The Myth of A Christian Nation, Q&A

I told you once we finished to book that I was going to be emailing Greg with some questions that came up from my second reading of the text. I have done that and he has answered. Here is what he had to say:

1. You refer several time to the ways of the Kingdom of God being simple. Could you expound a bit on that? It seems that with they myriad of opinions on every topic under the sun, that it is anything but simple, or, at the very least, that man has made it not simple.

It's simple in that it always looks like Jesus and thus reflects a Calvary type of love.

2. Some (friendly) critics have said that Colossians 1 contradicts your thesis a bit:

"I sincerely believe that Christ seeks to redeem everything. I believe what is written in Colossians—"For by him (Christ)all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him…For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Col 1:16, 19-20)."

Most scholars grant that the Powers referred to here are not earthly powers and thrones, but spiritual entities. As such, I don't see how it affects my thesis.


3. We hear stories of heroic acts like the passengers on flight 93, who used violence/power over to subvert the terrorists and save lives. what would your comment be on a situation like this? I know it is a bit unfair to throw extreme exceptions into the fray, but I'm just curious.

AS with many acts of violence throughout history, the violence on flight 93 was good and heroic. But the Kingdom is not about being good or heroic. It's about imitating Jesus. Now, this mightnot rule out using a minimal ammount of force to restrain the high jackers, but it would mean, at the very least, refusing to kill them. Ideally, however, I think a Jesus follower would try to communicate God's love to them, non-stop, even if they killed them to get them to shut up.

4. Can you tell us a bit about the next book you have coming out?

It's called REvolting Beauty: A Theology and Practical Guide for Kingdom Revolutionaries. The central thesis is that followers of Jesus are called to manifest the beauty of God's reign and revolt against everything in the world -- and against the Powers -- that stand against it. This always looks like Jesus. So I explore Jesus' life and suggest ways his followers can manifest the beauty of God's reign by revolting against such things as * idolatry * judgment * religion *secularism *individualism *nationalism * racism * classicism * poverty * violence * sexual immorality * sickness * demonization and * earth abuse. (each of these has a separate chapter). It's due in 3 weeks and should be out late fall or next spiring.

This concludes our series. I hope it has caused us to think in this election year. Thanks for tuning in.

Book List

Some friends were asking me what I had read recently and as I was telling them the said, "If you put a book list together, Nick, I'd read through it." Being one who rarely backs down from such a challenge, I thought it would be good to make a list of "must reads." (If you are regular reader, you may have seen me drone on about these already. Pardon my redundancy.) To be on the list, they had to meet a few requirements:

1) It has to be a very good book. Perhaps this goes without saying, but it is the first requirement.

2) It has to be challenging and cutting edge. We don't want any biographies or walks in the park here. Only books that make you think, challenge your paradigms, and rock your world. Those are the best books.

3) It has to be somewhat mainline. No esoteric works here, please. It has to be written in such a way that it can benefit everyone.

With that being said, here is my short list of five must reads, with a few other optional ones thrown in.

Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller

Perhaps my favorite book of all time. Miller wrestles with the issue of identity like no one else that I've ever seen. It is funny, artistic, profound, and brilliant.

The Irresistable Revolution by Shane Claiborne

Perhaps the most challenging book I've ever read. shane has an amazing story, and challenges "American Christianity"in a unique way. You won;t agree with everything he says (like in any book), but his heart and his radical movement will inspire and challenge you.

The Shack by William P. Young

A very good fiction work about a man who suffers the loss of his 5 year old daughter, which greatly effects his relationship with God. He ends up getting a letter in the mail from God asking to meet with him. What ensues will rock your world.

I have blogged about it here.

The Myth of A Christian Nation by Greg Boyd

A great "recalibrator" when it comes to politics. Boyd is non-partisan, and encourages us not to violate the purity of the Kingdom of God by mixing it with politics. I just finished a 14 part series on the book if you want to read more.

Adventures in Missing the Point by Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren

Two of my favorite thinkers team up in this work to cover a myriad of topics and the new ways Christians are thinking about them. Campolo's chapter on homosexuality is mind blowing, and McLaren chapter on scripture is good too. The cool thing about this book is that they critique and respond to one another, so it is more like a conversation that you get to observe than a normal book.

Others not in the top 5:

Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell

This is a great book about the way we think of church.

A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren

This is more for church leaders, but it is perhaps the key text for the emerging movement.

The Judgement by Chart Korpjitti

This is a Thai novel that you would probably have to borrow from me if you want to read it (though you can buy it online). It is a great story of religion and judgement in social settings.

Thanks for considering. If I inspire you to read any of these let me know. If you have read any of these, I welcome your comments. What other book would you add to the "must read list"?

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 13

Well, we have come to the end of our series on Myth... and I hope you have enjoyed it. I hope this series is not an end, but that I inspired you to read the book, listen to the sermon series, or, at the very least, to continue to think on these matters. I hope to do an interview with Greg about this to post at some point, so there may be more coming (if you have a question you'd like me to ask him, fire it my way!).

As we close this out, though, I want to make a few statements that I think are the primary contributions of this book.

1. It encourages us to act like Jesus

Greg continually points back to Jesus as the example. He is not encouraging us to act Republican, or Democrat, but to act like Jesus. Greg does a great job of majoring on the main thing.

2. It challenges some long standing myths about America and Christianity

Perhaps most obvious, and the reason the book sold so many copies, Greg takes on some "sacred cows" that American Evangelicals have. Unfortunately, we live in a world where even asking some of the questions he asks is cause for some to write him off as a liberal from the start. What a shame. He has some great things to say that challenge us all on and to commit the sin of lumping him into a group and judging him prematurely is unfortunate.

3. It challenges the moralistic judging that has become commonplace among evangelicals

More to the point, Greg challenges the moralization of the world that is so typical of Evangelical Christians. As I said in the review, I think that is one of the best points he makes.

4. It challenges the idea that "(insert political stance/candidate here) is the Christian stance/candidate."


Greg challenges the idea that a specific candidate or view is "the Christian" candidate or view. Or worse still, the idea that to not vote a certain way makes one not a Christian. So many people need to hear that.

5. It creates discussion

Lastly, and I think this is one of the main features of any good book, it make you think and creates discussion. If we can continue to have meaningful conversations on topics that matter, we go far in growing in maturity.

Thanks for staying tuned. I realize I stayed on this topic for a long time, but I only do that when I think a book is so good it needs it. This was such a book. Send me in some questions for Greg!

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 12

The last chapter of Myth... is Greg simply responding to the 5 most common questions he gets in response to these ideas. Bob over at Vanguard Church has done such a great job of capsulizing Greg's answers by compiling quotes that I'm choosing to completely steal his work. The quoted sections below are completely Bob's (and Greg's) genius and not my own.

Before we do that, though, I should offer Greg's disclaimer. Greg ends the book by acknowledging there is always going to be ambiguity and disagreement in this life. "The goal of this book has not been to provide the 'right' answer to ambiguous ethical questions but to help kingdom people appreciate the urgency of preserving the unique kingdom-of-God perspective on all questions and on life as a whole...What follows is my own wrestling with five of the questions I have most frequently been asked whenever I've publicly presented the perspective articulated in this book." (pg 162)

As with anything, even if we can agree on the broad perspectives, the specifics are where the waters can get murky. So, take the following as Greg's perspective and with a grain of salt. Though it may not be clear from the wuotes below, the larger context of this chapter shows that Greg is still wrestling with these issues himself. For the record, I think that is great. I don't want to listen to someone who isn't still wrestling, who think he (or she) has it all figured out, who had God in their little box. Here we go.

1. What about self-defense?

(A Kingdom person) would have cultivated a kind of character and wisdom that wouldn’t automatically default to self-protective violence. Because he would genuinely love his enemy, he would have the desire to look for, and the wisdom to see, any nonviolent alternative to stopping his family’s attacker if one was available. He would want to do good to his attacker.

2. What about Christians in the military?

Do you know—can you know—the myriad of personal, social, political, and historical factors that have led to any particular conflict and that bear upon whether or not it (the war) is justified?...Out of their cultural conditioning, most blindly assume their authorities are trustworthy, that their cause is justified, and that each person they are told to kill is a justified killing…So, while I respect the sincerity and courage of Christians who may disagree and feel it their duty to defend their country with violence, I honestly see no way to condone a Christian’s decision to kill on behalf of any country—or for any other reason.

3. Haven’t some wars resulted in good things?

While military victories tend to be celebrated, nonviolent victories seem to pass without notice. Most knew about Gandhi and Martin Luther king Jr., but the nonviolent revolutions that ended various unjust dictatorships and brought increased freedom for more than three million people in the twentieth century are hardly ever discussed. Consequently, we are conditioned to think violence is the only viable approach to resolving conflict…(As kingdom people), we are called to show by our life that, while violence sometimes brings about positive results, violence is never inevitable—if only kingdom people will live out their unique kingdom call.

4. Don’t your ideas lead to passivity?

We now find ourselves in a version of Christianity where protecting ourselves is one of the main things we stand for—“in Jesus’ name”! In the name of the one who surrendered his rights and died for sinners, we fight against sinners for our rights!...Our call is to simply live in sacrificial love and trust the sovereign God will use our love to further his kingdom, as he did with the love of Jesus expressed to us and all people on Calvary.

5. Don’t we best serve the oppressed by overthrowing their oppressors?

The kingdom person is to remember that it’s still a ‘Good Friday’ world. We are to have faith that things will look different when Easter morning arrives. The ultimate hope of the world is not found in achieving victory now. The ultimate hope of the world is the resurrection, when all things shall be reconciled to God (Col. 1:20). Then we will see that no act of kingdom love has ever been wasted.

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 11

Chapter 8 of Myth... is called "One Nation Under God?" and it talks about the fifth negative consequence of believing that America is a Christian nation, that "it inclines kingdom people to view America as a theocracy, like Old Testament Israel."

The chapter is devoted to debunking this idea, and I won't get into all of it here. But, I will offer a few quotes that allow Boyd to state his point.

Undoubtedly, part of the reason evangelicals accept this claim [that America is a theocracy] is the fact that fallen humans have always tended to fuse religious and nationalistic and tribal interests. We want to believe that God is on our side, supports our causes, protects our interests, and ensures our victories--which, in one form or another, is precisely what most of our nationalistic enemies also believe. So it has been for most people throughout history.

[T]here is no reason to believe America ever was a theocracy. Unlike Israel, we have no biblical or empirical reason to believe God ever intended to be king over America in any unique sense

God’s theocratic program in the Old Testament was temporary, conditional—and ultimately abandoned…While God is by no means through with Israel, he is no longer using them or any other nation to grow his kingdom on the earth. The kingdom is now growing through Jesus Christ who lives in and through his corporate body. In this sense, Jesus and the church constitute the new Israel…comprised of people from every tribe, every tongue, and every nation (Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 21:24-26)…Manifesting this divisionless ‘new humanity’ (Eph. 2:14) lies at the heart of the kingdom commission.

There is only one chapter left, in which Boyd responds to common questions and objections. We will look at that next time.

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 10

In chapter 7 of Myth..., Greg offers two hot topic examples of evangelical Christians in America being the "moral police" or "moral guardians" and some very interesting commentary on these issues as well.

1. Homosexual Marriage

To illustrate, more than a few have noticed the comic irony in the fact that the group most vocal about "the sanctity of marriage," namely evangelical Christians, happens to be the group with the highest number of divorces in the United States, which itself has the highest divorce rate in the world [cites 2 articles, in addition to Barna]. Numerous explanations have been offered by Christians to minimize this embarrassment, but none of them are convincing--or even relevant. Whatever our excuses, outsiders legitimately wonder, "If evangelicals want to enforce by law 'the sanctity of marriage,' why don't they try to outlaw divorce and remarriage? Better yet, why don't they stop worrying about laws to regulate others' behavior and spend their time and energy sanctifying their own marriages?

Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particular because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogamous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is ideal, there's no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter--especially given the fact that divorce and remarriage is far more widespread than gay marriage. But in any case, this point is completely irrelevant since the present issue isn't over gay unions. The issue is only over whether these unions should be called "marriages." To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown that the social welfare of our nation is significantly harmed by what monogamous gay unions are called.

He continues, with biting sarcasm:

We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture--we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay!

I want to continue to capture his words on this point, so here is his summary and analysis.

Tragically, the self-serving and hypocritical nature of this moral posturing is apparent to nearly everyone--except those who do the posturing. And just as tragically, it causes multitudes to want nothing to do with the good news we have to offer. While the church was supposed to be the central means by which people became convinced that Jesus is for real, activity like this has made the church into the central reason many are convinced he's not for real. If I had ten dollars for every time I've encountered someone who resisted submitting to Christ simply because they "can't stand Christians," I'd have a fairly robust bank account.

There's nothing beautiful or attractive about thus sort of self-serving, hypocritical behavior. The beauty of the cross and the magnetic quality of Calvary-quality love has been smothered in a blanket of self-righteous, self-serving, moralistic posturing

.

And again,

In our role as public representatives of the kingdom of God, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could.

2. Abortion

If there is an exception to Boyd's point, it would certainly be abortion, right? He tackles this issue head on, and starts off with a few points/questions to help us grasp this issue in America today:

1. There are many "difficult metaphysical and ethical questions to consider." (Like, when does it become human? When does the baby get a soul and take on the image of God? Is the morning after pill as bad as a late term abortion? How much should the government legislate vs letting the woman control her own body? etc.)

2. How will other political issues, like how to best help the poor, which has an undeniable link to abortions, affect how you vote?

3. "The polarized way the issue is framed in contemporary politics is largely a function of various groups trying to gain power over each other for what they believe to be the good of the whole."

The distinctly kingdom question is not, How should we vote? The distinctly kingdom question is, How should we live? How can we individually and collectively come under women struggling with unwanted pregnancies and come under unborn babies who are unwanted? How can we who are worse sinners than any woman with an unwanted pregnancy--and thus have no right to stand over them in judgment--sacrifice our time, energy, and resources to ascribe unsurpassable worth to them and their unborn children? How can we act in such a way that we communicate our agreement with Jesus that these women and their unborn children are worth dying for? How can we individually and collectively sacrifice for and serve women and their inwanted children so that it becomes feasible for the mother to go full term? How can we individually and collectively bleed for pregnant women and for unborn babies in a way that maximizes life and minimizes violence?

We answer these disticntly kingdom questions not with our votes but with our lives. And, note, we don't need to answer any of the world's difficult political and metaphysical questions to do it. The unique kingdom approach to abortion isn't dependant on convincing ourselves and others that we have "God's knowledge" about highly ambiguous questions. It's based on our call to love as Jesus loved. There's a sacred woman; there's a growing life inside her, which, however it got there and whatever speculations one holds about its metaphysical status, is a miraculous creation of God. And the only relevant question people need to answer is, Are we willing to bleed for both?

Thought on Boyd's treatment of either of these issues?

Next time we will look at chapter 8, "One Nation Under God?"

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 9

Chapter 7 in Myth... is called "When Chief Sinners Become Moral Guardians", and is one of my favorites in the book. So much so, that we need two separate posts on it.

As we have said in the last post, Boyd is in the process of listing 5 negative consequences of believing the myth that America is a Christian nation. Chapter 6 covers the first three. Chapter seven covers the fourth, which is that when this myth is believed, it leads Christians to think that they are the moral guardians of society, that they are the moral conscience of the nation. Greg believes that this is misguided, and can even be harmful to the kingdom message, for at least 5 reasons.

1. "[A]s people called to mimic Jesus in every area of our lives, we should find it significant that Jesus never assumed the position of moral guardian over any individual, let alone the culture at large...His purpose, apparently, was not to guard, promote, or fix public morality."

Greg points out that it is true that Jesus publically confronted the religious leaders of his day for the hypocrisy and the using of religion for their own monetary gain. Greg points out that this style of confrentation is in line with a long tradition of Jewish prophets who held the Jewish religious and political leaders accountable. It should be noted, though, that they don't see it as their job to hold the non-Jewish leaders accountable. Boyd uses the example of a Catholic Cardinal reprimanding a parish priest. That behavior is much different than Christians "trying to regulate the morality of their non-Christian culture.

2. "[W]hen we assume the role of moral guardians of the culture, we invariably position ourselves as judges over others." Greg points out that not only does Jesus not do this, he actually forbids it, telling his followers not to judge others. Paul and James say similar things elswhere in the New Testament. Boyd acknowledges, though, that this does not prelude discernment, but that we should "never separate ourselves from people by comparing and contrasting ourselves with them."

3. "[W]hen the church sets itself up as the moral police of the culture, we earn the reputation of being self-righteous judgers rather than loving, self-sacrificial servants...While tax collectors and prostitutes gravitated to Jesus because of his magnetic kingdom love, these sorts of sinners steer clear of the church, just as they did the Pharisees, and for the exact same reasons: they do not experience unconditional love and acceptance in our midst--they experience judgement." In fact, in a pole done by the Barna Group, when asked to rank people groups based on their respectability, " 'Evangelical Christians' were ranked one notch above the bottom, just above prostitutes." The hard truth is that Evangelical or born-again Christian in America are not known for being especially loving. And, the fact that we continue to claim that we are loving despite the fact that no one thinks that is even more catastrophic.

4. [W]hen people assume the position of moral guardians of the vulture, they invite--they earn!--the charge of hypocrisy. For all judgement, save the judgement of the omnicient and holy God involves hypocrisy...Instead of seeing our own sins as worse than others, we invariably set up a list of sins in which our sins are deemed minor while other people's sins are deemed major. We may have dust particles in our eyes, we reason, but at least we don't have tree trunks like "those people.'"

5. "The fifth fundamental problem with the church being the moral guardian of society is that, throughout history, the church has proven itself to be a very poor moral guardian...Issues related to sex getm massive amounts of attention while issues related to corporate greed, societal greed, homelessness, poverty, racism, the environment, racial injustice, genocide, war, and the treatment of animals...typically get little attention."

Does this mean that Evangelical Christians shouldn't speak out publically on moral issues? Absolutely not! We should speak out, but we should do so in a distinctly kingdom way. We should speak with self-sacrificial actions more than words. We should speak not as moral superiors but as self-confessing moral inferiors. We should call attention to issues by entering into solidarity with those who suffer injustice. We should seek to free people from sin by serving them, not by trying to lord it over them. And we should trust that God will use our Calvary-like service to others to advance his kingdom in the world.

Next time we will look in depth at the two examples that Boyd uses in this chapter, homosexuality and abortion. Stay tuned.

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 8

Perhaps now is a good time to allow Greg, in his own words, to give us a quick recap of his argument up to this point.

As we have noted, many Christians believe that America is, or at least once was, a Christian nation. We have argues\d that this notion is inaccurate for the simple reason that Christian means Christlike," and there never was a time when America as a nation has acted Christlike. Indeed we have argued that it is impossible for any version of the kingdom of the world to be Christlike for the simple reason that they participate in a system of domination that necessarily places its trust in the power of the sword. It may use this power in just or unjust ways--and we should certainly do all we can do to influence the former and resist the latter--but in neither case can it be said to be acting like Christ. The kingdom of God, which always looks like Jesus is not simply an improved version of the kingdom of the world, for a version of the kingdom of the world may be relatively good, but it cannot be beautiful.

That is the essence of Boyd's argument, and for the rest of the book, he looks at the effects of believing the myth.

Chapter 8 of Myth... begins to discuss what Boyd calls five negative consequences that have resulted from the myth that America is a Christian nation. In this chapter he looks at the first three.

1. The myth that America is a Christian nation harms global missions

The primary cause of harm to global missions, Boyd argues, is waging war in the name of God, as has been done throughout history, and he gives several examples. More recently, though, "[t]his Christianization of military force was strongly reinforced when President George W. Bush depicted America as being on a holy 'crusade' against 'evildoers.' Elsewhere he said that America is 'the light of the world,' which the 'darkness' (that is, our natural enemies) could not extinguish. He was of course quoting scripture to make his point--Scripture that refers to Jesus (John 1:1-5)."

The result of using this religious language to further nationalistic goals results in much of the world hating Americans. "Not only does America represent greed, violence, and sexual immorality to [those who hate us], but they view America as exploitive and opportunistic." The result "is that this disdain gets associated with Christ when America is identified as a Christian nation.”

You can see where this would make it hard for a missionary to convince an Iraqi (or anyone) that the actions of America do not represent the heart of Christ.

2. The myth that America is a Christian nation harms missionary work in our own country

In this section, Boyd separates what he calls the "Civil Religion" of a nation, which in America's case is Christianity, with true Christianity. A civil religion is the “Christian” aspects of American culture (such as our holidays, having “In God We Trust” on our coins, saying “one nation under God” in our pledge, and hearing the religious rhetoric of our politicians). The civil religion is just a front. As Greg says, "If you peel back the facade of the civil religion, you find that America is about as pagan as any country we could send missionaries to." There are at least two dangers that go along with this civil religion of Christianity in America. First is the danger that Christians will believe that "winning these fights somehow brings America closer to the kingdom of God.” Secondly, it dilutes those in America who need Christ by leading them to think they are Christians without having a relationship with Jesus, in addition to killing the evangelistic zeal of American Christians.

3. The myth that America is a Christian nation tends to commit Christians to trust "power over" rather than "power under."
Thirdly, Boyd argues that believing this myth leads Christians to tend to resort to "power over" rather than to power under. Christians too often resort to lobbying and political means to change society, rather than trusting prayer, servanthood, love, and generosity. Boyd goes into great detail about social action in the chapter, talking about how Christians too often depend on the government to do what God has called the Church to do, like care for the poor and the broken.

What are your thoughts about these first three consequences of the myth that Boyd points out?

Next time we will look at my favorite chapter in the book, called "When Chief Sinners Become Moral Guardians."

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 7

Chapter 5 of Myth... is entitled "Taking America Back for God," and there are three major challenges Boyd offers in this chapter to widely held assumptions. Here are his main points and the assumptions he is challenging:

1. No political view should ever be labeled Christian.

Boyd would argue that labeling a candidate or a particular view as the Christian view is ridiculous, and perhaps even manipulative (for why are candidates and views ever labeled as the Christians way except to coerce Christians to vote in that particular way?). He would also say that holding a particular political view is "not part of your distinctive kingdom of God calling." That is not to say that a person's faith does not influence their views. Boyd says, "Of course our political views will be influenced by our Christian faith. We may even believe that our views, if they are implemented, will help facilitate the advancement of the kingdom. But we must also recognize that people who have diametrically opposing views may believe they too are advancing the kingdom, which is all well and good so long as we don't christen our views as the Christian view."

2. To Declare that we need to "take America back for God" assumes there was a time America was for God.

Boyd would ask the following question:

Were these God-glorifying years before, during, or after Europeans ‘discovered’ America and carried out the doctrine of ‘manifest destiny’—the belief that God (or, for some, nature) had destined white Christians to conquer the native inhabitants and steal their land? Were the God-glorifying years the ones in which the whites massacred these natives by the millions, broke just about every covenant they ever made with them, and then forced survivors onto isolated reservations? Was the golden age before, during, or after white Christians loaded five to six million Africans on cargo ships to bring them to their newfound country, enslaving the three million or so who actually survived the brutal trip? Was it during the two centuries when Americans acquired remarkable wealth by the sweat and blood of their slaves? Was this the time when we were truly ‘one nation under God,’ the blessed time that so many evangelicals seem to want to take our nation back to?

"There is nothing distinctively Christlike bout the way America was 'discovered', conquered, or governed in the early years."

3. Evangelicals are quick to assume that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Boyd would disagree. "There has been a great deal of debate about the extent to which the founding fathers were Christian in any historic, orthodox sense of the term. My own research inclines me to conclude that most were more deistic than Christian, and that they collectively had no intention of founding and explicitly Christian nation." As a matter of fact, John Adams had this to say: "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Interesting, no?

Now, I must confess, I was one of those people who held to the view that the founding fathers were solidly Christian. Honestly, it is what I had been told for years and I believed it. I was very interested to read Boyd's discussion of the topic in this book, as well as this article talking about the same topic. It appears the issue is not as settled as pastors led me to believe. There is some evidence that would lead one to believe that the founders were Christians, like the fact that about half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees. But, it seems it is a mistake to project our current brand of Christianity onto the founders several hundred years ago (by the way, this is no slam on the founders of our country. I'm thinking for what they did and the courage it took. I'm just searching for the truth). And certainly one of the reasons for coming to America was religious freedom, though if that is the case, it makes no sense that they would set up a "Christian nation" as a form of religious freedom.

Nonetheless, I am still wrestling with this issue. I certainly take the words of John Adams above as truth, but I guess I'm still not crystal clear on what the religiosity (or lack their of) of the founding father and to what degree they held certain beliefs. I'm hesitate to say they were "Christian" in any current sense of the word. Do you have any further info or thoughts on this?

I think Boyd makes three great challenges to widely held assumptions in Evangelicalism. The first is perhaps one of the central points of the book, that as a Christian regardless of your particular political views, one should never tack the label Christian onto a view or a candidate.

What is your response to these? Do you see these assumptions creeping up in your circles?

Nest time we will look at chapter 6, ironically titled "The Myth of A Christian Nation."

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 6

Chapter 4 of Myth... is entitled "From Resident Aliens ti Conquering Warlords," and in it Boyd talks about the shift that happened in the early 4th century CE. Before this shift happened, the early Christians saw themselves as "resident aliens." As Boyd writes:

They were a persecuted minority and as such did not dream of corporately exercising "power over" others. Indeed, the church of this time grew--and grew at a mind boggling rate! This growth came about not by Christians fighting for their rights, as so many do today, but largely by Christians being put to death!

pp 75-76

The shift that took place in the 4th century was that Christians obtained political power for the first time. The Emperor Constantine won a battle in the name of Christ, and soon after would make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This certainly would have been inconceivable to Peter and the early Christians.

Boyd contends that this shift has stained the Church ever since, that since this point the Church has resorted much too often to "power over" rather than following the peaceful, loving servant hood of the first century Christians. The result today is comments like this from the late Jerry Falwell:

You've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes ten years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.

(Falwell on CNN, emphasis added)

Boyd points out how the result of the Constantinian shift was "a long and terrible history of people using the sword 'in Jesus' name for the glory of God.'" In addition, history has shown that "Christendom" has acted about as badly as most versions of the kingdom of the world (i.e the Holy Roman Empire, the Medieval Catholic Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition etc.). And, "if violence in oppression is demonic are demonic, violence and oppression 'in the name of Jesus' is far more so."

This tragic history has to be considered one of Satan’s greatest victories, and the demonic ironies abound. In the name of the one who taught us not to lord it over others but rather serve them (Matt. 20:25-28), the church often lorded it over others with a vengeance as ruthless as any version of the kingdom of the world ever has. In the name of the one who taught us to turn the other cheek, the church often cut off people’s heads. In the name of the one who taught us to love our enemies, the church often burned its enemies alive. In the name of the one who taught us to bless those who persecute us, the church often became a ruthless persecutor. In the name of the one who taught us to take up the cross, the church often took up the sword and nailed others to the cross. Hence, in the name of winning the world for Jesus Christ, the church often became the main obstacle to believing in Jesus Christ.

pg 81

Boyd's critique of the Church's use of "power over" throughout history, which is in stark contrast to the first century Christians, is quite indicting. What other ways can you think of where the church has resorted to power over in recent times? And, where do issues like pushing for the Ten Commandments being displayed in schools and courthouses and other modern political fights fit in?

Next time we will look at chapter 5 titled "Taking America Back for God."

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 5

Okay, let's review:

The kingdom of the World (1) uses "power over" to accomplish its plans, (2)can change behavior, but not motives, (3) is always tit-for-tat, "us" vs "them", and (4) always has at least some influence from Satan.

The Kingdom of God (1) uses "power under" and never "power over" to accomplish its plans, (2) is concerned with changing the heart and motives, rather than just the behavior, and (3) always looks like Jesus on Calvary.

In chapter 3, Boyd takes another step toward separating these two kingdoms.

When the kingdom is manifested, it's rather obvious. It doesn't look like a church building. It doesn't necessarily look like a group of religious people professing certain things--including professing that they are Christian. It doesn't necessarily look like a gathering of people advocating the right political or ethical causes. It doesn't look like a group who are--or who at least believe themselves to be--morally superior to others, telling them how they should live. It doesn't look like a group using swords, however righteous they believe their sword-wielding to be. It rather looks like people individually and collectively mimicking God. It looks like Calvary. It looks Christian, whether it identifies itself as such or not. When people are "coming under" others to love and serve them, without regard to how much or how little those others deserve it, and without regard for their own interests and reputation, the kingdom of God has come.

pg 52

Furthermore, no kingdom of the world (i.e government, regime, ruling power etc.) can ever be the kingdom of God. They are diametrically opposed. However good the kingdom of the world may be, it cannot protect its self interests while loving its enemies, turning the other cheek and blessing those who persecute it. "By definition, therefore, you can no more have a Christian worldly government than you can have a Christian petunia or aardvark. A nation may have noble ideals and be committed to just principles, but its not for this reason Christian" (pg 54). And also, "The kingdom of God is not an ideal version of the kingdom of the world; it's not something that any version of the kingdom of the world can aspire toward or be measured against. The kingdom of God is a completely distinct, alternative way of doing life" (pg 55). ( We will look more into the notion of America as being a Christian nation, and particularly at the founders in the future).

Following from this, Boyd reasons that those who participate in the kingdom of God should always have a healthy suspicion toward every version of the kingdom of the world, lest we place undue trust in any political ideology or program. The worldly kingdoms do not ultimately hold the answers to the world's problems. In fact, Boyd would say that the fundamental problem in the world is "that fallen people trust "power over" rather than "power under," coercion rather than love."

To give a few examples, Boyd pulls from the political hotbed that was first century Palestine. Jesus' contemporaries were always trying to get him to weigh in on the political matters of his day, but Jesus always sidesteped the questions and took the issue deeper, to a kingdom of God reality rather than a kingdom of the world reality (examples Boyd talks about are the "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" passage in Matthew 22 and the man who wanted Jesus to oversee the dividing of inheritance in Luke 12). In addition, perhaps the most noteworthy political issue that went on in the company of Jesus was the fact that Jesus chose as disciples a tax collector and a zealot, and ultra-conservative and an ultra-liberal, so much so that we don't have categories today that properly illustrate that difference. Yet, Jesus chooses them to run in the same group, to be a part of the same posse, to be co-leaders in the movement he was starting, and we never read a word in the gospels of political discussions between these two or, more notably, of Jesus taking a side. Perhaps this suggests that holding a particular political view does not go hand in hand with following Jesus. Yet, in some Christian circles today, that is essentially what as happened. As Boyd says, "[I]n some circles, whether conservative or liberal, taking particular public stands on social, ethical, and political issues, and siding with particular political or social ideologies, is the litmus test of one's orthodoxy" (pp63-4).

The results are tragic. As Boyd says, "Perhaps this explains why many evangelicals spend more time fighting against certain sinners in the political arena than they do sacrificing for those sinners."

Chapter 4 for next time.

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 4

Chapter 3 of The Myth of a Christian Nation is a very biblical look at the Kingdom of God, which is at the heart of Jesus' teaching. Here is how Greg summarizes the Kingdom of God:

Though the world as a whole was and remains part of the domain in which Satan is king, in Jesus the domain in which God is king has been introduced into the world. The central goal of Jesus’ life was to plant the seed of this new kingdom so that, like a mustard seed, it would gradually expand. Eventually that kingdom would end the rule of Satan and reestablish God, the Creator of the world, as its rightful ruler (Matt. 13:31-31). In other words, Jesus came to destroy the cosmic “power over” lord and establish the kingdom of God upon the earth (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8). Jesus planted the seed of the kingdom of God with his ministry, death, and resurrection and then gave to the church, the body of all who submit to his lordship, the task of embodying and living out this distinct kingdom…We collectively are his “second” body, as it were, through which he continues to do what he did in his “first” body…As we allow Christ’s character to be formed in us—as we think and act like Jesus—others come under the loving influence of the kingdom and eventually their own hearts are won over to the King of Kings. The reign of God is thus established in their hearts, and the kingdom of God expands. That process…will culminate in the return of the King accompanied by legions of angels, at which time Satan’s rule will end, the earth will be purged of all that is inconsistent with God’s rule, and his kingdom of love will be established once and for all.”

pp 29-30

Boyd writes a long chapter talking about the intricacies of this kingdom and shares several stories and illustrations from scripture to make his point. His presentation of the Kingdom of God is quite beautiful. The only other thing I'll say, though, to wrap up this chapter, is to post the list that Boyd ends the chapter with, of the primary contrasts between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the world.

1. "A Contrast of Trusts: The kingdom of the world trusts the power of the sword, while the kingdom of God trusts the power of the cross." It is "power over" vs "power under."

2. "A Contrast of Aims: The kingdom of the world seeks to control behavior, while the kingdom of God seeks to transform lives from the inside out."

3. "A Contrast of Scopes: The kingdom of the world is intrinsically tribal in nature, and is heavily invested in defending, if not advancing, one's own people-group, one's nation, one's ethnicity, one's state, one's religion, one's ideologies, or one's political agendas. That is why it is a kingdom characterized by perpetual conflict. The kingdom of God, however, is intrinsically universal, for it is centered on simply loving as God loves...The kingdom-of-God participant has by love transcended the tribal and nationalistic parameters of whatever version of the kingdom of the world they find themselves in."

4. "A Contrast of Responses: The kingdom of the world is intrinsically a tit-for-tat kingdom; its motto is 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'...But kingdom-of-God participants carry the cross, not the sword. We, thus, aren't ever to return evil with evil, violence with violence...Far from seeking retaliation, we seek the well being of our enemy."

5. "A Contrast of Battles: The kingdom of the world has earthly enemies and, thus, fights earthly battles; the kingdom of God, however, by definition has no earthly enemies, for its disciples are committed to loving 'their enemies,' thereby treating them as friends, their 'neighbors'." There is warfare in the kingdom of God, but it is against powers and principalities and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12) *Quotations from this list come from pages 47 and 48 of Myth...


Now that we have the contrast adequately outlined, we will continue on with chapter 3 and the rest of the argument next time.

The Myth of A Christian Nation, Part 3

As we dive into chapter 1 of the book, we see Boyd diagnosing what he calls the Kingdom of the World (BTW, I plan to refer to the author as either Greg, or Boyd, whichever seems appropriate. Please pardon my inconsistency). The Kingdom of the World always used "power over" techniques, as we discussed last time. This "power over", also figuratively called "the power of the sword", is not concerned with motives or internal change, but with conformity. As Boyd says, "As effective as a raised sword is in producing conformity, it cannot bring about an internal change. A kingdom can stipulate that murder will be punished, for example, but it can't change a person's desire to murder."

He then goes on to comment about how we should not assume that all versions of the kingdom of the world are altogether bad. Some are better than others, and some are clearly worse than others. He cites Romans 13:1-4 that talks about submitting to governing authorities and being a good citizen. He then does some exegesis on the wold Paul uses for "instituted" in Romans 13:1, also sometimes translated "established." The Greek word is tetagmenai, and can mean to institute, appoint, or establish. Greg says this: “God's intent is to use any given "power over" government as his 'servant for...good.' This doesn’t mean that worldly governments are created by God or that governments always use their God-given authority as God intended—as though Hitler and Stalin were carrying out God’s will! Paul rather says that God institutes, directs, or stations (tetagmenai) governments."

Greg also makes the point that Satan always seems to be involved in the kingdom of the world, and has some level of authority there. When Jesus was tempted, the Devil showed Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world and asserted that it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please (Lk 4:5-7). Jesus neither falls for the temptation, nor does he dispute the Devil's claim to own the kingdoms of the world. This, is fact, is just one example of several similar statements about the power that the Enemy has (1 John 5:19, John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 2 Cor 4:4, Eph 2:2). Concerning these last two points that seem to be in tension (i.e. God ordering governing authorities vs Satan having power there as well), Greg says the following:

I know of no way to resolve the ambiguity involved in this dual analysis of the kingdom of the world—but simply recognizing that there is, at the very least, a strong demonic presence polluting all versions of the kingdom of the world has to significantly affect how followers of Jesus view earthly governments. Minimally, this recognition implies that we can never assume that any particular nation—including our own—is always, or even usually, aligned with God.

pg 22

Lastly, and in my humble opinion, the best point he makes in this chapter, Greg talks about the ubiquitous disease of tit-for-tat, "us" against "them", "my tribe is better than your tribe", and revenge that is always at play in the kingdom of the world. In the case of the war on terror, for instance, Greg says, "You probably passionately believe that our cause [i.e. America] is just and theirs is evil, but the terrorists passionately believe their cause is just and ours is evil. Your passion for American justice is mirrored by their passion for Islamic justice." And a bit later, "You naturally believe your tribe is at least a bit less guilty than the opposition, and this is exactly what they believe about their tribe. And so the bloody game goes on, as it has in one form or another across the globe and throughout history." In a kingdom under this rule, and in our present world, where tit-for-tat, "you-hit-me-I-hit-you-back" is in play, war and violence is inevitable.

Boyd says again:

So long as people locate their worth, significance, and security in their power, possessions, traditions, reputations, religious behaviors, tribe, and nation rather than in a relationship with their Creator, Babylon's bloody tit-for-tat game is inevitable. Of course, peaceful solutions must still be sought and can, to some degree, be attained with regard to each particular conflict. But as long as humans define their personal and tribal self-interests over and against other people's competing personal and tribal interests, violence is inevitable and will break out again.

pg 26

As I reflect on this reality, it astounds me how much sense it makes. Think about how many problems flow from this selfish competition (materialism, gangs/gang warfare, popularity quests in High School, etc.). I think Greg nails it here.

As Pastor Bob at Vanguard Church says, "Therefore, Boyd’s point is a striking one. When nations believe that they are on God’s side, they are deceiving themselves. When they go to war for what they have convinced themselves are righteous reasons, they often are simply partaking in the 'myth of redemptive violence'."

The kingdom of Jesus stands in sharp contrast to the kingdom of the world, and Greg gets into that in chapter 2, which we will look at next time.

For now, what questions arise from this chapter? Do you think his diagnosis of the world was accurate?

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 2

Today, we will be looking at the rest of the intro of The Myth of a Christian Nation, and sharing Boyd's introductory thoughts.

As we begin to look at what Greg calls the foundational myth, I'm not sure that I can summarize it any better or shorter than Greg does. Here is what he says:

From the start, we have tended to believe that God's will was manifested in the conquest and founding of our country--and that it is still manifested in our actions around the globe. Throughout our history, most Americans have assumed our nation's causes and wars were righteous and just, and that "God is on our side." In our minds--as so often in our sanctuaries--the cross and the American flag stand side by side. Our allegiance to God tends to go hand in hand with our allegiance to country. Consequently, many Christians who take their faith seriously see themselves as the religious guardians of a Christian homeland. America, they believe, is a holy city "set on a hill," and the church's job is to keep it shining.

pg 12

And also:

The myth of America as a Christian nation, with the church as its guardian, has been, and continues to be, damaging both to the church and to the advancement of God's kingdom. Among other things, this nationalistic myth blinds us to the way in which our most basic and cherished cultural assumptions are diametrically opposed to the kingdom way of life taught by Jesus and his disciples. Instead of living out the radically counter cultural mandate of the kingdom of God, this myth has inclined us to Christianize many pagan aspects of our culture. Instead of providing the culture with a radically alternative way of life, we largely present it with a religious version of what it already is. The myth clouds our vision of God's distinctly beautiful kingdom and thereby undermines our motivation to live as set-apart (holy) disciples of this kingdom.

pg 13

Another result of this myth of America as a Christian nation, is that it has led many to associate Christ with America. The result, then, is that many people hear the good news of the gospel of Jesus "only as American news, capitalistic news, imperialistic news, exploitive news, andtigay news, or Republican news. And whether justified or not, many people want nothing to do with any of it." (pp 13-14)

He then briefly shares his primary contrast that he will continually use throughout the book: that is that the kingdom that Jesus came to establish, that Jesus said is "not of this world", is diametrically opposed to the kingdom of the world (i.e. the governments of the world). It operates differently. While all versions of the kingdom of the world seek to gain power and then exercise "power over" others, the kingdom of God advances only by exercising "power under" others. It is self-sacrificial, loving, humble, and serving. Boyd would argue that everything the church is about hangs on preserving this "radical uniqueness" that the kingdom Jesus came to establish in contrast to the kingdoms of the world.

This last paragraph was important, because it is here that he introduces us to some of his terms that he will be using throughout the book. I'm offering his basic argument before I get into the meat to give you time to mull it over before he starts to defend it. Does he have a point?

Lastly, Greg offers three preliminary words before we get into the main argument.

1. First, he says, his thesis applies as much to the political left as the political right, though he admits that since the dominant political position of Evangelicals is right wing/conservative, his focus tends to be there, and it warrants more attention.

2. Second, to keep these two kingdoms radically distinct does not mean that a person is to keep their faith and moral convictions from affecting their involvement in the political process (this has been perhaps one of the most common misconceptions of the book). What does need to be kept separate, however, is the core faith and values, on the one hand, and the particular way in which these values politically express themselves on the other. "[K]ingdom people who share the same core faith and values can and often do disagree about how their faith and values should inform their involvement in the kingdom of the world." (pg 15)

3. Lastly, the purpose of the book is not to resolve all of the ambiguities between the two kingdoms, but to paint a clear picture of the kingdom that Jesus modeled.

We will dive into chapter one, the beginning of the core argument next time.

As we prepare, what questions are coming to your mind? What issues do you hope Greg addresses before it is all done?

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 1

I am starting a series of posts that will run for several weeks, discussing one of the best books I have ever read, The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd. The book has generated no small amount of controversy since it was released back in 2005. Boyd preached a series of sermons in April of 2004 as things begin to heat up for the elections that took place that fall. It is interesting, that as I read this book and start this series that we are in a similar place, with the tensions escalating for the elections that will take place in less than a year.

As Boyd says in his introduction, he had never experienced as much positive feedback or as much negative feedback as he did in the midst of this six week sermon series. In the process, about 1000 people left the church (about 20%). He was called a whole host of names, like "a liberal, a compromiser, wishy-washy, unpatriotic, afraid to take a stand, or simply on the side of Satan" (pg 10).

He goes on to say that he is sympathetic to the dearly held beliefs of those who are particularly aligned politically, either liberal or conservative. To those who are reading the book (or this blog) and already nervous about what he is going to say, and thinking on the outset that some of the names above are true, Boyd humbly says "let me assure you that, for all my shortcomings, I don't believe any of those labels accurately describes me." He then asserts that wrestling with different beliefs is both extremely healthy and extremely rewarding. Above all, he is humbly asking that the reader do one thing:

"I only ask that you hear me out." (pg 11)

And that is what we will do. I encourage you to walk with me as I read through this book again and do my best to summarize the chapters, evaluate them, and offer some of my own thoughts. I will seek to honor the promise made by Scot McKnight about book reviews: That I will be fair to what the author says; I will focus on what he focuses on; I will tell you what I like and what I don;t like; I will not try to find random theological pecadillos and then excoriate him for his theology. "To be fair to a book is to focus on what it focuses on and to see if it is sustained by the argument and evidence and to see if its conclusions are sound and the most probable."

Some rules (challenges) before we start:

1. Try and leave your political allegiances and biases behind. May we use scripture as our guide and seek truth.

2. Let's hang in there until the end. Some may feel the temptation to abandon ship early on. I think it is important to wrestle with this all the way through. May we do as Greg asks and hear him out.

3. Let's not jump to conclusions (as many may have already). Stereotypes assume they know what the outcome is beforehand. May we not assume we know the end from the beginning. This is basically another way of saying, may we hear Greg out.

4. Fourthly, and related to those previously, let's resist the urge to try and categorize Greg. I know that I do it too, that when you see a talking head or hear a soundbite or read a quote, we immediately think "Where is this person coming from? What camp are they in?" Set this kind of thinking aside at the outset, because like jumping to conclusions, it will hinder us hearing what he is really trying to say.

5. Lastly, may we allow this to challenge us. I agree with Greg that there are few things more productive or more rewarding than wrestling with other ideas. May we take this challenge together.

Okay, we will look at the rest of the intro and what exactly the central issues are that Greg is dealing with next time. Until then, here are some resources you may be interested in.

This is the link where you can find the sermons from 2004, that lead to him writing this book.

This is the series that Vanguard Church did on the book a while back. I may be referring to it from time to time.