If Jesus was a Politician....

Madsaac

Newbie
Aug 4, 2010
34
10
✟16,973.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Which side would he lean to? What party would he belong to?

I think Jesus would be leaning towards socialism, caring for his neighbour and making sure everyone had there fair share. And of course he would be a strong environmentalist, actually he would have a passion for it. And wouldn't he welcome all people to his nation, he loves all people, doesn't he?

In Australia he would be a member of the Greens, as described above. Maybe this is a left leaning Democrat in the USA?

Funny isn't it when you consider many Christians do not have the same beliefs. I'm no expert on American politics but doesn't the majority of the 'Bible Belt' vote Republican?
 

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Jesus would not be a politician. My Kingdom is not of this world. That is frankly the temptation of Satan showing Him the kingdoms of the world.

Christ would support helping your fellow man, but I doubt very much would support Socialism. It isn't really the same thing, as Socialism assumes a central control and such. That would go against Christ's 'turning the other cheek', as it would actively be taking from some unwillingly, to give others - where aims may be different. This was exactly the rebuke when the oil was poured on His feet. Historically Socialism has been the tradition furthest from Christ, with its Gulags and Genocide (Soviet Union and Cambhodia, as well as National Socialist Germany), flagrant Atheism, and relativistic morality of ends justifying the means.

No political stance is Christ's. A bit of one or some of the other certainly fits, but the radical programme of Jesus is not something that is politically expedient for any politician.
 
Upvote 0

Madsaac

Newbie
Aug 4, 2010
34
10
✟16,973.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Jesus would not be a politician. My Kingdom is not of this world. That is frankly the temptation of Satan showing Him the kingdoms of the world.

Christ would support helping your fellow man, but I doubt very much would support Socialism. It isn't really the same thing, as Socialism assumes a central control and such. That would go against Christ's 'turning the other cheek', as it would actively be taking from some unwillingly, to give others - where aims may be different. This was exactly the rebuke when the oil was poured on His feet. Historically Socialism has been the tradition furthest from Christ, with its Gulags and Genocide (Soviet Union and Cambhodia, as well as National Socialist Germany), flagrant Atheism, and relativistic morality of ends justifying the means.

No political stance is Christ's. A bit of one or some of the other certainly fits, but the radical programme of Jesus is not something that is politically expedient for any politician.

Yeah I said IF he was a politician. Talk about dodging the question, surely you get the gist of the question.

By the way, Jesus by all accounts was very political, a religious reformer, or a social revolutionary who thumbed his nose to the current social currents of the time. Or a voice for the Jews chafed under the iron fisted rule of the Romans, a Jewish agitator if you will, a champion of social justice.

He was very political, a Michael Moore of his time :)
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Yeah I said IF he was a politician. Talk about dodging the question, surely you get the gist of the question.

By the way, Jesus by all accounts was very political, a religious reformer, or a social revolutionary who thumbed his nose to the current social currents of the time. Or a voice for the Jews chafed under the iron fisted rule of the Romans, a Jewish agitator if you will, a champion of social justice.

He was very political, a Michael Moore of his time :)
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but give to God that which is God's.

Or to Pilate, any authority you have over me was given from above.

Doesn't sound political to me. Certainly not anti-Roman. Definitely a social reformer, but of the understanding of the Law; for politics is 'of the polis', the city. As Augustine said, the City of man and the City of God. Christ was the incarnation of God, the greatest Prophet. Politics is petty human quibbling, and no one who wants power should ever be given it (Cincinnatus rules).

So we have to agree to disagree, as I think the nuance I am trying to make would be hard to get across properly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Which side would he lean to? What party would he belong to?

I think Jesus would be leaning towards socialism, caring for his neighbour and making sure everyone had there fair share. And of course he would be a strong environmentalist, actually he would have a passion for it. And wouldn't he welcome all people to his nation, he loves all people, doesn't he?

In Australia he would be a member of the Greens, as described above. Maybe this is a left leaning Democrat in the USA?

Funny isn't it when you consider many Christians do not have the same beliefs. I'm no expert on American politics but doesn't the majority of the 'Bible Belt' vote Republican?

Jesus wouldn't be a politician. Jesus only spoke Truth and He didn't sugar coat it--even to the point of almost His entire following walking away (John 6). Jesus wouldn't have a split allegiance, either. His allegiance is always to the Father.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Greg J.

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 2, 2016
3,841
1,907
Southeast Michigan
✟233,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus is already the head of all governments, and the form of governance is a Theocracy. The problem is that the masses reject Him as their ruler, just as the Jews did when they asked Samuel for a king, because they saw the neighboring people groups with kings. God said, the people had not rejected Samuel as their ruler, they had rejected God. And God gave the people what they wanted even though it was one of the worst things the Jews ever chose.

God does not subscribe to any human institution (such as a political party). It is up to humans to ally themselves with God or not.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah I said IF he was a politician. Talk about dodging the question, surely you get the gist of the question.

By the way, Jesus by all accounts was very political, a religious reformer, or a social revolutionary who thumbed his nose to the current social currents of the time. Or a voice for the Jews chafed under the iron fisted rule of the Romans, a Jewish agitator if you will, a champion of social justice.

He was very political, a Michael Moore of his time :)

If a cow was a horse what grain would it eat? Don't dodge the question now.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah fair enough but in relation to the human aspect of Jesus. In today's world, what sort of political views do you think he would hold?

He would not hold any of them. None of them have the truth. They all place humans at the center of the universe. Jesus loves people he does not worship them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,716
6,139
Massachusetts
✟586,471.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Maybe this is a left leaning Democrat in the USA?
Present-day mainstream Democrats have moral items which Jesus would not accept. Plus, there is discrimination > certain Democrats insist that certain wrong people do not need how Jesus died for all of us on the cross. They discriminate against certain people getting the forgiveness they need! Plus, ones claim that God does not change certain people out of their problems; this is discrimination, too.

Jesus is about theocracy > of how God personally rules each of us with His own peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

The one nation with Jesus as our King is ruled by theocracy. This is not an ideology, but how God personally rules each of us, in our "hearts". And we have this now, already, if we obey.

Maybe at a more practical level > we would be ruled by example > 1 Peter 5:3, not mainly by regulations. And we would share as family. Instead of something like equal distribution, there would be sharing, and not so much individual stuff and independence. Independence can ruin a person from discovering how to love.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Meditation on the third Commandment - by CS Lewis.

From many letters to "The Guardian" and from much that is printed elsewhere, we learn of the growing desire for a Christian 'party', a Christian 'front', or a Christian 'platform' in politics. Nothing is so earnestly to be wished as a real assault by Christianity on the politics of the world: nothing, at first sight, so fitted to de!iver this assault as a Christian Party. But it is odd that certain difficulties in this programme should be already neglected while the printer's ink is hardly dry on M. Maritain's "Scholasticism and Politics".

The Christian Party must either confine itself to stating what ends are desirable and what means are lawful or else it must go further and select from among the lawful means those which it deems possible and efficacious and give to these its practical support. If it chooses the first alternative it will not be a political party. Nearly all parties agree in professing ends which we admit to be desirable --- security, a living wage, and the best adjustment between the claims of order and freedom. What distinguishes one party from another is the championship of means. We do not dispute whether the citizens are to be made happy, but whether an egalitarian or a hierarchical State, whether capitalism or socialism, whether despotism or democracy is most likely to make them so.

What, then, will the Christian Party actually do? Philarchus, a devout Christian, is convinced that temporal welfare can flow only from a Christian life, and that a Christian life can be promoted in the community only by an authoritarian State which has swept away the last vestiges of the hated 'Liberal' infection. He thinks Fascism not so much an evil as a good thing perverted, regards democracy as a monster whose victory would be a defeat for Christianity, and is tempted to accept even Fascist assistance, hoping that he and his friends will prove the leaven in a lump of British Fascists. Stativus is equally devout and equally Christian. Deeply conscious of the Fall and therefore convinced that no human creature can be trusted with more than the minimum power over his fellows, and anxious to preserve the claims of God from any infringement by those of Caesar, he still sees in democracy the only hope of Christian freedom. He is tempted to accept aid from champions of the status quo whose commercial or imperial motives bear hardly even a veneer of theism. Finally, we have Sparticus, also a Christian and also sincere, full of the prophetic and Dominical denunciations of riches, and certain that the 'historical Jesus', long betrayed by the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Churches, demands of us a Left revolution. And he also is tempted to accept help from unbelievers who profess themselves quite openly to be the enemies of God.

The three types represented by these three Christians presumably come together to form a Christian Party. Either a deadlock ensues (and there the history of the Christian Party ends) or else one of the three succeeds in floating a party and driving the other two, with their followers, out of its ranks. The new party --- being probably a minority of the Christians who are themselves a minority of the citizens --- will be too small to be effective. In practice. it will have to attach itself to the un-Christian party nearest to it in beliefs about means --- to the Fascists if Philarchus has won, to the Conservatives if Stativus, to the Communists if Sparticus. It remains to ask how the resulting situation will differ from that in which Christians find themselves today.

It is not reasonable to suppose that such a Christian Party will acquire new powers of leavening the infidel organization to which it is attached. Why should it? Whatever it calls itself, it will represent, not Christendom, but a part of Christendom. The principle which divides it from its brethren and unites it to its political allies will not be theological. It will have no authority to speak for Christianity; it will have no more power than the political skill of its members gives it to control the behaviour of its unbelieving allies. But there will be a real, and most disastrous novelty. It will be not simply a part of Christendom, but a part claiming to be the whole. By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal. It will be exposed, in an aggravated degree, to that temptation which the Devil spares none of us at any time --- the temptation of claiming for our favourite opinions that kind and degree of certainty and authority which really belongs only to our Faith. The danger of mistaking our merely natural, though perhaps legitimate, enthusiasms for holy zeal, is always great. Can any more fatal expedient be devised for increasing it than that of dubbing a small band of Fascists, Communists, or Democrats `the Christian Party'? The demon inherent in every party is at all times ready enough to disguise himself as the Holy Ghost; the formation of a Christian Party means handing over to him the most efficient make-up we can find. And when once the disguise has succeeded, his commands will presently be taken to abrogate all moral laws and to justify whatever the unbelieving allies of the 'Christian' Party wish to do. If ever Christian men can be brought to think treachery and murder the lawful means of establishing the regime they desire, and faked trials, religious persecution and organized hooliganism the lawful means of maintaining it, it will, surely, be by just such a process as this. The history of the late medieval pseudo-Crusaders, of the Covenanters, of the Orangemen, should be remembered. On those who add 'Thus said the Lord' to their merely human utterances descends the doom of a conscience which seems clearer and clearer the more it is loaded with sin.

All this comes from pretending that God has spoken when He has not spoken. He will not settle the two brothers' inheritance: "Who made Me a judge or a divider over you?" By the natural light He has shown us what means are lawful: to find out which one is efficacious He has given us brains. The rest He has left to us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kalevalatar

Supisuomalainen sisupussi
Jul 5, 2005
5,469
908
Pohjola
✟20,327.00
Country
Finland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Jesus would be a Christian Democrat, of course, because I am a card-carrying Christian Democrat! It would be wholly unthinkable that Jesus would support any other political ideology and party than the one I happen to support. Isn't that sort of given?
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Flawed question. If Jesus was a politician, then He wouldn't be Jesus.

John 18:36 said:
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zephcom

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,396
1,650
76
Pacific Northwest
✟87,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Which side would he lean to? What party would he belong to?

I think Jesus would be leaning towards socialism, caring for his neighbour and making sure everyone had there fair share. And of course he would be a strong environmentalist, actually he would have a passion for it. And wouldn't he welcome all people to his nation, he loves all people, doesn't he?

In Australia he would be a member of the Greens, as described above. Maybe this is a left leaning Democrat in the USA?

Funny isn't it when you consider many Christians do not have the same beliefs. I'm no expert on American politics but doesn't the majority of the 'Bible Belt' vote Republican?

This is a complicated question but I think it has value in a way many so far have not considered. Or some -have- considered it and that is why they are working so hard to avoid answering it.

First is it important to understand that Jesus was not a politician. That is what disqualified Him as the Jewish Messiah. The Jewish Messiah HAS to be a politician to be the leader of the Jewish nation.

But with that said, we can still analyze His teachings and behavior to see which political philosophy best matches where He would -likely- have been on the political scale. One can start by asking, "Would Jesus been more likely to support Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders?"

I think the answer to that would be very clear to anyone who understands Jesus' teachings and life. And therein lies the issue of why so very many American conservatives will run away from this question.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟982,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yeah I said IF he was a politician. Talk about dodging the question, surely you get the gist of the question.

By the way, Jesus by all accounts was very political, a religious reformer, or a social revolutionary who thumbed his nose to the current social currents of the time. Or a voice for the Jews chafed under the iron fisted rule of the Romans, a Jewish agitator if you will, a champion of social justice.

He was very political, a Michael Moore of his time :)

To the extent that religion was the 'politics' of the Jews at that time, yes he was political. However that cannot translate to modern times as 'politics' is the 'art of compromise' today; something that Jesus did not engage in. In fact in his day neither the Jews or Jesus compromised their principles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But with that said, we can still analyze His teachings and behavior to see which political philosophy best matches where He would -likely- have been on the political scale. One can start by asking, "Would Jesus been more likely to support Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders?"

I think the answer to that would be very clear to anyone who understands Jesus' teachings and life. .
It absolutely would not be the case that he would support Bernie, for that would be to renounce the Commandments which he referred to during his public ministry as still in force.

That may leave only the other guy, given the choice you offered us; but really, nothing about Christ except the admonition to give unto Caesar what which is Caesar's came close to being about politics.
 
Upvote 0