about-bg about-bg

Watch/Listen

Just Living

• Greg Boyd

Although all sins in some ways are equal before God, there is something particularly evil and destructive about the dehumanizing effects of racism. Martin Luther King Jr. has by in large been secularized in popular culture as a nice man who wanted us all to get along, but this is an unfortunate caricature of a man whose core foundational trust was in self-sacrificial love and non-violent resistance. MLK Jr.’s message of racial reconciliation, and a refusal to deem another human being as his enemy, is central to the gospel of Jesus. wh-bug

Show Extended Summary

Topics: Kingdom of God, Non-Violence, Reconciliation


Downloads & Resources

Audio File
Study guide
Justice Video by The Bible Project

Focus Scripture:

Subscribe to Podcast

4 thoughts on “Just Living

  1. Kevin says:

    So then, Ephesians 2:14-16 as well as all the other passages that refer to being ‘in Christ’ are concluding that ALL peoples of the earth are In Christ? I ask because i’ve grown to believe that only those who partner with Christ and commit to following Jesus are the ones who are ‘In Christ’. Greg, brother; in many instances, you seem to say that we are to love even our enemies based on ‘the new creation’. How can this be when the Word says ‘those who are in Christ are a new creation’, unless, as you seem to say, ALL are in Christ? Help me out over here?

  2. Matthew says:

    Dr. Boyd is a blessing to the Church. Thank you Woodland Hills for making his sermons available to those of us who do live in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
    This sermon did raise the following questions:

    If “truncated atonement” is defined as not extending the work of the cross to societal injustices (sexism racism, etc.), can we also define it in terms of limiting the efficacy of the cross? Is not constantly apologizing for sins committed in the past (racism, sexism, etc.) actually undermining the complete efficacy of the cross? Are not constructs promoting guilt more a tool of identity politics and actually foreign to those who have found forgiveness at Calvary?

    If we are concerned about social injustice, is it not reasonable to vote the “pocketbook”? Can you understand how our conservative friends might feel morally obligated to vote for their candidates now that Black and Hispanic unemployment are at the lowest levels ever?

    Can your fifth point justifying civil disobedience be equally used by those on the right in order to protect the unborn?

    Is the really “open” theist (intended) the individual who eschews the language of identity politics for the inclusiveness found as members of the Body of Christ?

    1. Paige Slighter says:

      Hey Matthew,

      Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Thank you for your questions regarding Greg’s MLK sermon. He is delighted whenever people think critically about his messages. As a member of the communication team, I’m passing on Greg’s response. Below you will find his answers to your questions one group at a time.

      Q1: If “truncated atonement” is defined as not extending the work of the cross to societal injustices (sexism racism, etc.), can we also define it in terms of limiting the efficacy of the cross? Is not constantly apologizing for sins committed in the past (racism, sexism, etc.) actually undermining the complete efficacy of the cross? Are not constructs promoting guilt more a tool of identity politics and actually foreign to those who have found forgiveness at Calvary?

      A1: I claimed we have a “truncated” view of the atonement if we aren’t striving to manifest the “one new humanity” that Jesus died to bring into being. Reconciliation with God entails reconciliation with one another. This involves acknowledging the reality of sins done in the past as well as in the present that have created the unjust structure of our culture., both inside and outside the church. We can’t resist social injustices if we can’t first acknowledge them. It’s not about making anyone feel guilty or about playing identity politics, as you seem to suggest. It’s just about acknowledge reality. I don’t feel personally guilty for anything my European forefathers and foremothers did, but I believe I need to acknowledge what they did, and acknowledge that I continue to benefit (while others continue to be oppressed) by what they did.

      I don’t see how the call to be reconciled undermines the efficacy of the cross. In 2 Cor 5, Paul declares the absolute efficacy of the cross when he declares that the cross brought about a whole “new creation” and that God is no longer holding anyone’s sin against them. But Paul then goes on to say that our ministry as Christ’s ambassadors is to encourage people to BE RECONCILED. My point is that there is a distinction between a) all that the cross accomplishes; and b) the degree to which we align our heart, mind and life with all that the cross accomplishes. Our life mission must be to manifest all that the cross accomplished as much as possible, to bring about God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven.” If we fail to do this, it is not a failure of the cross, but of the church.

      Q2 If we are concerned about social injustice, is it not reasonable to vote the “pocketbook”? Can you understand how our conservative friends might feel morally obligated to vote for their candidates now that Black and Hispanic unemployment are at the lowest levels ever?

      A2: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the connection between concern for social justice, and the reasonableness of voting “the pocketbook.” Nor do I understand the connection between the comparatively low level of unemployment of blacks and Hispanics, and conservatives feeling morally obliged to vote for “their candidates.”

      Q3: Can your fifth point justifying civil disobedience be equally used by those on the right in order to protect the unborn?
      A3: It could, and it has.

      Q 4: Is the really “open” theist (intended) the individual who eschews the language of identity politics for the inclusiveness found as members of the Body of Christ?
      A4: I could be wrong, but you seem to equate any talk about race with the language of identity politics. I’m wondering if you believe there is a way to talk about the reality of racism in America’s past and present without playing identity politics. If not, then I encourage you to rethink your definition, because otherwise the very act of teaching American history is to use the language of identity politics.
      During the message, I was trying talk honestly about the reality of racism in America’s past and present. I would be open to suggestions about how I could have communicated differently so that it wouldn’t have sounded to you like I was playing identity politics.

      Thanks again for the questions, and for thinking so much about the sermon!

      1. Matthew Russell says:

        Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Your church means so much to our entire home church here in Northern California. Blessings!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

 

testimonial-icon

"I have battled anxiety for years, searching for something to help me overcome fear. I believe that through your sermons, I have found truth and I am more convinced of the extravagant love of God than ever. I finally feel like I am on the journey out of the darkness."

– Amanda, from Nebraska