Responding Like Daniel
“Evangelizing always requires going to where the people are, and where many people are today is stuck in a morass of increasingly aggressive political ideologies, each one seducing its adherents down varied paths to the same dead end: moral, spiritual, and yes, political futility.”[1]
This is the societal landscape that we, as Christ followers, are called to evangelize in. However, we are often ill-equipped to do so. Matthew R. Petrusek writes his book, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond To The Political Culture, to bring an educated understanding to his readers of how to give a response. He takes a deep dive into the underpinnings of the dangerous pervasive ideologies of today’s culture. He surmises that “with the right tools, (we can) not only win minds to a conception of the good…that establish a moral and political framework” but also point to the unconditional love and ways of a greater Kingdom.[2]
This book, in my opinion, accomplishes a tough task. It defines and dissects the pervasive ideologies of utilitarianism, classical liberalism/libertarianism, progressivism (wokeism), and non-theistic conservatism with clarity, historical insight, and how they overlap and join forces in strategic ways. The brilliance, in my opinion, is that it is understood by a reader, like me, who is not versed in how to articulate the philosophical dangers of each ideological stance.
Petrusek references Pope St. John Paul II in defining ideology as a “totalizing view of reality, including political reality, without reference to the transcendent.”[3] This sparked my interest since we have been talking about transcendence. Daniel Z. Lieberman views transcendence as going beyond.[4] Yet, reference to “the transcendent” would mean believing in a “Being” beyond us. Ideology, therefore, is a frame of reasoning where God is purposefully excluded.
The word “ideology” itself was first used by philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836) to negate any religious claim. Destutt de Tracy constructed ideology to be a way of cognition of the truth without engaging “religious bias.”[5] Petrusek is not off the mark as he describes an ideology as idolatrous.[6] The whole Enlightenment period sought to elevate human reason as the source of intellectualism where humans rationally understood the world they lived in and could improve their own condition without God.[7] It brings to mind 2 Corinthians 10:5 as man uses his reason and understanding of life against the knowledge of God.
To live in a society that eliminates God is one that Daniel in the Bible was familiar with. As I read about Daniel, I don’t see him angrily opposing paganism. Instead, he often used “diplomacy (Dan 1:6-16; 2:1-16), prayer (Dan 2:17-18; 6:10; 9:3-19), wisdom (Dan 1:17; 2:23), worship (Dan 2:20-22), excellence (Dan 6:3), faithfulness (Dan 6:1-10), and humility (Dan 9:4).”[8]
However, Daniel didn’t embrace the values of the paganistic culture. When needed, he refused to submit to pray to another god and defied the king. (Daniel 6) He refused to eat the food that would cause him to be unclean (Daniel 1). I wonder what type of inner turmoil Daniel faced as he had to take unpopular stands. He was certainly standing up against shared experience. His life was undoubtedly on the line.
Another aspect of Daniel’s life that is intriguing is how he could keep his faith amidst his education in a paganistic society. If he was a leader in the King’s palace, he would have to know and embrace the Babylonian culture, history, and laws. He was well-versed in the ideology of Babylon.
Petrusek’s insights help us, like Daniel, understand the opposing ideologies that we are surrounded with…to be in the world but not of it. However, Petrusek makes it clear that, in the end, the purpose is evangelism, the spreading of the good news of the gospel of Christ. We don’t need to be angry or isolate ourselves. But rather we should patiently tend the soil by our responses and attitudes so that the Word of God can take root and flourish in those around us.[9]
[1] Matthew R. Petrusik, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Park Ridge, IL: Word on Fire Institute, 2023).
[2] Matthew R. Petrusik, 13-14.
[3] Matthew R. Petrusik, 140.
[4] Daniel Z. Lieberman, Spellbound: Modern SCIENCE, Ancient MAGIC, and the Hidden Potential of the UNCONSCIOUS MIND (Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc., n.d.), 211.
[5] Cyril Hovorun, “Ideology and Religion,” Kyiv-Mohyla Humanities Journal 3 (July 18, 2016): 23, https://doi.org/10.18523/kmhj73933.2016-3, 23-35.
[6] Matthew R. Petrusik, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture,141-142.
[7] “Enlightenment | Definition, Summary, Ideas, Meaning, History, Philosophers, & Facts | Britannica,” January 2, 2024, https://www.britannica.com/event/Enlightenment-European-history.
[8] Steven R. Cook, “Daniel as a Role Model for How to Live in a Pagan Culture Archives,” Thinking on Scripture, December 31, 2016, https://thinkingonscripture.com/tag/daniel-as-a-role-model-for-how-to-live-in-a-pagan-culture/.
[9] Matthew R. Petrusik, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture, 459.
About the Author
Esther Edwards
Esther has served in ministry leadership for over 35 years. She is an ordained minister, an ICF and CCLC certified coach, and licensed coach trainer. Her and her husband have launched their own coaching practice, Enjoy the Journey Leadership Coaching and seek to train ministry leaders in the powerful skill of coaching. Esther loves hiking, reading, and experiencing new coffee shops with friends and family. She enjoys the journey with her husband, Keith, their four daughters, sons-in-law, and their five beautiful grandchildren.8 responses to “Responding Like Daniel”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Esther-
I love how you hold up Daniel as an example of rebelling against the culture in a Christ-like way. (We named our first born after him because of my hopes that he would do the same as he grows up in this foreign land.) I also really appreciate you doing some digging into the origins of ideology- such a loaded term that we throw around a lot. I am curious where you see Christians today responding in a Daniel-like way?
Jen,
Now I will always remember your son’s name. Brain connections! You know, your work in this area will speak volumes to him as he ages into his own acceptance of faith and how to listen and respond to opposing ideologies.
In answer to your question, I see many Christians responding in a Daniel-like way in our district of churches. Yes, a few are blatantly vocal, causing a further divide. But there are many more who seek to build bridges and continue to learn, grow, read, love, and respond. I plan to pass on the resource of Petrusek’s book. In our own context, I am so proud of our congregants in how they embrace those who walk through our church doors and simply love on people. We have many varying political opinions in our church, but there are very few who flaunt them and cast a condemning eye on those who don’t agree with them.
Wow, I appreciate this post so much, Esther. You helped fill in a few gaps in my thinking after reading this book.
As I was reading Petrusek’s book, I generally really liked his reasoning and I agree with his overall stance that a Christian worldview is logically coherent, in fact much more so than many competing worldviews out there.
That said, in my experience coherent logic does not actually persuade people to follow Jesus. It’s a fine place to start, but more often than not people simply revert to seeing the world through their old lenses. Petrusek actually gets at this when he talks about the highest level questions as theological.
That might sound pessimistic (especially given my vocation as a missionary!) but here’s where your post resonated for me. Coherent logic is great, but it’s not enough. We need to respond like Daniel with diplomacy, prayer, wisdom, worship, excellence, faithfulness, and humility. Yes and amen! Thank you, Esther!
Kim,
Thank you for your comment. You noted that, “in my experience coherent logic does not actually persuade people to follow Jesus.” I find that true. People do believe what they want to believe. We have lived in a neighborhood for 12 years and have prayed with many neighbors through hard times, but they continue to live lives that do not give any place for Christ (except in the hard times). I guess that is where we just continue praying, investing, and living by example. The results are not up to us.
Esther, you highlighted Petrusek’s comments about idealogy being idolatrous and his reference to Pope St. John Paul II defining ideology as a “totalizing view of reality, including political reality, without reference to the transcendent.” When I read his statements around ideology and idolatry, Martin Luther’s commentary on the first commandment came to mind, quite similar in some ways to what Petrusek referenced. Here’s the excerpt from Luther (see the Book of Concord): “That is: Thou shalt have [and worship] Me alone as thy God. What is the force of this, and how is it to be understood? What does it mean to have a god? or, what is God? 2] Answer: A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and believe Him from the [whole] heart; as I have often said that the confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol. 3] If your faith and trust be right, then is your god also true; and, on the other hand, if your trust be false and wrong, then you have not the true God; for these two belong together, faith and God. That now, I say, upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god.”
In reality, it would seem anything could become an “idol”… a false god…something that ends up encompassing the entirety of one’s hope and trust.
Travis,
Thank you for your response. What a great quote to highlight. We all can easily drift and put our trust in other things.
Esther,
I appreciated how you highlighted Daniel’s obedience to God when faced with such harsh decrees from the king. Daniel’s example. . . When faced with laws that forced him to bow to another king, he went home, knelt down and prayed, just as he had always done, giving thanks to God. When faced with adversity, he gave thanks and prayed. So inspiring!
Cathy,
It is quite the story. I guess we have no understanding of what it might be like to be obedient to God, even when you know you can be killed for it. We are so blessed to live in a place where we have religious freedom.