Oh, election season, how you bring out the best in both political parties, how you show the public such high quality advertisements, relay constructive information about issues, and inspire us as citizens to be involved in the complex process of running the country. Sigh. Now that I got my sarcasm out of the way, let me say I’ve been reflecting further on how politics and faith connect, and how various folks understand this in the evangelical world. My sense is that many people are tempted to be sidelined by feelings like those above when an election season is as bitter and strange as this one has been. But I am convinced that my Christian witness influences all of life and that I can and should work at thinking thoelogically around how faith relates to politics – not be overwhelmed or decide it’s something I will elect to not care about.
This is a review of Greg Boyd’s new book, “The Myth of a Christian Nation,” which recently has had some influence across the country. (A great interview with Boyd was in “The Covenant Companion” recently too, which gives more background on the content and nuances of his publication.) Boyd, a former Bethel professor in St. Paul and current senior pastor of the mega Woodland Hills Church in St.Paul, MN, recently garnered enough attention to be interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show, get in the New York Times, and co-host a packed-out discussion on faith and politics with Jim Wallis at Bethel. The book is based on a sermon series that Boyd preached a few years ago, when he reports that roughly a fourth of his congregation left the church in response to his assertions that America is not a Christian nation. A similar mixed response, although overall more positive, seems to be greeting the book.
The particular review I linked is an interesting one to me as it opens up several issues that the book discusses and several alternative ways of viewing politics. The reviewer is a Calvin College philosophy professor and so is heavy on the reformed end, stressing how certain political systems can be redeemed (among other things). I think it’s an interesting window on the (mostly right-leaning and white) conversation that is going on in the evangelical world in the wake of focus on President Bush’s faith, the Christian Coalition, the rise of Sojourners, etc. I’m interested to hear what you think of the review, or Boyd’s book, or other faith issues swirling in the mix as we approach this year’s election frenzy!
Here is an article about the Bethel discussion between Boyd and Wallis – thanks, Kev!
http://www.startribune.com/614/story/771509.html
Thanks, Liz, for posting about this debate. I was unaware of the extent of Boyd’s stance and even, for a second, thought I’d read his book. After reading the review and the article on the Wallis/Boyd debate, I have to say I disagree with Boyd’s stance entirely. I know I’m a bit biased because I worked at Sojourners, but I’ve been known to be critical of them more often than not. To claim that the church should be separated from politics all together is ridiculous to me! Jesus’ call upon our lives is not only a call, individually, but much more communally, to change, uproot, even destroy that which exists to keep the oppressed oppressed. It seems Boyd, as many “Christians” do, misses the mark when it comes to salvation–we are not saved for our own good. No, we are saved much more for the good of the other. We get to know Jesus, follow Jesus so we can get to know others–what they need, how they suffer. The point is not to coopt any one side for God, but to invite God to change us, transform us, help us, make us. It is not until we see it this way that any system (whether the government or the church) will truly change.
(Thanks for providing the platform upon which I could make these remarks.)
I picked up Boyd’s book a couple months ago and started reading it on the plane but didn’t get more than 20 pages in before getting distracted by something else. So far, it wasn’t what I was expecting – which was something more along the lines of Balmer’s “Thy Kingdom Come” – not to say it HAD to be like that, but the impression I got even in 20 pages was one that Boyd is making some good points about where our influence should come from first and foremost (Above), but overall he came off too isolationist to me and dismissive even of the importance that citizenry can play in – well, reforming systemic causes/patterns/systems that keep a broken world that much more broken. Thanks for the links! Will read and try to pick the book back up to fully round out my opinion, but from what was said here and commented and what I read in the NYT, my impression seems to be shared.
At Liz’s request, I’m posting what was originally an email response.
Disclaimer 2: My training is in Physics and Computer Science, and although I attended a certain evangelical university on Chicago’s North Side, I spent most of the time in my Biblical Studies class making eyes at a certain classmate who is now my wife. Any opinions expressed in the following paragraphs are my own half-baked ideas.
On to the rambling…
Prof. Smith (the author of the review) makes some very good points, and I found myself nodding in agreement several times during my first reading. After a second pass, though, I’m scratching my head a little and wondering (since I haven’t read Boyd’s book) if he isn’t being a little misrepresented.
First of all, I agree with Boyd (as does Smith, I believe) that it’s a Bad Thing to see evangelicals “confusing the City of God with America as a city set on a hill.” This bogus theocracy is
bad for both the Nation and the Church because the two entities have very different goals. If you buy that, the hard question is how the two should interact with each other. I, personally, have no good answer, which leaves me free to criticize other people’s attempts (or in this case: other people’s criticisms of other people’s attempts).
Smith accuses Boyd of pietism, which I looked up and which doesn’t sound all that bad to me. Perhaps someone could explain the stigma attached to that term… In any case, Smith makes this accusation on three fronts:
1) Smith criticizes the “old-fashioned dualism” that tries to distinguish the Kingdom of the World from the Kingdom of God, attributing the idea to Boyd (although I think it may have been proposed earlier by a first-century Jew). He references Revelation, asking if the heavenly city doesn’t eventually make its way down to Earth. It does, but I think the direction of travel is significant in that text; building a tower to heaven has already been tried. It seems presumptuous to think that our own efforts will be able to combine the two kingdoms in any pre-Apocalypse timeframe, and until then, keeping the distinction seems wise. I do agree with Smith, however, in his criticism of Boyd’s conclusion that “no version of the kingdom of the world is closer to the kingdom of God than others.” This seems wrong to the point of being silly, which makes me wonder if it’s really what Boyd said or meant.
2) Smith criticizes Boyd for relegating politics to “a realm basically untouched by the gospel.” Here I agree with Smith. If Boyd really suggested that the absence of any gospel commentary on the pre-transformation lifestyles of Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector indicates an acceptance of their politics, I must heartily protest.
3) Finally, Smith criticizes Boyd for a “Dickensian spirit” that claims “when hearts are transformed, behavior follows.” Smith (referencing Marx) argues that transforming the oppressor’s hearts does nothing to fix the “systems that foster ppression” (his emphasis). The implicit assumption here is that if we could just change to a system that didn’t foster oppression, we’d be all set, but I don’t believe such a system exists this side of paradise. I take a cynical enough view of the human condition to think that we will lie, cheat, and steal as much as possible, and I take an optimistic enough view of human ingenuity to think that we will find creative ways to do this within any political system.
Let me be clear: I do not think this is a reason to throw up our hands in surrender any more than the guaranteedpresence of the poor is a reason to ignore poverty. We must be honest, however, that all our efforts toward eliminating systemic injustice are, in the words of Tolkien’s Galadriel, “fighting the long defeat.” Our ultimate hope is salvation, and that’s the good news that we have to share, right?
I guess Smith confuses me when he lumps Boyd into the camp that would advocate a “pietistic retreat” (my own emphasis). I don’t quite see any of Boyd’s points arguing for a retreat, but rather for a broader, more open-minded, more accepting understanding of Christian participation in politics. Smith may say he’s criticizing Boyd’s pietism, but it’s the open-mindedness that seems to make Smith really bristle.