A New Political Religion and How the Church Should Respond, A Guest Post by Meagan Elling

One of my favorite things about social media is meeting new people and making friends with those who turn out to not only be likeminded, but spur you on and sharpen you as iron that sharpens iron. Megan Elling has become just such a friend to me in the online space, and I’m delighted to share her timely and much-needed words with you today on the blog!

~~~~~~

A New Political Religion: Understanding a Culture that Finds Its Virtue In Shaming and Rejecting (and How the Church Should Respond)

Suddenly people are “canceling” grandma. They are shaming and verbally harassing people they disagree with, in person and online. They are rejecting entire groups of people, based on their group status and beliefs.

Bafflingly, people almost seem as if they feel virtuous for cursing people out, shaming people for their beliefs, and cutting off friends and family for their beliefs– like those are all suddenly good things.

The more I observed and had conversations this year, the more I noticed that it was true. People did feel virtuous and morally good for doing those things. More suspiciously, they seemed to feel immoral if they didn’t do them.

This quote, about the core tenets of Critical Theory, from apologist Neil Shenvi really helped me understand this new ideology:

“Our fundamental moral duty is freeing groups from oppression.”

Why does it suddenly seem cool to cancel grandma and curse out your elementary school classmate for disagreeing with you? Because if you perceive them to be a part of “systems of oppression,” the greatest moral duty you have is to protect people from “oppressors.”

Doctrine

Knowing how to respond to a culture that finds virtue in rejection and shame starts with understanding it. Once we understand it, we can adopt an appropriate response that is biblical.

Let’s break down some theological terms this new “religion” gives:

 

Sin: One believes the wrong beliefs or politics that promote systems of oppression

Redemption: Confess wrong politics and convert to the right viewpoints

Restoration: Vote correctly, support correct causes, and reject everyone else

Identity: Found in the correct political party, candidates, and political views

Unity Is Found: In shared political views

Holiness:  Believing correctly & correcting, shunning, and shaming everyone else

One Becomes Unholy If: I allow people to be ignorant, hateful, and believe incorrectly

The Main Problem: Others’ participation in systems of oppression, hate, and refusal to repent of their “sin”

If someone is causing “harm” or promoting systems of oppression, someone cannot ethically agree to disagree. There is a moral prerogative to do everything they can to stop the harm or free people from oppression. If they agree to stop calling out the problem or the problematic person, they are morally wrong because they become “complicit” in not putting an end to oppression.

This ideology becomes fundamentalist because its very commitment to seeing evil dismantled through actions and power structures requires it. If every action, and every belief, is not accounted for, then the oppression will continue. Therefore, the fundamentalist actions of calling out every behavior and shaming everything that is deemed wrong is required. Shaming, rejection, and “call out culture,” are then forms of virtue, because those behaviors are what “stop” their greatest moral wrong: oppression.

 

Ideological Background

Although the expression of it is new, this ideological belief system isn’t. Its roots can be traced back to the 1800s with Karl Marx, who created the Marxist ideology. Marxist ideology, very basically, is the idea that all problems in society are caused by unequal systems of power. The working class, or “proletariat,” are oppressed by the “bourgeoise,” the elite. Marxism believes that the world would more or less be good if systems of oppression were dismantled.

Marxism influenced the creation of postmodernism in the 1960s. Although postmodernism is explicitly not marxist, as postmodernism disagrees with any worldview that gives a definitive answer or solution to humanity’s problems, both postmodernism and marxism believe that humanity’s problems are caused by oppressors exploiting the oppressed.

Postmodernism gave way to “Theory,” which is what led to Critical Race Theory, gender theory, disability theory, and intersectionality. Apologist Neil Shenvi defines critical theory as an ideology that “…views reality through the lens of power, dividing people into oppressed groups and oppressor groups along various axes like race, class, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability and age.1”

Maybe you’ve heard of Critical Theory this year, as it has been given a new place of cultural importance amid the rise of critical race theory and racial reconciliation.

This new “religion” we are seeing this election year could be thought of as another type of critical theory, a critical “political” theory. Its worldview and ideology are directly rooted in critical theory. This worldview sees its greatest problem as systems of oppression, and believes its greatest moral duty is to free people from that oppression.

While the problems critical theory raises are very important, its solutions are often not biblical, and we are wise to implement biblical solutions in its place.

 

Legalism, Shame, & Cancel Culture

Cancel culture uses shame and manipulation to determine that a person is condemned for an action that is perceived as “sinful.” It relies on determining the righteousness of a person, as being determined by an individual or group who has no actual authority to determine it. Cancel culture “cancels” people based on perceived violation of group moral code.

This political quasi-religion creates a new law, and where there is a law, a law must be enforced. So any violation that goes against the moral code– anything that doesn’t actively work to dismantle systems of oppression in the political realm– is worthy of shame and condemnation.

This ideology places a person as both the creator and the judge of the law.

The “New Religion of Politics” places the believer as the holder of righteousness and condemnation. They become a “god” because they determine another’s goodness or their unholiness. They judge themselves and others by their own created standards and declare whether someone is holy or unholy, worthy of acceptance or rejection.

James 4:11-12 says, “But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy.”

We are not to create a law or become the judge of the law. This new political ideology places a person as both lawgiver and judge.

This ideology is legalistic because one must behave “morally” in order to be in right standing with the group. Any violation of the moral code or doctrine will result in shame–never grace–as Christ has given us.

Jesus invited the woman at the well to drink from His “living water” after she had committed adultery countless times. Jesus did not shun her, but instead welcomed her back, even when she was directly guilty of her sin (John 4:4–26).

So we, too, should not use shame or perceived wrongdoing to determine that someone is unworthy, for that is not our determination to make.

 

Unity in Politics and the Church

As Christians, we want nothing more than unity–because Heaven itself is redeemed unity with God and each other. It’s when sin no longer separates us from each other or from God.

While culture tells us that unity starts with other people believing and behaving correctly, true biblical unity starts with our own hearts. We can’t control what others do, but we can control how we interact with the culture and other people.

To promote unity, we should always proclaim the truth. Some will say that it “causes division” to speak the truth, but we should always speak it in love when it is needed.

To promote unity, we should give grace to people, and not assume we know their hearts or their reasons for their beliefs or votes. We should be very careful about how we say something, because often that is more important than what we say. We should practice radical humility, remembering that we are not without error and our beliefs are bound to be imperfect, so we should give space for others to do the same.

Most importantly, we should contend for our culture, and not see ourselves at war with our culture. Contending means to go to war against evil for our culture, but doesn’t see culture as the problem. It sees prayer and intercession as the foremost means of seeing revival come, and not a culture war as the most important thing to win a dominant ideology.

This new “religion” or critical political theory, tries to use shame and rejection to silence dissenting viewpoints. But as Christians, we do not have to shrink back in timidity. We can reject what they say and how they treat people, but still accept the people who disagree with us. This culture rejects, but as Christians, we don’t have the luxury of rejecting people. Just as Christ radically accepted us, so we are to radically accept others.

 

 

I just released a book that goes much more into depth on this subject. You can download a free copy here.

 

Note:

1. Shenvi, N. (2020). Intro to Critical Theory. Shenvi Apologetics.

 

 

Meagan Elling is a writer, podcaster, & homeschool mama to three little girls in Northern Minnesota. She is passionate about building a family with her husband, seeing the glory of God at work in her life, and encouraging and challenging women to live in their full identity in Christ. You can find Meagan at www.meaganelling.com, on Instagram @meaganelling, and on the Of Grace & Truth Podcast.