 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Boyd Reviewed by James Smith in CT | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/17/2006 5:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | Namaste, I think Greg's article speaks to what you're gett'n at as far as social activism is concerned. That is, where a church finds it self, I think Greg would advocate societal transformation THERE COMMUNALLY. Greg says:
"Now, as people who live in a free country, we certainly can and should participate in the political process however we feel led." and "In any event, if Smith and others think I’m advocating that Christians withdraw from the public sector..."
Well, no Greg is not advocating removal from the public space. His whole schtick is "speaking to government FROM WITHOUT." (to tell you the truth I don't even think Jesus did THIS, just as he didn't start a political party or campaign, etc, so how is it that we can pick and choose what we think Jesus did in terms of what we think we should do?). But it is at THIS intersection in which Greg "critically distances" himself from the same societal transformation that he hopes to accomplish. It is also at this point that I think Smith would say that he is a "pietist."
Anyhoo...my laptop? I think it's toast! I've only had the thing two years!!! I think I'm going to get a wireless desk top if I can't fix this for cheap. Thanks for praying for me guys! 
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/17/2006 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Namaste, I think Greg's article speaks to what you're gett'n at as far as social activism is concerned. That is, where a church finds it self, I think Greg would advocate societal transformation THERE COMMUNALLY.
What I'm saying is that Doc's view is INHERENTLY individualistic because it makes ALL deliberation of the political arena a PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL issue of CONSCIENCE. In the context of Christian covenant communtity, he only talks about "interesting fireside chats" about political distinctions...but how they are NEVER on the main agenda about anything. But he never talks about a local body of believers prayerfully deciding TOGETHER about how whatever political authority they may have can be used to SERVE the community...and standing TOGETHER in the decision and use of said authority. He never talks about the deliberation about and stewardship of political power by a body of believers from a MISSIONAL perspective.
Again, quoting Smith...
"For my part, I think it's important that _the Church_ have a political voice and role, not just _individual Christians_ who happen to be members of the Church."
Again, this is an ECCLESIOLOGICAL issue.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/17/2006 10:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
Namaste said...Brandon: Namaste, I think Greg's article speaks to what you're gett'n at as far as social activism is concerned. That is, where a church finds it self, I think Greg would advocate societal transformation THERE COMMUNALLY.What I'm saying is that Doc's view is INHERENTLY individualistic because it makes ALL deliberation of the political arena a PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL issue of CONSCIENCE. In the context of Christian covenant communtity, he only talks about "interesting fireside chats" about political distinctions...but how they are NEVER on the main agenda about anything. But he never talks about a local body of believers prayerfully deciding TOGETHER about how whatever political authority they may have can be used to SERVE the community...and standing TOGETHER in the decision and use of said authority. He never talks about the deliberation about and stewardship of political power by a body of believers from a MISSIONAL perspective.
Again, quoting Smith... "For my part, I think it's important that _the Church_ have a political voice and role, not just _individual Christians_ who happen to be members of the Church."Again, this is an ECCLESIOLOGICAL issue.
Hmmm...I seem to be reading him differently than you I suppose. Given how I understand Greg to be speaking, he is for Christians using whatever political authority they have to speak to government prophetically from without to see transformation (however limited) therefore, serving, hence missional. However, when you speak about "standing together," it seems to me that you are addressing the question of whether the church AS THE church (that is as a group and not as individuals) should involve itself in politics, hence Smith's quote. Myself, personally, I don't think I can agree with Smith here. As at this point it seems to me that the church as the church:
A. Would align itself to closely with specific policies and agendas, which I don't think it should do.
B. There doesn't seem to be much thought given to the idea that movements (even at a local level) are not such where all Christians are going to fall on the same side on any particular issue as this is more often the case than not. Not to mention that there is potential for variance between individual Christians as each pursues their particular callings and emphases such that this means that we cannot move from biblical principles i.e. justice to concrete policies as dogmatically and confidently as for example some Christian Theonomists and Reconstructionists have. That is, even uniting Christians together on principles will not produce a united front on policy agendas.
The bottom line for me is that whether you believe it should be done individually or corporately will depend on your theological background in terms of the relation of the church and state. Regardless, we should be concerned that the church not enter the political field without the NECESSARY EXPERTISE.
Anyhoo...I may be misunderstanding your point, so let me know.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/18/2006 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Another short essay on Greg's book found here: politicsofthecross.blogspot.com/
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/18/2006 10:43:22 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/19/2006 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a hypothesis. From my point of view.
For quite some time, Doc has been preaching to a GROUP of individual Christians at a preaching event (the Main Services). It's the typical issue with mega-churches. It lacks the home-grown sense of congregational community that a smaller body does. This means that much of the material is couched in such a way that INDIVIDUALS can walk away with something important for their lives. His preaching has largely been principle-oriented such that you could be in St. Paul or Tanzania or Nepal...and be able to live out in some way what he's talking about. This manner of preaching aligns with his core personal vision...which, as he has said in sermon, to make the largest qualitative and quantitative impact on the world for the Kingdom of God as possible. And so, in my opinion, his theologizing takes that vein. To make this kind of impact, one would make their material such that it could be read both by LONE individuals or GROUPS of individuals.
But this understandably individualistic way of seeing things, all things considered, may have impaired his ability to conceptualize about what it would mean for a LOCAL BODY with a LOCAL CONTEXT and LOCAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS that affect that context to live out it's MISSIONAL calling to be "salt" to the world through loving service centered on relational healing. Yes, hearts are changed one by one...but I guarantee that doing "good works" (which, as Scripture attests is part of what we were created for) in an American city...that individually and societally demonstrate that love practically...WILL involve knowledge and engagement of the local political systems in play in that context. To say that this kind of knowledge and engagement should MAINLY take place in an individual context via one's conscience means implicitly to take this OUT of the realm of covenant community discussion.
This just will not do. Not if you are really trying to be MISSIONAL.
Dealing with the missional aspect of the Body means that one cannot think of things in terms of "groups of individuals", but a INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM of believers where one affects the whole and the whole affects the one!
Example. Let's say that my small group is dealing with the pain of a deterioration in our neighborhood. Social decay via increased drug houses, prostitution, etc. Sure, we can do "power-under" Kingdom work by ourselves (and with other small groups) to help the situation...and we would! But, wouldn't it be allowable at the same time, for us to COLLECTIVELY make ourselves aware of the socio-political situations that contribute to the issue...and prayerfully DISCUSS how we can use our political power (via contact local civil service agencies, etc) to help the situation on a more systemic level? Further, wouldn't it make sense for our small group to interact with the LARGER BODY in order to 1)inform them on the situation and 2) if possible, gain theologically and geographically appropriate resources to help us navigate the socio-political situations we face? I think it would. But what if we all believed the idea that ANY socio-political discourse should be nothing more than a "fireside chat" that we can have disagreements on...but that should NOT go beyond the idea of personal conscience? In other words, it would be understood that we would NOT try to come to some agreement on how we can use our political power TOGETHER to support the local civil service agencies in tackling the problem in our area. Isn't this just a Christian version of privatizing aspects of one's faith...even WITHIN the context of the Body?
Is this making any sense?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/19/2006 7:44:24 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/19/2006 7:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me use another example. More large scale.
Let's say that we know that there is a KKK rally scheduled two months in the future...and it's less than a mile away from our church. Would a body of believers be able to 1) inform its constituency about the rally and 2) strongly encourage (but not absolutely mandate) and support (logistically and spiritually) a loving countermovement to the rally where we show the KKK the love of Christ at the rally...as a unified Body?
Or would it be better to just inform the constituency and LEAVE IT TOTALLY UP TO THEM AS INDIVIDUALS whether or not to get involved, and to what extent they get involved? After all, it is a matter of personal conscience...right?
Hmmm...
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/19/2006 8:49 AM (GMT -6) | | I feel I need to clarify some things....
I fundamentally AGREE with Doc that:
1) Nationalistic and political idolatry is not helpful to the cause of God's Kingdom.
2) Nationalistic and political idolatry is endemic in our American, post-9/11 context.
3) The Church was never meant to be the moral guardians of society. We are not "fix-it" people. We are the first-fruits of a new humanity.
4) It is not helpful for anyone to declare that a particular policy or political stance is inherently "Christian"
5) The MAIN FOCUS of our lives should be allowing Christ to be formed in us...and shining that light to the world.
6) It is not helpful for the Church to rely as heavily as we currently do on "power-over" processes to enact Kingdom tranformation of our society.
Where we part ways is in the way that Doc overemphasizes his points. From my perspective...
1) He doesn't give enough nuance to the legitimate uses of power-over processes that can be stewarded by Christians in SERVANT LEADER ways.
2) He doesn't give enough importance to the ORGANIC/SYSTEM orientation of the Body of Christ when it comes to socio-political discussion.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/19/2006 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Don:
Sounds like the missional community might not scale up to well from 10-12 small group to mega-church. When we combine a few mega-churches together we no longer have what we started with at 10-12. Somehow it's no longer Christ's body but an organism of it's own.
I'll grant that maybe we can go from 10-12 to 100-120 and survive the growth, but beyond that some kind of cancer-like cell growth happens and destroys the original.
dang... beatin' that mega-church, dead horse again.
For clarity...
It's my conviction that the mega-church is NOT the "church". It's actually an ongoing experience of a COLLECTIVE of smaller relational groups that is stewarded by a parachurch ORGANIZATION (which has complex adaptive systems of its own) that leads a particular VISION that helps shape the Christian existences of everyone in the collective.
But it's in the smaller relational group that "church" happens.
The place where daily, relational life in Christ may be lived...and multiplied.
The "mega-church" can be used by God to EQUIP the "church" (the smaller groups where the presence of Jesus is central to the groups existence) to be itself in whatever expression that takes.
One of the ways it does this is to hold CORPORATE CELEBRATIONS where many of the smaller groups can experience a larger-scale worship experience that NONE of the smaller groups could do on their own. Here, the groups (and individuals) can experience worshipping as being a part of a larger whole (geographically, socially, etc)...but one that doesn't inhibit the uniquene contexts and existences of the smaller groups.
There are other ways that the "mega-church" can be helpful to the spread of God's Kingdom. I just gave one way.
This is the way I see the present-future of Woodland Hills "Church"
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/19/2006 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Namaste, I thought I had already address this issue 'bout a body of believers deciding and serving together their community (politically that is).
Much of what you say will be feasible on a local level. But even here you are thinking within only two categories.
1. Maybe we should bring up a distinction between social service and social action. You are thinking of "social service" with regard to the KKK or whatever ill may be at the given moment. The problem is that THIS doesn't respond to the "social action" question. On the KKK question you are simply reinforcing what Greg is saying with regard to speaking to government from without. This is all fine and dandy. HOWEVER, what happens when the KKK issue is inherently related to other systemic issues such as government legislation. In other words the church needs to address seeking the transformation of the system itself. It needs to not only do something about the KKK, but the removing of the causes of human need. This can be done by the stragedy that you suggest, but this also involves a critical distancing from the cause itself--hence Smith labelling Greg a pietist.
2. I'll say it again. Even if you get a significant number of Christians who will agree that the KKK is both morally wrong and a social evil (I'm all for discussion of what is wrong as well as what to do about it, and I think you are reading Greg wrong here), the problem is that the political and social and personal questions are quite complex such that though we may be able to use scripture, tradition, reason and experience to guide us there other other elements such as God's small voice and factors SPECIFIC to the situation that will inter-relate to guide our decisions on what we THINK is the best over-all action to take in order to maximize the impact.
Having said that, there will degrees of variance because we realize that even though Christians may be able to unite against the KKK in principle, this doesn't produce unity on policy agenda (and even here Christians are not in agreement with principle which is why we don't have agreement on policy as well). If this is true on the local level, how much moreso on a national level?
Oh and by the way, I can't say that I agree with everything you say in your post in which you DO agree with Greg. Especially points 3, 5, and 6. I will have to clarify later. For now?
Back to work...
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/19/2006 11:37:11 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/19/2006 8:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | DISCUSS ON OTHER THREAD -- OF THIS NAME...
Former Bush Assistant: GOP Deceived Christians
Morning Edition, October 19, 2006 · David Kuo is the author of Tempting Faith, a book about why he left his job as a special assistant to President Bush in the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Kuo criticizes the administration for taking unfair advantage of conservative Christian voters.
Linda Wertheimer talks to Kuo about why he concluded that President Bush and the Republican Party have deceived conservative Christians.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/19/2006 8:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 10/30/2006 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a link from Bethel to the audio from Greg and Jim's Faith and Politics.
http://www.bethel.edu/special-events/newsrel/2006articles/10-24-06-boyd-wallis-event.html
Nate | | Back to Top | | |
| 66 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|