It isn't often that political philosophy and theology are explicitly linked. When someone who has influence in politics makes the connection, we should pay attention. That is what happened in this article tweeted by Sebastian Gorka, President Trump's Deputy Assistant. The article, by Joshua Mitchell of the American Affairs Journal, is entitled "A Renewed Republican Party." Gorka's comment on the article was, "STUNNING analysis of why @realDonaldTrump won and what it means for us all."
The article weaves a story of the roots of political thought in America, and it attempts to explain why Donald Trump won and to define what direction American politics should take now. Mitchell demonstrates a good understanding of the important influence of theology on voters and political leaders. He can explain the relationship between theology and philosophy in political thought. He makes a compelling argument for government policy that is both informed by the history of theology and modest in its estimate of the ability of government to bring about human flourishing. He sees churches (and synagogues) as central to the work of healing the wounds of American society.
While Mitchell's knowledge of and respect for the foundational role of theology in government policy are remarkable, however, his disregard for the central concerns of theology show the hollowness of the promise of his proposed civil religion. This is particularly so when he asks petulantly why European thinkers like John Calvin continue to shape the thinking of political conservatives. Here is his argument for a move away from Calvin:
"The covenantal theology found in The Institutes of Christian Religion (1559) is certainly important if we wish to understand Puritan New England. But who reads Calvin’s great American heir, Jonathan Edwards, today, except perhaps to frighten undergraduates? When original sin no longer captivates the American imagination, what use can Calvin be for us today? Protestant Evangelicals of the Reagan coalition did have an unforgiving view of sin; but like all austere religious movements in America, their ideas have softened with time. It is quite a leap from Calvin to the “compassionate conservatism” that many Protestant Evangelicals hold today."
Lest you think that this quote is taken out of context, here is his assessment of basing American political thought on European sources: "Each one of these authors helps us think about America, but they help more as critics than as defenders of the American experiment. Political parties will have no more than occasional successes if they are constantly trying to modify and attenuate the existing state of things. To achieve enduring results, they must work with the material at hand, not as if it is alien, but as if it is familiar." "The material at hand," in Mitchell's view, does not include the full package of Puritan New England theology, but so much of it as he believes continues to "captivate the American imagination." He would be happy with more about America as a "shining city on a hill" and less about original sin.
Views like Mitchell's are common among those who want to continue to see the benefits of theology for national strength and social cohesion, yet fail to understand how theology works. The agenda of theology is not set by popular opinion or by political strategists, but by the written Word of God. Central to its message are the issues of sin (including original sin) and salvation. The true church of Christ is much less concerned with political revival than it is with spiritual revival.
Mitchell proposes an agenda for political parties, but that agenda requires the cooperation of churches. Churches must resist the kind of cooperation that Mitchell is looking for. Christians involved in politics must reject the theological agenda that Mitchell is proposing. His analysis of the legacy of John Winthrop is sound as far as it goes, but if it leaves out original sin, it misses the point. Yes, the teaching of original sin is controversial. Yes, it may make the political unification of Americans more difficult. Yet it is indispensable. Without original sin, there is no salvation, no virtue, no grace, no Christianity.
Mitchell has thrown down a challenge to the Republican Party: will it reject the doctrine of original sin as outside the bounds of political speech? Or will it include those who affirm it and, in doing so, affirm the cure for original sin accomplished by the second Adam, Jesus Christ?
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." Romans 5:12, 18-19
"For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." Romans 5:17
