Polarizing Politics Amidst a Unifying Faith

Our political climate is becoming all the more complex to navigate as Christians, especially considering that political affiliation is often another primary identity marker. While we may claim that Christian identity is primary, we often do not consider how the political assumptions we take for granted greatly influence our faith; or worse, are taken for the faith uncritically. To make matters more complicated, our social standing and peer acceptance, hang in the balance of our performative political ideology. In the midst of a technologically connected world, there is a palpable sense of pressure to voice our stances regarding political movements, organizations, and events to those around us, as quickly and loudly as possible. So what does it mean to be a Christian in the midst of such a fragile, polarized, and conflicting political landscape? How can we be both politically responsible while our primary responsibility is to follow in the ways of Christ? 

We are constantly surrounded by punchy news headlines and consumable media that compete for our attention. If the headlines are not seeking our agreement, they are baiting our outrage. Socio-political pressure pushes us to draw harsh lines and come to simple answers. Often, our inclinations point us to reduce complex issues to overly simplified and reductionistic frameworks because it is often all that is on the menu. Political discourse values certainty over wisdom. 

What if meaningful engagement with complex political ideas requires holding them in tension with other ideas, seeking nuance, and perhaps a preference for faith rather than certainty? As Christians, we ought to know how to be cautious when a political ideology offers simple answers to complex and profound questions of human dignity and flourishing. If Christians are to resist the temptation of reductionistic thinking, we ought to look no further than Jesus as our model for engaging with difficult and contentious topics; He does not disappoint. Ironically, Jesus is always disappointing people who had political agendas with overtly limited and short-term goals.

In various instances throughout the Bible, we see Jesus being pressured into adopting, upholding, or critiquing contemporary political structures. Jesus is questioned regarding Sabbath-related laws, wealth, purity, and the socially outcast company He kept. However, to these vexing questions, Jesus rarely gives us a straightforward response or one of brevity that could fit in a news headline. More often, his answers are rephrased as questions, calling the interlocutor to examine themselves and their motivation for questioning Jesus. If we bring this type of inquisitive examination to our contemporary lives, we can construct a political framework that is cautious about its own correctness and open to dialogue. 

John 8 provides us with a striking example of Jesus prioritizing nuance and neighborly love, over the rigidity of the law. A woman, accused of adultery, is brought before Jesus by the Pharisees. They attempt to set Jesus up, by stating that, according to the Law of Moses, this woman ought to be stoned. “Using this question as a trap” they ask Jesus for His response (John 8:6). They continued to question Jesus until he stated, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). Those who heard, were now faced with the realization of their own sin, leaving one by one, until Jesus is left with the woman. “‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’  ‘No one, sir,’ she said. ‘Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin’” (John 8:10-11). To the bystanders, this woman’s public sin was pushed to the forefront, blinding them to their own (possibly more private) sins and giving them a false sense of righteousness. Yet, Jesus chooses the way of nuance and mercy while simultaneously refusing a simplistic application of the law. He does not go by way of affirming moral indifference or self-righteous condemnation. This interaction is not an isolated occurrence; rather, it reveals a broader line throughout Jesus’ ministry. Instead of resolving individual disputes, Jesus calls us to reframe them in the infinite purview of the kingdom of God.

Ultimately, Jesus calls us to reframe our politics, stating that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world but still affirming our responsibility to engage tacitly with the political confines we have been given (John 18:33-6 & Matt. 5-7, 22:15-22). Examining what Jesus says about the kingdom of God, it is evident that He is describing an upside-down kingdom, where the poor, powerless, and the marginalized, are lifted up above those with traditional worldly standing (Matt. 19-20). In the Beatitudes, the poor in spirit, meek, and the peacemakers are called blessed by Jesus (Matt. 5:1-12). This type of kingdom is often at odds with our understanding of what governing structures should look like. Yet, we were never assured that the kingdom of God would make for well-received politics. In fact, we have been told to expect the opposite (Luke 22:25-26, John 18:36). The kingdom of God pushes us not to look at our political commitments based on their effectiveness for our own comfort. Rather, we are challenged to evaluate whether our political commitments reflect the teachings of Christ, in our duty to care for the least of these (Isaiah 1:17, Zechariah 7:10, Psalm 82:3).

If Jesus lived during this time of our contemporary culture, it is not hyperbole that many of His teachings and parables would be reduced to divisive news headlines. After all, it was the same for the Jews at Jesus’ time. His teachings were a shock to His contemporaries, not because they could be taken at face value, but because they required wisdom and the difficult task of examining one’s own desires and motivations to understand their meaning. This same task still remains for us, not only within Jesus’ teachings, but also within our own political involvement, allowing the kingdom of God to shape our engagement. 

It could be said that Jesus is giving us an ideal image of what living together looks like, and that this structure is only meant to be realized in heaven. However, we are called to pray for and actualize this type of structure now in our world, in the Lord’s prayer by saying “On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-13). Thus, our political stance should ultimately be reflective of the upside-down kingdom of God. Where questions are more valuable than answers, and the poor and powerless are elevated. 

Our conclusion should not mean that Christians should withdraw from political engagement or that nuance weakens conviction. But rather, Christian political engagement should be shaped first and foremost by the teachings of Christ. The Gospel urges us to love God and our neighbor above all else. This is especially relevant to the difficulty and polarization we often experience when faced with a Christian who has differing political views. Nonetheless, Jesus broke bread with those whom he disagreed with and those who were socially outcast. We can practice this same type of inclusion by affirming that we are Christians first, before any other affiliation, whether it be Armenian, political, or otherwise. In doing so, humility can precede certainty and self-examination precede judgment. Ultimately, our politics should more closely reflect the kingdom of God, prioritizing unity, and trying to learn together as Christians, how to shape our world. In a contemporary culture that rewards division, outrage, and reductionism, Christians have the opportunity to present a different way of engagement. By loving neighbors and actualizing the kingdom of God here on earth, we can be witnesses to a world longing for reconciliation.