Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- Greg Boyd

I have been facinated with Greg Boyd ever since he spoke at my church a couple years ago. He's a megachurch pastor who is a former atheist and a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School, yet he takes a very literal approach in his belief in Satan, angels and demons. I admit that I struggle with believing in a literal devil or demons and angels, so for an Ivy League trained intellectual and scholar to embrace these things is encouraging to me. I'll comment more on Boyd's political ideas in upcoming posts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But a third perspective remains. This perspective is one that, I believe, most accurately reflects the activity of Jesus and the early church in their political element. It is a perspective that views politics through a theological lens, and one that relies much more on faith, than on the political process.

In 2004, Dr. Greg Boyd, a pastor at a mega church in Minnesota was being pressured by various Christian, conservative groups to take a political stand in his pulpit. Under the increasing pressure, Boyd finally decided to address his reluctance to enter the political fray with a series of sermons he called, “The Cross and the Sword.” To his surprise there was an incredibly negative reaction by some of his congregation resulting in 20 percent (roughly 1,000 people) of them leaving. This exodus from Boyd's church made national headlines. A year later he penned a book version of his series entitled, The Myth of a Christian Nation.

In this book, Boyd takes a much different view of America and a Christian’s role in her politics than the religious Right and Left. Rather than portraying America as good or bad, Boyd makes a theological distinction between kingdoms of the world, and the kingdom of God. For Boyd, America, like every nation that has ever existed, with the exception of maybe ancient Israel, is a kingdom of the world; and all kingdoms of the world are run by Satan. Boyd (2005) supports this argument with the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness:

“For example, in Luke 4 the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him “all the kingdoms of the world” while saying, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours” (Luke 4:5-7, emphasis added). Jesus, of course, would not worship the Devil to acquire these kingdoms. But note: he doesn't dispute the Devil's claim to own them (p. 21).”

A little later, Boyd quotes 1 John 5:19 which says “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one,” and points out that Jesus calls Satan “the ruler of the world” three different times (Boyd 2005). But, while Boyd (2005) believes America belongs to Satan, he does make note that God uses governments for his purposes saying:

“God uses governments as he finds them, in all their ungodly rebellious ways, to serve his own providential purposes. As Paul describes in Romans 13, this general purpose is to preserve as much law and order as is possible. Insofar as governments do this, they are properly exercising the authority God grants them and are, to that extent, good (p. 20).”

So Boyd’s view of America is neither that it is good nor bad, but instead, it is just another kingdom of this world and that the Christian's focus should be on the kingdom of God.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- The Religious Left

My prof and I started butting heads a little on the subject of Jeremiah Wright when discussing this portion of my paper. I'm not a fan of him either, and I think Obama was right in denouncing him; it was all he could do. That said, while I think some of his ideas are nutty, I can appreciate his point of view and I understand that, in the black church context, he's not that unique. The Afro-centric movement wasn't about saying black people are superior, but that black people have their own unique heritage and they will not conform to a dominate culture that has oppressed them. Recently, I saw a black preacher discussing Wright, and he mentioned that one of Martin Luther King's sermons were entitled something like"Why America is Going to Hell." His point being that most Americans are unaware of the more fiery sermons that King gave.

I like what a lot of what Jim Wallis says. I do think he's too aligned to the Democratic party for him to be considered non-partisan, but I think what he's doing is important. Wallis is essentially saying that Christian values encompass values that everyone finds important, and that they should unify rather than divide. Wallis points to an example of an agnostic who thanked him for making him feel included and spiritually inspired after he spoke at a rally. Wallis is also trying to rescue Jesus, if you will, from his connection with the political Right. In doing this, hopefully, Wallis will let Jesus be Jesus and not just create a liberal parody in his efforts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Those who are commonly referred to as the religious Left include a diverse group of people including civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and liberal, mainline, church organizations like the World Council of Churches. They find their modern day roots in the civil rights movement and the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Jesse Jackson, of course, worked closely with Dr. King. Partly because of this history, the United States is looked at with a critical eye. Rather than longingly wishing the United States would return to its Christian heritage, those on the religious Left view those years as a time punctuated by racial bigotry, discrimination and oppression. Rather than thinking of the times of prayer that opened sessions of congress, as Schaeffer cited, those in the religious Left might cite Fredrick Douglass (1968 [1845]) in regards to America’s “Christian” past:

"Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference – so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked… I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity (p. 120)."

Currently, an extreme example of this criticism towards America has been expressed in the sermons, which have been blasted across the media, by presidential candidate, Barack Obama’s, former pastor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

While Martin Luther King regularly invoked God into his messages of racial equality, leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who have been in the national spotlight for years, rarely do. Instead, they have focused more on the message of civil rights for African Americans and social justice. They are also closely aligned with the Democratic Party. In sum, the religious Left has looked much like the religious Right in their engagement with the political system to bring about change that reflects their pet Christian values. However, Jim Wallis, a long time evangelical leader on the Left, has recently campaigned for a new dialogue on the matters of faith and politics.

In his 2005 book God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It Wallis says this concerning values: “I believe the values debate should be the future of American politics. Of course, the questions are which values and whose values? ... Will the moral values debate cut both ways in politics, challenging both the political Left and the political Right, both Republicans, and Democrats? (p. xxi)” Wallis calls for Christians of both parties and of all sensibilities to have a discussion on values that transcends both ideology and political party. Wallis advocates that every issue, including: social justice, war, racism, abortion, the family, capital punishment, the AIDS pandemic and the environment, be put on the table. Jackson and Perkins express similar sentiments in their aforementioned book. However, division remains between both groups and both continue to share the commonality of using to political process to advance Christian values.

Why it Pays to Get an Education Before You Run Your Fricken Mouth

Because Chris Matthews will tear you a new one...

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- The Religious Right Pt 2

For this section I used the new book by Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson called Personal Faith, Public Policy. I just stumbled across it at the book store, and found it to be exactly what I was looking for. I must admit that there was a lot I actually agreed with. I have a feeling though, that the portions I resonated with were written by Harry Jackson rather than Perkins. However, when I first started reading it I thought I was going to be tearing my hair out all the way through. For one, the religious Right like to compare themselves to prophets, like the ones in the Old Testament, calling their nation to moral clarity. This is problematic, because Israel actually was a theocracy -- which the religious Right readily admit America is not -- and, therefore, Israel's prophets had every right to call their nation back to God and remind it of its heritage. Secondly, the book starts out with describing how, starting in the 40's, different liberal groups have been "carrying out a radical anti-Christian agenda" via the courts. Such radical anti-Christian rulings they cite include one where the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear they believe in God. Another one ruled that there cannot be excessive entanglement of government and religion, and its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or advance any religion. I could not believe that they characterized such rulings as radical or anti-Christian. What I see is a time in American history where the country was becoming more diverse and less Protestant Christian, so various groups thought that if public funded gatherings or assemblies were to be for everyone then they need not include perfunctory religious ceremonies. I fail to see how these rulings restrict religious freedom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The religious Right view themselves as a conscience to the nation, calling it back to its heritage and away from secularization. Recently, religious Right leaders Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson Jr. have come out with a book called Personal Faith, Public Policy highlighting the history of the religious Right and its future. In it, they articulate the mission and identity of the religious Right, past and present:

“What prompted Jerry Falwell and others to challenge the public policies of our government and the directions of the broader culture in the early 1980’s after years of isolationist neglect by Christians was the aggression of the Left against America’s long held values. The denizens of the religious Right, then and now, didn’t have a driving desire for power, nor did they want to establish a theocracy… They saw themselves as people of conscience who, over the last half-century, have awakened to a terrible reality similar to what King David saw in his day... The religious Right is made up of people who have been awakened by real concern over government policy and cultural initiatives that were being influenced and shaped by a post-modern world view that was radically secular and hostile toward the Christian faith (Jackson & Perkins, 2008, p. 16-17).”

Jackson and Perkins echo Schaeffer in their concern with the secularization of America and its corruption. Manifestations of this corruption include: removal of prayer in public settings, the breakdown of the family and abortion. And these are the issues that the religious Right has been most invested in. Jackson and Perkins argue that school prayer was the issue that “rapidly advanced” the cause of the Moral Majority. The federal courts banned school prayer in a “string of legal victories” which caused Christian voters to “march into the public policy arena (Jackson & Perkins 2008).” Indeed, to many, these issues are what Christians have come to be known for. Recently there has been an attempt to get a constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage, and a ban was passed outlawing partial-birth abortion. So the religious Right maintains a relatively high view of America and engages in the political arena focusing on the issues of abortion, religious liberty and the family. On other issues they maintain positions that largely mirror the Republican Party platform, and are in sync with conservative sensibilities. Their counter part, however, what some have called the “religious Left,” takes a different view of America and focuses on different issues.

Ding Dong...

It's over, but she isn't going away. Everyone is saying that it's impossible she can win short of intervention by the democratic party, so why is she staying in? I personally think she's trying to hurt Obama so she can run in '12. It's funny watching Hannity and Colme's because, as of now, they are both Hillary suporters. Both of them were arguing with Clinton arch-nemesis and all-around slimebag Dick Morris.

I think that Obama simply needs to ignore the crazy lady and go after McCain like she isn't even there. Like I said, everyone knows it's over, and her staying in it makes her look out of touch, not only with the country, but with reality.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- The Religious Right Pt 1

I saw Francis Schaeffer speak about A Christian Manifesto on an old episode of the Corral Ridge Hour, which is what gave me the idea to use his book for a source. I admit that I thought much of what he had to say about losing our inaliable rights and our religious liberties to be a little shrill to say the least. Boyd makes excellent arguments that I never got to touch on concerning the church taking up the power of the government and losing religious liberties. In short, he believes that the church using the government to impose its agenda is a dangerous temptation and idolatrous when it has done so, and that Christians shouldn't be concerned with fighting for their religious liberties as the church has thrived the most under intense persecution and lost its distinctive radicalness when it has become a national religion. Boyd simply points to empty churches in Europe to back his claim. And finally, Boyd says that the Christianity that was so much a part of the founding of this country is nothing more than a civil religion and not the Christianity of Jesus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two distinct differences between the United States of America and the Roman Empire. The first is that Christians in America are not forced to worship any god. The U.S. is a country of religious freedom. The second difference is that its citizens are invited to participate in the political process. Democratic freedom is a privilege the early church in Rome did not have. Because of these distinctions Christians are faced with the question of how their faith should influence their political involvement or whether they should be involved at all. The American political arena is generally divided between conservatives and liberals. This division carries over to American Christianity dividing Christians into a religious Right and religious Left. Historically, evangelicals have sided with the Right, while mainline denominations have often sided with the Left. Among the many differences between these two sects, there are two I want to highlight: the view of the United States and the Christian values that take priority in political participation. By focusing on these differences I believe I’ll get an accurate picture of how these two perspectives view the role of Christians in politics.

In the late 70’s and early 80’s, the group collectively known as the religious Right began taking shape in America. They represented politically-active, conservative, Christians. They formed a strong allegiance with the Republican Party, and are commonly given credit for electing Ronald Regan as president. The political organizations that were key players in the rise of the religious Right were The Moral Majority and The Christian Coalition. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and D. James Kennedy were its central figures. Falwell and Kennedy have both passed away in recent years.

A book written in the early 80’s which had a strong influence on leaders in the Religious Right and covers the philosophical, historical and theological underpinnings behind it was A Christian Manifesto by the late Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer essentially says that Christianity is at war with the religion of Secular Humanism for the soul of America. In this book, Schaeffer argues that materialistic humanism is taking over America; destroying the family; removing Judeo-Christian values from the public square; and threatening the concept of inaliable rights. It is doing this, Schaeffer argues, because at the core of materialistic humanism is the belief that all reality is based on random chance and, therefore, there can be no “certain inaliable rights.” They are completely arbitrary (Schaeffer 1982).

Historically, Schaeffer promotes the view, which is common among those in the religious Right, that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The conservative Christian belief that America is a “Christian nation,” and that Christians must “take back America for God” come from this historical perspective. Therefore, those of the religious Right carry a generally positive view of the U.S. Schaeffer (1982) reflects on the United States’ Christian past, writing: “Most people do not realize that there was a paid chaplain in Congress even before the Revolutionary War ended… And from the very beginning, prayer opened the national congress… They knew they were building on the Supreme Being who was the Creator, the final reality (p. 33).” And concerning the founding of America on Judeo-Christian values and the influence of materialistic humanism Schaeffer (1982) writes: “What we find then as we look back is that the men who founded the United States of America really understood that upon which they were building their concepts of law and the concepts of government. And until the takeover of our government and law by this other entity, the materialistic, humanistic, chance world view, these things remained the base of government and law (p. 39).” So there is a fundamental understanding that America was once a basically Christian country, but secularism has corrupted it.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- History Pt 2

According to scholar, Richard Horsley (1997), “Although some would still view Jesus as an innocuous religious teacher, it is becoming increasingly evident to many that he catalyzed a movement of the renewal of Israel – a movement over against Roman rule as well as the Jerusalem priestly aristocracy (p. 1).” Israel was called to be the light of the world, reflecting God’s image to all of humanity, but she had failed miserably. With choosing 12 disciples, representing the original 12 tribes, Jesus was renewing Israel. He was the Moses figure leading a new exodus declaring the imminence of the kingdom of God (Wright 1999). In Jesus declaring that God’s kingdom was at hand, he was denouncing the empire of Rome. Jesus taught not to resist violence with violence, and he engaged with the ruling class. Therefore, Jesus rejected the violent ways of the Zealots; unlike the Herodians, rejected Rome as Israel’s governing authority; and in his teachings, rather than separating themselves like the Essenes, called Israel to live out their true vocation, united in their calling, as God’s representatives amongst the Romans. This isn’t to say that Jesus did not care about politics, or believed Israel was to be separate from it. But, because the Gospel is transformative on every level, in Israel living out God’s kingdom, they would be a new community with a new economy and a new kind of politics that transcended Rome.

By the time of the Apostle Paul, an entire religion revolving around Caesar had developed. Rome was brutally conquering the known world and expanding its empire. Caesar was declaring that he was Lord and Savior. According to Horsley (1997): “During the 50’s the apostle Paul moved systematically through eastern Mediterranean cities … proclaiming “the gospel of Christ…” Yet by then “the gospel of Caesar” had already become widespread and well established in those very cities (p. ?).” Horsley goes on to say that the cult of Caesar was incredibly pervasive in all of the places Paul visited (Horsley 1997). Caesar, essentially, was controlling his empire, not just with military might, but with celebrations, imagery, symbols, games and a religion devoted to him. Paul’s message was dangerous because he was saying that Jesus was the true Lord and Savior, that Jesus brings peace and that Caesar is a fraud. Paul was latching onto his distinctly Jewish belief that God is intimately involved with human affairs. Concerning this, Wright (2002) says: “Simultaneously, and precisely because of the inner dynamic of just this Jewish tradition, Paul was announcing that Jesus was the true King of Israel and hence the true Lord of the world, at exactly the time in history, and over exactly the geographical spread, where the Roman emperor was being proclaimed, in what styled itself a “gospel,” and in very similar terms (p.5).”

Paul was not only declaring a different gospel, but the communities Paul was starting were living out this new gospel as well. In an empire filled with hierarchy and extreme social stratification, Paul says in Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.” Cahill claims that this is the first time in recorded history where egalitarian ideals are spoken of (Cahill, 1999). Paul is saying that, according to Christ’s gospel, everyone is equally valued.

Christ’s gospel also transcended economic stratification that was pervasive in Caesar’s Empire. In Acts chapter four, those in the early church sold their possessions so that no one among them was in need. Imagine living in a world where you believe Caesar brings peace and economic security, and coming upon communities claiming that Jesus is Lord and Savior. And under this Jesus, everyone is equal, generous and meets each other’s needs. In a world where religion, economics, and politics were one, this was how the first Christians interacted with their government, Caesar and his empire.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- History Pt 1

My sources for this part were N.T. Wright, Thomas Cahill and Richard Horsley. Wright has been the most enlightening for me when it comes to the historical Jesus. Horsley is big on viewing Jesus and Paul against the politics of Caesar and Rome rather than viewing them against Judaism. I find this stuff extremely interesting. My understanding of Christianity has been greatly changed by learning about the historical context of Rome, so I apologize if anyone reading this finds it boring.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jewish people lived in the promise that their god, YHWH, had chosen them to be his instrument in saving the world. They were a nation that would bless the nations. Yet, the Jewish people spent an enormous amount of time as conquered people, under the oppressive thumbs of various empires. Most notably, they lived as slaves under the Egyptians, and after their stint oppressing their own people under Solomon and subsequent kings; they were captured by the Babylonians in 597 B.C (Wright 1999). After their exile in Babylon, they were freed by the Persian king Cyrus and allowed to return to their homeland, where they rebuilt their temple (Cahill 1999). Fast forward to Jesus’ day, and the Jewish people lived under the oppressive Roman Empire. Rome ruled over the Jews via a puppet government, the Herods, who were part of a Jewish line known as the Hasmoneans (Cahill 1999). In sum, this was the political and religious conundrum of Jesus’ day: The Jewish people, chosen by the one, true God over heaven and earth to be his means in saving the world, were living under the rule of pagans. While they were technically free, they might as well have been back in Egypt.

The ministry of Jesus was set against an explosive backdrop where the spheres of religion and politics completely overlapped. Unlike our day, there was no concept of separation of church and state. N.T. Wright (1999), a new testament scholar and bishop of Durham, puts it this way: “And the popular frustration with the overall rule of Rome and the local rule of the priests and Herod brought together what we must never separate if we are to be true to the biblical witness: religion and politics, questions of God and of the ordering of society. (p. 36)” Israel’s religious identity and Roman imperialist oppression were interconnected.

During this period, there were at least five different Jewish factions: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, the Zealots and the Essenes. And out of these sects there were at least three divergent views on how to deal with the Romans: complicity, violence and isolation (Wright 1999). The Herodians and the infamous tax collectors worked with the Romans, becoming wealthy and powerful on the backs of their fellow Jews. This enraged the Zealots and, mostly, Zealot-sympathizing Pharisees who took the view that Rome needed to be conquered (Wright 1999). The Zealots were freedom-fighters and continually turning out new messiahs and attacking the Romans. The third way came from the Essenes, who took to the desert, lived in caves, assiduously studied the law and waited on God’s judgment (Cahill 1999). It doesn’t take a stretch of one’s imagination to find similarities and parallels with these Jewish factions and the religious factions in our day. Westboro Baptist Church, headed by Fred Phelps of the infamous “God Hates America,” and “God Hates Fags” campaigns, share the extreme zeal and intense anger of the Zealots. The tendency of the some Christians to retreat into their own little communities and sub-cultures resembles the Essenes. And the Christian Right and Christian Left in their, at times, intense alignments with the Republican and Democratic parties can look like the Herodians. Jesus, however, sided with none of these views.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome - Intro

This paper was originally going to be called "Religion and Politics," but to talk about religion and politics in America is to assume the religion in question is Christianity. I think that's kind of interesting and says something about the place of Christianity in America. I had to make the most of the limited scope I was given in writing about this. That said, I'm not sure Boyd's arguments are necessarily complete, or even that I 100% agree with him on everything, but compared to the religious Right and Left I think he sheds an enormous amount of light. So here's my intro, I'll try to post more soon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since its inception, Christianity and political systems have been closely intertwined or at odds with one another. Christians were fed to hungry animals by the Romans; Christianity was made the official religion of Rome under Theodosius; Christians fought both to abolish and sustain the institution of slavery; many Christians insist that America is a Christian nation; and some Christians insist America is an enemy of Christ. For the past 25 years, Christian groups, in America, both on the political Left and Right have fought to inject their religious convictions into the political system; and, arguably, those on the Right have been the most successful. But I want to ask the questions: What is the role, if any, of Christians in politics, and whose perspective, in America today, looks most like Jesus and the early church? To answer these questions I will first look at Jesus’ actions and message in the context of various first-century Jewish factions and the Roman Empire; and, from there, look at Paul and the early church, also in the context of the Roman Empire. I will then examine three leading views amongst Evangelical Christians today: The religious Right, the religious Left, and view of Dr. Greg Boyd. I believe, in light of what we know about Jesus and the Jewish and first-century Christian struggle with Rome, that Dr. Boyd’s ideas best reflect the church’s role in present-day American politics.

It's Done!

I am finally done with my research paper I have been working on for the past two weeks. We had to write a 7 page paper about anything we wanted, so I chose to do mine on something I was really interested in. The title of my paper is: Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome. So yeah... it was a little longer than I expected. Last week when we needed to hand in our rough draft I had 6 and a half pages, I was half-way done, and it was in font 10... Needless to say, I did tons of revising and re-working. This was the hardest paper I have ever done, but I learned a lot about writing. The two biggest things I learned that much of the time you won't get to use some of your best material, and that outlining, structure and sticking to your outline are crucial.

I plan on posting this paper in chunks with commentary. I don't know if I'll post the whole thing, but I think it could generate interesting discussion. Until then...