Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative

by Carl R. Trueman, Peter A. Lillback (Foreword)

Politics has become something of a joke—but not a funny one. "Sound-bite" and "knee-jerk" have replaced reasoned debate, and the church appears to wear a one-size fits-all political jacket. Isn't it time to think a bit deeper? Carl Trueman takes you on a readable, provocative, and lively romp through Christianity and politics.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Christianity, Christian, Theology, Cultural, Philosophy

160 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2010

About the author

Carl R. Trueman (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is the Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary and pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Ambler, Pennsylvania. He was editor of Themelios for nine years, has authored or edited more than a dozen books, and has contributed to multiple publications including the Dictionary of Historical Theology and The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology.

Reviews

[Andrew Flanagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great read. I don't agree with all the political views of Carl Trueman nor did I agree with all the arguments he made, but I found his overall philosophy and his urgent warnings to the church to be perfectly on mark. As a British expat, Truman's humor, clear and succinct style, and grasp of both British and American politics, gives him a unique perspective. When I was growing up, Trueman is what I would have called a liberal. As my views and understanding of the relationship between politics and Christianity (which were beautiful captured in this book in much better language than I ever expressed) have shifted, I feel comfortable merely saying that Trueman is an intelligent and deeply thoughtful Christian.

And that, I think, is the point. Christians have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, most of the nonsense that the Republican party and its various vociferous talking heads ramble on about. Socialism is evil, Obama is a modern-day Marx (or Hitler depending on who you ask), government health care is unbiblical, capitalism is biblical, and so on. There has been little thought as to what is really true versus what we hastily discard as being "liberal" and therefore (as conservative Christians are so oft to label) "evil".

The book has 6 sections:
Left Behind: provides an initial critique of what's wrong with the Left in America. Trueman finds plenty to complain about.

The Slipperiness of Secularization: discusses how America has secularized to an amazing degree but maintains an illusion of being a Christian nation because of how it couches things in religious idioms.

No-So-Fantastic Mr. Fox: discusses the role of Fox News, championed by many Christians as "unbiased". Trueman pokes both at the silliness of unbiased reporting along with many clear examples of the inconsistencies in the "conservative" status of the organization.

Living Life to the Max: talks about Max Weber's discussion of capitalism in the context of Christianity and the modern-day perception by many Christians that capitalism is Biblical and in fact the pinnacle of Christian government.

Rulers of the Queen's Navee: speaks to the disturbing trend in modern American politics of "never thinking for yourself at all" but toeing the party line. It also discusses the problem of meaningful and serious discourse on any political topic.

Concluding Unpolitical Postscript: closes out the book with Trueman's thoughts on what can be done about the issues and his recommendation to fellow Christians on how they ought to deal with politics and with their fellow Christians.

Overall, I was impressed. This book makes you think, it makes you doubt what you have been told, and it provides solid and Biblical advice for living in a society where you don't necessarily agree with your neighbors (Christian or otherwise).

I believe that Christians who read and understand Trueman's message will be blessed, but also challenged.

[Scott Schultz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is, perhaps, the most refreshing Christian political book I have ever read. As someone who is conservative theologically (I am a member of a United Reformed Church (URCNA) - a confessional body that actually believes the Reformed confessions) I have always tended to be politically conservative. I grew up believing that it was a 1:1 ratio. Conservative theology should lead to conservative politics. And I also believed that liberal politics demanded liberal theology.

In recent years I too have found myself more and more out In the rain with no political home.
I have concerns for the weak (traditionally left) but I believe that big government is not the way to take care of that problem (right). Because of the democratic party’s obsession with abortion on demand for any and all reasons and gay marriage (really now it is a destruction of all sexual ethics) I cannot stand with them. But at the same time I cannot stand with the GOP either (especially now that the leader is a man with no sexual ethics himself & and the party’s indifference to weak).

I find myself becoming more and more a centrist and thus dodging bullets from both sides.

Trueman’s book is a breath of fresh air in a stuffy political room. An a British, Orthodox Presbyterian (OPC) minister and teacher, He too finds himself politically homeless being a center left voter (by British standards) and is disillusioned with the extremes presented in America and how those extremes are sneaking into Reformed Confessional Christianity.

I devoured this book in the space of eight hours. I think you will like it too. With a few exceptions (IMO), there are no political issues that have a decisive Christian position. We should be able to be on opposite sides of an issue but still meet at the Lord’s table United by one faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I highly recommend this book!

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish I could get anyone who pays attention to politics in America to read this book! Written by a conservative evangelical professor of church history and a man raised in the British Reformed Church tradition, Dr Trueman presents a cogent, thought provoking critique of the American political process and how our parties have shifted focus over the years bringing us to this point in history when reasoned discourse seems nearly impossible. He skewers sacred cows on both the left and right sides of the debate and presents the reader with a good solid starting point to begin to rethink long cherished notions of the Christian's role in the political arena. At 110 pages, it is a short read, but packed with plenty to chew on. Seriously. Read this book!

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of good observations that were largely beside the point, coupled with an occasional exasperating stretch of argument. But he is good with words; he can sure write an entertaining sentence.

[Emily Schultz · Rating 4 out of 5]

You’ll find this affirming if you’re a politically homeless Christian in America. It breaks down a lot of political categories that people throw around as hot-button terms and don’t seem to adequately understand the full context of their meaning. Either way, not all political issues can adequately be dismissed as unbiblical or biblical, such as health care and economic policy. It’s worth your time if you’re in the mood to challenge some of your political dogmas.

[Michael Goforth · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Conservative Christianity does not require conservative politics or conservative cultural agendas.”

That is the thesis of this book, and if that bothers you, you really need to read this book.

In a fascinating display of historical and cultural insight, Trueman demonstrates that politics are far more complicated than most realize. Our current party system, combined with the sensationalized sound-bite arguments that are so common, create an oversimplified view of the real issues. This realization ought to challenge Christians in several ways, but here are two examples:

1. Christians should never divide over politics. Our unity is centered around the gospel, not who we voted for.

2. Christians should not fall prey to the sensationalized rhetoric in the political world. We should stand out as informed critical thinkers who thoughtfully engage with the real issues at stake.

I’ll close with one of my favorite quotes from the book, “The gospel cannot and must not be identified with partisan political posturing.”

Now go read this book.

[Matte K · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Christian politics, so often associated now with loudmouthed aggression, needs rather to be an example of thoughtful, informed engagement with the issues and appropriate involvement with the democratic process. And that requires a culture change. We need to read and watch more widely, be as critical of our own favored pundits and narratives as we are of those cherished by our opponents, and seek to be good stewards of the world and of the opportunities therein that God has given us.

A good reputation with outsiders is, after all, a basic New Testament requirement of church leadership, and that general principle should surely shape the attitude of all Christians in whatever sphere they find themselves. Indeed, I look forward to the day when intelligence and civility, not tiresome cliches, character assassinations, and Manichean noise, are the hallmarks of Christians as they engage the political process.” (pg. 109-110)

[Chelsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Politics are not as black and white as Fox News or MSNBC will say. Christians should be able to think critically, listen to and read a broad spectrum of sources, and have thoughtful, educated conversation about the complex issues in politics. I really enjoyed Trueman’s challenges to Christians on this. It was particularly nice to read as someone who considers herself to be a political moderate. It is no secret that 2020 was rough year for the church and politics. The amount of Christians questioning the salvation of brothers and sisters in Christ for their political leanings or stance on secondary issues is mind-boggling to me. We have been so childish and ignorant. Let’s try to see political issues for what they are— complicated and usually not clearly defined in scripture. Even if we agree on biblical mandates such as “Love thy neighbor”, we may not agree on how to best do that from a political standpoint. And that should be okay! Whether you are a Christian who is more right-wing, left-leaning, or politically homeless like me, you should be able to gather each Sunday with God’s people and love them as you love yourself.

[Bob Hayton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sacred cows die hard. And tipping them is not just anyone’s game. When it comes to conservative American evangelicalism, there may be no cherished belief that needs to die more than its explicit allegiance to one political party.

An evangelical attachment to the history of America and to patriotism has colored its views on how the church should interact with the political sphere. And in the past few decades, with the meteoric rise of “the religious right”, the result has been an American version of Christianity which mixes zeal for conservative politics and Christian virtues. Along the way, a popular misconception has arisen on the part of secular and non-evangelical alike: the evangelical gospel is confused with a moralistic concern for “family values”.

Carl Trueman, a witty and winsome Brit, tackles this problem in a new book recently released by P & R Publishing. In Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative, Trueman speaks from an outsider’s perspective on the political landscape facing American Christians today. He understands that some of his views will be frowned on from both sides of the American aisle, but he pushes forth in an effort to challenge the tendency toward a one-sided approach and overly simplistic view of politics which he sees as so prevalent in the conservative circles in which he ministers today (as dean of Westminster Theological Seminary).

Written in a witty and personal fashion, with a Brit’s sense and control of the English language, the book draws one into the discussion even as it disarms the would-be critic. I found it a quick and engrossing read, even if the argument seemed to overreach on some points. He offers pertinent and sometimes disturbing examples from recent political history to drive home his points, and in the end is quite convincing.

He starts out with a criticism of today’s “left”. He shows how originally the liberal concern for the marginalized and the poor spurred British Christians to political involvement and an embrace of classic liberalism. Since then, liberalism has grown to treat any perceived marginalization and threat to be equivalent with the real economic and physical problems, for example, that were caused by industrialization in the late 1800s. So the mother of an unwanted child is facing undue pressure to keep her child, and she along with a gay person who wants full acceptance by society both deserve the protection of modern liberals. Meanwhile, the true problems of poverty and economic marginalization which continue to plague our world get left behind in the posturing and the fuss over the more visible, concerns of today’s liberals.

He then moves on into the conservative kitchen, and tackles American exceptionalism, and the patriotic flavor of American Christianity responsible for such absurdities as The Patriot’s Bible. Where he really scored points with me was in his treatment of the Fox News channel. He drives home his point that no news media outlet can be completely unbiased. He also shows how the founders of Fox were moved by the almighty dollar, like anyone else in the secular world. His cautions on this point deserve notice:

When it comes to listening to the news, Christians should be eclectic in their approach and not depend merely on those pundits who simply confirm their view of the world while self-evidently using terminology, logic, and standard rules of evidence and argumentation in sloppy, tendentious, and sometimes frankly dishonest ways…. (pg. 56)

That the free market, capitalist system was a Christian concept derived from studying Scripture was one of the high points of my own Christian education. And Trueman takes aim at that whole idea. The system runs on good old fashioned, greed (which is actually sinful, mind you). And not just greed — discontent and dissatisfaction are built into the structure of our American economic system. The solution to economic hard times is for us consumers to show more confidence and fork out more money. And exactly how is this is a Christian concept, again? Let me allow Trueman himself to speak to this point more directly:

…we have no basis for absolutizing the social organization and the attendant institutions, practices, and values of our passing present than anybody in ages past. Feudalism seemed like the wave of the future when it was at its zenith, yet it has passed away, at least in the West. European imperialism seemed set to dominate the world forever and a day at the end of the nineteenth century, but along came two world wars that put an end to that notion…. (pg. 67)

Viewing our system as the best there ever was, is also a bit evolutionary in nature, Trueman contends. Somehow man has figured everything out now and our system is the best hope for the world. We need to liberate the world from their a-capitalism, and bring salvation by means of the free market.

He rounds out the book by discussing how democratic politics in our modern age are positioned such that every difference between the parties has to be emphasized and enlarged so that they can gain power. Careful, nuanced political debate is not served by today’s sound bites and smiling photo ops, either. Trueman’s postscript argues that the abortion issue doesn’t have to be the be-all, end-all political issue for Christians in a fallen society like ours. He says, “It seems clear that the democratic legislative path to reducing or even outlawing abortions is proving remarkably unfruitful…. following from this… is there any point in allowing the matter to be the make-or-break issue on which individuals make their voting decisions at election time?” (pg. 106). He argues that incremental change can be pursued within either party, and before abortion will be outlawed a majority of Americans need to view it with distaste.

You won’t appreciate, or agree with, all Trueman’s concerns, but you will be challenged to think about what role the church should have in the political sphere. Should a church side with the conservative agenda so explicitly that non-conservatives are unwelcome, even if they also believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I think not. And if you pick up Trueman’s short book (only 110 pages), I suspect you’ll at least admit this much by the time you’ve read it. The Church of Jesus Christ should be wide enough to accept Christians of various political persuasions. The gospel, not politics or national pride, should unite us.

I want to close with an extended excerpt from Trueman’s conclusion. I don’t want to steal his thunder, but I feel this is the best way to give Trueman the hearing he may need for you to actually pick up his work and give it a listen.

Christians are to be good citizens, to take their civic responsibilities seriously, and to respect the civil magistrates appointed over us. We also need to acknowledge that the world is a lot more complicated than the pundits of Fox News (or MSNBC) tell us…. Christian politics, so often associated now with loudmouthed aggression, needs rather to be an example of thoughtful, informed engagement with the issues and appropriate involvement with the democratic process. And that requires a culture change. We need to read and watch more widely, be as critical of our own favored pundits and narratives as we are of those cherished by our opponents, and seek to be good stewards of the world and of the opportunities therein that God has given us.

It is my belief that the identification of Christianity, in its practical essence, with very conservative politics will, if left unchallenged and unchecked, drive away a generation of people who are concerned for the poor, for the environment, for foreign-policy issues…. We need to… [realize] the limits of politics and the legitimacy of Christians, disagreeing on a host of actual policies, and [earn] a reputation for thoughtful, informed, and measured political involvement. A good reputation with outsiders is, after all, a basic New Testament requirement of church leadership, and that general principle should surely shape the attitude of all Christians in whatever sphere they find themselves. Indeed, I look forward to the day when intelligence and civility, not tiresome cliches, character assassinations, and Manichean noise, are the hallmarks of Christians as they engage the political process. (pg. 108-110)

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

[Chris Wray · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a delightful read, and Carl Trueman is perhaps uniquely placed to write it: He is an outsider, yet is immersed in American culture; he refuses to neatly fit into the often binary nature of American politics (too left leaning for Republicans, too conservative for Democrats); and he is possessed of a thoughtful, thorough, witty and biting writing style that is both immensely enjoyable and stimulating.

While it is written primarily with an American context in mind, much of what Trueman says is relevant and helpful for Christians elsewhere, and certainly for me as a European, as he addresses the changing priorities of the Left, secularisation, the media, capitalism, democracy and the nature of politics itself. In part, this wider relevance comes from considering the contrasts between American and European culture; in part, it comes from recognising just how much our thinking derives from American cultural influences, particularly in the UK and Ireland.

In "Left Behind" Trueman contends that the left has lost its way, as it has replaced issues that should be of concern to every Christian (poverty, housing, unemployment, hunger) with a focus on issues of identity, and on oppression that is relational and psychological rather than material and economic: "By placing notions such as authenticity at the center of its agenda, the Left was able to broaden its set of concerns far beyond the mere economic or political in the traditional sense of the word. Indeed, it is arguable that the economic and material concerns that drove the radicals of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries virtually vanished, to be replaced by a whole set of much more contentious and nebulous issues. Now, with "authenticity" being the goal, and that conceived of in psychological terms, oppression itself was psychologized so that even the person who enjoyed good material conditions might yet be "inauthentic" because of the way in which society imposed its values upon him or her. Oppression takes place inside the head."

His second essay, "The Slipperiness of Secularisation" contends that despite how explicitly religious much of the politics is, this is just a thin veneer that covers a secularisation as deep and profound as that found in Europe. As evidence of this he points to some troubling assumptions and trends often seen in American Christianity including the importance put on material prosperity, an individualistic and therapeutic approach to morality, rampant consumerism, a common identification of America with God's special people, and a preoccupation with celebrity. He concludes that, "Secularization is slippery; it hits us where we least expect it; and there is naught here for comfort of conservative evangelicals. What is needed is continual reformation that takes us back to the standards of God's Word again and again, drives us to repentance, and leads us to put our trust once again in Jesus Christ rather than any set of political policies, or patriotism, or just a nebulous sense that we are better than the rest."

In the splendidly named "Not-So-Fantastic Mr. Fox", we are encouraged to apply the same critique to conservative media that we would to a more liberal outlet. We are kidding ourselves if we think that conservative media is necessarily aligned with Christian beliefs or priorities just because we are more comfortable with its politics; all commercial media outlets are businesses whose aim is to turn a profit. "My great fear is that Christian frustration with the liberal media has led to an overreaction that has generated a culture where alternative opinions are never, or rarely, considered, and where the most inarticulate and insubstantial arguments are swallowed whole."

"Living Life to the Max" engages with the thought of Max Weber to consider capitalism: "As far as capitalism goes, there is currently no alternative. But let us not engage in the idolatry of assuming that the capitalist way is God's way in any absolute sense. It brings much good in its wake, not least the creation of wealth and the facilitation of social mobility, but it is not an unmixed blessing. It promotes a view of life rooted in material accumulation; it can tend to drive all social relations and values to being determined by cash transactions; and when given spiritual significance, it can become something that looks a little too much like the prosperity gospel. Prosperity is a good thing, as are democracy, good food, and shops that sell clothes that don't appear to have been designed for Elton John, but it is not the gospel. Let's not make that confusion." Trueman puts his finger on one of the main problems with contemporary capitalism, in that it is committed to markets as themselves providing the best mechanism for shaping life. This may start as economic, but inevitably becomes moral: "no economic system, least of all perhaps capitalism, can long survive without some kind of larger moral underpinning that stands prior to and independent of the kinds of values the market itself generates. How that is to be achieved is, of course, quite another matter; but the answer cannot be found simply within "the morality of the market" because, taken by itself, the market has no morality other than what is generated by the need to turn a profit." This is similar to the point that Mark Carney makes at greater length in his excellent book 'Values,' which I also highly recommend.

"Rulers of the Queen's Navee" addresses democracy itself, particularly in the North American context: "I am arguing that democracy as it currently exists addresses very complicated questions, but does so through a system (the party framework) and a culture (televisual and aesthetic) that militate against addressing the issues with the seriousness and subtlety they require...it is helpful to realize the truth of what I am describing in order that we, as Christians and as citizens, are able to engage both politics and the political process in such a way that we are aware of the problems, limitations, and realistic expectations of what they can deliver. This will not solve the problems, but it may allow us to interact with each other more intelligently and to overcome the rather black-and-white partisanship that so often marks the contributions of Christians to public debates...it is crucial that Christians understand the way in which the partisan nature of politics is both polarizing - in that each party has a vested interest in accentuating the differences between the two sides-and subversive of proper thought and discussion, with the increasing dependence on visual, aesthetic, and narrative-type resources instead of argument. These latter simplify issues and create connections between issues (abortion and gun control, for example) that are not logically necessary." As with many of the topics addressed through the book, Trueman is encouraging us to be good stewards and to engage with the democratic process with appropriate scrutiny and a critical mindset.

Finally, in his conclusion, Trueman reminds that all politics is by necessity pragmatic and requires compromise: "Those Christians who participate in the democratic process need to do so with a realistic understanding of what is and is not possible. We are stewards who should do the best we can, not utopians making heaven on earth. Politics is, even at its best, a thoroughly pragmatic business in that it represents the art of the possible. Now, as a Christian, one could take a hard-line purist position, and decide to vote for the politician who represents, in word and deed, only a consistent Christian position on those matters where such positions are identifiable. If that is the case, then I suspect that person is simply never going to vote, since there does not appear to be such a person or party in existence at this time. And if you do not vote, you really have no influence whatsoever. You can sit on the sidelines, hurling brickbats...but ultimately you have no voice." Finally, "Christian politics, so often associated now with loudmouthed a needs rather to be an example of thoughtful, informed engagement with the issues and appropriate involvement with the democratic process. And that requires a culture change. We need to read and watch more widely, be as critical of our own favored pundits and narratives as we are of those cherished by our opponents, and seek to be good stewards of the world and of the opportunities therein that God has given to us...It is my belief that the identification of Christianity, in its practical essence, with very conservative politics will, if left unchallenged and unchecked, drive away a generation of people who are concerned for the poor, for the environment, for foreign-policy issues. Further, as the Right itself shifts distinctly in a more socially and morally libertarian direction, and even on issues such as abortion is shown to be more and more pragmatic in terms of the disconnect between election - year rhetoric and postelection delivery, the Religious Right is likely to find itself increasingly disillusioned and marginal, even in mainstream party politics-banished to the sidelines, where it will simply function as a loud but ultimately inconsequential group. We need to avoid this marginalization of the voice of Christians in politics by realizing the limits of politics and the legitimacy of Christians, disagreeing on a host of actual policies, and by earning a reputation for thoughtful, informed, and measured political involvement."

May it be so!

[Pamela Kilzer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoy Carl Trueman, and picked up this book after reading his more recent “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.” Overall, I liked this book a lot and agreed with much of what Trueman had to say. I thought he brought up very interesting points and poked holes in “arguments” from both the Right and Left. I also love his writing: extremely articulate and clear, while also being very witty. However, I didn’t enjoy “Republocrat” quite as much as Trueman’s later work. I felt like this book was more ranting of his personal opinions, and didn’t seem to be backed by many actual references. Trueman is clearly intelligent, but he tended to make a claim without any elaboration or detail, then move on to his next rant. Even though I agreed with much of what he said, I wish he would have teased his thoughts out a little bit more. But, definitely worth the read!

[Ryan Rhew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely a thought-provoking and challenging read.

The author, Carl Trueman, and I are similar, in that we find Biblical convictions to place us in the center of the political spectrum (though I might lean slightly more to the right than Trueman on some issues), and wish to see Christians think about what they believe through the lens of Biblical authority. I appreciated that about this book. He generally treats both sides fairly, though I thought some of his specific arguments were a bit weak or hard to follow.

Majn point: being a Bible-believing Christian with conservative theology in the USA does not necessitate subscribing blindly to conservative politics. (Or liberal politics, for that matter.)

Thankful for the book. You should read it if you’re a Christian who is expected to vote in the US. You will be encouraged to think more critically and pursue charity.

[Aaron Hicks · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a short, yet dense book that evaluates and discusses the role of religion in American politics. Trueman is phenomenal in critiquing and explaining cultural philosophies and their origins, and here he expounds on the link between conservative American politics and the church.

While he focuses more on the right he gives much thought and and pushback to the left as well. As a result he provides a critique of both the right and left wing while offering sound thoughts on who the Christian is called to vote for, what policies to stand on/stand against, and who as a civil servant Christians are called to be.

[Paul Pompa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of insight. The issue of how a thoughtful Christian engages in politics is a very important and pertinent issue. Engaging in partisan politics can be, and often is, sinful. The political landscape is not what it was when he wrote the book, which to some degree impacts his claims. But overall, he gives much reason for pause and consideration. The people who need to read this book likely never will.

[Michael LeDuc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very thought provoking. An especially good read for those who can’t find their home in American politics.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

In my political discussions and friendly Facebook exchanges, I often observe the compulsion in those conversations to hold the center of a debate. Like a general sensing that a particular hill will advantage the fight, we scurry for political middle ground, hoping perhaps to inhabit that elusive space in our interactions, the center between “the wild extremes” of the Left or Right. Moderation, evenhandedness, thoughtful engagement, etc. all seem so much more cultured than those out on the far limb armed with a razor-sharp saw for an argument prepared to finish the job. Centrism has the appearance of tactical advantage and, well, evenhandedness, permitting us to rotate one’s argumentative guns in whatever direction the discussion requires while doing so with apparent grace.

The Brit Carl Trueman, professor of historical theology at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, displays similar instincts in his little book, Republocrat-Confessions of a Liberal Conservative. His title underscores his centrist vision, offering us a new lexical entry to emphasize his middle-of-the-road position. He critiques contemporary, populist leftward and rightward politics occurring on both sides of the Atlantic and gives a balanced savaging of both. He calls them out for absurdities like the left’s long-standing infatuation with Marxism; the secularist assumptions of the academy; and, of course, the banality clothed as political commentary that occurs on large, commercialized networks such as the Fox News Channel. All of these, and more, are fair game for Trueman’s withering criticism from the center.

He confesses to embodying the complexities of British Reformed Christian political sensibilities as a convinced pro-life, anti-homosexual marriage advocate that believes in expansive governmental healthcare programs and strong curtails on gun ownership. Trueman appears to embody the possibilities of wide-ranging political commitments that span the spectrum. One might be tempted to laud him for being on one side a free-thinker that is international in perspective while beholden above all to Christ’s kingdom. Certainly, those that entertain such sources mentioned above as serious attempts at political discourse should willingly receive Dr. Trueman’s reproof.

However, Trueman hoists himself on his own argumentative petard when he quotes, without attribution (perhaps his own?), “Politics in democracy is a whole lot more complicated than either political parties or your pastor (or I would add, theology professors) tell you it is; treat it as such—learn about the issues and think for yourself.” His own insistences about the left and right’s political positions too frequently plucks low-hanging fruit like Glenn Beck or the academy’s dalliances with Marxism, but fails to raise the serious concerns of the brightest and most important thinkers of the left or right. Further this obfuscates Trueman’s own vision about his free-thinking centrism, failing to see that centrism belongs to a political category that also inhabits an intellectual history, as do the arguments of liberals and conservatives. The best treatment of each of these streams of thought is to take them as intellectually serious endeavors that offer weighty critiques of and answers for the policy challenges of the day.

As a political conservative, I am far less troubled about Trueman’s elbowing over Beck and O’Reilly and much more concerned about how he ignores the essentialist arguments of the Federalist Papers, de Tocqueville’s view of democracy, and the current discussions circulating in the conservative pages of journals like First Things and at think-tanks such as the Michigan-based Acton Institute (the latter two both being Christian-influenced organizations). Trueman has mistaken the popularity of political entertainment among Christians for claims of substance and seriousness. This distracts him from the considerable arguments being offered up by thoughtful intellectuals on either side of the issues. Lauding centrism, but failing to dig into the substance of those he is critiquing, instead settling for their populist refractions, reduces and largely derails his critique.

[Noel Green · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book explains, probably more clearly as anything I could ever say, why I can vote, faithfully, for someone of the Libertarian party. It explains, well what I believe our stance as gospel believing Christians should be towards politics.

I really can't recommend this book enough. You may not agree with it all but as The Gospel Coalition review of the book says, "Christians do need to think more. We need to refrain from drawing ecclesiastical lines with political pencils. We need a little less us-versus-them rhetoric. We need to allow that good people work on the other side of the aisle. We need to recognize that not every issue has a quick and easy “Christian” solution. And even political conservatives need to take Fox News with a generous grain of salt."

Thinking about how we think and understanding that the president is far more (and far less) than someone who is going to make that "one thing" either happen or stop happening is crucial and Trueman lays out the argument and pulls back the veil very clearly.

My biggest, if not only, criticism of the book is that he mixes the use of the word "rhetoric" sometimes meaning actual rhetoric but more often than not meaning sophistry.

I'll close my review with a quote from Trueman that I share strongly with in sentiment. "I look forward to the day when intelligence and civility, not tiresome clichés, character assassinations, and Manichaean noise, are the hallmarks of Christians as they engage the political process."

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book and easy read. Trueman lays out a straightforward critique of how Christianity and certain beliefs/behaviors/politics are tied together, without the Biblical basis for such a bond. I may have rated it lower simply because it merely reconfirms beliefs I already hold, and thus I'm reticent to label it as particularly enlightening or challenging. However, it's a quite short book, perfect for a plane ride, and I would definitely recommend it for that.

[Timothy Maples · Rating 2 out of 5]

While the subject of this book, that Christians should be more thoughtful in their political life and not merely a pawn of one party or another, was a good idea, I was disappointed in its execution. The author was trying too hard to be "fair" to both sides, which caused some of his valid criticisms to be weakened. By thus deluting his argument, I think the writer missed a opportunity to teach American Christians a much-needed lesson.

[Kim Pyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I didn't agree with everything Trueman said in this book, I found his perspective helpful and challenging, and it did make me think through some things a little more deeply. Toward the end, I found myself very curious as to what he might change if he were revising this book today.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Books on Christ and culture or Christianity and politics are all the rage these days. While some publishing houses are churning out New Atheist book after New Atheist book, other houses are getting who’s who in Christian circles to write on Christ and culture or politics and religion. Both are hot ticket items these days. Thankfully, the former’s popularity seems to be waning (too boorish), while interest in the latter is rising. But, there’s more to be thankful of. The latest author to enter this ever-growing market is Carl R. Trueman. As a Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), Trueman is qualified to write on this topic; not only that, he brings a fresh and unique perspective to the American debate, writing as a Englishman who has lived in America for the past several years. He describes himself as a British round peg jammed into an American square hole.

Trueman’s basic thesis is that being theologically conservative does not entail being unconditionally politically conservative (or liberal). His main motivation for writing the book is that he fears Christianity is in danger of alienating members of its population, especially the younger members, by drawing too close a connection between the essentials of the faith and our current American expression of political conservatism. Though he did not say this, I can safely assume that he feels the same way about any connection between Christianity and liberal politics too. While I applaud this motivation, it is noteworthy that similar motivations drive the publication of books like Peter Enns’s Inspiration and Incarnation, as well as the current surge in books seeing to show the harmony of Christianity with Adam-denying evolutionary theory. I am not trying to poison the well here, and I am not sure there is anything of interest in pointing out the similarities in motivation, but I wonder if there’s a slippery slope somewhere nearby? Are we in danger of alienating members for teaching that man has an immaterial soul? How about teaching eternal retributive punishment in hell for the reprobate? Same with inerrancy and evolution. Are these “essentials” that make up “Christian fidelity” (xx)?

In Chapter one, “Left behind,” Trueman begins by critiquing the “New Left,” wisely softening the blows he will later deal to conservatives. The basic criticism given to the “New Left” is that it in leaving behind the “Old Left” it has become preachy and has opened the door for “everyone to become a victim and for anyone with a lobby group to make his or her issue the Big One for this generation.” Whereas the “Old Left” was concerned with oppression, it limited this oppression to “material, empirical issues–hunger, thirst, nakedness, poverty, disease . . .” The “New Left” expanded the category of oppression to “psychological categories,” where this category is conceived in terms of “‘Authenticity’ and ‘inauthenticity’” which is an entirely subjective way to categorize (p.17). For example, homosexuals have been oppressed and thus not allowed to live a lifestyle that is “authentic” (p.12). Another example is to consider the women have been “oppressed” and not allowed to live “authentic” lives because they might be bogged down by a child. Thus, abortion allows women to be “authentic,” and the “New Left,” ironically, fails to give a voice the voiceless, which is the origin of the left (p.12-13).

Trueman also applies this criticism to many evangelical liberals who vote Democrat “in a kind of schoolboyish ’Aren’t I naughty?’ kind of way.” The psychologizing of oppression allows them to self-righteously critique others in a way that doesn’t cost anything. He cites, as a recent example, how many left leaning evangelicals criticized Wheaton College’s appointment of Philip Ryken to college president. Trueman notes that while they complained “about how dreadful it was that the job had been given to a middle-class white male intellectual rather than a representative of a minority,” none of these middle-class white male intellectuals “gave up their own job to make way for a minority candidate and to help with the ending of oppression.” Trueman notes that these kind of complaints make the evangelical left “look ridiculously sanctimonious and self-important.” It is the type of complaint that, “costs the whiners nothing and [is] therefore worth nothing” (p.15-17).

Conservatives might rightly scratch their head at what Trueman takes to be the “Old Left.” Conservatives (and capitalists) have long tried to point out that they are “concerned with oppression . . . limited to material, empirical issues—hunger, thirst, nakedness, poverty, disease . . .”, or at least that they can be so concerned (cf. Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice). Indeed, many have pointed out that the numbers seem to suggest that when government taxes less and gets out-of-the-way, charitable giving goes up. Plenty of conservatives have been charitable; very charitable. So, some might claim that Trueman is not playing fair. That is what I was thinking while reading this chapter. However, I believe Trueman sets himself apart from those conservatives at the end of the chapter when he writes that he believes “society and government . . . has a role to play in health care and helping the poor” (p.18, emphasis mine). Now, it should be admitted that “has a role” is vague, but I think Trueman thinks the role should be more involved than most conservatives would like to admit. Trueman does not get specific here—that’s not the point of his book—and so there is nothing to critique. It should be pointed out that for what this chapter intends to do—critique the “New Left”—it succeeds.

Chapter two is titled, “The Slipperiness of Secularization.” In this chapter Trueman looks at the issue of “secularization” and wonders whether America has escaped it as much as some on the religious Right seem to think. Now, Trueman admits that there is a difference between the secularization that happened, and continues to happen, in Europe, and what is going on in America. America is definitely more “religious.” Trueman reports the lament of a pastor in Grand Rapids who said that only half of the local population would be in church on Sunday. “Wow, Trueman thought to himself, “that’s a tragedy? Back home we’d call that a revival beyond our wildest dreams.” Still, Trueman wonders if a secularization hasn’t happened in American churches. The main question he asks in the chapter is to wonder whether the “American church has maintained the loyalty of the population by essentially becoming a secular institution” (p. 26-27). Trueman’s answer is: sure looks like it.

While he begins by picking on soft targets like Hinn and Osteen, he claims that many of the more conservative churches have bought into a more sophisticated version of the prosperity gospel. Trueman agrees with David Wells’s critiques of Evangelical mega and emergent churches, but wonders if similar critiques could be offered of protestant churches Wells might favor. Trueman thinks so. He begins by pointing out that the secular idea of “rights” spills over into church membership, such that church vows are not taken seriously at all. We’re individuals with rights and we have no problem ditching a church if it offends out rights, perhaps even in ways that are theological counterparts to those who sue fast food restaurants for not telling them the coffee is hot (p. 28-32). Another indication of secular values is that celerity syndrome, a “preoccupation with superstars” (p.37). Secular society has Access Hollywood, “the church has—well, insert your name here” (p.39).

“Not-so-Fantasic Mr. Fox,” is the title of chapter three. I have to admit, this chapter was a little weird for me. Not because I like Fox news—far from it—but because not only did it seem like Trueman was settling a personal score (Rupert Murdoch is blamed for Trueman’s exiting the conservative party, p. xxiii), I’m not sure the intended target of his critique will read this book. Much of this chapter reads like a gossip column. Rupert Murdoch does not come out looking good. The gist is that those who think Fox news is a bastion of family values need to recognize that it is owned by a guy three times divorced and who had nude images published in one of his British newspapers.

Having said that, I should add that, Trueman rightly points out that news organizations are all biased, and all trade in offering substanceless soundbites masquerading as sophisticated and rigorous analysis of current events. Trueman also disabuse people of the notion that Fox is the paragon of religious virtue some seem to bestow on it. Furthermore, Trueman is also correct in pointing out that those like Beck and O’Reilly make wild claims and poor arguments, not to mention employing conspiracy theories scare viewers.

Trueman then goes off on a little conspiracy theory of his own, where he concludes that maybe “Fox’s political posturing as the brave advocate for and defender of conservative values is just that—a piece of posturing.” This is shown by using anti-family values shows like The Simpsons and their 6:00 PM time slot, the time families are supposed to be eating dinner together (p. 54-55). Conspiracy, you decide? As I said, it got a little weird for me, but maybe Trueman was just having fun, mocking the conservative “birthers” and MSNBC-leads-to-homosexuality-if-you-watch-Rachel-Maddow crowd.

Whatever the case, the conclusion of the chapter was solid: Trueman pleads with Christians—conservative or liberal—to use their God-given critical thinking faculties when watching any news show. Not only that, Christians need to look at all sides of the issue, rather than “surround ourselves with things that confirm our prejudices” we should “seek to listen to a variety of viewpoints” (p.58). This perspectivalism is a useful tool in getting Christians to be what the old Greek apologists said of the ancient Christians: they were “the best and most informed and thoughtful citizens there are, not those whose stock-in-trade are clichés, slander, and lunatic conspiracy theories” (p.59). On second thought, I guess Trueman doesn’t buy The Simpsons conspiracy theory after all!

In the next chapter, “Life to the Max,” Trueman looks at Capitalism. He begins by offering some critiques of Max Weber’s popular, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Insofar as one doesn’t put much weight into Weber’s arguments, the criticisms won’t bother their conception of capitalism. Next, Trueman moves from Weber to a more general critique, the tendency to see capitalism as God’s system of economics and our American successes as proof that capitalism is the epoch of history. The basic criticism here is that we shouldn’t absolutize the moment of our passing present. Trueman admits that contemporary capitalism is the best means of producing wealth that we know of, but that doesn’t mean it is “reality” period. It does not represent “the end of history” (p.68).

Capitalism has one basic principle, according to Trueman, “profit” (p.68). However, this might seem simplistic when compared to what we might read in, say, Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics (see especially ch. 6). Trueman also engages in many slippery slope arguments in his critiques of capitalism, i.e., “it can lead to x.” Besides the claim that capitalism produces little Pelagians, Trueman also points to what he sees as the creation of a “consumer culture.” Regarding this latter claim, Jay W. Richards notes that the argument “identifies the symptoms of a real disease, but, unfortunately, misdiagnosis the disease” Richards goes on to point out that this “critique of capitalism reduces to little more than aesthetics masquerading as economics” (cf. Richards, Money, Greed, and God, ch.7). Though I don’t agree with all of Richards’s claims, I think he successfully rebuts the whole “capitalism creates consumerism” critique. Indeed, it seems Trueman isn’t entirely consistent in this chapter. He switches back and forth between the terms ‘capitalism’ and ‘contemporary capitalism.’ His advice was not to absolutize any particular historical circumstance, but he seemed tempted to want to absolutize some of the problems he sees with a particular capitalist culture with capitalism per se.

Another criticism of his is that capitalism “creates one of the kinds of societies where discussions of [euthanizing the unproductive old and using abortion to lower welfare costs] might well take place” (p. 76). I don’t entirely follow this criticism. Certain Eskimo tribes are known for leaving their elderly to die, and many ancient societies took part in the practice of either abortion of abandonment. These societies were not capitalistic. Again, it looks like a symptom has been attributed to a wrong disease.

Trueman ends on a good note, but it seems out of touch with the chapter. Trueman says that we must not think capitalism “is the gospel” (p.78). I can give an “Amen!” along with three cheers to this. But it doesn’t seem to me the arguments in the chapter were aimed toward this conclusion. I also agree with Trueman that we should not “engage in the idolatry of assuming that the capitalist way is God’s way in any absolute sense” (p.78). Again, “Amen!” But these points are of a different nature than much of the chapter. If Trueman meant for his criticisms of capitalism to support the claims that capitalism has problems so it can’t be God’s way, I’ll grant him a couple of points, but some of his critiques were, in my opinion, wide of the mark; or, at least, non-sequiturs.

Chapter five deals with democracy and is titled, “Rulers of the Queens Navee.” The basic theme of this chapter is raised by the question, “Why do those who have a great capacity for subtle thinking in matters of theology seem to prefer to think in terms of very straightforward, black-and-white, if not Manichaean, categories when it comes to politics” (p.80)? Trueman notes that politics is very complicated and representative democracy does not offer an outlet where the complexity and nuances are able to be considered. It is not “conducive to subtlety” (p.81). Thus, a check in a ballot box should bring pain because of the “trade-offs they are having to make as they do so, and how their action belies the complexity of reality” (p.83).

Along with this, Trueman notes the many cultural conditions that are not conducive to thoughtful engagement with the issues. One such problem is the television, which gives us televised debates where sound-bite answers are considered conclusive and where only the most tanned and sexy politician wins the debate. Thus, aesthetics has become more important than substance. Along with this, contemporary politics are about story telling. There are stories that people buy into and that color their perception of policies and the days events. The “maverickism” of McCain and Palin played into the rugged individualism story, such as we might see in a John Wayne film.

Coupled with this story telling culture is that the political battle has become a battle over character. Political candidates or policies are shot down or built up by linking it to bad or good character traits. So those on the left try to point out that someone has the character that is oppressive to women, and some on the right point out that Al Gore flies gas guzzling planes to lecture us on saving the environment. Trueman notes that these points might “speak to issues of personal integrity and consistency, . . . [but it] does not necessarily render [the] arguments garbage” (97). The point here is that arguments are being ignored and avoided, it is pointing out sins or failings is what matters most. I agree with this, but I wonder if Dr. Trueman applies this point to his criticism of Rupert Murdoch when he writes, “Bottom line: Murdoch himself does not embody the kind of family values that are so near and dear to many conservatives.”

Trueman concludes this chapter by distancing himself from any Utopianism, he doesn’t offer an alternative to these problems. But he does want to help people “realize the truth of what [he] is describing in order that we, as Christians and as citizens, are able to engage both politics and the political process in such a way that we are aware of the problems, limitations, and realistic expectations of what they can deliver” (p.98). Trueman wisely notes that as Christians we should not carry around pictures of the president looking like the Joker from Batman: The Dark Knight, nor engage in the kind of sound-bite, sophistical rhetoric that characterizes much the political “dialogue” today. “The Christian in civic society should set an example to others of what the best citizen looks like, not simply reinforce stereotypes of what the worst appears to be. And that applies across the political spectrum” (p.99). Again, “Amen!”

Chapter six is a “Concluding Unpolitical Postscript.” Trueman reiterates some of his points and worries. He presses home that we should not expect more out of politics and politicians than is warranted. He points to the failures of republicans to do (much of) anything about abortion, as well as the limits our political system places on any elected official, and so we need to have “a realistic understanding of what is and is not possible” (103)—this includes “Yes we can!” and “Change we can believe in” mantras. Trueman also repeats his worry that Christians are being driven away by too close a connection between Christianity and Right wing politics. But I add that we must remember that God’s elect persevere, though we should also recognize God uses means. Trueman also repeats his worry that Christians avoid a politics that accuse our leaders as criminals or “scream mindless abuse at those they disagree with” (109). He ends with what he hopes to see: “I look forward to the day when intelligence and civility, not tiresome clichés, character assassinations, and Manichaean noise, are the hallmarks of Christians as they engage the political process” (110). To that we can, again, say, “Amen.”

Despite my registering some areas of disagreement with Trueman, I would recommend Republocrat without reservation. I would especially recommend getting it for your more “American Evangelical” friend or neighbor, especially if they align themselves with the “Religious Right.” Not that those who read P&R don’t need to hear what Trueman has to say, I think most of us are more nuanced than the positions Trueman attacks. And so to bring up another criticism: I fear those who most need to read this book most will not, and that may be the biggest flaw. If you buy this book and read it, please give it away to those I mentioned above—or, better, buy them their own copy. That is better because this way Trueman can make a larger profit! Kidding aside, I think this book will prove helpful for Christians, especially those in the above categories, and the kind of help it offers is, despite my unsettled views on the Christ and society/politics debate, the kind of help I strongly believe we desperately need.

[Hank Pharis · Rating 3 out of 5]

If the best that the Republicans can come up with is Donald Trump and the best that the Democrats can come up with is Hilary Clinton or Nancy Peloski then I have no hope for either party. I’ve always voted in every election until the last one but I’m not sure I’ll vote anymore if they keep nominating such candidates. I wish there was a Centrist Party that would take the best elements of our two present parties and leave behind the extremes that both parties keep moving toward. Oh well I got this out of my system.

Carl Trueman is a centrist. He describes himself as a ‘liberal conservative.’ Truman earned a Master’s Degree at Cambridge and a Ph.D at Aberdeen before teaching at Aberdeen. He then became a Church History Professor and Dean of Westminster Seminary. He is also the Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church, has a blog, a podcast and regularly writes for First Things. This last year he taught at Princeton as a Visiting Professor. Here are a few representative quotes from the book:

The opium of the people is not religion but entertainment. (10)

“Here lies the heart of the problem of the New Left: once the concerns of the Left shifted from material, empirical issues - hunger, thirst, nakedness, poverty, disease - to psychological categories, the door was opened for everyone to become a victim and for anyone with a lobby group to make his or her issue the Big One for this generation. … forms of oppression are thus whatever the oppressed person claims them to be. … the Left has lost all sense of proportion with regard to what is and is not of most pressing importance. It has become, by and large, the movement of righteous, rhetorical pronouncements on total trivia.” (17-18)

“The connection often made between economic prosperity and Christianity by conservative Christians is but a more sophisticated and rhetorically toned-down version of the Osteen gospel.”* (27-28) (*i.e., a prosperity gospel)

“Both megachurches and emergent churches represent not so much countercultures but different accommodations to the prevailing culture.” (28)

“Many churches are as secular in their ambitions and methods as any straightforwardly secular organization.” (29)

“In the writing of history no one can be neutral, but historians can be objective. … we are all biased to some extent.” (42)

“While the Christian Right is intolerant of any personal peccadillo on the part of liberals, it is often very forgiving of the private failings of its heroes, as in the case of Rush Limbaugh, with his various marriages and his well-publicized drug addiction.” (51-52)

“While conservative theological types (among whom I number myself) are often very concerned about theological precision, we can tend to think in rather simplistic, black-and-white, cliched terms when it comes to politics.” (80)

“Politics in the present age is not ultimately about policies, because that would require arguments. It is really about images - visual and narrative.” (92)

“The truth about health care is that, however much money is available, it will never be enough; all health systems everywhere have to prioritize resources - financial and otherwise - and tough decisions are going to have to be made somewhere down the line. But is investing this power in a democratically elected government really worse than investing it in private insurance companies that decide which claims to honor and which to refuse? Or which preexisting conditions to accept and which to reject?” …
National health systems are not perfect, but they are far from the nightmares that have been depicted in some recent discussions about the USA. … only one country in the entire industrialized world does not have some form of universal health care.” (95)

“I am myself pro-life. Contrary to current cultural logic, my politically liberal instincts (concern for the weak) combine with my evangelical commitments (concern for the sanctity of life) to put me in precisely that camp. Nevertheless, I am suspicious of the way in which the abortion debate plays out in the American political arena, where it seems to be something the Right often uses as little more than a means to drum up cheap votes for its candidates. … Given, the pro-life rhetoric, what is the actual Republican record on abortion like? Not very impressive.” (105-106)

(Note: I'm stingy with stars. For me 2 stars means a good book or a B. 3 = Very good or a B+; 4 = Outstanding or an A {only about 5% of the books I read merit this}; 5 = All time favorites or an A+ {one of these may come along every 400-500 books})

[Lauren DuPrez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Republocrat is a helpful book by author and seminary professor Carl Trueman. This book was my introduction to Dr. Trueman’s writings. I’ve seen his books enthusiastically shared on social media so my curiosity was piqued. Now I can say I understand the hype. Dr. Trueman is currently a professor at Grove City College but at the time Republocrat was written (2010), he was a professor of Historical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. It is from his perspective as a historian and also a native of England that the book was written.

Prior to reading the book, I was unaware that Republocrat is an actual term and thought it was just a clever title for the book. The subtitle is Confessions of A Liberal Conservative and its oxymoronic nature intrigued me. The intersection of faith and politics has been of particular interest to me as an American Christian as it often seems that American politics is elevated to a matter of first importance (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

I’ve found it troubling to witness governing political documents treated with almost the same authority as God’s word. I’ve relied on books like Republocrat to help me make sense of this and give me biblical wisdom and insight as to how to proceed in navigating my life as an American Christian.

Republocrat begins with Trueman’s observations as an outsider looking in. In the introduction he stated, “The primary reason why I agreed to write this book is my belief that the evangelical church in America is in danger of alienating a significant section of people, particularly younger people, through too tight a connection between conservative party politics and Christian fidelity,” (pg. xx). A few pages later he asserts, “The gospel cannot and must not be identified with partisan political posturing,” (pg. xxv). I appreciate Dr. Trueman’s convictions here and I wholeheartedly agree as the gospel transcends both time and culture.

In Chapter One Trueman wrote, “. . . I find myself politically homeless, restless, and disenchanted, and I suspect I am not alone,” (pg. 18). A few sentences later he elaborated, “. . . I believe that on certain issues there is no obviously ‘Christian’ position. I am inclined to include among such issues the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the appropriateness of trade unions, rates of direct and indirect taxation, etc. To make any of these things acid tests of Christian orthodoxy is to go well beyond anything the Bible teaches or that the church has felt it necessary to define over the two thousand years of its existence,” (pg. 18).

I enjoyed reading Dr. Trueman’s observations as I share many of the sentiments he expressed. It is fascinating to me that this book is “older” considering its publication date yet it remains relevant and offers much wisdom to Christian readers nearly a decade and a half later. Trueman helpfully peels back some of the layers on the complex intertwining of Christianity and American politics and helps readers understand a bit more clearly how this intertwining came to be.

At only 110 pages, Republocrat is a brief read but it is incredibly impactful. The book is highly academic and although some of it was beyond my comprehension, I’m grateful for the many ways in which it has challenged me. Republocrat was also humorous at times as Trueman’s passion was plainly displayed. I laughed a few times while reading this book intrigued by Trueman’s honesty. If you’re curious about the intersection of Christianity and American politics, I highly recommend reading this helpful book.

[John Gardner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally posted at Honey and Locusts.

If you're looking for a book that will re-affirm what you already believe about politics, this book will be a disappointment. Carl Trueman knows that, and he doesn't care. "I am simply delighted that I will disappoint so many different groups of people in such a comprehensive manner," he writes in the introduction.

And he's right. Nearly every group of people will find some complaint with Trueman's arguments. The Liberal Left hates his stance on hot button issues like abortion and gay marriage. The Religious Right frowns on his refusal to walk the Republican party line. Libertarians reject his insistence that nationalized health care and welfare programs are not incompatible with liberty and the free market.

Perhaps those most off-put by this book will be the politically apathetic, who cry "can't we all just get along?" while steering clear of argument and conviction. If there is one thing Trueman makes crystal clear, it is that if we care about the world and the people around us — and as Christians, this is non-negotiable — we must care about politics.

Few, if any, will find wholesale agreement with Trueman's political views. He is prone to overstate his case (which he himself admits in the book), and is intentionally provocative. He sets up strawmen and rips them apart. Surprisingly, all of these factors work together to hammer home the central theses of the book, "that conservative Christianity does not require conservative politics or conservative cultural agendas" and that Christians need a much more nuanced understanding of politics and political issues than is typical in today's America, when aesthetics (the character and rhetoric of politicians and pundits) have replaced discourse and debate is framed as a Manichean struggle of good versus evil in which candidates and parties must be either totally right or totally wrong.

The intensely logical Carl Trueman knows exactly what he's doing when he resorts to the use of logical fallacies. He wants readers to disagree with him. He wants to roil American Christians out of our comfort with the system of "politics-as-usual" that we've grown up with  (Trueman immigrated to the United States from England about ten years ago). This is a good thing. We need to be roiled, and his status as an outsider (not to mention his lack of hesitancy to engage in confrontation) gives Trueman a unique position to do it.

Besides a general encouragement to pick up this book and read it (which will only take an hour or two, as the entire thing is only 110 pages), I have just a few comments on the actual content of the book. While Trueman's trenchant critique of American politics begins with the Left — and he is brutal in his condemnation of the modern Liberal agenda — much of the book is aimed directly at the political heart of conservative Christians who identify themselves with the Republican party. This is not necessarily because he aligns himself more with today's Democrats, but because his intended audience is conservative Christians, and the reality is that most of these also consider themselves politically conservative. Thus, he spends the bulk of his time addressing the particular weaknesses of this audience.

What most interested me was his description of the plight of the "Old Liberal", which is how he describes himself. Old liberals used to be those who concerned themselves most with improving the condition of the poor, something that was close to his own heart as a Christian. Over time, however, with the utter failure of Marxism as an all-encompassing political system based on the welfare of the economically oppressed, Liberals began to mesh their ideas about poverty and oppression with Freud's psychoanalysis, leading to a redefinition of oppression. Now, instead of being primarily concerned with aiding the poor, the "New Left" exists to promote the agenda of those who define their own victimhood (women who believe abortion is a right, homosexuals who want to marry, etc). Democrats still promote themselves as the party of the working class, but these social issues are of little concern to those who struggle to provide for their families, and often clash with the values of the average poor person.

While I personally believe that conservative fiscal policies and free markets can be most beneficial to the poor, Dr. Trueman's question is a valid one for discussion. Who is now the advocate for the economically oppressed? Where do those whose primary political concern is the condition of the poor turn?

On the negative side, Trueman is at his overstated best (or worst) in devoting an entire chapter to Fox News. While you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative who thinks less of Fox News and pundits like Glenn Beck than I do, even I think this assault on Fox is a bit over-the-top. Yes, conservative Christians tend to have a very unhealthy attachment to Hannity, O'Reilly, and company. Yes, the belief that Fox is in any way "the unbiased news channel" is absolutely ridiculous (and deserves to be ridiculed). Yes, Rupert Murdoch is a sleazy and unscrupulous businessman who knows pandering to the Religious Right makes him a lot of easy dollars. But Trueman could easily have made these points in much less than the twenty pages he devotes to them. He accuses the Left of having "lost all sense of proportion with regard to what is and is not of most pressing importance," but surely the same can be said of an author who devotes 2o% of his book to the faults of a single news organization.

It can be maddening to read at times, but this book will make you think. It is not likely to cause anyone to totally change his mind about any important issues, or to radically change her political philosophy. But hopefully it will help to start a discussion we've needed for a long time. As he writes, "politics is an art, not a science". Like any art, politics deserves careful consideration, interaction, and debate. And, just as people will have different preferences and appreciations for art, there is no reason to believe that all Christians must hold exactly the same position on every political issue. It is okay for Christians to disagree about the best way to further God's Kingdom (just ask Paul and Barnabas) and to live as citizens in  a fallen world. In the end, God will be glorified. In the meantime, healthy debate and civil discourse make us all better.

Read this book. You'll be glad you did. Buy it here.

[Chandler Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Carl Trueman, who is also author of the excellent and acclaimed Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, begins this little political work with a compelling thesis: commitment to conservative Christian doctrine does not require commitment to conservative political values. He does oppose abortion and gay marriage, but he believes that Christians should be able to disagree on other policies and issues. He also believes that opposition to abortion does not necessarily root out voting right or left. As he ponders, “Is the one who votes for the pro-choice Democratic candidate really any more or less culpable on the abortion issue than the one who votes pro-life Republican, knowing that the candidates rhetoric will in no way be matched by any legislative action” (p. 106). This is a helpful question to keep in the back pocket. He also calls for Christians to move past cliches, character assassination, and heated drivel that characterizes modern political discourse: “Let us be Greek apologists once more, and show the civil powers that we can be the best and most informed and thoughtful citizens there are, not those whose stock-in-trade are clichés, slander, and lunatic conspiracy theories” (p. 59).

There are so many points in this book where I resonated deeply with Trueman’s insights, but then there are a lot of portions of this book where Trueman rambles on or goes on tangents. For Trueman, so many of the problems we see in the modern political scene and discourse are traced back to capitalism or television. He really does not like The Simpsons. He also makes a lot of simplified or questionable historical and cultural connections between certain ideas. Trueman also really wants his traditional Christian values back, and while he finds affinity with the Old Left, he does not like the New Left and its fall into identity politics. This frustration does cause him to make some insensitive comments about women’s rights and racial issues, I think. All in all, this book was a bit of a mixed bag for me.

[Robert Luff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Carl Trueman is a thinker. That's what I like about him, and that's what I love about this book: As a Christian historian, he encourages his readers to think seriously about their political positions, rather than simply accepting the standard rhetoric of the political party to which they ascribe.

I've seen Christian brothers and sisters get hurt, or at least frustrated, when other believers speak as if their own position is the only possible choice for any Christian with a pulse. (Of course, in a few cases, this is true -- pro-life, for instance, is the only biblically acceptable position on the abortion issue for a genuine born-again Christian, and Trueman acknowledges that). But Trueman argues that a number of the political positions that are commonly accepted as the standard position for Christians are not biblically mandated. He points out the logical inconsistencies and curiosities, and he explains how we got there.

Most importantly, he encourages Christians to be the best possible citizens they can be, and he does that specifically by encouraging us to think -- to use the minds God has given us to investigate the party-line issues we have accepted for so long without serious thought. And he encourages unity between believers who disagree, perhaps even vehemently:
"We should, if you like, be able to stand on separate sides of the protest lines on such issues Monday to Saturday, and yet come together to take the Lord's Supper on Sunday as Christian brothers and sisters united by a common faith, even as we are divided by our strongly held politics."

You won't agree with Trueman's every conclusion on specific political matters. I didn't. But for the Christian who has felt like a political oddball in his or her congregation, this book may just be the encouragement they need. As a pastor, I recognize the need for a book like this, because Christians should think seriously about every stand they take. The glory of Christ is at stake.

[Wei Han Lau · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot has changed since Trueman wrote these essays and I'm not so sure that some of his thoughts in the postscript still stand, especially those concerning the plausibility of incrementalism at a party-level. That makes considerably less sense now, given how entrenched the divide between positions on social policy issues has become across political spectrums in many places, more obviously so in the West.

Apart from that, Trueman’s broader thesis that religious conservatism does not demand unconditional political conservatism is certainly a timely one. Lockdowns in the past year or so have left many of us isolated within our own communities, starved of alternative perspectives and cut off from having a sense of regular interaction with the world around us. Amidst this, Christians should rise above the trend of the media to cast the political arena as a “Manichaean” struggle between good and evil. Dismissing others as a “Marxist” or a “fascist” should be undertaken with much more thought and care. The temptation of having our “gut convictions continually confirmed” must be resisted.

Trueman’s critique of the unchallenged adulation some conservative evangelical quarters have for free market economics, and his point on the potency of narratives in politics were both particularly thought-provoking. Anyway, this collection of essays reads very well. Reading Trueman is never a dull experience; Elton John and bell-bottom jeans both make an appearance at the midway mark.

[Rachel Menke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps the most interesting part of reading this book in 2018 is that it was written in 2010! It’s sobering to see how many of the issues Trueman warns of have not changed and in most cases it is even more frightening to see how they have (for the worse). Trueman writes to exhort Christians to not think as a republican or Democrat but as a Christian which means not only thinking about issues from multiple perspectives but seeking out and building community with people of all different political and socioeconomic viewpoints. I affiliate with neither of the major parties in American politics and whole this book emphasized many of the reasons that is true in my life it also made me think about issues in new ways too! As a Brit, Trueman is able to view American politics a bit more objectively and as a very intelligent professor he can easily and helpfully enlighten us in how things came to be as they are. In short, this book is a needed to read for every Christian in America - I just wish he would write an update to help us realize just how much worse our straight-party thinking (or duping - for as he points out there is little thought or logic in American politics).

[Angela · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish I could give a copy of this book to every Christian before any election. Trueman encourages Christians to read/research/watch news deeply and broadly when forming their political opinions. I have found myself not completely identifying completely with any party in several years, and this book reminded me that I am not alone.

"The creeds and confessions address the central truths of God and the gospel; and in restricting themselves to this content, they make a point about the church, that it is made up of those who hold to the truth of God's salvation in Christ not to this or that social policy or political philosophy. Sure there are basic elements to Christian ethics: respect for life, honesty, care for the poor, etc.; and then preaching the gospel week by week, the church shapes the minds and the ethics of her people; but how these things manifest themselves at the level of political party is something with which Christians, as members of civic society, have to wrestle and over which they can legitimately disagree."

[Stephen Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun and entertaining read that can be finished very quickly. Trueman's arguments for more nuanced and careful political discussion are very convincing, and I think it's past time for Christians to seriously consider their news sources. Though they are incidental to the main point, I thought some of his arguments for and against various policies (regarding the government's role in the economy and healthcare for instance) were weak and tore apart strawmen from the opposing side. This can happen to any of us, but I thought that it undermined his main project as I understood it. All in all, this book provided good reminders and is still persuasive on the point that Christians should be exemplary citizens who understand the issues and give grace for opposing views where the Bible doesn't directly speak. Strict partisanship is dangerous for the Church, especially in America.