I am going to say something controversial, “Republicans can’t be Christians.”
To the vast majority of Christians, I just said something unthinkable, especially if one is of the evangelical stripe of Christianity. I can feel the anger swelling up in some readers as they instantly find this notion absolutely ridiculous.
The truth is that this is a ridiculous claim. Of course, Republicans can be Christians.
It is just as ridiculous when people claim that Christians can’t be Democrats. But this is something that devoted Christians who are vocal about their more democratic positions hear all the time. It is not at all uncommon for someone like me to get a private message or public comment where a concerned Christian Republican questions how these two convictions are compatible. They may even just claim, as a matter of fact, that they are not compatible.
Democrats Hate God
During the last presidential election, Matt Walsh published an article in which he flatly argues that being a staunch Democrat “requires that you fundamentally reject the authority of Christ.” He argues that holding democratic loyalty means “disbelieving and condemning some of [Jesus’] most important teachings and some of the most essential lessons of Scripture.” Walsh furthers his point, “The question is this: Can you believe that Christ is Lord and that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and also believe that Christ was, in some cases, a liar or a fool, and that the inspired Word of God needs to be trimmed and updated?”
He further calls the Democratic party “a party that is so single-mindedly dedicated to undermining [Christianity].”
Walsh focuses his argument on a few hot-button issues, namely homosexuality and abortion. He entirely defines the Democratic party through the lens of those two issues.
It is not my intent to argue those issues here.
Republicans sin like Sodom
But, I do believe there is a problem when the major themes of our politics are, at best, minor themes of scripture.
I could define the Republican Party entirely through the lens of greed and caring for the “Least of These.” Now, I acknowledge that this would be an injustice to the Republican Party. But no more so than how Walsh defined the Democratic Party.
If we look at the Republican Party through these Biblical lenses, the Republican Party is anti-Christian, anti-Christ. Christ said what we do to the least of these, we do to him. In fact, Jesus said to persons who did not care for those in need, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” (Matthew 25:41-43)
Bound for Hell
Those who do not care for those in need are cursed to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels! That is some serious stuff! And, this isn’t just seven verses. Scripture is replete with instructions and admonitions on this subject. In fact, Ezekiel speaks of Sodom in the following way, “Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” Ezekiel’s primary concern about Sodom is that they did not care for the needy!
One could easily apply Matt Walsh’s logic to argue that one cannot be a Republican and a Christian because the Republican platform neglects this central teaching of scripture. A teaching that Christ warns we neglect at the peril of our very eternal destiny.
My point is not that being a Republican is incompatible with Christianity. My point is simply that things are more complicated than that. We should probably consider that scripture speaks about homosexuality 6-7 times and the proper use of wealth and caring for the poor over 500 times. But, the moral calculus isn’t as simple as saying 500 is more than 7. Nor is my point to argue the hypocrisy or bigotry of Matt Walsh, though maybe we should consider those issues.
Question Your Assumptions
What I am interested in is people questioning their assumptions to seek the heart of God. It is so common in the evangelical world to think of the Republican Party as the Christian Party and the Democratic Party as something else. This is still true even in the age of Trump when the admonition in Micah 6:8 to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly is irreconcilable with the leadership of the Republican Party.
For me to claim that Republicans can’t be Christians is ridiculous! But it is also ridiculous for Matt Walsh to say that Christians can’t be Democrats or for authors to write books with titles like Why Democrats Can’t Be Christians or Why Christians Don’t Vote for Democrats.
It is reasonable to argue that one party’s platform adheres better to Christian values than the other. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions on that. But, neither party is all good nor all bad. Neither party is Christian.
You can be a Christian and a Democrat. You can be a Christian and a Republican.
This essay is from our Anastasis Series, where we resurrect articles from the past that are still relevant today. This piece was first published on March 20, 2020, and has been lightly edited and updated.
About Post Author
Thank you so much for this! I want very badly to send it to my husband, but I think it would cause a barrier in our marriage. He feels so strongly the charity should be private and not governmental, yet he gives to no charity that helps the poor. Only if I bug him about it and he receives “extra”, unexpected money, like a bonus. (My earnings, as a professional classical musician and in-store shopper for online grocery orders, are negligible, but I do contribute out of my earnings to help the poor. I even help lots of friends struggling to pay their rent, or to go to a very badly-needed doctor appointment when they have no insurance and are just barely surviving with their bills…I look for their true needs and help them…Thinking nothing about making sure I get a governmental kickback in the form of a tax deduction. My Republican husband won’t give to anyone when he doesn’t get a tax deducation back. To me, it’s awful. We’re not supposed to let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. Giving freely with no expectation of any personal benefit.)
Thank you for your comment and insight. I am sorry for this challenge and tension in your life.
Great article. Spot on. The logic is sound and the tone is confrontational but also irenic.
Thank you.
THIS MISSES THE TARGET. FACT: Neither party is based on a biblical foundation. FACT: Sinners reside in both parties. FACT: One party has moved slowly in the anti-God direction of Cultural Marxism. FACT: One party seems more inclined to follow the US Constitution’s intent while the other takes the position of the document being fluid (recall Joe Biden’s comment on this topic during the Thomas hearing back in 1991) just as liberal theologians take liberty with twisting the Scriptures to their agenda. FACT: One must make moral choices based on personal investigation of foundational principles of the party to which he is aligned. FACT: My citizenship is not here, “I’m just passing through” but while here I need to work on furthering His Kingdom, not man’s.
Welcome back David. You always seem to let the light and love of Christ shine through in your comments…
Honestly, it seems that you may not have even read the essay. Let’s take a look at your “facts.”
1) Your first “fact” is consonant with the essay. A large part of the target that you claim I missed was disabusing people of the fallacious idea that in the United States we have one godly party dedicated to righteousness and another dedicated to the devil. I explicitly argue that “Neither party is Christian.”
2) Again, your second “fact” is in full agreement with the essay that missed the target.
3) Here is where you and I diverge. Marxism has been a boogieman in the United States since shortly after the Civil War when white’s began to claim that any policies that helped the recently emancipated slaves was Marxism. The lean into the phrase “Cultural Marxism” is more recent largely coming to prominence in the 1990s though its roots reach back to the 1970s. Wikipedia has an article on this conspiracy theory, “Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” that would be worth learning from. The Wikipedia article argues that Cultural Marxism “refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents Western Marxism… as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.” It also goes on to say, “the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact.” Wikipedia isn’t perfect but recent meta-analysis has demonstrated that it is at least as reliable as any other encyclopedia and if you disagree with its claims you can always look the the cited sources. All that to say, that we should be leery of arguments rooted in conspiracy theories and historically tied to racial prejudice.
I will not deny that the Democratic party has shifted on certain issues over the last few decades. But if we are looking at party shifts we have to consider the hard right shift of the Republican party during the Regan revolution and then more recently with its embrace of authoritarianism in recent years.
4) Your fourth “fact” is hardly factual. There are two errors here. One is the belief that Republicans are committed to the constitution while Democrats are not. Trump, for example, has put forward at least two executive orders in his first 10 days in office that are transparently unconstitutional. The legal theory that Trump is relying on in the birth-right citizenship order was adjudicated in the 19th century and rejected by the Supreme Court. Also, the ability of the executive to refuse to spend funds appropriated by congress is a clear constitutional issue and additional laws were passed to make it even more clear. In these examples, Trump is rejecting the constitutional order in attempts to expand his power.
The second error in this “fact” is the assertion that the constitution is not fluid. Built into the constitution itself are provisions for making amendments. We have free speech, gun rights, women voting all because the constitution in fluid. We no longer have slavery and Blacks are no longer considered 3/5ths of a person because the constitution is fluid.
Jefferson thought, for example that the constitution should be continually remade, “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.” He thought the idea of an unchanging constitution was silly, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Washington flatly said that the constitution was flawed but was the best they could do at the time and could be improved through amendments, “I wish the Constitution which is offered, had been made more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time. And, as a constitutional door is opened for amendment hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable.”
The very strength of the constitution is its adaptability. To deify original intent, sacrifices the brilliance of the founding fathers. They produced a powerful document that is both strong and flexible.
The last point on this “fact” is that while there are certainly liberal theologians who twist scripture to their agenda, the same can also be said of some conservative theologians. The ability to form scripture to reflect our heart rather than God’s is a flaw possessed by all people.
5) I also agree with this “fact”. You are essentially making the same argument I made, “It is reasonable to argue that one party’s platform adheres better to Christian values than the other. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions on that. But, neither party is all good nor all bad. Neither party is Christian.”
6) I also agree with this. This is why I really wonder if you read the essay. We agree on four out of six of your “facts”. I do believe you are tragically misinformed on the other two but your strong focus on things we agree about seems to indicate a reaction to the title rather than engagement with the content.