The Disciple and Politics

[Butch5]

I suppose if he campaigned on the premise that is what he would do. We elect persons into public office all the time based on the promises they make and often learn later that they go back on said promises once in office. Are we responsible for the actions of others even when they lie to us or change their position later on? I take responsibility for that situation at the next election casting my vote to oust him/her from office.

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 candate 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 ahve 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.

 

[Free]

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 candate 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 ahve some part in those people being killed.

The Christians have no part. One would have to be omniscient or have some sort of foreknowledge that candidate A wants to go to war if there is to be any sort of argument to accountability on the part of the Christian. However, since there is almost never, if ever, any foreknowledge of such events, there is simply no way such an argument can be sustained.

Every person who is voted for is going to let voters down sooner or later, in one way or another, but that in no way means we shouldn't vote.

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.

This is to misread Scripture and make it say something that I do not think it says. This is part of the false dualism that so many Christians in the west have given in to--a false dualism that gets Christians to give up on doing good, or at least all the good that should be getting done, and just waiting for Jesus to return to setup his kingdom and then all will be well.

Nowhere are we told to not participate in the governing of the world and nowhere are we told to be segregated from the world. The false dualism gives a reading of such passages that isn't warranted. We are not to pursue the temporary things of the world, at least for the reasons and in the way the world pursues them. Jesus reigns as king now and his followers are to be about kingdom business, that is, helping to bring about restoration and reconciliation of all of creation.

The earliest Christians likely believed that Jesus's return was immanent, so there would be no point in getting involved. That and they were very busy being persecuted. Regardless, such claims as you have made regarding early Christians need to be backed up if they are to be addressed properly.

 

[WIP]

If Christians didn't vote he doesn't get elected and the events don't take place. For instance Christians vote for candate 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.

Frist, how do you guarantee that Christians not voting will prevent candidate A from winning the election?

Second, how does candidate A winning the election guarantee conditions will present themselves to even prompt a consideration to go to war in the first place?

Third, how does candidate A winning the election guarantee or even foretell his/her decision to go to war at all?

I'm not following your line of thinking at all.

 

[farouk]

On the one hand in some jurisdictions it's technically illegal to try to prevent a qualified voter from exercising the franchise.

On the other, blaming Christians, non-Christians, or whoever, for voting or not voting for someone who, e.g., goes and does something stupid, would be a rather obscure way of reasoning.

 

[Tri Unity]

The Scriptural fact of the matter is that disciples of Christ have, or should have nothing whatsoever to do with the politics of the world: whichever country that happens to mean in any given instance.​

I agree with you totally. Christians (generally) have an "identity crisis"; not knowing how to "be in the world but not of the world". "Friendship with the world means becoming God's enemy". "The dragon gave his power to the beast". If the beast is empowered by Satan, and all of the Kingdoms of the world were offered to Christ by Satan, than how is it that Christ rejects Satan's temptation, whereas His disciples have become Satan's business partners?​

Tri

 

[Free]

I agree with you totally. Christians (generally) have an "identity crisis"; not knowing how to "be in the world but not of the world". "Friendship with the world means becoming God's enemy". "The dragon gave his power to the beast". If the beast is empowered by Satan, and all of the Kingdoms of the world were offered to Christ by Satan, than how is it that Christ rejects Satan's temptation, whereas His disciples have become Satan's business partners? [/LEFT]

Tri

The death and resurrection of Christ changed things and your statements seem to suggest a lack of understanding of all that that entails.

Yes, Satan tempted Jesus with all the kingdoms of the world but He resisted and crushed Satan and became King with his death and resurrection. I think you need to better understand just what is meant by being "in the world but not of the world" and "friendship with the world." These verses are often misconstrued for such purposes.

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
Rom 13:4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Rom 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Rom 13:6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (ESV)

If governments have been instituted by God and are his servants, how is it that Christians shouldn't be involved? If believers are to be bringing about restoration and reconciliation to all of creation, that necessarily includes being involved with justice and fairness in all aspects.

And, really, it does no good to demonize those who disagree.

 

[Asyncritus]

Free

You seem to have a problem with these passages you've quoted.

It is undeniable that scripture says that God put these people in power. He does.

But that's the whole point. GOD puts them in power, not you, not me. They will get there irrespective of whether you vote or not..

Suppose you voted for A, but B got in. Were you not fighting against God's will? And how could you tell whether or not you were doing so?

Again. remember that Daniel said: He sets the basest of men in power.

Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

So if A got in, and you voted for A, then you voted for one of the basest of men, didn't you?

You think that's a scripturally defensible position?

 

[Butch5]

The Christians have no part. One would have to be omniscient or have some sort of foreknowledge that candidate A wants to go to war if there is to be any sort of argument to accountability on the part of the Christian. However, since there is almost never, if ever, any foreknowledge of such events, there is simply no way such an argument can be sustained.

Every person who is voted for is going to let voters down sooner or later, in one way or another, but that in no way means we shouldn't vote.

You've proven my point. Since you can't know what someone will do then as a Christian you shouldn't participate in the kingdom of darkness.

This is to misread Scripture and make it say something that I do not think it says. This is part of the false dualism that so many Christians in the west have given in to--a false dualism that gets Christians to give up on doing good, or at least all the good that should be getting done, and just waiting for Jesus to return to setup his kingdom and then all will be well.

Does that mean that your interpretation is the official and infallible interpretation? Have you considered that you may be mistaken? the evidence from the first Christians is counter to what you've said here. Since they were the first Christians and in direct contact with the apostles and their disciples I think there is a high probability that they have a better understanding of what the apostles taught than you or I.

You said,

This is part of the false dualism that so many Christians in the west have given in to--a false dualism that gets Christians to give up on doing good, or at least all the good that should be getting done

Would this be your idea of what is good?

Nowhere are we told to not participate in the governing of the world and nowhere are we told to be segregated from the world. The false dualism gives a reading of such passages that isn't warranted. We are not to pursue the temporary things of the world, at least for the reasons and in the way the world pursues them. Jesus reigns as king now and his followers are to be about kingdom business, that is, helping to bring about restoration and reconciliation of all of creation.

Where exactly do you find the Scriptures teaching it is our job to bring about the restoration of creation?

You're also presumed a False dualism without giving any evidence whatsoever.

The earliest Christians likely believed that Jesus’ return was immanent, so there would be no point in getting involved

. That and they were very busy being persecuted. Regardless, such claims as you have made regarding early Christians need to be backed up if they are to be addressed properly.

I've highlighted the arbitrary statement above. There have been quite few in this post. Can you could give some supporting evidence?

 

[Butch5]

The death and resurrection of Christ changed things and your statements seem to suggest a lack of understanding of all that that entails.

Yes, Satan tempted Jesus with all the kingdoms of the world but He resisted and crushed Satan and became King with his death and resurrection. I think you need to better understand just what is meant by being "in the world but not of the world" and "friendship with the world." These verses are often misconstrued for such purposes.

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
Rom 13:4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Rom 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Rom 13:6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (ESV)

If governments have been instituted by God and are his servants, how is it that Christians shouldn't be involved? If believers are to be bringing about restoration and reconciliation to all of creation, that necessarily includes being involved with justice and fairness in all aspects.

And, really, it does no good to demonize those who disagree.

When Paul qarote those verses there were "NO" Chrsitians in the government and the ruler was one of the most evil men in history. Paul said "HE" Nero, was the servant of God.

 

[Butch5]

First place?

It doesn't. However, do you know of "any" candidate that has not gone against the commands of Christ while in office? It's inevitable that they will.

[/quote]Third, how does candidate A winning the election guarantee or even foretell his/her decision to go to war at all?
rist, how do you guarantee that Christians not voting will prevent candidate A from winning the election? [/quote]

It doesn't matter is candidate A wins. Christians would have no part in it if he later did evil.

Second, how does candidate A winning the election guarantee conditions will present themselves to even prompt a consideration to go to war in the

I'm not following your line of thinking at all.

Look at the Republican party, it's associated with Christians. So, when things are done by the Republican party many times it blamed on Christians. This give Christians a bad reputation, it turns people away from Christ rather than drawing them to Him. I'm in this same discussion on another forum may cut and paste some of my responses from there since I've gone into more detail..

 

[Free]

Free

You seem to have a problem with these passages you've quoted.

I do? Which passages?

It is undeniable that scripture says that God put these people in power. He does.

But that's the whole point. GOD puts them in power, not you, not me. They will get there irrespective of whether you vote or not..

Suppose you voted for A, but B got in. Were you not fighting against God's will? And how could you tell whether or not you were doing so?

Again. remember that Daniel said: He sets the basest of men in power.

Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

So if A got in, and you voted for A, then you voted for one of the basest of men, didn't you?

You think that's a scripturally defensible position?

These are rather silly arguments and don't address the issue at all. That is eisegesis, not exegesis. The point is, as per the topic, there is absolutely no biblical support for the position that Christian shouldn't be involved in politics. None whatsoever.

When Paul qarote those verses there were "NO" Chrsitians in the government and the ruler was one of the most evil men in history. Paul said "HE" Nero, was the servant of God.

And?

You've proven my point. Since you can't know what someone will do then as a Christian you shouldn't participate in the kingdom of darkness.

That is not sound reasoning and not Scriptural. That is the same as saying we shouldn't drive because we don't know if we might kill someone or be killed ourselves, thereby participating in some great evil.

Does that mean that your interpretation is the official and infallible interpretation?

Of course not.

Have you considered that you may be mistaken?

Of course.

the evidence from the first Christians is counter to what you've said here. Since they were the first Christians and in direct contact with the apostles and their disciples I think there is a high probability that they have a better understanding of what the apostles taught than you or I.

But, as I have stated, you have not provided any proof of what the first Christians believed. Until you do so it is just speculation on your part and I cannot address it.

Would this be your idea of what is good?

Would what be my idea of what is good? I'm not sure what you mean by 'this.'

Where exactly do you find the Scriptures teaching it is our job to bring about the restoration of creation?

You're also presumed a False dualism without giving any evidence whatsoever.

False dualism is seen in the distinctions made between the "secular" and the "sacred," the "worldly" and the "spiritual". It separates the kingdom of God completely from the kingdoms of the world, the earthly from the heavenly. Such a false distinction is used to say we are not to have anything at all to do with the world and it's affairs.

It is actually borderline Gnosticism--everything material is bad, everything spiritual is good.

The earliest Christians likely believed that Jesus’ return was imminent, so there would be no point in getting involved

That and they were very busy being persecuted. Regardless, such claims as you have made regarding early Christians need to be backed up if they are to be addressed properly.

I've highlighted the arbitrary statement above. There have been quite few in this post. Can you could give some supporting evidence?

I think that most literature on Christian history will show that the early Christians thought Jesus' return was imminent. Even the Bible shows this to be the case. As for their persecution, surely I don't need to present evidence of this.

Remember, I was only throwing those out there in response to your claim that:

"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."

You must provide evidence for this claim.


As for the argument that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics, especially with the passages of Scripture given, the logical conclusion is that such passages wouldn't just pertain to politics, and to be consistent, it should be argued that Christians shouldn't work in businesses owned by non-Christians, go to schools owned by non-Christians, etc. There should be a complete segregation of Christians from non-Christians. But of course, that is absurd and not what Scripture teaches.

 

[Tri Unity]

Free

Suppose you voted for A, but B got in. Were you not fighting against God's will? And how could you tell whether or not you were doing so?

A means of testing our loyalty to God and His kingdom is introduced by concepts of democracy, patriotism and nationalism. Dual citizenship is refused to many politicians on the basis of having conflicting political interests. Treason and espionage are serious crimes no doubt. This is also true in God’s Kingdom. Many are stewards of God’s Kingdom while they willingly represent Satan’s kingdoms also. The bible clearly states that Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), and is guiding and empowering the affairs of the unsaved nations (Rev 13). This is a conflict of interest and spiritual treason. It is a serious matter.

However, it is not important whether or not we all understand this point. Some will never understand, and they will maintain their earthly patronage until they die. It matters not, and it is useless to argue with such ones. That is the point of God testing us by these means; some will pass, some will fail. All of us are being sifted as wheat and chaff. The same thing happened in Noah’s day, and the whole world at that time, except 8 souls, were judged for treason and destroyed. The same fate awaits us today. We cannot have two masters. Yet some will go to their death arguing their point that two masters are completely agreeable to God. It’s a waste of time arguing this point.

 

[Drew]

Where exactly do you find the Scriptures teaching it is our job to bring about the restoration of creation?

I think this is a major theme.

1. We know from Romans 8 that Paul expects creation to be restored;
2. We know that Adam was initially placed in role of steward over creation;
3. I suggest the case is clear that Jesus functions as the second Adam - Adam "restored", as it were;
4. Believers are often characterized as "in Christ", or destined be Christlike;
5. It is easy to conclude that, indeed, humanity "in Christ" is indeed called to be the agency through which creation is indeed restored.

Admittedly, I have only presented assertions, and very sweeping ones at that. However I am quite confident that one can indeed make the case that humans "in Christ" are called, like Adam, to govern this world and direct it to ultimate restoration.

In this respect, I believe the following to be a central Biblical theme: From the very beginning (e.g. Adam) God always intended creation to be managed by, yes, human beings.

 

[Butch5]

And?

That is not sound reasoning and not Scriptural. That is the same as saying we shouldn't drive because we don't know if we might kill someone or be killed ourselves, thereby participating in some great evil.

The reasoning is sound. What you've stated here doesn't follow. Firstly, there's no command not to drive. Secondly, driving doesn't impose laws and or will on others.

But, as I have stated, you have not provided any proof of what the first Christians believed. Until you do so it is just speculation on your part and I cannot address it.

There's plenty of evidence. Here's Tertullian.

Chap. XVII.—The Cases of Servants and Other Officials. What Offices a Christian Man May Hold.​

But what shall believing servants or children do? officials likewise, when attending on their lords, or patrons, or superiors, when sacrificing? Well, if any one shall have handed the wine to a sacrificer, nay, if by any single word necessary or belonging to a sacrifice he shall have aided him, he will be held to be a minister of idolatry. Mindful of this rule, we can render service even “to magistrates and powers,” after the example of the patriarchs and the other forefathers, who obeyed idolatrous kings up to the confine of idolatry. Hence arose, very lately, a dispute whether a servant of God should take the administration of any dignity or power, if he be able, whether by some special grace, or by adroitness, to keep himself intact from every species of idolatry; after the example that both Joseph and Daniel, clean from idolatry, administered both dignity and power in the livery and purple of the prefecture of entire Egypt or Babylonia. And so let us grant that it is possible for any one to succeed in moving, in whatsoever office, under the mere name of the office, neither sacrificing nor lending his authority to sacrifices; not farming out victims; not assigning to others the care of temples; not looking after their tributes; not giving spectacles at his own or the public charge, or presiding over the giving them; making proclamation or edict for no solemnity; not even taking oaths: moreover (what comes under the head of power), neither sitting in judgment on any one’s life or character, for you might bear with his judging about money; neither condemning nor fore-condemning; binding no one, imprisoning or torturing no one—if it is credible that all this is possible.

Would what be my idea of what is good? I'm not sure what you mean by 'this.'

What you consider good may not be considered good by another.

False dualism is seen in the distinctions made between the "secular" and the "sacred," the "worldly" and the "spiritual". It separates the kingdom of God completely from the kingdoms of the world, the earthly from the heavenly. Such a false distinction is used to say we are not to have anything at all to do with the world and it's affairs.

It is actually borderline Gnosticism--everything material is bad, everything spiritual is good.

This is a straw man. I never said that Christians are to have nothing to do with the world. I said they should have nothing to do with the government.

I think that most literature on Christian history will show that the early Christians thought Jesus' return was imminent. Even the Bible shows this to be the case. As for their persecution, surely I don't need to present evidence of this.

Remember, I was only throwing those out there in response to your claim that:

"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."

You must provide evidence for this claim.

The Ante-Nicene Christians knew that Christ coming would be some time, however, they did not participate in government

As for the argument that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics, especially with the passages of Scripture given, the logical conclusion is that such passages wouldn't just pertain to politics, and to be consistent, it should be argued that Christians shouldn't work in businesses owned by non-Christians, go to schools owned by non-Christians, etc. There should be a complete segregation of Christians from non-Christians. But of course, that is absurd and not what Scripture teaches.

The doesn't follow. Working for a non Christian doesn't put one in the position of making Laws that effect others, neither does attending a non Christian school.

 

[Butch5]

I think this is a major theme.

1. We know from Romans 8 that Paul expects creation to be restored;
2. We know that Adam was initially placed in role of steward over creation;
3. I suggest the case is clear that Jesus functions as the second Adam - Adam "restored", as it were;
4. Believers are often characterized as "in Christ", or destined be Christlike;
5. It is easy to conclude that, indeed, humanity "in Christ" is indeed called to be the agency through which creation is indeed restored.

Admittedly, I have only presented assertions, and very sweeping ones at that. However I am quite confident that one can indeed make the case that humans "in Christ" are called, like Adam, to govern this world and direct it to ultimate restoration.

In this respect, I believe the following to be a central Biblical theme: From the very beginning (e.g. Adam) God always intended creation to be managed by, yes, human beings.

Hi Drew,

I agree that was the initial intention and may be the end result in eternity. However, I don't see where God expects man to be the agent of restoration. In Isaiah He says I create new heavens and new earth. It seems to me that it is God who's going to do the restoration.

 

[Butch5]

A means of testing our loyalty to God and His kingdom is introduced by concepts of democracy, patriotism and nationalism. Dual citizenship is refused to many politicians on the basis of having conflicting political interests. Treason and espionage are serious crimes no doubt. This is also true in God’s Kingdom. Many are stewards of God’s Kingdom while they willingly represent Satan’s kingdoms also. The bible clearly states that Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), and is guiding and empowering the affairs of the unsaved nations (Rev 13). This is a conflict of interest and spiritual treason. It is a serious matter.

However, it is not important whether or not we all understand this point. Some will never understand, and they will maintain their earthly patronage until they die. It matters not, and it is useless to argue with such ones. That is the point of God testing us by these means; some will pass, some will fail. All of us are being sifted as wheat and chaff. The same thing happened in Noah’s day, and the whole world at that time, except 8 souls, were judged for treason and destroyed. The same fate awaits us today. We cannot have two masters. Yet some will go to their death arguing their point that two masters are completely agreeable to God. It’s a waste of time arguing this point.

Well said.

 

[Tri Unity]

The Ante-Nicene Christians knew that Christ coming would be some time, however, they did not participate in government

Some very good comments!

Civil duties only came into the Church after Constantine’s interference (post-Nicene). Civil jobs were then required of clerics; but before that time those, like the Centurion of Acts, resigned from their post. Mathew and Zacharias likewise resigned from being tax-collectors, so government jobs were refused on any level. This would include police, councillors, mayors, judges, soldiers, etc. It does not include teachers or doctors. These do sometimes get paid by the government; yet the lines are blurred due to the government incorporating church activities in order to deceive us into participation and voting (generally speaking).

 

[Free]

I think this is a major theme.

1. We know from Romans 8 that Paul expects creation to be restored;
2. We know that Adam was initially placed in role of steward over creation;
3. I suggest the case is clear that Jesus functions as the second Adam - Adam "restored", as it were;
4. Believers are often characterized as "in Christ", or destined be Christlike;
5. It is easy to conclude that, indeed, humanity "in Christ" is indeed called to be the agency through which creation is indeed restored.

Admittedly, I have only presented assertions, and very sweeping ones at that. However I am quite confident that one can indeed make the case that humans "in Christ" are called, like Adam, to govern this world and direct it to ultimate restoration.

In this respect, I believe the following to be a central Biblical theme: From the very beginning (e.g. Adam) God always intended creation to be managed by, yes, human beings.

Well put. And thank you for addressing that as I clearly forgot to.

 

[Butch5]

Here are a few quotes from the early church.

Origen writes:
Celcus [a pagan] also urges us to take office in the government of the country, if that is necessary for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion.¡¨ Origen (c. 248, E), 4.668.

Origin replies: However, we recognize in each state [that is in each country] the existence of another national organization that was founded by the Word of God. And we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over churches. It is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices. Rather, it is so they may reserve themselves for a more divine and necessary service in the church of God for the salvation of men. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.668.

This world and the next are two enemies…. We cannot therefore be the friends of both. Second Clement (c.150, W), 7.518.

Origen 245: It is not possible for anyone to enter into the kingdom of heaven who has not been turned away from the affairs of this world

All zeal in the pursuit of glory and honor is dead in us. So we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings. Nor is there anything more entirely foreign to us than the affairs of state. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.46.

The Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars. Tertullian (c. 195, W), 3.35.

If any bishop uses the rulers of this world and by their means comes to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended – together with all who communicate with him. Apostolic constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.501.

God Might have bestowed upon his people [i.e., Christians] both riches and kingdoms, as He had given previously to the Jews, whose successors and posterity we are. However, He would have Christians live under the power and government of others, lest they should become corrupted by the happiness of prosperity, slide into luxury, and eventually despise the Commandments of God. For this is what our ancestors did. Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.160.

As for you, you are a foreigner in this world, a citizen of Jerusalem, the city above. Our citizenship, the apostle says, is in heaven. You have your own registers, your own calendar. You have nothing to do with the joys of this world. In fact, you are called to the very opposite – for “the world will rejoice, but you will mourn.” Tertullian (c. 212, W), 3.101.

We have no country on earth. Therefore, we can disdain earthly possessions. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.281.

We should ever and a day reflect that we have renounced the world and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.475.

Shall the Christian apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment - he who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Tertullian (c. 211, W), 3.99.

No conspiracy has ever broken out from our body. No Caesar's blood has ever fixed a stain upon us in the Senate or even in the palace. No assumption of the purple has ever in any of the provinces been affected by us. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.125.

What Tertullian is saying here is that no one has gotten into a place of authority by us.

…. what if the law of nature – that is, the law of God – commands what is opposed to the written law [the law of the government]? Does not reason tell us to bid long farewell to the written code…. and to give ourselves up to the Legislator, God? This is so even if in doing so it may be necessary to encounter dangers, countless labors, and even death and dishonor. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.560.

 

[Butch5]

Some very good comments!

Civil duties only came into the Church after Constantine’s interference (post-Nicene). Civil jobs were then required of clerics; but before that time those, like the Centurion of Acts, resigned from their post. Mathew and Zacharias likewise resigned from being tax-collectors, so government jobs were refused on any level. This would include police, councillors, mayors, judges, soldiers, etc. It does not include teachers or doctors. These do sometimes get paid by the government; yet the lines are blurred due to the government incorporating church activities in order to deceive us into participation and voting (generally speaking).

Agreed!