Introduction

Over the past couple of years I’ve been writing increasingly about the intersection of faith and politics. Most of these posts don’t see the light of day, and honestly that’s fine by me. Writing itself is therapeutic, even if no one else sees the end product. This post began as a list of concerns I had about certain Christian political resources meant for a conversation with a friend, but it has since evolved into something I feel is worth sharing more widely. It started with a small outline and then grew into a few paragraphs, and before I knew it, I had amassed several thousand words. As I continued writing, I suspected that it could be beneficial for others, and thus, it is being shared here. While it will be the most relevant to people familiar with the resources under question – the Christians Engaged Biblical Roadmap to the Party Platforms – it has broader applicability in that these resources are emblematic of mainstream American evangelical political engagement.

The purpose of this post is to help Christians more adeptly identify attempts to elevate a political agenda at the expense of the gospel. This is often done under the guise of neutrality, objectivity, or non-partisanship, and the strategies elucidated here are quite commonly used in the United States. To be clear, I think many people read and share political resources like these with good intentions, even if the authors of the resources themselves may have had veiled motivations. The overtly political nature of my work as a geographer gives me a unique lens into the more nefarious aspects of political discourse, and as a Christian, I would be remiss if I neglected using my gifts to prevent unnecessary harm to the Church.

I’m putting the finishing touches on this post on the eve of the 2024 election, and considering that, it may seem foolish releasing it now since most Americans will have already voted by the time they read it. ¹ But I can assure the reader that the strategies expounded upon in this post will not disappear immediately after the election; they’ve been around a long time and will likely continue to persist. Before proceeding, however, I should state some of my own inclinations that influence my perspective and approach in this critique:

1. Jesus is Lord, and as Christians, our faith should supersede any political allegiances.

Most Christians will agree with this statement. But to clarify further, by “supersede” I mean that our faith should be such a strong identity marker that we eschew the use of the word “we” in reference to political parties, a country, or other worldly tribes. When I use the word “we” throughout this piece, I am referring to Christians, not Americans.

2. Seeking to modify secular culture through top-down acts of political engagement is ill-advised for followers of Christ.

I’m not suggesting an extreme form of Anabaptist detachment from society or that traditional political avenues can never produce desirable results. My view is simply that this approach usually goes awry, resulting in many unintended consequences, and is ultimately counterproductive. ² I was hesitant to mention this assumption in the introduction since I suspect most American Christians will disagree with it, but it’s only fair that I be honest about my inclinations, and dissenters should not stop reading on the count of disagreeing with this point alone. While I’ll return here in the Conclusion – where I’ll also defend some anticipated critiques the piece at large – let’s assume for the sake of the argument that traditional political engagement (including voting) is a noble goal. With these assumptions established, let’s dive in.

Overview

The resources produced by Christians Engaged through their Biblical Roadmap – officially titled “The Christians Engaged Biblical Roadmap to the Party Platforms: A Non-Partisan Reference Guide for the 2024 General Elections” ³ and from here on simply referred to as “the Roadmap” – have several introductory pages on “5 steps to Get Ready,” “About Party Platforms,” and “How to use this Roadmap.” Following this introduction there are 16 political issues where the organization evaluates a biblical perspective on each issue using select Bible verses followed by three political perspectives, quotes from each perspective’s primary source documents, and Christians Engaged’s summary on each group’s perspective.

For the neutral reader who is not familiar with these resources, it might have been surprising to hear that there are three dominant parties or perspectives evaluated rather than two. At this point, I’d encourage the reader to pause and guess which three United States political perspectives are evaluated. Two would be easy to guess, but a third is more tricky. Once the reader’s bet has been placed using their preferred sportsbook, they are free to move on to the next paragraph, and I’ll return to the three perspectives in a moment. ⁴

The political issues assessed in the Roadmap are as follows:

• The role of government
• Religious liberty
• Freedom of speech
• Justice
• Economics
• Taxation
• The national debt
• Sanctity of life
• Marriage, gender, & sexuality
• Education
• Charity & welfare
• Human trafficking
• Racism
• Stewardship & climate
• National defense, borders, & immigration
• Support of Israel

While I could critique the Roadmap’s selection and naming of individual political issues, I’ve opted instead for addressing a select few combined with some overarching thoughts on the document as a whole. This approach will inevitably be limited in scope, but I’ve done my best to address the primary issues in a way that will be beneficial. Before that however, back to results of our wager.

Manipulative injection of an extraneous political perspective

The Roadmap evaluates three political perspectives: The Democratic Party platform, the Republican Party platform, and up to this point an unnamed third group. The odds were attractive for the Libertarian Party – perhaps even moreso for the Green Party – but in the end it was “Marx & Lenin” who won the bid, thus illustrating why the Las Vegas Strip continues to balloon.

As an academic in the social sciences, this selection was quite jarring at first glance. Castigating communism is such an exhausted strategy – and one so seldom made in good faith – that I was taken aback and had to remind myself that this was not an academic manuscript. I must confess – and with grace for those who did not have the same reaction – I initially thought this portion of the document was satire.

For those who have seen this game played before – that is, inserting Marxist and Leninist rhetoric in a document covered with American flags – you know why this perspective was selected and where this logic leads. If that’s not clear, follow me for a few paragraphs. There are dozens of political parties in the United States, but the Communist Party USA – which probably most closely aligns with Marxist and Leninist ideology – is not in the top 20 US political parties in terms of total party membership (this is a guess; the party doesn’t list their number of members, so it’s difficult to say for certain). Further, “Marx & Lenin” is not a political party anyway but more of a political philosophy. Logical alternatives would have included the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Justice Party, the American Solidarity Party, and many others as these are all political parties with a much bigger footprint than Communist Party USA.

So why would Marx & Lenin be included here? A few reasons are salient. Despite the lack of communist influence in the US, legacies of the Cold War remain ever-present in the minds of many who lived through it. This is especially true for the Baby Boomer generation, and a quick perusal of the top leadership of Christians Engaged would suggest that many of them fall into this age group. This concern is understandable for people who witnessed the travesties of Stalinism in the 20th century. But as mentioned earlier, the footprint of Communist Party USA is relatively small, and further problematizing this approach is the fact globally, the past several decades have shown the threat of a communist takeover anywhere to be remarkably small compared to fascist, neo-Nazi and other hyper-nationalist movements. ⁵

Second, by juxtaposing the “Marx & Lenin” philosophies against the two dominant parties in the US, it obviously makes Democrats look bad and Republicans look much better. In the very first issue described in the document, “The Role of Government,” the Roadmap’s summary of 1 Peter 2:13-14 (which reads “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.”) is that “God created government and gave it a limited role.” While I do believe that God created government and gave it a limited role, I also believe that it’s extremely difficult to make the case that that’s what the verse actually emphasizes. There are many practical reasons why the government’s power should be limited, but the verse is saying to be subject to human institutions for the Lord’s sake, not that government has a limited role in God’s creation.

But this is a strategic juxtaposition of the opening summary, “God created government and gave it a limited role” with the “Our take” sections at the bottom of the page that summarizes each political group’s position (emphasis added):

• Marx & Lenin: “Marxism seeks a strong, centralized government….”
• Democratic platform: “Proposes government solutions via increased spending and intervention for each social issue…”
• Republican platform: “Proposes reducing the size and scope of government…”

This discursively sets up one modern party for failure and another for success in the minds of eager readers, and does so very early in the document. But given that non-communist authoritarian movements have far more traction today globally, what would it look like to include one of these in the document instead of Marx & Lenin? I’d argue that it would be far more relevant to include Hitler’s Nazi ideology today for comparison with Democratic and Republican party platforms. At political rallies across the US and globally, you’re far more likely to see the Nazi Swastika than the Sickle and Hammer.

Just to demonstrate how this might go if we made the very reasonable decision of including Nazi ideology in the document in place of Marx and Lenin, consider the following primary tenets of Hitler’s campaign platform:

• Anti-communism
• Opposition to immigration
• Opposition to racial and religious minorities
• Racial purity
• Strong leadership
• A robust military and police force
• Economic revival, particularly in the wake of the devastating conditions resulting from the Treaty of Versailles
• Nationalism and patriotism

Imagine juxtaposing this ideology against the Democratic and Republican parties. Which party’s platform and talking points sound more like Nazi ideology? Of course, we know the answer. The point I’m making here is not that a political party in the US should be equated with Nazism but that selectively including Marxist and Leninist writings for the sake of comparison with Democratic and Republican platforms is a strategic move to intentionally make one group look unfavorable and another look admirable. Every political movement has at least some overlap with some authoritarian regime somewhere. All that said, the humor of the parallels between Hitler’s capitalization of German fears of communism set against the backdrop of the Roadmap’s inclusion of Marx & Lenin as prominent a political ideology worth critiquing is not at all lost on me.

Selective drawing from source documents

I think it’s noble to draw upon source documents rather than pontificate about vague platitudes of individual parties, but I wonder this: how many moderate – or even politically unaffiliated – Christians were involved in the creation of the Roadmap? And if they were included, might it read differently? And is this how each party would want itself to be represented on these issues? Having read the Biblical Roadmap carefully and also done some digging through the party platforms, many of the Democratic Party platform ideas are correctly quoted but taken grossly out of context. This makes Democrats appear disorganized, and by doing so, misaligned with each biblical value. For the record, I believe the Democratic Party is indeed disorganized and in many ways misaligned with biblical values, but the Biblical Roadmap unfairly represents their stances.

Here are a few examples worth noting:

On the first issue, “Role of Government”, the first Democratic platform point highlighted by the Roadmap reads “We’re fighting climate change….” which is a bizarre statement to use as the party’s canonical stance on the role of government. Rather, for Republicans the first point starts out with “[We will] defend our Constitution….” which is much more on topic (and on brand).

Now the phrase, “we’re fighting climate change” does appear in the Democratic party platform’s preamble but after the following issues:

• Job creation
• Small business creation
• Reopening of factories
• Lowering of health insurance premiums
• Putting more police officers on the beat
• Reducing violent crime

Using the phrase about climate change as a party’s primary stance – and ahead of how the party platform itself emphasizes these topics – is simply misleading. Moreover, environmental issues are in the fourth chapter of the party’s document, behind “Growing Our Economy from the Bottom Up & Middle Out,” “Rewarding Work, Not Wealth,” and “Lowering Costs.”

Further, in the Roadmap section on “Justice”, the first Democratic Platform point selected by Christians Engaged reads “No one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana”, contrasted with Republicans’ “[We] must stand for equal treatment for all…” Now in the Democratic Party platform document itself, before the statement about marijuana possession, the document reads “…building a criminal justice system that…ensures everyone receives equal justice under law.” The Roadmap intentionally emphasizes the Democratic Platform’s discussion of marijuana legality and sentencing yet selectively omits their statement about equal justice under the law, even though equal treatment under the law is clearly mentioned first.

Problematic biblical interpretations

While the Roadmap does use Bible verses to frame various political issues, I’d argue most of these are ad hoc contortions of the Bible towards one-sided political talking points. Here, I’ll discuss two examples from political issues on the Roadmap: (1) Taxation and (2) Justice.

The Roadmap’s section on Taxation has three points that it believes are biblical values elucidated by scripture: (a) “Low and unchanging tax rates,” (b) “Equal rates for all,” (c) “Government has the legitimate right to impose taxes, but it does not have a right to own everything.” Leaving out a thorough critique of whether or not the selected verses actually advocate for that, it’s telling that the Roadmap omits (intentionally or unintentionally) one of the most fascinating – and truly unique – economic systems of ancient times described in the Old Testament: that of the Jubilee. This was a thoroughly redistributive economic structure that lies in stark contrast to the Roadmap’s selected verses on tax rates. Why not use the Jubilee as a framework for taxation and economics instead? Of course, this system does not align with the principles of low-tax economic conservatism nor with present Republican proposals for flat taxes. ⁶

In the Roadmap’s section on Justice, they claim the Bible advocates for “equal restitution” through Exodus 21:23-25: “But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” This approach is problematic on two counts. First off, according to D.A. Carson, the point of “an eye for eye” was not at all about equal restitution but about placing limits on physical retaliation. ⁷ Second, Jesus Christ gives Christians a very different model for how to approach our enemies through the Sermon on the Mount, even quoting this exact verse! To use the verse from Exodus without any discussion about Jesus’ commentary on it several hundred years later is a sad distortion of biblical teachings. In true academic fashion, I even conjured up goofy name for this deconstructionist Kierkegaardian caricature: I call it the “teleological weaponization of the biblical.” ⁸ I could similarly critique many other sections of the Roadmap, but let’s talk more about Jesus.

On Jesus and his relevance today

In the Roadmap, there are 66 verses quoted. Of these, the words of Jesus are present in 5 of those 66. Does Jesus really have that little to say about our political engagement? ⁹ Aside from this, many of the verses used to frame various political issues come from the Old Testament and center God’s commandments toward Israel. To map commandments made to the Israelites directly to the United States today is problematic on many levels – not to mention the use of wisdom literature in advocating for a political approach – and it’s worth mentioning a few here that are ommitted by the Roadmap. For example, should Christians advocate for the death penalty for cursing a father or mother (Exodus 21:17), for gluttony and drunkenness (Deuteronomy 21:21), or for not honoring the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)? While there may be a non-trivial number of Christians who might, these verses pose problems for any modern political party wanting to be thoroughly “biblical.”

Let’s push this logic a bit further though. If we can use an Old Testament passage that says “an eye for an eye” to justify a particular system of justice when the author and perfecter of our faith directly quotes this passage and follows it up with a much different approach with “…but I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” (Matthew 5:38-39) then what can’t we argue from a biblical perspective? Indeed, in Ecclesiastes it says, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven…” (emphasis added). If we take this verse at face value, we can politically justify – quite literally – anything.

Some notes about Israel

The Roadmap also has a section titled “Support of Israel” that’s worth discussing a bit. While the present political circumstances in Israel/Palestine are often portrayed as excruciatingly complex, they are also commonly misunderstood and in many ways less complex than what political pundits make them out to be. What is more complex about Israel are the theological and eschatological implications for Christians, and these issues are often what shape Christians’ political understanding of the region.

While many of the Roadmap’s assumptions in this section hinge on a singular eschatological perspective that could be debated at length, it’s not my goal to address those. Setting aside my relatively sardonic writing style for a moment, I sincerely implore my Christian readers to become informed on the present destitute conditions of Palestinian people regardless of one’s theological/eschatological views. This is a case of immense suffering of both Christian and non-Christian Palestinians – not just in the present war but in the many decades leading up to the current conflict.

Over the past couple of years, I’ve listened to the life stories of many Christian Palestinians, mostly from the West Bank but also from Gaza, and virtually all of them have stories of family members being senselessly murdered by the IDF. These are committed followers of Jesus experiencing deep physical and spiritual persecution funded by the support of American tax dollars. What’s more, virtually all Christian Palestinians are committed to a lifestyle of non-violence despite being robbed of their tunics (and homes) ¹⁰ along with being frequently struck with fists (and bullets). This in itself is inspirational given that the vast majority of Americans would support violent retaliation if confronted with the same experiences.

Using these tax dollars and freely donated American military equipment, the IDF has recently destroyed Gaza Baptist Church, which is the only notable Christian presence in Gaza. It’s conceivable that as American churches commendably send missionaries to unreached people groups across the globe, new unreached people groups are simultaneously in the process of being created as a consequence of our political actions. Aside from this sobering reality, the vast majority of people being killed in Gaza at present are women and children. These circumstances are unfortunately not unique in American history, but Palestine is particularly salient now due to the present dire circumstances there. If we really seek to value and protect the most vulnerable, we must reflect on the consequences of giving a secular government ¹¹ unrestricted discretion with literally billions of dollars of military equipment.

The Roadmap quotes the following phrase from a vague, non-academic source called “Summit” in the footer on the page about Support for Israel: “The Israel/Palestine conflict is not just geographical battles over competing land claims. It is about everything, everywhere, a pitched battle between worldviews involving issues of God, justice, force, genocide, oppression, corruption, religion, and the nature of truth itself.” I know many secular and religious scholars who study Israel-Palestine and its history – Jewish historians, atheist geographers, Christian political scientists, and agnostic anthropologists – and none of them would agree with that first sentence in diminishing the role of land and geography. Paradoxically, they’d probably agree with the second sentence, but not in the way that Summit or Christians Engaged intend.

But herein lies a greater problem for our faith: No one who really understands the region takes Christianity seriously when its adherents reject widely accepted realities, claim to value human life, and advocate for suffering of women and children in Palestine. Further, the amazing work of Christian organizations in Palestine ¹² – and thus, the spread of the gospel – is severely undermined by an ill-informed political framework. It’s undeniable that both major political parties in the United States have done a terrible job promoting basic human rights in the region, and this issue alone speaks to the need for a deeper, more attentive political imaginary if we desire to faithfully follow Jesus.

Goals misaligned with action

I’ve spent a good deal of time critiquing individual sections of the Roadmap, but I want to take a moment now to reflect on the bigger picture, specifically the relationship between party platforms and political action. Consider the following quotes and reflect, from a Christian perspective, on whether or not it would be advisable to support a party or politician exhibiting the following sentiments:

• “The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.”

• “We will not allow the masses to be led astray into the desert of godlessness. We will secure the future of [our country] not only politically but also religiously.”

• “The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, is creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really deep revival of religious life.”

• “We have undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

Surprise: these are all quotes from Hitler, which the reader may have anticipated based on references to Hitler and Nazi ideology earlier. Now if you do believe Hitler would be worth supporting as a Christian, you can stop reading now because it’s not likely that anything I say will sway you from your position. ¹³

Political party platforms and primary source documents are not meaningless, but merely discussing these documents is insufficient without examining how various parties and politicians have lived up to their word. The relationship between party platforms and whether or not political parties have accomplished their goals is beyond the scope of this piece, but it is simply dangerous to take politicians and political parties at their word. Just as it’s right to question the Democrats’ claim that they’ve created jobs, reopened factories, and reduced the cost of health insurance premiums, ¹⁴ it is similarly right to question the claim that Republicans are indeed protecting the unborn, reducing the size of government, and upholding the Constitution. ¹⁵ This scrutiny is warranted even for those politicians who profess Christ. Let us not forget Matthew 15:8: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me,’” and Matthew 7:15: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

On this note, let’s consider another deeply unsettling example in which Christians were implicated in horrific atrocities: the Rwandan genocide. According to Timothy Longman, “…Not only did church buildings become the sites of massacres, but most of the killers were Christian, and even some pastors and priests participated in the slaughter… Many Christians in particular have wondered how such carnage could have taken place in one of Africa’s most Christian countries, how the population could have become so willingly involved in such deplorable acts in a country were more than 90 per cent of the population were members of Catholic of Protestant churches” (p. 164). ¹⁶

Suggesting that these people were just nominal (rather than practicing) Christians simply doesn’t work. Longman goes on: “In fact, the organizers of the death squads in many local communities included not only prominent lay church leaders but sometimes priests, pastors, and Catholic brothers, catechists, and other church employees, and the fact that death squads attended mass before going out to kill or that killers paused during the massacres to pray at the altar suggests that people felt their work was consistent with church teachings” (p. 166-167). Longman also explains the broader role of Christians, not only in society but also in government: “The leaders of the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches were all close associates of President Habyarimana and his government, and local pastors and priests were often closely aligned with local burgomasters and communal councilors. The churches clearly played an important part over a long period in helping to organize support for the regime and adding to its legitimacy” (emphasis added, p. 166). The point is that Christians can and have participated in and advocated for unspeakable horror both in government positions and as lay citizens.

Before the reader jumps to the assertion that abortion is a form of genocide being advocated by a certain political party, a few present realities should be drawn out: (1) illegal acts can and do still happen regardless of the law, ¹⁷ (2) recent evidence suggests that abortions have increased since Roe v. Wade has been overturned even in states with strict bans, ¹⁸ and historically more abortions have happened in the United States while Republicans have been in office. ¹⁹ The point I’m making here is not that Christians should vote against Republicans for the sake the unborn. It’s simply this: we have to go beyond scrutinizing political party platforms – and politicians’ religious claims – and also scrutinize outcomes. We should not blindly trust Christian politicians to institute God’s will in positions of power, especially when government power is so often abused.

On non-partisanship (the kicker)

Throughout this critique I’ve alluded to ideas that the Roadmap was at the very least sympathetic to Republican positions. Note that the official title of the document is “The Christians Engaged Biblical Roadmap to the Party Platforms: A Non-Partisan Reference Guide for the 2024 General Elections” (emphasis added). The organization that published the Roadmap – Christians Engaged – while a subsidiary of the self-described conservative organization “Family Policy Alliance,” is not officially affiliated with any political party. However, most of the Christians Engaged leadership and advisory board are current or former Republican politicians with only a few exceptions. Here is an excerpt of the leadership team and their relevant political involvement (which is not described in detail on their website):

• Craig DeRoche, CEO; R-Michigan House of Representatives
• Bunni Pounds, Founder and President; ran for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican in Texas’s Fifth district but lost in the primary
• Michael Cloud; R-Texas
• Michele Bachmann; R-Minnesota
• Scott Turner; ran for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican in California but also lost his primary
• Vicky Hartzler; R-Missouri
• Rafael Cruz (Father of Ted Cruz, R-Texas)

I could list them all, but that would take a long time and would be repetitive anyway. Truth be told, I actually didn’t discover this detail until most of what I had written was already complete, but when I did discover it, it was not remotely surprising. Calling a reference guide “non-partisan” – the organization’s own word choice on the very first page – when it was created by an organization full of current and former politicians of one particular party is simply untruthful. Unfortunately, it is a common Christian tactic. Under a thin veneer of neutrality, this document is indeed highly partisan, which was obvious to me even before noticing the political affiliation of the Christians Engaged leadership.

Regardless of who created these resources – and on this point their political affiliation doesn’t matter – when Christians unfairly represent people it ultimately hurts the advancement of the gospel because it communicates that truth does not really matter. It gives the impression that bending the truth for a narrow political agenda is acceptable and far more important than the radical transformation of lives through following Jesus. Representing people and parties inaccurately is wrong, even if we deeply disagree with them.

Conclusion

A conservative reader may assert that I’m simply a closet Democrat being unfairly critical of Republicans (at least someone must have thought, “Hey, this guy does work at the liberal brainwashing factory, after all!”). Even if that was true, I’d like to hear refutations to my assertions in this piece, but just to clear the air, I am actually a registered Republican. In college I once left a church – as a very conservative self-described libertarian – because of a multi-part sermon series where the preaching utilized biblical interpretations not dissimilar to those in the Roadmap, and to me that felt like teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. Admittedly I haven’t voted for Republicans much in recent years outside of primaries; I’ve mostly voted for a mix of various third party candidates, write-ins (including Jesus), ²⁰ and occasionally Democrats.

Though I came from a very conservative household and once held corresponding political beliefs, I am now markedly skeptical of conservative/Republican politics having come from that environment and seen the paradoxical damage it can do to the Church. In many cases, these politics can produce outcomes of two steps forward and three steps back, but the backwards steps are often slow to reveal themselves and take some digging to uncover. At the international scale, I could draw upon a plethora of examples from global geopolitics to illustrate this, but that’s a different conversation and one I plan on writing about in the near future. Beyond the damage done to the church however, the policy recommendations from conservative camps are habitually at odds with the empirical realities and evidence-based practices revealed through my work as a computational urban geographer – along with the broader disciplinary community – which makes me duly apprehensive.

When transforming the country (or world) through government becomes a primary Christian goal, the temptations to misrepresent one’s political enemies, bend the truth, explain away deeply immoral behavior within one’s political tribe, and use the Bible in ways that were not intended all become nearly irresistible. At this individual scale, I believe it’s simply too difficult for Christians to draw that close to the allure of empire and maintain one’s Christian integrity. There are too many conflicts of interest between advancing the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Caesar. When Christians compromise on fundamental interpersonal interactions, using ends to justify means, ²¹ this illustrates a bizarre embrace of a postmodernist understanding of truth and ethics. Ultimately, this has had disastrous consequences for both the church and state. Tangentially related, I sadly know many people who have walked (or are walking) away from their faith because evangelicalism has become intertwined with a very narrow political perspective where the gospel is marginalized. Documents like the Biblical Roadmap reinforce those beliefs and accelerate those actions.

I want to clarify that I’m not critiquing well-meaning Christians who see a resource like the Roadmap and in an attempt to be faithful use it, apply it in the way that they vote, and/or share it with others. That said, I do believe that Christians should not simply accept a resource at face value because it claims to be biblical and may confirm one’s pre-existing political inclinations. This level of circumspection requires time and close scrutiny, however, and it is tremendously difficult to identify our own biases. ²² This speaks to the unavoidable fact that we’re socially conditioned beings, and our politics too often reflect not our faith but our earthly citizenship, communities of upbringing, relatively narrow social circles, and self-confirming biases shaped by digital echo chambers. I suggest that a non-partisan Christian political reference guide produced by a different community – such as Christians outside of the United States – would look radically different than this one, and not just because the political issues of primary importance differ in other locations. If that holds water and the gospel matters, we must reconsider embracing resources like the Roadmap and interpreting the Bible in the way it suggests.

Footnotes