Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 12/9/2004 7:02 AM (GMT -6)

"To see the Gospel of Jesus Christ bastardized by imperial Christians and pulverized by Constantinian believers and then exploited by nihilistic elites of the American empire makes my blood boil."

This sentence could have easily come from Dr. Boyd's Sword and Cross series, but it comes from Cornel West's Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism. West's description of the position of Stanley Hauerwas is very similar to Dr. Boyd's:

"For Hauerwas, Christians should be "resident aliens" in a corrupt American empire whose secular public discourse is but a thin cover for its robust nihilism. His aim is to preserve the integrity of the prophetic church by exposing the idolatry of Constatinian Christianity and bearing witness to the gospel of love and peace."

However, West thinks that the dangers of idolatry can be finessed:

"My defense of King's legacy requires that we accent justice as a Christian ideal and become even more active as citizens to change America without succumbing to secular idols and imperial fetishes. To be a prophetic Christian is not to be against the world in the name of church purity; it is to be in the world but not of the world's nihilism, in the name of a loving Christ who proclaims the this-worldly justice of a kingdom to come."

I will let Dr. Boyd speak for himself, but I have a hunch that there is not much here he would disagree with, given my gut feeling that his position is really at bottom a cry for a critique of Constantinian Christianity.

West goes on to say that Constantinian Christianity in fact was inspired by the worldly, but Christian-led movement of Martin Luther King Jr. It seems then what is at stake is not so much if Christians should be involved in politics as Christians, but how should we be so involved.

Here is where we enter deep waters. For example, we are not left wondering where West's sympathies are in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, there are many questions that can be asked about his views. The situation is very complex, both politically and theologically. West runs the danger, he himself registers (p.15), of being a Manichaean and judging the world by dividing the world into US=prophetic Christians, Jews, Muslims, and THEM=imperial, Constantinian Christians and Jews. It takes West all of two pages to lump the Christian Right, which he claims is pro-Israel despite being anti-semitic, with the plutocratic elite. West is dead on though in warning pro-Israel Christians:

"What will happen when American imperial elites must chose between oil and Israel?"

The American public is already being conditioned for an answer to this question, but not by the pro-Israel neocons (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Libby) in the Bush administration, but by its critics (Michael Scheuer for one).

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 12/9/2004 9:14 AM (GMT -6)

Excellent analysis, kingsaint. Thank you for your thoughts. Clearly, there is an important and difficult conversation that must continue with regard to the role of Christians in politics. Much as I find Cornel West, I found Doc's Cross and the Sword material stimulating and challenging, but also somewhat inconsistent in its practical application. A Christian's concern for social justice seems to demand no less of a Manichean attitude than a Christian's concern regarding, say, abortion. I still don't quite understand what makes the Christian who happens to be politically invested in achieving social justice (MLK, Jim Wallis, e.g.) less "imperialistic" or less involved in the "corrupt American empire" than the Christian who happens to be politically invested in abortion and gay marriage issues. However one is involved politically, there is an inherent attempt to impose our political values upon everyone else. Again, how is one "imperialistic" and the other not?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 12/28/2004 6:55 AM (GMT -6)

BJS,

I think we are on the same wavelength on this one.

I would also like to question the argument that Christians should not be "politcal" because Satan rules the kingdoms of the world.

First of all, we should always remember that in Daniel (a book Jesus no doubt read) it is God who rules the kingdoms of the world (2.21,37; 4.17,25,32; 5.18,21). It is this stream of scripture that may be in Paul's mind in Romans 13.1-7. (John Yoder downplays this stream--though he really argues that Romans 13.1-7 is not really part of the stream--by noting the larger stream in the NT which sees "secular government as the province of the sovereignty of Satan".) It should also be pointed out that Daniel and his companions were part of a world-kingdom (1.19; 2.48; 3.30; 5.29; 6.3-4).

Does context matter? Even if we were to grant the world-kingdoms=the sovereignty of Satan equation, is that a normative concept? Is not the kingdom of God a warfare concept? Should the reign of Satan be spiritually fought? It would seem to me that just because politics is the realm of Satan, that doesn't mean that Christians should not "storm the gates".

Could it be possible that in some worldly politcal realm some of Satan's rule has been lost to the kingdom of God, even if very, very tiny. Is it possible that some forms of government are better (more in tune with the kingdom of God) than others, or is the pushpin of dictatorships the same as the poetry of democracies? This is not of course to claim that Christianity is the fount of modern democracies--though I do think there is some connection. Could not God advance the kingdom by means other than "Christian"?

Does context matter? Did the Biblical record concerning government have in mind modern democracies or only powers such as Babylon, Greece, and Rome, where little politcal role was even possible? Could it be possible that Christians might have to rely on the Spirit for wisdom concerning any possible government role, where that role is now possible, including military and police?

One observation: Even in Daniel, it seems the kingdom of God is God's doing (2.34,45). I think a good case can be made that Jesus' nonviolent, nonmilitary approach was based on his belief that it is God who will act decisively on behalf of the kingdom. I think this philosophy looms huge in any debate on Christianity and government.

One final axe grind: In the debate before the Iraqi war it was stated that the United States should let the United Nations solve the problem. The reason was very rarely expressed. John Kerry's argument seemed to me to be that the U.S. was shouldering too much of the burden. However, I think the protest was deeper than that. (France would not have agreed with Kerry.) It seems to me that the real argument was that the U.S. could not be trusted--its oil interests were dominant. The United Nations on the other hand would resolve the conflict in a more just manner. Let me put aside the accusations that the UN's role in the Iraqi conflict was itself less than nobel (see Norm Coleman and Paul Volcker), it seems to me the argument is really a democratic argument. The United Nations represent many nations, the U.S. represents only one. I question the validity of that argument in the case of the US-UN, but it does show the intuition that democracies are preferable to tyrannies.

Let me end with a prayer,

Lord, grant us wisdom.

Amen

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 12/29/2004 12:30 AM (GMT -6)

kingsaint

quote:
I will let Dr. Boyd speak for himself, but I have a hunch that there is not much here he would disagree with, given my gut feeling that his position is really at bottom a cry for a critique of Constantinian Christianity.

West goes on to say that Constantinian Christianity in fact was inspired by the worldly, but Christian-led movement of Martin Luther King Jr. It seems then what is at stake is not so much if Christians should be involved in politics as Christians, but how should we be so involved.

BJS

quote:
Clearly, there is an important and difficult conversation that must continue with regard to the role of Christians in politics. Much as I find Cornel West, I found Doc's Cross and the Sword material stimulating and challenging, but also somewhat inconsistent in its practical application. A Christian's concern for social justice seems to demand no less of a Manichean attitude than a Christian's concern regarding, say, abortion. I still don't quite understand what makes the Christian who happens to be politically invested in achieving social justice (MLK, Jim Wallis, e.g.) less "imperialistic" or less involved in the "corrupt American empire" than the Christian who happens to be politically invested in abortion and gay marriage issues.

kingsaint

quote:
I think we are on the same wavelength on this one.

I would also like to question the argument that Christians should not be "politcal" because Satan rules the kingdoms of the world.

I wasn't getting the consistency between Doc's 'Cross and the Sword' series and Christians being involved in government (especially after his posting on this board post election) until recently. I "think" that I now understand the correlation. I believe that the passion in which Doc preached was out of concern for how much muck is being associated to the rest of the world in the name of Christianity. A large percentage of the Christianity (the Kingdom of God) that is portrayed to the world is being mixed in with the system of this worldly government(the kingdom of this world or what is called Satan's domain). The rest of the world looks at the United States and many associate it with Christianity. For many onlookers this doesn't paint a realistic picture for the Kingdom of God and I believe this was his passion in which he preached the 'Cross and the Sword' series.

What I believe Doc to have been expressing was NOT that Christians should not be involved in government (whatever their political views and passions be) but that this involvement should be kept separate from the preaching of the Word of God so as not to mix the two. Many Christians are meshing God in with politics to the extreme of calling one candidate "God's man" In such a statement there is a judgmental tone being sent. I believe this set off an alert for Doc and others thus he posted the association between Bush and Hitler.

I cannot speak for Doc but I do believe he would NOT have a problem with Christians involved in government as long as they keep things in perspective. Doc's passion (he's a pastor after all) is to seek after the Kingdom of God but that does not mean others are not called to be actively involved in government. Yet, if we are followers of Christ our first allegiance is to God for their should be no other gods before Him hence the 'Cross and the Sword' series.

Just thought I’d throw my two cents in.
God bless you guys in all that you do in life and in your involvement in politics.
trosie

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 12/29/2004 2:54 AM (GMT -6)

trosie,

I agree with much of what you (and Dr. Boyd) say. I just would have liked Dr. Boyd to argue his case directly and not via dubious Biblical arguments. For example, he made much of John 18.36 ("My kingdom is not of this world"). But does this verse mean that the kingdom of God should not be in the world; in but not of the world (Cornel West alludes to this in my quote above)? I think the lesson is that Jesus' disciples did not engage in armed resistance and this goes to answer what kind of kingdom Jesus was talking about (though Peter's possession of a weapon needs some explaining).

But by not arguing directly, Dr. Boyd did not avoid the charge I think he wanted to avoid, that he was tipping his hand politically. Perhaps I am not being charitable enough, especially given that Dr. Boyd explicitly said he was not tipping his hand politically. ("Sword and Cross" sounds better than "My Critique of the Religious Right's American Political Agenda".) Still, I think he could have directly questioned the Constantinian Christian's fusion of U.S. political goals and the kingdom of God. Argue directly that U.S. political goals are Satanic. The fact that U.S. political goals are not popular with the rest of the world tells me little (this brings us to another John passage: 15.19), and the argument commits the fallacy of the authority of the majority.

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 12/29/2004 3:54 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Kingsaint,

I could be way off from what I am picking up from Dr. Boyd but I believe he is more interested in instructing his congregation to stay centered on Christ then in speaking personally about his own political views or against any particular form of government. In fact he DID state that he personally doesn't care if someone is a Democrat, Republican, Communist.... Therefore for him to argue that the U.S. political goals are Satanic, as you suggest, wasn't his intent in the 'Cross and the Sword' series(at least from what I am picking up)

I am of the understanding that his main objective was to encourage the body to "seek FIRST the Kingdom of God" and to avoid fusing Christianity with the governments of this world. From his sermons I gathered that his heart is to build up the Kingdom of God and had a concern that the Evangelical Christian leaders were fusing the two together during this past campaign.

During the 'Cross and the Sword' series Doc had one sermon in which he shared having been at a different church for some function a few years back. During that particular church service they had the song "God bless America" playing while showing a clip on screen of U.S. fighter planes shooting off bombs and in the background was a U.S. flag and a cross (or something like this) Anyway, he was so saddened that this church, as with so many others, were fusing God being partitial to the U.S. by showing this clip. He was saddened that this church could display bombing and a cross on the same picture screen. Disapprove

I believe this is his heart in the matter but as you said it would be nice if he would address you directly. My reasoning for joining in was due to having been brought to more of an understanding.

For what it's worth,
trosie Smile

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 12/29/2004 6:30 AM (GMT -6)

Hi trosie,

You wrote:

quote:
I could be way off from what I am picking up from Dr. Boyd but I believe he is more interested in instructing his congregation to stay centered on Christ then in speaking personally about his own political views or against any particular form of government. In fact he DID state that he personally doesn't care if someone is a Democrat, Republican, Communist....

I think you are dead on. My problem is that I take Dr. Boyd's position of political neutrality as feigned. In other words, I really do think he cares how people voted in the election (political opinions may be "a-dime-a-dozen", but they are life-and-death), but that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, he is interested in being centered on Christ, but he also believes, or so I claim, that being centered on Christ is inconsistent with a certain (right wing) political position that fuses U.S. policy with the kingdom of God. My point is that he should be up front about this. Let the light of Jesus enter this realm. Let debate and dialogue abound because it is precisely here where we need it the most.

quote:
Therefore for him to argue that the U.S. political goals are Satanic, as you suggest, wasn't his intent in the 'Cross and the Sword' series(at least from what I am picking up)

But a case can be made that is what he thinks. He likens the U.S. policy/kingdom of God fusion to Hitler and the Nazi Third Reich. One wonders about intentions when the case is put this strongly.

trosie, let us agree with Dr. Boyd that we should center on Jesus. We can't go wrong doing this.

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 12/29/2004 1:21 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
let us agree with Dr. Boyd that we should center on Jesus. We can't go wrong doing this

AMEN!

The last thing I will say here is that I wonder if the reason why Dr. Boyd doesn't openly discuss his own opinions in politics is because they are just that -- HIS opinions. He preaches the Word of God to many. Many on the staff at his church vary in their political views so there is no definite view that they endorse as a church. Yet through Dr. Boyd's sermons his own opinions are bound to come through a bit but I believe if he tries not to let them rule the word he preaches.

I "think" he likens the U.S. policy/kingdom of God fusion to Hitler and the Nazi Third Reich out of concern.

I don't know if I've been helpful but it has been fun corresponding with you. Shy

I pray God blesses you much in your pursuit for truth!

Always stay centered
trosie Smile

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:11 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual