Review of "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Greg Boyd

Recently on vacation, I picked up Greg Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation." This title sparked my interest, because I, as a evangelical Christian, have often struggled with the relationship between church and state in America.

I have become firmly convinced from historical records that the founding fathers approved of the Christian faith in many ways, though many of them where more deistic than theistic. America also started as a Christian nation in the sense that most of her people have claimed some form of Christianity. Additionally, two major Christian revivals deeply influenced national thought for the more than hundred years as America grew from colony to one of the most powerful nations on earth.

The question Boyd asks of all this is "What is the difference between the nationally recognized form of Christianity throughout American history and Jesus' kingdom--the kingdom of God?" Here Boyd drives a stake between widespread national faith and the faith of Christ. He basically says there is no relationship...zero...and bases his claim on the fact that the kingdoms of this world, whether America or any other have advanced by coercive, self-interested power, whereas the kingdom of God in Christ advances by other-interested, sacrificial love. He says:

"Following the example of Christ, and in stark contrast to the modus operandi of the world, we are to do "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than ourselves." (pp. 31)

This is his key point, and it is forceful. He uses various evidence from American history to make this point stick, from the Indian Wars to slavery, in order to show that America is much different than the kingdom of God and is really just another kingdom of the world.

I nodded along as I read much of his argument on these points, probably for a couple of reasons. First, during college, it is just these negative points of American history that many of my professors used as arguments against evangelicalism. For some reason, they couldn't help but lump Christ together with the national history of people who have not followed all of His teachings (of course their arguments included the Crusades and Europe's bloody, post-Reformation religious wars, as well, among others). The second reason, I nodded along was because of his many quotations of Christ's teachings on how His followers are to regard others. Jesus did tell us to do good to our enemies rather than forcing them to our position or attacking them. Boyd's practical application of these ideas is that we are not called to force America to abide by Judeo-Christian morality, and consequently, certain moral issues should not be so important to evangelicals as they are (gay marriage, war, or patriotism for instance). As all these arguments stirred my mind, I couldn't help but remember watching Gary Cooper in "Sgt. York," a film where "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" includes military service and killing other human beings (which is antithetical to the statement "do good to them that hate you").

However, I did find some difficulty with Boyd's argument.

First, my biggest question was "Are Christians not to work for a society more in accord with God's moral law, particularly in regard to God's commands for human behavior, if it is within our power?" If we where to go to hell, we would see there many people from Sodom and Gomorrah. Is it not possible that some of these would regret that their society's wickedness was not controlled somehow, allowing them a greater chance to repent back then, instead of the sudden destruction that overtook them? Certain persons might say, those folks would not have repented, so they don't care and they hate God even now, but I think the picture of the rich man in hell in the story Jesus told of he and Lazarus speaks otherwise. I believe that being salt is being a witness to God's Law, His justice, and His wrath, as well as showing Calvary-quality love. To Boyd, what society does does not matter to Christians, so pacificism and love are the only witnesses available to Christians. This is a difficult point to take at face value and needs more complexity from Boyd to be convincing.

Second, beyond the control of the standard of society's laws, there is the doctrine of repentance within the Gospel appeal. This is a deeper issue than influencing legislation, and goes to the heart of what the Gospel is. Predictably, Boyd denies any preaching of judgment to unbelievers. Boyd says, "...when we assume the role of moral guardians of the culture, we invariably position ourselves as judges over others. Not only is there no precedent for this in the life of Jesus, but Scripture explicitly and repeatedly forbids us to judge others....Jesus contrasts love and judgment as antithetical activities...Our fundamental job is to love like God loves, not to pretend we know what only God knows." (pp. 132-133). Boyd goes on to say that we are to preach none of this "judgment" to unbelievers and this is why evangelicals are hated. Excuse me? When is calling something God calls sin wrong? When is preaching against such sin wrong? When is seeking to limit such sin in the lives of others wrong? When is it wrong to call on the consciences of people to do what God commands--no matter how close they are to Christianity? None of these things is wrong, yet Boyd denounces them all. He urges that we build relationships and present the love of Christ only. And it is that "only" that completely overlooks Jesus', the New Testament writers, and the Old Testament writers position on the sin of man and the necessity of repentance. Jonah even preached repentance to Ninevah in the Old Testament for crying out loud. Boyd may want to love people as God loves, but God is in the business of calling all people to repentance (Acts 17).

These two problems were the most prominent to me in this book. I have not provided exhaustive answers to them, but only enough to show that the issues are far more complicated than Boyd would have them. A book may arise that will give Christians a correct sense of their social role in regard to America's civil Christian mores--what to do, and what not...but this book is not it. Though there is something to be said for reading this book, for I wrestled with its implications.