The Disciple and Politics

[childeye]

Wow. I understand why people hate politics, but politics are always present nontheless. It's certainly not wrong to vote or participate in a democracy. The right to worship freely was voted on when the constitution was written. That doesn't mean people are guilty of voting for Islam.

 

[Drew]

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?

Not a valid argument. The fact that the Israelites disobeyed the "rules and ordnances" is clearly not argument for anarchy!!!

 

[Butch5]

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

Ok, thanks for the conversation!

 

[Butch5]

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.

Yeah, who really knows who wins in elections? I've never counted the ballots and don't know anyone who has. For all I know it could be inmates counting the ballots. Everyone just takes the word of whoever counts the ballots as truth. Kinda makes you wonder.

 

[Drew]

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.

Well, what do you suggest as an alternative?

Are you seriously going to suggest that a society should try to function without a government? To me, such a position is hanging curveball over the heart of the plate. But I should not presume: please tell us if you believe it would be best to dispense with government, democratic or otherwise.

 

[Tri Unity]

Well, what do you suggest as an alternative?

Are you seriously going to suggest that a society should try to function without a government? To me, such a position is hanging curveball over the heart of the plate. But I should not presume: please tell us if you believe it would be best to dispense with government, democratic or otherwise.

Hi Drew, I suggest that God is quite capable of ordaining and directing the nations without our help. God ordained Egypt, Sumer, Canaan, Philistines, China, Assyria, Persia, Babylon, Greeks and Romans without our help. Our ministry is to bring forth the teachings of the kingdom for all who would follow as a disciple; not to enforce our standards on people who do not agree with us.

Christianity, as an institution, would have a lot more political and social influence if we did not try to change policies for everyone. Our influence is felt by example; not by a totalitarian state of moral submission.

I believe it would be best for christians "to dispense with government, democratic or otherwise." Democracy is forced to consider cultural or minority groups regardless of whether they have a voice or not. They are forced to pay attention to our behaviour because our modern world is designed on economic forces and trends. If all christians boycotted military, or sport, or they all home-schooled, or they all refused jobs or careers which breach our standards - the government would soon change its policies to make the world sensitive to our standards; for we are the majority in the western world. Money talks.

The horse has already bolted anyway. There is no point trying to shut the gate. Our political involvement was ordained by God. The Catholics were ordained to rule the Middle Ages and become political. Reformers were ordained to follow suit. The Pharisees were ordained to control the Sanhedrin and sell indulgences from the temple. God does not approve of our choices, but they were foreknown and ordained (sanctioned) all the same. Our condition now plays into the end-time picture of the fallen church. That needed to take place, as it was prophesied; and our political involvement is what made it possible.

 

[Drew]

Hi Drew, I suggest that God is quite capable of ordaining and directing the nations without our help.

This strikes me as a very odd argument. You appear to be arguing thus:

1. God is capable of directing the nations without us;
2. Therefore, we do not need to get politically involved.

Well, God is capable of magically curing cancer. Does that mean the Christian should abstain from studying medicine and trying to cure cancer? Obviously not.

Again, you have never really answered this question: Why would Jesus spend so much time teaching us kingdom of God principles such as "love your enemy" that, and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough, clearly has possible application at the level of "nations", and yet expect us to not work for adoption of these values in the important sphere of governance?

There is no answer I can even imagine to this question.

But, please, tell me your answer.

 

[Drew]

Our ministry is to bring forth the teachings of the kingdom for all who would follow as a disciple; not to enforce our standards on people who do not agree with us.

You keep making this strawman argument: we can, of course, be politically active without forcing anything on anyone.

Christianity, as an institution, would have a lot more political and social influence if we did not try to change policies for everyone. Our influence is felt by example; not by a totalitarian state of moral submission.

Strawman again, for the same reason. Please stop doing this - it is a little difficult for me to believe that you do not know this is a strawman. When one is politically active in a democracy, one is certainly not promoting a "totalitarian state of moral submission". Please take this as a constructive comment: you only hurt your case when you make statement that you surely must know are misrepresentative of the position you are critiquing. Just as when you said I was being "pompous" in the "Trinity' thread when you surely know that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support such a claim.

 

[Asyncritus]

Drew

I think you're avoiding 2 big points.

1 The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord. That is the object of it all.

How do you see this coming about, and when?

If you think about it, Jesus is clearly saying that there will come a time when mankind will be at the end of its tether - and ONLY THEN will He appear:

Mt 24.21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.
[...]
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

2 When will Abraham Isaac and Jacob receive the territory that was clearly promised to them?

 

[Drew]

Drew

I think you're avoiding 2 big points.

1 The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord. That is the object of it all.

How do you see this coming about, and when?

This does not challenge my position in any way. We also have texts that the world is full of the glory of the Lord:

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.â€


I see no argument anywhere here that undermines what is otherwise clear from the Scriptures: Jesus is already enthroned as King over all the world. I will have more to say about this in a subsequent post.

If you think about it, Jesus is clearly saying that there will come a time when mankind will be at the end of its tether - and ONLY THEN will He appear:

Mt 24.21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.
[...]
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

I am prepared to argue that this prophecy has already been fulfilled.

2

When will Abraham Isaac and Jacob receive the territory that was clearly promised to them?

I have already addressed this to some degree. But I will fill out the arguments. My position: This promise only appears to be a promise that Jews will get Palestine; It is, in fact, a promise that that all creation will be given to the church. While this seems like a bold claim, I am certain I can robustly defend it by referring you to someone who makes this very argument: Paul.

 

[Drew]

Is Jesus a presently installed King? I believe that He is, and that the Scriptures attest to this in a clear and convincing manner. Among the many, many scriptural arguments that can be marshalled is the significance of the ascension.

I wish to begin by making two assertions:

1. There is, in modern evangelicalism, this unfortunate tendency to see the Bible as focusing on "Jesus and me" - how belief in Jesus means I am saved and get to go to heaven when I die. The entire "kingdom of God is here right now" message from Jesus gets largely swept under the rug.

2. The modern evangelical is often, frankly, Biblically and historically illiterate.

Let me apply these assertions to the setting of the ascension. I suspect most modern Christians see the ascension as "proof that Jesus is in heaven now" and / or "proof that I, too, will ascend into heaven to be with Him some day". Fair enough, both these things are true. But, to the person who takes the historical setting seriously, and who also takes seriously Jesus message about the initiation of a kingdom of God 2000 years ago, the ascension has a more primary meaning: Jesus is being enthroned as Lord over all creation (including this present world).

Here are the historical / Biblical arguments:

1. Historical: In the Roman culture that overwhelmed the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus, including Palestine, the image of an emperor being swept up into the heavens was used as a powerful way of declaring the political power of that emperor. This would be known to Jesus' contemporaries even though, sadly, this would be news to most modern Christians who do not take history seriously. So when Jesus is represented as "ascending to heaven" this is, among other things perhaps, a deeply political statement of Jesus replacing the emperor as lord of this present world.

2. Biblical: In Daniel 7, from which Jesus quotes before Pilate, we have the image of a "son of man" character (Jesus tells Pilate He (Jesus) is that character) is raised to the heavens and made king over this present world. It is, I suggest, only because Christians often do not know anything about Daniel 7, and its central role in Jewish Messianic expectations, that this connection is overlooked. Clearly, the image of Jesus ascending into Heaven evokes the Daniel 7 motif: Jesus is indeed lord of this present world.

 

[Sparkey]

In a recent reply this statement was made:

You keep making this strawman argument: we can, of course, be politically active without forcing anything on anyone.

The fact of the matter is that our Governments are the only agencies that have legal authority for the use of coercion. What government does not use force? This is not a "strawman" -- it is the nature of the beast.

 

[Grazer]

N.T Wright touched on this in a sermon he did in Oxford. Now Async and others may got nuts at the fact a theologian is being quoted but like everyone else here, he has a perspective:

So that even though they knew that they were likely to be persecuted for it, people said we've got to live this way, we got to worship this God because we didn't know it was possible to live as human beings in this life giving way. To love one another like this, to find our lives transformed, to find healing and hope and communuity and stuff that just isn't on offer. And it dissapoints the feminist critique but women had a much better time of it in Christianity in paganism.

Christianity actually did and does and has made a difference to the world in all sorts of ways. But we have got so used to thinking of the kingdom of God is just a future heavenly reality and we just creep through this world to get there. that we have forgotten what Jesus the risen Lord has said in Matthew 28

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Alot of Christians have just quietly rubbed out that on earth bit because we haven't a clue on earth what to do with it

My goodness does mean that we have to get into politics? Cant do that, surely its 2 kingdoms here we'll leave the politics and all that dirty stuff to those who do that and we'll worship Jesus as the Lord who one day we will go to. No sorry, doesn't work like that, unless you want to lose Matthew Mark Luke and John all the way through, because Jesus came announcing the kingdom of God. And that means Jesus came saying Gods soverign saving rule is happening here and this is what it looks like and because it didn;t look like what people thought it what just like today if you say this stuff people think "oh is this a theocricy" that one of the real horror words, "theocricy can't do that" debates about the blasphemy laws or euphanasia oh is this theocricy

What does theocricy looks like? It depends on your God. If your God is a big bully sitting upstairs ready to beat people up if they don't agree with him then theocrocy isnt going to be much fun. supposing you redefine the word God around the crucified and risen Jesus and say what would that theocricy look like and then go back read the gospels and you see its likely like that.

Jesus launched Gods kingdom here on earth.​

The above is my transcript from the above, the full talk can be heard at

http://www.staldates.org.uk/mp3/3246_The Roots Basis And Fruits Of Christian Hope_01-06-2008 PM.mp3

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]and who also takes seriously Jesus message about the initiation of a kingdom of God 2000 years ago,

Sorry Drew, He didn't do this. "My kingdom is not of this world" He said very clearly, NET translators notwithstanding.

the ascension has a more primary meaning: Jesus is being enthroned as Lord over all creation (including this present world).

So where is God in all this? You've just managed to push Him out of sight.

But that cannot be:

Revelation 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Here are the historical / Biblical arguments:

1. Historical: In the Roman culture that overwhelmed the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus, including Palestine, the image of an emperor being swept up into the heavens was used as a powerful way of declaring the political power of that emperor. This would be known to Jesus' contemporaries even though, sadly, this would be news to most modern Christians who do not take history seriously. So when Jesus is represented as "ascending to heaven" this is, among other things perhaps, a deeply political statement of Jesus replacing the emperor as lord of this present world.

The emperor was not lord of the present world. He may have been lord of the Roman empire, but certainly not of China, Japan, South America etc etc.

You're also overlooking the PROPHECY of the SEVENTH ANGEL ...well into the future at John's time:

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

[Note: 'He SHALL reign' - not, 'IS REIGNING and will continue to do so forever and ever']

The kingdoms of the world hadn't and haven't done so yet, being future to John's time.

How do we know?

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

That's the resurrection of the dead - which hasn't happened yet, either.

2. Biblical: In Daniel 7, from which Jesus quotes before Pilate, we have the image of a "son of man" character (Jesus tells Pilate He (Jesus) is that character) is raised to the heavens and made king over this present world. It is, I suggest, only because Christians often do not know anything about Daniel 7, and its central role in Jewish Messianic expectations, that this connection is overlooked. Clearly, the image of Jesus ascending into Heaven evokes the Daniel 7 motif: Jesus is indeed lord of this present world.

Daniel 7

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Hasn't happened yet.

26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

Hasn't happened yet.

27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Hasn't happened either.

Here's Jesus:

Luke 12.31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God;

[ie search for it: why? because you haven't got it yet, and it hasn't come]

and all these things shall be added unto you.
[when the King comes again]

32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.[Note the future tense!]

Therefore, that 'giving'

(see Dan 7 above - shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High)

had not happened at that time, and hasn't happened as yet.

The disciples were under no illusions:

Acts 1.6 ¶ When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

He obviously hadn't, or the question would have been a very foolish one.

It was yet in the future, and the time when it would come was unknown:

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

They didn't know when it would come - and neither did Jesus:

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

If it had come, He and they would have known about it - that much is obvious.

But as I keep asking you, when do you think Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would sit in the kingdom of God

(Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.)

obviously having received their promised inheritance of Palestine and beyond (spoken of in Gen 15, 28, and several other places in Genesis).