{"id":13014,"date":"2026-08-05T11:43:27","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T18:43:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tiu.edu\/law\/?post_type=articles&p=13014"},"modified":"2026-08-05T12:00:20","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T19:00:20","slug":"christ-caesar-or-self-recognizing-political-idolatry-part-1","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/www.tiu.edu\/law\/articles\/christ-caesar-or-self-recognizing-political-idolatry-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Christ, Caesar, or Self: Recognizing Political Idolatry \u2013 Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Preface<\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, it\u2019s election season. The midterms are upon us: tragic passing of a Senator and a scandalous departure of another candidate\u2014pass the popcorn!\u00a0 The 24\/7 news cycle continues to be cluttered with reports, rumors, and rhetoric\u2014all of which is largely poisonously partisan and unedifying. Yet, for the faithful Christian, pietism and indifference\u2014cultural withdrawal\u2014do not reflect a mature Christian approach to the public square\u2014a venue that the Lord desires the faithful to engage\u2014to actually intercede\u2014\u201cwhen truth stumbles\u201d in the public legal realm:<\/p>\n

Justice is turned back,<\/p>\n

and righteousness stands far away;<\/p>\n

for truth has stumbled in the public squares,<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

and uprightness cannot enter.<\/p>\n

Truth is lacking,<\/p>\n

and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The LORD saw it, and it displeased him<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 that there was no justice.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 He saw that there was no man,<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 and wondered that there was no one to intercede;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

then his own arm brought him salvation,<\/p>\n

and his righteousness upheld him.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

We need to think in totals, not bits, as Francis Schaffer put it[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u2014in other words, we need to situate our thinking in God\u2019s world as it is: Creation, Fall, and Redemption\u2014avoiding the idols that result when the Creation, instead of the Creator, is worshiped.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Politics is no exception\u2014it too can be idolatrous. Before we consider candidates[4]<\/sup><\/a> and culture, we need to understand Cosmology\u2014to see in totals, not bits. Only then can we properly choose between Christ, and two attractive and popular, though idolatrous, imposters: Caesar, or Self. Let\u2019s get to the gist.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ask folks to identify the source of authority informing the public square, and their answers will vary. However, they often reduce in various ways to two basic oppositional poles: the individual, or the collective; the Self, or the State. Both can be idolatrous.<\/p>\n

The public square manifests this point in several forms: Philosophers ponder the One and the Many; political pundits debate libertarianism and progressivism; the media pit freedom against security; authors craft fictitious dystopias featuring both Big Brother as well as pleasurable feelies for the individual;[5]<\/sup><\/a> businesses wrestle with regulations that affect providing various services: baking wedding cakes,[6]<\/sup><\/a> photographing weddings,[7]<\/sup><\/a> and printing T-shirts.[8]<\/sup><\/a> And, sexual libertines bolstered by SOGI (\u201cSexual Orientation and Gender Identity\u201d) laws, confront and restrict religious liberty.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Frequently, these debates crystallize around expressions of sexuality and sexual practice interfacing with the public square. The remarks of Stamp Corbin are typical. Mr. Corbin, formerly Co-Chair of the Obama National Leadership Council and San Diego City Commissioner of Citizens\u2019 Equal Opportunity Commission, pleaded:<\/p>\n

[T]he most insidious word that is constantly used in our movement is tolerance. . . . I do not want to be tolerated.<\/strong><\/p>\n

What I want, and I hope the [LGBTQ] community at large wants, is acceptance. <\/strong>That\u2019s right, approval<\/em><\/strong> and respect of my sexual orientation.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Plainly, Mr. Corbin wants the State<\/em> to approve, enforce, and impose on others his Self\u2019s<\/em> sexual desires. So, which is ultimate and ultimately authoritative: Is it the One, the Individual, or the Many, the Collective? Why this recurrent public vacillation? Mr. Stamp seems to say \u201cboth:\u201d Approve and enforce what I desire. This pendulum appears arbitrary.<\/p>\n

One bishop described this phenomenon, noting that it expresses itself politically and legally, but never actually resolves things:<\/p>\n

\u201c[T]he culture has lurched between<\/em><\/strong> deregulation<\/u><\/em><\/strong> in all areas of life\u2014 money, sex, and power, to put it crudely\u2014and what you might call reregulation<\/u><\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 Deregulation<\/em><\/strong> happened because people wanted to do their own thing<\/em><\/strong>, to be (as it were) true to themselves and see what happened…. The problem is that introducing new regulations doesn\u2019t get to the heart of the problem. Doing your own thing isn\u2019t good enough, but rules by themselves won\u2019t solve the problem<\/strong><\/em>.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

What explains, if anything, this swerving between seemingly polar opposite options like a drunk driver?\u00a0 Calls for unfettered liberty and simultaneous calls for regulation and uniformity. Is there an explanation, a rationale for what is occurring? Is there grounding for understanding, and thereby avoiding both the Scylla of radical autonomy and the Charybdis of Statist coercion?<\/p>\n

The apostle Paul provides such an analysis. His optics best describe where we are and why we are there. And, knowing this analysis provides a way forward culturally and politically.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Apostle Paul\u2019s Perspective: Cosmology As a Key Cultural Optic<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is of course both arrogant and unfeasible to bring to bear all that this marvelous thinker contributes to this topic here. Accordingly, the focus of this analysis will spring primarily from one of St. Paul\u2019s culturally foundational arguments as set forth in Romans 1:18\u201332.<\/p>\n

There, Paul claims that \u201creal reality\u201d\u2014expressed cosmologically\u2014reduces to two starkly different and mutually exclusive options: either there exists a Creator and a creation (created order); or there only exists a single metaphysical reality, some expression of monism\u2014a paganism expressed is diverse ways.<\/p>\n

Reality is \u201ctwo,\u201d comprising a hetero-cosmology; or reality is \u201cone\u201d comprising a homo-cosmology.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Moreover, Paul insists that this metaphysical construct also manifests spiritual and ethical consequences: Man is a worshipper who either worships the Creator-God, or Man worships what is not God, that which Paul characterizes as creation.<\/p>\n

And, when worship is false, that is, is directed toward the creation\u2014idolatry results. The truth is exchanged for the lie.[13]<\/sup><\/a> That false theology, according to Paul, correlates with unrighteous ethical conduct, what Paul calls unrighteous practices. Idols aren\u2019t idle. But there is more.<\/p>\n

Paul completes his cosmological analysis in verse 32, contending that conduct, particularly sexual conduct, is not only practiced<\/em>, but condoned<\/em> and approved<\/em>. This point helps explain why the push for autonomy is paradoxically conjoined with a call for Statist enforcement and coercion. And, it explains why Corbin Stamp yearns for more than his own sexual autonomy; he seeks legal and cultural approval<\/em> of it enforced<\/em> against those who dare to dissent or otherwise disagree. Consequently, the popular slogan \u201clive and let live\u201d is a false flag.\u00a0 What\u2019s really occurring is this: \u201cI want to live this way and you must agree or be silenced.\u201d This is not surprising to Paul.<\/p>\n

Paul unfolds his argument as follows:<\/p>\n

Romans 1:18, 21:<\/strong> While people possess true knowledge, their reasoning or thinking becomes irrational because truth is suppressed<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth<\/strong>… For although they knew God<\/strong> [gnotes ton theon], they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking<\/u><\/strong>, and their foolish hearts were darkened.<\/p>\n

In context, the truth known about God is cosmological: He is revealed and is known plainly, and clearly perceived as the divine powerful Creator (v. 19). Absent grace, however, man does not relish this revealed truth regarding the true God, and instead he represses it. Man\u2019s irreligion leads ironically to a religious response: idolatrous worship.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Romans 1:25:<\/strong> the truth is exchanged for the lie<\/em> leading to a spiritual or worship response culminating in idolatry:<\/p>\n

\u00a0[B]ecause they exchanged the truth<\/strong> about God for a [the] lie<\/strong> and worshiped<\/strong> and served<\/strong> the creature<\/strong> rather than the Creator<\/strong>, who is blessed forever! Amen.<\/p>\n

Anthropologically, man is a religious being and therefore he must express and live, that is, practice\u2014and this is key for understanding the paradox in question\u2014his religion.<\/p>\n

Romans 1:32:<\/strong>\u00a0 This false worship leads to unrighteous practices<\/em>, which provokes a response seeking to justify or approve those practices<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them<\/strong> but give approval <\/strong>to those who practice them.<\/p>\n

Note the progression:<\/p>\n