What’s next for MAGA Christians?
Charlie Kirk was murdered recently while talking to a group of young people at an open forum on a college campus. At his funeral, speakers presented different messages. Charlie’s wife, Erika, said of the man who murdered her husband:
“I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do.”
“The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the Gospel is love and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”
President Donald Trump spoke after Erika. He acknowledged that:
“[Charlie] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them.”
“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.”
“Now Erika can talk to me and the whole group and maybe they can convince me that that’s not right, but I can’t stand my opponent.”
The stark contrast between their comments presents challenging questions to Christians. How should personal belief impact public life and politics? Love and forgiveness or hate and vindictiveness? What is the role of Christian faith in the increasingly harsh world of politics?
Throughout history, Christians have taken five different approaches to culture and politics. Each suggests a different road Christians might take today.
Separatists
I grew up in a Baptist church that emphasized the need for Christians to be separate from the world. Generally, politics was perceived to be “worldly.” We might vote, but our job was, as one of my pastors said, to “get to Heaven and to take as many people with us as we could.” This world was not our home; we were “just a passin’ through.” One of our heroes was Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America. He advocated a “wall of separation” between church and state in order to protect “the garden of the church” from “the wilderness of the world.” For centuries, separatist monastic orders, the Mennonites, and the Amish have also taken this approach. I have come to believe, however, that this is inconsistent with our call to be “salt and light.”
Conversionists
Another approach is to actively engage the culture. Conversionists seek to transform the culture (including politics) so that it will reflect the teachings of Christ. They follow God’s call for humans to “exercise dominion” over the earth (Genesis 2; Ps. 8). Charlie Kirk attempted to convert the culture through persuasion. He held “Prove Me Wrong” sessions on college campuses, and he took on all comers. I did not agree with Charlie on everything, but I appreciated that, in a culture where so many people only speak to and listen to people who agree with them, Charlie engaged in dialogue.
Historically, the most prominent proponent of the conversionist view was John Calvin. As he put it, “The world is a theatre for the glory of God.” For Calvin, the goal of law was to reflect love of neighbor. “[E]ach nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of love…”
Calvin was the foremost influence on many of the American founders. The Calvinist New England Puritans sought to build “a City on a Hill” that would be a light to the rest of the world. However, conversionists can be harsh. The Puritans banished Roger Williams from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for advocating religious freedom. But conversionists can point with pride to their leadership in the anti-slavery, child labor, industrial safety, civil rights, and pro-life movements. My hope is that Christians will again seek to help the many hurting people in the world.
Synthesists
Synthesists recognize value in both secular culture and Christian teaching and seek to reconcile them. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas modeled this. He drew from the wisdom of both Aristotle and Christian faith. As for law, he was a proponent of natural law, the view that through reason we can discern moral values and laws that will enable humans to flourish. Christians can appeal to what Paul describes as the moral law “written on the heart.” The founding of the United States was synthesist — it required long, hard conversations between Christians, deists, and Enlightenment liberals. Charlie Kirk’s “Prove Me Wrong” sessions may have been occasions for such conversations. Natural law has a strong tradition within the Catholic Church, and we can look for evidence of it in Catholic J.D. Vance. The challenge is that this method requires respectful, thoughtful partners, and I wonder if that is possible in our currently divided culture. I hope so.
Dualists
Like separatists, dualists see an incompatibility between Christian faith and the world around us, but they are willing to play a role in each. The world operates on its own rules, and within that realm, the dualist abides by its rules. Martin Luther was a dualist. To Christian leaders, he said: “Do you want to know what your duty is as a prince or a judge or a lord or a lady, with people under you? You do not have to ask Christ about your duty. Ask the imperial or the territorial law.”
Those who follow dualist paths today might try to follow Erika Kirk’s love of enemies in their private lives, but follow Donald Trump’s hatred of enemies in political life. They might live one life in church on Sunday and another life at the office and in politics during the rest of the week. But there are dangers in a compartmentalized life. Hatred in politics tends to bleed into private life. Today’s violent politics have divided many families. There is a danger that Christians will step into the world of politics and merely accept its unchristian methods and policies. Some of history’s greatest evils arose because Christians failed to bring their faith to the public square. In Nazi Germany and the Jim Crow South, the great fault of many Christians was their failure to act on the basis of their Christian values.
There is no basis for dualism in Jesus’ teaching. Indeed, he taught that love is the framework on which law hangs (Matt. 22:40). Love is the standard by which law should be judged. A heart changed by Jesus will affect all of life. This is not to say that it will be easy to determine the implications of love of neighbor for law and politics, but that as the challenge Jesus gives to his followers.
Culturalists
A final view, and maybe the worst, is the culturalist. Culturalists adjust Christian teaching to conform to the culture. A striking example is Thomas Jefferson, who took a copy of the New Testament and, with a pen knife, cut out those portions that he found “contrary to reason,” separating the “diamonds” of wisdom from the “dunghill.” What emerged was a Christ of Enlightenment liberal culture, a “Christ” who looked more like Thomas Jefferson than the real Christ.
The danger that Christians will merely call some aspect of culture “Christian” without viewing it critically is a temptation for all Christians. Some who want to gain political power — initially for good purposes — may merely adopt the methods of the surrounding culture and harm the name of Christ. I fear that some portrayals of “Christian America” have little to do with Christ. When Christians adopt the full agenda of any political group, one wonders who is transforming whom. We are at risk of letting “the world around [us] squeeze [us] into its own mold” (Romans 12:2, Phillips trans.) We need humility, clarity of vision, courage, and the prophetic voices of fellow Christians if we are to remain true to Christ.
Conclusion
My prayer is that God will raise up leaders who will rule as servants (Matt. 20:20–28) and that our law and politics will come to reflect Jesus’ central moral standard — love of neighbor (Mark 12:31). Christian influence in politics and law is especially important for the sake of the powerless — “the widow, the fatherless, the foreigner, and the poor” (Zechariah 7:10). Though I dislike what politics has become in the United States, I think it is important for Christians of all political stripes, to remain engaged in politics and to bring Christ to bear on it.
Our country is quite divided. At times, I wonder whether we will survive. I fear that we may be in a never-ending cycle of ever-escalating conflict. In recent days, President Trump has brought criminal charges against Democrats who brought charges against him. Lawfare cuts both ways. Expect to see Democrats do the same when they are in office. I fear that we will come to resemble the Middle East unless someone “turns the other cheek.”
President Trump suggested that he and we might learn some things from Erika Kirk. I pray that we will and that the light of Christ and the love of neighbor will extend to all of our lives — including our politics.
Robert F. Cochran, Jr. is the Louis Brandeis Professor Emeritus at Pepperdine University School of Law. He has published over 60 articles and 10 books, including Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought (Yale University Press) and Law and the Bible (InterVarsity Press, 2013) (with David VanDrunen) and Agape, Justice, and Law (Cambridge University Press (with Zachary Calo).
