I hate to keep dropping quotes from books. But I just finished The Politics of Heaven and it ended with a bang. And it’s much easier than me writing something on my own this late at night when I’m tired.
The signal antinomy of the national political movement can be found in Matthew 5:13, in which Jesus says, “Ye are the salt of the earth . . .,” which is generally interpreted to mean that those who minister to His followers must lead both by both their words and actions. Bonhoeffer and Falwell and James Dobson and the Southern Baptist Convention and Pat Robertson all dedicated themselves to following that admonition. Only Bonhoeffer was clear about it, only Bonhoeffer was an ethicist as well as a theologian. The others are all antinomians; that is, they are men of faith, believers in the moral law, which allows them to violate the moral law. Antinomianism is that kind of blatant contradiction.
The conflicting principles of the movement have done great harm, and its theologians and philosophers as well as its political advisors bear responsibility for that harm. The Christian Right follows Jesus, who said “. . . go sell your possessions and give to the poor . . .” and supports a tax system that rewards the very rich and takes from everyone else. The movement opposes the killing of fetuses and condones capital punishment. It believes in the divinity of Jesus, who said, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name, welcomes me . . .”, yet opposes health insurance for millions of American children. It adores the Prince of Peace and promotes war.
The movement claims to follow the Gospel, which contains the social philosophy of Jesus, but when the private acts of citizens cannot serve the needs of the poor the movement believes it is better to let children suffer than to have their suffering alleviated by the government. It is the same with the profession of peace and willingness to make war. The movement’s chosen national leaders lavish praise on the Constitution and on the need to violate it through illegal wars, searches without warrants, detentions without trials, a hidden government. The movement opposes murder and defends the right to carry weapons that have no use but murder. Its chosen leaders oppose high gasoline prices and make laws to increase the profits of oil companies. It embraces freedom of religion on constitutional principle and questions the loyal of Muslims on the principle of the right to self-defense. While venerating the history of immigration in America, the movement sees newcomers as a “threat to American customs and values”.
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
27 Comments
Wow, that’s almost as much of a punch to the gut as ol’ Stanley quoted here:
http://vox-nova.com/2008/02/19/stanley-hauerwas-your-salvation-is-in-doubt/
…or more so
hahaha. hauerwas is a loose canon.
I don’t know who is worse Pat Robertson or Brian Mclaren? They both contradict simple truths and both are just as dangerous. You should have included Brian in your list of names.
What is strange to me is that I agree the guys you listed have some serious issues just as Joel Osteen or any other TV evangelist. But why is it when Mclaren denies simple doctrines of truth i.e. there is no hell that is ok? Why doesn’t he get thrown under the bus also?
I find it funny when you guys talk about capital punishment vs abortion. 3600+ babies are killed everyday. How many people are put to death every year in the US for capitol punishment? In 2006 56 people were killed! That argument is a joke.
Only 56! Wow, well in that case let the death continue if it is only 56.
I’ll have to agree with Wes. While I will agree that there is an imbalance among many evangelicals towards the poor, there are SEVERAL completely dishonest and untrue things said in the above quote. I don’t know the author, but I’ll have to completely disagree with most of his criticism.
As Wes said, most of his argument is a joke.
Peace.
would it make you feel better if i told you that he spent half the book banging on both clintons and jim wallis?
it’s the most fair and balanced book i’ve read in the last 2 years.
what exactly about the quote is untrue or dishonest?
About half of that little rant you quoted is based, once again, on the idea that government charity has no negative effects. I don’t believe that coercive charity is ultimately beneficial for either the giver or the receiver. There are, possibly, some short-term benefits. But the long-term resentment and dependency only lead to further problems, including a detached upper class and a lower class based on pauperism.
Compassion means “to suffer with.” If our efforts are based on funneling money from the “evil rich” to the poor with no interaction between them except for a cold, soul-less government, it’s very little service to anyone. I think it’s perhaps the most heartless form of ministry imaginable.
Ugh.
Please point out where anything stated that capital punishment is worse than abortion.
The argument is that one is worse than the other. The argument is about consistency. A “pro-life” argument that opposes abortion because it ends “life” but supports capital punishment, war, and torture is as hypocritical as possible.
And like Josh… I would
I have been really looking into capital punishment and how the Bible weights in on this issue. I find NO support of this. Jesus saves a woman (adulterer at the well)from the death penalty. Death was the accepted cultural punishment four adultery at this time. As far as the number of abortions to capital punishment deaths I think the point needs to be made that who are we to determine the value of a persons life. If we believe God gave his breath to man (remember Genesis the first book of the Bible?) then doesn’t that make every life valuable? Just my two cents!
@Dave
If God does not believe in capitol punishment and war can you explain the book of Joshua for me and why did God command the extermination of people?
Can you explain why God killed Ananias and Sapphira for telling a lie?
Do you think it it was ok for America to fight for the freedom of slaves?
There is killing and there is murder.
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
@ Wes if you believe in joshua and the old testament being declarative . . . then why not practice jubilee? why not practice taking care of the environment? why not follow any of the levitical laws?
again . . . you can’t just take the bible as a black and white document and extrapolate that out anywhere you want, whenever you want, however you want. it’s got a tad bit of nuance involved.
Ok lets leave the Bible completely out of the picture.
Is there any justification for killing a human being? Any?
I think the definition of “antinomianism” given here is more akin to simply hypocrisy, and less like actual “lawlessness.” Just my thoughts on that.
Anyway, I’m not for capital punishment anymore–I’m a recovered Republican, Southern Baptist. PTL, right? But, I still think the argument that being anti-abortion should naturally make someone anti-death penalty is in some ways a confusion of categories. Of all the arguments, it’s one of the weakest in convincing people to oppose the death penalty.
I wish people could see some of the younger, more open and globally minded Southern Baptists who are coming up, and not continue to sweep us all into the group with Dobson and some of those guys. But, this quote does hit some of the older generation of conservative evangelicals right in the gizzard.
Josh, I don’t think Wes is trying to make the Old Testament somehow binding on us. Rather, as I’ve done before, pointing out that God seems to have no problem either killing humans himself or commanding His people to do it. Not that I like it, but I can’t pretend that it’s not there or that it doesn’t make the “love your enemies” argument a little more complicated.
Again, I agree, it’s about nuance. Which is why I talked recently about certain things being in ethically grey areas, whereas you and a couple of others are trying to make certain issues black and white. Sometimes we’re more alike than you might think.
“I don’t think Wes is trying to make the Old Testament somehow binding on us.”
no . . . but it does seem to be making a particular way of reading the Bible binding on us. the statement sems to assume that there’s only one way to read whats there. which we all know isn’t true . . . right?
“pointing out that God seems to have no problem either killing humans himself or commanding His people to do it.”
i read the OT and think . . . PEOPLE certainly seemed to have no problem giving God credit for war, genocide, and in particular their militaristic victories which they claimed was God showering blessings/favor on them for their righteous living). I would say their giving God credit for it – doesn’t automatically make it so.
i would say there are certain issues that are black and white. the problem is – my actions as a human being – often creates a perception of grey.
great discussion by the way.
thanks josh and all.
mj
or maybe the bible is just evolving. or maybe the people who wrote some of it or all of it wrote their own tribal perspectives in. and their own prejudices.
“i read the OT and think . . . PEOPLE certainly seemed to have no problem giving God credit for war, genocide, and in particular their militaristic victories which they claimed was God showering blessings/favor on them for their righteous living). I would say their giving God credit for it – doesn’t automatically make it so.”
OK, fine. So what about Ananias and Sapphira? Don’t worry if you choose to ignore that issue, it’s been ignored by folks here plenty of times in the past.
“or maybe the bible is just evolving. or maybe the people who wrote some of it or all of it wrote their own tribal perspectives in. and their own prejudices.”
Which is quite subjective, and if you’re going to take that perspective, you shouldn’t be at all surprised if people disagree with you and your interpretations of nuance, evolving theology, perspective, prejudices, etc.
Or the Bible is not evolving and God commanded just what is written in it.
i know derek. that’s just where i’m coming from.
wes. are we really going to rehash all of this again? you know where i stand. i know where you stand. that’s why we keep running into brick walls.
to Josh …
Let me apologize for saying the guys arguments are a joke … probably not gracious enough given that you liked the book (at least on some level) and I haven’t read it.
The book may be balanced to some degree, but if these are his conclusions, I stand behind dishonest and untrue. And it would take me a whole ‘nother post to explain and defend which ones … and Derek could probably do a better job than me, anyway. But as a summary, I’m uncomfortable with the basic idea that those who don’t hold to a socialistic/liberal view of the role of government do not believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I seek not to defend any of the men on the list (I would personally put Bonhoeffer on a different level, too), more to explain what I was addressing.
As far as capital punishment discussion goes, the OT principle is valid. Capital punishment was instituted by God (after the flood – before the Law, not to mention His punishment to Adam and Eve), and given as a proper motivation against crime/sin as used by the state in the Law. The New Testament Christians were not rulers of a worldly state, so of course they are quiet on the subject, but given the other indications through Paul’s letters (and Acts) on the role of government, capital punishment is still technically biblical …
God also killed Herod for some serious sin, as well …
Peace.
Josh,
Maybe you should have called this post the Politics of Killing.
Your posts always create a great deal of discussion, which makes for interesting reading for me.
A general question for anyone who wants to answer, because I’m trying to sort through it myself:
In regards to capital punishment and abortion, does it make a difference in the discussion if the person getting capital punishment(getting killed) is because of a law broken while a fetus is being aborted (getting killed)for simply existing? Both involve killing, but is it really the same Type of killing and does that make a difference? Not adding fuel to any fire, just wondering….
heh, heh, you used the word antinomianism. How erudite of you!
Heh, I was thinking about mentioning Herod. Of course, if someone would be willing to take up Ananias maybe I would have moved on to that one, too.
But Britt just about said it in a nutshell – as usual. When Jesus is telling us to sell our possessions and give to the poor, I don’t think he was suggesting that we encourage the government to do so by force. To me, that sounds like a joke – if I could only figure out how to turn it into a punchline.
haha john. i know. yesterday was “straussian” and today is “antinomianism”. go figure. not so bad yourself with erudite.
*note to self*
bookmark dictionary.com before continuing in any emergent conversation.
Matt Scott–LOL if only it weren’t true. Just wait until TU&…D joins the conversation.
I don’t think he’s found Josh’s site yet, or at least he’s too busy at Patton’s.