The Future of Politics and the Church
Anti-Christian ideology is growing, but a new generation of young people are our best hope
Most of us think of politics as a horizontal line, left to right. But this doesn’t quite fit. Religion plays a role in politics as well. This leads some to say that religion should be banned from the public square. Yet, secularists advocate for government endorsement of their values.
Perhaps a way to show the interaction between politics and religion is a variation of the horizontal and vertical lines libertarians use. It creates four quadrants, though I label things differently.
On the left side of the horizontal line are secular and pagan values, and on the right are the values of the Abrahamic tradition. At the top of the vertical line is centralized (big) government, and at the bottom is decentralized (small) government.
The four quadrants are:
Centralized, secular/pagan government at the top left. Examples include communism and fascism. The unifying idea is government socially engineering the ideal society.
Decentralized, secular/pagan government is at the bottom left. Libertarianism is a good example. The idea is that social engineering leads to dystopia, so each individual acting in her or his self-interest will create the best society humanity is capable of.
Centralized, religious government is at the top right. This is theocracy and some forms of Christian nationalism.
And at the bottom right is decentralized government with a culture based on biblical values. The United States Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion and no law respecting an establishment of religion is a good example. Biblical values are maintained culturally rather than through government compulsion. But this approach is fragile because biblical values challenge fallen human nature while secular and pagan values indulge our fallen human nature.
And, of course, there are variations between the poles. However, critical theory is ascendant in the West today. Inspired primarily by neo-Marxism and postmodernism, it posits that society—whose values are subjective because there is no objective meaning—consists of multiple privileged and oppressed dichotomies which intersect in complex ways, and which are locked in zero-sum power struggles.
Being “woke” means having a critical consciousness. That is, the woke believe that whiteness oppresses people of color, toxic masculinity oppresses women, and heteronormativity oppresses LGBTQ people. Further, these oppressive power structures must be dismantled. And because Western society is (falsely) said to be inherently and irredeemably white supremacist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, etc., this means dismantling and decolonizing Western society and Christianity.
Critical praxis (theory in action) seeks to construct a new society. In the United States, the long-term goal is to write a new constitution, but this is unlikely to happen soon. The slow march through the institutions continues.
What this new constitution might look like is unclear, but we can hazard a few guesses:
Free speech and religious freedom will be limited. Equality under the law will be reframed as redistribution for equal outcomes (equity). After all, critical race theory is pro-discrimination—but in favor of people of color. Non-discrimination is allegedly racist because it is colorblind.
The new constitution will probably guarantee various socialist programs, and a vast bureaucracy will regulate most aspects of daily life. For profit companies will probably still exist, but they will be heavily regulated, heavily taxed, and will do the government’s bidding such as censoring speech that the new establishment doesn’t like.
In sum, radicalism politicizes everything. It is totalitarian.
Theocracy, too, is totalitarian/authoritarian. Such power would lead to similar levels of corruption and atrocity, but now with Christianity as the agent of evil.
What, then, is the solution? We can’t coerce Christian values. Besides, culture is the underlying issue, and politics follows from that. However, popular culture is increasingly anti-Christian. If a Netflix show has a Christian character, he’s probably a creep. But as individuals, we can affect culture first and by striving to live according to the gospel.
In Matthew chapter five, Jesus tells us that rather than an eye for an eye, we should not resist evildoers but instead turn the other cheek. This verse is often misunderstood as passive acceptance. It is not.
During the civil rights movement, protesters sat at segregated lunch counters. But despite verbal and physical abuse, they did not seek revenge. They maintained their demeanor—and they refused to leave.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was inspired in part by Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Jesus didn’t fight those who arrested Him—He told Peter to put his sword away. Jesus didn’t even respond to those who abused Him. But He also refused to back down. In the process, He conquered death itself.
We can emulate Christ’s peaceful but firm resistance and pray that the West turns away from radicalism. We mustn’t lose faith—things could turn around. A new generation of young people with a perspective from inside rather than outside postmodern culture may develop insights for effective resistance.
Even if the Church shrinks to a countercultural remnant, we can stand against these cultural currents. This is especially important within the Church where radical thinking sometimes appears. We mustn’t forget that radicalism, being influenced in part by atheistic Marxism, is anti-Christian.
We should be a counter culture remnant.
Really don’t understand your four-quadrant framework. Take Francoist Spain: semi-fascist, “centralized,” but also heavily invested in National Catholicism.