The New York Times had an interesting article in its Sunday paper on Rev. Gregory A. Boyd in Minnesota. The headline: "Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock."

There's a lot to the article, but as you're reading, you also have to try to sift and sort through the Times' "cosmopolitan" viewpoint -- sometimes you wonder whether the words used to describe Boyd and his actions are shaded to paint him as more liberal than he really may be. For example:

Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal.

What's that mean? Most evangelicals who acknowledge that Romans 1 exists wouldn't describe homosexuality as "not ideal." A single mother raising a child because her husband left her is "not ideal." Homosexual behavior is ... there's a word for it ... oh yeah ... "wrong."

Is this Boyd sugarcoating the truth or is it the Times?

There's quite a bit to agree with in Boyd's running of the church.

Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church’s — to conservative political candidates and causes.

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

Of the aforementioned requests, I think having an American flag off to the side of the sanctuary is a big nothing -- it doesn't bother me either way. I've railed before about the Christian Coalition's voter guides. While something like the voter guide could be useful, the fact that unscrupulous candidates know what the "right" answers are and parrot them to get the "endorsement" makes the guides worse than useless.

If the anti-abortion table was a political group, then I agree with Boyd's decision; If it was a crisis pregnancy center, then I strongly disagree.

I don't like politicians visiting churches that they don't attend on a regular basis, especially the church-hopping that seems to occur too often in the few weeks before an election.

However, there are many things in the article, that, once again, I don't know if we're reading about Boyd's views or if the Times is sugarcoating them for their liberal New York City readership.

Mr. Boyd lambasted the “hypocrisy and pettiness” of Christians who focus on “sexual issues” like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show.

First, abortion is only peripherally a "sexual" issue. For many Christians, it's a life and death issue.

What does Boyd really mean by "focus" on homosexuality? I wholeheartedly agree that protesting events like last weekend's Gay Pride Parade in San Diego is counterproductive at best, but are we only supposed to say that homosexuality is "not ideal?"

What really got me about the Times article was that it appeared that Boyd was arguing that Christians shouldn't be participating in politics. Once again, I can't tell what is Boyd and what is the Times, but that's what bothered me.

A more interesting take on the article can be found over at JesusCreed. Scot McKnight (now that's a great name -- speaking as someone of Scottish descent) lays out a much better take on Christians and their spiritual and religious responsibilities than you get from the Times article.

Second, Christians need to remain independent enough to provide a prophetic stance. If you are in bed with the Republicans, you can’t announce they are wrong; if you are in bed with the Democrats, you can’t do that either. But, we must: Jesus critiqued the establishment and the Gentiles and the followers. He burned the path of justice and grace and love, and it didn’t matter who got in the way: the story had to be told. Until we can get enough distance from the party, until we can say “here’s what the Bible says and that’s not what the establishment is doing,” until we can do that we will not perform the role we have in this world: to speak the word of Christ and embody it in a peformance of the gospel.

Third, the idea that we can remain apolitical is hogwash and irresponsible. There was a day when evangelicals were decidedly non-political and uncommitted. That was withdrawal. As I lay out in Embracing Grace, the gospel is for all of us and for the whole of each of us. We can’t withdraw because that denies the gospel; we can’t just preach soul-redemption because that denies the incarnation; we have to preach the whole gospel to the whole culture.

Which means, we will have to address political issues. If we have established our independence, our word can be both prophetic and admonishment and encouragement. [emphasis in original]

I encourage you to read it all.

I think what's most important here is to recognize that what political party you belong to, support or side with should always come a distant second (or maybe 10th) to your Christian identity. Also, just because someone voted for (gasp!) John Kerry (or George W. Bush) in the last election doesn't mean that they're a bad Christian or not a Christian at all.