Customer Reviews

Wayward Christian Soldiers: Freeing the Gospel from Political Captivity

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

 

 

White, middle-class evangelicals in America have in recent years so confused the gospel with a particular brand of neo-conservative political ideology, that they have exalted patriotism to the level of idolatry, and seriously complicated the life and work of the ecumenical church worldwide, i.e., the Body of Christ. Charles Marsh offers a very readable analysis of the danger inherent in baptizing a political agenda. At the same time, he offers a Bible-based alternative lifestyle for thinking Christians who are seeking to remain faithful to their first love in an evermore confusing, postmodern world. This brief narrative by a much respected Christian scholar is highly recommended.

"But if I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, do I also have to support George W. Bush?"

That was an honest, non-sarcastic question asked by a German woman to the author's father, a pastor who had just finished a service in Berlin.

Why would anyone ask a question like that? Could it be that the right-wing in the United States has so co-opted Christianity that the basic message of the religion has been distorted?

Indeed, American evangelical Christianity has become indistinguishable from American right-wing politics in the minds of many people around the world. It's also not in line with other forms of the religion practiced around the world. The author spends a lot of time talking about the rest of the world's (and his own) opposition to the Iraq War, and comparing the goals of Global Christianity with those of American evangelicalism.
How does supporting the Iraq War reconcile with "loving one's enemies" and "turning the other cheek"? American Christianity, after decades of noisy politics, needs to learn to "be still and know", and listen to the rest of the world.

Marsh does discuss President George W. Bush's religious conversions and attitudes, although he does warn that "The president doesn't owe the American public a word about his private spiritual life". The book is occasionaly slow-going; familiarity with the ideas of theologians such as Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Fredrich Schleiermacher would be helpful.

Randall Balmer's _Thy Kingdom Come_ is similar in theme to this book, but of a somewhat different political bent (more left-leaning) and more specific as to what he (Ballmer) thinks the American Evangelical movement should pay attention to.

This book, like any good book, challenges the reader to think. Marsh makes us examine our concepts of "just war," and urges us to move past cultural preconditions, take the teachings of Jesus seriously, and dare to apply them to the issues of contemporary society. He makes clear to us that he writes as an "evangelical," but not as one who is willing to lay aside the Sermon on the Mount for political expediency. Not everyone will agree with Marsh's perspective of the war in Iraq, but everyone will be forced to answer the disturbing question: "how does this pre-emptive war, which includes the ignoring of most Christian's opposition to the war, enhance the church's mission in the world?" Assuming that Christians understand that the mission is one of representing the living Christ in the world, the question becomes more than an academic exercise; it embraces the Christian community and nudges it back to the fundamentals of the faith, and points emphatically to the Sermon on the Mount. Furthermore, some will object to naming some "Christian celebrities" who became significant proponents of a pre-emptive war. However, honesty states that when a "Christian celebrity" move outside his/her original ministry, and moves into the political arena, affirming such a war and justifying the president's decision, that celebrity cannot plead immunity from reasonable criticism. Marsh does not write a philippic, but his analysis of "war preachers" is candid and well documented. It is imperative to note that the thrust of the book is very positive, calling on the Christian community to be freed from captivity to ideologues that would use the community for political aggrandizement. Marsh takes the reader through a litany of theological concepts and Scriptural principles, and encourages the church to focus on the wonder of worship, the discipline of discipleship, and the mission of the church to be the body of Christ in the world. The writer is essentially crying out for the "church to be the church," the church has defined by the New Testament and not by a thirst for political power.

Please don't let this book get away. It's not another attack on the Christian Right. It's the best book I've seen for understanding how the Christians can keep their sights set on the things that matter most. Marsh helps us rescue Jesus from the Christians, and for that I say thank you.

In his essay "Evangelical Theology in the Nineteenth Century," the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) described "a certain black day" in August 1914 when he was shocked to learn that ninety-three German theologians and writers, many of them his seminary professors and including Adolf von Harnack, had signed a document endorsing the war efforts of Wilhelm II. Fast forward to the so-called "Land Letter" (October 3, 2002) in which five prominent evangelical leaders supported Bush's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (Richard Land, Charles Colson, Bill Bright, James Kennedy, and Carl D. Herbster). In fact, a Pew poll of April 2003 indicated that 87% of white evangelicals supported the invasion.

In fairness, many evangelicals opposed the war and the broader identification with Bush (cf. Jim Wallis). Charles Marsh, professor of religion at the University of Virginia, was one of them. It would be nice to believe that by now conservative evangelicals have been duly chastened and that his book is no longer necessary (cf. David Kuo, Tempting Faith; An Inside Story of Political Seduction, New York: Free Press, 2006), but that's probably wishful thinking. The identification of the Gospel with American exceptionalism remains a disturbing example of the cultural captivity of the church and a perennial temptation. Even though the resounding defeat of Bush by Obama now dates his book, Marsh's jeremiad and lament remains a sobering analysis of the "colossal wreck" of the evangelical witness.

In their Faustian bargain, evangelicals gained political power and betrayed the Gospel: "We have turned God into an appendage of the American way of life, acted with utter contempt toward the global evangelical and ecumenical church, and at times even presumed that the military powers of our nation act in vicarious representation of Jesus Christ the Lord." Marsh points readers to more reliable witnesses, with heavy doses of Barth and Bonhoeffer. He commends the likes of Will Campbell, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich and others (but who would want Calvin's Geneva?!) for ways of addressing conformity, compromise, and accommodation. In the last part of his book Marsh recommends a "trinity of spiritual dispositions" -- silence, stillness and waiting, accountability to global Christianity (Philip Jenkins and Lamin Sanneh), and dissent as "a vital part of confessing Jesus Christ as Lord."

I read several books of this variety a little while ago, including "The Case for Civility" by Oz Guiness - among others. There are a number of selected items in each of the books concerning which I'd be in agreement. However, since much of Marsh's foundational premise rests on contrasting Shaeffer with John Stott, I'm of the view readers would do themselves a favor by also reading Stott and his synopsis of the "Lausanne Covenant" in reference to the "tension" between Christian life, the Gospel, and socio-polotical action. I recently noticed the following excerpt from Stott's book "Christian Mission in the Modern World" (1975 - p.150)

"The Lausanne Covenant expresses the tension clearly..."
"...Although reconciliation with man is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and sociopolitical involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of god and man, our love for our neighbor and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgement upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist"

I like Stott's writings, but it's also more than a bit ironic to me to see Stott held up as a hero of a "let's not marry Christianity to a political party" book - when, if I'm remembering correctly, Stott himself was an Anglican married to the State Church of England : )

I really did want to like this book, as I agree with many of the author's premises and find his statements of faith solid and truly evangelical. However, the gratuitous harshness that too often fills the pages means that the people who most need to hear his concerns will be immediately turned off by the very ungracious characterization. Even if those he rails against have themselves often acted in less than loving ways, lowering himself to that level--or worse--reduces the effectiveness of the message. For this reason, I find it impossible to give this more than 2 stars.