Here’s another perspective from the National Pastor’s Convention in San Diego. This is an article that Greg Boyd wrote describing a debate/discussion he had at the convention with Shane Claiborne and Chuck Colson.
Now, this gathering of people the ODMs deem heretical is probably enough to make their collective head explode, but I think it raises some good and necessary questions. What is the role of faith in politics? How much can Christians disagree on political issues? Can we serve both God and country?
Just some food for thought and discussion. By the way, I find Claiborne’s description of the assassination attempt on Hitler by Bonhoeffer and others quite interesting. Even when we are sure we are operating out of the right motives, we don’t know all the implications of what we do. Compelling stuff…
22 Comments(+Add)
I was not all that familiar with the Bonhoeffer/Hitler story, but it seems quite parallel to the past abortion clinic bombings, and not all that new, either. Jesus dealt with the zealots on a number of occasions, with even a few of them being his disciples. However, he showed that the kingdom does not come by violence or political intrigue, but by service and sacrifice.
This is precisely where I see the biggest chasm between Christians.
Recently I had a “go-around” with a parent who was distraught that we were taking students to hear Shane Claiborne speak. Her criticism focused mainly on Shane’s, as she called it, “political agenda”. This struck me as odd because earlier in her email she said “we are raising our son to think critically and have Chrisitan Worldview”. Which in my mind sheilding him from Shane doesn’t teach him to be a critical thinker and essential is a “political agenda”.
I mcannot speak with understanding about all the people involved, however I have corresponded with Boyd over a year ago about – you guessed it – how I appreciated his non-political view. He is a little soft, though, my view is the gold standard!
No politics except entertainment use.
Rick Frueh – circa 2000-2008
BTW – using what someone did (Bonhoeffer) as somehow substantiating a Biblical view is ridiculous. I care not what Calvin, Arminius, Luther, MacArthur, my wife, or even what I do as proving some Biblical doctrine.
What saith the Scriptures.
“Unless you can convince me by Scripture I cannot nor will not recant. Here I stand, may God have mercy on my soul!” (I just made that up)
So Rick, how do you feel about Boyd’s open view of God?
I confess ignorance about him as it concerns anything but his a-political views. However, as soon as I get a minute few of his views I am prepared to verbally skewer him beyond jis wildest dreams. I have added to my rolodex of craetive verbiage that renders people’s views as completely without substance and in fact part of the tri-lateral commissions attempt to deceive the world.
The world awaits my perspective. (I believe my definition of the “world” is about seravl hundred blog hits a week)
Prepare for battle, Mr. Boyd, your politcal views will not save you from my invective laced assault.
Oh, Joe, you just had to go there, didn’t you?
One thing I would say to anyone saying anything about the open view is that they need to read Boyd’s own words rather than just go by hearsay. I found out that what I thought he believed turned out to much different than what he actually believes, after I read a few of his books.
Phil – this is America, I am entitled to rely on hearsay anytime I desire! Democracy – I love this game!
boyd and claiborne as fantastic when it comes to their view of the christian’s role in politics. i also agree about boyd’s open view. you have to read his own words rather than looking to what john piper or john macarthur has to say about it. to be more accurate it would be a partially open view. check out God of the Possible for his view on the future. good stuff.
In his defense, Bonhoeffer felt ambivalent about the assasination. He saw it as evil–the lesser of two evils, but evil nonetheless.
He wrote about it as indicative of the brokenness of the world and human endeavor and at times, for all his pacifisim, one must choose and cast yourself on the mercy of God.
But Shane’s point is well taken too….
Colson, I just don’t get…
“you have to compromise” and “lie” for the nation’s best interest?
Hmmm…how about compromising on civil unions so we can put the stupid politicizing of the “gay” issue to bed (no pun intended) so we can get on with actually ministering to people.
You don’t have to call it marriage and you don’t have to force churches to do anything they don’t want to do…but then real human beings can have some basic legal protections.
cuz God knows that your gay neighbor really will listen to your “witness” and be totally open to you when they know you’re totally ok with them losing a job for being gay, or not being allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital…cuz you “love” them…you really, really, really do.
Do you people see how when a real issue collides with Colson’s theory his position’s viability just shrivels up and blows away?
nc,
Amen!
iggy
nc,
That seems to be get back to Boyd’s point as well. Sometimes I think we confuse being right with what we were originally aiming for. It like the abortion issue. I really do think that some people are really hoping for some sort of symbolic victory just so they can notch their belts.
Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it wouldn’t do much for the whole issue (other than make it more complicated, since every state could have its own law). Rather than putting so much money and effort into a political fight, why not actually work more with single moms.
I think Bonhoeffer’s work with the Confessing Church and writings like ‘The Cost of Discipleship’ did far more to undermine the Nazi regime than his involvement, such as it was, in the failed assassination attempt of Hitler. And his writings live on today.
His involvement in the assassination was an example of what DOESN”T work.
“In his defense, Bonhoeffer felt ambivalent about the assasination.”
Oh well, that makes everything clear. He was ambivilent about involving the church in murder and governmental overthrow. For a minute I thought he was unscriptural.
What if a preacher today considered this administration as hedonistic, war mongering, using torture, and only in office through questionable tactics in 2000. And this preacher came upon a plan to assasinate President Bush and was ambivilent about it.
I still search for the New Testament church’s role in affecting the government politically. Are we allowed to murmur and complain? Can we criticize and label them? When we don’t like them do we still have to show them honor, or can we malign them? Was Hitler God’s representative concerning the use of capital punishment?
You see, trying to place any government within New Testament parameters becomes an ecclesiastical exercize in political/moral reasoning that is subjective and found nowhere in the teaching epistles. Democracy itself is not of God, prophetic judges was God’s way, everything else is a creative representative of fallen imaginations. And the church is never to be unequally yoked with thses carnal, lying systems of Adam.
Just a thought. Have you read Minister Farakahn’s new book entitled “More Streams in the Desert”? =) The entire American political and governmental structure is anti-christ at its core.
Henry: Just a thought. Have you read Minister Farakahn’s new book entitled “More Streams in the Desert� =) The entire American political and governmental structure is anti-christ at its core.
RA: Yeah, and probably if you look closer, you’d see he also thinks it’s run by a secret cabal of Jews seeking world domination. Sad.
RA
The More Streams in the Desert was an obvious joke. =)
The secong sentence was in all spiritual seriousness.
I think for Bonhoeffer the issue was the cost of one life–Hitler’s–compared to what turned out to be millions of holocaust victims (not just jews, but others as well).
We may see the current admin. as warmongering, etc., but there is a categorical difference between Bush and Hitler.
And to be clear I think Bush has surrounded himself with some pretty evil people, but the Nazis they ain’t.
I’m not saying ultimately Bonhoeffer was right, but I hope that clarifies what I meant about his being “ambivalent”.
Blessings to all…even the Bush lovers! =)
“We may see the current admin. as warmongering, etc., but there is a categorical difference between Bush and Hitler.”
Of course, but levels of corruption and evil was not the question. The issue centers around political activism in the church. Before we even consifer political activism maybe we should get more active in prayer, in the Word, in humanitarianism, in humility, etc., but in the end political activism is a diversion and biblically ill advised.
But that should not negate someone like Bonhoeffer’s entire ministry just because he may have been misguided on one front. I am no expert but I believe he was spiritually couragous in the face of persecution, was he not?
I don’t think assassination of a man who is the key player in genocide is “political activism”…it’s called being faced with the an abhorrent moral dilemma…
One human life that perpetuates great evil being killed or many lives destroyed by that evil?
It wasn’t about politics, it was about life.
I’m not saying assasination is good, but I’m saying that for all our belief in guidelines, rules, standards, etc. life still gets incredibly murky….
Millions of people being put on trains for no reason other than their political beliefs, their sexuality, their education, their ethnic heritage…and the answer would be: prayer, a Bible study, giving them a care package for the train ride with sandwiches and juice packs?
I’m with you in principle, Rick. I’m a pacifist, and have no faith in the political processes of any form, but I don’t think it was simply the human tendency toward political power for Bonhoeffer….who, I’ll say again, acknowledged the ironic evil of the assasination attempt itself….
it’s just too easy now, when people are not being put on trains and your neighbors are not being dragged out of their homes to make these things simple.
My original post was in no way meant to be an indictment against Bonhoeffer. I think that he needs to be viewed in the context in which he lived. Many pastors were content to be pawns of the state at the time, and he took a stand against it.
I don’t think that we are allowed to be totally detached from the world. We can fight back, but it’s not using the world’s methods.
So Joe,
How do YOU feel about Boyd’s open view of God?
Lori B,
I’m not interested in hijacking this thread. I threw that out there to Henry more as a joke than anything, but I’m sure I’ll get into that someday.
Until then, I’d love to hear your thoughts. I confess I have not spent much time studying Boyd. I’ve only read one of his books and it dealt with Christianity and Politics.