Part 1 (1/2)
THE MYTH OF A CHRISTIAN NATION.
by GREGORY A. BOYD.
HOW THIS BOOK CAME TO BE-AND WHY IT MAY IRRITATE SOME READERS
LIKE MANY EVANGELICAL PASTORS IN THE MONTHS BEFORE THE 2004 election, I felt pressure from a number of right-wing political and religious sources, as well as from some people in my own congregation, to ”shepherd my flock” into voting for ”the right candidate” and ”the right position.” Among other things, I was asked to hand out leaflets, to draw attention to various political events, and to have our church members sign pet.i.tions, make pledges, and so on. Increasingly, some in our church grew irate because of my refusal (supported by the church board) to have the church partic.i.p.ate in these activities.
In April of 2004, as the religious buzz was escalating, I felt it necessary to preach a series of sermons that would provide a biblical explanation for why our church should not join the rising chorus of right-wing political activity. I also decided this would be a good opportunity to expose the danger of a.s.sociating the Christian faith too closely with any political point of view, whether conservative or liberal. I had touched on this topic several times in the past but never as deeply, clearly, and persistently. The series was ent.i.tled ”The Cross and the Sword,” and it forms the foundation for this book.
The response surprised me. For one thing, I had never received so much positive feedback. Some people literally wept with grat.i.tude, saying that they had always felt like outsiders in the evangelical community for not ”toeing the conservative party line.” Others reported that their eyes had been opened to how they had unwittingly allowed political and national agendas to cloud their vision of the uniquely beautiful kingdom of G.o.d.
But neither had I ever received so much intensely negative feedback. I felt as though I'd stuck a stick in a hornet's nest! About 20 percent of my congregation (roughly a thousand people) left the church.1 Many who left sincerely believe there is little ambiguity in how true Christian faith translates into politics. Since G.o.d is against abortion, Christians should vote for the pro-life candidate, they believe-and the preacher should say so. Since G.o.d is against h.o.m.os.e.xuality, Christians should vote for the candidate who supports the marriage amendment act-and a Bible-believing pastor should proclaim this. Since G.o.d is for personal freedom, Christians should vote for the candidate who will fulfill ”America's mission” to bring freedom to the world-and any American pastor, like myself, should use his ”G.o.d-given authority and responsibility” to make this known. ”It's that that simple,” I was told. To insist that it's simple,” I was told. To insist that it's not not, some suggested, is to be (as I was variously described) a liberal, a compromiser, wishy-washy, unpatriotic, afraid to take a stand, or simply on the side of Satan.
Some readers undoubtedly share these convictions and may already be responding negatively to this book. Like many American evangelicals, you may a.s.sume that espousing a certain political position is simply part of what it means part of what it means to be Christian. It may be difficult for you to fathom how an evangelical pastor could, for theological reasons, refuse to use the pulpit to support a pro-life, pro-family, pro-Christian values, pro-American political platform. Aren't we supposed to be trying to take America back for G.o.d? Consequently, you too may be tempted to write me off as liberal, a compromiser, wishy-washy, unpatriotic, afraid to take a stand, or on the side of Satan. If so, let me a.s.sure you that, for all my shortcomings, I don't believe any of those labels accurately describes me. to be Christian. It may be difficult for you to fathom how an evangelical pastor could, for theological reasons, refuse to use the pulpit to support a pro-life, pro-family, pro-Christian values, pro-American political platform. Aren't we supposed to be trying to take America back for G.o.d? Consequently, you too may be tempted to write me off as liberal, a compromiser, wishy-washy, unpatriotic, afraid to take a stand, or on the side of Satan. If so, let me a.s.sure you that, for all my shortcomings, I don't believe any of those labels accurately describes me.
And I'd ask you to hear me out.
At the outset, I want you to know I appreciate and respect your convictions. I understand the consternation you may feel, but at the same time, I challenge you to keep an open mind and to consider this book's arguments. I know how difficult it is to take a book seriously when it confronts one's most cherished beliefs. I also know that few things in life are as intellectually and spiritually beneficial as forcing ourselves to consider ideas different from our own-even ideas that may irritate and offend.
This book may well irritate and offend you at times. You may never agree with me. But I believe that wrestling with these issues will benefit you nonetheless. I only ask that you hear me out.
THE CENTRAL THESIS OF THIS BOOK.
My thesis, which caused such an uproar, is this: I believe a significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. To a frightful degree, I think, evangelicals fuse the kingdom of G.o.d with a preferred version of the kingdom of the world (whether it's our national interests, a particular form of government, a particular political program, or so on). Rather than focusing our understanding of G.o.d's kingdom on the person of Jesus-who, incidentally, never allowed himself to get pulled into the political disputes of his day-I believe many of us American evangelicals have allowed our understanding of the kingdom of G.o.d to be polluted with political ideals, agendas, and issues.
For some evangelicals, the kingdom of G.o.d is largely about, if not centered on, ”taking America back for G.o.d,” voting for the Christian candidate, outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, winning the culture war, defending political freedom at home and abroad, keeping the phrase ”under G.o.d” in the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting for prayer in the public schools and at public events, and fighting to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings.
I will argue that this perspective is misguided, that fusing together the kingdom of G.o.d with this or any other version of the kingdom of the world is idolatrous and that this fusion is having serious negative consequences for Christ's church and for the advancement of G.o.d's kingdom.
I do not not argue that those political positions are either wrong or right. Nor do I argue that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. While people whose faith has been politicized may well interpret me along such lines, I a.s.sure you that this is not what I'm saying. The issue is far more fundamental than how we should vote or partic.i.p.ate in government. Rather, I hope to challenge the a.s.sumption that finding the right political path has anything to do with advancing the kingdom of G.o.d. argue that those political positions are either wrong or right. Nor do I argue that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. While people whose faith has been politicized may well interpret me along such lines, I a.s.sure you that this is not what I'm saying. The issue is far more fundamental than how we should vote or partic.i.p.ate in government. Rather, I hope to challenge the a.s.sumption that finding the right political path has anything to do with advancing the kingdom of G.o.d.
THE FOUNDATIONAL MYTH.
What gives the connection between Christianity and politics such strong emotional force in the U.S.? I believe it is the longstanding myth that America is a Christian nation.2 From the start, we have tended to believe that G.o.d's will was manifested in the conquest and founding of our country-and that it is still manifested in our actions around the globe. Throughout our history, most Americans have a.s.sumed our nation's causes and wars were righteous and just, and that ”G.o.d is on our side.” In our minds-as so often in our sanctuaries-the cross and the American flag stand side by side. Our allegiance to G.o.d tends to go hand in hand with our allegiance to country. Consequently, many Christians who take their faith seriously see themselves as the religious guardians of a Christian homeland. America, they believe, is a holy city ”set on a hill,” and the church's job is to keep it s.h.i.+ning.3 The negative reaction to my sermons made it clear that this foundational myth is alive and well in the evangelical community-and not just in its fundamentalist fringes. That reaction leads me to suspect that this myth is being embraced more intensely and widely now than in the past precisely because evangelicals sense that it is being threatened.4 The truth is that the concept of America as a Christian nation, with all that accompanies that myth, is actually losing its grip on the collective national psyche, and as America becomes increasingly pluralistic and secularized, the civil religion of Christianity is losing its force. Understandably, this produces consternation among those who identify themselves as the nation's religious guardians. The truth is that the concept of America as a Christian nation, with all that accompanies that myth, is actually losing its grip on the collective national psyche, and as America becomes increasingly pluralistic and secularized, the civil religion of Christianity is losing its force. Understandably, this produces consternation among those who identify themselves as the nation's religious guardians.
So, when the shepherd of a flock of these religious guardians stands up-in the pulpit no less-and suggests that this foundational American myth is, in fact, untrue, that America is not now and never was a Christian nation, that G.o.d is not necessarily on America's side, and that the kingdom of G.o.d we are called to advance is not about ”taking America back for G.o.d”-well, for some, that's tantamount to going AWOL.
I respect the sincerity of that conviction, but for me, it simply confirms how badly the church needs to hear the message of this book.
The myth of America as a Christian nation, with the church as its guardian, has been, and continues to be, damaging both to the church and to the advancement of G.o.d's kingdom. Among other things, this nationalistic myth blinds us to the way in which our most basic and most cherished cultural a.s.sumptions are diametrically opposed to the kingdom way of life taught by Jesus and his disciples. Instead of living out the radically countercultural mandate of the kingdom of G.o.d, this myth has inclined us to Christianize many pagan aspects of our culture. Instead of providing the culture with a radically alternative way of life, we largely present it with a religious version of what it already is. The myth clouds our vision of G.o.d's distinctly beautiful kingdom and thereby undermines our motivation to live as set-apart (holy) disciples of this kingdom.
Even more fundamentally, because this myth links the kingdom of G.o.d with certain political stances within American politics, it has greatly compromised the holy beauty of the kingdom of G.o.d to non-Christians. This myth harms the church's primary mission. For many in America and around the world, the American flag has smothered the glory of the cross, and the ugliness of our American version of Caesar has squelched the radiant love of Christ. Because the myth that America is a Christian nation has led many to a.s.sociate America with Christ, many now hear the good news of Jesus only as American news, capitalistic news, imperialistic news, exploitive news, antigay news, or Republican news. And whether justified or not, many people want nothing to do with any of it.
TWO CONTRASTING KINGDOMS.
In the pages that follow, I'll suggest that the kingdom Jesus came to establish is ”not from this world” (John 18:36), for it operates differently than the governments of the world do. While all the versions of the kingdom of the world acquire and exercise power over over others, the kingdom of G.o.d, incarnated and modeled in the person of Jesus Christ, advances only by exercising power others, the kingdom of G.o.d, incarnated and modeled in the person of Jesus Christ, advances only by exercising power under under others. others.5 It expands by manifesting the power of self-sacrificial, Calvary-like love. It expands by manifesting the power of self-sacrificial, Calvary-like love.
To put it differently, the governments of the world seek to establish, protect, and advance their ideals and agendas. It's in the fallen nature of all those governments to want to ”win.” By contrast, the kingdom Jesus established and modeled with his life, death, and resurrection doesn't seek to ”win” by any criteria the world would use. Rather, it seeks to be faithful. It demonstrates the reign of G.o.d by manifesting the sacrificial character of G.o.d, and in the process, it reveals the most beautiful, dynamic, and transformative power in the universe. It testifies that this power alone-the power to transform people from the inside out by coming under under them-holds the hope of the world. Everything the church is about, I argue, hangs on preserving the radical uniqueness of this kingdom in contrast to the kingdom of the world. them-holds the hope of the world. Everything the church is about, I argue, hangs on preserving the radical uniqueness of this kingdom in contrast to the kingdom of the world.
THREE PRELIMINARY WORDS.
But three preliminary words need to be said.
First, my thesis applies as much to Christians on the political left as on the political right.6 While I'm concerned about the fusion of the two kingdoms from both sides, the focus of this book is more on the political right, since that political orientation is far and away the dominant one among evangelicals at this point in history. The political right currently has far more religious and political clout-and has captured far more of the media spotlight. For that reason, it warrants more attention. While I'm concerned about the fusion of the two kingdoms from both sides, the focus of this book is more on the political right, since that political orientation is far and away the dominant one among evangelicals at this point in history. The political right currently has far more religious and political clout-and has captured far more of the media spotlight. For that reason, it warrants more attention.
Second, to insist that we keep the kingdom of G.o.d radically distinct from all versions of the kingdom of the world does not mean that our faith and moral convictions shouldn't inform our partic.i.p.ation in the political process. Of course they should-but that is true of all citizens in a free country. Whether we're aware of it or not, all of us, whether religious or not, vote our faith and values.7 What the distinction between the two kingdoms does imply, however, is that citizens of the kingdom of G.o.d need to take care to distinguish between their core faith and values on the one hand and the particular way particular way they politically express their faith and values on the other. While the way of the kingdom of G.o.d is always simple, straightforward, and uncompromising, the way of the kingdom of the world is always complex, ambiguous, and inevitably full of compromises. Hence, kingdom people who share the same core faith and values can and often do disagree about how their faith and values should inform their involvement in the kingdom of the world. they politically express their faith and values on the other. While the way of the kingdom of G.o.d is always simple, straightforward, and uncompromising, the way of the kingdom of the world is always complex, ambiguous, and inevitably full of compromises. Hence, kingdom people who share the same core faith and values can and often do disagree about how their faith and values should inform their involvement in the kingdom of the world.
Finally, this book is written to help us get a clear vision of the unique kingdom of G.o.d as revealed in the life of Jesus, to see how its Calvary-like way of bringing about change in people's lives and in society is completely different from the world's, and to see the great harm that results when Jesus' disciples fail to preserve the uniqueness of that way. This book does not attempt to resolve all ambiguities between these two kingdoms The purpose of this book, rather, is to cast a broad vision of the kingdom of G.o.d and show its stark contrast to the kingdom of the world. If it helps some readers see how wonderfully different G.o.d's kingdom is from the world; if it helps some place more trust in G.o.d's unique ”power under” mode of operation; and if it motivates some to become more committed to living out the radically alternative, countercultural life of this kingdom-it will have served its purpose.
CHAPTER 1.
THE KINGDOM OF THE SWORD.
My kingdom is not from this world.
JOHN 18:36.
The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you.
LUKE 22:2526 For the church to be a community that does not need war in order to give itself purpose and virtue puts the church at odds with nations.... The battle is one we fight with the gospel weapons of witness and love, not violence and coercion.
HAUERWAS AND WILLIMON1.
SHORTLY AFTER JESUS' ARREST, PILATE ASKED HIM, ”ARE YOU THE KING of the Jews?” (John 18:33). To be a king, one must have a kingdom-a king's domain-and Pilate wanted to know if Jesus thought the Jews were his domain. It was a straightforward question, requiring a simple yes or no.
But Jesus, typically, did not give the expected response. Rather, he told Pilate that his kingdom ”is not from this world” (John 18:36).
Pilate a.s.sumed Jesus' kingdom could be understood on the same terms as every other earthly kingdom-along geographical, ethnic, nationalistic, and ideological lines. But he was mistaken. Jesus' kingdom is radically unlike any kingdom, government, or political ideology in the world. To appreciate Jesus' radically unique kingdom, we need to know about the worldly kingdoms it stands in contrast to.
THE ”POWER OVER” KINGDOM Wherever a person or group exercises power over others-or tries to-there is a version of the kingdom of the world. While it comes in many forms, the kingdom of the world is in essence a ”power over” kingdom. In some versions-such as America-subjects have a say in who their rulers will be, while in others they have none. In some versions, subjects may influence how their rulers exercise power over them-for example, what laws they will live by-while in others they do not. There have been democratic, socialist, communist, fascist, and totalitarian versions of the kingdom of the world, but they all share this distinctive characteristic: they exercise ”power over” people. is a version of the kingdom of the world. While it comes in many forms, the kingdom of the world is in essence a ”power over” kingdom. In some versions-such as America-subjects have a say in who their rulers will be, while in others they have none. In some versions, subjects may influence how their rulers exercise power over them-for example, what laws they will live by-while in others they do not. There have been democratic, socialist, communist, fascist, and totalitarian versions of the kingdom of the world, but they all share this distinctive characteristic: they exercise ”power over” people.
I refer to the power that the kingdom of the world wields as ”the power of the sword.” I'm not referring to a literal sword necessarily-though that has often been true-but rather, to the ability of those in power to inflict pain on those who threaten or defy their authority. The power of the sword is the ability to coerce behavior by threats and to make good on those threats when necessary: if a law is broken, you will be punished. Of course, the laws of the different versions of the kingdom of the world vary greatly, but the raised sword behind the laws gives them their power, and that keeps every version of the kingdom of the world intact.
Though all versions of the kingdom of the world try to influence how their subjects think and feel, their power resides in their ability to control behavior. As effective as a raised sword is in producing conformity, it cannot bring about an internal change. A kingdom can stipulate that murder will be punished, for example, but it can't change a person's desire to murder. It may be that the only reason a person refrains from killing is because he or she doesn't want to be imprisoned or executed. Their motives may be entirely self-serving. The kingdom of the world doesn't really care, so long as the person conforms to the law. Laws, enforced by the sword, control behavior but cannot change hearts.
G.o.d AND THE KINGDOM OF THE WORLD.
The ”power over” that all versions of the kingdom of the world exercise is not altogether bad. Were the world not fallen, the threat of the sword would be unnecessary. The sword is part of our common curse, yet G.o.d uses it to keep law and order in the world. For this reason, followers of Jesus are to be obedient, as far as possible, to whatever government they find in power over them. The apostle Paul puts it this way: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from G.o.d, and those authorities that exist have been inst.i.tuted [tetagmenai] by G.o.d.... Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is G.o.d's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of G.o.d to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (Rom. 13:1, 34) The government ”does not bear the sword in vain,” therefore, for it is a divine means of keeping fallen people from wreaking havoc on each other. G.o.d's intent is to use any given ”power over” government as his ”servant for...good.” This doesn't mean that worldly governments are created by G.o.d or that governments always use their G.o.d-given authority as G.o.d intended-as though Hitler and Stalin were carrying out G.o.d's will! Paul rather says that G.o.d inst.i.tutes, directs, or stations (tetagmenai) governments. John Howard Yoder's comment is insightful: G.o.d is not said to create create or... or...ordain the powers that be, but only to the powers that be, but only to order order them, to put them in order, sovereignly to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time when there was no government and then G.o.d made government through a new creative intervention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed. Its exercise has involved domination, disrespect for human dignity, and real or potential violence ever since sin has existed. Nor is it that by ordering this realm G.o.d specifically, morally approves of what a government does. The sergeant does not produce the soldiers he drills; the librarian does not create nor approve of the book she or he catalogs and shelves. Likewise G.o.d does not take the responsibility for the existence of the rebellious ”powers that be” or for their shape or ident.i.ty; they already are. What the text says is that G.o.d orders them, brings them into line, providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purpose. them, to put them in order, sovereignly to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time when there was no government and then G.o.d made government through a new creative intervention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed. Its exercise has involved domination, disrespect for human dignity, and real or potential violence ever since sin has existed. Nor is it that by ordering this realm G.o.d specifically, morally approves of what a government does. The sergeant does not produce the soldiers he drills; the librarian does not create nor approve of the book she or he catalogs and shelves. Likewise G.o.d does not take the responsibility for the existence of the rebellious ”powers that be” or for their shape or ident.i.ty; they already are. What the text says is that G.o.d orders them, brings them into line, providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purpose.2 As he did with nations in the Old Testament (for instance, in Isaiah 10), G.o.d uses governments as he finds them, in all their unG.o.dly rebellious ways, to serve his own providential purposes. As Paul describes in Romans 13, this general purpose is to preserve as much law and order as is possible. Insofar as governments do this, they are properly exercising the authority G.o.d grants them and are, to that extent, good.
Because of this good function, disciples of Jesus are commanded to ”honor the emperor” (1 Peter 2:17) and live in conformity to the laws of their land as much as possible-that is, insofar as those laws do not conflict with our calling as citizens of the kingdom of G.o.d (Rom. 13:1; t.i.tus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:1317; and specifically Acts 5:29). Whether we find ourselves in a democratic, socialist, or communist country, we are to pray for our leaders and seek to live in peace in that country (1 Tim. 2:13). We are, in a word, to be good citizens of whatever version of the kingdom of the world we find ourselves in.