Greg Boyd on Myth of a Christian Nation

Here are a few videos Greg Boyd talking about his book, Myth of a Christian Nation that I’ve recently read.

Now I don’t agree with Boyd on everything he says (specifically his insistence on complete pacifism). But I do agree with his main premise that wedding Christianity too tightly to any political party of “version of ‘the kingdom of the world'” is detrimental to everyone, especially followers of Christ. In order to preserve the beauty of the kingdom of heaven, I agree with Boyd that we should make a clear and distinct separation between our Christian beliefs (what we believe to be true and right and wrong) and public policy (how we think those beliefs ought to be implemented in a diverse society which includes Christians as well as non-Christians).


22 responses to “Greg Boyd on Myth of a Christian Nation

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Greg Boyd on Myth of a Christian Nation | Reason To Stand --

  2. I think we need to make a clear and distinct separation between Christianity and Greg Boyd, not Christianity and public policy . I do affirm that neither of the major parties are endorseable, but no neutrality is possible in the sphere of public policy, as in any other sphere – and he's asking us to be neutral. Don't think so. Don't think I'm going to take a non-Christian's advice, either. Neither should you. If you haven't seen that he isn't, I would suggest a look through even Geisler and Licona's material, as both say that Open Theism is heresy. That's the biggest problem with Boyd, and it colors his ideal of political engagement, too. He is, in effect, also saying that we are to be political pacifists.

  3. #1. Boyd is a Christian, no matter what we may think of his second and third tier doctrines (and much, much less what we may think of his political ideology).

    #2. Boyd says in his book that he is not advocating complete political pacifism. He fully recognizes that we bring with us all of our religious and political convictions into the voting booth with us. He does advocate, however, (and I fully agree with him) that we not tie our Christianity to our policy decisions (like our position on the healthcare bill).

    #3 "Don't think I'm going to take a non-Christian's advice, either. Neither should you." One again, Boyd is a Christian. To claim he isn't is to violate a plethora of Biblical commands regarding not judging another's servant. Yes, his open-theism is troublesome, however he does hold to the bare essentials found in 1 Cor 15 and as such _it is not our place to attempt to throw him out of a body that is not ours_.

    #4. You don't think we should learn from those we disagree with (or those whom we think are outside of the body, real or imagined)? Seriously? That's going to hamper your intellectual development as it is horribly narrow-minded. I feel sorry for you if you really believe that.

    #5. Open theism is not the issue here. You seem to have a narrow single-minded myopic focus here. I have talked with Mike about Boyd over lunch recently. You know what, Mike likes Boyd, thinks he is a great guy, AND thinks he is a Christian. I know that must burst your bubble as you seem to have a rabid "us vs. them" mentality going on, but the truth is that we can disagree vehemently (as Licona, Geisler, and Craig do) with an aspect of a person's theology

    #6. Boyd does advocate a complete pacifist view of the use and approval of the use of force. I too agree that this is going too far (though I think he is dead-on in terms of the Church and it's use of force). For that I prefer Wayne Grudem's material (which I shall post later I suppose). However when Boyd speaks about the Church's use of force (like your beloved Calvin and Luther's burning heretics at the stake) he is dead-on in that it not only eclipses our primary gospel message of peace, hope, and love. But it actually violates the command of Jesus as to what we should be primarily known for (and that SHOULDN'T be enacting laws that merely curb undesirable behaviors).

    So, in closing, you should reconsider your anti-intellectual stance of not reading books or material by people you disagree with. Who knows, you might actually learn something new.

  4. To claim he isn't is to violate a plethora of Biblical commands regarding not judging another's servant.

    Unless of course, we're judging their past servitude.

    • There's a big difference in claiming someone is not saved because they don't hold to the level of doctoral purity we have come to accept as true (meaning Calvinists have no right to call Arminians unsaved) but it is an entirely different matter altogether to say that someone who, themselves, claims to be unsaved is, in fact, unsaved (or never were to begin with).

      On another note, I'm glad you are still around BH. I asked a question in William Lane Craig's Sunday School class I thought you would be interested in. It was regarding the loss of salvation, I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

  5. Theology Proper is hardly a second or third tier doctrine.

  6. Would you care to elaborate on this "big difference"? From your many posts I get the sense you make a lot of mountains out of molehills and claim special ability to discern which are deserving of mountain status.

    • Sure, the molehill here is one who claims to be a Christian vs. one who does not claim to be Christian. That tiny, almost minuscule, molehill is what separates the saved from the damned (or, the "us vs. them" you made reference to on the de-conversion site).

  7. So your God doesn't mind you judging non-believers, just your Chrsitian brethern? I don't think you'll find support for that in the Bible.

  8. And if someone was a Christian in the past, you claim his servitude is now void post-deconversion? What if that person wtinesses to and brought others to Christ?

    For someone decrying judging you do an awful lot of it.

  9. Judging in itself is not wrong, perhaps you should take a gander at my previous post on the subject

    The truth is that I judge all the time. So do you. The question is really 1. what do we judge based on and 2. are we able to pronounce final judgement (aka passing sentence)?

  10. Judge not lest you be judged. Thought I read that somewhere…

  11. Great, let me know where the secret decoder ring is so I can decipher all of the contradictory context from.

  12. Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass. A couple thousand years of the emergence of differing sects of Christianity is all the proof that's needed to show that one interpretation of the text isn't clear. Yours is just one on the pile.

    I'd expect better of a God then to send such a convoluted message.

    • So, if there were an infinitely powerful, omniscient, transcendent, all-loving God you would expect him to conform to your standards of clarity? Further you simply dismiss the possibility that there is a God and that he has spoken definitively our of hand because of otherwise minor points of doctrine Christians (who are the followers, not the authors, and who are as finite as you are) don't see 100% eye-to-eye on things?

      I see that you've been misleading me all this time. It's not that you don't believe there is a god, you seem to be under the impression that the position was vacant so you decided to try and fill it.

  13. That's a rich response, for sure. You've done a good job of telling what my position is, and I'm the one trying to play God?

    I'm written right here on your blog elsewhere that I accept that a god is a possibility. But the Bible is not his divinely inspired word in my opinion.

    Who gave you the power to decide what are "minor points of doctrine". Your arrogance is as rich as your hypocriticism.

  14. "Who gave you the power to decide what are "minor points of doctrine"."

    Simple, as I mentioned above, the core doctrines for Christianity are and have always been found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11

    Anything beyond this is second and third-tier doctrine and differences here amount to in-house discussions.

  15. That's not a real answer but we can leave it at that. I've learned all I care to from you at the moment.

Leave a Reply