As an evangelical Christian who leans left politically, I am typically much more aware of the flaws of my brothers and sisters on the right. The deification of Donald Trump, the rampant immorality and greed, the blending of Christian symbols with unchristian behavior: I could go on and on (and I have indeed written numerous posts criticizing the Christian right; just scroll through my Substack archives here).
But as time goes on, I have become more and more troubled with some tensions I see within Christians on the left. For the sake of vulnerability, that’s because these are unsettled questions that I have within myself.
Now, maybe it’s just me, and someone in the comments section will give me the perfect argument to help push through my uneasiness. Until then, here are three tensions I believe the American Christian Left needs to wrestle with.
1. Do we want to live in a nation based on Christian values, or not?
During recent debates over the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” I kept seeing Christians who argued that cutting Medicaid or SNAP funding was unbiblical because it hurts the poor, who Christians are supposed to protect.1 This line of argument gets used by leftwing Christians for loads of issues, sometimes used effectively, more oftentimes not.
But the big problem is, most modern-day liberal Christians also argue that America should not even be a “Christian nation,” and that the US should not privilege Christian beliefs or perspectives. So which is it?
Left-leaning Christians can’t have it both ways. If they want to tell conservatives that they shouldn’t use their faith to justify conservative policies, then they can’t turn around and use that same faith to justify liberal policies. And in the flipside, if liberals think that it is valid to base policies on Christian morality (at least in part), then the debate becomes not about whether “Christian nationalism” is bad or not, but which form of Christian nationalism we prefer: a right-wing version, a left-wing version, or some hybrid as yet unseen…
2. Coercion is unavoidable at any level of government. Does that mean Christians shouldn’t participate in government?
As an Anabaptist Christian, I am perhaps more sensitive to this question than most Christians. Anabaptists are a sect of Christians that are firmly opposed to nearly all forms of coercion. We refuse to fight in wars because physical force is coercive; we even refuse to baptize infants into Christianity because they have not consented to that (we practice adult believer’s baptism instead). Many Anabaptists were hunted down, tortured, and killed by both Catholics and Protestants during the 1500s and 1600s because our beliefs were seen as too radical.2
Of course, it’s not just Anabaptists. Left-leaning Christians believe coercion is generally bad, and that individuals should have the freedom to make their own way in the world. Post-modern philosophers such as Foucault have pointed out that even the words we use can be a tool of coercion, so liberals love inventing new vocabulary to avoid even a hint of exclusion, coercion, or cultural hegemony (ex. “Latinx”, “differently abled,” etc.).
But what people don’t realize is that coercion is unavoidable at any level of human society, especially politics. Take the simplest, morally neutral activity: driving on the right-hand side of the road. There’s nothing morally superior about driving on the right-hand side of the road instead of the left. But our traffic patterns, signage, and road design are made to force people to drive on the right-hand side. And of course, if someone doesn’t drive on the right-hand side of the road, they can face fines, license revocation, and even arrest. At the end of the day, it's coercion all the way down, whether overt or covert, down to the smallest matters of society.
Left-leaning Christians, particularly those who think all coercion is bad, need to wrestle with this fact. At the end of the day, government is itself coercive. Unless left-leaning Christians are prepared to embrace Christian Anarchism3 , they need to stop issuing broad critiques of government coercion, and instead have a more principled discussion about what makes coercion good or bad, valid or invalid.
3. Whatever we’re doing to persuade folks to oppose MAGA, it’s being counterproductive
Ryan Burge is the legendary Substack author of Graphs about Religion , and recently he showed how among almost every group of young adults, support for Trump has increased since 2016.
As with anything in such a big coutnry, there are myriad factors at work here. But I think personally many folks feel exhausted at moralistic posturing by white, educated, progressive elites (like myself). Rather than persuading others, most of these arguments against Trump come across as judgmental and mean.
In a democratic society, it doesn’t matter how correct your arguments are if they end up alienating folks on the other side. We Christians should know this well: evangelism that pushes people away from Jesus is worse than no evangelism at all. Liberal Christians might fear compromising on their core beliefs, or colluding with the “American Empire.” Maybe that’s true, and it’s worth holding to our ground at all costs. But if our words and actions lead to the very results we fear (i.e., more people joining MAGA), it’s worth at least a conversation as to our tactics.
Conclusion
The American Christian Left has a lot on its plate. It’s not fun to have internecine debates. But I firmly believe our witness will be a lot stronger if we can gain clarity on where we stand on each of these tension points.
Conservatives, of course, would argue that there are better ways to help the poor and that imposing work requirements helps the poor more than it hurts them, but that’s a different conversation.
There is a fantastic story of an Anabaptist named Dirk Willems, who while being pursued over an icy river, heard the ice crack and a soldier fall into the water. Rather than keep running, Dirk Willems turned around and saved his persecutor. As a reward for his act of love to his enemy, Dirk was…arrested and executed anyway!
As the fantastic Anarchierkegaard has described in his series here
Your first point reminds me of a recent conversation between Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat. Ezra was complaining that Christians on the Right should be more Christian by supporting government policies that help the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the stranger. To which Ross responded (paraphrased): "You want Christians to champion Christian ethics while rejecting Christian (and Jewish) metaphysics. Why do you think you can enjoy the fruits of a tree that in your liberal garden has no roots?" >> I'm Jewish, but I have to agree with Ross the Catholic on this point.
This is a great post. I read it last night and have been mulling it over today. I grew up in conservative evangelical spaces but have been part of more progressive faith spaces the past several years.
Granted, I grew up in a faith tradition (Churches of Christ) averse to discussing politics in church, but the mixing of politics and religion is pretty prevalent in progressive spaces and I’m not sure where the line is. This past weekend, a church I used to attend had a rising star in the Democratic Party, who often invokes his faith when discussing his policy views, speak on Sunday morning in lieu of the typical sermon. When does this become the same behavior that’s alarming on the right? Where’s the line? I appreciate you noting the tension.