The Disciple and Politics

[Asyncritus]

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.

I look forward to seeing how far out of shape you can manage to bend these!

 

[Butch5]

[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
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."?

Drew,

This thread is now 17 pages long, could please make your arguments.

 

[Drew]

deleted own post.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

This thread is now 17 pages long, could please make your arguments.

I have made my arguments. You guys have the following challenges;

1. You have provided no Scriptural arguments, that have not been successfully refuted, to the effect that we are to disengage from the realm of political engagement. 2 Corinthians clearly does not work, as has been shown.

2. You have not really explained why Jesus would go to the trouble of teaching us "kingdom of God" principles, instruct us to bring these principles to the broader world, and then expect that we entirely exclude these principles from the domain of governance. This is profoundly non-sensical: how societies are governed determine things like how justice is dispensed, how the poor are dealt with, under what conditions war is waged etc., etc. If ever there was a domain that needed "kingdom of God" principles, government would be it. So, for the umpteenth time: Please explain why you think Jesus wants us to limit the areas of human activity in which His kingdom of God principles are to be applied.

 

[Butch5]

I have made my arguments. You guys have the following challenges;

1. You have provided no Scriptural arguments, that have not been successfully refuted, to the effect that we are to disengage from the realm of political engagement. 2 Corinthians clearly does not work, as has been shown

Are you serious? I've made argument after argument. You suggest that you've refutred them, however, I contend that refutation exists only in your mind. You've given nothing to refute the passage from 2 Cor. Your opinon is not a refutation.

2. You have not really explained why Jesus would go to the trouble of teaching us "kingdom of God" principles, instruct us to bring these principles to the broader world, and then expect that we entirely exclude these principles from the domain of governance. This is profoundly non-sensical: how societies are governed determine things like how justice is dispensed, how the poor are dealt with, under what conditions war is waged etc., etc. If ever there was a domain that needed "kingdom of God" principles, government would be it. So, for the umpteenth time: Please explain why you think Jesus wants us to limit the areas of human activity in which His kingdom of God principles are to be applied.

I ahve explained it already. Christians are not to "RULE" over the unbeliever. If you are in government and making laws you are "RULING" over the unbeliever.

42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. {are...: or, think good}​

43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: (Mar 10:42-43 KJV)

If Christians can't rule over one another how in the world can they rule over the ubeliever?

You're talking about ruling over and judging the unbeliever. Paul said it was God's job to judge the unbeliever.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? {expedient: or, profitable}​

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1Co 5:12-13 KJV)


John says in Revelation three times that Christ "SHALL" rule the nations. That's future tencse not present tense.

How is the Christian going to partake of the legal system when Paul said that Christians are not to judge those who are not Christians, but rather that it was God's place.

27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. (Rev 2:27 KJV)

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. (Rev 12:5 KJV)

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. (Rev 19:15 KJV)


Please point me to your arguments, I've not seen them.

 

[Drew]

Are you serious? I've made argument after argument. You suggest that you've refutred them, however, I contend that refutation exists only in your mind. You've given nothing to refute the passage from 2 Cor. Your opinon is not a refutation.

This is not a matter of opinion. I will repeat and please address the argument:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

I am really surprised that you do not see the problem with using this text to support your argument.

You appear to be arguing that to participate in government is to connect yourself to non-believers and that Paul instructs us against this.

Well, if you apply the same line of reasoning, you would, have to withdraw from all sorts of pursuits where close contact and collaboration with Christians was required:

1. Scientific research;
2. Medical work;
3. Engineering work;
4. Protests against social injustice;
5. Raising social consciousness about the problem of 3rd world debt;

.....and so, and so on.

It really cannot be the case that Paul is telling us to disentangle ourselves entirely from collaboration with unbelievers. Paul surely must be referring to a particular kind of connection where we collaborate in the evil that non-believers do.

Now lets be clear: Despite how hard people may wish to believe otherwise, to participate in government clearly does not require us to engage in that kind of compromise. In a free society, we can participate in government in a mode where we critique and work against acts of evil by government while at the same time embracing those aspects of governmental activity that line up with the gospel imperative.

 

[Drew]

I ahve explained it already. Christians are not to "RULE" over the unbeliever. If you are in government and making laws you are "RULING" over the unbeliever.

42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. {are...: or, think good}​

43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: (Mar 10:42-43 KJV)

If Christians can't rule over one another how in the world can they rule over the ubeliever?

In this text, Jesus is certainly not telling His followers to withdraw from political engagement. How could that possibly make any sense for reasons I have repeated many times: Jesus has given us kingdom of God values that are presumably to be implemented. To exclude them from the domain of governance - and governance plays a huge role in how the world actually operates - is to truly "hide the light under a bushel". No: Jesus cannot expect us to remain silent when it comes to participating in how our society is actually run. To withdraw from political engagement is effectively to concede a part of Jesus' kingdom entirely to enemy forces. I still do not see how your postion survives such a critique.

But back to the text from Mark: Jesus is telling his followers to not act the way the world acts. Who says you cannot participate in government and play the "servant role?"

You present a false choice: you presume that political engagement by the Christian has to follow the model that Jesus criticizes here and you thereby conclude that Jesus is telling His followers to stay out of politics. But that is not the only choice - we can indeed be "servants" as we participate in the institutions of government that shape our world.

 

[Butch5]

In this text, Jesus is certainly not telling His followers to withdraw from political engagement. How could that possibly make any sense for reasons I have repeated many times: Jesus has given us kingdom of God values that are presumably to be implemented. To exclude them from the domain of governance - and governance plays a huge role in how the world actually operates - is to truly "hide the light under a bushel". No: Jesus cannot expect us to remain silent when it comes to participating in how our society is actually run. To withdraw from political engagement is effectively to concede a part of Jesus' kingdom entirely to enemy forces. I still do not see how your postion survives such a critique.

This argument is simply your opinion. It doesn't refute my argument. You didn't answer the question, if a Christian can't rule over another Christian how can he possibly rule over the unbelievers who Paul's says God will judge?

But back to the text from Mark: Jesus is telling his followers to not act the way the world acts. Who says you cannot participate in government and play the "servant role?"

You present a false choice: you presume that political engagement by the Christian has to follow the model that Jesus criticizes here and you thereby conclude that Jesus is telling His followers to stay out of politics. But that is not the only choice - we can indeed be "servants" as we participate in the institutions of government that shape our world.

It's not a false choice, you just have nothing in Scripture to support your ideas. I asked you before how can a Christian participate in evil and not be evil?

You're suggesting that the Christian paritcipate in the kingdom of darkness, where is your Scriptural support for this?

 

[Butch5]

This is not a matter of opinion. I will repeat and please address the argument:

Again, I've already addressed this, why do you keep asking it? One more time, participating in government to make laws to "Force" unbelievers to adhere to Christian values is "NOT" the same thing as working at a job with an unbeliever. Do scientific research does not "force" the unbeliever to live according to Christian values. Doing medical work with an unbeliever does not "force" the unbeliever to live according to Christian values. Christ came and offered the kingdom to those who would believe, but you would have us to force the kingdom on others, correct? Please show me somewhere where Jesus forced the kingdom on someone. When Jesus sent out the disciples the first time He sent them to Israel and said.

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, {Provide: or, Get}
10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. {staves: Gr. a staff}
11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. (Mat 10:6-14 KJV)

He said, whosoever shall not receive you nor your words shake the dust off of your feet. He didn't say anything about forcing anyone to do anything. He didn't go to the Pharisees and Sadducees and try to pass laws to make the Jews abide by His teachings. As a matter of fact it was the leaders and lawmakers that He rebuked and called hypocrites. Jesus rejected those Jews in the government. Do you really think those in the American government are any better? Government is corruption and you would have the Christian take part in this? Can you show a single example of a government in history that was not in some way corrupt? What surprises me is that you would even suggest that a Christian could participate in government and stay true to Christ's commands.

 

[Drew]

Hello Butch: I see no profit in pursuing this any further. No hard feelings.

 

[Gordon]

I agree with the OP. In america we have the choice of voting for a party that promotes gay marriage and killing the unborn. Or we could vote for the party who resents caring for the poor and the most holy thing is the free market and pursuit of wealth. Didn't the first Christian's sell what they had and share with each other? Didn't God strike dead the couple who kept some money to themselves and lied about it? It seems most of the people on the board are Republicans and see them as righteous somehow which confuses me. I don't think Jesus would vote for the party of Ayn Rand. I really don't get it. I'm not voting anymore as I don't see one more righteous than the other. I would if I thought Republicans really wanted to end abortion which I don't. It's the perfect wedge issue. I don't see how a Christian could strongly favor either party.

 

[Drew]

I don't see how a Christian could strongly favor either party.

Fair enough, but that is hardly an argument to disengage from political involvement. If you do that, its as good as saying "the teachings of Jesus about how to live well - loving your enemies, being a servant - have no place in the very institutions (the institutions of government) that play a huge role in determining how our society actually operates."

Perhaps you can answer a question that others have evaded:

You have not really explained why Jesus would go to the trouble of teaching us "kingdom of God" principles, instruct us to bring these principles to the broader world, and then expect that we entirely exclude these principles from the domain of governance. This is profoundly non-sensical: how societies are governed determine things like how justice is dispensed, how the poor are dealt with, under what conditions war is waged etc., etc. If ever there was a domain that needed "kingdom of God" principles, government would be it. So, for the umpteenth time: Please explain why you think Jesus wants us to limit the areas of human activity in which His kingdom of God principles are to be applied.

 

[Gordon]

Exodos 23:2
You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice

I don't think God teaches us to give our loyalty to the lesser of two evils. If you choose not to vote because the parties don't share Christian values you create incentive for change. If I vote for Romney and social programs that the poor rely on are cut and tax breaks are given to the rich I don't think I'm honoring Christ. I mean what do they really stand for? Would Jesus tell a rich man oh your burdens are great keep more of your money for yourself. Or a poor man you suffer for you are lazy, work harder so that you may become rich. How far out of alignment with Christ does it have to be before we abstain?

 

[Drew]

Exodos 23:2
You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice

This is the same argument that others have tried.

It does not work, however. And the reason is that, like others have done, you presume that to be involved with "evil-doers" necessarily means that you participate in their evil.

This is clearly not necessarily the case - it is entirely possible to participate in government (with evil people) in a manner where you challenge their evil practices, and seek transform those practices.

Besides, as has been pointed out to others - if you follow your line of reasoning, believers would never collaborate with non-believers in any enterprise. And that clearly cannot be right - no Christian would ever go to medical school, build bridges, or join any movement at all that includes non-believers, even if that movement is clearly a good one.

Again, you are simply not answering my question. Here it is again:

You have not really explained why Jesus would go to the trouble of teaching us "kingdom of God" principles, instruct us to bring these principles to the broader world, and then expect that we entirely exclude these principles from the domain of governance. This is profoundly non-sensical: how societies are governed determine things like how justice is dispensed, how the poor are dealt with, under what conditions war is waged etc., etc. If ever there was a domain that needed "kingdom of God" principles, government would be it. So, for the umpteenth time: Please explain why you think Jesus wants us to limit the areas of human activity in which His kingdom of God principles are to be applied.

 

[Gordon]

This is the same argument that others have tried.

It does not work, however. And the reason is that, like others have done, you presume that to be involved with "evil-doers" necessarily means that you participate in their evil.

This is clearly not necessarily the case - it is entirely possible to participate in government (with evil people) in a manner where you challenge their evil practices, and seek transform those practices.

Besides, as has been pointed out to others - if you follow your line of reasoning, believers would never collaborate with non-believers in any enterprise. And that clearly cannot be right - no Christian would ever go to medical school, build bridges, or join any movement at all that includes non-believers, even if that movement is clearly a good one.

Again, you are simply not answering my question. Here it is again:

How by voting for Obama or Romney am I challenging their evil practices? How is abstaining not a challenge of their practices. If they don't have my vote they have an actual reason to hear my complaint. Imagine if every Christian in this country stopped voting until the parties reflected Christian values. I think that would cause a dramatic change. I guess I made a misstatement when I said I agree with the OP. I have different reasoning though I think he could be right. Some people here are pretty diehard partisans and I think it's misplaced loyalty. Reagan and rand seems more sacred to the value system of republicans than Jesus. And democrats are just as bad.

 

[Drew]

How by voting for Obama or Romney am I challenging their evil practices?

My argument is not so much focused on voting as it is on the more general question of political engagement. However, I would suggest that to the degree you can decide that one of the two candidates comes "closer" to an hypothetical ideal candidate who stands for "kingdom of God" valuesm you should vote that "lesser of two evils". Otherwise, you, as a Christian, let non-believers determine the outcome.

So I sympathize with the challenge of picking someone to vote for, given that both candidates arguably have "anti-gospel" positions of various sorts. But refusing to vote does not seem like the right answer.

Imagine if every Christian in this country stopped voting until the parties reflected Christian values. I think that would cause a dramatic change.

Why would it cause a change? Less than 50 % of eligible voters cast ballots, and the system keeps on running. Why do you think that mass abstention by Christians would result in any change? I suppose it might, and that might cause something good.

I have more sympathy to your inclination to not vote than I do to the more general position that Christians are to entirely separate from the political domain. That, I suggest, is clearly a non-Biblical position.

Jesus is, after all, a king over this world right now. How would it then make sense for His subjects to sit on their hands when it comes to participating in how His kingdom is run?

 

[Asyncritus]

You have not really explained why Jesus would go to the trouble of teaching us "kingdom of God" principles, instruct us to bring these principles to the broader world, and then expect that we entirely exclude these principles from the domain of governance. This is profoundly non-sensical: how societies are governed determine things like how justice is dispensed, how the poor are dealt with, under what conditions war is waged etc., etc. If ever there was a domain that needed "kingdom of God" principles, government would be it. So, for the umpteenth time: Please explain why you think Jesus wants us to limit the areas of human activity in which His kingdom of God principles are to be applied.

It's very simple Drew.

Divine principles, constitution, laws, regulations, ordinances - the whole lot - were given to Israel in the plainest way possible.

What happened?

Just think of the reasons for AD70 and the preceding exiles.

That method simply does not work with wicked humans at the helm. NOTHING WILL, as long as the divinely appointed King does not rule with a rod of iron.(Psalm 2)

If you read Psalm 72, you will see what will happen when He does rule.

If you look at the history of Israel (and the whole world in fact) you will see what happens when He doesn't.

That is why Jesus says (amongst other things, of course):

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

[And therefore, my servants would not fight NOW].

You will note that He expressly condemns Christians fighting, here as in the Sermon on the Mount, when He commands them:

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

IT SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK.

And insisting that we should become involved, is denying the truth of a great scriptural principle:

Isaiah 26:9 [...]... for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

Only then.

Isaiah sadly adds:

Isaiah 26:10 Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the LORD.

The object of the whole exercise isn't that Party A should defeat Party B and get in there and keep, or not keep election promises.

The scriptural principle is that the LORD SHALL BE GLORIFIED.

Numbers 14:21 But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waves cover the sea.

Now there's the manifesto you should be promulgating and voting for!

BTW, those are 3 prophecies. When do you see them being fulfilled?

And just a gentle reminder about the promises of the Land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[Gordon]

My argument is not so much focused on voting as it is on the more general question of political engagement. However, I would suggest that to the degree you can decide that one of the two candidates comes "closer" to an hypothetical ideal candidate who stands for "kingdom of God" valuesm you should vote that "lesser of two evils". Otherwise, you, as a Christian, let non-believers determine the outcome.

So I sympathize with the challenge of picking someone to vote for, given that both candidates arguably have "anti-gospel" positions of various sorts. But refusing to vote does not seem like the right answer.


Why would it cause a change? Less than 50 % of eligible voters cast ballots, and the system keeps on running. Why do you think that mass abstention by Christians would result in any change? I suppose it might, and that might cause something good.

I have more sympathy to your inclination to not vote than I do to the more general position that Christians are to entirely separate from the political domain. That, I suggest, is clearly a non-Biblical position.

Jesus is, after all, a king over this world right now. How would it then make sense for His subjects to sit on their hands when it comes to participating in how His kingdom is run?

I was going to ask you who you were voting for then I saw you're from Canada. Maybe it's more clear there. I suppose me not voting will not have any effect as the parties actualy have a lot of the values of the people and Christians they represent. A lot of Christians think the poor are just lazy and the rich are overburdened. A lot of Christians don't really care if Gays can marry. In theory though if Christians had the same values and voted as a block they would run this country with Bible values. I guess it says a lot that they don't. Maybe the problem is more with the state of the people themselves rather than the politicians. If 80% of us are Christians and gay marriage is passing in several states and abortions are still legal who is failing? The people, the church or the government? Which is another reason not to pick a side. Once you do the individual issues that are anti gospel seem that much more attractive to you and your political identity. I used to think abortion was a choice of the woman. Why did I think this? Because I had given my loyalty to democrats for social issues.

To me in the US it is not clear who is closer to ideal. I think we are much more effective at social change in ministry to change the people rather than change the government. If we elect these people then they reflect the state of us.

 

[Tri Unity]

Imagine if every Christian in this country stopped voting until the parties reflected Christian values. I think that would cause a dramatic change.

Absolutely. Nationalism is part of what deceives christians into becoming partisan to the crimes of the government. Particularly under democracy. A government gains complete control over the moral climate of the country, without any real form of resistance, due to the ideal of democracy. Democracy is a lie. It always has been a lie. The votes account for nothing - the government still does as it pleases. The value in democracy comes from us believing that we made a difference. That is what the government fools us into believing. Democracy was implimented to prevent the overthrow of governments through revolutions. The government learnt that it needs to appear to represent the people - otherwise the people will revolt. This is a deception, and many have fallen hook, line and sinker.

 

[Drew]

Absolutely. Nationalism is part of what deceives christians into becoming partisan to the crimes of the government.

It is obvious that a Christian can be involved in government in a means whereby that Christian appropriately challenges and critiques the evil actions of that government.

Obviously it is also possible that a Christian will become "part of the problem" - I have never denied this.

It appears that one strand of argument you guys are using is "if you get involved in government, you will necessarily get caught up in perpetrating acts of evil".

This is argument is clearly incorrect. We are, of course, called to engage with all sorts of evil people to bring the gospel to them - it is simply not the case that we will thereby do evil in the process.

Can you not walk up to a prostitute on the street, invite her for a coffee, and then tell her the gospel, without then having sexual relations with her? Of course you can! It is simply not the case that involvement with "evil people" means that you will, yourself, get caught up in perpetrating evil.