Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Politics and Religion
Recovering Liberal Democratic Norms in Christian Politics: An Interview with Jay Green

Recovering Liberal Democratic Norms in Christian Politics: An Interview with Jay Green

Last updated on: November 29, 2022 at 3:30 am by Daniel K. Williams

Recovering Liberal Democratic Norms in Christian Politics: An Interview with Jay Green 2022-11-28T16:24:01-04:00 Daniel K. Williams

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I have becoming increasingly convinced that the preservation of a functioning democracy in which human rights are respected and civil discourse across the political spectrum is encouraged should be one of the most important priorities for American evangelical Christians. Yet too often, evangelical Christians are divided themselves about the value of civil discourse and democratic norms, with some openly rejecting these virtues.

Storming of the US Capitol, January 6, 2021. Photo by Tyler Merbler (Wikimedia Commons).

I’ve written elsewhere about why American evangelicals should care about the health of our democracy, but I was delighted to hear Jay Green, a professor of history at Covenant College (and former president of the Conference on Faith and History), not only express similar sentiments but also combine his exhortation with an analysis of current political divisions among American evangelicals. As Jay suggests, disagreements about the means that we use in achieving political goals may be even more important than differences in opinion about the goals themselves.

I first encountered Jay’s analysis in his address at the Lee Symposium, a small annual gathering of Christian academics that takes place at Lee University in Cleveland, Tennessee. Yesterday Jay published an edited version of that address in Current.

Stream Covenant College | Listen to Dr. Jay Green, Professor of History at Covenant College playlist online for free on SoundCloud

Jay Green

Because of my interest in Jay’s analysis, I’m devoting my Anxious Bench post today to an interview with Jay about the argument that he presented at the Lee Symposium.

DW: In your address at the Lee Symposium, you said that traditionally, we have thought of political divisions among evangelicals (and among Americans in general) extending along a left-to-right continuum, but that today there’s another more important division that cuts across the traditional left-right spectrum. That division relates primarily to strategy, rather than mere values. Can you describe that division and explain why it’s important?

JG: Yes, we ordinarily think of American Christians as being divided over the public goals they hold for American society, which we often refer to as debates over “values.” In order to avoid confusing (and increasingly meaningless) “left vs. right” language, I have labeled this continuum of Christian public aspirations, “Emancipatory” vs. “Civilizational.” The former category emphasizes the hope that the state will ensure liberty for all in the pursuit of a just, flourishing, pluralistic society. Emancipatory Christians aren’t interested in the state giving special treatment to Christians or Christian priorities, per se. They herald the rise of racial justice, gender equality, and other contemporary movements of liberation as important steps toward realizing what they see as broadly Christian goals of a justice and freedom.

Civilizational Christians, on the other hand, are inclined to think the state should back policies and laws broadly supportive of the Judeo-Christian principles and priorities, which they see as foundational to the American system. They don’t necessarily support the suppression of freedoms for other groups, but they do presume the underlying Christian character of American ideals and institutions. Recent social developments—the sexual revolution, the rise of abortion-on-demand and no-fault divorce, and the normalization of LGBTQ lifestyles—are evidence of the nation’s precipitous decline and reasons for lament. In this light, Civilizational Christians since the 1960s have promoted goals of “restoration” and “return.”

This peculiar dynamic has fueled what James Davison Hunter labeled the American culture wars, which have been raging since the 1960s. We have grown accustomed to defining differences among Christians roughly along these lines. I don’t disagree with this assessment. However, within each group I have observed a rapidly growing segment who advocate their respective public goals without regard to the moderating principles of liberalism—freedom of speech, liberty of conscience, tolerance of difference, and the rule of law. The goals remain much the same, but the procedures for achieving them increasingly adopt a more radical “whatever it takes to win” posture. Illiberal impulses in each group make every public debate a zero-sum game and, as a result, fill our public discourse with ever greater rage and the looming threat of violence. All that remains is a will to power and groups that believe it increasingly necessary to achieve their goals at any cost.

DW: If we accept your premise that a division over strategy cuts across divisions over ideology, we can divide evangelical political attitudes into four quadrants. Can you describe each of those quadrants and tell us a little bit about what institutions or groups of people might be in each of these quadrants?

JG: Starting from the traditional Emancipatory vs. Civilizational division, I label those in each camp that remain bound by the commitments of liberalism, Minimalists. And those who have lost faith in liberal principles and procedures, Maximalists. So that leaves us with four groups, one in each quadrant:

Civilizational Minimalists see the goal of Christian engagement in public life as supporting policies that will allow the nation to develop its underlying Judeo Christian values within the framework of the liberal Constitutional system. These are what we once called “social conservatives,” who believe in personal freedom, small government, free markets, and traditional values. While Civilizational Minimalists have broadly Christian public goals and believe the state should with them in carrying them forward, they are not pursuing aggressive government action with its thumb on the scales for Christians. Writers like Marvin Olasky and Robert George, and organizations like the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Acton Institute fit in this group.

Emancipatory Minimalists hold comparable views, though with decidedly different emphases. They believe that the goal of Christian action in public life is to preserve freedom and equality of every person regardless of race, ethnicity, religious persuasion, or gender. Their efforts are likewise bound by liberalism (free speech, free markets, individual rights), viewing it as the best way to ensure such civil rights and liberties for all—Christians included. They presume that America is and should be comprised of a rich tapestry of cultural backgrounds and lifestyles (including those to which Christians might personally object). Civilizational ambitions are inconsistent with the founding, but they are also futile because we already live in an intensely pluralistic society. Writers like David French and Karen Swallow Prior, and publications like Christianity Today fit in this group.

Emancipatory Maximalists are known most widely by their critics as Woke Christians, or, less generously, the “Woke Mob.” Their convictions seem rooted in many of the features of traditional liberalism, with its emphasis on civil liberties, personal rights, and cultural diversity. But they have largely abandoned the procedural niceties of liberalism in exchange for a hardened visions of identity politics and formal activism. They emphasize America’s long history of racism, sexism, and homophobia, but see these impulses not as poisonous forces that have thrived despite Christianity and the liberal order, but as implicit dimensions of American life because of Christianity and the liberal order – or, at least, because of the white patriarchal version of Christianity that they think has long characterized American evangelicalism. Liberalism, they often claim, has been the tool of straight, white, cisgender male Christians to keep the marginalized marginalized. Writers like Jemar Tisby and Kristin Kobes Du Mez, and publications like Red-Letter Christians and Sojourners largely align with this group.

Civilizational Maximalists believe that Christians involved in public life must do “whatever it takes” to return American society to its status as a religious civilization marked by Christian virtue. Like the Emancipatory Maximalists, they have lost faith in the value of liberal procedures and principles. If Emancipatory Maximalists consider liberalism an historic harbor of white privilege and exploitative capitalism, Civilizational Maximalists consider it to be a weak and an inherently compromised system that opened the door to radical ideologies that are undermining the institutions and structures of civilization. They often express an almost primal rage at what they view as runaway leftist radicals who have “stolen” their country, trampled their values, and now threaten the future of their children. Originally coined as a category of criticism, Civilizational Maximalists have increasingly come to embrace the label “Christian Nationalist.” Figures from Eric Metaxas to Charlie Kirk, Megan Basham to John MacArthur, and publications from The Federalist and First Things to The Daily Caller and The Daily Wire align with this group.

DW: You described two of the quadrants as “bound by commitments to liberalism.” What do you mean by “liberalism” in this context? What type of “liberal commitments” do you think both progressives and conservatives should affirm?

JG: Liberalism is a confusing and highly contested term. For many conservatives, it has become synonymous with “progressive,” “leftist,” and even “Woke.” That’s not at all my intent.

I am using the term to signify something closer to “classical liberalism.” It comprises that constellation of ideals that underwrite the American founding: freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, along with liberty of conscience, tolerance of difference, the illuminating power of dissent, and the hope of incremental change through public debate, persuasion, and compromise.

Of course, none of these ideals amounts to much without institutional commitments and social norms that uphold and reward citizenship under the rule of law. Regardless of their public goals, I believe Christians should submit to the principles and procedures of liberalism to achieve them.

DW: At what point do you think significant numbers of American evangelicals began rejecting the liberal norms that you describe? Why did they do so? And what are the consequences of doing so?

JG: There are a number of theories floating about that speculate on this question. Some believe that evangelicals (especially the Civilizational Maximalists) were never truly committed to the principles of liberalism. They have historically given formal lip service to its principles—especially when they held large majorities and wielded social power—but practiced authoritarian rule, suppressing dissent at every turn. David Sehat’s The Myth of American Religious Freedom makes a pretty compelling case for this perspective. I am not cynical enough to think that evangelicals have never genuinely committed themselves to the tenets of liberalism, though I do believe their diminishing access to social power has led to a rising authoritarian (“whatever it takes”) mindset. It’s easy to affirm liberalism when you hold the levers of power or trust those who do, and just as easy to abandon it when those levers of power feel out of reach.

To the degree that evangelicals understand that they have lost the culture war and have no meaningful standing among—and, in fact, stand in stark opposition to—the major institutions of cultural influence (journalism, higher education, “big tech,” television, film, and corporate boardrooms), many wonder if there remains any virtue in continuing to submit to a system that they have so many times heard described as “rigged.” Those who continue to uphold such values are increasingly seen either as suckers or in league with the “enemies of the faith.”

DW: You describe yourself as an “emancipatory minimalist” (and I probably would, too), but you teach at an institution that includes significant numbers of civilizational minimalists, at least in other departments. We are both part of professional circles that include people that you might describe as “emancipatory maximalists,” and if you’re like me, you might be part of church circles that include at least a few “civilizational maximalists.” How do you as a Christian, a historian, and an American who cares about democracy relate to people in each of these other quadrants? What would you encourage other “emancipatory minimalists” to do to advance the commitments to liberalism that they hold without resorting to the wrong sort of tactics?

JG: One of the reasons I pursued this back-of-the-napkin project of remapping contemporary Christian discourse was to understand the various encounters I am apt to have as a member both of an evangelical church (among some Christian nationalists) and the contemporary academy (among a great many “Woke” activists). I find myself defending and criticizing both groups depending on which set of friends I am at that moment engaging. Both sides have legitimate grievances. Neither feels that its peculiar priorities receive adequate recognition. The most important insight I have gleaned from this exercise is that liberalism isn’t simply a helpful framework for debates like these. It is essential for the health of our republic!

Prior to the election of Donald Trump, I naively took the institutions and ideals of liberalism for granted. And, as such, I didn’t pay much attention to public procedures and strategies for achieving goals that I considered worthy. If I found myself in agreement with the “ends,” I didn’t give a lot of thought to the “means.” Worries about the size and scope of the state didn’t worry me a lot, especially if I liked the people running things. The underlying sturdiness of the American system never seemed in doubt. In fact, I never gave it too much thought.

Four years of life under a president who didn’t understand the American system, and actively worked to undermine it, led me to reexamine my careless assumptions. I often say that the Trump presidency made me MORE not LESS conservative, if by “conservative” one means more consciously attentive to the founding principles of the nation.

Emancipationists and Civilizationists both identify genuine problems within American society, and both offer legitimate critiques of the excesses of “the other side.” Depending on which side of bed I get out of in the morning, and which particular set of concerns one or the other is raising, I am likely to find one or the other account of our collective struggles (or both) compelling. But, in the end, if we hope to maintain a peaceable, orderly, and flourishing social order, the goals espoused on both sides are going to rely on healthy, functional institutions and norms of liberalism to solve; the very institutions and norms the extremists on both sides continue to remain hellbent on destroying.

DW: Why should Christians care about liberal democratic norms? Why should a commitment to liberal democracy be more than a strategy for us? What Christian principles are at stake in our choice of political tactics?

JG: I think there are practical and principled reasons we should care about these liberal norms. For one, they protect all of us. One need only peer over to authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to see what it looks like to live in a world without the protections of liberalism. That Civilizational Maximalists like Rod Dreher find such “promise” in illiberal models such as Viktor Orban’s Hungary should make all of us shudder.

But there are more foundational reasons we should commit ourselves to liberal democratic norms. I believe that our commitment to liberalism as believers enables us to conform our public practices to the most elemental features of Christian theology. Ideas such as universal human dignity, openness to outsiders, liberty of conscience, the rule of law, and unalienable rights are deeply rooted in the ancient wisdom of the Old and New Testaments. And when we defend these hallmarks of the liberal tradition, we are upholding some of the most treasured features of our faith.

DW: What can American evangelical Christians do to preserve liberal democratic norms at this particular moment in our country’s political history?

JG: There is a dangerous tendency among evangelicals (left and right) to lean into the “radical” nature of the Christian faith. “Jesus was a revolutionary!” many proclaim. This instinct gives fuel to the so-called “higher” cultural aims of Christianity, whether it is “social justice,” on one hand, or “public righteousness” on the other, the implications for civic peace and social order be damned. When we become uncompromising as Christians in our social aims, anything is possible. We must resist the urge to think of politics in a pluralistic society in the stark categories of “good” and evil” as if it had to be a zero-sum game.

And we need to rediscover a vocabulary of liberalism that tolerates difference, celebrates compromise, and finds satisfaction in slow, incremental, uneven change. If we don’t, it is hard to see how we avoid paving a road to increased civil unrest—even violence.

To the degree that the liberalism draws from some of the deepest insights of historic Christian theology, I would love to see Christians take the lead in reaffirming its values and modeling its best practices. We need to start within our own homes and churches. May God help us.

Politics and Religion

Previous Post

November 28, 2022

The Christmas Movie We Need Right Now

Next Post

November 30, 2022 Can Pluralism Work in Christian Higher Education?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe guest post Guest Post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Samuel Eli Saul David