Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[GaryK]

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.

If pastors wait to address political idolatries until they are coming into their churches, I suggest something fundamental has been lost in their churches long before it got to that point. Pastors should regularly be teaching the fundamental differences between the two kingdoms so that it's well known in their communities that their churches will not tolerate political idolatries that emerge from society. To me it's problematic when current political issues become the drivers of what the church needs to address. It seems to me, if that is the case, that churches are playing catch up rather than leading the way. It's no wonder Western Christianity is as weak as it is.

[Ken]

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.

If pastors wait to address political idolatries until they are coming into their churches, I suggest something fundamental has been lost in their churches long before it got to that point. Pastors should regularly be teaching the fundamental differences between the two kingdoms so that it's well known in their communities that their churches will not tolerate political idolatries that emerge from society. To me it's problematic when current political issues become the drivers of what the church needs to address. It seems to me, if that is the case, that churches are playing catch up rather than leading the way. It's no wonder Western Christianity is as weak as it is.

Which "political idolatries" are pastors and churches supposed to take the lead on opposing and not tolerating? Idolatries such as these?

That the rich will inherit the Kingdom of God?
That we are to exploit and destroy God's creation for earthly profit rather than protect it?
That we are to turn our backs on immigrants, the sick, and the poor?

[GaryK]

Here's something else I believe complicates this issue of what should or should not be said across the pulpit. How consistent is it to teach against political idolatries in churches where it is assumed that practically everyone will go out and vote for one party or the other - the same parties that try to lift themselves up and put the other one down and the same parties that essentially promote the political idolatries pastors "need" to teach against? How will the pastor decide which of the two idolatries poses the greatest danger? What's to keep his own political leanings from influencing what is taught against?

Now compare that with churches that promote a strong two-kingdom worldview; a worldview that teaches against getting involved in earthly political functions like voting; a worldview that teaches putting others first; a worldview that teaches suffering love instead of coercion; a worldview that teaches that people's lives can be radically changed by following the way of Jesus.

I choose the latter - it's a lot less complicated!

[GaryK]

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.

If pastors wait to address political idolatries until they are coming into their churches, I suggest something fundamental has been lost in their churches long before it got to that point. Pastors should regularly be teaching the fundamental differences between the two kingdoms so that it's well known in their communities that their churches will not tolerate political idolatries that emerge from society. To me it's problematic when current political issues become the drivers of what the church needs to address. It seems to me, if that is the case, that churches are playing catch up rather than leading the way. It's no wonder Western Christianity is as weak as it is.

Which "political idolatries" are pastors and churches supposed to take the lead on opposing and not tolerating? Idolatries such as these?

That the rich will inherit the Kingdom of God?
That we are to exploit and destroy God's creation for earthly profit rather than protect it?
That we are to turn our backs on immigrants, the sick, and the poor?

Political idolatries of any stripe that find their way into churches are simply a symptom of a much deeper problem, which is what I tried to express above.

[JohnH]

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.

... so we should make the few hours a week in church also steeped in politics?

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.

This is an awfully cynical view of people. I think that people genuinely hold the views they do, and respect them for choosing to have those views. I don't think it's respectful to claim that people only have the views they do because they are "programmed" to do so.

But let's turn this around: are your political opinions the ones they are simply because of astroturf, because a political group created a talking point and tested it and knew they could convince you to hold their opinion?

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.

Then the church should take a stance against social media and actually mean it.

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.

If you're going to decide to bring poltics into the pulpit, then the politics has to be about the most obvious things that are clear in scripture. One of them is that we shouldn't kill babies. Well, let's bring that into the pulpit. "Whatever involvement in politics you have... it must be involvement that leads to the government not sanctioning killing babies." Where do you think that will lead?

[Ken]

If you're going to decide to bring poltics into the pulpit, then the politics has to be about the most obvious things that are clear in scripture. One of them is that we shouldn't kill babies. Well, let's bring that into the pulpit. "Whatever involvement in politics you have... it must be involvement that leads to the government not sanctioning killing babies." Where do you think that will lead?

It could lead a lot of directions:

No more funding of Israel's war in Gaza and the West Bank. Lots of sanctioned killing of babies there.
No more use of fossil fuels which leads to infant deaths from asthma and respiratory disease
Universal childhood vaccinations

Those are just a few of hundreds of possible examples.

[JohnH]

If you're going to decide to bring poltics into the pulpit, then the politics has to be about the most obvious things that are clear in scripture. One of them is that we shouldn't kill babies. Well, let's bring that into the pulpit. "Whatever involvement in politics you have... it must be involvement that leads to the government not sanctioning killing babies." Where do you think that will lead?

It could lead a lot of directions:

No more funding of Israel's war in Gaza and the West Bank. Lots of sanctioned killing of babies there.
No more use of fossil fuels which leads to infant deaths from asthma and respiratory disease
Universal childhood vaccinations

Those are just a few of hundreds of possible examples.

Sounds like a terrible church.

[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?

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.

Your comments in blue above are probably correct.

But I think the case you are making for why we should not be singling out politicians and calling them out publicly, because it may make us as Christians appear partisan, could also apply to addressing inconsistencies in arguments that end up favoring one party. This also makes a person appear partisan.

I have been resigning myself to the fact that calling leaders out publicly for their sins and errors in judgment, will result in people believing that I am partisan.
I've also been resigning myself to the fact that if I call out professing Christians who claim to be following Jesus and claim to be following His inspired Word, and who are supporting politicians or political viewpoints, that I may be viewed as partisan.
I don't know any way to get around this other than to be very vague and so generalized that whatever I say doesn't have any salt effect.

I think calling out inconsistencies in the arguments of those who are defending certain politicians or political viewpoints, will also make people think that a person is partisan.
I don't have any interest in doing this on MN, because soon the consistency debate gets lost in the weeds and the only thing that is remembered is the long nuanced conversation (argument) about consistency, and that a particular party seems to be favored.
I don't particularly fault anyone for doing this. We all have our recreation and hobbies. I'm just pointing out that this can make us appear partisan.

[JohnH]

Ernie,

I suppose it depends on whether you have a reputation for consistently doing this across the political spectrum, or if your desire to do so essentially only exists for one specific politician/political party. If the latter, you are partisan - which doesn’t belong in the pulpit.

I’m fine with partisanship as long as people admit to it. I have friends who would openly say: “I support the ideals of the Democratic Party and am opposed to the principles of the Republican Party. I will almost always support Democrats against Republicans.” With the ground rules set, we can have good discussion.

However I would not be open to such a person giving a political speech from the pulpit. Their motivations would be earthly, not spiritual.

[Ernie]

I suppose it depends on whether you have a reputation for consistently doing this across the political spectrum, or if your desire to do so essentially only exists for one specific politician/political party.

Yes, if you don't want to be labeled as partisan, then it is important to be "consistently doing this across the political spectrum", making sure that the ratio stays within the 49-51% range. A 45/55 ratio will probably get you labeled and a 40/60 will definitely get you labeled.
(This last point could be discussed further in the "partisan indications" thread. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7695)

But if one's goal is to call out the actions of those who profess to be followers of Jesus, as concerns manifest themselves, and to lament injustices to humanity, and to expose hindrances to the kingdom of God, and if one does not care about being labeled partisan, then there is no need to aim for the 49-51% range, but rather one can focus on the issues at hand. In one era, a person may appear to lean left, in another era a person may appear to lean right, but their consistent message over the decades will remain stable, regardless of the political winds.