Was Jesus a Conservative or a Progressive?
Who would Jesus have aligned with politically?
Defining our terms
I think it’s obvious we first need to define some terms. What exactly do we mean by “conservative” and “progressive”? We tend to read these words through the lens of current, competing talking points. But these concepts go back much further than our political movements of the past few years or decades (or centuries). If you were to do some traveling, you might be shocked to learn people in different countries often have surprisingly different ideas of what a conservative or progressive is (and which is most in harmony with the Christian faith). So what’s at the heart of being conservative or progressive?
We get a clue from the words themselves. In every society, there will be people who seek to conserve what they have culturally. They want to maintain and strengthen the long-standing traditions and values of their culture. They support their public institutions, and place great importance in their national heritage. They highly value a well-ordered public life without any chaos, and they prioritize what’s best for the continuity of the nation as a whole. Conservatives typically try to give businesses free rein, as much as possible, so their societies can continue to be prosperous.
This is a description of what—very broadly—would have motivated conservatives throughout history. Here’s just one, possibly surprising, example: When Christianity was a new religion, beginning to make inroads into the Roman Empire, many Roman thought-leaders and statesmen called for preserving and strengthening their traditional pagan religions. They felt strongly it was in the best interest of the empire to maintain the religious traditions that had made Rome strong. In their society at that time, these pagan, anti-Christian views would have been the conservative position.
In any society, there will also be people focused on the need for change. They’re strongly motivated to see their culture progress in key ways. They’re more willing, even eager, to let go of or fundamentally change long-standing traditions and values. They tend to be more questioning of public institutions and even sometimes of their national heritage. They're much more focused on the rights or well-being of the individual citizens of a nation, and are willing to cause unrest in the public life of their society to bring about what they see as needed change. Progressives are more likely to seek restrictions on businesses they feel are harmful to individuals and to society, businesses driven solely by the pursuit of profit.
Again, this is a very broad description of what would have motivated progressives throughout history. And we can find surprising examples of this progressivism, as well. In the 18th and 19th centuries, there were a number of social reforms that changed many of our nations in profound ways. These would include the ending of oppressive child labor practices, needed reforms of mental asylums and prisons (where conditions were horrific), more humane treatment of those in crushing debt, the establishment of hospitals to provide health care for everyone, women’s suffrage, etc. At the heart of each of these reforms—and usually initiating and driving them—were groups of evangelical Christians. And all of these reforms would have been seen as progressive. (A common label of Christians at that time—more recently used of progressives—was “do-gooders.”)
I can already hear some of the challenges many of you are likely thinking right now. The reality is that when we begin to examine actual, contemporary political movements, we find a lot of inconsistencies. Are “conservatives” today (in the U.S.) known for wanting to conserve society, for supporting public institutions, and for valuing a well-ordered public life without any chaos? Over the last few years, many on the right have expressed a desire to “burn it all down” and start again, are intensely critical and suspicious of core public institutions and governing norms, and cheer on Supreme Court justices that—regardless of whether we support them—have created an activist court on the right (instead of the more typical judicial activism from the left). Whether we all agree with them or not, a great many conservative leaders and thinkers can no longer support the GOP because, they say, it’s no longer conservative.
Here’s a question to consider: If we didn’t know anything about American politics the last 40 years or so, would we categorize the protection of the unborn as a conservative or progressive cause? It really seems to best fit the progressive concern for protecting the rights of the individual, especially the most vulnerable and powerless, doesn’t it? Yet, in our recent history, opposition to abortion has been seen as conservative, while defense of the right to an abortion is viewed as progressive. This is the reality, but it seems very inconsistent. To be fair, there’s an active pro-life minority in the Democratic Party (many of them evangelical Christians) who do see this as a progressive issue. But it still seems clear that what’s considered “conservative” or “progressive” at any one time can be fairly arbitrary.
(Why have tariffs gone from being a Democratic tactic to a Republican one? Why has strong support of a democratic ally, fighting for their freedom against an invading autocratic aggressor, gone from being a solemn commitment of Republicans to one of Democrats? Why has insistence on the moral character of a candidate gone from being a conservative value to a progressive one? Regardless of which view you agree with and support, how did the GOP morph from the way Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush understood immigrants to Donald Trump’s view of immigrants? These kinds of questions shouldn’t be too quickly dismissed.)
Was Jesus a conservative or a progressive?
Think about all that Jesus said and did in his ministry in Galilee and Judea. Was he consistently conservative or progressive? The more we examine Jesus’ words and actions, the more we have to acknowledge he wasn’t consistently either conservative or progressive. Sometimes he supported and followed Jewish traditions and customs; other times he was highly critical, and even intentionally flouted them. In some ways he supported their public institutions, in some ways he opposed them. He conserved their culture at times, but also sought to radically change it and seek for it to progress.
Jesus was willing to sacrifice his individual life for the good of the nation, and called his disciples to also be self-sacrificing—but denounced those in power for victimizing, profiting from, and not caring for the most vulnerable and powerless individuals in their society. (This is very much in harmony with the Old Testament prophetic words to Israel.) The character, principles and values of Jesus never wavered, but he felt no pressing obligation to always be “conservative” or “progressive,” or—conversely—to never be “conservative” or “progressive.” Should we?
With whom would Jesus have aligned?
So which party would Jesus join today? That’s actually not as silly a question as we might think. We can go to the Scriptures to get some insight into this. Did they have some kind of “parties” back then? Yes, they did. The competing groups in their society would have included the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who were almost always trying to outmaneuver one another (not unlike political parties today). We should also mention the “Herodians,” who had a special loyalty to Herod.
Each of these groups, at various times, offered Jesus opportunities to side with them against their opponents. But he consistently refused to be identified with any particular group. Between the three, Jesus would definitely have been closest to the Pharisees. But instead of this making him sympathetic to the Pharisees and their cause, he was hardest on them, confronting them over and over again, showing where they were clearly in the wrong. Jesus would not be co-opted by any other group or identity.
So, should we be part of a political party? That can be a complicated question. In many locations, parties choose their candidates for office through some kind of primary system, and you often have to be registered as a member of a certain party to vote in their primaries. But how much should our identity be wrapped up in a political party? In the U.S., that would generally mean either being a Republican or a Democrat. For many, that identity can be stronger, more core to who they are, than their identity in Christ. This is plainly idolatrous.
But even if we don’t fall into that kind of idolatry, should our identity in our civic life be focused on our association with a certain party, or as a conservative or progressive? Here’s the problem. We’re called to be a voice of truth and love in our societies, to be light shining in the darkness. To use a baseball analogy (very American!), we should be able to serve our society as umpires, calling balls and strikes for both parties. But once you’ve emotionally suited up for one team or the other, you give up the moral authority for calling balls and strikes on either.
The more you get all wrapped up in identifying with one party or movement, the more it warps the way you see everything else, including the other side. That’s a big reason our society is so horribly polarized. And this affects us, too. We’ve seen this cultural polarization creep into the churches, as well. We need to hold our political affiliations very loosely, and—as Jesus modeled for us—we need to be quickest to confront with truth the ones we would most naturally see as our side.
It’s easy for some to think: if it’s good to be on the right—then the more to the right you are, the better! Many have assumed the same for the left. Historically, we can tell neither of these are true. Hopefully you’re beginning to see how there can be legitimate concerns and insights on both the right and the left, and that both sides can have their blind spots. The healthiest societies find a way for right and left to work together for the good of their nation, rather than being dominated by either. There’s a time for a society to conserve, and a time to progress. There are traditions and values worthy of maintaining, and those that need to be changed. If we’re always, without fail, either conservative or progressive, we’re out of balance, and we’re not following the example of Christ.
On both the extreme right and the extreme left are always great dangers, and Christians can be susceptible to these dangers on either side. We’ll explore these perilous extremes (on both sides) more next week, and we’ll define some more terms many Christians wield as weapons to attack others . . . without truly understanding for themselves.
The vital thing for us always to remember is this: Faithfully following the example of Jesus helps us avoid any toxic extremes on either side, right or left, conservative or progressive, and instead be focused on Christ and the principles of his kingdom.
Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think.
Romans 12:2
Related posts:
Discussing Politics in Church?
What Is Christian Nationalism, and Why Is It So Dangerous?
What Does Christian Character Look Like?
We All Hate How Polarized We’ve Become . . . So What Are We Doing About It?
Playing Fair: Defining the Terms We Use
Did God Use Evil People in the Bible?