A distorted image of God that looks suspiciously like us

In Unleashing Scripture, Stanley Hauerwas suggests, “No task is more important than for the Church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America.” At times, I find myself agreeing with Hauerwas. We often misuse the Bible by drawing it into our conversations without sufficient accountability. Without that accountability, we too often use God and the Bible as a way to point to our own concerns or interests. We offer a distorted image of God who looks suspiciously like us. This God supports our agendas and activities so long as we don’t read the Bible too closely.

For example, I recently heard someone advocating for conservatism allude to 2 Corinthians 3:17: “…where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” He paused briefly before saying “freedom” so those in the crowd could finish the verse (which they did). “Freedom” in the context of his speech referred to political freedom in the U. S., whereas 2 Corinthians 3:17 refers to an aspect of Christian freedom; the relatively unfettered access new covenant believers have in Christ. The former may be impacted by an election. The latter can’t be.

By quoting the passage, however, the speaker draws these two types of freedom together. His political perspective was reinforced by his citation of Scripture even though the implicit connection he makes between “Christian freedom” and “political freedom” is a misreading of the biblical text.

Senator Josh Hawley’s appeal to Augustine at the National Conservatism Conference offers a different example. He notes, “While Augustine said that all nations are constituted by what they love, his philosophizing actually described a new idea of the nation…a Christian nationalism organized around Christian ideals.” Hawley’s interpretation of Augustine misunderstands Augustine’s distinction between the “city of man” and the “city of God.” The former is always rooted in and hindered by self-love whereas the latter is rooted in a love of the Triune God. Hawley’s mistake is not in pursuing a more just society or suggesting that our nation needs a moral center. Instead, his mistake was tying Christianity to a particular political system decoupled from a love of the Triune God. His mistake is pretending that Augustine’s “dream became reality” with the founding of the United States upon a select set of “Christian ideals.” Such ideals may be beneficial for a nation, but they are not a sufficient substitute for an unwavering allegiance to (love of) the Triune God.

When a nation’s primary love is not the Triune God, it will love something else. While he references “love of God” throughout his speech, Hawley ultimately calls conservatives to love a tradition and vision presumably because, in the United States, loving the Triune God is allowable but not required.

It isn’t just those advocating for conservatism who misuse the Bible. Speaking to the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Kamala Harris references Luke 1:79 noting, “As the Gospel of Luke tells us, faith has the power to shine a light on those living in darkness and to guide our feet in the path of peace.” She goes on to suggest, “In moments such as this, faith guides us forward … faith in the promise of America, freedom, opportunity, and justice not for some, but for all.” First, Luke 1:79 isn’t describing faith (even faith in Christ) but the “knowledge of salvation” and “forgiveness of sins.” Second, Harris substitutes “faith in the promise of America” for God’s salvation. This redirection uses the biblical text to point away from Jesus Christ and toward Harris’s political agenda which she believes will bring about “freedom, opportunity, and justice … for all.” Christians shouldn’t be rooting against the United States, freedom, opportunity, or justice. We should, however, object to misreadings of Scripture used to advance a given candidate’s political ends (see Serpents and Doves for additional examples).

So, why don’t we hold ourselves and others accountable for the way God and His Word are used to advance political agendas?

It may be that the lack of accountability is the result of confusing Christianity (the religion practiced by Jews and non-Jews united by faith in Christ Jesus) with American civil religion (ACR; a co-opting of Christian symbols, ideas and language divorced from Christ and focused on shaping a certain sort of “good citizen”). The examples above reflect the language of ACR not that of Christianity. ACR’s use of the Bible is nostalgic and rhetorical serving ends that do not point to and glorify the Triune God. The similarity in the language of ACR and Christianity breeds confusion while allowing Christians and non-Christians alike to press the Bible into service of our particular vision of the world.

My concern is that if we do not commit to being sufficiently disciplined in speaking about God and interpreting the Bible (while recognizing we still won’t always get it right), we will lose the capacity and/or desire to correct misrepresentations of God. We may find ourselves in a position similar to that James Findlay describes regarding “Evangelical denominations and business leaders” in the 1850s. While not without its benefits, the relationship between the Church and the business sector “made it difficult for Evangelical leaders to criticize the business community, even if they [Evangelicals] so desired.”

When we don’t feel the urge to hold ourselves and others accountable for the way we speak about God and use biblical texts, we must ask ourselves if we have become too entangled with the political realm. 

Christians serving in political office, advocating for political positions, or encouraging Christian political participation, must actively discourage misleading biblical and theological rhetoric used to mobilize support for political causes. Such rhetoric reinforces political agendas rather than reshaping them in light of Scripture. Christians are devoted to the truth. That truth does not preclude political participation but shapes it.

Christians must stop cheering every time someone quotes a Bible verse, references a theologian, calls us to “have faith,” or references “Christian values” apart from Christ. We must hold those who speak of God accountable to speak of Him rightly because we are less concerned with winning elections than proclaiming God faithfully in a broken world.