Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[GaryK]

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?

I'm guessing you are not the only one who perceives me as being a defender of only one party and I think I understand why that perception may be there. I think however, if you go back and read what I've posted, you will find that I have seldom defended particular political stances or politicians but have rather posted what I saw as inconsistencies in arguments being made and how those inconsistencies are emblematic of the inherent hypocrisy within earthly politics. I think one of the most consistent complaints I have received on MN is that I don't discuss the actual topics being discussed and that I tend to derail threads by posting about the inconsistencies I see in posts.

I think you will also find that most of my posts and pushback are in response to the idea that we should look at and discuss earthly political issues from a Kingdom of Jesus perspective. To me, that idea suggests that Jesus, the King of His Kingdom, sides with Democrats on some issues and with Republicans on others and that He expects earthly politicians to live by the morals and ethics of His Kingdom. I don't believe He does. His Kingdom is not of this world. If He has preferences as it relates to earthly political issues and expects politicians to be Christlike, then I see no reason at all for His followers not to become earthly politicians who promote His preferences and live by His Kingdom's ethics and morality.

This is why I very seldom push back on political posts that do not claim to be coming from a Kingdom of Jesus perspective. I think I remember some recent posts where you said something like "from an earthly kingdom perspective I can see why..." I really don't see a problem with that.

[Bootstrap]

I'm guessing you are not the only one who perceives me as being a defender of only one party and I think I understand why that perception may be there. I think however, if you go back and read what I've posted, you will find that I have seldom defended particular political stances or politicians but have rather posted what I saw as inconsistencies in arguments being made and how those inconsistencies are emblematic of the inherent hypocrisy within earthly politics. I think one of the most consistent complaints I have received on MN is that I don't discuss the actual topics being discussed and that I tend to derail threads by posting about the inconsistencies I see in posts.

That may be my most common complaint, at any rate. And there's an irony here - your criticisms seem to track fairly closely with the political positioning of one side, and much of what you highlight as inconsistent is challenges to that same side.

The problem with this, I think, is:

1. It personalizes the thread and distracts from whatever subject the thread is about, making it about me.
2. To respond, I have to abandon the subject at hand and accept the role of defendant, yet again, and abandon the original discussion. So how do we discuss the actual topic?
3. The burden shifts onto me to disprove your impression of me, while your impression gets to stand untested.
4. To me, your targets seem pretty consistent. See below.

I think you will also find that most of my posts and pushback are in response to the idea that we should look at and discuss earthly political issues from a Kingdom of Jesus perspective. To me, that idea suggests that Jesus, the King of His Kingdom, sides with Democrats on some issues and with Republicans on others and that He expects earthly politicians to live by the morals and ethics of His Kingdom. I don't believe He does. His Kingdom is not of this world. If He has preferences as it relates to earthly political issues and expects politicians to be Christlike, then I see no reason at all for His followers not to become earthly politicians who promote His preferences and live by His Kingdom's ethics and morality.

I think the real question is the other way around. The Bible tells us a lot about justice, truth, mercy, how we should relate to refugees, and that should be our moral compass, not what either party promotes. No party will ever represent the Kingdom of God, but parties can sometimes promote things that we, as the Kingdom of God, also promote. That's the whole point - we should not be their "useful idiots". But we can approve what is right and good.

To me, the MAGA wing of the Republican party is the one that most strongly claims to represent Christianity. Donald Trump actively courts Christian leaders to agree with him and promote his agenda. To many Americans, MAGA and Evangelicalism are becoming synonyms, even when MAGA promotes leaders and positions directly opposed to Christian values.

And Trump’s language has made it even harder to separate faith in God from loyalty to him. "I am the chosen one", "we are going to be a nation that worships God, not government” (while promoting personal loyalty to him and rejecting any limits on his own power). "Nobody has done more for Christianity than me." At CPAC 2021, they literally wheeled in a golden statue of Trump, which reminds me of a few things found in the Bible. Trump has even promoted Bibles with his name and patriotic branding - the "God Bless the USA Bible". J.D. Vance is also promoting a vision of national identity that increasingly mixes Christian language with authoritarian power.

This vision is showing up here in a lot of what we see promoted here on MN. There are claims that Trump and MAGA will save the country for Christians, and that criticizing them is un-Christian. And on MN, it becomes very hard to critique them from a Christian perspective without being called a traitor to the faith. Or at least a hypocrite.

I see that as a real danger. Not only to the country as a whole, but to our ability to think clearly as the Kingdom of God, to have reasonable discussions that focus on Kingdom of God values and actual facts, including different points of view, but providing room for discernment instead of drowning it out in tribalism.

Do you see the same dangers? If not, why not? If so, what is the best way for us to discuss these things as the Kingdom of God?

[GaryK]

I'm guessing you are not the only one who perceives me as being a defender of only one party and I think I understand why that perception may be there. I think however, if you go back and read what I've posted, you will find that I have seldom defended particular political stances or politicians but have rather posted what I saw as inconsistencies in arguments being made and how those inconsistencies are emblematic of the inherent hypocrisy within earthly politics. I think one of the most consistent complaints I have received on MN is that I don't discuss the actual topics being discussed and that I tend to derail threads by posting about the inconsistencies I see in posts.

That may be my most common complaint, at any rate. And there's an irony here - your criticisms seem to track fairly closely with the political positioning of one side, and much of what you highlight as inconsistent is challenges to that same side.

The problem with this, I think, is:

1. It personalizes the thread and distracts from whatever subject the thread is about, making it about me.
2. To respond, I have to abandon the subject at hand and accept the role of defendant, yet again, and abandon the original discussion. So how do we discuss the actual topic?
3. The burden shifts onto me to disprove your impression of me, while your impression gets to stand untested.
4. To me, your targets seem pretty consistent. See below.

And the primary reason for this is not to defend a particular party but to push back on the idea that we should inject Kingdom of Jesus perspectives into earthly politics as I explain below.

I think you will also find that most of my posts and pushback are in response to the idea that we should look at and discuss earthly political issues from a Kingdom of Jesus perspective. To me, that idea suggests that Jesus, the King of His Kingdom, sides with Democrats on some issues and with Republicans on others and that He expects earthly politicians to live by the morals and ethics of His Kingdom. I don't believe He does. His Kingdom is not of this world. If He has preferences as it relates to earthly political issues and expects politicians to be Christlike, then I see no reason at all for His followers not to become earthly politicians who promote His preferences and live by His Kingdom's ethics and morality.

I also said this to Ernie, which helps explain my thinking.

This is why I very seldom push back on political posts that do not claim to be coming from a Kingdom of Jesus perspective. I think I remember some recent posts where you said something like "from an earthly kingdom perspective I can see why..." I really don't see a problem with that.

As to the rest of your post, which I didn't include in this response, I think I have been abundantly clear that I do not believe that earthly politics should be intertwined with the Kingdom of Jesus.

[Bootstrap]

That may be my most common complaint, at any rate. And there's an irony here - your criticisms seem to track fairly closely with the political positioning of one side, and much of what you highlight as inconsistent is challenges to that same side.

The problem with this, I think, is:

1. It personalizes the thread and distracts from whatever subject the thread is about, making it about me.
2. To respond, I have to abandon the subject at hand and accept the role of defendant, yet again, and abandon the original discussion. So how do we discuss the actual topic?
3. The burden shifts onto me to disprove your impression of me, while your impression gets to stand untested.
4. To me, your targets seem pretty consistent. See below.

And the primary reason for this is not to defend a particular party but to push back on the idea that we should inject Kingdom of Jesus perspectives into earthly politics as I explain below.

I believe you when you say that. And I do not criticize Trump because he is a Republican or out of personal animosity. I generally try to stay focused on the subject and the reasons for my criticism.

I also agree that we cannot inject the Kingdom of Jesus into earthly politics - but we can criticize the world from a Kingdom of God perspective. These two things are not the same. I think there are two reasonable choices: (1) we could decide to simply drop the politics forum from MN, or (2) if we do discuss politics, we could decide to continually keep asking ourselves how to do that constructively.

As to the rest of your post, which I didn't include in this response, I think I have been abundantly clear that I do not believe that earthly politics should be intertwined with the Kingdom of Jesus.

I agree with that. That's why I will not join a political party or a political campaign or run for office or donate to a political party or campaign. The Bible study I am leading right now is on the last week of Jesus' life, and that's what my sermons are about. My sermons are not political. I wish I had more time to do work with refugees or prison ministry, those are other ways I have tried to live out the Kingdom of God. Some of these things overlap with political issues, of course. But I chose not to participate in the Hands Off! protests, for instance, because I felt that was "intertwined" in a way I don't want to be.

How do you approach it? What does "intertwined" look like for you?

And one more thing: when you charge me with hypocrisy, I think that often means I am not consistent with your approach to these things. It doesn't mean I am inconsistent with my own understanding. Of course, it's quite likely that we are each inconsistent at times, I think that's true of all human beings. It's good for each of us to monitor that.

It's rarely helpful in a thread about another topic, though. It's much more constructive to discuss it the way we are here in this thread, as a topic of its own, each considering our own lives. With an eye to figuring out the best way to live out what we believe.

[GaryK]

And the primary reason for this is not to defend a particular party but to push back on the idea that we should inject Kingdom of Jesus perspectives into earthly politics as I explain below.

I believe you when you say that. And I do not criticize Trump because he is a Republican or out of personal animosity. I generally try to stay focused on the subject and the reasons for my criticism.

I also agree that we cannot inject the Kingdom of Jesus into earthly politics - but we can criticize the world from a Kingdom of God perspective. These two things are not the same. I think there are two reasonable choices: (1) we could decide to simply drop the politics forum from MN, or (2) if we do discuss politics, we could decide to continually keep asking ourselves how to do that constructively.

Or (3) not post in the politics forum using a Kingdom of Jesus perspective as the reason behind posting opinions about political issues. To me doing so seems to be intertwining the 2 kingdoms.

And one more thing: when you charge me with hypocrisy, I think that often means I am not consistent with your approach to these things. It doesn't mean I am inconsistent with my own understanding. Of course, it's quite likely that we are each inconsistent at times, I think that's true of all human beings. It's good for each of us to monitor that.

It's rarely helpful in a thread about another topic, though. It's much more constructive to discuss it the way we are here in this thread, as a topic of its own, each considering our own lives. With an eye to figuring out the best way to live out what we believe.

Again, as I stated earlier, I very seldom push back on political opinions that aren't prefaced from a Kingdom of Jesus perspective.

[Jazman]

I hope this doesn't derail the discussion... but I was listening to this and it felt like this part of these guy's discussion is addressing exactly what Boot and GaryK have been wrestling with. The link starts long into the interview but I resonate with both, but especially Skye's points about pastoring... What would either of you (Boot or GaryK) say to Skye's (or Rauch's?) points about the 'market' driven church; the staying quiet as politicization/partisanship? comes in from the bottom up?
Agree, disagree, agree with caveats/nuance...?

Personally I hold to what Skye suggests here... pastors need to address political idolatries coming into their churches and targeting their flock... maybe privately with parishioners if it's something very specific - but not limited to that. I think the pulpit is an appropriate place to confront, generally at least, fads/movements/temptations in this area... from the right and left and explicitly contrast those with the way of Jesus. (We seem to be able to easily do this with anything in the sexual area... why not things involving other virtues or lack there of?)
And if the 'political' that is targeting your church is coming from the far right, then speak to only that at that time. If it's coming from another side, address that then. In my opinion, whataboutism/both-sideism would be inappropriate at that moment and can easily slide into giving people a pass on what they should be self-examining confronting then and there.
And even, to the point of naming things...or at least so it's pretty clear what you are referring to - I think it's malpractice to try to be so aloof, and tip-toeing around something, where you hope your parishioners 'guess' the right answer to your point about...whatever.

[JohnH]

The pulpit is not an appropriate place to tell people what political opinions they’re “allowed” to have.

[barnhart]

Yes, pastors should include something like Skye's point what they do. A better strategy is to see an idolatry far in the future and build a biblical world view that will resist it naturally but pastors are not magic so they have address things as best they can.

[Bootstrap]

I hope this doesn't derail the discussion... but I was listening to this and it felt like this part of these guy's discussion is addressing exactly what Boot and GaryK have been wrestling with. The link starts long into the interview but I resonate with both, but especially Skye's points about pastoring... What would either of you (Boot or GaryK) say to Skye's (or Rauch's?) points about the 'market' driven church; the staying quiet as politicization/partisanship? comes in from the bottom up?
Agree, disagree, agree with caveats/nuance...?

Yes, this is good. The pastor only has the congregation's attention for a few hours a week. The rest of the time, they are steeped in the world, and in the world around us politics is the dominant religion. People are bringing political world views into the church. And as much as people like to insist their political opinions are grass roots, I think they are mostly astroturf. Political groups create talking points and memes and test them with focus groups and A/B testing, they know how to make use feel and make things go viral. The same people who fall asleep in a sermon can't ignore the political claims on social media.

Social media was designed to take up as much of our attention as possible. Politicians have learned to use it as one of their main tools. So by default, unless we are very intentional.

I think the pulpit is an appropriate place to confront, generally at least, fads/movements/temptations in this area... from the right and left and explicitly contrast those with the way of Jesus. (We seem to be able to easily do this with anything in the sexual area... why not things involving other virtues or lack there of?)

I agree, but carefully. Always starting with what the Bible says, as seen through the lens of Jesus, and judging the world by the Kingdom, not the other way around.

And if the 'political' that is targeting your church is coming from the far right, then speak to only that at that time. If it's coming from another side, address that then. In my opinion, whataboutism/both-sideism would be inappropriate at that moment and can easily slide into giving people a pass on what they should be self-examining confronting then and there.
And even, to the point of naming things...or at least so it's pretty clear what you are referring to - I think it's malpractice to try to be so aloof, and tip-toeing around something, where you hope your parishioners 'guess' the right answer to your point about...whatever.

Exactly.

[JohnL]

I get it GaryK. You’re trying to keep the focus on Jesus’ Kingdom. I never thought of you as one political party or another.
It’s been obvious to me during this week that there are some really thin skinned people who put their political party ahead of the needs of the local community and even the law. Even to the point of using blatant hypocritical doublespeak. If their fave party is exposed as corrupt they start foaming at the mouth and attack anyone that hints that they or their party have no credibility. They call people racist, liars, bigots, etc. they worship their party instead of God. The news is full of it. I’m glad you keep standing up for Jesus’ teachings and kingdom. God bless you.

I think I have been abundantly clear that I do not believe that earthly politics should be intertwined with the Kingdom of Jesus.