A while back, while watching one of the 24-hour news networks, a recognized faith leader came on as a guest to discuss our nation’s immigration policy. Being as I receive the weekly email from his ministry, I had a pretty good idea what he was going to say and where he would land on the political spectrum. Sure enough, he spelled out an approach that almost to the letter articulated the position of one of our major political parties. He was certain this was how Jesus would respond, and the next steps he advocated for were the strides we should take if we were going to act in a spiritually responsible fashion. While not calling names, he inferred that those on the other side of the issue were hard-hearted and spiritually insensitive.
Not more than a day or two later, I was watching a different network when another faith leader—who had equal, if not greater, name recognition than the first guy—came on for a brief interview segment. Again, the topic was immigration and the border crisis. He articulated a very different position as to what should be done and what the spiritually responsible course of action should be—one that was at odds with the guest on the other network, and one aligned almost exactly with the approach of the other major political party. He, too, said that those who believed otherwise were naïve and just didn’t get it.
While in some respects this speaks to the tilt and bias of the various cable news channels, it also struck me as odd that two people, who claim to love the same Jesus and long for our country to engage in actions consistent with His values, could not only land at such different places, but be absolutely convinced the spiritually responsible course of action was the one they were espousing—so much so that they characterized those who believed otherwise as being in error or ignorant. Both men invoked the reality of God. Both men quoted Scripture. Both men answered the interviewer’s questions and spoke from a framework of faith. But not only did they land at very different places, but they were also convinced those on the other side of the issue were being an impediment and obstacle to a God-honoring outcome.
It seems as though people on both sides of the political aisle are clamoring for Jesus’ endorsement. While in some respects that is encouraging, I fear the damage being done to the church as a spiritual entity is deep. The person and character of Jesus is continually being contorted to fit a political platform. As a result, some people no longer see the church as a spiritual entity. They see her primarily as a political one.
The longer I live, the more I’m convinced that Jesus cannot, and will not, fit into a box and conform to the major tenets of a political party. His interests are too broad, and his concerns are too far-reaching, to be encased by either the Republicans or the Democrats. And for those of us who profess to be His followers, the question is simple: Do we love Jesus enough to rethink our positions on key issues? Are we willing to allow the values of His Kingdom to challenge our politics? What comes first—our allegiance to a political party, or our allegiance to His Kingdom?
I know, for myself, as I’ve been on this journey for the last decade or so, I have come to think of myself more as an “independent” than as a Republican or a Democrat. I realize neither of the major political parties fully embraces the ideals and values of God’s Kingdom. To more fully take up the values of Jesus means I’ve had to step away from some longstanding political loyalties so I can structure my life around the principles and standards of Jesus as best I understand them. It also means that I hold those conclusions loosely for, as I become more familiar with and aware of the person of Jesus, I need to be willing to fine tune and adjust my positions in order to be more fully aligned with Him.
Now—to say that I am “independent” does not mean I am disengaging or detaching from the political process. It doesn’t mean that I’m disinterested or indifferent. Quite the opposite. It means that I base my political opinions first and foremost on what I believe most fully aligns with the principles of His Kingdom and will allow our lives and neighborhoods to flourish and realize the desires and longings He has for the human race. It means where I land on any issue is not shaped solely on what I believe is best for me but by how I think it will impact others. It means, to use the term popularized by John Wesley, that I’m a “world Christian” and allow that notion to factor into my thinking. And it means that I land where I land without concern for whether it fits into the box of either political party—that at times I will oppose and be at odds with people on both sides of the aisle.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that his followers should be “the light of the world” and a “city on a hill” (Matt. 5:14). Maybe in this day of partisan politics and ideological estrangement, that’s part of what it means—to not be the lap dog of either political party because our allegiance and devotion to His Kingdom is so thorough and complete that we refuse to compromise or be dictated by the ideological confines of folks on either side. Perhaps if we can live according to that guideline, the church can not only recapture a measure of her prophetic voice, but she will return to being a more profoundly spiritual enterprise and not be perceived by so many as a political one.
The point is not whether Jesus more fully aligns with the Democrat or Republican parties. The point is whether those of us who claim to follow Him will allow the tenets of His Kingdom to challenge our politics, irrespective of where that journey might lead us.