The Theological Center of Our Current Political Battle
Recent blogs and podcasts mentioned the term “political philosophy.” The term intrigues me, so I’ve looked up a definition on the “fount of all wisdom” (the Internet). Wikipedia offers us this:
Political philosophy or political theory is the philosophical study of government, addressing questions about the nature, scope, and legitimacy of public agents and institutions and the relationships between them. Its topics include politics, justice, liberty, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of laws by authority: what they are, if they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect, what form it should take, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown, if ever.1
The bottom line to me is that philosophy relates to viewpoints. Sometimes we call these viewpoints a “worldview.” It will surprise no one that the way we look at the purpose and function of government, what government is for, and so on, will have a dramatic impact on how we conduct ourselves politically, both in any efforts at activism and in the polling booth.
Glenn Ellmers is a political philosopher. The Claremont Review of books opens his biographical info with this: “Glenn Ellmers is the author of The Soul of Politics: Harry V. Jaffa and the Fight for America and The Narrow Passage: Plato, Foucault, and the Possibility of Political Philosophy.”2 The City Journal reviews the second book listed in an article called, “Why Politics Needs Philosophers.”
My interest in this was piqued by an interview with Ellmers published on a conservative blog I follow, PowerLine. The whole interview is well worth reading, but I want to draw attention to this quote about the battling political philosophies at war in our current public discourse:
The point is that, apart from the apolitical or undecided people in the middle, we have two diametrically opposed factions in the United States today — whose differences are basically theological. One side still believes in traditional morality and the importance of the family, in the founder’s Constitution, and the idea that we are born into a world we didn’t create and can’t completely control. That is a world governed by the laws of nature and nature’s God, which means we are limited and guided by human nature, which is fixed.
The woke Leftists reject all that in the name of complete individual freedom and total personal autonomy, without any limits imposed by God or nature or anything else. The role of the government, for them, is to facilitate the ability of everyone to meet their own subjective view of personal fulfillment. The whole architecture of racial grievances, group preferences, and white privilege is directed to removing the barriers imposed by racism, western colonialism, toxic masculinity, etc., which stand in the way of complete personal autonomy.
Source: Guest Dialogue: Political Philosophy in the Age of Trump | Power Line (powerlineblog.com)
I encourage you to read the interview as well as the City Journal review linked above. But that is not my main point! I’ve spent all this time to set up the quote from Ellmers above and to launch something of a discussion of it.
He describes the competing political philosophies of our day as “basically theological.” In other words, there is a God or “god-like” idea at the root of the competing political philosophies. In Ellmers’ description what we might call the “conservative” or “traditional” philosophy follows “nature and nature’s God,” whereas the “woke Leftists” follow a god we could call “the autonomous individual” (my term).
If we look at the intense political civil war of our current era in this way, the conflict makes sense. The struggle is theological, and those who disagree aren’t just people with whom we can agree to disagree, they are heretics! The “woke Left” clearly sees their opponents this way. “You mean you don’t support love?” — that question lies behind the “love is love” slogan. Theology lies behind Greta Thunberg’s “How dare you!” rebuke of those who don’t support her green religion.
It is easy, however, to pile on the left and its idolatry. We should pause to think about the positions of the right as well.3 Look again at how Ellmers describes the world view of the right: “One side still believes in traditional morality and the importance of the family, in the founder’s Constitution, and the idea that we are born into a world we didn’t create and can’t completely control. That is a world governed by the laws of nature and nature’s God, which means we are limited and guided by human nature, which is fixed.”
This sounds very much like the “natural law” approach of many conservatives in politics which I discussed in this post: Why Are the Politicians I Like So Disappointing?, back in October 2020. I am reminded of what I learned about modernism vs. postmodernism some years ago. Modernism is a reaction to theism, desiring to maintain morality without acknowledging or submitting to the God who has all authority for right and wrong in the universe.4 The consequence of modernism in western culture came to be a relatively peaceful coexistence between the modernist and the theist worldview. Both believe in authority, morality, and structure. The modernist just has no basis for it, other than “nature and nature’s God,” whatever that is. The modernist forgets that it is the true God who reveals himself through nature. There is only one God, and he always speaks truth.
Another flaw of the conservative worldview is that it is far too optimistic about human nature. “We are limited and guided by human nature, which is fixed,” Ellmers says. Yes, human nature is limited. It isn’t all powerful. But Christians realize that human nature is depraved and must be restrained. This is true on both left and right. Unfortunately, we have all too many examples of politicians and leaders of the “right” who aren’t right in their personal lives, bringing their positions into disrepute because of their failure to walk in righteousness.
While I agree that the struggle in politics is “theological” (to use Ellmers’ term), it is not merely a matter of the theology of left and right at odds with one another. The problem is that unless men submit themselves to the God who made all things, they can’t see the world properly. Their politics may provide greater or lesser freedom and opportunity, but they will never solve the spiritual problems the nation faces.
More than anything, we need the theology of redemption through faith in Jesus Christ to solve the troubles of our politics. Our energies should be directed to that end, even while we support those who will enable the greater level of freedom to do so (hint: it’s not the left that we should support). That should be our political philosophy.
Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
- “Political Philosophy,” in Wikipedia, August 1, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_philosophy&oldid=1237929659 [↩]
- Glenn Ellmers – The Claremont Institute [↩]
- Note: I realize that in summing up political ideologies as “left” and “right” we are vastly over-simplifying. Nonetheless, clearly there are two dominant points of view competing for support in our current political scene. [↩]
- The post-modernist, meanwhile, calls the modernist on his pretensions. “Morality without God — who says so?” Postmodernism says the modernist is just trying to oppress him with his talk of morality. [↩]