A wonderful discovery - Gregory Boyd, his book The Myth of a Christian Nation, his church, and his blog and his ministry website. Though we haven't ever met, we share the same concern - that Jesus is more important than politics no matter the politics. I am not sure that I fully agree with or fully understand some of the particulars of what he is saying. I am not sure, for instance, how he classifies the AIDS epidemic as being separate from issues of poverty. I hope to invite him into a discussion on those issues. What I am certain of, however, is the fact that the defining characteristic of those who call themselves Christ's followers is not political. From Boyd:
"...it’s important that we distinguish between issues of good verses evil, on the one hand, and ambiguous issues that divide a polis, on the other. I’m aware that this distinction is not always perfectly clear-cut, but it must suffice for now. Slave trading, sex trafficking and the AIDS epidemic are examples of the first. In these cases, evil people, or evils in nature, are brutally dehumanizing other people. Here the challenge is to inform people of what’s going on while appealing to their common human decency to confront the evil head-on.Most political issues, however, are not of this sort. They rather fall into the second camp. What economic plan will best take care of the poor? Should the government decide what the status and rights of an unborn child is or should this be the mother’s decision? What should be done about illegal immigration? On issues such as this (and there are a million), good and decent people in a pluralistic culture can and do disagree."
Huh? Is he saying, for instance, that poverty is only possibly moral? That saving they untold suffering and death that brings every day is somehow not important? No. Read:
By all means, if a Christians thinks abortion should be outlawed, they can try to influence society at large to move it in this direction. The same holds true if they believe abortions up to such-and-such a date should be a woman’s choice. So it is with the various sides of the stem cell research debate, global warming, gay marriage, gun control, the economy, the war in Iraq, Darfur, etc.... Everyone's got their opinion, and in a democratic society everyone can try to influence others to agree with them . This is all wonderful. My only point is that its unbiblical, naive, unhelpful and arrogant for anyone to label THEIR particular way of resolving ambiguous social and political issues as the "Christian" way. What makes a person "Christian" is NOT that they have (or think they have ) better moral intuitions or more political insight than other people. What makes a person "Christian" is that they are "Christ-like" in their willingness and capacity to BLEED for others.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
This is a great book - I read it right after TEMPTING FAITH. Am trying not to get discouraged by all the people who have fallen in love with the lines of division we've drawn around left and right, Christian and unchristian, etc. UGH. Thank God we can go to Jesus and say, "Help - You handle this. We're just making a mess..."
I for one would love to see a public demonstration of real Christ-likeness.
I harbor doubt our reactionaries would be able to bear it.
By the way, the willingness and capacity to bleed for others is the best measure of Christianity I think I've ever heard of. Is it from Henri Nouwen originally?
Excellent post David. It's important for all Christians, left and right, to remember that just because someone doesn't support a particular political platform, doesn't mean they're ignoring God's instructions. It's how we live our lives, not how we vote, that determines our faithfulness to Christ. (And when I speak of voting I have in mind the usual choice of candidates here in the U.S.)
This post should be forwarded over to the folks at "God's Politics." So much of their rhetoric implies that if you, as a Christian, don't support the same political means that we do, then you don't care about the poor, elderly, sick, down-trodden, etc.
Bob,
RE: your question about Abortion.
I have not read the author's book, but I would assume the differentation would be in what is explicitly stated in scripture, vice what we have theologically determined to be an interpretation of scripture. The current abortion stance is a theological construct that isn't explicitly spelled out in scripture. Even within the construct of outlawing abortion you have varied theological positions. For example, many protestant, evangelical churches go by the doctrine of birth starting at conception. Whereas, if you look at the Catholic position, it is any unnatural interference with the process of birth is not according to God's will. Therefore, even birth control (other than by natural means, i.e., refraining from relations during the most likely periods for conception) is disallowed. Also, the theological position has shifted throughout the years as to when life begins.
Therefore, just as something like baptism has different theological interpretations, so can abortion have several theological interpretations. We align ourselves with the church that best matches our own values and interpretations, but can you unequivically state that the other churches interpretation is incorrect. Is that not being judgemental, which is God's task, not ours?
My own personal theological belief based on scriptures, my understanding of the fetal development process, and on the definition of death, is to state that "spiritual" life begins at the formation of the brain stem, which is approximately 10-14 weeks. My reasoning is that all thought and bodily activity is developed and controlled by the brain, therefore, what we call the "spirit" or "soul" of a person isn't present until the brain starts to form and ends when all brain activity dies.
My problem with the "at-conception" position is that it is basing the argument on DNA. The problem is there is not a unique individual based on DNA. Identical twins may not form until several days after conception and form from a single DNA (i.e., two unique individuals based on a common DNA). Additionally, our DNA is passed to other unique individuals when we give organs, and thus can survive beyond our own survival. So, in essence, if one took the DNA argument, then we wouldn't be dead until all our DNA is dead.
I think the only logical conclusion if one wants to abide by the "establishment of life" argument is the Catholic church's position that anything that interrupts the natural order is "playing-God".
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.