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

Christianity teaches that humans are fundamentally broken or sinful. People exhibit this brokenness on an individual level and also on an institutional, cultural and societal level. In Romans chapter 5, the the apostle Paul describes how sin started with one person and spread to the entire world. Paul then compares Adams sin to Christ's death saying that Christ's single act of righteousness extends to all. So, in other words, Christ reverses the curse. At one point Boyd quotes Revelation 11:15 which says that the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of Christ. Boyd uses this verse to argue that the kingdoms of this world are in the process of being handed over to Christ. So, right now, the kingdom of God is invading earth.

Going back to the Romans 5 analogy, if sin starts individually and spreads to institutions and governments, then isn't the reverse true? Redemption starts individually and spreads to institutions and governments and politics. If this is true, then wouldn't that mean Satan is less in control of the "kingdoms of this world" than he was in Paul and Christ's day. And if so, what does that mean for Christians engaging in politics? On that, Boyd takes a very separationist point of view. But I'm not so sure that I do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The second distinction Boyd makes is that kingdoms of the world are “power-over” kingdoms, while the kingdom of God is a “power-under” kingdom. Power-over refers to the government's use of punishment to rule its citizens. Behavioral change is achieved by force from the outside, so a power-over kingdom rules over its people. But the kingdom of God is a power-under kingdom, changing people from the inside out. Citizens of God's kingdom come under people in loving acts of service. According to Boyd (2005), “The cross is the ultimate symbol for the kingdom of God, for it defines what the kingdom always looks like. It looks like Christ – self-sacrificial and loving. It looks like grace (p. 33).” Boyd concludes that one either places his or her trust in the use of force and coercion, or one places his or her trust in the Spirit, working through Calvary-like love to change people from the inside.

Because America is clearly a power over-kingdom, it cannot be, nor ever have been, a Christian nation. The role of the Christian in politics, therefore, is not to fuse God’s kingdom with a kingdom of this world, but to live out the unique kingdom of God in its midst. This happens when Christians submit to Christ’s lordship and communally embody his teachings and example, which causes people to, as Boyd says “come under the loving influence of the kingdom (Boyd 2005).” So the goal is not to protect the original Judeo-Christian values America was supposedly founded upon, but to overthrow America, and every government, with the power of the cross.

This does not mean Boyd is against Christians involving themselves in the political process, on that Boyd (2005) argues:

“To insist that we keep the kingdom of God radically distinct from all versions of the kingdom of the world does not mean that our faith and moral convictions shouldn’t inform our participation in the political process. Of course they should – but that is true of all citizens of a free country… What the distinction between the two kingdoms does imply, however, is that citizens of the kingdom of God need to take care to distinguish between their core faith and values on the one hand and the particular way they politically express their faith and values on the other. While the way of the kingdom of God is always simple, straightforward, and uncompromising, the way of the kingdom of the world is always complex, ambiguous, and inevitably full of compromises. Hence, kingdom people who share the same core faith and values can and often do disagree about how their faith and values should inform their involvement in the kingdom of the world (p. 15).”

Boyd also points out that Jesus had “conservatives” and “liberals” among his own disciples. Matthew was a tax collector, while Simon was a Zealot (Boyd 2005). As we have seen, these two factions were diametrically opposed to one another, yet under Jesus they were working toward the same ends. Christians, therefore, can live in political tension with one another disagreeing with how their values affect their political involvement, but at the same time are working toward the same goal of overthrowing the kingdoms of this world with the kingdom of God.

Greg Boyd’s perspective looks most like the interactions Jesus, Paul and the early church had with Rome. Jesus rejected the Jewish factions of his day and, instead, created his own unique community that included wealthy tax-collectors, militant Zealots, and societal rejects. He told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world and denounced the way of coercion and violence. Paul started, as Horsley says, “alternative communities” of Jesus worshippers in the midst of Rome and its Caesar worship (Horsley 1997). He did not advocate the Christianization of Rome, but anticipated its overthrow by the kingdom of God, and this is exactly the point of view Boyd argues in his book. I believe the awakening of some on the Christian Left and Right to the folly of aligning God with partisanship and a myopic understanding of values is a hopeful sign that, someday soon, the church might be unified under the cross, rather than divided by politics.

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.