Naming it What it is

Political Idolatry – That’s What it is

We choose our particular constellation of beliefs on the basis of the group to which we belong or into which we want to be accepted. At times, the first looks like we are compromising what we want to believe, while at other times the second group can appear to be sycophants. We change beliefs for the same reasons.

Christian nationalism, in other words, is a legitimation apparatus of a political persuasion emerging from a cultural group rather than a carefully articulated set of beliefs on the basis of the Bible, theology, or political analysis. We are looking again at Drew J. Strait’s book, Strange Worship: Six Steps for Challenging Christian Nationalism. His next chp is about political idolatry.

Important element in combating Christian nationalism is to name it for what it is: and Strait names it “political idolatry.” I agree.

Strait: “Most important take away from recent scholarship on white Christian nationalism is that it has little to do with following the Jesus of the four gospels and everything to do with preserving cultural privilege and political power, using Jesus and Christianity as mascots for coercing power over others.” An idol, he observes, is “An object of power that distracts us from giving loyalty to God and God's ways in Jesus. An idol is an object of power that demands affection and loyalty. It is a competing allegiance to God.” There you go. He named it. He expands this slightly in these words: “an idle, then, is an object of power that hijacks our theological imagination, distorts our knowledge of God and neighbor, and, ultimately, leads us into what the Jewish rabbis called ‘strange worship’ (avodah zarah).”

Let’s face this: to proclaim and to behave in allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ is as much political as it is religious. Our profession of Jesus Christ is simultaneously a profession of a political orientation to Jesus as the Lord.

Ancient Israel faced political idolatry constantly, and it sought to form belonging, behaviors, and beliefs that resisted the temptations. We can learn from ancient Israel, and Strait’s published dissertation unveiled many of the strategies and tactics of ancient Israel/Judah, and he took the themes into the world of Jesus.

In the world in which Jesus lived, “the perennial danger for the dissident voice was to not irk Rome’s military into violent repression.”

Jesus’s riddle about Caesar’s coin, Strait rightly observes, “invites a posture of suspicion toward ruling powers rather than passive trust.” If we could “disciple” our congregations into this we would have avoided this strange worship at work among us today. Political idolatry is a church culture problem, and is not reducible to a set of beliefs. It’s a discipleship problem. Which means “The perennial danger of the things of Caesar in a modern democracy is this: it can be leveraged for the common good, or it can be leveraged to pacify difference and lord power over others.” He’s also right-on with this: “Once you see political idolatry [=Babylon], you can’t unsee it.” The MAGA Jesus and Christian nationalism are forms of a superstition, and it has taken hold in some circles to falsify the gospel by usurping Christian language for political power. “Desire for power. Desire for order. Desire for boundaries and walls. Desire for whiteness. Desire for wealth. Desire for ‘law and order.’ The object of these desires is not God; rather, it is power and privilege.” Are we seeing this? And are we seeing this as a discipleship, church-culture challenge? Drew Strait is not tossing firebrands into a hothouse; he is pleading with Christians to rediscover the gospel of Jesus as the one true Lord.

He lists six postures and dispositions that lead to “strange worship.”

1.    Loyalty that undermines loyalty to Jesus.

2.    Loyalty that inspires or celebrates harm toward neighbors.

3.    Loyalty that reconfigures our country as the central location of mission.

4.    Loyalty to country that supersedes our baptismal identity.

5.    Loyalty that stimulates a caste system.

6.    Political posturing of absolute or deferential trust instead of suspicion and ambivalence toward political powers.