In the acknowledgments for Uneasy Citizenship, Daniel Bennett self-effacingly quotes Jake Meador on the problem of trying to cross the disciplinary lines of theology and social science:

“One of the persistent problems right now in evangelical media and publishing is that we have historians and sociologists trying to do theological or biblical work and unless you are extremely good, you probably can’t pull that combo off.” 

Of course, one could just as easily say the same of theologians and biblical scholars trying to do political science. They’re generally not extremely good and seldom pull it off. It’s Bennet’s awareness of that interdisciplinary tension which makes his book uniquely insightful while also, unfortunately, undercutting its message. Bennett is a political scientist with the humility to recognize his expertise and limitations and thus tread carefully when it comes to making any major pronouncements on theological issues. However, I’m not sure such self-awareness is helpful if the message of this book is to be meaningfully applied. 

For my basic critique of the book to make sense, it may be worth noting some assumptions I’m making about the lay of the land in evangelical thought today: 

• Despite the narrative of wide evangelical support, many evangelical thought leaders were wringing their hands over the emergence of Donald Trump as the GOP leader this election cycle. 

• Some of the biggest names in “evangelical media and publishing” committed their platforms to promoting a view of politics that was theoretically non-partisan, but left-of-center in application. 

• That basic posture and messaging generally did not filter down to the people in the pews, who want their pastors to address current events, but see it done unevenly.  

In other words, in 2024, “evangelical media and publishing” is disconnected from churchgoing evangelicals at least where culture and politics are concerned.  

The best contribution Bennet makes to the discussion of Christian citizenship in America is that it provides a helpful corrective to this disconnect. Evangelical political analysis that rather slavishly slaps overbroad theological thinking and moral sentiments onto the crosscutting tensions of political life is lazy and unhelpful, something my colleagues and I wrote about in Christianity Today recently. Bennett, however, acknowledges the political tensions within evangelicalism, takes the time to describe them, and thus locates the conflicts in American Christian citizenship within recent evangelical history. I say “recent” because Bennet intentionally focuses his analysis on the last 40-50 years of evangelical political life to trace the tensions he identifies.  

Bennett’s presentation of recent religious/political history accomplishes several important goals: it provides a good overview of conservative evangelical discourse on politics for the last 40 years, makes a strong argument for the good of pluralism as something culturally worth striving towards, and redirects evangelical angst related to secular institutions towards building/rebuilding Christian ones. That is all to the good. Evangelicalism has been far from immune to the polarization in American public discourse, undercutting the affirmative case for a pluralistic society while simultaneously driving an impulse towards adversarial posturing when it comes to engaging institutions, Christian and secular alike. 

However, the book’s depth of thought is limited by its scope. Focusing on the Moral Majority era of evangelical politics is a handicap to Bennett’s appeal to a deeper Christian tradition of political engagement and a missed opportunity. That deep tradition of Christian political thought on questions of citizenship, from the early church to the Middle Ages to the Reformation, even if only briefly surveyed, would have elevated the discourse above the progressive and conservative wings of evangelical politics that Bennet so ably describes. 

I fear that progressive and conservative evangelicals could both read this book, both agree with its premise and end up building institutions of very different types, which may not even talk to each other. I’m unconvinced that’s for the good in that it leaves both progressive and conservative institutions comfortably rooted in their priors, untouched by any real encounter with the lordship of Christ over their respective politics and visions for citizenship, which begs the question: Can Christian institutions so constituted long endure? I truly, honestly wonder what the biblical church of Corinth would say about that. Did they ever overcome their divisions to become the vibrant institution of gospel love Paul called them to? 

The book identifies a real tension, offers some helpful explanations as to why it exists and how we could lean into it, but never breaks free of the “choose your own adventure” flaw that characterizes much evangelical political commentary. 

The challenge of citizenship in our particular moment is not that evangelicals are lukewarm or heretical (the conservative critique of progressives) or hypocritical (the progressive critique of conservatives). Those problems have always been markers of our sinful nature, and have thus plagued the church. In that respect, building or renewing Christian institutions around trying to eradicate any of those issues misses the main problem.  

We’ve got a lot of research on the state of evangelical Christianity in America indicating deep biblical illiteracy, and a general lack of lasting cultural impact by evangelicals. In other words, evangelicals seem to be far more “of” the world rather than they are distinct from it, and this has influenced how we think about and engage with politics. 

I would suggest that we’ve lost sight of our first love (Revelation 2:1-7), so our institutions have lost that animating vibrancy of Christ’s untamable presence that has historically driven the most impactful Christian cultural and political engagement. We must grapple with that, and our political theology must affirmatively account for it. Admittedly, that’s probably a bigger project than what Bennett is attempting in this book, but I raise the point here because I’m not sure how aware evangelical thinkers (theologians and political scientists alike) are aware of that need. Like this book, it seems like most are nibbling around the edges of this meaty topic. 

As a contemporary book about contemporary times, Uneasy Citizenship plausibly describes how evangelicals arrived at this current moment, and offers some of the alternative interpretations of that history. However, it doesn’t provide the thing that’s most needed in evangelical political thought, which would be a historically rooted portrait of Christian political theology going back not decades, but centuries and millennia.