Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[ralliann]

I don't think there has ever been a genuine Christian polity and there won't be one until the Lord returns to rule and reign as King. Come Lord Jesus. God Bless You

That IMO would be the Church, not the state?

 

[lismore]

So how would you describe the various Kingdoms and states which were populated, administrated and governed by Christians over the last 1600 years or so? Were none of them authentically Christian? What were they then?

Hello! I would describe them in the same manner that the Lord Jesus, quoting the prophet Isaiah described a state religion of his day:

Matthew 15: 8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules"

Many profess faith in God, but deny him by their works. Look at those 1600 years of history- a catalogue of dark deeds. That's why the cry of the church is not for 'Christian' nations to be formed, but for the return of the Lord Jesus. Come Lord Jesus come. There will be no peace without the Prince of Peace, there will be no good Christian government without the return of the King of Kings. God Bless You

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hello! I would describe them in the same manner that the Lord Jesus, quoting the prophet Isaiah described a state religion of his day:

Matthew 15: 8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules"

Many profess faith in God, but deny him by their works. Look at those 1600 years of history- a catalogue of dark deeds. That's why the cry of the church is not for 'Christian' nations to be formed, but for the return of the Lord Jesus. Come Lord Jesus come. There will be no peace without the Prince of Peace, there will be no good Christian government without the return of the King of Kings. God Bless You

Interesting. So given that you disapprove of these So called Christian regimes, what would you have preferred in their place? Should Spain have been ruled by Muslims in your view? Should all power have been transferred to Non Christians?

Would you have supported the Vikings over Alfred the great? Honest question.

 

[lismore]

Interesting. So given that you disapprove of these So called Christian regimes, what would you have preferred in their place?

Hello! Ignatius. Thanks for your reply, sorry but my answer will be long.

I would have preferred the blessed hope, the return of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Which is why we are repeatedly told to pray 'Come Lord Jesus come'.

Until then I think this is good advice:

1 Timothy 2:1-2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Our aim is to live peaceful and quiet lives in godliness and holiness.

I'm not sure this involves taking power or trying to turn a denomination into a state church, which invariably fails.

Should Spain have been ruled by Muslims in your view?

Was it not one of your Orthodox compatriots, Loukas Notaras who reportedly said 'Better the Sultan's Turban than the Papal Tiara'?

Personally I would not like to live in a Muslim country, I would prefer a state where there is freedom of religion. The separation of church and state, or religion and state is a good thing IMHO. In Scotland in past decades there was a lot of sectarianism, Northern Ireland being even worse, sectarianism which is not good. Coming from a Catholic family, in a nominally Presbyterian-state country I have encountered prejudice, abuse and discrimination from people. Some companies in the 90s still had an official state backed no Catholics Policy. When my immediate family came out of the Catholic Church, for doctrinal reasons we were ostracized by Catholic family members who never spoke to us again. I have experienced the deadening hand of both Protestantism and Catholicism when they seek political power, it is the opposite of the Gospel.

Talking of Spain, what I have studied of Spanish History is quite a sad tale in every age. Visigothic Spain had a lot of darkness, persecution of Catholic by Arian, of Jews by both. Muslim Spain had a lot of darkness. Spain after the Reconquista had extreme bouts of violence and of persecution. The manner in which the Jews were treated in Post-Reconquista Spain was second perhaps only to the Third Reich in it's evil. The Spanish Inquisition is still a by-word for brutality and corruption even today. And Spanish History during the civil war in the 20th Century, atrocities committed against professing Christians and by professing Christians in the pursuit of political ideals, atrocities too graphic to recount here.

I think Spain needed freedom of conscience Millenia ago.

Should all power have been transferred to Non Christians?
Would you have supported the Vikings over Alfred the great? Honest question.

Interesting Q re the Vikings, people known for their rapacious brutality. The Viking age began in 795 AD I think when the Holy Isle of Iona was sacked and ended in 1263 when Scotland defeated the last Viking King, Magnus at the Battle of Largs, after an invasion of terror. The Vikings began to convert to Christianity around 900AD, for example Rollo, an ancestor of mine, converted in 911 to get lands in Normandy.

That means that for the majority of the Viking age the people committing the rapine were professing Christians. Indeed one Viking Chieftan famed for his savagery, Harold Hardrada, was an anointed Christian King. I guess there is an advantage to being killed by a Christian Viking than a Pagan Viking? Cynical, superficial conversions to get land, influence and power, the type of conversion generated by Christian Nationalism.

Power should be transferred to honest, elected representatives, with a system of checks and balances to weed out malfeasance. There should be no compulsion in matters of faith and no state religion. No-one should gain political advantage by feigning allegiance to a faith system.

Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world for good reason. This world cannot bear His Kingdom. Only when the King comes back.

God Bless You

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hello! Ignatius. Thanks for your reply, sorry but my answer will be long.

I would have preferred the blessed hope, the return of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Which is why we are repeatedly told to pray 'Come Lord Jesus come'.

Until then I think this is good advice:

1 Timothy 2:1-2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Our aim is to live peaceful and quiet lives in godliness and holiness.

I'm not sure this involves taking power or trying to turn a denomination into a state church, which invariably fails.



Was it not one of your Orthodox compatriots, Loukas Notaras who reportedly said 'Better the Sultan's Turban than the Papal Tiara'?

Personally I would not like to live in a Muslim country, I would prefer a state where there is freedom of religion. The separation of church and state, or religion and state is a good thing IMHO. In Scotland in past decades there was a lot of sectarianism, Northern Ireland being even worse, sectarianism which is not good. Coming from a Catholic family, in a nominally Presbyterian-state country I have encountered prejudice, abuse and discrimination from people. Some companies in the 90s still had an official state backed no Catholics Policy. When my immediate family came out of the Catholic Church, for doctrinal reasons we were ostracized by Catholic family members who never spoke to us again. I have experienced the deadening hand of both Protestantism and Catholicism when they seek political power, it is the opposite of the Gospel.

Talking of Spain, what I have studied of Spanish History is quite a sad tale in every age. Visigothic Spain had a lot of darkness, persecution of Catholic by Arian, of Jews by both. Muslim Spain had a lot of darkness. Spain after the Reconquista had extreme bouts of violence and of persecution. The manner in which the Jews were treated in Post-Reconquista Spain was second perhaps only to the Third Reich in it's evil. The Spanish Inquisition is still a by-word for brutality and corruption even today. And Spanish History during the civil war in the 20th Century, atrocities committed against professing Christians and by professing Christians in the pursuit of political ideals, atrocities too graphic to recount here.

I think Spain needed freedom of conscience Millenia ago.


Interesting Q re the Vikings, people known for their rapacious brutality. The Viking age began in 795 AD I think when the Holy Isle of Iona was sacked and ended in 1263 when Scotland defeated the last Viking King, Magnus at the Battle of Largs, after an invasion of terror. The Vikings began to convert to Christianity around 900AD, for example Rollo, an ancestor of mine, converted in 911 to get lands in Normandy.

That means that for the majority of the Viking age the people committing the rapine were professing Christians. Indeed one Viking Chieftan famed for his savagery, Harold Hardrada, was an anointed Christian King. I guess there is an advantage to being killed by a Christian Viking than a Pagan Viking? Cynical, superficial conversions to get land, influence and power, the type of conversion generated by Christian Nationalism.

Power should be transferred to honest, elected representatives, with a system of checks and balances to weed out malfeasance. There should be no compulsion in matters of faith and no state religion. No-one should gain political advantage by feigning allegiance to a faith system.

Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world for good reason. This world cannot bear His Kingdom. Only when the King comes back.

God Bless You

Interesting Liz. I can't say I would like your ideal world because it's far more likely that Christians would have disappeared entirely from it like they did in North Africa. I mean, you seem to view Christians as the most evil and vile people in all of history. Are you glad that Christians have no power? Are you glad Christianity is fading in the west and being replaced with a new ideology of Liberal individualism?

You say you prefer modern regimes yet modern secular governments have been responsible for far more death than the entirety of the Middle ages. I suppose we are allowed our preferences though.

It's also very interesting that you seemingly support Alfreds Viking enemies who abused his good nature by invading his Kingdom despite him paying the Danegald. I guess evil shouls alway triumph in your view, eh?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Christian Nationalism would result in

Christians with different ways of reading the bible executed.

Not interested.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Christians with different ways of reading the bible executed.

Not interested.

Christians sound like they're the most evil people on Earth.

 

[lismore]

Interesting Liz. I can't say I would like your ideal world

Hello! The return of the Lord to this world? That's my ideal world.

because it's far more likely that Christians would have disappeared entirely from it like they did in North Africa.

It was because of 'Christian Nationalism' that Islam took so much ground. Once the Church was wedded to a transitory state and that state fell, it all fell, because the people had no real faith in anything except that transitory concoction.

All Kingdoms and Empires come to an end- only the Kingdom of God shall endure:

His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed (Daniel 7:14).

True Christians will never pass away, because we are in a Kingdom that will never pass away. We are not in a transitory earthly kingdom, the Kingdom of God is EVERLASTING.

If you try to wed the gospel to a transitory earthly kingdom, when that transitory kingdom passes as it surely will what have you got except a marriage to a ghost?

I mean, you seem to view Christians as the most evil and vile people in all of history.

True believers in Jesus Christ are the most wonderful people ever to have walked the earth. But as the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14 they are FEW. And they are NOT OF THIS WORLD.

How does that square with a society where EVERYONE is seen as a 'Christian' because they were automatically skooshed with water as a baby? A society where everyone is nominally Christian, but few indeed actually are.

You cannot square the teachings of the Lord Jesus with 'Christian Nationalism' and don't seem to be trying.

'Christian Nationalism' is following the broad road to death, not the narrow path to life that only a few find.

Are you glad that Christians have no power?

I think Christians have lots of power.

Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

God Bless You

 

[Laodicean60]

Do Americans have any right to claim that their politics is their own when they are effectively a global Empire which pushes and influences other countries with it's power and cultural influence? You aren't merely a country that wants to be left alone, you have military bases and alliances all over the globe and have invaded smaller and weaker countries in order to accomplish regime change. So when someone criticizes the USA and US Americans you suddenly get offended? Why?

Why get mad at us? We only have military bases where countries welcome them it's not by force.

I agree with our actions around the globe we shouldn't be doing regime change through the CIA to spread liberal democracy.

"So when someone criticizes the USA and US Americans you suddenly get offended? Why?"

I am not offended at all I just question the hypocrisy that you show because your country is supporting us and you as a foreigner should be dealing with your government and not whining about mine if you don't like it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Were there some special rules against a nation-state officially recognizing Jesus as Lord? It seems like the apostles would have rejoiced at this.

That's a non-response to what I said.

Did Jesus give the Keys to His Church, or did He give them to the State?

The Protestant movement wouldn't have even been possible if not for the bedrock of the Gospel laid by a thousand years of Christendom and Christian kingdoms.

You're not doing a very good job making your argument from biblical and theological principles.

Did Jesus give the Keys to His Church, or did He give them to the State?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nope, it applies to all princes but beneath this Idea of yours is the hidden assumption that all worldly power is equal and should operate along the same basic lines regardless of belief system. My question is asking if there is anything which separates the Christian prince from the Non-Christian prince. Should the two be indistinguishable or should there be something expected of the Christian prince that is not expected of the Non-Christian prince?

I would expect a Christian prince to be faithful to Christ and to His commandments.

Does it matter, to you, if a Christian prince is faithful to Christ or not?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lifepsyop]

You're not doing a very good job making your argument from biblical and theological principles.

Did Jesus give the Keys to His Church, or did He give them to the State?

You're not doing a very good job at making distinctions.

Where did Jesus or the apostles forbid the Christian church forming or joining a Christian government? There is no such suggestion in the NT.

You would likely not even know the name of Jesus if the Gospel had not been carried along and promoted by Christian kingdoms.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You're not doing a very good job at making distinctions.

Where did Jesus or the apostles forbid the Christian church forming or joining a Christian government? There is no such suggestion in the NT.

You would likely not even know the name of Jesus if the Gospel had not been carried along and promoted by Christian kingdoms.

You'll note that I didn't say that Jesus or the Apostles forbid the Christian Church forming or joining a Christian government. So at this juncture, you are merely presenting a straw man.

As for your final question, permit me this: Does the Gospel depend on the existence of Christian kingdoms?

Let me be perfectly clear. I believe that Christianity is the religion founded by Jesus Christ, and the Institution of Christ is His Church. The best a state can do, even one that officially adopts Christianity as its official state religion, is offer freedom and protection for the practice of the Faith by the Faithful, including the Church's work of preaching and proclaiming the Word.

If the goal of the Christian State is to coerce through violence the conversion of people to Christianity, then that is something I would regard as antithetical to the Church's great mission statement as set forth by Christ, who calls His Church, not the temporal powers, to be the vehicle of the Gospel ministry. Holding a person at gunpoint to be baptized is immoral. I would also argue that it is immoral if we ignore genuine repentance and genuine conversion by presenting conversion as merely politically beneficial. Oh, if I do this whole "Christian" thing, then I'll get more earthly goodies like material wealth, or privileged positions, or a higher social status, etc--well take a gander at the Four Gospels and ask yourself if that sounds at all like what Jesus talks about.

Which really begs the question: How important, exactly, is Jesus in this whole Christian Nationalism thing? Is Jesus the Lord Christ, Savior, the King, whose word endures forever, whose kingdom stands above all kingdoms? Or is Jesus a useful tool to acquire positions and status of earthly importance? Is the point that Jesus uses us to reach the hurting, the broken, and the lost? Or is the point that we use Jesus to store up earthly treasures for ourselves?

Who is Jesus Christ to you? Who do you say that He is?

Just curious.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lifepsyop]

It was because of 'Christian Nationalism' that Islam took so much ground. Once the Church was wedded to a transitory state and that state fell, it all fell, because the people had no real faith in anything except that transitory concoction.

You seem to be doing a lot of mind reading about people who built cathedrals all over the continent. It seems like a lot of them actually did have faith.

How do things look today in the age of liberal democracy and modern Evangelism?

All Kingdoms and Empires come to an end- only the Kingdom of God shall endure:

His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed (Daniel 7:14).

Most of us are also going to experience physical death on this earth. Is that reason to not exercise our duties and authorities now while we are alive? Should men not continue to act like men and women women? It's all going to pass away when Christ returns, so what's the point?

Just because earthly kingdoms will always fall far short of the heavenly kingdom, that does not excuse us from working for such a community on earth. Just as man is in the image of God, but not God, we should likewise build our city in the image of the heavenly city, with the full knowledge that our earthly city is temporal. A Christian Nation is evidence of faith and a bold witness.

True Christians will never pass away, because we are in a Kingdom that will never pass away. We are not in a transitory earthly kingdom, the Kingdom of God is EVERLASTING.

If you try to wed the gospel to a transitory earthly kingdom, when that transitory kingdom passes as it surely will what have you got except a marriage to a ghost?

You would have every former resident of that kingdom equipped with knowledge of the Gospel which would then continue to spread further.... What's the problem?

True believers in Jesus Christ are the most wonderful people ever to have walked the earth. But as the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14 they are FEW. And they are NOT OF THIS WORLD.

How does that square with a society where EVERYONE is seen as a 'Christian' because they were automatically skooshed with water as a baby? A society where everyone is nominally Christian, but few indeed actually are.

How do you know that people weren't that much closer to the reality of Christ because of how much it was officially promoted? These were times when the faith was growing and cathedrals were being built all across the world.

Can you honestly say that people are closer to God now in a modern liberal democracy? We are a materialistic nation of drug and p*rnography addicts.

 

[FireDragon76]

I consider christian nationalism a social movement which has no connection to the church. I believe it's unbiblical and divisive and will not support it.

~bella

Christianity to a certain extent has always been a social movement. That's part of what distinguished it from other cults of its day.

I think Christian nationalism is an outgrowth of a certain kind of accretion in the Christian tradition. Using Christianity for imperial or nationalistic purposes goes all the way back to Constantine. So there has always been at least the potential there. I agree that I don't think it has much to do with anything Jesus actually taught- Jesus was about speaking truth to power, not being a power broker himself.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hello! The return of the Lord to this world? That's my ideal world.

I suppose that would be both our Ideal world. Yet I am talking about the world as it stands prior to the return of Christ. It seems you wish for Christians to be utterly powerless and subject to the whims of others.

It was because of 'Christian Nationalism' that Islam took so much ground. Once the Church was wedded to a transitory state and that state fell, it all fell, because the people had no real faith in anything except that transitory concoction.

So your contention is that Islam was a direct response to Christians gaining political power and being represented by states like the Roman Empire? How do you come to this conclusion reasonably? Arabia was never under the boot of Rome and Islam seems to have been influenced by Jewish, Christian and native Arab Paganism. The result of which was a hyper martial religion which sought to dominate all by the use of the sword. Christians of the Roman Empire weren't pacifists but they did not have this sort of eschatological drive to Jihad and Holy war that Islam had and when it comes to the reason Islam took so much ground it was simply because they were stronger and were not resisted.

You have no solution to the advance of Islam as you do not approve of Christians having political power to begin with. To fight back is to lose, to show oneself as not having faith therefore Christians, even the faithful ones, are powerless to resist others. Once Islam rose, Christians must submit and not fight back. You say there was a lack of faith in the Roman Empire, but this needs expanding. In all populations which have a certain religion which represents them there will always be those who disbelieve or those who don't fully commit. That however doesn't explain how Islam grew and dominated so much of the Levant, North Africa, Egypt, Persia and Spain.

Seriously. How would Christians not being part of the transitory state have stopped Islam? Explain that to me. Hard force and power would stop Islam and historically that is what did stop Islam. The hard power of Christian Kings determined to stop the advance of this dangerous people and their religion. I suppose to you however this just proves they aren't Christian, for some reason.

All Kingdoms and Empires come to an end- only the Kingdom of God shall endure:

His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed (Daniel 7:14).

Granted, but this doesn't say anything about what Christians are to do in the meantime. This does not say to be apolitical or without power.

True Christians will never pass away, because we are in a Kingdom that will never pass away. We are not in a transitory earthly kingdom, the Kingdom of God is EVERLASTING.

No one is confusing the Kingdom of God for any earthly community or Christian polity. This is where you get confused. A Christian polity is the organization of Christians as a political unit. It doesn't have to be perfect and to expect it to be perfect is stupid.

If you try to wed the gospel to a transitory earthly kingdom, when that transitory kingdom passes as it surely will what have you got except a marriage to a ghost?

Except no one is wedding the Kingdom of Heaven to an earthly polity. We recognize the difference and Christians always have.

True believers in Jesus Christ are the most wonderful people ever to have walked the earth. But as the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14 they are FEW. And they are NOT OF THIS WORLD.

If I were to take your approach seriously there has never been a true believer anywhere in history.

How does that square with a society where EVERYONE is seen as a 'Christian' because they were automatically skooshed with water as a baby? A society where everyone is nominally Christian, but few indeed actually are.

I think you misunderstand what a Christian society would be. Nominal Christianity exists even in the powerless state that you advocate for today and you don't seem to have a problem with the Churches welcoming people of nominal faith. Why would you then have a problem if a Christian state comprises a majority of nominal believers? Do you demand purity and perfection in all things or just the of a Christian town, city or country?

You cannot square the teachings of the Lord Jesus with 'Christian Nationalism' and don't seem to be trying.

You cannot demonstrate how Christian Nationalism is bad from a Christian perspective. Rather all you can do is assert vague ideals which don't map on to reality and offer the Christian no advice on how to live as a human being because being a human being is to be in relation to others. Part of those relationships is power and Christianity always recognized the legitimacy of power. That doesn't change if those who have power happen to be Christians, yet you seem to think every Christian who ever had power was illegitimate and could not possibly be doing what God wants. This is why I asked you about Alfred. Was he wrong to fight back against the Vikings and reestablish his hold on the Christian Kingdom of Wessex? What then was the course of action he should have taken to an invader who only responded to equal or greater force?

'Christian Nationalism' is following the broad road to death, not the narrow path to life that only a few find.

So all Christian Nationalists are damned to hell? Do they not believe Jesus Christ is their redeemer? Can one not believe in Jesus Christ and also believe that the earthly polity of Christians should be able to exercise political authority? Where do Christian Nationalists say they are trying to inaugurate the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth?

I think Christians have lots of power.

Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

God Bless You

Power here being political power. Christians currently do not have much power in this regard and the results speak for themselves. Do you believe that humans can act independently of political power and not be influenced by it?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I would expect a Christian prince to be faithful to Christ and to His commandments.

Does it matter, to you, if a Christian prince is faithful to Christ or not?

-CryptoLutheran

So what does a Christian prince look like? Does he look like God in any respect in seeking to express that Kingly aspect of the divine to his people or does he look like a mere man? Who is the King that inspires his people? Can Christians even be inspired by their leaders or are we going to believe in some sort of hyper protestant notion people cannot possibly be sources of inspiration?

A Christian prince will of course be faithful to Christ. The question is what does that faith look like. I suggest that faith is expressed in how he cares for the people God has put under him and he cannot act as a layman lest he abnegate the duty. He has the power of the sword for a reason, to impose justice.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Why get mad at us? We only have military bases where countries welcome them it's not by force.

I agree with our actions around the globe we shouldn't be doing regime change through the CIA to spread liberal democracy.

"So when someone criticizes the USA and US Americans you suddenly get offended? Why?"

I am not offended at all I just question the hypocrisy that you show because your country is supporting us and you as a foreigner should be dealing with your government and not whining about mine if you don't like it.

Did Afghanistan ask for US Military bases? What about Syria? It's false to suggest the US only has military bases where it is asked. The USA, often, invades and installs it's presence directly. So I'm not mad, but I am irked when Americans complain about non Americans talking about them. You have no right to demand others not criticize you when you as a Nation go searching abroad for foes. You are a Global Empire with influence everywhere, therefore expect criticism.

How is it hypocritical of me as an individual to criticize the USA? If you want to criticize NZ, go for it. I won't stop you.

 

[Laodicean60]

You have no right to demand others not criticize you when you as a Nation go searching abroad for foes. You are a Global Empire with influence everywhere, therefore expect criticism.

How is it hypocritical of me as an individual to criticize the USA? If you want to criticize NZ, go for it. I won't stop you.

It's hypocritical when your country is in lockstep with the USA and you should be persuading NZ to change and maybe others will follow. Did I demand you to stop? I asked a question because in my mind you are being a hypocrite. You want us to be a Christian nationalist country and create laws to impose on everyone else and your country is the same as ours you should be on the streets trying to persuade your people.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's hypocritical when your country is in lockstep with the USA and you should be persuading NZ to change and maybe others will follow. Did I demand you to stop? I asked a question because in my mind you are being a hypocrite. You want us to be a Christian nationalist country and create laws to impose on everyone else and your country is the same as ours you should be on the streets trying to persuade your people.

Am I my country and it's foreign policy?

Where did I say I want you to be a Christian nationalist country?

Why do I have to persuade New Zealanders in order to speak to Americans about their own country and Christianity's relationship to politics?