The Seemingly Impenetrable Wall Between Two Christianities.
When the news first broke on September 10th that conservative activist Charlie Kirk had been shot, I was shocked, then upset, for many complex reasons. I went to Facebook and posted that, even though I’m a Christian who disagrees heavily with Kirk’s approach, I nevertheless condemned the act, was horrified for our country, and asked that we pray for him.
I was surprised by how surprised I was at many of the reactions I received… from Kirk supporters. I’m a lifelong Evangelical, raised in what most would call a “Fundamentalist” world. For better or worse, I understand why so many American Christians not only passionately support TPUSA and MAGA but lean heavily towards “Christian Nationalism” in most of its guises.
What I eventually came to realize over the coming days, however, is that the reverse is largely untrue. While I feel I understand them, it became clear that many conservative believers, even those who aren’t die hard MAGA, had no apparatus for understanding me. They had no category for someone who claims Christianity but also has strong disagreements with Kirk or those like him. In their world, I had just called myself a square circle. Worse, I had just sided with the enemy.
This confusion evinces a problem I’ve long lamented, and that’s a growing incommensurability between two extremely different American political worldviews. While there are millions like those above who can’t fathom how there are Christians who aren’t at least modest MAGA supporters, there are also millions with an opposite view who cannot remotely understand “Christians” who could support this current administration and the movement behind it. Is it possible we’re approaching a point in our nation where “Right” and “Left” can simply no longer communicate with one another?
It may be true that Americans in general no longer have the common language or foundational assumptions about the world to communicate effectively. But this should not be the case among knowledgeable Christians, given that we all must share critical additional foundational beliefs, including but not limited to God, Jesus, and the Bible. And I perhaps I’m overly confident, but I think I’ve got just enough of a foot in both worlds to at least open a crack in the seemingly impenetrable wall that apparently exists between us.
In the end, I don’t expect I’ll actually convert very many, especially those on the Farthest Right. But this doesn’t have to be the goal. My goal is simply to explain my perspective to those who seem to not understand, but who I’m certain should be able to, even if they will never agree.
If I can understand them, they should be able to understand me too.
The New Defining American Division
The good news about the perspective I’m eager to advance is that I think I can explain it almost entirely without specific reference to, or condemnation of, the individual at the center of the event that inspires it. This will be helpful, because enough has been written to try and explain why many people, including millions of Christians, found Charlie Kirk problematic, and these efforts seem to have only inflamed the polarity.
Perhaps it’s also helpful to note that Kirk is by no means the originator of this position, nor remotely the worst representative of it. Kirk was a saint compared to some today who represent this view much more worrisomely.
Regardless, here’s how I hope to explain our divide in a way that at least informed Christians might understand.
There are two major groups of politically active Christians in America today. I say “major” because there are certainly more than these. In fact, the bulk of believers likely fall somewhere murkily in between these positions. Suffice to say, these extremes are notable as distinct opposites on a spectrum, and they’re both very eager that those in “the middle” join their side. Many American Christians surely must feel they are constantly being pulled in different directions by these rival factions.
The first group is the most notable. They are those for whom A main (if not THE main) duty of Christians in the world is to vehemently condemn all activities in the culture they believe are contrary to God’s holy standards, as well as utilize the power of government as much as is proper to hold people to these standards. (“As is proper” can vary, but we’ll leave that).
For millions of believers- not just today in America but throughout most of history and everywhere- this goal of using government to enforce and maintain “Christian” values in society is simply always taken as given. It’s a presupposition that most assume being “salt and light” (Matt 5) surely amounts to. Most believers can’t imagine questioning this. Many assume God will be upset with us if we’re not pursing this goal.
This is actually very sticky Biblically, but unfortunately, the situation gets worse.
Because of the fact that a defining aspect of much of Christian thinking is a strict US v THEM dichotomy, AND American culture has become so polarized between Right/Left and/or Republican/Democrat, millions of believers have been unable to resist splitting all Americans sharply along these modern political lines.
For tens of millions today, being a Christian and being a political conservative are inextricably intertwined. For some, they’re actually identical, and defending and converting people to Christianity has become virtually the same thing as defending and converting them to conservative politics.
Some may wish to decry this as gross overstatement. But there’s at least one litmus test for making a major point that matters enormously here: If you are a politically active Christian, who do you feel more kinship with: a genuine believer in God and Jesus who votes Democrat, OR an agnostic capitalist who looks down on Christians but hates liberals with a religious passion? Which of these two options would you more likely expect to see speaking at your church?
Further and worse: Are you so supportive of political conservatism that you are willing to dismiss routine lying, cheating, ignoring the Rule of Law, trampling civil rights, oppressing the needy, and/or mingling much too close to pedophilia and other obvious sexual sins so long as it means beating American liberalism into oblivion? Practically speaking, is this actually the most important goal?
This extreme thinking has become so prominent that an extraordinarily silly but widespread binary has emerged: the idea that Republicanism and Conservatism are so identifiable with “God’s truth” they are always clearly justified in whatever they do or say, no matter how scandalous, while the exact opposite is true of “liberals”. Any claim or suggestion by “the Left”, no matter how obviously true or more rational or loving is clearly vile and ignorant because of its undeniably corrupt source, while Republican opposition is always right and holy. After all, Satan only does or says good and true things in order to accomplish ultimate evil, right?
The receipts for this perspective are stacked high at this point. There are millions (many related to the “New Apostolic Reformation” for example) who believe that many Democrats are literal demons, who can justifiably be put to death without trial. More recently, Stephen Miller, the current Deputy Chief of Staff and militant believer, has called the Democratic party a “terrorist organization” and seems to believe people should be silenced and/or prosecuted for simply saying “liberal” things. These and many more silly assertions are offered daily, often in the name of Jesus.
These are extremes, of course, but this is the far end of a pole that has been consistently pulling average American believers towards it since at least the eighties, to the point that it arguably now makes up the largest segment of Christians in the country. As I said before, I understand why. I was raised in this same Manichaeistic world. But there’s another position that I humbly believe you should feel the pull towards more. Especially if you’re a follower of the Jesus of the Bible.
………………………………………………………
The second group of Christians naturally take a markedly different approach. Not only do they not see the Christian/non-Christian divide falling strictly along American party lines, they and we and I don’t agree that it’s the job of Christianity to either condemn all non-believers for failing to follow our standards or use the powers of government to make them do so. Those of us in this group do not believe Christianity imposing ourselves on culture and intwining our religious faith with government was ever part of the Biblical plan. In fact, we mostly believe the opposite.
According to this view, advanced by the Founding Fathers and arguably assumed by the New Testament, so long as people in society don’t violate the “Harm Principle”, which for centuries has undergirded the prohibitive laws of America, they should be free to live and believe as they please, even if that includes doing and believing things Christians don’t like. And Christians, contrary to popular belief, do not possess any Biblical imperative to chastise or condemn them for these choices.
Now, before I go further, it’ll be important to stop and point out that this side of the spectrum- let’s call them the “LOVERS”- has its extremes too, at least so far as people in the first group- we’ll call them the “FIGHTERS”- are concerned.
The “far left” version of the LOVERS perspective is represented heavily by what are usually called “Progressive Christians”, those for whom many among the FIGHTERS have great disdain and often don’t believe are authentic Jesus-followers. This contingent, among other things, is not merely tolerant of the LGBTQ+ community, but is usually “affirming”. For reasons we need not go into here, they don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, or that feminism is a problem, or that many of the plethora of other cultural issues that conservative believers are often royally upset about require “condemnation” at all.
FIGHTER Christians may wish to have long debates about this type of Christianity and its legitimacy, but the reason I bring it up is to point out that the inclusion of such believers in this second group is no detriment to the larger point, if anyone is inclined to think it is. On the perspective I’m advancing, even if you do believe that homosexuality and transgenderism are sins according to Christianity, or that all wives should Biblically submit to their husbands, or that all people should avoid pornography, etc., there’s actually no New Testament directive requiring us to scream our holy disapproval to the masses or use the power of government to force all people to conform. NONE. ZERO.
This perspective applies not only to so-called “moral” values, but to larger ideological choices as well. As a Christian of this sort, it’s entirely acceptable to allow people in the larger society to be Atheists, or Buddhists, or Muslims, and love them and even associate with them freely. And grant them all the same rights we have. Atheists are allowed to form community groups and hold rallies just like anyone else. Buddhists are allowed to run for office and publish works without chastisement. Muslims are just as free to build Mosques in America as Christians are to build churches, so long as they accept our liberal democratic laws, and don’t try to use the force of government to impose any peculiar standards on others. The Constitution still stands in place to stop such overreach for people who are terrified of this.
Of course, those in the FIGHTERS category will have strong critique. The overwhelming gist of this critique will undoubtedly be that the LOVERS are completely watering down what it means to be a Christian, are advocating an unforgiveable softness towards sin, and failing to “stand up boldly” for the Kingdom, which God ostensibly demands of all His followers. If you’re a Christian and not at war with the culture, according to this popular view, you are obviously doing it wrong.
The same critics are also likely to point out that Jesus was no “wimp”. Contrary to postmodern myth, Jesus was not some soft-spoken libertine. He shouted! He insulted! He offended! He flipped tables! Further, there’s a Biblical place for “rebuking them sharply!” (Titus 1:13). It’s right and proper to be angry at sin! It is Jesus-like to harshly condemn those who stray from God! What are we talking about here?!!!
But this is where I have to show my heaviest hand. Because as we move to dependance upon the Bible for support of these perspectives, an objective reading of the Gospels should bring something into very sharp focus, and that’s the fact that both versions of “God’s People” I’ve described- the LOVERS and FIGHTERS- are heavily represented in the New Testament, and one is obviously preferred over the other.
The first group, the FIGHTERS, are very clearly represented by the “Pharisees and Scribes”, arguably the most “conservative” contingent described in the Bible. They are the passionate and God-devoted group who spent most of their time loudly condemning sin, despising and avoiding the different, the sinner, the poor, and the sick, and trying desperately to force people to follow all their rules. They were terrified of God’s judgment if they didn’t do this.
But they have a foil. The representative of the LOVERS position, predictably, is Jesus, who angers the Pharisees enormously as a Rabbi who notably does not do any of these things. He loves the sick and the outcast, is gracious and soft towards sinners, comingles with “traitors”, displays no sign of waging war against the pagan Romans, pronounces blessings upon the struggling and “dirty”, and shows respect towards all those the Pharisees had believed for decades that God expected them to despise.
And indeed, Jesus does use very strong language at times, and even physical force. But notice when and towards whom he uses these. It’s towards the Pharisees and religious leaders, and those who would use God’s name to oppress and mistreat people, and not the common sinner and the different. He speaks softly to these, spends time with them, eats with them, shows them mercy, even defends them against the first group.
In the Matthew 5 passage above about being salt and light, Jesus actually follows with an explanation of how He expects us to do this, and it’s certainly not the tack many current Christians employ. Verse 16 says “…let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven”. Further, in his harshest tirade in the Bible- Matthew 23 against the Pharisees- Jesus goes so far as to say that their approach was “shutting up the Kingdom of heaven” and, far from making converts, were actually creating “children of hell”. (23:13)
The Biblical arguments for the LOVERS perspective from Jesus are many. But don’t stop with Him.
The Apostle Paul makes the point repeatedly, firstly, by stating it outright in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, telling the Corinthian church there is no need to avoid or condemn “the immoral people of this world”, but rather they are to focus on sin inside the church. He writes “For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? But God will judge those outside”.
Elsewhere, he outlines instructions for showing love and patience to non-believers. He exhorts the Colossians, deep in pagan territory, to “…clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, gentleness, humility, and patience,” (Col 3:12) and to also “Walk with wisdom towards outsiders…letting your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt…” (Col 4:5-6).
He later informs Timothy that “…the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all…patient, correcting opponents with gentleness…” (2 Tim 2:24-25).
And in Titus 3:1 he instructs the young preacher to “not slander anyone, but be peaceful, gentle, and showing complete courtesy to everyone”.
Finally, it’s significant that in Titus 1 when he instructs him to “rebuke them sharply”, he’s not talking about pagan non-believers or routine sinners, he’s talking about professing Christians who were embarrassing the church and being…wait for it… racist, an attitude I have not even mentioned, though there is no doubting it’s a major problem among the FIGHTERS group today.
These surely aren’t the only passages that indicate the LOVERS perspective. They and many others seem to clearly confirm a New Testament preference for something far different than what many American Christians today advance in their passionate culture wars. At any rate, It’s clear to me that a strong Biblical case is to be made for the perspective I support that so many Christians seem to be utterly confused by. And even if the FIGHTERS still purport some rebuttal, an even minimally objective believer should at least be able to sympathize with the point. And if that’s all I accomplish, then it’s enough.
Conclusions
I began this article expressing hope that I might be able to at least better explain my position as a non-MAGA-supporting Christian to those who might have trouble understanding it. Prospects of incommensurability between extremely different worldviews being what they are, I’m certain many will still fall well short of sympathy for it, and rebuttal arguments surely still lay handily waiting.
One remaining rebuttal will surely be against my overall assessment itself- namely, that the division I’m suggesting isn’t the significant one I think it is. Or, in more philosophical terms, that I’ve created a false dichotomy. “This divide is silly,” some will say. “Simply calling out sin and expecting our government to enforce Biblical norms is not the same thing as trying to ‘control society’, or worse, ‘Fascism’.”
I’ve avoided using the “F” word, but I know that the discerning will likely see it and want to avoid it by distinction from the big “T” (“Theocracy”). “Most Christians are not advocating for ‘theocracy’,” one might add. “We’re not saying that people shouldn’t have the freedom to be a nonbeliever, or LGBTQ, or practice another religion, we’re just saying that every nation has to pick a value system, and we choose conservative Christianity for ours. If you don’t adhere to that system, it’s fine, you still have rights. But you have to know your place.”
This may sound extremely rational, but what does it entail, really? Doesn’t it entail there are millions of people in America who are not quite as “American” as others? And even if other countries have a similar state-sponsored religion and culture, such that it seems justifiable, isn’t America supposed to be different?
The problems actually go much further. How far does the preference for the “ruling belief system” go? Does it entail that it’s perfectly fine to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, but not quotes from other religions or views? That it’s okay to deny funds to organizations that aren’t “Christian” enough, or are the wrong kind of Christian? (Who gets to police that?) That it’s proper to fire teachers and professors who encourage “liberal” thinking? That media figures and journalists that don’t toe the line can have their voices silenced? That libraries should be emptied of books the reigning ideology doesn’t think its citizens should read? That it’s right to withhold benefits from those with a lifestyle the guardians disapprove of? That it’s illegal to make statements against either the approved sect or the government that polices it? That one will eventually have to take a religious oath in order to hold office, since you can’t be a good American if you don’t affirm a specific ideology?
Many might now will want to say “That’s hyperbole. Our view doesn’t have to come to all that!”
But first, it clearly already is coming to all that. Even if you’re a Christian who doesn’t particularly like these scenarios, there are hundreds of leaders in the country presently, both within our government and our churches, that certainly do, and are fighting to implement them all right now. And millions of followers ready and waiting to vote for them.
Second, if you’re making this argument, then you’ve acknowledged a vital point. Because if your position is that there actually are excesses to right-wing “Christian” governance you don’t agree with, then we’ve just found the common ground we need to communicate better.
One of the great dangers of recent history is the apparent notion among an appalling number of “Christians” that there is no such thing as “too far right”. But hopefully you are joining me in understanding that there definitely is, and we are quickly slouching towards it.
Now all that’s left for you as a thought leader to do is join me in saying something about it before it’s too late.
Actually, I spoke too soon. There’s something else you can do too. Go have dinner with your atheist and Muslim and transgender and “liberal” friends, and sincerely enjoy their company and resolve to put disagreements aside while granting them the same rights and dignity as any other child of God. Jesus would be able to do this. I’m confident it’s what He would be doing. And it’s what made people want to follow Him in the first place. I’m truly assuming that’s what you want too.
