Christians in Politics pt 2

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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).

 

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?

 

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

 

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.