Christ for President
 

As per request, I'd like to continue an emerging discussion from http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1434691. Basically, the assertion was made that Jesus was apolitical.

As i said there, i don't think that's the whole story. While it's far, far too simple to say Jesus is a Democrat or Republican...there is a profoundly political aspect to the message, teachings and person of Jesus the Christ.

He's executed on a political charge. Treason. Much of the way he's interpreted...especially by Paul, lends itself well to this view. Kyrios or lord, basilea or kingdom, eirene or peace, pistis or faith...all these words have extremely political meanings in that time. Caesar is the only power recognized who can deliver authority, peace, kingdom, order, peace... Jesus makes a claim to people that is beyond the poltical order. The apolitical comment is in someways correct...he's not stumping for yet another canidate...and in that way is apolitical. But his speech does bring him in to conflict with political systems. Then and now.

How do we take these teachings? Is Jesus' example or teaching to use political systems to effect change? To supercede them? To obey them? Is Christ, or Christianity intrinsically political?

Jesus was indeed apolitical, focusing on the actions and responsibility of the individual.

He did not rally against the then current political machine ("Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," "My Kingdom is not of this World") but instead focused on the individual ("Is there no one left to condemn you?").

You say he was executed on a political charge, but that is a simplistic explanation of his execution. The reality is that he was executed because he rocked the boat of the status quo (the Pharasees and Saducees), so Pilate executed him to pacify them and the mobs they controlled.

Not exactly the trial of the Chicago Seven.

That Jesus' teachings were and are in conflict with some political institutions does not mean that he was political. (Indeed, since there are no "institutions" without individuals, this is not suprising.)

Simply because his teachings focus on the individual does not mean they are not political in nature.

Libertarians focus on the individual and they are clearly political.

As you said, without individuals, there are no institutions and therefore any teachings which are directed at how an individual should live their life is inherently directed at how society should exist and as such, the politics of it.

Jesus was entirely political. He basically said - live this way or you're not getting into Heaven. So he had the ultimate penalty for disobedience. He doesn't need laws or leaders or parties - he was the law, the leader and all parties. Society was his to mold, in his mind. If you did something that he defined as against society, you weren't punished for it here - rather, you would be punished for it by God. Essentially, he was a dictator, using the afterlife as the method of persuasion. The ultimate in hard-line leadership.

" so Pilate executed him to pacify them and the mobs they controlled. "

I'll have to disagree again. While the temple authorities are likely accomplices to the execution of Jesus, i doubt the Pharisees had mobs in their control in Jerusalem. This was the Passover, and the romans had just about every legion in town just to maintain order. Pilate is later recalled to Rome for showing excessive cruelty.

Let that sink in. Pilate was too harsh for Roman standards. So. Think about the "reluctant" Pilate in the Gospels and ask yourself if it makes sense...or if it was the Gospel writers trying (with reasonable cause) to save their skins. The charge really says it all. Claiming leadership, kingship, basilea...outside of Ceasar, was likely to get a person killed. Look in Mark, about what Jesus says about the kingdom. Not that it isn't here on Earth...but that it is coming soon. How do you think that would sound in Roman ears?

Apolitical is too vague, IMHO, to be used for or not for Jesus. Apolitical is having no involvement or intrerst in politics. Jesus was involved in theological politics, and then was forced into governmental politics towards the end, but his main involvement was in philosophy. Jesus, whether you believe or not, was a great philosopher. When we think of great philosophers from ancient times, Aristotle, Buddha, Confucius, Epicurus, Plato, etc., we do not think of their effect on politics. While a lot of the ideologies brought fourth from philosophers can have a political effect, I'm not sure if a direct corrilation is merrited.
'Christ for President' is a fun way to cheat your take on politics into a simplistic fantasy that can be a relief, but He isn't running. Even if He were here, I don't think He would run for office or become political.

jesus may not have been political in the sense that we think of it in our era, but his ministry undeniably intersected with the political figures and issues of his day.

don't forget that although the jews were under roman control at the time, the religious leaders of the time were also the teachers/judges/lawmakers of that culture. any time jesus had confrontations with the religious authorities (the gospels cite numerous examples of this) he is simultaneously taking on the political establishment as well.

I don't know, but I'd say rocking the boat of the status quo is about as political as political gets.

wilravel...despite my terrible weakness for all things country gospel, including the little ditty by Mr. Guthrie...i don't think Christ would run for president. Frankly, i think being the messiah is probably a full time job as it is. my more serious question is not "how would Christ run the country" but rather: "how should Christians contribute to running this country?"

OHHHHHHHHHH. Hahaha, completly missed your question. Christianity has been part philosophy/part politics since the beginning. I am not just referring to church bodys like the Catholic church either.
My dad was a pastor. He quit his job when I was about 6 or 7 and we moved to St. Louis so he could attend seminary. After about 4 years there, we were placed in a church. This was a small town settled by germans in California. It was the place that time forgot. The population read like Miami; basically all grandparents. The church body reflected the populus prtty well. 90% of the church were grandparents. Also, this church had broken off of another church, but more about that later. It was great for the first few years. We (dad, mom, brother, and I) helped the church to grow and had younger people attending. Then problems started. Several people were suddenly very vocal about problems with other people. Clicks becaume aparent as we were shocked to see that these pleasant old people actually had deep seeded resentment towards other people in the church. The situation deterriorated until several of the largest families in the church left. It became very clear that this would take some 'political' work. My dad called the pastor of the church our church broke off of. Aparently, we got the troublemakers. We tried having sessions with people, dealing with the issues. It worked at the sessions, but afterwards it al fell back apart. All along, we, the first family of God, had to be perfect. If I had bad grades at school or broke up with a gf, the whole town knew. I would over hear people talking about it in church. The situation got a lot worse, but sufffice to say that we had to leave, and the church broke apart.

There are politics in modern Christianity. There is politics whereever there are more than two people involved. Christians, as far as helping to run the country, should follow God's teachings on morality, law, and gospel. He explained what he wants us to do in the bible.

Oh God...that didn't make any sense. I say people should do what they think is right. Christian, Musslim, Wicca, or whatever.

Suggestion: Read "Conflict Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus," by Marcus J. Borg. It totally addresses this topic, and really addresses all sides of the issue with very little religious slant.

Disclaimer: I am an atheist who doubts that anyone called Jesus existed anywhere as the Bible states.

That said I think it could well be argued that he was a socialist

*nods

i'd say it this way. socialism in many ways is compatible with the teachings of Jesus.

It's not like we have his voter registration card...so i think assigning a political affiliation is kind of silly. not to mention...it gives an aura of divinity to a human institution, that like all others...does not merit it.

I would read it, but I'm afraid I would be assimilated. ;)

As I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to discuss what an individual Christian's role in shaping the nation they live in should be. My understanding is that it is every Christian's responsibility to continue the minisistry of Jesus here on earth until He returns. That ministry as it is given to us in the gospels consisted of transforming individual lives. In as much as individuals are responsible for political decisions, then Christians should be very involved in politics. The problem with democracy is that it tends to be a popularity contest. We see this in Senator Kerry's debate with president Bush. As THE most liberal Senator in congress, Kerry didn't stand a chance at getting elected unless he became more moderate. This lends to his current platform being inconsistent with his track record in the senate. In order to get elected, Kerry can't actually stand up for what he believes because it may make him unpopular. President Bush seems to be holding his stance for what he believes is right no matter how unpopular it is and because of this is putting his re-election at risk. I disagree that Jesus was establishing a dictatorship. As omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent God, only He has the ultimate sovreignty to decide what is wrong and right. God is also the standard for what is good. He wants what is best for all people. Does not the Creator have the right to decide the best use for His creation, human life? A human dictator has a narrow view of what is right and wrong. No human can be completely objective. As the author of the universe, existing outside of time and space, but still able and willing to influence the universe, God is the most qualified governing body for any nation.

The posts in this thread have so far only spoken about Jesus the man who lived 2000 years ago. According to the Bible, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different aspects of one entity. Also, Christians recognize that Jesus(God) is alive today and still influencing lives. When He returns like He promised, He will be President, King, Sultan, and God over all the earth. So it only makes sense for Christians to start exerting His sovereignty and influence on the earth today.

I think it's impossible to say anything about Christ's politics, strictly speaking. He didn't say much about politics in the first place, and when he did, it was generally in support of the status quo (Render unto Caesar...) Not that I think Christians shouldn't be politically active; depending on what you mean by that, I wholeheartedly agree. But when we start saying "Jesus would be a socialist" or "Jesus would be a Republican", we are treading on the very dangerous ground next door to statements like "If you're not a socialist/republican, you're not a Christian." I know many good Christians who are going to vote for Bush. I know many good Christians who are voting for Kerry. I suspect there are good Christians who are voting for Nader, or who are even not voting. One's political alignment says nothing about one's commitment to Christ.

I'm not sure i'm comfortable using something that so very obviously belongs to someone else. While we may have good intentions, i'm a bit putoff by the idea of using Christ's soveregnity in the meantime. i think we are called to be servants before we are called to be leaders... we have work to do, but i don't think we necessarily ought to be doing so as a conscious attempt for power.


Good point... Though i would say one's political alignment does say a lot about the way one structures one's commitment to Christ. There are good theological defenses of many political positions...but any political position is theological. Does that make sense? one can be democrat and christian or republican and christian...but it does seem to indicate a pretty big difference in theolgical priorities.

Jesus would have been a Communist in the purist sense that everything was for the greater good of the society. Jesus felt that the rich should disperse with their wealth and follow him. So in his eyes everyone would be on the same level. He also said to follow kings, which is an example central form of government in a communist society. "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Give to God what is God's." In a perfect functioning communism the resources collected from taxes would be redistributed for the good of the society. Republicans and Democrats are both products of a free and open society.

Communisism has no sense of individualism. Christ's teachings are essentially individualistic: what matters is what happens between god and you, not anything else. Christ has absolutely no political aspirations, as he sees the political as terrestial and, therefor, pointless.

You interpretation of "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" is interesting, but wrong, I think. It's a statement that basically says there is no need for revolution, that the current government (ANY current government) is fine, and need not bother anyone's head. So, I suppose in the banal sense that were Christ chatting in a perfectly functioning comunist society, he would be a commie, then sure, that's true. But the Christ is in no sense the Che.

I would disagree, they aren't individualistic at all since all christians should aspire to the same goal to being more like Jesus, a single individual. There are other versus reffering to support of goverment that is just the only reference I could grab off of the top of my head.

Matthew's judgement scene paints the judgement in total terms of if people have helped their neighbor, the needy and the oppressed or not. Our relationship with God is personal and individual...but the results of that is supposed to be an outwardly directed effort to create and redeem in partnership with God.

I should not, along the same lines as living fossil, that if there's one ideology Christ would not have supported, it's communism. Communism is essentially revolutionary, and there's a lot of evidence that Christ strongly supported working with the status quo.

Communism isn't so much revolutionary as the regimes that abuse their power in its name.

Nope, communism is avowedly revolutionary. Read Marx. Read Rosa Luxemburg. The Weimar Republic failed in part because the left was divided between the communists, who wanted a revolution, and the socialists, who wanted to work within the system. Every communist government came to power through a revolution. Want more?

Any goverment comes to power the revolution, democracy came to power through revolution, new kings come to power through revolution, theocracies come to power through revolution, and on and on. All government is the spawn of some revolution.

Jesus was politically a communist in my opinion, and a pacifist, and above all else a revolutionary. While he did see himself as "Not of this world" he certainly preached moral standards of behaviour that had a huge social and political impact on society... to call him a Republican or a Democrat would be ludicrus, but he did have a political and social vision, he was concerned life on earth as well as the Kingdom of the father.

I certainly do believe in the historical reality of Jesus, although I'm not sure if he is the son of God, the great prophet of Allah, or just a communist rabbi.

i think we have to be careful about what revolution means.

the one point that seems quite obvious to me is that Jesus, while on earth, does not make any attempt to forcefully subvert Roman authority. He performs several non-violent resistances to that authority, but refuses to take up arms. what he's showing is that even in a world that pays only lip service to the ideas of peace and justice, it is possible to choose that path.

if by revolutionary, you mean empowering people to live just lives in an injust system...yeah. if you mean gathering troops for the assault on the bourgousie...i think that's hard to argue.

Well considering the world enviroment at the time where people were curcified publicly as a warning, entertainment, and vengance, the concept of peacfully resisting the most horrendous and unjust of fates and extending mercy to leapers who were cast out from society would be a revolutionary societal ideal

*nods

indeed it was. i guess the clarification i'm trying to make is that revolutionary has gotten associated with armed rebellion. and that's not a value that Jesus espoused.

Same going with communism being evil, it is the regiemes in power that make it so. There were good kings and bad kings. Tell some people that Jesus was a communist and not a Republican, they get this look in their eyes like they are going to tar and feather you.

wasnt jesus a socialist? and you wonder if he is a democrat or a republican? those are both right wing parties efff eeefff eeesss!