Greg Boyd

So I happened to be at North Park University this weekend on a college visit for my middle son and the speaker both Sunday night and Monday morning was Greg Boyd. I have to admit when you are evaluating a college for your child and the chapel speaker is one who embraces Open Theism and writes a book called The Myth of a Christian Nation , you wonder "what were they thinking?"

Boyd is a likeable character from the pulpit. He is animated, talks a mile-a-minute, has a self-deprecating sense of humor and doesn't appear to have a huge ego. As my wife and I listened, we found much to agree with in the general drift of his messages. But we also sensed a "taking it too far" tendency that I suspect is the source of his troubles with the evangelical community.

On Sunday night, he presented one of those "most important messages I'll ever preach..." messages, which he humorously admitted did not mean it would be the best sermon we would ever hear. The gist of it was this. Christ demonstrated love by valuing others to the point that he gave himself sacrificially, even to those who would crucify him. Our job as the corporate body of Christ is simply to demonstrate that kind of love.

He spoke much of the kingdom of God, the "dome where Christ is king", as being the central message of Christ over and over through the gospels. We are the church, he said, when we mimic the example of Christ by giving sacrificially, exhibiting unconditional love and ascribing lavish worth on individuals, even our enemies. This he contrasted to passing judgment, which is God's job, not ours, but sadly is the example most non-believers see, particularly when they look at the religious right. He said that no political party represents the Kingdom of God. He said that we ought never judge. And to his credit, he pointed out that judgment is different from discernment. We are not to judge others, but we are to discern actions and attitudes.

I had a few questions on Sunday night. But there was much to agree with. We happened to go back Monday. I took notes:

He quoted John 18:36 where Jesus says "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place". His point was that we don't have to fight to defend Christ's kingdom because it is not of this world. I guess that may be true, but I don't see it is logical to conclude that Jesus is against fighting for what is right in all circumstances...

He explained that he wrote his book because of intense pressure to "steer the flock" to vote on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. He wanted to steer clear of political issues. But I wondered, are abortion and gay marriage "political" issues or moral ones?

He mentioned that the kingdom of the world represents "power over" people whereas the Kingdom of God does not. The "power over" people strategy tends to legislate behavior instead of change the heart. I wondered, if this is true, is it a "power over" strategy, antithetical to the Kingdom of God, to have laws against theft, murder and rape?

He responded to his critics (including Christianity Today and Chuck Colson) by saying he is not arguing that Christians shouldn't vote. He said that moral authority lies not in how we vote but how we live, and that political issues are always ambiguous. I wonder what is ambiguous about partial birth abortion?

He said he isn't arguing that Christians shouldn't be social activists, just that they shouldn't tie it to politics. But then he said of Jesus, that by allowing himself to be crucified by a political regime, he exposed the evil of that regime. Is that not a political statement attributed to Christ? And wasn't it the religious authorities who engineered the crucifixion, not the political authorities?

He said that Satan is the god of this age and has authority over all governments, implying that to be holy, "set apart" we should be careful about aligning Christianity to politics. But doesn't Romans 13 say that the civil authorities are God's servants?

Finally he pulled out a new version of the unfortunate screed built up from Luther's "Babylonian Captivity" that the emperor Constantine is the root of all evil, saying that in the first three centuries of church history, the church was a persecuted minority which knew only powerless love, but when Constantine won his military battle with the cross as his standard and thus associated Christianity with military violence, the church became the persecutor and oppressor. When Christians picked up the sword, he claims, they put down the cross.

I suppose that would explain in part why Boyd feels free to create new and novel ideas about the very nature of God - after all, why should the council of Nicea matter much to him, since it was part of this massive "Constantinian" paradigm shift that prevents guys like Colson from seeing the nuances of Boyd's kingdom of love. He said that his critics were still stuck in the "Constantinian" paradigm, a tragic misunderstanding that apparently pulled the wool over the eyes of the whole church until he came along to clear it all up.

In Boyd's view, if we all understood this most important "kingdom" teaching of radical, sacrificial love, instead of this "myth of a Christian nation", then all of us who claim the name of Christ -Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist and Communist - (yes, communist!) could all spread the love of Christ together.

There were a few other throw away lines, like the one that said Jesus, who apparently disdained politics, was nevertheless against sexism, that Ghandi and Martin Luther King were right about passive resistance, (a tactic that worked against Western democracies with much Christian influence but may have been a tad less successful in the face of Stalin, Hitler, or Iranian mullahs).

I think Boyd is sincere, certainly passionate about his viewpoint. I think he provides a good corrective in that we have probably gotten out of balance. Yes, sacrificial love is something we need to hear more about and certainly do more with. But like almost all megachurch preachers, he tends to overstate his case for maximum impact and ignores the very things that could balance his own view. If love is as radical as Boyd says it is, how does this square with other passages?

What is loving then or Christlike about Paul saying in no uncertain terms that the Judaizers ought to emasculate themselves because of the doctrinal error that was enslaving the souls of many? Was Paul not aware of this non-judgmental "kingdom of God" teaching? What was loving about Christ telling his disciples to shake the dust off their feet if they were not received as they traveled about preaching a message of repentance? What about Jesus allowing his disciples near the end of his ministry to carry a sword? 

What was loving about his overturning the tables in the temple?

What about the cases where loving person A means intervening to stop person B? Can I love the abuse victim without taking a stance against the abuser? Can I love the defrauded spouse without calling the defrauder an adulterer and sinner? Can I love the unborn child without calling the abortionist a killer? If saving a victim of violence means punching the perpetrator should I do so?

Does showing love and valuing the person-hood of the homosexual mean I should allow gay advocacy groups to push policies through our legislatures and courts that would separate the concept of biological parenthood from the definition of family and deprive entire generations of children of God's ideal for their tender, impressionable years? Is sexual morality only about personal sin, or does it have a societal consequence? If so, what is the responsibility of a Christian in democratic society if not to advocate and vote for policies that will benefit the whole? Should government reward divorce and cohabitation with tax policies and punish nuclear families?

And at bottom, it is misplaced anger. It was pro-life forces that were at the forefront of setting up crisis pregnancy clinics and adoption options to show compassion for those less fortunate. Likewise, support groups and ministries to homosexuals are hardly uncommon. Sending missionaries to Muslim countries as well as sending aid to Muslim governments is not inconsistent with defending our innocent from terror cells.

Ultimately, it is Boyd's view that is novel. The ease with which megachurch celebrity pastors toss aside long held views of the historical church and embrace open theism and toss aside just-war theory, is always a bit shocking to me.

So, I liked Greg Boyd, and thought he had a good point. But to suggest that citizenship in a democratic society or active pursuit of policy change is somehow abandoning basic Christian principles and allowing Christianity to be hijacked by the "right" is grossly unfair, naive and probably suicidal. I hope that the young college students who occasionally applauded his forceful points get a chance to think a bit deeper and farther about the implications of his thesis and get to hear a decent rebuttal.