Render unto Caesar…
In his recent book Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture Matthew Petrusek uses the foundation of Catholic Social Thought to offer keys for arguing against dominant political ideologies that are at work in our culture.
During an interview about the book, he admits he wrote it after spending ten years in academia surrounded by “wokeism”, and he wanted an opportunity to offer a robust response.[1] And robust it is. The philosophical approach and intellectual arguments in this book are strongly constructed, and I am sure to some, compelling.
However, although I found myself in agreement to some of his solutions, it was the underlying “why” that I struggled with. His stated core purpose for his book for is what I want to engage with in this post.
But first, the problem he brings up is very real. In short, we live in a fallen world that is becoming more and more broken because of the way we have shaped it. Ideologies have consequences, and the hyperpolitical environment those in the US find ourselves in is largely a result of a culture that has turned ideology into idolatry. As Petrusek points out, worshipping the false gods of pleasure (found in the ideology of utilitarianism), of self (in classical liberalism), of tribe (in progressivism) and fortune (in non-theistic conservatism) only widens the gap between people and God.
So far, so good. All Idolatry, whether ideological, political, materialistic, relational, or in any other manifestation, will drive us from God. The refutation of idolatry is “the central theological principle in the Bible”[2] because idolatry is the rebellion that replaces worship of the true God with a false god of our own making. I think we should be aware of whatever cultural and political ideologies set themselves up in opposition to God’s ways, and we should equip the church to address the dangers that could draw us away from God.
It’s not as much the personal implications I struggle with here, but the social-political ones. Petrusek suggests in a number of places that the core reason he wrote this book was to change the political landscape in a way that he believes will build a bridge for personal evangelism. For instance, in the closing words of the book he writes:
“Yet all this work has one final purpose and one final purpose alone: To enable individuals to hear the good news of the Gospel and to facilitate an encounter with Jesus Christ and His Church. The dominant political ideologies of today are blocking wide swaths of the culture from receiving this invitation and all of its blessings. Evangelizing the political culture is thus ultimately not about ideology and even less about politics. It is about opening the widest and straightest path possible for making the pilgrimage to the Lord”[3]
After reading this book I’m left with this question: Are we living in Israel or Babylon? In Jerusalem or Rome?
Petrusek and others (including, unfortunately many Christian Nationalists with whom I would imagine Petrusek disagreeing) seem to be suggesting we are like Israel—A people who need to structure our government systems with God’s clear rules. Not everyone will have a relationship with God, but they argue that if we set up society based on God’s natural and universal laws, it will create a context to help get people closer to God. In fact, Petrusek urges us to seek to change our political environment to invite the entire culture to come closer to Christ. He believes better politics and laws will make the narrow path to Jesus just a little bit wider. This seems to be the foundational motivation of this book.
Others (recently Preston Sprinkle[4], and David Kinnaman[5]) suggest that Christians today are like exiles living in Babylon, or perhaps like Christians in first-century Rome. The rich biblical history of people like Joseph, Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah, and others points to the possibility of believers who both serve the godless empire and shape conditions for God’s will to be done despite the brokenness of the political systems in which they operated.
The New Testament seems to continue this theme. Nowhere does Jesus suggest that a tax collector or Roman centurion try to influence the bankrupt political culture to change. Paul does not talk to the Philippian jailer (Acts 16) or write to those who are part of the household of Caesar (Phil 4:22) giving them instructions about how to contend for political transformation. When Peter tells early Christians to “submit to and honor the emperor” (1 Peter 2) he was talking about a really bad person leading an even worse system.
Jesus, when the right and left tried to sucker him into a political argument, answered “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars” (Matthew 22:22). Petrusek himself points to this story at the end of his book when suggesting that not everything should be about politics, but he then co-ops that story to essentially say “yeah but ultimately good politics is what will pave the way for evangelism.”
After reading his arguments and considering the good and (mostly) bad governments and political systems throughout history in relation to the strength of the church, I come away not convinced of his thesis.
Despite my concerns, however, I think this book is important and worth reading precisely because it challenges my deeply held beliefs about why we would engage the political sector and what we would hope to expect. Reading Evangelization and Ideology forces me to think more deeply about the reasons I would disagree with it, and to work to better formulate a robust but gracious and biblical response to those like Petrusek who think differently.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zlDXJ8A5Rs
[2] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-concept-of-idolatry/
[3] Matthew R. Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture, Park Ridge, IL: Word On Fire, 2023, 463.
[4] Preston M. Sprinkle, Exiles: The Church in the Shadow of Empire, Colorado Springs, Co: David C. Cook, 2024.
[5] David Kinnaman & Mark Matlock, Faith for Exiles: 5 Ways for a New Generation to Follow Jesus in Digital Babylon, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2019.
About the Author
Tim Clark
I'm on a lifelong journey of discovering the person God has created me to be and aligning that with the purpose God has created me for. I've been pressing hard after Jesus for 40 years, and I currently serve Him as the lead pastor of vision and voice at The Church On The Way in Los Angeles. I live with my wife and 3 kids in Burbank California.10 responses to “Render unto Caesar…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tim, I am glad you called out Petrusek’s self-reported motives for writing the book. It stood out to me as well, though I did not take it so far as you did in finding similarities between his attitude and that of Christian Nationalists. It is a really interesting point. I also agreed with so much of his logical arguments. But I liked your thoughts because it gave words to my concerns that we may be too fixated on obtaining political dominance.
I’m ultimately concerned that Petrusek does the same thing he accuses others of: idolizing his own ideology and agenda in service of what he believes is a good outcome.
At the end of the day I just so fully believe that the church can thrive under ANY political system, because it’s more powerful than all of them.
I didn’t catch some of the “motives” or similarities to that of attitudes of Christian Nationalists from his book, but golly, I could sniff it out in watching all TEN of his videos.
For starters, I don’t think he did himself many favors by being so snarky, and attacking. In my opinion, he is far too intellectual (in a good way), to stoop down to levels of name calling (which happened a couple times in the videos).
Bottom line for me: can we hold to strong, clear convictions without being a butt?
I think we can (hold to strong clear convictions without being an ass). I didn’t write this in my blog post (it was too long already) but I took issue with his calling progressivism “wokeism”. I appreciated Yascha Mounk’s insistence that using the term “woke” as a pejorative is unhelpful to the discussion. I wish Petrusek would have approached some of his language with that in mind.
Tim,
Thank you for this post. As you know, I struggled with this book but your analysis gave me a greater perspective. I still am a long way from recommending this book however, this paragraph that you wrote gives me hope that there is something to be learned from this book. You wrote: “Despite my concerns, however, I think this book is important and worth reading precisely because it challenges my deeply held beliefs about why we would engage the political sector and what we would hope to expect. Reading Evangelization and Ideology forces me to think more deeply about the reasons I would disagree with it, and to work to better formulate a robust but gracious and biblical response to those like Petrusek who think differently.” Perhaps, down the line, I will try again!
Jonita, I love your gracious heart. I don’t personally think you need to try again. There was some good reasoning in this book but I think his premise is flawed. I was just trying to say that it wasn’t a waste to read and because some will see this as important it’s worth having a grasp on.
Tim, I think you are spot on. Petrusek’s hope — that Christians would be able to “call the culture back to Christ” — certainly seems problematic if Christians are indeed living in a Babylon-like context. Petrusek’s statement makes some assumptions (mis-informed?) that would set the table for an interesting dialogue. If we are indeed living in Babylon and not Israel, Jeremiah 29:4-7 becomes instructive in so many ways, and I think that would have been a better starting point — a better framework that Petrusek could have utilized. I referenced James Davison Hunter’s book in my post (To Change the World). Hunter, in my opinion, provides a better pathway for public discourse (Hunter’s “faithful presence” for Christians diverges from Petrusek’s thesis), even though his book is now 14 years old.
Thanks Travis. I think I’ll order Hunter’s book as I’m interested in diving into an answer, I just don’t think that Petrusek provides that answer.
Enjoyed your posts and read some of your responses, in one of them you said,
“I’m ultimately concerned that Petrusek does the same thing he accuses others of: idolizing his own ideology and agenda in service of what he believes is a good outcome.”
I think you put your finger on something that I was feeling as well. I agreed with several points, disagreed with others, which is not abnormal, but the tone and spirit of the book at times felt like what you described which turned me off at times. His ideology came across as “the correct way to see things”. Several people have picked up on this which this, which is unfortunate since the goal of the book is better ways to engage with the culture.
Yeah. I understand that the goal is “a better way to engage with culture” but I question if this is the ‘better way’?
It seems like, instead of ‘engaging with culture’, he is advocating a better way to CHANGE culture.
I’m not suggesting that changing culture is NOT an option, but if engaging culture is the goal, maybe a more flexible, curious, and humble approach is a more effective way to engage?