The Disciple and Politics

[Butch5]

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

Not so, paying taxes is commanded in the Scriptures, voting is not.

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.

You're presuming that paying taxes is participating in government

Whether there is a choice or not is irrelevant.

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

It's not irrelevant, even if your argument is regarding participation is accepted there's a huge difference between willing participation and forced participation.

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)

Yes, look at the context, quarrels over what, passions about what? He says you desire and you have not, you covet and cannot obtain. What do you suppose they desired and coveted? Do you suppose maybe it was those things later Christians got through governments? Why do you suppose Christians fight so vehemently for their laws? Isn't it to get what they want?

Whatever the particular passions he's talking about it's obvious that they were the same things the world was seeking. Look at the Christians currently in the government, what are they attempting? Isn't it nothing other than what the world attempts? Sure maybe if the Christians had their way the laws would be a little different, but the idea would still be the same. You'd still have Chrsitians focused on money rather than the kingdom. You'd still have them advancing a worldly kingdom that is opposed to Christ, They'd still be seeking power and glory. So, what exactly would be any different?

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.

You've simply concluded that he didn't inlude politics in this discourse without any basis.

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.

I've already posted 2 Cor 6 for one. What fellowship has light with darkness, or the believer with an infidel?

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

See above.

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.

There is more than just two passages. What's conspiuosly absent is any postings of any support for participating in worldly governments

 

[Butch5]

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

How does this address the issue? What people did or didn't do or should or shouldn't have done doesn't change what the Scriptures say.

 

[Butch5]

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.

I was referring to the taxes the Jews paid.

 

[Butch5]

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.

You said, my country. Wouldn't your country be the kingdom of God?

 

[WIP]

I'm not going to play that game.

As I recall, didn't Moses create a system of government when he appointed captains among the people to act as judges and rulers?

From Deuteronomy:

De:1:12: How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife?
De:1:13: Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
De:1:14: And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
De:1:15: So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
De:1:16: And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

And as I read the prophets, it seems that to many they speak to are the kings and rulers and priests. If that isn't attempting to influence government I don't know what is.

 

[Butch5]

I'm not going to play that game.

As I recall, didn't Moses create a system of government when he appointed captains among the people to act as judges and rulers?


From Deuteronomy:

De:1:12: How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife?
De:1:13: Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
De:1:14: And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
De:1:15: So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
De:1:16: And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

And as I read the prophets, it seems that to many they speak to are the kings and rulers and priests. If that isn't attempting to influence government I don't know what is.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: {put: Gr. give} {in: or, upon}
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
​

(Heb 8:8-1 KJV)

 

[Free]

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.

Not so, paying taxes is commanded in the Scriptures, voting is not.

That's not the point. Please look at the arguments. There may be no biblical basis for saying that "paying taxes is participating in government," but the whole point is that there is no biblical basis for saying that voting is participating in government. You want me to give a biblical basis when you have none yourself.

That paying taxes is commanded in Scripture and voting is not is irrelevant to what was being asked.

You're presuming that paying taxes is participating in government

I'm quite certain that paying taxes is a form of participating in government. The money goes to the governments for them to spend as they see fit. It was your money, it is now theirs, and without it the government couldn't survive. They even issue you a form at the end of the year telling you how much you've given to them.

How can paying taxes not be a form of participation in government?

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

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.

It's not irrelevant, even if your argument is regarding participation is accepted there's a huge difference between willing participation and forced participation.

Leaving the forced or willing aspect of participation alone for now, I will reiterate that if Jesus said to pay taxes, then he is advocating participation in government at some level.

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.

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.

Yes, look at the context, quarrels over what, passions about what? He says you desire and you have not, you covet and cannot obtain. What do you suppose they desired and coveted? Do you suppose maybe it was those things later Christians got through governments? Why do you suppose Christians fight so vehemently for their laws? Isn't it to get what they want?

Whatever the particular passions he's talking about it's obvious that they were the same things the world was seeking. Look at the Christians currently in the government, what are they attempting? Isn't it nothing other than what the world attempts? Sure maybe if the Christians had their way the laws would be a little different, but the idea would still be the same. You'd still have Chrsitians focused on money rather than the kingdom. You'd still have them advancing a worldly kingdom that is opposed to Christ, They'd still be seeking power and glory. So, what exactly would be any different?

You are reading into the text ideas that just are not there.

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.

You've simply concluded that he didn't inlude politics in this discourse without any basis.

James isn't speaking about politics. There is no mention of politics, so there is no need to presume he is speaking about it and there very much is a basis to not include it. It is your position that has no basis for including politics.

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.

I've already posted 2 Cor 6 for one. What fellowship has light with darkness, or the believer with an infidel?


See above.

You are presuming that this applies to politics. Again, what is your biblical basis for saying that '"choosing" to participate in government is friendship with the world'?

Yet again, looking at the context, Paul seems to be speaking to against believers joining unbelievers in acts of idolatry. There is no need to read politics into the passage.

There is more than just two passages. What's conspiuosly absent is any postings of any support for participating in worldly governments

Nothing you have yet given shows any support for not participating in worldly governments, but as Drew's case is pointing out, there are very good reasons to believe that one of the major overarching themes in Scripture (as opposed to mere proof-texting), is that believers are to continue the kingdom work Jesus began, kingdom work which includes bringing Jesus' redemptive and restorative power into every single area of life, personal and corporate, religious and secular, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Free]

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

How does this address the issue? What people did or didn't do or should or shouldn't have done doesn't change what the Scriptures say.

It addresses the issue quite well. Those are great examples of people who believed what the Bible says--that Christ is King now and we as his followers are to be about his business in every aspect of life, including government.

 

[Butch5]

It addresses the issue quite well. Those are great examples of people who believed what the Bible says--that Christ is King now and we as his followers are to be about his business in every aspect of life, including government.

Unless you consider it Scripture or more authoritative than Scripture I don't see how it is relevant. Maybe we see this stuff because of the lack of Biblical support.

 

[Tri Unity]

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Paul tells us to be subject to the governments. But be subject to them in what? Does Paul mean that we should worship Caesar if the government command us to? Is there a line we draw, or do we blindly subject ourselves to everything? Where do we draw the line? What if the government forbids us to preach… should we obey them then?

Acts 5:28, 29 “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name?” …“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Paul has not as yet told us his reason for calling us into subjection to governments, or in what way we should be subject; he is just telling us that if we refuse to obey this principal there are dire consequences. But what, O’ Paul, is your reason?

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Here now Paul arrives at his reason. “Rulers are not a terror to good works”. The goal is to do good works. Governments have been ordained to allow for “good works”. No government prevents anyone form good works, so they are not a “terror” to us in this regard.

”Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.”

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The government is ordained to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”. In this regard the government is the “minister of God”.

Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

For this reason we must be subject to the government; the government, as “minister of God” against “him that doeth evil” is not a terror to us, and does not prevent us from carrying on a Godly life. This is Paul’s argument and council to us. He tells us not to despise the government; for it is ordained of God to bring about justice so that we might live a Godly life. The government Paul was speaking of was not a Christian government, and it did not have any Christians serving in it. It didn’t need to. The government was ordained of God without Christians serving in it, or voting for it, or fighting for it. The government, every government, whether Fascist, Communist, Buddhist, or Catholic, is ordained of God. Voting makes zero impact on God’s ordination. It would make absolutely no difference whether or not the government was socialist or democratic; we are not told to mould the government, we are simply told to be subject to the government, without any resistance, so that we may live Godly lives. These verses give no support to justify changing government, or influencing government, or opposing any government, or even voting for governments. They certainly give no support for going to war and killing for a government. "Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil". (Mathew 5:37)

Romans 13:6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

This is why there is no conflict for us paying taxes. It is the price we pay to recieve God's ordination for our good. Jesus paid taxes and recieved protection, as we do, from the very government that He had ordained. He did not vote for Rome; He ordained Rome!

 

[jasoncran]

without mlks and others ere him. there would be still slavery in america and or jim crow laws.

and the church partaking in those sins. mlk didnt USE violence to change america but peaceful means and it worked. sure it didnt change all the persons who hated blacks hearts but it did help the black men and jews and latinos and the country is better place because of it.

 

[WIP]

Sanhedrin: : the supreme council and tribunal of the Jews headed by a High Priest and having religious, civil, and criminal jurisdiction.

Jesus Christ himself took on the Sanhedrin pointing out the error of their ways, accusing them of imposing unjust laws, referring to them as hypocrites, and they sought to have him executed for it. It would appear that he did in fact get involved with politics.

 

[Drew]

we are not told to mould the government, we are simply told to be subject to the government, ....

We are indeed told to mould the government. Jesus tells us to make disciples of all the nations. Now, no doubt, you and others will say that this commission has nothing to do with getting involved in trying to "mould the government". Well, that is very hard to make sense of. What you then have Jesus saying is basically this:

Go forth and make disciples of all the nations, and teach them to do everthing I commanded you, except of course, steer clear of trying to do this in relation the very institutions that determine how that society is run.

That's like an environmentalist saying: My goal is to improve the health of the planet, but I intend to make no effort whatsoever to advocate for laws and regulations that limit pollution.

The policies of government determine things like the degree of freedom for citizens, how justice is implemented, and how the poor are cared for.

Do you really believe Jesus wants us to disconnect ourselves from this? Do you really believe Jesus is saying "I am not interesting in transforming the very institutions that run the world, I am happy to let those things be run by a set of values other than the kingdom values I am espousing."?

 

[Tri Unity]

Now, no doubt, you and others will say that this commission has nothing to do with getting involved in trying to "mould the government". Well, that is very hard to make sense of.

My comments were in relation to Romans 13. I am trying to deal with one scripture at a time. If you have evidence from the bible to support your claims we should examine that evidence thoroughly so that we are not found abusing scriptures to our own ends. What I have established is that Romans 13 cannot be used as evidence for voting or going to war on behalf of governments. I will move onto other scriptures on the great commission and the Sanhedrin after we establish Romans 13. How, then, you who want to ordain governments yourself, and to fight to the death to defend your own ordained government, how do you find that Romans 13 justifies this position?

Speaking of Paul's writings, Peter said: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

I want to save you (or I) from this condemnation, as Paul's words are either being twisted by you or me. Let us investigate this thoroughly so that we are not found to be unlearned and unstable.

Tri

 

[Drew]

My comments were in relation to Romans 13. I am trying to deal with one scripture at a time. If you have evidence from the bible to support your claims we should examine that evidence thoroughly so that we are not found abusing scriptures to our own ends.

Fair enough but I caution against the common error of "proof-texting" - the line of argument that runs like this: "Unless we find a particular scripture endorsing behaviour A, we know that we are not to engage in behaviour A".

What I have established is that Romans 13 cannot be used as evidence for voting or going to war on behalf of governments.

I agree.

IHow, then, you who want to ordain governments yourself, and to fight to the death to defend your own ordained government, how do you find that Romans 13 justifies this position?

1. I have never said that the Christian is to fight. It is perfectly coherent to argue that we should be involved in trying to shape the institutions of government, without engaging in all of the activities that governments are involved in.

2. I have never claimed, and would not claim, that Romans 13 in particular endorses what I believe is otherwise endorsed in the scriptures - that Christians should try to mould governments.

Speaking of Paul's writings, Peter said: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

I want to save you (or I) from this condemnation, as Paul's words are either being twisted by you or me. Let us investigate this thoroughly so that we are not found to be unlearned and unstable.

I agree, of course. Let us see what the scriptures teach on these matters.

 

[Tri Unity]

I agree, of course. Let us see what the scriptures teach on these matters.

Thankyou Drew. I addressed my comments to you deliberately, Is the great commission the next evidence you have, or would you prefer to examine something else that you feel endorses your views?

Tri

 

[Asyncritus]

Drew

If I've missed your reply to this point, do forgive me, and link me to it.

The question was:

When are Abraham Isaac Jacob etc going to receive the lands promised to them in Gen 15 for example, if not in the future kingdom of God on the earth?

 

[Asyncritus]

Drew? B_U_M_P!

 

[Drew]

Drew

If I've missed your reply to this point, do forgive me, and link me to it.

The question was:

When are Abraham Isaac Jacob etc going to receive the lands promised to them in Gen 15 for example, if not in the future kingdom of God on the earth?

I had not answered the question, so you did not overlook anything.

I believe that, like other promises God made, this particular promise does not really mean what it seems to mean.

What seems like a promise of the land of Palestine to the Jews is actually a promise that all of creation will be given to the church.

Now I can understand that you (and others) will object that I am simply reworking the promise to suit my position. And you may, rightly of course, also note that I frequently critique those who do this very thing - who bend scriptures out of shape to suit their positions.

Well, I can understand that. But take note: I believe I can successfully argue that the likes of Paul, no less, holds the same view: he interprets promises made to Israel as being really promises made to the church. Romans 4 is a prime example. And Paul also clearly, at times, uses the term "Israel" to refer to the church.

So, in short, the promise has already been fulfilled - at the cross, all mankind (not just Jews) was restored to its Adamic role as the steward of all creation (not just Palestine).

This line of argument underscores what I see as a broad scriptural theme: God often does things in surprising ways.

I fully understand that I am merely asserting a position here - the full arguments have yet to come.

 

[smaller]

The matters of politics and adverse kings/rulers is well typed out in the Old Testament.

If you study the underlying basis of every temporal kingdom that has been in power from the beginning they all sooner or later fit the exact mannerisms that were called in advance to Israel through Samuel.

I would see that every adverse king fits this 'manner.'

1 Samuel 8:
10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

Look at any form of worldly goverment you want to look at. You will find these same 'mannerisms' in every single instance. Those who understand the above may also see that there is a larger picture in play that these external pictures provide that is 'personally applicable.' Typology is a very beautiful thing.

But to those who think participation with the above king is beneficial, that will probably not prove out in any given instance.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

s