Is Jesus for “Law & Order?”

[Szdfan]

How do you see Jesus violently driving the moneylenders out of the Temple fit into your formulation of "order and law?"

Because what they were doing was not lawful.

To me, this passage complicates the idea that Jesus always modeled quiet submission to earthly powers and authorities. How do you interpret it?

Because Jesus was, and is, the ultimate authority.

I don't disagree. The entire point of the New Testament is that Jesus is the ultimate authority. One of the dynamics of the Gospels, however, is how often Jesus's authority isn't recognized or is misunderstood. We know that Jesus is the Son of God -- the Pharisees and Temple authorities don't. They plot to kill him, but don't make any moves because of Jesus's popularity with the crowds, not because of his authority. To them, Jesus is just a disruptive rabbi from the Galilee backwater.

I think what John is doing sidesteps the implications of this passage and doesn't really answer my question. Jesus's disruption of the Temple moneylenders isn't an isolated incident in Scripture. It is a continuation with the prophetic witness of the Old Testament against the injustices of power.

That what I find strange about this move -- when it comes to moral example and private beliefs, Jesus is the authoritative example for us today. When Jesus steps out that lane and disrupts earthly power and authority, then suddenly he's special and what he does has no bearing on us.

[Bootstrap]

Let me see where we agree or disagree about how the law should function. I think everyone in this thread agrees on the following:

1. Law is important and ordained by God. Good law promotes justice.
2. Law can be perverted and become an instrument of injustice and oppression.
3. Civil order is good, and leads to safety and prosperity.

I assume everyone would also agree on these - am I wrong?

1. Rulers who shout "law and order" have often acted like the law does not apply to them at all.
2. What a ruler says in a political speech may not reflect what he actually does.
3. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Checks and balances are important because "men are not angels".
4. Police power and military power have frequently been abused, killing people and destroying their lives unjustly. When someone has the power to kill or harm others in the name of the law, there must be real oversight and transparency. Without that, abuse is likely.

Do we agree on these?

1. The rule of law means nobody is above the law — not leaders, not institutions, not regular people.
2. Laws should be clear and open so everyone can know what they are.
3. The same laws should apply to everyone, rich or poor, powerful or powerless.
4. Judges should make decisions fairly, without pressure from politics or power.
5. Everyone has a right to due process — fair treatment and a real chance to be heard before any punishment or loss of rights.
6. The laws themselves should protect people’s basic rights and human dignity.

[Bootstrap]

As Christians, I assume we also agree on this:

Jesus cared deeply for people who were mistreated or crushed by unjust systems — the poor, the accused, the outcasts — and he showed that real justice means mercy, fairness, and love for those who have been wronged.

The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."

We see this in other NT writers, e.g. James:

Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts.

FWIW, I think a lot of the topics discussed in this thread were discussed fairly recently in this other thread:

Is faith supposed to judge politics?
https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 66#p284666

[Bootstrap]

Do we agree with these statements on "order"?

A society can’t have real order when people’s rights are ignored or crushed. These people will find a way to be heard. If peaceful, orderly ways are not available, they will find other ways.

As Christians, we cannot endorse or participate in violence or riots. But we should not be surprised if people respond this way, they always have.

[temporal1]

How do you see Jesus violently driving the moneylenders out of the Temple fit into your formulation of "order and law?"

Because what they were doing was not lawful.

To me, this passage complicates the idea that Jesus always modeled quiet submission to earthly powers and authorities. How do you interpret it?

Because Jesus was, and is, the ultimate authority.

lesterb had a helpful response to this. similar to JH. i’ll try to find it.
Again, if the money changers had respected order and law, chaos would have been prevented. Also, i don’t believe anyone was harmed or even arrested.

They suffered inconvenience for their literal crimes.

[GaryK]

I would suggest that Jesus was attempting, in both His teachings and in the way he lived, to bring about a separation between religious law and civil law that you seem to be suggesting is a contemporary misunderstanding. I believe that is one reason you see Him coming down so hard on the religious leaders (they had gotten away from promoting the righteousness of God's Law) while saying very little, if anything, about Rome.

I wouldn't characterize it as "contemporary misunderstanding." I think we're reading scripture from our own post-Enlightenment context, which has very clean lines between faith and politics. But the ancient and medieval worlds didn't have this clean separation between church and state that we do. Our Anabaptist forbears weren't persecuted just because rebaptism was spiritual defiance. It was a political threat. Lutheranism didn't spread just because the German princes were theologically persuaded -- they also saw it as an opportunity to claw back political power from Rome. This strict separation between civil state and church is our division, not theirs.

The point I'm making is that it was a political threat because of the marriage of church and state, not because of rebaptism itself. In other words if the church would not have compromised the separation Jesus intended and that it was known for before Constantine, the persecution and opposition would have remained, not because of issues like baptism but rather because of the distinct separation that caused the early Christians not to participate in things that were clearly against the NT Kingdom of Jesus. It may have been interpreted by Rome as an act of political opposition, but to the Christians it was simple obedience to the way of Jesus.

I do like Two Kingdom theology. It's a bulwark against theocracy and the abuses of a tight union between Church and State. It's a good way for a minority faith to survive Empire. But I think that its insistence that Jesus life, death and resurrection was completely apolitical and only spiritual, misses its political dimensions.

Again, I don't believe that Two Kingdom theology, as I understand it, functions from a political perspective, in that it looks for ways to oppose earthly politics by taking political stances. Rather, I believe it functions from the belief that we make a societal difference by addressing the spiritual condition of humanity.

[JohnH]

As Christians, I assume we also agree on this:

Jesus cared deeply for people who were mistreated or crushed by unjust systems — the poor, the accused, the outcasts — and he showed that real justice means mercy, fairness, and love for those who have been wronged.

That depends, Boot. I tend to say we don't actually agree on that if agreeing on it means "you must, therefore, support politicians and government policies to enact a lavish welfare state".

Likewise, when a progressive Christian is speaking, they tend to extend "unjust systems" to mean "systems that don't tolerate homosexual acts" and "the outcasts" to mean "people who insist on having a homosexual identity and engaging in homosexual acts". Likewise, "those who have been wronged" extends to "practicing homosexuals who want to be ordained as clergy". There's a real gap in how different people interpret this passage.

[Szdfan]

I would suggest that Jesus was attempting, in both His teachings and in the way he lived, to bring about a separation between religious law and civil law that you seem to be suggesting is a contemporary misunderstanding. I believe that is one reason you see Him coming down so hard on the religious leaders (they had gotten away from promoting the righteousness of God's Law) while saying very little, if anything, about Rome.

I wouldn't characterize it as "contemporary misunderstanding." I think we're reading scripture from our own post-Enlightenment context, which has very clean lines between faith and politics. But the ancient and medieval worlds didn't have this clean separation between church and state that we do. Our Anabaptist forbears weren't persecuted just because rebaptism was spiritual defiance. It was a political threat. Lutheranism didn't spread just because the German princes were theologically persuaded -- they also saw it as an opportunity to claw back political power from Rome. This strict separation between civil state and church is our division, not theirs.

The point I'm making is that it was a political threat because of the marriage of church and state, not because of rebaptism itself. In other words if the church would not have compromised the separation Jesus intended and that it was known for before Constantine, the persecution and opposition would have remained, not because of issues like baptism but rather because of the distinct separation that caused the early Christians not to participate in things that were clearly against the NT Kingdom of Jesus. It may have been interpreted by Rome as an act of political opposition, but to the Christians it was simple obedience to the way of Jesus.

I do like Two Kingdom theology. It's a bulwark against theocracy and the abuses of a tight union between Church and State. It's a good way for a minority faith to survive Empire. But I think that its insistence that Jesus life, death and resurrection was completely apolitical and only spiritual, misses its political dimensions.

Again, I don't believe that Two Kingdom theology, as I understand it, functions from a political perspective, in that it looks for ways to oppose earthly politics by taking political stances. Rather, I believe it functions from the belief that we make a societal difference by addressing the spiritual condition of humanity.

Gary, I think you're expressing an articulate view of Two Kingdom theology. I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to it. It's a part of my own spiritual and theological DNA and there are many things about it that I appreciate about it. But like everything in creation, I think it also has limits and misses.

When I argue that Jesus's life, death and resurrection had a political dimension to it, I'm not saying that Jesus is a Republican or Democrat. I'm not saying that Jesus engaged in partisan politics (and the Gospels do refer to different political factions vying for power and influence). I'm talking about politics in a broader sense -- the question about what it means for us to live in society and how society makes decisions. In that sense, Two Kingdom theology and separation from the world is in itself just as political as any other theory about the relationship with power.

I'm very familiar with the argument that the Early Church was apolitical before Constantine and that it was corrupted when Christianity became the religion of the Empire. What also strikes me is how Two Kingdom theology parallels post-Enlightenment secularism. To me, the secular separation of Church and State mirrors Anabaptist separation from the World. Both believe that politics is public and faith is private and never shall the two meet. And yes, I think it's important for both the Church and State to have some sort of separation between them, but I also think it's not that simple.

I remember when my conservative Mennonite grandfather started listening to Rush Limbaugh during lunch. He listened religiously every weekday. He frequently expressed opinions about Bill Clinton and other political issues. I don't think Grandpa ever voted, but I also think he was political in ways he nevef acknowledged.

Faith and politics constantly seep into each other in informal ways. Faith affects how people vote and which politicians they support. Politics can influence people's theology and which parts of Scripture they emphasize.

In that sense, I don't think an argument that Christ wants his followers to submit to an unjust political order is a politically neutral position. I think it is a political choice and I think it risks ignoring the complexities of how both Scriptures and Jesus confront the injustices of worldly power.

[ken_sylvania]

Do we agree with these statements on "order"?

A society can’t have real order when people’s rights are ignored or crushed. These people will find a way to be heard. If peaceful, orderly ways are not available, they will find other ways.

As Christians, we cannot endorse or participate in violence or riots. But we should not be surprised if people respond this way, they always have.

I think I mostly agree, but the second statement seems rather milquetoast to me compared to the type of statements I hear from you regarding abusive government. Would you be satisfied to pair your statement with the following?

"As Christians, we cannot endorse or participate in abuse and corruption of power. But we should not be surprised if rulers abuse their power - they always have."

As far as I can tell God's plan everyone is that they do not abuse their power and that they do not behave disorderly or riot or be violent. Why not be a consistent witness and call everyone to follow God's way?

[Bootstrap]

I do like Two Kingdom theology. It's a bulwark against theocracy and the abuses of a tight union between Church and State. It's a good way for a minority faith to survive Empire. But I think that its insistence that Jesus life, death and resurrection was completely apolitical and only spiritual, misses its political dimensions.

Again, I don't believe that Two Kingdom theology, as I understand it, functions from a political perspective, in that it looks for ways to oppose earthly politics by taking political stances. Rather, I believe it functions from the belief that we make a societal difference by addressing the spiritual condition of humanity.

Honestly, I have no idea whether to agree or disagree with either of you, because you’re both using terms that you are not defining.

There are distinct differences among the Anabaptist and Mennonite versions of Two-Kingdom theology. Grebel & Blaurock, Michael Sattler, Pilgram Marpeck, Menno Simons, and Bathasar Hubmaier all used the phrase Two-Kingdom theology, but their two kingdom theologies differed.

And politics isn’t defined in what either of you wrote. What counts as “political”? Is it only about parties, governments, and elections? Or does it include any public action that affects how people live together (laws, justice, poverty, violence, care for the poor)? When you say Two Kingdom theology doesn’t “take political stances,” do you mean that it avoids party alignment and coercive power, or that it avoids public moral stances completely? Is it possible to take any public moral stance without it being political? If I say Jesus is Lord, isn't that political? The rulers in the time of Jesus and the apostles certainly thought it was.

Until you say what you mean by “politics” and which strand of Two-Kingdom theology you’re talking about, I really don't know what you’re actually saying. If you each define these carefully, there may or may not be an actual disagreement. If there is, it will be easier to know what it is.