Constantine, Elections, and Evangelicalism: An Interview

Alex: “The question of how Christians should engage in politics has occupied the Church on earth since its establishment. Answers ranging from theocracy to complete disengagement have been conceived and implemented, yet no single vision of the Christians role in government and politics has been agreed upon. In the United States, we're facing times of serious political turmoil in which Christians are frequently and vocally involved. In South Carolina, primary elections, in which scores of Christians will take to the polls to cast their votes, are fast approaching. Here to talk to us today about the intersection between politics and the Christian life is Dr. Brent Nelsen, professor of Politics and International Affairs here at Furman University. Dr. Nelsen, thank you for being here. Would you tell us a bit about yourself?”

Dr. Brent Nelsen: “Thanks for having me. I'm a Midwesterner, born in Michigan and raised in Wisconsin. I went to Wheaton College in Illinois, and there I met my wife. We got married after I graduated in 1981. Lori did her graduate work at Berkeley, and we were out in California for a bit and then came back to the University of Wisconsin where I did my PhD. And so I started work here [at Furman] in the winter term of 1990. So I guess I'm coming up on 34 years here, and have taught ever since. I do work on religion and politics, primarily in Europe.

Religiously, I was raised non-denominational. We were sort of Baptist—my father, before he was a professor, was a pastor of an Independent Baptist Church in the north, which means we were broadly evangelical. Both my parents went to Wheaton College as well. Then he went on to the university, and we moved to a big mega-church. And that's where I was raised—went to Wheaton and then came to South Carolina, and couldn't really find the kinds of churches that you find in the north, in the 1990s. And I think that was a good thing, because I believe the Lord led me to the PCA and we've been in PCA churches ever since.”

Alex: “Thank you. As a Christian and a political scientist, how do these two parts of your life interact?”

Dr. Nelsen: “Well, I have always believed in the integration of faith and whatever you are doing. So if you're a student, it's faith and learning. And of course, I'm always a student, even as a professor, but as a professor, it’s faith in teaching and faith and scholarship. So I see those two as, if you are a disciple of Jesus, you are faithfully integrating discipleship of Him into every aspect of your life. So that's the principle by which I try to live.

Now, how does that work out in my professional life? Well, first of all, it does color the way I look at politics. Primarily, I would say it affects the questions I ask—I ask different questions than people that have a different set of foundational principles. I ask about religion and politics. Now, you don't have to be a student of religion and politics to be a Christian political scientist, but you do kind of gravitate towards those questions, because they are the ones that are important to you. 

It does affect my teaching, and I hope it affects my relationship with students. I hope that I demonstrate a kind of love for them that emanates from the command to love one another, and to love everyone who's created in the image of God. I try to bring that into my relationships with students—try to keep my home open to students who often live with us, or come and eat dinner with us and those kinds of things. I meet with students for prayer on Thursday mornings. And that's been very important to me for well over 30 years since I came here. I also think it means taking teaching very, very seriously; as really a God ordained activity. Jesus was a teacher. And I get to be a teacher. Not everybody gets to be a teacher, but I find it really a privilege to be a teacher. And so I take that seriously.

I've approached teaching at a secular school by trying to take Paul at his word: live at peace with all men as much as it depends on you. I've been part of lots of controversies on campus. I try not to be the instigator of those controversies, but I will take a stand if I need to. I think that has helped a lot in building trust with my colleagues, especially. I try to live within the system—the institutions, which I think are really good—that God has blessed us with, as much as it can be lived within as a committed believer.

Alex: “Earlier you mentioned that you grew up in an evangelical context, do you still consider yourself an evangelical? And if so what do you mean by that? “

Dr. Nelsen: “That is such a good and hard question. I do not accept the evangelical label anymore, as it refers to politics. And as we're looking at survey data, increasingly, ‘evangelical’ is becoming a political label, not a religious label. More non-religious people are adopting ‘evangelical’ as a label that they embrace, and I find that deeply disturbing because that means the church, at least the evangelical church in America, has become so closely intertwined with a political movement that it's indistinguishable by those who are not members of the church. Also the rise in the number of evangelicals who never go to church. We often ask the question, ‘what do you identify as’ and they say, ‘I'm evangelical.’ And then we ask how many times they go to church a year and a growing number say ‘I never go to church, but I am an evangelical.’ And I know people like that! They would say ‘I'm an evangelical but I don't ever go to church,’ and I find that to be a complete oxymoron. You can't be an evangelical non-church-attender. It doesn't work. 

But religiously? I still don't know what to label myself if I'm not an evangelical. By that, I mean, do I believe in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Yes. Do I believe that, most often that entails some kind of conversion, or at least recognition of sin and redemption. It may take place over a long period of time, or it might be instantaneous, but there's some recognition that I have made a shift in my life, I've turned towards God. Evangelical, to me, means some commitment to spreading the good news, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And also our respect for the sacred text, the Bible itself. That's kind of the standard four criteria for an evangelical. I still embrace that. So I would like to find a different label because I hate the political part, but I can't yet, so I will do my best to separate out my religious from my political perspective.”

Alex: “How do you view the relationship between church and state? And what do you think is an appropriate relationship?”

Dr. Nelsen: “So this is where I have been moving in my thinking. I'm not quite sure exactly where I fall. I do think that the Trumpian experience has shaken my world when it comes to this relationship between religion and politics in my own mind. As I've already stated, I've been very discouraged by the close connection between a certain kind of evangelical Protestantism with a political movement that seems anti-biblical in so many ways. So I used to be a Republican who felt very comfortable in Republican circles, because lots of people in those circles were evangelical Christians, but it wasn't so overt. 

I ran for statewide office in 2010 for Superintendent of Education, and I saw some things happening in the Republican Party at that time that were disturbing. One candidate, not in my race, but in another race, started talking about the Constitution as a God inspired document on par with scripture. I'm going like, who out here is calling ‘blasphemy, blasphemy!’ Because that's clearly heretical. And yet, people were cheering him. So I noticed that there were some real problems there. When Trump came along, it just exacerbated it. So up to that time, I guess I would have been a guy who said, ‘Yeah, we need more Christians in office, and it would be nice to have Christian public policies, and I'm working for that.’ Then I saw how this connection between power and religious dogma could become divisive and destructive.

So then I started thinking back, like, ‘okay, what do I think about Constantine? What do I think about the medieval church and the divine right of kings?’ I used to kind of accept all that as ‘well, that's the way it should be.’ I didn't think too critically about it—not as critically as I should have. So I began to think more critically about it. Now, I will say that I think many marvelous things came out of Constantine's conversion, and the conversion of the Roman empire into a Christian empire. We have great buildings, we have great liturgies, we have good theology, we have the monastics—the preserving and spreading of civilization. I mean, I could go on and on about the marvelous things that the church brought to Western civilization. But I can also see more of the downside of the connection between religion and power in late antiquity and early medieval Europe.

I guess if I'm forced to make some sort of statement now, I would say that there are times when God seems to be willing to use political power to bring about some increase in social righteousness, but I don't think we're in one of those moments. So I think that was a time where I guess I would be ambiguous. I'm not anti-Constantinian, but I'm not full on pro-Constantinian, because I think there were many abuses. Even in the ancient church, there was the use of political power to move some people towards the Christian priesthood that weren't really believers, because the social setting made it in their self-interest to do that. There are lots of bad things that come from political power. But I also don't think that the church should always just separate from political power because it might be tainted by it. So this is where I think that it can be destructive as well.

At least today, I would encourage people who are believers and who think they are leaders to continue to get involved in politics, but to be very, very careful about where their ultimate loyalties lie.

Now Christian nationalism—Christian nationalism is idolatry. Period. Because the national overwhelms the Christian. We see that over and over and over again, where America becomes more important than the church; where people leave their churches because they don't honor America enough. I consider that idolatry because they put a political ideology and a nation state above Christ in His Church. Now, I don't want Christians to withdraw from everything. In fact, I'm kind of a James Davidson Hunter kind of guy. He talks about faithful presence. And maybe that's what I mean by the attitude I've had since I came to Furman—I want to be a faithful presence here. I want to be faithful. And I want to stick to my principles. 

I think so many Christians these days have decided that they want to win politically. Well, Jesus didn't win politically, He lost politically. But He won among the principalities and powers, the place where it really mattered. We're substituting strong weapons for weak weapons, because we can defeat the libs or the secularists or whatever it is. I think we have lost sight of Jesus Himself, who was in a political moment, and who had very different political ideologies represented in the 12 people that He was closest to. He had a tax collector and a zealot. He said, ‘I don't care about either one of your positions. I am going to submit to the power of the Roman cross, so that I can defeat the powers that really matter: sin, death, evil, Satan, Hell.’ I wish Christians in the United States would start looking at things that way. There is such a thing as redemptive suffering, and we're not willing to go there. We're gonna fight for our rights. Jesus never fought for His rights. I'll stop there.”

Alex: “The last couple minutes, what you said sounded very Anabaptist. That sounded much more in favor of spurning wordly politics and fighting a spiritual battle, and not concerning ourselves with the political battle. Could you address that position a little bit more thoroughly? Like if you had an Anabaptist say, ‘yes, you get it! But I don't understand why you have this residual attachment to politics…”

Dr. Nelsen: “If Stanley Hauerwas were in this room, he would butcher me. Because he would say, ‘yeah, you’ve finally come to my position!’ I have thought much more deeply about Anabaptist positions. I guess I would say that I believe that God raised up Anabaptist positions, to always be a check on Christians thinking that they can transform the world into some sort of godly kingdom. I think that is the ultimate check because our desire is ultimately to rule the world. That's what Christian nationalism is all about. It's about Christians ruling America and America ruling the world. So the Anabaptists come along and say ‘exactly where is that in Scripture?’ But I would also say that I think sometimes the Anabaptist position, while courageous, is focused on purity and is not willing to recognize the world as a messy, messy place. And we have to be involved in the mess. I don't want to say that Anabaptist are just chickened out and leave the world and all of that. I don't think that's the case. But I do think that their emphasis on purity does sometimes miss the ministry that we have in the mess. And so I guess I'm still more of a transformer of culture than an against culture kind of person. I would like to see Christians involved in the highest forms of culture, because I do think we have a redemptive mission, we can grab the beauty and the creativity of God and demonstrate that for the world. The danger is, we get sucked in by the world. But lived best, I think it's a very powerful illustration of the Gospel to the world, that God does love His creation, and that God does want to see His people following in His creative acts. 

So I guess I can't get out. I can't get away from that. Yeah, there are times, believe me, like when I read Dreher’s Benedict Option, I was like, ‘I think I need to go live in a communal situation in central Missouri, because I do think this place is going downhill fast.’ But then I actually thought about the monastic experience. When you look at the history of monasticism, especially Celtic monasticism, they were always trying to escape the world, and they always ended up getting right into the middle of it and creating these little kingdoms of semi-righteousness. I mean, no community is perfect. But they kept bringing light to the darkness. Wherever they went. They thought they were escaping, but they ended up enlightening the world around them. So I don't think God allows us that option of escape. We keep getting dragged back into the world. And so I'm just one of those guys who says I'd rather be involved in the mess because I think God wants me to be loving people in the mess.”

Alex: “Two more questions, then we'll wrap up. How do you decide who to vote for?”

Dr. Nelsen: “It's hard. Until recently I've identified as a Republican—it's really hard for me to identify as a Republican now, because I think the party has just completely changed. I mean, I didn't always vote for Republicans. In fact, my first presidential vote was for Jimmy Carter, because I thought the guy was a born again Christian. Why should I vote for him over Ronald Reagan, who at the time, I doubted whether he was a believer? I think I know more about him now, and I think he did have some genuine experience at some point. But, I was in college, and I thought Jimmy Carter was a good Christian man. And I voted for him based solely on religion. After that I voted a lot for Republicans, though I voted for Barack Obama in the first election in 2008. I just wanted a black man—I just wanted America to say, ‘African Americans have arrived and they can live in the big house,’ but I was disillusioned by him by the end. And I did vote for Mitt Romney, who I still respect as a man of great principle.

So I've gotten to the point where I am voting much more based on the person than the party. That sounds so trite, and I used to dismiss that because I studied political parties. I thought those were good things! But I don't anymore. That's a long way of saying I guess I've become much less party oriented and much more candidate centered. That's the way America has moved over the last 50 years. I'm just catching up I guess.”

Alex: “And when it comes to candidates, would you say you're more concerned with their character or with their policies? Or both?”

Dr. Nelsen: “Yeah, I mean, it's hard for me to vote for Republicans to the House because of the House Republicans policy positions. But I also have trouble, say, with William Timmons, my congressman, because he's had a series of sexual scandals, and that calls into question his character. I do think Christians have a duty to judge character. I mean, we believe that character matters, right? You can't divorce character from your style of leadership—your ability to lead. I don't think it's the only thing—I do think along with Luther that sometimes I could vote for an ungodly prince who I am sure will act in favor of justice over a godly prince who was foolish and makes terrible decisions. So character isn't the only thing I vote on, but I do think it's still important—character matters.”

Alex: “Final question. When political platforms promote Christian values, the platform's opponents commonly object that because the United States is not a Christian nation, its laws should not be directed by Christian values or ideals. How do you respond to that?”

Dr. Nelsen: “The United States is not a Christian nation, but it is a Western country. And the West was deeply shaped by the Christian church. It is not as much shaped by the Christian church now. But this is where I think Christians do make political mistakes, by tying very closely their policy positions to what they believe their theology points them to. The problem, of course, with American politics is that both sides of at least the economic spectrum, have powerful biblical arguments on their side. On the left, they care for the poor. On the right, they believe in responsibility and have concern for the love of others meaning a fiscally responsible state—but also a culture of life. So I just don't like political platforms that parade out the word Christian or the word, church or something like that.

I do think that all law is governed by some moral sense. And I think that Christians should be right there making their arguments for a Christian moral sense. But when that slips over into the desire for political power, then that's when things get off the rails really fast, at least in my opinion. So I think we have to be careful about how we argue in this secular age. I think, in past ages, it was different. But this is a secular age, and I don't think it's helpful to the church, or to politics to tie it closely to Christian values. But I also reject the secular notion that law is not at all connected to religion. 

We are so deeply shaped by our Christian experience in the West—the very notion that human beings have rights is deeply Christian. You don't find that in other cultures naturally, without Western influence. Actually, the idea of the rule of law is a Western concept. Now, not as much Christian as it might be Jewish and Roman, but it's still part of the West. Also our notion of constant critique. That's a Christian notion, right out of the prophets, right out of Jesus Himself. The whole idea of critical theory and holding powerful people to account. Those are all Christian notions—that there is something above every ruler, and that every ruler is subject to the will of God, and the law of God, and the righteousness of God. So, this is where I think the secular world—perhaps for good reason—simply doesn't want to acknowledge that they are deeply indebted to Christian morality in most of what they do. Environmentalism is deeply rooted in Christianity—feminism, anti slavery, race rights—all of that is rooted in Christian morality. Now, the evangelical world doesn't want to recognize that and neither does the secular world. But it's Jesus. It's the prophets, and it's the Torah.”

Alex: “Well, thank you for agreeing to be interviewed and for your candidness and wisdom.”

Dr. Nelsen: “Yeah, thank you. Thanks a lot.”