An ancient map
My bookshelf is full of modern books, and it is difficult to find a book older than thirty years. The challenge to find a book over three hundred years old was aided with a simple prompt in AI. The leadership book I chose to read was The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. I chose it for three simple reasons: I had never read it, the political nature of it fits well between week two and four, and it was a short easy read. What I found was that even though the book was short, it was powerful and has many implications in the modern political world.
This essay will look at the different maps of leadership found in the 16th century work of The Prince and lay it alongside the kingdom-centered political map offered by Jim Wallis in God’s Politics which we will read next week. Then, I will dive into the map guiding me in this political season.
Ancient maps of power
Machiavelli’s work lays out an ancient map for an Italian prince. How is a prince supposed to reign and be prince? Is he to be generous or miserly? Cruel or compassionate? Loved or feared?[1] The author encourages the prince to be a miser as a generous prince ultimately runs out of money and taxes the people, so they end up hating him. A prince should be cruel, but only in the beginning, so that the people learn to be afraid of him but will soon forget the cruelty he brought onto them. A prince should arm his subjects, “for by arming them these arms become your own, those that you suspected become faithful and those that were faithful remain.”[2]
The map Machiavelli presents to the prince is based on how the world actually is not on how he wants it to be.[3] The general populace is easily swayed, easily manipulated. They are always impressed by the mere appearance of working for them. If the prince is needed, and he is seen as the answer to all the societal problems then the people will support him. Machiavelli writes, “Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.”[4] There is a lot of room to develop these ideas further against our own political backdrop in Washington D.C.
Another layer Machiavelli adds on his map is for the prince to always be ready for war, even in a time of peace, to have his eyes focused on the battle.[5] Furthermore, he tells the prince to seek out wisdom from only select individuals who only can offer limited information. This way, the prince is seen as a ruler who cannot be questioned. [6]
A map centered in God’s kingdom
Contrary to Machiavelli’s map of manipulation, fear, and power, Wallis lays out a kingdom-centered political map for the American Christian. He critiques both the Republican party as well as the Democratic party. His map is too nuanced for either political party to get where they want to go. Instead, his map offers followers of Jesus a way to try and navigate some of the political landmines. He critiques George W. Bush and writes, “But the nationalist religion of the Bush administration, [is] one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God’s purposes with the mission of American empire.”[7] Unlike the prince, and Christian Nationalists, Wallis is not concerned with expanding the American empire but rather calling people into the kingdom of God.
While The Prince highlights ways of manipulating the crowds, trying to find ways to control the masses, Wallis’s map shows Christians seeking the destitute and isolated. He writes, “Jesus is assuming the social location of his followers will always put them in close proximity to the poor and easily able to reach out to them.”[8] The map leading to the kingdom of Jesus directly contradicts the map leading to earthly imperial power.
The map I use
I am comfortable reading maps. I use them frequently. Over the last few years, I have been detailing my own map. My map is kingdom-focused, meant to lead myself and others closer to Jesus. Politically, I find myself outside of the simplistic maps of the Republican or Democratic parties. I do not support abortion, even when it is dolled-up with fancy terminology by the Democratic party. I do not support free access to assault rifles for everyone, even though the Republican party uses a 200-year-old map referencing the need to protect ourselves from the British.
The political maps of our time are so simplistic that people feel the need to support their group at all costs. Reflecting on abortion policies, Wallis writes, “From year to year the abortion rate doesn’t change much, even when it has been a serious campaign issue. Republicans literally win elections based on their anti-abortion position and then proceed to ignore the issue…”[9] I have cast a vote on the abortion issue four times, as I have adopted four children. I decided that those were votes that really mattered.
For this upcoming election, I will choose to vote for character over power; for a liberal democracy[10] over a two-issue ploy for a power grab.
[1] Machiavelli’s “The Prince”: Summary & Analysis, YouTube, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwWg2MDvHDI.
[2] Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince | Niccolò Machiavelli, Translated edition (Asturias, Spain: King Solomon Publishing, 2021), 86.
[3] Machiavelli’s “The Prince.”
[4] Machiavelli, The Prince | Niccolò Machiavelli, 47.
[5] Machiavelli, 61.
[6] Machiavelli, 97.
[7] Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, (New York: Harper San Francisco, 2008), 149.
[8] Wallis, 211.
[9] Wallis, 299.
[10] N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2024), 158.
About the Author
Adam Cheney
I grew up in California, spent five years living along the beautiful coast of Kenya and now find myself working with refugees in the snow crusted tundra of Minnesota. My wife and I have seven children, four of whom have been adopted. I spend my time drinking lots of coffee, working in my garden, and baking sourdough bread.12 responses to “An ancient map”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Adam, I think there is a lot of application to our current political landscape. As you said,
“The general populace is easily swayed, easily manipulated. They are always impressed by the mere appearance of working for them.”
In some ways, the appearance of working for the public is more important than actually doing what is best for the country.
I think this can also have application in our ministry contexts, especially for those who are appointed to positions through a vote. Do you have any thoughts on how we can protect against this in ministry?
Christy,
A ministry setting certainly makes it a bit interesting. I do guess it would depend on how leaders are elected or positioned and how they present themselves. I am remembering the front/back stage idea and it is important for some leaders to have people who do get to peer into the backstage a bit. One challenge I have seen with this is in congregational style churches with elder boards. The pastor is held accountable to the elders which is a good thing but the pastor also might not have real friends and real people he or she can really be honest with. If their circle of people are also the ones who sign their paycheck it can certainly be hard.
Adam, thanks so much for doing The Prince. I had just bought it on Amazon for this blog, but then I realised I had always wanted to read The Art of War, so I changed my mind and did that. Thanks for your thoughts, I can delay reading The Prince for a while now.
Do you find elements of Machiavelli’s advice still relevant, or does Wallis’s perspective align more with your personal map?
Glyn,
While I certainly do align more with Wallis, there are some aspects of Machiavelli that I find interesting. One idea is to live among the people you have conquered. He writes, “But when dominions are acquired in a province differing in language, laws, and customs, the difficulties to be overcome are great, and it requires good fortune as well as great industry to retain them; one of the best and most certain means of doing so would be for the new ruler to take up his residence in them.” (p. 17). So, there is great insight in the need for the leader to be among the people. I wonder what would have happened to America if the British throne was established here in D.C.?
Adam,
I appreciate the contrast between The Prince and God’s Politics. I too feel like I am not located on any political party map. I appreciate the voices of people like David French, Jamar Tisby and Justin Giboney who seek to view politics with a faith and justice mindset.
I appreciate your response to Glyn about living amongst those you have acquired. In rural America as we see more and more churches in small towns closing their doors as people flock to the large suburban churches, are we (the church) losing our influence because we no longer have our residence among the people we are trying to reach? I’m thinking about this as we try to establish the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.
Jeff,
You bring up a great point about the location of churches.
Adam, I was waiting to find a witty jab at Glyn in your remark about the need to protect ourselves from the Brits. But that’s probably more of a WhatsApp remark between you two brothers.
Nice job signposting at the beginning and carrying the theme of maps throughout. Interesting that you connected Machiavelli and Wallis, and I appreciate your sharing your views on two hot-button issues. Your remark from the book about living with those who you conquer made me think of a different but somewhat parallel issue. A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case known as Citizen’s United, which allowed corporations to be recognized as persons, therefore allowing them to make unlimited political contributions to any one candidate. Wallis has said the Citizens United case was perhaps one of the most destructive decisions in U.S. history because it gives the power to the corporations.
Continuing with the word “conqueror” from your book, today’s political environment often feels like a battle of who will the next conqueror be (thinking back from Indigenous peoples to contemporary political rivals). What if the “conqueror” is not a person, but instead large corporations who hold immense power and money? Yes, people run those corporations, but what does it mean to live among those you conquer in this context?
Jennifer,
First off, let me say that my original post had a small jab at Glyn but let’s just say it is proof that I do edit things.
Secondly, I think that NT Wright and Bird speak of such power as well. Earthly power is certainly found in earthly structures.
Adam, I haven’t read The Prince, though I considered it for this assignment. I had several questions as I read your post and then discovered that others had already asked them (about whether you found anything relevant from The Prince and the comment about the general populace being easily swayed).
I also appreciate Jemar Tisby, though I don’t know the others whom you name. Thank you for bravely sharing your personal thoughts on some hot-button issues.
My usual take on many political issues is to focus on doing the greatest good for the most people, based always on trying to live out the love of Jesus as best I can in this imperfect body in this imperfect society. What are the criteria with which you make such decisions?
Debbie,
Honestly my own beliefs have molded and adapted over the years. I do think that the more I learn to follow Jesus the more I have learned his ways and his heart. I am sure I am not right about everything but this is my goal.
I’ll add that my family did foster care for infants when I was growing up. From the time I was 8 until I was 18 there were about 25 babies that came through our house.
We stopped doing foster care in great part because instead of being adopted, most of the later babies were going back to their mothers, young single women, often without a lot of resources. My mother had a hard time with that; she preferred that they be adopted. I always remember these experiences when I consider the difficult questions before us…
Debbie,
I am sure that was a very difficult and life shaping experience.