Open question about Jesus and politics

What does this mean for us?:

Luke22:24 A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

28“You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, 29and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Some relevant factors to consider:

1. The New Testament affirms there are authorities in the church; even if one does not grant the New Testament authority in itself, it seems unlikely that the apostles would go so far off-base in such a short time as to completely oppose Jesus’ message about authority if he intended to create a completely egalitarian direct-democratic community.
2. The text (including in its parallels) specifically focuses on “the kings of the Gentiles“.
3. The text in Luke affirms that the 12 will sit on thrones judging others in the kingdom, which implies they have authority.
4. Most everything in the gospels has a political subtext, especially things around authority; consider, as one example, that right after this passage Luke has Jesus informing Peter that Satan has asked to sift him, and that he will deny him three times. In the Gospels Satan is presented as tempting Jesus with power (think: all the kingdoms of the world for bowing to Satan, temptation in Gethsemane followed by Peter’s revolutionary activities, and Jesus’ response about living by the sword).
5. Paul’s first epistle to Timothy seems to say that seeking to hold a position of authority is not a bad thing, but rather: “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.”
6. Peter has a similar theme in his first epistle: “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that his among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will likewise receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another.” Here it seems one can exercise authority (“oversight”) and be domineering or not.

Right now it seems to me that one could take this (extremely central) declaration of Jesus in two ways: either what Jesus is prohibiting is the use of violent power (which this reading would obviously link with a domineering attitude, thinking that violence inherently expresses such a thing), which would be consistent with the general political subtext and would require pacifism, or it is the power-seeking-and-flaunting, domineering attitude that is expressed in revolutionary thought and in the “kings of the Gentiles”. And further, if we take Paul’s comment in 1 Timothy seriously, it seems that the problem can’t be, on either reading, a simple “desire to hold authority” in itself. There must be something deeper at work in addition to but in co-operation with that desire which makes it problematic. My guess is that it would be something like, on the first reading, a desire to restrict the freedom of action of others (through violence) against their will, or on the second reading, a desire to control others for one’s own aggrandizement in contradiction to the good of others. Or to put it another way: it’s either the desire to limit their freedom for one’s own good, or the desire to limit their good for one’s own good. These are roughly the pacifist and Augustinian answers, I suppose, so I’m not saying anything new.