This section from The Politics of Jesus is relevant to this debate about the extent and nature of “proper” theologically based “political” involvement (and to the critics of “involvement”, it equates to “entanglement”)

[Jesus]refused to concede that those in power represent an ideal, a logically proper, or even an empirically acceptable definition of what it means to be political. He did not say (as some sectarian pacifists or some pietists might, “you can have your politics and I shall do something else more important”; he said, “your definition of polis, of the social, of the wholeness of being human socially is perverted.”

How could it be otherwise? Where does one draw the line? (It is not really possible, since there is no “line”). There is, instead, I think, a fluid , flexible, interlocking and interchange. Were the resisters of Nazi Germany overly “political”? The whole question seems to me to be one of “avoiding entanglement” in the sense of adopting “wordily ways” of doing politics versus the Politics that Jesus practiced, which was basically and simply, in a nutshell, to live and proclaim the presence of the Kingdom. His contemporaries certainly considered him to be “political” in that he was considered a threat to society by both religious and secular powers.

The tradition tells us that we most choose between the individual and the social.

The “ethics of the Sermon on the Mount is for face to face personal encounters; for social structures an ethic of the ‘secular vocation” is needed. Faith will restore the individual’s soul, and Jesus’ Strong language about love for neighbor will help with this; but then how a restored person should act will be decided on grounds to which the radical personalism of Jesus does not speak.

But Jesus doesn’t know anything about radical personalism. The personhood which he proclaims as a healing, forgiving call to all is integrated into the social novelty of the healing community. This is clear from the Lucan text we have read; it would be even more clear if we could read the Jesus story with a stronger sense of the Jewishness of his context and with Aunts ringing in our ears. The more we learn about the Jewishness of Jesus (from archeology and the new textual finds, as well as from growing respect for rabbinical studies on the part of Christian theologians), the more evident it becomes that he could not have been perceived by his contemporaries otherwise than as we here have portrayed him. in fact, to be fully honest we must turn the point around: the idea of Jesus as an individualist or a teacher of radical personalism, could arise only in the (Protestant, post Pietist, rationalist) context that it did; that is, in a context which, if not intentionally anti-Semitic, was at least sweepingly a-Semitic, stranger to the Jewish Jesus.
We could extend the list of traditional antimonies of which we must repent if we are to understand. Tradition tells us to choose between respect for persons and participation in the movement of history; Jesus refuses because the movement of history is personal. Between the absolute agape which lets itself be crucified and effectiveness (which it is assumed will need to be violent), the resurrection forbids us to choose, for in the light of resurrection crucified agape is not folly (as it seems to the Hellenizers to be) and weakness (as the Judaizers believe) but the wisdom and power of God (1 Cor. 1:22-25)