Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[JohnH]

When I first became a Christian and started attending a Mennonite church, I was very relieved to find out I did not have to become a "Fox News" sort of Republican in order to be a Christian. Nor did I ever hear political appeals preached from the pulpit telling me I needed to have such beliefs.

Nowadays, I am also quite glad I don't need to be a Democrat or have Democratic views in order to be a Christian, and I am glad I don't have to hear sermons saying such from the pulpit.

I would prefer that it stays this way, not just for my sake, but for those of every seeker who may walk through the church doors. If you want to see separation of church and state, a great place to start is to not preach political stump speeches from the pulpit. I am dismayed that anyone thinks this is a remotely good idea.

[joshuabgood]

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?

He came as a King. Jesus reigns is, in essence, the gospel. He founded a rival kingdom. He will reign forever. Every knee will bow. As his kingdom strengthens the kingdoms of this world, that is the principalities and nationalities, will be overcome.

[Robert]

He came as a King. Jesus reigns is, in essence, the gospel. He founded a rival kingdom. He will reign forever. Every knee will bow. As his kingdom strengthens the kingdoms of this world, that is the principalities and nationalities, will be overcome.

George would say this started in 70 AD and we are experiencing it now. This is the stance of preterists. If we are already into Jesus' reign, do we have responsibility to participate?

[barnhart]

It seems to me about half the disagreement on this thread is over differing definitions of what it means to "be political". Everybody feels they are standing for truth but their opponents are defending political positions. I suggest maintaining biblical positions will be considered a political by someone, it's unavoidable. What is avoidable is entering the fray with the conviction your sympathetic faction should rule. In my opinion the sin is lust for power, not speaking out.

[joshuabgood]

Because one declares Jesus as King, that is political ruler, and no faith (allegiance) to any other political roller, Christianity, some would say, is by definition, though not exclusively, political.

[JohnH]

Because one declares Jesus as King, that is political ruler, and no faith (allegiance) to any other political roller, Christianity, some would say, is by definition, though not exclusively, political.

I've always found the idea that Jesus is "political" a bit absurd. He isn't running for office or participating in any worldly power structures. It seems like an attempt to make a divine being fit our very earthly ideas of what "power" is.

I know John Howard Yoder was a big proponent of this idea, but I think that's because his notions of "power" were very upside down, and eventually his personal confusion led him to write intelligent sounding but ultimately confused books.

[Bootstrap]

It seems to me about half the disagreement on this thread is over differing definitions of what it means to "be political". Everybody feels they are standing for truth but their opponents are defending political positions.

I agree. I think we all agree on things like this:

1. We belong to the Kingdom of God. That should be the center of our world view and identity.
2. We try to live in a way that’s different from the world around us.
3. Sermons should not be political stump speeches.

But I think it get harder when we ask which of these are appropriate for Christians in the Kingdom of God:

1. Political (Policy Talk) - I see disagreement on this in theory, but most people posting here do post about policy on MN.
2. Political (Party Loyalty, Power Games, Culture Wars) - perhaps everyone in this thread agrees this is bad? and many people are sure they don't do this but are convinced that other guy does? and some people want to make sure everyone else knows it?
3. Political (Justice and Compassion) - how do justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law respond to society and government around us?
4. Political (Criticizing Institutions) - has anyone said this is always bad? I think it can certainly go overboard and become an obsession ...
5. Political (Online Trolling) - arguing, mocking, or shaming others for having the "wrong" political view. Unfortunately, I think this happens fairly frequently on MN.

The "half of the disagreement" you are talking about has happened many times:

Luke: If people care about justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law, I think Political (Policy Talk) is unavoidable and I am trying to figure out where the boundaries are for Political (Justice and Compassion).
Chuck: That's absurd. How can a Christian possibly believe Jesus is calling us to Political (Party Loyalty, Power Games, Culture Wars)?

And Luke and Chuck are likely to keep talking past each other unless they agree to discuss these as separate things. Sometimes that gets into Political (Online Trolling).

I think most people in this thread believe Two Kingdom Theology is really, really important and are trying to live it out according to our best understanding. I also think we have inherited this phrase in our theological traditions without always thinking through what it means in the way we live in today's online-first political world. This thread can be a good place to try to think this out together.

I suggest maintaining biblical positions will be considered a political by someone, it's unavoidable. What is avoidable is entering the fray with the conviction your sympathetic faction should rule. In my opinion the sin is lust for power, not speaking out.

I think political self-righteousness is another danger. Often, it looks like people want to paint a picture of those other people they are better than. These days, that's often political, unlike the self-righteousness of the Pharisees, but it's still tribal and it's still self-righteous. We draw lines between "us" and "them" and feel superior. Of course, we tell ourselves we're "just defending the truth" ...

I'm trying to do better at these things, and it's not easy for me. One guideline: before posting, I am trying to ask if a post looks more like (1) love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control or more like (2) enmity, strife, fits of anger, rivalries, and divisions.

[JohnH]

Whether or not governments can exhibit compassion is, indeed, a policy topic for political discussion, and there is no agreement about that. Consequently, it's going to be hard for two people who different viewpoints on that to have a reasonable discussion about compassion in general.

[GaryK]

I think political self-righteousness is another danger. Often, it looks like people want to paint a picture of those other people they are better than. These days, that's often political, unlike the self-righteousness of the Pharisees, but it's still tribal and it's still self-righteous. We draw lines between "us" and "them" and feel superior. Of course, we tell ourselves we're "just defending the truth" ...

I'm trying to do better at these things, and it's not easy for me. One guideline: before posting, I am trying to ask if a post looks more like (1) love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control or more like (2) enmity, strife, fits of anger, rivalries, and divisions.

I really prefer for this thread to remain free from discussions about self-righteousness.

[GaryK]

It seems to me about half the disagreement on this thread is over differing definitions of what it means to "be political". Everybody feels they are standing for truth but their opponents are defending political positions.

I agree. I think we all agree on things like this:

1. We belong to the Kingdom of God. That should be the center of our world view and identity.
2. We try to live in a way that’s different from the world around us.
3. Sermons should not be political stump speeches.

But I think it get harder when we ask which of these are appropriate for Christians in the Kingdom of God:

1. Political (Policy Talk) - I see disagreement on this in theory, but most people posting here do post about policy on MN.
2. Political (Party Loyalty, Power Games, Culture Wars) - perhaps everyone in this thread agrees this is bad? and many people are sure they don't do this but are convinced that other guy does? and some people want to make sure everyone else knows it?
3. Political (Justice and Compassion) - how do justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law respond to society and government around us?
4. Political (Criticizing Institutions) - has anyone said this is always bad? I think it can certainly go overboard and become an obsession ...
5. Political (Online Trolling) - arguing, mocking, or shaming others for having the "wrong" political view. Unfortunately, I think this happens fairly frequently on MN.

The "half of the disagreement" you are talking about has happened many times:

Luke: If people care about justice, mercy, and the weightier matters of the law, I think Political (Policy Talk) is unavoidable and I am trying to figure out where the boundaries are for Political (Justice and Compassion).
Chuck: That's absurd. How can a Christian possibly believe Jesus is calling us to Political (Party Loyalty, Power Games, Culture Wars)?

And Luke and Chuck are likely to keep talking past each other unless they agree to discuss these as separate things. Sometimes that gets into Political (Online Trolling).

I think most people in this thread believe Two Kingdom Theology is really, really important and are trying to live it out according to our best understanding. I also think we have inherited this phrase in our theological traditions without always thinking through what it means in the way we live in today's online-first political world. This thread can be a good place to try to think this out together.

I suggest maintaining biblical positions will be considered a political by someone, it's unavoidable. What is avoidable is entering the fray with the conviction your sympathetic faction should rule. In my opinion the sin is lust for power, not speaking out.

I think political self-righteousness is another danger. Often, it looks like people want to paint a picture of those other people they are better than. These days, that's often political, unlike the self-righteousness of the Pharisees, but it's still tribal and it's still self-righteous. We draw lines between "us" and "them" and feel superior. Of course, we tell ourselves we're "just defending the truth" ...

I'm trying to do better at these things, and it's not easy for me. One guideline: before posting, I am trying to ask if a post looks more like (1) love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control or more like (2) enmity, strife, fits of anger, rivalries, and divisions.

Also, I'm wondering why the subject line on this post has been changed to "Can Christians be followers of Jesus"?