Why do Christians who share a common faith think very differently about politics? Miranda Zapor Cruz offers us practical advice on how we can have constructive conversations in our churches with Christians who think differently from us. She reminds us of the spiritual disposition we need to exhibit and how our political behavior should be aligned with the witness and mission of the Church. She helps us envision what faithful citizenship looks like from the lens of being citizens of God’s kingdom.

 

Miranda Zapor Cruz is professor of historical theology at Indiana Wesleyan University and Chair of the School of Theology and Ministry. She teaches courses in systematic theology, church history, and American and global Christianity. Her research, writing, and speaking focus on faith and politics, religious nationalism, and theological foundations for justice. She directs The Sacred Alliance, a subsidiary of Wesley Seminary which helps denominations, churches, and pastors move from simply affirming women in ministry leadership to implementing their support practically. She is also a preacher with a deep love for the church and sees her teaching and writing as a ministry in service of the Kingdom of God. Miranda holds a PhD in religion, politics, and society from Baylor University, and an MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary. She lives in Indiana with her husband and daughter.

 

Discussion Guide

Faithful Politics: Ten Approaches to Christian Citizenship and Why It Matters by Miranda Zapor Cruz

Chapters 1-3

1. ​How is the author’s emphasis on our primary citizenship in and allegiance to God’s Kingdom helpful as the bigger picture from which Christians should think about national politics?

2. What strikes you most about the opposing values of Kingdom and country?

3. What are your experiences of Christians considering America as the successor to Old Testament Israel as God’s chosen people? To what extent do Christians still believe President Wilson’s understanding that God chose America to be a model Christian state as an example for the rest of the world?

4. How do your respond to Jeremiah’s injunction to "seek the peace of the city" as a model for engaging in politics? What about the prayer Jesus taught us — "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?

5. What do you think about the author’s assertion that we should reinterpret the empire through the lens of the Kingdom? When does our posture toward government shift from submission (Rom 13) to endurance (Rev 13)?

6. The author outlines the following stereotypes — how do you respond?

     a) Democrats — think of themselves as more concerned about justice and fairness than Republicans are. However Liberals and Conservatives are equally concerned about fairness but define fairness differently. The point of disconnect is different ideas about what justice and fairness actually mean and how they are achieved.

     b) Republicans — think their conservative ideology is more Christian, regard liberal Democratic ideology as indifferent or hostile to Christianity.  However, neither conservative nor liberal ideology is essentially religious. Although the US has been influenced by Christian individuals and Christian values, the government is a political institution, not a religious one.

7. The author says that in the last few years Democrats and Republicans have become more ideologically differentiated, leaving little room for ideologically conservative Democrats or ideally liberal Republicans. There is pressure to align with the party on both economic and social issues. How can we critique parts of our own ideologies?

8. How do you respond to her assertion that party identity is connected to a larger set of social identities as well? e.g. race, sexual orientation, region etc.

9. The author uses the metaphor of the elephant and the rider to state that intuitions precede strategic reasoning. What can we do about our elephant?

Chapters 4-6

1. How have you been helped by understanding the historical and theological contexts which shaped different approaches to how Christians engaged in politics?

2. Are there ways we can be hopeful because Christian influence is receding in an increasingly secular America?

3. “For fundamentalists, withdrawal seemed the best option for preserving Christian culture and values in the face of a hostile world. They formed a subculture complete with publications, schools, music, and churches that would allow them to limit engagement with the wider society. Some chose to homeschool and form Bible institutes as alternatives to mainstream education. They largely dismissed politics as irredeemably corrupt and anti-Christian, and therefore saw pollical activity as futile at best, damaging to Christian values at worst.” (pg. 77)

     How do you respond to this observation? Has this subculture shaped us in some way, perhaps making it difficult for us to engage in wider society?

4.  What are ways we can be "salty" citizens in the present moment and build hope in other people?    

5.  How can we use our status perhaps of being trusted people in the middle, to thaw people on both extremes in our circles?

6.  “Disengagement is more possible for those who don’t feel their basic needs or safety threatened by public policy or have communal safety nets to soften the impact” (p. 82)

     Consider the above statement along with the Catholic liberation theology and the evangelical Protestant idea of integral mission that emerged in Latin America in the context of political and economic conflict. How do our circumstances inform both how we think about politics and how we read the Bible?

7.  Is the following statement something we can always say, or only in specific instances?  “I personally do not agree with that because of my faith, but I don’t think I should impose my beliefs on others.”

     How and under what circumstances should our Christian beliefs influence our engagement with the political process?

8.  How aware are we of the global power that the US wields? To what extent do American Christians think about foreign policy/the impact of the United States on other nations?   

9.  Anything that has been percolating in your mind from what you’ve been reading or observing that you want to discuss?

Chapters 7-9

1.  In what ways do you identify the roots of your own approach to political engagement — both personal and the Christian tradition you come from?

2.  What have you appreciated from Christian approaches different to what’s most familiar and comfortable to you?

3.  What is your own vision of a thriving USA? What would a flourishing society look like? What aspects are important to you?

4.  What do Christians think about the place of Christianity in government? How do Christians feel about other countries giving a favored status to a different religion — Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism? Are our attitudes consistent?

5.  How do you respond to the author’s thoughts on Christian nationalism?

     a) “Instead of being a Christian approach to politics, it is a political approach to Christianity”.

     b) “is a political ideology that sacrifices core Christian convictions on the altar of power”.

     c) “is not merely a Christian expression of patriotism.”

     d) “...anxiety about shifting and expanding definitions of Americanness underlies each wave”

     e) “America’s uniquely chosen status is central to individual and collective identity.”

     f) “...is undergirded by a combination of conservative political ideology, belief in the Bible, apocalyptic visions of societal decline, and divine militarism”.

     g) “is deeply rooted in White Supremacy”

What are your own encounters with Christian nationalism? What are your thoughts on Christian nationalism’s impact on the Church’s witness?

6. In what ways has Faithful Politics been helpful to live responsibly in the present political moment? What big questions still remain?