Greg Boyd Unplugged
Greg Boyd preached and 1000 members (one-fifth of the total congregation) took their tithes and went home. When the New York Times learned the content of the sermon it left them positively atwitter. Boyd eschewed once and for all any “fusing of faith and politics.” No need to fear church bulletins stuffed with voter guides at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul.
This church winnowing sermon series has given birth to the book The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church.
Attention from Times columnist Laurie Goodstein helped to earn Boyd’s book a ranking of 20 on Amazon. Charlie Rose recently interviewed Boyd at length in order to explore his views and make sense of the contradictory reactions evoked by them.
One phenomenon evident in the Rose interview and the Times piece is the salivating stimulated in the main stream media (MSM) whenever the prospect of an evangelical catfight emerges. Boyd was careful to note how resistant to quick definition the term “evangelical” has become while describing himself as a conservative Bible-believing Christian who believes in the divine inspiration of the Bible and seeks to live under the Lordship of Christ. Left out of the interview and the Times piece was the formal denunciation of Boyd’s denial of God’s complete foreknowledge (including foreknowledge of future decisions by free agents) by an overwhelming majority at the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003.
Boyd comes across very well in the interview; intelligent, non-defensive, sincere—genuine in every way. The main thrusts of Boyd’s argument strike me as very sound. His plea is for a Church that embodies the ethic and purposes of Jesus Christ, who, we would do well to remember, turned the other cheek in the face of his enemies in the most complete manner imaginable—he laid down his life rather than strike back. Jesus also made clear that his Kingdom is not of this world and insisted upon distinguishing the realms of Caesar and God when asked about the Temple tax. Faithfulness to the Savior and His Kingdom will resist the co-opting of his message by any political party or cause. And the lure of political power and its potentially corrupting and compromising pressures in a democracy like ours is real indeed.
But how should such protectiveness of the Church’s message play out in a democracy when the Bible-value-laden believer enters the voting booth. Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land put it this way: “I don’t think God is a Republican but I do think He is pro-life.” If abortion is an ongoing holocaust (and I believe it is), then how is my opposition to a pro-abortion candidate to be construed as anything more than an act of Christian obedience. Boyd does not want politicians labeled “the Christian candidate” because (and he is right) many issues matter to God and reasonable Christians might disagree on this or that. For Boyd, ethical and political complexity rules out unity and clarity when it comes to directing Christians in the voting booth.
But it was fascinating that the corrupting and compromising fusion of faith with politics only applied to conservative hot button issues. Neither Boyd nor Rose seemed to notice the big elephant sitting in the room at Rose’s mention of the name Martin Luther King Jr. It would be illuminating to learn whether Boyd’s eschewal of the religion/politics fusion extends to certain historic social causes marked by strong Christian leadership and church activism. Say for instance; the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Movement. Yes, we know Ralf Reed is a bad boy, but what about Ralph Abernathy? Dietrich Bonhoeffer felt compelled to plunge into the muck and mire of political intrigue and eventually to join the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler precisely because he was a Christian. Bonhoeffer was appalled when the Church tried to keep its hands clean while secretly hoping that secular operatives would succeed in eliminating Hitler.
Boyd’s protectiveness for the independence of the Church’s prophetic message is right on. But the passive, separationist tendencies of his practical advice may involve a shirking of prophetic responsibility laid upon the Church which must, indeed, separate from the world but only in order that it might re-enter again as Salt and Light.
This church winnowing sermon series has given birth to the book The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church.
Attention from Times columnist Laurie Goodstein helped to earn Boyd’s book a ranking of 20 on Amazon. Charlie Rose recently interviewed Boyd at length in order to explore his views and make sense of the contradictory reactions evoked by them.
One phenomenon evident in the Rose interview and the Times piece is the salivating stimulated in the main stream media (MSM) whenever the prospect of an evangelical catfight emerges. Boyd was careful to note how resistant to quick definition the term “evangelical” has become while describing himself as a conservative Bible-believing Christian who believes in the divine inspiration of the Bible and seeks to live under the Lordship of Christ. Left out of the interview and the Times piece was the formal denunciation of Boyd’s denial of God’s complete foreknowledge (including foreknowledge of future decisions by free agents) by an overwhelming majority at the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003.
Boyd comes across very well in the interview; intelligent, non-defensive, sincere—genuine in every way. The main thrusts of Boyd’s argument strike me as very sound. His plea is for a Church that embodies the ethic and purposes of Jesus Christ, who, we would do well to remember, turned the other cheek in the face of his enemies in the most complete manner imaginable—he laid down his life rather than strike back. Jesus also made clear that his Kingdom is not of this world and insisted upon distinguishing the realms of Caesar and God when asked about the Temple tax. Faithfulness to the Savior and His Kingdom will resist the co-opting of his message by any political party or cause. And the lure of political power and its potentially corrupting and compromising pressures in a democracy like ours is real indeed.
But how should such protectiveness of the Church’s message play out in a democracy when the Bible-value-laden believer enters the voting booth. Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land put it this way: “I don’t think God is a Republican but I do think He is pro-life.” If abortion is an ongoing holocaust (and I believe it is), then how is my opposition to a pro-abortion candidate to be construed as anything more than an act of Christian obedience. Boyd does not want politicians labeled “the Christian candidate” because (and he is right) many issues matter to God and reasonable Christians might disagree on this or that. For Boyd, ethical and political complexity rules out unity and clarity when it comes to directing Christians in the voting booth.
But it was fascinating that the corrupting and compromising fusion of faith with politics only applied to conservative hot button issues. Neither Boyd nor Rose seemed to notice the big elephant sitting in the room at Rose’s mention of the name Martin Luther King Jr. It would be illuminating to learn whether Boyd’s eschewal of the religion/politics fusion extends to certain historic social causes marked by strong Christian leadership and church activism. Say for instance; the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Movement. Yes, we know Ralf Reed is a bad boy, but what about Ralph Abernathy? Dietrich Bonhoeffer felt compelled to plunge into the muck and mire of political intrigue and eventually to join the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler precisely because he was a Christian. Bonhoeffer was appalled when the Church tried to keep its hands clean while secretly hoping that secular operatives would succeed in eliminating Hitler.
Boyd’s protectiveness for the independence of the Church’s prophetic message is right on. But the passive, separationist tendencies of his practical advice may involve a shirking of prophetic responsibility laid upon the Church which must, indeed, separate from the world but only in order that it might re-enter again as Salt and Light.
posted by Mark DeVine at 4:09 PM
2 Comments:
Dr. Devine-
This post is timely for me as I am currently reading "The Myth of a Christian Nation." I agree with you that we cannot respond to Christ by totally avoiding government interaction, in a monk-like fashion. However, my concern is not really with that side of our faith (as their seems to very little inclined in that direction), my concern is with the significant number of evangelicals, particularly Southern Baptists, who have become much more political activist than they are kingdom minded. As evangelicals we have become synonomous with a political party due to their emphasis on two major issues (abortion and homosexuality) and it is only right that we support them for this. However, it seems to me that we have almost blindly followed them in a number of other areas that we should probably oppose. Maybe the answer is not being tied to any political party but rather affiliating ourselves with a biblical ethic. In addition we might do well to consider that Christ, Peter and Paul almost completley avoided government interaction other than using it as an opportunity to preach the kingdom.
I too, have concluded that I have some problems with Boyd's thesis. However, I think much of what he says should sound like a clarion call for evangelicals. I hope that we are critical enough to weed through the material and appreciate the good for what it is and avoid the problems in the same fashion.
Thanks for the commentary!
Thanks Micah
I have found another admonition from Richard Land helpful: "Vote Values, not Party."
I am curious as to Boyd's views regarding the leadership of Christians and deep church involvement re: abolition of slavery, civil rights etc. Is he ashamed or proud of those chapters in the history of the church and among evangelicals? I am proud of those efforts and see them as profound recognitions of the Church’s responsibility to love one’s neighbor.
Boyd also isolates himself not only from evangelicals but from the historic church whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant (and the step-children of the Reformation, which includes Baptists) in his denial of complete divine foreknowledge.
Boyd wants the church to embody the values of Jesus in the world. I agree. And while it is clear to me that political entanglements expose the church to the danger of compromising her message, even being co-opted by politicians and their agendas and exposes the church to the intoxicating lure of political power, it is not clear to me how the church can remain silent about the exclusive claims of Christ, homosexual behavior, and abortion and think of that as Christ-like service to the world. Living like Jesus got Jesus in trouble with the religious and secular authorities and so they killed him.
Bottom line: If Boyd laments the church’s involvement in abolitionism, civil rights etc. Fine. I disagree with him but I can respect the consistency of his position. If he applauds the efforts of the Christian abolitionists and Martin Luther King Jr. and their use of the church then we need to understand the basis for the double-standard. Does Boyd advance a principled view of the relationship between church and state or does his aversion to church involvement get stirred up only when the issues involved arise from conservative Christian quarters.
Post a Comment
<< Home