...

From Walter Brueggemann’s Exodus commentary

“The Mosaic prohibition against idols and images has profound sociopolitical implications, for the practice of worshiping idols is never simply a theological or liturgical matter but always spills over into social, ideological, and political practice, inevitably with the intent of partisan advantage. . . . Where the church is soft on idols, it becomes muted on social criticism.”

“The healing of creation, and of our lives as creatures of God, requires a disengagement from the dominant systems of power and wealth. Sabbath is the daring recognition that with the change of sovereigns wrought in the exodus, such unrewarding expenditure of labor is no longer required. It is only a bad habit we continue in our disbelieving foolishness.”

...

From David Dark's The Gospel According to America

"We might ask ourselves what we're trying to avoid thinking about when we reflexively say or think, 'That's just your interpretation'; 'This is only your opinion'; or 'Timothy McVeigh/Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein is absolute evil.' What is it that we find reassuring in the assertion that terrorists think only about evil, 'flat evil,' and nothing else at any time? Who are we trying to convince? Simply thinking twice and looking hard for what our categories and knee-jerk responses conceal can become an especially effective form of exorcism. A twenty-four-hour fast from using the words 'liberal,' 'conservative,' 'political,' and 'religious' might open whole new worlds."

...

I recently read an incredibly important book (!) for understanding how the church has gotten to where we are today, as well as what choices faces us as we approach tomorrow: Craig Carter's Rethinking Christ and Culture. The whole book is a re-analysis of what H. Richard Niebuhr called "the enduring problem" - how Christ (and/or) the chrch relates to culture. Regardless of whether you've ever heard of him, Niebuhr has shaped the way all of us think - at least those of us who are Christian and American and have lived any time from 1950 to today. In 1951 he wrote a book called Christ and Culture, which was an instant classic and has been read as a textbook in colleges and seminaries ever since. In this book Niebuhr laid out five options for how Christ has been and can be related to culture by his followers: Christ of culture, Christ against culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ transforming culture. Among other things, this work popularized the idea that pacifist Christians can only remain pacifist at teh expense of responsible engagement with society.

Carter's book is a thorough critique of Niebuhr's work; Carter's main gripe is that Niebuhr fails to account for the underlying assumption between all five types: Carter calls "Christendom," which basically refers to a world where the church functions as the religious arm of the state as part of a unified system in which both are seen as partners in God's efforts to run the world. I'm oversimplifying horribly, and I'll try to offer a better analysis after the other books I promised to blog through, but for now I just want to mention a fe specific things. Oh, let me say one more general thing about the book first: Carter locates the dividing line between faithful and unfaithful Christian approaches to culture precisely at the church's willingness (or nonwillingness) to engage in state-sponsored violence of any kind. Very interesting.

In this and the next few posts I'll discuss a few specific points Carter made that line up exactly with thoughts I've been having lately. It was actually eerie at one point, when Carter made the very same claim I tried to articulate in the last post: "Like Jesus, we are called to live lives that make no sense if there is no such thing as the resurrection of the dead" (208). I know, crazy! :) Let me say again that I think this is absolutely crucial to following Jesus faithfully. How we talk about God (theology), how we aim to be good and do right (ethics), how we lead churches, how we pray, how we get and stay married (or don't get married at all), how we raise children (whether ours or someone else's) and everything else in our lives must be founded upon, line up with, and draw its resources from the central reality of resurrection. Stating it bluntly, to the extent that our lives and choices fail to require resurrection in order to make sense, they should not be described as "Christian."

...

Okay, well in the last post you have all given me much to think and write about, and I will TRY to do what I can in the future. For now let me offer one more tidbit from the National Pastors Convention. One of the seminars I attended was a conversation on Christianity and Politics between Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne (moderated by Krista Tippett).

I want to highlight a difference between Boyd and Colson. On the issue of abortion, Colson will not budge that Christians must be and vote pro-life no matter what; to do differently is to call into question their Christian faithfulness.

Boyd brings a different approach. His burden is to call all Christians to be 'kingdom people' who manifest the reign of God here and now. And he often says that means living and looking like Jesus. "Our job is to be a giant Jesus in the world," he says. For him this is an all-encompassing calling; there are no areas of life where other rules or principles supersede the call to look like Jesus. When it comes to politics (in the sense of passing laws and making policy, etc), he seems to affirm three main points:

1. What we do in the church is more substantial than what happens in 'political' realms.

2. When Christians enter the 'political' realm, they should participate as Christians, i.e. Kingdom-people. They should seek Kingdom ends by Kingdom means.

3. Even among sincere, devout Christians, this will not result in identical strategies. We should be okay with differences in the way kingdom people approach socio-political issues so long as they're still manifesting God's kingdom.

Take, for instance, the issue of abortion. Boyd affirms that all Christians should aim for less abortions. One Christian might think the best way to achieve this is to always vote in pro-life candidates. On the other hand, however, another Christian might look at the problem and say, “The ‘left’ and ‘right’ are so divided, and neither side will budge for fear that they’ll lose everything (give ‘em an inch and they’ll take it a mile). We can keep voting in pro-lifers all we want, but meanwhile abortions are still happening and policy changes are not likely to occur.” They might conclude that the best way to minimize abortions is to vote in a candidate who will seek a compromising solution between parties (even if they’re 'pro-choice'). (Boyd recognizes that there’s much more to these issues than voting in candidates; he's using this to illustrate the larger point.)

I think this is insightful. Not that I fully agree with either position, but I think he has a point about the possibility of strategy differences on the part of equally committed Christians. Colson responded by telling a story about Mother Teresa coming to a congressional breakfast and telling them all to not allow any more abortions. He then condescendingly patted Boyd on the arm and said, “I’m glad she had the courage to take a stand on such an important issue” (or something to that effect). Out of respect for Colson’s age, faith, and ministry efforts in the prisons, I’ll leave his comments commentary-less and let you all think what you want.

Anyhow, what do you think about Boyd’s approach? Does it make sense? Do you like it? Dislike it? Agree? Disagree? Where are his blind spots? What do you think is a Christian’s responsibility in these matters?

Let me make this more concrete: Would you ever support or vote for a pro-choice candidate? Why or why not?

...

Let me begin by offering three disclaimers. (1) For whatever reason, I'm not in a particularly good place right now. I'd tell you why, but I can't. Just know that some of my guards are down, so I might be a bit more vocal than normal. (2) I am only "anti-America" when America gets in the way of being faithful to Jesus, and in this case it obviously has. I try to leave this stuff alone, but some "Christians" in "America" won't let me. (3) I would not share something like this publicly if it weren't for the fact that what I'm writing against is also shared publicly, and moreover it is shared as if it were a faithful Christian response to the issues it raises. Which it is not. At all.

This morning my lovely wife forwarded me an email she received. When she called it an atrocity in the opening line, I knew I was in for something disturbing. Here is what it said:
...

This is very interesting! We all need to read it from start to finish......... and send it on to anyone who will read it. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.

Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - No, because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - No, because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256).

Scripturally - No, because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - No, because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - No, because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - No, because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - No, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - No, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - No, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - No, because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.
* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.
* * * You had better believe it.
* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President? You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America! Obama even says if he wins the election, he will be sworn in on the Quran (Koran)-not the Bible!

...

Here is what I would like to offer in response:

...

This is very interesting! We all need to read it from start to finish......... and send it on to anyone who will read it. Maybe this is why our American Christians are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.

Can a good Christian be a good American? I asked this question of myself, for I have been both a Christian and an American for 26 years. The following is my reply:

Theologically – No, because our allegiance is to Yahweh, the international God and Father of Jesus Christ.

Religiously – No, because America has her own “religion” that is (and always has been) altogether different from ours.

Scripturally – No, because our allegiance is to the cruciform way of Jesus and the New Testament.

Geographically – No, because our allegiance is to no place in particular, not even the land currently called America.

Socially – No, because our allegiance to Jesus forces us to make friends with Iraqis and terrorists.

Politically – No, because we must submit to the apostles and prophets (the writers of the New Testament), who teach that all empires are corrupt tools of Satan (Luke 4.5-7; Revelation 12-13) and that our entire way of life - politics included - is to be modeled on Jesus. (This is true even though we affirm that God still works through human governments, even when he isn't pleased with them - Romans 12-13; Isaiah 10).

Domestically – No, because we are instructed to marry one person and stay married for our entire life (which isn’t really America’s ‘thing’), and because we are called to love and care for people of all sexual persuasions (which isn’t really conservative America’s ‘thing’).

Intellectually – No, because we cannot pledge allegiance to the American constitution since it is not based on the God of the Bible but on enlightenment political philosophy (and is idolatrous because it’s “god” is not the “God of Jesus Christ”).

Philosophically – No, because Christianity, Christ, and the Bible do not care about “freedom of religion and expression” but “freedom from the powers of sin and death.” Christianity and democracy can co-exist (for now), but every democratic government is actually more of an oligarchy run by fallen human beings (usually men) and as such falls radically short of the kingdom of God.

Spiritually – No, because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind to everyone - even our enemies, while America’s God is only kind to people and nations who give us what we want, and is therefore no better than any other pagan god (Matthew 5.43-48).

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIANS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Christians and good Americans.
* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.
* * * You had better believe it.
* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our church and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand, and we just might find ourselves on the wrong side of it. You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up Church! We'd better stick close to Jesus no matter what the rest of America (or the rest of the world, or the rest of the church) thinks of us! We'd better learn to walk the way of the cross!

Soli Deo Gloria! Solus Christus!

...

I’ll be posting my thoughts on the previous conversation this evening or tomorrow afternoon, so if you are planning on sharing your thoughts, please do it as soon as you can!

Until then I thought I’d share something I found that I thought was interesting. Below is the full transcript of an interview of Barack Obama by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen. They talk a lot about his faith. You can find it online here. I may post some thoughts soon, but for now I’ll it be what it is.
...

Barack Obama wants to set the record straight. He is not a Muslim, as recent e-mails falsely claim. The Democratic presidential candidate is fighting the e-mails that have been widely circulated. Obama has been continually speaking about the role of faith in politics since his Call to Renewal Address in June 2006. In the days before the South Carolina primary, he is driving efforts to speaking with media to emphasize his Christian beliefs. His campaign also sent out a recent mailer portraying the candidate with his head bowed in prayer and says that he will be guided by prayer when he is in office. [Note: See interview link above for links to the Address and the Mailer.]

The senator from Illinois spoke with Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen today about his faith, abortion, and the evangelical vote.

What do you think your biggest obstacle will be in reaching evangelicals?
You know, I think that there's been a set of habits of thinking about the interaction between evangelicals and Democrats that we have to change. Democrats haven't shown up. Evangelicals have come to believe often times that Democrats are anti-faith. Part of my job in this campaign, something that I started doing well before this campaign, was to make sure I was showing up and reaching out and sharing my faith experience with people who share that faith. Hopefully we can build some bridges that can allow us to move the country forward.

What would you do in office differently than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards that would appeal to evangelicals? ( Click to read the rest of the interview )

Anti-Americanism is as popular today as seeing America as “the greatest nation in the world,” and to be honest I fit comfortably in neither camp. On a day when patriots will praise and dissenters will picket, I simply want to tell the truth. I of course do not presume to know the whole truth, nor do I claim to have escaped the pits into which I am about to accuse others of falling. I am, however, a part of that strange people possessing (or hopefully possessed by) “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2.16), and at least for those on the inside that has to count for something – even if it means pointing out the grave errors of others presumably within this same group (as it did for the man who originally coined the phrase). Regardless of my own (in)abilities, since it is the fourth of July I decided to offer a few reflections on our identity as a nation. I am currently studying American Religious History and would like to share some of what I see. Given the fact that not only individuals but also nations develop habits – patterns of action that eventually become second nature, I have found it profitable to ask what habits were set in motion in the early life of this country. Below I identify five tendencies I have detected from studying American origins and comparing them with the current state of our nation and our world. I write as an American, but most of all as a follower of Jesus. I am admittedly critical of America, but please understand that I do not hate this country, nor do I aim to disrespect those who have courageously done what they considered right in order to ensure our present way of life. I adopt this stance for two reasons: (1) I am more critical of the things I love than those I hate, and deep down I do love America and desire her to be as loyal as possible to the God of Jesus Christ. (2) The New Testament writers, and especially John in the book of Revelation, set a precedent of hard, honest, critical thinking about the kingdoms of this world. These wise teachers knew that many of our most cherished and unexamined assumptions are driven by our “political” identities, and therefore for the sake of love and the building up of Christ’s body they painstakingly scrutinized temporal kingdoms in light of the eternal kingdom of God which is even now being brought to bear (ever so slowly) “on earth as it is in heaven.” With this short defense I offer my thoughts and invite your contributions – additions, subtractions, Amens, disagreements, and the like.

As Americans – and especially Christians living in this land called America, we must beware of . . . ( Read more )