyd in all his stuffy, elitist, neo-Wilsonian leftism. But I doubt it is primarily attributable to his open theism.
Cheerfully,
qb
BTW, just to add a small piont: qb would not call anyone “ignorant” – leastwise Deity, heaven forfend! – if the realm of the alleged “ignorance” is fundamentally unknowable in the first place. If I do not know something that can be known, I am ignorant. But if that something cannot be known (as in, for example, the future act of an essentially free agent, or a square circle), to speak of the non-knowledge as ignorance is a bit, er, shall we say, strident.
And that is essential to the open theist’s approach. So the caricature in your post, Jr., begins in your polemical use of “ignorant.”
Still cheerfully, though,
qb
BTW, Butchie-babes, qb leans pretty stinkin’ far to the right and happens to agree with a lot that is said on talk radio. I could be wrong, but my guess is that the causal relationship (if there is one) between talk radio and your so-called “radical nationalism” flows the other way.
If there’s any geopolitical radicalism being foisted on us these days, it’s “radical obsequiousness,” what we would call “pathological codependency” or “enabling” if it were a matter of personal-scale psychology. Alas, it’s still “enabling,” but at an international scale. Perhaps we should call it “Right Honorable Chamberlainism.”
STILL cheerfully,
qb
Greg does some interesting and needed work. What is scary is not the historical perspective of Adams, but the present reality that so many evangelical Christians believe this so fervently!
Most opposition to open theim strokes me as offense at uncertainty dressed as defense of God’s honor. Both the offense and the defense are problematic for me, and the offense (if that’s really what it is) is not going to move anyone acquainted with reasonable critiques of modernity.
Just sayin’.
Jeff W
Stacey, the vast majority of the rebels did not leave England to escape religious persecution. First, many (most?) of them were born in the colonies. Second, many of them weren’t of English descent. Third, few people faced significant religious persecution in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.
Jeff W
Or, qb, we could interpret the rebellion as west-side aristocrats trying to seize the land from the east-side aristocrats. The new boss was very little more committed to freedom etc. (for anyone other than the boss) than was the old. Paine and some others weren’t really in agreement with the new boss, but there’s little doubt that a new boss is, indeed, what the oppressed people got.
Jeff W
The fact that power structures emerge in any ostensibly self-determining association is not terribly newsworthy, Jeff, but we take yer piont, noting for the record its rather cynical bent.
qb doesn’t concede all that’s between the lines of your narrative, but fair ’nuff.
qb
How about “already had emerged,” qb? It’s not as if the U.S. aristocrats weren’t already aristocrats under colonial rule. They just didn’t have the authority to kill natives west of the Appalachians.
Jeff W
The presence of aristocracy, by itself, is not sufficient evidence of the phenomenon originally in question.
The most salient question is this: did the plain language of the Declaration of Independence, and of the constitutive documents ratified (both by blood and by parliamentary procedure) in its wake, faithfully and substantially represent the attitudes and intentions of the people whose interests were represented in those documents? If so, the “aristocrats” were simply members and agencies of a class action…and they were certainly the members with the most to lose if the enterprise failed. Methinks they deserve a bit more credit than you’re willing to give them, JW.
qb
MP: John Adams co-opted Scripture for political ends.
mP: John Adams was an aristocrat.
C: Aristocracy tends to co-opt Scripture for political ends.
QED, bay-bee.
NOT!
qb
I don’t know how big you intend your “people whose interests were represented” and your “class,” so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, qb.
Laborers were in no appreciably better state after the rebellion than before it. Some in the professional/mechanic class made gains (others didn’t, I’m sure). The only ones who made marked gains by rebellion were the aristocrats. They had the most to lose, but they made sure that they also had the most to gain. They could have bought a far easier ouster of the Brits (without the French? who knows?) if they had granted a crust of bread to the laborers for the sake of The Great and Holy Struggle to Secure Inalienable Rights And Etc., but they didn’t, because that wasn’t their game.
And also the slaves and natives.
Etc.
Jeff W
Charles: Are we the more wiser than a man who Jesus personally knocked on his ass cause we can flip a light switch?
Jeff: Your assessment of open-theist opponents shows that either 1) you haven’t read much of the writing from opposition or 2) you have and are choosing to couch it in terms you are most comfortable with. And I reject both modernism (where Reason is god) and postmodernism (where Ambiguity is god).
qb: You sound like one who is not afraid of reading opposition. Therefore may I suggest an article by Michael Horton titled “Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method” found in (and linked here to) the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (v.45, June 2002, p.317-341).
Grace to you -
Jr
Jr, thanks for the link. I saved it to my HDD and took a quick scan through it; it’s obvious that qb is not up to the task, alas. Horton’s style is smooth and pleasing, but this article is a lot of inside baseball, dense with oblique references that qb simply isn’t equipped to parse, much less to understand in context! I wish I were better read so I could partake with seriousness.
Perhaps I can return to it at some piont. But qb came to his facsimile of open theism quite by accident, more or less on his own (though not without major influences along the way) – via theodicy – and only after the fact discovered that there was already a well developed school around the central ideas. I’ve never read Pinnock or Sanders, so my identification with open theism is an artifact of secondary sources. In fact, qb may not be a very orthodox open theist; Pinnock and Sanders might be inclined to tut-tut qb as a bit of an embarrassing rube crashing their more sophisticated party. Generally speaking, qb’s friends are in low places.
As to whether or not qb’s “theological method” was valid, I’m happy to defer to others’s judgment.
qb
Rather than bashing patriots, we should rather take a look at the extreme left-wing agenda of Barack Hussein Obama, Hmm, Hmm, Hmm.
Of course, Chris, because “everyone” knows that people who look with a critical eye at nationalism, militarism, and consumeristic greed must be in the tank for Obama. It couldn’t possibly be that Boyd, Claiborne, Camp, Yoder and others are attempting to measure the actions of America against the life and teachings of Jesus. In response to your very words, Claiborne has said: “We would pick on the Democrats too, but they just don’t happen to have their theology together yet. (But be warned, they sure are working hard on it.)” To be critical of the right, is not an endorsement of the left (and vice versa).
Stacey, “it was all about Jesus from the beginning?” Really? The violent overthrow of an abusive government and subsequent genocide of Native Americans was all about Jesus, huh? Sounds all too medieval to me.
Deleted my own comment…it was not worth making.
Whew! Finally got back to this thread after being gone. What a journey.
On that one tiny topic: open theism is the only way I can understand scripture coherently. It is the way I understand the mysterious movings of this sovereign God!