.jpg)
Limitless Spirit
Feeling stuck in the daily grind? Longing for a spiritually rich and meaningful life? Limitless Spirit with Helen Todd is for those who crave a deeper faith, a greater purpose, and opportunities to serve beyond themselves. Through powerful stories and real conversations, this podcast explores how stepping out in faith—whether through mission trips, discipleship, or simply saying ‘yes’ to God—can change your life from surviving to thriving.
Limitless Spirit
The Dilemma of Dual Citizenship: Exploring the Tension of Faith and Politics
Today's episode dives into the intricate relationship between faith, politics, and citizenship through a conversation with Dr. Daniel Bennett, highlighting the challenges Christians face when balancing their allegience to the Kingdom of God with the responsibilities of their earthly citizenship. We explore the key themes of navigating our loyalty to our faith, political engagement and what the love of our country looks like from a Christian perspective.
• Discussion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s struggles as a pastor in Nazi Germany
• The importance of balancing political engagement with Christian principles
• Exploring the distinction between patriotism and nationalism
• The role of humility in political discourse among believers
• Insights from Dr. Bennett's book "Uneasy Citizenship”
• Practical steps for Christians to engage in politics without compromising their faith
Read Dr. Bennett's book "Uneasy Citizenship," a powerful resource for anyone wrestling with the intersection of faith and politics. More from Dr. Bennett : https://danielbennett.substack.com/
Thanks for listening! Visit our website rfwma.org and follow us on Facebook :https://www.facebook.com/limitlessspiritpodcast/
and Instagram: @limitlessspiritpodcast
Help us make more inspiring episodes: https://rfwma.org/give-support-the-podcast/
Welcome to Limitless Spirit, a weekly podcast with host Helen Todd, where she interviews guests about pursuing spiritual growth, discovering life's purpose through serving others and developing a deeper faith in Christ.
Speaker 2:Welcome to Limitless Spirit. I'm your host, helen Todd, and today we talk about the intersection of patriotism, politics and faith. Imagine yourself living in a country where the political regime is such that it conflicts with your faith. So, for example, imagine a devoted pastor who watches his country descend into moral and political darkness. The church begins to compromise, aligning itself with the powerful instead of standing for righteousness, and some believers retreat into silence. Others wholeheartedly embrace the nationalistic fervor of the time. And then there is this one man who refuses to choose either path. I'm talking, of course, about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and if you've seen the recent film Bonhoeffer, agent of Grace, you know this story well. Bonhoeffer finds himself as a pastor in Nazi Germany and watches the church that he has been very committed to align itself, while many in the church align themselves with the Nazi regime. So he is a man who is caught between his love for his country and his ultimate allegiance to God, and he faces an impossible question when earthly citizenship demands something that contradicts the call of Christ, what should a Christian do? And in a sense, this same tension is relevant today, because we live in the world where politics, culture and faith often collide and Christians find themselves in a similar struggle. How do we remain faithful to Christ while living as engaged citizens in our countries? How do we avoid the traps of political idolatry on one hand, and passive disengagement on the other hand?
Speaker 2:My guest today is Dr Daniel Bennett. He's an associate professor of political science at John Brown University. He's a frequent guest in national and regional media, including Wall Street Journal, new Yorker, npr and such. Dr Bennett has spent years studying this very question and in his recent book Uneasy Citizenship Embracing the Tension in Faith and Politics, he unpacks how Christians can navigate this difficult landscape with wisdom, humility and faithfulness. Today, we talk about why so many believers feel caught between faith and politics and how scripture is often misused to justify conflicting views. Most importantly, we talk about how we can reclaim a biblical approach to citizenship. So, whether you're feeling disillusioned with politics or struggling how to engage as a believer, or simply are looking for a way to live out your faith in a divided world, I think you will find this conversation very interesting. Let's dive in. Hello Dan, welcome to Limitless Spirit. How are you today?
Speaker 3:I'm doing well. It is a day that I'm in the classroom a lot, so it's energizing. It's also tiring. It's a paradox of teaching.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm happy to offer you a little break from the classroom, although I think it must be a very exciting time to speak into young minds with all the cool and exciting things that are happening, so they must have a lot of questions for you, especially being the professor of political science and philosophy.
Speaker 2:But I'm excited to talk about the subject that I think is very important for every Christian and very important right now when we have a change of administration in our country that is going to carry an impact not only on our lives but the lives of people across the world. And so my husband and I got to attend the inauguration of the 47th president, and it was an incredible experience for me and I, you know, I wasn't born in the United States, I became a citizen 19 years ago, and so it was very meaningful for me and an incredible experience, but also made me think that the love for our country. It's a very powerful emotion and it was very deeply felt at the inauguration. But sometimes it can conflict our higher citizenship and a higher calling, and you happened to write a book on this subject. So I'm very intrigued and I have to ask.
Speaker 3:First, so what prompted you to write this book? And he had written a book recently at that time called why Liberalism Failed. And this wasn't an indictment on the political ideology of the left in the United States or even the West, but more of an indictment on the classical liberal framework, going back to people like John Locke and the European Enlightenment, where we saw the foundations for things like individual rights and liberties and consent of the governed, these kinds of things. And in the book he's essentially making the argument that liberalism in that context has kind of become a victim of its own successes, where an emphasis on individual rights, individual liberties, has essentially taken the place of any shared consumption of the good and the sort of structures and foundations that are needed to uphold a classical liberal political framework. And so Deneen has later written that he's kind of leaning into this, what he might call an illiberal framework or post-liberal, I think, is the better terminology here.
Speaker 3:And I was thinking about some of these implications for Christians, and this was a conference for Christian faculty at Christian colleges and universities, and I remember jotting something down in the notebook that we were given and the phrase was uneasy citizenship thinking about how we hold our citizenship as Christians, you know, tightly. But we also have to be willing to hold it somewhat loosely and, as I later you know, spelled out in the book uneasily, given the hope that we have in Christ, the identity that we have, as you know, certainly as citizens of the kingdom, but inevitably, you know, we're called to be in the world, not of the world, but in the world seeking the good and flourishing of our neighbors, and this just creates, I think, an inherent sort of tension for us living in this political moment. So those are the kinds of things I decided to write the book about, and it does seem like it's been a lot longer than six years, but here we are.
Speaker 2:So let's first set the foundation for this conversation and maybe highlight some of the examples, like real-life examples where our earthly citizenship sometimes is in conflict with our heavenly citizenship. And feel free to draw from history or from very modern examples, or both for that matter.
Speaker 3:Well, certainly, I'm probably a little more comfortable drawing from more contemporary examples, in the American context at that. So it's a little narrow, I suppose. But you know, if I just think about you know, as a political scientist, thinking about the ways in which we make our decisions in the voting booth what kinds of things influence our decisions for the politicians we choose to elect, the types of policies we support through referenda or initiatives. And you know, there could be policies or individual elected officials whose policies that we generally align ourselves with, but whose individual character or other approaches to public life might rub us the wrong way as people of faith. On the other hand, there are some people whose character seems to align with what we would want in an elected official, someone who speaks highly of the influence of faith, or even the Christian faith, on his or her public service, and yet whose political positions are deeply out of step with what we would consider to be a faithful or biblically oriented portfolio of these policies. And so those are just really two obvious examples where people of faith could come to different conclusions about the right way to order and structure our political citizenship. Do we vote in a way that maximizes policy victories at the expense of potential character in elected officials? Or do we vote for character, knowing that it's going to be a little bit of an uphill climb when it comes to achieving our policy successes?
Speaker 3:And then there's the questions of how we make sense of differences among Christians on how to even approach certain issues. So take an issue like abortion, for example. I think Christians across the board, at least, should at some level agree that abortion is evil. It's an awful procedure and an awful act act.
Speaker 3:And I think different faith communities have different responses about how Christians should respond to the issue of abortion through policy. Should it be through, you know, bans and restrictions on the procedure? Should it be through discouraging the necessity of the procedure among certain groups of people, through expanding social safety programs? Or should it be a combination of the two? What do we choose to emphasize stemming from the influence of our faith when it comes to this particular issue? And we can do that with any number of issues immigration, education, national defense, like I said, social safety net programs. The list goes on and on. So we, as Christians, are constantly living in the here but not yet figuring out how we best steward the command to love God and love neighbor in a pluralistic and, in our context, democratic society where we have the choice politically and these choices aren't always clear as to what the Christian option should be.
Speaker 2:Well, and I want us to talk about. You know the ways that Christians engage in politics, and there are two extremes there. But before we touch on that, let's talk about patriotism. So, from the perspective of Christianity, do you think patriotism is a positive thing or a negative thing?
Speaker 3:Well, I think patriotism isn't inherently suspect, nor is it inherently required by scripture. I think, like many things, patriotism is a feeling of emotions or values that we associate with love for or passion for one's country or community and, like anything else, it can be taken to a less than ideal, extreme right. I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying watching the 4th of July fireworks and getting emotional about what it means to be American and, frankly, for people who came to this country and later became citizens, I mean, I think these experiences are probably even heightened. Like you alluded to, watching the inauguration. I was born in the United States. I have a very different perspective on a lot of these questions than recent immigrants or citizens who have naturalized into the United States. You know we're watching the inaugural festivities and the pomp and circumstance associated with the outgoing president meeting the incoming president. It really just makes me feel patriotic and excited about the peaceful transfer of power. So all that to say is I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being patriotic, right, as a Christian, I think Christians, you know, can in many ways should love our communities and seek the betterment of our government for protecting the welfare of the community.
Speaker 3:But patriotism is not the same thing as blind loyalty. In fact, patriotism might often lead to dissent at times. Patriotism might lead to conflict or correction in moments. It doesn't mean necessarily supporting the government. It means supporting the framework. Maybe that holds up the government, and there too, I think there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism as well. Some of these things often are conflated. I do think it's a mistake for folks who criticize so-called Christian nationalism to think that anyone who flies the American flag and happens to be a Christian is a Christian nationalist. I do think there are probably dangerous forms of Christian nationalism, but being patriotic and a Christian isn't that.
Speaker 2:So how do you define the difference between nationalism? I know it's a loaded question, but I mean I was trying to figure it out for myself and I don't think we're like a very clear answer to that there. I think there are ideas about that, but what, in your opinion, is the major difference between patriotism and nationalism?
Speaker 3:Well, with the caveat that I'm not speaking for all of my discipline or certainly all of Christian academics, I'll say that for me, patriotism is more about a positive feeling towards one's country and traditions and people broadly understood, whereas nationalism can be positive, but it can also take a more negative connotation when it comes to comparing us versus them.
Speaker 3:I think a lot of the nationalism that we see historically and I think the temptation is fairly easy to fall into this is that we prioritize us and demonize others or them in unhealthy and unproductive ways. I think patriotic Americans should be not necessarily in favor of the immigration policies supported by, say, the Democratic Party, but we shouldn't also be saying well, I'm patriotic, therefore I don't think we should have any or limited immigration into the country. I think patriotic approaches to this say hey, if we believe in America, let's try to make it as inclusive and open to as many people as possible who want to come here and follow our systems and processes, etc. Certain nationalistic tendencies lately tend to maybe disagree with that perspective, saying that anytime we start talking about changing the culture or changing the existing order of things, I don't see that the same as patriotism. I see that more as a form of unhealthy nationalism that seeks to put up barriers between us and them.
Speaker 2:And I'm also thinking that nationalism means different things in different countries, because America is such a multi-ethnic country. So nationalism is more congruent with patriotism, probably, in America, whereas in a country like Russia or France, you know, nationalism means probably elevating that particular group, like the French or the Russians, about the others. So I think it's not a. You know, there is no clear definition without the context.
Speaker 3:I think France is a great example of this, just given the influence that French society places on French identity.
Speaker 2:being French, and if you want to come a little superior, let's face it.
Speaker 3:Yes, and especially true with new immigrants, especially coming from, you know, from North African or Middle Eastern countries, who bring Muslim faith with them. They say sure, you can come to France, but you better subordinate your religious beliefs and practices to French identity. Here in the US the tradition has been you come here. And part of the United States, in my mind, making it such a great and unique nation globally, is that you bring your traditions with you and it all becomes part of our American. And that makes things messy at times, it makes things complicated, but given the choice to downplay those differences and let them simmer versus getting them out in the open and having discussion and learning from each other, I would choose that rather than an exclusivity nationalism that comes in certain countries.
Speaker 2:I would have to agree and that's why, in the end, I feel I get to travel a lot through my work. You know, and talk to people from many different countries. In the end, most of them want to come to Syrian, you know, and yet still be a citizen of the United States and a full sense of it. So let's think about the Great Commission. You know, when Jesus gives the Great Commission in Matthew 28, 19 through 20, don't you think that he sort of addresses patriotism and expands it beyond the borders of our country and alludes to our heavenly citizenship and the inclusiveness of the whole world into this kingdom?
Speaker 3:Sure, I think it has to. And you know when Jesus is speaking and when he first, you know, shares this message with the people in, you know, first century Judea. Really, you know the culture and the political context of that era are very different than ours today, but we believe as Christians that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. And you know he certainly understood the progression of history and it's not as if he'd be caught off guard by the globalized, politically changed environment in which we currently live in the 21st century. So, you know, for us as Christians, and especially as American Christians, our patriotism can't close us off from the rest of the world any more than we would expect other countries and the Christians there to say well, we're only going to focus on our people here at home. So, yeah, I think Christians in the US are blessed with an abundance of resources and opportunities to be a hub for evangelism, a support for missionary, and we've done this historically right, sending missionaries to all corners of the world from our different denominational traditions, et cetera. There's evidence to suggest this might be slowing down a little bit with the decline of church attendance and religiosity in the US, and so maybe the US's role there in the next few decades is going to shift.
Speaker 3:So, yeah, I think American Christians have to think beyond our national borders and we can be patriotic and think not only are we sharing the good news, but we do so from a place of real blessing and abundance. What this doesn't necessarily mean is that we should then expect the United States government to take a really aggressive foreign policy with respect to international development and really just spending untold money overseas. Now I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm saying that those two things, I think, are different questions and certainly anytime we want to get the government involved with religious missions, I think we ought to put pause on that. But yeah, as Christians individually in our congregations goodness, we have such a great opportunity, with the wealth, the stability of our system, to really think about the Great Commission in a way that previous Christians just haven't had the chance.
Speaker 2:Well, I want to bring up another modern day example where I think politics has really very negatively affected the church, and that's the war between Russia and Ukraine. You know, the world very clearly took the side for the most part of Ukraine and you know rightfully so when it was invaded by Russia, but it caused tremendous division between the church in Russia and Ukraine. So not just the division between the countries, which is a tragedy in itself, but we're not talking about that but it caused division between the body of Christ, and not only in these two countries, because they instantly aligned themselves. Not instantly at first, there was a lot more common sense, but as the time went on and the war was more withdrawn, the churches aligned themselves with their patriotism, you know, and with their governments, you know, and with their governments, and in the end the church outside of those two countries also aligned itself. And so the church in Russia found itself ostracized to a great extent and still is.
Speaker 2:And I was a witness, a conversation between Christians, not American Christians but evangelical Christians where there was a couple that was planning a mission trip to Russia to encourage the church and this couple was ostracized by other Christians saying oh, how can you even think about doing something like you know, and it's just such a painful reality. But it's a great example how we mature Christians that fully know the Scripture and understand the spirit of the Scripture, we can't help but align ourselves with what's happening politically. So that brings us. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Speaker 3:So that brings us? Do you have any thoughts on that? I mean it just it's a reminder that you know the fall is real and its implications extend everywhere, including into the body of Christ, at least in its earthly manifestation. It's a good reminder too that the divisions that often, you know, plagued the earliest days of the church are still manifest today, certainly domestically, but also internationally. Church are still manifest today, certainly domestically but also internationally, and I'm not going to pretend to solve these problems that in some sense, you know go back. You know decades, centuries between different practices of Christianity, but especially for those of us sitting on the sidelines, you know certainly being willing to engage with and support the church in both contexts In this instance it's Russia and Ukraine. You know as the church is struggling, I imagine in both countries pretty significantly, we on the outside can be a source of support, prayer, financial help and encouragement to those faith leaders seeking to make sense of these tragedies seeking to make sense of these tragedies.
Speaker 2:That's very true. So I think we have highlighted well enough the tensions between our earthly and heavenly citizenship. But what is the solution? So you know, from looking at the American Christianity, politics is a very inflammatory subject, and so it seems like Christians tend to respond in two extremes. They're either over-involved or they choose to withdraw and say well, politics is not for me, I'm not even going to be involved on any level, I don't want to know what's going on. So I'm assuming you don't agree with either extreme.
Speaker 3:You would assume correct.
Speaker 2:And I am assuming that in your book you are offering a solution.
Speaker 3:Or at least proposing an alternative. Yeah, and I'm not saying this is the only alternative, but it's one that makes sense to me. Certainly. As a political scientist, I see the dangers of extreme political polarization and I write about this in the book as a real challenge for effective political engagement moving forward, not just for Christians but just for Americans in general. And there absolutely is a tendency on the flip side to withdraw, to find politics as inherently corrupted or not a productive forum for Christians to engage in. And I'm increasingly convinced that our role as people of faith can't be to sit on the sidelines while our culture burns around us, and culture of course includes our political environment. So I do think we have a responsibility, not just as citizens or people in our communities, but also as Christians called to be in the world not of the world to practice a better and more hopeful and faithful kind of politics. This is one that would prioritize a distinctly Christian posture in the political environment, not necessarily seeking specific policy outcomes or victories, but rather seeking them in a way that honors the Lord. This doesn't mean we can't be partisan. This doesn't mean we can't affiliate with a political party. I think there's good reasons for us to be in political parties to seek the reform where reform is needed and strengthen where strengthening is needed. But it also doesn't mean that we have to fall in line behind just one political party. I think one of the real problems with our two-party system in the US is the rejection, frankly, of a more conservative Christian, maybe even pro-life voice in the Democratic Party today, some voices in that party like Justin Gibney or Michael Ware, who are Democrats but would identify as pro-life. They find themselves increasingly ostracized. And then you take people on the political right who bring their Christian convictions with them in the public square. You know certainly someone like. I think the clear name right now is someone like David French, who was a religious liberty attorney and worked for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is the Christian legal organization in the US, and, you know, has found himself on the outside of the current Republican Party for his criticism of the Trump administration. And all that said, I think those three men and they just happen to be men are really excellent examples of how to be a faithful Christian witness, and it's no surprise that all three men have been attacked by others for not being sufficiently deferential to the established political environment in which they operate.
Speaker 3:I think Christians, if we are doing politics well, we're never going to be perfectly comfortable in one political party. Right, we should always be able to find things to criticize, to speak prophetically against and to seek a better way forward in both political parties. So this posture matters a great deal. We should seek not to win for the purpose of winning and defeating our opponents. We should seek to win because it's in the best interest of our communities, because we care about human flourishing, because we care about our neighbors.
Speaker 3:And ultimately, I think we also should approach politics with a source of humility, knowing that, even though we believe we have the right political answer to these questions and we're approaching them as people of faith, there could be things we can learn from our brothers and sisters in the church who have different perspectives on this.
Speaker 3:So I'm a white evangelical. I would still define myself as an evangelical Christian and I'm sure I have different political perspectives than my Black Protestant brothers and sisters in the church. I don't think it's remotely appropriate for me to think that, just because they tend to have different voting patterns than I might, that they're somehow less Christian than I am, in the same way that I would hope they wouldn't think I was less Christian than they were because I might have different voting patterns than them. So there's a humility that comes with it being a Christian in the political square. Not that we're willing to just throw our beliefs overboard or embrace a sort of moral relativism of your truth is yours, but rather seeking to reevaluate what we believe about specific policy answers in light of our faith commitments. So that's a very brief coverage of the more substantive arguments I make in the book. It really is attempting for a more hopeful and probably confounding political posture than the world is used to.
Speaker 2:And I think what you're painting is the ideal picture. You know the way things should be, but do you think it's practically possible and what would be some steps that we need to take as individuals, or maybe as society or the church? You know who should lead the way.
Speaker 3:I have no illusion about waking up tomorrow and you know everyone reads my book we'll wake up tomorrow and all our problems will be fixed in the political sphere. Right, that's not going to happen. Right, our institutions are entrenched. There's very little motivation for surrender or compromise in the political space because of political polarization, electoral gerrymandering, you know. Competitive elections in the House of Representatives and Congress are becoming less and less so. All that to say, the question of what we can do, it has to start at the individual level, right? So we're not going to reform our institutions or systems overnight, but we can make incremental, slow, steady changes to our own behaviors.
Speaker 3:Maybe we don't necessarily, when we're reading something online or listening to someone talk about politics that happens to disagree with us, maybe we don't jump to those negative conclusions that we're so conditioned to do. Maybe we do take a quick second and think okay, I'm not going to assume the worst about this person just because they disagree with me politically, especially if they're a fellow believer. You might be inclined to ask a follow-up question. Tell me more about that. Why do you align with that? That's not my experience. I'd love to hear what motivates or resonates with you, and simply having the conversation can sometimes can temper some of these more extreme tendencies in the political space.
Speaker 3:I think one of the things that we can do individually and in small communities is give each other the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 3:Our disagreements are just intractable and that's okay. We shouldn't surrender the truth that we hold dear or tightly to those positions for the sake of a false peace or harmony. But we should be aware enough to know that that's probably not the median voter in our communities. The person who votes Republican next to you in the pews is probably not a budding fascist or authoritarian wannabe who wants to tear down the political system of the US, just as the person who votes for Democrats sitting next to you in the pews is not someone who wants to defund law enforcement in the United States or take away the rights of white Christians to educate their kids in a homeschooling environment. I think we're conditioned to treat our political opponents with the least amount of charity possible and extend that charity to our political allies, when I wish we'd be more comfortable extending that charity widely and looking more critically at our own communities for the sake of you know improving where we can improve and finding common ground, and you know potential room for compromise where it can be reached.
Speaker 2:You use this term at least twice, saying we are conditioned to respond in a certain way. So let's think about that who and what conditions us?
Speaker 3:So part of it's our media environment in which we're operating Social media, and what drives traffic is often the more extreme content. Very rarely will you see a news article or a social media post talking about something positive that's happening in the political world. It's usually painting something in a fairly negative way. Frankly, those are what we enjoy clicking on and reading. We, as a people, tend to like conflict and like to learn about people's worst tendencies.
Speaker 3:I go back to the fall right. It's a product of the fall that we enjoy this type of conflict in our communities, and so this is something else we can do intentionally is being a better steward of our media diet. Jeffrey Bilbrow is a professor of English at Grove City College and he's written a lot of interesting things, including a really great book about how to be a better consumer of media, and part of that is not ditching our technology consumer of media, and part of that is not ditching our technology. We don't have to become Luddites and reject all the trappings of modern life, but we have to let it work for us rather than let it control us, and so being intentional about who we follow, who we engage with, what kinds of sources we're consuming and then slowly breaking out of that tendency to be outraged all the time and instead look for the good where it exists and affirm and be positive and praise good where it exists, rather than always looking for negative things to harp on, share and highlight in our communities.
Speaker 2:And I think you know Jesus in his infinite wisdom, when he gave the call to the Great Commission, he had this in mind. Knowing our tendencies, you know, to fall into the worldly patterns and align ourselves, maybe, with the things that are not aligned with His message. He sent us into the nations, and I can tell you, being in these nations that are sometimes hostile to the United States and the policies and the foreign policy of the United States, being in these countries, you know, and being with the people, knowing them, has really shaped my perspective on how I feel about them. I could never share the gospel with the people that I hate, you know, and therefore not hating them and not hating them is knowing them. You can't hate people once you know them. It's been a great antidote to the Catholic patriotism. So perhaps that was his plan all along, because I often wonder, he doesn't really need our help in anything. So he didn't enlist us because he needed help in promoting his message.
Speaker 3:Technology and globalization and the ability to travel remarkably vast distances and remarkably short periods of time that the early church could never have even envisioned. We have that at our fingertips now, and research shows that the more you get to know people and supposed outgroups, the less likely you are to have these negative stereotypes or connotations about them. You are to have these negative stereotypes or connotations about them so so much of our vitriol or anger against the other is predicated on not knowing them. Really, simply having conversations with folks for a few minutes can help to temper some of those more negative postures that we carry with us, and that applies when we're doing politics, but it certainly applies when we're seeking to share the good news.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, dan. Thank you so much for writing such an important book. So Uneasy Citizenship. I am going to post the link to the book but also to your sub stack. And you write on many other subjects I assume that are probably just as important. Many other subjects I assume that are probably just as important.
Speaker 3:So any final thoughts you have for our listeners, potential future readers of your book. Yeah, I would just say, in the months and years ahead as we, you know, continue to enter into a time of political uncertainty and volatility that we can be engaged in politics. We shouldn't withdraw because it gets messy. In fact, those are spaces where Christians may be needed more than ever before. The church still has a great role to play in fulfilling God's story, and let's not neglect politics just because it's hard right. We, as Christians, have a unique opportunity to do these things well for the sake of our neighbors.
Speaker 2:And I think it's important to remember if you are on a political high right now because of what's happening, there will be a time that you will be down on the low. It's such as the nature of politics. You know victories come and go, and so being adequately prepared, with the perspective of the gospel, for both highs and lows, I think, is what's going to keep us grounded and balanced.
Speaker 1:Amen.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much.
Speaker 3:Thank you.
Speaker 2:Today's conversation with Daniel Bennett reminds us that the tension between faith and politics isn't something to run from. It is, in fact, something to embrace with wisdom and humility. As followers of Christ, we're called to be salt and light in this world, but we're also called to live as citizens of a heavenly kingdom that transcends any earthly nation. Looking back at the movie about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, my favorite scene in this movie is when, just moments before his execution by hanging, bonhoeffer and his fellow prisoners are sharing the bread and wine in communion and the prison guard steps in. And while other prisoners look at him with discomfort and even disdain, bonhoeffer, without hesitation, shares the communion elements with him. You see, where politics divided them to the point of death, the body and the blood of Jesus brings this beautiful unity among them. Brings this beautiful unity among them.
Speaker 2:We have explored how scripture can be misused to justify political views and why it is so easy to get up in partisan identities and, most importantly, how knowing God's heart should guide our engagement in public life. It is not about our engagement in public life. It is not about winning arguments or gaining power. It's about faithfully representing Christ in everything we do. So as you go about your week. I want to leave you with this question Are you letting your heavenly citizenship shape how you engage with your earthly one, and are you seeking God's will first, or are you letting political allegiances dictate your actions and attitudes?
Speaker 2:If today's episode challenged or encouraged you, I invite you to read Daniel's book Uneasy Citizenship. It is a powerful resource for anyone wrestling with how to navigate the complex relationships between faith and politics. We will post the link in the show notes so you can easily access it and pick up the book. And if you found this conversation valuable, please share it with a friend or leave us a review. It helps us reach more people with these important discussions. It helps us reach more people with these important discussions. I also encourage you to visit our website, rfwmaorg. It's a wonderful resource if you're ready to live out your faith through the Great Commission, through short-term missions, and it connects you with the opportunities to serve across the world and live out your faith with passion and to share it with others. So tune in for another episode next week. Until next time, I'm Helen Todd.
Speaker 1:Limitless Spirit Podcast is produced by World Missions Alliance. We believe that changed lives change lives. If your life was transformed by Christ, you are equipped to help others experience this transformation. Christ called his followers to make disciples across the world. World Missions Alliance gives you an opportunity to do this through short-term missions in over 32 countries across the globe. If you want to help those who are hurting and hopeless and discover your greater purpose in serving, check out our website, rfwmaorg, and find out how to get involved.