If Jesus was a Politician....

[zephcom]

This thread is about the form of government that Jesus would support. Not about what we should be doing in the meantime.

Actually, it really isn't about the form of government. Rather it is about how the existing government should beI expected to behave. After all, voting on this candidate or that candidate doesn't change the form of government. It only changes the behavior of the existing government.

If we want our government to behave in a manner that comes closer to the way of life that Jesus taught, we have been given the opportunity to vote for those people who are most likely to move the government in that direction.

It is reasonable to say that if Jesus were given the opportunity to vote on how a government behaves that He would select candidates who would move the government in that direction. I would be unreasonable to say that He would deliberately vote to send the government against His teachings.

It makes His teachings worthless if we say we can't get guidance at all on the issue from Jesus.

I guess we do have options on the issue. Personally, I prefer to think He would cast a ballot which was most consistent with His teachings.

 

[Albion]

IMMHO, I don't think it is necessary that Jesus be personally interested in political action or that He recommended involvement in political action to His followers for us to apply His teachings to any involvement a Follower may have in politics two thousand years later.

Very well, that does change the focus somewhat. However, I will point out that the OP did take the other approach. See here:

Which side would he lean to? What party would he belong to?

He left ample teachings from which it shouldn't be difficult to understand where He would stand on political issues were He on the earth in OUR situation.

From all that we know of him, he would not be taking sides on these things. Not as a matter of trying to affect what we call public policy.

IMMHO, if one cannot be allowed to apply His teachings NOW on situations NOW because Jesus did not make a specific teaching on that situation, His teachings are totally worthless.

Not so. But he taught individuals to act in a certain way themselves. That is borne out in place after place in the New Testament. When he gave the Sermon on the Mount, for example. It was all about what the hearers should do themselves. Or consider what he told individuals who came to him with questions. It was about what they themselves should do that framed his reply. Never was it about making the government reform, adopt a new policy, etc.

This is different from telling them to force other people to change their ways. That is what political action is all about.

 

[zephcom]

Very well, that does change the focus somewhat. However, I will point out that the OP did take the other approach. See here:



From all that we know of him, he would not be taking sides on these things. Not as a matter of trying to affect what we call public policy.


Not so. But he taught individuals to act in a certain way themselves. That is borne out in place after place in the New Testament. When he gave the Sermon on the Mount, for example. It was all about what the hearers should do themselves. Or consider what he told individuals who came to him with questions. It was about what they themselves should do that framed his reply. Never was it about making the government reform, adopt a new policy, etc.

This is different from telling them to force other people to change their ways. That is what political action is all about.

What you say about Jesus not teaching making the government reform is true. However, in a self-governance form of government, those people who are Followers of Jesus should see within themselves the necessity to be true to those teachings by voting for the candidates who intend to work to lift up humanity.

Government is not magically exempt from a Follower's responsibility to the Commandments of Jesus. Now I will grant that a self-governing nation in which the majority of the citizens are not real Followers could easily vote for the candidate who panders to individual greed, racism, even hatreds could win the election.

These -are- individual expressions of Jesus' teachings. Millions of those individuals can, however, affect even governments.

 

[Albion]

Sure, they can. But that is not what Jesus would do himself and, after all is said and done, the topic here was *If Jesus was a Politician...?*

That said, we could leave that particular argument and turn to the political issues that some people would list, thinking that would nail down their contention that this is what Jesus would do.

I don't know if that is a good idea, but if it were done, I am sure that as many political policies that are associated with the Republicans/Conservatives would deserve to be on such a list as the ones that are associated with the Democrats/Socialists/Liberals.

 

[zephcom]

Sure, they can. But that is not what Jesus would do himself and, after all is said and done, the topic here was *If Jesus was a Politician...?*

And you know Jesus would not have voted???

We know that Jesus chose not be the Jewish Messiah. I suspect that was because of the temporary nature of the job and the job description included things like killing enemies which was not part of why He came here.

I'm not sure that means He would have rejected EVERY politician position if the circumstance availed itself. There really isn't any evidence in the Bible that He would.

However, if that is the common thinking within Christianity, one could assume that no real Christian would ever accept any political position either. And since the beginning of the American government, politicians have been expected to at least -voice- their commitment to Christianity one can assume that is a restriction placed ONLY on Jesus.

I can see, though, that the idea that government service is exempt from Jesus teachings and His life, would give some cover to those who desire to be seen as Christian while still acting out with non-Jesus behavior as a politician. I can see people who are able to compartmentalize their lives thinking they can do one thing in Church and quite another thing as a politician.

<shrug> I'm just not one of those people.

 

[Albion]

And you know Jesus would not have voted???

What I know is that there is no indication that he would care to. We cannot know for certain because this whole thing is hypothetical, but the indications are many and strong that his orientation was otherwise.

We know that Jesus chose not be the Jewish Messiah.

Not to be a political savior, I think you mean. So that is one more indication that he was not politically minded.

However, if that is the common thinking within Christianity, one could assume that no real Christian would ever accept any political position either.

No. We were talking about Jesus' own focus. That doesn't mean that everyone else must limit himself to that, even if it were possible.

I can see, though, that the idea that government service is exempt from Jesus teachings and His life, would give some cover to those who desire to be seen as Christian while still acting out with non-Jesus behavior as a politician. I can see people who are able to compartmentalize their lives thinking they can do one thing in Church and quite another thing as a politician.

<shrug> I'm just not one of those people.

That's fair

 

[zephcom]

What I know is that there is no indication that he would care to. We cannot know for certain because this whole thing is hypothetical, but the indications are many and strong that his orientation was otherwise.


Not to be a political savior, I think you mean. So that is one more indication that he was not politically minded.


No. We were talking about Jesus' own focus. That doesn't mean that everyone else must limit himself to that, even if it were possible.


That's fair

To be perfect fair, there is no indication He would not care to either. It issue is completely open and your position is as hypothetical as is mine.

Actually, I meant exactly what I said. The Jewish Messiah is a combination job of being both the religious leader of Judaism AND the political leader. He rejected that. But we can't simply assume that He would have rejected EVERY political job because of that.

Jesus 'focus', as I understand His teachings, are to be the focus of His Followers also. And here I'm only talking about HIS teachings, not all the rest of the Bible, Church traditions, rituals or anything else. In the purest sense, that would mean a Follower would be a homeless street preacher.

Clearly we have moved beyond the idea that every Follower has to be exactly like Jesus. Rather we think that Jesus gave us the framework which makes our lives resemble His. Does that mean a Follower can't be a race car driver because Jesus wasn't a race car driver?? Of course not.

We can reasonably understand how a race car driver can live a life as Jesus taught even though Jesus didn't desire to be a race car driver. We can ALSO reasonably understand how a politician can live the life as Jesus taught even though Jesus didn't desire to be a politician.

We can do that because Jesus taught personal behaviors that apply to any job or life's situation. It matters not if JESUS desired that life or situation. IMMHO, when a Follower sees their voting or their service in government as exempt from living the life Jesus taught based ONLY on the idea the Jesus wasn't a politician, they are denying the reality of Jesus' teachings as applying in all aspects of a Follower's life.

If Jesus was a politician, He would still be Jesus and would still live life behaving as Jesus. He would just have a job instead of being a homeless street preacher. He would still behave in the manner in which the Bible records His behavior.

 

[Albion]

To be perfect fair, there is no indication He would not care to either. It issue is completely open and your position is as hypothetical as is mine.

I disagree. There are many indications.

Although there was little opportunity to be involved in politics in Jesus' day, he definitely showed that his interest--and he said so--was not with the kingdoms and princes of this world; he himself constantly preached what each of his listeners should do that was morally right, not what they could do to get others on board with it. It always was a matter of what YOU can do, not what we all ought to get society to do.

Actually, I meant exactly what I said. The Jewish Messiah is a combination job of being both the religious leader of Judaism AND the political leader. He rejected that. But we can't simply assume that He would have rejected EVERY political job because of that.

OK, but he was the Messiah. He just wasn't the one the Jews expected. He surprised them by not being political.

 

[zephcom]

I disagree. There are many indications.

Although there was little opportunity to be involved in politics in Jesus' day, he definitely showed that his interest--and he said so--was not with the kingdoms and princes of this world; he himself constantly preached what each of his listeners should do that was morally right, not what they could do to get others on board with it. It always was a matter of what YOU can do, not what we all ought to get society to do.


OK, but he was the Messiah. He just wasn't the one the Jews expected. He surprised them by not being political.

If one is to do what is 'morally right', would that not include what one in regard to ones responsibility to government? I just don't think that government gets a pass from citizens based on your argument. Would it not be morally right to vote for people who will lift others up??

And just for the record, Jesus' Commandment concerning life on this physical realm was not to do what is morally right. It was to treat others as you would want to be treated. There IS a difference.

Let me illustrate: Say you are a pregnant woman and the pregnancy was because of a violent rape. What is 'morally right' can be understood to mean keeping the pregnancy and raising your rapists child. However, what YOU (as that woman) would truly want is the opportunity to decide for yourself how that pregnancy progresses or doesn't progress.

Morals are created by the society in which one lives. Divine Love is the empathy to want for others the same thing you would want for yourself.

Finally, I DID specify the Jewish Messiah for a reason. It is important to understand that it is the Jews who decide who is their Messiah. No one else can make that decision for them. And they decided He was not their Messiah, therefore He was not the Messiah.

The Christian tradition has no effect on the Jewish religion even if Christians would like believe it does.

 

[Madsaac]

Jesus would not approve of any modern day government. After all, when He returns the entire world is going to have a completely new government

Please stop using Christianity to push political agendas. Your favorite politicians are not divinely ordained.

Seriously, Christians use Christianity to push political agendas all of the time.

By the way which way do you think he likely vote? Right or left?

 

[Madsaac]

Here's a suggestion. If anyone wants to push this ^point which others, including myself, have said just is not accurate...

...maybe it would be best to prove this to be true before moving onto all the political issues and fine points that one poster or another has turned to in order to show which political party Jesus supposedly would favor.

Alright he wasn't political....whatever.

But I want you to tell me which way you think Jesus would likely vote? Right or left? Simple

 

[Madsaac]

Wow only one person out of fifty post has suggested what side of the political spectrum Jesus would sit. I'll make it simple.

Which way you think Jesus would likely vote? Right or left? Simple

 

[Strathos]

Seriously, Christians use Christianity to push political agendas all of the time.

By the way which way do you think he likely vote? Right or left?

He wouldn't vote.

 

[Albion]

If one is to do what is 'morally right', would that not include what one in regard to ones responsibility to government?

Well, we have already referred to that by noting that, of the little Jesus said about the government, he said to be obedient to it.

And just for the record, Jesus' Commandment concerning life on this physical realm was to do what is morally right. It was to treat others as you would want to be treated. There IS a difference.

To treat others as you would want to be treated IS to treat them properly. But Jesus also gave out a lot more advice on moral behavior than just to treat other people well.

​

Let me illustrate: Say you are a pregnant woman and the pregnancy was because of a violent rape. What is 'morally right' can be understood to mean keeping the pregnancy and raising your rapists child. However, what YOU (as that woman) would truly want is the opportunity to decide for yourself how that pregnancy progresses or doesn't progress.

You (the woman) would want some way out of behaving morally, then?? Surely we cannot say that this is what Jesus meant.

Morals are created by the society in which one lives.

That's not what the Bible teaches.

 

[Madsaac]

He wouldn't vote.

Alright IF he was to vote which way do you think he likely vote? Right or left?

And if that doesn't work, someone very much like Jesus, which way do you think they would likely vote? Right or left?

Anyone??

 

[Strathos]

Alright IF he was to vote which way do you think he likely vote? Right or left?

And if that doesn't work, someone very much like Jesus, which way do you think they would likely vote? Right or left?

Anyone??

No, it doesn't work.

And people can (and should) try to be like Jesus, but we can't be perfectly sinless like Him.

 

[stevenfrancis]

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?

God/Jesus is quite purposefully apolitical. His teachings are for individual persons. Not Governments. When correcting institutions, Jesus had much more to say about the leadership of the Jewish church then He had to say about Rome. He talked about people taking care of each other, personally. Not governments being on the hook for taking care of everybody.