 | | |
| The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church | 
 enlarge | List Price: $14.99
Buy New: $5.80
You Save: $9.19 (61%)
Buy New/Used/Collectible from $5.60
Avg. Customer Rating:  (based on 69 reviews)
Sales Rank: 17070
Category: Book
Author: Gregory A. Boyd
Publisher: Zondervan
Studio: Zondervan
Manufacturer: Zondervan
Label: Zondervan
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 224
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.4 x 0.6
ISBN: 0310267315
Dewey Decimal Number: 322
EAN: 9780310267317
ASIN: 0310267315
Publication Date: May 1, 2007
Release Date: May 1, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Arguing from Scripture and history, Dr. Boyd makes a compelling case that whenever the church gets too close to any political or national ideology, it is disastrous for the church and harmful to society. Dr. Boyd contends that the American Evangelical Church has allowed itself to be co-opted by the political right (and some by the political left) and exposes how this is harming the church?s unique calling to build the kingdom of God. In the course of his argument, Dr. Boyd challenges some of the most deeply held convictions of evangelical Christians in America ? for example, that America is, or ever was, ?a Christian nation? or that Christians ought to be trying to ?take America back for God.?
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 64 more reviews...
 Good treatise despite flaws. December 30, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Gregory Boyd's concept in the Myth of a Christian Nation obviously did well because it left me nodding in agreement heartily on some points, but scratching my head on others.
In essence, he argues and defends the point that the United States has never been and never will be a Christian Nation. Perhaps by culture, we are--but not in a truly transforming way. Still, for the most part, many Evangelicals equate America (more specifically Republicans) with Christianity.
He argues that the Church often operates from a "power over" mentality in which the U.S. Government rules over us like Church officials to regulate our morality. Boyd, on the other hand, suggests we operate from a "power under" mentality of washing feet, being a servant, and offering love.
In this aspect, I totally agreed with him. Often, when the Church gets power, it leads to monstrosities like the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.
Also, I agreed that American Christianity is often ten miles wide and a half inch deep. We would rather pray against abortion, join a picket line, or write our legislator about the issue than actually really do something about it. We often marginalize "tax collectors" and "sinners," then categorize our sins as not so bad compared to others like homosexuals.
According to Boyd, what is really important is serving others and bleeding with them. On this I found a whole-hearted agreement. This comes to ethics. This is relational which is what Christ calls us to. In my personal experience, I find myself closest to God when I'm serving others.
I also agreed on his poignancy in pointing out how truly shallow we are. It is truly amazing that many Christians were so upset over the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" as opposed to injustices that are far more egregious. In the same vein, many Evangelicals bemoan gay marriage while people in the Church have the highest divorce rate.
However, while Boyd chastises the Conservative Christian movement, he forgets the speck in his own eye. Yes, in a way, the Myth of a Christian Nation delivers the same judgment as something from the right (although Boyd is much more subtle).
I was a little put-off in his continual chastisement of Christianity when other religions certainly have their problems as well. Moreover, he overlooks the fact that the worst human rights atrocities occurred in secular states like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and China.
For the most part, most Christians let their politics define their faith as opposed to letting their faith define their politics. The same is true for Boyd--and his colors definitely show.
He ignores a few facts that bothered me. In the first place, he ignores the separation of Church and State issues. While he mildly addressed this issue, he forgot that at one time, the Church did take care of the poor as opposed to government. Since the roles reversed during the Great Depression, those roles have conflicted heavily and have worsened the problem of the poor.
On another note, he fails to recognize the reconciliation and love the Church offers is not something governments ore kingdoms can implement. We might forget that the U.S. has served nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and many African nations, only to see them come to resent us. They have not repaid loans, oppressed many people, and not used the money as they should, and still resent the U.S.
Yes, the Church should offer love, forgiveness, and restoration, but nations cannot do that. History has shown us that Neville Chamberlain tried appeasement to put Hitler at ease, but it did not work. Also, Hitler broke his pact with Stalin as well. Government is in the role of protecting its citizens and must do some things the Church should not be doing.
This leads to Boyd's pacifist role, hailing the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., who both used passive non-resistance to change the British Empire and the U.S. However, I found two faults in his line of thinking. As pointed out by many other critics, those actions might have worked in societies with a conscience, it would not have worked in societies that had none. Gandhi did suggest Europe and the Jews surrender to the Nazi's, which would have allowed more genocide to continue. Such measures under Stalin would have also been disastrous.
My final critique is that Boyd is not a pragmatist who lives in the world. In his classic, Christ and Culture, Reinhold Neibuhr commented that sometimes in our fallen world, we must take the lesser of two evils. Sometimes, we cannot take the moral high ground he touts. For that to happen, both have to agree to adhere to that moral high ground and despots like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam Hussein did not take that route.
Boyd is big on not judging others. While this is admirable, and I find myself on agreement with him, he (like so many other Christians) ignore the fact that Jesus also commanded us not to "cast our pearl before swine."
Don't get me wrong. I liked how Boyd debunked the idea of Christian America and how Christianity is confused with American Civil Religion that often results in Nationalism. His ideas for the true role of the Church are right on. However, his inability to recognize the lesser of two evils, and his lack of pragmatism are two errors that he needs to address more adequately.
 Deeply flawed December 19, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Gregory Boyd's book contains several insightful, timely warnings to Christians against becoming aligned with 'power-over' tactics, relying on political power rather than God's love to solve society's ills, and unthinkingly relying on violence. However, Boyd's argument is deeply flawed in a number of troubling ways. Throughout the book, Boyd frequently 'argues from silence,' meaning that he takes inaction from Jesus to be a call to inaction from ourselves. Jesus never troubled himself over the conduct of Roman rulers, Boyd argues, so we too should not trouble ourselves with how our 'rulers' behave. Well, Jesus also never mentioned cellular phones, but I'm pretty sure he's okay with us using them. Even if you do accept an argument from silence however, it is not valid in this case. Jesus frequently spoke out against hypocrisy, lying, and oppression, all of which (and more) the Roman rulers were guilty of. Simply because Jesus did not preface his comments with, "Now, about those Roman rulers..." does not mean He did not care about their behavior. God cares about everyone's behavior, whether or not Jesus specifically and directly addressed their own subgroup.
Boyd's book is shockingly thin in scriptural references, and several counterarguments from scripture are ignored outright. Boyd speaks over and over again about God's hatred of violence, yet never once mentions the divinely ordered Old Testament wars. Boyd is so determined to make his case that he, ironically, severely undermines himself by refusing to even mention, much less explain, this and other obvious counterarguments. When Boyd does find a scripture that bolsters his argument, he often gives the passage much more importance than the Bible itself does. As one example, he uses the one verse saying 'love is not rude' to mean that we as Christians should never be rude - and opposing evil is rude, Boyd says. He makes no room at all for the idea that perhaps opposing evil is more important than manners, or even that sin can be corrected in a way that is not rude. Nope, love is not rude, and that is that, according to Boyd.
Boyd also severely oversimplifies several nuanced, complicated passages, as in his claim that 'Satan is CEO of all world governments.' Boyd argues this claim as a central point of his book, yet the scripture he takes it from (Jesus's temptation in the desert) is not nearly as clean-cut as Boyd has decided it is. I grant that Boyd is possibly correct in his interpretation of this passage, but it is just as likely that he is not. I am not willing to change my worldview based on one unclear passage, although Boyd would like me to be. Bottom line, Boyd is sloppy in his use of scripture throughout this book, which I find deeply troubling.
This book also has numerous internal inconsistencies, to the point that I am quite surprised it was even published in this form. Remember that 'Satan as CEO' argument? Boyd himself refutes it in the final chapter of the book when he discusses God working through nations to achieve His divine purposes. Boyd repeatedly argues against Christians involving themselves in the government (Satan is in charge, after all), but Boyd wants us to vote. Why should we vote? So good can be worked through the government - no mention in this part of Satan being in charge. And how are we to know what to vote for? Our conscience, of course. And where does our conscience come from? This is never answered, but it must not be from God, because God doesn't want us to be involved with the government. Yet somehow without God we are still supposed to know what is good and should be voted for. Boyd really does make all these clearly contradictory arguments. He repeatedly undercuts himself, and he doesn't even realize it.
Bottom line, although I do agree with a few of Boyd's arguments, most are sloppy, his use of scripture haphazard at best and more often profoundly troubling, and he can't even construct a coherent argument. I absolutely do not recommend this book.
 Sanity at last December 14, 2008
An extremely important book for all Christians, not just Americans. Carefully uproots an age old deception and leads you to the true kingdom of God. A must read!
 Has its good moments, but has serious problems December 6, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Boyd's book was a very interesting read for me. I'm not sure if I've ever had such a roller coaster reading experience as reading this book. I have read books where I agree with some of it but not all of it. That should be fairly common. Only the intellectually insecure seem to discount everything someone says simply because s/he says something you disagree with. But with this book, I literally agreed with one sentence 100% and then disagreed with the very next sentence 100% and then agreed with the very next sentence 100%. I would be tracking and nodding my head saying "Amen!" only to suddenly find myself disagreeing in the strongest of terms.
The book has its draw backs as far as the structure goes. Boyd's writing style is smooth and conversational (being based on a series of sermons he preached at his church in `04), that's not my gripe. It is one of the most repetitive books I've ever come across. Boyd constantly repeats himself, using the same language and illustrations throughout. It doesn't border on overkill, it is overkill. I suspect this is on purpose though. Boyd is trying to "drive home" a point. Nevertheless, the constant repetition does get a little tiresome. Very tiresome, actually.
Boyd's central thesis is that "a significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political ideology." They are guilty because they (attempt to) "fuse the kingdom of God with the kingdom of the world." These two kingdoms are radically different. But despite that, many American Christians think the "kingdom of God' is about a particular form of government, political program, outlawing abortion, keeping gays from getting married, keeping "God" on our money and "under God" in the pledge, placing the ten commandments in court houses, and fighting for prayer at Friday night football games. Boyd says this is misguided. Any such fusing is idolatrous and has a negative effect on the message of Christianity. Boyd doesn't argue that Christians should have no involvement in politics. He doesn't argue that any particular political issue of the day is right or wrong. He just thinks that "finding the right political path" doesn't really have "anything to do with advancing the kingdom of God."
Boyd follows the basic insights of such historians of American religion as Marsden, Noll, Yoder &co. Boyd believes that the idea that America was (is) a "Christian nation" is largely founded on myth, anachronisms, misunderstandings, and shallow exegesis of the Founders' writings. The claims that are marshaled out as the usual suspects that supposedly prove the Founders' deep and pious commitment to Christianity, are largely nebulous claims about `religion' and `morals,' along with deistic claims about `God.' At times, they make claims explicitly stating they had no intention to found a uniquely "Christian nation." But, such myths are typically seen as the grounds that underwrite oft repeated claims about "taking America back for God."
Boyd finds something almost inherently evil and sinful in the kingdom of the sword (another name he gives "kingdom of the world"). He claims that Satan rules this kingdom (he lumps all governments under the one rubric "kingdom of the sword/world") and that it is always seeking to gain "power over" (Anything? Everything?), while the "kingdom of God" is characterized by "power under." One "wins" according to human tradition and common sense, the other "wins" in ways totally foreign to common assumptions of what "winning" looks like. Here, think something like, "the victory of the cross." By human standards, a dead messiah hardly looks like a winning messiah.
We frequently think our ideas on political issues and interactions with the world are "righteous" because "fallen humans tend to identify their own groups as righteous and any group that opposes them as evil." Due to our narcissism we think that whatever we think is right, automatically mean that God thinks it's right. Hence Bush's claim that we are "rid[ding] the world of this evil." Of course the rest of the world sees us in highly different terms. A militant (or non) Muslim might get the idea that we are militants if they saw some of our church services where the American flag waves across a big screen, complete with jets doing a fly-by and the congregation singing "God bless America," all wrapped up with a sermon on how we need to pray for our president and our "boys" who are out "keeping America safe from evil," all with the providential blessing of God, of course. "Despite our widespread reputation, of course, we evangelical Christians often insist that we are loving; it's just that the world is so sinful they can't see it -- or so we tell ourselves." And so George Bush: "I'm amazed that there's so much misunderstanding of what our country is about that people would hate us...like most Americans, I just can't believe it because I know how good we are." We know what's best for the world. We're just out to help people, yet we help countries that have oil interests while the genocides in many African countries continue unimpeded.
On top this, Boyd also finds that the church has a terrible history whenever they have been in charge. The early church wasn't like the Constantinople church. When the church gained political power, terrible and scary results were brought about. Boyd finds the political-Christianity, always just a baptized version of "kingdom of the world" government, have engaged in racism, massacre, witch hunts, hypocrisy, tribalism, marginalizing, and all sorts of other things incompatible with "the kingdom of God." He cites Frederick Douglas's reaction to the expression of "Christianity" he saw in his contemporaries. Thus Douglas: "Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognized the widest possible difference-so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of frauds, and the grossest of all libels."
All of this Boyd uses as support of his repeated claim that "No one has ever been called a heretic for not being loving enough." He wonders why? Boyd sees true Christianity as primarily about our actions. Christ is primarily a moral exemplar. And of course this is just a function of his clear Emergent approach to Christianity. Boyd is described on the front cover as an "electrifying preacher." And he frequently says such cool, relevant things like, "We need to have an outrageous love." Rather than discuss some of the problems I see in some of what I said above (I did not mean the above as an endorsement of Boyd, though I agree with some of it), I'd like to springboard off Boyd's last point to discuss what I find is the biggest error in his book.
Boyd claims the "kingdom of God" expands by us our "act[ing] like Jesus." Christianity and the kingdom is not "primarily" about "confessing...magical truths." God's kingdom is "manifested and expanded through the faithfulness of his subjects, and so where people choose peace over violence and forgiveness over retaliation, acting in the interest of others rather than out of selfish interest, the kingdom of God is present." We are to be "Christlike," even "incarnating ourselves" into the world's problems. True statements like, "our confidence isn't to hang on power brokers of human history" is followed by claims that our confidence hangs on our being "committed to walking in the way of Jesus of Nazareth." We "conquer by ... making it our sole task , movement by moment, to manifest the unique righteousness of the kingdom of God." "The kingdom of God...always looks like Jesus." "What if we just did the kingdom?" "Doing the kingdom ...transforms peoples hearts and therefore transforms society." We are to love all people "with a Calvary love." Since Jesus dies "for all people" then we are to "love all people" with "the same Calvary love that drove Jesus to the cross." We love, we don't judge. "If you want to judge someone else, you first have to be sinless."
These are all direct quotes from Myth. And it is statements like this that make Boyd's book dangerous. The subtitle of the book is, "How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church." But it is Boyd's teaching that will destroy the church far more efficiently than misguided Christians exhibiting a zeal without knowledge. As should have been self-evident from the above, Boyd is teaching a works-based gospel. Confusing law and gospel. The kingdom expands and people are transformed by what we do, not by what they believe Christ did for them. Boyd critiques that historic understanding via an argument from pejorative: "magical truths." Our "confidence, again, rests on what we do. We need to "do" the gospel. "Live" the gospel. None of this is good news! It's quite scary, actually. If our good works and righteousness is how the kingdom advances, then, with a healthy doctrine of sin, I dare say there will be no advancement and there is and will never be a "kingdom of God" here on earth. No one will ever be transformed. The gospel, which is a proclamation of good news about something that was done for us, has been turned upside down. Can there be anything more dangerous to Christianity than a denial of the gospel?
Of course other errors result due to Boyd's Arminianism. Jesus "came to redeem the world." "Now, through his death and resurrection, Jesus accomplished the task for which he came. He defeated the kingdom of darkness and set humanity free. In principle...the world has been reconciled to God." "In principle all have already died in Adam and been made alive in Christ." And of course applying Romans 5 to all means that all have been made righteous (in principle). "So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (v.19). And how he escapes universalism is another question, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (v.17). Boyd gets around the difficult questions by maligning doctrine. But if doctrine, i.e., "magical truths," actually matter, then if Calvinist exegesis is correct, Jesus' death on the cross was an exclusive love (cf. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, for example) and so fails to be a proof text for the kind of love we are to show all men whoever. Besides, who gave Boyd the right to declare us all 'lil messiahs? As if we could actually mimic the salvific, redeeming, one-time, accomplished love of Christ dying as the "lamb of God." The exclusivity of this death is seen in the very precondition of its intelligibility - the Old Testament Day of Atonement. The sacrificial lamb's death was always for Israelites, never for non-Israelites. Likewise Jesus' death - with the New Testament's teaching on "Israel."
Boyd's guiding ethic also seems to be nothing other than Fletcher's situation ethics. Boyd says that, "The only criteria that matters, then, in assessing whether anything has any value within the kingdom that God is building on earth is love..." (emphasis original). Fletcher says, "Christian situation ethics has only one norm or principle or law that is binding and unexceptionable, always good and right regardless of the circumstances ... that is love" (Fletcher, Situation Ethics, 1967, p.30). So one could add the problems inherent in situation ethics to Boyd's argument in the book. Boyd's Arminian emphasis on what has been rightly dubbed "wuv," causes him to say that the best expression of a "kingdom woman" was that she told a girl thinking about abortion that she would love her and support her whatever her decision. If she chose to get the abortion, "Becky" would help her through the post-abortion recovery, provide her a place to live if her parents threw her out. Of course we should love people thinking about abortion. But this is one of the problems with Boyd's fluffy, situation ethic. It's fairly loose. How do we love our neighbor? Ask a thousand different people, get a thousand different answers. But Boyd lets the fluff cloud his thinking. What if the girl told "Becky" that she wanted to kill her mother? Would "Becky" offer to help her through the post-matricide!? Boyd's view of love leads him further to say that God's "kingdom" is not one of judgment. But one wonders if he's heard of hell? If he knows anything about the typological kingdom of God in Israel and how they operated? Judgment is indeed part of the kingdom of God.
Further problems arise when we see that "Christianity", as divorced from "magical truths," all of a sudden has been transformed by Boyd into a name that can be applied to even Buddhists. It's not about what is believed, it's "primarily" about how you act. The "kingdom of God" is evident in those groups that "choose peace over violence and forgiveness over retaliation, acting in the interest of others rather than out of selfish interest." So the historic lines between "Christian" and "non-Christian" have been blotted out. That's why Boyd can use Gandhi and Martin Luther King as examples of "kingdom people," while questioning those like the Puritans, for instance. On Boyd's terms, a socially "loving" atheist group that exhibit's the above traits is where God's kingdom is "evident", while a group of sinful Christians who repeatedly fail to live up to Boyd's standards but yet continues to trust and rest in the righteousness of Christ alone being imputed to them, is not Christian. This is all a confusion of law and gospel. Between an announcement and our actions. (We can add that a major problem with Boyd's view here is that when we look at the empirical evidence, the only "kingdom of God" that has been authorized to exist here on earth (Israel) didn't look like what Boyd's idea of a kingdom of God would look like. Israel engaged in some pretty bloody campaigns on behalf of God's request!)
Lastly, Boyd makes self-refuting claims. Given that it is obvious that he's "judging" a certain segment of the church, and given the plausible assumption that Boyd is a sinner, then he removes the foundations upon which he seeks to judge these Christians: "If you want to judge someone else, you first have to be sinless." Boyd says that "Jesus never judged Gentile sinners," and Paul never did either. He claims we never find talk about how Gentiles are sinners when Jesus or the apostles speak to Gentiles (and never mind his atrocious rendering of Acts 17!). But this is manifestly false. "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). But why should these Gentiles be told to "repent" if they weren't "sinful?" And to call someone "sinful" is to "judge" them, but the Apostle was not "sinless." So, how could he "judge" these people and "force" his "Christian" view of morality on them? Given how he takes "world" in all the soteriological passages, then when John speaks of the "world" rejecting "the light," how is that not universal? Boyd can't have it both ways. And of course to claim that "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," is to claim that all men are sinners, even Gentile men...and women!
Given the brevity of this review, there was much I could not go over. There was much good I would like to commend (there's some valid and needed indictments of American Christianity inside), but given some of the claims I addressed above, I cannot recommend this book without clearly warning of the works-based religion Boyd proclaims to mankind. There is no mention that church is primarily a place where the gospel is preached and the sacraments administered. Indeed, the contrary is claimed. Church is the place where the "troops" are rallied to go out and "transform" the "kingdom of the world" through its "actions" of "self-sacrificing Calvary love." I don't know about you, but that's unappealing to this sinner. I need to go to church to rest. To get fed. To hear proclaimed what was done for me and what I can never accomplish on my own. I know Boyd wanted to write on "The Myth of a Christian Nation," but instead he propounded "The Myth of a Graceful Christianity." Boyd's cherished "kingdom of God," is just another therapeutic moral deism." A "Christless Christianity." No one has ever been called a heretic for being "unloving" because that's not something you can be called a heretic for! Heresy is about deviation for essential "magical truths." If heresy could be indexed to our actions, then guess what? We're all heretics; yes, even Greg Boyd. This is more evidence that Boyd confusions our actions with the good news encapsulated in "magical truths," comprised of words, on actual, physical pages of the Bible. Boyd has just traded one version of moralism for another one. One Christless Christianity for another.
powerful stuff December 5, 2008
This is great stuff!! Anyone who seeks to understand the role of a Christian in relation to culture and politics should check this out.The writer argues that It's time Christians influenced culture with the love and life of Christ as opposed to strong arm political tactics. Any time the church seeks to align itself with the state it's a bad thing. The book is a bit redundant but it never hurts to be reminded.
|
|
|
 Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| | |
