Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[Bootstrap]

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.

Here's how I understand it.

Churches across the political spectrum started to treat the political issues of their time as if they were core to the gospel. Racism in the 1960s and abortion in the 1980s became wedge issues—points of deep moral concern that also served to pull churches into alignment with particular political movements.

Once that alignment happened, churches began to absorb the framing, language, and priorities of those movements. Their talking points are our talking points. Their world view deeply shapes our world view.

As Christians, I think we should be involved in justice, truth-telling, compassion, and public witness. But our involvement should come from a gospel-shaped worldview, not from left or right political ideologies. The church's problem isn’t too much involvement, but too little discernment—we’ve absorbed the world’s categories and talking points instead of operating out of the deeper story of Scripture and life with Christ.

[GaryK]

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.

This is a great observation and very pertinent to the topic at hand in that it deals with conservative Anabaptist theology relating to this issue.

I agree that much is lacking in our circles in regards to how we have lived out our theology. I believe a big part of this is the result of our insulated communities and the lack of a key part of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. I would venture to guess that your long time involvement in NYC has revealed to you that our passive views of non-resistance and things associated with it has not been very beneficial to either the larger society or the Kingdom of Jesus. Our involvement in Belize, Liberia and our current church planting endeavor in GA has brought me to pretty much the same realization. I'm guessing Ernie is realizing the same thing through his involvement in State College. The key part I think is lacking is a focus on interacting with and discipling people who are part of larger society. The more one interacts with such people the more one realizes that NT Kingdom Christianity is anything but passive.

What to do with this realization is where the rub lies. When you are involved with real people who are impacted by so much more than conservative Anabaptists in general have ever been impacted by, you want to be involved in solutions to the issues these people face. It becomes very tempting to get involved in movements that seem to be tackling the issues we see. To me, it is important to measure everything we get involved in from a two-kingdom worldview and if a movement muddies the waters of the two-kingdom worldview, I generally steer clear of them. I am convinced there is nothing that's wrong with society that the NT KOG can't address from a two-kingdom worldview. It's up to followers of Jesus to figure out how to address them and still be loyal to our Kingdom alone.

Racial issues are a real thing in the South where I live. Our experience has been that refusing to get involved with some of the movements that resulted from the George Floyd killing, and more importantly, attempting to consistently leave a 3rd way witness has opened a door with the black community to not only feel at home in our business establishment (restaurant) but has also opened the way to establish deep and meaningful Christian relationships with black pastors and others who are very involved in outreach within their communities.

This became so evident to me during and after a 16 day hospital stay I had back in December. I had texts assuring me of their love and prayers and after I got back to work, numerous hugs from people I recognized but didn't know their names, and many asking how I was doing and letting me know they had been praying. Their response made me realize that treating everyone (black and white) with dignity and respect and trying to be Christlike in our witness has done so much more than it would have if we would be politically involved in our town and taking sides on hot button political issues.

I think a lack of experience and teaching regarding active Christian service in our communities has opened the door to that void being filled by political ideologies and evangelical examples of political activism that have impacted our communities in negative ways.

[GaryK]

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.

Here's how I understand it.

Churches across the political spectrum started to treat the political issues of their time as if they were core to the gospel. Racism in the 1960s and abortion in the 1980s became wedge issues—points of deep moral concern that also served to pull churches into alignment with particular political movements.

Once that alignment happened, churches began to absorb the framing, language, and priorities of those movements. Their talking points are our talking points. Their world view deeply shapes our world view.

As Christians, I think we should be involved in justice, truth-telling, compassion, and public witness. But our involvement should come from a gospel-shaped worldview, not from left or right political ideologies. The church's problem isn’t too much involvement, but too little discernment—we’ve absorbed the world’s categories and talking points instead of operating out of the deeper story of Scripture and life with Christ.

For the most part I agree and the result has been that society is now reflecting all this by who is being elected to political office.

Depending on what you mean by the church's problem isn't too much involvement, I might agree. I disagree if you are saying the church hasn't been too involved in attempted political solutions relating to injustice and a lack of compassion. I agree if you are saying the church's problem isn't too much involvement in being examples of what it means to be just, truthful and compassionate.

[temporal1]

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.

Definitions are what you want to make them. Let's look at some modern examples of the point I was making:

In Britain: Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, and Teresa May are politicians. They seek votes and engage in politicking. King Charles and before him Queen Elizabeth were not. Even though all were engaged in the business of government. In fact, the British monarchs studiously avoid politics. They are above politics and remain as monarchs regardless of which party is in power.

In the US, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris are politicians. Chief Justice John Roberts and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not. Even though all are engaged in the business of government and all have tremendous power. But just like the British monarchs, the Chief Justice and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should studiously avoid politics. And should not be making their decisions and wielding their power to advantage one party or faction over another.

There are multiple ways that one can become a leader of a country or nation. One way is to engage in politics and seek election. Another way is through military might and conquest. A third way is through "divine right" inherited monarchy. King Charles did not gain his throne through politics. He was born to it. Likewise, during WW2, the Japanese didn't gain sovereignty over the Philippines and Burma through politics. They did so through military conquest. It was generals marching at the head of an army on behalf of their divine emperor.

By contrast, one can engage in politics and seek political office without seeking power. The elected school board members of small town school districts are politicians and engage in politics because they seek votes and get elected, but work as part-time volunteers in a thankless job. Doing work that is frankly little different from say a church elder or treasurer managing the operations of a church. And they aren't engaged in anything to do with war and peace, military force, law enforcement, or justice. They are just managing a public institution more or less the same way as anyone managing an equivalent private institution.

[JohnH]

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

I don't want this to sound insulting, but non-plain Mennonites churches, overall, seem to be squarely in the camp (by the numbers) knee-jerk supporting right-wing candidates, with an impetus to do so because of the latest urgent culture-war reason why good Christians must of course support right wing candidates. (If MC USA continues to lose members and congregations and entire conferences, it may eventually end up majority left wing, but I still consider those who left to be non-plain Mennonites.)

Of course, those who regularly bloviate about the evils of "liberal Mennonites" usually ignore this little fact - or perhaps they aren't aware of it at all.

[Ken]

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

I don't want this to sound insulting, but non-plain Mennonites churches, overall, seem to be squarely in the camp (by the numbers) knee-jerk supporting right-wing candidates, with an impetus to do so because of the latest urgent culture-war reason why good Christians must of course support right wing candidates. (If MC USA continues to lose members and congregations and entire conferences, it may eventually end up majority left wing, but I still consider those who left to be non-plain Mennonites.)

Of course, those who regularly bloviate about the evils of "liberal Mennonites" usually ignore this little fact - or perhaps they aren't aware of it at all.

JohnH is right about this.

The Mennonite Church in both its plain and non-plain manifestations is still a predominantly rural or exurban church. The number of churches centered in liberal cities or places like college towns is a small fraction of the total. Consequently, the vast majority of Mennonite churches are located in what we more or less call “red America” and do tend to reflect that larger political landscape in which they reside. I would guess that perhaps 90% of Mennonite churches in this country are located within counties or precincts that voted red. Even in a blue state like Oregon there are probably only two Mennonite churches that are overtly liberal. The one in inner-city Portland and the one in the liberal college town of Eugene. And both of those are very small. By contrast the other Mennonite congregations of every flavor are pretty conservative politically and mostly located in rural or exurban areas. At best they are divided politically and certainly not predominantly liberal unless your definition of “liberal” is driving a colored car, owning an TV and not wearing a covering. I have an enormous extended family on both sides, the majority of whom are Mennonite in either the MCUSA or CMC variety. And the majority of whom are conservative politically and were likely Trump supporters. They are mostly scattered across rural Oregon, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan. The few who are not conservative are decidedly in the minority.

[Bootstrap]

To me, it is important to measure everything we get involved in from a two-kingdom worldview and if a movement muddies the waters of the two-kingdom worldview, I generally steer clear of them. I am convinced there is nothing that's wrong with society that the NT KOG can't address from a two-kingdom worldview. It's up to followers of Jesus to figure out how to address them and still be loyal to our Kingdom alone.

I agree, especially when we focus on what Jesus actually said about his Kingdom. There’s so much clarity and challenge in his teaching that still speaks directly to the struggles around us today.

On the two kingdoms, I’m more of a Marpeck than a Sattler. I appreciate the vision of a Kingdom that is fully distinct, yet still called to bring light and healing into the world—not through domination or compromise, but through faithful presence and witness. I also believe the government has a valid role to play in some of this. We may not place our trust in it, but that doesn’t mean we deny its God-given responsibility to protect the vulnerable and pursue justice where it can. The Kingdom of God remains our ultimate loyalty, but that doesn’t mean silence when the state violates that responsibility.

Racial issues are a real thing in the South where I live. Our experience has been that refusing to get involved with some of the movements that resulted from the George Floyd killing, and more importantly, attempting to consistently leave a 3rd way witness has opened a door with the black community to not only feel at home in our business establishment (restaurant) but has also opened the way to establish deep and meaningful Christian relationships with black pastors and others who are very involved in outreach within their communities.

This became so evident to me during and after a 16 day hospital stay I had back in December. I had texts assuring me of their love and prayers and after I got back to work, numerous hugs from people I recognized but didn't know their names, and many asking how I was doing and letting me know they had been praying. Their response made me realize that treating everyone (black and white) with dignity and respect and trying to be Christlike in our witness has done so much more than it would have if we would be politically involved in our town and taking sides on hot button political issues.

Thanks for sharing that. I had a similar experience doing prison ministry that was led by black churches. We didn't talk politics, we talked Jesus and how to help the prisoners. But during the George Floyd period, the black people I know were devastated and felt a horrible injustice had been done. I agree with that. And hearing them out was important in my relationship with them.

I think a lack of experience and teaching regarding active Christian service in our communities has opened the door to that void being filled by political ideologies and evangelical examples of political activism that have impacted our communities in negative ways.

I agree. And if we are not actively serving, I do not think we are living out our lives as Christians.

[Bootstrap]

Here's how I understand it.

Churches across the political spectrum started to treat the political issues of their time as if they were core to the gospel. Racism in the 1960s and abortion in the 1980s became wedge issues—points of deep moral concern that also served to pull churches into alignment with particular political movements.

Once that alignment happened, churches began to absorb the framing, language, and priorities of those movements. Their talking points are our talking points. Their world view deeply shapes our world view.

As Christians, I think we should be involved in justice, truth-telling, compassion, and public witness. But our involvement should come from a gospel-shaped worldview, not from left or right political ideologies. The church's problem isn’t too much involvement, but too little discernment—we’ve absorbed the world’s categories and talking points instead of operating out of the deeper story of Scripture and life with Christ.

For the most part I agree and the result has been that society is now reflecting all this by who is being elected to political office.

Depending on what you mean by the church's problem isn't too much involvement, I might agree. I disagree if you are saying the church hasn't been too involved in attempted political solutions relating to injustice and a lack of compassion. I agree if you are saying the church's problem isn't too much involvement in being examples of what it means to be just, truthful and compassionate.

Thanks, Gary. I really appreciate this exchange.

I think we’re on the same page in some important ways. Like you, I’m concerned about how easily the church has absorbed the tone, strategies, and categories of politics. We agree that our engagement should be shaped by the gospel and the Kingdom of God, not by movements on the right or the left.

I also agree that getting too caught up in politics can be dangerous. When political engagement starts to take over our identity or eclipse our witness, it weakens the church. We need to be careful and discerning about how and why we get involved.

Where I think we may differ is in how we understand disengagement. I don’t think Kingdom faithfulness always means silence. Sometimes speaking truth, even to power or just to each other, is part of what it means to live in the light. Not because we believe the political system will fix things, but because truth, justice, and compassion are part of life in the Kingdom. That doesn’t mean trying to control others, but I don’t think it always means stepping back either.

I’d be interested to hear more from you on this. What do you think faithful disengagement looks like in real life? And how does that shape how we speak the truth, not just to the state but to one another?

[Pelerin]

I don’t have anything really to add at this point but I’d just like to say that I had skipping over this thread because, between the title and the fact that it’s up to thirteen pages, I was pretty sure I could guess what was being said but when I opened it I was pleasantly surprised to find there’s actually a good discussion worth reading here. So carry on.

[Ernie]

I believe our witness will be much more effective if we do not appear political as we attempt to draw Christianity back to a clear distinction between Jesus' Kingdom and earthly kingdoms.

So back to this topic...

I understand your position, and that you think it is better if Christians do not publicly call out politicians, particularly if it is a current hot button topic, and especially if it might appear to favor one political party.

What about defending particular politicians, or the stances of certain parties?

As I think back to the people/party stances you have defended at length on MennoNet, I can't remember a defense of someone or some stance other than those of one party. I don't particularly care that you only defended one party (if I indeed remember correctly) but wonder how this fits into your ideal world?