Christianity and Political Ideology
Does Christianity Align With any Political Ideology?
South Abbotsford Church, February 20, 2018
John H. Redekop Ph.D .1. General Comments.
1.1. The short answer to our question is “no” but the degree of alignment differs from ideology to ideology.
1.2. One can marshal various reasons why Christians should become informed and participate in the political process, especially as voters, but a major reason is this. Given that the Bible states that governmental systems “have been established by God”, that “God has instituted” political structures”(Romans 13: 1, 2), that “thrones or powers or rulers or authorities...were created by him and for him” (Colossians 1: 16), and that a ruler is “God's servant”, God's “agent”, (Romans 13: 4, 6) it follows that when we vote, and thus help to decide who will rule us politically, we function with God in selecting his agents. This is an awesome God-given role, a role which Christians should not take lightly and which, in a democratic society, we ought to consider an important, God-given, opportunity.
1.3. The three ideologies we will consider are democratic socialism, modern liberalism and modern
conservatism. We will not deal with Marxism, communism, fascism, anarchism, or utopianism.
1.4. We must remember that political parties with ideological names do not always hold to such views
2. Christianity, especially Conservative Christianity, and Modern Political Liberalism.
2.1. Areas of congruence or overlap:
(1) Both reject militant, jingoistic nationalism as well as the idea that society is made up of economic
classes constantly fighting one another. Both are trans-national. Liberals speak of “the
brotherhood of man”; Christians speak of the trans-national “brotherhood or peoplehood of the
church”.(2) Both emphasize the moral worth of every person. Every individual is important. Both believe that
every person possesses inherent dignity. Christians emphasize that every person is made in the
image of God; liberals emphasize dignity simply as a trait of being human.
(3) Humanitarianism, that is meeting the basic needs of people, is very important for both political
liberals and conservative Christians. To be human is to have an obligation to help the needy and
marginalized and, more importantly, to be motivated to do something about such situations. Those
who are privileged must assist those who are truly needy. Both Christians and liberals apply this
notion within their country and internationally. Therefore both undertake extensive foreign aid.
(4) Both political liberals and conservative Christians refuse to rationalize serious evils as mere
fate. Both believe that something should be done and must be done to counteract evil.
(5) Both believe that every person possesses potential and should be helped, if help is needed, to
develop that potential. Political liberals rely on government; Christians also on themselves.
(6) Both believe in equality. For a Christian every person, every soul, is of equal value in God's sight.
For a political liberal, all persons should have equal rights simply because they are human. This
emphasis on equality in the law includes equality of males and females and equality of races.
(7) Both emphasize the importance of liberty. Christians emphasize that God has given people free
will and that liberty is needed to exercise free will; political liberals emphasize liberty as a basic
value in its own right.
2.2. Areas of tension and disagreement.
(1) Liberals tend to see human beings as inherently good but often not functioning as good people
because of their circumstances. Christians see human beings as having a fallen nature and
often, or even generally, inclined towards evil because of this innate reality, not because of their
circumstances.
(2) Liberals tend to see the solution to evil as being education and financial assistance, especially
education. Money and education could create a good world. Christians believe that human efforts
can significantly minimize the evil in one's own society and in the world but that evil cannot be
eliminated by money and education. Education simply makes evil people more sophisticated in
their evil attitudes and more accomplished in their evil deeds. Christians see Christian salvation
through faith in Christ as the solution to the human tendency towards evil. (Addressing evil in
government policies and behaviour includes other factors.) They generally believe that
education, by itself, is not the solution to societal evil. In sum, Christians believe that ignorance is
not the cause of evil and education, by itself, is not the remedy.
(3) Liberals tend to emphasize liberty and freedom as good for their own sake with little attention
being given to any moral direction. Christians affirm a clear set of moral values grounded in
Biblical teaching, especially the life and teaching of Jesus. Liberals strongly affirm freedom
but stress that every person should, within very broad limits, be free to determine for himself or
herself what is good and what is moral. Moral relativism is affirmed. This creates problems.
(4) Liberals generally believe that when people come to comprehend what is good they will pursue
what is good. Conservative Christians disagree. The understanding of what is good tends not
to create a determination to do what is good. Rather, morally fallen people tend to pursue goals
that may be evil or at least self-centered even if they know that this is not best for them.
(5) Given the liberal belief in the inherent goodness of people, liberals place great faith in majority
rule. Majorities make the right moral decisions. Given the Christian view that humanity is
morally fallen, Christians do not assume that majorities makes truly good moral decisions.
Christians believe that in many areas majorities should make decisions but that in moral matters
God, not human majorities, has decided and should decree what is morally right. Christians point
out that throughout history majorities have often been wrong in moral matters. In fact, it was
majorities that condemned Socrates, crucified Jesus, and denounced Galileo.
(6) Liberals tend to put much faith in governments and government programs to meet needs and
address evil. Christians agree that many basic needs are best met by government action, such as
counteracting illicit drug dealing, and by certain government programs, such as providing
financial help to blind and disabled people, but Christians are much less supportive of “big
government” as the solution to the evil tendencies in fallen mankind.
3. Christianity, especially Conservative Christianity, and Democratic Socialism.
3.1. Areas of congruence or overlap:
(1) The German theologian Paul Tillich once said that “Christianity is the religion of which socialism
is the practice”. This assertion, at best, is only partly true. Yes, there is some overlap.
(2) Both perspectives have a deep concern to help the needy, the oppressed and the marginalized.
Both want to end economic exploitation and abuse.
(3) To a considerable extent conservative Christianity shares the democratic socialist desire to reduce,
if it is present, a very great disparity between the very rich and the very poor. They tend to differ,
however, in the degree to which the desired end should be accomplished by legislation.
Christianity seeks to achieve some degree of economic levelling by voluntary means; democratic
socialism tends to use the tax laws.
(4) Both perspectives emphasize community although in different ways. Christianity tends to
emphasize Christian community; democratic socialism tends to emphasize secular, economic
co-operative community.
(5) Democratic socialists tend to reject war as a means of solving international disputes, arguing that
the causes of war, which they deem to be economic, need to be addressed. Keeping the trans-
national nature of the Christian church in mind and the characterization of Jesus as the Prince of
Peace, Christians often work with democratic socialists in pressing for alternatives to war,
although the motivation tends to be different.
(6) Informed Christians have often expressed gratitude to British and other democratic socialists,
who, as Christians, worked hard to end the worst abuses of the Industrial Revolution.
3.2. Areas of tension and disagreement:
(1) Democratic socialists are optimistic about human nature. People are inherently good, they say, but
become evil because of their economic circumstances. Conservative Christians do not concur
with this view of innate goodness. Liberals see evil caused by ignorance, democratic socialists see
evil as caused by economic exploitation. Christians reject both of those explanations. More
specifically, Christians reject the view that human nature has been corrupted by capitalism.
Most Christians tend to believe that if economic capitalism is managed wisely, it can produce
great benefit for the entire society. Christians believe that sin can and sometimes does corrupt
capitalism but they do not locate the source of evil in capitalism or any other economic
system. Democratic socialists tend to say that capitalism corrupts people. Christians tend to say
that evil people corrupt capitalism.
(2) Democratic socialists tend to believe that people are primarily economic beings; economics is
thus the most basic consideration. Christians reject that view and assert that while economic
reality is important, it is much less important than spiritual reality. People are not basically
economic beings; they are beings made in the image of God for mainly spiritual purposes.
(3) Democratic socialists tend to think of society as composed of economic classes. While Christians
agree that sometimes a class of people tends to exploit others, an emphasis on class structure,
especially class warfare, is not seen as the best way to address such evil.
(4) Democratic socialists typically support virtually any labour strike and see such action as an
understandable, usually justifiable, response of “the working class” to the “capitalist class”.
Christians typically, especially conservative Christians, are far less likely to endorse the strike
weapon or support any given particular strike.
4. Christianity, especially Conservative Christianity, and Political Conservatism.
4.1. Areas of congruence or overlap:
(1) Both stress individualism and individual responsibility. The individual, much more than society, is
responsible for what happens to him or her morally and economically.
(2) Both perspectives adopt a rather pessimistic view of human nature. Christians speak of fallen
human nature. True, people have the capacity to be good and to do good but their dominant
tendencies are often the opposite. Therefore, as Romans chapter 13 puts it, government “is God's
agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer.” (verse 4) True, government is also “God's
servant to do you good” (verse 4) but government action, from this perspective, can never
transform an evil person into a good person. While Christians see the evil nature in people
as being the result of the Adamic Fall, secular conservatives simply consider it a reality
demonstrated throughout history.
(3) Both perspectives reject the notion that education is the means whereby evil tendencies can be
corrected and moral problems resolved. Christians point out that some of the most evil people,
including most of the leaders in Nazi Germany, were highly educated.
(4) Both Christianity and political conservatism reject the notion of inevitable human moral progress
on earth, “if only we do things right”. They see either a moral plateau in the world or, more likely
in most eras, a moral decline.
(5) Both perspectives do not place much faith in big government. At least that's the theory.
Yes, government can and should address certain evils and provide certain services, but one should
always be suspicious of “big government”.
(6) Throughout history political conservatives have generally emphasized the value of religion and
have often cooperated with religious agencies to achieve their goals. They believe that stressing
accountability of people to God helps governments to achieve better moral behaviour and more
compliance with governmental laws and rules. Support for Judeo-Christian values has
historically been very strong among political conservatives.
(7) Support for marriage and family, as traditionally defined, is a very high good. Both tend to
reject the modern laws, movements, and strategies that undermine the importance of family.
(8) Because of the shared belief that human nature is not inherently good, both perspectives would not
place much faith in having majorities make binding moral decisions.
(9) Political as well as Christian conservatives tend to believe that the quality life that has been
achieved is the result of many centuries of experience and learning and that what is good
should not be changed too readily, too often, or too much!
4.2. Areas of tension and disagreement:
(1) While most Christians tend to be very strong on providing humanitarian assistance, most political
conservatives tend to be less inclined to do so. There are some exceptions.
(2) True Christianity stands for selflessness; traditionally much of conservative political thought and
action has not emphasized this virtue. At times, in politics, the conservative emphasis on
individualism and self-advancement has tended to trump selflessness.
(3) Traditionally, political conservatives have made much of property rights. Christianity makes less of
this matter and, in fact, teaches that Christians should hold their property loosely.
(4) Traditionally political conservatives have emphasized patriotism and nationalism; Christianity
much less so. For many political conservatives, serving one's country is the highest good;
Christianity places some emphasis, but much less emphasis, on such service and support.
Christians give first allegiance to Christ and His church, not to one's country.
5. To what extent do our major Canadian political parties incorporate the values generally associated
with their names?
5.1. It is rather risky to make generalizations about this matter but some observations are warranted and
might be helpful.
5.2. Canadian Liberal parties have retained traditional liberal emphases to a considerable degree. In
recent decades, however, we have seen an increased acceptance of the more socialist emphasis on
using the government structures to provide national assistance programs. This party used to affirm
many conservative moral values but this emphasis has largely evaporated. Any vestiges of a pro-
Christian stance are also now hardly discernible.
5.3. The Canadian New Democratic Party, a democratic socialist party, has changed markedly since it was
formed more than 80 years ago and reconstructed and renamed more than 50 years ago. Instead of
fighting capitalism it has absorbed some capitalist values and policies in order to garner voter support.
Instead of opposing capitalism it has shifted to taxing capitalism although a doctrinaire socialist wing
remains in the party. It has reduced its historic class emphasis and has become much more moderate
but its policies and legislation still strongly favour unions and employees. It has also added a strong
environmental emphasis. In earlier eras democratic socialism was deemed to be an international
class movement. In our day it has become much more nationalist. Since its inception, democratic
socialism has had both a “Christian social action” wing and an anti-Christian wing. The former,
once championed by people such as J. S. Woodsworth and Rev. T. C Douglas and others, has largely
receded.
5.4. The Conservative Party of Canada, after several historical splits and name changes, today finds itself
still largely advocating most of the traditional conservative values and policies but there have also
been significant changes. The changes have included a much greater readiness to launch
encompassing social assistance programs, and a reluctance, for electoral reasons, to defend certain
traditional conservative moral values such as opposition to abortion and opposition to non-traditional
marriage. The language of traditional moral values has been retained but often not the pro-family
policies. During the last generation or so, the Conservative Party has also become much more inclined
to accept and even undertake substantial growth of government. Thus, in recent decades, Conservative
governments have at times had the biggest cabinets and the biggest budgets. The emphasis has been
placed on sound fiscal management and on meeting the needs of the people
6. Concluding Comments.
6.1. No political party aligns fully with conservative Christianity. None deserves unconditional support.
6.2. Political parties change over time and from place to place. This fact must be taken into consideration.
6.3. The general values and worldview of a party should influence how one votes. Other factors such as
the leaders' quality and the strengths or weaknesses of the local candidates should also be considered.
6.4. While no one person has a complete understanding of the complex political scene in a given
jurisdiction, I generally agree with the many scholars who have concluded that of the three general
political options described in this survey, the conservative political perspective aligns most
closely with Christianity.