Can the Kingdom of God speak to political matters?

[Bootstrap]

To me, the question on the Internet is this: do we use the Kingdom of God as the worldview, wrestling with how to apply it together with other Christians, not letting worldly politics divide us? Do we remember not to applaud unrighteousness? Do we remember where our loyalties are and remind others to do the same?

You keep saying “we” here. There is no “we”.

I'm using "we" to mean people who want to wrestle with the things in the first paragraph and take them seriously.

And no, MennoNet is basically irrelevant to politics. We can freely discuss here. It doesn’t affect the political situation one whit.

My vote is also basically irrelevant to politics. And it's private.

The way we discuss politics here, though, is public. It is a public testimony that could, ideally, help us all learn, together, how to see things from a Kingdom of God perspective. How can we do that best? Exploring that question is one of the purposes of this thread.

[GaryK]

You seem to be suggesting that expressing an opinion about worldly politics on an internet forum is in the same category as voting in worldly politics. If that is what you are suggesting, then we will have to disagree.

In fact, I think voting is expressing an opinion about worldly politics that can influence the outcome. And so is expressing an opinion on an internet forum, where people clearly seem to want to influence others. What makes the categorically different?

In general, my vote is private and doesn't have to raise any controversy at all. Expressing that opinion publicly in a way that often leads to rancor, and doing it on a daily basis, doesn't make it more innocent.

To me, the question on the Internet is this: do we use the Kingdom of God as the worldview, wrestling with how to apply it together with other Christians, not letting worldly politics divide us? Do we remember not to applaud unrighteousness? Do we remember where our loyalties are and remind others to do the same?

Do you have an answer for me on this?

Is expressing an opinion about war in the same category as participating in war? I think I recall you saying that you could not go out and fight in wars but you have also expressed your opinions about who is in the wrong in the Russia/Ukraine war.

These worldly political systems are the systems that wage wars on other political systems. If participating in war is out of the question for those within the KOG, then I surely don't want to be involved in electing those who run those systems. I believe doing so makes me complicit in what the system does.

[Ken]

"political matters" is an exceedingly broad term.

If Mennonites took positions on abolition in the 1850s (and they did) was that a "political matter"?

If Mennonites took positions on various wars during the 20th Century (and they did) was that engaging in political matters? Some even refused to pay war taxes which is a highly political action to take.

What about Mennonites who engage in local community politics like participating in a local water district board or agricultural co-ops other matters of highly local community governance? Are those "political matters?"

Personally I think if the church is going to speak to the world about any topic at all, then it is going to stray into political matters. It is unavoidable. And I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

[Bootstrap]

Do you have an answer for me on this?

Is expressing an opinion about war in the same category as participating in war? I think I recall you saying that you could not go out and fight in wars but you have also expressed your opinions about who is in the wrong in the Russia/Ukraine war.

These worldly political systems are the systems that wage wars on other political systems. If participating in war is out of the question for those within the KOG, then I surely don't want to be involved in electing those who run those systems. I believe doing so makes me complicit in what the system does.

I think we have to step back and evaluate EVERYTHING by biblical morality and ask what is good and what is not.

Is expressing an opinion about rape in the same category as participating in rape? If I say that rape is wrong, does that make me a rapist? I don't think you should invade other countries. Does that make me a warmonger? I don't think so.

On the other hand, defending the actions of rapists or warmongers ... not a good look for the Kingdom of God.

[GaryK]

Do you have an answer for me on this?

Is expressing an opinion about war in the same category as participating in war? I think I recall you saying that you could not go out and fight in wars but you have also expressed your opinions about who is in the wrong in the Russia/Ukraine war.

These worldly political systems are the systems that wage wars on other political systems. If participating in war is out of the question for those within the KOG, then I surely don't want to be involved in electing those who run those systems. I believe doing so makes me complicit in what the system does.

Is expressing an opinion about rape in the same category as participating in rape? If I say that rape is wrong, does that make me a rapist? I don't think you should invade other countries. Does that make me a warmonger?

Of course not, which is the reason I asked the question. But you were the one in essence saying that those who do not vote but express opinions are participating in worldly politics as much as those who do vote. I don't believe they are in the same category. Do you?

[Bootstrap]

Is expressing an opinion about rape in the same category as participating in rape? If I say that rape is wrong, does that make me a rapist? I don't think you should invade other countries. Does that make me a warmonger?

Of course not, which is the reason I asked the question. But you were the one in essence saying that those who do not vote but express opinions are participating in worldly politics as much as those who do vote. I don't believe they are in the same category. Do you?

If I vote in way that - as far as I can tell - would make rape or warfare less likely, is that participating in rape or warfare? If I vote in a way that is not based on loyalty to political factions, but tries to determine who is best for a given position, how is that worse than going onto a forum to tell everyone who the better candidate is?

In general, I think the things we do day after day have a strong effect on us. In particular - taking the time to think out the Kingdom issues carefully is important if we want a Kingdom worldview.

FWIW, I'm not sure either of us is making new arguments at this point. We have each established what we believe and why. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, I don't know if you understand mine, but we may be going around in circles.

[Soloist]

Of course not, which is the reason I asked the question. But you were the one in essence saying that those who do not vote but express opinions are participating in worldly politics as much as those who do vote. I don't believe they are in the same category. Do you?

If I vote in way that - as far as I can tell - would make rape or warfare less likely, is that participating in rape or warfare? If I vote in a way that is not based on loyalty to political factions, but tries to determine who is best for a given position, how is that worse than going onto a forum to tell everyone who the better candidate is?

In general, I think the things we do day after day have a strong effect on us.

FWIW, I'm not sure either of us is making new arguments at this point. We have each established what we believe and why. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, I don't know if you understand mine, but we may be going around in circles.

If your choice was Putin or Hitler, who would you vote for? My point I trust is clear, a vote between the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Putin when he was elected was not known for evil necessarily and the same was true for Hitler... so... who would you have voted for a failing artist? Or an ex-KGB officer who reportedly regretted the evil done? It is very similar for anyone today. we do not know what action a president will do in "our" the "voters" name. By the scenario given, if those were the two choices and we voted, I think most of us strictly off of that brief snippet would have voted for Hitler. Oh sure most people could have read his book and known what Hitler intented to do just like most of us could have looked at history and seen what Putin was likely going to do. Please don't miss the point for all the little reasons and ignore the meat here by fact checking an example for which the accuracy isn't relevant anyway.

[Sudsy]

"political matters" is an exceedingly broad term.

If Mennonites took positions on abolition in the 1850s (and they did) was that a "political matter"?

If Mennonites took positions on various wars during the 20th Century (and they did) was that engaging in political matters? Some even refused to pay war taxes which is a highly political action to take.

What about Mennonites who engage in local community politics like participating in a local water district board or agricultural co-ops other matters of highly local community governance? Are those "political matters?"

Personally I think if the church is going to speak to the world about any topic at all, then it is going to stray into political matters. It is unavoidable. And I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

My understanding, FWIW, is we have our hands full with focusing on the mission we have to spread the Gospel. So, something may not be wrong to do but is it what we are called to do and does it distract us from eternal issues when participating on temporal issues. I think the tendency with most earthly issues is that we can easily lose an eternal perspective. However, this involvement may be OK when it is a choice in vocation to pay our way as we pass through this land.

I know for myself there are many, many distractions from being involved with the salvation of others and it is easy to waste time on these subjects. To stray into "political matters" is something we probably all do, as we are sheep that tend to wander, but straying is not staying as while we are straying we are not being guided and following the Shepherd. YMMV.

I believe it comes down to what we really believe our involvement should be focused on as a Christ follower. Can I say I love others as I do myself and am mostly concerned for their eternal destiny or do I reflect by my life and talk that I am mainly concerned over earthly things ? This point of view towards the salvation of others has been the environment I was raised in as a young boy as this was my parents focus in serving the Lord. It was also a major emphasis in Pentecostalism and later on in my experience in an Evangelical Baptist group. I don't see that emphasis among many Anabaptists here so I don't fit into various conversations too well.

I don't think I will ever get away from it and often it is a major battle to put into practise. The topic we have for the world is an eternal topic, the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. See, there I go again. I guess I better switch over now to my other favourite topic - the Holy Spirit.

[GaryK]

Of course not, which is the reason I asked the question. But you were the one in essence saying that those who do not vote but express opinions are participating in worldly politics as much as those who do vote. I don't believe they are in the same category. Do you?

If I vote in way that - as far as I can tell - would make rape or warfare less likely, is that participating in rape or warfare? If I vote in a way that is not based on loyalty to political factions, but tries to determine who is best for a given position, how is that worse than going onto a forum to tell everyone who the better candidate is?

In general, I think the things we do day after day have a strong effect on us. In particular - taking the time to think out the Kingdom issues carefully is important if we want a Kingdom worldview.

FWIW, I'm not sure either of us is making new arguments at this point. We have each established what we believe and why. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, I don't know if you understand mine, but we may be going around in circles.

That's fine. I was planning to drop it anyway. Especially now that you have me saying what you said and you saying what I said. We apparently both did a good job of convincing the other.

[PetrChelcicky]

About "defending a rapist" - Bootstrap thought that this is wrong. I don't think so.
Jesus defended the adulteress with the argument that "whoever of you is without sin ..."
There's a difference between justifying a rape and defending a rapist.

For instance, I myself have elsewhere defended Putin (and got flak about it) with the argument "Nato intentionally broke international rules with their war against Serbia, arguing that they aimed for a better rule which allowed for humanitarian interventions in foreign states - but they never tried to get that rule precised and codified, so there is in fact no working rule at the moment". This is not exactly the "whoever is without sin" argument, but near to it. (Of course we could say that "whoever is without sin ..." annihilates the whole system of penal law.)