I think I would place the problems of poverty and hunger in the category of unambiguously evil. You reported a while back that 24,000 children die each day – each day! – from hunger. Though I’ll concede the solutions are ambiguous, mainly because of the complexities such as corrupt governments (including our own) hindering distribution, religious and sectarian fighting, lack of immediate concern about those who are not like us or who live far away, and so on.
Thanks for letting us know about this guy. I’ve never been keen on the so-called megachurches and those who run them. That image has been tarnished by the greedy charlatans who populate the airwaves. But Boyd may be an exception.
PS: Are you prepared for the onslaught of comments that will follow because you posted that Boyd thinks abortion is a political ambiguity?

This is where I get confused: AIDS is an easily preventable disease, but it’s “evil”; abortion involves the taking of a human life, but it’s just a political ambiguity? I just can’t understand that way of thinking.

I’ve added a note above re: poverty…

Christ “like?”
Conservative values and the Right/Left debate shows who is being Christ “like” and who is not. It is right versus wrong, not left versus right. When all is said and done even you David, will have to admit to the errors in Liberal theology and ideology.
But I thought that it was confession of Christ (faith) that showed His followers, along with behaviors (works).
Trying to be Christ “like” will put off too many people that dwell in the Liberal camp. They’ll just come up with catching phrases to avoid the life of a Christian.

Donny – No. Here is the problem – falling for the tempter’s trap that equates politics with faith. What did Paul say were the fruits of a Christian life? Did he say they were political? Did he say they were “right” or “left”? No. He said the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. Nowhere in there does he mention politics and no where in there does he say to do anything but LOVE others – LOVE others. I love you Donny, David

Would be very interested in reading this one. explored his site and blog. A good friend who is an old priest made this kind of thought clear to me many years ago as we studied Scripture. Having been raised in a fire and brimstone, the bad guys are out there and you need protection from them, and anyone outside of us must be evil kind of church, it seemed revolutionary thought when Father began to explore this. It led me to graduate school and teaching.

I think the problem with this kind of formula is visible from the comments above. As soon as you try to make a formula for what belongs in politics and out, from a Christian perspective, you have to justify the rubric. So, some people reading it decide that legal abortion is evil and hunger is the result of bad decisions which each are free to make, and some choose the opposite approach and we end up with the same argument we had before under a different question.
Jesus warned us: “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Lu 12:51-53) NKJV.
There is no settlement to the factions and disagreements even among Christians which began among the first disciples. We will disagree over politics and property lines. As the hymn has it, the Peace of God is no peace at all. We are commanded to love each other anyway, though.

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”.