This Would be Great

Call my idealistic. Call me naive. But I would love this. It's exactly the kind of contest we need. I hope Obama takes him up on it.

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.