Responding to the Political Culture
We live in a hyper-politicized society where one can readily see the world’s brokenness on multiple levels. This has often birthed arguments fueled by anger and grief, causing many to lash out at/demonize one another or avoid engaging in the sociopolitical arena altogether. However, rather than start a yelling match or excuse ourselves from the table, Matthew R. Petusek invites Christians to see engaging our political culture as an opportunity for evangelism instead of an obstacle to it. In “Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture,” Petrusek aims to help us “understand and respond” by using the principles of Catholic social thought as an alternative to our current forms of ideological thinking, which he feels are predominantly immoral and lacking.
To make his case, Petrusek chooses to focus on four of the most common secular ideologies prominent in American political culture – utilitarianism, classical liberalism/ libertarianism, progressivism/wokeism, and non-theistic conservatism [1] He explains that “what defines an ideology as an idealogy is that it provides a totalizing view of reality, including political reality, without reference to the transcendent” [2]. By removing God from how we measure judgments and make decisions, societies “arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny”[3]. As such, he says that “ideologies aim for descriptive and normative totality – they not only tell you what the world and everything in it is but want to make sure you understand how it all should be as well…ideologies establish their totalizing worldview in one of two ways: they either deny the existence of God altogether or erase the ontological distinction between God and existence by affirming that God’s presence is or can be fully manifest in a particular moral and political regime.”[4]
The book outlines the errors and deficiencies of these core secular ideologies and explains how Catholic social thought is the best ( most moral and rational) way to fix them. To make his case, Petrusek pulls up three additional characteristics all secular ideologies have in common, which are that they are forms of idolatry, they impose false mutual exclusivities, and they either aren’t able to grasp the full depth of human sin or the possibility of renewal and redemption in authentic moral progress [5]. Reading this, I couldn’t help but wonder if Catholic social thought is as ideal a solution forward as he makes it out to be and where Petrusek’s argument and way forward might also fall prey to the same “deficiencies” he’s named present in secular ideologies. For example, to help us see idolatry within each ideology, Petrusek highlights how we worship everything but God and broadly defines worship as something we “live for, give our whole life to, or love above all else” ( pg. 142). I like to think of idolatry as anything you value/ love more than your obedience to God. I didn’t have an issue following Petrusek as he outlined the various idolatry he saw. That said, using his logic, couldn’t we also argue Catholic social thought is capable of being made into an idol as well? Vehemently pushing his solution as the way felt like it too was being made an idol, to be worshiped above God ( the ultimate way). For me, we need more people speaking to how we live our faith in action rather than how we argue our points in a way that can “debunk” or convince others to Christ by positioning ourselves in a logically and morally “right” way. It seems that’s only doing the same thing that Petrusek claims these other ideologies do. I’m sure there are lots I may be missing here. Still, as I read, much was being stirred up around the distinction of relationship versus religion, and the challenge I see within Christianity for many to share their faith in a way that doesn’t steer people away from God but draws them deeper by exemplifying more of his nature and character.
Overall, I found this book challenging to engage on multiple levels and started to shut down at varying points. The main hurdles were my assumptions, reactions, and critique of the author, his argument, framing, language, and examples. That said, doing my best to name what was coming up and put it aside, I continued exploring this book’s thoughts and found it a fascinating experience in and of itself. I’m still learning how best to express myself in written form ( as it’s easier to make meaning and share verbally); however, while reading this, I noticed how much less I engage in polarizing political debates than I used to ( as well as the difference in how I used to engage versus how I engage when I do now). In fact, since starting this doctoral program, I feel I’ve had to wake back up to a part of life (hyper-politized issues within American culture/ society) that I’d forgotten were such big issues ( or hadn’t felt so tangibly in me being for some time). Part of this is due to living outside of the US and having most of my daily engagement with non-Americans for the last decade, so my typical lived context has felt different. Another part is an active choice to disconnect by intentionally building relationships with people more aligned with my core beliefs and values while strategically holding boundaries that put distance between those who aren’t. I’ve thought about these two things quite a bit lately and have mixed feelings that I wish I could share more about but don’t yet have the words to express concisely, so for now, I’ll leave things here…
[1]Matthew Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Park Ridge, IL: Word on Fire Institute, 2023), 139.
[2] Ibid., 140.
[3] Ibid., 141.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 142
About the Author
Akwese
4 responses to “Responding to the Political Culture”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Akwese, I liked your ability to read Petrusek yet articulate where your thoughts diverge from his. Is there anything in this post that rings of truth to you?
Hi Diane, thanks for your reply. I’m not sure I understand your question. It seems you are asking if I find truth in Pretruseks thoughts on secular ideologies and engaging in political culture? If so, I would say yes, I can find the truth as I see where he was going, believe it’s helpful to think about ways for engaging in difficult conversations, and can also appreciate the heart of his solution.
Akwese, thank you for your post. I appreciate the way you worked through the many stated hurdles and were able to meaningfully engage the material. You mentioned being recently less engaged in polarizing debates since being outside of the US context. Do you notice evidence of polarity in your current cultural context, or is this a uniquely US issue?
Hi Chad, thanks for your response and question. There is certainly polarity in my current cultural context; however, being that this book focused on Christian dialogue and American context, the examples used didn’t hit home in the same way because the polarity I see here is different. That said, I still think the contents of this book and some of the insights, especially in how we engage in healthy dialogue (arguments rather than fights), are applicable. But it was fascinating to notice what arose as I was invited back into remembering how divisive these topics are and to even challenge why I don’t find myself engaging as much.