The Democratic nominee for Congress in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District is making waves over remarks she made at a campaign stop in February, where she admitted that she had “stopped going to church” over Trump voters. The remark says volumes not only about the health of America’s political parties, but also about the interaction of religion and politics.

Navy veteran Rebecca Bennett stated:

“I grew up in the Presbyterian Church. And after Trump got elected, I stopped going to church for the first time in my life, because I was like, ‘I cannot sit in this room of people.’ At the time, I was stationed somewhere that was pretty conservative. I was still in the military at the time. I was like, ‘I cannot sit in this church full of people who voted for Trump.’ And then, ultimately, I decided, they do not get to decide what Christianity looks like.”

Before digging further into these remarks, let’s first pause to lament the fact that they are even coherent. That is, nearly every American adult has a mental image of a “conservative Trump voter” sitting in church, and he or she likely also feels pre-rational impulses interpreting that image in positive or negative ways. Additionally, nearly every American adult can imagine an anti-Trump Christian, who is associated with a very different image. Furthermore, we can understand why the anti-Trump Christian would not want to associate with a congregation full of Trump voters.

How sad! Yes, this might be the fallen state of the American church, but what a tragic state it is! Since when was the church of Jesus Christ divided into red and blue teams? Since when were Christians living in the same place and time so radically divided over how to apply their faith to their world?

It was not always so. The early second century was a dangerous time for Christians in the Roman Empire. Based on slanderous rumors, public opinion branded them as depraved cultists and traitors, and Christians were sometimes persecuted to death. In a letter written while he was governor of Bithynia (northwest Turkey), the Roman senator Pliny the Younger described how someone anonymously published a list of accused Christians, leading to arrests, interrogation, and either forced recantation or execution.

Amid this fearsome environment, Christians had to be loyal to Jesus Christ above all, and that meant being united to one another. The earliest Christian communities were knit together from two very different cultures — monotheistic Jews, with their idiosyncratic traditions and laws, and formerly pagan gentiles. The groups had been “alienated” from one another (Ephesians 2:12) and had every (human) reason to judge or despise one another (Romans 14).

Yet Paul, the Jewish apostle to the Gentiles, instructed them on a radically new way of life, a radical new unity in Christ. “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19). Through a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, God has given his people a unity that defies all human explanation and transcends all human barriers, “so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 3:10).

So, if that’s true, what went wrong? If God’s people are to be united in love across cultural divides, how has the American church descended so low that some people simply stop coming to church over politics? The question does not allow for a simple answer. For one thing, this alarming condition is not universal; there are many churches where brothers and sisters in Christ continue to love one another across political differences.

Rather, the decision to stop attending church may have said more about the condition of Bennett’s own heart than the church with which she became uncomfortable. (Perhaps other church members were at fault for wearing their conservative politics too prominently; there isn’t enough information to say.) This is not to single out Bennett, but rather to use her recent comments as an illustration of a danger to which all Christians are susceptible, especially in America (my own heart, for example, became overly invested in the 2020 election). That danger is to promote politics into an idol.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned against heart idolatry, using money as an example. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:19-21).

This last statement is both a wise maxim about money and a helpful litmus test for evaluating our own hearts. It also provides a blueprint for searching out other sorts of idols. Swap out the word “treasure” for “time,” “attention,” or other such terms, and it shows how our heart may be directed to non-monetary idols. If a person spends every spare moment surfing the news, catching up on the latest political controversies, and indulging in social media outrage at the latest dumb comment, he shows that his heart is tied up in politics.

Jesus continues with the kicker, “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money” (Matthew 6:24). What Jesus says about money applies to politics, too. You cannot serve God and politics. And if you stop going to church over politics, you might just be showing that politics is an idol in your heart.

It would not be responsible to conclude from Bennett’s story that she still neglects church. The climax of her story was a realization that likely brought other changes along with it. (The most plausible outcome is that Bennett found a rainbow Presbyterian church to attend instead.)

But it is worth analyzing the realization Bennett offered, “they [Trump supporters] do not get to decide what Christianity looks like.” This is technically true, if she allows that she herself doesn’t get to decide what Christianity looks like either. Only God can claim that authority. The Christian church is God’s new creation, Christ’s body, and the work of the Holy Spirit. It exists according to the promises God made thousands of years ago, which are found in his word.

That said, God often chooses to work through the corporate body of the church, which is why it is foolish, dangerous, and rebellious for a Christian to claim they can find their way without the church. If an individual posits his or her own wisdom against the entire church, in almost every case, the church will be closer to God’s word.

But churches are not always right, and all Christians should approach one another in humility and love. When Christians disagree, even about important questions like many political issues, they should not just instinctively break fellowship with one another.

What, then, is the solution? The remedy should begin with having conversations. Perhaps if Bennett had stayed to talk with some of those Trump supporters, she would have come to understand that they were not endorsing Trump’s personal morality, but rather calculating that his overall governance would result in less opposition to Christianity than a Harris administration (or Clinton administration — the timeframe is unspecified). Perhaps if Bennett had stayed to talk with some of those Trump supporters, she would have felt understood and loved, and her personal opposition to Trump would have felt like a legitimate position in church.

Perhaps — these are (hopefully rational) speculations about alternative futures. We can only change our actions going forward. What is certain is that the remedy for religious reconciliation can bear fruit in politics, too.

Indeed, politics was the point of Bennett’s church story all along. She was answering a questioner, who wondered why Bennett could call herself a “patriot,” since that is such “a right-coded way of presenting yourself.” (What radicalism feels free to express itself in Democratic primaries!)

After making her point, “they do not get to decide what Christianity looks like,” Bennett added, “and to me, it’s the same thing about [how] they do not get to decide what patriotism is. You do not get to wrap yourself in the flag while you are literally murdering Americans in broad daylight.”

I have no idea what Bennett is talking about. Certainly, she falls prey to the classic blunder: using the word “literally” non-literally. But what alleged murders of Americans she refers to is unclear (perhaps a slanted interpretation of the Alex Pretti incident?). In any event, it’s good to see some on the Left still embracing the title of “patriot.” See, we can find something to agree on, even if it isn’t everything.