POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.

Which statement most closely represents your views on Christian political involvement?

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by Dan Z »

Joshuabgood...I'm enjoying thinking this through with you...and learning from your perspective. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts in depth.

I guess I'm really reacting most to the idea that we Christians are simply to address sin and injustice at the individual level. I think there is both OT and NT evidence for both individual and corporate prophetic voice...and individual and corporate recipients of rebuke.
joshuabgood wrote:When I say building the kingdom of God I am not talking about a "pie in the sky when we die." The Kingdom of God is on earth and now, I would argue. Therefore, yes building the kingdom means inviting people to immigrate to our kingdom as well as working humanitarian efforts to improve our society and neighbors lots as you describe. That is just as real a part of building the kingdom of God as is the "invitation to immigrate."
We are certainly of one heart here.
It is the foundation and means of the Kingdoms of this world that I reject completely, that being, an ethic of violence and oppression. The reign of God is not in the kingdoms of this world...One might argue, as I am, they have no legitimate role in the reign of God. That is probably where I part ways with you. I see them as evil, and based on violence. And I think you may see them more as helping to usher in peace and equity. I see the reign of God and the Kingdom being nonviolent and based in a law of love and gospel of peace.

This is good...and we are probably closer than you think. We would certainly be in accord in how we view God's government vis a vis the governments of this world. The foundations are entirely different - and I definitely don't believe God is "making all things new" with the help of secular governments. If one takes Romans 13 at face value, governments are ordained of God simply to keep a lid on things in a fallen and violent world - until God's agenda is complete and his Kingdom comes in fullness.

  • 1 Cor 15: 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
  • Isaiah 9: 6 For to us a child is born,to us a son is given;and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.
Lastly as a historical or empirical question, I would challenge you to answer what kingdom of this world (read state) is doing a "righteous" job of wielding violence in a way to establish equity and peace? When was the USA, or any other country such a state? I would argue the evidence is pretty convincing, never. There are always peoples groups who are marginalized and on the wrong side of the guns. That kingdom can't exist without violence.
In answer to your question - at the macro level, no, I can't think of an essentially just and equitable government...but some governments are plainly more just and equitable than others. And conversely, some governments are less just, less equitable - and therefore are more likely to oppress and victimize.

I'm not saying that the cause of Christ can be advanced through government coercion (you and I are both on the opposite end of the POLL from the Theonomy option), but I believe that we who are privy to Christ's ethics of love and justice should be willing, at times, to speak up in the face of grave injustice and oppression - if for no other reason than to speak on behalf of the oppressed, and to perhaps lessen the suffering of some of those Jesus clearly loves deeply.

I'll agree that there is a clear danger in Christians thinking that we can advance the Kingdom agenda by co-opting the power of the state - but, on the other hand, there seems to be culpability in not doing our part to speak up for the way of love in the face of wrong, especially if, even in a small way, it helps keep the state in check and limits some suffering while the Kingdom of God advances. Additionally, this seems to be one means by which we can bear witness to the reality of a better way in Jesus.
As for speaking...yes we should do it in social groups. Or more specifically as a citizens of another kingdom.
Glad you recognize this.
However, it should be said to people who actually hear. Not to "systems" that have no volitional power.
"Systems" also don't have physical ears, but the people within them do have both ears to hear, and wills to decide right and wrong. Speaking prophetically to systems is, at its core, speaking to groups of people.
I think what I am critiquing is the notion that we should lecture the kingdoms of this world (which we reject) on how to develop fair and equitable policies. They can't and won't do it. Their whole foundation is wrong. We waste our breath and energy. Once again I think the historical data is pretty clear on this as well as hopefully my philosophical argument.
Perhaps our role in relationship to the world's systems is that of referee - not telling the nations how to play the game, but being willing to throw a flag when they clearly are out of bounds - and especially when the foul is committed against "the least of these," who are usually the most powerless and voiceless.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by lesterb »

I voted for number one because I wasn't sure what the involvements of number two were. I do not believe that we should be nonchalant about things like abortion or gay marriage, etc. But I'm not interested in joining a political protest movement, because I feel they are basically useless, as well as not being Biblical.

On the other hand, I feel that as individuals that are part of a community, we should be ready to help in such situations as we can, from a Christian perspective. A thousand Christians showing love and truth to their neighbors and co-workers will be far more effective than that same thousand Christians gathering a street corner waving signs and shouting slogans. Or even distributing petitions.

I think my choice hinges somewhat on Dan's definition of speaking prophetically.
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by ken_sylvania »

Dan Z, could you share a real-life instance of the type of conduct you would define as speaking prophetically to power? I have this gut feeling that we might be on the same page in terms of practical application.
0 x
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by Dan Z »

lesterb wrote:I think my choice hinges somewhat on Dan's definition of speaking prophetically.
Lots on that above Lester...that seems to be the big question that we've been hasing out for pages.

In a nutshell, for me "speaking prophetically" means being willing to voice concerns about systemiatic wrongs that harm the least of these.

I put it this way in the post above:
Dan Z wrote:Perhaps our role in relationship to the world's systems is that of referee - not telling the nations how to play the game, but being willing to throw a flag when they clearly are out of bounds - and especially when the foul is committed against "the least of these," who are usually the most powerless and voiceless.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by lesterb »

Dan Z wrote:
lesterb wrote:I think my choice hinges somewhat on Dan's definition of speaking prophetically.
Lots on that above Lester...that seems to be the big question that we've been hasing out for pages.

In a nutshell, for me "speaking prophetically" means being willing to voice concerns about systemiatic wrongs that harm the least of these.

I put it this way in the post above:
Dan Z wrote:Perhaps our role in relationship to the world's systems is that of referee - not telling the nations how to play the game, but being willing to throw a flag when they clearly are out of bounds - and especially when the foul is committed against "the least of these," who are usually the most powerless and voiceless.
I think I've read at least most of those pages. But I'm still not sure what this all entails. I'd echo Ken's request for some illustrations. Are you including political type activities like distributing petitions and emailing your congressman? Writing letters to the editor? It seems to me that most of that kind of activity is prompted by my desire to clear myself of any possibility of wrong sympathies, or to make myself feel better. I don't think that they are effective.

On the other hand, being willing to help when the neighbors teenage daughter gets pregnant, would do more. Maybe babysitting for the single mother down the road? Or doing foster care to help a few of those innocent children caught in a web of sin beyond their control?

I think that practical efforts are much more effective than political ones. And follow the example of Christ more closely.

So if you are defining this in terms like my first example instead of or along with my second example, then I'd stick to number one. Otherwise I'd consider switching my vote to number two.
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by ken_sylvania »

I've been pondering the differences between #1 and #2.
#1 states totally abstain from direct involvement in politics. In #2, speaking prophetically seems to be given as an exception to the general rule of abstaining from involvement in politics, thereby giving the impression that this prophetic speaking is somehow politically motivated or involved.
"Politics" is defined as "the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power."
Christians should not cowed into silence about wrongs being perpetuated on the poor and helpless, but our energy should be on helping our neighbor rather than trying to use the systems of power to bring about positive change through force of government. I believe that any prophetic speaking done by Christians must be not politically involved.
0 x
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by Dan Z »

That seems to capture what I am saying Ken.

Here are a few examples of this type of prophetic speaking, grounded in Christ's teaching on Love for neightbor and the sanctity of life. Just a few larger examples from off the top of my head:
  • * Most of the Christian churches, including Mennonites, in Germany went along with (and often supported) the rise of Nazi nationalism and it racist and violent vision of a superior Aryan race. Bonehoeffer's Confessing Church and the Bruderhof were a few notable exceptions - willing to "speak prophetically" against the rise of this systemic evil and for the value of life.
    * The cruelty of slavery in this country was accepted and even Biblically justified by many Christian churches. But some Christian groups chose to speak out about against the scourge - most notably the Quakers - even forming Anti-Slavery societies in defense of Christ's love for all and the full value of everyone's life before God.
    * Abortion is one of the tragedies of out time, where voiceless innocent lives are taken against their will. Not all Christians have been willing to publicly decry this great holocaust.
It would be interesting to discuss what type of injustices warrant a public rebuke - where we draw the line - and what ethical constructs should guide our decision to speak prophetically. Also, what form should the prophetic voice take. But I don't see a blanket decision not to speak out prophetically to power as the best option for those of us who seek to imitate Jesus.
0 x
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by MaxPC »

PeterG wrote:Great poll, Dan. I voted ( wait, voting?! :shock: ) for option 2, although option 1 also reflects my point of view.
X2
I chose #2 but #1 also reflects my beliefs.

It's my personal belief that if we are to imitate Christ and follow His example, there will be times when we will be called upon to reveal immoral agendas whether by public or private agencies. We may not necessarily call them "vipers" as Jesus did ... Or maybe we do 8-)
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
joshuabgood
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:23 pm
Affiliation: BMA

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by joshuabgood »

In answer to your question - at the macro level, no, I can't think of an essentially just and equitable government...but some governments are plainly more just and equitable than others. And conversely, some governments are less just, less equitable - and therefore are more likely to oppress and victimize.
I would make a couple of responses to this (to be taken as musing outloud):

1) I agree with your basic understanding that in fact no government is just or equitable. This doesn't surprise me or disappoint me because they are outside the reign of God. I expect it. This is why I am not rattled by Trump winning and I don't care if HRC would have won. I expect worldly people governed by the principles of this world to govern its kingdoms. God's Kingdom, where he reigns, has nothing to do with these systems. These governments, with which you agree, at least on an empirical and historical level, are systems of oppression and inequity. They are based on violence and fear. They are categorically opposed to and in competition with the Kingdom of God. Caesar overtly even claimed to be God.

2) Because some governments are less terrible than others, it doesn't follow necessarily, in my mind, that some are therefore "more just." They are all unjust and ill begotten kingdoms. Consider my thought experiment earlier. Do you really propose that the person who murders 5 people in cold blood and threatens many others into submission through fear and threats of violence, is more just and equitable than is the person who kills 10 people in cold blood and uses violence and intimidation to threaten others? I would say plainly the answer is no. It is in a sense an irrelevant question. They are both murderers and their actions and existence should be defined as such. And they should be rejected and completely repudiated. So also with governments. Because Hitler killed 6 million, Stalin more like 20-30, and the USA 50 million in the abortion holocaust, doesn't mean we can then term Hitler's Third Reich "more just" than USA Western secular democracy. Or vice versa. This is then in my opinion an insufficient premise to argue or propose we should then encourage governments to be more like Hitler or more like the USA. It has nothing to do necessarily with a false equivalence (though I think I could argue quite convincingly that most governments are pretty similar in their methodology and motives...and that the negative outworkings are pretty even ratios to there capacity as a nation-state). The equivalence question is a moot point in my mind when we reject the whole of the kingdoms of this world. The kingdoms of this world stand in direct opposition to the reign of God and his kingdom. In fact they are competitors of his reign. We are rightly, in real sense, enemies of the state. Though in recent times we, as followers of Jesus, have avoided being on the wrong side of the kingdoms of this world, it wasn't long ago that CO's were jailed, and a few literally killed in Kansas prisons, because of their refusal to participate in the kingdom's of this world. And make no mistake about it...such times will likely come again soon enough for us in the USA ( some would say they are already here for those truly radical among us, like Timo Miller), and they are already present in many places throughout the world.

3) The most significant issue to be discussed is to note that the premise, using violence and the threat of violence to coerce and oppress people, is at its core not of the Kingdom of God or of God. Neither God nor Jesus used coercion and violence to enforce their wills upon people. Violence plays no role in the kingdom of God and is not part of God's reign. But the kingdoms of this world couldn't exist without violence. In fact they only exist because they happen to be the most organized groups with the biggest guns. Once another group overtakes them, a rebellion occurs and a political realignment takes place. This violence, or threat of violence, for the sake of coercion is what I reject as inherently not of the kingdom of God.

4) All of the above, if accepted, have several logical entailments. First it makes no sense for a Christian to participate in a kingdom that is categorically opposed to the reign of God and the Kingdom of Jesus. Second, it makes no sense to lecture the government on the "dangers of war" or the death penalty or other violence when the brute truth is that they wouldn't exist without using violence and war to support their existence. In the absence of their use of violence, they would be simply replaced. Thirdly, it makes us realize that our call to people in these old kingdoms (certainly individuals and groups of people) is to share with them the good news about another kingdom where the law is love the gospel is peace, people keep their word, equity is real, and brotherhood and sisterhood for all, and immigration is legal.

5) What then shall we do with Romans 13? Well I would interpret it in light of Jesus teachings and his ministry. Therefore, I don't see it as an endorsement of government as ruling by "divine right" at all. Or using violence for a "greater social good." And I don't see government as an extension of "godly authority" at all. In fact, that view, makes no sense when you consider that the government at that time was outrightly blasphemous as Caesar claimed to be God. Further I don't think Paul is "sanctioning" any ideal role of government functions. Instead, I would interpret it more in the spirit of what Jesus said when he said if the Romans command you to go a mile go with them twain. Not indicating that that was just and good. Just generally obey those that are in power with the biggest guns (at that time Rome - but several hundred years later, as we know another group with a better command of violence succeeded them). God can certainly use governments like the Romans (or ISIS or the USA) to be a terror to evil workers but they also kill members of his kingdom. I don't think he sanctions them though. I think they oppose the reign of God and should be rejected as false kingdoms that are in fact in competition with God for rule over the earth.

And I'll end with a question for you. What do you mean by just? What in your mind is just about the retributive violence that all governments wield?
0 x
User avatar
gcdonner
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:17 am
Location: Holladay, TN
Affiliation: Anabaptiluthercostal

Re: POLL: Relating to Power: The Christian and Politics

Post by gcdonner »

There is obviously no full fledged Baptist on this forum...
0 x
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
rightly dividing the word of truth
.
Post Reply