Republicanism ≠ Christianity: Ending the Conflation of Christ’s Church with Political Party Affiliation

Christianity is not Republicanism. Republicanism is not Christianity. The two are not synonymous nor interchangeable: a person does not have to be one in order to be the other. Yet, that is largely the picture that is presented and believed both in and outside of the American Church today. This issue spans across the Catholic-Protestant divide but I think most specifically is present in the Protestant Evangelical Church. This problem needs to be called-out and needs correction.

Notice, I did not say that this idea is taught, written, or explicitly stated anywhere (although I know it is in some places), but I have observed that it is believed. Beliefs, even deeply held ones, can be fostered in the individual heart of a person and the collective heart of a people without ever being formally taught; sometimes these things are simply observed, felt, or understood without the influence of any explicit statement.

Christianity is also not synonymous with the Democratic Party, nor any other political party, nor being an American, nor patriotism, nor democracy itself. For too long, Christianity in America has been somehow confused with some element of being an American. In recent years in the U.S., the conflation between Christianity and the Republican Party has grown strong. This supposed synonymity between the two needs to end. Here are some reasons why:

Problem # 1: Political parties and Christianity are fundamentally different, so Christians cannot hope or expect a political party to have an agenda synonymous with the kingdom of God.

Christianity and Republicanism do not share the same basic tenets and we should not expect them to. Christianity is centered on the person of Jesus Christ; the prophecies He fulfilled and His miraculous life that evidence His legitimacy as the Messiah; His death and resurrection; His will, purposes, and kingdom being brought about in the earth; and His sacrifice being God’s chosen and divine method of atonement and salvation for humanity.

Republicanism is not centered on those same things, so its pursuits will inevitably be different. It is a human-made political institution concerned with earthly governance. It, like any other political party or institution, for any and all good it might do, is still totally susceptible to the agenda of mankind and its propensity toward corruption, greed, sin, and brokenness. This is not to say that Christianity is unsusceptible to many of these same problems, nor is any political party all bad. Neither of those statements would be true. However, the origin of Christianity is rooted in Christ—the origin of the Republican Party is not.

If you looked at the social media posts and Facebook feeds of many American Christians, you might find yourself hard-pressed to find any kind of distinguishing line between which of these two is of greater importance to them: political party affiliation or allegiance to Christ. The implication is not that there is no crossover between faith/religion and politics, nor that total separation between them should be expected or even desired. I would argue that the two being totally separable is humanly impossible; i.e., that any system of belief, whether it is oriented around God or not, can be wholly separated practically and psychologically from one’s political views and voting choices—and, again, I don’t think it should be. The expectation of that idea from both the secular and religious side is an unrealistic one, and one that is often aggressively biased in each’s inability to see its own fiery agenda in expecting the other side to be devoid of what makes the other different and unique.

The high-level notion of the separation of church and state is likely healthy for both sides. In addition to this issue being specifically mentioned in the First Amendment, centuries of European history show us how both the state and the church can be manipulated and harmed by the other. However, that distinction does not necessarily equate to personal voting choices and party affiliation being devoid of beliefs, whether those beliefs are theistic or atheistic. For Christians, the idea of “kingdom culture” being infused in all that we do is critically important. Challenging the notion of the sacred-secular divide, or as Emile Durkheim and later Mircea Eliade referred to it, The Sacred and the Profane, I think plays a major role in the overall teaching of Jesus. Godly influence in government is deeply important and needed. But Christians cannot expect governmental law to serve as a substitute for encounter with God and relationship with Him, which brings us to the next point:

Problem # 2: When Christianity and political party affiliation become so strongly intertwined, there is often an unexamined expectation that the legislation of morality can catalyze the needed change in the human heart that only the grace and kindness of God can bring about (see Romans 2:4).

Human law is necessary for society to have regulation, structure, and order and, as mentioned before, what people vote for inevitably will and should reflect their personal values. Many times, though, I have observed fellow Christians live with the expectation of societal adherence to a godly standard by people who have no relationship with God—by people who have not encountered, acknowledged, or believed in Him yet. The point isn’t that godly standards are to be abandoned or ignored or that people apart from them are incapable of good (see Romans 2:14), but the fulfillment of those standards in totality is only fathomable and achievable through the empowerment of God Himself and the work of Christ. A key part of this discussion inevitably becomes the argument between moral relativism and absolute truth, which is in desperate need of more discussion, but a subject that, for the sake of present argument and brevity, needs to be examined at a later time.

Put another way, there is an expectation of outward change to be brought about in the lives of people, through mandate by human government, without the necessary and precursory work of the indwelling Holy Spirit which spurs inward change first, then results in outward change. This is part of what the Apostle Paul referred to in Romans 12:2 as the renewal process of the mind which brings about transformation (Holy Bible: English Standard Version).

Both in and outside of politics, what is so counterintuitive about this expectation is this notion: if God, a perfect being, uses kindness and love as His method of wooing broken and sinful hearts into repentance, wholeness, and relationship with Him, then why would we, as imperfect beings, attempt to use anything else—including, worst of all, hate—to try and bring about the same result? We see the worst examples of this sad and illogical reality displayed on posters, written in online rants, and heard in angry shouts by parts of the Church.

Why is this the case? Plainly, I think the reason is fear: fear of the seemingly ever diverging agendas of the modern American Church and secular society, the latter of which seems to be entering more and more into a post-Christian era. What the consequences of that divergence will be may be the single biggest contributing factor in the recent strengthening of the entanglement between Republicanism and Christianity. More on that in the conclusion.

Problem # 3: Christians are the hands and feet of Jesus, not the government. Christians miss a major part of their purpose when they rely too heavily on the government to meet the needs of people.

In strong connection to problem number one, I think the American Church has become somewhat lazy regarding servitude: more explicitly, the reality that Jesus requires His people to be His hands and feet to the lost. It seems governmental intervention has allowed American Christians to become complacent, to a degree, in meeting the needs of hurting people (and that does not just mean throwing money at problems). For that issue to change, Christians have to be willing to roll-up their sleeves, get their hands dirty, and serve the needs of their communities in such a way that the Church takes a major part of the weight off of the government’s shoulders in caring for the well-being of needy people.

If Republicanism really wants the small(er) government that it claims to long for, is the Church ready and willing to step in and fill the need where government program has provided? If the conflation of Republicanism and Christianity is brought to an end, are we, as Christians, ready to embrace that consequence? This is what James had to say about the matter in the New Testament: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27, ESV). That is not a suggestion, but a powerful definition and requirement of what life is to look like for Christians in terms of servitude. The implication is not that the Christian Church currently is doing nothing, but that there is much more in need of being done.

At the heart of this issue lies the ever-present issue of identity and how it is shaped, which brings us to problem number four:

Problem # 4: For Christians, faith needs to inform political views, not the other way around.

Anything that we, as people, identify with naturally constitutes part of our identity. When political party affiliation, though, has primacy in relationship to the believer’s identity in Christ, that is when problems occur. Identity in Christ must always supersede political party identification. It has to serve as the trump card (no current presidential pun intended) in what gets to inform Christians, first and foremost, about about who we are, the value that people have, the decisions we make, and the way we conduct ourselves. There are times, flat-out, when voting, thinking, and acting in light of one’s political party affiliation, be it the the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or anything else, can be totally contrary to the kind of life and example to which Christ called His people. The Christian confession is that Jesus is Lord, not a political party, nor a flag, nor the ground in which the flag is planted.

Let me pause for a moment to clarify something important in all of this: the point is not that a political party cannot reflect biblical values in one area or another. It also does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with love of country, patriotism, and democracy. I am deeply grateful for the men and women who have served, fought, and died to protect the very freedom that allows me to express these words upon this digital page—that is an important and necessary disclaimer. I have many friends and family members who have served or are currently serving in the armed forces of the United States. I am not unaware of the cost to protect my freedoms and yours, nor do I take it for granted. The point is simply that what Republicanism (and being American, for that matter) and Christianity stand for are not the same, and they can’t be construed as such without grievous consequences.

If you’re reading this and you still feel that the democracy we collectively hold so dear has been spat upon, remember these words of Jesus in John 18:36: “‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from this world’” (ESV).

God’s governance is that of a kingdom; His reign, that of a king. Democracy isn’t now and won’t ever be God. It’s time we stop treating it as such.

Problem # 5: When we confuse Christianity and Republicanism, we run great risk of misrepresenting the character and heart of God (especially to people who don’t know Him) by ascribing to Him qualities that are far from His nature or what He condones.

This is the big one, and the one that I feel is currently most important to correct. When Trump bragged about grabbing women by their genitals, or is consistently quick to anger, vulgar, overtly greed-filled, and lacking kindness in action towards those with whom he does not agree, I want all of my non-Republican friends to know, those actions don’t represent the heart of Christ, nor is that kind of behavior condoned by God—even if, yes, God can still sovereignly use a sinful person to accomplish His purposes. That is accomplishable, truly, by God alone. (And for those reading this who don’t know where they stand with God, I know that idea seems mystifying at best and plain stupid at worst from the human perspective. That is something we can dig into more at another time.) However, that does not mean that God endorses what Trump does or doesn’t do. Moral reprehensibility is redeemable, but it isn’t defensible.

That is the great tragedy that I have witnessed under the current presidential administration and one of the great risks we run when allowing political identity, again, to rank prime in relationship to identity in Christ: we find people, callously and flippantly, condoning, dismissing, and even embracing truly indefensible behavior, like Trump having sex with a porn star while his wife, Melania, was pregnant, paying off the woman, and later denying it once the situation came to light. That behavior is indefensible. It’s time Christians and specifically Christian Republicans start getting real and honest about that.

I know plenty of Democrats and people of other political party affiliation who have great difficulty even considering Christianity as a “spiritual option” and further pursuing its possible truth because of the interchangeable nature it seems to have taken on with the Republican Party. Both the media and the Church have perpetuated that falsehood. Think about that for a moment—if you’re a Christian, that should grieve you: the idea that the reality of God and searching for Him isn’t even considered because of what His existence has become associated with. That is hard to write and harder to swallow, but it’s true. That truly is a tragedy.

Conclusion

So, what are Christians to do with this problem? First, we can start by calling a spade a spade. We do no justice to the image of God and its representation to people when we defend immoral behavior by Republicans because we have erroneously deemed the Republican Party to be the contemporary banner of American Christianity. If we can fight for the lives of unborn children, we must also call sexual assault wrong. If someone spots an instance of hypocrisy in the conflation of Christianity with the Republican Party, embrace that criticism with any truth that is present. Call immoral behavior immoral. Don’t ignore it because it is easier and more convenient than drawing a dividing line between American politics and the Christian faith.

Secondly, as a wise friend reviewing this piece reminded me recently, if one of the goals with this article really is to bridge a gap of understanding between believers and non-believers, Christians and non-Christians, the spiritually aware and the unconvinced, we need to not only correct what Christianity is not about in light of American politics, but more importantly make known what Christianity stands for, and not just in word but in action. There always seems to be more need of that.

We can start that process by praying for our nation’s leaders, regardless of party affiliation. That is something that, despite multiple instances of biblical instruction, Christians often seem to wrestle with when someone from an opposing political party holds governmental office. We see Jesus give a beautiful example of simultaneously honoring God and human authority in Mark 12:17 when He is asked about whether it is “lawful” to pay taxes. He clearly shows that honoring God and people is not mutually exclusive: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (ESV).

In regard to fear being a major motivating factor in the entanglement of contemporary American Christianity and the Republican Party, for Christian Republicans, the questions in this line of reasoning seem to be, “What would happen to Christianity in America were Republicanism to not preserve it? What about the lives of unborn children? What about freedom of religion?” The latter two questions are important: human issues need to be fought for across partisan lines—which also includes issues often raised by the Democratic Party—and all people should be able to worship freely as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares (conversely, it also states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” [U.S. Constitution, amend. 1, sec. 1.]). Those things are worth fighting for. However, in response to the first question, with any potential there is for some good part of Christianity and what it stands for to be preserved under so-called political protection, there is equally high potential for the image of what Christianity most importantly represents to be tainted—Jesus Christ Himself. The heart and face of Christianity in the U.S. needs to be brought back to its foundation in Christ and wrested from any kind of political grip.

A major part of the image of God is at stake in conflating Christianity and any political party or agenda. We can present a road block or a road map to encounter with God with how we, as Christians, represent Him. Please recognize, it is extraordinarily difficult for people to separate the represented thing from its representation. Remember who is God and what is not. Represent Him well.

References:

Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane; the Nature of Religion. Translated from the French by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1959.

Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Study Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2011.

U.S. Constitution, amend. 1, sec. 1.