There is a heated debate going on in the evangelical church – are we diluting the gospel by linking it with political activism? I personally think that there are extremes to be avoided, those of isolationism (we should not try to redeem culture), and Dominionism (trying to usher in God’s kingdom on this earth via politics).
In a series of two articles (listed below) at Out of Ur, pastor Gregory Boyd discusses how he began to preach about the dangers of co-mingling the gospel and conservative politics (I’d say that goes for liberal politics as well). Over 1000 people left his church (20%) after this series. He actually wrote a book on the topic entitled The Myth of a Christian Nation.
Of course, I think our nation was a combination of Christian and secular values, forged into a free, principled whole. What do you think?
Here’s an excerpt from Kingdom Confusion: Is the quest for political power destroying the church?
Among other things, I was asked to hand out leaflets, to draw attention to various political events, and to have our church members sign petitions, 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 participate 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 associating the Christian faith too closely with any political point of view, whether conservative or liberal. The series was entitled, “The Cross and the Sword."
The response surprised me….
I do 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 assure you that this is not what I’m saying. The issue is far more fundamental than how we should vote or participate in government. Rather, I want to challenge the assumption that finding the right political path has anything to do with advancing the kingdom of God.
Here’s an excerpt from Kingdom Confusion 2: The danger of believing in a Christian America
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 shining.
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.
Instead of living out the radically countercultural mandate of the kingdom of God, 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 God’s distinctly beautiful kingdom and thereby undermines our motivation to live as set-apart (holy) disciples of this kingdom.
Seeker, I am surprised that you are negative towards Dominionism but are sympathetic towards ID.
Are you aware that the main financial backer of the Discovery Institute is a Reconstructionalist?
Should the DI be taking Ahmansons's money, considering his extremist views?
Please note, this is not a trick question or anything.
I'm just interested in what you think is going on. http://www.geocities.com/lflank/diagenda.html
The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution fight, though, is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other politically active group — only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Ahmanson has, by himself, provided about one-third of the toal donations to the Discovery Institute during its existence, and funds about one-fourth of the Institute's annual operating expenses. He sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.
Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist — a fringe group of fundies who argue that the US Constitution should be abandoned and the US should be "reconstructed" under "Biblical law".
And what does recontructionism have to do w/ ID as a theory? Even if they have strange motives, I'm more worried about their arguments, and whether or not they are logical.
And I'm not a hard core ID fan, but I am a Creationist sympathizer. I watch ID with interest, and like many of their arguments. But the jury is still out.
And the wedge doc doesn't phase me at all – I mean, I'm a Creationist sympathizer, so I welcome the broadening of scientific assumptions a bit.
But again, I hardly think that ID is an important reconstructionist doctrine. And even if it is, I'm not losing sleep.
I think this question is too complex for a simple answer. Certainly the nation is Christian in a general sense, as the vast majority of people identify as some variant of Christian. Of course, defining what the term "Christian" would help narrow the explanation. Conservative evangelicals seem to play both sides of the rhetorical coin. They express themselves as the majority of the public and therefore should have the proportionate impact on social policy and cultural consumption while also complaining about being hounded by the ACLU and worrying about those apathetic or worse liberal Christians.
For example, I often hear about how the country was founded as a Christian nation, but many of the people holding that opinion would consider several influential founders to be apostates. Universal salvation was a population notion held by figures such as John Adams and Benjamin Rush. Unitarianism became increasingly popular with figures such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
And yet we criticize the Roman church for not speaking out more during the holocaust, or the German churches for that matter. Washington said 'One cannot govern rightly without God and the Bible". No we're not a Christian nation, but certainly one founded on a Judeo Christian ethic. If as Christians we are called to "Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God", how can we ignore the public arena?
corinthian, Boyd explicitly says that Christians should be firmly engaged in the public arena. He’s just warning that we shouldn’t conflate America and Christendom. Doing so leads to enshrining certain areligious elements of our culture as Christian.
Anybody got a citation for that Washington quote, “One cannot govern rightly without God and the Bible?” I’ll wager Washington, a thoughtful man who routinely deleted references to Jesus from all correspondence and who refused communion for his entire adult life, never said it.
Here you go ed – Quotes that never were
“If as Christians we are called to “Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God”, how can we ignore the public arena?”
corinthian, do you not realize the non sequitor you asked??
are you confusing/combining public with the public arena/politics?
Boyd is right in the purest sense that NO nation/state is “christian”. Only individuals are/can be. The point of New testament Christianity is that God has suspended “nation-buliding” IE as with Isreal and with the NT. began a new, more international, borderless approach for building His Kingdom by taking up residence in individual believers.
Butthere is still however an extent to which all nations/states are judged based on a corporate righteousness in a general sense(Proverbs- “righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people”) To the degree that any group of people/ citizens of a particular country/ ..to the degree that their corporate acts are in the “right” is to the general degree that they will be blessed( in a general sense even though many of the people may not personally be believers.)
To this degree a nation/state, (while it is impossible for it to be identified as a “Christian” nation)- comprised of Chistian individuals and church bodies that can and should be employed in activites that bring about blessing within that realm of influence. ie nation/state.
As far as the argument that the founding of america was by a bunch of card carrying secularists..nothing is further from the truth. America was founded by INDIVIDUALS who were not in agreement in many ways and yet in so many ways were as opposed to modern day american individuals in relation to their acknoweledgement of a supreme being. The main difference was some people believed you could not know this supreme being(Deists) and the others believed that you could know him as reperesented the incarnation- Jesus.
While in the technical sense we cannot claim to be a Chritian nation we CAN claim and SHOULD acknowledge the lives of exemplary Chritians in our nations past that have used their freedoms to promote Christian principles and ideologies… while simultaneously identifying and ackowledging areas where the invidual church can provide a clearer representation of Christ and His borderless mission that is much greater than Americanism.
I agree Tim. Further, while we may say that our nation’s government was not intended to spread the gospel or enforce a Christian state, we can easily and in good conscience say that the first pilgrims and country founders did come to create a civilization and government based upon Christian principle, and with the intent of creating a free nation in which faith, and the gospel itself, could prosper.