Christians in Politics pt 2

[JonC]

Another issue, @Yeshua1 , is how much a voice for Christ in politics.

Secular politics applies to the world. A congressman represents a people (Christians and non-Christians, heterosexuals and homosexuales, Atheists, Muslims, Satan worshippers and Christians.

We cannot serve two masters. But as a Christian involved in politics you have to meet the political desires of those you represent (as a whole). Otherwise you are dishonest, misrepresenting those you are employed to represent. It is by definition a compromise....not only between competing politics (as you would be responsible for representing a diverse people) but also between the workd and the kingdom of God (as they are by nature opposed).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Probably because I served n the Army for 23 years.

Origen's defence of Christianity (explaining why Christians do not vote or hold office) was 248 AD.

I cited one item as going too far and it’s dated ca. AD 350. Did Origen actually state that exact same extrabiblical doctrine? That would still put it more than a century beyond the apostolic church.

The more intriguing question is whether Origen and others mentally compartmentalized and exempted the military and police might of the government from the rest of the government. I’d be willing to look at how they did so, but such an argument would likely undermine itself. That position sounds untenable.

 

[JonC]

I cited one item as going too far and it’s dated ca. AD 350. Did Origen actually state that exact same extrabiblical doctrine? That would still put it more than a century beyond the apostolic church.

The more intriguing question is whether Origen and others mentally compartmentalized and exempted the military and police might of the government from the rest of the government. I’d be willing to look at how they did so, but such an argument would likely undermine itself. That position sounds untenable.

Origen did defending the reason Christians did not participate in politics, but as far as I know he did not mention the military.

Origen's position (in his defense against Celsus) involved defending the Christian position that Christians are completely separated from the politics of the world. I am not sure that we can extend this to areas like sweeping the floor of an official, but we can in terms of holding government leadership positions. His argument was that Christians withdraw from those positions in the World to exercise them in the Kingdom.

The position against Christians serving in the military was more against Christians bearing arms than it was becoming involved in politics. The earliest I can find prohibiting Christians from military service (from any service that involved taking up arms) are Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) and Ignatius of Antioch (? - 108 AD). But I do not see a prohibition from involvement in secular politics with these two.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Origen did defending the reason Christians did not participate in politics, but as far as I know he did not mention the military.

Origen's position (in his defense against Celsus) involved defending the Christian position that Christians are completely separated from the politics of the world. I am not sure that we can extend this to areas like sweeping the floor of an official, but we can in terms of holding government leadership positions. His argument was that Christians withdraw from those positions in the World to exercise them in the Kingdom.

The position against Christians serving in the military was more against Christians bearing arms than it was becoming involved in politics. The earliest I can find prohibiting Christians from military service (from any service that involved taking up arms) are Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) and Ignatius of Antioch (? - 108 AD). But I do not see a prohibition from involvement in secular politics with these two.

Not including the military and police might of the government with the rest of the government would not constitute exact same stance. Perhaps Origen assumed they were too closely connected to need delineation.

The untenability of attempting to dissociate the military and police might of the government from the rest of the government might be best emphasized with a dread association from WWII:

He denied everything with the classic Nazi excuse: “I was only doing my duty [and] I have only obeyed orders’.​

Attempts to argue that enforcing policy has nothing to do with policy will naturally fall flat on their face. It would be easier to argue that unenforced policy isn’t really policy.

 

[JonC]

Not including the military and police might of the government with the rest of the government would not constitute exact same stance. Perhaps Origen assumed they were too closely connected to need delineation.

The untenability of attempting to dissociate the military and police might of the government from the rest of the government might be best emphasized with a dread association from WWII:

He denied everything with the classic Nazi excuse: “I was only doing my duty [and] I have only obeyed orders’.​

Attempts to argue that enforcing policy has nothing to do with policy will naturally fall flat on their face. It would be easier to argue that unenforced policy isn’t really policy.

I think circumstances always dictate how each generation applies Scripture (sometimes even how Scripture is interpreted).

This may explain why until the 4th Century Chriatians were not involved in politics.

But you are right that they did not reason out why they would not involve themselves in those ways. They gave very little explanation, only that they believed it to be obeying God.

That rarely flies today. We determine that living at peace sometimes necessities violence; that being of the world is sometimes the best way of being apart from the world, etc.

"Simple" obedience is not in our contemporary vocabulary.

Maybe the earlier Christians took things too superficial. I cannot say.

 

[Yeshua1]

The world is the world. For centuries Christians were politically involved in Rome. How did that turn out?

We cannot bypass the gospel in order to save the world. We are not called to make the world a moral place but to be the body of Christ calling for men to come out of the world, to repent and believe, to be re-born, to die to the workd

You asked before if it can be both - the World and the Kingdom. It cannot.

One can be a good citizen of Usa, and also for the Kingdom of heaven!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think circumstances always dictate how each generation applies Scripture (sometimes even how Scripture is interpreted).

This may explain why until the 4th Century Chriatians were not involved in politics.

But you are right that they did not reason out why they would not involve themselves in those ways. They gave very little explanation, only that they believed it to be obeying God.

That rarely flies today. We determine that living at peace sometimes necessities violence; that being of the world is sometimes the best way of being apart from the world, etc.

"Simple" obedience is not in our contemporary vocabulary.

Maybe the earlier Christians took things too superficial. I cannot say.

Should not we as Christians be involved in culture and society, as were not many scientists and medical persons Christians, what if they just stayed out of the system?

 

[Yeshua1]

Another issue, @Yeshua1 , is how much a voice for Christ in politics.

Secular politics applies to the world. A congressman represents a people (Christians and non-Christians, heterosexuals and homosexuales, Atheists, Muslims, Satan worshippers and Christians.

We cannot serve two masters. But as a Christian involved in politics you have to meet the political desires of those you represent (as a whole). Otherwise you are dishonest, misrepresenting those you are employed to represent. It is by definition a compromise....not only between competing politics (as you would be responsible for representing a diverse people) but also between the workd and the kingdom of God (as they are by nature opposed).

as a Christian, would we not be to bear on each vote what God states on the issue>

 

[JonC]

One can be a good citizen of Usa, and also for the Kingdom of heaven!

One can be a good citizen of the USA without being involved in politics.

 

[JonC]

Should not we as Christians be involved in culture and society, as were not many scientists and medical persons Christians, what if they just stayed out of the system?

We should. I am very much involved in my culture and society. I am involved in my community. I am not sure why you ask this. We cannot influence the world if we pretend we are not here.

I am not, of course, involved in politics. I stay out of the world systems because I believe these systems to be worldly.

The difference is where we focus our efforts. Are we looking to influence world systems or are we looking to share the gospel with people?

What do you think? Should a Christian be a state representative (representing Christians, Muslims, atheists, Satan worshippers, transgender people, hetrosexuals, homosexuals,....i.e., whatever population represents the area they represent) or should a Christian represent Christ?

 

[JonC]

as a Christian, would we not be to bear on each vote what God states on the issue>

Invalid question. God tells us that the world is already condemned and is an enemy of God. God tells us to be a holy people, separated from the world for His purposes. God tells us not to judge those outside the Church. Voting in secular politics is by definition an anti-God activity.

 

[Yeshua1]

One can be a good citizen of the USA without being involved in politics.

When you say involved, is voting in elections being considered "being political?"

 

[Yeshua1]

We should. I am very much involved in my culture and society. I am involved in my community. I am not sure why you ask this. We cannot influence the world if we pretend we are not here.

I am not, of course, involved in politics. I stay out of the world systems because I believe these systems to be worldly.

The difference is where we focus our efforts. Are we looking to influence world systems or are we looking to share the gospel with people?

What do you think? Should a Christian be a state representative (representing Christians, Muslims, atheists, Satan worshippers, transgender people, hetrosexuals, homosexuals,....i.e., whatever population represents the area they represent) or should a Christian represent Christ?

I can be a Senator and be a Christian!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I think circumstances always dictate how each generation applies Scripture (sometimes even how Scripture is interpreted).

This may explain why until the 4th Century Chriatians were not involved in politics.

But you are right that they did not reason out why they would not involve themselves in those ways. They gave very little explanation, only that they believed it to be obeying God.

That rarely flies today. We determine that living at peace sometimes necessities violence; that being of the world is sometimes the best way of being apart from the world, etc.

"Simple" obedience is not in our contemporary vocabulary.

Maybe the earlier Christians took things too superficial. I cannot say.

I can’t say for sure what led to the thinking of those later Christian leaders, but it is not the same as that of the leaders of apostolic days. Perhaps they didn’t want to deal with the many complications Paul and others dealt with, for example, infant believers in the Corinthian church. The temptations toward legalism and license seem ever present.

However, refusing baptism in these cases is contra-biblical, and there is nothing in the NT to indicate otherwise. An individual choosing to cease from government service or voting or jury duty is one thing, but forcing this on others is quite another. One must create a doctrine from silence to get there, and that is going too far.

Should a minister of the church be in government service? Perhaps not. In order not to neglect their ministry, the apostles had the church choose other spiritual men to “wait tables” in the church. Not everyone in the church is responsible for ministry to the same level or degree, and some will have more involvement with the world in mundane ways.

 

[Yeshua1]

Invalid question. God tells us that the world is already condemned and is an enemy of God. God tells us to be a holy people, separated from the world for His purposes. God tells us not to judge those outside the Church. Voting in secular politics is by definition an anti-God activity.

So we should not even care if abortions just go on , or if laws are enacted that go against the laws of the Lord?

 

[JonC]

I can’t say for sure what led to the thinking of those later Christian leaders, but it is not the same as that of the leaders of apostolic days. Perhaps they didn’t want to deal with the many complications Paul and others dealt with, for example, infant believers in the Corinthian church. The temptations toward legalism and license seem ever present.

However, refusing baptism in these cases is contra-biblical, and there is nothing in the NT to indicate otherwise. An individual choosing to cease from government service or voting or jury duty is one thing, but forcing this on others is quite another. One must create a doctrine from silence to get there, and that is going too far.

Should a minister of the church be in government service? Perhaps not. In order not to neglect their ministry, the apostles had the church choose other spiritual men to “wait tables” in the church. Not everyone in the church is responsible for ministry to the same level or degree, and some will have more involvement with the world in mundane ways.

The thing is some if those leaders were not far removed from the Apostles. For example, Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John) died about 8 years (up to 30) after John the Apostle died.

To me it seems to be reasonable to expect that the early church teachings were not only on par with the Apostlic church (especially with the overlap).

Add to it there being no evidence to the contrary (your only evidence is the absence of writings before 100 AD).

I agree about different roles. Paul made this clear with separation between roles of the evangelist and those engaged in the ministry of providing for those in physical need (waiting tables, the tables being the offerings).

But at the same time I can see a relationship between Scripture speaking about being separated from the World, living at peace with all men, not being men of violence, the contrast between workd and kingdom, and the command not to become engaged with the affairs of this world and the conclusion of those Christians who interpreted those passages just 30 to 50 years later to mean Christians are not to be involved in politics or serve in combat.

I see no support for an opposing view (historically the opposing view was strictly from pagans complaining about Chrustians not being involved in political issues).

 

[JonC]

So we should not even care if abortions just go on , or if laws are enacted that go against the laws of the Lord?

Why should we not care about abortion?

I am not involved in politics, and will not vote, but that does not mean I should not care about abortion.

You are not making sense. Abortion is murder. Why minimalize it to politics?????

Are you pro-abortion?

 

[JonC]

I can be a Senator and be a Christian!

You can be a lot of things and be a Christian.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The thing is some if those leaders were not far removed from the Apostles. For example, Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John) died about 8 years (up to 30) after John the Apostle died.

To me it seems to be reasonable to expect that the early church teachings were not only on par with the Apostlic church (especially with the overlap).

Add to it there being no evidence to the contrary (your only evidence is the absence of writings before 100 AD).

Perhaps I’ve overlooked them, but the only extrabiblical evidence of refusing baptism was the one I cited as going too far. If there are others that were also refusing baptism for cause, I'll be interested to review them.

However, there is one passage in particular that makes me hesitate regarding arguments from silence just as you have pointed out.

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? —John 21:22-23.​

The point is that even in apostolic times some believers were drawing unwarranted conclusions and spreading them abroad.

Baptism is far too fundamental for believers to deny so extremely without a clear directive. There is zero NT evidence for it in this case, and we have NT cases. Those commanding that baptism be withheld in such circumstances went way too far. It is judging the conscience of another believer.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps I’ve overlooked them, but the only extrabiblical evidence of refusing baptism was the one I cited as going too far. If there are others that were also refusing baptism for cause, I'll be interested to review them.

However, there is one passage in particular that makes me hesitate regarding arguments from silence just as you have pointed out.

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? —John 21:22-23.​

The point is that even in apostolic times some believers were drawing unwarranted conclusions and spreading them abroad.

Baptism is far too fundamental for believers to deny so extremely without a clear directive. There is zero NT evidence for it in this case, and we have NT cases. Those commanding that baptism be withheld in such circumstances went way too far. It is judging the conscience of another believer.

Baptism changed a lot over the years. I think they were wrong as well (I agree they went too far).

But regarding Christians refraining from politics, that is a view expressed while some apostles were still living. The only opposing view was the complaints of pagans that Christians refused to participate in the affairs of the government.