In partnership with

The City of God

In the year 426, Augustine of Hippo published his manuscript known as The City of God. Sixteen years earlier, the Visigothic army led by King Alaric shocked the citizens of historically powerful Rome by sacking the city. This seemingly apocalyptic event was viewed by many as punishment from the gods for abandoning their pagan religion in favor of Christianity. Their earthly power and status was waning, and it the fault had to lie somewhere.

While the anxious masses scrambled for an explanation to the decline of their power, Augustine pointed their eyes upward. It was not the City of Man, he argued, but the City of God. Christianity, Augustine argued, should be focused on the mystical heavenly city instead of earthly politics.

This view would inform and guide the Church for over a millennium.

In the preface of The City of God, Augustine outlines one of the key differences between the City of God and the City of Man: salvation versus domination:

The City of Man, Augustine, argues, is dominated by this desire for power, this libido dominandi—a lust to hold power over one’s fellow man. The City of Man is one that takes religion and subsumes it to matters of Earthly power politics. But it’s the politics, says Augustine, that should be subsumed to matters of love and salvation.

This argument helped to build the foundation of the modern Church. And the American Church has embraced this heaven-facing view of love and generosity for centuries.

At least it did.

But something strange is happening.

Managing Factionalism

In the year 1787, James Madison penned Federalist No. 10. The hard-won independence from Britain created a significant number of questions about how Americans with competing interests should reconcile their differences. Shay’s Rebellion the year prior highlighted the factionalism that arises in any new democracy, and drew attention to the insufficiency of the Articles of Confederation.

But rather than trying to eliminate this factionalism, as many at the time desired to do, Madison made factionalist tendencies must be accepted as endemic to human nature. There was simply no way to eliminate factionalism without a government becoming tyrannical, as “liberty is to faction what air is to fire.”

So, Madison argued for the creation of a large, diverse republic, governed by a body with widely distributed power. This would, in Madison’s view, temper the impact of factionalism by distributing the power of a given faction among the governing body. Southern farmers would have their interests represented by their southern farmer legislators, while northern bankers would have their interests advocated for by their representatives.

The result of this argument is the representative republic that we have today. And factionalism within our modern republic is often expressed through lobbying. While many might look on political lobbying as a stain on our republic’s integrity, it is actually a feature anticipated by founders like Madison.

At least it was in its previous form.

But something strange is happening.

Receive Honest News Today

Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.

Sign up today!

The Inversion

On Tuesday, newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and many members of their families attended a prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington. During that service, Bishop Mariann Budde gave a sermon that embraced the views laid out by Augustine: that the Christian values of love and mercy should come before the earthly lust for power and domination.

One’s politics, she argued, should not come before the Christian duty to love and be merciful to weary strangers:

Budde’s plea for mercy, aimed at perhaps the most powerful man in the world, would be seen by nearly any normal leader as a heartfelt appeal. A normal politics might yield debate over whether a specific policy is “Christian” or not, but it would be commonly accepted that Budde’s underlying message of mercy was a good one.

But we don’t have a normal politics. We have the politics of a monarchy, where daring to question the king is tantamount to treason. That’s at least how Trump has reacted:

And it’s how some legislators from his party have reacted:

It is acceptable, even encouraged, in a healthy democracy to petition the government for redress of grievances. The right to do so is enshrined in our own First Amendment. But in a monarchy, questioning the king must be punished. Even to the extent of exiling an American citizen through deportation.

It matters not to our new monarchists whether the words being spoken are wise, true, or helpful. It only matters if they appease the big man.

It’s far from abnormal for wealthy elites to try to curry favor from the government by donating to inaugural committees etc. But we have never seen the level of consolidation around one man in our politics that we saw on January 20th. Trump’s inauguration drew record corporate donations from companies including Uber, OpenAI, Apple, Meta, Pfizer, Robinhood, General Motors, and more. As one healthcare lobbyist put it, “Everyone’s trying to kiss the ring.”

The world’s wealthiest men, including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg, personally attended the inauguration of the man who was once banned by each of the services they own.

The old way of lobbying is dead. Meeting with a cohort of legislators over years and working to convince them of the views you hold, contributing to candidates with a shared vision, and organizing grassroots initiatives to raise awareness in the news and social media is no longer an effective strategy. Now, the clearest path to legislative change is by gaining the favor of the one man who sits behind the Resolute Desk.

Trump’s power over our economy is unprecedented. Congress has ceded authority to the Executive Branch for decades, as complaining about legislative inaction has become more politically expedient than passing a law. But no Congress and no political party have ceded so much control to one man than the Republican Party of today. When Trump’s pick to head the Department of Commerce says that “he is power,” it is because the disparate factions that enabled a pluralistic legislature to work have abandoned their principles and priorities in favor of simply trying to cozy up to the king.

When TikTok was forced to sell its U.S. operations or be banned, the app tried to lobby Congress and make an appeal to the public. But when those were ineffective, they appealed to Trump personally. By promoting Trump in their algorithm, consistently naming him as an ally and savior, and making the case that TikTok is good for him personally (regardless of how awful it is for the United States of America), the company secured an extension from the Trump Administration.

And Trump-world did a heel-turn on the topic:

When Trump removes pro-life language from the Republican Party platform, the pro-life evangelicals who claim it as their top issue say nothing. When Trump’s executive actions strip LGBT people of their rights, groups like the Log Cabin Republicans say nothing. When Trump removes the ban on sending thousand-pound bombs to Israel, the pro-Palestine activists who criticized Biden as a genocide enabler said nothing. When Trump seeks to remove birthright citizenship, second-generation American Latino voters who voted for Trump say nothing.

Because to say anything is to question the king. And to question the king is to commit political suicide.

We have replaced a representative republic, duty-bound to serve us, with a de facto monarch who demands we serve him.

What does this portend for the Republican Party, for the United States, for the Christian Church after Trump is gone?

How does a party with no real platform compete electorally? How does a country that has abandoned the things that made it great continue to prosper? How does a Church that has abandoned the City of God for the City of Man evangelize with any credibility?

I don’t know the answer to these questions.

But I sure don’t want to find out.

Do you?