Category Archives: Sin – Idol of Civil Religion

Flagellating the “Artist”

Posted on by
Reply
Email

Shel – as I have said hundreds of times – NO politician is Lord and Messiah.  This is disgusting.  Stand Firm has a little write up (they tend to make me look moderate to liberal)  but given the kitschy crap political art I will repost.

Flagellating the “Artist”

from Stand Firm by David Fischler

You’ve perhaps heard about this piece of smarm that is going around the Interwebs. Seems there’s an artist who decided to be Edgy and Transgressive, so he belched forth this:

Stuff like this is extraordinarily tiresome, and I was going to pass it by entirely until I saw the Beat-Down to End All Beat-Downs from Mark Shea. Read the whole thing–it is epic, and offers the background–but here’s the conclusion:

Michael D’Antuono: you are a living testament to everything that is most disgusting about the “arts community” in your posing self-regard and bullying hypocrisy. Next time, try a painting of say, Obama killing children with a predator drone if you *really* want to be all Brave and Transgressive. Christians don’t issue fatwas, you gutless coward. And your Suffering Savior is murdering innocent civilians. That’s truth.

That is gonna leave a mark.

Email

The Signs of Political Idolatry by Tim Keller

Posted on by
Reply
Email

 

shel / shelby Boese - In case you thought it was just us Kingdom-of-God -Jesus-crazy spirit-filled anabaptists at Mercy were speaking out against the political idolatry in the US and in the church..

The Signs of Political Idolatry by  

One of the signs that an object is functioning as an idol is that fear becomes one of the chief characteristics of life. When we center our lives on the idol, we become dependent on it. If our counterfeit god is threatened in any way, our response is complete panic. We do not say, ‘What a shame, how difficult,’ but rather ‘This is the end! There’s no hope!’

This may be a reason why so many people now respond to U.S. political trends in such an extreme way. When either party wins an election, a certain percentage of the losing side talks openly about leaving the country. They become agitated and fearful for the future. They have put the kind of hope in their political leaders and policies that once was reserved for God and the work of the gospel. When their political leaders are out of power, they experience a death. They believe that iftheir policies and people are not in power, everything will fall apart. They refuse to admit how much agreement they actually have with the other party, and instead focus on the points of disagreement. The points of contention overshadow everything else, and a poisonous environment is created.

Another sign of idolatry in our politics is that opponents are not considered to be simply mistaken but to be evil. After the last presidential election, my eighty-four-year-old mother observed, ‘It used to be that whoever was elected as your president, even if he wasn’t the one you voted for, he was still your president. That doesn’t seem to be the case any longer.’ After each election, there is now a significant number of people who see the incoming president lacking moral legitimacy. The increasing political polarization and bitterness we see in U.S. politics today is a sign that we have made political activism into a form of religion. How does idolatry produce fear and demonization?

Dutch-Canadian philosopher Al Wolters taught that in the biblical view of things, the main problem in life is sin, and the only solution is God and his grace. The alternative to this view is to identify something besides sin as the main problem with the world and something besides God as the main remedy. That demonizes something that is not completely bad, and makes and idol out of something that cannot be the ultimate good.

…In political idolatry, we make a god out of having power.

- Tim Keller

Email

Ballots, bombs, bullets, borders, bullying, and BS…Why I am not voting for a president this year by Robert Martin

Posted on by
2
Email

Shel – just about every election season, being one of only a handful Anabaptist leaning churches in town, I make the point to say that for some of you sitting out an election would be good for your soul.  And don’t buy the “BS” that says you can’t express opinions if you don’t vote.  The founders VERY much would dispute that notion.

The reality some believers think that elections and governments are more important uses of their time, money and emo-energy than sharing Jesus and being THE non-governmental change in the world through healthy local churches.  When this happens you’ve displaced Jesus and His kingdom reign in your life with the idols of civil religion.  It’s time to sit one out in terms of elections and politics if you get this out of wack.  When you are more excited about political change than Jesus it’s time to fast the election and spend time with the Savior.

 

If you have Anabaptist inclinations here is a good article to that effect:

 

Why I am not voting for a president this year by Robert Martin 

September 29, 2012

If you have been following my blogs on politics and Christianity, you should already know that I take a rather low view of the American civic duty of voting in elections. In fact, I don’t think I’ve made much secret, at least among folks who know me, that I’m not intending on voting for a presidential candidate in this upcoming election.

This, of course, has brought some backlash. On one side, there are Christians who view the US as, to some degree or another, a Christian nation and especially positioned to be an instrument of God in this world. Or, if not quite to that extent, it is proper and responsible for a Christian to vote for godly leaders. How can I not vote and allow this nation to slide away from God’s intended plan?

On the other side, there are Christians who don’t hold that “Christian nation” view but see voting in elections as the specific means by which we Christians can exercise a prophetic voice to the nation, calling it to act justly. The implication is that it is through participating in elections we can have the greatest influence on how the systems and institutions of our nation (and our world) are changed for the better. How can I not vote and allow theselfishness and greed of our country to have free reign?

Now, understand, that these positions can be expressed to some degree of extremism. There is a lot more nuance in these views and a broad spectrum of opinion between the extreme ends. But, for the most part, anyone on that spectrum sees voting as something that must be done otherwise you risk violating some sort of ethical or moral principle. But I don’t see participation in the government process as being in any way a necessary action for a Christian.

I have not taken this position without a lot of thought and reflection. I used to be involved in politics a lot, arguing for one candidate/party or another, trying to establish some sort of religious reason to vote for a particular position. So I recognize that there are people with specific convictions in these directions. While I may disagree with the arguments now, if I wish someone to understand and respect my own convictions, I must allow them to have theirs.

But I would like to at least give you a glimpse at my reasons. They aren’t many, but, for me, they are rather deep convictions. And these are presented not to convince you, the reader, to join me in this position, but simply to give the reasons for my decision with a hope for understanding.

  1. Neither of the two main candidates this year, nor the parties they represent, allow me to vote in their direction without a problem of conscience. For the Republicans, while I agree that smaller government is better, some of the views they take of rampant individualism (at least in the more extreme wings of the party) and the God and country view are problematic. While they seek to find ways other than government programs to reach the disadvantaged, they seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility of increasing revenues. The extreme direction that the Republican party seems to have taken in recent years worries me. For the Democrats, as much as they aim for compassion and justice for the under privileged, it is at the expense of the freedoms of others to choose a path and hypocritically displayed in their lack of compassion and justice for the enemy over seas. Even their compassionate pleas for others to pay their “fair share” come across hypocritical as the Democratic party has it’s own rich and powerful who take advantage of tax breaks and shelters. It is curious that Mitt Romney has given over 30% of his income last year to charitable organizations while his opponents have come up short. The call for “social justice” falls flat when not exercised. With these blatant problems within the main candidates, I cannot cast a vote for either one without compromising my morals and convictions.
  2. The assumption that voting is necessary to be a prophetic voice does not ring true. Questions such as “If Jesus were an American, who would he vote for?” doesn’t seem to sit comfortably with the Jesus that I see in the gospels. While some could say that, under Roman occupation, Jews like Jesus had no political recourse to influence society, that is not accurate. The Sadducees were “collaborators” with the present powers in the nation of Israel, trying to work within the system to bring about a strong Israel and a restoration of Israel to prominence in the world. That the leaders of Israel would be allowed to approach Pilate and petition him for action also indicates that Jews were not without political process in order to achieve their goals. Even if you limit the available political methods to revolt and protest (the historical record of Josephus and the gospels both mention political protests), Jesus also avoided these methods, even telling Pilate that he could use those methods if he wanted to but his kingdom is “not of this world.” And yet Jesus was influential politically because his threat to the systems put Pilate in a bind where he had to take some sort of action to appease the crowd while still maintaining his good standing with Rome (something that was already shaky at the time, actually). This, to me, shows a lack of imagination among Christians to seek other ways of influencing society. Jesus managed to not only upset but severely threaten the power structures of his day, not by the political methods available to him, but by living a life that was radically opposed to anything that was deemed “acceptable” at the time. This is not unheard of in US politics as the civil rights movement of the 1960’s employed these kinds of radical opposition to great success.
  3. I could vote for a 3rd party candidate if one was presented that will not sacrifice my convictions. But, with the system as it stands right now, doing such would be tantamount to not voting anyways and, since I don’t hold voting as a “necessity” or requirement for good standing as a believer, I would save myself aggravation of having to search out such a candidate.
  4. My energy is better spent elsewhere. There is a graphic from the Christian Left doing a little refutation of the general Christian right’s arguments using Matthew 25. And they make a good point. But, again, the assumption is that government and the systems therein are the best means by which to fix the problems. I could easily say, “Jesus also didn’t say, ‘For I was jobless and you taxed a rich person to subsidize job creation; I was homeless and you forced banks to give loans that would eventually cause foreclosures; I was destitute and you sent me to an impersonal government agency for help when you had the means available to you right away’” Rather than spending my time and effort trying to impose some sort of Christian ethic on an institution that does not subscribe to that ethic (pearls before swine?), I choose to take that resource and work at empowering people who do subscribe to that ethic do to the work, starting with myself. I’m imperfect in this, I admit freely, but it seems to make more sense to cut out the middle-man of the government institutions and apply my money and resources to the problems I see every day in my own neighborhoods and communities.

Again, I don’t intend to convince you to change if you have decided to vote in the election. If you vote, vote your conscience. That is important. But my conscience is telling me that, perhaps, this whole voting thing has become a distraction. That while we Christians are spending our time weighing between the “two evils” of the candidates, figuring out where best to place our vote, and trying to convince others to do the same, there are a lot of things that are left undone that we should be doing that, perhaps, have a higher priority.  If the USA collapses, so be it.  Things like that have been happening for thousands of years.  We’ll just be another in a long line of empires.  If the government is unjust, so be it.  Again, any point in history has this problem.  What stands out, though, is the Christians who, in the midst of injustice and empire, have been a beacon of light in contrast to the society around them and, through their example, have quietly changed the world.  Whether or not you vote, remember what it is we’re supposed to be here for and make sure you’re doing that work.  Everything else is secondary.

Email

Remember – But Don’t Be Paralyzed!

Posted on by
Reply
Email

If you “remember” without asking what positive change did you make – you’re giving the past too much power. How have you grown and learned from the evil of 9/11? Did you become like that which you hated or did you become something different? Or are you back in a 9/10 mindset?

I wonder if all we’ve done is doubled down on being a security-nanny state (*if* that is true terror won – I hope it is LESS true today – what would the founders think?), driven by fear into less freedom. Embrace life and love and growth – that is the best “remembrance” otherwise the limited, blinkered view of fear takes over. Break cycles of violence – pray for spiritual renewal and truth to break forth – starting in your mind. The past shapes us but we must not let it blind us to new ways of living and acting.

What do you think? Or more importantly what did you do to challenge your past way of thinking?

Email

Love America – But Don’t Worship It – Speak the Truth of Jesus to It

Posted on by
Reply
Email

Shel Boese / Shelby Boese – I have spoken often saying: “I love America (The U.S.) – but I love Jesus more” at Mercy Church.  I am always concerned with the Civil Religion version of Jesus in America.  This article helps make that point clearer.  I fear the Ds and Rs often worship their parties and their own version of Americanism.

 

Is Americanism the Fourth Biblical World Religion? (Partial Review of Peter Leithart’s Between Babel and the Beast)

August 30, 2012 By 

Is Americanism the Fourth Biblical World Religion? (Partial Review of Peter Leithart’s Between Babel and the Beast)

Some time ago I posted two reviews of Peter Leithart’s Defending Constantine. At the end of the second one I suggested that he publish a sequel explaining his view of empire and especially Christianity and empire.

Well, perhaps that book has been published. This year (2012) Cascade Books (imprint of Wipf & Stock) has published Leithart’s contribution to its Theopolitical Visions series. Its title is Between Babel and the Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective.

I’m not sure yet (I’ve read all but the last part of the book) whether this book answers the questions I raised about Leithart’s vision of Christianity and empire in relation to Defending Constantine, but right now that’s not my interest.

I cannot recommend highly enough especially Part II of Between Babel and the Beast (henceforth BBB): “Americanism.” It’s an incisive critique of what David Gelernter has identified as the “fourth biblical world religion.” Leithart agrees with Gelernter and goes so far as to label America “a heretic nation.” (71)

Before saying more about BBB (and here I’m going to restrict myself to Part II), let me give a little background. A few months ago a local newspaper published a column by business guru and writer Mark Stevens. Here’s its original publication (on line edition):http://www.msco.com/blog/i-spell-god-with-stars-and-stripes/. (I’m typing this in Word and it’s hyperlinked; if that doesn’t show up when I copy and paste this into my blog, please hyperlink it yourself or cut and paste it into the address box of a web browser.)

Stevens’ theme was that his religion is America. If you peruse the web using key words like “Americanism” you’ll see that he’s not alone.

But Leithart’s message is not about people who explicitly affirm that their religion is America; it’s about how America has come to regard itself as “God’s New Israel.” But it’s even worse than just that. Here is one quote that will give you a sense of what Leithart is saying about America and Americanism: “America became an agent not of God’s kingdom but an instrument for the spread of American institutions and American culture, and there was a tendency to see America ‘basking in [God’s] permanent favor.’ … Throughout American history, orthodoxy has been strong enough to check the danger of deifying America itself—check, but not eliminate. But the intellectual structure is in place for Americanists to think those who worship America are offering service to God.” (72)

In a relatively short space and with comparatively few words, Leithart goes through American history, quoting American leaders and retelling the stories of America’s treatment of people considered a threat to its prosperity, with the result that one cannot deny the reality, throughout its history, of American exceptionalism. Leithart affirms that America is exceptional, but it has inflated its self-image and pride to monstrous proportions so that today, as at some times in the past, “American exceptionalism” means whatever America does is automatically right.

Now, lest anyone think Leithart (or I) is anti-American; he’s not and he makes that clear. He is decidedly for America and the best think a person can do for someone or something he/she is for is point out their flaws. (Remember the line of the patriotic song America the Beautiful that says “God mend thy every flaw?”) Leithart talks also about the great and wonderful American ideals and services to humanity. But those do not justify ignoring the heresy of Americanism.

Leithart says “We [America] are not the new Israel, nor the last best hope of mankind, nor the novus ordo saeclorum. Insofar as Americans have believed and acted on those convictions, we have been quite literally a heretic nation.” (82)

Sometimes Leithart’s rhetoric can be off putting even when his intention is exhilarating. Here’s a typical example: “Americanism is the monstrous Nephilim that people the earth when the sons of God intermarry the daughters of men. Americanist Christians are Joktanites who uncritically join Nimrod in building Babel. Americanism is ideology with the mythical power to bewitch a Babel into thinking it is Persia, a distorting mirror that might fool a predator into believing he sees the reflection of a cherub.” (82-83) Huh?

Now, I’m sure you have questions about Leithart’s message. I can do no better than strongly recommend that you get the book and read it—especially Part II. It’s prophetic, convicting, challenging, worth considering even if you don’t agree with everything the author says.

One thing I want to clarify for Leithart, lest anyone misunderstand, is that his main target of criticism is not America per se but American Christians, American churches, that have not only allowed this situation to develop but have actually contributed to it. He gives many examples. He doesn’t mention this, but one cannot help but think of the absolutely over-the-top church services of worship of America that take place all across the country on the Sunday before July 4.

I think I have met many Christians over the years whose real religion is America, not Jesus Christ. And that is the case not because they replace Jesus with America but because they insert America into Jesus. That is, they confuse the two so that Jesus becomes for them the American Lord—not Lord over America, but Lord who especially favors and sanctions America in everything it is and does.

Whenever the cross and the flag are merged, the heresy of Americanism is symbolized.

Some time ago I went to the web site of a major evangelical drug treatment program. The first thing I saw at their welcome page was just that—the cross and the American flag merged. That’s a symbol of the heresy Leithart is condemning.

So far Leithart hasn’t really talked about the solution, but the first step is obvious—Christians and churches must step away from American exceptionalism and even speak out against it insofar as it implies that America is always right and stands above basic principles of ethics such as just war and humane treatment of captives.

Next I will talk about Leithart’s own view of Christian empire, insofar as I am able to discern what that may be.

Email

‘You do realize you people are making up a new religion, right?’

Posted on by
Reply
Email

Shel Boese – Anabaptists have been trying to call the church away from civil-religion jesus  towards the Jesus of the Kingdom of God for 500 years.  I am SO glad to hear more and more younger Evangelicals and Renewalists (Pentecostals, pentecostals, charismatics/post-charismatics) rediscover the scandal of Jesus – and push back against the Civil Religion (Mormonization and Islamization of Christianity).  Pentecostals and others have often been torn between the two visions – but at their best “get” the Kingdom because of signs and wonders/mystical and aesthetic openness through prayer and worship.

I try to not define myself as much by what Im against it’s a battle.  In this case I would say much of the conservative-fundamentalist evangelical world is moving toward the Mormonization or Islamization of the church – buying the civil religion theology of these religions and imposing them on the New Testament through twisting the OT/misuse – forgetting the NT modifies significantly how you read the OT.

 http://pastorjonathanmartin.com/uncategorized/thoughts-on-mitt-romney-liberty-university-and-the-civil-religion/

“But in recent years, evangelicals have moved towards civil religion at a breathtaking pace. We have accepted the categories given us by the world, that we are broken down into two categories: conservatives and liberals. We are given a narrative in which these labels supersede any particulars of Christian faith as to how we understand who the people of God are in the world.

[...]

If I sound wound up about this, I’m actually not. And I certainly don’t want people who have signed up for conservative civil religion to sign up for a more liberal civil religion, because neither will bring you to the kingdom of God and thus neither will change the world. I am quite thankful for this new development, because the more we degenerate into civil religion, the more authentic Christianity can stand apart from all of the parodies. I actually think it’s a gift.

This is not an angry editorial written with clenched teeth. No, this is much friendlier. I was just in the neighborhood and wanted to roll down the window and tenderly say, ‘You do realize you people are making up a new religion, right?’ ” – Jonathan Martin

 

 

Email

Be Like Jesus – Not a Politician: Why I Simply Do Not Care How Babylon Defines Marriage

Posted on by
Reply
Email

Some thoughts rolling around my head on this issue…

1) Its wrong to die on any political battlefield that puts wall between people and Jesus.  I agree with the political point that Rachel Held-Evans makes here about winning the culture war but loosing a generation: http://rachelheldevans.com/win-culture-war-lose-generation-amendment-one-north-carolina

2) Jesus’ kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD.  Political change does not change people truly, it does not change hearts nor does it even create the desire for change, two things the Spirit of Jesus in the church and the human heart experiencing compassion through someone else does.  We are about life-change starting now by salvation through Jesus outrageous love and the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit in Theosis – the fullness of which comes in the life of the world to come after death (or the end of the world as we know it). If my politics slam the gates of the kingdom of God on you BEFORE I ever get to introduce you to Jesus through my life, faults and grace – I’ve failed you.  Ney, I’ve failed my Lord.

excursus: Note Jesus consistently rejected aligning with political parties and even religious parties in his day (note no separation of church and state at all in his day – but advocates of various levels of enmeshment and political action to deal with Rome).  This also meant that he could call people to follow him from the violent zealots to the Helenized.  Do our churches have that kind of appeal – so full of Jesus that some from the most extreme ends of the spectrum are willing to make their politics secondary to Jesus?  NOT if you keep making the Civil Religion Jesus the center instead of the Jesus of the Bible and the Living Resurrected Lord Jesus who is present by the Holy Spirit in the Church!

 

The New Testament tells us the nation that God blesses is HIS nation, the holy Nation of those bought by the Blood of the Lamb.  All kingdoms of the world are simply tools, under the influence of Satan and yet used by God.  They are passing.  There is no “Christian nation” defined by ballots, borders, bullets or bombs.  NOW yes there are Christian influenced nations and policies – but at the end of the day they are not the Kingdom of God – they are not EVER to be thought of as an extension of His kingdom nor of the church.

Civil religion Christianity is an idol and a cheap knock off that will always leave you angry, fearful, and under the sway of politicians, pundits and demons.  It’s also a huge idol in America, and in much of the American church – effectively drawing people away from the real deal.

(FYI this is why in part I am not Mormon or Muslim – Religions that teach the sword is directly connected to their power.  That coercion is acceptable as a tool – and therefore the goal should be to establish a Mormon or Islamic Shariah-based state.  Jesus EXPLICITLY rejected the state/politics as the way to make society better.)

3) Political issues are used by Satan to get the church off mission and onto another mission.  America is best place to live so far.  But it’s still a form of Babylon – perhaps the best kind of Babylon there can possibly be – but still at the end of the day it’s a Babylon.  We are to bless it and work to make it a better place – but our first call is to follow Jesus – that’s the best way to make America a better place.

Be like Jesus -NOT like a politician.  (repeat this to self three times).

AND before all you lefties think I’m preaching to your choir – it applies as much to you as the fundamentalist right!  Many of you are as blinded and co-opted by civil religion as the hard-right is.  Do I need to whip out all the media and hollywood “messianic” swooning from the 2008 election as a recent over the top crazy example? (Or the leaked newsweek cover for 5/14 of the rainbow haloed pres?)

4) How the church defines marriage HAS NEVER BEEN the purpose of marriage definitions in the state/legal area.  Marriage is a covenant in the church BUT its a contract in the world.

5) IF you are going to “defend marriage” through ballots, borders, bombs,  then we REALLY should be working on laws that end divorce and strongly prosecute any alienation of affection, repeal all “no-fault” divorces, go after adulterers with prison time, and generally insist on tracking everyone’s sexual activity.   Focusing on 1.7% to 10% of the population through defining marriage as a one man/one woman – is just a grand distraction from the real enemies of marriage.  (Those are in your heart – what laws will change YOUR heart? hmm…  )

6) Now for a (not so ?) radical suggestion: I believe (perhaps!) the church should work at REMOVING all legal forms of Marriage.  Marriage is NOT a civil contract – it is spiritual and religious.  Therefore should be protected as worship is and who religious groups can hire is, but not sanctioned by the law.  Instead we can advocate for legal civil union/domestic partnerships for all people defining contractual obligations when such arrangements go south and to protect children from destructive/abusive situations.

Quite frankly I say this in most weddings that I perform that as a follower of Jesus and ordained by His church for it’s service, “In the eyes of the state marriage is simply a right to sue someone you would not otherwise be able to if you have a break up.  In the eyes of God/the Church marriage is a covenant – it’s about entering into a new and enduring kind of relationship – what you will do – not so much about something you appeal to.”

So perhaps the best response is on Three-fronts:

1) Begin understanding that Biblical marriage is not about the state – and in fact a counter-intuitive move would be to encouraging believers to no longer pursue legal marriage (perhaps just a domestic partnership to still participate in the system – until we can make marriage no longer a legal category) – believers however ABSOLUTELY should be married by the church community – we should make celebrating covenant marriage and christian sexuality a higher priority.  

2) Work to build up marriages through teachings, helping people create healthy relational and sexual boundaries, getting serious about lust, porn, sexual slavery/trafficking, and loving people outrageously when they are not where the church is on the value of exclusive covenantal  relationships and Christian sexuality.

3) Work on a third-way view of sexuality – the liberals AND the fundamentalist-conservatives both get this one VERY wrong.  From Fred Phelps to Dan Savage – foaming their hatred and misrepresentation of the Bible and sex – we have got to get real.  I written much on this before.  But the church should not be sucked into the current soft science view of orientation or sexuality. The whole H or LGBTQ approach is couched in western soft sciences that are shifting and will look different another 50 years from now.  So let’s not go all funde or liberal – let’s step back and look at the texts as if they might be teaching us something we are not hearing.  I believe they are.

Love is the path to holiness.  Political posturing is not.

 

Email

I Need To Bring Roger To Sioux Falls – This is Good and Accessible

Posted on by
Reply
Email

I have said this “violence is AT BEST a sinful response to a sin-filled situation – might be the lesser of two evils.”  We are discussing this in one my small groups as we study what the Bible says about politics, war, the state and Jesus.  This week was a heated discussion.

“As a general rule, I think it is true that God does not call Christians or the church to manage history. He calls us to obedience to the law of love. Coercion using deadly force is always sin but not always wrong. I realize that’s dialectical, but I don’t know any way out of that.” -RO

Truly caught on the horns of a theological dilemma  March 2, 2012 by rogereolson

When it comes to Christian social ethics I have two heroes, but the problem is they are widely considered antithetical. John Howard Yoder and Reinhold Niebuhr. Much of Yoder’s reputation is gained from contradicting Niebuhr. And of course, much of Niebuhr’s reputation was gained from contradicting pacifism. Admittedly, the pacifism Niebuhr was against was not Yoder’s. He even tipped his hat to Anabaptists as a needed witness. He was against the liberal Protestant pacifism of the social gospel movement (people like Edwin Dahlberg). Nevertheless, insofar as Niebuhr thought ALL pacifism is wrong and Yoder thought pacifism (Christocentric like his or liberal) is right, they are opposites on that and many other issues.

Yoder has in recent years enjoyed a revival of interest, probably mainly through Hauerwas. Niebuhr’s influence continues, of course, as he is almost always named as “the most influential Christian thinker” by politicians. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama have so identified him.

Of course, I don’t see how a Christian COULD be president and NOT appreciate Niebuhr’s approach to social ethics. It would certainly be difficult to be president and have Yoder as your social ethics mentor.

My problem is that when I read Yoder I find myself saying “Amen” a lot–to almost everything he says. I am convinced that he was right about New Testament, original Christianity and especially the teachings and example of Jesus and how they ought to apply to Christian living today. The church is supposed to be that light set on a hill, living by a different set of values from the rest of the world (not that they can’t sometimes overlap). For example, the way of the world is coercion; the way of Jesus is love. I am convinced that Jesus would not want his followers to engage in deadly force.

Yoder’s social ethic is focused on obedience. Obey Jesus and let the chips fall where they may. Obedience is our calling; effectiveness is God’s business. We are not called to manage history; we are only called to live as Christ instructed us to live. Amen.

When I read Niebuhr (e.g., An Interpretation of Christian Ethics or his essays in Love and Justice) I also find myself saying “Amen” a lot. Niebuhr believes it is irresponsible for Christians to abdicate responsibility for the world and he equates pacifism with that. He doesn’t justify war as good, but he believes it is sometimes a necessary evil. He agrees with Yoder that Jesus taught and modeled radical love. They basically agree on the Sermon on the Mount–it must not be watered down or glossed over. Niebuhr thinks it is possible for the individual Christian to live by it somewhat consistently. And he agrees that we OUGHT to live by it perfectly consistently. But he also thinks this is a fallen world where Christians must sometimes hold their noses and do things contrary to the Sermon on the Mount. Effectiveness matters and sometimes requires compromise. That’s where Yoder disagrees.

John Stackhouse (Regents College) wrote a book a couple years ago entitled Making the Best of It. I reviewed it for Books & Culture. It’s an excellent evangelical re-statement of Niebuhr’s social ethic. I found myself agreeing whole heartedly.

On the other hand, reading Hauerwas’ War and the American Difference, convinces me Yoder was right. War is something Christians ought to oppose and never participate in or support.

Well, you see my dilemma. I’m divided within myself. I agree with Yoder that the Christian life, including the life of the church, is one of radical obedience to the love Jesus taught and modeled including “Resist not evil” and “love your enemies.” I also agree with Niebuhr that effectiveness in abolishing injustice is part of the Christian’s calling (including the church’s calling). When Hitler was rampaging through Europe our duty was effectively to stop him. I also agree with Yoder that the church’s main duty is peace making by being a peaceful witness to the Lamb.

Is there a way to reconcile these two impulses-one toward radical, uncompromising obedience and one toward Christian effectiveness and responsibility for society that sometimes requires compromise (e.g., to abolish injustice using coercion if necessary)?

Occasionally I look to Bonhoeffer as a guide. Not as a guide in the sense of “Here’s a check list to go through at the end of which you’ll know what to do.” Bonhoeffer was no advocate of casuisty. But a guide in the sense of feeling resigned to the fact that occasionally in this world an evil arises so great that one has to set aside perfect obedience to the new law of love and hold one’s nose and do what it is necessary and trust God to forgive.

Bonhoeffer was a pacifist–until he was handed the opportunity to participate in the plot to assassinate Hitler. I think he remained a pacifist through that. I don’t think his participation (he volunteered to pull the trigger) was due to a policy of putting effectiveness over radical, uncompromising obedience Niebuhr style. Rather, it had to be something like Kierkegaard’s “teleological suspension of the ethical.”

IF we think Bonhoeffer made the right decision, even if it was in another sense wrong, then it seems our involvement in World War 2 was justified in the same sense–not due to some policy of just war but due to having no alternative except to allow a madman to take over much of the world and commit genocide against many groups he hated.

The problem, as I see it, is that AFTER WW2 most previously pacifist Christian groups dropped pacifism altogether and embraced war as good (something to be celebrated).

That example, Bonhoeffer, doesn’t exactly reconcile Yoder and Niebuhr, of course, but it gives one instance of a person who, while holding fast to pacifism as the norm, embraced violence as the exception (as a necessary evil). Let’s imagine that the Allies liberated Bonhoeffer before he was hanged. (That almost happened.) Would he have then been a Niebuhrian defender of war? I don’t think so. I think he would have remained a pacifist and simply appealed to the exceptional circumstances to justify (not make righteous) his decision to participate in the plot to kill Hitler.

My point is, the only way forward I can see, to get off the horns of the dilemma, is to stand with Yoder as the norm but remain open to exceptions when circumstances absolutely require them. Some evils are so horrendous that they need to be overcome quickly and the only way to do that is coercion and sometimes even violence. The response is not to create a justification system to prepare for them, but to be the kind of persons who know when they arise and how best to respond. Bonhoeffer was that kind of person.

As a general rule, I think it is true that God does not call Christians or the church to manage history. He calls us to obedience to the law of love. Coercion using deadly force is always sin but not always wrong. I realize that’s dialectical, but I don’t know any way out of that.

Email

veteran’s day – honor – do not worship

Posted on by
Reply
Email

Today one of the “the joys” we have is that of facebook and people dumping bumper sticker theology by the tons in an average week (I am FULLY guilty BTW).  With national holidays – civil religion bumper sticker theology also goes nuts.

As a  citizen of the Kingdom of God, a follower and worshiper of Jesus Christ,  who claims Lordship over all nations, peoples, and kingdoms with my secondary citizenship in the United States of America (and I would not want to live anywhere else!) I have to remind myself not to be too sucked in by my national holidays.   I am quite conservative on many issues and yet realize following Jesus does not fit into our political labels in America very well.

As one who believes the church is an embassy of the Kingdom of God – started in Jesus first coming and to be fully realized in His second coming some day – I am troubled by blind affirmations of wars and our human actions in them.  Jesus laid down his life for my ultimate freedom – a soldier has killed/been killed for and/or defending my political freedom/values. 

This is not the same thing nor are they equal.  

I am thankful for both – but they are totally different in quantity and quality  -  as is my level of thanks.

I realize this will challenge most of our ingrained assumptions because we are emersed in the Civil Religion version of Christianity in our nation-  and cause a little heat in your mind – but press through that for a second.

First of all Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross should never be reduced to a comparison with anyone who kills for their cause – no matter how wonderful a cause we think it is.

 

(1) Jesus gave his life – he did not kill others – he did not give his life while shooting the enemy – he GAVE AS A SACRIFICE.  If you are engaged in  combat it is not a sacrifice in the sense of willingly laying down your life. IT IS a sacrifice for those that would loose you if you die – THEY experience sacrifice.

But you are not “being a sacrifice” – if your intention is to kill or be killed for the cause you are mortally fighting for or against.

Sacrifice is a word that should be saved for those who truly, freely and without killing others in the process giving something up to/including their life, or in the theological sense for Christians – someone who lays it down to break a cycle of violence – instead of perpetuating the exact same old song and dance of death.  Martyrs are giving their lives sacrificially.

NOW yes we can speak of “spritual sacrifices”  BUT again if you are not actually doing something different than the enemy you face, it’s not much of a sacrifice.  

YES it may indeed be brave and courageous – as such worthy of limited, but real honor by those who benefit in some from your service.

Yes we can remember and celebrate the loss of life for the cause and the sacrifices those had to give to make the warfare possible.

Yes we can and should honor as part of our non-christian civil religion those who serve.  But also those who serve alternatively.

Just be more balanced when using sacrifice for one who dies while AT THE SAME TIME HOPING TO “kill THE ENEMY”.

 

(2) Freedom is not free – but this is NOT a justification for all wars, state violence and killing.  

Many freedoms have been also gained by those who really have laid down their lives for the cause of freedom – without killing the lives of those who threaten that freedom.

Yes it’s more dramatic in the short term to elevate those who kill and are killed for freedom.  But remember in every conflict of violence – simply doing the same thing the “enemy” is and calling our version “holy” is highly questionable for Christians.

 

(3) At best war and killing is a sinful response to a sin-filled situation.  Therefore let’s resist the “saint making” impluse in the American Civil Religion Psuedo Christianity.

All nations have a political/civil religion that uses the images of the dominant spiritual practices of it’s people – and hijacks it in times of conflict, war or other needs of national unity. All nations civil religions demand the blood sacrifices of other nations and killing by their citizens.   All these are named  ”high and holy causes” as defined by their nations.

Rome did this with the Cult of Caesar - they would take over a place and assimilate the religions and idols around the local area and add Caesar to it.  You simply did half-hearted worship of Caesar with your local gods.  This is what all nations do including the US.  Noteably this is why Jews and the Early Church were harshly persecuted and killed by the Roman Empire!  Christians were considered ATHEISTS by Rome because they refused to participate in the Roman Civil Religion – would not offer worship to Caesar – and would not kill for him. 

Times have changed in Western world.

Civil religion is used to demonize whoever is “the other” in time of war.  To make them less human.  So killing them and dying in the process makes you a “religious sacrifice on the altar of the national civil religion.”  IN our case it often blurs authentic christianry and is a state-language-knock off of real Christianity.

So let’s stop the American Civil Religion “saint-making” and instead simply affirm that my uncle 0r grandpa served their country the best they knew how and honor that instead of making them more or less than they were and we are -Sinners in process in a world that is covered in blood.

There is only one judge of all who is worthy of highest honor.  And He laid down His life – and rose again to show us there is a way out of the endless human cycle of violence – Jesus Christ.

Honoring vets and all who serve others.

Worshipping the only one who laid down His life for my freedom – Jesus Christ the Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sins of the World!

-Shel Boese

 

 

 

Email

Pro-Life is WAY More Than “Pro-birth/anti-abortion”

Posted on by
Reply
Email

At Mercy Church we talk about being holistically pro-life – abortion, war, death-penalty and so on are life issues from a Jesus’ teachings perspective.

AND here’s the deal we are CAUSING abortions IN the church by making it SO POLITICAL!!! The Devil wins the house and the nation on this one.  We create such an unredemptive, two-teir, false-holiness, performing and hiding, unable to affirm secondary pleasures and boundaries culture – that we are creating molech by our POLITICAL CIVIL RELIGION FALSE version of the faith.

The Devil wins when he gets the church to trade the power of God’s redeeming and forgiving and restoring and confessing and healing love revealed fully in Jesus and made real by the shedding of His blood…for the power of the civil religion version of Christianity (or Islam or pop atheism, etc.).

Political pastors on the issues of life will have more blood on their hands than they realize.  They will have to answer Jesus as to why their politics got in the way of the Mission of Jesus to save, heal and redeem.   Why they created a culture of abortion in the church by protecting and projecting false holiness – just like the religious politicians of Jesus day.

The National Association of Evangelicals is attempting to change the tone.  Nothing but praise from this Jesus-loving, Bible-teaching, spirit-filled pastor here.

Be pro-life in the house of God first and foremost.  Love instead of judge – it will change the next generation.

Create a spiritual family that can show another way.  Help out a single mother.  Love, include, and lift up the Biblical standards of sex and the affirmation of pleasure, children and grace because ALL HAVE FALLEN SHORT.

Pregnant?  You are welcome at Mercy Church.  The path to holiness is not hiding, hissing or hating.

 

 

 

Email