"If we don't declare that this barbaric religious version of the kingdom of the world was not, and is not, the kingdom of God, who will?" (p. 82) Atheists will, the disaffected and downtrodden who have been disappointed by, or worse yet, preyed upon by, the Church will also point out its flawed relationship with power, and so will apologists for Islam, Hinduism, and other religions. We, the disciples of Jesus Christ, need to defend the Gospel by calling out the sins of the past and, warn of the dangers of the present, for a Church tempted to use 'power over' (to use Boyd's phrase) to obtain obedience by force.
The status quo is not acceptable. This is Pastor Gregory Boyd's call to action from his 2005 book, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church. If that call was urgent in 2005, it is critical in 2021, the Church in America has moved in the intervening decade and a half decisively toward a deeper pursuit of earthly power, toward a us vs. them, win at all cost, mentality. Why does the relationship between the Church and power (Boyd often refers to power as 'the Sword') matter so much? Pastor Boyd illustrates the danger by referring to J.R.R. Tolkien (always a plus), "Much like the magical ring in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, the sword has a demonic power to deceive us. When we pick it up, we come under its power. It convinces us that our use of violence is a justified means to a noble end. It intoxicates us with the unquenchable dream of redemptive violence and blinds us to our own iniquities, thereby making us feel righteous in overpowering the unrighteousness of others." (p. 83-84)
Let us circle back to the beginning and examine the foundation that led Boyd to compare the Church's relationship with Power to the corruption of the One Ring.
1. "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." (p. 11)
The distinction between the Kingdom of God, a kingdom built upon a covenant with God and maintained by love and self-sacrifice (which Boyd refers to as 'power under'), and the Kingdom of the World, the system controlled by Satan and predicated on 'power over' others is key to understanding Boyd's concern for the health of the Church. When Christ founded the Church, he never intended it to be a part of the kingdom of the world, to vie for power and control by its methods, and certainly not to play by its rules.
2. "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...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." (p. 11-12)
There has been a long running debate in America about whether or not this particular nation was founded as a 'Christian' nation. For Boyd, that argument misses the point, because NO nation has ever been founded or proclaimed as a Christian nation. He doesn't cite examples, but that would include Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's Commonwealth, or Byzantium. Why? Not by looking at the statements or principles of the founders or leaders of such nations, but by looking at the divergence that must exist between any kingdom of the world, no matter what type of government it may be, and the kingdom of God founded by Jesus and carried forward by his disciples.
Governments exist to constrain human behavior, to protect the weak from the strong, to prevent a descent into a Lord of the Flies mentality. They must therefore, properly, use force, even lethal force, to function. Jesus of Nazareth had no intention of founding such a kingdom, he avoided taking sides in the political debates of his day, and he commanded his disciples to conquer the world through acts of love and service, not coercion and violence. Governments can be a force for good, they can achieve morally desirable ends like justice, but they cannot advance the kingdom of God, for the tools they have to work with are not God's, the goals they hope to achieve are not God's, and the hope they have for the future is not the culmination of God's will for which the Church yearns.
3. "The character and rule of God is manifested when instead of employing violence against his enemies to crush them, Jesus loves his enemies in order to redeem them." (p. 34)
Examples of this from Jesus are many, but one will suffice to illustrate the point. When Jesus was confronted in the Garden of Gethsemane by a hostile mob and a betraying disciple, Peter stepped forward and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest (John 18:10). Peter had previously resisted Jesus' plan of self-sacrifice, even going so far as to tell Jesus that he was wrong, earning a stinging rebuke from his rabbi. How does Jesus respond to this violent act? He heals the man, Malchus, and allows himself to be captured (while ensuring his disciples can flee) knowing that the road to Calvary is mere hours away.
"The point is that love, through service, has a power to affect people in ways that 'power over' tactics do not, and it is this unique power of self-sacrificial love that most centrally defines the kingdom of God. Insofar as we trust this kind of power and thank and act accordingly, we are bearers of the kingdom of God. Insofar as we do not, we are simply participants in the kingdom of the world." (p. 38-39)
Turning the other cheek, praying for our enemies, doing good to those who hate us, none of that is easy. "If this teaching sounds impractical and irrational - to the point where we might want to come up with clever rationalizations to get around it - this is simply evidence of how much we have bought into the thinking of the kingdom of the world." (p. 42)
Why was the non-violent passive resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement so shocking? That this use of Jesus inspired tactics to work for change stands out so much as an outlier from both American and Church history illustrates just how rarely the Church has followed Jesus' example of changing the world through a self-sacrificial example rather than by force.
4. "disciples of Jesus aren't to act first and foremost on the basis of what seems practical or effective at securing good outcomes. We are to act on the basis of what is faithful to the character and reign of God, trusting that, however things may appear in the short term, in the long run God will redeem the world with such acts of faithfulness." (p. 43)
"Its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game", except this is no game. Here is another place where governments and the Church must part company. Governments seek to achieve their own goals and purposes through the means they think will be most effective, here and now in this world. They work with probabilities. The Church is called to NOT let such considerations change its moral character. We are called to serve, to sacrifice, whether or not that service and sacrifice are rewarded, whether or not that service and sacrifice seem to be the path to 'winning', even if that moral service appears to be losing spectacularly. Why? Because Jesus did. Because Jesus told us to imitate him. Because we trust in God.
5. "Whatever our own opinions about how the kingdom of the world should run, whatever political or ethical views we may happen to embrace, our one task as kingdom-of-God disciples is to fight for people, and the way we do it is by doing exactly what Jesus did." (p. 48-49)
"Conservative religious people involved in kingdom-of-the-world thinking often believe that their enemies are the liberals, the gay activists, the ACLU, the pro-choice advocates, the evolutionists, and so on. On the opposite side, liberal religious people often think that their enemies are the fundamentalists, the gay bashers, the Christian Coalition, the antiabortionists, and so on. Demonizing one's enemies is part of the tit-for-tat game of Babylon, for only by doing so can we justify our animosity, if not violence, toward them. What we have here are two different religious versions of the kingdom of the world going at each other. If we were thinking along the lines of the kingdom of God, however, we would realize that none of the people mentioned in the above lists are people whom kingdom-of-God citizens are called to fight against. They are, rather, people whom kingdom-of-God citizens are called to fight for." (p. 48)
The trenches are deeper, the no-man's land is more dangerous, and the attacks are more vicious than they were in 2005. The Culture War rages on, it is a war that can never be won, only waged, and the ability to see 'them' as fellow Americans instead of the enemy who will destroy America if they are allowed to 'win' grows dim. On January 6th, 2021, a violent mob stormed the U.S. capital intent upon stopping the peaceful transfer of power in part because they believe that 'they' will destroy America and that only 'we' can save it.
I know from personal experience that a significant portion of self-professed Christians with a conservative political viewpoint view self-professed Christians with a liberal political viewpoint as illegitimate Christians, primarily on the basis of those political viewpoints. Pastor John MacArthur made headlines before the 2020 election when he declared that all true Christians MUST vote for the Republican party. {Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way.} There are, undoubtedly, self-professed Christians with a liberal political viewpoint who feel the same way about John MacArthur and those who share his conservative politics. Families and Churches have been torn asunder, friendships strained or ruined, because politics has become a war between two nearly evenly divided groups with disparate visions of America, in 2020 that war started looking more and more literal, as violence grew and blood flowed.
At this point, the question asked by most self-professed Christians is: Will my version of America prevail, will we win? The question which two few are willing to consider is: Should we be fighting this war, what damage is it doing to the witness of the Gospel? Like America's involvement in Vietnam and the War on Terror, the continuation of the war has become its own goal, no objective achieved is sufficient to lessen the vehemence, no method of fighting is off limits because 'they' cannot be allowed to 'win'; no matter what. For millions of church going Americans, an America that does not conform to our cultural expectations is akin to the end of the Republic, as such morality as a judge of our actions to prevent this catastrophe must take a back seat to expediency. The danger of this line of thinking has increased significantly since 9/11, it is not Islamic terrorists that most worry us, but fellow Americans. Can this possibly be a healthy environment for the Gospel to be heard?
6. "there's simply nothing invisible, or hidden about the kingdom of God. It always looks like Jesus...It always has a servant quality to it, and in this fallen world in which individuals, social groups, and nations are driven by self-interest, this sort of radical unconditional, and scandalous love is anything but invisible." (p. 52-53)
One of the reasons why the Church has at times confused itself with the kingdom of the world is that it has not always remembered what it is supposed to be. Those of us called to be disciples of Jesus Christ are not simply called to be 'better' than our neighbors who are non-Christians, but radically different because of the transformation of our bodies, minds, and spirits by "the washing of rebirth and the renewal by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
7. "Not everything about the kingdom of the world is bad. Insofar as versions of the kingdom of the world use their power of the sword to preserve and promote law, order, and justice, they are good. But the kingdom of the world, by definition, can never be the kingdom of God...To be sure, a version of the kingdom of the world that effectively carries out law, order, and justice is indeed closer to God's will for the kingdom of the world...But no version of the kingdom of the world is closer to the kingdom of God...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." (p. 54-55)
This is the heart of Pastor Boyd's thesis, no matter how morally upright a particular government is in both theory and practice, it is no more like the kingdom of God than the worst of human governments. They are apples and oranges. In practical terms a 'good' government is far superior from the perspective of its people than a 'bad' one, but not in spiritual terms. The role, means/tools, and goals of any government are divergent from the role, means/tools, and goals of the Church, and this is not something that we can overcome at the ballot box, for it is by design, God's.
"we know that however good a particular version of the kingdom of the world may be, it does not hold the ultimate answer to the world's problems." (p. 55). The inherent flaw in socialism/communism is the assumption that government can change human nature, but this same delusion exists (perhaps to a lesser degree) among those who believe that America as a 'Christian Nation' will enter into some sort of Golden Age if only the next election is won, or the next Supreme Court decision goes our way.
8. "Jesus would simply not allow the world to set the terms of his engagement with the world. This explains how (and perhaps why) he could call Matthew, a tax collector, as well as Simon, a zealot, to be his disciples...we never find a word in the Gospels about their different political opinions. Indeed, we never read a word about what Jesus thought about their radically different kingdom-of-the-world views. What this silence suggests is that, in following Jesus, Matthew and Simon had something in common that dwarfed their individual political differences in significance, as extreme as these differences were...What are we to make, then, of the fact that the evangelical church is largely divided along political lines? The Christian position is declared to be Matthew's among conservatives, Simon's among liberals. While Jesus never sided with any of the limited and divisive kingdom-of-the-world options routinely set before him, the church today, by and large, swallows them hook, line, and sinker." (p. 62-63)
How Jesus conducted his business should be important to the Church, right? Remember, Jesus called his disciples, that means he wanted both a collaborationist, Matthew, and a revolutionary, Simon, to be part of his training program, his Church to be. In the end, both Matthew's and Simon's answers to the pressing issues of the day fell far short of Jesus transformative vision. For Jesus, the question was not, 'Should we work with Rome or against it?" because Rome was neither the problem nor the solution to the gulf that existed between a holy and righteous God and sinful humanity, and to bridge that gap was the reason why the Messiah came.
And yet, the Church has often found itself mired in these kinds of secondary questions, taking sides against itself, even violently, for the sake of kingdom-of-the-world questions. "What this suggests is that the church has been co-opted by the world...We've allowed the world to define us, set our agenda, and define the terms of our engagement with it. We've accepted the limited and divisive kingdom-of-the-world options and therefore mirror the kingdom-of-the-world conflicts." (p. 64)
The Kingdom of God is supposed to look like Jesus, act like Jesus, be like Jesus. Can we honestly say that waging the Culture War, from whichever side you happen to be on, has made us more Christ-like?
9. "we are to remember always that our real citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20)...that we cannot serve two masters (Luke 16:13). Our allegiance, therefore, can never be to any version of the kingdom-of-the-world, however much better we may think it is than any other versions of the kingdom-of-the world...preserving this 'alien status' is not an addendum to our calling as kingdom-of-God citizens; it belongs to the essence of what it means to be a kingdom-of-God citizen...We utterly trivialize this profound biblical teaching if we associate our peculiar holiness with a pet list of religious taboos (such as smoking, drinking, dancing, gambling, and so on). No, the holiness the New Testament is concerned with is centered on being Christlike, living in outrageous, self-sacrificial love." (p. 70-71)
Chanting "U.S.A!! U.S.A!!" may feel great, especially in a big fired-up crowd, but it is at best a temporary allegiance. For every Christian the allegiance that will last, that really matters in the end, is to God. Once we accept that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lord, that his vicarious death is our hope and salvation, our earthly citizenship, in whatever nation it may be, shrinks profoundly in comparison. That is not to say that a Christian can't take pride in his/her earthly citizenship or serve that country faithfully in a way that pleases God, but that devotion must have limits, and those limits must fall categorically short of the devotion to Jesus Christ that God requires of us.
Once we have embraced the perspective that our true citizenship comes first, we can see that our obligations to that citizenship run far deeper than culturally influenced questions of public morality, as important as some of those may be, to the very core of our lives. This is no easy task, it is far simpler to simply go with the flow and concern ourselves with the things that our particular slice of American culture concerns itself with, but this is not enough, the price with which we were purchased, the precious blood of Jesus, demands more.
10. "Tragically, the history of the church has been largely a history of believers refusing to trust the way of the crucified Nazarene and instead giving in to the very temptation he resisted. It's the history of an institution that has frequently traded its holy mission for what it thought was a good mission. It is the history of an organization that has frequently forsaken the slow, discrete, nonviolent, sacrificial way of transforming the world for the immediate, obvious, practical, less costly way of improving the world." (p. 75)
What would we accomplish, whether we be liberal or conservative Christians, if 'our side' had the political power to do whatever we wanted? We spend so much time chasing the car, we don't stop to think what we would do with it if we caught it. We would, perhaps, make a number of improvements, but we would also produce unintended consequences and backlashes. Our best case scenario (and there's NO guarantee that that is what we would get if 'we' had absolute power, in fact, Lord Acton's maxim predicts greater corruption with greater power) is a better state/country/world. As laudable a goal as a better world may be, and it is certainly worth working toward, it is a goal far below the calling of the Church, which is why it is a tragedy each and every time that the Church compromises its unique holy mission to fill the banquet hall for the wedding supper of the Lamb, in order to take hold of the crumbs that are available now.
11. What did the Church do with power once it had it? "the reigning church as a whole - 'Christendom' - acted about as badly as most versions of the kingdom of the world...Throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, millions were burned at the stake, hung, beheaded, or executed in other ways for resisting some aspect of the church's teaching or for failing to operate under its authority. Thousands upon thousands were tortured in unthinkable ways in an attempt to elicit a confession of faith in the Savior and the church...So long as they remained a persecuted minority, Reformers generally decried the use of violence for religious purposes. But once given the power of the sword, most used it as relentlessly as it had previously been used against them...It wasn't until the bloodshed became economically unbearable and unfeasible in the Thirty Years' War that a truce (the Peace of Westphalia) was called and Christians agreed, at least theoretically, to end the violence." (p. 78-79)
Many of my Christian friends and family, people I know and love, crave more power for 'our side' to protect the Church and extend its influence. My question in response is simple: show me one example from history where this acquisition of power benefited the Church without corrupting it. Calvin's Geneva burned a heretic at the stake. Salem held witch trials. And far more damning than these examples, 'Christendom' led millions of its citizens to slaughter in nationalistic wars of territorial aggrandizement, exterminated the American Indians and enslaved millions of Africans, with only a few small feeble voices in protest. Europe at the height of its global power, when its churches were full on Sunday, bore an enormous blood guilt, and so did its colonies the world over. If more evidence is needed, don't forget the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust. Power has not enhanced the progress of the Gospel, it has hindered it in ways we don't even realize and to an extent we would be shamed to understand.
I know what you're thinking, "this time it will be different, we won't make the same mistakes again", but that's what John Hammond told himself after the dinosaurs had run amok and started eating people. You can't tweak Jurassic Park to make it safe, the only solution is to stop trying to recreate dinosaurs. The last two thousand years is an ample sample size, the Church and Power are oil and water, they don't mix. As Peter Parker's Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility", the Church hasn't proven to be a worthy holder of great power.
12. How did things go so wrong for the Church once it had power? "it frequently justified doing tremendously evil things. The moment worldly effectiveness replaces faithfulness as the motive for an individual's or institution's behavior, they are no longer acting on behalf of the kingdom of God but are participating in the kingdom of the world. The so-called good end will always be used to justify the evil means for those thinking with a kingdom-of-the-world mindset...the Christian version of the kingdom of the world was actually the worst version the world has ever seen. For this was the version of the kingdom of the world that did the most harm to the kingdom of God....it did this under the banner of Christ...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." (p. 80-81)
This discussion is not an academic debate, if our goal is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, obtaining worldly power for the Church is the WORST way to do it. How attractive is the Gospel to survivors of the Imperialism of 'Christendom'? How eager are those tortured by men with cloak's emblazoned with a cross to believe that Jesus loves them? The last line of that quote is stunning, and maybe you've never considered it, but it is also been true far too often. As Gandhi said, "I'd be a Christian if it were not for the Christians."
When the Church, and/or individual Christians, lend their name to the actions of the State, declaring that they act in God's name or to fulfill his will, they smear the Gospel with the evils that result. How do I know that there will be evils? Human nature.
The true marvel is not that 1/3 of the people of the world claim to be Christians, making us wonder why that number is not higher given that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but that 1/3 of the people of the world are still willing to be called Christians given how poorly those who claimed to follow Christ acted in the past, and how unimpressive many of those same followers are in the present.
As an aside, this critique extends beyond the interactions of the Church with governmental power to the acquisition of power by the Church in general. The clergy sex abuse scandal was enabled to be orders of magnitude worse because of the power disparity between the evil clergy who perpetuated it and their powerless victims. We, as a Church, will be dealing with the fallout of that failure for centuries, for the Church allowed it to happen, was slow to recognize it, and slow to correct it.
13. "The best way to defeat the kingdom of God is to empower the church to rule the kingdom of the world - for then it becomes the kingdom of the world! The best way to get people to lay down the cross is to hand them the sword!" (p. 94-95)
That pretty much says it, you can't hold the cross and the sword at the same time. For my fellow D&D geeks, the cross is a two-handed weapon, and so is the sword, you can't dual-wield them. If you're not into RPG's just ignore that last sentence.
14. "If we are to take America back for God, it must have once belonged to God, but it's not at all clear when this golden Christian age was...Were the God-glorifying years the ones in which whites massacred these natives by the millions...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...There was nothing distinctively Christlike about the way America was 'discovered', conquered, or governed in the early years." (p. 98-99)
It is tempting to say, "I'm a white American, but I didn't have anything to do with that, my ancestors weren't in this country until much later." In fact, one of my first ancestors in America fought in the Civil War, for the North. But we still have a problem. Those actions were undertaking by self-professed Christians, by those claiming to represent Jesus. I would contend that a significant number of them were not true followers of Jesus Christ as evidenced by the hatred in their hearts, but the fact remains that their actions have tarnished the name of Jesus precisely because they let it be known that America was a 'city upon a hill', a beacon of hope in the world while at the same time not living up to their lofty words.
This conclusion will be a gut punch to many Christians today, but it is the truth and we need to face it: "the issue of what various founding fathers personally believed is really irrelevant to the issue at hand. For even if they believed they were in some sense establishing a Christian nation, as some maintain, it remains perfectly clear that it never has actually looked like Christ. We have only to listen to the voices of nonwhites throughout our history to appreciate this fact."
"When we suggest that this nation was once Christian, we participate in the racist and demonic deceit that Douglass poignantly exposes." (p. 101) It doesn't matter if the Founding Fathers talked about God or gave him credit for the rights they espoused, they didn't
act like Christ toward either the Indians or the enslaved Africans; actions speak louder than words.
15. "When we clearly and consistently separate the kingdom of God from all versions of the kingdom of the world, we are in a position to affirm the good as well as the bad of American history without having to defend it as Christian." (p. 102)
It is a trap of our own making. When we seek to defend the Church by proclaiming that America has always been a Christian nation and must therefore continue to be one, we must take ownership of America's immoral baggage. This leads to two equally unpalatable actions: denial of the facts of history thereby embracing dishonesty, or downplaying of the horrors of history, thereby embracing moral relativism (and being jerks in the process). Neither path is acceptable, but we've all seen them used repeatedly, and many of us have fallen into this trap.
16. "To promote law, order, and justice is good, and we certainly should do all we can to support this. But to love enemies, forgive transgressors, bless persecutors, serve sinners, accept social rejects, abolish racist walls, share resources with the poor, bear the burden of neighbors, suffer with the oppressed - all the wile making no claims to promote oneself - this is beautiful; this is Christlike. Only this, therefore, is distinct kingdom-of-God activity." (p. 103)
Look at that list. Be honest, it is daunting. What God has called us to is higher than what America can offer. As honorable as it is to serve one's country with integrity, and I certainly honor those who do, it isn't enough for Christians; we are called to more, to Christlikeness.
What Pastor Boyd is also making here is an important distinction between the work that God assigned to the kingdoms-of-the-world (i.e. human governments) such as law, order, and justice, and the work that Jesus assigned to his followers such as loving one's enemies and suffering with the oppressed. The former work can be accomplished, at least in part, by any government, even one we would rate as 'bad'. The latter, the things commanded by Jesus of his disciples, can only be accomplished in any real and consistent way by those empowered by the Holy Spirit. Some of our confusion, perhaps, stems from the theocracy that God created with the Law of Moses, in that combined government/religion some of these things were melded together. The Church, however, is not Israel {It seems like I write/say that a lot, but it bears repeating}. The New Covenant is not the same as the old, it did not establish a nation, but called men and women out from all nations. If we attempt to 'take back America for God', we are attempting to recreate the Old Covenant, but as Christians those are not our promises from God, we operate under the New.
17. "the myth of a Christian nation harms global missions" (p. 108)
If we act as if America = Christian, so will the rest of the world. When missionaries share the Gospel in foreign nations the reception of that message will be heavily influenced by whether or not the people on the receiving end have a positive or negative view of America. "when we associate Jesus with America, even in the most remote ways, we legitimize the widespread global perception that the Christian faith can be judged on the basis of what America has done in the past or continues to do in the present. Now, this isn't all bad. America has done and continues to do good things around the world, for which we should be thankful. But it's also done some bad things...Not only does America represent greed, violence, and sexual immorality to them, but they view America as exploitive and opportunistic." (p. 109-110) That's a tough pill to swallow. Many of us love America, really love it, and have good reasons for doing so, thus it becomes hard for us to understand that people in other nations might not. Whether or not they should is beside the point, that we've made their attitude about America part of the process of sharing the Gospel is our fault. "it has become humanly impossible for many around the globe to hear the good news as good. Instead, because of its kingdom-of-the-world associations, they hear the gospel as bad news, as American news, exploitive capitalistic news, greedy news, violent news, and morally decadent news. They can't see the beauty of the cross because everything the American flag represents to them is in the way." (p. 110).
Did that paragraph make you angry? "How dare they! Love it or leave it!" 'Love it or leave it' is dangerous as a political slogan here in America, it is rampant idolatry to impose that standard upon people who happen to live in other countries who need the Gospel. America and Jesus cannot be a package deal, but we've made it that for many around the globe by insisting that America was, and is, a Christian nation, if you don't love America, no need to consider that Jesus loves you. There is need here, serious need, for the Church in America to repent of adding, even inadvertently, a barrier to the Gospel because we have made an idol of America.
18. "Not only are foreign missions harmed by the pervasive myth of a Christian nation, missionary work inside our own country has been harmed, for this foundational myth reinforces the pervasive misconception that the civil religion of Christianity in America is real Christianity." (p. 111)
Virtually every nation has a civil religion, from ancient Rome to America today. This civil religion is part of the shared culture, affecting things like holidays, history and values. Pastor Boyd has no qualms with declaring that the civil religion of America has been Christianity from the start, there is plenty of evidence of Christian influence upon American history. Attending church, at least at Christmas and Easter, has felt like an American thing to do for generations. "Problems arise, however, when kingdom people fail to see that civil religion is simply an aspect of the kingdom of the world." (p. 112) Things like prayer in schools, "In God we trust" on our coins and "One nation under God" in our pledge are examples of civil religion in America, not kingdom of God examples of Christianity. This veneer of Christian symbols and expressions has led many Christians to assume that missionary activity is for foreign lands because most everyone here is already a Christian. "I believe this sentiment is rooted in an illusion. if you peel back the face of civil religion, you find that America is about as pagan as any country we could ever send missionaries to." (p. 113)
In the end, our Culture War to protect the civil religion of America has become a serious distraction. If we win these political fights, what will we gain? If we win, what will it cost? Kingdom of God work has always been harder and more self-sacrificial than what civil religion requires. It is telling that both Soren Kierkegaard and Dietrich Bonhoeffer could see the danger of a society where everyone is assumed to be a Christian based on a civil religion test, Kierkegaard going so far as to say that "the worst form of apostasy the Christian faith can undergo is to have it become simply an aspect of the culture." (p. 115, a paraphrase of Kierkegaard)
Winning the Culture War doesn't change hearts, only self-sacrificial kingdom work that inspires the acceptance of the Gospel's transforming power can accomplish that. "As U.S. citizens we have a civil right to influence the political system. But in following our consciences, we must never forget where our real power - our distinctly kingdom power - lies." (p. 119) Let me offer a local concrete example. Supporting Emmaus Haven, Mustard Seed Missions, or ABC Life Center, three of our local para-church charities focusing on outreach to our neighbors in need, will have a much greater impact on the success of the Gospel than whether or not our schools begin each day with a proscribed prayer (an effort I would oppose for this reason: The theology of mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools is atrocious, its implementation would be worse.) or if we continue to have a nativity in the park downtown (an effort I supported, but spent only 1/1000th of the time and effort I've given to support those three charities; perspective is key).
19. "Precisely because he did not allow the society or the politics of his day to define his ministry, he positioned himself to make a revolutionary prophetic comment, and ultimately have revolutionary impact on the society and politics of his day. Jesus didn't buy into the limited options the culture placed before him. He rather exposed ugly injustices in all kingdom-of-the-world options by offering a radically distinct alternative." (p. 120)
Another damaging affect of the myth that America (or any nation) is a Christian nation is the limitation that it places on the role of the Church. If we exist in a system created by Christians, for Christians, and run by Christian ideals, then we really should choose either option A or option B. But what if neither A nor B is a morally upright choice? What if the prophetic choice is C, D, or even E, none of the above? Since its founding America has been a two party system (more/less). We are told that to participate in the political process we must join one of two teams and support that team all/nothing. We are told that certain moral choices are unavailable because 'we don't have the votes' at this time, or because we've traded away that option in the bargaining process. Jesus rejected both the path of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, both of those willing to compromise their morals to work with Rome, and those willing to rise up in bloody revolt against Rome. Jesus chose his own path, in part because he wasn't trying to 'fix' the system he was born into. Some change, for the better, is possible by supporting the Republican party on some issues, and the Democrat party on other issues. Christians will make those decisions based upon what their conscience dictates, but we cannot simply stop there and assume our work is done, and we most certainly cannot let the two political parties decide for us which issues are important and what we can do about them.
20. "when people who are serious about their Christian faith buy into the myth that America is a Christian nation...they may intentionally or unintentionally position themselves as moral guardians of society, coming to believe it is their job to preserve and promote moral issues - and fix moral problems...Jesus never assumed the position of moral guardian over any individual, let alone over the culture at large." (p. 127-128)
Lest he be misunderstood, Pastor Boyd isn't advocating a withdrawal by Christians from the moral issues of our culture, but rather a much deeper commitment to addressing these issues than is possible through the political process.
Connected to the question of whether or not Christians should act as the moral guardians of their culture is the very important requirements of scripture that we begin any judgment first with ourselves, and then with our own community, that is the Church, next. The reasons are numerous, including our own call to purity, the need to avoid hypocrisy, and our goal to effectively share the Gospel with those who are not a part of our community already.
What is the proper context for moral judgments? "In appropriate ecclesial contexts such as these - contexts in which people have entered into a covenantal relationship with a spiritual leader - confronting damaging behavior is sometimes necessary - and expected. Because the people being confronted have willingly placed themselves under the authority of the one doing the confronting, it is likely to be received as an expression of love and, thus, have positive results. Outside of such covenantal relationships, however, such confrontations would not likely be received as loving and not likely be beneficial." (p. 129)
I have been criticized, primarily by fellow Christians, for focusing on the moral failures of our own tribe, that is of those who claim to be Christians but live immorally or teach dangerous heresies. Instead, some have argued, I should focus moral judgment on 'them', our chosen political rivals, because 'they' are the real danger. I wholeheartedly disagree. {Friendly Fire? Why examination and censure by Christians belongs primarily on us, not them}
 |
| You may think you have nothing in common with this guy, but to the Lost we often look the same. |
21. "when 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 - the one reputation we are called to have. 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 judgment. The brutal fact is that we Christian are not generally known for our love - for the simple reason that we, like the Pharisees of old, generally judge more than we love." (p. 133-134)
The people who need the Gospel most like those who share it least. That's a problem, and we created it. I myself in years past, and from time to time even now, fall into this trap, but by God's grace I'm making progress. As the Culture War has grown in intensity and scope, this tendency has exploded in the past generation, and the reputation of the Church among 'sinners' has plummeted. "For the church to lack love is for the church to lack everything." (p. 134)
22. "when people assume the position of moral guardians of the culture, they invite - they earn! - the charge of 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." (p. 136)
Why has the evangelical church decided that gay marriage is a hill to die upon, but that heterosexual infidelity and divorce is 'nothing to see here'? The number of self-professed Christians engaged in sexual sin in America of a heterosexual nature far exceeds the total number of non-heterosexual sexual sins being committed in America, yet one of those two has become a Culture War fight and the other forgotten, only one has inspired efforts to pass legislation and change school curriculum. The Lost see this hypocrisy. Those outside of the Church can tell that we're much more comfortable attacking sins we don't think we have than dealing with the sins that we've chosen to condone.
About 1% of my blog posts are concerned with homosexuality and abortion, but it seems as if 90% of what gets evangelicals riled up, what they are willing to protest, boycott, and vote against are these two issues. Pastor Boyd isn't advocating abandoning these topics, and neither am I, but until we get the massive imbalance of our attention under control, the Church in America will continue to be viewed, at best, as hypocrites.
Why so much emphasize on these issues? Some of it is genuine concern for those harmed by them, but much of it is the simple fact that a Culture War needs battles. It needs new outrages, new fuel for the fire, after all, the next election is never more than two years away. If you watch Fox News, for example, you'll be told, daily, who is destroying the country, whose immoral behavior is unacceptable, who to hate. That finger is almost always pointed at 'them', unless for a moment it is pointed at those on 'our' side willing to work with 'them' on some issue. If your first response is the 'what about-ism' of blaming MSNBC or CNN for a liberal version of this same Culture War, that answer is itself a sign of how deeply the Church has been compromised. 'They' may be the Sadducees, and their unbelief offends us deeply, but 'we' are the Pharisees, and our self-righteous hypocrisy is galling. Jesus had a bone to pick with both groups.
"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 our culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay!" (p. 137-138) The end result of being a church like this, "it causes multitudes to want nothing to do with the good news we have to offer." (p. 138)
23. "the myth of the Christian nation...inclines kingdom people to view America as a theocracy, like Old Testament Israel" (p. 147)
There is a portion among Evangelicalism which substitutes Israel for America in the Hebrew Scriptures and appropriates the promises made to Israel as our own (notably, without worrying about the curses that went with the blessings). I have seen this many times with proclamations of 2 Chronicles 7:14, which promises God's blessing to Israel if the people repent, being transferred, no questions asked, to America as well. While many who make these assumptions are well meaning, the underlying confusion between the Old Covenant and the New is unhelpful for the Church. In the New Covenant God's promise is to his people, not to the nations in which they live. If the Church is not Israel, and we most certainly are not, neither is America, one further step removed from God's promises.
"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 for or another, is precisely what most of our nationalistic enemies believe." (p. 149) God was neither for nor against England in WWI, neither for nor against Germany. The motives of England may have been somewhat more laudable than those of Germany, but that hardly makes the one side holy and the other unholy. Likewise, in WWII the contrasting motivations and goals were significantly more laudable on the Allied side and immoral on the Axis side, but God was not for one side or the other. Why not? Because God's will is to build his own kingdom, to advance the Gospel, and every earthly kingdom, including America even at its best, falls far short of the kingdom of God.
24. "The danger of kingdom people taking the slogan 'one nation under God' too seriously is that we set ourselves up for idolatrous compromise." (p. 151)
The kingdom of God advances through self-sacrificial acts of love, when the Church follows that path it is in little danger of moral compromise. The United States of America advances itself through the same 'power-over' methods as any other nation, it serves its self-interest, compromising its principles time and time again in the name of realpolitik and self-defense. The kingdom of God has no enemies to be conquered, for Christ has already won the victory, only forces to contend with; the United States, like every nation on earth, is not so fortunate, it has enemies. The United States needs a police force, and an army, the Church does not.
For the sake of protecting America's civil religion (prayer in schools, 'one nation under God', the Culture War's latest battles), the Church has made bedfellows with those who are both personally immoral, and willing to employ immoral means to achieve the 'good' end of protecting the veneer of Christianity as America's 'official religion'. We have made a bargain, 'let us do evil that good may result'; but scriptures rejects that Faustian deal. Civil religion has value to a society, but the moment we start compromising our morals to protect it we've fallen too much in love with it and lost perspective.
Conclusion
The patient is sick, and not getting better. Pastor Gregory Boyd is correct in that, and his book offers a powerful diagnosis of both the cause of the sickness and the road to a renewed health. As followers of Jesus Christ our citizenship is in Heaven, our kingdom if not of this world, and the Church needs to reflect that. But power is a dangerous siren; it has called the Church onto the rocks of self-destruction time and time again. The worst abuses and greatest shames of the Church involved the exercise of its power in the temporal world, the sword not the cross. That history is repeating itself in America today, a Church in fear that it might lose its rights and privileges, that America's civil religion might fade away, is grasping after power to defend its position. The fight is misguided, the weapons being used are immoral, and the Gospel witness to our neighbors and the world is suffering, immensely.
Will we take a step back from the brink, or plunge ahead like the doomed soldiers heading across No Man's Land to gain a few yards of mud at the cost of something much more precious? Even if we win this Culture War, we will lose, for both God's Word and Church History proclaim that America as a Christian Nation is anathema to the Gospel.
