{"id":6408,"date":"2010-06-12T12:20:29","date_gmt":"2010-06-12T12:20:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html"},"modified":"2010-06-12T12:20:29","modified_gmt":"2010-06-12T12:20:29","slug":"saturday-afternoon-book-review-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html","title":{"rendered":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: David Cramer"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Library.jpg\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Christian America and the Kingdom of God<\/a>\"\"
\n<\/strong><\/em> By Richard T. Hughes; forward by Brian McLaren. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009. Cloth, 232 pages. $29.95. ISBN: 978-0-252-03285-1.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reviewed by David C. Cramer<\/a>, who has graduate degrees in philosophy and divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, currently teaches religion and philosophy at Bethel College<\/a> (Indiana), has written various articles and book reviews for Philosophia Christi<\/i>, Priscilla Papers<\/i>, The Mennonite Quarterly Review<\/i>, Ethics & Medicine<\/i> and elsewhere, and is a regular participant in the Jesus Creed community.<\/p>\n

I. Summary<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Richard Hughes describes the objective of his latest book, Christian America and the Kingdom of God<\/i>, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

While this book will point to the obvious truth that the notion of Christian America is alien to the United States Constitution, that is not the primary purpose of this text. Rather, this book will unpack the irony that the myth of Christian America is alien to the one book that Christians claim to prize more than any other–the Bible. It is alien to the New Testament, especially to the teachings of Jesus and Paul, and alien to significant sections of the Hebrew Bible as well, especially the Hebrew prophets who preached to Israel and Judah beginning in the eighth century B.C.E. (3)<\/span><\/p>\n

To bolster this claim, Hughes offers four major theses or themes that drive the book:<\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/p>\n


<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. that “the notion of Christian America
    \nand the notion of the kingdom of God are polar opposites whose values
    \ncould not be further apart,”<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. “that Christian America so often behaves
    \nin such unchristian and even anti-Christian ways,”<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. “that Christians should behave in ways
    \nthat are consistent with the profession of faith, especially in America’s
    \npublic square,” and<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. “that biblical and theological
    \nilliteracy runs rampant in the United States, even in America’s churches,
    \ndespite the frequent claims that America is a Christian nation” (3-4).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These themes are unpacked throughout the following five chapters
    \nof the book (see bold below). In chapter
    \none, “Christian America as God’s Chosen People,”<\/b> Hughes begins by
    \ndescribing the irony that in a nation that considers herself “Christian,”
    \ntheological and biblical illiteracy abounds. Hughes cites a number of reports
    \nthat indicate that the average American knows precious little of the basic
    \nfacts of the Bible–not to mention broader theological themes–and that even
    \nevangelical Christians are not immune to this general biblical illiteracy. If
    \nthis illiteracy were not alarming enough, says Hughes, it is compounded by the
    \nfact that American Christians have many misguided biblical assumptions, such as
    \nequating the U.S. with God’s “chosen people” or assuming that contemporary
    \nmilitary and political strife in the Middle East will usher in Christ’s second
    \ncoming (and thus should be supported rather than condemned). According to
    \nHughes there are only two biblical motifs that could even possibly support such
    \nclaims: the Hebrew Bible notion of “God’s chosen people” and the New Testament
    \nnotion of the “kingdom of God.” Hughes thus spends the rest of the chapter
    \ndescribing the historical development of the notion that the U.S. is “God’s
    \nchosen people” and assessing this claim. Hughes offers three reasons for
    \nrejecting the equation of the U.S. with “God’s chosen people”: first, “the
    \nBible is clear . . . that God selected Israel as his chosen nation, but the
    \nBible offers no evidence that God ever placed any other nation in that same
    \ncategory” (25); second, the notion that America is God’s chosen nation is based
    \non circular reasoning (namely, the argument that “Because America is a
    \nChristian nation,” it “should emulate ancient Israel,” and since it should
    \nemulate ancient Israel, it “should be faithful to its role as a Christian
    \nnation” [25]); and third, “precisely because the Hebrew notion of the chosen
    \npeople was national–even tribal–in scope and intent, any attempt to appropriate
    \nthat myth for national purposes today leads almost inevitably to behavior that
    \nis alien to the universal purposes of the Christian gospel” (27).<\/p>\n

    After assessing the motif of “God’s chosen people” in
    \nchapter one, Hughes shifts his focus to the second biblical motif, the kingdom
    \nof God, in chapters two and three. According to Hughes, the biblical notion of
    \nthe kingdom of God is “marked by two primary attributes: (1) equity and justice
    \nfor all human beings, especially the poor, the marginalized, and the
    \ndispossessed, and (2) a world governed by peace and goodwill for all human
    \nbeings” (32). In chapter two, “The
    \nWitness of the Hebrew Bible,”<\/b> Hughes traces the development of the kingdom
    \nof God theme throughout the Hebrew Bible (otherwise known to Christians as the
    \nOld Testament), noting that while the term “kingdom of God” is a New Testament
    \none, the concept is ever present in the Hebrew Bible as well. Hughes begins his
    \nnarrative with 1 Samuel 8, where Israel asks God for a king, and God responds
    \nby granting their request despite stating that in so asking Israel has rejected
    \nGod as her king. According to Hughes, this passage “is a crucially important
    \nmetaphor, suggesting that the kingdom of God would be both nonviolent and just,
    \nwhile human government would inevitably practice both violence and oppression”
    \n(34). Thus, while God uses the monarchy of Judah \/ Israel for his purposes,
    \nultimately the Hebrew prophets condemn the practices of the monarchy,
    \nespecially its violent warfare, military alliances, and fortified cities (35).
    \nHughes notes that when American Christians cite the Hebrew Bible in support of
    \nU.S. military action, they ironically use the practices of the monarchy to
    \nsupport their claims–precisely the practices that the Hebrew prophets condemn.
    \nMoreover, Hughes notes that when Jesus appeals to the Hebrew Bible, it is “to
    \nthose radical Hebrew prophets who rejected war and oppression and proclaimed,
    \ninstead, nonviolence, peace, and justice” (36). According to Hughes, the
    \npicture of the kingdom of God presented by the prophets and adopted by Jesus
    \nand Paul is one of justice and peace, not one of “violence, war, and the
    \ndestruction of the enemies of the chosen people of God” (43). Hughes quotes
    \nnumerous passages from throughout the prophets that highlight and support this
    \nclaim.<\/p>\n

    While many Christians are perplexed by the seeming
    \ndiscrepancies between the Old and New Testaments, in chapter three, “The Witness of the New Testament,”<\/b> Hughes argues
    \nthat there is actually “great continuity between the vision of the kingdom of
    \nGod in the Hebrew prophets and the vision of the kingdom of God in the New
    \nTestament (NT). And Jesus–the founder of the Christian religion and the
    \ncenterpiece of the NT text–stood squarely in that prophetic tradition” (51). But
    \naccording to Hughes, the NT also adds two important components to the biblical
    \nunderstanding of the kingdom of God: (1) the paradoxical, “upside-down” nature
    \nof the kingdom in which the poor and oppressed are exalted and the proud and
    \npowerful are humbled, and (2) the kingdom as “a radical alternative to imperial
    \nregimes” (52). Hughes takes a brief detour from his discussion of the NT text
    \nto explore the ways the U.S. might be understood as a modern-day empire,
    \noffering some telling quotes from top people in George W. Bush’s cabinet.
    \nHughes then returns to the NT, unpacking the Gospels’ understanding of the kingdom
    \nof God (focusing primarily on Luke and the Sermon on the Mount), the Pauline
    \nunderstanding of kingdom, and the way the kingdom motif is played out in
    \nRevelation. Hughes finds that each of these sections of Scripture presents a
    \nvision of the kingdom in continuity with the Hebrew prophets and with each
    \nother, though they each come at it from their own distinct angle. So, for
    \nexample, Paul’s understanding of the Kingdom is predicated on the claim that
    \n“Jesus is Lord,” which both undermines Rome’s claim of supremacy and offers a Christological,
    \nkenotic vision of Kingdom living. Such a vision is radically egalitarian,
    \nreplacing worldly hierarchy with justice and equality for all. Hughes interacts
    \nwith Pauline passages, such as 1 Timothy 2:11-12, that seem to continue
    \nsubjection within the Church but argues that such passages are “fundamentally
    \nout of step with everything we know about Paul’s theology of social justice”
    \n(78). So while the biblical text itself has some internal diversity, Hughes argues
    \nthat the kingdom vision of peace and justice shines through brightly and should
    \nnot be discarded because of certain passages that suggest otherwise. Hughes
    \nfinds the nonviolent witness of the early church as further support for the kingdom
    \nmessage in Jesus and Paul. Finally, in Revelation Hughes finds violent
    \nportrayals that seem to conflict with the kingdom vision, yet he argues that
    \n“the overall message of Revelation remains enormously instructive, namely, that
    \nthe kingdom of God will finally triumph over the oppressive nations and empires
    \nof the earth” (97). Hughes discusses William Stringfellow’s political analysis
    \nof Revelation during the time of the Vietnam War, which “posed a direct and
    \nfrontal challenge to the notion of Christian America” by arguing that “America
    \nstood in resolute opposition to the principles of the kingdom of God” (102),
    \nbut Hughes holds that discussion for a later chapter. In the meantime he
    \nreflects on one last dimension of the NT vision of the kingdom: forgiveness and
    \ngrace.<\/p>\n

    After discussing the biblical materials, Hughes turns in his
    \nlast two chapters to a historical discussion of how so many Americans came to
    \nview the U.S. as a Christian Nation. In chapter
    \nfour, “Why do we think of America as a Christian Nation?,”<\/b> Hughes begins
    \nhis historical survey with Emperors Constantine and Theodosius in the fourth
    \ncentury who wedded Church and Empire. He argues that the legacy of this
    \nmarriage is embedded in the notion of Christian America. According to Hughes,
    \nthe early American settlers never completely shook of the church-state
    \narrangements of the European countries from which they came. Moreover, Hughes
    \nargues that the strong Calvinism of the Puritans and other settlers only
    \nreinforced the church-state union. However, this Calvinist vision of a
    \nChristianized America was flatly rejected by America’s Founding Fathers, whose
    \nDeclaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution clearly call for religious
    \ntolerance. Thus, Hughes finds it ironic that fundamentalists cite these
    \nfundamentally secular documents and the Founders who authored them as support
    \nfor Christian America.<\/p>\n

    So how did America go from a country founded on religious
    \ntoleration to one defined by a Protestant Christian ethos? Hughes argues that
    \ntwo important movements contributed largely to this shift: the Second Great
    \nAwakening in the nineteenth century and the fundamentalist movement in the
    \ntwentieth. Though certain figures in the Awakening, such as Charles Finney,
    \ninstituted programs in line with the biblical kingdom vision, the cumulative
    \neffect of the Awakening was to baptize the American myth of manifest destiny.
    \nAmerica became God’s instrument for inaugurating the kingdom on earth, despite
    \nthe fact that American foreign policy was in stark contrast with the NT kingdom
    \nvision. Hughes concludes the chapter by discussing two other competing American
    \nvisions, the gospel of wealth and the social gospel, and argues that while the
    \nlatter is more in line with the NT than the former, both contributed to the
    \nAmerican myth of “messianic nationalism” (133).<\/p>\n

    In his final chapter,
    \n“A Fundamentalist Vision for Christian America: From the Scopes Trial to George
    \nW. Bush,”<\/b> Hughes traces the legacy of twentieth century fundamentalism on
    \ncontemporary U.S. policy, offering scathing critiques along the way. Hughes
    \nrehearses the well-known story of the fundamentalist-modernist controversies,
    \narguing that fundamentalism had an “antipluralist orientation” that “rendered
    \nit ill equipped to cope with complexity, with paradoxical thinking, with nuance
    \nand ambiguity, and with metaphoric and symbolic language” (137-38). Hughes
    \nnotes that while “significant segments of fundamentalism morphed into a kinder,
    \ngentler form of the Christian faith” that “sought to recapture the spirit of
    \nsocial concern that had characterized the Second Great Awakening”–i.e.,
    \nevangelicalism–nevertheless, the “old-time fundamentalism reemerged in the
    \nearly 1970s” (150). Largely as a response to the enforcement of desegregation
    \nlaws at Christian schools such as Bob Jones, fundamentalists rallied to
    \n“attempt to control the entire political process by electing to office
    \ncandidates who supported their so-called Christian agenda” (155). Eventually this
    \nstrategy drew in a large segment of the evangelical world as well, resulting in
    \nthe election of George W. Bush to two consecutive terms. Hughes argues that the
    \n“courtship between the fundamentalists and George W. Bush” and the resulting
    \nimplementation of “Christian America” had disastrous effects on the nation and
    \nthe Church, such as Bush’s policy of preemptive war-making supported by so many
    \nfundamentalist and evangelical Christians (160-61).<\/p>\n

    So how did so many American Christians come to support Bush’s
    \npolicies that stood in such opposition to the biblical witness? Hughes
    \nconcludes by suggesting three fundamental myths adopted by Bush and his
    \nsupporters: the myth of the chosen nation, the myth of the innocent nation, and
    \nthe myth of the millennial nation. Hughes strings together quote after quote by
    \nBush and his cabinet that pander to these myths, fusing biblical rhetoric with
    \nthe U.S. political and military agenda. Hughes states, “In this way, Christian
    \nAmerica–the nation so many wished to identify with the Prince of Peace–became
    \nan agent of violence that turned the meaning of the Christian religion on its
    \nhead” (175). According to Hughes, such violent rhetoric and action is only
    \ncompounded by another fundamentalist myth: rapture theology. Hughes thus spends
    \nthe last few pages of the book discussing the ways rapture theology and its
    \nresultant unyielding support for Israel have furthered the separation between
    \nthe biblical vision of the kingdom and the American notion of a Christian
    \nnation. In conclusion, Hughes offers a poignant reflection on the contrasts
    \nbetween these two visions, quoted here at length:<\/p>\n

    Jesus counseled
    \npeace, but the [Roman] empire practiced violence. Jesus counseled humility, but
    \nthe empire engaged in a ruthless pursuit of power. Jesus counseled concern for
    \nthe poor, but the empire practiced exaltation of the rich. Jesus counseled
    \nmodesty, but the empire practiced extravagance. Jesus counseled simple living,
    \nbut the empire encouraged luxurious living for those with the means to embrace
    \nthat way of life. And while Jesus counseled forgiveness and love for one’s
    \nenemies, the empire practiced vengeance.<\/p>\n

                <\/span>Like
    \nthat ancient empire, the United States abounds in Christian trappings. And yet
    \nthe United States embraces virtually all the values that have been common to
    \nempires for centuries on end. It pays lip service to peace but thrives on
    \nviolence, exalts the rich over the poor, prefers power to humility, places
    \nvengeance above forgiveness, extravagance above modesty, and luxury above
    \nsimplicity. In a word, it rejects the values of Jesus.<\/p>\n

                <\/span>How,
    \nthen, can we claim that the United States is a Christian nation? (185-86)<\/p>\n

    II. Analysis<\/p>\n

    In Christian America
    \nand the Kingdom of God<\/i>, Richard Hughes offers a trenchant critique of the popular
    \nnotion of America as a Christian nation. This book is important for a number of
    \nreasons, not least of which is that it moves the question of America’s status
    \nas a Christian nation away from what key figures in American history believed<\/i> (or claimed to believe) to the
    \nmore important question of how America has acted<\/i>.
    \nThe important question isn’t so much whether the nation’s leaders have invoked
    \nGod’s name but rather what God’s name has been invoked for<\/i>. Moreover, Hughes cuts through the vague and nebulous rhetoric
    \nof American civil religion and gets straight to the heart of the matter: Does “Christ<\/i>ian America” look and act like Christ<\/i>? If not, then whatever good or
    \nbad America may do in the world, it certainly doesn’t deserve the moniker of a
    \nChristian nation.<\/p>\n

    It seems to me that Hughes’ general thesis is beyond dispute.
    \nBut I’m not so na?ve as to think that it therefore won’t be disputed! Some
    \nmight argue that in our fallen world we can’t expect an entire society to
    \nfollow Jesus’ precepts and example, so the fact that the U.S. doesn’t do so
    \nshouldn’t count against its claim to be a Christian nation. However, even if
    \nthe antecedent of the previous sentence is true, its consequent doesn’t follow.
    \nIn other words, if in fact we can’t expect an entire society to follow Jesus’
    \nteachings, then rather than supporting the claim that America is Christian, it
    \nrules out such a claim in principle<\/i>.
    \nIt in effect means that it is logically impossible for a society to be
    \nChristian, and thus logically impossible for America to be a Christian nation.<\/p>\n

    But I would be cautious about making so strong a claim, for I
    \ncan think of at least one society that is intended to follow Jesus’ teachings
    \nand example: the Church. The claim that a society can’t follow Jesus is based
    \non the common but unjustified dichotomization between “personal” and “social”
    \nethics, in which Jesus supposedly had much to say about the former and little
    \nabout the latter. Such a dualistic ethic in Jesus’ teaching has to my mind
    \ndemonstrably been refuted by the work of the late John Howard Yoder, most
    \nfamously in The Politics of Jesus<\/i> but
    \nalso in his lesser known works, such as The
    \nOriginal Revolution<\/i>, The Priestly
    \nKingdom<\/i>, Body Politics<\/i>, and For the Nations<\/i>. (Parenthetically, those
    \nwho dismiss Yoder as “sectarian” based on their [mis]understanding of his
    \nargument in The Politics of Jesus<\/i>
    \nshould read his other works where he works out more fully how the church’s
    \ncommitment to Jesus’ nonviolent model can serve as an active witness to and
    \nengagement with secular society.) The dualism in Jesus’ teaching is not between
    \npersonal and social but between belief and unbelief. The believing church,
    \nthen, will look like Jesus, while the unbelieving world will not. So if one is
    \nto claim that a particular nation such as America is fundamentally constituted
    \nby belief (i.e., that it is “Christian”), then one will have to face Hughes’
    \nchallenge head on: Why doesn’t America look and act like Jesus? Moreover, in as
    \nmuch as America is a representational democracy (another myth that I will nevertheless
    \nconcede for the sake of argument), then its collective action does in some
    \nsense reflect back on the wishes and desires of its individual constituents. So
    \nin as much as Hughes is correct that the U.S. “pays lip service to peace but
    \nthrives on violence, exalts the rich over the poor, prefers power to humility,
    \nplaces vengeance above forgiveness, extravagance above modesty, and luxury
    \nabove simplicity,” then we can only say that such anti-Christian ideals and
    \nbehaviors do in fact reflect on the will of the people. Which leads us again to
    \nHughes’ closing question: “How, then, can we claim that the United States is a
    \nChristian nation?”<\/p>\n

    Suffice it to say that I am in general agreement with
    \nHughes’ thesis. However, as an evangelical I am a bit less comfortable with
    \nsome of the moves he makes in the book to support his general thesis. In the
    \nremainder of my analysis I discuss three of these concerns (see bold below). First<\/b>, Hughes argues that one of the
    \nmajor problems with Americans in general and Bible-believing evangelicals in
    \nparticular is their general lack of biblical knowledge. So far, so good. It
    \nseems that the solution would be a more comprehensive understanding of the
    \nBible. Once one understands the whole Bible, then one will clearly see the
    \nbiblical vision of the kingdom that Hughes presents. Hughes seems to suggest as
    \nmuch by spending chapters two and three on the witness of the Bible, but he
    \nthen argues that the problem with many Christians is not so much their lack of
    \nbiblical knowledge but is rather that they take the entire<\/i> Bible as authoritative. For Hughes, the Bible contains
    \ninternal diversity, bearing “witness to the principles of the kingdom of God,
    \non the one hand, and the principles of civilization, on the other” (83). Hughes
    \nthus writes that<\/p>\n

    Christians finally must choose:
    \nWill they pledge their allegiance to the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing
    \nbut the Bible, or will they pledge their allegiance to the principles of the
    \nkingdom of God? Will they pledge their allegiance to the Bible, the whole
    \nBible, and nothing but the Bible, or will they pledge their allegiance to the
    \nradical teachings of Jesus? (83)<\/p>\n

    So apparently the problem isn’t so much that American Christians
    \nare biblically illiterate. It is rather that they don’t adhere to Hughes’ canon
    \nwithin the canon. Hughes, of course, may very well be correct in identifying
    \nthe primary biblical motifs that should drive Christian practice, but he will
    \nneed a better justification for his emphasis on the kingdom and Jesus’
    \nteachings if he hopes to persuade evangelicals.<\/p>\n

    The above discussion leads to a second<\/b> and related question: Who is Hughes’ intended audience? His
    \nchoice of who to have write the forward might lead us to believe that he hopes
    \nto persuade evangelicals–at least those of us emerging ones on the fringes who
    \nfrequent blogs like Jesus Creed!–but his biblical hermeneutic shows no
    \nawareness of or appreciation for evangelical sensibilities. Indeed, he
    \nfrequently and favorably cites biblical scholars whose methodology and theology
    \nare suspect to most evangelicals. Consider, for example, his reliance on such NT
    \nscholarship in his discussion of Revelation:<\/p>\n

    When one considers that
    \nRevelation’s portrayal of divinely sponsored vengeance, violence, and
    \nretribution is so out of line with the dominant picture of the kingdom of God
    \nthat we find elsewhere in the New Testament, one is force to return again to
    \nJohn Dominic Crossan’s observation that the struggle between human
    \ncivilization, on the one hand, and the kingdom of God, on the other, “is depicted
    \ninside the Bible<\/i> itself. . . . The
    \nChristian Bible forces us to witness the struggle of these two transcendental
    \nvisions within its own pages<\/i> and to
    \nask ourselves as Christians how we<\/i>
    \ndecide between them.” Crossan’s conclusion bears repeating: “We are bound to whichever of these visions
    \nwas incarnated by and in the historical Jesus.”<\/i> (97, quoting from Crossan’s
    \nGod and Empire: Jesus against Rome, Then
    \nand Now<\/i>, 94-95)<\/p>\n

    The problem isn’t so much that Hughes utilizes scholarship
    \nfrom non-evangelicals–though I believe his arguments would have profited from
    \ninteraction with N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington III, and even Scot McKnight–but
    \nis rather that he seems to uncritically appropriate their work for his own. My
    \nissue with Crossan’s analysis isn’t that it is unevangelical per se<\/i> but that, on this score at least,
    \nit is far too simplistic. It’s easy to find seeming contradictions within
    \nScripture and then to settle the matter by decided which side of the
    \ncontradiction to accept and which to discard. It is much more difficult to
    \nappreciate the internal diversity of the text without simply discarding the
    \nportions one doesn’t like. I am again reminded of The Politics of Jesus<\/i>, where Yoder critically but sympathetically
    \nengages the most difficult passages of Scripture for his thesis: the wars of
    \nYHWH, the seemingly hierarchal household codes in Paul and Peter, the teaching
    \non submission to authorities in Romans 13, and even the war of the Lamb in
    \nRevelation. In each of these instances Yoder was able to creatively but
    \nfaithfully engage these difficult texts in ways that drew out their
    \nimplications for his view. In contrast, Hughes, following Crossan and others,
    \ndiscards these passages as cultural relics rather than considering how they too
    \nmight be Spirit-inspired texts.<\/p>\n

    If biblical scholarship isn’t Hughes’ forte, social-historical
    \nanalysis surely is. Whatever one may think of chapters 2 and 3, then, chapters
    \n1, 4, and 5 are virtually required reading for those interested in this
    \ndiscussion. Even here, though, I believe Hughes makes it a bit too easy on
    \nhimself, which leads to my third<\/b> and
    \nfinal critique. By telling the story of Christian America from the angle of
    \nfundamentalism, Hughes has a relatively easy target. However, is it not possible
    \nthat the rather obvious plank in fundamentalism’s eye might overshadow the less
    \nobvious but still quite plankish object in eye of mainstream Protestantism? In
    \nhis analysis Hughes takes the branch of the fundamentalist-modernist
    \ncontroversy that leads from William Jennings Bryan to the Moral Majority and
    \ndirectly to the policies of George W. Bush. But it seems that the other branch
    \nleading from Rauschenbusch to the Niebuhrs and right up to Barack Obama buys
    \ninto the myths of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny every bit as
    \nmuch as the fundamentalists. (To be fair, it should be noted that earlier
    \nHughes does briefly discuss Rauschenbusch [132-43] and that this book was
    \nlikely near its completion before Obama was on the national stage. Still, these
    \nconcessions don’t negate the general point.) Indeed, this latter branch might
    \nbe even more sinister for being less obvious. When, rather than celebrating
    \nAmerican militarism–as many fundamentalists do–we instead soberly accept it as
    \na regrettable necessity, doesn’t our very claim to its necessity<\/i> make it all the more idolatrous?<\/p>\n

    It thus baffles me how progressive evangelicals like the
    \nauthor of the forward can lament America’s legacy<\/p>\n

    of land-theft and attempted
    \ngenocide of our native peoples . . . of slavery too long defended before
    \nfinally overthrown . . . of an expansionist tendency that wasn’t satisfied once
    \nwe reached from Atlantic to Pacific, but that tempted us to extend our control
    \nto Hawaii and the Philippines–and later to Vietnam and Iraq (xi-xii)<\/p>\n

    and at the same time openly endorse any<\/i> presidential candidate, as the author of the forward did in the
    \nlast presidential race. If there is anything that Hughes’ book should teach us,
    \nit is to be suspicious of the pretensions of those in power–those who “call
    \nthemselves Benefactors” (Lk. 22:25)–whether liberal or conservative or
    \notherwise. Obama may be more apologetic about American foreign policy than
    \nBush, but he shows no signs of radically changing the course of Bush’s expansionist
    \npolicies. If anything, Obama’s sober tone toward American foreign policy embeds
    \nthe myth of America as the chosen, millennial nation deeper into the American
    \nChristian’s psyche than Bush’s quainter “shoot ’em up” cowboy approach. I’m
    \nconfident Hughes would agree with my analysis here, but I think his book would
    \nhave been far more interesting and challenging to his readership had he taken
    \non the mainline as well as the fundamentalists. <\/span><\/p>\n

    By way of conclusion, let me reiterate that Christian America and the Kingdom of God<\/i>
    \nis an important work that should be carefully digested by those in the Jesus Creed
    \ncommunity and beyond. I might also suggest that this more critical work be
    \nsupplemented with a more constructive work, such as Greg Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation<\/i> or
    \nYoder’s For the Nations<\/i>, each of
    \nwhich lays a foundation for integrally Christian engagement in the public
    \nsphere–of how to be in the U.S. but not of it.<\/p>\n

    As always, questions, comments, and criticisms are welcome.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    QUESTIONS: Do you
    \nbelieve the “kingdom of God” is the primary motif that should guide Christian
    \npractice? What do you do with seemingly competing biblical motifs? In what ways
    \nis the Kingdom of God motif compatible or incompatible with American
    \nmilitarism? How should this affect our understanding of America as a Christian
    \nnation?<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Christian America and the Kingdom of God By Richard T. Hughes; forward by Brian McLaren. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009. Cloth, 232 pages. $29.95. ISBN: 978-0-252-03285-1. Reviewed by David C. Cramer, who has graduate degrees in philosophy and divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, currently teaches religion and philosophy at Bethel College (Indiana), has written…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gospel"],"yoast_head":"\nSaturday Afternoon Book Review: David Cramer - Jesus Creed<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: David Cramer - Jesus Creed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Christian America and the Kingdom of God By Richard T. Hughes; forward by Brian McLaren. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009. Cloth, 232 pages. $29.95. ISBN: 978-0-252-03285-1. Reviewed by David C. Cramer, who has graduate degrees in philosophy and divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, currently teaches religion and philosophy at Bethel College (Indiana), has written…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Jesus Creed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-12T12:20:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Library-thumb-333x257-4781.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Scot McKnight\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: David Cramer - Jesus Creed","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: David Cramer - Jesus Creed","og_description":"Christian America and the Kingdom of God By Richard T. Hughes; forward by Brian McLaren. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009. Cloth, 232 pages. $29.95. ISBN: 978-0-252-03285-1. Reviewed by David C. Cramer, who has graduate degrees in philosophy and divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, currently teaches religion and philosophy at Bethel College (Indiana), has written…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html","og_site_name":"Jesus Creed","article_published_time":"2010-06-12T12:20:29+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Library-thumb-333x257-4781.jpg"}],"author":"Scot McKnight","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html","name":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: David Cramer - Jesus Creed","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Library-thumb-333x257-4781.jpg","datePublished":"2010-06-12T12:20:29+00:00","dateModified":"2010-06-12T12:20:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/19879975236b70da80f4cbea933c59d0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Library-thumb-333x257-4781.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/jesuscreed\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/05\/Library-thumb-333x257-4781.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/2010\/06\/saturday-afternoon-book-review-17.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saturday Afternoon Book Review: David Cramer"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/","name":"Jesus Creed","description":"Scot McKnight on Jesus and orthodox faith for today","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/19879975236b70da80f4cbea933c59d0","name":"Scot McKnight","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/c10\/c10b0226ed6cfd8319b2b8742ac4088ax96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/c10\/c10b0226ed6cfd8319b2b8742ac4088ax96.jpg","caption":"Scot McKnight"},"url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/author\/smcknight"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/70"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/jesuscreed\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}