Can the Kingdom of God speak to political matters?

[Bootstrap]

But since we are in America perhaps we should think a bit closer to home. Could we joyfully accept a foreign invasion or would we try to assert our rights, join the militias, join the national guard, buy war bonds and promote a draft? So far our track is very bad - we have been complicit in hostile aggressive wars around the globe.

True. I think the U.S. church's track record on the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, Vietnam, and Iraq is especially troubling. Those were wars of aggression that were supported by most Christians. (And FWIW, I think the War of 1812 is usually taught more accurately in Canada than it is in the United States.)

I cannot participate in war regardless, I can only help refugees and other victims of war. But Christians have a bad track record when it comes to supporting tyrants abroad too. Do you know about Ingrid Rimland?

Even before creating Zundelsite.org, Rimland had been a pioneer of white identity politics, and when she took the podium that day, she explained that she would be discussing her evolution as an “ethnic” writer. It will likely surprise many readers that in her lecture, Rimland credited her embrace of white supremacy to her upbringing as a Mennonite, a faith generally associated with pacifism and agrarianism.

Here's a quote from this Mennonite-grown Holocaust denier from 1994:

Mennonites who created a community in Russia were totally, totally German,” she explains. Moreover, Hitler had been a liberator who “brought into our colonies the values that we had always held dear, namely the family cohesion, the pride in race, which was part of my upbringing.”

That kind of rhymes with a telegram that another group of Mennonites sent to Hitler in September, 1933:

To Chancellor Adolf Hitler, Berlin:

The Conference of East and West Prussian Mennonites, assembled today in Tiegenhagen, Free State of Danzig, feels deep gratitude for the powerful revival that God has given our nation through your energy, and promises joyful cooperation in the upbuilding of our Fatherland through the power of the Gospel, faithful to the motto of our forefathers: No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.”

That has a spiritual cost. That has a cost on our credibility as a witness to Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. And don't forget that many German Americans were also supporting Hitler. Here's a 7-minute film showing a rally at Madison Square Garden.

[Bootstrap]

Augustine's high standard for "just war" was basically to justify the church waging war, which I am obviously opposed. I don't find it have any use for nations, or for global peace at all.

What criteria do you use to determine if a military action is just?

This wasn't written to me, but here's my take: I speak out against wars that are unjust by Augustine's criteria. I tend to hold my tongue in other cases - I do not condemn American involvement in World War II, we certainly committed some atrocities during that war, but opposing Hitler's takeover of Europe and the dangers it posed to the world as a whole strikes me as reasonable.

In either case, my role is to grieve, pray, and help the victims of war. But also to speak with some clarity against people like Hitler. I would not speak out against Winston Churchill in the same way. Nor would I urge England to surrender to the stronger German government. I would not have had any useful military advice to offer, and I would not fight. But saying that Churchill is no different from Hitler would be a way to promote Hitler, I would avoid doing that.

[Bootstrap]

I can understand those who say we should simply stay out of political issues and not discuss them at all. But that's not how I see it.

I think Christians can point out immorality in the world around us (and sometimes in our own midst). As a Christian, I cannot participate in adultery, but I can say that it is immoral. As a Christian, I cannot advocate war atrocities, but I can say that they are immoral. Murder is just as immoral when it is done by a soldier without a legitimate cause. Rape is just as immoral when done by a soldier who is invading on behalf of a government.

So far, you are criticizing me for saying Putin should not invade his neighbors. So far, you aren't criticizing others who advocate for Putin and against Ukraine. Are you going to speak to these others as well?

I'm not criticizing you at all for saying Putin should not invade his neighbors. IMO, you jump to way too many conclusions about what people say. I was simply pointing out the inconsistency between saying "I don't see great answers except for prayer and caring for the refugees" and all the Putin criticizing you've been doing. The first statement is a KOG perspective and the other is an opinion about which side is the bad side - something you have consistently exhorted MN not to do.

Thanks for clarifying. I can see where we are talking past each other, and I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Let me clarify on my end: I cannot fight a war. I don't know military strategy. If I want to do something that can help, "I don't see great answers except for prayer and caring for the refugees". But I also think criticizing a Putin or a Hitler is consistent with that. I may not know how to stop rape, but I can criticize a rapist.

I also think we need to avoid partisanship and "party spirit" when we do that. I know of at least two people I looked up to as a child - Bill Cosby and O.J. Simpson - who did horrible things. I need to hold them to the same account I would hold someone I dislike. But it is not partisan to criticize someone for doing what is evil. And I think it's hard to have a clear moral voice if we cannot do this.

I would have no problem with you expressing your political views if it wasn't for all the exhortations you give others when they give political views that you don't agree with.

I don't think I'm being inconsistent here. I really don't think Christians should be saying Putin's invasion of Ukraine was just. If Ukraine had invaded Russia, I would feel the same way.

[SlickPen50]

The Kingdom of God should overcome the Kingdoms of this world. They are in competition/conflict.

Joshua, I like your notion. I believe when the people of the kingdom of God, be the kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men, it brings contrast and conflictedness to the the kingdoms of men. The kingdoms of men are never going to be the Kingdom of God. Why then concern ourselves with speaking directly to the world's political matters when they are part of another kingdom? By living and being our own kingdom it in effect speaks to the political matters of the world. But this is a by-product, not the prime objective.

[joshuabgood]

The Kingdom of God should overcome the Kingdoms of this world. They are in competition/conflict.

Joshua, I like your notion. I believe when the people of the kingdom of God, be the kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men, it brings contrast and conflictedness to the the kingdoms of men. The kingdoms of men are never going to be the Kingdom of God. Why then concern ourselves with speaking directly to the world's political matters when they are part of another kingdom? By living and being our own kingdom it in effect speaks to the political matters of the world. But this is a by-product, not the prime objective.

I think the question is...do we believe in the tools, methodology and good news of the kingdom of God areore effective and salvific, both with regards to the individual and to society, than are the kingdoms of this world and their ways? Do we believe that Jesus rules? If so, then why wouldn't we advocate for all of the above, to all who will listen? But we don't want to reform the kingdoms of this world, we want to abolish them, through the peaceful revolution of the way of the cross. Overcome them by the blood of the lamb.

[barnhart]

I think the question is...do we believe in the tools, methodology and good news of the kingdom of God areore effective and salvific, both with regards to the individual and to society, than are the kingdoms of this world and their ways? Do we believe that Jesus rules? If so, then why wouldn't we advocate for all of the above, to all who will listen? But we don't want to reform the kingdoms of this world, we want to abolish them, through the peaceful revolution of the way of the cross. Overcome them by the blood of the lamb.

And if we believe it, how are we acting on it.

[barnhart]

After further thinking, I suggest that the view articulate by JBG is based in a specific understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the powers that now rule the world. Apostle Paul's letters are filled with references to these entities, the veracity of their rule and their defeat. A more protestant reformation view is to center the conflict in the individual so that the powers are defeated in one person at a time as they surrender to Christ and contain the conflict to the realm of the immaterial soul. This leaves areas like society and government outside the conflict entirely. JBG's analysis is rooted in the commitment that Jesus is Lord of all and has rightly conquered all.

The question that opened this thread, "can the church speak into political matters," presupposes the protestant world view of a limited or postponed Lordship of Jesus, that he is not, in certain venues, Lord, so he and his church do not yet posses the right or authority to speak there. I suggest JBG's summary is a more Anabaptist perspective. Along with that I hasten to add the rule of Jesus, as thus far revealed, is not based in coersion or violence, which dictates the form the church will take in power, but does not limit or circumscribe the areana of influence.

[Sudsy]

After further thinking, I suggest that the view articulate by JBG is based in a specific understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the powers that now rule the world. Apostle Paul's letters are filled with references to these entities, the veracity of their rule and their defeat. A more protestant reformation view is to center the conflict in the individual so that the powers are defeated in one person at a time as they surrender to Christ and contain the conflict to the realm of the immaterial soul. This leaves areas like society and government outside the conflict entirely. JBG's analysis is rooted in the commitment that Jesus is Lord of all and has rightly conquered all.

The question that opened this thread, "can the church speak into political matters," presupposes the protestant world view of a limited or postponed Lordship of Jesus, that he is not, in certain venues, Lord, so he and his church do not yet posses the right or authority to speak there. I suggest JBG's summary is a more Anabaptist perspective. Along with that I hasten to add the rule of Jesus, as thus far revealed, is not based in coersion or violence, which dictates the form the church will take in power, but does not limit or circumscribe the areana of influence.

I may not understand this post correctly but I believe Jesus is Lord at the present time in the heart's of those who have acknowledged Him as their Lord and Saviour. For the world of non-believers, Jesus is not their Lord. Believers, however, have the mission to speak to the 'not yet believing world' and that speaking involves the sharing of the Gospel in words.

Jesus will someday take rulership of this world away from Satan entirely and fully establish His Kingdom on this earth.

This perhaps is an 'Evangelical' understanding and one I don't see common in many Anabaptist churches. It would appear to me that modern day Anabaptism is more caught up with judging the sins of the unsaved world rather than reaching them with the life changing Gospel that results in a new birth into the KOG.

Speaking to political matters is not the mission of the Church. This kind of speaking is not the door to salvation. Jesus is the door and He is where our speaking should be focused. Only Jesus is the solution to all worldly affairs. He is the one who needs to be 'lifted up' and He will do the drawing to Himself through the Gospel message in the convicting power of the Holy Spiirit.

Perhaps I mis-understood some of this post. It happens often at my age.

[joshuabgood]

After further thinking, I suggest that the view articulate by JBG is based in a specific understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the powers that now rule the world. Apostle Paul's letters are filled with references to these entities, the veracity of their rule and their defeat. A more protestant reformation view is to center the conflict in the individual so that the powers are defeated in one person at a time as they surrender to Christ and contain the conflict to the realm of the immaterial soul. This leaves areas like society and government outside the conflict entirely. JBG's analysis is rooted in the commitment that Jesus is Lord of all and has rightly conquered all.

The question that opened this thread, "can the church speak into political matters," presupposes the protestant world view of a limited or postponed Lordship of Jesus, that he is not, in certain venues, Lord, so he and his church do not yet posses the right or authority to speak there. I suggest JBG's summary is a more Anabaptist perspective. Along with that I hasten to add the rule of Jesus, as thus far revealed, is not based in coersion or violence, which dictates the form the church will take in power, but does not limit or circumscribe the areana of influence.

Right. When you say Christ Jesus, or Jesus is Lord, you are making a political and social juatice statement. Hence the necessary conflict. It isn't merely a mystical objective or heart point.

[Josh]

I would agree that it seems impossible that any area of life is exempt from Jesus’ lordship when one is a Christian. This necessarily means the idea of some things being “secular” is unacceptable for a kingdom-minded Christian.