I finally got around to finishing Gregory Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation" the other day, and whatever you may think of his theology (e.g. that God is not omniscient) the book is well worth a read. While I disagree with quite a bit of Boyd's political analysis, he does offer some words of caution to those who would put replace Christianity with politics.

First, let me hit some areas of agreement. Boyd uses several examples of churches and people that go out and serve the people in need. At one point he tells of a church that went out and remodeled/refurbished a public school that had fallen into disrepair. In another case he told the story of a woman who took in a teenager whose parents had kicked her out of the house for becoming pregnant. These are things Christians should be doing. I agree with Boyd that it is a much better witness to take in a pregnant girl in need than blockading an abortion clinic. It's a better witness to fix up a school than to rail against teaching evolution in science classes.

Boyd's certainly got a case that a lot of Christians could do more for Christ and the church by going out and serving the poor and needy than by railing against politicians for not toeing the party line.

Boyd also makes a good case that Christians should not necessarily tout America as a "Christian nation." Yes, America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, but unlike Islam, Christianity as laid out by Christ and the disciples doesn't present a model or guidelines for running a nation.

Boyd makes an intriguing argument for the fact that Christianity is America's "civic religion" is counterproductive to winning people for Christ. Unfortunately for Boyd, I don't know any way of changing that status quo (not that I'm completely convinced that we'd want to) without violating the Constitution and turning Christians into second-class citizens.

Having said that, Boyd also makes the case for what he perceives as a "Christian" approach to public and political life that is sometimes contradictory and likely self-destructive to the United States or any other nation that were to adopt it.

The most interesting part of Boyd's book is the final chapter where he addresses some of the questions that his sermons on this subject (which were the basis for this book) raised. Boyd is of the opinion that no Christian should enter military service -- aside from being a medic, nurse or doctor (maybe) -- because Christians could be required to kill someone. Though he doesn't address it in detail, Boyd also believes "just war" doctrine to be bogus.

There are many Christians who feel called to serve in the military -- I know some of them. I don't know what Boyd would say to them. Boyd doesn't address it in the book, but following his logic, I don't think he'd approve of Christians becoming law enforcement officers either. He might have a problem with Christians becoming judges -- they might have to impose the death penalty -- or prosecutors for much the same reason.

Boyd argues that Christians should not defend themselves when attacked (physically, not rhetorically). Though he admits that he might fail at that himself if he walked into his home and someone was raping his wife, he believes that's what Christians are required to do. How that demostrates love for his wife he doesn't say.

The prevailing theme in Boyd's book is "power over" vs. "power under." That is, attaining political or military power and influence vs. serving people. Boyd spends much of this book lecturing Christian conservatives or the "religious right" on this point because the media focuses more on them than people and groups on the religious left.

Of course, the media focuses on the religious right because so many in the media disagree with their politics. You don't see similar coverage of the religious left because their politics are indistinguishable from that of secularists.

I mentioned that Boyd's advice is sometimes contradictory and here is where that comes in. He encourages people to vote based on how candidates promise to help the poor, sick and less fortunate, while at the same time pointing out that not only is the government -- even at its best -- incapable of Christ-like charity, but that Christians should need to serve the poor and less fortunate themselves.

I've made the argument before that the government's social work has made churches less likely to serve the poor and needy as they are directed to do by Christ. In this situation, Boyd appears to chide Christians who support limited-government for not voting like Christ would allegedly vote and at the same time failing to recognize that they don't want the government to exercise "power under" charity through the "power over" of taxation. The church can do it better.

Boyd's book is an intriguing and challenging read. I think he certainly gets some things right and other things he gets wrong -- it's OK, he's allowed. I encourage you to check it out, even though you won't always agree with him.