As I entered the large auditorium in Kyiv last month where the Faith and Freedom Forum was about to start, my feelings of apprehension began to grow.  

More than a thousand people from over 50 countries were attending this event billed as ‘bringing together conservative American political leaders and Christian organisations’.

The invitation offered a conservative approach to the reconstruction of Ukraine based on three pillars of ‘national security, a free-market economy and faith’.

All Evangelical Focus news and opinion, on your WhatsApp

Uncomfortable memories of last year’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) event in London last year stirred fears that I might be in for another overdose of an unholy cocktail of conservatism and Christianity. 

More than a thousand people from over 50 countries were attending this event billed as ‘bringing together conservative American political leaders and Christian organisations

But fortunately I found myself resonating with most of what the speakers shared – including former Vice President Mike Pence, Keith Kellogg and others from America, and Kyroly Budanov, chief of President Zelensky’s staff.

Pence spoke of freedom in theological terms saying that the final word belongs not to the tyrant but to God. Budanov presented Ukraine’s struggle as involving spiritual and moral renewal as well as national security. 

My toes still curl however when I hear the words ‘Christian’ and ‘conservative’ being paired. To take a word that has accrued certain meaning in the culture wars of an American context and transplant it to post-Soviet Ukraine begs the question: what of Ukraine’s tradition and history do we want to conserve? Do we want to conserve communism and atheism? Authoritarianism, corruption and the mentality of homo sovieticus?

 

Conservative?

So what is meant by ‘conservatism’? Edmund Burke is often regarded as the intellectual father of modern conservatism. Yet Burke was a Whig, not a Tory, and the identification of him as the ‘founder of conservatism’ developed substantially after his death.

‘Radical’ doesn’t mean reckless or revolutionary. Jesus went to the radix, the root of things. From those roots challenged the conventions of his day

Burke’s central insight was that institutions, customs and traditions contained accumulated experience. Therefore, change should normally be prudent and gradual rather than revolutionary.

Burke was not opposed to reform; indeed, he believed that a society unable to reform itself could not preserve itself. There is wisdom here.

But Burke also raises a question for Christians: What happens when what has been inherited is itself in need of radical correction? A tradition may preserve wisdom. But it can also preserve injustice, hypocrisy or privilege.

Christianity has often been associated with political conservatism. But was Jesus really a conservative? Was he killed for being too conservative?

No, they killed him for being too radical! Religious conservatives demanded his crucifixion, not irreligious atheists. People deeply committed to preserving religious traditions and social boundaries wanted to get rid of him.

‘Radical’ doesn’t mean reckless or revolutionary. Jesus went to the radix, the root of things. From those roots challenged the conventions of his day.

He healed on the Sabbath. He touched lepers. He ate with sinners. He welcomed outsiders. He confronted religious hypocrisy. He put mercy above ritual. He announced that the last could become first and that greatness consisted in serving rather than ruling.

 

Faithful?

Donald Trump represents a very different kind of conservatism from Burke’s. He combines traditional social and religious themes with populist nationalism, restrictive immigration policies, economic protectionism and an ‘America First’ conception of national interest.

Vladimir Putin represents another form of contemporary conservatism. His government explicitly presents Russia as a defender of ‘traditional spiritual and moral values’

The 2024 Republican platform explicitly calls for securing the border, large-scale deportation, protection of American workers, tariffs and a strong assertion of American sovereignty. Trump’s politics are disruptive rather than simply preservative.

Much of this is described as conservative. Yet it is not simply Burkean. Burke distrusted attempts to reconstruct political life through ideological mobilisation and emphasised inherited institutions, prudence and gradual correction.

Vladimir Putin represents another form of contemporary conservatism. His government explicitly presents Russia as a defender of ‘traditional spiritual and moral values’.

Russian state policy identifies patriotism, family, historical continuity, solidarity and Orthodox Christianity’s role in Russian history among the country’s traditional values, while portraying certain Western cultural influences as threats.

Yet Putin is responsible for the damage or destruction of over 800 churches and synagogues in occupied Ukraine and the imprisonment, torture and murder of hundreds of pastors and Christian workers. 

Thus both Trump and Putin can appeal to people who value family, faith, nation, tradition and social order. But traditional values and the gospel are not synonymous.

Cultural tradition is not ultimate. Economic prosperity is not ultimate. Power is not ultimate. The ultimate question is: What is faithful to God?

The danger comes when Christianity becomes identified with a political project whose primary purpose is to preserve a particular cultural order.

Following Jesus cannot simply mean conserving what has been handed down. Nor does it mean embracing every fashionable innovation. Jesus did not come to preserve an established order. He inaugurated the Kingdom of God. 

And that Kingdom relativises every earthly kingdom—including ‘Christian’ ones. The nation is not ultimate. The political party is not ultimate. Cultural tradition is not ultimate. Economic prosperity is not ultimate. Power is not ultimate. The ultimate question is: What is faithful to God?

Yes, Jesus was conservative about the things of God. But radically subversive about everything that stood in their way.

And his followers gained the reputation of ‘turning the world upside down’.

Jeff Fountain, Director of the Schuman Centre for European Studies. This article was first published on the author's blog, Weekly Word.