Greg Boyd is an evangelical mega-church pastor from Minnesota. What makes him unique in that company is his Ph.D. in New Testament from Princeton. Boyd made headlines some time back when he preached about the myth of Christian America, a sermon that led nearly half his congregants to leave the church. In a blog post he explains why he refuses to address any and all anti-war rallies.
I want to post this statement from that blog post because it seems to stand opposite of what I'm reading in Dominic Crossan's God and Empire. Boyd and Crossan seem to agree on Jesus' message of non-violence and how that message stands contrary to much American experience and ideology. But where they differ is in Jesus' political identity. Boyd seems to see Jesus in apolitical terms, but Crossan sees Jesus as completely religious and completely political.
So here is an interesting statement from Boyd, a statement I'd be interested in hearing others comment on:
And this massive irony is simply another reason why followers of Jesus shouldn’t think it their distinct calling to resolve political disputes; shouldn’t get overly preoccupied in political disputes; and shouldn't put any of their hope on particular ways of resolving political disputes. Our unique call is rather to individually and corporately imitate Jesus in sacrificially serving the world – including our enemies. This is where our time and energy should be spent. And this is where all of our hope for the world should be placed.
If I hear him right, and I may not, he would not approve of what Mark Toulouse calls the public church (God in Public, WJK, 2006). Christians it would appear can involve themselves in political life, but that doesn't seem to be a primary calling.
Here he concludes with these statements:
Next to the high and costly calling of following Jesus, arguing about what our nation should or should not do in Iraq amounts to little more than a distraction.
And this is why I have declined, and will continue to decline, offers to speak at anti-Iraq war peace rallies.
I read this as a call to political quietism, but I don't know Boyd as well as some might. I almost see this as an overreaction to the conservative evangelical capitulation to the Republican Party -- something that we more Progressive sorts could be tempted to do with regard to the Democratic Party!
Comments
I like much of what Boyd says, but I don't like his view that Jesus was not political. It seems like a weak compromise to satisfy his growing distrust of the religious right but without having to venture into the waters of "liberalism". That word scares many Evangelicals because of the conservative spin used to paint liberal as a dirty word and even "sinful".
I have news for him...Jesus was a liberal and a politician in the sense that he used the only political tool he had at his disposal which was non-violent protest against the empire.
Start proposing something like that in the political realm... I don't think you'll get very far.
Thanks for the response. I do think that Jesus' ministry had political implications. As for washing your enemies feet -- that might not go far in political circles, but that doesn't make it a bad idea. If we were to follow Jesus and engage each other non-violently instead of violently the world would be a better place.
You are right, of course, saying that this political position or that is the "Christian" position is a difficult argument to make.
The question that I'm pushing on is simply -- to what degree should Christians engage in social justice actions (and ending the war could be considered such) as individuals or as church? That's the point of Toulouse's important book "God in Public."