Faithful Politics by Miranda Zapor Cruz will help to provide understanding as to how Christians got to where they are in today's political world. It gives a detailed description of how politics are viewed by the different Christian denominations in the US. Sources are cited throughout for those who may want to do further reading.

I found it interesting and sometimes enlightening to see how different Christian denominations (some I hadn't heard of or been exposed to) have embraced certain biblical ideas and have ignored others, sometimes (often?) on opposite sides of the Christian "spectrum."

I especially appreciated the section about how many evangelicals claim God's Biblical promises to Israel as promised to the United States. America is not Israel, our government isn't (or should not be) our Messiah, and our country is not Heaven. But the author doesn't only touch on this. She also addresses the either/or tendency in politics versus a more thoughtful position that considers each facet of politics and each issue to be voted on on an independent basis, versus all or nothing Democrat or Republican.

I did not personally feel as if the author was leaning left or right politically (which is a difficult thing to achieve today); rather, I feel it has the ability to challenge any reader. It's not a book that I read and the whole time found things wrong with it, nor was it a book that I simply nodded my head as I read (and let me be honest - getting bored.)

This would be a great read in preparation for the upcoming election and the various issues on the ballots., regardless of where the reader stands in their faith.

Cruz acknowledges that she is writing in a polarised political climate, and thus instead of mentioning specific political parties, issues, or platforms, she proposes to lay down principles and "approaches to faithful political engagement" (xv, xvii). Drawing from Augustine's City of God, Cruz argues that, because God's kingdom is not of this world, "partisan platforms are inevitably out of step with the Kingdom of God; therefore no single party should capture the full allegiance of a Christian" (xvi), and any approach to politics that requires "absolute loyalty to the country [and] refuses to recognize ways in which the country falls short of its own ideals and of the Kingdom, is not an option for Christians." (12) She then supports her proposition that the USA is different from the Kingdom by pointing to their different conceptions of freedom (the former for self, the latter for others), power (the former based on coercion, the later on weakness), and justice (the former with diverse norms, the latter with just one norm, God's own being) (13-18). To address many Christians who believe that God's promises to Israel apply to the USA, Cruz acknowledges that the Bible is not against engagement with politics and the government (pointing to Daniel and Esther), but points out that Biblical Israel was a specially placed nation in a unique covenant with God (27). Thus one cannot read verses like 2 Chronicles 7:14 and interpret it as God promising prosperity to any modern nation in exchange for the nation ‘return[ing] to God’ (whatever that may mean) (28). When it comes to engaging with governments, Cruz draws from Jesus' response to the religious leaders in Matt 22:21, as well as Rom 13 and Rev 13, submitting that Christians' "default posture" should be one of "submission to and respect for governing authorities—even those for whom we did not vote or those whose policies we disagree." However, Christians are also to discern when political loyalties move "toward idolatry", be it loyalty to a president or a party (37). Participating in partisan politics can damage the church's Christian witness and corrupt the gospel – we should not think that we Christians are somehow immune to grasping for power (48-49). Christians may have ideological leanings, but their loyalty should be to Christ over party, and Christian faith must not be made "dependent upon any political entity." (49) Cruz thus submits that if we "do not feel tension between our faith and our partisanship, we [have likely] bent our faith to align with our politics." (51)

After laying down broad principles, Cruz proceeds to explore various approaches towards faithful political engagement. First, she explores separatist approaches, such as anabaptist isolation (i.e. forming separate communities and living apart from society) and strategic withdrawal (like that advocated in The Benedict Option, where Dreher argues for Christians to form a subculture of their own by homeschooling, patronising stores run by fellow Christians, and choosing careers with minimal moral compromises and/or dilemmas). She opines that while such approaches "clearly differentiate between the church and the world", they risk "neglecting present human needs that public policy can address" (81-82).

She next explores approaches towards separation of church and state – complete separation (eg. the historically baptist position, where the church stays out of politics entirely) and two kingdoms separation (drawing from Augustine, Luther distinguished between the state's responsibility and care for bodies (punishing evildoers) and the church's responsibility and care for souls (salvation and morality), though he also acknowledged that "the governing authority and its sword are a divine service", and the ruler must "aim at the common good", "not seeking their own gain" (96)). Cruz opines that while separation minimises the risk of conflating kingdom and country, it might also fail to intervene "in extreme circumstances of government failing in its purpose", such as in Hitler's Nazi Germany where the Confessing Church was silent on Hitler's policies, even his anti-Semitism, focusing only on government action that intruded upon the church's spiritual sphere (100-101).

Thirdly, Cruz explores various iterations of the social gospel, such as the civil rights movement, mainline denominations engaging in and voicing out social concerns, and the Roman Catholic encyclical Rerun Novarum and the Roman Catholic social teaching that followed. In evaluating the social gospel, Cruz opines that it allows Christians to take seriously their ability to affect their communities and the world for the better, in line with Scripture's concern for justice (126), but it also runs the risk of an over-realised eschatology (thinking we can create a society where God's Kingdom is a reality) (122-123).

Fourth, Cruz explores two approaches rooted in Calvinist theology – direct Christian influence (the other side of the social gospel coin; the belief that government should enforce Christian values as a foundation for society's shared morality) and principled pluralism/sphere sovereignty (forwarded by Abraham Kuyper, who submitted that there are a number of spheres that order society such as government, church, family, and marketplace, and the spheres of authority should not encroach on another sphere's domain, i.e. the government can enforce justice but shouldn't demand particular beliefs or moral convictions from citizens). Advocates of the former like Wayne Grudem appeal to (what they call) an "evangelical and conservative" interpretation of Scripture as the "right" interpretation that government should enforce, but this not only "dismisses the biblical interpretation of a large percentage of American and global Christians", but Grudem's "evangelical conservatives" have also had a history of mishandling Scripture (eg. the civil rights movement, contra. Martin Luther King Jr, who was not a conservative evangelical by Grudem's standards) (141-143). Additionally, the former underlies the historical alignment of American evangelicals with the Republican party, and when they have shown themselves to align with the party because of just a few issues, adopting or excusing the rest of the party's positions, it damages their Christian witness as they come off as hypocrites and/or grasping at political power at any cost (especially with their "culture war" rhetoric) (144), leading to the church's decline (146). The main critique of sphere sovereignty is that it is grounded in natural law, and thus it is subject to its critiques, such as its potential for abuse (eg. by Hitler and the Nazis, as pointed out by Karl Barth ("All arguments based on Natural Law are Janus-headed")) (152-153). Additionally, there is a lack of clarity concerning the limits of each sphere (eg. in which sphere does poverty alleviation fall), and what to do when a sphere "fails to fulfil its vital function and thereby harms the common good." (153)

Lastly, Cruz lays out two approaches she opines is incompatible with faithful Christian witness. The first is dominionism (underlying the (in)famous Seven Mountains Mandate), which teaches that the church is called to engage in spiritual warfare and take over spheres of society and establish the kingdom of God. Not only is this "not what the Bible teaches", but adherents' reliance on Old Testament passages (especially those to do with promises and warfare) do so "without regard for the historical, cultural, and even covenantal differences between biblical Israel and the contemporary United States" (170). Additionally, advocates (like Bill Johnson) push a method of interpreting Scripture that "sets aside the author's intent and the historical context so the Holy Spirit can reveal new meaning", coming dangerously close to the ancient montanist and gnostic heresies (171). Lastly, dominionism has borne "unhealthy fruit" as many have used it to justify "religiously motivated violence and domestic terrorism." (172)

The second is Christian nationalism ("CN"), the belief that "America was founded as a Christian nation by (white) men", "The United States is blessed by God", and it "has a special role to play in God's plan for humanity." (177) The 'Christian' in CN is also divorced from theological tenets of Christian orthodoxy, replacing it with "assumptions of nativism, White supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism." (177-178) It is clear how this approach damages Christian witness and has borne bad fruit (188-191).

Overall, I found Cruz's book to be a good survey of political theology and approaches Christians take towards politics. I thus think that this is a good read for any Christian who engages in politics, not necessarily for changing one's mind, but at least to make one conscious of the theology underlying their political engagement, and to introduce them to the alternatives that their Christian brothers and sisters hold to alongside them. I also appreciate Cruz's first few chapters focusing on principles rather than political issues and positions, making this a book that I can recommend to Christians across the political spectrum (and if a Christian disagrees with those principles, it allows ones to engage with them on these more important, deeper considerations, rather than arguing over (surface-level) political positions).

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6424128269

Faithful Politics is a book I didn't know how much I needed. Zapor Cruz has used her unique education, experiences, and expertise to write a book that every Christian should read. Somehow staying very unbiased and unpartisan, she gives an expertly crafted history and theology of major political movements within the United States to show where they miss representing the gospel and what they offer Christians, if anything, to learn from. Her summary and recommendation on how to approach being a politically active person in our country (which is necessary) and have a sound perspective and witness to the gospel is original and vaulable and something that will shape my conversations about politics with and without members of the church. Her section on Christian Nationalism was particularily powerful. If you have been burned by false gospels in the name of Christ to advance dominionism, nationalism or any such theology or want to be better about connecting with people who approach their faith in this way, I highly recommend this book. This is a true advancement of the gospel in a chaotic political society that is our current American experience.

Comprehensive Look At Different Ways Different Christian Communities Have Viewed Politics Over The Millenia. This book is truly one of the most comprehensive looks at the subject that I've yet run across, and for that alone is to be commended. It is also immensely readable, which is always a nice bonus in an academic-oriented book.

Perhaps the only "negative" thing to be said here (and certainly some will view this as quite the positive, or even argue she doesn't go far *enough*), is that Cruz at times can be a bit *too* tough on the Christian Nationalism crowd, while openly claiming a high degree of tolerance for every other perspective she discusses. Even as I oppose the Christian Nationalists myself (finding more cause for Anarchism in the text of the Bible than any support for any modern nation, *including* the modern State of Israel), I would have liked to have seen their positions presented with the same detached rational approach as all of the other perspectives presented - mostly because I truly believe that when presented in those same terms, the Christian Nationalists *still* lose, and lose bigger because they *were* given a rational chance.

Even this, though, is not the actual cause of the star deduction. The cause of the star deduction is instead the complete non-existence of any hint of a bibliography, which are generally present even in these Advance Reviewer Copy forms of texts, as I have quite a bit of experience reading and reviewing over the last several years (where 20-30% is considered my norm, though I've also openly discussed perhaps lowering that a touch more recently).

Still, even that is a flaw that will hopefully be corrected in the final form of the book.

Overall an interesting and comprehensive examination of the topic, one anyone interested in Christianity and Politics in America - for any reason - should make it a point to read. Particularly before any Presidential Election. Yes, including the one being conducted less than 90 days after the publication of this very book. Very much recommended.

This fascinating book by a scholar of theological history examines several strategies Christians have used over the centuries for engaging (or not engaging) with politics, from Anabaptist separation to the social gospel to principled pluralism. The author makes the case that there are many valid options for Christian engagement with political issues, and we can learn a lot from each of them. This book is a call for Christians to be “salty” and choose loyalty to God over devotion to any one political party, whether we’re voting, campaigning or running for office. The author also explores two ways of engaging with politics that she argues do not glorify God (dominionism and Christian nationalism) and explains why these are unbiblical.

This book was deeply researched but complex theological concepts were explained clearly enough to be easily understandable to those of us without a seminary background. I like that it didn’t prescribe particular views on specific political issues, but instead focused on how Christians on either side of the political aisle can honour God through their politics. I think this book would make a really interesting small group study, particularly in politically and theologically diverse congregations.

Cruz weaves an excellent framework through which Christians can understand and better engage with citizenship in the Kingdom of God alongside national, regional, and even state citizenship. When I first opened her work, I worried that I would encounter bias that may undercut her ten-view approach. I found myself happily surprised that this was not the case. In her research and analysis, Cruz discusses a range of ideological approaches to dual citizenship in the Kingdom of God and of country. I thought she did well in discussing potential pitfalls in each approach, but that her most ambitious proposal (a better, personal framework) was her most successful. I was surprised to find that Cruz doesn't encourage the reader to choose one ideology or another--particularly in a time in which it seems that indoctrination, one way or the other, is unavoidable. Rather, Cruz suggests that depending on the viewpoint of the individual, their understanding of the Kingdom of God could lead them to partisanship in any respective political sect. This felt refreshing. Cruz aimed to arm the reader with tools through which to make decisions without forcing decisions onto the reader, and my assessment is that she succeeded. I think Cruz's work will be perfectly timed for Christian readers who hope to make an informed decision, whatever that decision may be, come November 2024.

A helpful overview of the various approaches to Christian political engagement, ranging from Anabaptist views to nationalism to Calvinism. Good as a reference for the different perspectives