Customer Reviews

Christian America and the Kingdom of God

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

At a time when we are being challenged to rethink and reshape our economic, political and social values, Richard Hughes offers this timely, insightful and challenging book on how some American values and policies are unchristian and even anti-Christian.

Is America a Christian nation? On one hand, over 80% of Americans say they are Christian. Christian customs and holidays help shape our society. On the other hand, many key American policies and actions directly contradict the Bible's teaching on the Kingdom of God, "from Indian removal and extermination to African slavery to racial segregation to state-sanctioned killing in wars for dominance and profit to state-sanctioned torture of enemy combatants." A great part of the book shows how the Bible's teaching on the Kingdom of God focuses on peace and justice and not on power and dominance.

Very troubling, Hughes traces the influence that some evangelical and fundamentalist values have on America's unchristian and anti-Christian behavior. Hughes builds on his previous book, Myths Americans Live By. Myths that some Christians foster include: America is 1) a Chosen Nation (so we must show our values to the world, even at times, force them upon others), 2) a Christian Nation (despite our secular Constitution), and 3) an Innocent Nation (we're right and those who disagree with us are wrong).

Hughes shows how the Bush administration bought into these myths, e.g., re: Iraq, and thereby implies how much work must be done to undo the damage done by that administration.

He laments the Biblical and theological illiteracy that runs rampant throughout the U. S. Very importantly, he shows how some evangelicals and fundamentalists misread and misapply the Bible, especially in their appeal to the early parts of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, where the emphasis was on tribal views of dominance, war and annihilation. Beginning in the 8th C. BCE these views were rebuked by the Hebrew prophets, who preached peace and justice. This theme was picked up by Jesus and, in Christian eyes, completed by him. (Cf. the Beatitudes.) Writing from his own personal depths of peace, Hughes shows how Jesus's teaching on the Kingdom of God stands
in stark contradiction to many American policies and to many evangelical and fundamentalist views of how our country should operate.

As a Catholic who strives to encourage fellow Catholics to see that they are "everyday mystics" who can use their ever-living, perennial wisdom to discern the presence and intentions of God for today's world, and who are "everyday prophets" who can work within that wisdom to implement God's intentions, I see with sadness that many people who have achieved wisdom and maturity in their chosen fields, e.g., education, science, business, etc., apply their faith to their fields--and to society in general--with such biblical and theological illiteracy and immaturity.

This book goes a long way toward helping all Christians of good will gain clearer knowledge of the Kingdom of God, and gain the encouragement to get effectively engaged in helping make our society more luminously human in the grace of Christ.

The author, far from disparaging those sincere believers in the myth of the Christian nation, does his best to set guidelines, and to reinforce the idea that his goal is to call attention to what it means to move past America's current civil religion to something more closely resembling the biblical ideal for the kingdom of God while acknowledging the Constitutional restriction on legalization of such a program.

Throughout this book, the reader will encounter the phrase "the myth of Christian America." When I use the term myth, I don't have in mind something that is fundamentally untrue. (p1)

This book does not argue that the United States should seek to become more faithful to the Christian religion or that the nation should embrace as its norm the biblical vision of the kingdom of God... But I do argue - and this is the third important thesis of this book - that Christians should behave in ways that are consistent with their profession of faith, especially in American's public square.(p4)

Hughes, in the introduction, explores recent political history and the intrusion of this myth into the American political scene. He mentions the stark differences between the biblical ideal of the kingdom of God and what has been created in the American mindset. He does not shy away from naming names, such as Ann Coulter, taking time to compare her insistent statements that she is in line with the Judeo-Christian tradition and those of Tony Norman who concluded, "I can't be a Christian in a world where Ann Coulter can call herself a Christian without fear of contradiction." He sets the tone of the book as defending biblical Christianity against political, or civil, Christianity in these few chapters.

Hughes demands that attention of the conservative reader who would dismiss him but repeating that he is not undermining the Christian ideals of the country, nor the contributions of Christianity to the foundation of the United States. He does, briefly in the introduction, mention the legality of the Christian Nation status, giving snippets of evidence of moments in the past, defeated on legal grounds, or as part of passing fads, which attempted to re-clarify the notion of the nation. His exegesis of the Battle Hymn of the Republic is very much worth reading.

He ends the introduction in (again) acknowledging that the United States is a Christian Nation because it has become infused, nurtured,and culturally nourished with Christianity, but (again) seeks to measure the American idea of the Christian Nation with the Biblical Ideal of the Kingdom of God.

Chapter 1 finds the author examining Christian America as God's Chosen People. He starts by recounting the most recent national example of Christianity - the massacre of the Amish children at Nickle Creek Mines which saw the family of the victims reach out repeatedly to the family of the murderer.

The author discusses the rate of biblical illiteracy in the American public, starting in the 1940's when bibles were far outselling any other books, but only 50% of the American public could name a gospel (it is only 40% now), using this as a focal point in discussing the historical misconception of what a Christian Nation is.

In doing so, he starts with the earliest colonial history, and the propaganda used in previous generations to focus on the divine predestination of the colonies, especially, it seems, New England. He recounts the confusion of America's purpose with Israel's purpose, quoting actual bible verses (NRSV) as opposed to mentioning them in passing. He notes that many see the bible as an `undifferentiated' document which blinds Americans to the idea of divine nationhood.

He starts the history of the myth of the Christian Nation with none other than my personal hero, William Tyndale, who saw England under the thumb of anti-biblical enforcers, and started to confuse the divine covenant in Deuteronomy with England's status - calling for a covenant with God. He quotes briefly from Tyndale's preface to Jonah, adding,

There Tyndale lamented that over the years, God had sent numerous prophets to proclaim repentance to England, but England reused to respond to those indictments. Now England, like Israel of old, was in danger of suffering the wrath of God.

He follows that line of thinking from Tyndale to the earliest settlers unto the present, including Billy Graham's promise that if Americans turned to God, Communism would be kept at bay, and to D. James Kennedy's insistence that American was both a chosen and a Christian nation.

Hughes then moves to accessing the claim, noting that some early founders rejected the notion that the United States was the new Israel, such as Roger Williams who founded the colony of Rhode Island. In this section, he notes many of the reasonings used in naming America either a chosen or a Christian nation, but I fear that he misses one. While he does note the strong confusion/connection seen by many between Israel and the United States, he fails also to note the strong belief among many quarters that the sole-purpose of the United States is to secure a defense of the physical state of Israel.

He writes concerning the many notions that he mentions,

This conflated view of the Bible therefore sustains the notion of the United States as a chosen nation, just as it sustains the erroneous but common designation of the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation.

Moving on, he examines biblical passages for the understanding of a chosen nation, comparing the Old Testament and the New Testament, to show that Israel was chosen exclusively but that under the New Testament, `chosen' applies to believers regardless of race, creed, or color.

He briefly discusses (p28) the outcome of confusing `chosen' and then applying it in confusion to the United States. With the importation of the covenant view of the English people and the transference to the New England colonies, came the reliance upon the Hexateuch and it's history if Israel's invasion and war against the natives. In doing so, the New England Puritans (and the South African colonists) found justification for severe and inhumane crimes against the native population. Further, he mentions this rhetoric as it touched the American-Filipino War and the Iraqi War.

He doesn't merely mention people form the past and then give an interpretation of their statements, but allows them to remain in their own words.

In Chapter 2, the author examines what it means to be the kingdom of God according to the Hebrew bible, but using the mission of Christ as the starting point. He makes the point,

Americans can claim their country as a Christian nation if they wish, but to make that argument stick, they must somehow make it square with the Bible.

From there, he goes on to examine the parallel visions of Israel as a biblical kingdom of God, noting Israel was never meant to exist as a kingdom, and became one only after a rebellion against God. He draws the distinction between Israel of the Hexateuch and that which developed after the Kingdom and through the prophetic writings against the backdrop of wars and waywardness by Israel. In doing so, he focuses on God's repetitive focus on justice as His measurement of Israel's obedience. For Hughes, a biblical kingdom of God is one which focuses justice (to the poor) and governed by peace and goodwill to all. (p32)

In his examination of the Witness of the Hebrew Bible, he notes the two visions of Israel - a warrior, vengeful and the other, a peacemaker. He calls attention to the fact that when Christ announced His mission (Luke 4.16-21), he omitted the phrase `vengeance of God' from His quotation of Isaiah 61.1-2. This is a key point in his argument that the kingdom/rule of God/heaven which Christ established was one which developed in later prophetic writings.

To drive home the point, he shows that Christ fulfilled (incarnated as Crossan concluded p37) not passages from the warring manifesto of Israel's history, but those passages related to a kingdom of peace and justice.

The author does not hesitate to use biblical passages - without the added baggage of historical criticism or long winded commentaries. Further, he reveals his influences of John Dominic Crossan, Walter Brueggemann (who has lent his endorsement), and Gordon Brubacher.

Hughes concludes the chapter by pointing to the Maccabean period which began to see Israel's mission not just to Israel - justice wasn't merely for Israelites - but a new mission in which Israel was the light to the world.

In Chapter 3, Witness of the New Testament, the author sneaks in the imperialistic hermeneutic of Jesus/Paul vs. Empire, along with small amounts of historical criticism on the disputed books of Paul (although he in the end shows that it does not matter, as they are clearly Pauline and within Paul's theology).

Nearly his intire premise is based on Crossen's words that the principles of the kingdom of God and the those of human civilization are in tension and played out in the bible itself. He continues his previous theme of the paradox of the warring kingdom and kingdom with brings peace through justice, noting,

But in the New Testament, especially in the teachings of Jesus, the theme of paradox emerges full-blown.

His focus for this chapter is stated clearly in the words of Horsley who insisted on understanding Christ and the Gospels by understanding the context. By placing the New Testament in the sphere of the Roman Empire, with the intricacies of Augustine rule, he examines the United States as an imperialistic power, not from the very beginning of the country - but only as it has developed recently. He does not treat the history of the United States as a blight upon the world, but calls attention to the recent developments, since Vietnam, when the foreign policy of United States has taken on more of an imperialistic overtone.

He readily acknowledges that Americans find it difficult to place the United States within the framework of an imperial power (p53) but takes his time in developing the thought - not by `bashing' this country but by showing the similarities of the last generation with that of Rome - which is important in understanding the New Testament and modern America. He generally starts in 1967, at the height of Vietnam, when a book was published calling for `welfare imperialism' (p54).

He examines the imperialistic hermeneutic through the eyes of Matthew, Luke, Paul, and John's Apocalypse. In his examination of Matthew's gospel, he examines the Beatitudes, applying the `poor in spirit' to the actual poor, ignoring other common interpretations. Moving to Matthew 25.31-46, he ignores the complete rest of the bible to rely upon this sole scene of Final Judgment claiming that the only thing that matters before Christ is the `compassion for the dispossesses is the fundamental criterion for entry into the kingdom of God.' (p68) While this might be distracting to more theologically conservative readers, it is a common misconception among many bible readers. (It is not the authors intention to establish a plan of salvation for his readers.)

In his examination of the kingdom of God in the Pauline corpus, he takes a cue from the New Perspective of Paul in trying to rid Christianity from the burden of Luther's view of Paul, Law and Grace. (p73). He calls attention to the fact that Paul sees all powers and authorities as evil and something to be destroyed by Christ during the consummation. (p76). In moving to the disputed letters, while he does allow for modern scholarship and traditional views of authorship, I believe he fails in understanding the situation which required the letters. He uses Philemon as his base for Paul's view on slavery, noting that in other (disputed) letters, Paul does not recommend the abolition of slavery as he does in the case of Onesimus.

One of the author's most powerful quotes can be found on page 83,

Those Christians who read the Bible in a flat, uncritical fashion risk placing the bible above the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, above the teachings of Jesus, and even above God himself. In this way, the Bible becomes the idol that sustains injustice, violence, and war. And in an ironic sort of way, the Bible becomes the text that can also sustain the traditional vision of Christian America.

His treatment of Revelation falls completely in line with the imperialistic hermeneutic, taking a preterist understanding of John's words, and seeing them as a response to Christian persecution at the end of the first century. He then continues what he started at the beginning of the chapter, placing the United States in line with the biblical Babylon - not from the start of the United States, but as it has developed in the past few decades.

The Fourth Chapter is not for the feint of heart when it comes to American History. In it, Hughes takes us through the good and the bad of the myth of the Christian Nation to show us that people have interpreted America's purpose through the lens of the Gospel many times for ill-gotten gains. From manifest destiny to the Gospel of Wealth, the author recounts a harrowing tale of the confusion of the the United States and the kingdom of God.

He picks up his theme from the previous chapter, again comparing the United States to Rome, but this time, Christian Rome (c391) in which the State used the Church for its purposes. He moves to Reformation Europe and the influence of Calvinism upon the founders of the New England Colonies, and to a lesser extent, the Middle Colonies. He gives Calvin good marks for his attempt at establishing a theocracy, but readily admits to the misuse of his doctrine by subsequent followers.

Hughes balances the Christianity of the Founding Fathers with the Deism of many among their number, concluding that even their Deism grew as a child from American Christianity. In examining the two founding documents, the author is able to shed light on the Deism in the Declaration and the absolute secularized Constitution. His quotes from the most influential Founders, from Deists like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to deeply religious men as the Calvinist John Witherspoon bringing to light not a line of demarcation among the religionists and the deists, but a unity in the belief that government should be by reason, and not `by revelation.'

He then launches into the familiar rehearsal of American history - from the destruction of the Native population at the hands of the Puritans, to slavery, to the enslavement of the poor through the idea that poverty is a result of sin. He does note two movements, one of which he examines in this chapter, the Second Great Awakening. He notes that between the time of the Revolution and this revival, only about 4 to 7% of Americans were church goers. Giving high marks to Charles G. Finny, he notes that by and large, this revivalist movement was centered on truly creating a Christian nation - not through legal means, but by ridding American society of social injustices, such as slavery.

He spends the rest of the chapter recounting those who had used the revival movement to attempt to spread American Imperialist idea first across the continent and then across the oceans into Asia. His recounting of history is one not easily found in modern American History books, or easy to be read, especially in light of 1930's German rhetoric. He does connect the two, but I believe that if the reader truly knows his or her history, and can read the material, well documented, with an open mind, the reader can then see certain world-wide ramifications of 19th century, and early 20th century attempts and justification of Christian America.

In the fifth and final chapter, Hughes culminates his vision of a Christian America and his retelling of the history of `Christian' America with the developments of both Christian and political fundamentalism in the last century.

While he deals masterfully with the pre-WWII rise of a pacifist fundamentalist version of Christian - those who just gave up participating in the civics of this country - and spends quality time with the rise of the Religious Right since the 1970's, he skips some of the most important points, and that of the Red Scare and Christian American. While it is not detrimental to his argument, there are key events in the intervening years between WWII and the late 70's which produced tactics used by many today.

It is this chapter which many conservatives will find difficult to digest, Hughes tackles the rise of the Religious Right, a very active political force, comparing it to the rise of fundamentalism that existed pre-WWI. In doing so, he fails to handle sincere Christian believers with the sensitivity that he has shown before. His acoustic statements about fundamentalists can be placed on large segments of evangelicals and even Catholics. While those of us who may have heard his type of rhetoric before understand his point, the very crowd that he is trying to reach may be turned off a bit by his demeanor; however, if the fundamentalist, evangelical, and occasional Catholic can move past that, and place it in context, then this is a fine conclusion to this book.

The subject matter he presents will be portrayed as the 'same, tired, liberal' rhetoric, but it is truth nevertheless. From the influx at the beginning of last century of Catholics, and non Anglo-Saxon, immigrants from Eastern Europe, to the same immigration problems in the 70's, but this time from war torn area in Asia and the Middle East, Hughes explores the nativist reaction to the rise of multiculturalism. Attaching the debates at the turn of the century of biblical inerrancy and thus, evolution, to these reactions, Hughes presents a fair, even if indigestible, portrait of the beginning of the fundamentalist movement. He then brings in the rapture mentality, and the history of Darby-Scofield-Lindsey-LeHaye, showcasing Darby's creation of dispensationalism and how it has effected the conservative Christian's political mind.

After an examination of the use of Christian rhetoric by the previous American President and his administration, Hughes then moves on to examine the three American myths of nationhood - the chosen nation, the innocent nation, and the millennial nation. In doing so, he takes his time to develop the path of thought which led to, and has since used, each notion of the nation to capitalize on political gain. Most telling, and harrowing is his telling of the myth of the millennial nation, in which we can read from the words of modern American leaders the drive to destruction and the believe that the Rapture will secretly whisk Christians away no matter who starts the war. While he pays no attention to historical notions of eschatology, he does bring to light the destructive force of recent reinterpretations of End Time events and how they have fueled, and continue to fuel, American foreign policy. His concludes with a discussion of this, adding,

When all is said and done, rapture theology is little more than the myth of Christian American writ in violent, apocalyptic terms.

He provides 17 pages of end notes for support and further reading.

Hughes writes with great care not to offend the patriotic American, but to influence the Christian into approaching Christian America not in the lit of the warring nation of Israel, but in the light of the kingdom of God as found in the Prophets and in the New Testament. It is quite simply a call to (de)arms, and frankly, if someone was looking for a reason to avoid both major political parties, and to form a third, a Christian one, this would be the book which would be at the nucleus of such an enterprise. This book should be given to every Christian member in political office and to every politically active Christian. Hughes has constructed a Christian political manifesto by deconstructing the myth of the Christian nation currently in the minds of far too many. He does not dismiss the many contributions of Christians to the American way of life, nor does he call for the end of religion on the public square; instead, in this book, a Christian will find a right course of action in approaching the political scene.

For those of who you cannot understand the idea that Conservative Christians are Liberal politically, this is the book for you.

Richard Hughes has made a clear exposition of the origins of the idea of a Christian America as well as the biblical image of the kingdom of God. Christians of any stripe would be well-served by studying this book. Students would be well-served by such study as well. The work is clearly organized, well-written, and well-documented.

His book is also a clear challenge to the 'God & Country' nonsense that seems to be accepted by so many segments of our society, from the Christian right to the Boy Scouts, and in the political arena. I sincerely hope this book will serve to dispell that destructive illusion.

This is a superb book, a welcome and thoughtful antidote to the ahistorical arguments coming from the hard right that America is a "Christian nation." Yes, it's Christian, but only in the numerical sense that a majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. The founders explicitly fashioned the new nation without a state church or established religion. Richard Hughes's book sheds new and important light on these issues.

Hughes offers an insightful understanding of the roles of Christianity and politics in the U.S. This is a must read for those who believe that the U.S. is a "Christian" country or who believe that this country is based on so called "Christian" principals. An excellent source for a study of the subject. This is an easy to read and understand book and one that needs to be read by a wide audience.

A great book for the Christian who politics are center left. Some knowledge of the scriptures will be helpfull but not required. Very informational.

The author is dealing with the origins of the United States and with the Kingdom of God.. The author is pursuing a critical stance in regards to how the Kingdom of God applies to the political nation hood of the UNited States..The author takes a prophetic stance in regards to the United States and its use of the Christian religion to undergird its actions.

Not for the run of the mill ("non Bible reading") Christian, this fearless examination of what it means to be a TRUE Christian (in the example of Jesus Himself), is a MUST READ for those of us who are tired of the standard "yeh sure, I'm a Christian"-types who spend only an hour or so each week seeking to honor, hear and obey God and who give Christ a bad name by their words and behavior. God does not change--which is one of the reasons we can count on Him no matter what--and those who think His principles change according to the latest whims of society are in for a shock. This book will separate the hypocrites from those who honestly LOVE the Lord with ALL of their heart, their soul and their mind... Christians who spend time in His Word, getting to know what He truly is all about and what He really requires of us who claim Christ as Lord over our lives. WORD!...we are out there.

With this work, Richard Hughes adds to the current deluge of dogmatic religio-political rants. In his earlier critique of American culture, "Myths America Lives By" (2003), he devoted a chapter to "The Myth of the Christian Nation" which foreshadowed this book.

If one is expecting an unbiased historical analysis, this work will be a disappointment. The political bias is pervasive. The putative subject matter of this book--debunking myths--is only a Trojan horse for advancing the author's political opinions. Reading the book, it seems that on every subject, "the left is right, and the right is wrong." He views America as severely flawed--and he has diagnosed the cause: Fundamentalists, the Religious Right, Republicans in general, and George W. Bush in particular!

"Christian America and the Kingdom of God" sets out to show that American is not, nor has it ever been, a "Christian Nation." That should have been easily done systematically by defining the term "Christian Nation" precisely, and then showing evidence that America doesn't fit the definition. Thus the proposition `America is not a Christian nation' would be proven. Quod erat demonstrandum.

But Hughes doesn't do that. First of all he never really defines precisely what he thinks a Christian nation is, so he cannot specify exactly what America (or any other country) would have to do or be in order to be properly considered a "Christian Nation." Is it a nation that officially declares itself "Christian"? Or is it a nation whose laws are copied from the Christian Bible? Is it a nation in which the majority of the population claims to be "Christian"? Or is it a nation that follows "Christian Principles" (as defined by some person or group)? The possibilities are endless.

Also, he intersperses a thread of references to the "Kingdom of God" without defining what it is and/or how it is connected with the "Christian Nation." It appears that he treats the term "kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" as synonymous, but neither designation is clearly defined. Does he view the "Kingdom of God" as a governing principle--as the fact of God being the inaugurated king? Or is it a group of people that share a purpose or cooperate in certain objectives? Or is it a super-national society with a government and rules, like an international labor union? Or is it a world nation that is taken over by God in the millennium? Or is it Heaven where all the saints go after the resurrection? Readers need to know--with some precision--what he is talking about.

Unlike the typical political editorializer, Hughes defends his propositions by appealing to "the most sacred document of the Christian tradition: the Bible itself" (p.4). He then sets out to excoriate the political right for invoking the biblical myths to support their agendas--which, by the way, is exactly what he does in this book (O to see ourselves...). I find many of Hughes' political opinions congenial, but his theological arguments are often faulty and his logic flawed.

The political bias is presaged in the introduction, where Hughes cites eight current examples of the ERROR of invoking the myth of "Christian America" to bolster a political agenda (p2). Of the eight listed, six (75%) are by Republicans, one is by a Democrat, and the other is by a general of unspecified political affiliation. It is not that liberals never invoke religious themes in their rhetoric--they do, but Hughes seems to notice only when conservatives do it. The introduction continues to display the author's animus in a vehement tirade against conservative commentator/columnist Ann Coulter (p5). Here, the author craftily uses a quote from columnist Tony Norman to declare that Coulter is "not a Christian." By using the quote rather than his own words, Hughes cravenly distances himself from the viciousness of the attack. Hughes then goes on to denounce Coulter for misidentifying the "biblical vision of the kingdom of God."

Apparently, Hughes assumes the definition of the "biblical vision of the kingdom of God" as his prerogative, since he alone seems to have it identified! This impudence likely harks back to Hughes' Church of Christ exclusivism: "Either you agree with me or you are not a Christian (and you are going to Hell)."

At the outset, Hughes introduces the concept of a "vision of the kingdom of God." As the book develops, he continues to refer to several variants of this "vision." One "vision" he calls the "BIBLICAL vision of the kingdom of God," an amorphous image which he derives by selecting a group of diverse biblical texts and conflating the montage into a vague schema which is compatible with his quasi-political adaptation of the social gospel. All other competing "visions" of social, political, economic, and/or governmental structures are then summarily dismissed as "contrary to the Biblical vision" and therefore wrong.

Chapter 1 treats the notion of a "Chosen people" or "Chosen Nation." The chapter opens with a recollection of the Amish school massacre of 2006. The poignant story of the tragedy and the startling reaction of the victims' families is touching indeed, but the connection with the subject of "Chosen Nation" is obscure. The story serves to evoke an emotional reaction (much like the typical "preacher's tear-jerker" preceding the altar call), but it does nothing to advance his argument. The chapter predictably proceeds through some background of the "Chosen Nation" concept, ending abruptly with a rant against America's current foreign policy.

In building his theological arguments, Hughes goes to "The Witness of the Hebrew Bible" (Ch 2). It is here that we begin to see what he intends by the designation "the biblical concept of the kingdom of God." He commends John Dominic Crossan's description of the kingdom as "what the world would look like if and when God sat on Caesar's throne." Hughes adds: "But God does not sit on Caesar's throne and never has" (p32). What a startling assertion from a "distinguished professor of religion"! According to the Bible, it was God who was ruling when the Israelites demanded a king: "And the LORD told him: `Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but THEY HAVE REJECTED ME AS THEIR KING'" (1 Sam 8:7).

On page 33 Hughes outlines his tests for determining when the kingdom of God is present. The three tests highlight how au currant his vision is: (1) Promote economic justice (but this would be Democrat "spread the wealth" rather that Republican "compassionate conservatism"); (2) "Reject war, and work for peaceful solutions..." (Those of us who were alive and sentient in 1938 can remember how Chanberlain's "peace in our time" worked out); (3) Work on behalf of policies favorable to the health of "this island planet" (he even finds environmentalism in the Bible). In spite of all the caveats, this has the smell of a "Voters' Guide"! (How often have we heard religio-political hacks invoke the hypocritical caveat: "Christianity is not a political movement, but REAL Christians will support ...")

He returns repeatedly to the story of Israel's demand for a king. He quotes this story (p34) and interprets it "in the context of the biblical vision of the kingdom of God" (which vision is still not spelled out explicitly), then he uncovers a "crucially important metaphor" that fits his preconceptions--i.e., "that the kingdom of God would be both nonviolent and just, while human governments would practice violence and oppression." Now, one must wonder how he finds such a metaphor in this story. Israel's history under the kings did indeed involve violence and warfare--but how does that contrast with the conditions that prevailed from the entry into Canaan up until the time of Samuel? And what can we say of that prior history? Violence, yes. Wars of conquest, yes. Rape and pillage, yes. Genocide, yes. Racism, yes. Religious intolerance, yes. Kidnapping, yes. Enslavement, yes. But according to the Bible, it was all at the COMMAND of Yahweh!

This history does not jibe with the author's "vision," so some method had to be contrived to dismiss the inconvenient facts. To this end, he cites Gordon Brubaker's method of viewing the history as a "narrative journey" which can be parsed to determine what part of it is "authoritative and normative" and what is not. He praises Brubaker for "helping me to discern the ethical distance between early history and the ...prophets... [of] the eighth and subsequent centuries BCE." Brubaker is also appreciated for calling Hughes' attention to the anti-war stand "so characteristic of those prophets" (p.36). With this hermeneutic of selectivity, Hughes is able to appeal to the Bible for support of his philosophical preconceptions, imagining it to say and mean whatever he wishes. One would do as well basing his theology on Gilgamesh, Socrates, Nostradamus--or maybe "The Brothers Grimm."

From this point on, Hughes repeatedly finds biblical contradictions that require the application of this hermeneutical sleight of hand. Whenever two "visions" are possible in the interpretation of the text (i.e., what is to be INFERRED) Hughes picks and chooses from among them according to how well some INFERENCE comports with his postulated "over-arching theme." Not surprisingly, the text is always found to fit his preconceived plot-line. The preconception is then treated as a "proven proposition" that may be used to bolster further speculations. With such hermeneutics, it is possible to "prove" anything! Aristophanes or Voltaire could have had a field day satirizing such rhetorical methods.

He goes on mining the scriptures for his anti-war philosophy, turning to Jesus' reading from Isaiah at the synagogue in Nazareth (pp.37-38); from which incident he infers great significance in where Jesus stopped reading. He thus "proves" his proposition not by what Jesus said, but what he did not say. Argumentum ex silentio.

In a subsection entitled "Paul's Theology of Justice"(pp. 77-83), Hughes undertakes to mold the Bible to fit modern "politically correct" doctrine. He states (p78) that "For Paul, ...equality displaced hierarchy and justice replaced injustice..." In support of that premise, he joins modern theologians in drawing a shadowy inference from Gal 3:27-28, and making it the ne plus ultra that trumps the multiplicity of EXPLICIT Biblical statements to the contrary. In this section, he essentially argues that the Bible unequivocally condemns both `gender inequality' and slavery--It does now and always did.

Arguing for `gender equality' he invokes Paul's counsel to married couples that they recognize mutual sexual obligations--which he expands to an all-encompassing `gender equality' in all phases of social activities (p78). Of the five writings of Paul that explicitly state just the opposite, he chooses to recognize only one (1 Tim 2:11-12), which simply cannot be distorted so as to fit the lame inference he imagines in his two proof texts. He must get rid of it some way, so he suggests maybe it was only applicable to some (unknown) circumstance of the time...or violà! Maybe it's a forgery and Paul didn't write it anyway--or SOMETHING. He can't accept it as NORMATIVE. This is not hermeneutics--it is simply "making it up on the fly" then fossicking around in the scriptures to ferret out some words that can be parsed, disassembled, reassembled, and molded to fit some "story" that he has made up in his own imaginings and wishful thinking.

Arguing against the master/servant relationships, he turns to Paul's letter to Philemon (p79). This letter has challenged Christian hermenutes for ages. It is very personal correspondence, dealing with matters that cannot be known from information available in our time and place. We cannot know the precise relation between Philemon and Onesimus. Onesimus is identified as a "servant" (doulos)--which might denote anything from a chattel slave to a hireling. Neither can we know what "wrong" Onesimus had committed against Philemon. Thus we cannot know what action Paul was admonishing Philemon to take. In spite of all these unknowns, Hughes boldly asserts "It is clear from the key phrases in this letter..." Once again, Hughes has parsed the text, found many INFERENCES, and then declared his speculative INTERPRETATION to be a clear statement of KNOWN FACT. This hardly qualifies as responsible scholarship.

None of this is startling today--he is not alone in his desire to have the scriptures say these things. But what is most remarkable in his argumentation here is his tacit denial of the traditional notion of the internal consistency of the "infallible, inerrant, verbally-inspired" Bible. To his credit, Hughes deviates from our Biblicist Church of Christ heritage, and concedes that the Bible is internally contradictory.

In a subsection entitled "The Kingdom of God in the Book of Revelation" (pp.92-97), Hughes presents a bewildering discussion of the meaning of the Apocalypse. His abstruse treatment of the book seems confused, ambiguous, and non-committal. It is not clear whether he attributes divine provenance to it or not. This last book of the NT canon completely contradicts his premise of the "theme of the Christian message" that he has "uncovered," and he doesn't seem to know what to do with it. He looks at the book and confesses that he doesn't know who wrote it, or when it was written, or indeed where it came from. Yet he seems to feel obliged to credit it with an "overall message" that is "enormously instructive"--presuming of course that one can adopt his contorted logic when reading it. Once more, he faces the dilemma of "interpreting" a biblical text so as to make it seem to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says. In his own words (p.97): "When one considers that Revelation's portrayal of divinely sponsored vengeance, violence, and retribution is so out of line with the dominant picture of the kingdom of God that we find elsewhere in the New Testament, one is forced to return again to John Dominic Crossan's observation that the struggle between human civilization, on the one hand, and the kingdom of God, on the other, `is depicted inside the Bible itself....The Christian Bible forces us to witness the struggle of these two transcendental visions WITHIN ITS OWN PAGES pages and to ask ourselves as Christians how WE DECIDE between them.'"

In the next subsection, entitled "The Kingdom of God in Scripture and Its Meaning for the United States" (pp. 98-102), Hughes finally declares himself on Revelation, even though he does so under cover of extensive quotations from William Stringfellow, whom he labels as "an activist, war resister, and lay theologian." Whatever a `lay theologian' is, Stringfellow is a fellow `60s peacenik. Citing Stringfellow: "The biblical topic is politics." Hughes agrees: "And indeed it is." Voilà! Hughes has dropped the subterfuge. He continues: "The Bible offers no counsel on how one should vote... But the Bible is a profoundly political book in this sense: It describes a struggle... If That struggle is merely poetic, hypothetical, or esoteric, then biblical politics make no difference in the real world. But Revelation presents that contest as a struggle for life and death...in which the kingdom of God finally triumphs over the nations of this world." Once again, the phoney "non-political" hypocrisy is exposed.

Like the Blues Brothers, he fancies himself on a mission from God! And that mission is to impose the BIBLICAL vision (i.e., his views) of the kingdom upon the nation, and thereby bring about the millennium that someone called "John" (Hughes doesn't know who he really was) supposedly prophesied in the Apocalypse.

The last chapter, entitled "A Fundamentalist Vision for Christian America: From the Scopes Trial to George W. Bush," is the culminating point for the entire book--a tirade against political and religious conservatives, Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular. He reprehends fundamentalists (p.137) thus: "One characteristic ... continues to stand at the heart of all fundamentalism ... the belief that they are right and that others are simply wrong." And that they "defend at all costs a nineteenth-century version of Christian America." Hughes has harsh words for THEM, because THEY don't recognize that HE is right, and THEY are simply wrong.

I would suggest that the Fundamentalists' errors are no more extreme than those of the current liberal left idealists who continue to defend a lingering version of 1960s America that so profoundly influences Hughes' view of "the Kingdom of God."

I would sum up this review with a reference to a statement in the Introduction, (p.4). There the author deplores "the fact that biblical and theological illiteracy runs rampant in the United States," observing that "Many Christians base their politics on what they imagine the Bible teaches, or on what someone else--often their pastor--has told them the Bible teaches." After examining the bizarre fantasies offered as "biblical interpretation" in this book, I find that statement incredible.

Idealistic, impractical, collectivist pacificists likely will find this work agreeable. Others may well find it an amusing look at the fantasies that can emerge from the Groves of Academe.

I would not recommend the book.