It’s like two ships passing through the night, two strangers talking in different languages. Both sides thinking they are on solid ground, bolted into bedrock. But with each bedrock resting on differing tectonic plates headed towards differing locales.
I know that marriages can evolve this way.
Faith traditions can too, especially under the heat of increased polarization in recent years.
As I said before, it’s like there’s two different gospels of Jesus Christ, two different practices of Christianity, or two different understandings of what it means to press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling within the public square. The result: two different understandings of Christian values.
The Christian Regnant
Timothy Dalrymple’s recent article in Christianity Today “Why Evangelicals Disagree on the President” argues that on one side of the divide are those who yearn for a government and a culture that adheres to Christian values, defends Christian religious liberties, and seeks freedom for individuals, families and churches to live according to conscience. This group, the Church Regnant, seek the use of political power to protect the Christian way of life and bring goodness to the culture.
But by doing so, they fall prey to patterns of human behavior that tarnish their witness. Recent neurological research has shown that each of us are hardwired to sub-consciously assimilate the values and beliefs of those we are bound to. The closer the association, the more their values become our values and in the inevitable conflict between competing values, it’s the group values that usually win because they have highjacked our identity, an identity that we then fight for, both consciously and unconsciously.
This exchange of identity is then aided by the full force of our cognitive biases which cements this exchanged identity deep within us. We think we pursue our own interests and we do, but it’s a self-interest that has been taken over by the groups to which we belong. Hence, when the Church Regnant seeks the use of political power to protect the Christian way of life and bring goodness to the culture, they unwittingly open the gates to the captivating power of the earthly city.
James K.A. Smith in his book “You Are What You Love” has long warned against the risks of promoting cultural change through the imposition of Biblical worldviews within the political process. Earthly power assimilates and through that, reshapes values and beliefs. It’s because our loves are informed by what we are devoted to and our devotions are drawn to the battle. We think we are doing good when our desires are actually being reshaped, as our loves become distorted away from the mission of the kingdom. Rather than witnessing the transforming power of the gospel, the gospel instead becomes transformed. Rather than relying upon the Holy Spirit, the power behind the gospel is then exchanged for a reliance on political power.
As Tony Campolo said: “Trying to mix Christianity with a political party can be sort of like mixing ice cream with horse manure. It might not harm the manure, but it sure messes up the ice cream.”
Hence, when the Church Regnant seeks political power to protect and promote the Christian way of life, she allows her faith and values to be assimilated into the prevailing culture.
In their book Taking American Back for God, Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry empirically estimate that a significant amount of people’s beliefs about a faith-based political dominance can be attributed to two different mindsets. The first is Christian nationalism, defined as “an ideology that idealizes and advocates a fusion of American civic life with a particular type of Christian identity and culture.” For those of us coming from a fundamentalist Pentecostal tradition such proclamations as America as a Christian nation, a nation blessed by God and set up high upon a hill as God’s kingdom plan for the world, should sound awfully familiar. The second is religious commitment, best identified through one’s religious practice which range from church attendance and prayer to moral values inclusive of social justice and care.
The authors find that these variables act in an inverse-relationship: the greater the belief in Christian nationalism, the greater the belief that illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals, that Muslims are a threat, that refugees are potential terrorists, and that mixed marriages are wrong. Conversely, the greater religious commitment, the lesser these same beliefs are held. Responses to the current pandemic echo this same pattern. The greater the belief in Christian nationalism, the greater the practice of incautious behaviors such as infrequent or no mask wearing and reduced social distancing. The greater the religious practice, the greater the practice of cautious behaviors. Perhaps most telling, a Christian nationalist worldview was the single most reliable predictor of the religious vote for Trump in 2016. Religious practice independent of that worldview was not a predictor.
The Christian Remnant
On the other side of Dalrymple’s divide are those who value integrity over influence, fearing neither persecution nor the loss of cultural and political hegemony. This group, the Church Remnant, see God’s kingdom realized through the faithful presence of men and women who speak the gospel in word and deed, untethered to secular power. He notes: “The kingdom of heaven is elusive. It comes not with a sword but a sacrifice, not a crown of iron but a crown of thorns. It arrives not through the powers of the world, but through the inverted power of the cross…Peter swung the blade. Jesus drank the cup.”
The Church Remnant seeks to keep clear of worldly temptations. By being a church faithful to Biblical virtues – loving thy enemy, speaking truth, caring for the poor, advocating for the marginalized – she influences through her witness, not through unholy alliances. As James Davison Hunter outlines, the church transforms her community through “faithful presence.”
Jesus modeled this posture, being “not powerless, but [using] the power at his disposal for the good of others.” Such faithful presence is “the best way for Christians to engage the world, not by setting themselves up in contrast to the world or in a direct assault on those who have a different view of how the world should be run. Instead, Christians should be a blessing in whatever context they find themselves, while at the same time maintaining their distinctiveness as a community.”
We have a model for this Church Remnant. The Roman world of Christ’s time was harsh, depraved, and unforgiving. Suffering was common and sexual immorality, abortion, infanticide, and even child sacrifice the norms. Patriarchy was absolute, giving men license to kill their wives and children. If any society needed cultural change, this was the one.
Enter the early church. She didn’t vie for the levers of power, or form moral interest groups to denounce the world, or start a crusade against the dominant culture. She simply reflected Christ, demonstrating by deed His kingdom and personifying the principles He taught.
Their faithful presence – rooted in love – rocked that world. In the words of Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome: “These impious Galileans (Christians) not only feed their own, but ours also; welcoming them with their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted with cakes… Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. Such practice is common among them, and causes contempt for our gods.”
The Choice
The American church faces a choice. Will she continue to model a Church Regnant, aligning herself with earthly associations that have repeatedly been shown to hijack her identity and change her gospel witness?
Or will she choose to be the Church Remnant, following in the footsteps of the early church who became a counterculture force for cultural change through their faithfulness in reflecting Christ in all things as they showed the world through deed and example what their God was like.
Julian’s dying words in AD 363 were “vicisti Galilaee” (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!). So, do you want to change the world?
Steve, I wanted to let you know Jaimee and I appreciate your recent blog posts. We have been struggling to understand the polarization in the church around politics, and your thoughtful discussion of how Christianity and culture can interact in very different ways (like Christian nationalism and religious commitment) has been helpful to us. Your post reminds me of the way Christ is described in Philippians, the divine king who conquered by humbling himself, even unto death, and the way we are called to the same attitude as citizens of heaven. As you point out, the early Christians didn’t try to seize the throne, and yet they conquered Rome–by following the example of their Lord.
Great to hear from you Dan and I trust things are going well for you and family. Tammy and I have likewise struggled and this blog is in part an attempt to make sense of that while extending grace to those still captive to that tribalism. We used to be there and “but for the grace of God” we would still be there. Thanks for the insight and for the kind words. All the best, Steve