In Part 1 of this article, Tim identifies four main categories for political ideology and the potential idolatry that can result from them. He examines George Packer’s 2021 article in The Atlantic, in which Packer outlines four recent U.S. political movements and their vision of a good society. To do this, Tim also cross-references and reviews Reinhold Niebuhr’s outline of four “idols” (that Niebuhr sees as the basis of four political ideologies) and David T. Koyzis’ theory of four political ideologies. He then examines each of Packer’s “Four Americas”: 1) Free America (center right), 2) Smart America (center left), 3) Real America (far right), and 4) Just America (far left). Ultimately, Tim writes that the problem with these four “Americas” is that each is reductionistic, each is divisive, each is basically “white America,” and none fits with the full range of biblical ethics. Part 2 builds upon the analysis given in Part 1, so if you haven’t read Part 1, you can do so here.
Lessons to be learned — for Christians in politics
1. Christians can’t wholly support or “buy into” any of these ideologies. Considered biblically,
- Some of these ideologies put too much emphasis on systemic, structural factors in dealing with racial and economic injustice and others put too little.
- Some put too much emphasis on individual responsibility and some too little. Some are too individualistic and others are too collectivistic.
- Some are too distrustful of the market and too trusting of institutions and government, while others are the reverse.
- Both nationalism and socialism ironically make group or race or class identities absolute—in different ways—even though the ideologies are great enemies.
- Some are anti-religious while others tend to use religion for political purposes.
- Some say you are free to do with your sexuality whatever you want but not your money; others say you are free to do whatever you want with your money but you must hold to traditional sexual ethics.
- Some tend to idolize the traditional family and exaggerate gender differences while others subvert the traditional family and work hard to blur gender distinctions.
- Some wrongly believe that science can provide moral values for public policy while others distrust science far too much.
- Some tend to valorize the poor and others tend to demonize the poor. Some refuse to reform the criminal justice system at all while others want to dismantle it.
2. Christians are something of a threat to each of these ideologies and may not be welcome. In every culture in which these idols reign, “undomesticated” biblical Christianity (genuine, orthodox Christian belief and practice) is a threat to them.
- “Free America” may find the biblical teaching on wealth to be problematic.
- “Smart America” will find religious perspectives and truth claims to be inappropriate in public discourse (cf. John Rawls).
- “Real America” will be offended by biblical teaching on racial and economic justice.
- “Just America” will be offended by biblical teaching of sex, gender, and the family.
In general, each of these political ideologies will want Christians to drop or at least mute some parts of biblical teaching.
3. Christians can be neither a-political nor uncritical of their political school or party. To be “a-political” (to not be active in politics or to not even vote) is to essentially support the political status quo, and our doctrine of sin tells us there is no society which does not need change, which does not have its injustices. Christians, then, are in the awkward position of having to vote for parties dominated by one or more of these idols, trying their best to defend the positive features of their respective programs while critiquing (and not airbrushing) the wrong or even toxic elements within them.
4. Common Christian faith must be a stronger bond than common culture, race, or politics. Augustine points out that while all Christians live, as it were, in both the City of Man and the City of God, our chief allegiance and citizenship is to and in the City of God (Philippians 3:20).
But many Christians publicly disown and attack other believers who share the same beliefs in Christ, but who are not politically aligned with them. They feel a stronger unity with people of the same politics than of the same faith, even though Paul insists that Christians must not let legal differences supersede their oneness in Christ (1 Corinthians 6:6-7) or obscure their shared heavenly citizenship (Ephesians 2:19; Hebrews 13:14). When the church as a whole is no longer seen as speaking to questions that transcend politics—when they are seen instead as mainly foot soldiers for a political party—then the world sees strong evidence that religion is just a cover for people wanting power.
5. Christians’ biblical commitments are disparate (by the world’s categories), but not necessarily centrist. Christians should not see non-partisanship as “centrism”—some “split the difference” moderate position between two poles. When faced with two alternatives on the world’s spectrum of thought, such as rationalism and empiricism, monism and naturalism, legalism and antinomianism, Christianity critiques each fundamentally, but does not ignore the common grace insights of either.
Rather it arrives at a position off the spectrum, which Christopher Watkin calls “biblical diagonalization.” [] [1] See Christopher Watkin, Thinking Through Creation: Genesis 1 and 2 as Tools of Cultural Critique (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2017), 26-28. Also see Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory (Zondervan Academic, 2022), p 17. When it comes to politics, Christians’ biblical commitments are not centrist as much as seemingly disparate. They combine strong, even (to some) extreme views on sexuality on the one hand and on poverty on the other hand. Because the biblical commitments are not “centrist” so much as “disparate,” Christians will constantly find themselves working with non-believing people allied with them on one issue, but quite opposed to them on another.
Actions to be taken — for Christians in politics
1. Develop a biblical culture-critiquing theory. Carl Trueman has argued that the place for us to start is with Augustine’s The City of God, which was a biblical theory critiquing the culture of Augustine’s day. We need to appropriate his basic biblical exegesis and theology and apply it to our own culture.
Thoughtful, lasting political policy must arise not out of shallow, visceral views on particular issues, but out of a more comprehensive view of a good society. Trueman writes:
“the range of [Augustine’s] thought, from psychology to politics to grace makes him a unique source for Christian thinking. A Marxist friend once commented to me that The City of God was the only book in Christianity that could function as Das Kapital does in Marxism—a touchstone tome for the development of critical thinking about the whole of life. […] Written as Rome, the eternal city, burned at the hands of the Goths, The City of God is in places a superb reflection on the relationship between earthly and heavenly kingdoms. […] If Christians really want to develop a critical theory that allows for engagement with contemporary culture, they would do better reading Augustine than Derrida.” [] [2] The post appeared on the Reformation21.org website but is no longer there. Christopher Watkin quotes it on page 6 of his Thinking Through Creation and adds in a footnote that “Professor Trueman has confirmed to me in private correspondence that he is happy to stand by the quotation.” Watkin has a longer book in the works that will seek to lay the groundwork for a contemporary biblical theory.
2. Be active in many places on the political spectrum. Usually (but not always) the Bible gives us morals and norms but not a detailed program for exactly how to promote those norms in a democratic, pluralistic society. So we should be committed to the good of the poor and the immigrant, but the Bible does not tell you exactly how to do it. It doesn’t speak to how high or low taxes should be, what structures should support the poor, and so on. These are matters of wisdom and prudence, not obedience to clear biblical prescriptions. That means:
- We should be kind to other believers who differ with us politically. Where the Bible has not specifically spoken, Christians must allow one another to come to different conclusions about the best means to the ends. (In older terms, we should not “bind” the conscience of Christians where Scripture has left it free.) There is freedom within biblical absolutes to work these things out for yourself. They should respect each other’s differences as they go about their work. But that means …
- We should not be surprised to see Bible-believing Christians working at different places on the political spectrum. Why?
(a) Believers who have the same faith and same commitments may come to different conclusions about the best, most prudent way to seek the same social goals. (b) Believers may want to focus on just one or two issues and so are willing to ally themselves with activists who are radically different in their views of other things. For example, a believer who is pro-life, but more focused on criminal justice reform might make common cause with justice reform people while Christians politically active in the pro-life cause simply could not. - So we should inhabit the organizations and parties that are, overall, best for us to pursue our biblical convictions. But, as we noted above, don’t be silent (or overly loud) about the Christian inspiration for your political commitments, and don’t be silent (or overly loud) in criticizing the strong ideological, reductionistic elements that will inevitably be there in your own party.
3. Work locally as much as possible. Our national politics are, in general, more broken than local, because nationally the actors and parties no longer want to be seen working together for compromises. Locally, it is easier to work together. There is usually (though not always) more willingness for working “across the aisle” with people of different political convictions, but who can agree or work together on a significant, particular issue.
4. Recognize the difference between the church as an institution and the church scattered in society. This is a large topic, and historical differences must be allowed for. But, in general, it is best that the institutional church—both denominations and local congregations—do not raise money for and promote particular political candidates and policies. As just noted, there are times of crisis when the church must speak directly to overtly political issues—and of course whoever wants that to happen will always argue that the crisis time is now!
But local churches, under their pastors and elders, are not equipped to be part of political and legislative campaigns. In general, it is individual Christians who should be salt and light and active politically—either within existing political organizations and parties or organized into new voluntary associations—to pursue a fair and thriving society, rather than having church leaders dictate how to vote to their members. Recognize the difference between the church gathered (which evangelizes and disciples people for their work out in the world) and the church scattered (Christians applying the Bible and worldview to every area of life).
5. Christians in any society should regularly come together across the political spectrum for two things:
- Relationships. To forge and maintain friendships and love relationships so as not to fall into the kind of caricatures of opposing political positions to which we are prone.
- Hard-won consensus. Despite all noted above—that the Bible does not give us political blueprints—few Christians read the Scriptures communally and thoughtfully in order to reflect together on political issues. It is possible that hard work in this area by Christians who are initially more distant from each other politically (because the world’s parties and frameworks are more distant) may bring about, slowly but surely, greater consensus by Christians on what the biblical views of justice and human thriving would look like here and now.
Examples of such reflection are Tremper Longman’s The Bible and the Ballot: Using Scripture in Political Decisions;
[]
[3] Tremper Longman, III, The Bible and the Ballot: Using Scripture in Political Decisions (Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2020).
Leith Anderson and Galen Carey’s Faith in the Voting Booth: Practical Wisdom for Voting Well;
[]
[4] Leith Anderson and Galen Carey, Faith in the Voting Booth: Practical Wisdom for Voting Well (Zondervan, 2016).
Charles D. Drew’s Surprised By Community: Republicans and Democrats in the Same Pew;
[]
[5] Charles D. Drew, Surprised by Community: Republicans and Democrats in the Same Pew. 3rd ed. (Bookbaby, 2019).
Joshua D. Chatraw and Karen Swallow Prior’s Cultural Engagement: A Crash Course in Contemporary Issues.
[]
[6] Joshua D. Chatraw and Karen Swallow Prior, Cultural Engagement: A Crash Course in Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019).
It will be clear from reading these books that they do not agree! Yet taken together they will provide good insights.
The issues listed in the above books: (1) Nationalism vs. Globalization; (2) Religious Liberty; War; (3) Abortion and reproductive technology; (4) Criminal Justice—courts, policing, and capital punishment; (5) Immigration; (6) Same-sex marriage and gay rights; (7) Climate change and the environment; (8) Poverty and welfare; (9) Racism, minorities and structural injustice; (10) Gender and gender roles; (11) Labor and vocation; (12) Foreign policy; (13) Tax structure; (14) Trade; (15) Family policy; (16) Banking, business, and economic policy.
See Mark Noll’s “None of the Above” [] [7] Mark Noll, “None of the Above,” The Christian Century, September 21, 2004, https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2004-09/none-above. for an example of one evangelical Christian who gives his biblical reasons for his political views, despite concluding in the end to not vote for either party in an election.
Epilogue by Kathy Keller:
In reviewing this article, it was easy for me to hear Tim encouraging readers to go further, to read more and to give more thought to the trap of idolizing political affiliation, and to have conversations on the best way to honor God as we seek to be salt and light in the political landscape. It’s clear to me that the only way we can do that is to take whatever political issues or stances we are dealing with as individuals and view them through a gospel lens. When we see our politics and political views defined by the gospel rather than falling into the trap of having our faith defined by our politics, we will truly be agents of hope and renewal in a culture that is divided by political idolatry.
