“In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People.”
- Eugene Victor Debs
I realize the title of this article is a bit much. First, it would be impossible to cover the topic of religion and politics in one Substack post. I realize also that the Republican and Democrat parties do not adequately cover the landscape of American politics, which includes the Libertarian Political Party and Independent voters.
God has No Religion or Politics
I hope it is self-evident that “God” cannot be identified with a particular religion or political party.
Even if a person claimed that the correct view of God is the “Christian” one, you would have to take into account that there are more than 45,000 Christian denominations worldwide. So, which kind of “Christian” exactly would God be?
That God could be Republican or Democrat, assumes that “God” is a supreme human-like being who would identify His political positions based upon the American political system. The obvious problem here is that not everyone thinks of “God” as a person or a “He” or an American.
If, according to traditional Christian theology, “God” manages the affairs of the world, how would God apply His American politics to the other 194 countries in the world with different political systems? I’m pretty sure that American Imperialism hasn’t quite worked. I previously wrote about the dangers of Christian Nationalism.
But don’t tell Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, any of this. In an interview with Sean Hannity he revealed the roots of his political commitments: “I am a Bible-believing Christian,” he said. “Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview. That’s what I believe.” The absurdity of Johnson’s statement is that there is one unified and correct interpretation of the Bible. I covered this in my article, Which Bible Should We Read?
The part I can’t wrap my head around is how people of presumably high intellect could think this way. There’s no way Mike Johnson learned this at LSU, where he earned his BS and JD. How could a Doctor of Jurisprudence actually believe that his biased interpretation of a religious book that predates modern science and political theory, could be the basis of his political positions or view of the world?
Despite being a University of Tennessee fan, I have nothing personal against Mike Johnson. But as the Speaker of the House of Representatives it seems fairly reasonable for him to uphold the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. But instead, Johnson has called for a “biblically sanctioned government.” The people who say this sort of thing actually believe that Almighty God is on their side. As the Crusades and the Holocaust taught us, this can be a dangerous and deadly idea.
It should be pointed out that party identification among religious and non-religious voters dots the political landscape. There are Christians in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The same could be said of Atheists and Agnostics. Generally, evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics tend to support the Republican Party whereas more liberal Protestants, Catholics and secular voters tend to support the Democratic Party.
Which party is more “Christian” - Republican or Democrat? The answer to this question depends upon several factors, including what is meant by “Christian” and what period in history we are referencing. For at least a generation, the GOP has been defined by its ideological conservatism, while the Democratic party has become more liberal and less religious.
While I’m on a roll pointing out the obvious, most people’s political views don’t fit fully into either political party. For example, a person can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, sometimes referred to as Classical Liberalism. A person can also be a Republican and oppose Donald Trump.
I leave it to to give proper historical context to American political life, my expertise and point in this article is related specifically to religion and politics.
The Bible is Not a Political Blueprint
The above picture is worrisome. The politics of scared texts is a minefield. There are all kinds of ways that mixing religion and politics is disastrous, hence the separation of church and state.
On an individual level, one’s religion and politics are often intertwined. This can be true in constructive ways such as Martin Luther King, Jr. or destructive ways such as David Duke. A person’s religious faith or non-religious spirituality can inspire constructive and courageous political action and civic engagement.
Insert Civics and Politics 101 lesson
At risk of sounding like a high school civics class, it can occasionally be useful to step back and remember that political and civic commitment doesn’t have to devolve into hatred, violence and megalomania.
This concludes the Civics and Politics 101 lesson.
That the Bible cannot be used to formulate a coherent plan for political governance also seems self-evident. That would be like trying to base your personal financial planning on the writings in the Bhagavad Gita. Not only was the Bible not intended to present a cogent view of God, it certainly was not aiming to offer proper positions for a political party platform.
That’s not to say that one couldn’t find universal principles, values, ethics or wisdom found in sacred texts that could be applied in politics and personal finances, but that these cannot be used to ratify the right religion or political party with divine authority.
The Bible can and has been used to serve any political ends. If you wanted to, you could use the Bible to argue any number of different political philosophies, including: theocracy, socialism, limited government, democracy and anarchy. The tradition of mining the Bible for political lessons goes back at least to the 17th century with philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).
I don’t mean to imply that the Bible, either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, doesn’t offer useful insights that could relate to modern political philosophy and theory. Indian political thought is partly influenced by the Vedas.
The conference The Political Power of Sacred Texts, held at the American Academy in Rome, brought together eminent scholars from Biblical, Qur’anic, Hindu, and Chinese studies to discuss the political influence and use of sacred texts through history and up to the present. The conference emphasized the need for deep analysis to understand the role of religions in politics.
The description of the conference is worth mentioning:
“Sacred texts, catalyzed through extremely different hermeneutical approaches, have had great political influence in both Eastern and Western cultures. This conference explores the interaction between canonical texts and the array of hermeneutical modes – from fundamentalism to contemporary philosophy – through which they are culturally activated. Do sacred texts and their specific normative content actually have political influence? Or are they just objects of use or abuse by players whose ideologies are informed by motivations independent of the sacred texts they advocate? What cultural contexts favor fundamentalist approaches, and where do open-perspective philosophical attitudes towards sacred texts develop? Is there any possibility for mutual illumination among advocates of these seemingly incommensurate positions? These issues will be discussed in a one-day conference. Scholars from different religious background will analyze test cases, showing how specific sacred texts have been used in diverse historical and cultural contexts as well as their contemporary political relevance.”
If you are interested in exploring the relationship between biblical texts and political theory, a few books you might find interesting are:
The Key Texts of Political Philosophy: An Introduction by Pangle and Burns
Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers by Daniel L. Dreisbach
In God's Shadow: Politics in the Hebrew Bible by Michael Walzer
The Politics of Jesus by Obery M. M. Hendricks Jr.
Ballot and the Bible: How Scripture Has Been Used and Abused in American Politics and Where We Go from Here by Kaitlyn Schiess
History of Political Philosophy by Strauss and Cropsey
It should be noted that the founding generation drew on and synthesized diverse traditions in forming their political and constitutional thought. Among these influences are English common law and British constitutionalism, Enlightenment liberalism (in manifold forms), and various experiments in and expressions of republicanism.
An appreciation of the social milieu and political culture of the founding era certainly helps us understand why the Bible figured so prominently in the founders’ political pursuits and discourse. It has been estimated that, at the time of independence, 98% or more of Americans of European descent identified with some form of Protestantism. The Bible was the most accessible and familiar book in the lives of Americans at this time. It was the one book a family was most likely to have in their home.
We should also mention that the English Bible was a vital tool in producing a highly literate society. Many, perhaps most, in the founding generation learned to read with a copy of the King James translation of the Bible in front of them. Just because a founder invoked Scripture does not indicate whether that founder was a believer.
In my view, however, the jump from this to Mike Johnson calling for a “biblically sanctioned government” and the idea of Christian Nationalism, is absurd.
The Bible is often used to justify any number of political, economic, social, or personal actions. “Textjacking” is a common political weapon. The cautionary tale throughout history has been the numerous examples of how people in power have used the Bible to rationalize the worst atrocities, including:
persecution of heretics
oppression of women
practice of religious intolerance
divine right of kings against democratic freedoms
institution of slavery
victimization of homosexuals
cruelty to animals
suppression of civil rights
white supremacy
book burning and censorship
racism
genocide
objectification of unbelievers
opposition to scientific progress
burning of witches
insurrection
violence and war
state’s enforcement of the Christian religion on the whole of society
The fact that one might find the Bible relevant to political philosophy and theory does not mean the Bible was written for this purpose. It wasn’t. But not only do people disagree about what the Bible says and means about God, this is certainly true of politics.
Want to make the Bible say welfare policies are bad? Find a proverb on laziness leading to poverty (Proverbs. 10:4). Want to say the opposite? Find another calling people to “defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:8–9). The point is not that Proverbs contradicts itself. All these passages have some insight. But we lack clear rules for knowing how any one of them should guide today’s public policy. We too often witness people and parties exploiting the Bible for their purposes.
Perhaps a reasonable approach to gleaning political insights from the whole of the Bible would be to apply the following interpretive approach:
Identify what the text meant to the initial audience
Determine the differences between the initial audience and people today
Develop universal principles from the text
Correlate the principle with New Testament teaching
Apply the modified universal principle to life today
A part of me can’t believe I even mentioned the above interpretive approach. There are a few reasons why:
This is but only one interpretive approach to the Bible, and there is wide disagreement about how the Bible should be read.
The above interpretive approach can still be hijacked or manipulated to rationalize any political idea, position or policy.
Using the Bible as a foundation for political theory and philosophy is still relying upon an ancient religious writing that predates modern science.
Vote the Bible?
There are more than 200 Christian denominations in the United States, and over 210 million Christians. Do you actually think that “vote the Bible” means the same thing to all these people? It doesn’t. The folks at First Baptist Dallas, United Methodist Church of Cambridge, Valley Springs Assembly Of God, Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis and Westboro Baptist Church… differ in what it would mean to cast a Bible-based vote.
People will often say, “My authority is the Bible.” It would be more accurate for them to say, “My authority is what they told me at church the Bible means.” That's not meant to be overly snarky. It's just the reality of it. There has never been a singular or unified interpretation of the Bible.
One’s theological understandings are shaped and formed by their religious sub-culture or tradition. There are at least 14 Factors that influence how one interprets the Bible:
1. Your views regarding the inspiration of Scripture.
2. Whether you would favor a literal or figurative interpretation of any given passage.
3. Your knowledge and awareness of other “related” Scriptures dealing with the same issue, including the immediate context and the broader context of the entire body of Scripture.
4. Your knowledge and understanding of the background and motivation of the writer.
5. The way in which a given interpretation fits into your over-all theological belief system.
6. Your level of understanding of the original language in which the text was written.
7. The various interpretations and commentaries to which you have already been exposed.
8. The ways in which one processes information - a Western cerebral approach, an Eastern intuitive approach, and others.
9. The degree to which you are willing to accept logical inconsistencies as part of your belief system.
10. Your willingness to change your views in the light of new information.
11. The degree to which you are satisfied with your current views.
12. The amount of time you are willing to devote to your theological study and inquiry.
13. The unwillingness to consider alternative interpretations that diverge from your religious tradition.
14. Your overall view of God that has been conditioned by many different life experiences and relationships.
Based on the above variables, does it surprise anyone that there are many different ways the Bible is interpreted? This is especially problematic because many people view the Bible as something to be “right about.”
So, is there anyway the above statement “Vote the Bible” makes any sense?
Consider the possibility that the Bible is an Epic, telling the saga of humankind. It speaks to the central themes of our existence, including life and death, good and evil, the nature of reality, meaning and purpose, the non-material or transcendent dimension, suffering and flourishing, love and hate, politics and religion. The saga includes both the ugly and beautiful things we do in the name of God. It’s a story that is still going strong.
Whether than using the Bible as a blueprint for a preferred political platform, what if we saw bumper guards in the Bible, cautioning us from going off the rails. With that in mind, I offer a few “Vote the Bible” suggestions.
Voting the Bible means:
Every person can fully embrace and follow their religious tradition, spiritual interests, or philosophical views without creating division, destruction, hostility, or hatred.
Every person can find a rationale and motivation within their religious tradition, spiritual interests, or philosophical views to be an instrument of goodness, peace, love, and compassion in the world, and affirm the inherent, equal, and unconditional worth of every human being.
Every person has the right to follow their own inner guidance in choosing their own religious, spiritual, or philosophical views and practices.
Every person can participate in a process of personal growth, self-actualization, and fulfillment of one’s highest beliefs and aspirations, and encourage the same for others.
Every person benefits when each of us follows our own unique inspiration for building a world that works for everyone.
Politics always desires to make a handmaiden of religion. But God is not partisan and doesn’t have a political party. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. Christianity is neither Democrat nor Republican. When either party tries to politicize God, or co-opt religious commitments for their political agendas, they make a terrible mistake. The minute we attach a “God” or “Christian” label to one set of political opinions, we legitimize others attaching the label “God” or “Christian” to their set of political opinions.
In Summary
Religion and politics relate to one another, but we must be cautious about how we put the two together.
There are political insights one might glean from the Bible, but it cannot be used to canonize partisan political positions.
A person’s political devotion can become idolatry.
God has no political party.
Sometimes the best way to proceed in politics is to revisit what we learned in our high school civics class.
“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Lots to unpack here. Thank you! What makes me feel we’re living in perilous times is what you said about House Speaker Mike Johnson. He’s 2nd in line for president and he’s pushing for “biblically sanctioned government”. You’re right, it is absurd. Johnson’s certitude and the number of Americans who agree with his position is frightening. As you said “The people who say this sort of thing actually believe that Almighty God is on their side. As the Crusades and the Holocaust taught us, this can be a dangerous and deadly idea.” So many are blind to this truth. I hope more eyes are open by writers like you. But I’m well aware people must be willing to open their eyes. I’ve been reading you for a while and have had a similar spiritual journey, largely landing in the same place as you are right now. And thanks for mentioning Heather Cox Richardson. She’s a tremendous historian.
A remarkable essay! I've studied theology but have become simple-minded. For politics, Heather Cox Richardson and Robert Hubbell are my go-to sources while a variety of texts feed my spirit and soul. There's no intersection of the two. That said, this essay is worth reading and rereading, so thanks, Jim. Textjacking is my favorite new word!