Christian conversations about culture and politics often carry strong emotions, sharp disagreements, and deeply rooted convictions about what it means to follow Jesus. In recent years, a particular argument has become more common in progressive Christian circles. It sounds something like this: “Conservative Christians worship Jesus but do not follow his teachings, while progressive Christians are the ones truly obeying him because they emphasize caring for the poor, the sick, the immigrant, and the prisoner.” This claim is often grounded in Matthew 25, where Jesus speaks about caring for “the least of these,” and it is used to suggest that progressive social policies are a natural extension of authentic Christianity, while conservative convictions reflect hypocrisy or resistance to Christlike compassion.

At first glance, this framing can sound morally persuasive. It appeals to Scripture, invokes compassion, and challenges believers to examine whether their faith produces visible fruit in society. But behind this narrative is a deeper ideological move that deserves careful reflection. What is often presented as humility, justice, and mercy can actually function as what some have rightly called “left-coded Christian nationalism.” In other words, it is a selective use of Jesus as a political symbol to sanctify progressive policy, while condemning conservative applications of biblical teaching as dangerous, coercive, or unchristian.

The claim usually begins by lifting Matthew 25 as a kind of political manifesto. Jesus, the argument goes, gave society its moral marching orders: care for the poor, heal the sick, welcome the stranger, and show compassion to prisoners. From this, the conclusion is drawn that Christian faithfulness in public life means supporting progressive economic policies, expanded welfare programs, permissive immigration systems, and softer criminal justice responses. The implication is not subtle. Progressives “follow” Jesus because they vote for government programs that sound compassionate. Conservatives fail to follow Jesus because they challenge these programs, question their outcomes, or emphasize other biblical teachings such as personal responsibility, sexual morality, the sanctity of life, or the definition of family.

But there is a selective reading happening here. Progressive interpreters often speak as if Jesus were merely a moral activist whose teachings can be reduced to state-implemented social policy. Meanwhile, they downplay or dismiss the parts of Scripture that confront progressive moral assumptions. They ignore or reinterpret biblical teaching on sexuality, gender, unborn life, marriage, and the authority of Scripture itself. In effect, Jesus becomes less of a Lord to be obeyed in every area of life and more of a mascot for progressive social causes. His words about compassion are amplified. His words about repentance, judgment, holiness, and obedience to God’s design are softened or discarded.

This is why it is rare to find someone who becomes increasingly progressive in their political outlook while also becoming more committed to a historically conservative, orthodox understanding of the Bible and the person of Jesus. Progressivism, by design, aims to move “beyond” traditional moral boundaries. It assumes that moral norms must evolve with culture. Historic Christian faith, however, confesses that God’s revelation is not a cultural project but a divine standard. Scripture does not change because the age does. The more one embraces progressive anthropology and ethics, the harder it becomes to hold tightly to historic Christian doctrine.

This does not mean conservatives are morally superior or spiritually flawless, nor does it imply that progressives are uniformly malicious or insincere. Human beings across the spectrum are capable of both compassion and hypocrisy. But broad patterns and outcomes do matter. When biblical commands about generosity are reframed as voting for the state to redistribute other people’s money, something significant has shifted. Generosity in Scripture is personal, sacrificial, and rooted in love for neighbor. Data consistently shows that conservatives, on average, give more of their personal time and money directly to charitable causes than their progressive counterparts, particularly in areas of poverty relief and community service. That does not prove moral superiority, but it does challenge the narrative that compassion automatically belongs to one side.

There is also a double standard at work in how faith-based policy concerns are labeled. When progressives appeal to biblical language to justify government programs, it is described as compassion, justice, and mercy. When conservatives appeal to biblical convictions regarding the protection of unborn life or the historic meaning of marriage, it is condemned as authoritarian, regressive, or “Christian nationalism.” The same act of applying moral belief to public policy is praised in one direction and demonized in the other. That is not theological consistency. It is ideological framing.

The narrative becomes even more troubling when progressive movements that openly challenge biblical morality are portrayed as the authentic followers of Jesus. Policies that redefine gender identity, celebrate sexual practices Scripture calls sin, or defend the destruction of unborn life are praised as expressions of compassion and justice. Meanwhile, Christians who defend unborn children, uphold biological reality, or protect the biblical family are condemned as unloving and oppressive. In this storyline, obedience to biblical teaching becomes intolerance, and resistance to progressive ideology becomes evidence of spiritual failure.

The truth is that neither political conservatism nor progressivism can claim exclusive ownership of Christian obedience. The gospel cannot be reduced to a ballot, a party platform, or a policy agenda. But Christians must be honest about the fact that some ideologies align more closely with biblical anthropology, moral order, and the sanctity of life than others. Compassion cannot be defined merely as government expansion. Justice cannot be severed from righteousness. Love for neighbor cannot be interpreted in ways that deny God’s design for human life and flourishing.

Jesus did call his followers to care for the weak, the vulnerable, and the marginalized. He also called them to repent of sin, uphold God’s truth, protect innocent life, honor the created order, and submit every sphere of life to his authority. The kingdom of God is not a progressive social experiment, nor is it a right-wing cultural project. It is the reign of Christ over redeemed hearts and obedient lives. He is not a symbolic figure to be edited, repackaged, or politicized. He is the risen Lord who commands allegiance.

So when progressive voices selectively quote Jesus to sanctify their policy agenda while condemning conservative moral convictions as oppressive or nationalistic, what we are witnessing is not neutrality or compassion. It is a form of left-coded Christian nationalism, cloaked in biblical language but driven by a secular moral project. True Christian faith does not follow Jesus only where he agrees with our politics. It bows to him even where his truth confronts our assumptions. The Christian task is not to remake Christ in the image of our ideology, but to be remade in the image of Christ.