Government

The Birth of Two Kingdoms: A Fourth of July Reflection

by Greg Boyd

In Colossians 2:7 Paul encourages Christians to be “rooted and built up in [Christ] and established in the faith.” The American Patriot’s Bible, edited by Gerald Lee and published by Thomas Nelson, connects this verse to part of a speech by John Quincy Adams, America’s sixth president, concerning the significance of the Fourth of July. Adams says that “next to the birthday of the Savior,” the “most joyous and most venerated festival” is Independence Day. For “the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior.” Indeed, Adams contends that “the Declaration of Independence…gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from heaven at the birth of the Savior….” The birth of America, in other words, is the beginning of the fulfillment of Jesus’ mission in the world.

Several things are interesting about this passage. For starters, it’s a little surprising that the Fourth of July beat out Easter for second place in Adams’ rating of “venerated” holidays. One might have thought American Christians would find Jesus’ resurrection a bit more “venerable” than the fact that we violently emancipated ourselves from British rule. In fact, while I fully appreciate that many Americans are grateful to no longer be subject to the throne of England, I’m puzzled about how the Fourth of July could appear anywhere on a Christian’s list of “venerated” holidays. How can a holiday that celebrates one group of mostly professing Christians violently overthrowing another group of mostly professing Christians be venerated by people who are called to love their enemies and to be peacemakers, even if they happen to find themselves on the side that won?

[Poll: Recent USA Today Poll Says More Americans "Extremely Patriotic."]

But the most remarkable aspect of Adams’ speech is undoubtedly his depiction of the violent birth of America as the beginning of the fulfillment of Jesus’ mission. Let’s overlook for the moment the systemic and barbaric injustices done to Native Americans and Africans by Europeans as they conquered and developed this land. And let’s agree that the political freedoms to enjoy “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are among the noblest in history. Still, on what basis could Adams or anyone else claim that the birth of this nation has anything to do with the mission of the Savior?

As he made clear to Pilate, Jesus came to establish a kingdom that is “not from this world.” The kingdom Jesus came to establish is not a “new and improved” version of the systems of the world. It’s something altogether different. For example, while all versions of the kingdoms of the world resort to violence against enemies when they deem it necessary, citizens of Jesus’ kingdom are called to imitate him by sacrificing themselves out of love for their enemies.

As noble as America’s ideals are, followers of Jesus must never buy into Adam’s delusion — repeated throughout history and still widespread today — that political ideals are a formula for the Kingdom of God. For the Kingdom is not about enjoying “life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.” It’s about looking like Jesus, dying out of love for the very people who crucified him.

-----

Do you agree with Boyd's perspective? Should Christians think more critically about how we express patriotism?

Comments

Eric Blauer

I agree completely. In my Christian background there was very little critical thinking promoted. In fact hardly any opposing or variant options were even presented to choose from; in relationship to much of any position spoken or taught about.

Josh Reighley

We have to recognize that many of the founders where postmillinialists, and they expected Christ's kingdom to spread on earth like leaven prior to the second coming.. In their mind, the foundation of America was one of the great expansions of liberty in history.. I believe that they where right, give or take.. America's ideals have spread like leaven throughout the Western world.

Adams was an outspoken abolitionist, so he didn't think that the revolution had gone far enough, but it was a step in the right direction, and once the kingdom principles get planted firmly into man's heart, it is only a matter of time before the idols of the old way topple like dominoes.

I think there is a tendency to frame our perspective very tightly to our generation, and to look back with a lot of judgementalism and ridicule of older generations that had different idols to kill than we do... But chances are 3 generations from now people will be looking back at our hotbutton debates with the same disdain and contempt that we have when look back on the slave owners.

Lies always die, and the truth always resurrects. The dawn of freedom did make this process a little faster, but there is still a lot of cleansing to do.

Jonathan Merritt

Josh,

You mentioned that "America's ideals have spread like leaven throughout the Western world." While that may be true, to Boyd's point, I think we need to ask, "At what cost?" He mentions the violent nature of our inception and the "systemic and barbaric injustices done to Native Americans and Africans by Europeans as they conquered and developed this land." Modern historians and cultural observers might also note that the burdens of our democratic and capitalistic society have been shifted to the poorest people on earth. How do these things shape your perspective, if at all?

Jm

Michael Abramson

Jon - to your response, at what point has the poorest class not born the burden of any society, be it oligarchy, monarchy, democracy, theocracy, etc...? So while a distasteful thing that the poor carry the burden in this society, it does not negate the fact that American culture is evolving to a more beautiful and open society in many respects. In a somewhat twisted way, we are a more free people than we were at this country's inception.

My point would be the same to your comments regarding Native American and Europeans. At all times, the more dominant cultures consume those they subjugate in every manner you can think of, really - from the Greek empires to the Chines dynasties to the Roman Empire, etc... We prey on each other. So while what happened to the Native Americans and the Africans is tragic, it is not unique nor is it an anomaly. It would seem that our sensitivity to it is heightened because of both our proximity to it in time and the fact that cultural undercurrent from these moments still rock the boat in America.

What happened to the Native Americans and Africans is a tragedy. I'm not trying to lessen that.

PS - myself being Jewish, I would say that from about the inception of the nation of Israel, Jews have been a subjugated and preyed upon people. I say this to highlight the point of the dominant culture preying upon the subjugated culture.

Martyn Mayfield

I live in a communist state. The situation and the control over politics and religion seems, in many ways to parallel that of Palestine in the time of Christ. Jesus did not speak out against or for the Roman government. His whole plan was to create a government (kingdom) that transcends all others through time and place. It is his governmental rule, and not the American ideal of democracy that we should give our heart and life to expand. Christians here will sometimes want to unnecessarily press against the government and I remind them that is not the same as to press forward for the kingdom. The kingdom of God can live within any political system.

Deborah Kean

I am fully in agreement, as a non-American, with this post. (Initiially, I thought it was the opposite of what it is, but I am relieved to see what it really says!) To me, too many American Christians seem to believe that (a) Christianty belongs to America alone and (b) that Christianity and North America are so intertwined, that opposing American foreign policy (as I do) is the same as opposing God (which I do not!)

Deb

Kurt Willems

When Greg Boyd writes or speaks, I listen. Thanks for this article Greg! Cool / sad connection to the Patriots Bible. Let me add this to the discussion from a similar post on my blog about the 4th titled: "Unpopular Annual Post: “Why Christianity and the ’4th’ are Incompatible” OR “Why this is NOT a day to celebrate” OR “Why my friends wont like me for the next week or so”." Here is the link to the post ( http://is.gd/d99ll ).

In this blog, I argue that even if one holds to "Just War" theory, that the Revolutionary War does not fit St. Augustine's criteria. Mark Noll (Historian), says this regarding the time period:

"During this confused misunderstanding, the Bible was used as a reservoir of images, moral principles, and types. Many sermons in America (and some in Britain) supported revolt, while a few in America and England argued against it. Serious exegesis, however, of what would seem to us like the relevant passages (such as Romans 13) was very rare. Rather, it was much more common for patriots to liken George III to Pharaoh and George Washington to Moses, or to depict the conflict as a struggle between the Woman and the Beast of Revelation 12. Patriots and Loyalists were both much more likely to add scriptural authority to political reasoning rooted in some other ideology than they were to attempt reasoning from the ground up on the basis of Scripture."

Shalom!

Kurt Willems

http://groansfromwithin.com

Sol Lee

I'm not American, in fact I just returned from a trip to the US back to Australia, and I've had some unpleasant experiences there. I love Australia, not because we are a Christian nation, in fact, Australia is a secular nation; but because of the quality of living in Australia and the government takes care of the poor here.

2 sides of a coin:

1. There was religious persecution and oppression in Europe, and it legitimate for Christians to seek freedom to worship God according to their conscience, not to be told by an earthly government how to worship, in America, this became a reality.

2. Though the freedom of religion became a reality in America, it did not become a reality until Rhode Island became the first colony that allowed people of different Christian denominations to live together, no more a state for a denomination, there was no compulsory format of worship and the compulsory conformity to a particular set of theology, and then later on after USA became independent and the constitution guaranteed the freedom of religion, that the US government was not to interfere with if and how individual citizens were to exercise their religious freedom. Under such circumstances, individuals were free to worship according to their understanding and their conscience, not to be accountable to an earthly government, but to the truth as they understood.

Leo Wilson

I love to read Greg's thoughts. They always cause me to think more deeply about the issues.

As somewhat of a counterpoint and perhaps a question about peace making's role in the kingdom, I find it interesting that:

1) Some (peace loving) Quaker's participated in the Revolution. How did they understand the role of violence? I've not read much of their tradition.

2) There is a fair bit of violence that is seemingly perpetrated by God in the OT, and if not perpetrated by him, at least used by him (Greg has some very interesting thoughts on this also). Could God still be working in history, with less than ideal means?

3) Professional non-peacemakers (i.e. the centurion of Matthew 8) who met Jesus were not told to walk away from their way of life, whereas others were told to (i.e. the rich young ruler of Luke 18). So what does this say about serving in the military and the violence required? Even if you're a medic - if successful, you're enabling another soldier to perhaps go out and do more violence.

4) In reading Eusebius's history of the early church, often when persecution was started against the Christians, the first to suffer were those Christians who were in the Roman armed forces (note: not retired, but actively serving), indicating some kind of acceptance in the early church of the need to support a governmental system that relied on violence at times in order to maintain itself. I've only read Eusebius, so perhaps I am missing something important here!

And, with respect to Greg's point of the systemic injustices done to the native Americans, see the recent "Fresh Air" Interview on the Comanches (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127930650). Based on this interview, and other readings, all parties (whites and native Americans) seemed to lack in Christian qualities of peace making. I agree with Michael's post above. It seems that some violence and atrocities are simply a matter of time and place in culture. (Of course, this leaves current day atrocities unaddressed). I think Greg's point is that as a Christian, with today's understanding, I cannot participate in that kind of activity? If his point is that those people in history were not Christians because of their barbarism, that would be taking the point too far (for me).

It seems to me that those who sacrificed to support the overthrow of England's rule, for whatever reason, were justified in celebrating their accomplishment. And we can still celebrate - not venerate - their accomplishment, while wishing it could have been accomplished by other means.

Is it possible that God has the whole of history in mind, and that no matter what we throw at him, he can and will bring about what he intends on a personal and a global scale. Could the birth of the U.S. somehow fit into his intentions? Someday I hope to ask him.

For me, this is not a simple issue, and there is much, much more to consider. But, I'll refrain from rambling any more.

Craig Swope

Excellent comments from everyone. My faith journey has moved me away from politics. There is merit in the old cliche, "Christ could not vote for the lesser of two evils". I have very much been mulling thoughts similar to those posted by Martyn Mayfield. I love the church I attend in Carson City, Nevada and thoroughly enjoy the fellowship but it is difficult to engage in balanced dialogue on where this "experiment" we celebrate this weekend fits into His Kingdom.

Thank you all for a lot of food for thought.

Jonathan Aigner

This essay is quite lucid and helpful. Drawing the comparison between the birth of America (read: United States) and the birth of the Christ child is horrific. For me, it's unthinkable that Christians overlook the full extent of that thinking; this earthly kingdom has no unique claim on the promises and freedom found in Christ.

Tomorrow, I will probably be asked to recite the pledge at a church where I have an interim music position. I just can't do it. This kingdom will pass. We serve a higher throne.

Steve Ryan

I appreciate the article but I question its premise.

First, it is based on a narrow view of the Declaration of Independence and July 4 celebrations. For instance, it takes for granted that Americans celebrate July 4 in order celebrate "one group of mostly professing Christians violently overthrowing another group of mostly professing Christians." This is misleading, and frankly, absurd.

July 4 is the celebration of endowed rights, among which are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not exhaust our endowed rights as the article implies. In fact, it is also the celebration of the notion that "all men are created equal" -- a phrase that released justice nonviolently throughout American history.

Second, the post cites an "edited" work that connects a biblical verse "to part of a speech" by John Quincy Adams. I will take the post's characterization of Adam's position as true for the sake of its purpose, namely, that political ideals should not be a formula for the Kingdom of God. But I wonder, should ideals of the Kingdom of God serve as a forumla for political ideals? I would say yes -- this is the essence of changing our culture. If so, shouldn't we celebrate July 4 as the day that Kingdom ideals -- namely, that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain rights (whatever they or their merit may be) -- changed history.

Mark Goode

This is for me a bit of an odd post . . . it flirts with important issues but then fails to frame either the past events or the current challenges properly, leading to confusion.

An important face: July 4 did not mark the beginning of a violent overthrow of British rule, rather it marked the formal declaration by 13 states of self-rule. The British chose to enforce their own rule by the use of violence, thus precipitating armed conflict. This conflict was ultimately won by the Americans and Britain's agreement to end its claims to rule the colonies was memorialized by the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783. But we don't celebrate the end of a war or the onset of violence on July 4th but rather the declaration of our independence based on a set of natural laws.

The Americans chose to assert their right to self rule by the application of Enlightenment reasoning and the then new theory of Natural Law. As Thomas Jefferson wrote so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident . . . " Not revealed. Not Biblical. Not traditional. But self-evident to men and women of reason. This bold application of the principles of Natural Law turned 1700 years of revealed truth on its head . . . monarchs had long claimed that they ruled by divine right and often quoted Romans 13 as proof. But Jefferson in his remarkable document and later President Lincoln in the emancipation proclamation ("a government of the people, by the people, and for the people") upended the notion of divine legitimacy of government; rather, a government is legitimate only if it rules by the consent of the governed. To these American leaders, Romans 13 applied to a bygone era and was certainly not seen as relevant in our democracy.

While some 21st century evangelicals may see this out of phase with their exegesis of Romans 13, many Christians in the early 19th century, including John Quincy Adams, saw this as a golden opportunity to apply in an unfettered way, Kingdom principles and truths by means of a freely elected government. Social experiments in Oneida, NY and New Harmony, IN boldly attempted to implement key New Testament teachings regarding economics, business, community, etc. The New Harmony experiment began during the second year of Adams' presidency. Many other such experiments were underway throughout the country. And, as mentioned by Josh Reighly, these Christians were post-millinealists . . . Jesus had already returned.

Following the bloody but ultimately successful campaign against slavery during the Civil War, Christian activists set their sites on the emancipation of women politically (suffrage), the cessation of prostitution in large industrial cities, the invocation of child labor laws, and many other social reforms that flowed from their goal to implement Kingdom principles in the New Republic. (Read "Discovering an Evangelical Heritage," by Donald Dayton http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_19?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=discovering+an+evangelical+heritage&sprefix=discovering+an+evan) for the detailed stories of these socially active Evangelicals in 19th century America.

America's declaration of independence and democratic form of government are certainly post-evangelical and in some cases, anti-Biblical. With its elevation of the notion of Natural Law and its use of reason and not biblical revelation as the arbiter for legislative and judicial guidance, the country nonetheless provides a context in which Christian ideas can find a home, provided of course, they can be shown to be reasonable, good, fair, equitable, etc. Many evangelicals are loathe to rise to these challenges; they prefer instead to quote a Biblical text and call the matter settled. But in this country, at least for the time being, that is insufficient and I for one, am most thankful for that.

America's history is post-marked with violence, inequities, and injustices. But among the community of nations, it continues to strive, often imperfectly, to reach for a more just order, an improvement in the standard of living of its citizens, and to preserve the freedom of its citizens, even those who disagree with its founding ideals and principles.

What a marvelous social experiment! And like the sixth President, I celebrate our nation's birthday as an important event in human history.

Steve McCormick

I would agree with Mark, this is a strange post. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that America is perfect. Don't think the founders would have thought so. Their design presupposed a fallen human society. Certainly, wrapping the cross in the flag is not a thing to do but do you realize how many have heard the gospel because of the freedom and economic prosperity we have been given in the US? There are millions of people that have been liberated and now as a result have freer access to bibles and those carrying the gospel. Our vast economic success has allowed countless people to be fed and have clean drinking water. That makes me feel, dare I say, patriotic, proud to live in a place that gives me an abundance of time and money to help fill needs temporal and eternal.

Second, discussions and debate about just war theory and supposed violet overthrows at the founding of our country seem very academic compared to actually confronting evil. It is important to debate such issues but when you get shot at by someone trying to kill you, academics and intellectualism gets thrown out the window.

I pray that some of these thoughts and attitudes don't convince some to not be involved in their society, specifically, in their countries dealings. We have a greater responsibility than others in history because we have the opportunity to be involved with our government and nation in a way not known but subjects of kings, emperors, and dictators.

I am thankful that I am a sojourner in the US.

The truth

Jesus said I am no part of the world there for any one who follows me shall also be no part of the world that means war politics govern ment so its not fitting to celebrate july 4th u can't slave for two masters he says

Bryan Latchaw

I have to echo the comments by Leo Wilson (thanks Leo); also: to place all Christians under the banner of one founding father is not balanced; but more later...I am growing weary of the haters of America; straw men they erect and selective history they repeat

Jack

While I can certainly agree that Adams is wrong to elevate patriotism to be practically level with faith, and that we should be thinking about what patriotism means critically, I cannot agree with the comment that the formation of America plays no part in Christ's mission. There are two sides to every coin- America was built on bloodshed, sure, but America has also produced many great theologians and has been a HUGE force in sending missionaries to unreached nations. Everything that happens is a part of Christ's mission, even a sinful nation(They all are) can be a host for many glorious things.

dan@fsi-us.com

The 1st thing I notice is he draws people that believe the founding fathers were Christians so he can show them in a dark light for what he considers good reasons. That is questionable right off.

I also question at the same time why this would be the article chosen unless there was another agenda.. I have no deluded idea that the founders were angels but I do believe the Holy Spirit guided many of them in the creation of the USA.

I also believe that the founding of the USA was a major part of fulling Gods plan on the earth. I see many dividing the nation on many fronts for many reasons so if God did allow these men in place for a purpose why try to deny it?

I see that the author may have took this out on context of the whole speech after review also.

The Kingdom of God was started in blood and will be finished in blood. Sad but true of the world we live in.

RE:

For the Kingdom is not about enjoying “life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.” It’s about looking like Jesus, dying out of love for the very people who crucified him.

Jesus dies once for all from what I understand. We are to die to self but live for others might be a better understanding of the message. Yes some now and many soon will also be called to give their life for Christ and if articles that are used to divide the USA an not to draws us as Christians together more here will be sacrificed than needed.

God for one thing has established the USA to be a blessing to Israel and his purposes on the earth. The reason we are in the shape we are in is because we have neglected of forgotten those purposes with a little help from Satan himself.

The USA like all institutions of Governments are made by man and subject to falling away from the path assigned her. Not all founders were called that does not negate the purpose of the general call on the nation.

This was written to divide not unite the body in my personal opinion.

decarlisle

I think this may help:

Later Significance of the

Mayflower Compact

The Mayflower Compact was an interim document that governed the colonists only until an official charter was obtained. It is an exaggeration to see it as the forerunner of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

The Mayflower Compact did, however, embody the guiding and lasting principles of the Pilgrims as expressed by their pastor John Robinson: separation of Church and state in a "civil body politic" and the rule of "just and equal laws."

As an early example of democracy in America, the Mayflower Compact has remained an inspiration since 1620.

"Here was a unanimous and personal assent by all the individuals of the community to the association by which they became a nation."

John Quincy Adams, 1802

http://www.pilgrimhall.org/compcon.htm

Leslie Edmonds(how to make jewelry)

I totally agree with you. Jesus' mission is to take us all to heaven (as much as we allow Him to) with Him and not to this world. This world is temporary. Everything we have here will come to an end, in God's time.

Leslie Edmonds(how to make jewelry)

decarlisle

God is interested in what the USA is doing today not 200 years ago. Why don’t you just throw the baby out with the bath water? Many of you back patters look like a bunch of the Blame America 1st crowd to me. You are playing right into the hands of the enemy. This is another attempt by a liberal thinkers that believe they are the enlighten ones.

RE: Still, on what basis could Adams or anyone else claim that the birth of this nation has anything to do with the mission of the Savior?

What a shallow question this is, do you not have any appreciation for what God has done with this nation to get the gospel out and to change the world for the better? To save many other nations from the likes of Hitler and Stalin to support Israel and many others from total destruction?

We are not fools we know that our leaders sold us out a long time back, I am sure many of you are quite comfortable with the current crop though..

Nobody really sees this as Gods Kingdom on earth or the only means to complete his agenda for the world and neither did the Founding Fathers. This was just a patriotic speech made at a time when no one knew if this country would last another 10 years. You are using this and other divisive speech for other purposes. Sadly with the type of thinking going here the USA might have little time left either

The USA is a tool in the hands of the Lord like many other countries. We can be a tool of bringing blessings or as a tool for Judgment that would be up to the Christians and what they do in the next few years.

God is weighing us in the balance and we just may be found wanting. I am wondering just how you think you are helping by going out of your way to divide a nation at such a time as this?

Instead of building up and calling on the Lord I see a bunch of well like I said we should be building up on what is good and not go out of our way to show where the Devil may have gained ground like it was our Nations Heritage.

I did not like the Article not only because it was written with a new age agenda but because I see it as another attempt to move us toward socialism but because I don't really see it as Gods agenda for the USA.