Greg Boyd’s, Myth of a Christian Nation Pt. 6

If you have been following this blog, you may have noticed that I have not been on it for the last few days.  I’ve been working quite a bit lately as well as being in another conversation on facebook with Robert A. J. Gagnon, a professor who teaches at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.  A may post what that conversation was about in the future.  Anyhoo…more on Boyd’s book.

Under the heading of “Three Preliminary Words” on pg 14 Boyd says this on page 15:

“Second, to insist that we keep the kingdom of God radically distinct from all versions of the kingdom of the world does not mean that our faith and moral convictions shouldn’t inform our participation in the political process.  Of course they should—but that is true of all citizens in a free country.  Whether we’re aware of it or not, all of us, whether religious or not, vote our faith and values.”

Now there are a couple of things that need to be said here that I don’t know if Boyd is fully aware of. 

First.  He says, “Whether they are aware of it or not, all of us, whether religious or not, vote our faith and values.”  I think he is right on here, but I would say that those who are not religious in the liturgical sense vote THEIR FAITH as well.  They definitely vote their values, but many “secular” folk don’t think that they are religious but in fact their irreligion or no religion acts, at a fundamental level as something very religious.  It fundamentally informs their voting habits as anything religious would.  See Robert Joustra in Canada’s Globe and Mail.  As Skillen says:

“But law and politics arise from and are shaped by the deepest presuppostions on which people depend in various communities of faith regardless of whether those faiths are oriented to a transcendent diety….One worldview might, according to its self-interpretation, be completely unreligious, nonreligious, or antireligious because it is organized around the assumption that human life is part of a self-contained, natural evolution process unrelated to anything beyond the visible universe before us.  But from our point of view such a comprehensive doctrine of reality is as religiously controlling (even though radically different in content) as a Christian or Jewish view of life, which is grounded ultimately in God and the creation order.”

Second, I wonder how Boyd proposes to keep the Kingdom of God radically distinct from all versions of the kingdom of the world in the political process?  I mean, if we are to be involved in politics via “power under” how exactly would this work out?  For example, if my Christian conviction leads me to be involved in politics, say,  just as far as voting for a particular politician who will help the poor become independent and gain human dignity via certain policies and laws which ends up  coercing other citizens to support, through taxes, those policies and laws, how is that “power under” to those other citizens?  How is forcing them–“You have to pay taxes to support our policy or else!” power under? 

It seems to me that at the end of the day, one will be involved in the political structures and systems of their day (something that is not so radical because there is not much difference between this and the Christian going to work at the office or on the factory line, for example, that is that radically different from the non-Christian) but in such a way that it is informed by their faith (which is radical ie., doing justice and not for self-serving ends).