One of my personal beliefs about the interaction of faith and life is that Christians should generally feel more strongly about politics broadly – or if you prefer, the political system as a whole – than any specific issue, candidate, or party.

I can far more confidently posit that many people, Christian or otherwise, idolize politics in some fashion. It is all too easy to find an American citizen who is consumed with some all-important political topic of the day, such as an election, a bill, or a politician. Often, these are situations which have little bearing on them – primaries for a political party they don’t identify with, or bills in state legislatures across the country. This is just one symptom of how idolization leads to stratification, and in turn a toxic simplification.

My argument is not that these issues are not important; in contrast, I think many of these issues are quite important. Rather, my argument is that as Christians, we are called first to put these issues at their proper level of importance – somewhere beneath our faith and our God – and second, to give them the time and effort they are due. As a governing principle, anyone you may be arguing with is a person and is due the same respect as any other, regardless of their beliefs, affiliations, or identity; a failure to recognize that basic fact is a failure to honor an image of God. Controlling our emotions to discuss contentious topics in good faith takes effort, but it is effort that bears fruit – I highly doubt anyone has been converted by a picket line before.

Beyond that, when we simplify such complex issues, I consider it both a disservice to the issue itself and a disservice to the society it affects – I’d go so far as to say much of our political structure is constantly producing iniquity simply on account of how debates are framed to drive as many people as possible toward one of two extremes, reducing the possibility of nuance, middle ground, or even the discussion that maybe there’s another axis.

I’m going to go over some examples I’m familiar with as an American. These examples were chosen intentionally because they’re contentious, and I hope to be provocative of introspection – my goal is to point out some potential sacred cows to invite the work of taking down your own idols. I’ll also do my best to keep my own politics out of the discussion, and I have chosen my words carefully to note that certain views are typical of groups, not universal.

Examples

Abortion

Meet Alice, a fictional individual whose name is a standin I borrowed from the field of computer science. Alice holds the mainline Republican view on abortion, namely that it is a violation of a human life, and she wants to protect that life even while the unborn person cannot defend themself. After all, her niece was adopted from a mother who wanted to abort, and Alice couldn’t imagine life without her. She is, however, a little wary of some Republican politicians who have voiced support for banning abortions without exception, or even criminalizing getting an abortion and implementing heavy-handed policies to investigate miscarriages or suspicious health conditions as potential abortions or attempts.

Meet Bob, also a fictional individual, whose name comes from the same convention. He holds the typical Democratic view that abortion is a medical procedure, and a woman’s right to privacy and self-determination means that the decision to have an abortion should be between her and her doctor. While he agrees with most politicians of his party that a restriction on abortion access is government overreach and a violation of women’s rights, he gets a little uncomfortable when someone describes abortion access as a human right when access to any healthcare in America is already tenuous for many individuals. In any case, he’s particularly sympathetic to this cause because he recalls his sister’s struggle when she became pregnant while trying to leave an abusive relationship.

Alice and Bob are fairly representative individuals of their party; while there are some in their respective parties who would disagree with them – and even some who would agree with the other party – a large bulk of their political organization would hold views similar to the ones being presented here. However, they’ll likely never see each other as anything more than exactly that – Alice will view Bob as a Democrat pro-choice voter, and Bob will typically view Alice as a pro-life Republican. They are confident in these assessments because they are confident that their arguments are sound and rational – and they’re both right.

If Alice and Bob were to sit down and talk out the discussion, seeking to find common ground, there’s a pretty good chance they’ll circle around to one sticking point: Alice believes the unborn fetus is a person with rights to life and due process, while Bob believes personhood does not apply until later in the pregnancy, or perhaps only at birth. From this disagreement, their stances follow logically – Alice believes a person has rights to life and due process which are being neglected, while Bob believes the only person whose rights are involved is the pregnant woman.

Whether a fetus is a person or not is a debate in and of itself which falls outside the scope of this post; my point here is that the slogans screamed by protesters, politicians, and social media power-users are missing the core of the argument. While quips and chants make for good marketing material to stir up a base or rally a crowd, they do little to further the discussion or find common ground, and as a result the actual disagreement is never addressed. This leads to confusion and frustration, opening a wound which festers into resentment until it scars over as a vitriolic and closed-minded stance, self-assured in its correctness and unsympathetic to anyone who disagrees or can’t get with the program.

Gun Control

I’ve reached the limits of the naming convention mentioned previously, so here I’ll continue down the alphabet and introduce Cameron. Cameron – Cam to his friends – always got along fine without guns, and was determined to stay away from them when he heard about a school shooting near his hometown. He views guns as dangerous, and even destructive, and votes Democrat in the hopes they’ll be able to enact common sense gun control, though he’s not entirely sold on their plans to buy or take guns from those who already have them.

Diane lives on the outskirts of a major city, just far enough away to own a few acres of land and some livestock. She grew up in a farming community and respected the simple, honest work that put food on tables in the most literal sense. She’s used a rifle to fend off coyotes for years, but she decided to buy a handgun to take with her into the city after a close friend was mugged. She hears politicians on the left refer to her rifle as an “assault rifle” simply because it’s practical and ergonomic, and wonders how she’d keep herself or her livestock safe if their policies were passed and made her firearms illegal or limited their effectiveness. Besides, it’s the cities with gun bans where gun violence is a problem, and she’d never hurt anyone except in self defense, so why should she have to give up her guns?

Again, if you read over these arguments, you see nobody is on the same page. Cam is trying to prevent violence which is an ugly reality of our fallen world, while Diane is simply trying to protect herself from much of the same fallenness. There should be room for trying to navigate both of these goals together, or at least weighing them against one another where they truly do conflict. However, the discussion almost always ascribes all the hope and pain of either side to an inanimate object, doing away with any nuance, context, or even agency of the person using it.

Were we to open the floor to more broad discussion, we may be able to find common goals to work toward. Guns are tools used for good and evil. Where are they used for good, and how can those uses be protected? Where are they used for evil, how can those uses be prevented, and why are they used for evil?

This last question in particular is a rabbit hole of societal problems concerning mental health, socioeconomic opportunity, stratification, and to some extent confronting some of the uglier facts about American history. Resolving these problems to create a better society for everyone should be common goals, and yet they get lost in the rhetoric.

An exercise for the reader: Consider the same question in regards to abortion. Why do women seek abortions? Are there similar society-wide problems that could be seen as mutual goals to resolve?

The Pattern

A debate pops up that people are passionate about. Talking points are formed that rally the in-group on either side, and are then wielded against the out-group. Before long, the rhetoric has become more about identifying camps than actually resolving a problem. Division leads to assumptions, which in turn leads to a breakdown in communication.

Underlying this is a common series of social and economic causes which go unresolved, and even worsen under our watch. This is a failure of our society, and make no mistake: this is a failure of the Church. The Church is called to be a place of refuge and support, giving charity to the oppressed and turning upside down the unjust structures of our society. Scripture is littered with such calls, as well as expressions of God’s grief and wrath as Israel’s leaders allow and even practice iniquity.

Looking at the modern implications, we see one of the easiest cases against idolization. There is no more surefire way to inspire doubt, fear, and unrighteous anger in yourself than to follow something so vitriolic and volatile as politics too closely. Any part of our lives built on election cycles and platforms will be shaken and destroyed as popularity shifts, scandals occur, and elections are lost. Building hope or joy on politics is akin to anchoring yourself to a kite, or building a house on an active fault line.

The Scripture

First point: We are called to understand people, and to sympathize with them. Consider the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 ESV

This is as clear a calling to identify with the “other” as can be said. As a practice, try substituting some of the categories we discussed today – have you sympathized with Republican and Democratic viewpoints? Have you understood why someone might be driven to make an extreme decision, and worked to relieve that burden? Just as Paul sympathizes and identifies with both Jew and gentile, have you worked to understand and relate to people with different spiritual beliefs in your life?

We are called to make disciples of all nations. If there are standards or requirements imposed on who we associate with, then we are imposing unbiblical prerequisites on our evangelism.

Second point: We are called to serve those in need. Note the full stop. Consider the parable of the good Samaritan, which I encourage you to not just read, but try to understand the principles of.

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

Luke 10: 24-37 ESV

Here, we see a religious scholar ask who God calls him to care for (the Greek word is the verb for agape, which is charitable and unconditional love). Jesus answers with the parable, in which he highlights how the very in-groups the scholar identifies with – a religious authority and a member of the chosen people – have grown calloused. Rather, the protagonist and moral example of the story is the heretic, the half-breed whose group is so other and despicable that the scholar cannot even bear to say their name.

The Samaritans, in case it wasn’t clear, were not viewed warmly among the ancient Jews. Both ascribed to follow the God of Abraham, but with differences with regards to the place of worship – this comes up again with the woman at the well (see John 4:4-30). To paint the Samaritan as a positive role model and follow with “Go and do likewise” was scandalous. So yes, the charity of the good Samaritan should be admired, but to really understand the meaning of this parable, we need to steep it in scandal.

Again, I’ll encourage the practice of “reframing” it with more modern terminology. If the name McCarthy is familiar to you, imagine that he’s told to follow the moral example of a communist. More contemporarily, consider Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being told to follow the example of the good Trump voter. If those terms are not familiar or sufficiently jarring, use your imagination; who would offend you to see in the role of a moral example? Have you treated them as your neighbor?

Conclusion

Dr. Timothy Keller has said in numerous sermons that the human heart is built to worship something, and where things go wrong is when that worship is placed in something other than God. Both historically and today, the structures of earthly power and authority have been common subjects of this misplaced worship, often to zealous and detrimental effect. In America, the Church is now seen as a political voting block and vocal presence on picket lines; this runs in direct contrast to Jesus’ confirmation that we should be known first for our unconditional love of God, and second for our unconditional love of other people. How can we change this? What can you change in your own life to better love every type of neighbor?

A Post Script for Secular Discussion

I think that many points of wisdom derived from the Bible can be defended using only secular reasoning. The point I led with – disillusionment with our current political system – is one of them. If a political monopoly is a freefall to the pits of greed and brokenness, a duopoly is a race. I don’t blame either party for being bad, but let’s get real for a moment – as I write this, the three most likely presidential candidates for the 2024 election have platforms which consist of “I’m not one of them”, “I’m not one of them”, and “I’m not one of them”. Whether the all-consuming “them” is Republicans, establishment politicians, or the morally scandalous, nobody’s trying to convince you they’re good – just that they’re better than the other guy.

This is a structural issue with “winner takes all” voting. If anyone’s ever told you a vote for the third party is a vote for the other party, they’re kind of right; two similar candidates will split a shared voter base, allowing a third candidate to win with less than half the votes. This is called the spoiler effect and has been explained in great length and better media, so I’ll simply refer you to my recommendations on YouTube: Primer’s Simulating alternate voting systems and CGP Grey’s Minority Rule: First Past the Post Voting