Can the Kingdom of God speak to political matters?

[joey_the_ox]

I would say the "them" is all of the above.

Are you suggesting a merger of the 2 Kingdoms when you say "We should challenge them to consider joining the Kingdom of God and adopting Kingdom principles in their practice"?

I am suggesting a take-over. A peaceful revolution as the Sattler folks are fond of saying.

Ironically, since I don't agree with 2-kingdom theology (at least not as it is commonly construed), I do agree with this, though I might phrase it slightly differently.

[Sudsy]

Re OP. Yes...the Kingdom of God has something to say to the Kingdoms of this world. We should be challenging them to consider joining the Kingdom of God and adopting Kingdom principles in their practice. If we believe the methods of Jesus are more effective at combatting evil then why wouldn't we speak that?

I agree we have 'something to say to the Kingdoms of this world.' What we initially have to say is the Gospel message...

Ah but there is a big question...what in fact is "the gospel?" What is salvation? Some would feel the Protestant formulations of personal salvation and general personal absolution of sin and a "pie in the sky when we die" are not particularly faithful to the life and witness of Jesus, scripture, or intuitively compelling.

As Matthew Bates says, "eternal life" isn't even the gospel. It is a benefit of the gospel. The gospel in its barest essence is, Jesus is King - the rule and reign of God has been established on earth as also in heaven.

The apostle Paul summarized the basic ingredients of the Gospel in 1 Cor 15 and describes what 'is of first importance' and it is all about what Jesus did to provide for our salvation. I accept that as being "the gospel" message that Paul preached and was as he said to be of 'first importance'. He says something of the same in Romans 10:9-10 that it is based on a heart belief in what Jesus did to obtain our salvation. This is 'good news' which is what the 'Gospel' actually means. We are being saved from the power, penalty and future very presence of sin.

I'm not sure exactly what Bates means by 'Jesus is King - the rule and reign of God has been established on earth as also in heaven' unless he means salvation has come to earth to those who believe and accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour. It has not been established on earth in the hearts of those who do not believe.

[Josh]

Re OP. Yes...the Kingdom of God has something to say to the Kingdoms of this world. We should be challenging them to consider joining the Kingdom of God and adopting Kingdom principles in their practice. If we believe the methods of Jesus are more effective at combatting evil then why wouldn't we speak that?

Exactly how? By the Vatican opening embassies?

[Josh]

There were words in Greek for ideas like "social improvement club" or "philosophy", but Jesus chose words that directly conflicted with the authorities. King, Kingdom, and gospel had established political meanings for the Hebrew and Roman worlds. Jesus was born a political threat, leading the impostor king to attempt his assassination. How can his church fail to be in conflict with power and if it isn't, why not? I understand being citizens and ambassadors of a new kingdom, what I struggle with is concepts like dual citizenship, when did we come to believe translation into the kingdom of light (KJV terminology) leaves one foot loyal to earthly kingdoms.
I would ask how the church be the church if it is silent.

If earthly kingdoms are not threatened at all by "our Kingdom of God' and our "Kingdom Citizenship/Allegiance," perhaps we ought to ask what sort of Kingdom really are we?

Earthly governments are frequently threatened by conservative evangelical Christians. For example, they’re very threatened by conservative Christians claiming that people don’t have to be gay and can convert to being Christian and renounce homosexuality.

They’re so threatened by this that they’ve outlawed it.

Is this what you had in mind?

[Bootstrap]

You say you disagree with my statement but what you wrote above is what I've been saying all along. Now the question is, should those within the KOG merge with worldly politics? If one truly believes what you wrote above, I don't see how doing so is part of the KOG.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with what you say here.

Do you really agree? I wonder if you read everything I said.

How is voting in a worldly political system not merging with it? Voting is one of the most fundamental aspects of worldly politics.

I assumed you were using a definition of merged like "combine or cause to combine to form a single entity." What is your definition? Is there a biblical word or phrase that means the same thing you intend?

Expressing opinions on a internet forum is also one of the most fundamental aspects of worldly politics. So is expressing opinions on what is going on, period. So when is it "merging"? I buy my groceries from a grocery store, I use the internet, I drive on roads, I wear clothes that most modern Americans see as normal, does that mean I have "merged" with the world?

Whatever we do, I think we need to remember who we are and whose we are, to be "in this world but not of it".

[Josh]

Expressing opinions on a internet forum is also one of the most fundamental aspects of worldly politics.

Huh? One of the most fundamental aspects?

I thought fundamental aspects of worldly politics was running for office, joining a political party, campaigning, voting, donating to campaigns.

Armchair discussions on an Internet forum have almost no effect on actual real life politics.

[GaryK]

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with what you say here.

Do you really agree? I wonder if you read everything I said.

How is voting in a worldly political system not merging with it? Voting is one of the most fundamental aspects of worldly politics.

I assumed you were using a definition of merged like "combine or cause to combine to form a single entity." What is your definition? Is there a biblical word or phrase that means the same thing you intend?

Expressing opinions on a internet forum is also one of the most fundamental aspects of worldly politics. So is expressing opinions on what is going on, period. So when is it "merging"? I buy my groceries from a grocery store, I use the internet, I drive on roads, I wear clothes that most modern Americans see as normal, does that mean I have "merged" with the world?

Whatever we do, I think we need to remember who we are and whose we are, to be "in this world but not of it".

I'm basing what I'm saying on the idea that the KOG cannot merge with worldly politics, which is what you agreed with. I would be interested in knowing why you believe the two cannot merge.

When the vehicle I'm driving merges into traffic, it becomes part of the traffic. I believe the same is true with those who vote. They become part of the political system.

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. 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.

[Bootstrap]

Expressing opinions on a internet forum is also one of the most fundamental aspects of worldly politics.

Huh? One of the most fundamental aspects?

Of course. That's where political identities are forged, where people become loyal to certain political narratives, where people polarize around issues - even issues we have very little knowledge of or direct experience with.

\
Armchair discussions on an Internet forum have almost no effect on actual real life politics.

If that were true, political campaigns would never invest so heavily in influencing the conversation on the Internet. Controlling the narrative is a huge part of what politics is about. "Flooding the zone", as Steve Bannon would put it.

"Out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks". "Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark." MennoNet is a place where we get to decide how we speak about these things. So how do we "flood the zone" with loving God first and loving neighbor second? How do we "flood the zone" with a testimony to God's love and blessing and the Kingdom of God?

I thought fundamental aspects of worldly politics was running for office, joining a political party, campaigning, voting, donating to campaigns.

And as long as you don't do those things, you're scot free? I don't think so.

[Bootstrap]

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?

[Josh]

Boot,

You keep saying “we” here. There is no “we”. Your church conference promotes deep involvement in politics - indeed, it has members who run for office and who are politicians (albeit mostly in Goshen). Mine expressly avoids that.

The fact I can express an opinion such as “I don’t think people should be forced-vaccinated to keep their job” or “I don’t think Ukraine should keep shelling Donetsk” doesn’t mean that I’m involved in “politics”.

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