Jesus on Non-Violence

[Drew]

Come on Drew, I've made it clear that we are to interact with people. We are to teach godly principles. However, we are not to do it through governments. I've given ample evidence supporting this.

I have seen none.

In what posts do you believe you have given evidence?

I pointed out that the early church didn't participate in governments yet they changed the world.

I see no reason to believe the early fathers are to be considered an authoritative source. Are you suggesting that their "theology" was beyond the possibility of error.

You've not yet answered my question regarding 2 Corinthians. How do you work side by side with unbelievers towards the same laws and goals for government and not be unequally yoked?

OK, let's talk about 2 Corinthians.

It seems rather contrived to take this text as basis for withdrawal from political engagement. To be involved in the political process is not really to "yoke" yourself to others. I am quite confident Paul is talking about things like marriage and exceedingly close friends.

Look at where your logic takes you - If we are not to "yoke" ourselves to the domain of politics, then we should also not, for example, study medicine at medical school where we will clearly be at least as closely "yoked" to non-believers as we would be by being politically active.

Your logic would have Christians withdrawing from medical work because of the connections to non-believers. Do you really want to own such a position?

I will keep asking you the same question that I do not believe you have really addressed:

It simply does not make sense to "keep the kingdom to yourself" - to withdraw from efforts to change the very structures that run this world for the better. I cannot emphasize enough how decidedly odd this is - you claim to have access to "kingdom of God" principles that, if applied, will make the world a much better place.

Yet you simply refuse to participate in efforts to apply these principles in the broader world!

Surely you realize how an "objective" reader will be puzzled by this.

How do you explain your position?

 

[Butch5]

I have seen none.

In what posts do you believe you have given evidence?

Nowhere have I advocated withdrawing from the world. I've only said that we are not to participate in government.

I see no reason to believe the early fathers are to be considered an authoritative source. Are you suggesting that their "theology" was beyond the possibility of error.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that it was what was first taught. There we no teaching that allowed Christians to participate in government from the apostles to Constantine. Obviously, since it was the only teaching it is what the aposltes taught.

OK, let's talk about 2 Corinthians.

It seems rather contrived to take this text as basis for withdrawal from political engagement. To be involved in the political process is not really to "yoke" yourself to others. I am quite confident Paul is talking about things like marriage and exceedingly close friends.

Look at where your logic takes you - If we are not to "yoke" ourselves to the domain of politics, then we should also not, for example, study medicine at medical school where we will clearly be at least as closely "yoked" to non-believers as we would be by being politically active.

Your logic would have Christians withdrawing from medical work because of the connections to non-believers. Do you really want to own such a position?

That's bogus. Attending medical school is not joining with others to advance laws and rules to domineer unbelievers.

There's a big difference between going to school and making laws that force people to live the way you want them to live. And yes, if you are in government you are unequally yoked for the advancement of that government.

I've pointed out numerous times that Christians participating in government has detrimental effects on the faith. This is fact not opinion or fiction. We have hundreds of years of evidence. We need only look at the hatred in this country for the religious right. As they seek to force their opinions on others they are making enemies of those very people they are supposed to be evangelizing. Many will never become Christians because of the actions of the religious right in this country. It is not the place of Christians to be making enemies of the gospel.

I will keep asking you the same question that I do not believe you have really addressed:

I've addressed your questions. However, you don't seem to want to address the issues that your position raises. What fellowship has light with darkness?

If you're a citizen of God's kingdom why do you desire to participate in the kingdom of darkness. And you don't have dual citizenship. Paul told the Colossians that God had translated them out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. They were taken out of one kingdom and placed in another, there's no dual citizenship.

 

[Drew]

Can you show me one government in the world that is not corrupt?

All the more reason for Christians to be a voice challenging that corruption and trying to change it.

If you participate in government then you are fascilitating the advancement of that government. That includes its good goals and its bad. You cannot claim one and not the other.

We can, do, and should "engage" with institutions and people that are corrupt all the time.

Your reasoning leads to positions like: One should not in any sense befriend a drug addict, or a prostitute, lest you become corrupted like them. Did Jesus follow that model? Of course not. We need to engage people and institutions to bring the good news to them. I am at least glad that your view of disengagement is a minority voice, but it still interests me how you make this view with what I, at least, see as the clear mandate for the believer to be "light to the world".

You say that you are all for engaging with people. But you hold other positions that are inconsistent with this - namely complete withdrawal from participation in efforts to mould and shape government.

And yet it is the character of government that has so much influence on the nature of the lives of people. How can you reconcile conceding this domain to the forces of pure secularism and still maintain that you support "engaging with people"?

 

[Drew]

An hypothetical for those who advocate disengagement from the political process:

You live in Germany in the 1930's. You have reason to believe that the Nationalist Socialist Party (the Nazis) will win an upcoming election. You could call on your fellow Christians to vote as a block against the Nazis.

Do you vote, or do you not vote?

Simple, valid question: yes or no?

 

[SpagLard]

An hypothetical for those who advocate disengagement from the political process:

You live in Germany in the 1930's. You have reason to believe that the Nationalist Socialist Party (the Nazis) will win an upcoming election. You could call on your fellow Christians to vote as a block against the Nazis.

Do you vote, or do you not vote?

Simple, valid question: yes or no?

Hypothetically, yes, i would vote against National Socialism .
Would i then have called upon my "fellow Christians" ? hell no .
Because.... Realistically, nearly all of Christian Germany supported National Socialism . 2

 

[Tri Unity]

"In us, all ardour in the pursuit of glory and honour is dead,
we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings;
nor is there anything more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state."

Tertullian, Apology, 38.

Although the early fathers were not perfect in every single detail; Tertullian spoke of the common opinion shared by all Christians. Up untill 200 AD, it is shown, it was the common opinion among all Christians to have nothing to do with the affairs of state. Since Constantine's acceptance of the cross Christians were encouraged to take positions of the "affairs of state". This has been the position of Catholics and Protestants since that time, and they all have reasons why they have abandoned the first practice of the church and become "secular". Scenario's get continually expounded of how we should change the course of history and force people not to abort, or force people not to take drugs, or force political leaders, like Hitler, out of their positions that God has ordained them to. O foolish Galatians. Who has bewitched you?

 

[Drew]

Hypothetically, yes, i would vote against National Socialism .

Well, that was my point of course. I cannot possibly even imagine an argument for disengagement from the political process when we have been given the very "kingdom of God" principles which, if applied in the domain of governance, would make the world a much better place.

 

[Drew]

"O foolish Galatians. Who has bewitched you?

This statement from Paul, of course, dealt with an entirely different matter. He is in no sense critiquing political involvement - he is critiquing the desire of Jewish believers to return to the Law of Moses.

 

[Butch5]

All the more reason for Christians to be a voice challenging that corruption and trying to change it.

It's all the more reason for Christians to flee from any invovlement. Paul said to flee from all appearances of evil. However, I think you bypassed my point. Can you give me any Biblical grounds to yoke yourself with corruption? On what Biblical grounds can you justify participation in corruption? Can you as a Christian sanctify abortion? If not how can participate in a government that does?

We can, do, and should "engage" with institutions and people that are corrupt all the time.

Your reasoning leads to positions like: One should not in any sense befriend a drug addict, or a prostitute, lest you become corrupted like them. Did Jesus follow that model? Of course not. We need to engage people and institutions to bring the good news to them. I am at least glad that your view of disengagement is a minority voice, but it still interests me how you make this view with what I, at least, see as the clear mandate for the believer to be "light to the world".

Drew, are you purposely misrepresenting my position? I didn't say we shouldn't engage corrupt people and institutions, I said we should not be involved "In" them. Let's use your examples. Should we become drug addicts or sell drugs so that we can engage such people? Should we become prostitutes so that we can engage them? This is following your logic, that we need to become involved in the actions of these people to reach them. It's my position that we can reach people in government as individuals and change them one at a time, without partaking of their actions. You're saying we should partake of the actions of the lost in order to reach them.

You say that you are all for engaging with people. But you hold other positions that are inconsistent with this - namely complete withdrawal from participation in efforts to mould and shape government.

Christians have no mandate to change the world. The apostles were told to make disciples. One can change the world by making disciples. Forcing people to live by Christian standards does not make disciples it makes enemies. Please show me anywhere that Jesus forced kingdom beliefs on anyone. He didn't, He presented the kingdom to them and they "CHOSE" whether they would follow or not.

And yet it is the character of government that has so much influence on the nature of the lives of people. How can you reconcile conceding this domain to the forces of pure secularism and still maintain that you support "engaging with people"?

I don't have to participate in government in order to engage people. You have no mandate to participate in government. You don't even have a Biblical admonition, you're simply imposing you opinion on the text. You've said because you believe Jesus' kingdom is in effect it is the Christians place to implement it. Please show me where you find this command in Scripture.

 

[Drew]

Nowhere have I advocated withdrawing from the world. I've only said that we are not to participate in government.

Ok, but in what posts - please provide the post number - have you provided actual arguments - Biblical (or otherwise)?

 

[Butch5]

This statement from Paul, of course, dealt with an entirely different matter. He is in no sense critiquing political involvement - he is critiquing the desire of Jewish believers to return to the Law of Moses.

You didn't address the rest of the post, is there are reason why?

 

[Butch5]

[/FONT]
Ok, but in what posts - please provide the post number - have you provided actual arguments - Biblical (or otherwise)?

I believe it was in the other thread.

 

[Drew]

I see no reason to believe the early fathers are to be considered an authoritative source. Are you suggesting that their "theology" was beyond the possibility of error.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that it was what was first taught. There we no teaching that allowed Christians to participate in government from the apostles to Constantine. Obviously, since it was the only teaching it is what the aposltes taught.

Even if this is so - even if the apostles taught withdrawal from political engagement, that is not a very compelling argument to those of us who believe that is only scripture that is fully authoritative.

You are, of course, free to ascribe authority to whoever you like. I choose to limit myself to the actual scriptures when it comes to matters of authority.

That is not, of course, to say that I categorically reject what the early fathers taught. But given my choice in respect to the sources that I consider to be authoritative, there is no inconsistency with me favouring what I see as the Biblical teaching, even if it conflicts with the views of the early fathers.

 

[Drew]

You didn't address the rest of the post, is there are reason why?

No reason - the clearly fallacious use of the statement from Galatians leapt from the page (as it would, of course). So that is what I commented on, I will get to that.

And if you have not answered my question about voting in Nazi Germany - and maybe you have (I have not checked) - I will continue to raise it.

 

[Butch5]

An hypothetical for those who advocate disengagement from the political process:

You live in Germany in the 1930's. You have reason to believe that the Nationalist Socialist Party (the Nazis) will win an upcoming election. You could call on your fellow Christians to vote as a block against the Nazis.

Do you vote, or do you not vote?

Simple, valid question: yes or no?

No, my vote will not determine who God ordains to power.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. {obeyed: or, believed}
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.(Act 5:37-39 KJV)

Now, let me give you hypothetical. The same scenario you listed above. Do you vote or not vote? One fact, many who followed Hitler professed to be Christians suppose they hadn't voted.

Here is a clip from Wikipedia.
his article gives an overview about religion in Nazi Germany and the Nazis' complex and shifting policy towards religion. The German census of May 1939 indicates that 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent unbelievers. This census came more than six years into the Hitler era.


If the Christians had not voted the most Hitler could have gotten would have been 5% of the vote at most.

Not to mention the fact that much of the Anti-Semetism that was in Germany at that time stems from the writings of Luther.

 

[Drew]

That's bogus. Attending medical school is not joining with others to advance laws and rules to domineer unbelievers.

There's a big difference between going to school and making laws that force people to live the way you want them to live. And yes, if you are in government you are unequally yoked for the advancement of that government.

You were the one who grounded your "retreat from the domain of government" position in the scripture about being "unequally yoked". So it certainly appears that your argument is "don't get involved with non-Christians. But let's say I am mistaken, that you are not speaking that generally and you are all for learning and working together with non-believers in the medical setting. Fine. Well what specifically is wrong with working together with non-believers in a political setting?

You appear to be arguing that in so doing, you are necessarily collaborating in their "evil". Well that is a clear error in logic, and unless and until you retreat from this error, we are going to be stuck.

The error is this: It is entirely possible to be engaged in the political process in such a way as your resist "non-kingdom-of-God" agendas, on the one hand, while promoting "kingdom of God agendas" on the other. You seem to expect the reader to believe that if you enter the political domian, your status as a born-again, Christ-filled new creation gets mysteriously stripped away and you become a collaborator with the evils that government clearly are involved in.

Can you explain this? Can you tell us, and I am asking for specifics, why it is you seem to think that a Christian cannot be an agent for good while that Christian is engaged in the political process?

It is simply not the case that involvement in governance necessitates collaboration in the specifically evil things that government does. I suggest that this will clear to all readers, so I think it is not a line of reasoning you want to stick with.

 

[Butch5]

No reason - the clearly fallacious use of the statement from Galatians leapt from the page (as it would, of course). So that is what I commented on, I will get to that.

And if you have not answered my question about voting in Nazi Germany - and maybe you have (I have not checked) - I will continue to raise it.

I have answered it, and presented the same in return. This is a perfect example that supports my argument.

 

[Butch5]

You were the one who grounded your "retreat from the domain of government" position in the scripture about being "unequally yoked". So it certainly appears that your argument is "don't get involved with non-Christians. But let's say I am mistaken, that you are not speaking that generally and you are all for learning and working together with non-believers in the medical setting. Fine. Well what specifically is wrong with working together with non-believers in a political setting?

I've addressed this numerous times. There's a difference between learning in medical school next to a non believer and being in a forced position of authority over that non believer. You are suggesting that Christians be in a position to force the unbeliever to abide by Christian rules, a position where the unbeliever has no choice in the matter. Even in secular occupations when a Christian is in authority a non believer can always seek other employment, they have an option if they don't like their position. However, when Christian values are forced on them when they are unwanted all you get is rebellion. You're not going to win them over..

You appear to be arguing that in so doing, you are necessarily collaborating in their "evil". Well that is a clear error in logic, and unless and until you retreat from this error, we are going to be stuck.

The error in logic is not mine, my logic flows nicely. What I question is the logic that says we must participate in the acts of other in order to reach them. As I asked you before, do we become prostitutes in order to reach them. Or, do men go out paying these women in order to reach them? A person can go out on the street and speak with a prostitute and tell her the gospel without paying her and taking her to a motel. A person can go on the street to an addict and witness to him without doing drugs along with him. There is no need to participate in their actions to reach them. Likewise there is no need to participate in government to reach people. The reason Christians participate in government is to "FORCE" their beliefs on unbelievers. It's an attempt to force legally what they were unable to achieve by Biblical means. However, if the church would get out of everyone's business and focus on what it was sent here to do it might not have to revert to the worlds methods.

The error is this: It is entirely possible to be engaged in the political process in such a way as your resist "non-kingdom-of-God" agendas, on the one hand, while promoting "kingdom of God agendas" on the other. You seem to expect the reader to believe that if you enter the political domain, your status as a born-again, Christ-filled new creation gets mysteriously stripped away and you become a collaborator with the evils that government clearly are involved in.

Can you explain this? Can you tell us, and I am asking for specifics, why it is you seem to think that a Christian cannot be an agent for good while that Christian is engaged in the political process?

It's simple, they'll be force at some point to choose between Christian values and secular.

Let's suppose you're a mailman. That's a position that would seem safe. So, you go into the post office pick up you bag and low and behold you some magazines in brown wrappers. We all know what they are, do you deliver them? If so, you've compromised kingdom values if not you're fired.

Suppose as an official you're called on to implement imminent domain and take someone's property against their will?

I think it's a fantasy to think you can participate in government and only claim the good things it does. When one participates in government, especially the Christian, he knows he’s' entering into a corrupt organization. He is willingly entering into partnership with a corrupt entity. Is that the role of the Christian. Did Christ or the apostles do any such thing?

It is simply not the case that involvement in governance necessitates collaboration in the specifically evil things that government does. I suggest that this will clear to all readers, so I think it is not a line of reasoning you want to stick with.

It's line of reasoning that shows the flaw in your argument. It's clear that one cannot jump into a kettle of paint and come out unstained. To think you can participate and not be accountable for any evils that government does is absurd. When you are seeking the advancement of that government you are a part of it, good or bad.

I'm going to ask you again, what has light to do with darkness?

 

[Butch5]

80803]Even if this is so - even if the apostles taught withdrawal from political engagement, that is not a very compelling argument to those of us who believe that is only scripture that is fully authoritative.

You are, of course, free to ascribe authority to whoever you like. I choose to limit myself to the actual scriptures when it comes to matters of authority.

That is not, of course, to say that I categorically reject what the early fathers taught. But given my choice in respect to the sources that I consider to be authoritative, there is no inconsistency with me favouring what I see as the Biblical teaching, even if it conflicts with the views of the early fathers.

Is this not a blatant rejection of the evidence that refutes your argument? I told you it wasn't the authority of the church fathers but rather the fact that it is what was taught right from the beginning. What you are espousing was renounced for the first 300 years of church history.

Are you serious? Even if the apostles taught withdraw from political engagement it's not a compelling argument? And, in the same post you're talking about the authority of the Scriptures? How is that logical?


Additionally, you said you accept the Scriptures as you final authority. OK, how do you know who wrote them? How do you know they were inspired?

Finally, you said,

there is no inconsistency with me favouring what I see as the Biblical teaching

I'm still waiting to see where you believe the Scriptures teach this. So far you've given an opinion but I've seen nothing from the Scriptures

 

[Drew]

No, my vote will not determine who God ordains to power.

Hold on a minute. It seems like you are not really answering the question as posed. And it almost looks like you are denying reality when you suggest that your vote cannot possibly play a role.

Let me reframe the question: Suppose you live in a society composed of 100 adults of voting age, yourself included. 50 of them are Nazis and they want to enact legislation to deport all Jews. These 50 Nazis tell you that they plan on voting for deportation. The other 49 adults oppose the legislation and they tell you that they are going to vote against it. It is also a "law of the land" that, one needs "50%+1" to pass a vote.

So what do you do?

If you vote against the law, the Jews stay (since a 50-50 vote means the proposed law does not pass). If you refuse to vote, off go the Jews.

Now are you really going to tell me and the other readers that your vote won't affect the outcome? If so, please explain.