Democracy Responds to Boyd's Myth of a Christian Nation

Over the last two weeks I have written four essays about Pastor Greg Boyd’s controversial stand on Christians in politics—they shouldn’t be—where I pretty much disagreed with his position. Apparently I am in the minority opinion in the blogosphere. I thought my reasoning was sound but I couldn’t find any comments like, “Wow, Lisa, I never considered that,” or “You have struck the proper balance.” Well, one or two might be there but most likely they got caught in the stampede of “right-on-pastor” comments by Pastor Boyd’s new fan base.

In his latest book and in his sermons Pastor Boyd attempts to shoot down the concept of America as a Christian nation. “When were we a Christian nation?” he bellowed from the pulpit. “Was it when we were enslaving people and beating them? Or was it when we stole Indian lands?...I don't get it...Where was God in this?” Not that any of these atrocities were carried out under the banner of Christianity but it’s these historic examples of “power over people” that may be associated with the idea of "Christian Nation" that has Pastor Boyd's jeans in a jumble. He is concerned that the evil perpetuated in our history may be associated with the name of Christ. Today's politics (which will be tomorrow's history) are to him a clear and present danger to the reputation and the expression of the kingdom of God when Christians use the political and legislative processes. He calls this methodology to force the Christian agenda (if you can call biblical rightness an agenda) on society through the power of a worldly system "power over people." Such an approach by Christians, he says, is the antithesis to the New Testament teachings that Christians are called to live radically loving lives that will effect changes in the human heart which he believes will ultimately change society.

According to Boyd, political engagement was never part of Jesus’ earthly mission. For example, Pastor Boyd points out that Jesus did not challenge the Roman government in Palestine, but rather taught submission to it and loving one’s enemies. "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles," Jesus said (Matthew 5:41) A teaching like this would have irritated Jesus' audience because the Jewish nation wanted their Messiah to throw off the shackles of the hated Gentile oppressor and make Israel preeminant. Despite Jesus' teachings there were many that rebelled against Rome's imperialistic authority and most of them were horribly executed. But Jesus used the Roman oppressor to demonstrate God's love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). But America is not governed by a tyrannical oppressor but is the land of the free where freedom of thought, religion and speech are paramount to a civil and just society. It is by God's laws that we have a civil and just society. Ergo, Christians can and should utilize the political and legal provisions of a representative democracy to secure that civil and just society. I can't understand how the Christians-out-of-politics crowd can morally equate the Roman emperor with the American constitutional democracy and the Christians who seek national strength through obeying God's laws. Such a comparison is hyperbole and borders on slander.

But still, the Lord requires His followers to go the extra mile as Pastor Boyd correctly teaches. However, we are called to take a stand in our society for rightness even as we serve. They are not polar opposites in God's kingdom but are complements. The world knows the difference between right and wrong, but we Christians know and must stand on the Truth. There is New Testament precedent for godly engagement in secular business: John the Baptist challenged the marriage of King Herod to the wife of his own brother. He lost his head for his efforts. The story is significant because John challenged the moral practices of the Roman-appointed authority on Biblical grounds. Sounds pretty much like Christian activism today, doesn’t it?

Christians in politics is not a new 21st century phenomenon. Some have accused the Republican Party of taking political advantage of the Christian voting block. So what? The Republican Party has not been the first to do this. The Christian voting block came to the attention of the Democratic Party elite in 1976 when apparently large numbers of Christian voters helped elect Jimmy Carter, a ''born-again'' Christian. This voting block became terribly disappointed and disillusioned with Carter's liberal politics and absence of common sense, which motivated them to pursue candidates with more sound policies. Christians became a major recruiting ground for the ''New Right''--which included many of the issues Christians and other conservatives are concerned with today--and secured the twice over election of Ronald Reagan. Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition and his campaign for the Republican nomination in 1995 galvanized the Christian community to seek alternatives to the extreme left policies of the Clinton administration.

Unfortunately, Pastor Boyd makes a grotesquely inaccurate comparison between the Roman Emperor Constantine and the American Church’s political activism. Emperor Galerius issued an edict of toleration in 311 which stipulated Christians, who had "followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity", be granted an “indulgence.”

"Wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for our safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the republic may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes."

I find it remarkable that this ruler of a decadent, worldly Roman Empire called the Christians to national intercessory prayer.

In 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan which returned the meeting places and other properties which had been stolen from the Christians and sold out of the government treasury. Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the empire and replaced symbols and temples of the old gods with those of Christianity. Christianity in the Roman Empire, Boyd argues, became a political tool wielded by the power of a worldly government, often employing the sword along with it.

Boyd’s analogy disintegrates like vampires in sunlight under the scrutiny of the First Amendment. Christianity never was and never will be declared by the US government to be the country’s official religion. At the same time, the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice religion unhindered by the government. It also keeps Christianity's enemies from using the government to stop its practice, which includes evangelism and its application to good governance--a byproduct the secularists hate. We cannot logically equate Constantine’s official use of Christianity and the public stand the Church takes in the public debates allowed by democracy.

But to hear Pastor Boyd talk about it, you’d think there was something inherently anti-Jesus about Christians exercising their rights in the democratic process. Pastor Boyd rejects the use of the tools of our democracy as a “kingdom of the world” thing. But democratic values are in line with biblical values. Let’s not confuse nomenclature. “Christian nation” does not refer to a theocracy but a set of principles, biblical in nature, which have been part of American governance and culture. Each citizen benefits from the biblical idea of freedom and the rule of law regardless of his religious persuasion.

God created this country so that people could govern themselves according to biblical ideas and not be forced to unrighteousness and strife from dictatorships. Democracy gives us the governmental vehicle to spread the Good News. Remember that pesky First Amendment I talked about earlier?

• It was under democracy based on biblical principles that the Indians were recompensed.
• It was under democracy based on biblical principles that slavery was abolished and condemned as an institution.
• It is under democracy based on biblical principles that immigrants can come here to worship God without fear of being tossed in jail or sent to forced labor camps.
• It is under democracy based on biblical principles that these same immigrants can come here and make better lives for themselves.

It is under this democracy based on Christian principles that the Church fights for the lives of the wounded and the helpless.

Christians are working to preserve this framework. In decrying Christian political activism, Boyd undermines the very vehicle that lets Christians practice their religion. If this is not true, then it makes no sense for the ACLU to be on a constant search and destroy mission to remove even the symbols of Christianity from the public place.

Are we a Christian nation? I see us as a nation of Christians living in a worldly culture that is not entirely devoid of Christian standards—due to democracy based on biblical principles.

This is LM.
Thanks for stopping by.