Gregory A. Boyd
188 pages
The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of this world are two completely and totally separate entities that have no possible or probable chance of co-existing in the world, let alone being combined into the same Kingdom, is what Boyd asserts in his book The Myth of a Christian Nation. The aspects by which the Kingdom of God operate are so contradictory and completely at odds with the way in which the Kingdom of the world operates that they cannot work in the same sphere, however, many Christians today believe quite the opposite—that somehow the Kingdom of God can work together hand-in-hand with the Kingdom of the World to bring about a better moral nation. “The Kingdom of God is not a Christian version of the kingdom fo the world. It is, rather, a holy alternative to all versions of the kingdom of the world, and everything hangs on kingdom people appreciating this uniqueness and preserving this holiness.” (pg. 85)
It’s an unfortunate viewpoint considering that the way of the Kingdom of God is love and the way of the Kingdom of the world is “the sword”—getting ahead, getting to the top by any means necessary no matter who it is that you step on or who it is you have to hurt and kill to win.
The church has long held this view that the two Kingdoms are somehow compatible with one another. As Boyd says on page 81:
In the name of the one who taught us not to lord over others but rather to serve them (Matthew 20.25-28), the church often lorded over others with a vengeance as ruthless as any version of the kingdom of the world ever has. In the name of the one who taught us to turn the other cheeck, the church often cut off people’s heads. In the name of the one who taught us to love our enemies, the church often burned its enemies alive. In the name of the one who taught us to bless those who persecute us, the church often became a ruthless persecutor. In the name of the one who taught us to take up the cross, the church often took up the sword and nailed others to the cross. Hence, in the name of winning the world for Jesus Christ, the church often became the main obstacle to believing in Jesus Christ.
Now let me be clear on something. This book was not a diatribe against the church (despite the harshness of that last quote), nor is its aim to make the church look bad. I believe the main point of this book, the purpose of this book is to get the church to wake up to what the Kingdom of God is and follow after it instead of some hybrid of sorts that only contains bits and pieces of the true Kingdom that Jesus desired for us to chase after.
Boyd takes a strong stance on the issue of love and pens quite possibly one of my favorite quotes in any book that I’ve ever read. As I read this passage I sat upright and attentive and couldn’t shake the implications that it brought:
One wonders why no one in church history has ever been considered a heretic for being unloving. People were anathamatized and often tortured and killed for disagreeing on matters of doctrine or on the authority of the church. But no one on record has ever been so much as rebuked for not loving as Christ loved.
Overall, this is a very good book with a lot of good insight that can help shape and/or shift your paradigm more towards the Kingdom of God. There were times that this book got awfully repetitive, seemingly saying the same thing 5 times in 3 different ways. But it’s a good add-on read to reading Balmer’s book and helps give some perspective on were I think Balmer is coming from. This certainly provides some good “food for thought.”
Related posts:
- the irresistable revolution (a review)
- Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelicals Lament (a review)
- Faith of My Fathers (a review)
- emergent, the new christian left.
- the art of mentoring: letters to a young evangelical (a review)
I have often been ridiculed by people for trying to develop some sort of democratic system where theistic morality would play a part, in hopes of a better system than what we have now. These people (like Boyd) tell me that it’s foolish for me to try and create a system that won’t work until we all get to heaven. They are correct. However, the idea that we have already created the best possible system for a fallen world is silly as well. So, I still want to try.
I have often been ridiculed by people for trying to develop some sort of democratic system where theistic morality would play a part, in hopes of a better system than what we have now.
I’m a Christian and I’ve come to the understanding the there IS no system of theistic morality that can be governed ever by mortals. Democracy is the worst form of government based on the words, actions and teachings of Jesus — democracy is a form of government where 50.1% of the population can dictate force against the other 49.9%. If that majority says to steal from the minority, democracy says it is OK. If that majority says to incarcerate the minority, democracy says it is OK. This is definitely not God’s nation, nor is democracy God’s desired government.
To me, Christ was an anarchist per man’s kingdom, and a monarchist per God’s kingdom — where God is the only King. To follow any other king is to be delegated to ignoring everything God designed you for.
untrue about democracy. democracy does not have to be majority rule. that’s why there are two houses to our government, that’s why we have a judicial branch, all from the head of Mr. John Adams who was petrified of the idea of our President becoming a dictator.
besides the point though. ok, yes, Christ was an “anarchist”. So, let’s not have a government or any form of civil order?
Democracy ALWAYS has to be majority rule — Hans Herman Hoppe wrote an amazing book called Democracy, the God that Failed, which is a (long) proof on how democracy always devolves into mob rule. Remember, the Roman Empire started as a “pure” democracy and devolved into mob rule. The US has, too.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html
God told us that we should never want kings of man (see much of the Old Testament). They’d enslave us — even those democratically elected. Christ proved to us that we don’t need kings for order, when history has proven that the most disorder is the one created because of the Sate.
Civil order doesn’t come from government — civil order comes from mutual agreement regardless of what the law says. A john and a hooker almost always have order within their bargaining — even though the law makes it criminal. Where is government in most of our actions? It isn’t there at all.
I hate to bring up eschatology again (I’m sorry, but I’m teaching it this semester so it is dominating my thoughts.), but here goes. The doctrine of the now and not yet kingdom (with all apologies to our friend Dada who appears to believe in a “was and will not” kingdom–I’m sorry Dada, I couldn’t resist) teaches us that we are neither optimistic in a Marxist sense nor pessimistic in a Camus sense. We are realists about the world order. The kingdom of the now and the not yet calls us to action in this world as we work with all our might as kingdom people to shine the light of the true kingdom before me. The kingdom of the now and the not yet also instructs us that the kingdom will never be consummated until the last day. That being said, I have certain sympathies with Eric. Does Jesus call us to be anything less than model citizens as we live as aliens and strangers in the world? Read 1 Peter. They were not living in a Christian nation, yet they are called to be good citizens and respectful and to “do good.” TThe kingdom of Heaven does not excuse you from being a good citizen of this earthly (nonChristian) kingdom. In fact we are called to an even greater standard of submission. The reactionary nature of so many of these types of books (I haven’t read this one) cannot be denied. There are sentiments within the evangelical world that despise the Christian Right (rightfully so in many cases mostly because of methodology) and therefore we are constructing theological arguments to disarm them. While I don’t agree with much of the Religious Right, I believe that the goal of working redemptively in this world (and yes, politics is still a part of this world as much as the poor and the sick are a part of this world) is a good one.
let’s say we have 100 people in an island republic named DADA. people keep getting hit by cars driving on the speed limitless roads. We decide that we need to have a speed limit. a few numbers are nominated. 35, 55, 75. So, instead of having a vote and saying that the majority wins, say that the winner needs to receive 80% of the vote. So, by definition, you’re not a majority rule anymore, and you would need to obtain a VAST majority of the populace’s approval in order to get the law enforced.
i never said anything about a king of man, or even a single representative leader of the nation of DADA. I propose a democracy with vast consensus on law based on the brilliance of the character of God and the morality he established. But, even those laws would only become enforced under the VAST majority of the people.
No apologies needed — and I am always going to post here with the assumption that everyone knows I’m a full preterist, so I won’t beat you over the head about the Kingdom Now versus the Soon-to-Come perspective
Ridiculous, because we all know that speed limits were enacted in order to give the federal government domain over the States — but I will accept your premise for this topic. In the non-State kingdom of DADA, the best solution to speed limits is to use what God has blessed us with — namely, insurance companies. Speed limits don’t really stop people from speeding — common sense does. In the situations where people speed and get into accidents, insurance provides us with protection against the speeder, since the police can not be everywhere at once. Most cities use speed limits only as income, not as protection, which is why speed traps occur. The majority voter has no say in how speed limits are set — only those who collect the tickets do.
But creating a law that is better solved by giving people choice makes more sense. Laws restrict all for the betterment of the few — God’s free market provides each individual with near-infinite choice in how to better themselves. I can’t think of one law — NOT ONE — that makes life better for everyone. All most laws do is make life more difficult for all, and better for very few. We’ve lived with laws for so long that most of us refuse to accept that God designed us near-perfectly, and for those times that we arne’t perfect, God designed systems that cover those lapses in morality/judgement/care.
how ’bout a law that says a murderer goes to jail or is executed? no good?
Specifically, the non-state DADA democracy would create laws based on the premise that man is a wretch, that he looks to take advantage of others and has no innate good in himself. These laws would restrict all for the PROTECTION of all.
How does incarcerating a murderer help the person murderer or the murderer? Jesus is adamant in our lack of power to judge others — and He meant it. We have zero power to judge others, and any judgement we do only serves to bring more judgement on us. If someone wants to murder me, the most I can do is love them — and offer them that love. If they do murder me, I can only hope that my relatives forgive them and love them and try to find out why they have so much hate. Jailing someone (slavery) is the opposite of loving them — it is using force. God abhors mortals judging and using force against others, except when it was part of his plan or punishment.
But I don’t believe man is a wretch any longer, I believe that most men just want to control others, and they can do so under the premise of a government. When Christ walked the Earth and saw starving people, did He say “Let us vote together to feed this person”? No. When Christ saw an adulterer, did He say “Let us vote together to stone or incarcerate this person”? No. When Christ walked the Earth and saw sick people, did He say “Let us vote together and steal from everyone to provide health care for this person”? No.
Christ abhorred the coercion of government. If you remember one of Christ’s first actions, commanded by God, it was to flee the State that was out to get Him.
so, in this DADA land, if one guy decides he wants to have absolute power and he can have this power by killing everyone who doesn’t like him, you would like him to not be punished as he goes around and kills these people?
As we can see in the US, we already have people like this — and they’re supported in doing the murdering by the majority of Christians. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were two recent mass murderers who were approved by Christians in their interpretation of the Bible. How do we stop them? We can’t. The greatest murderers in all of history have been the State — tens of millions have been killed by government. Doesn’t your interpretation of the Bible show that God puts leaders and nations on this earth for His purposes? My interpretation of the Bible shows none of this to be true any longer — that Age is over.
If someone runs around killing others, I have no room to tell others what to do. I assume that most people would use self-defense to stop this mass murderer. I wouldn’t, but I also am cautious as to who I allow on the land God granted to me, and I am also cautious where I go so I don’t put myself in danger. Murder already is rare, and it isn’t because of the law — it is because almost every individual already knows right from wrong. Most murders are committed in rage or in emotion, so what does jailing these murderers do for anyone?
I live without God’s Law — I believe it is over. I recall the words of writer of Romans (7:4-7:6) where he writes “You died to the power of the law when you died with Christ. And now you are united with the one who was raised from the dead. As a result, we can produce a harvest of good deeds for God.” We are dead to the power of the, all of us. We can now produce a harvest of good deeds. Jailing others is not a good deed, when are are told not to judge. Making laws and coercing people to live morally is not good deeds. We can do good deeds and we should — let others decide to use force against God’s People.
rags…
Thanks for the “Pro Spin” on this… I haven’t decided if I like you better here in your professor hat or when you take it off at your blog.
But I do know this… You’re very funny… Love’s It…
Eric and dada the thorn…
I realize this is only a two way debate but
it amazes me that after reading through all the comments
how easy it is to fall off topic (Love and God’s Kingdom) and debate a fantasy, utopian worldy kingdom that will never be and was never intended to be. Our best attempts at recreating this world would quickly be corrupted. We are not “of this” world, but we are permitted to lose ourselves “in it” if we choose to. I have to ask…
Why choose to ? What is the return ?
If God could have changed the world through politics he would have.
Love was the better way, strike that… the only way.
When the church was persecuted it demonstrated God’s power in Love.
When it was accepted as a religion with a voice and power, it went in the crapper. same is true today.
All we are commanded to do is Love God and Love Others (including enemies) as God has demonstrated His Love to us. Pretty simple…
Let’s cut the shit and get on with it…
Mr. Boyd never talked to me and there’s a rebuke on record…
I suppose I could add, Let anyone who has ears, let him hear.
Damn it, I’m tired and cranky but I feel better… ;>)
Good nite, aaron you can delete this if ya want. It won’t hurt my feelings…
Peace Out… t.f.
Wow, those are some pretty interesting theories about how we should live out our Christian faith (I’m sure Aaron didn’t see this one coming
Okay, I was a little confused about Jesus being “an anarchist per man’s kingdom.” So, I did what every college student looking for quick answers would do – googled it! Here are a couple of very informative links I came up with (I know Wikipedia gets a bad rap, but I read through the whole article and it seems legit) Check them out:
http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
Now, Adam, with my new understanding of this approach, I postulate that most of your argument is fueled by Christian anarchist beliefs? That’s cool, because I can see where you are coming from. However, I do not think I can completely subscribe to all of those beliefs. One of your quotes particulary stands out to me.
“If someone runs around killing others, I have no room to tell others what to do. I assume that most people would use self-defense to stop this mass murderer. I wouldn’t…”
If someone was trying to kill, say, Andrea (my wife) I would definately, 100% do everything in my power to stop him, regardless of whether that meant using violence or not. Maybe that is not the best example of a Christ-like lifestyle, but what if it is (Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning that one chick to death…non-violently, but he did stop them). I view it as an example of our inherent ability, perhaps God-given ability, to see right from wrong, to separate good from evil. If this is true, and it does represent Jesus’ same compassion for man (for the weak, the helpless, the poor, the hungry, the dying, etc.) then I can’t help but wonder if I should’t extend that same type of action into larger situations.
Coming a bit full-circle, I do not know if that means we should support a government that puts murderers in jail, uses the death penalty, etc. But for me, it means that I can’t just sit idely by and wait for God to take action against the injustices of the world. If I can make a difference without violence, then rock on, if it means using violence in extreme circumstances (similar to the hypothetical situation with Andrea except also projected into situations with other people) then I think I have to take that chance.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Sorry to fall farther off the path, Thom, I wrote my comments while you were writing yours!
But I do like your quote “All we are commanded to do is Love God and Love Others (including enemies) as God has demonstrated His Love to us. ”
I would like to believe it’s that simple, anyway.
Thom – Dada, as much as it might not seem like it, I really agree with you that it is silly to try and establish God’s authority on this Earth politically, and that love reveals God’s grace infinitely more effectively than moral coercion.
Thus being said, and reiterating what I’ve been saying, I want this fallen world to be as effective as possible. And confessing that the world can’t be ideal, doesn’t mean that the world system can’t be MUCH better. I want the Gospel to heal people’s lives, and I want the impoverished to be satisfied. To dada’s credit, there is no doubt that the power that government enables solitary men is corruptive. But, there is a benefit to being united. And I’m striving to see what that system could possibly be.
Hey Zach…
You’re very much on the path.
My quote is kind of a bastardized version of a jewish rabbi friend of mine.
I’m not tired or cranky anymore so don’t mistake the tone of this…
It is that simple, believe it… It will help you sleep…
Grace and Peace… t.f.
p.s. I never got the chance to say I enjoyed the worship you did with DP at TLR awhile back…
p.p.s. Your band makes me want to break things, Is that OK ?
Eric…
It appears that if God can’t have what He wants…
“A fallen world to be as effective as possible”. Neither can you…
It also appears that if God can’t have what He wants…
“the gospel to heal peoples lives”. Neither can you…
Now if you believe God “can” do those things, then I’ll agree in prayer with you and ask Him to “do it” … Feel that ? It’s done !!! Praise Him !!!
Even before we asked, He was finished doing it…
One more thing… What is the Gospel ?
Grace and Peace… t.f
The theme is certainly one that resonates with me. I’m currently trying to read that writer’s take on open theism, and thus far haven’t been much impressed. And I tend towards open theism.
“How does incarcerating a murderer help the person murderer or the murderer?”
This is a legitimate question only if you accept a consequentialist understanding of punishment. If you reject it, then the only reason you need to justify punishment is tha that it is just, regardless of the consequences.
“Jesus is adamant in our lack of power to judge others — and He meant it.”
If we lack the power to judge others, then the claim that we lack the power to judge others is not a judgment since you lack the power to make it. If it is a judgment, then you have the power and your initial claim is false. Now, what you probably mean is that we lack the authority to make judgments. But that can’t be right, since in order to choose Jesus over others one must make a judgment as to the divinity of Jesus. So, Jesus must mean something that is not merely parroting contemporary non-judgmental relativism. In order to find that out, you need to look at the early commentaries of Jesus’s words in the early church. Since those folks were discipled by the apostles and the apostles’ disciples, they are closer to the source and probably should receive deference. In fact, one such commentary on Christian thought is called the “Didache,” or the “Teaching of the Twelve,” and is dated betwee 50 and 160 AD. (see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) You will find in this all sorts of judgments about behavior and thought and one constitutes Christian virtue. Here are some:
“And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.”
This is loaded with judgments.
Dada writes:
“We have zero power to judge others, and any judgement we do only serves to bring more judgement on us. If someone wants to murder me, the most I can do is love them — and offer them that love. If they do murder me, I can only hope that my relatives forgive them and love them and try to find out why they have so much hate. Jailing someone (slavery) is the opposite of loving them — it is using force. God abhors mortals judging and using force against others, except when it was part of his plan or punishment.”
This is not Christian theology. It is the contemporary notion of the autonomous self as the center of the universe. Whether you like or don’t like being murdered is not relevant to its wrongness or whether others should be allowed to suffer that wrong at the hands of others. I cannot imagine that the man who said, “suffer the little children,” would think it permissible for us to let little children suffer because it is “wrong to judge.” On the contrary, letting your neighbor suffer an injustice puts you at odds with the Good Samaitan who is praised precisely because he made a judgment and acted on it. The one condemned is the one who thought he was abstaining from judgment but was actually making a judgment as to the value of the one suffering on the other side of the road. Judgment is inescapable.
Really? So was Jesus ignoring the consequentialist understanding of punishment when He was specific in telling His followers that they had no power to justify judging other’s actions as sinful or not? I’m not sure you understand my use of the term “judgment.”
For me, this is a ridiculous premise. To claim the divinity of Jesus is a personal decision, one that isn’t meant to be forced on others. When you make a personal decision for your own life, you are merely judging your own actions — that form of personal judgment has no effect on how others live their lives. You seem to be confusing judging the actions of others as the same thing as judging your own actions.
And I don’t hold any power in the Didache just because the writers may have been closer to the teachings of the Apostles. For me, I see three groupings of teaching in the Bible:
1. The teaching of God the Father, who was adamant in His People following His Law. This was encapsulated in the failures of the Old Testament stories.
2. The teaching of Jesus the Savior, who came to specifically show people the best way to live, but not force them to do so. What He did do was warn the Early Church that He would return again to vanquish sin once and for all, but that the Early Church should stick to righteousness to prepare for His Return (Parousia). I firmly believe that Christ returned already.
3. The teaching of the Apostles. They were given the burden of keeping the Early Church together to prepare for his imminent return while some of the Early Church was still alive, in that very generation. The teachings of the Apostles don’t hold weight for me because the people they taught were given the goal of preparing the world of the Roman Empire for the Return of the Savior for all men. Since I believe this has happened, nothing the Apostles taught is justified today — it is different Age, a New Covenant for all mortals. If anyone decided to continued to teach the Apostle’s rules, they did so after the Old Covenant was sealed forever.
Actually, that is exactly what Christ taught. Christian theology is predicated on the idea of the use of Biblical historical as a tool to control, punish and rule over other believers and non-believers. Christ destroyed this idea (which was firmly planted in the way of the Pharisees) by providing an alternative solution: salvation for all men, especially for believers. He didn’t come to save believers, He came to save all men but had a special place for the believers of His time (the Early Church).
Theology today is confused with theology of the pre-Parousia Covenant, which I see as sealed and fulfilled completely. Now, Christians bicker between each others’ doctrines to try to decide how to rule over eveyone else, even though Christ taught us not to focus on anyone but ourselves when it comes to wickedness. When dealing with others, we are to place their needs above ours, and place their lives above ours, without condemnation or judgment to their lives.
I find that dishonorable from a Christ perspective. If your neighbor is suffering, you as an individual should offer your help without strings. If they don’t accept, that’s OK. If they do wrong with what you give them, you shouldn’t try to take away what you provided, but provide more. If someone else is harming your neighbor, you should love the harmer as much as you love Jesus and God the Father — they love the harmer as much as they love the pious and holy.
The Good Samaritan acted out of an individual desire to help others, not by forcing the public to help others. The Good Samaritan didn’t move to judge evil or wickedness, but instead offered help without regard to controlling those helped.
I can’t agree in any way. Judgment is not inescapable. I don’t work to judge the thoughts or actions of others, but I do try to offer my own views when the debate arises. The modern church works hard as a whole to be a position of judgment, rather than a position of grace. Christ never said “Congregate together to change the world,” instead He offered every individual a direction to make those changes in THEIR world without using force or judgment. If someone doesn’t accept your service, you still should love them. If someone makes “bad decisions” that go counter to your moral position, the best you can do is perform good decisions in hopes that they learn from your actions. We can’t go into the world waving our arms at our good deeds, instead we must hope that the world sees the outcome of our good deeds and learns why we should live without force and control over others.
Whoops, I didn’t realize the previous commenter was Francis Beckwith, esteemed current President of the ETS and well-known member of the CLS
Seeing who it is, I can understand his viewpoints, especially as someone affiliated with the CLS. From a personal note, I can’t understand the CLS’ primary focus (Matthew 23 and Luke 11). Matthew 23 ends with Matthew 23:36 I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation. which to me shows that the entire chapter was ended in that very generation. Luke 11:51 also says Yes, it will certainly be charged against this generation, leading me to believe that both chapters are useless in terms of providing for a “Christian Legal Society” to administer legal ideals to the Body. If anything, I am thankful that Christ vanquished the need for societal law and judgment in His generation, so that we don’t have to stoop to the level that the State does — using murder, jail (slavery) and taxation (theft) to dispense justice that is better left to God the Father and defended by Christ the Savior.