Anyone who follows politics knows how incredibly tragic the loss of Tim Russert is. Ever since Friday, I have been following the coverage. Seeing the humanity brought out in these journalists and politicians that I watch all of the time makes me realize what an amazing person he must have been. I watch Meet the Press every Sunday. This morning, Tom Brokaw started the show with a "no weeping" policy, however, part way in, it was Brokaw who struggled to fight off tears in an attempt to finish his sentence.
One thing I've taken away from watching this coverage is that Russert spent most of his time neck deep in politics, studying it from every angle. Yet, unlike most people, he remained hopeful and optimistic; he loved politics and never grew cynical. I know a lot of people who hate politics, could care less or have grown jaded. I hope I never become that way. Politics are an enormous part of the human condition and influence every area of life. So I am exited for the coming election day because, ultimately, I am hopeful for a better world; I am hopeful for better people and, therefore, also for better politics. But it will be sad to watch it all unfold without the coverage of one of the only journalists who deserve the label "fair and balanced."
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Solution to the Food Crisis, Environmental Degradation and Factory Farming
Growing up, I was quite the weird little attention whore. One of the things I liked to do to get attention was eat ants. One time, I ate a live one and it kept crawling up my throat. I thought it was hilarious; other people just thought it was gross. Americans still think eating bugs is gross, but much of the world doesn't, and maybe soon things here will change.
I read this article yesterday on entomophagy, which is the term for eating insects. I admit that I have a fear of large flying insects, so I wouldn't really be all about eating them. But given that there's more protein in insects than in chicken, and it takes less water to raise them I might reconsider. This is a great article and I predict that by the time I'm an old man entomophagy will be commonplace in the U.S. The article points out that sushi once had a high gross-out factor, and lobster is just a large cockroach. I would add that food in the U.S. is becoming increasingly multi-cultural and diverse, and shows like Bizarre Foods promote desensitization. I know, it sounds gross, but read the article, it makes a lot of sense.
I read this article yesterday on entomophagy, which is the term for eating insects. I admit that I have a fear of large flying insects, so I wouldn't really be all about eating them. But given that there's more protein in insects than in chicken, and it takes less water to raise them I might reconsider. This is a great article and I predict that by the time I'm an old man entomophagy will be commonplace in the U.S. The article points out that sushi once had a high gross-out factor, and lobster is just a large cockroach. I would add that food in the U.S. is becoming increasingly multi-cultural and diverse, and shows like Bizarre Foods promote desensitization. I know, it sounds gross, but read the article, it makes a lot of sense.
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.
Friday, May 30, 2008
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Monday, May 19, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Why it Pays to Get an Education Before You Run Your Fricken Mouth
Because Chris Matthews will tear you a new one...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)