There is something profoundly wrong when political allegiance becomes a sufficient reason to sever family ties.

​

Your family is not a theory about how the world should work. It is the first structure within which you learned what it meant to speak, to disagree, to forgive, to endure, to love. To discard family in favor of a political position, something that is necessarily partial, provisional, and historically fragile, is to elevate ideology above the concrete particulars of human life. And that is never a harmless move. 

​

Politics deals in simplifications. It must. It compresses complexity into slogans, platforms, and ballots. Family does the opposite. Family forces you to live with complexity: with people you did not choose, who disappoint you, who contradict you, who wound you, who love you imperfectly, and whom you love imperfectly in return. That tension is the training ground for adult maturity.

​

When someone decides that a parent, sibling, or child must be cut off because of how they vote, what usually happens is not an excess of moral clarity but a collapse of tolerance. 

​

Instead of wrestling with differences, they outsource their conscience to a political narrative that provides instant moral certainty and a ready-made enemy.

​

This is why the language surrounding these breaks is so often absolutist. “I can’t associate with people who support evil.” “This is about values.” “Silence is complicity.” Such phrases are emotionally intoxicating because they transform relational difficulty into heroic self-definition. You are no longer a person struggling with disagreement; you are a righteous actor standing against darkness. The cost, however, is steep. 

​

“The moment you become certain that cutting off your neighbor proves your faithfulness is the moment the law has done its worst work, because now you no longer need forgiveness, only enemies.”  

​

You deny their history, their sacrifices, their complexity. You must pretend that a voting preference reveals the totality of a person’s soul. 

​

It is also worth asking why the political moment seems to demand this kind of loyalty test. Only totalitarian societies and cults demand that people choose between ideological purity and their families. Movements that do so are not aiming at justice; they are aiming at possession. They want your primary allegiance. Once you replace the family bond with a cause, you are no longer thinking; you are complying.

​

Families, by contrast, force you to confront your own insufficiency. You cannot simply exile everyone who irritates you and still remain human in any deep sense. You must endure awkward holidays and unfinished conversations. You must learn when to speak and when to remain silent. Not out of fear, but out of love. That restraint is not cowardice. It is wisdom earned the hard way.

​

Now, it’s important to say this clearly: boundaries are sometimes necessary. Abuse is real. Estrangement can be tragic and unavoidable. I saw more than enough of their consequences during my years in the ministry. But to confuse moral disagreement with moral catastrophe is to trivialize genuine evil while inflating your own righteousness. And that inflation is dangerous, because it blinds you to your own capacity for intolerance and cruelty.

​

A college student wanted to talk. His parents, he said, had crossed a line. Their political beliefs were not just wrong but dangerous. To remain in the relationship would be to compromise his integrity. He wanted, I think, confirmation. A benediction.

​

I didn’t argue. I simply slowed everything down.

​

I asked him to tell me about his father. What he did for a living. What he was like when the student was a boy. I asked about his mother, what she worried about, what she hoped for him when he left for college. As he spoke, the people came back into view, and the slogans began to falter.

​

Then I said, as plainly as I could, what I have tried to say here: that politics cannot bear the weight of blood; that ideology is a poor substitute for patience; that cutting off one’s parents is not a sign of moral seriousness but of intolerance and pride; that movements which demand such sacrifices are not strengthening persons.

​

His confidence drained first. Then the anger. And finally, the tears came; not dramatic, but the kind that arrive when a person suddenly recognizes himself from the outside. He was a son who had become capable of something that, until that moment, had frightened him.

​

“I don’t like who I’m becoming,” he said. That sentence mattered more than everything that came before it. 

​

When he left, there was no final resolution, only the uncomfortable realization that the moment a cause becomes important enough to justify breaking the bonds that made you human, it has already begun to remake you in its own image. The difficulty afterward is not defeating your enemies but admitting how easily you became one.