The Proverbial “Cart Before the Horse”
Matthew Petrusek’s Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture uniquely blends Catholic Social Thought (CST) and political philosophy. Petrusek attempts to provide a methodology for arguing in our highly politicized environment. His ultimate goal is to provide culture with an “alternative to thinking – and acting – ideologically altogether.”[1] In doing so, he hopes the door might open for a believer to talk about Jesus. My initial focus for the blog post was to overview the key insights from the fundamental problems that all political philosophies must address (according to Petrusek on page 68), which include the problem of moral foundations, the problem of defining and building a perfect society, the problem of defining and defending human dignity, the problem of building moral hierarchies, and the problem of free speech. Most of the essay would have highlighted defining and creating a perfect society because the discussion between Augustine and Aquinas clarified their similarities and differences. Since I was unfamiliar with CST and political philosophy, I did preliminary research to understand Petrusek’s background and the starting point of his work. I also spent more than usual time conversing with my husband because he was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school. His perspective, as always, was constructive.
There were several instances in the beginning where Petrusek went in a direction that took a few liberties with either definitions or concepts. In those instances, I had to put a ‘pin-in-it’ – which means this is usually a red flag or concept that I have a different viewpoint on and will continue as best as possible, affording grace to the writer. One example is when he categorized Martin Luther King, Jr., as engaged in political debates, using the Letter from a Birmingham Jail and I Have a Dream Speech.[2] The categorization of MLK’s work as political was a way for the author to underscore his agenda – which I’ll discuss later. The second example is when a person equates progressivism and “wokeism” as the same [3] and ultimately in uncomplimentary terms. I had to put a “pin-in-it” as well. However, invariably, this language doesn’t bode well, especially regarding objectivity.
Where am I going with this essay? I cannot question the motivation for Petrusek’s work; I can only accept at face value that he truly wants CST to be used to bring culture back to Christ.[4] Unfortunately, his work only undergirds the political divide, further entrenching those who aspire to tear down the progressives (which seemingly include everyone on the left). Chapter 8, “The God of My Tribe: Progressivism (a.k.a. “Wokeism”), was an attempt to discredit the significant ideologies inherent in progressivism by oversimplifying and categorizing the variety of issues under one umbrella.
One of the issues with our discourse today is that we tend to lump many of the social, economic, and political ills together, and we end up with alphabet soup. We cannot dig deep into an issue because it is too overwhelming. (This sounds like a wicked problem.) Perhaps that is what the enemy wants because it keeps us from having honest conversations. After all, we need more understanding of the real, nuanced issues. I cannot speak intelligently about LGBTQ+ issues – so I will not attempt to dissect Petrusek’s statements here. I can only argue the merits of social justice for poor and Black people in this country. There were two significant issues with this chapter on the topic of wokeism. The first was his reasoned argument against colorblind racism. Petrusek writes that colorblind and racist are mutually exclusive.[5] However, according to Mark Hearn, “colorblind racism” occurs in individuals, institutions, and ideologies. The approach attempts to sever the lived experiences in which injustice and systemic racism have historically affected opportunities. It creates a false narrative that points to the person of color as the reason for their lack of effort or success.[6] Is it too much to assume that those interested in human rights and dignity seek information on current affairs and research inequalities? Below is a link to current PEW research on wealth gaps.[7] (Page 15 explains the reasons for the disparities stemming from systemic racism.)
The second argument Petrusek makes in this chapter has to do with the woke’s behavior of casting out members of the black community who disagree and speak out against the merits of progressive ideologies – the likes of Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, and others.[8] This topic is white dominance at its best for several reasons. If one understood or asked questions in the “black community” (even Black Twitter), one would know that all but one person on the list was ever viewed as being a member of the black community. In the past, Mr. Elder may have held a modicum of rights in the black community – but he, like the others on the list, espouses the idea that racism no longer exists and holds themselves up as examples as to why it no longer exists. So, the reality is that they are undergirding Petrusek’s colorblind racism argument by negating the idea that racism and the systemic institution of racism no longer exist – which is a false premise. Secondly, only those who inherently believe they have the right to do so would pick leaders for another group of people. That would be synonymous with my selecting Fidel Castro as the ultimate example of what a leader should embody for all Cubans. It doesn’t work because I have no actual knowledge of the values of Cubans, nor would I assume I know what is best for Cubans.
In closing, there are merits to trying to have a civilized discourse, but to do so requires presenting more than one side of the discourse. Many academics, theologians, and political philosophers are going too broad on the issues and regurgitating the same arguments. I found myself asking the question, Where was the Church when all of the pre-pandemic social ills such as anxiety, depression, suicide, drug overdoses, etc.[9] were plaguing society? Why has church attendance steadily declined for the past several decades?[10] If our answer is to join the hyper-politized discourse to bring culture back to the Church, we have the proverbial cart before the horse. I can’t imagine Jesus pursuing us with this line of reasoning or argument, no matter how many charts and graphs are presented. I believe Jesus would call the Church back to himself and give us the perfect door opener—a life that reflects His image, glory, and power.
[1] Matthew R. Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Park Ridge: Word on Fire Institute, 2023), 14.
[2] Ibid., 6-7.
[3] Ibid., 15.
[4] Ibid., 3.
[5] Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology, 305.
[6] Mark Hearn, “Color-Blind Racism, Color-Blind Theology, and Church Practices,” Religious Education Vol. 104, no. 3 (2009): 276.
[7] Rakesh Kochhar and Tanya Arditi. Pew Research Center, December, 2023, “Wealth Surged in the Pandemic, but Debt Endures for Poorer Black and Hispanic Families”
[8] Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology, 313.
[9] Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology, 4.
[10] Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology, 3.
About the Author
Audrey Robinson
10 responses to “The Proverbial “Cart Before the Horse””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Audrey, thank you for sharing. I so appreciate your perspective and learning from you.
“I can’t imagine Jesus pursuing us with this line of reasoning or argument, no matter how many charts and graphs are presented.”
I absolutely agree. Jesus did not enter into the politics of his day – he said, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” (Mark 12:17) The people expected a Messiah who would overturn the Roman government, but that is not what he did. Like you said, Jesus calls people to himself. He calls people to live a life of love. Where was the church, you ask? I think the church was in a holy huddle, reflecting back one another instead of seeking to reflect Jesus to the world. If we truly want to open doors for others to learn about Jesus, I do not think it will happen through politics. I think it happens through loving our neighbors.
Dr. Becca,
Thank you for reading, and I would say we are learning from one another.
I love the ‘holy huddle’ image.
Dr. Becca,
The image of the church is a holy huddle was so on point!
Audrey,
Fantastic post about the book. I was drawn to your conclusion:
“If our answer is to join the hyper-politized discourse to bring culture back to the Church, we have the proverbial cart before the horse. I can’t imagine Jesus pursuing us with this line of reasoning or argument, no matter how many charts and graphs are presented.”
While I do believe that Jesus was political, often he was political in subversive ways. He did not meet argument for argument. That’s my issue with Petrusek. While I appreciate the attempt at offering a faithful response to the current political discourse and no doubt find the urgency difficult to resist, yet it seems to miss counter-cultural witness of the church that Jesus displayed as he confronted the powers of his time.
Would you advocate for a more embodied response to the challenges in our time rather than confronting the ideologies with alternative ideologies?
Dr. Chad,
Thanks for reading and commenting. Great insight and question.
I would advocate for a more embodied response to the challenges we face in these times. As I pondered the question, it seemed to me that the Church can and should address the underlying issues of our cultural discourse, namely anger and fear. There are more but these are key because these two are areas that many divisive arguments feed. People are angry, fearful, and rightfully so, so how would Jesus listen and respond? Taking out our anger or fear by othering is not the solution. There’s a lot more to discuss here, and I wish we had one more advance so we could unpack.
Audrey,
Excellent points. Your post reminded me of my Evangelistic preaching course in Bible College. I remember my pastor saying over and over to not let our sermons be a shogun with pellets all over the place, but a bullet penetrating deep into the heart.
I am so proud of you Audrey, keep being bold with your posts and declaring the goodness of God and His Word.
Dr. Greg,
Thank you for your kind words.
Well put Audrey. I can see how your project has deeply informed your reading of Petrusek. You caught things that I overlooked. I learned a lot from your post. Your final paragraph felt very applicable for church leaders going into the election season. What advice would you give for church leaders in the coming months?
David,
Good question. I’ve given it some thought. While writing the post, I got the sense that we were not getting to the root of the fear and anger. The gospel message has so many parables and lessons that can help people explore the root causes and overcome both. Some root causes are fear of lack, fear of not being good enough, or fear of not getting ahead in life. With each of these, there are direct links to modern-day discourse. Digging deep into scripture and referencing people like Bonhoeffer and Augustine is key to bringing out a Christian response that reflects Christ’s image to all of these.
Oh how I would love to be on your shoulder when you put a pin in on something and talk through it with you!
Always engaging, always insightful, and biblically based.
Thank you for being you! Great post!