Christian Book Review

Faithful Politics: Ten Approaches to Christian Citizenship and Why It Matters
by Miranda Zapor Cruz
Reviewed date: 2024 Nov 9
206 pages
cover art

Faithful Politics gives a framework to understand Christian approaches to political engagement, with a focus on American politics. Cruz starts with a discussion of the concept of dual citizenship: Christians are citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of an earthly state. She then reviews various Scripture passages that shed light on how to engage politically. Then she presents ten approaches that Christians have used to interact with politics and the state. Eight of them are (or can be) faithful expressions of a Christian worldview. However, the other two—Dominionism and Christian Nationalism—Cruz argues are not compatible with a Christian worldview and must be rejected.

A couple of nitpicks: Cruz has picked some poor terms. I don't know if this is her doing, or whether these terms are already in use in the field. But using both separatism and separationism invites confusion. Further, calling one view Historical Baptist Separationism when many Baptists don't subscribe to that view, and many who do hold to it are not Baptist—well, that's confusing. Similarly, labeling two views as Calvinist when, again, many Calvinists follow other models, and many who follow those models aren't Calvinists—confusing.

In the discussion of Dominionism, Cruz spends a lot of time talking about Christian Reconstructionism (which she distinguishes from Dominionism) so it makes me wonder if both Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism should be treated as separate approaches.

And finally, Cruz doesn't do a great job of defining Christian Nationalism. That term is thrown around so much and applied to so many things that it's hard to separate what Cruz is actually talking about—which is clearly unchristian and unbiblical—with the larger category of "Christian Nationalism" which encompasses everything that the left-wing in American politics dislikes about religion. I wonder if she should have picked a different term (maybe Christian Nationalistic Syncretism?) to lessen the confusion.

Political Engagement in the Bible


Cruz takes us through a brief survey of the biblical passages that speak to how we should approach politics and the state. Here are a few of the passages she references:

  • Jeremiah prophesied to the people in exile under Babylon, that they should "seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile"
  • Daniel served Babylonian and Persian kings faithfully, but kept strong boundaries and was willing to break the law in order to obey God.
  • Esther used her influence with the king to change policy for the good of God's people.
  • Paul asserted his rights and privileges as a Roman citizen
  • Peter teaches us to be subject to human governmental authority as a witness to the world and as an act of obedience to God (1 Peter 2:12-17)
  • Jesus taught that there are limits to the loyalty we give to earthly rulers when he said "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and give to God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21.
  • In Romans 13, Paul instructs Christians to obey government authorities, who have been instituted by God to establish justice.
  • By contrast, in Revelation 13 John teaches us to resist an unjust government, even to the point of death.

Three Separatist Approaches
Keeping the Kingdom Out of the Country

Anabaptist Radical Isolation
Arising out of (but not limited to) the anabaptist movement of the 16th century, this approach is a deliberate choice to not participate in civic life: no voting, no holding public office, no serving in the military. Pacifism is a hallmark of this approach. The radical isolation variant of the anabaptist approach is seen in such groups as the Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites. They separate themselves from the broader society to keep the faith pure, and they are largely unconcerned with what goes on in the rest of society.

Anabaptist Prophetic Witness
Also arising out of the anabaptist tradition is the separatist approach as a prophetic witness. There is a level of non-participation in civic life, but this is always done with a view to act as a witness to the culture at large. Some people may vote or even hold public office. Unlike the radical isolationists, those who view their lifestyle as a prophetic witness are more likely to live within the rest of society instead of in isolated communities. They are likely to engage in social good works like sit-ins, outreach to the poor, etc., but not in politics directly and certainly not in partisan politics. Active involvement in politics is not a part of this approach.

Evangelical Strategic Withdrawal
Some Evangelicals withdraw from civic involvement because the wider culture holds unbiblical and unchristian values. This withdrawal is for a different reason than the anabaptists, although some of the results may be the same. E.g., homeschooling instead of public schools. Evangelicals tend to still attempt to influence the government, but this is an intentional opting-out for a specific reason: the culture has become too unchristian. Rod Dreher's Benedict Option falls under this category: he calls for Christians to strategically retreat into intentional communities of believers, because we've lost the culture war and it's no longer possible to be a patriotic, engaged American citizen and be a faithful, Bible-believing Christian. It's a strategic withdrawal, because it's in response to the current culture and current political situation. It's not considered an approach for all situations like the anabaptist separatism.

Two Separationist Approaches
Keeping the Country Out of the Kingdom

Historic Baptist Separationism
This is the "separation of church and state" sort of approach. The state's role is to "safeguard free exercise" of religion and otherwise leave religion alone. From a Christian perspective, then, this means Christians do seek to influence government, but always with a view that such influence should protect and promote the free exercise of religion for all individuals of all denominations, sects, and religions.

Baptist separationism is rooted in the doctrine of "soul competency" or "soul liberty" which rejects the idea that morality can be coerced. Rather, true Christianity can only flourish when individuals have the liberty to choose it of their own free will. In this approach, the government should have no authority or influence over religious worship. Individuals are free to engage in politics and civic life, but must keep in mind that the government has no authority to dictate, establish, encourage, or otherwise privilege one form of religious expression over another. In fact, Christians should resist government encroachment into matters of religion, even when it's in favor of our own religious group.

The main reason for a separation of church and state is that this is the only way to ensure freedom from religious persecution and to encourage the flourishing of true Christianity. It grew out of the Baptist movement because the Baptists were persecuted by the official state churches in Europe.

This view is most prominently displayed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to free exercise of religion and prohibits the establishment of a state church.

Although this approach comes from Baptist roots, it is not limited to Baptists, nor do all Baptists adhere to this approach.

Two Kingdoms Separationism
The Two Kingdoms approach is similar to historic Baptist separationism in that it also sees separate spheres of authority for the church and the state. Unlike Baptist separationism, which focuses mostly on religious liberty, the Two Kingdoms approach has a different theological framework. Martin Luther developed the Two Kingdoms view as a way of understanding God's sovereignty: God established the church to govern over men's souls, and the state to govern over men's bodies. Therefore, the church has the sole authority to rule over morality, worship, and other spiritual matters. The state has the sole authority to establish justice, ensure peace, and punish evildoers. If the church exceeds its authority and attempts to wield the sword of justice, we must resist it. If the state exceeds its authority and attempts to limit the manner of religious worship, we must resist that.

Crucially, here, the Two Kingdoms approach does not see governmental authority as deriving from the consent of the governed, as it is in the American democratic system. Instead, the state's authority comes directly from God. In this sense, Two Kingdoms theology is at odds with the American system of government.

On the other hand, the Two Kingdoms approach plays out practically in much the same way that historic Baptist separationism does. E.g., both approaches allow people to be active in politics and government. Similarly, holders of both views refrain from trying to establish or promote their religious convictions through government policy. However, a historical Baptist separationist will refrain from doing so out of a conviction that such a policy would violate religious liberty, whereas a person holding the Two Kingdoms view would refrain because to do so would mean encroaching on the boundaries of the God-ordained authority of the church. Same result, different theological underpinnings.

The Two Kingdoms approach has not had a large impact on American history, but the related Calvinist Principled Pluralism approach has had more influence.

Social Gospel Approaches
Bringing the Kingdom Into the Country

Social gospel
The social gospel runs with the idea that "being the hands and feet of Christ [entails] bringing about the Kingdom of God through transforming the material world." The idea is that Christians should make this world more like heaven through "personal and social righteousness." This plays out in charity and social work, but also through government policies like workplace safety laws, social welfare programs, and political reforms (like the Civil Rights movement) to achieve social justice. Prominent examples of the social gospel approach are the Civil Rights movement in the United States and liberation theology in Latin America. In the United States, the social gospel approach was based on liberal theology and on a postmillennial eschatology. As such, those who follow a social gospel approach are much less concerned about the supernatural and the miraculous events described in Scripture. The inspiration of Scripture, the historical truth of miracles, and even the literal truth of the resurrection, are de-emphasized and sometimes discarded entirely.

The social gospel approach is also a feature of the evangelical left and of mainline Protestant churches in the USA, and of liberation theology and Mision Integral in Latin America.

Two Calvinist Approaches
Keeping the Country Under the Kingdom

Direct Christian Influence
Not all who hold this view are Calvinist, but its roots do come from John Calvin's teachings. Cruz describes the Direct Christian Influence model as a "politically conservative corollary to the social gospel." Its adherents believe Christianity is "the best foundation for American law and culture, so they believe it is biblical and desirable for Christians to try to legally establish Christian values." The Direct Christian Influence model differs from the Historic Baptist Separationism model in that it believes America was founded as a Christian nation, and that Christianity should continue to be privileged, promoted, and maintained. At the time of the founding of the United States, many of the states had officially established churches, and the Direct Christian Influence model sees that as desirable—in contrast with the Historic Baptist Separationism view that rejects such establishment.

This worldview believes the continued success of America depends on it remaining a Christian nation; failing to remain Christian would mean a cessation of God's blessing on the nation. This is where we get a significant push from Christians to influence government policy on abortion, to uphold biblical family values, to end no-fault divorce, and to return Bible instruction and prayer to the public schools. It's these markings of Christian virtues that make America a Christian nation and ensure God's continued blessings on the nation.

Principled Pluralism
Meanwhile, the related Principled Pluralism sees God's common grace as a foundation for civil government. Instead of trying to establish biblical Christian values into law, the Principled Pluralism seeks to influence government along the lines of natural law, which (being part of God's common grace) will never contradict or go against biblical Christianity. Thus, while the basis of laws are not specifically Christian, they are compatible with it, while also being compatible with many other religions and worldviews. In practice, this shakes out very similarly to the Historic Baptist Separationist model or to the Two Kingdoms model. The Principled Pluralist may talk about various spheres of authority, such as family, church, school, marketplace, and government—and that "government's role is to be an agent of common grace by enforcing justice, but it should not encroach on the church's sphere by demanding particular beliefs or moral convictions from its citizens."

If I can summarize the difference between the Direct Christian Influence view and the Principled Pluralism view, it's that the Direct Christian Influence thinks civil government should be modeled on special revelation (that is, biblical Christian values) whereas the Principled Pluralism thinks civil government should be based on general revelation and common grace.

Dominionist Approaches
Invading the Country to Establish the Kingdom

Dominionism
"Dominionism, also known as the Seven Mountains Mandate or Kingdom Now theology, espouses the idea that Christians need to gain dominion over the spheres of society, including the sphere of government, to establish the Kingdom of God on earth." (p156) Cruz links Dominionism closely with Christian Reconstructionism (which came from RJ Rushdoony) and with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement. It is a distinctly post-millennial worldview. Dominionism finds the American system of government (liberal democracy) to be incompatible with Christian teaching, and seeks to make everyone acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and to establish a government that upholds Christian values and ushers in the new millennial reign of Christ.

Cruz criticizes both Christian Reconstructionism and the New Apostolic Reformation for having shaky theological foundations, poor hermeneutics, and a faulty understanding of authority. Further, she points out that Dominionist views have "provided theological justification for religiously motivated violence and domestic terrorism." (p172)

I'm unconvinced that Cruz has demonstrated that Dominionism is unbiblical. I agree that it's wrong—I am fully convinced that Christian Reconstructionism is based on a complete misreading and misapplication of the Scriptures, that the New Apostolic Reformation is founded on a faulty interpretation of the Bible and a movement-wide tendency to credulity, and I find that any view based on postmillennialism is prone to abuse. But I don't think that Dominionism per se is unbiblical. At least, Cruz didn't present anything that sealed the deal for me. Don't get me wrong—I strenuously oppose Dominionism and intend to work against it. But is it unbiblical? I don't see that Cruz has demonstrated that.

Christian Nationalism
Eroding the Distinction Between Kingdom and Country

Christian Nationalism
And now we get to the Christian nationalism chapter. This is a tough one, because the term Christian nationalism is thrown around so much that it's become essentially meaningless in this current political moment. Many who call themselves Christian nationalists are nothing of the sort, and many who are accused of being Christian nationalists are not. But let's see how Cruz defines the term.

Nationalism is an ideology that defines group membership based on real or perceived shared cultural, historical, or kinship traits. … Christian nationalism regards Christianity as the trait that ought to unite a nation. … Significantly, the "Christianity" in Christian nationalism refers to culture, history, and morality, not necessarily the theological tenets of Christian orthodoxy. Because this version of "Christianity" is malformed and misappropriated, it is not an option for faithful Christian political engagement. Christian nationalism is not a version of Christianity with which we can simply agree to disagree; rather, it is a political ideology that sacrifices core Christian convictions on the altar of power. Christian nationalist ideology is, therefore, not compatible with Christian orthodoxy. (p177-178)

The key point here is that the "Christianity" of Christian nationalism is cultural and historical, not theological. Further, the "nationalism" part of the ideology is exclusionary: the entire ideology is built around defining who is part of the group and who is not; that is, who is a true American and who is not. This is antithetical to the message of the gospel that "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28, NIV2011).

Christian nationalism uses the symbols and trappings of true Christian faith, but adherence to the faith is optional: "The single strongest predictor of Christian nationalism is not orthodox Christian theology or regular church attendance; instead, 'the strongest predictor of Chrsitian nationalism is identifying oneself with political conservatism.'" (p183, quoting Whitehead and Perry, Taking America, p13)

Christian nationalism is a theological error, its fruits are bad, and many of its adherents and proponents are not even committed, church-attending Christians. It is, at its core, an unchristian movement.

Unlike my pushback on Cruz's chapter about Dominionism, here I fully agree with her: the form of Christian nationalism that she has defined certainly exists, and it's a false ideology that no Christian can faithfully embrace.

Archive | Search