Walter: We’ve been thinking about the use of identity politics and some of these conservative ways. And that makes sense for the rise of certain segments of American evangelicalism. But I think the same could be said of progressive American evangelicalism or progressive movements. And you alluded to that as an academic, the pressures one might feel, the marginalizations of that.
So how are we to engage with progressive identity politics in similar manners that you have suggested for conservative identity politics? Is it basically the same set of tools and practices of listening, or is there a different dynamic and a different set of issues that we need to be aware of that are so important to the advocacy and identity politics from a more progressive side of things?
George: I think there may be some nuances and some differences, but I think the basic tool set is the same. The way I want to do my research, I see there are some slightly different ways it was applied with certain Christians and with the anti-racist. But the basic direction was basically the same, as far as dehumanizing one’s opponents and seeking out heretics. That sort tends to be very similar. I do think it is very fair for us to critique progressive identity politics just as much as conservative Christian identity politics.
And what I would argue is we want to look at what’s happened in the anti-racism movement from 2020 to today. I think a lot of its downfall was a very hyper identity politics approach, which turned off a lot of people, not just people who were far right wing, but a lot of people in the middle. When people started critiquing DEI or critical race theory, there weren’t a lot of defenders there, because some of the ways identity politics was used were polarizing, and a lot of people in the middle did not want any more of that.
I think that’s a caution tale for conservative Christians who are engaged in identity politics. Today, they may have the political edge, but there’s no guarantee they’re going to keep it, especially if they’re polarizing and alienating people who are neither their arch enemy nor their friends, but are in the middle and trying to figure out what they want to believe. And then they’re going to see some of the actions done by conservative Christians who are engaged in identity politics.
Walter: Yeah, these pendulum swings that our society seems to be going through in the last several decades. And what’s at stake is the character of what it means to be a Christ follower in the moment. What’s at stake is the witness of the Church in this particular moment. This is where I want to swing back to the comment you made earlier about your concerns about the ways we might utilize power. So I hear you: Power is necessary. The use of power is necessary, and it can be used for great good. You’ve done a lot of diagnosis and really helped us understand the nature of the problem and why it’s so concerning. Do a little bit of a positive framing of where we go from here. What do you think are the kingdom values perspectives that would be so important for us in this particular moment?
George: Well, when I talk about racial issues, the Scriptural framework that I use to see a way forward is the notion of human depravity. And to me, this is one of the biggest distinguishers between a Christian worldview and a secular worldview. The secular worldview, if you look at the Enlightenment movement and some of the humanistic movement, was the notion that humans are perfectible — that if we can find the right society and the right rules, we will create some sort of utopia. If you understand Marxism, you see that very clearly, but there are other versions of that. As a Christian, I couldn’t accept that, because I understand human depravity. And once I understand that it means it’s not just that human depravity and they are depraved; it’s human depravity and I am depraved. If I have that sort of humbleness, I can now enter into situations where I need to learn what you know, and maybe we can work together.
Rather than engage in identity politics that is trying to gear us and send us away from working with others, is to lean into working with others. I would say that conservative Christians right now have a great opportunity, because they do have political power. Now is the time to invite people to work with us. Because when you’re out of power, people think you’re just coming, because you don’t have power. But now you do have some power. And to lean into this. Let’s work with people. Let’s find solutions. Let’s find reasonable solutions. Work with people who are reasonable out there to find a coalition moving forward.
Walter: I want to ask a question that deals with the nuance of how we hold some things together. You’ve written about the ways that identity politics gives people a sense of belonging and how powerful that is, because we all want to belong. It can be instrumentalized by leaders and produce identity politics, giving us a deep sense of belonging, tribalism, et cetera. And yet the Church also is seeking to create this sense of belonging. We have this all throughout Scripture: neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, our oneness in Christ, breaking down the dividing walls of hostility. This profound sense that we are no longer strangers to one another — we are actually brothers and sisters.
So how does the Church meet this longing of belonging, this desire to belong? How does it live out this deep desire to create this family? How does that happen without it slipping into a form of tribalism, whether political or social, so that the Church becomes this club that defines itself against this increasingly secular pluralistic society?
George: I think if we really look at the true values of what it is to be a Christian, we’ll create a community that is truly inclusive in the ways that should be inclusive — not a sort of blind inclusive where we accept everything, because there are things that obviously we should not accept, but inclusiveness as who you are, you can come here. I think that really takes a radical — not in a political way — but a radical way of understanding who we are as Christians. We are image bearers. That means everyone’s an image bearer, and as an image bearer, that’s how I should approach treating you. Either you’re my neighbor if you’re not part of my Christian walk, or you’re my brother and sister. And if you want a place here, you can come here, warts and all. We’ll work together — me to help you, and you to help me.
That’s exactly the sort of community that we should want to build. That is what can draw people to us if we build that sort of community. Is it going to reach everyone? No, of course it’s not going to reach everyone. But that’s where I focus. When we get too involved with politics — and I’m not saying Church cannot be involved in politics whatsoever — [when] we get too involved, we start making lines and saying, “Well, do you really want to join here because you voted for so-and-so?” That should never be part of our job. We can agree to disagree. Ultimately — and a lot of people have a hard time with this — politics are secondary issues to primary issues. Secondary in that I can accept people no matter how they vote as a brother or sister in Christ. I can love and take care of that person no matter how they vote.
Once again, that doesn’t mean we accept everything that comes in. There are certain really disturbing attitudes or disturbing actions that, of course, we need to deal with as a community. But if we do that by remembering that everyone’s an image bearer, and that we’re called on to love that person, to treat them as Jesus treats Samaritans in the story of the Good Samaritan, the woman at the well. If we did that, that’s the sort of inclusive community that we should be building.
View Today's Conversation
