The Disciple and Politics

[Butch5]

You are not really making a case for withdrawal from government. Even if some people who call themselves "Christians" behaved irresponsibly, this is hardly an argument for right-thinking Christians to sit on their hands on the sidelines.

Instead, those right-thinking Christians should have been involved in the political process, advocating for the non-violent solution.

Can you please explain why it is you believe that "kingdom of God" values are not suitable for ordering the world?

In other ways, your argument seems strange to me. Suppose some doctors in the past engaged in evil experiment on people. Does that mean a Christian today should not consider becoming a doctor?

We have the very kingdom of God values in our hands. And yet many (such as yourelf) seem to think they are not suitable for use in the real world inasmuch as the institutions of government play an important role in how the world runs. Can you explain?

Sure, Kingdom values are the best there are, but let me ask you, when Jesus gave the great commission what did He say? He said go and make disciples. Did He say go and change the world, did He say go and institute governments, or go and makes these the values of the world? No, He didn't, He knew that people would reject them. I mean just look at His own people, the people who claimed to love God wouldn’t even accept Him, are we to expect that a whole world of unbelievers will?

Since the time of Constantine Christians have been trying to use governments for the purose of making disciples and it hasn't worked. We have 1700 years of examples as how using governments to spead Christianity to the world "doesn't" work. When are we going to learn from the past?

God knows it won't work and has shown us, why do we suppose we know better? How many times do we see God telling Israel to drive out "All" of the people in a land so as not to become corrupted by their influence? Yet we see time and time again that Israel didn't and became corrupted. Do we really think we are superior, that somehow we can be intertwined with these nations and come out untouched? If so, I think we're in for a rude awakening. I believe that's why Paul tells the Corinthians not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers and to come out from among them.

28 "And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you.
29 "I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the beast of the field become too numerous for you.
30 "Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land.
31 "And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the sea, Philistia, and from the desert to the River1. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.
32 "You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
33 "They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me. For if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you."
(Exo 23:28-33 NKJ)

 

[Butch5]

If God establishes the governments but they are no longer Christian, then the only solution is for Christians to get involved in government and show them the truth, to try and change. Its not easy, it'll probably be futile but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

It's interesting to me that I hear people comment/complain that the government are increasingly turning away from Christian values and then I read comments suggesting Christians should just let the government get on with it. Yes lets just sit back and let the world destroy itself and be content that we will be with Christ. Somehow I doubt that's what Jesus would advocate.

Hi Grazer,

Here are a few questions not directly to you, but to all, Is God capable?

Why do you (Christians) feel it is your place to direct world affairs?

Where is the Biblical command to makes sure that you (Christians) are determing the outcome of human affairs?

Does God require your (Christians) help or is He capable of running the world on His own?

Remember in the OT, it was God who was in control of things, the Israelites weren't helping God carry out His plan. Several times God said, I will drive them out before you. The Scriptures tell us that it is God who raises up and puts down nations. He was doing this long before there were any Christians on the scene. So, why do you (Christian) feel that now it is necessary to help God?

The Apostles were told to go and make disciples, not to go and make the world follow Christian values.

 

[Drew]

Firstly, can we establish the Biblical command for us to determine the course that nations take? Jesus specifically distanced Himself from worldly kingdoms.

Well, this all depends on what you mean. Was Jesus opposed to setting up a kingdom in the mold of previous kingdoms? Of course He was! But this does not speak to the possibility that Jesus was inaugurating a real "this-worldly" kingdom that operated on different principles. And I am quite confident this is what He was doing.

Again: We have clear statements from Jesus Himself that He was inaugurating a kingdom at that time - "some you will not see death until you see the kingdom", etc.

It is decidedly odd how people avoid the rather obvious implication that Jesus is claiming to be a "real" king; They add a huge qualifier that is nowhere even remotely hinted at, namely that Jesus is only king over people's "inner lives" and / or over a "spiritual" realm, to the exclusion of the real world. Does that not strike as a clear contrivance?

That is about as odd as believing that Barack Obama is only president of the "personal" lives of American citizens.

 

[Drew]

Does God require your (Christians) help or is He capable f running the world on His own?

I suggest that the Scriptures clearly teach that whatever God is "capable of", He decided, back in the Garden of Eden, to place mankind in a position of stewardship over all creation.

God does not go back on such a commitment. This is precisely why Jesus is properly understood to be the 2nd Adam. God has ordained that mankind is to be the steward over creation. Christ was a man (as well as being God) and we are repeatedly characterized as being "in Christ".

So I see every Biblical reason to believe that God wants the believer to "run the world".

Of course, God could have never made the commitment He made in the Garden of Eden. But He did. Since God follows through on His commitments, we should entirely expect that redeemed humans should "run the world", as it were.

 

[Butch5]

I suggest that the Scriptures clearly teach that whatever God is "capable of", He decided, back in the Garden of Eden, to place mankind in a position of stewardship over all creation.

God does not go back on such a commitment. This is precisely why Jesus is properly understood to be the 2nd Adam. God has ordained that mankind is to be the steward over creation. Christ was a man (as well as being God) and we are repeatedly characterized as being "in Christ".

So I see every Biblical reason to believe that God wants the believer to "run the world".

Of course, God could have never made the commitment He made in the Garden of Eden. But He did. Since God follows through on His commitments, we should entirely expect that redeemed humans should "run the world", as it were.

Dominion over the creation isn't exactly the same as doninion over man. God didn't tell Adam to take diminion over Eve.

Another thing to consider is that according to Paul it is God who is going to be putting the world under man's control not man.

5 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels.
6 But one testified in a certain place, saying: "What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him?
7 You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor1, And set him over the works of Your hands.​

8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet1." For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.(Heb 2:5-8 NKJ)

 

[Butch5]

Well, this all depends on what you mean. Was Jesus opposed to setting up a kingdom in the mold of previous kingdoms? Of course He was! But this does not speak to the possibility that Jesus was inaugurating a real "this-worldly" kingdom that operated on different principles. And I am quite confident this is what He was doing.

Again: We have clear statements from Jesus Himself that He was inaugurating a kingdom at that time - "some you will not see death until you see the kingdom", etc.

It is decidedly odd how people avoid the rather obvious implication that Jesus is claiming to be a "real" king; They add a huge qualifier that is nowhere even remotely hinted at, namely that Jesus is only king over people's "inner lives" and / or over a "spiritual" realm, to the exclusion of the real world. Does that not strike as a clear contrivance?

That is about as odd as believing that Barack Obama is only president of the "personal" lives of American citizens.

I don't know why you've suggested that. I've nowhere said that Jesus' kingdom was only a Spiritual kingdom. It is a real kingdom, however, it's not to grow by force, it's grow by love.

I don't believe that verse you quoted is in context.

KJV Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
(Mar 9:1-9 KJV)


15 And I shall take great care that after my own departure you will still have a means to recall these things to mind.
16 When we told you about the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were not slavishly repeating cleverly invented myths; no, we had seen his majesty with our own eyes.
17 He was honoured and glorified by God the Father, when a voice came to him from the transcendent Glory, This is my Son, the Beloved; he enjoys my favour.
18 We ourselves heard this voice from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as to a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds.
(2Pe 1:15-19 NJB)

 

[Drew]

It is a real kingdom, however, it's not to grow by force, it's grow by love.

Let's be clear about something. I have never posted anything that could be reasonably understood to constitute an endorsement of the use of force in any setting.

 

[Butch5]

[/FONT]
Let's be clear about something. I have never posted anything that could be reasonably understood to constitute an endorsement of the use of force in any setting.

I'm sorry Drew, I should have been more clear. I was not referring to violence when I used the word force, I was referring the institution of laws.

 

[Drew]

I'm sorry Drew, I should have been more clear. I was not referring to violence when I used the word force, I was referring the institution of laws.

Ok, no problem. I hope to address your posts later....

 

[Free]

There seems to be an inconsistency with the "Christians shouldn't be involved in politics" position, at least given the arguments presented thus far.

The first Christians would have nothing to do with the government because they knew they were pilgrims on this earth. They held a doctrine that isn't given much attention today that is the doctrine of the two kingdoms. They knew there was the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. What wasn't the kingdom of God was the kingdom of darkness. They would have no part in ruling the kingdom of darkness. I don't see how anything has changed. We still have those two kingdoms. However, as Christians Paul said that God has translated us out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. Having been translated why would we again partake of the kingdom of darkness?

Can you partake of government without becoming unequally yoked? Suppose you vote for a candidate and he wins, however, while in office he goes against the commands of Christ. Don't you have some responsibility in that?

OK, here's my point. If Christians didn't vote he doesn't get elected and the events don't take place. For instance Christians vote for candidate A, he gets elected. He goes to war, innocent people are killed. If Christians didn't vote for candidate A he doesn't get elected he doesn't go to war and the innocent people live. The Christians have some part in those people being killed. That is one reason I no longer vote. If we told in Scripture to vote then it would be different, however, we're explicitly told to be separate from the world. The earliest Christians understood this and wouldn't participate in government. They understood that their country was the kingdom of God not one of the kingdoms of darkness.

OK, but what I'm getting is that he broke Christ's commands, lets say he bombs some country. Don't those who voted for him have some responsibility in that?

Using a road doesn't break the commands of Christ. Neither does using city water or paying taxes. However, being yoked with unbelievers does. If you have an entirely Christian government then I guess there would be no problem. However, we know that there is no entirely Christian government. You see, when Christians are involved with government they inevitably find themselves in a position of having to choose to follow Christ or government.

Firstly, it is argued that Christians shouldn't vote lest the candidate they vote for goes against the commands of Christ.

Secondly, it is argued that if the candidate goes against the commands of Christ, any Christian who voted for that candidate has a part in what that candidate did.

Thirdly, it is argued that being involved in politics, including voting, is "participation in the kingdom of darkness"--Scripture says Christians should not be involved in the things of this world and by extension, this means politics.

Fourthly, it is argued, correctly, that Christians are to pay taxes according to the commands of Jesus.

There is probably more that could be said but it is enough to make the point and see the disconnect in the arguments that have been presented.

If voting is participating in what has been called "the kingdom of darkness" and results in voters bearing part of the responsibility for the actions of the winners of the vote, then paying taxes is participating in "the kingdom of darkness", since bombs and wars and any other actions that go against Jesus' commands which require money, are funded by taxes. This would result in taxpayers bearing part of the responsibility for the actions of those who spend the taxes.

Paying taxes is very much being involved in politics and "participating in the kingdom of darkness," as much, if not more so, than voting. Yet Jesus said to pay taxes despite the use of taxes to go against his commands.

To sum:

If Jesus says to pay taxes, and he does, then Jesus is advocating at least some level of participation in politics and the governments of this world.

If taxes don't result in taxpayers bearing responsibility for the actions of those in government, then neither does voting.

Since Jesus advocates at least some level of participation in politics, and says nothing against it, and voting is fine, then there is no reason to think that Christians cannot be more fully involved in politics. More importantly perhaps is that shows there is an intermingling of the Jesus' kingdom with those of the world.
​

 

[reba]

Nicely said Free

 

[Butch5]

There seems to be an inconsistency with the "Christians shouldn't be involved in politics" position, at least given the arguments presented thus far.

Firstly, it is argued that Christians shouldn't vote lest the candidate they vote for goes against the commands of Christ.

Secondly, it is argued that if the candidate goes against the commands of Christ, any Christian who voted for that candidate has a part in what that candidate did.

Thirdly, it is argued that being involved in politics, including voting, is "participation in the kingdom of darkness"--Scripture says Christians should not be involved in the things of this world and by extension, this means politics.

Fourthly, it is argued, correctly, that Christians are to pay taxes according to the commands of Jesus.

There is probably more that could be said but it is enough to make the point and see the disconnect in the arguments that have been presented.

If voting is participating in what has been called "the kingdom of darkness" and results in voters bearing part of the responsibility for the actions of the winners of the vote, then paying taxes is participating in "the kingdom of darkness", since bombs and wars and any other actions that go against Jesus' commands which require money, are funded by taxes. This would result in taxpayers bearing part of the responsibility for the actions of those who spend the taxes.

Paying taxes is very much being involved in politics and "participating in the kingdom of darkness," as much, if not more so, than voting. Yet Jesus said to pay taxes despite the use of taxes to go against his commands.

To sum:

If Jesus says to pay taxes, and he does, then Jesus is advocating at least some level of participation in politics and the governments of this world.

If taxes don't result in taxpayers bearing responsibility for the actions of those in government, then neither does voting.

Since Jesus advocates at least some level of participation in politics, and says nothing against it, and voting is fine, then there is no reason to think that Christians cannot be more fully involved in politics. More importantly perhaps is that shows there is an intermingling of the Jesus' kingdom with those of the world.

There's no disconnect. What Biblical basis do you have to say that paying taxes is participating in government? It seems there is another issue you've not taken into account. The taxes that Jesus said to pay were not optional, a Christian's participation in government is. In participating in the government the Christian is willingly choosing to participate in a kingdom which is an enemy of God.

4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. (Jam 4:4 KJV)

Paying taxes is not friendship with the world, it's obeying the law of the land. "Choosing" to participate in government is friendship with the world.

Jesus does tell us to pay taxes. Paul also says to come out from among them and be not unequally yoked.

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2Co 6:14-18 KJV)

It seems to me either we have a contradiction or paying taxes doesn't constitute participation in government.

 

[Tri Unity]

There seems to be an inconsistency with the "Christians shouldn't be involved in politics" position, at least given the arguments presented thus far.

Your seeing what you want to see. Keep it a scriptural argument. The logic of the Christ continually gets challenged by Satan using the same rationale used here. The argument should be centred around the scriptures, not what you or I "think". What else have you got apart from Romans 13. Thats a patsy if there ever was one.

 

[Free]

There's no disconnect. What Biblical basis do you have to say that paying taxes is participating in government?

The same biblical basis you have for saying that voting is participating in government.

It seems there is another issue you've not taken into account. The taxes that Jesus said to pay were not optional, a Christian's participation in government is.

I clearly did take it into account, that was one of my points. Since Jesus said to pay taxes, then he is allowing and even advocating at least some level of participation in government.

Whether there is a choice or not is irrelevant.

In participating in the government the Christian is willingly choosing to participate in a kingdom which is an enemy of God.

And yet instituted by God, even referred to as his servant.

4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.(Jam 4:4 KJV)

This is the response I was expecting and at least part of what my points were addressing: passages such as these are not saying what you are trying to make them say.

Looking at the context, as we always should:

Jas 4:1 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?
Jas 4:2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.
Jas 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.
Jas 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (ESV)

James is clearly addressing worldly thinking about possessions and money; loving the things of the world more than loving God. This has nothing to do with politics.

Paying taxes is not friendship with the world, it's obeying the law of the land. "Choosing" to participate in government is friendship with the world.

Since you are fond of requesting biblical bases, what is your biblical basis for saying that '"choosing" to participate in government is friendship with the world"? Friendship with the world is not what you are making it out to be.

Jesus does tell us to pay taxes. Paul also says to come out from among them and be not unequally yoked.

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.(2Co 6:14-18 KJV)

It seems to me either we have a contradiction or paying taxes doesn't constitute participation in government.

Again, looking at the context, Paul seems to be speaking to against believers joining unbelievers in acts of idolatry.

We simply cannot take the two passages you given and apply them to whatever situation we want. If you still want to do that, then we need to revisit your reply to me regarding the many other institutions and charities which do good things but are considered non-Christian.

 

[Free]

Your seeing what you want to see. Keep it a scriptural argument. The logic of the Christ continually gets challenged by Satan using the same rationale used here. The argument should be centred around the scriptures, not what you or I "think". What else have you got apart from Romans 13. Thats a patsy if there ever was one.

And yet, as I have just shown above, even the use of Scripture often comes down to "what you or I 'think'" Scripture is saying. Please try and contribute to the discussion instead of just posting these types of posts. Have you even addressed Rom 13?

 

[WIP]

The taxes that Jesus said to pay were not optional, a Christian's participation in government is.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. I can only speak from the perspective of a US citizen so please take this into consideration. As a member of this society it is impossible to avoid paying taxes. So long as I am planting my feet on US soil I am paying taxes and there is nothing I can do about it except to change that condition by participating in our government to change the rules of this society. If I own land, I pay taxes for that privilege. If I rent, I am paying a portion of the taxes for that privilege. Squatting hasn't been legal for over a century to my knowledge and if I am doing anything to raise money I am legally required to pay a portion of that earnings in taxes to support the government.

 

[farouk]

I respectfully disagree with this statement. I can only speak from the perspective of a US citizen so please take this into consideration. As a member of this society it is impossible to avoid paying taxes. So long as I am planting my feet on US soil I am paying taxes and there is nothing I can do about it except to change that condition by participating in our government to change the rules of this society. If I own land, I pay taxes for that privilege. If I rent, I am paying a portion of the taxes for that privilege. Squatting hasn't been legal for over a century to my knowledge and if I am doing anything to raise money I am legally required to pay a portion of that earnings in taxes to support the government.

WIP:

This is interesting.

I guess you would argue that there is Biblical support for separation between church and state (I'm not necessarily disagreeing).

I guess you are also arguing for compulsory non-separation between Christians and politics.

You've also mentioned your US citizenship, which is great. (I'm a citizen of elsewhere, as it happens.)

It's probably true to say that to some extent we are all influenced in one way or another by the institutional background of the country of our citizenship.

Blessings.

 

[WIP]

Contrary to popular belief and opinion the question of separation of church and state is not mandate by our government. The only mandate is that our government is not allowed to declare a national religion and force it upon its citizens. Additionally, our government is restricted from infringing upon our exercise of our religion of choice regardless what that choice is.

In my view as citizens of our society we have an obligation to influence our government as best we can and in the case of Christians we should do what we can to legally influence Christian values. If we stick our heads in the sand and do nothing when we have the legal authority and right to make change, we are not doing our Christian part in my opinion. We do not live in a Monarchy where we would have no rights or authority. Voting is one of the strongest means we have at our disposal in my country to employ that influence.

 

[farouk]

Contrary to popular belief and opinion the question of separation of church and state is not mandate by our government. The only mandate is that our government is not allowed to declare a national religion and force it upon its citizens. Additionally, our government is restricted from infringing upon our exercise of our religion of choice regardless what that choice is.

In my view as citizens of our society we have an obligation to influence our government as best we can and in the case of Christians we should do what we can to legally influence Christian values. If we stick our heads in the sand and do nothing when we have the legal authority and right to make change, we are not doing our Christian part in my opinion. We do not live in a Monarchy where we would have no rights or authority. Voting is one of the strongest means we have at our disposal in my country to employ that influence.

WIP:

An interesting perspective. Your trouble in spelling this out is appreciated.

Some countries with a monarchical system of government such as Canada seem to provide an almost bewildering array of rights.

 

[jasoncran]

so martin luther king, william wilberforce and also many a christians in the late 1800s who pushed for sufferage shouldnt have bothered.

mlk a christian man and by no means a war monger or a ghandi based his idea of colored equality on the idea of christianity.

i guess he should have just preached to the blacks, jesus will provide and to suffer under the white man.

and to the white man dont treat the black man like that.hmm didnt an apostle do that in a book called philemon? yup