Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[Ernie]

I don't believe Jesus sides with one side or the other on political issues but that's not to say that at times political issues don't side more or less with Jesus' Kingdom. But it should always be in that order. Jesus' Kingdom is leading the way in changing people's hearts and lives and regardless what politics is doing, whether it aligns with the Kingdom or not, the Kingdom of Jesus will not be swayed or deterred from its mission. The nature of Jesus and His desire for His Kingdom is to be without inconsistency and hypocrisy.

I agree with this!

[GaryK]

Josh, If this is true of Ernie and I do not think it is, then why is it not also true that you have been sucked into the conservative political world? Your message seems to pretty consistently mirror what the conservative worldly voices are saying?

Probably because you only ever see me arguing with Ken and a handful of other people on this board who have consistently archetypal liberal or liberal-progressive positions. If you interacted with me in other arenas, then you'd know that most my conversations with politics with family or friends who seem to be outsourcing a lot of their thinking to right-wing clickbait is about the serious concerns I have with the emerging new right, the existing "establishment" right, and so on.

But we never really get space to talk about that here. I have started several threads about concerns I had with Trump, for example. Almost no responses and no engagement, so...

Your message seems to pretty consistently mirror what the conservative worldly voices are saying?

I don't actually think I do. It's just that whenever I don't mirror that, nobody here argues with me about it. So the thread is started, I make a post or two, at that's the end.

I made a decision a while ago to stop arguing with temporal1 and Valerie about their particular flavor of right-wing politics. I think that was a good decision. Part of my reasoning is that they do not claim to have been Anabaptists nor to have ever been. So I respect their viewpoints from that perspective. (If you would care to find ancient posting history on MennoDiscuss, you could see some quite spirited debates.)

I just thought your characterization of Ernie being sucked into the liberal-progressive world was unfair.

[joshuabgood]

I don't believe Jesus sides with one side or the other on political issues but that's not to say that at times political issues don't side more or less with Jesus' Kingdom. But it should always be in that order. Jesus' Kingdom is leading the way in changing people's hearts and lives and regardless what politics is doing, whether it aligns with the Kingdom or not, the Kingdom of Jesus will not be swayed or deterred from its mission. The nature of Jesus and His desire for His Kingdom is to be without inconsistency and hypocrisy.

I agree with this!

Jesus didn't come to take sides. He came to take over.

[joshuabgood]

Your perspective on Anabaptist Perspectives says more about your political views, methinks, than it does theirs.

What did I say about Anabaptist Perspectives?

Sorry...I meant Anabaptist Viewpoint.

[GaryK]

I don't believe Jesus sides with one side or the other on political issues but that's not to say that at times political issues don't side more or less with Jesus' Kingdom. But it should always be in that order. Jesus' Kingdom is leading the way in changing people's hearts and lives and regardless what politics is doing, whether it aligns with the Kingdom or not, the Kingdom of Jesus will not be swayed or deterred from its mission. The nature of Jesus and His desire for His Kingdom is to be without inconsistency and hypocrisy.

I agree with this!

Jesus didn't come to take sides. He came to take over.

Can you share more about what "take over" means in this context?

[JohnH]

Your perspective on Anabaptist Perspectives says more about your political views, methinks, than it does theirs.

What did I say about Anabaptist Perspectives?

Sorry...I meant Anabaptist Viewpoint.

Sorry, but any organization that dedicates itself to saying why using ground up aborted baby parts is OK loses all credibility in my eyes. From my point of view, it was a group of (barely) conservative Anabaptists (as far as I could tell, they are all in the moderate conservative strain) trying to get credibility in the eyes of the world by somehow speaking on behalf of plain Anabaptists (which they certainly do not have the authority to do) with "Look! We are smart people. We accept your vaccines and we will shame those of our own people who don't want them or have convictions against them."

Fortunately, the moderate conservative is rapidly fading into irrelevance. The more conservative people who simply want to transition to the world often skip this group; BMA has better music since they don't have a fear of playing the same music in their church houses that they would listen to in their cars, and their dress code is a lot less indecipherable. Or they just jump straight into an evangelical church, perhaps one with a little bit of Dutchy accent like Rosedale or LCBC, or perhaps not.

[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.

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.

I think that's a good point, (particularly what I bolded). Wholeheartedly in fact - if more of that had been done - yeah, I think we'd be at a better place, especially in America. (I think you see some version of this in many other countries, even Western ones, where the Church, particularly more evangelical or closer to what we're familiar with, have no political/cultural power and haven't for decades, if not longer. (Maybe they did in the past, but know they don't now.) And so they're a bit more immune to the temptations?

[Jazman]

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!

I guess I'm not quite at this 'less complicated' place you're at... I guess I can't divide things so neatly into the stark binary that I perceive you're suggesting ("churches who vote and therefore are all in/overcome by political idolatries vs churches who "promote a strong two-kingdom worldview"... ie no voting, no involvement, total aloofness...) I think there are churches/Christians who vote and participate in various ways, some more/some less... that do/can simultaneously do the things you hold up as the ideal. These: "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."
There are many Christians who vote, who also put others first or suffer with love instead of coercion. (in fact many who vote do some of those things far better than many Menno/Anabaptists who don't vote/participate in any way) I wonder if you've observed/seen any brothers/sisters in Christ like this? I certainly have.

There's a spectrum and I would agree that maybe all churches on that spectrum should be moving towards your ideal, but I'm not going to completely write off churches/other Christians because their not quite measuring up...

But that's where I'm standing, that's what I see.
I bless you in your convictions/stance though - what I see is a lot of thinking/prayer about this issue and wrestling and working out what you believe God is calling you to. That's commendable. I appreciate the evident deep thought put into it.

[barnhart]

I suspect all pastors will preach something eventually someone will regard as political.

[Ken]

I suspect all pastors will preach something eventually someone will regard as political.

Life is inherently political. I don't see how you can avoid it. One can find political implications in half the teachings in the Bible if one looks hard enough.

But I do believe they should studiously avoid partisan politics which is something different.