I take it for granted that much as the atheist or agnostic does reveal some conception of God in their behavior and thinking, contrary to their claims otherwise, the person who has asserted that they are capable of suspending their political beliefs nevertheless reveals their political beliefs.

There is a very simple reason for this. Both God and politics deal with matters of very broad relevance: Our vertical relation to the supernatural or transcendent order, and our horizontal relation to other persons or groups of people. If this is so, it seems very clear that our beliefs and our actions will invoke, however implicitly, our notions of one or both.

When people take reasonable umbrage to slogans like “the personal is the political”, I believe they mean to object specifically to the notion that all of their beliefs and actions are captured by a party doctrine, or that they are explainable in the realm of so-called political science. And this is natural, good, and true, and is a piece of a broader truth. We are not objects in a petri dish, subject to the whims of a purported scientist, nor mere clay effortlessly shaped by those with an agenda. Insofar as we seem such things, we are truly subject to the whims of one far holier, more powerful, and righteous than those I have in mind.

When we say that we can suspend God or politics, we are guilty of holding an impoverished view of each. The atheist imagines they can do something more than disobey Him, that they have the power to circumscribe his very presence, or keep Him out. Perhaps they believe they are a worthy opponent like Jacob, except that they will go away with their hip intact. The one who believes they may rid themselves of a political valence is guilty of a similar hubris: They believe themselves if not God, then a King. For is it not the case that those who claim to be above politics are the most ruthless enforcers of this purported neutrality upon others?

Anne Kennedy notes an exchange in Congress, between Senator Josh Hawley and an abortionist physician, that is emblematic of this:

Sen. Hawley: Let me just remind you — you testified a moment ago that science and evidence should control, not politics. So can men get pregnant? You’re a doctor, I think. Science and evidence should guide medicine. Do science and evidence tell us that men can get pregnant? Biological men — can they get pregnant?

Dr. Verma: I think yes/no questions like this are a political tool… I’m a person of science, and I’m also someone here to represent the complex experiences of my patients. I don’t think polarized language or questions serve that goal.

Dr. Verma’s response reveals the asymmetry I’m describing. When one adheres to the conventional understanding that only women can become pregnant, this is characterized as “political” and “polarized.” When one contests this understanding in the name of patients’ “complex experiences,” this is presented as neutral science. Her revolutionary view is beyond politics, while the conventional view is nakedly political.

Exchanges like these occur daily in our polity, between friends and foes, though they are not always so transparent. When we spar with others, we have an opportunity to learn, express, persuade, and share His Word, even heatedly, but we do all these at His feet.