Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[ohio jones]

Because as i understand it, sunday morning worship service is to worship and glorify God.
So it is not advised to hijack an event specifically organized for one purpose. I mean, we already do that on mn threads, its no wonder folks think it would be ok to do it in real life too.

I agree, if that is what Sunday services are specifically organized for. However, I tend to view Sunday services being designed for more than just worshipping and glorifying God. These verses come to mind.

Ephesians 4:11-14 NKJV 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Yes, but "some political pundits" is conspicuously absent from the list.

Since it is conspicuously absent, should our conclusion be that it should also be absent from our weekly lives, not just our Sunday lives?

At the least, we can conclude that politics is not a gift of the Holy Spirit, does not equip and edify the saints, and does not produce unity or maturity. So I am with justme in understanding that it's not appropriate in a church service (Sunday or otherwise).

There are other things that are not appropriate in a church service but are not wrong in themselves and can legitimately be done in other times and places without sacrificing integrity. Some facets of political discussion and "calling out" of politicians might fall into this category.

[Ken]

At the least, we can conclude that politics is not a gift of the Holy Spirit, does not equip and edify the saints, and does not produce unity or maturity. So I am with justme in understanding that it's not appropriate in a church service (Sunday or otherwise).

Can we really conclude that?

Does not good political leadership require wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, all of which are gifts of the Holy Spirit according to 1 Corinthians?

[ohio jones]

At the least, we can conclude that politics is not a gift of the Holy Spirit, does not equip and edify the saints, and does not produce unity or maturity. So I am with justme in understanding that it's not appropriate in a church service (Sunday or otherwise).

Can we really conclude that?

Does not good political leadership require wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, all of which are gifts of the Holy Spirit according to 1 Corinthians?

I'm not sure what list of gifts you are looking at (apparently not the primary ones in chapters 12 and 14 anyway), but even if those things are helpful for good political leadership that does not make political leadership itself a gift of the Spirit.

[Ken]

At the least, we can conclude that politics is not a gift of the Holy Spirit, does not equip and edify the saints, and does not produce unity or maturity. So I am with justme in understanding that it's not appropriate in a church service (Sunday or otherwise).

Can we really conclude that?

Does not good political leadership require wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, all of which are gifts of the Holy Spirit according to 1 Corinthians?

I'm not sure what list of gifts you are looking at (apparently not the primary ones in chapters 12 and 14 anyway), but even if those things are helpful for good political leadership that does not make political leadership itself a gift of the Spirit.

I think those are more the Catholic summary.

In any event, I think God or the Holy Spirit has guided political leaders from Abraham and Moses on down to the present day and will continue to do so into the future. Not all (or even most) of them necessarily listen, or listen all the time. But that is the same for people in every walk of life. In any event, I don't think political leaders are uniquely excluded from the sort of wisdom and guidance that other Christians rely on as they go about their lives.

But "politics" is a description of a process. Not a quality of leadership.

[Ernie]

This is a bit confusing to me. Why would it not be appropriate to publicly say on Sunday what is appropriate to publicly say in the town square the rest of the week? I'm not sure I see examples of this difference in the way Jesus and the early church lived.

From the information we have, it was Jesus's custom to attend Sabbath religious services. On one such occasion, he preached the good news from Isaiah.

On another occasion, outside of Sabbath religious services, Jesus was warned that Herod wanted to kill him. Jesus told the people warning him that they should "Go tell that fox..."
In this instance, I think Jesus was speaking about a civil leader's character in this situation and I don't know that he cared so much whether they go tell Herod what he said, as he wanted the public to know what kind of character Herod was and that this would not stop him from doing God's will.

It is hard for me to imagine Jesus making this statement about Herod in the synagogue while he was preaching from the holy scriptures, but that is just my supposition looking on 2000 years later.

I think this instance is the closest Jesus comes to "calling out" a "politician" that I'm aware of.

Thinking how something similar might play out today, would the following be accurate?

You are regularly out in the streets of Washington D.C. proclaiming what the NT KOG is like and inviting the common people to follow Jesus, when a local religious leader who doesn't like the message you are proclaiming, comes up and tells you that President Trump is not happy with what you are proclaiming and is going to have you arrested. You tell this religious leader to go tell Trump, who, FYI, is ungodly, conniving and anti-Jesus, that regardless what you threaten against me, I am going to keep proclaiming Jesus' Kingdom until God's time for me to die.

The primary point Jesus seems to making to those listening is that regardless the threats against Him by an earthly government, He's going to keep doing the will of His Father. If the point was to speak out against Herod's character, I think that would be reflected in what He said after using the term fox to describe Herod. Instead He bemoans the condition of "religious" Jerusalem.

I think it was both... Speaking out against Herod's character, and also to bemoan the condition of the religious.

And as I said before, I do not neatly separate the Jewish leaders into religious vs. political/civil. I think most of them were both, with some being more one than the other.
Just the same as today. We have people who are primarily civil leaders claiming to be followers of Jesus and saying that this influences their political views, and we have people who are primarily religious leaders who are inserting themselves into the political/civil government world.

Question: Do you view publicly calling a civil leader a fox as something only God has the right to do, or is this something his followers are welcome to do as well?

[GaryK]

From the information we have, it was Jesus's custom to attend Sabbath religious services. On one such occasion, he preached the good news from Isaiah.

On another occasion, outside of Sabbath religious services, Jesus was warned that Herod wanted to kill him. Jesus told the people warning him that they should "Go tell that fox..."
In this instance, I think Jesus was speaking about a civil leader's character in this situation and I don't know that he cared so much whether they go tell Herod what he said, as he wanted the public to know what kind of character Herod was and that this would not stop him from doing God's will.

It is hard for me to imagine Jesus making this statement about Herod in the synagogue while he was preaching from the holy scriptures, but that is just my supposition looking on 2000 years later.

I think this instance is the closest Jesus comes to "calling out" a "politician" that I'm aware of.

Thinking how something similar might play out today, would the following be accurate?

You are regularly out in the streets of Washington D.C. proclaiming what the NT KOG is like and inviting the common people to follow Jesus, when a local religious leader who doesn't like the message you are proclaiming, comes up and tells you that President Trump is not happy with what you are proclaiming and is going to have you arrested. You tell this religious leader to go tell Trump, who, FYI, is ungodly, conniving and anti-Jesus, that regardless what you threaten against me, I am going to keep proclaiming Jesus' Kingdom until God's time for me to die.

The primary point Jesus seems to making to those listening is that regardless the threats against Him by an earthly government, He's going to keep doing the will of His Father. If the point was to speak out against Herod's character, I think that would be reflected in what He said after using the term fox to describe Herod. Instead He bemoans the condition of "religious" Jerusalem.

I think it was both... Speaking out against Herod's character, and also to bemoan the condition of the religious.

And as I said before, I do not neatly separate the Jewish leaders into religious vs. political/civil. I think most of them were both, with some being more one than the other.
Just the same as today. We have people who are primarily civil leaders claiming to be followers of Jesus and saying that this influences their political views, and we have people who are primarily religious leaders who are inserting themselves into the political/civil government world.

Question: Do you view publicly calling a civil leader a fox as something only God has the right to do, or is this something his followers are welcome to do as well?

I think all of Jesus followers should feel free to do as Jesus did when he told the Pharisees who told Him that Herod was planning to kill Him, that the mission Jesus' Father had sent Him to fulfill was not going to be deterred by some conniving and wicked earthly ruler like Herod. I see that as a making strong statement in support of a clear distinction between the two Kingdoms and gets to the heart of the title of this thread.

To me that is different than appearing to take a political position by speaking out against policies earthly governments implement and using Jesus' Kingdom's policies as an argument for the position. Taking such a position suggests that politicians who advocate for implementing policies that are not in opposition to Jesus' Kingdom shouldn't be called out as much as those who do.

There are policies the Democratic party supports that are not in opposition to Jesus' Kingdom and the same is true of the Republican party. If it's good for followers of Jesus to call out the policies that are opposed to Jesus' Kingdom, it should also be good to get involved in anti-abortion protests or pro-immigration rallies that put pressure on politicians to do the right thing. If it's good for followers of Jesus to get involved in pressure campaigns like these, it should also be good to get involved in the campaigns of politicians running for office who support policies not opposed to Jesus' Kingdom. If it's good for followers of Jesus to get involved in the campaigns of these politicians, it should also be good to become a politician in earthly government as long as nothing is advocated for that is not in opposition to the way of Jesus. That's how you get "Christian politicians".

The hybridization of church and state always starts somewhere. I'm suggesting it's best to keep the two separate and to constantly remind everyone, "Christian" politicians included, that, in Jesus' view, the two CAN'T be mixed. That is something that can be preached Sunday - Saturday.

[Bootstrap]

At the least, we can conclude that politics is not a gift of the Holy Spirit, does not equip and edify the saints, and does not produce unity or maturity. So I am with justme in understanding that it's not appropriate in a church service (Sunday or otherwise).

There are other things that are not appropriate in a church service but are not wrong in themselves and can legitimately be done in other times and places without sacrificing integrity. Some facets of political discussion and "calling out" of politicians might fall into this category.

I recently taught a Sunday School class about overturning the tables in the temple. Changing money is not inherently wrong, and selling sacrificial animals for the temple was inherently good, but the temple was the wrong place for this. Even though it was in the court of the Gentiles - after all, that's the closest the Gentiles could get to worship, and turning that place into a shopping mall was wrong.

I think the same is true of church services. There's nothing wrong with cleaning fish or changing a diaper or whistling or running, but I would not do these things in church.

To get at what is right or wrong for Christians to do in general, I think it is helpful to be more concrete. "Politics" can mean so many things. "Calling out" politicians can also mean different things in different settings. For instance:

1. Politicians are leading figures who affect the morality of mainstream culture around us. Is it legitimate to point to their moral failings and clearly identify ways that true Christianity differs from hypocritical politicized civil religion?
2. Some politicians lead movements that promote values fundamentally at odds with Christianity. Some of these same movements claim to be Christian. Shouldn't we point that out? Didn't John the Baptist and Jesus point these things out with Herod?
3. Some Christian leaders identify deeply with these movements, and benefit from them. Shouldn't we point that out, regularly?

To me, at least, this is important if we want to be clear about what Christianity is and is not.

[barnhart]

There are policies the Democratic party supports that are not in opposition to Jesus' Kingdom and the same is true of the Republican party. If it's good for followers of Jesus to call out the policies that are opposed to Jesus' Kingdom, it should also be good to get involved in anti-abortion protests or pro-immigration rallies that put pressure on politicians to do the right thing...

HERE is where I draw the line

...If it's good for followers of Jesus to get involved in pressure campaigns like these, it should also be good to get involved in the campaigns of politicians running for office who support policies not opposed to Jesus' Kingdom. If it's good for followers of Jesus to get involved in the campaigns of these politicians, it should also be good to become a politician in earthly government as long as nothing is advocated for that is not in opposition to the way of Jesus. That's how you get "Christian politicians".

It may not be entirely logical but that is not the only place my convictions may not be rational.

[GaryK]

There are policies the Democratic party supports that are not in opposition to Jesus' Kingdom and the same is true of the Republican party. If it's good for followers of Jesus to call out the policies that are opposed to Jesus' Kingdom, it should also be good to get involved in anti-abortion protests or pro-immigration rallies that put pressure on politicians to do the right thing...

HERE is where I draw the line

...If it's good for followers of Jesus to get involved in pressure campaigns like these, it should also be good to get involved in the campaigns of politicians running for office who support policies not opposed to Jesus' Kingdom. If it's good for followers of Jesus to get involved in the campaigns of these politicians, it should also be good to become a politician in earthly government as long as nothing is advocated for that is not in opposition to the way of Jesus. That's how you get "Christian politicians".

It may not be entirely logical but that is not the only place my convictions may not be rational.

I respect the honesty here. I draw the line at a different place, as you are probably well aware of by now.

[GaryK]

At the least, we can conclude that politics is not a gift of the Holy Spirit, does not equip and edify the saints, and does not produce unity or maturity. So I am with justme in understanding that it's not appropriate in a church service (Sunday or otherwise).

There are other things that are not appropriate in a church service but are not wrong in themselves and can legitimately be done in other times and places without sacrificing integrity. Some facets of political discussion and "calling out" of politicians might fall into this category.

I recently taught a Sunday School class about overturning the tables in the temple. Changing money is not inherently wrong, and selling sacrificial animals for the temple was inherently good, but the temple was the wrong place for this. Even though it was in the court of the Gentiles - after all, that's the closest the Gentiles could get to worship, and turning that place into a shopping mall was wrong.

I think the same is true of church services. There's nothing wrong with cleaning fish or changing a diaper or whistling or running, but I would not do these things in church.

To get at what is right or wrong for Christians to do in general, I think it is helpful to be more concrete. "Politics" can mean so many things. "Calling out" politicians can also mean different things in different settings. For instance:

1. Politicians are leading figures who affect the morality of mainstream culture around us. Is it legitimate to point to their moral failings and clearly identify ways that true Christianity differs from hypocritical politicized civil religion?
2. Some politicians lead movements that promote values fundamentally at odds with Christianity. Some of these same movements claim to be Christian. Shouldn't we point that out? Didn't John the Baptist and Jesus point these things out with Herod?
3. Some Christian leaders identify deeply with these movements, and benefit from them. Shouldn't we point that out, regularly?

To me, at least, this is important if we want to be clear about what Christianity is and is not.

I believe politicians are a reflection of the morality of mainstream culture, not necessarily the drivers.

Affecting societal morality in a good way is the duty of the Church, not politics. I believe one of the biggest failures of the Church has been its involvement in earthly politics. One of the result has been that morality no longer seems to be much of an issue in either the Church or politics.