An amazing passage from Greg’s most recent The Myth of a Christian Religion (p 29f):

“I cannot concur with those who…argue that we have a duty not to participate in government. Paul didn’t hesitate to humbly speak to political authorities and take full advantage of his rights as a Roman citizen when it made sense to do so (Acts. 21:37-39; 22:25-30). He obviously wasn’t expressing any trust in the Roman government to bring about the Kingdom. Nor was he trying to fix the governmental system of his day. But he was taking advantage of some say-so that he had as a Roman citizen. In democratic societies we get asked our opinion of how the society should be run, and I see no reason why one can’t give it, if they feel called to do so.

In fact, while most political issues are ambiguous enough for decent and intelligent people to disagree about, there are exceptional circumstances that arise from time to time that require all decent people—and therefore Kingdom people—to confront unambiguous evil by all means possible, including affecting the  political process. One thinks, for example, of the rise of Nazism in Germany, of apartheid in America and South Africa, and of the ongoing child sex slave trade in eastern Asia and elsewhere. To refrain from using every means available to confront unambiguous evil on the grounds that there is no precedent for it in the ministry of Jesus is pedantic and against the spirit of the New Testament.

Yet even with unambiguous situations such as these, followers of Jesus need to take great care to preserve their distinctive Kingdom perspective and lifestyle. We must also be on guard against the seductive lure of the “power-over” regime—and we must never compromise our call to love our enemies.

Whatever limited good we can accomplish by political means, we must remember that the hope of the world doesn’t reside here. It resides in God using surrendered people to usher in his Kingdom through self-sacrificial acts of love….” [Greg’s italics]

I’m just into the book. Maybe he’ll work this out and describe how he imagines Kingdom folk participating in government in fighting unambiguous evil.

Tom

Yay for free copies!

Can't wait to hear how you make your way through it. I read it twice and still can't believe my eyes.

I have so many questions...

Like what's with the story of the "Queen" and president of a "very important and influential" MINISTRY... I mean, aren't we ALL kings and queens??? And ...Aren't all MINISTRies important? who are these very important ministries influencing anyway??  ..and why would we care? Isn't this Jesus' Ministry? 

yeah, I get the "point" of his story...but the presuppositions and nuances of it are disturbing. Not the greg who taught unsupassable worth to ALL...or servant of ALL. I don't think he notices he's still putting people on a scale of importance. All he's doing now is trying to feel good/or make a point about putting the "bottom" people on top (in his mind). To me, every person in that line is a king/queen. We cannot judge people by the way they look, sound, feel to us on the outside - even if we are looking for what we call the "least of these"

Is this wrongheaded or is it just me, Tom?

Totally do not get it

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/3/2009 9:15:49 AM (GMT-5)

Similarly...

Reformed denominations are being asked to embrace the Belhar Confession to the level of the Canons of Dort and the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Confession, as a fourth Form of Unity all members must then subscribe to and especially clergy.

My hesitation--strong--is that while God defends the widow and the down-trodden...He also loves the Saul's of the world and died for them.

Here's the Belhar. 

PARTS OF SECTION FOUR ARE PROBLEMATIC...

Belhar Confession

1. We believe in the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who gathers, protects and cares for his Church by his Word and his Spirit, as He has done since the beginning of the world and will do to the end.

2. We believe in one holy, universal Christian Church, the communion of the saints called from the entire human family.

We believe

that Christ's work of reconciliation is made manifest in the Church as the community of believers who have been reconciled with God and with one another [Eph 2:11-22];

that unity is, therefore, both a gift and an obligation for the Church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God's Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously a reality which must be earnestly pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continually be built up to attain [Eph 4:1-16];

that this unity must become visible so that the world may believe; that separation, enmity and hatred between people and groups is sin which Christ has already conquered, and accordingly that anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the Church and must be resisted [John 17:20, 23];

that this unity of the people of God must be manifested and be active in a variety of ways: in that we love one another; experience, practice and pursue community with one another; that we are obligated to give ourselves willingly and joyfully to be of benefit and blessing to one another; that we share one faith, have one calling, are of one soul and one mind; have one God and Father, are filled with one Spirit, are baptized with one baptism, eat of one bread and drink of one cup, confess one Name, are obedient to one Lord, work for one cause, and share one hope; together come to know the height and the breadth and the depth of the love of Christ; together are built up to the stature of Christ, to the new humanity; together know and bear one another's burdens, thereby fulfilling the law of Christ; that we need one another and upbuild one another, admonishing and comforting one another; that we suffer with one another for the sake of righteousness; pray together; together serve God in this world; and together fight against all which may threaten or hinder this unity [Phil 2:1-5; I Cor 12:4-31; John 13:1-17; I Cor 1:10-13; Eph 4:1-6; Eph 3:14-20; I Cor 10:16-17; I Cor 11:17-34; Gal 6:2; II Cor 1:3-4];

that this unity can be established only in freedom and not under constraint; that the variety of spiritual gifts, opportunities, backgrounds, convictions, as well as the various languages and cultures, are by virtue of the reconciliation in Christ, opportunities for mutual service and enrichment within the one visible people of God [Rom 12:3-8; I Cor 12:1-11; Eph 4:7-13; Gal 3:27-28; Jas 2:1-13];

that true faith in Jesus Christ is the only condition for membership of this Church;

Therefore, we reject any doctrine which absolutises either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutisation hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation;

which professes that this spiritual unity is truly being maintained in the bond of peace whilst believers of the same confession are in effect alienated from one another for the sake of diversity and in despair of reconciliation;

which denies that a refusal earnestly to pursue this visible unity as a priceless gift is sin;

which explicitly or implicitly maintains that descent or any other human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of the Church.

3. We believe that God has entrusted to his Church the message of reconciliation in and through Jesus Christ; that the Church is called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world; that the Church is called blessed because it is a peacemaker, that the Church is witness both by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells [II Cor 5:17-21; Mt 5:13-16; Mt 5:9; II Pet 3:13; Rev 21-22].

that God by his lifegiving Word and Spirit has conquered the powers of sin and death, and therefore also of irreconciliation and hatred, bitterness and enmity; that God, by His lifegiving Word and Spirit will enable His people to live in a new obedience which can open new possibilities of life for society and the world [Eph 4:17-6:23, Rom 6; Col 1:9-14; Col 2:13-19; Col 3:1-4:6];

that the credibility of this message is seriously affected and its beneficial work obstructed when it is proclaimed in a land which professes to be Christian, but in which the enforced separation of people on a racial basis promotes and perpetuates alienation, hatred and enmity;

that any teaching which attempts to legitimate such forced separation by appeal to the gospel, and is not prepared to venture on the road of obedience and reconciliation, but rather, out of prejudice, fear, selfishness and unbelief, denies in advance the reconciling power of the gospel, must be considered ideology and false doctrine.

Therefore, we reject any doctrine which, in such a situation, sanctions in the name of the gospel or of the will of God the forced separation of people on the grounds of race and colour and thereby in advance obstructs and weakens the ministry and experience of reconciliation in Christ.

4. We believe that God has revealed himself as the One who wishes to bring about justice and true peace among men; that in a world full of injustice and enmity He is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged and that He calls his Church to follow Him in this; that He brings justice to the oppressed and gives bread to the hungry; that He frees the prisoner and restores sight to the blind; that He supports the downtrodden, protects the stranger, helps orphans and widows and blocks the path of the ungodly; that for Him pure and undefiled religion is to visit the orphans and the widows in their suffering; that He wishes to teach His people to do what is good and to seek the right [Deut 32:4; Luke 2:14; John 14:27; Eph 2:14; Isa 1:16-17; Jas 1:27; Jas 5:1-6; Luke 1:46-55; Luke 6:20-26; Luke 7:22; Luke 16:19-31; Ps 146; Luke 4:16-19; Rom 6:13-18; Amos 5];

that the Church must therefore stand by people in any form of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the Church must witness against and strive against any form of injustice, so that justice may roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream;

that the Church as the possession of God must stand where He stands, namely against injustice and with the wronged; that in following Christ the Church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.

Therefore, we reject any ideology which would legitimate forms of injustice and any doctrine which is unwilling to resist such an ideology in the name of the gospel.

5. We believe that, in obedience to Jesus Christ, its only Head, the Church is called to confess and to do all these things, even though the authorities and human laws might forbid them and punishment and suffering be the consequence [Eph 4:15-16; Acts 5:29-33; I Pet 2:18-25; I Pet 3:15-18].

Jesus is Lord.

To the one and only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be the honour and the glory for ever and To the one and only God, Son and Holy Spirit, be the honour and the glory for ever and ever.

Post Edited (Similtude) : 7/4/2009 12:17:18 PM (GMT-5)

RELATED... (Click for audio LINKS at the end.)

You Are Not A Bible Character, By fatherstephen

Events which receive more than their share of news coverage are not my favorite topics for blog posts. However, this past week's revelations of yet another politician's infidelity offered one aspect worthy of comment (or so it seems to me). That is the use of the Bible as a means for reflecting on one's personal situation in life.

There is a long history of just such usage. The pilgrim fathers who came to America read their situation into the Bible (or the Bible into their situation) with the result that white pilgrims were seen as fulfilling the role of the Israelites in this, the Promised Land, while native Americans were cast in the role of Canaanites. Thus generations of Joshuas arose feeling Biblically justified in the genocide of America's native population. Some of that Biblical reading continues to echo in the popular imagination to this day. It was Bad theology in the 17th century and it is bad theology today. Stated in a fundamental way: you are not a Bible character.

This past week saw a sitting governor confessing his infidelity, choosing to stay in office, and reflecting out loud to his cabinet members about the story of King David. King David was, of course, guilty of adultery (and in the Biblical account it cost him the life of his child). It is a story of great repentance and internal suffering as well as the mercy of God.

But it is not a pattern story to which individuals are invited for their own comparisons.

The Old Testament is authoritative Scripture for Christians and has a history of interpretation by the Church. Largely, that interpretation is typological in character – its stories are seen as types and foreshadowings of the truth to be revealed in Christ Jesus. Thus Christ is the "second Adam," and the opening chapters of Genesis are best read with that interpretive fact in mind. Had the pilgrims read the Old Testament correctly (in the light of the new) they might very well have applied the story of the Promised Land, but only as the Kingdom of God to which they might have gently offered as servants of those to whom they preached. The story does not bless a Christian to violate the commandment: thou shalt not kill. Holy war is foreign to Christianity and is heresy plain and simple where it is preached.

Some years ago I recall the story of an Episcopal priest who abandoned his vocation with a great flourish during the course of a Sunday service. The confusing detail for many was his explanation: he saw himself as Jonah – his Church as the sinking ship. The only way to save the sinking ship was to throw Jonah overboard. It seems not unlikely that whatever was the case, he needed to resign his position. But the story of Jonah is not about throwing priests overboard to save "sinking" congregations. It has a different meaning. It is better for a priest with a problem to seek help and repentance and not Biblical drama. The drama is delusion.

The problem with such use of Biblical imagination is that it simply has no controlling story. Nothing tells us which story to use other than our own imagination (which is generally a deluded part of our mind). A governor gets to play King David, and, surprise, he should be forgiven and not resign his office. A group of white settlers get to play conquering Israelites and feel no compunction about murdering men, women and children. A priest, likely in need of therapy, plays the role of Jonah before a crowd who has no idea they are in a play. The gospel is not preached – souls are not saved – the Bible is simply brought into ridicule.

For all of us – Scripture is relevant. However, its relevance should not come as a personal revelation that tells us which character we are within its pages. Such games seem frightfully like the games on Facebook: "Which ancient civilization are you?" or some such nonsense.

You are not a Bible character – other than the one indicated in the New Testament – those who have put their faith in Christ and trusted him for their salvation. Our conversion experiences are whatever they may have been – but the Damascus Road conversion of St. Paul is not required of any but St. Paul.

The behavior of pilgrims, priests and governors should be guided by the same moral teaching that applies to all Christians. There are no special circumstances that, as Bible characters, exempt us from the repentance and responsibility required of all. The words of Christ addressed to each and everyone are the same: "Repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." If such repentance should cost us a political office or even a continent – so be it. This is the character we were meant to be.

Play in popup Download Direct link

 

 

Post Edited (selah) : 7/4/2009 1:04:55 PM (GMT-5)

I would challenge Greg Boyd to point out evils that have always been unambiguous within the church or the society. Certainly slavery was not unambiguously thought evil by Christians. The issue did divide churches and denominations. Like Greg who is not certain if a law should be passed to ban abortion, there were many in the South (I think this was Lee's position) who thought the Southern states should be allowed to end slavery in their own way and time. And like the cirucmstances of those seeking abortions, the cirumstances of all slavery were not the same. Some slave-holders were much more abusive than others.

So I think Boyd's distinction between ambiguous and unambiguous evil dissolves under historical scrutiny. Actually, Boyd seems to acknowledge that the ambiguity is often not regarding what is evil, but what method is best to overcome the evil. He sees all violence as unambiguosly evil--I suppose He would make an exception for God's use of violence. But here I don't know if he is consistent. Passing laws agasinst racial discrimination hasn't ended it--so was it wrong for some Christian churches to actively pursue such laws? The churches involved with the Civil Rights movement went far beyond urging people to cast a vote according to their individual conscience. Almost everything he says evangelical churches should not be doing regarding abortion black churches did during the Civil Rights movement.

Boyd objects to using a "political" issue like abortion as a litmus test for a candidate. But I don't see how this differs from rejecting a candidate because they are racist. The only difference seems to be there is now more of a social consensus that racism is bad. But if you say the church can speak only on political issues where there is consensus and the ambiguity has disappeared, then you have silenced the prophetic voice of the church.

A consistent position would be to reject all the political activity of the churches during the Civil Rights movement and say that churches' role should have been limited to outrageously loving and serving all the violent white bigots in the South. All the marching, picketing, boycotting, and endorsing of candidates was just as wrong as what evangelicals have done when endorsing Republicans or picketing abortion centers. All these tactics, even though non-violent, are power-over approaches if the aim is changing law. And all law is enforced by the state's threat to use the sword--even laws meant to achieve social justice.

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/12/2009 7:15:37 PM (GMT-5)