Q # 2 - Regarding 1 Cor 5:12

[Swiss Bro]

We have the authority to judge those within the church, Mt 18,18 (bind and loose), i.e. exercise church discipline, cast out the leaven, as Paul calls it in 1. Cor. 5.

We don‘t have to judge unbelievers, this is the job of the government (Romans 13) and, ultimately, the Lord on the White Throne (Rev. 20,12.13).

We, instead, have to try and bring these unbelievers the gospel so that they may be saved.

[barnhart]

1 Cor 5:12 - AMP

For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders (non-believers)? Do you not judge those who are within the church [to protect the church as the situation requires]?

How should a Christian understand this verse especially with regard to judging the actions of politicians ?

Perhaps the preceding section sheds some light on Paul's intent.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

In this context judging vs. not judging means accepting into church fellowship, not an evaluation of a politicians policies. However, obsession with such evaluation can be an indication of idolatry.

[Sudsy]

1 Cor 5:12 - AMP

For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders (non-believers)? Do you not judge those who are within the church [to protect the church as the situation requires]?

How should a Christian understand this verse especially with regard to judging the actions of politicians ?

Perhaps the preceding section sheds some light on Paul's intent.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

In this context judging vs. not judging means accepting into church fellowship, not an evaluation of a politicians policies. However, obsession with such evaluation can be an indication of idolatry.

Yes, I agree with taking that in it's context. I personally also think it applies to judging non-Christians. To me, judging politician's policies is not same same as judging the policy makers. Jesus didn't come to condemn the lost (as many Christians seem to do when talking politics) but rather He came to save them from their sinning. I either see someone like a Donald Trump as a poor lost soul who needs the Saviour and am hoping and praying for his salvation or I am thinking evil of him for his sinful ways and despising him rather than loving him.

[MaxPC]

I would dare say in my church most of the membership complies with our doctrinal statements and our core practices. (Some people have trouble submitting to conference decisions.)

Someone looking for very black and white adherence to a long list of written rules is going to be disappointed by Anabaptism.

Indeed, that struggle and that personal parsing of conference decisions is healthy in a fellowship. It certainly is indicative that the fellowship is not a cult in which there is blind obedience.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Regarding the link I provided above. Thoughts on this being an example we should follow ?

It begins -

Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Christ. He had the right to rule over the entire nation of Israel. However, when we look at the public ministry of Jesus, we find that he avoided any involvement in the current political issues of his day.

I suspect many here disagree.

The article posted has a pretty shallow view of things. It considers the current political issues of today and defines "political issues" through that lens, and then concludes that Jesus "did not engage with political issues of his day."

The best approach is to understand what the political issues of HIS day were, and see if (or rather HOW) he approached them. Understanding also that "politics" is essentially "Collections of people colliding, colluding, and combatting in order to solve collective problems." There are problems we solve as individuals or families, but once we get into the weeds of issues that must be addressed on a larger scale, that is the moment "politics" happens. How each problem is addressed is a "political issue".

The political issues of the day were mainly twofold:
(1) Interpeting the "Law and the Prophets"
(2) Relating to Rome
Some would add another question, related to both of these: (3)"How and when is the promised Kingdom restored to Israel?"

The four main mindsets of the time in relation to these 2 questions were 4 distinct people groups:
(1) The Pharisees
(2) The Saducees
(3)The Zealots
(4) The Essenes

The first of the political questions is the Jewish people collectively wrestling with their identity, how they should relate to God, and asking the collective question "how then should we live?" They turn to the old Testament writings (which is what is meant by the phrase "the law and the prophets," or sometimes "the law"), and interpret them to decide what God wills for His people in this time and place (under Roman rule). Some argued for widespread strict adherence to the law (Pharisees), some for personal and intentional communal strict adherence to the law (Essenes), and some argued for a looser interpretation that didn't prescribe many specifics (Saducees).
The second question specifically addresses what should be done about the main barrier to the Kingdom returning to Israel: Rome. Some argued for compliance (Saducees), some for animosity (Zealots), and some for disinterested separation (Essenes).

Jesus obviously did address the political issues of his day. More accurate than "He didn't address them" is "He addressed them in surprising and supernatural ways." His interpretation of "the law and the prophets" makes up the bulk of the Sermon on the Mount. His talk of the Kingdom was the focal point of his gospel. His posture towards Rome is addressed sporadically in his words, but most powerfully in his actions (especially his crucifixion) and in the actions of his apostles.