Conservative Pastor Steers Clear of Politics, and Pays
The New York Times posted a very encouraging article about the stand that a Pastor is taking against the imperialization of the church that is happening in the U.S. today.
The New York Times posted a very encouraging article about the stand that a Pastor is taking against the imperialization of the church that is happening in the U.S. today.
July 29th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Great article. You may find a similar post>of mine interesting.
Like the pastor, I thought the church service/July 4th celebration that ended with video of fighter jets flying over the cross was over the top. There really is no reason to mix American fighter jets with the Cross of Jesus, although both are awesome in their own context.
I can also see his frustration with the word “evangelical” becoming too closely associated with conservative political causes. As our own pastor asked in a sermon quite awhile ago, wouldn’t it be nice if people thought of Christians as “those people who help people,” instead of whatever negative connotations exist out there currently.
Some disagreements:
Boyd says, “That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.” The phrase “separation of church and state,” and the 20th Century understanding of what that means, is a 20th Century standard that came out of a 20th Century Supreme Court decision.
The phrase does not exist in the Constitution. It was coined by Tom Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, in which he assured them they would have no problem freely exercising their right to worship in their chosen fashion in Connecticut at a time when a different denomination was rising to political power. Virginia even had a state church at one time, but attendance wasn’t mandatory. Tithing was.
So, Boyd is wrong when he asserts there is a “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. The Constitution protects our right to worship how we want to. It doesn’t say the church and state cannot intermingle. If that were the case, we’d have to take “In God We Trust” off our coinage, remove the tax-payer supported chaplain who opens up each session of Congress with a Christian prayer, and eliminate or modify a host of other natural Christian traditions unique to our political heritage.
Mr. Boyd also says, “I don’t think there’s a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don’t slap the label ‘Christian’ on it.”
To the contrary, Christians do have, we believe, the answers to life’s problems. The Truth is Jesus, and His chosen method of delivery is through humility, love, grace and kindness. The church that ignores political movements opposed to His teachings is a church asleep at the wheel, allowing an immoral and ungodly political order to evolve with no opposition from those who know right from wrong. If the churches of Germany in the 1930’s were more on top of their game and called Hitler out for being the evil man that he was, there might not have been a Holocaust.
In the end, I wholeheartedly agree with Boyd’s overall idea that “America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.” We can differ on the details of Christian influence or involvement in American politics, but this foundational truth cannot be disputed.
Thanks for alerting us to this article, Ray. I’ll look for your response. Go easy on me. ; )
July 29th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
I have a question Terrence as a Christian how does Jesus give you the answer to everything?
p
Ray loved the article, you will laugh at my rant when you read it.
July 29th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Terrence,
Needless to say, I disagree with almost every one of your points.
I do know that the phrase “separation of Church and State” is not a constitutional one. However, I think that any mixture of the church and state, regardless of what our founding “fathers” put forth, is one of the worst ideas ever.
Marx made the very astute observation that “The so-called Christian state is the Christian negation of the state, but in no way the state realization of Christianity… The so-called Chistian state is the imperfect state and the Christian religion serves as a supplement and a sanctification of its imperfection. Religion therefore necessarily becomes a means for the state, and the state is one of hypocrisy.”
July 30th, 2006 at 10:13 am
As a follow up, regarding your specific comment about the church and the holocaust, the case could be made that the church willingly turned a blind eye to the atrocities in Germany.
To make yet another point… the ideals of romantic violence that powered the holocaust derived from the philosophy of the 18th and 19th centuries (from Rousseau to Byron to Nietzche) are the same currents that drive our own sick obsession with war, nationalistic violence, and fascism. Once you’ve been exposed to the sources of this mentality, you see it almost everywhere you look.
July 30th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Yah it\’s like the matrix in that way.
p
July 30th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Please don’t. It’s actually much more serious than that.
July 30th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Yes, there’s a case to be made that the churches in Germany turned a blind eye to the brutality of the Holocuast, which is kind of my point. Of course, it was also the Christians who hid Jews in their homes, many of them suffering the same fate as their Jewish hideouts when discovered by the Germans. Corrie ten Boom and Bonhoeffer are examples of Christian resistance to Nazism.
July 30th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Regarding German Christians and the German church (of 70+ years ago, of course), what both of you have said is true. There were some Christians, like Bonhoeffer, who saw what was going on and tried to put a stop to it. I think, though, that they would be considered liberals today.
The German church that Bonhoeffer wrote and acted against so frequently was a church that had put the nation on a pedastal next to the cross. The German church of 70 years ago considered Germany to be nearly as important as Jesus. Of course, as Jesus so aptly put, we cannot serve two masters, and for them eventually patriotism won out. It is difficult to justify genocide for the sake of the cross. It is much easier to justify it for the sake of the country.
I don’t think the American church has gone quite that far yet, but it is that chain of events that makes me very cautious concerning the current conservative Christian tendency towards patriotism. It’s one thing to be thankful for our freedom, it’s quite another to be willing to kill for it.
July 30th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Very well put, Adam.
July 30th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
It’s funny, if anyone ever wanted to talk about the exploitation if the church by Hitler–it would be me, but the topic at hand is so pressing. Ray, I tend to agree with your comments….my connondrum(sp) is this: Sep. of Church and State–seems to be, conceptually, what the Founders were looking for. Right? So, this works out well for Judeo-Christian values that are implicit within the citizenry. What about when something like Islam comes in (don’t go there if you find this negative–I am not attacking Islam) I am merely stating that their are key differences between the vlaues the Founders had envisioned with regard to the everydya decency and proccesses of the citizens. Islam is so different in its values–and so are many other cultures. Flys in the ointment cause problems out of the context of 1776. At the same time, the concept of the neccesity of sepration of church and gov, along with Bill of Rights and other foundational principles have worked extremely well considering the possibilites. There are of course times of great confusion (WWII internement, gitmo, Obviously Native Americans) a grown up america-visa vis Ellis Island etc has shown far more promise than any other nation has in history really. Hmmmm, alas, so much more growth is needed. I wish history was funnier. I suppose it is funny that the Nazi’s created an enitre false mythology complete with artifacts and writings, with god and knights and jews and chalices and swords…oh well–that’s not really funny at all.
Thanks all
Bear
July 31st, 2006 at 12:42 am
Ray, I linked to your website from Payshun’s Xanga site….love your commentary and photos. I know Rodrigo will enjoy them as well
blessings,
Beth
July 31st, 2006 at 9:36 am
Well I really don\’t like how my conservative brothers and sisters like holding onto the myth that this country was started by Christianity. It\’s a myth this country exists out of greed not the gospel. If you doubt that then please continue to ignore the 3/5\’th compromise, the articles of confederation and a whole host of other historical papers. For all this talk of God and everything else God did not drive the formation of this country greed and exploitation did.
p
July 31st, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Pay, watch yourself on this–I agree with some of the issues here, but your tone–and believe me I understand it, but it is no different than the very thing you are so mad at it. There is such a desperation to be…right…but any history, looked at in context, will always reveal a complex multitude of issues. Greed and exploration maybe, but I doubt it. People wanted freedom, greed and expoitation followed–or else, it was dicovered as an active part of what was already happening when they arrived. Our human stuggle is a constant hope and journey to transcend the very things we confound ourselves with by doing.
Bear
July 31st, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I can see your point but the history doesn’t match it up. The issues that were dividing the confederation had next to nothing to do with Jesus, the kingdom or anything else. Looking at it in context reveals that the only reason the country united to form a federation of states was the 3/5′th compromise. The states were more interested in keeping things separate especially the south. The south felt since they had more money and more manpower they should dominate.
The north being jealous and annoyed with manpower the slave force gave them decided to walk away. Until some very bright, intelligent and racist men stripped some of the power the slave force gave the south. Hence we now have the 3/5′th’s compromise.
If we study the papers of the time then it is really easy to see just how precarious things were for the young nation. The number one issue that could unite and bring the country together was greed and exploitation not Jesus. I understand your desire to have me watch my tone as I could be just like the ones I despise but I don’t see it that way. If I were like the one’s I despised I would be agreeing with the 3/5′th’s compromise.
p
July 31st, 2006 at 3:26 pm
I see, I was looking further back than you.
Bear
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:44 pm
In reading responses a question jumped into my head for each above participant. As a fun excersize I am curious what each of you would say to the question - Is the glass half empty or half full?
Don’t overthink it, don’t try to apply the question to the specific church state issue discussed… just interested in your initial gut response overall.
-Nate
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:38 pm
You mean if there were an actual glass with actual water in it and the glass did not symbolize or represent anything, would I say “half full” or “half empty”? Generally I go with half full, unless it was a full glass that I was planning on drinking myself after someone drank half of it, in which case I would definitely say half empty.
Oo, that totally applies here. I could write a whole post on that.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
You mean if there were an actual glass with actual water in it and the glass did not symbolize or represent anything, would I say “half full” or “half empty”? Generally I go with half full, unless it was a full glass that I was planning on drinking myself, but someone drank half of it, in which case I would definitely say half empty.
Oo, that totally applies here. I could write a whole post on that.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Whoops. Read the second one, it’s more clear.
August 4th, 2006 at 7:25 am
mmmm Water. I am thirsty. Half full makes me feel better.
August 4th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Half full
p
August 5th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
See, I’m with Adam in this conundrum…
Am I discontented Lars sitting in a bougie coffee shop in Hillcrest bitter about US foreign policy and the state of the world these days who would see the glass as half empty?
Or am I an orphaned child in Chiang Mai who is incredibly grateful for the opportunity to have a glass of clean water provided by my new American-born family who has just taken me in, in which case the glass is certainly half-full?
Or am I a Lebanese child whose water supply has now been cut off and polluted, and I’m not sure what your question means anymore. Water? What glass of water? The UN hasn’t been allowed to give me water in here for weeks…
Makes me wonder if Jesus wasn’t stereotyped in our minds as an optimist, what would He say in response to the question as He embodies ‘the least of these’ in contemporary world society?…..
August 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
I don\’t see it as half full for the reasons you said Lars. I see it half full because the alternative is a lot worse. It doesn\’t matter if I am in a rich coffee shop or a hovel in a brothel. As one of those that have been abused and victimized I know it can always get worse. I have to believe in the alternative or else there is no point in living.
p