Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[GaryK]

I thought he answered it with this:

I think he's saying context matters, and in the right context it is appropriate.

Yes, that was my attempted answer to the question, Ernie.

And yes, I think context matters and if a similar situation arose, I would not hesitate to say something similar to what Jesus said about Herod.

Ok. I didn't understand your answer to include publicly calling a political leader a fox.

Reading back over my answer I see I could have been more clear.

If I would be out on the streets teaching on the Kingdom of God and someone came to me and said that ___________ (name the leader) said that he's going to arrest or kill me, I would tell that person that I will not let an anti-Jesus and conniving leader (fox) like ___________ stop me from doing the work of promoting Jesus' Kingdom.

[GaryK]

There is also the generation of vipers comment.

Here is the context for that comment.

Matthew 12:24-35 NKJV 24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, "This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons." 25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 "And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 "Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. 31 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. 33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. 34 "Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.

He is speaking to the Pharisees here. I believe Jesus knew that the Pharisees, using the Mosaic law, were doing their best to keep the common Jewish people from following Jesus and that they saw Him as a real threat to their religious power. This didn't stop after Jesus' work on earth was finished. The early church battled this as well in the form of the Judaizers. This was a religious issue, not an earthly government one.

[Bootstrap]

The Pharisees believed deeply in keeping their religion pure. And Jesus said this to them:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness (or “faith”). You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”

Justice and mercy overlap with a lot of things politics is concerned with. Political discussions about fair laws, policing, racial equality, immigration, poverty, and legal systems often address very similar concerns. The real question is how we should address these things as a church. If we neglect justice, mercy, and faithfulness, tithing our mint and staying pure will not save us.

There may not be one right answer for all churches at all times. There's a very real danger that politics will overwhelm the actual Christian mission. And another danger that the church will simply do nothing in these areas in order to "stay pure".

Doing nothing is still a choice. It shapes how we form people and what witness we offer the world. We all live in a world shaped by political narratives, media spin, and powerful leaders. If we don’t actively form our communities in Scripture and faithful living, those other forces will do the shaping for us. I know GaryK has said that politicians mostly reflect the world around them. I see it differently. I think they’re actively shaping the world—and doing it more effectively than most pastors or churches are right now.

I think the real solution is revival and returning to our biblical roots. Politics is the loudest voice in the world around us, and it is changing the way people think and feel. If we are not more grounded in living out Scripture than in political controversies, we will be someone else's "useful idiot". We need revival. We need to live like we believe what we say we believe.

But there are also times that justice and mercy and faithfulness means confronting injustice and cruelty in the society around us, caring for the victims, and perhaps speaking out. We should always be discerning when we do that - or choose not to do that. Different churches may be called to different things.

[barnhart]

I have a question for GaryK that he can address only if he doesn't mind sidetracking this thread.

I like your approach to government, I was raised in it and my theology pressures me in that direction, but I wonder how beneficial it has been. When I look at the conflicts of the last 150 years it's not clear to me the silent and passive angle of Nonresistance has always produced the results I would like to see for the people of God.

For example the Civil War: I suspect that the majority of Mennonites internalized this as someone else's struggle which produced a mental distance from the struggles of black folks in the era of violence, discrimination and displacement that followed. That willingness to see the struggles of others as "their problem" has some long term effects in the Mennonite church to this day (in my humble opinion).

What has emerged is a willful, principle driven silence around the oppression of others coupled with a resistance to much milder forms of government intrusion on our own affairs. We have nothing to say how other groups are treated but we resist slow moving vehicle signs, health and safety law in our businesses, and sometimes tax law.

One of my concerns is that we have failed to build a new testament theology of government and in its place fallen back on a rights/isolationist/libertarian based theology and when actual persecution comes, we will not have the theological resources or cultural resilience to respond well.

[GaryK]

The Pharisees believed deeply in keeping their religion pure. And Jesus said this to them:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness (or “faith”). You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”

Justice and mercy overlap with a lot of things politics is concerned with. Political discussions about fair laws, policing, racial equality, immigration, poverty, and legal systems often address very similar concerns. The real question is how we should address these things as a church. If we neglect justice, mercy, and faithfulness, tithing our mint and staying pure will not save us.

The church should be involved in justice, mercy and faithfulness in spite of their overlap. The NT is full of teachings on these matters. It should not get involved only when government is getting it wrong.

There may not be one right answer for all churches at all times. There's a very real danger that politics will overwhelm the actual Christian mission. And another danger that the church will simply do nothing in these areas in order to "stay pure".

Doing nothing is still a choice. It shapes how we form people and what witness we offer the world. We all live in a world shaped by political narratives, media spin, and powerful leaders. If we don’t actively form our communities in Scripture and faithful living, those other forces will do the shaping for us. I know GaryK has said that politicians mostly reflect the world around them. I see it differently. I think they’re actively shaping the world—and doing it more effectively than most pastors or churches are right now.

I believe the fact that politicians are actively shaping the world more effectively than most pastors and churches right now is because pastors and churches have gotten involved in the political affairs of earthly government, which has tremendously weakened the church. This, in turn, has been a huge shaper of current society.

I think the real solution is revival and returning to our biblical roots. Politics is the loudest voice in the world around us, and it is changing the way people think and feel. If we are not more grounded in living out Scripture than in political controversies, we will be someone else's "useful idiot". We need revival. We need to live like we believe what we say we believe.

I agree. The church needs to get back to being the Church, not a mixture of church and State.

But there are also times that justice and mercy and faithfulness means confronting injustice and cruelty in the society around us, caring for the victims, and perhaps speaking out. We should always be discerning when we do that - or choose not to do that. Different churches may be called to different things.

The Church should be known for consistency in justice, mercy and faithfulness at all times.

[JohnH]

I have a question for GaryK that he can address only if he doesn't mind sidetracking this thread.

I like your approach to government, I was raised in it and my theology pressures me in that direction, but I wonder how beneficial it has been. When I look at the conflicts of the last 150 years it's not clear to me the silent and passive angle of Nonresistance has always produced the results I would like to see for the people of God.

For example the Civil War: I suspect that the majority of Mennonites internalized this as someone else's struggle which produced a mental distance from the struggles of black folks in the era of violence, discrimination and displacement that followed. That willingness to see the struggles of others as "their problem" has some long term effects in the Mennonite church to this day (in my humble opinion).

What has emerged is a willful, principle driven silence around the oppression of others coupled with a resistance to much milder forms of government intrusion on our own affairs. We have nothing to say how other groups are treated but we resist slow moving vehicle signs, health and safety law in our businesses, and sometimes tax law.

One of my concerns is that we have failed to build a new testament theology of government and in its place fallen back on a rights/isolationist/libertarian based theology and when actual persecution comes, we will not have the theological resources or cultural resilience to respond well.

If there's anything the Bible doesn't teach, it's that we should adopt Foucalt's teachings that not choosing to see everything through an oppressor/oppressed dialectic, and choosing not to get involved, is somehow being a participant in "oppression". I think the New Testament stands on its own, and it simply doesn't teach that we need to follow 20th century left-wing moral-philosophical fads.

We can see the bitter fruit of "silence is violence", going back to the Bolshevist revolution, which promised to advocate for the struggles of oppressed people. We can see the effect in the present day. Perhaps the answer is to point to Jesus as king, not figure out how to dismantle earthly kings.

[HondurasKeiser]

Constantine was from the 4th Century, not the 1st Century. He was also not a politician. He was never elected to anything. He was a Roman General who claimed the title of Emperor by force and engaged in near constant civil wars and wars of conquest.

Emperor Constantine wasn't a politician. Okay.

Neither was Moses or Genghis Kahn.

Perhaps not a politician but a ruler certainly.

[Bootstrap]

Emperor Constantine wasn't a politician. Okay.

Neither was Moses or Genghis Kahn.

Perhaps not a politician but a ruler certainly.

Ken is using a different definition of politician than I would.

One definition of politican: Someone actively engaged in conducting the business of a government, or someone who olds or seeks political office. Political office is a position of authority or responsibility in a government.

Genghis Khan formed and restructured governments, imposed laws, and united groups through negotiation, military force, and diplomacy. He was deeply involved in statecraft. I think that makes him a politician.

Moses judged civil disputes, created a legal code (the Torah), delegated authority, and negotiated relations with Pharaoh and neighboring nations. He organized the tribes under a structured system with judges and tribal leaders. He governed a nation, made law, and helped establish national identity. I think that makes him a politician.

Herod was also a politician.

[Bootstrap]

Gary, I appreciate the things you say below.

The church should be involved in justice, mercy and faithfulness in spite of their overlap. The NT is full of teachings on these matters. It should not get involved only when government is getting it wrong.

I think the real solution is revival and returning to our biblical roots. Politics is the loudest voice in the world around us, and it is changing the way people think and feel. If we are not more grounded in living out Scripture than in political controversies, we will be someone else's "useful idiot". We need revival. We need to live like we believe what we say we believe.

I agree. The church needs to get back to being the Church, not a mixture of church and State.

But there are also times that justice and mercy and faithfulness means confronting injustice and cruelty in the society around us, caring for the victims, and perhaps speaking out. We should always be discerning when we do that - or choose not to do that. Different churches may be called to different things.

The Church should be known for consistency in justice, mercy and faithfulness at all times.

[Bootstrap]

For example the Civil War: I suspect that the majority of Mennonites internalized this as someone else's struggle which produced a mental distance from the struggles of black folks in the era of violence, discrimination and displacement that followed. That willingness to see the struggles of others as "their problem" has some long term effects in the Mennonite church to this day (in my humble opinion).

What has emerged is a willful, principle driven silence around the oppression of others coupled with a resistance to much milder forms of government intrusion on our own affairs. We have nothing to say how other groups are treated but we resist slow moving vehicle signs, health and safety law in our businesses, and sometimes tax law.

In the non-plain Mennonite churches, we have had the opposite problem. I think we were right to take a stand against segregation and warmongering in the 1960s. Some of that came from a biblical justice perspective. Some of that evolved into a liberation theology perspective. Some of that turned into a close affiliation with liberal secular movements. And that's really hurting us today, because these three perspectives do not share a common foundation.

So I think we can learn from each other's mistakes.

One of my concerns is that we have failed to build a new testament theology of government and in its place fallen back on a rights/isolationist/libertarian based theology and when actual persecution comes, we will not have the theological resources or cultural resilience to respond well.

Amen. And I think that theology needs to encompass the whole Bible. It should also learn from the history of the early church and church history more broadly.