 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 5/3/2004 7:08 PM (GMT -6) |   | F.Y.I.:
Awesome new series...
======================
.
THE CROSS AND THE SWORD:
.
.
Excerpt from April 18, 2004 Study Guide:
SUMMARY:
"[Dr. Boyd] started a short series today on 'The Cross and the Sword.'
The basic distinction we need to learn as Christians who live
'in the world but not of the world' is this: we live in the Kingdom of Darkness but serve the Kingdom of God.
The message was about the different ways these two kingdoms understand the use of power. Because the use of power was the topic, the issue of politics is inevitably involved.
Greg did not propose support for one political agenda or another, but helped us assess how we, as citizens of heaven, are to understand political involvement...."
...(continued in sermon study guide; link attached below).
The four sermons in this series are available at the
Woodland Hills Church website, or through the links attached below.
EXCERPT:
....."Below are resources from our most recent weekend services.
Each week we try to have the previous weekend's sermon and study guide ready by Tuesday at 5:00...."
.
.
-------------------------------
NUMBER 1:
• April 18, 2004 – Taking America Back for God? , Greg Boyd – sermon length is 38:44 minutes
Greg questions the slogan "Taking America Back for God" by discussing the differences between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God. As Christians, we are to belong first and foremost to God's Kingdom, yet live under the governments of this world. How does that work?
.
SERMON LINKS:
.
Audio - 4.43 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-18_Boyd_Taking-America-Back-for_God.mp3
*High-Quality Audio - 17.7 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-18_Boyd_Taking-America-Back-for-God_64kbps.mp3
Presentation Slides
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-18_Boyd_Taking-America-Back-for-God.pdf
Study Guide
• http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/Studyguide.04.04.18.doc
.
.
-------------------------------
NUMBER 2:
• April 25, 2004 - The Difference Between the Two Kingdoms, Greg Boyd – sermon length is 43:43 minutes.
.
The Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world are two very separate things.
One uses the sword (power over) to influence people; the other uses love (power under). To understand this distinction is much easier than letting it affect the way we live. Greg continues to discuss the differences between these kingdoms and how we are to live within the distinction.
.
SERMON LINKS:
.
Audio - 5.0 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-25_Boyd_The-Difference-Between-Two-Kingdoms.mp3
*High-Quality Audio - 20.0 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-25_Boyd_The-Difference-Between-Two-Kingdoms_64kbps.mp3
Presentation Slides
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-25_Boyd_The-Difference-Between-Two-Kingdoms.pdf
Study Guide
• http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/Studyguide.04.04.25.doc
.
.
-------------------------------
NUMBER 3:
• May 2, 2004 – Abortion: A Kingdom of God Approach, Greg Boyd – sermon length is 38:41 minutes.
.
The Cross and the Sword series continues with this sermon, which covers
two more consequences of fusing the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of the World.
To illustrate the damage this can cause, Greg discusses using the Kingdom of God approach with abortion: don't limit ourselves to the options given by the Kingdom of the World, but ascribe unsurpassable worth to others (mother and baby) at cost to ourselves. This is the unique mission of the Kingdom of God, and it's not easy.
.
SERMON LINKS:
.
Audio - 4.43 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-02_Boyd_Abortion-A-Kingdom-of-God-Approach.mp3
*High-Quality Audio - 17.7 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-02_Boyd_Abortion-A-Kingdom-of-God-Approach_64kbps.mp3
Presentation Slides
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004
Study Guide:
• http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/Studyguide.04.05.02.doc
.
-------------------------------
NUMBER 4:
• May 9, 2004 – Is the Church the Guardian of Social Morality?, , Greg Boyd – sermon length is 44:28 minutes
.
The Cross and the Sword series is concluded with this sermon, which covers the final effect of failing to distinguish between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world: we Christians begin to see ourselves as the “protectors” and “fixers” of social morality, as the moral standard bearers. But our only job as the body of Christ is to look like Jesus, the one sinless human, who stood in unity with others and met their needs. Greg also addresses the idea that America is a theocracy.
.
SERMON LINKS:
.
Audio - 5.09 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-09_Boyd_Is-the-Church-the-Gardian-of-Social-Morality.mp3
*High-Quality Audio - 20.3 mb
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-09_Boyd_Is-the-Church-the-Gardian-of-Social-Morality_64kbps.mp3
Presentation Slides
• http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-05-09_Boyd_Is-the-church-the-Gardian-of-Social-Morality.pdf
Study Guide
• http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/Studyguide.04.05.09.doc
.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Source:
• • WOODLAND HILLS CHURCH - Sermons:
http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_26.htm
• • MOST RECENT SERMONS:
http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_173.htm
Enjoy!
<><
.
. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 5/4/2004 1:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Thank you, Mayflower!
I know many people who will enjoy this information. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/4/2004 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Comment on
http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2004/2004-04-18_Boyd_Taking-America-Back-for-God.pdf
The ability of the state to sway people is based on its monopoly of the use of legitimate violence.
Politics is about the competition to capture the state so that it will protect certain interests as opposed to others or a compromise of sorts between interests. As such, it is a competition for the ability to use the potential threat of state-violence to compell people to act otherwise than they would under the existing laws.
It's not clear to me whether Christ's words against the sword would entail not seeking the authority to readjust the police-power of the state to other ends than it currently is serving.
From the list of verses, it is hard to say what Boyd's main point is.
No we shouldn't value the complete capture of the gov't on any particular issue as much as our ability to share the gospel, but that leaves a lot of gray areas and doesn't persay encourage Christians to follow/deliberate/participate in politics as a means of building opportunities to share about their faith.
quote:
The Bible is emphatic that nothing is to compete with God. God is Absolute—first and foremost in all things. God is the beginning and the end. We are to love God above all and our neighbors as ourselves. One result of living in this way of thinking is that we understand the Kingdom of God, is not of this world. Our loyalties are not ultimately with anything of this world, but with God. Things get confusing when something of this world begins to take on too much importance. The Bible uses the strong language of “idolatry” when this happens, and the consequences are severe!
I thought the issue was the concrete ways we let our lights shine for this world. Jesus seemed to refer to the establishing of the kingdom of God as relating to concrete actions taken in this world. He certainly spent part of his limited ministry time criticizing the rules of his community, the arena in which he had say-so over.
quote:
So there is a good and necessary reason for the world to have sound political structures that serve the good of the whole of the human race and all of creation. Greg’s advice is to be good citizens, but keep the Kingdom of God first (we should always be seeking first the Kingdom of God!). A Christian person should never rejoice over the destruction of other human lives regardless of what they did to “deserve” our wrath, as though we too do not deserve God’s wrath every bit as much.
Existing political structures, by being stable, do serve the good of many. However, they as a matter of fact inevitably serve some interests and not others and political activism is first and foremost about altering the interests who are served by existing governments.
It also is important to point out that from a functional standpoint private corporations act as government in and of themselves and so often the issue is who decides:managers seeking to serve their corporation's bottom line or politicians/bureaucrats who are democratically accountable for their actions.
quote:
Vote your conscience, but be sure to maintain the values of the Kingdom of God. Don’t be co-opted by the world’s agendas and the methods the world uses to accomplish them. Sin is dealt with on the cross for us all, not in the voting booths where we legislate punishment for a sin someone else is guilty of, but ignore our own – where we vote to our own benefit at the expense of helping others who have much greater need. Vote your conscience, but do not forget which kingdom you are fighting for!
It is good that Boyd is saying that it is wrong to base one's vote strictly on one's self-interest. This neglects how we interact with the political parties that often frame the alternatives we are given when it comes time to vote.
quote:
America never belonged to God. We were never a Godly nation. Even if measured in terms of the standard unit of individuals who claim to be Christian, it is a historical fact that the percentage of people in Christian churches has steadily increased ever since the beginning of this nation! The further back we go, the less Christian our nation really was. The idea of taking a nation back for God requires that there must have been a “golden era” when things were really good. Greg insightfully challenged this by sketching a portrait of our history at various times to see if any of them might qualify as the “good old days.”
Amen on all this.
Here is a well-written piece on how religion has historically played a role in the US in facilitating citizens to participate better in our nation's politics.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/readings/elshtain.html
quote:
The early church exploded with growth because people were living kingdom values. They were willing to suffer and die for their faith. There was enormous power in this. They refused to take up the sword; rather, they chose the cross. When this is done, the power of the sword is undermined and the evil is exposed. Once the Church gained political power through Constantine, everything began to change.
As evangels they also had a higher authority than the state and so there persecution was because they challenged the authority of the state.
Yes, we didn't come to power by the sword, unlike with Islam. But does that mean that us coming to power through Constantine was all an act of Satan?
quote:
Every time the church has picked up the sword, it has damaged its witness in the world.
You can't abuse power unless you have it. But the fact that power tends to corrupt doesn't imply that one should avoid power, since there is willy-nilly a number of decisions that must be made one way or the other and a way the concentration of power has been tempered in the past has been autonomous churches acting to constrain/check those in power, albeit through accepting some power for themselves.
quote:
Be cautious of those who would tempt you to blend your passion for serving God with their political agenda. Few things are more dangerous than those who wield the sword with the passion of misplaced faith.
Yes, people should deliberate on how they use their political capital. We are fallible in this regard, but the passion of faith in seeking to remain pure/holy by avoiding all traces of the political can leave one's mind ungirded and unable to discern as religious leaders manipulate you into believing that certain actions are a-political, while all others are.
quote:
What is clear is that Satan is indeed the god of this world, of this present darkness, and we need to be weary of the ways this regime operates.
I thought Satan was defeated at the cross and that the claims of him being the ruler of the earth were made prior to the cross.
quote:
Power over others is not the true path of love. In fact, Scripture is so clear on this distinction between God’s Kingdom and Satan’s domain over the world that it teaches us to think of ourselves as not truly citizens of this world (1 Pet. 2:11; Eph. 2:19; 6:12; Phil. 3:20)!
Power is needed to check other's power. Part of Jesus' ministry was to criticize the abuse of power in his community. Our communities and political say-so is now different than in Jesus's time, but the fact that how we act or fail to act inevitably will affect our public witness one way or the other.
quote:
Our unique authority and power as Christians is not our right to vote, but our right, no our obedience to God’s command that we suffer for righteousness sake, that we love sacrificially and serve our enemies for the sake of winning them to Christ. The test is clear when we COULD pick up the sword, will we choose the cross?
And choosing to use one's political say-so/resources to alter whose interests are served by the gov't is not going to invite persecution? As mentioned above, any attempt to capture the gov't so that it serves a different interest can be characterized as wielding a sword, since the gov't operates on the base of its monopoly of the legitimate use of violence.
So, so far it seems like Boyd is high on God-speak and relatively low on appeal to facts. A better model is Catholic Social Thought, which has traditionally more explicitly drawn from both scripture and reasoning based on learned experiences and logic.
Boyd is still drawing from the Anabaptist model, of viewing active involvement in political as always suspect and likely to distract from our true purpose of being here as Christians. How we should let our lights shine is what is at issue here. The anabaptist radical separation with anything political was due to their active persecution by the non-democratic powers that be. That is not Boyd and his church's situation.
An alternative model would be the one posed by John Perkins. Who meditates on Jesus' relationship with the woman at the well and how Jesus got through to her to address her true need for salvation by first dealing with her perceived need for water. By this model, political activism can be a means of addressing people's perceived needs to get the ability to address their true needs. Boyd doesn't seem to bless this sort of activity.
His whole approach doesn't seem to deal with history very much. I think this is tragic since my own deliberation on Christian history has seemed to indicate that the relationship between the Church and State has proven to be a radically important part of our public witness.
Consider how Christianity has been dying in Europe since the 30 years war made the Church and State very non-autonomous from each other. Consider how historically important Churches were in the US as intermediate institutions during the early part of US history. Consider how RCatholicism has remained more vibrant in those areas where they were not a majority religion and served as an advocate for its members rather than the rulers of the state.
Would Boyd have decried the abolitionists attempts to end slavery in the US in the 19th Ctry as seeking to paint a pretty veneer on dung? What about the movement to give women the right to vote?
Yes, there was hypocripsy and there certainly were fallible judgements made and there certainly is today, but that doesn't answer the question of whether voting/engaging in political activism is correctly characterized as where we act on our preferences separately from our faith, or whether following/deliberating/acting on the political is a critical part of how we ultimately display the reality of our faith to others.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/11/2004 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Most laws actually work on the basis of both below and above.
The state's monopoly on violence only works effectively if it relatively rarely is needed. As such, when you try to make legal changes where a substantial portion of the population is opposed to it, the law is enforced rather poorly. Think:The Prohibition.
The question Boyd seems to neglect in his most recent sermon is whether or not Jesus would have advocated following/deliberating/acting in nat'l politics moreso if he had lived in a democracy like ours today instead of in the non-democratic Roman Empire. There are innumerable examples of him speaking against the rules/laws that were unjust of his community, the place where he had say-so. Could it be he never blessed Matthew of Simon the Zealots point of view because they were both wrong? I.e., it is wrong to rationalize the status quo that one benefits from as it is wrong to pretend that a revolutionary overthrowing of the status-quo that would set you up as the new power would be automatically better, especially when the existing power is quite capable of crushing your attempt at an overthrow?
I'm seriously considering asking Tim Penny, a Christian who has served as a legislator/politician to read and respond to Boyd's sermon series.
IMHO, Boyd isn't as explicit as he should be about the political theory embedded in his sermons and that help one to separate the biblical teachings and his own fallible judgements about what is right conduct for us today.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 5/11/2004 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't think Greg Boyd is saying that we should abandon all involvement in politics. I think he's just saying that we shouldn't get all wrapped up in using politics as an evangelism tool, because most of the time, the values of God's Kingdom are at odds with the many different values of any government's constituency. And he's also saying that it's not as important for Christians to try to create good behavior through passing laws. He's saying that good behavior only comes from the transformation of the heart through the work of the Holy Spirit.
I don't think he'd object to using a democratic government to bring justice to oppressed people, though. Like with slavery and women's rights, it was good that Christians lived under a government that allowed for them to protest and lobby for change. I think that when we can do that, God would like us to try. In Jesus' time, the government was a dictatorship and could only be overthrown by the sword. We in America can cause change in our government without the sword. But, unfortunately, some Christians take it too far and try to claim that the American government was meant to be God's Kingdom on earth, when that's impossible because so many of its citizens are not Christians and should not be forced to be subjected to that Kingdom. Jesus never wanted anyone to be coerced into His Kingdom. It has to be a personal choice. That's what Greg's getting at here.
By the way, Greg and some other people on this site made a fuss about people discussing his preaching at WHC on this website a while ago, when I brought up something else he preached on, because this site is devoted to the discussion of pure theology - not anyone's sermons. This site is meant to be separate from anything that has to do with WHC. So, we all should probably stop discussing this here.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/12/2004 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I don't think Greg Boyd is saying that we should abandon all involvement in politics. I think he's just saying that we shouldn't get all wrapped up in using politics as an evangelism tool, because most of the time, the values of God's Kingdom are at odds with the many different values of any government's constituency. And he's also saying that it's not as important for Christians to try to create good behavior through passing laws. He's saying that good behavior only comes from the transformation of the heart through the work of the Holy Spirit.
That sounds like a good summary of what he is saying.
But that doesn't mean the samaritan woman example isn't true. That by valuing things others value, we can get the ability to share the gospel with them.
quote:
I don't think he'd object to using a democratic government to bring justice to oppressed people, though. Like with slavery and women's rights, it was good that Christians lived under a government that allowed for them to protest and lobby for change. I think that when we can do that, God would like us to try. In Jesus' time, the government was a dictatorship and could only be overthrown by the sword. We in America can cause change in our government without the sword. But, unfortunately, some Christians take it too far and try to claim that the American government was meant to be God's Kingdom on earth, when that's impossible because so many of its citizens are not Christians and should not be forced to be subjected to that Kingdom. Jesus never wanted anyone to be coerced into His Kingdom. It has to be a personal choice. That's what Greg's getting at here.
And he's right in arguing against the post-millenial position as the basis for faith-based political action.
But that doesn't clarify how exactly we do go about judging what sorts of political activism we should engage in. In many ways, the post-millenial viewpoing is really a strawman and dismissing it still leaves many unanswered questions.
quote:
By the way, Greg and some other people on this site made a fuss about people discussing his preaching at WHC on this website a while ago, when I brought up something else he preached on, because this site is devoted to the discussion of pure theology - not anyone's sermons. This site is meant to be separate from anything that has to do with WHC. So, we all should probably stop discussing this here.
Well, I doubt there is such a thing as "pure theology" and while that has been predominant in the past, when I left it was not the official credo, of course they can change such things and I wouldn't be surprised if such a pure-focus was part of the reason the board is so active as of late. But if that is Boyd's will then I'll probably let it go.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/21/2004 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | this complements well Boyd's sermon in its critical take on civic religion.
dlw
CIVIL RELIGION: The 500-Pound Gorilla,
by Norman B. Bendroth
This past Christmas Vice President Dick and Lynne Cheney sent out what is certainly the most brazen Christmas card I have ever heard of. It read: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
This is not the first time a power broker has co-opted the name of God to baptize the agenda of the empire, Pax Americana or otherwise. One thinks of Emperor Constantine's soldiers, whose armor was inscribed with the words In Hoc Signo Vinces ("In This Sign You Will Conquer"); and the banner of the Crusaders, Deus Vult ("God wills it"), as they swashbuckled their way through the Holy Land; and, in the last century, the slogan Gott Mit Uns ("God with us") which adorned the belt buckles of the Nazis.
Late last year, Lt. General William Boykin gave new meaning to the song "Onward Christian Soldiers" when he spoke of America's "Christian army" waging a holy war against the "idol" of Islam's false god, and the "spiritual battle" we're fighting against "a guy named Satan" while pursuing Muslim terrorists.
Even President Bush used an old gospel song to describe American vigilance. In his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2003, he said, "There is power, power, wonder-working power in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." Those who know their hymnody remember the original as, "there is wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb." To exchange the salvific work of Christ for the "goodness" of the American people is sacrilege. Even Democratic candidates have waded into these murky waters, with Howard Dean declaring that the book of Job was his favorite New Testament book (oops!).
What is going on here? It is called American civil religion. Sociologist Robert Bellah coined the term in a groundbreaking article in 1967 to describe the set of rituals, doctrines, and allegiances that develop around nation-states and which become the sacred myth that binds citizens in common allegiance. The myth bestows a sacred canopy over the origins, destiny, and purpose of the State.
Daniel Marsh of Boston University has pointed out, in his book UNTO THE GENERATIONS: THE ROOTS OF TRUE AMERICANISM, the similarities between biblical history and American history. America's book of Genesis is the Mayflower Compact. Its exodus is the Declaration of Independence. The book of the law is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Its psalms include the "Star Spangled Banner" and "God Bless America." Lincoln's Second Inaugural address is its prophetic denouncement. (Congressman Tom DeLay has even gone so far to tell an audience at the Christian Coalition's Road to Victory Conference that American democracy is a perfect governmental expression of an inerrant Bible).
Rituals include saying the pledge of allegiance in our schools, singing the "Star Spangled Banner" at sporting events, having parades and ceremonies honoring the war dead, and invoking the blessing of some higher power at political events. The virtues of democracy, individual liberty, the right to private property, family, free enterprise, and a commitment to faith are part of its doctrines. Faith in this system of thought is vague and undefined. It is best exemplified in President Eisenhower's statement, "This country was founded on faith and I don't care in what."
Civil religion provides religious means and modes for the expression of patriotism. Civil religion and Christian religion can look deceptively similar, so much so that it is easy to merge the two into one, like many American churches do on the Sunday near the Fourth of July. It is not a state religion, but rather a set of practices and beliefs that renders sacred national values, national heroes, national history, and national ideals.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with civil religion (it often functions as a civic "glue"), it should not be confused with Christian faith. What makes American civil religion distinctive from other nations' is that we have always believed that we are special and have a "manifest destiny" (as the Pilgrims put it) - a sacred and noble cause bestowed from above. The Pilgrims saw themselves as a "New Israel" making an exodus from Europe to freedom and plenty in a new Promised Land. From the outset, we have seen ourselves as God's chosen people with a special (if not divine) mission to export liberty and light to the world.
Some have defended Gen. Boykin or the religious language that embellishes President Bush's speech, accusing their critics of being "anti-Christian" or "politically correct." While may or may not be true, more fundamentally it is just plain bad theology.
To equate the kingdom of God with the United States of America is idolatry of the highest order. The commonwealth of God is a global community that transcends all nation states and embraces all peoples. Rather than endorsing any imperial power, it calls all such pretensions to power into question.
The Cheneys' greeting card was sent during the season when churches read Mary's Magnificat, which promises that in the Messiah God "has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly" (Luke 1:52). During World War II, American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr was quick to remind us that the Axis powers were not entirely evil, nor were Allied actions entirely good. To cast the American struggle against terrorism as solely a "conflict between good and evil" is to miss the log in our own eye (Matthew 7:3). This is not asserting a moral relativism that equates American overreaching with terrorism. It is to say that sin is never privileged to any particular people or nation, but runs right through the center of every human heart - including every American heart.
Because of the danger of confusing civil religion with Christian faith, Christians must be careful what kinds of symbols are present in their churches as well. When Christians participate in worship on Sunday mornings, they are gathering to proclaim their first allegiance and to acknowledge that all of life is lived under the government of God. Consequently, the symbols we display there point to our ultimate loyalties, what is truly real: the cross, the baptismal font, the open Bible, the altar, the bread and cup, to name a few.
Why then do we display the American flag in our sanctuaries when Scripture teaches that all nations will come under the judgment of a righteous God (Psalm 2: 1-5) and we are part of a worldwide communion of faith? My Canadian Christian friends are amazed when they find American flags in our
sanctuaries. The flag is a national symbol, not a religious one. As Christians, we are called to transcend national divisions. Baptism, not the flag, affirms our unity as God's people throughout the world.
By carelessly endorsing the religion and the policies of the State (read: empire), Christians forfeit their prophetic role to be critics-in-residence and to call the State to its highest principles. Martin Luther reminded the pastors of his day that one of their tasks was to "whisper the Law of God into the magistrate's ear." There's a 500-lb. gorilla called American civil religion sitting in the middle of most American sanctuaries and they are not even aware of it.
The challenge for Christians and all people of faith today is this: Will we prescribe to a national religion in service of empire, or will we follow the Lord of the nations in service of Shalom?
(Norman B. Bendroth is currently interim pastor at St. John's United Church of Christ in Grand Rapids, MI.)
--------------------------------------------------
C Copyright 2004
--------------------------------------------------
Love justice, do mercy! (Zech. 7:9)
PRISM publications encourage Christians to live out the whole of the gospel with the whole of their lives. If you find the PRISM ePistle helpful, forward it to your friends. Our desire is that the ePistle be a forum for challenging discussion and exploration of all issues pertaining to whole-life discipleship. Write to us and join the discussion.
--If you've been forwarded this message and would like to subscribe, please click the following link:
http://www.ePrayerConnect.org/_admi...w.asp?GRID=1480
--If you wish to reduce your frequency and choose the exact days of the week you wish to receive our emails. To change your frequency, click the following link:
http://www.eprayerconnect.org/_Admi...D=1480&ID=79172
--If you wish to change the email format, click the following link:
http://www.eprayerconnect.org/_Admi...D=1480&ID=79172
--If you wish to unsubscribe, or you feel that you have received this email in error, click the following link:
http://www.ePrayerConnect.org/_admi...79172&GRID=1480
--If you can't click the above links, copy and paste the appropriate link into your browser.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/23/2004 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | May 9, 2004 – Is the Church the Guardian of Social Morality?, , Greg Boyd – sermon length is 44:28 minutes
.
The Cross and the Sword series is concluded with this sermon, which covers the final effect of failing to distinguish between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world: we Christians begin to see ourselves as the “protectors” and “fixers” of social morality, as the moral standard bearers. But our only job as the body of Christ is to look like Jesus, the one sinless human, who stood in unity with others and met their needs. Greg also addresses the idea that America is a theocracy.
dlw:What would Jesus do if he could've voted? Didn't he criticize laws/rules within his community where he did have say-so over its governance that promoted bad values?
At issue is whether or not political activism, or its absence, is part of public witness for good or bad. This is not settled by scripture, since it is part of how we learn from experience/history about the different ways we may let our lights shine to the world as "Christ"ians...
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/31/2004 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | |
.
Thanks, DLW.
You might enjoy exploring a few of the attached Sojourners Magazine links...
Peace & blessings,
<><
--------
July 2004
Sojourners Magazine Articles ...
About Religious Right
1. Take Back the Faith.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0409&article=040951
The best contribution of religion is precisely not to be a loyal partisan. by Jim Wallis. September 2004 (Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 4). Hearts & Minds.
2. A Declining Force.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9911&article=991132a
An inside look at the fall of the Religious Right. by Richard Parker. November-December 1999 (Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 57). Reviews. 'It must now be acknowledged that we failed.' ----Cal Thomas.
3. Hostage to an Illusion.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9911&article=991110a
An interview with Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson. by Jim Wallis. November-December 1999 (Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 18). Cover. The Religious Right lost its moorings and sold its soul when it chose to play by the politicians' rules..
4. Kingmakers in the House of Caesar.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9511&article=951141b
by Mark Cerbone. November-December 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 11-12). Commentary. Despite the name "Christian Coalition," this is primarily an ideologically driven outfit..
5. Whose Kingdom?
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9511&article=951104
The blurring lines between Pat Robertson's money and politics. by Michael Smith. November-December 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 26-30). Cover. Critics say Robertson has used the tax-exempt status of his ministry to enrich himself at the expense of his followers and the U.S. taxpayers..
6. A Network for Renewal.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9507&article=950751
by Jim Wallis. July-August 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 4-7). Hearts & Minds. We wanted to bring together a new network of spiritual and social concern across the life of the churches..
7. Cutting a Deal With the American Family?
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9507&article=950742
by Aaron Gallegos and Rachel Johnson. July-August 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. ). Between the Lines. If there is to be a contract, it must include provisions to reduce hunger, poverty, and joblessness..
8. Suspicions of Conspiracy.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9507&article=950722
How a spirit of fear can distort scripture and history. by Tom Sine. July-August 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 26-30). Features. The bible was never intended to be used to establish a timeline for the end of history or to lend support to conspiracy theories..
9. To the Public Square.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9507&article=950741a
by Julie Polter. July-August 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 10-11). Commentary.
10. Outside the Gate.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9505&article=950521
Will progressive evangelicals please stand up and be counted? by Gordon Aeschliman. May-June 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 22-26). Features. We should be scared of leaders who are asking for the blessing of the church and culture. Those exchanges are lethal to our faith and erode all the integrity of our mission...It never has been popular to wed the notion of evangelicalism with social justice--until very recently--and that, believe it or not, was the doings of fundamentalists, not evangelical progressives..
11. A Bitter Harvest of Hatred.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9503&article=950315
The game we must refuse to play. by Roberta Hestenes. March-April 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 24-25). Cover. Some seek victory by declaring that Christians who do not share their specific ideological views are not Christian at all..
12. A Hijacked Heritage.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9503&article=950313
by Tom Sine. March-April 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 20). Cover. The Right has determined what the politically correct issues are..
13. Faith in Search of a Home.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9503&article=950312
The lost meaning of "evangelical.". by Tony Campolo. March-April 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 19-20). Cover.
14. Getting Beyond Labels.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9503&article=950317
Serpents, doves, and the Religious Right. by Jim Rice. March-April 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 27-28). Cover.
15. Human Vs. Political Needs.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9503&article=950316
Catholic bishops evaluate welfare reform. by Aaron Gallegos. March-April 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 26). Cover.
16. Who Speaks for God?
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9503&article=950311
An Alternative to the Religious Right. by Jim Wallis. March-April 1995 (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 16-18). Cover. At stake is not just politics, but the meaning of faith itself...Evangelical faith holds up the virtues of compassion and community; ideological faith appeals to personal and group self-interest..
[end]
---------------------
SOURCE:
The Right Stuff, Sojourners Magazine/July 2004
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&mode=keyword&keyword=Religious%20Right&issue=soj0407&article=040720
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/1/2004 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is a recent entry from my blog.
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?040830crat_atlarge
This is a relatively easy article to read on the behavioralist literature about the voting habits of many USAmericans.
It deals with how gaping inconsistencies show how poorly-informed many, many voters are about issues, using short-cuts that may or may not be effective.
I tend to preach the need to inculcate a wider dissemination of habits of political deliberation for the reasons listed in the article. The existence of widespread ignorance makes it easier for (e)lites to sway others for not-so-altruistic reasons.
However, among Christians, this requires making a wider justification for why time spent following/deliberating/acting on politics is worthwhile, is worth giving up the opportunity cost of spending their free time on other activities, reading the Bible, evangelizing, etc..
I believe that recognizing the importance of tradition in the ongoing determination of how we let our lights shine for the world is a critical step and then we must recognize that experience has shown that Church-State relations play a critical role in removing or setting up barriers to our ability to share the Gospel. As such, part of Christian traditions should be to encourage believers to spend more time deliberating on the political, acting above and beyond our self-interests on a variety of issues.
Mayflower,
I tend to find that sojo embraces liberalism a little too strongly for my tastes, but yes they are an important resource.
There is a wonderful quote by Schumpeter about how people are less intelligent when it comes to politics than they are about other things, relying too much on associations or fallible short-cuts that are too easily manipulated by those in power.
And one has to also realize that (e)lites that channel people's voting behavior are fallen sinful individuals who can't be presumed to be altruistic in the way they frame political issues.
And so the question is: If people's political habits are "fallen" as the above article suggests, is it incumbent on Christian leaders to seek to transform people's habits not so that they will vote for one party and not the other, but so that they will dedicate more time and resources to developing a better understanding of how the political system works and being deliberate in more of how they relate to it.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/8/2004 4:12 AM (GMT -6) | | WOW some of you guys like to write...
I was at woodland hills to hear the message and have listen to them afterwards also.
I found the message VERY challenging... I'm a christian and political and unlike Bill Clinton find it hard to compartmentalize my life.
I understand not wanting to label the USA a christian nation becuz when things go bad or when we are in war it dirties the name of Jesus.
but Jesus said render to the Government what is the Governments...and isn't being involed in the politcs what OUR government wants from us.
So sure come underneath the woman wanting to have a abortion and show her the love of Christ on one hand... and on the other hand don't we have a obligation to be political and vote?
So is this a christian nation...?
My view...NO- it is a nation with christians in it(and a few of them at that)
| | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:52 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 |
|
|