The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk provoked a flurry of commentary about God, faith, and politics. All of them are closely related to OpEdNews Arc of Justice Alliance (AJA) project which seeks to respond to the Republican Project 2025 initiative.
Among the more thoughtful Kirk commentaries was David Brooks New York Times column,"We Need to Think Straight About God and Politics." His essay reminded me once again how central theology remains for understanding todays world and how dangerous it is for progressives to ignore it.
But despite Brooks good intentions, his article was fundamentally flawed. He missed the Bible's class-consciousness, a theme that runs through its central narratives and prophetic voices. In doing so, he overlooked the way modern biblical scholarship interprets scripture: as a profoundly political document that consistently sides with the poor and oppressed against the wealthy and powerful. Without acknowledging this, Brooks failed to resolve the very problem he set out to explore: how God and politics relate.
Ironically, Charlie Kirk whose white Christian nationalism has been condemned by many, grasped something Brooks did not: that the Bible is not politically neutral. But Kirk twisted that insight. Rather than recognizing Gods solidarity with the marginalized, Kirk placed the divine firmly on the side of the dominant white, patriarchal class. His theology inverted the teachings of the Jewish prophet Jesus of Nazareth, who identified God with the poor, the dispossessed, and the oppressed.
In what follows, I want to clarify this point by (1) summarizing Brooks argument, (2) contrasting it with Kirks theological vision, and (3) comparing both with the insights of modern biblical scholarship, which Ill describe as "critical faith theory." My thesis is simple: without acknowledging the achievements of such theory with its implied class-consciousness, we cannot understand either the Bible's meaning or its challenge to today's politics.
Brooks Confusion
Brooks began by observing that Kirk's funeral blurred the lines between religion and politics. Speakers portrayed Kirk as a kind of martyr, invoking Jesus example of forgiveness, while Donald Trump and his allies used the occasion to unleash vengeance and hatred. Brooks admitted he was disturbed and confused: why such a volatile mix of faith and politics? Shouldnt religion stay in the private sphere, separate from political life?
To make sense of it, Brooks reached for the old notion of complementarity. Religion and politics, he suggested, are distinct but mutually supportive. Politics deals with power; religion provides the moral compass reminding us that everyone, regardless of ideology, is a sinner in need of grace. On this view, the Bible does not offer a political program. It simply sets the stage for tepid moral reflection.
In short, Brooks tried to preserve a moderate middle ground. Faith should shape moral values but not dictate political programs.
The problem is that this neat separation has little to do with the Bible itself.
Kirk's Fundamentalist Class-Consciousness
Kirk, unlike Brooks, made no such distinction. He declared openly: I want to talk about spiritual things, and in order to do that, I have to enter the political arena.
Brooks responded with incredulity, but Kirk's reasoning is clear. His fundamentalist reading of scripture led him to embrace a particular worldview that has always been political. He believed the Bible is the literal word of God, with Moses, David, Solomon, and the gospel writers transcribing divine dictation. He accepted the traditional Christian narrative codified since the fourth century that humanity is fallen through Adam and Eves sin, redeemed by Jesus sacrificial death, and destined for heaven or hell depending on baptism and personal acceptance of Christ.
This theology, which became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, was weaponized to support conquest, colonization, and oppression. From the Crusades to the slave trade to European colonialism, Christian rulers used this story to justify domination of Muslims, Jews, Indigenous peoples, Africans, and other non-white, non-Christian populations. Christianity, in its imperial form, became the religion of empire.
Kirk, then, was not wrong to insist that spiritual talk inevitably enters politics. But he saw Christianity as legitimizing the rule of a largely white, patriarchal elite. His class-consciousness was real but inverted.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
