Would You Vote for Jesus?

Honestly, if Jesus ran for governor of your state, would you vote for him?  For a platform, he only offers the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the Bible).  Be brutally honest… would you vote for Jesus?

You’re welcome to leave a comment to explain your answer.

You’ll see results immediately after you vote.

P.S. Please join me and four other authors at a book signing tonight at Bibles, Books, and More next to C.R. Gibbs from 5:00 — 7:00 p.m.  Come and say hi and browse!


8 thoughts on “Would You Vote for Jesus?

  1. Team…

    When our Lord eventually establishes his mediatorial political kingdom on earth, I am not sure there will be any room for dissent. The messianic passage (Psalm 2) states, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: . . . Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little…”


  2. Thanks, Joseph, I knew I had “some issues” with Jesus being governor!

    My issue is strictly one: He promised the Comfoter, but I sure would have wanted Him immediately before Jesus left me!!!!!! I probably would have joined the others in not really understanding exactly Who the Comforter is….

    After the resurrection, there wouldn’t be much doubt (amongst the Christians, that is!) Jesus is Messiah God and worthy to be believed and die for. That’s definitely good, but receiving the Holy Spirit is the icing on the cake. Yeah!

  3. So, there’s a whole host of really interesting considerations here. I’ve been thinking about it for about an hour now and I think I’ve come to a handful of disparate conclusions.

    So, the parameters of the thought experiment here are curious. Jesus for Governor of an American state. We have our present political structure with its concomitant commitments and ideological underpinnings and then we have the “Jesus of the Gospels”. So, the modern nation-state is conceived out of a sort of bastard-child of Calvinist total-depravity theology, enlightenment “naturism” and weird, quasi-Kantian rights/dignity speak. In this structure, humans are understood to be fundamentally selfish, competitive, and violent, but the god that secures our rights and “in whom we trust” is absent and not grace-bestowing or redemption-providing. So, the “leviathan” as Hobbes called is instituted and bestowed with the potential for an immense amount of violence, the promise of which keeps our chaotic, individual violences at bay.

    That’s what our government is and does: violence keeping violence at bay. We engage in a great pageant of this when we vote. Each of us is given a symbolic unit of violence to exert against one another.

    Our government systems are meant to peaceably accommodate our sinful natures, not redeem them (and to be fair, it does a pretty darn good job). Jesus, as a material and immanent political platform, would be fundamentally at odds with that. His national security policy would not be secure at all. I’m convinced he’d never get near a single religious figurehead and fail to excoriate them in front of everyone. (The 700 Club interview would be a debacle.) His cabinet would be made up of people no one would ever reasonably trust with the organization of their political bureaucracy. His fiscal policies would be at turns incredibly wasteful (oil and perfume on feet, anyone?) and wildly efficient (fish and loaves, kids? cheap, delicious wine from clean water?) and he wouldn’t have felt bad for making ya’ll pay taxes even a little (give to Caeser, right?).

    In fact, I think the idea that Jesus would even run for office is pretty flawed. If anything, I think Martin Luther King Jr. took a pretty Christ-like approach to things (his own un-christ-likeness of character not-withstanding. the old joke about God using imperfect people b/c they’re the only one’s he can find comes to mind here). He stood in non-violent opposition to the refusals of the government to engage in anything other than the mitigation of open conflict, and called for it to pursue redemption of its previous errings. In order to do this, he conversed w/ the government, but did not capitulate to its fundamental principles.

    So, if we are, in the parameters of this thought experiment, going to attempt to transpose the life and teachings of Jesus into an immanent, material political platform, I think its pretty reasonable to think that he would be found not as a candidate on a ballot, but a non-violent revolutionary in the streets w/ the least-of-these, calling prophetically and convictingly for redemption, not violence-against-violence placidity.

    And I’m fairly certain that, once again, he’d end up the victim of political assassination. The leviathan would not tolerate him.

  4. Well, he doesn’t exactly fit into our system. Governor? No, He’s King! Other than that, I absolutely trust him, so sure, I’d vote for him.

  5. Well, he doesn’t exactly fit into our system. Governor? No, He’s King! Other than that, I absolutely trust him, so sure, I’d vote for him.

    To say “He represents my views” may not be exactly accurate, but I hope that he is shaping my views.

  6. Well, I say I would definitely vote for him, but if Jesus were a politician in the U.S. I might not like him as much…
    Honestly, if he were to us what he was to the 1st century folks, I probably wouldn’t like him too much… He was radical and controversial and totally countercultural. If I didn’t know that he was the one I had been waiting for – If I didn’t know he was the ONE – Jesus would probably make me uneasy.
    I say definitely, yes, but in reality I can only say yes because I already know him and want to be more like him… I can’t say that if I were in the shoes of a 1st century Jew and Jesus were running for a political office that I’d actually follow him…

  7. Here’s his platform:
    1: Be meek
    2: Turn the other cheek
    3: Give away everything you have, to the poor
    4: If you’re part of the religious establishment, you’re against me
    5: If you support the occupying government, you’re OK
    6: He hung out with the wrong kinds of people: Morally inferior to me, politically opposite of me. Tax collectors!!!

    No. He wouldn’t get my vote. Sorry.

  8. Bob…

    Dude, you hit the nail right on the head, my friend, and I am not sure you realize that!! (smile)

    First, as you correctly point out, Jesus was spit out when he offered the Kingdom to the Jewish nation. (You cited several relevant reasons why the views of Jesus are still unpopular to the common political climate that has always existed in this world.) Pontius Pilate placed the declaration, “King of the Jews” on top of the crucifix to declare the crime committed by Jesus — i.e., he was the mediatorial king, the Son of David, of the Jews.

    At the present time, Jesus is building his church, which will be the cadre that will rule with him during his political rule on earth (millenium). The admonishments to the 7 churches in Revelation 1-3 are all references to the rewards (and loss of rewards) under this view for us the church. By the way, it’s a kingdom (king) and not a democracy. If you so much as call your neighbor a moron, you will be at risk of judgment to hell fire (Matt 5:22).

    What is the upshot of all this discussion? Our firm view of this future, mediatorial kingdom on earth leaves us (1) waiting & looking for our savior to return every day, and (2) living by the standards of that future kingdom today, notwithstanding that there is no friendship with the world under our “kingdom” worldview of our Lord.


Comments are closed.