How Should Christians Engage in Politics? A Conversation with Miranda Zapor Cruz

The world is becoming increasingly proficient at telling stories that deny God. As such, we need thinking Christian to become as natural as breathing. Welcome to the Thinking Christian podcast. I'm Dr. James Spencer. Through calm, thoughtful, theological discussions, Thinking Christian highlights the ways God is working in the world and questions the underlying social, cultural, and political assumptions that hinder Christians from becoming more like Christ. Now, on to today's episode of Thinking Christian. Hey, everyone. Welcome to this episode of Thinking Christian. I'm James Spencer, and I am joined today by Miranda Zapor-Cruz. She is a professor of historical theology at Indiana Wesleyan University, and she teaches in the undergraduate and master's courses in American and global church history and systematic theology. Today, she's joining us to talk about her new book, Faithful Politics, the approaches to Christian citizenship and why it matters. And so we've talked a lot about politics and scripture and faith and all of those kind of things on this podcast previously. And so this is going to be a great addition to that conversation. Miranda, welcome. Thanks for being here. Thanks so much for having me. So tell me a little bit, just to start off, what's your background? Why did you write this book? What led you to this? Sure. I first became interested in faith and politics when I was studying religion in undergrad. And I remember a speaker coming to my American Christianity history class and talking about the way different presidents had used religious rhetoric or Christian rhetoric specifically. And it just fascinated me, this dynamic of world leaders, American leaders, whatever their personal beliefs were, utilizing Christian language to kind of ingratiate themselves to the American people. And so I started wrestling with that question. What are we to do with that? The way that Christianity can be used positively and negatively and sometimes manipulated within politics to try to kind of get Christians on board with different kind of political views. So that kind of got my wheels turning. And then, you know, years later in a PhD program at Baylor, I actually studied the church under communism in Eastern Europe, but always with the question of what can we in America learn from the dynamics that were going on with the church there, whether it's ways that the church demonstrated its faithfulness or the ways that the church failed to do so. And as I've been teaching at a Christian university for the last 10 years, again and again, every year and especially every national election cycle, I have students asking, what do we do? What are we supposed to do? How is our faith supposed to inform our politics? They want the right answer or they want me to tell them, well, you just vote for this person and you're good. And it's just not as simple as that. So all of that background kind of led me to finally write it all down in my book. And the goal really is for Christians to have a useful tool for thinking through our own political action and the ways our theology can or shouldn't interact and influence our politics. Very cool. Well, you know, one of the things I really appreciated about your book was the way you surveyed the different ways in which, you know, Christians and really theological frameworks can be applied to the question of how does the church and the state relate. And one of the questions I have, just after hearing you talk through, you know, the religious rhetoric that presidents and various world leaders or candidates use, I suppose my question is, how should you, in my mind, there's a range of ways that people are using that. Some of it is just sort of in the ether, right? It's just the normal language we're using. And so we haven't been careful about our language. And so political candidates are picking that up and using it. But then there are other probably far more intentional ways in which they're framing their conversations with us in this language so that we relate to them. Is there something I'm missing there? Is there a wrinkle that I'm not conveying? But maybe maybe the best way to ask the question is just talk a little bit about the way you see candidates using that religious language and how it tends to confuse even Christians about the way that we should relate to government. Sure. I think you're right. There's some kinds of language that is just kind of the normal part of how Americans and American politicians talk. So things like saying God bless America. That's part of how people talk and nobody really thinks too hard about, like, what exactly do they mean by that or why are they saying that? That's just how they talk. And then you have politicians, you know, throughout history who have, you know, a genuine, vibrant faith and quoting Bible verses or using religious language is just genuinely part of how they talk. And it comes naturally to them and they're not having to think about it too much. It's just is what they what they say off the cuff. And then you have those who, whether themselves or their speechwriters, are very intentionally saying, OK, this is the kind of language or this is a Bible verse or whatever that if we insert it here, Christians are going to hear that and they're going to like it and they're going to get on board with us. And that feels much more manipulative if it's not coming from a genuine place. Or it can read as frequently it's taking Scripture out of context, right? Taking a Bible verse and saying, oh, it has this word in it. It has the word freedom or it has the word liberty or it has the word country or whatever. And so we're just going to drop it in here. Now, what can happen for Christians? I can say this because this is what I used to think in high school, especially. I hear a Bible verse. I hear a Christian word and my ears perk up. Right. That's that's comforting. That's familiar. That's something that is going to draw me to someone because like, oh, we're speaking the same language. They they understand something about me and where I'm coming from. And so for a lot of Christians who say, oh, OK, they use this word. They use this Bible verse and they spent time with this Christian leader, whatever that might be. And we kind of take that at face value and say, oh, this is a person who's on our side. This is a person who represents us in some way. And then when we start to maybe scratch the surface of that a little bit and really look at, OK, well, why are they using that verse or what's actually going on theologically underneath these people that they're spending time with or the churches they're visiting or whatever it may be? Then we might start to think, well, wait, maybe there's more to this language. Maybe I need to be thinking more deeply than just, oh, they quoted the Bible. And so I like them. If for no other reason than most politicians on of any political persuasion quote the Bible, we just tend to notice it more when it's whatever candidate we tend to like. We see it and think, oh, they're they're on our side. And we see the other candidate do it and think, oh, they're just trying to get our support, but they don't really mean it. So we need to, from my perspective, almost take that out, the religious rhetoric, the Bible quoting, those kinds of things and really examine it, not remove it from political discourse necessarily, but really think instead of perking up our ears and saying, oh, this is a person who's on our side. It should perk our ears and say, let me look into that a little bit more and see what they mean by that and if it actually is consistent with my faith or if it just sounds good because I like those words and I use them in my own faith life. Now, did you see that when you were looking at a similar dynamic, I suppose, when you were looking at communists, Christianity under communism in Eastern Europe, were there similar sort of methods employed there to build religion into the social structure and sort of reinforce it or encourage people to, you know, recognize this merger of the government and the scriptures, I guess, for lack of a better term? Not really because the communist governments were trying to eradicate Christianity and in some cases they came pretty darn close. There are a few examples of Christians in Soviet societies who, at least in the beginning, when Soviet systems were first being implemented, were some Christians who welcomed that, who saw the Soviet system as really like an inbreaking of the way God intended things to be. So there was a big Christian socialist movement in the late 1900s. It's not not not the words that Christians today tend to associate with each other. Christians social, but it was a thing that basically said that a socialist economic system was like a true reflection of Christianity and the way the kingdom of God comes about on earth. And so where there were some Christians.

in the Soviet Union, as that was being formed, who thought this is a good thing, this is the way Jesus wants it to be, and they didn't like that the government was trying to eradicate Christianity, but they saw the system as a good thing. That didn't generally last very long. Once kind of the system started to take its toll on people's everyday lives, and there was a severe religious persecution and all of that, then that kind of view didn't really survive the reality of the system, and neither did Christian socialism as a perspective in the United States, for the most part, because Christians in the United States looked at the Soviet Union in the 20th century and said, Okay, no, that's not actually what we want. So I took from my study of Christianity in Eastern Europe a lot more lessons about faithfulness and the persistence of Christianity when it's existing within a system that is inherently contrary to Christian views or a Christian understanding of the world. Yeah, I've done a fair amount of looking at the Barmen Declaration, and you, when you look at that, and you look at, some would say it's primarily Barth's writing, but the Barmen Declaration, one of the things they emphasize is the centrality of God in defining the people of God, the theological moorings that the church can't let go of, and the wrong way of thinking that is possible whenever we embrace any political culture as an authority, maybe, and I may be overstating this, but just for the sake of conversation, any political authority as autonomous or largely autonomous from maybe God himself, if not, at least the final authority for life and faith, which is the Scriptures. Is that a, do you see that dynamic? I've kind of, as I've studied the Barmen Convention, what I see is a really interesting and compelling document that the church could still apply in almost any political context where we're looking. And just as you speak about that, you know, the Christians who see this sort of socialist society coming forward and it being sort of a manifestation of all God would have ever wanted, that feels like a very similar mistake that you saw with the Barmen Declaration, a very similar acceptance of a political system as maybe completely right or 90% right, when really we need to be a bit more critical than that. I don't know, I know that's a little meandering, but yeah, what are your thoughts on that? No, that's, with Barmen, the context in which it's written is the Nazi government trying to take over control of the church, right? And the majority of the Christians in Germany, what they call the German Christian movement, they welcomed it. They saw Hitler as literally a messianic figure. Some of the language that German Christian pastors used to talk about Hitler and the Nazi ideology is just shocking to read. It's very explicit in using words like savior. And so Barth and Niemöller and the others who were involved in writing the Barmen Declaration are saying, no, there is no political Messiah. Our Messiah is Jesus Christ alone. And the government does not bring about the kingdom of God. And the government cannot kind of trample on the church's authority, especially with doctrine. The government can't come in and say, church, this is what you're required to do. This is what you're required to believe. They say, no, our authority is God alone. And at the same time, the government exists under God's authority. Like government comes from God, not specific forms of government necessarily, but the concept of government and humans having to organize society and have political leaders and that kind of thing. That's seen as a gracious gift from God because it's necessary for managing society. But they would say, you know, if a government becomes untethered from formally or informally recognizing the ultimate authority of God, that no political leader is the highest authority, whether they acknowledge it or not, God is the higher authority. And so in Hitler's government, he would not have recognized any higher authority than himself. And so I think that is a huge lesson for Christians in any context to say, no government, no political party, no political leader brings about the kingdom of God. And any leader or party that seems to be claiming to is fundamentally misguided and probably leading Christians toward an unfaithful reality. Yeah, you note in your book, and I will say, I think where I guess I'm going is we'll get into some of the different views and how you think about them. But you note in your book that America and the church are founded on two very different things, and thus they're going to function very differently. And when you say that, what I understood you to be saying was they employ different methods. Let me ask you a serious question. If something triggered a major market drop in the coming months, would your retirement be ready or exposed? With inflation, market volatility, and ongoing global uncertainty, more families are taking a closer look at whether their retirement plan is truly built to hold up. And many are finding that adding a layer of protection makes a lot of sense. Sanctuary Metals is a Christian-owned company that helps families strengthen their retirement savings with physical gold and silver through a gold IRA. During uncertain times, many people look to precious metals as a way to add stability when other assets may be under pressure. If you'd like to explore whether a gold IRA is a good fit for your situation, Sanctuary Metals makes it easy to get started. Text GUIDE to 94878 to receive your free Retirement Defense Guide, or call 888-958-6579 to speak with one of their knowledgeable team members. Again, text GUIDE to 94878 or call 888-958-6579. Methods in order to get things done, even though at many times they may have very similar goals, or there may be a significant overlap between the goals that they're pursuing. So in other words, you know, there's a case to be made that, listen, the church is to be and make disciples for Jesus Christ. That's obviously not what America is doing. But then there are these other things, like justice, like mercy, like societal order, where we would say there's probably a lot of overlap, and it's a recognition of God's gracious gift of government that we would say, of course, we want those things. Like, nobody doesn't want, nobody wants anarchy. Nobody wants injustice. Like, these are things that we have in common with the government in and of itself. And so there are times for us to participate, but we have to recognize that because of the different methods we're employing, we have to be careful in getting into those mechanisms, maybe. Is that a fair way to characterize sort of what you meant by that statement, the two functions and the two functioning very differently? am I mischaracterizing that? No, I think that's accurate. They would say there's overlap, like the civil society and the church both desire peace, for example. And sometimes the way we go about pursuing peace is going to be not cause a conflict, right? You can maybe be a Christian and be an ambassador who is literally negotiating peace and not experience that as conflicting with Christian faith. where we kind of reach the limit of that overlap is in the recognition from the Christian side that politics is, by definition, incapable of accomplishing perfect peace, which is only going to be found in the eschaton, when Christ returns, when the kingdom of God is fully established, then there will be perfect peace. So politically, people will tend to look for, okay, if we just get this policy right, if we elect the right person, if we make the right policies, then we can achieve peace or justice or whatever. Christians would tend to say, yes, we can achieve a degree of peace. We can achieve as much justice as is humanly possible in the world. But if we start to think, you know, if, as long as I just vote the right way, then I'll achieve the peace that is only proper to the kingdom of God, then we're going to start putting trust in government that is really reserved for God alone. So there's just a limit there to what can be accomplished in the world. And that doesn't mean we don't try. That doesn't mean we don't get involved, except for those views that would say, yeah, it actually does mean we don't get involved, which would basically be the Anabaptists. Right, right. I'll talk about later. But for most Christians,

And so you'd say, okay, we can't achieve it perfectly. We can't achieve it through politics, but we can do the very best that we can with the systems that we have. And so with the line, and I know you, and maybe we'll talk about this first, and then we'll swing back around to the Anabaptists, because I do want to get to that. But when you talk about Christian nationalism and some of the more theocratic, you know, for lack of a better term, sort of governments, what I, one of the critiques that I hear you coming out with in the book is that this is just a project with the wrong aim. That on some level, it won't matter whether it's all Christians in government or, you know, whether the church is sort of, quote-unquote, running things, however we wanna characterize that. But this merger of church and state is never going to bring about what people think it's going to be about. And so there's a consequentialist problem with the view, but then there's also sort of an, maybe an ontological problem with the view. In other words, that these two need to remain at least distinct, not separate. That's a different category in my mind, right? But they can't be molded together such that they can't be distinguished from one another. Is that, talk a little bit through that and give your perception of Christian nationalism and sort of these other sort of theologies that you address, and I believe it's the like eighth and ninth chapter of your book where you kind of say these are probably out of bounds for Christians. Yeah, so I talk about dominionism and Christian nationalism as the two big categories. Dominionism is where you start to see theocracy in a very formal way, sometimes even promoted by name. Theocracy is what we ought to be striving for. And because of this idea that the kingdom of God and a geopolitical entity are just different things, that doesn't work. You can put in place laws that are consistent with the Bible, although that gets complicated because which laws and, you know, how does the Old Testament fit in and all that. But you cannot bring about the kingdom of God through reforming the political order because the kingdom of God is not a geopolitical entity. It's divine, it's transcendent, and so we can't cause it to happen. And so that would be kind of the fundamental issue with theocracy or dominionism, which would basically say we just need to get enough of the right kind of Christian in government so that they will make the government function according to Christian values, which are always kind of vaguely defined, but biblical law or whatever that might be. Biblical principles, all those kind of, yeah. Yeah, like, okay, well, which ones and how and that kind of thing. When it comes to Christian nationalism, there are similar goals in mind, but fundamentally Christian nationalism isn't Christian because Christian nationalism is a political ideology that is completely indifferent to doctrine. Christian nationalism is about morality and it's about heritage, but a Christian nationalist or a Christian nationalist ideology could care less about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Doesn't matter whether God is triune. It doesn't matter who you pray to or whether you pray at all. What Christian nationalism cares about is morality and a particularly Western, European brought over into America, this kind of heritage. And while Christianity, of course, has very serious moral implications, it's not merely a moral system. The moral system comes out of the doctrinal foundation and the nature of God and the nature of salvation. If you take away who God is, who Christ is, what it means to be saved, what our future hope is, you don't have Christianity at all. You have nationalism that is taking some ideas from Christianity and saying these should be implemented by law, but it doesn't make disciples. It doesn't bear witness to Christ. It doesn't evangelize. All of that is completely irrelevant. And so Christian nationalism, even if it didn't lead to political violence and things like that, which it does, needs to be a problem for Christians because it's just not Christian. And because it's not Christian, it bears false witness. It doesn't lead people to Christ. Nobody looks at Christian nationalists. No non-Christian looks at Christian nationalist rhetoric and says, I would like to know Jesus and I would like to submit my life to his Lordship. That's not the impact. It might lead someone to say, oh, this is, I like these values or something, but we're not saved by having the right values. We're saved by submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. What I think is I've thought about Christian nationalism. One of the things that I find deeply problematic is that what seems to be at the dynamic is that we've lost control of the word Christian. And so now what, it wouldn't bother me as much if we saw a system of, and we largely do see this in a lot of different ways, different political parties saying, you know what we'd really like is justice. You know, what we'd really like is order. You know, what we'd really like is peace. Those generalized terms abstracted from, you know, really drawn in from an order that God had intended to establish and maybe deeply embedded on our hearts. However we want to think about that theologically. But these are things that we can all resonate with. The difficulty is when we start calling those Christian values or biblical principles abstracted from the doctrines that you're talking about. There was a study that came out, maybe it was two or three years ago now, and they asked a number of Americans whether they felt that the moral lessons of Easter and Passover were essential for retaining a strong America. And I remember thinking to myself, there's just so many problems with that question because do you really have any moral lessons if that didn't happen? If the resurrection didn't happen, is there really a moral lesson there? I just don't know that you can abstract those kind of ideas out of fictional stories that have no coupling to reality. Now, but the idea is, I guess, the danger of Christian nationalism is that they claims Christianity, but isn't actually Christian. Christ is not at its center. So that's a really interesting way to think about it. And so you're, you would be sort of on that page of, yeah, these are theologically corrupt almost. Is that too strong? Nope. Okay. Yeah, I think they're very problematic theologically and just inconsistent with Christian doctrine or living a faithful Christian life. There are lots of other good faithful options which is the previous chapters of the book. There are lots of ways of doing this. There are even ways that of bringing Christian faith in very explicit and direct ways into political action that aren't dominionist or Christian nationalist. So I think sometimes Christians when they're kind of thinking through the options think either, okay, you have to have entire separation so that your faith is completely isolated from politics and faith can't influence politics at all, or you have Christian nationalism. And often poorly defined or thinking, okay, well, just bringing faith into politics is Christian nationalist. That's some of the ways it's reported on sometimes that are not making important distinctions there. And so part of my goal with the book is really to say neither of those are actually true. There can be good reasons for just not engaging in politics theologically, but most Christians don't take that approach. But there's lots of ways of our faith being fully integrated into our political behavior and our political views that are not falling into the theological errors of dominionism or nationalism. So before we move to the Anabaptists, because I do want to get to sort of the polar end, you know, the difference between Christian nationalism and dominionism and Anabaptist, you know, isolationist sort of theologies. Here's a question that I find myself asking as Christian nationalism has become sort of more mainstream, number one, and led to the sort of mischaracterizations that I think you're expressing that anytime you let your faith get involved in politics, that's Christian nationalism. Right. Which I agree with you, that is not Christian nationalism. I think that's just the normal way that democracy works. We all come with our own frameworks and point of view to bring to bear on what we think should be legislated, what policy should be, who we should vote for, all those kinds of fun things. And so you really can't, you know, separate yourself, your deep convictions from the way you're going to think about political landscapes. Christian nationalism is something different. But here's the question I'm wondering if from your perspective, you're seeing a rise in people leaning toward isolationism because Christian nationalism has become such a pervasive, odd sort of monster within, you know, within the American political system now and people are trying to distance themselves from it. And I guess as you're teaching undergraduates

And graduate students who are a little younger than I am, that you're probably seeing them maybe gravitate toward that, but I'd be interested in your experience with it. What are you seeing? Yeah, I definitely see a gravitation toward disengagement. Yeah. I'm not sure I would say isolation in the like theological Anabaptist sense where they're like, out of theological conviction, I don't think it's appropriate or necessary for me to engage with politics. What I see a lot more is, I don't like that. I don't know what the alternative is, so I'm just going to excuse myself from the whole conversation. And for my undergraduate students especially, a lot of them in 2024 will be eligible to vote for the first time. And many of them are, they're wrestling with these questions, but where maybe four or eight years ago, I saw more students who were engaged and aware and had a really strong political perspective. Now I'm seeing more students who are disengaged, who are aware that there's an election going on, but mostly find the rhetoric from the generation ahead of them so overwhelming and confusing and unmoored from Christian faithfulness that they're just like, I don't know what to do with this, so I'm just going to step back and maybe I'll vote, maybe I won't, but I don't even know where to start with engaging with this, and nothing good seems to be coming from it, so I don't want to have anything to do with it. Do you find that there's a way in which, this is something I've been struggling with lately, you know, I'll read a passage like 1 Timothy 6.1 or Titus 2.5, where Paul, and this is a little bit general, but Paul decouples a particular behavior with the potential of God's word or the teachings of the church being reviled. And so in the first one, you know, slaves are to obey their masters and honor them in all things so that God's word and the teachings of the church are not reviled. Titus 2.5, it's either specific to the behavior of young women or a group of people that would include young women but would also include others, where their behavior has the potential to cause God's word to be reviled or rejected or smeared in some way in the public eye. And so there's part of me that looks out at the landscape of politics today and says, whether, and I don't think I'm a theological isolationist at all, but you just have to watch it and you're like, wow, it doesn't seem to matter what you do at this point. There's a high likelihood that whatever you do, you're going to end up having people smear your decision, that this is going to reflect poorly on the word of God. And it just seems to be where our political system is right now. How would you counsel somebody, maybe how would you counsel me? How would you think about that? And, you know, when our actions are so public, they're so easily analyzed, you know, we can see stats on how many evangelical Christians voted for this person or that person. How do you think about that? How will we navigate that aspect of this? So I think there's kind of two elements. There's how Christians perceive one another and then how non-Christians perceive us. And to some degree, I'm more concerned about how Christians perceive and treat one another because that's actually bearing witness to people who aren't Christian, how we treat each other. It says a lot about, you know, do I want anything to do with that? And we Christians, we, this is a very broad generalization, but we Christians do a pretty good job of eating each other alive. And we're, you know, we like to complain about cancel cultures, whatever. Christians are just as, if not more guilty of canceling one another than anyone outside of the church is guilty of canceling us. I think the rest of the world or the rest of the country, people who aren't Christian, I think are much more indifferent to Christians than hostile to us in general. There's a lot of misunderstanding. There's certainly around particular issues, a lot of hostility and mistrust of Christians. But in general, I don't think a lot of people care what Christians think. They think we're irrelevant. And so the way we treat one another bears witness to the world of, you know, the truth of the gospel. And so I think that we, when we're wrestling with that, how is this decision going to be read? You know, if I make this statement on social media or on my podcast or whatever, who's going to be mad and why? And I think we can ask that in a very straightforward way. Like, who's not going to agree with me? And, you know, being intellectually honest about, okay, is there something to that disagreement? Like, is there disagreement with me actually something I need to consider and take into consideration in my own views and actually use that anticipation of rejection to hone our own belief or our own ability to explain what we believe. And then we can say, well, this, I believe is a faithful position. And if people reject me for it, it'll be either because they have also come to a faithful decision from their perspective and we just disagree. And that's just the way it is. Or are people rejecting me because they're misunderstanding my position? If so, would me explaining it better make any difference? Maybe, maybe not. It kind of depends on the attitude of the other people involved. Do we have the humility to say I could be wrong? This is where I am right now. I'm open to understanding more or looking at things from a different perspective. I think that disarms people if we're not so rigid in our view, even if we're settled in a particular belief. And I have beliefs and opinions that I would say I'm pretty settled on, that it would take a lot for someone to convince me I'm wrong about that. But I can still have the humility to say I'm willing to listen. I'm open to thinking through this more carefully. I think from the outside world, from non-Christians, it's similar really. We look at, okay, well, why are we, why is this position that I'm taking being rejected? Or why am I being ridiculed or argued against or, you know, denied a platform or whatever because of this position? I could say, well, since I'm Christian and the United States as a whole has a geopolitical entity, includes people who aren't Christian, some people are gonna disagree. And as long as I am being as genuinely faithful as I know to be and I am in right relationship with God and connected to Christian communities that I'm not just kind of spinning things out in my own mind and coming to my own opinions, then at some point I have to say, people, not everyone's going to agree with me and I am willing to take the consequences of that, whatever they may be. That's not an easy thing to come to, especially if you're, you know, your job or something depends on your kind of ability to go with the flow politically, but that's what we're sometimes called to as Christians. Well, it sort of leads us, I think, into the isolationist perspectives because I'm just really interested in, yeah, I have some follow-up questions, but I think it'd probably be better if we jump in and talk about that sort of other end of the spectrum of this isolationist perspective that is often associated with the Anabaptists and what that actually means for Christians. Like how does that work itself out? How does, maybe the best question would be, well, let's describe the Anabaptist position first and then I can ask my follow-up questions. So go ahead. Help us understand what isolationism actually is from a theological perspective. Yeah, so the Anabaptists in their origins during the Reformation period in Europe, they concluded that the church was a fundamentally different entity than the state, that the state, the government, political leaders, whatever, had no authority whatsoever in the church. And so they rejected things like saying creeds because in a system like the Holy... Let me ask you a serious question. If something triggered a major market drop in the coming months, would your retirement be ready or exposed? With inflation, market volatility, and ongoing global uncertainty, more families are taking a closer look at whether their retirement plan is truly built to hold up. And many are finding that adding a layer of protection makes a lot of sense. Sanctuary Metals is a Christian owned company that helps families strengthen their retirement savings with physical gold and silver through a gold IRA. During uncertain times, many people look to precious metals as a way to add stability when other assets may be under pressure. If you'd like to explore whether a gold IRA is a good fit for your situation, Sanctuary Metals makes it easy to get started. Text guide to 94878 to receive your free retirement defense guide or call 888-958-6579.

to speak with one of their knowledgeable team members. Again, text GUIDE to 94878 or call 888-958-6579. From an empire or in England where there was a state religion, people were basically mandated, you have to go to church and you have to say these creeds, and they're saying, okay, even if we agree with everything the Apostles' Creed says, we don't think the government has the authority to tell us to recite it. And so we reject it. They're also strictly pacifists in large part because war, being a soldier, put you under the authority of the government. And they say, no, the government doesn't have the authority to tell me to take life. And so those things and some other principles lead them to be isolationist because they say the government shouldn't have any influence in the church. And since the kingdom of God comes from God and not from the government, the church doesn't have any responsibility to the world. So this is the piece, the kind of flip side of the isolationist piece, is that the state can't influence the church, but the church doesn't have any responsibility for the social order. The church is only responsible for itself. And so you see that in the United States primarily with groups like the Amish that live very isolated lives, sometimes geographically limited interaction. But it's not just wanting to stay away from government and saying, we have no need or responsibility as the church to try to change society. Only God returning and establishing the kingdom of God is actually going to bring about the reign of God, and so we don't need to mess with politics at all. Yeah. And so do you feel like that is a, so when you address it in the book, you leave that open as sort of a viable Christian way of being. What challenges do you see with that? Let's just say, for instance, if I went to Micah and I'm reading that God requires us to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before our God, obviously there's a way for us to construe justice in relation to the political realm. And I think that's probably part of the problem once you get into stronger forms of Christian nationalism that in order for justice to be done, it has to be done through the government, which I think is sort of a fallacious sort of convergence of those ideas. But there has to be a way in which we don't abandon justice, correct? As we're practicing an isolationist approach, there has to be this sort of sense in which we're still doing the work of the kingdom. We're just not doing it through the government vehicle. Is that a fair characterization of the isolationist perspective or am I missing it? Yeah, so they would say we're doing the work of the kingdom internally and that the church's job is to be the church and that just by existing as this alternative society that's operating as much as possible according to the Sermon on the Mount and these alternative principles that don't align with the world, it's bearing witness to the kingdom of God. Whether they're evangelizing or not, which there doesn't tend to be a lot of evangelization in those groups, and certainly without engaging with politics, they're saying just our existence bears witness to the shortcomings of the political order. But since we don't have any responsibility to the political order, we're just going to be over here bearing witness by existing. That's a very small percentage of Christians and there's ways of kind of taking lessons from that approach without adopting it wholesale. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. I think, you know, just what you said, the responsibility of the church is to be the church. I think there's some truth in that. Then it gets down to, well, is being the church, does that necessarily imply that we're isolationist, that we shouldn't engage, that we shouldn't do these things? And that's what some of these other views really take on to some degree, correct? Like they would take that kernel and go, yeah, but to be the church doesn't preclude us from being a part of the world. It doesn't mean that we have no responsibility to the rest of God's creation. It simply means that we have to, I think you put it, be salty, you know, and be a salted community within the world. Is that a, it's sort of that middle section of views. Is that basically what they're doing in different, obviously there's different nuances and you do a really good job of laying those out, but is that a fair summary of what they do in the middle? Yeah, they're, they don't necessarily all use that same language of the church's role is just to be the church, but the idea that the church has a particular place in society, but that doesn't mean you have to be isolated. You can look at the world and say, part of the way we bear witness in the world and part of the way we are fruitful in the world, consistent with the Genesis mandate, is by actually being involved in the social order and the social order also includes government. And so we have to be really careful and thoughtful about how we do that and why we do that, but we're not precluded from doing it. And so one of the things that I really appreciated about the way you address these, you know, you sort of bracket out dominionism and Christian nationalism, right? Those are gone. They're, they're non-starters really. And I agree with you, but the rest, you leave sort of as viable options, all with their own problems. And so what I'm wondering is, do you, do you really see after doing your study, after, after doing all the research and writing all this out, do you basically see a lot of Christians hovering across these views? You know, sort of, it really is a true spectrum where if we adopt one, we're probably making bigger mistakes than if we just say, no, there's a spectrum here. Does that make, does that make sense, what I'm asking? Yeah, I think that, I think for a lot of Christians, we, when we're engaged politically, we're, we might be thinking about our political engagement in a Christian way, but we don't necessarily have these specific theological categories for what we're doing. So part of my hope is, you know, if you read this book, you're probably recognizing like, oh, okay, that's kind of where I find myself landing or where I already land. I just didn't know that that's what you could call that or where the theology behind it was. And I do think that then if you adopt a hard line and say, this is the one right way to do it, you as an individual are likely to fall into some errors and become too rigid and not open to thinking really carefully about things and ultimately just become partisan. And also to, you know, eat your fellow Christians alive by saying, no, this is the one right way to do it. The other, the other piece of this is that we could, if we can recognize as Christians that there are multiple faithful ways to approach politics theologically and that are going to lead people to different parties, to different policy positions, that kind of thing. We can question, you know, how do you come to that conclusion? Why do I agree or disagree with you? But we don't have to reject them as brothers and sisters in Christ just because, well, I might land somewhere here on the spectrum and you land somewhere else on the spectrum. Those can both be faithful and we can agree to disagree or better yet, we can learn from each other and become more faithful together. You know, one of the challenges I've found as I've thought through this issue of, you know, politics and scripture, political theology, whatever we want to call it, the idea of how do we go from the biblical teachings to our modern day democracy where it's of the people, by the people, for the people, where that is nowhere present in scripture. It's a real challenge because, you know, you just take some of Paul's injunctions to the Christians in Rome. He's giving them very context-specific advice, not that there's not a general theology driving that or, you know, theological moorings that are driving that advice, but it's advice within a context. He's not advising them on how to function in a democracy because they're not in one. And so how do you think about that? How do you think about this sort of moving from, you know, the Old Testament, which has a variety of different sort of governing structures or styles, then into, you know, Greco-Roman period with Paul and Jesus and all those. How did you think about that bridging of the context? Yeah, I think kind of my overarching understanding is that once, once you get past a certain piece of the Old Testament, you don't have direct rule by God anymore, right? You have kingdoms and all that. And so God, God can rule through kind of human agents, but, you know, the whole history of the Old Testament is how much the kings screwed that up, right? So it's like, and I think one of the lessons I take from that is that there is no perfect geopolitical system because the only perfect system is God and not, not human implementation of what we think the Bible says, but God's direct reign that doesn't come mediated through specific people or specific systems. It's ultimately eschatological. And so, you know, in eternity, in the kingdom of God, we will experience perfect peace.

in the perfect reign of God, in the meantime, we have all of these different systems that humans come up with, and they're not ordained by God. God doesn't, you know, God doesn't even really like monarchy, right? God's like, okay, I guess I'll give you a king if you really want that, but God never says monarchy is the best system. Certainly never says democracy is the best system or communism, you know, any of these political systems. None of them are created and ordained by God. They're vehicles that God can use to kind of keep society from collapsing on itself. And so you have, you have monarchies, you have empires, you have democracies, you have all these different systems. They all have their flaws. They all have their benefits. And so when I read Paul and Romans 16, and you know, you're subject to the government, I mean, there's a lot of different ways that's used and abused and interpreted well and poorly, right? But yes, part of what I see there is he's talking to Christians who are in a system where they do not have the right or the opportunity to try to influence government in any meaningful way. And so writing to people who are under imperial rule, including Jews who have been under occupation for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years at that point, saying this is how you can live faithfully as a Christian given this reality. The government is ordained by God, meaning God ordains government, not God chose this emperor or God chose the imperial system, but the existence of government is ordained by God. And so given that reality, you're not an anarchist. That was, you know, part of the question of the early church, like, oh, are we just free from all laws and all the like? No, that's not going to go well. Yeah, no, no. Yeah. Like that, that would be a bad idea. That would harm our witness in the world. So, yes, follow the law. That's part of how you're a good witness is by not being a menace, right? To, to society contributing to anarchy or chaos. And also Paul's not trying to get people into a situation of persecution, right? They're, they're persecuted on their own just by existing. And so they don't need to go out of their way to cause problems for themselves. We're in a different system because we do have the right and the opportunity to be directly involved in government, to elect our leaders, to influence our laws. And so the, the idea of government being ordained by God. Yeah. Not necessarily a particular form of government or a particular candidate, but the concept that we have government is ordained by God. And so how do we then interact with that government in a way that benefits the common good, that bears witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, that also doesn't say, well, then the government is a Messiah because it's not that only Jesus is that. Yeah. This is a really interesting, um, and I appreciate the answer. I think, yeah, I think that's largely how I've thought through it. I think, you know, at the end of the day, we're just in such a different context where our choices, we're trying to discern what is right and what is wrong. And sort of some of the brain teasers, I guess I have going, or when I look back on something like a Jeremiah 25 where God is saying to Israel through Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar is my servant. You just think about the number of Jews who would have raised their hand to vote for Nebuchadnezzar to be ruler over them. And you, you say, well, it's probably going to be close to zero. Like nobody wanted Nebuchadnezzar coming in and taking over and yet he did. And so the movement of God in history, the way he, he handles his relationship with nations, the way he places rulers, the way he, you know, sort of orchestrates these things, sort of a fascinating counterpoint to our conception of choosing our leaders. It's just such a challenging sort of conundrum, I think. So I don't know, I just, but yeah, I think, so basically, if I were to summarize what you're saying just to make sure I get it right, these, we are in a context and really what we're looking at for scripture is how do we be faithful within this context? And that's going to come with its own sort of navigational challenges. We're going to get some of it right. We're going to get some of it wrong. And there's probably a range of ways for us to be faithful that won't always look the same from Christian to Christian, from context to context. Yeah. That's basically it. Yeah. Well, I'll tell you, I loved reading the book. It was really clarifying for me in a lot of ways. I love that you lay out all these different views. And I think that your, um, your approach to it is just extremely helpful. So, um, thanks for being on and thanks for writing it. Uh, I, I ask my guests one question before you leave, um, before we go. So the question is this, what topics do you think Christians should be thinking about today that will help us to be and make disciples for Jesus Christ more faithfully? Oh gosh. And Christians should be thinking more carefully about everything. That's a fair answer. Yeah. I mean, I, I, I do really think that especially right now in 2024, the way we think about politics, not just as implementing the policy that we think should be implemented or electing the person we want elected, but thinking about the way we engage in politics as part of our witness in the world. And that that needs to be what comes first. Like how, how is this making disciples? How is not just my position, but my posture, the way I engage with people? Is this drawing people toward the love of God or not? And resisting that pull to enter the divisive fray and kind of fuel that, that anger and division and tension. We really need to be thinking more carefully about how our engagement bears witness to the love of God and who Jesus Christ really is. Yeah, that's a great answer. So keep God in the forefront of our vision, even if it means sacrificing some of our political desires and interests, but always glorifying God first and then engaging in politics sort of as a way to glorify God. Yeah. Yeah. Very good. Well, I really appreciate you being here. Thanks so much for everybody listening. I would recommend Faithful Politics. We'll have a link to the book in the show's notes. And you can find out more about what Miranda's been doing at her website, at the, I'm sorry, at the Indiana Wesleyan website is probably where I'll link people. Do you have a personal website? I have a, I have a blog. I don't post as much as I'm writing a book, but it's just MirandaSupportCruz.com. We'll link that in the, in the show notes as well. And thanks Miranda for being here. Really appreciate it. Thanks so much for having me, James. All right. We'll catch everybody on the next episode of Thinking Christian. Just want to take a second to thank the team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on the Thinking Christian podcast. If you go to LifeAudio.com, you'll find dozens of other faith-centered podcasts in their network. They've got shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more. I'm bestselling author John Seidel, and I'm the Christian who became an alcoholic, not the other way around. Through the power of Jesus, I got sober, and now I'm sharing both my story and the stories of others just like me, along with helpful interviews from trauma, faith, and addiction recovery experts. If you're a fan of messy sanctification and powerful stories, join me on the Confessions of a Christian Alcoholic podcast on Life Audio or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts. Let's get radically vulnerable.