New York Times article
There was an article that was in the New York Times last week, about Dr. Greg Boyd and his church Woodland Hills. I think that it warrants some conversation, and would love some of your thoughts to the article and to my preliminary response. I am going to try and elaborate more on this idea later, as it is one that is near and dear to my heart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I think that this is an important issue, and I am glad to see that it is getting attention. Many of the issues that Dr. Boyd and the article brought are imperative issues not only to American Christians but to Christians everywhere. I was a bit dissapointed however in the response from the "conservative camp." It is somewhat typical of the media and todays culture to associate the radical right with all conservatives. However there are many out there who feel that way. To assert that you have to be a Republican if you are a Christian is simply absurd, it is as ridiculous as saying Christians cannot be involved in politics. I hope that in the future there can be opinions included from more moderate thinking individuals. On that note, I think that Dr. Boyd brings up some important points about the Evangelical Right and their fixation with abortion and gay marriage. As a Christian those are both things that I oppose, but those are certainly not the only two issues or even the most important for that matter. On the other hand I think that to right off the political process completely as to say that because we are Christians we have God and therefore we are too good for the democratic process that governs our country is also disturbing.
My friend Dan had a great post about this article on his blog, and it really got me thinking about the issues that Dr. Boyd and the article brings up. Dan eloquently elaborates about St. Augustine’s idea of the Christian having dual citizenship, one in the earthly city and one in the heavenly city. While citizenship is far more important in the heavenly city, it doesn’t mean we can abandon our responsibility here on earth. Politics and government are part of the earthly city. I completely understand that my allegiance is to my God in heaven. Yet while I am here on earth, I have to respect the laws of the land in which I live. Part of that is involving one self in the political process. I believe that we cannot avoid or neglect the responsibility that we have in the earthly city.
I think that there is a fine line between faith and politics that should certainly not be crossed, yet should also not be avoided. I believe that Dr. Boyd is right in that the pulpit is no place for political rhetoric, and diatribes about current events. I think that the church has a responsibility to society far beyond gay marriage and abortion. America is not a Christian nation nor is America the “new Jerusalem,” ideas on that line of thought are dangerous. There is also the idea of too much nationalism becoming dangerous. I agree with Dr. Boyd’s take that we can’t allow politics and patriotism to become idolatry. We cannot allow ourselves to be so swept up in national pride that we forget about our heavenly calling. Yet I think that the church has a responsibility to society, and should be an example to the Christian faith. The church cannot severe ties with politics and society because doing so would destroy the ability to reach out and help those who need the church.
As I stated before, I don’t believe America to be a Christian nation, but I do see America as an opportunity for believers of the Christian faith. Dr. Boyd (and so many other pastors) are free to say what they want to say about their faith, they can stand at their pulpit’s every Sunday and preach the Gospel how they see fit. If someone is telling them what to say or how to say it, it isn’t coming from the military or the federal government. We are not in Nazi Germany or the Soviet USSR. There are no Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s having to found legitimate underground churches for fear of their life if they preach God’s word. There are still places today where people are being persecuted for their faith. America is not one of them. America has granted us the right to worship the way we want to worship. My allegiance and my faith are in my Lord in Heaven, not my country, but respect and responsibility are also to my country while I am here in this earthly city.
My apologies for this being a bit disorganized, I just started to write, and went through a few drafts before anything even remotely made sense. Please let me know what you think.
Blessings,
Peter
posted by Peter @ 10:04 AM
8 Comments:
First I would like to thank my friend Black Egg for hipping me to the NYTimes article last week. Thanks also to Peter for a great diving board into a potentially volatile discussion.
After reading Boyd's article, I really want to go buy his book "Myth of the Christian Nation." I need clarification on some of his points. Does Boyd argue that while abortion and homosexuality are wrong according to Biblical teaching, we should refrain from voting that way? I couldn't tell if that was his angle. I would assume that Boyd would allow me, a citizen of a democratic republic, to vote according to my feelings. My feelings, being founded in my identity as a Christian and therefore the teachings of Scripture, would lead me to vote against abortion and homosexuality. Would Boyd disagree with this line of reasoning? Should I not exercise my right to vote, or should some other factor prompt me to vote differently than my faith would suggest? Would Boyd question my interpretations of what the Bible teaches on these issues?
Another question: Although abortion and homosexuality are hot topics in today's politics, Boyd seems to suggest that these issues are not as "important" as other issues. Which issues are more important? Are all issues equal? Should I avoid putting stock in some issues and not in others? How should I vote if some but not all issues are represented by candidates that are running against one another?
Finally, if the pulpit is not a place where political rhetoric is allowed, then are there other things that preachers should avoid discussing? Perhaps if homosexuality and abortion are issues that the Church should not be so actively involved in POLITICALLY, then maybe the Church should stop talking about these issues ALTOGETHER. Maybe preachers should no tbe allowed to offer any insight at all into issues that are being considered in the political arena. Would Boyd agree with this idea?
I agree with the S to the G and saying thank to Peter for putting a post up on this current happening relating to G.Boyd and Politics.
I have not yet read "Myth of the Christian Nation" but I believe I may be able to answer some of your questions on the topic. First off concerning voting. Boyd would say that everyone who wants to vote should vote. He never said that you should not vote. If you want to vote then vote. He would say that the pulpit is not a place where political guidance should be delivered. Regardless, of how you vote the Church should not be assciated to the vote.
In regards to your question about voting for abortion or gay marriage legislation, I have some questions. First, can we vote on a resolution to these issues? I have never seen a vote to pass a morally unclear (according to the world) issue. Boyd would be fine with the person who votes for a republican and for a person that votes for a democrat as long as the people are acting with Christ-like love and guidance. In the book, he talks about the fact that two of Jesus' disciples are political polar opposites of the time (Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector). Here is the problem; the church in America is currently in a state where it is being associated with the Republican Party. If you are a Christian you should vote republican and for all of it agenda. If your faith is leading your to vote a certain way then do it, just don't say that Jesus told you to do it. The kingdom values cannot be legislated by any earthly system.
In regard to the amount of attention certain issue's are getting; he is saying that gay marriage and homosexuality have been on the front page for many years. Meanwhile, issues like medical aid, economy, homelessness, employment, environmental issues, and many others have been lesser issues. In reality these lesser issues are things that can be fixed now, instead we end up talking about abortian and gay rights till my beard turns gray.
I think that your last comment is a bit silly and emotionally driven. It is one thing for the church to talk about moral issues and another thing to tag them politically. More than the government, it is the Church's job to teach the morals of the bible to others. Besides, if the government really starts enforcing sin through law where will that stop? Should I be fined for lusting? How can a prideful activity be enforced lawfully? It would be like the OT times when a person would be stoned for adultry. That doesn't fix the problem it just demoralizes, angers, and isolates people. It is the Church's job to teach morality that resembles the Kingdom of God no governmental binding can make these changes. Your suggestion is completely the thing that he does not want people to misinterpret. For heaven sake (now I am getting emotion), I have been to church where he preaches that homosexually is a sin. He did not say that you should go out and create a law that forces people stop being gay.
Another interesting less know fact that was pointed out is the fact that the Christian church on Nazi Germany backed the Hitler. Just an interesting situation that could have been avoided if the church keep out for political relations.
Another thought, if the current situation in America was in such a state that the Church was backing the democratic party then Boyd would have written a book stating the problem same problem but more of a democratic lein.
I am glad that Boyd doesn't talk about homosex-sue-ality from the pulpit. It would make me squirm in my thong.
Way to completely take a respectable real conversation and destroy it. I'm not sure who "S to the gay" is, but I wish he would find some tact in his comments and not use the word "gay" in a derogetory fashion.
Yep yep. Good to get clarification, and also good to get some light-hearted stupidity from "s-to-the-gay." Sometimes you just need a stupid comment here and there. Wait...
As far as the issue at hand...
You're right that there is currently no resolution to ban gay marriage in Minnesota, but there is a reason for that. The state senate has blocked that proposal a few times, and it is outrageous. Let's vote if we want to, right? Well, we can't because our elected officials won't let us. Why? Because THEY don't support a ban on gay marraige. I'm not gonna vote for a new state senator who SUPPORTS gay marraige because I want THE RESOLUTION TO BAN IT to get a chance to be voted on! So, if a candidate supports the ban, then I'll vote for him. It just so happens that candidates who support a ban on gay marraige are mostly Republicans.
Of course you can't ENFORCE illegal "lusting" or "greed." That doesn't mean that sins that the government should put its blessing on those sins. How about murder, rape, theft... and others. These are illegal in our country and I'm glad they are. Would Boyd suggest that it would be a BAD thing for homosexuality to be illegal? If it were, it would certainly be a deterent to participating in homosexual activity. You seem to suggest with your OT reference that making sin "illegal" would be a bad thing. I disagree. But this is off the subject, because the legality of homosexuality is not even the issue of today's politics. The issue is whether the divinely-created institution of marraige should be granted to homosexuals. Why should a homosexual be allowed to infringe upon holy matrimony?
I believe that there is such a thing as the "gay agenda." This term describes the ultimate goal of the homosexual movement, in it's political and social endeavors. I don't think homosexuals and their supporters will stop until they can legally FORCE the church to eliminate homosexual activity from the perverbial "list of sins." I don't think I am being a conspiracy theorist in this, as things of this nature are already circling around the courts. I heard a story (maybe from you) about a girl in highschool who got sued for "hate speech" because she told a gay student in her school that Jesus could help him. Is that not EXACTLY what she should say as a Christian? Being salt and light does not mean just walking around "loving" everybody. Sometimes you have to tell someone that what they're doing is wrong, and that Christ can not only save them but heal them. I don't think the homosexual agenda wants Christians to be allowed to say that.
It should be noted at this point that a huge part of the problem with this whole situation is the slippery slope of "speaking the truth in love." I don't hate homosexuals. I have sins that I struggle with just like every other human being. However, I'm not trying to convince you that my sin is actually NOT SINFUL. This is PRECISELY the goal of the homosexual agenda, and getting the law on their side is a major step in that directon. No homosexual will think that they need to be "rescued" from that sin if the law says that they are completely fine to be homosexual. In fact, John Doe Homosexual, you can even go ahead and get married and adopt children and be pastors in Episcopalian churches.
The point is, if we as Christians roll over and don't do anything about what I see as a very real attack on Biblical morality then will we soon not be allowed to reference that morality at all. If a candidate stands up and defends marraige then I'm gonna vote for him. It turns out once again that all these candidates are Republicans.
Ok, so, back to the real issue. I guess I am unclear at this point about the foundation under the argument that the church can't endorse one political candidate over another. Why is it that a preacher can't openly support one political ideal over another? Was it something to do with the alleged negative consequences of laws against sinful behavior? Or is it something to do with "loving" everyone?
A final point: it was the CATHOLIC CHURCH that supported Hitler, and only parts of it. I can PROMISE you that the Baptists, the Methodists, and every other Protestant church that you and I might allign ourselves with DID NOT support the Nazi Regime or its ideals.
We got off track and are starting to focus on gay marriage and not the New York Times article. I believe this is exactly the thing that Boyd was talking about when he said that these issue's aren't as important as other issues. I really don't want to go into the whole gay marriage issue, but I have to disagree with you on the point that the church is going to submit that sin because the government has. I don't think that if the government stands on one side of a political issue that the church has to stay on the same side. That is the whole point of Boyd's book. The Kingdom of Christ doesn't look like any kingdom any of the kingdom's of this world. The church has a lot more work to do. How many of us have talked about doing things to help make the world more like Christ kingdom (Including me). When we end up talking about gay marriage and abortion. Is it the church's position to bring judgment or compassion? Can compassion and judgment co-exist? We also have to ask if marriage is a Christian defined institutions. If so, then we screwed that up as a society a long time ago. Can Hindu's get married? Off subject, the kingdom of God starts with the individual and if we want things to change to look more like the kingdom of God much can be done outside of politics'.
If a church were to bring compassion, would it get any credit for it from the media? Usually not. The media, however is happy to stir the pot between Christians and the gay movement. It is true though, that as Christians and as a church, we should do all we can to demonstrate God's love, but also be "unashamed of the gospel."
As for politics, I feel there is a very important battle taking place in our country between Christian values and some sin movements that "don't hurt anybody." I would like see Christian values upheld so I will vote for any party that represents that. Furthermore, the government can't solve the poverty problem. As Jesus said, "the poor you'll have with you always." It is our job as individuals/church to help as much as we can.
P.S. When people speak out against sins it makes me squirm in my thong too. I get so worried that person will be viewed as closed minded.
I guess we just have a difference of opinion. I believe that the government can do more to help issues with poverty (I know 1st hand via issue through my wife's work at the homeless shelter). I mean how do you interprete that what Jesus said. Is that an excuse to never help poor people. If you can help all of them should you help any? Also, as far as what the media is going to report, I don't know and I don't really care. I do know that generally the church can do more for community in general.
Post a Comment
<< Home