Can the Kingdom of God speak to political matters?

[ken_sylvania]

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.

Perhaps I'm not following your thought clearly, but I think I disagree that the OP question presupposes a limited Lordship of Jesus as you describe it. If you would ask "Can the the church speak into the question of what methods of robbery and murder are acceptable and which are too brutal?" my response would be "No" - not because Jesus' Lordship is limited in the sense that you define it, but because Jesus' Lordship says the robber shall cease his robbery, and the murderer shall cease his killing. In the same vein, Jesus' victory over political systems will destroy them, not re-arrange them into benevolent agencies under his control and doing his bidding.

[barnhart]

Perhaps I'm not following your thought clearly, but I think I disagree that the OP question presupposes a limited Lordship of Jesus as you describe it. If you would ask "Can the the church speak into the question of what methods of robbery and murder are acceptable and which are too brutal?" my response would be "No" - not because Jesus' Lordship is limited in the sense that you define it, but because Jesus' Lordship says the robber shall cease his robbery, and the murderer shall cease his killing.

You are rightly acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus over social relationships in conflict. My critique is for those who would say of robbery or murder "it depends on the situation... maybe God has called you to execute vengeance..."

[Josh]

Well, the Bible does say the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. Seems a lot of pacifist Christians want to ignore many of the words of Paul that are inspired scripture.

[PetrChelcicky]

"Can the kingdom of God speak to political matters?"
I feel that this way of phrasing the problem leads astray.

Firstly, "the kingdom" doesn't speak. We speak and we don't speak as "the kingdom", but as sinners.
Secondly, we don't speak "to" matters. We perhaps speak about matters, but we at any case speak "to" other sinners.

The original "Jesus movement" was directed against the Pharisees (who tried to separate the "just" or "saints" from the sinners). The Sermon on the Mount has often been criticised for being too rigid ethically, but its rigorism is part of the overwhelming message that we all are sinners. The Christian community may be a "colony of heaven", but it remains Christian only as long as it remains a community of sinners for sinners -of some sinners for all other sinners.

This is my beef with Bootstrap. He speaks about "rapists" or "tyrants" as if they were categorically different from us. With him, the problem gets an "us vs. them" angle. (Which inevitably leads to scary decisions, like "Churchill may have organized the killing of Sikorski and Chandra Bose, but nevertheless he remains one of us" - whereas the mostly harmless Mennonites whose gratitude to Hitler spilled over into unconditional praise are "them".)

And my own position is quite the contrary. I have no qualms with "us vs. them" divisions as long as they are restrained to completely mundane attributes like race, ethnicity etc. But I shun all "us vs. them" divisions in matters of ethics and theology: that's a regress into the Pharisean stage.