by I defend a position in political thought that I call Christian anarcho-socialist liberalism. The idea is to create a Christian political philosophical theology that integrates the best elements from socialism, liberalism and anarchism. The Christian Gospel is about far more than politics, and it must never be reduced to politics, though it does have many important political implications. When we combine the Bible, classical Christianity, political theory and postmodern thought, we can create a visionary and powerful Christian political philosophical theology. Christian-humanistic values and ideals must be implemented in postmodern society in the age of globalisation. I am convinced that we can combine a strong emphasis on religious liberty with a strong emphasis on social justice for the poor and the weak. What I present here is a vision and an outline of a Christian political philosophical theology. You might also say that I here present an approach to a postmodern political philosophical theology. My political thought is to a great extent inspired by thinkers such as Zygmunt Bauman, Noam Chomsky and Cornel West, but it also contains many original and dynamic dimensions that transcend these thinkers.
Jesus Christ, the Bible and the Church Fathers
When we as Christian thinkers are confronted with different philosophical schools, we must follow two basic principles from the Apostle Paul: To bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. (See 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, NKJV). And the following: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, NKJV).
This line of thinking is also encouraged by Clement of Alexandria, who famously claims that there is truth to be found in all the different philosophical schools, but the full truth is only found in Jesus Christ and the Bible. See St. Clement of Alexandria: Selected Works, edited by Paul A. Böer for this point. It is explained quite explicitly and elegantly by both Clement of Alexandria himself in the original texts and by Paul A. Böer Sr. in the introduction to the book. Many of the church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine of Hippo, believe that we can learn something from many different philosophical schools. But they do not believe that we can learn from many different religions, because they are against mixing religions (syncretism, idolatry).
Postmodern Thought and Creativity
This kind of patristic thought accords well with one dimension of postmodern thought. It is extremely typical for postmodern thought to combine ideas in new and original ways. According to The Routledge Critical Dictionary of Postmodern Thought, edited by Stuart Sim, postmodern art is characterised by creatively combining ideas from different eras and genres. Inspired by postmodern creative thinking, we may get rid of the dichotomies and artificial conflicts that are so often found in philosophy in general, and in political philosophy in particular.
The Christian Foundation
This is my thoroughly Christian vision of a good society, based on a creative and multidimensional approach to political philosophical theology. A good society must be deeply rooted and grounded in ideas and ideals from the Bible, classical Christianity and advanced Christian thought. The Bible explains that all human beings are created in the image of God. This Biblical doctrine of the Imago Dei gives us both the foundation and inspiration to defend and struggle for human dignity and human rights. The Christian vision of love and compassion must be foundational and work as a guiding principle for a good society. Every nation should be a nation of love and compassion. And as Cornel West says: “Justice is what love looks like in public.” Here I would also like to say that following Jesus Christ and the Bible implies nonviolent resistance and existential pacifism as a form of life. See for instance Matthew 5-7 and Matthew 26:52. In the Christian just war theory, war is the absolute last resort. My defence of pacifism, nonviolence, the Christian just war theory, peace and conflict resolution is not the main topic of this essay. But since we live in a world with so much evil and war, I felt that it was necessary to write a few remarks about this topic here.
Learning From Different Political Theories
Then we can always learn something from great movements in the history of political philosophy. Socialism or a strong social democratic welfare state helps us to understand and develop a vision of social justice for the poor, where the weak and the vulnerable are taken care of in a loving and compassionate society. We know from social science and the history of politics that the Nordic welfare state has both eliminated and prevented many big social problems, such as those found in extremely capitalist, hierarchical and oligarchic societies like the USA, Brazil and Russia.
Liberalism inspires us to defend the four basic kinds of spiritual freedom that have been so important for the development of advanced democratic societies: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of organisation. It also helps us to understand the importance of personal freedom and private property, combined with creativity and innovation in the business world. Liberalism and a highly ethical version of a market economy can help us to create a dynamic society, where personal freedom and initiative are rewarded.
Finally, anarchism teaches us that we must always be critical of authority. As Noam Chomsky points out, anarchism criticises all unnecessary authorities. To criticise all unnecessary authorities is also a major point in the philosophy of Michel Foucault. The world has seen too many control freaks, and anarchism teaches us to constantly have a critical attitude towards state oppression, the abuse of power and the control mechanisms at work in many social institutions.
Concluding Remarks
This multidimensional approach to political theory gives both a strong foundation and a strong vision for creating a durable and just society that takes care of its citizens, protects human dignity, protects human rights and provides a high quality of life for all the people who live there. We should always defend the best ideas from both liberal democracy and social democracy. Today we see new kinds of brainwashing, mass suggestion, dark manipulation and conformity in the Western world and even more in the global village at large. This kind of neoauthoritarianism is associated with right-wing populist movements, left-wing populist movements, Islamic fundamentalism and neotribalism, to mention just a few examples. I am convinced that the vision and approach to political thought that I have presented here is radically needed and relevant. The Christian philosophical theology and postmodern political thought that I have published here is just a fragmented outline and a sketch. But then again, I am writing from the perspective of a Christian outsider-philosopher, and it is from this radical Christian and marginalized perspective that things make sense.
Andreas Saugstad’s Note:
This essay elaborates on and further develops an approach to political thought that I have published in two previous works:
Saugstad, Andreas: “En postmoderne politisk teori,” Ny Tid, 2002.
Saugstad, Andreas: Kristne notatbøker om den evige seierens kraft. (Oslo: Kolofon Forlag, 2025). This book has also been published in English with the title Christian Notebooks on the Power of Eternal Victory. (Oslo: Kolofon Forlag, 2026). Available as a Kindle book on Amazon.com.
Great article, Andreas! Thank you!
Here’s where your outline crossed into my beat. I just wrote about Ord, Nebraska (a small town in a deep red MAGA state) where the town council voted 5-0 to remove its FLOCK license plate cameras, the first town in the state to do it. Your anarchist plank, “criticises all unnecessary authorities,” just got its best recent American demonstration from a town that would spit out all four words of that label.
Your whole structure hangs on a single word: “unnecessary.” That’s where Chomsky’s anarchism and your Nordic welfare state collide, because the welfare state is the largest authority most citizens will ever stand in line before. So who draws the line, and where, between the authority that feeds the widow and the one that files her away?
And mind your own witness: Foucault spent a career arguing that the institutions that care for us control us most gently and most completely. I genuinely want to hear how the compound holds those two planks together, and this thread is the place for it.
Gospel first, politics downstream, arguments always welcome.