This could be a copyright issue, but I just wanted to give you some insight as to what it is i am reading, and why you should read it as well.
HOW THIS BOOK CAME TO BE AND WHY IT MAY IRRITATE SOME
READERS
Like many evangelical pastors in the months before the 2004
election, I felt pressure from a number of right-wing political and religious
sources, as well as from some people in my own congregation, to "shepherd
my flock" into voting for "the right candidate" and "the
right position." Among other things, I was asked to hand out leaflets, to
draw attention to various political events, and to have our church members sign
petitions, make pledges, and so on. Increasingly, some in our church grew irate
because of my refusal (supported by the church board) to have the church
participate in these activities.
In April of 2004, as the religious buzz was escalating, I
felt it necessary to preach a series of sermons that would provide a biblical
explanation for why our church should not join the rising chorus of right-wing
political activity. I also decided this would be a good opportunity to expose
the danger of associating the Christian faith too closely with any political
point of view, whether conservative or liberal. I had touched on this topic
several times in the past but never as deeply, clearly, and persistently. The
series was entitled "The Cross and the Sword," and it forms the
foundation for this book.
The response surprised me. For one thing, I had never
received so much positive feedback. Some people literally wept with gratitude,
saying that they had always felt like outsiders in the evangelical community
for not "toeing the conservative party line." Others reported that
their eyes had been opened to how they had unwittingly allowed political and
national agendas to cloud their vision of the uniquely beautiful kingdom of
God. But neither had I ever received so much intensely negative feedback.
I felt as though I'd stuck a stick in a hornet's nest! About
20 percent of my congregation (roughly a thousand people) left the church. Many
who left sincerely believe there is little ambiguity in how true Christian
faith translates into politics. Since God is against abortion, Christians
should vote for the pro-life candidate, they believe—and the preacher should
say so. Since God is against homosexuality, Christians should vote for the
candidate who supports the marriage amendment act—and a Bible-believing pastor
should proclaim this. Since God is for personal freedom, Christians should vote
for the candidate who will fulfill "America's mission" to bring
freedom to the world—and any American pastor, like myself, should use his
"God-given authority and responsibility" to make this known.
"It's that simple," I was told. To insist that it's not, some
suggested, is to be (as I was variously described) a liberal, a compromiser,
wishy-washy, unpatriotic, afraid to take a stand, or simply on the side of
Satan.
Some readers undoubtedly share these convictions and may
already be responding negatively to this book. Like many American evangelicals,
you may assume that espousing a certain political position is simply part of
what it means to be Christian. It may be difficult for you to fathom how an
evangelical pastor could, for theological reasons, refuse to use the pulpit to
support a pro-life, pro-family, pro-Christian values, pro-American political
platform. Aren't we supposed to be trying to take America back for God?
Consequently, you too may be tempted to write me off as
liberal, a compromiser, wishy-washy, unpatriotic, afraid to take a stand, or on
the side of Satan. If so, let me assure you that, for all my shortcomings,
I don't believe any of those labels accurately describes me.
And I'd ask you to hear me out.
At the outset, I want you to know I appreciate and respect
your convictions. I understand the consternation you may feel, but at the same
time, I challenge you to keep an open mind and to consider this book's
arguments. I know how difficult it is to take a book seriously when it
confronts one's most cherished beliefs. I also know that few things in life are
as intellectually and spiritually beneficial as forcing ourselves to consider
ideas different from our own—even ideas that may irritate and offend.
This book may well irritate and offend you at times. You may
never agree with me. But I believe that wrestling with these issues will
benefit you nonetheless. I only ask that you hear me out.
THE CENTRAL THESIS OF THIS BOOK
My thesis, which caused such an uproar, is this: I believe a
significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and
political idolatry. To a frightful degree, I think, evangelicals fuse the
kingdom of God with a preferred version of the kingdom of the world (whether
it's our national interests, a particular form of government, a particular
political program, or so on). Rather than focusing our understanding of God's
kingdom on the person of Jesus—who, incidentally, never allowed himself to get
pulled into the political disputes of his day—I believe many of us American
evangelicals have allowed our understanding of the kingdom of God to be
polluted with political ideals, agendas, and issues.
For some evangelicals, the kingdom of God is largely about,
if not centered on, "taking America back for God," voting for the
Christian candidate, outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, winning the
culture war, defending political freedom at home and abroad, keeping the phrase
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting for prayer in the
public schools and at public events, and fighting to display the Ten
Commandments in government buildings.
I will argue that this perspective is misguided, that fusing
together the kingdom of God with this or any other version of the kingdom of
the world is idolatrous and that this fusion is having serious negative
consequences for Christ's church and for the advancement of God's kingdom.
I do not argue that those political positions are either
wrong or right. Nor do I argue that Christians shouldn't be involved in
politics. While people whose faith has been politicized may well interpret me
along such lines, I assure you that this is not what I'm saying. The issue is
far more fundamental than how we should vote or participate in government.
Rather, I hope to challenge the assumption that finding the right political
path has anything to do with advancing the kingdom of God.
THE FOUNDATIONAL MYTH
What gives the connection between Christianity and politics
such strong emotional force in the U.S.? I believe it is the longstanding myth
that America is a Christian nation.
From the start, we have tended to believe that God's will
was manifested in the conquest and founding of our country—and that it is still
manifested in our actions around the globe. Throughout our history, most
Americans have assumed our nation's causes and wars were righteous and just,
and that "God is on our side." In our
minds—as so often in our sanctuaries—the cross and the American
flag stand side by side. Our allegiance to God tends to go hand in hand with
our allegiance to country. Consequently, many Christians
who take their faith seriously see themselves as the
religious guardians of a Christian homeland. America, they believe, is a holy
city "set on a hill," and the church's job is to keep it shining.
The negative reaction to my sermons made it clear that this
foundational myth is alive and well in the evangelical community—and not just
in its fundamentalist fringes. That reaction leads me to suspect that this myth
is being embraced more intensely and widely now than in the past precisely
because evangelicals sense that it is being threatened.
The truth is that the concept of America as a Christian
nation, with all that accompanies that myth, is actually losing its grip on the
collective national psyche, and as America
becomes increasingly pluralistic and secularized, the civil
religion of Christianity is losing its force. Understandably, this produces
consternation among those who identify themselves as the nation's religious
guardians.
So, when the shepherd of a flock of these religious
guardians stands up—in the pulpit no less—and suggests that this foundational
American myth is, in fact, untrue, that America is not now and never was a
Christian nation, that God is not necessarily on America's side, and that the
kingdom of God we are called to advance
is not about "taking America back for God"—well,
for some, that's tantamount to going AWOL. I respect the sincerity of that conviction, but for me, it
simply confirms how badly the church needs to hear the message of this book.
The myth of America as a Christian nation, with the church
as its guardian, has been, and continues to be, damaging both to the church and
to the advancement of God's kingdom. Among other things, this nationalistic
myth blinds us to the way in which our most basic and most cherished cultural
assumptions are diametrically opposed to the kingdom way of life taught by
Jesus and his disciples.Instead of living out the radically counter-cultural
mandate of the kingdom of God, this myth has inclined us to Christianize many
pagan aspects of our culture. Instead of providing the culture with a radically
alternative way of life, we largely present it with a religious version of what
it already is. The myth clouds our vision of God's distinctly beautiful kingdom
and thereby undermines our motivation to live as set-apart [holy] disciples of
this kingdom. Even more fundamentally, because this myth links the kingdom of
God with certain political stances within American politics, it has greatly
compromised the holy beauty of the kingdom of God to non-Christians. This myth
harms the church's primary mission. For many in America and around the world,
the American flag has smothered the glory of the cross, and the ugliness of our
American version of Caesar has squelched the radiant love of Christ. Because
the myth that America is a Christian nation has led many to associate America
with Christ, many now hear the good news of Jesus only as American news,
capitalistic news, imperialistic news,exploitive news, antigay news, or
Republican news. And whether justified or not, many people want nothing to do
with any of it.
TWO CONTRASTING KINGDOMS
In the pages that follow, I'll suggest that the kingdom
Jesus came to establish is "not from this world" (John 18:36), for it
operates differently than the governments of the world do. While all the
versions of the kingdom of the world acquire and exercise power over others,
the kingdom of God, incarnated and modeled in the person
of Jesus Christ, advances only by exercising power under
others.
It expands by manifesting the power of self-sacrificial,
Calvary-like love. To put it differently, the governments of the world seek to
establish, protect, and advance their ideals and agendas. It's in the fallen
nature of all those governments to want to "win."
By contrast, the kingdom Jesus established and modeled with his life, death,
and resurrection doesn't seek to "win" by any criteria the world
would use. Rather, it seeks to be faithful. It demonstrates the reign of God by
manifesting the sacrificial character of God, and in the process, it reveals
the most beautiful, dynamic, and transformative power in the universe. It
testifies that this power alone—the power to transform people from the inside
out by coming under them—holds the hope of the world. Everything the church is
about, I argue, hangs on preserving the radical uniqueness of this kingdom in
contrast to the kingdom of the world.
THREE PRELIMINARY WORDS
But three preliminary words need to be said. First, my
thesis applies as much to Christians on the political left as on the political
right.6 While I'm concerned about the fusion of the two kingdoms from both
sides, the focus of this book is more on the political right, since that
political orientation is far and away the dominant one among evangelicals at
this point in history. The political right currently has far more religious and
political clout—and has captured far more of the media spotlight. For that
reason, it warrants more attention. 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.
What the distinction between the two kingdoms does imply, however,
is that citizens of the kingdom of God need to take care to distinguish between
their core faith and values on the one hand and the particular way they
politically express their faith and values on the other. While the way of the
kingdom of God is always simple,
Straight forward, and uncompromising, the way of the kingdom
of the world is always complex, ambiguous, and inevitably full of compromises. Hence,
kingdom people who share the same core faith and values can and often do
disagree about how their faith and values should inform their involvement in
the kingdom of the world. (' Finally, this book is written to help us get a
clear vision of the unique kingdom of God as revealed in the life of Jesus, to
see how its Calvary-like way of bringing about change in people's lives and
in society is completely different from the world's, and to
see the great harm that results when Jesus' disciples fail to preserve the uniqueness
of that way. This book does not attempt to resolve all ambiguities between
these two kingdoms The purpose of this book, rather, is to cast a broad vision
of the kingdom of God and show its stark contrast to the kingdom of the world.
If it helps some readers see how wonderfully different God's kingdom is from
the world; if it helps some place more trust in God's unique "power
under" mode of operation; and if it motivates some to become more
committed to living out the radically alternative, countercultural life of this
kingdom—it will have served its purpose.
