Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[Grace]

Here is a question that I believe will help me understand what you mean by "calling out". Would you be comfortable calling out Trump, Biden, Byron Donalds..., the immigration policies Trump is implementing, etc. in a Sunday sermon?

Thanks for that question, I was wondering as well, what "calling out" a politician entails.

I am a firm believer that politics, politicians, and most issues revolving around politics should stay out of the church.

[barnhart]

I think there are times to call out political movements in the church but at the same time I acknowledge that it's mostly done in a compromising manner because it's done to boost a candidate or party or for self interest. The idea that pious believers can sit above politics is a luxury of a society that has been favorable for a long time. This is an anomaly that doesn't exist in most of the world nor in most of history.
I remember reading an essay from a dissident who escaped the Soviet empire. He explained how the pressure builds until everyone is forced to choose compromise or resistance. First came the mandate that every shopkeeper must display a small window sign that said "Workers of the World unite", a fairly meaningless slogan except it was used as a shibboleth to force people to choose a path.

[barnhart]

I was in a church service in Canada in the late 90's where the pastor preached about marriage because the next week legislation took effect that classified teaching homosexual behavior is a sin as hate speech. Silence or avoidance may not always be possible.

[ken_sylvania]

I think there are times to call out political movements in the church but at the same time I acknowledge that it's mostly done in a compromising manner because it's done to boost a candidate or party or for self interest. The idea that pious believers can sit above politics is a luxury of a society that has been favorable for a long time. This is an anomaly that doesn't exist in most of the world nor in most of history.
I remember reading an essay from a dissident who escaped the Soviet empire. He explained how the pressure builds until everyone is forced to choose compromise or resistance. First came the mandate that every shopkeeper must display a small window sign that said "Workers of the World unite", a fairly meaningless slogan except it was used as a shibboleth to force people to choose a path.

Society may demand that we choose a path. Suppose we choose the path of following Jesus instead of following a political persuasion. What then?

[Ken]

I think there are times to call out political movements in the church but at the same time I acknowledge that it's mostly done in a compromising manner because it's done to boost a candidate or party or for self interest. The idea that pious believers can sit above politics is a luxury of a society that has been favorable for a long time. This is an anomaly that doesn't exist in most of the world nor in most of history.
I remember reading an essay from a dissident who escaped the Soviet empire. He explained how the pressure builds until everyone is forced to choose compromise or resistance. First came the mandate that every shopkeeper must display a small window sign that said "Workers of the World unite", a fairly meaningless slogan except it was used as a shibboleth to force people to choose a path.

Personally I think the proper role of Church is to teach what worldly issues are relevant to Christ, Christianity, and consistency with the Kingdom of God. And leave the discussion of individual politicians, and parties to people figure out for themselves.

So what is the Christian view on war? And what are the nuances?

What is the Christian view of immigration? And what are the nuances?

What is the Christian view on taxation? And what are the nuances?

What is the Christian view on the environment? And what are the nuances?

What is the Christian view on healing the sick? And what are the nuances.

What is the Christian view on abortion? And what are the nuances?

What is the Christian view on marriage and divorce? And what are the nuances?

In real life, no political party or candidate is going to be able to claim to monopolize the Christian view on every worldly topic. They simply are not. In real life Republicans tend to be stronger on Biblical commands that are in the form of prohibitions or things that you SHOULDN'T do: Homosexuality, abortion, etc. and Democrats tend to be stronger on Biblical commands that are in the form of calls to action or things that you SHOULD do. Help the poor, feed the hungry, protect God's creation, etc.

[barnhart]

I think there are times to call out political movements in the church but at the same time I acknowledge that it's mostly done in a compromising manner because it's done to boost a candidate or party or for self interest. The idea that pious believers can sit above politics is a luxury of a society that has been favorable for a long time. This is an anomaly that doesn't exist in most of the world nor in most of history.
I remember reading an essay from a dissident who escaped the Soviet empire. He explained how the pressure builds until everyone is forced to choose compromise or resistance. First came the mandate that every shopkeeper must display a small window sign that said "Workers of the World unite", a fairly meaningless slogan except it was used as a shibboleth to force people to choose a path.

Society may demand that we choose a path. Suppose we choose the path of following Jesus instead of following a political persuasion. What then?

You still have to choose if the path of Jesus is to hang up the sign or break the law.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I think we can always call people to a closer walk with Jesus but there is a self defeating element to doing it to politicians. Fighting fire with fire is ultimately admission that fire is morally neutral and calling out politicians is itself engaging in politics.

But not in the same way.

If in order food at a restaurant and call out the chef for burning my food, it's true that I'm engaging in culinary pursuits, as is the chef. But we each have a FUNDAMENTALLY different role. It's not fair to compare me to the chef.

Engaging in politics is not a bad thing. In fact, NOT engaging in politics is anti-Christian. That is because "politics" is just a short word that means "collaborative solutions for problems that cannot or should not be solved on the individual level." A church members meeting is "politics". A PTA meeting is politics. An amish barn raising is politics.

The thing Christians ought to stay away from is not "politics", it is "power". That's the difference between the politician and the person "calling out the politician". The former has power. The latter is speaking truth TO power. The former is playing the role of King. The latter is playing the role of prophet. Just like the chef and the patron, the politician and the prophet are two very different roles.

[barnhart]

I think we can always call people to a closer walk with Jesus but there is a self defeating element to doing it to politicians. Fighting fire with fire is ultimately admission that fire is morally neutral and calling out politicians is itself engaging in politics.

But not in the same way.

If in order food at a restaurant and call out the chef for burning my food, it's true that I'm engaging in culinary pursuits, as is the chef. But we each have a FUNDAMENTALLY different role. It's not fair to compare me to the chef.

Engaging in politics is not a bad thing. In fact, NOT engaging in politics is anti-Christian. That is because "politics" is just a short word that means "collaborative solutions for problems that cannot or should not be solved on the individual level." A church members meeting is "politics". A PTA meeting is politics. An amish barn raising is politics.

The thing Christians ought to stay away from is not "politics", it is "power". That's the difference between the politician and the person "calling out the politician". The former has power. The latter is speaking truth TO power. The former is playing the role of King. The latter is playing the role of prophet. Just like the chef and the patron, the politician and the prophet are two very different roles.

I agree, especially with the bolded part. We might saying the same thing from a different angle.

The distinction between prophet and King is enlightening. In my life time I have witnessed the evangelical church move across that spectrum, abandoning the prophetic voice in favor of power. In the 80's there was a push to leave the defensive withdrawal posture of fundamentalism behind and speak prophetically into the culture, now they are silent on many of those same issues and just line up behind a candidate, ride or die. In the arena where the individual can actually make a difference, with people you know, the prophetic voice has been discarded as old fashioned.

[JohnH]

I think we can always call people to a closer walk with Jesus but there is a self defeating element to doing it to politicians. Fighting fire with fire is ultimately admission that fire is morally neutral and calling out politicians is itself engaging in politics.

But not in the same way.

If in order food at a restaurant and call out the chef for burning my food, it's true that I'm engaging in culinary pursuits, as is the chef. But we each have a FUNDAMENTALLY different role. It's not fair to compare me to the chef.

Engaging in politics is not a bad thing. In fact, NOT engaging in politics is anti-Christian. That is because "politics" is just a short word that means "collaborative solutions for problems that cannot or should not be solved on the individual level." A church members meeting is "politics". A PTA meeting is politics. An amish barn raising is politics.

The thing Christians ought to stay away from is not "politics", it is "power". That's the difference between the politician and the person "calling out the politician". The former has power. The latter is speaking truth TO power. The former is playing the role of King. The latter is playing the role of prophet. Just like the chef and the patron, the politician and the prophet are two very different roles.

This is a redefinition of politics. If you ask the average person of an Amish barn raising is politics, they will say “no”.

[Bootstrap]

Engaging in politics is not a bad thing. In fact, NOT engaging in politics is anti-Christian. That is because "politics" is just a short word that means "collaborative solutions for problems that cannot or should not be solved on the individual level." A church members meeting is "politics". A PTA meeting is politics. An amish barn raising is politics.

The thing Christians ought to stay away from is not "politics", it is "power". That's the difference between the politician and the person "calling out the politician". The former has power. The latter is speaking truth TO power. The former is playing the role of King. The latter is playing the role of prophet. Just like the chef and the patron, the politician and the prophet are two very different roles.

This is a redefinition of politics. If you ask the average person of an Amish barn raising is politics, they will say “no”.

I think a lot of people use phrases like "church politics" and "office politics". These kinds of politics also involve power. And as followers of Jesus, they also require discernment. Where there is power, there is also temptation.

You can't really have relationships among people without some kind of politics.