Ms. Paparazzi the Night Stalker

Thanks for posting that Marcia. Paul and I are very pleased to receive the CT Book Award. We make a good team -- despite the fact that we sometimes drive each other nuts. Our prayer is that this book will help build confidence in the reliability of the Synoptic Gospels, both at an academic and lay level.

And now about Ms. Paparazzi the night stalker. It's just a little creepy knowing that, as I read and write away in my little room at 5:00AM, Marcia might be out there taking pictures! Random. I wonder what my neighbors might have thought if any saw her in action. Casing out the joint or what?

Anyway, time to get back to our violence in the Old Testament debate. I'll have a new post up soon.

Blessings

Greg

GB...TIME TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE

Sorry to interrupt all this Old Testament/violence talk Greg has been writing on, but I (Marcia) have some exciting news to share.

Christus Victor Ministries received word today that The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, co-written by Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd, received Christianity Today's 2008 Best Book Award in the category of Biblical studies. You can read more about it here.

CONGRATULATIONS Paul and Greg!


AND...in the spirit of keeping up on my pictorial posts...here is the Boyd house in the middle of the night as it snows...the light is on in that horrible messy room of his. GB is notorious for getting 3-4 hours of sleep per night, and using the rest of the night to write. He should use the rest of the night to rest...but he doesn't. Greg, turn the light off and GO TO BED!!! BUG!

What’s at Stake in Trying to Explain the Violent God of the Old Testament?

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drive out before you many nations... and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy…You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you.
Deut. 7:1-2, 16

I’m wrestling with the issue of the depictions of God as violent -- to the point of commanding genocide -- in the Old Testament (see my blog on Friday, March 14th). The main issue here is not just that passages in which Yahweh commands the Israelites to slaughter women and children (and even animals!) offend our modern sensibilities. The main issue, rather, is that these Old Testament depictions of God seem to run directly counter to what we learn about God in Jesus, who alone is the perfect revelation of God (Heb. 1:1-3).

In Christ we learn that God is the kind of God who chooses to suffer at the hands of enemies and on their behalf rather than use his supernatural power, or earthly powers, to defeat them. In Christ we learn that God loves his enemies, and commands us to do the same. In Christ we learn that it's God’s will that his people refuse to engage in violence against enemies, and instead imitate Jesus by sacrificially serving them.

The problem we're addressing, then, is far more serious than the fact that our modern sensibilities are offended by the Old Testament's violent passages. The problem is that God reveals himself in Christ to be antithetical to the genocidal God of various passages in the Old Testament.

Before we attempt to explain this, I think it’s important to ask: What is at stake in resolving this issue? In fact, in my opinion, answering this question is even more important than resolving the issue itself.

One might suppose everything is at stake in resolving this issue, for one might wonder how we can affirm the Bible to be God’s infallible Word if it contains contradictory images of God. And if we can’t trust the Bible to be God’s infallible Word, how can we trust that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins, since we learn about this in the Bible too? One might also argue that, in light of the revelation of God in Christ, it's not only logically impossible but also morally impossible to affirm any depiction of a God who commands the slaughtering of women and infants and who inspires the psalmist to celebrating the smashing of infants' heads against rocks (Psl. 137: 8-9).

Now, I believe the Bible is God's infallible Word (depending on how you define “infallible” – but that’s a separate issue), but I believe this way of approaching this or any other biblical issue is unhelpful and even dangerous. I'd like to offer a different way of approaching this issue. For I don’t believe my faith in Christ hangs on whether or not I’m able to adequately explain the apparently contradictory images of God in the Bible. Here's why.

My belief that Jesus is the Son of God isn’t rooted in my belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word. Rather, my belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word is rooted (mostly) in my belief that Jesus is the Son of God. I don’t believe in Jesus because the Bible says so. I believe in the Bible (mostly) because Jesus says so.

Now, you might be wondering, if I don’t believe in Jesus because the Bible says so, why do I believe in Jesus? There are a number of reasons, but here are the main two.

First, I find the historical evidence supporting the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels and Epistles to be very compelling [on this, see Eddy, Boyd, The Jesus Legend (Baker, 2007) or its less academic equivalent Lord or Legend? (Baker, 2007)].

Second, I find that the over-all message of the New Testament, as well as the broader narrative of the Old Testament that forms its backdrop, harmonizes with my deepest intuitions about life. For example, at the core of my being I (and most healthy people) am convinced that, if there is any purpose to life, it’s centered on love. In the New Testament I find a story that makes sense of this core intuition, for the story of God becoming a human and dying a cursed death on the cross to save a rebel race of sinners is (if it's understood rightly) the greatest love story ever told. If God is like this, I can understand why I have the core intuitions I have. The Gospel story thus “rings true” on an existential as well as a historical level.

Now, since I have historical and existential reasons for concluding that Jesus is the Son of God, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that God had something to do with providing the oral and written meta-narrative – the biblical narrative -- that anticipates (in the Old Testament), looks back to (in the New Testament) and interprets Jesus’ coming. I thus have reasons for accepting that the Bible is inspired. What is more, reading the Gospels as generally reliable historical documents (see the above mentioned works for arguments supporting this assessment), it appears that Jesus himself viewed the Old Testament as God’s Word and that he saw himself and the community of his followers as carrying on this same Spirit-inspired authority. Since I believe Jesus is the Son of God and have made him Lord of my life, I’m inclined to think he was correct in his basic theological views, and thus correct in his assessment of the biblical tradition. (I have other reasons for believing the Bible is God’s infallible Word, but these are my main two).

If one roots their faith in Christ in historical evidence and the existential fit of the Gospel story, what is at stake in resolving the issue of violence in the Old Testament? Well, let's imagine the worst case scenario. Suppose that, despite our best attempts to argue otherwise, we finally feel forced to conclude there is no way to reconcile the depictions of God commanding genocide and inspiring David to celebrate the killing of infants with the revelation of God in Christ. Suppose we thus feel forced to conclude that we have a logical as well as a moral obligation to reject this depiction of God. Does this undermine our faith?

If your faith in Christ is rooted in your faith in every passage of the Bible being infallible, this worst case scenario would obviously completely destroy your faith. But if your faith in the Bible is rather rooted in your faith in Christ, the worst case scenario would hardly be catastrophic. It would present us with theological problems, obviously. We’d have to modify our understanding of God’s involvement in providing the oral and written meta-narrative that interprets the coming of Christ. We’d perhaps need to rethink what we mean by claiming the Bible is "infallible," and this might raise certain hermeneutical issues as well. And we’d certainly have to rethink our Christology. How could Jesus, the Son of God, have trusted that the whole Old Testament was God’s infallible Word if (as we are imagining in this worst case scenario) a major motif that it contains is simply wrong?

These are challenging problems, but it’s so important we notice that none of them need affect our most fundamental reasons for believing Jesus is the Son of God or that the over-all message of the Bible that interprets Jesus’ coming is inspired by God. If our faith in Christ is rooted in historical evidence and the existential fit of the Gospel story, we really lose nothing even if we end up concluding that the passages in the Old Testament that depict God as commanding genocide were not inspired by God.

So, let's do our best to explain the depictions of God as violent in the Old Testament and to thereby reconcile them with the revelation of God in Christ. But for God’s sake (literally), don’t leverage your faith in Christ on the outcome of this investigation!

More to come. Til then,

be outrageously blessed!

Greg

Divinely Inspired Infanticide and Genocide?

A number of years ago I read a Christian apologist who argued that one proof of the Bible's inspiration is the fact that it is "the most beautiful book ever written." Now, I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. But this statement made me wonder how many books this guy had actually read. In fact, it made me wonder if he'd read the Bible!

Here's an inspired verse I don't find particularly beautiful.

Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction...
Happy are those who seize your infants
and dash them against the rocks (Psalms 137:8-9)

When an army conquered a city in the ancient world the victors would sometimes celebrate by smashing the heads of the infants against rocks. (Possibly inspired by this verse, this practice was resurrected by Christian Crusaders conquering Muslim cities). In this dark passage, the Psalmist is eagerly looking forward to this being done to Babylonian infants. He thinks the warriors who get to do this are lucky!

Most beautiful book in the world? Sorry. I'm not feel'n it.

Let's be honest. This passage is barbarically ugly, and we've got to wonder what on earth it's doing in the "inspired Word of God"! How are we to see this passage as "inspired" in light of the fact that Jesus taught us to love and bless our enemies, not hate and curse them? How could the same Lord who taught us to turn the other cheek, never retaliate and never use the sword inspire the Psalmist to gloat over the splattering of infants' heads? If harboring anger and speaking nasty words ("Raca") to another person puts us in danger of hell, as Jesus taught (Matt 5), what kind of danger must the Psalmist be in for harboring this utterly vindictive attitude toward the Babylonians?

What intensifies this problem even more is that it's not like Psalms 137 is an isolated case of celebrated violence in the Old Testament. It's found all over the place! The worst episodes happened when the Israelites enter the promised land. As they approached certain cities, the Israelites were commanded -- by God -- to slaughter men, women, children and even the animals! Yahweh is aiming at complete genocide of the Canaanite people. Could anything be more antithetical to what we learn about God in Jesus Christ? Honestly (we've got to be honest here, even if it hurts) doesn't this depiction of God look more like the God of Osama Bin Laden than the Father of Jesus Christ?

In my opinion, this is the most challenging objection to the Christian faith and most difficult theological question of the Christian faith. It's a problem I want to wrestle with in my next few posts. But I want you to be forewarned: If you think I'm going to have nice and tidy answers to this question, you're going to be disappointed. I don't. I'm still in process, entertaining a number of possibilities.

But I invite you to join me in the process.

In the meantime, I encourage you to walk in the self-sacrificial, loving way of Jesus, not the baby-head-smashing way of the Psalmist.

Later

Greg

Stating It Clearly

Hello fellow bloggerites,

Thanks for all the feedback on my review of Colson’s God & Government. In light of some of this feedback, I feel I need to clarify my view. I am not suggesting Christians can’t or shouldn’t be involved in politics (though I can easily understand how the New Testament leads some Christians to this conclusion). And I am not at all negating the good that Christians like William Wilberforce accomplished by political means (though non-Christians have of course accomplished similar things). Rather, in my review of Colson’s book and my other writings, I am simply arguing four things:

1) Even if it's permissible for Christians to participate in politics, we certainly don’t have a duty to do so, as Colson and most Evangelicals assume. Our only duty and allegiance is to God and his Kingdom. We cannot serve two masters. Out of our duty to God we are to obey laws, pay taxes and pray for political leaders as well as peace. (These are the only four things Scripture mentions in regards to what a Christian's relationship with political power should be.) Also out of our duty to God, however, we are to break all laws and go against all social norms and cultural taboos that are inconsistent with the reign of God. The life of a Kingdom person is to be counter-cultural and subversive of power.

2) There is no distinctly “Christian” way of being involved in politics. The criteria for political discernment is decency and wisdom, not the Christian faith or Christian lifestyle. Given the ambiguity of most political issues, good and decent people can and do fundamentally disagree about proposed political solutions to various problems. Kingdom people need to always respect this ambiguity, even (especially) on issues about which they are passionate, and thus never label their particular views "Christian."

3) While some good things can at times come of political involvement, the trust and confidence of Kingdom people is never to be placed here. Our trust is to be placed exclusively in the Kingdom of God, which always looks like Jesus. Our focus, time and energy must be centered on individually and collectively replicating the self-sacrificial love of Jesus to all people at all times.

4) Finally, politics is dangerous! We must always remember that Satan -- the “god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4) who “controls the entire world” (1 Jn. 5:19) -- is the C.E.O. of all governments (Lk 4:5-7). We must always remember that political power was the thing Satan tempted Jesus with and must never forget that Jesus refused this temptation. We must always remember Church history, which abundantly testifies to how saying “yes” to Satan’s temptation turns the Church into an ugly, destructive puppet of Caesar.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope that clarifies things a bit.

In an upcoming post I'm going to tackle the problem of violence in the Old Testament. Stay tuned!

Greg

Review of Colson's God & Government

As I promised, here's my book review of Chuck Colson's book God & Government. This is a long post, but I hope you'll find it worth the effort.

Chuck Colson is one of the most respected, influential voices in the modern Evangelical movement. His book God & Government is an important one, for in this work we find Colson’s seasoned reflections on the relationship between Church and State.

Having heard Colson speak on many political matters on his daily radio broadcast (“Breakpoint”), I was frankly surprised by how much I agreed with this book. Whatever else one might think of Colson’s perspective, one can’t deny that he is extremely informed, sophisticated and nuanced in his understanding of culture and politics. At the same time, there is much in this book I found troubling. In fact, as will become clear, the part that troubled me also puzzled me, for it seemed to me to be inconsistent with all the material I agreed with.

I’ll first outline two areas of Colson’s book that I agreed with and then discuss the aspect of his thinking I disagreed with and found puzzling.

The Kingdom of God and the Kingdoms of the World

First, Colson is keenly aware that the Kingdom of God, which the Church is called to manifest, cannot be brought about by politics. Among other things, Colson argues that the two kingdoms operate with two very different understandings of how the world can be transformed. For example, “[w]hile politics is based on the premise that society must be changed in order to change people,” Colson notes, “in the politics of the Kingdom it is people who must be changed in order to change society” (105). The Church’s role is to transform society primarily by putting on display God’s love, revealed in Jesus Christ (103). While political power can restrict people’s behavior, only Christ-like love can genuinely transform people. God “commands [his people] to influence the world through their obedience to Him, not by taking over the world” (268, cf. 289, 300). The Church is to influence and lead society primarily by providing it with a counter-cultural model (272-74). Amen to all of this!

Along the same lines, Colson argues that as Christians, we're citizens of heaven before we’re citizens of any country, and we’re to “serve as ambassadors, citizens of the heavenly Kingdom at work in this world” (ibid). As we carry out God’s work in the world, Colson says, Christians should “not rely on government, but on their own penetration of society as ‘salt and light’” (270). In fact, Colson says Christians must therefore resist “the ever-present temptation to usher in the Kingdom of God by political means” (104, cf. 131). This temptation, he sees, is one “to which the church has most commonly succumbed, and certainly this is its greatest temptation today” (ibid). Indeed, the lure of power “has been one of Satan’s most effective tools from the beginning, perhaps because he lusts for it so himself” (308).

Colson argues that the temptation to think we can change the world by acquiring political power is the very temptation Jesus resisted when tempted by the devil. He notes how easy it would have been for Jesus to accept Satan’s offer to reign over all the governments of the world (Lk 4:5-7). If Jesus accepted Satan’s offer, Colson notes, he “could enforce the Sermon on the Mount: love and justice could reign” (131). Jesus could have easily rationalized his accepting this offer by thinking that “if He didn’t accept, someone else would” (ibid). Colson argues that this is, in essence, the temptation many politicians accept when they “compromise to stay in power” because they believe that “there you can do more for the common good” (ibid).

Throughout its history, Colson observes, the Church has succumbed to the very temptation “Christ explicitly denied,” and this has greatly harmed its mission (132). Power always corrupts, and never more so than when it is wielded by religious people (300-12, 344). This became painfully clear when the Church acquired political power after Constantine (4th century). Colson notes that Augustine was one of the first examples of how Christians can be corrupted by political power when he tragically called on the state to use its power to suppress heresy, using whatever force was necessary to accomplish this. This set in motion a long and tragic history of the Church torturing and murdering people in Jesus' name (124-25). Colson expresses his agreement with Jacques Ellul who argued that “[c]ollaboration with power, whether Communist or not, is always ruinous for the church. If the church exists, if it is to have legitimacy in the eyes of the people,” Ellul says, “ it must always stand erect as a counter-power to political power” (225-26).

Rather than collaborating with political power or seeking to acquire power over others in any other way, Christians are to follow Jesus’ example of exercising power in weakness, as demonstrated by his washing the disciples' feet (308-09). Colson insightfully notes that “[n]othing distinguishes the kingdoms of man from the Kingdom of God more than their diametrically opposed views of the exercise of power” (312). This is fantastic!

Colson ends his book by brilliantly exposing the “utopian illusion” that peace and harmony will be brought about in the world through political means. The only hope is in the coming Kingdom of God that is manifested in

…ordinary , individual lives, in the breaking of cycles of violence and evil, in the paradoxical power of forgiveness, in the actions of those little platoons who live by the transcendent values of the Kingdom of God in the midst of the kingdoms of this world, loving their God and loving their neighbor” (420).

Anyone who is familiar with my work Myth of a Christian Nation will know that I was ecstatic to hear Colson proclaiming such truth!

The Massive Failure of the Contemporary Church

Second, Colson seems acutely aware that the Church in America is absolutely pathetic at living out the radical call of Kingdom citizenship. American Christianity, he decries, is “a pale shadow of the radical Kingdom its Founder announced” (55). American Christians are outwardly religious, but, as numerous studies have shown, “our religious beliefs make no difference in how we live” (245). The remarkable wave of secularism that has swept America over the last forty years is mainly the fault of the Church failing to be the Church (243). (I’d argue that the failure of the Church to be the Church is the reason for almost every other social ill western culture has ever faced, but that’s a different story). Colson writes:

Christian values are in retreat in the West today, primarily, I believe, because of the church itself. If Christianity has failed to stem the rising tides of relativism it is because the church in many instances has lost the convicting force of the gospel message…Christianity…has become a religion of private comfort and blessing that fills up whatever small holes in life that pleasure, money, and success have left open, what Bonhoeffer called a “god of the gaps” (252, cf. 243).

I couldn’t agree more! But here’s where I become puzzled.

Our Alleged “Divided Allegiances"

Given that Colson believes the main job of the Church is to transform the world by using the power of weakness rather than political power; given that Colson believes political power always corrupts the Church and is a temptation of the devil we must resist; given that Colson believes that the hope of the world lies not in politics but in the Church being the radical, counter-cultural Church it's called to be; and given that Colson agrees that the Church in America is failing miserably at this all-important task, wouldn’t you think Colson would focus all of his attention on helping the Church become the Church rather than how it should influence politics? Oddly, this is not what Colson does. Yes, he has many admonitions for Christians to live out their Kingdom calling, but he also focuses a great deal of his attention – in this book and in his broader ministry – on how Christians should engage in politics! Among other things, Colson hangs his hat on Christians fighting to outlaw abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and confirming “strict constructionst judges” in our courts (120).

According to Colson, Christians have “divided allegiances between God and the state” (313, cf. 126). ) “[A]s citizens of the nation-state,” Colson says, “Christians have the same civic duties all citizens have…” (314). We thus “have a duty…to work through civil authority for the advancement of justice and human good.” (133-34). Indeed, Christians are called to be patriotic (he has a whole chapter on “Christian patriotism”), though Colson grants that “Christian patriots spend more time washing feet than waving flags” (283). (I’m wondering why we should be waving flags at all!)

Despite the fact that Colson grants that “Jesus was remarkably indifferent to those who held political power” (126), and despite the fact that he agrees the Church should not “seek authority over political matters” (127-28), Colson argues Christians are commanded to try to influence the “kingdom of man” by bringing the values of “the Kingdom of God” to the political arena (262-63). Moreover, “Christians have a duty to “hold the state to account for its obligations to its citizens” (275). In fact, if a state is completely failing to carry out its God given duty, Colson says, “[t]he Christian may be justified…in organizing to overthrow the state.” He adds that, “Where peaceful means are available, force should be avoided” (283), which obviously implies that where peaceful means are not available, force is permitted.

Not only this, but “while the Christian is not to return evil for evil…he may participate in the God-ordained structure that restrains the evil and chaos of the fallen world by the use of force” (100). Christians can, therefore, participate in the armed forces and engage in violence if their cause is just. (How is that not returning evil with evil?). And while Colson grants that being involved in political offices may very well require one to lie and deceive people if it's in the nation’s interest, and despite the fact that Jesus and the New Testament forbid duplicity (Mt 5:37; Eph 4:15; I Tim.1:10), Colson argues that Christians should not hesitate to aspire to these political positions and participate in deception if they feel so called (313-14). Since our loyalties are “divided” between God and the state, sometimes Kingdom people must do things for the state that would otherwise be forbidden for Kingdom people if it’s for the greater good of the country.

Where Does Colson Get This?

Now you may be wondering, where does Colson get all this? It’s interesting to observe that, while Colson’s expositions on how the Kingdom of God is different from the kingdoms of the world are filled with Scriptural citations, such citations are almost non-existent in his expositions on how Christians should engage in politics. He of course frequently cites I Tim 2:1-3 and 1 Pet 2:13-17. But these passages only inform us that we’re to respect and pray for political leaders while obeying them insofar as this is possible (though it sometimes is not, cf. Acts 5:29). These passages hardly justify Colson’s view that Christians have a duty to participate in politics.

The only passage Colson relies on in a substantial way is Romans 13:1-7. Because Paul in this passage says that God “ordains” or “establishes” (tetagmenai) government and that Christians are to therefore obey ruling authorities (again, insofar as this is possible), Colson concludes that Christians have a “divided allegiance” between God and state, and that our duties to the state are the same as every other citizen (99-100).

In reality, this passage doesn’t support Colson’s position: it argues against it. Among other considerations, we have to read Romans 13 as a continuation of Romans 12 (in the original there were no chapter divisions). In Romans 12 Paul commands Kingdom people to love and bless their enemies while never retaliating. We are rather to leave all vengeance to God (Rom. 12:14-21). Then in chapter 13 Paul proceeds to tell us one of the ways God exacts vengeance – the very vengeance he just forbade us to ever carry out: namely, God uses the sword of government (13:4). The purpose of Romans 12 and 13, therefore, is not to inform us that we have a “divided allegiance.” It’s to rather distinguish the behavior that characterizes the Kingdom of God from the behavior that characterizes the sword-wielding kingdoms of the world.
The truth is, Kingdom people do not have – or at least should not have -- two allegiances. We cannot serve two masters (Lk 16:13). We are to obey government not because we have a duty to it but because we have a duty to God, and he tells us to submit to government insofar as it’s possible. Government is simply not worth bucking against if we don’t have to because this will distract us from doing our Christian duty of manifesting the Kingdom and spreading the Gospel.

A lot of Questions!

So, its not clear where Colson gets his passionate call for Christians to be involved in politics. It’s also not clear how this passionate call to politics is consistent with his excellent exposition on the unique, Jesus-looking way Christians are to transform the world and how different this is from politics. Here are eight (of a hundred) questions (or sets of questions) that arose in my mind as I read Colson’s book.

1. As we saw above, Colson grants that Jesus was “remarkably indifferent” to political powers (126). Since our central call is to imitate him (e.g. I Cor 4:6; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; Eph :1-2; I Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:7; Col 2:6; I Pet 2:21; I Jn 2:6), shouldn’t we too remain relatively indifferent to the political powers? Colson never addresses why our attitude should be so different from the Lord we’re called to imitate.

2. We saw above that Colson believes Christians have a duty to hold the state accountable (326) and even to violently overthrow it if necessary (283). When did Jesus ever hold Caesar accountable or tell his followers to do so? Even more to the point, if any government deserved to be overthrown it was the Roman government of Jesus’ day. And there was, in fact, a popular Jewish movement that was calling for just this (the zealots). Yet, Jesus explicitly disavowed this movement and forbade any use of the sword. He rather chose to subvert government by manifesting God’s love while allowing the government to put him to death. We are explicitly taught that this is the example we are to follow (I Pet 2:21). Colson never supports his endorsement of potentially violent revolutions with Scripture.

3.Related to this, on what basis can Colson justify Christians resorting to violence simply because one deems it justified? When Jesus, Paul and others in the New Testament command us to love, do good, bless and pray for our enemies and never retaliate, they never once provide us with an exception clause. Why does Colson not even attempt to offer a justification for his position? He seems to not notice the contradiction.

4. If political power is a temptation of the devil that always corrupts, as Colson argues, why should Christians trust it to bring about positive change and be invested in bringing about this change? Since Colson grants that the Christians main job (I’d say only job) is to influence the world by imitating Jesus’ self-sacrificial love, and since Colson concedes that this is where the only hope of the world lies, and since Colson further grants that the American Church is pathetic at doing this, shouldn’t we regard Colson’s own call to political activism as a massive distraction from our primary (if not singular) mission? At the very least, shouldn’t we put politics on the back burner until we get good at doing the one thing God explicitly calls us to do: namely, to look like Jesus?

5. Colson grants that ministers and priests must take great care to distinguish their political opinions from their “spiritual roles.” Otherwise they can’t help “presenting two faces to the world” that “ inevitably damages the work that should be a primary concern: the witness of the church” (326). This is certainly wise. But if this is true of clergy, why isn’t it also true of lay people? We are all called to be ministers and priests (Eph 4:11-13; I Pet 2:5; Rev. 5:10; 20:6). We’re all called to be “the witness of the church.” How many people have been ostracized from the Kingdom in America simply because they can’t stand the public political positions many Christians have taken?

6. Colson repeatedly notes, with great wisdom, that Kingdom people are called to be faithful rather than pragmatic. But then how can he justify encouraging Kingdom people in politics to compromise their Kingdom walk by killing or lying if they have to on the grounds that doing so would serve “the common good?” This strikes me as putting pragmatism over faithfulness.

7. Here’s a big one. Colson grants that whenever pastors become partisan, they “may soon discover they have compromised both their own witness and that of their church” (329). This is wise advice, and, as I’ve said, it applies to lay people as much as clergy. Yet right after saying this Colson reports that he helped draft a statement with Richard Neuhaus in 2006 that said, “Those who take pro-choice positions are denying themselves the company of believers” (331). How is this not being partisan? A particular political position is being made into a litmus test for church membership!

Isn’t it conceivable that a pro-life Christian could in good faith decide that attempting to overturn Roe versus Wade is simply not feasible in our pluralistic culture and that embracing this all-or-nothing stance is actually contributing to the killing of unborn children? Couldn’t a pro-life Christian conceivably conclude that, since almost all Americans agree that the fewer the abortions the better, the main reason abortion rates remain constant is that the two sides have become polarized at the extremes? Couldn’t one suspect that the one side won’t give in on the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion because they fear the other side will gain momentum in criminalizing the morning-after pill? Couldn’t a pro-life Christian conceivably conclude that trying to find a common ground requiring compromise on both sides would actually allow us to work together to achieve what we all want – fewer abortions? Or isn’t it conceivable that a pro-life Christian might in good faith come to the conclusion that the issue of abortion is so difficult that women themselves should be the ones to decide the matter rather than government?

At the very least, aren’t these (and many related) issues at least ambiguous enough that leaders like Chuck Colson should refrain from disfellowshipping someone because they hold a different political position? Colson’s view here is particularly puzzling because he elsewhere warns about how political involvement has often divided the church (252-53)!

Finally, given that the central call of the Kingdom is not about politics but rather about sacrificial service to the world, shouldn’t we be more focused on how we Christians can sacrificially serve women with unborn children, making it feasible for them to go full term, rather than kicking each other out of church over our opinions about what government should or should not do about abortion?

8. Colson worries that if gay marriage becomes permissible by law, Christian ministers and priests will be ordered to marry same-sex couples or see the state yank their licenses to perform marriage (129). This, of course, is very debatable, but partly on this basis Colson encourages Christians to fight for the marriage amendment act. Regardless of whether or not one thinks it’s in the interest of the common good for gays to be able to call their unions “marriages,” isn’t Colson encouraging Christians to acquire political power, which he elsewhere says the Church should never try to do (127-28). This is especially puzzling because Colson grants that whenever the church wasn’t persecuted it was being corrupted (126). In this light, why would Christians fight for the right not to be persecuted? Did Jesus or his disciples ever do such a thing?

Isn’t the temptation to defend ourselves and advance the good by political means the very temptation Jesus rejected, and the very temptation Colson warns us about?

Conclusion

Colson is fantastic in his analysis of the distinctness of the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world, and brilliant at exposing the dangers of fusing the two. But, as we’ve seen, he then goes on to advocate many political positions and encourage many political activities that, at the very least, stand in tension with these insights. What explains this? There are, I believe, two things.

The first and most fundamental problem is Colson's mistaken view that Christians have “divided loyalties.” He of course stresses that our loyalty to God supercedes our loyalty to the state (despite advocating that Christians in politics can lie or that Christians can participate in killing if it's in the interest of the nation). It’s because of this understanding of dual allegiances that Colson is able to – indeed, forced to -- espouse two very different (arguably contradictory) views of politics and how Christians should, or should not, engage in it.

Second, Colson repeatedly falls into a false antithesis. Either a Christian is politically active, or they hold to a “privatized faith.” For example, at one point Colson criticizes the “passing-through mindset” of

…those who believe they are simply sojourners with loyalties only in the kingdom beyond. They believe that faith is an entirely private matter, and that they are under no obligation to the community or country in which God has placed them ( 280).

Well folks, there is another alternative. One can believe they’re “passing-through” this world (which the New Testament in fact teaches) and that their only loyalty is to the Kingdom of God (which the New Testament also advocates) while embracing a profound “obligation to the community or country in which God has placed them” (which the New Testament also advocates). The question is not whether or not Kingdom people are called to radically affect society, but how. Everything in the New Testament drives home the point that we are to transform society not by thinking we have any special wisdom on how to fix government and run the world, but by simply imitating our Lord and Master. Everything about Jesus’ radical lifestyle, and certainly his death on Calvary, was a radical act of social activism. This is the social activism Christians are to be engaged in.

I don’t think this means Christians can’t be involved in politics (though some of my Anabaptist friends would disagree). But it certainly means we all (not just clergy!) have to take great care to keep our political involvement distinct from our call to manifest God’s Kingdom. Don’t label your political opinions “Christian”! And it certainly means we should not divide our loyalties and trust between God and our political involvement Our only loyalty, and our total trust, must be in God who sovereignly uses our Jesus-looking acts of sacrificial love to transform the world into a domain over which he reigns: the Kingdom of God.

Let me tell you about my "Beso"

Hi folks,

I'd like to share with you a little bit about my adorable wife Shelley. It's her birthday today! I affectionately refer to her as "Beso" (pronounced bee-so) because.... actually, I have no idea, but that's been my name for her these last 25 years.

This is Shelley on vacation last summer, basking in the tranquility of the midsummer breeze...she is so BEAUTIFUL!

Shelley and I have been married 28 years. She's the love of my life, my best friend and my partner in ministry. I could not do what I do if it were not for her -- and this isn't just flowery husband talk! Honestly, Shelley is to me what a seeing-eye dog is to a blind person. She's my bridge to the normal world. She's the glue that holds my life together. Among a trillion other things, Shelley schedules all my appointments, reminds me on a moment-by-moment basis where I need to be and constantly provides me with insight on social situations that I, being quasi-autistic, completely lack (I couldn't pick up a social cue if it slapped me in the face!). Even more importantly, Shelley's love for me is a constant source of strength and encouragement. Beso...you are "the wind beneath my wings."


Shelley doesn't like a lot of fanfare. While she threw me the party of the century for my 50th birthday, Beso simply wanted to go out to a movie for hers. She loves pop-corn and I love Cherry Icees. Isn't she absolutely adorable? How did I get so lucky?

I can't believe how in love I am with my Beso. The way she delights in simple things, the way she perpetually fiddles around the house, the affectionate way she plays with our dogs and the way she so easily gets excited about our lives. She loves and accepts me, just as I am, with all my little idiosyncrasies. I love the history we have together, the family we've raised together, the friends we enjoy together, the ministry we do together and the process of aging we're now experiencing together.

Beso, I simply can't even imagine doing life without you.

Happy Birthday Sweetheart!