The Perils of Partisanship

Is a Different Vision Possible?

As I read the news this past week, two stories in particular struck me. The first concerned the standoff between the Trump administration and the state of Maine over its refusal to ban transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports. Several weeks ago, Trump publicly threatened that he would withhold federal funding if Governor Janet Mills did not comply with his demands. Her defiant response was, "See you in court," which she certainly will. The other story involved the deplorable actions of the Trump administration in sending hundreds of individuals to El Salvador, denying them the due process our constitution requires. Certainly, many of these individuals are terrible people who do not belong in our country. However, it also seems likely that some, like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, may not fit this description. The powers that be are refusing to bring him back, lest they have to confront their mistake and face scrutiny for any other individuals they have wrongfully imprisoned in a foreign gulag.

Without drawing any moral equivalency, both of these stories share a common thread: each involves an entrenched position held by a political party's base, and both positions warrant critique. In the case of Governor Mills, I respect anyone willing to stand up to Trump, but I question whether this is the right battle to wage. From a practical standpoint, it appears to be a losing issue for the Democrats—a fact even Governor Gavin Newsom of California acknowledges. Are Republicans, Fox News, etc. exploiting the situation of the approximately seven NCAA transgender athletes to frame this as a much larger issue than it is? Absolutely. Sensationalizing stories and manufacturing crises based on tragic, complicated, or controversial events is what they do best. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong in this instance, as the prevailing gender ideology clashes with the reality of physiology. One can acknowledge that those born biologically male possess an advantage over those born biologically female without necessarily being a hateful bigot who wants to inflict pain on others. Regarding the imprisonment of Garcia, I won't belabor the point. Anyone with a shred of human decency and a basic understanding of the constitution should recognize this as the travesty it is. With a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling demanding Garcia's return to the US, even Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas demonstrated this clarity.

Imagine, if you can, a world where Americans could critique both of these positions—regardless of their political affiliation or preferred media sources—rather than only focusing on one or the other. If you're feeling particularly imaginative, now envision that Christians could actually do this. One reason this may seem inconceivable is that a great many view their worldview and faith through a partisan political lens. Doubtless, many would reject this claim, believing they interpret the Bible objectively while accusing others of bringing outside influences to their interpretation. My previous article extensively discussed Al Mohler’s "biblical" worldview, which conveniently aligns perfectly with the Republican Party’s platform. The only intriguing aspect of his predictable takes is observing the mental gymnastics required to distract from or defend everything Trump does. Similar to a YouTube clip of a monkey on a skateboard, it might be entertaining, but it is hardly edifying or enlightening. Of course, a parallel version exists on the left. Earlier this week, Georgia Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock, in an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, referred to himself as a "Matthew 25 Christian." For him, this implies a particular economic agenda that places him squarely within the Democratic party. While I appreciated much of what he had to say, anyone following his career knows there is not any daylight between him and his own party’s platform, even as it may conflict with the scriptures he holds dear.

To a certain extent, this is understandable. Our nation operates with two major political parties, and believers seeking to engage must navigate how to operate inside this system. Throughout the scriptures, we find individuals working within complex political realities, whether it be Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Paul, or most notably, Jesus. For this reason, Jesus instructed his followers to be "as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." Wisdom, finesse, and strategy are required, but so is faithfulness. With a particular allegiance and distinct values, the church has a responsibility to hold fast to what it believes to be true, rather than simply having its positions conform to or be dictated by a political party in service to the nation-state. However, it becomes painfully obvious that the cart is pulling the horse when Christians perpetually align their views neatly with a party's platform. An unwillingness to offer any criticism whatsoever of their own tribe only provides further evidence they have been absorbed. As the ‘salt’ Jesus describes in the Sermon on the Mount loses its saltiness, believers render themselves irrelevant—that is, apart from providing divine rationale or permission for people to do what they were going to do anyway. While a simplistic approach of ‘my side is always right, and everyone else is always wrong’ may be attractive, any attempt at objectivity has to acknowledge that the world is more complicated than this. If someone cannot be honest about their own side, then they are nothing more than a partisan hack who should not be trusted to tell the truth. I would argue it’s the informed who hold on to their tribe loosely—or even better, makes me wonder whether they have one—that should be taken seriously.

For an example, I would point you to a scholar named Stanley Hauerwas. While I am prone to hyperbole, I can say with all sincerity that his book Resident Aliens profoundly changed my life. To borrow from the Broadway show Wicked, "Who can say if I've been changed for the better? But … I have been changed for good." Hauerwas is a wiry Texan in his 80s with a penchant for using both scripture and profanity to make his point. Having been a professor at both Notre Dame (a Roman Catholic university) and Duke (a Methodist school) while promoting Anabaptist ideas, he doesn't fit neatly into any categories. Too conservative for the liberals and too liberal for the conservatives without being some mushy middle-of-the-road moderate, Hauerwas emphasizes the role of the church as embodying a different kind of politics entirely. Though a number of Hauerwas’ conclusions I do not accept—particularly the requirement of pacifism—the questions he raises force me to grapple with what I actually believe, what I should believe, and how those beliefs should impact my life. After twenty-five years, I still reflect on his question of where the allegiance of Christians truly lies when they kill each other in service to their particular nation-states. Even as I cannot get completely on board with him, at no point do I ever question where his allegiance lies. He is committed to Jesus and his kingdom. As a result, he simply states what he believes and lets the chips fall where they may.

In this respect, I believe Donald Trump may actually be instructive. Seldom does he concern himself with political calculation like everyone else in Washington, but rather just says what he thinks—and then lets everyone else deal with it. Of course, this is easier for a billionaire incapable of shame who has shown himself to be above the law with an audience that believes whatever he says. Even still, he manages to shift the Overton Window by forcing a party to conform to him rather than conforming himself to the party. While his objectives are to enrich the 1% and allow the lawless to thrive, what if Christians were able to do something similar for the common good? Rather than fitting themselves within whatever the existing paradigm of left versus right, what if they had the ability to shape the conversation? What if they had the moral imagination to speak in ways that didn’t fall into established categories? What if Christians could speak out against ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ in schools but also concern themselves with the firearms murdering children in school as well? What if they could condemn gender transition surgeries for children not old enough to drink a beer while, at the same time, being committed to protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans regardless of their personal beliefs? What if they actually sought to understand a concept like CRT, reject elements deemed problematic, and still fight for those impacted by injustice? What if there was a possibility of bringing both parties away from their extremes? What if they refused to be manipulated by those being enriched by cultivating our fear and anger? What if they didn’t accept either/or dynamics, but at the same time, when faced with sending potentially innocent people away to rot in a prison versus focusing on transgender athletes, they could assess what might be of greater importance? What if?

As John Lennon sang, “some say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.” I wonder how many others are open to a different kind of social and political engagement these days. To be clear, I don’t pretend that my views are the definitive take on any of these matters, nor do I know the specifics of what this different vision might look like in 21st Century America. What I do know is that Republicans have known for the last fifty years they have the support of virtually any candidate no matter how corrupt, incompetent, or dangerous they might be; that is, as long as they said the right thing on abortion and/or matters concerning gender/sexuality. To be sure, the left carries significant blame as well, but that doesn’t excuse conservatives handing their country over to a fascist. The harsh reality is that unless our nation begins to approach these matters differently, we are going to continue down a very dark path. Can believers sing a different tune rather than play the same note over and over again? For the sake of our country, we better.