The Disciple and Politics

[Butch5]

Do we know they did not or do we think they did not. There is not a passage telling us to stay out.

We know they didn't.

 

[Grazer]

I don't



I'm sure it 's been used in attempts to justify all kinds of beliefs. My whole point is that Jesus and the apostles didn't participate in government, their successors didn't either and until about 325 the church was growing at an astounding rate. After 325 the church began to participate in the world and we see all of the problems that brought. In the beginning Christians died for the faith later they killed for it.

Indeed they did but I don't see how by simply getting involved in politics caused that. Sounds like the power went to their heads.

 

[farouk]

That doesn't change the fact that we don't have the original autographs. The link we have between our copies and the originals are the Ante-Nicene writers.

We have the text in a multitude of manuscripts (backed up by quotation evidence from lectionaries, and other writings). Compared with many, ancient, secular texts which have come down to us in world literature, there is overwhelming evidence for the text of Scripture. See also Isaiah 55.11.

 

[Drew]

I'd be interested in seeing your arguments. It should be easily seen in the Scriptures that Jesus forced no one to follow him, yet Christians in government would do this very thing. When I was kid store had to close on Sunday because Christians had made it so. So unbelievers could not open their businesses and make a living. Do you suppose this won unbelievers to Christ. I suspect it caused resentment just as is usually the case when people are forced to do things they don't want to do.

First of all, I believe the "forced" argument is misleading. Many posters in on this board argue that taxation is "stealing" or "forced". Well, only in the tiniest sense is it "forced". You freely vote to be taxed, and the only element of "force" is when the government "forces" members of the society to follow through on what is essentially an entirely voluntary decision to pay taxes in the first place. The small element of "force" is really just a pragmatic detail, ensuring predictability re getting money from taxpayers.

That may not be particularly relevant, however the key point is that we, as a society, "force" people to do all sorts of things all the time. We force people to not litter, we force people to not smoke in a restaurant, we force people to not violate zoning restrictions. And so on.

So its a tad misleading to think that it would be morally wrong to enforce laws informed by Christian belief in the context of a democracy where people have freely voted for such laws.

Do you see my point? In order for society to not descend into anarchy, we have to "force" people to behave in certain ways. What strikes me as decidedly odd is why so many Christians feel that its OK to let secular values inform the laws that are enforced, while also believing it is impermissible to allow Christian values to follow that same model.

Somebody's values are going to determine the laws that are enforced. Are Christian values not at least as good as other values?

 

[Drew]

In the context of that passage, it's quite clear that this is a hypothetical, argument-style response to the Jews' quite foolish accusation that He is casting out demons by Beelzebub.

I do not see how this is clear at all. Jesus heals people and connects these healings to the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.

Please explain to us why we should not take Him literally. I agree that not all Biblical texts are to be taken literally, but we need an explanation as to why this particular text should not be read as a declaration that the healings constitute evidence that the Kingdom of God has arrived:

Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to [v]Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 23 All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by [w]Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “[x]Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and [y]any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he [z]is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I by [aa]Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

I suggest the meaning is fairly clear:

1. Jesus heals;
2. Others suggests He is doing so by the power of Satan;
3. Jesus explains the error in such reasoning;
4. Jesus concludes: my casting out of demons shows the kingdom of God has come upon his contemporaries.

How is this hypothetical? Yes, Jesus uses the word "if", but it is clear from context that he is referring to an actual healing.

It appears to me that you are trying to avoid having to conclude the "kingdom of God" has already come upon Jesus' listeners by appeal to the use of the word "if". However, the "if" certainly does not mean that Jesus is speaking about something hypothetical in relation to the question of the kingdom's presence.

The "if", I suggest, is clearly used as follows in context:

But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, and not by Satan's power, then the kingdom of God has come upon you

The "if" deals with the question of who the source of the healing power is in relation to a factual event, not an hypothetical one; You appear to be taking it as introducing some question as to whether the kingdom of God is actually here.

I do not see how the text can be read that way.

Again:

1. Jesus heals (fact);
2. The question arises: Who is behind this?
3. If it were Satan, Satan would be attacking his own foot soldiers;
4. If it is God, then, yes, the kingdom of God has come upon you.

And I suggest no reader should miss the obvious point: Jesus is clearly implying that it is God who is indeed responsible.

Therefore, the kingdom of God is indeed here.

 

[Asyncritus]

That doesn't change the fact that we don't have the original autographs. The link we have between our copies and the originals are the Ante-Nicene writers.

I don't see how this changes anything.

What we have is either the Word of God or not. If it is not, then we're in trouble. If it is, then there's the fountain head.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Which one do you go for?

 

[TonkaTim]

Drew,

Force is violence. Why would we want to advocate a society of violence?

To avoid violence would it not be better to promote voluntary taxation?

A lottery is a very good example of voluntary taxation. One can volunteer to participate or not.

Sales taxes are good examples of voluntary taxation. One can choose to engage in local commercial enterprise to varying degrees or not.

Tariffs are good examples of voluntary taxation. Nations can choose to engage in international commercial enterprise to varying degrees or not.

The things that allow man to exist in God's Creation should never be taxed - food, water, labor, shelter, land.

 

[Butch5]

I don't see how this changes anything.

What we have is either the Word of God or not. If it is not, then we're in trouble. If it is, then there's the fountain head.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Which one do you go for?

It's simple, we simple don't know if we reject the Ante-Nicene writers. What many Christians don't realize is that what they claim is inspired is based on knowledge we get from the Ante-Nicene writers. How do we know who wrote Mathew or Mark or John. We know because it is the Ante-Nicene writers who tell us that it was those persons who wrote them. What about the gospel of Thomas or Mary? How do we know these are not from the apostle or Mary, Jesus' mother? The Ante-Nicene writers tell us. So, if these are so unreliable as to not even be worthy of reading what do you base your claim of having the fountain head on?

 

[Drew]

Mark 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

This statement is entirely consistent with the position that the kingdom of God was breaking into history in Jesus own ministry. More specifically, the only thing this text definitively places in the future is the drinking of wine. There is no necessity as seeing the Kingdom of God as lying in the future. In other words, while Jesus next act of wine-drinking will be "in the kingdom of God", there is no reason to not believe that the kingdom was already in force when He makes the statement.

In any event, I have been a little loose in my explanation of timing. I would say that the initiation of the Kingdom of God is "smeared out" in time, from the time Jesus begins His ministry through to His resurrection.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

Force is violence. Why would we want to advocate a society of violence?

I never posted anything that can be legitimately read as an advocation of violence, so I do not know what your point is.

To avoid violence would it not be better to promote voluntary taxation?

I have argued in detail elsewhere that this is simply not practical, even though it is desirable. The government needs to plan its spending. Therefore, it cannot afford the unpredictability that would go along with people making their tax payments voluntarily. But let's be clear: people do indeed volunteer to pay taxes at the ballot box. The only element of "force" involves getting people to actually follow through on a commitment that is otherwise entirely free.

This false notion that taxation is "forced" is deeply ingrained in your culture (I assume you are an American) and mine to some degree (Canada).

But it is simply not correct, at least not in the sense that is important.

You and I both vote to be taxed - no force.

 

[Butch5]

First of all, I believe the "forced" argument is misleading. Many posters in on this board argue that taxation is "stealing" or "forced". Well, only in the tiniest sense is it "forced". You freely vote to be taxed, and the only element of "force" is when the government "forces" members of the society to follow through on what is essentially an entirely voluntary decision to pay taxes in the first place. The small element of "force" is really just a pragmatic detail, ensuring predictability re getting money from taxpayers.

That may not be particularly relevant, however the key point is that we, as a society, "force" people to do all sorts of things all the time. We force people to not litter, we force people to not smoke in a restaurant, we force people to not violate zoning restrictions. And so on.

So its a tad misleading to think that it would be morally wrong to enforce laws informed by Christian belief in the context of a democracy where people have freely voted for such laws.

Do you see my point? In order for society to not descend into anarchy, we have to "force" people to behave in certain ways. What strikes me as decidedly odd is why so many Christians feel that its OK to let secular values inform the laws that are enforced, while also believing it is impermissible to allow Christian values to follow that same model.

Somebody's values are going to determine the laws that are enforced. Are Christian values not at least as good as other values?

I didn't say anything about taxation. As far as force is concerned, yes, people are forced to do many things. Are income taxes voluntary? Do people pay them voluntarily? How many people resent the government because of income taxes? Is this the way to portray the kingdom of God? The point I'm making is that when you force people to do things against their will you will get resentment.

I think the statement about, 'a democracy where people have free voted on laws' is a little misleading also. I am subject to many laws that I never voted on or had the opportunity to vote on.


The whole issue isn't about forcing laws on people, it's the rejection and animosity that is created towards Christ by Christians forcing their beliefs on people who don't want them.

 

[Butch5]

We have the text in a multitude of manuscripts (backed up by quotation evidence from lectionaries, and other writings). Compared with many, ancient, secular texts which have come down to us in world literature, there is overwhelming evidence for the text of Scripture. See also Isaiah 55.11.

The multitude of manuscripts only date to about the 400's and the NT manucripts far out weigh the secular writings.

 

[farouk]

The multitude of manuscripts only date to about the 400's and the NT manucripts far out weigh the secular writings.[/QUOTE]

This is what I thought I said, yes.

 

[Butch5]

Indeed they did but I don't see how by simply getting involved in politics caused that. Sounds like the power went to their heads.

If you look at church history you'll find that this case been the case from the time of Constantine. How does a Christian justify killing another Christian when he stands before God? What point is there in fighting for a nation? All nations are going to be destroyed anyway when Christ returns. How does that look for the Christian standing before God? He fought and killed a Christian, one God's people, for a nation in the kingdom of darkness that Christ was going to destroy anyway.

 

[Grazer]

If you look at church history you'll find that this case been the case from the time of Constantine. How does a Christian justify killing another Christian when he stands before God? What point is there in fighting for a nation? All nations are going to be destroyed anyway when Christ returns. How does that look for the Christian standing before God? He fought and killed a Christian, one God's people, for a nation in the kingdom of darkness that Christ was going to destroy anyway.

I think we're talking cross purposes here. I still have no idea what any of what you've put has to do with getting into politics.

 

[Drew]

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.

Again, this text is entirely non-committal on the key question - whether the kingdom was initiated by Jesus about 2000 years. Yes, there will be gnashing of teeth, yes people will see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But these things can all be statements about what will happen in a kingdom that is otherwise already in place.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

This text strongly supports my position. Jesus means what he says - some of the people He is talking to will still be alive when Jesus rises from the dead, the single moment that can probably be best identified as "the time" of the initiation of the kingdom.

I am always amazed at how people read this text. We have a clear statement made to actual flesh and blood people: some of you will be alive when the kingdom is initiated. Well, did Jesus mean it or not?

If the kingdom lies in the future, then, unless Jesus was mistaken, there are some 2000 + year old people walking around.

Because this is precisely what would need to be the case if, as Jesus clearly stated, some of the people He was talking to would not die before the initiation of the kingdom.

 

[Drew]

Luke 13:29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

How does this text require us to understand that the kingdom has not arrived as of 2012?

I could legitimately assert that what Jesus says has been happening for the last 2000 years - all sorts of people have entered the kingdom. You would, of course, be begging the question to suggest that this is not possible because the kingdom lies in the future.

And even if nobody has yet to "sit down" (whatever that means), this does not in any sense constitute evidence that the kingdom is not already here.

The kingdom may indeed be here, but the "sitting down" has yet to happen.

 

[Drew]

If you look at church history you'll find that this case been the case from the time of Constantine. How does a Christian justify killing another Christian when he stands before God? What point is there in fighting for a nation? All nations are going to be destroyed anyway when Christ returns. How does that look for the Christian standing before God? He fought and killed a Christian, one God's people, for a nation in the kingdom of darkness that Christ was going to destroy anyway.

I do not follow your reasoning. It almost appears that you are assuming that to get involved in politics to commit to engaging in violence. This is clearly not correct - one can serve all sorts of functions in government without ever coming close to fighting for that government.

In addition, the fact that all national boundaries will arguably done away with when Christ returns is hardly an argument against getting involved in government in the present with the goal of molding the world according to kingdom of God values.

 

[childeye]

Drew,

Force is violence. Why would we want to advocate a society of violence?

To avoid violence would it not be better to promote voluntary taxation?

A lottery is a very good example of voluntary taxation. One can volunteer to participate or not.

Sales taxes are good examples of voluntary taxation. One can choose to engage in local commercial enterprise to varying degrees or not.

Tariffs are good examples of voluntary taxation. Nations can choose to engage in international commercial enterprise to varying degrees or not.

The things that allow man to exist in God's Creation should never be taxed - food, water, labor, shelter, land.

An insightful point of conclusion which should not be argued. Sadly however, it is not realized as practical reality given our current situation.

 

[Tri Unity]

Force is violence. Why would we want to advocate a society of violence?

This is exactly the reason why we should not bloody our hands and defile our consciences with involvement with politics. Our hands are bloody because our "beloved country" and government we voted for is at continual war and in continual hatred. The beast (government) recieves his "power and seat and authority" from the dragon, not from Christ (Revelation 13:1, 2). We bloody our hands with such things as gay marriages, abortion, capital punishment and drug houses. By endorsing our governments through participation we are stained with their sins. These are the sins that we become partakers in once we enrol to vote or hold any office that endorses or promotes these offences to God. If Christ is really the King of all Kingdoms, then logically we must hold Him responsible for such sins. The devil would like that! Instead, the "wrath of God" is stored up against all who practice such things. Once we become a part of that process our hands are bloody too.

As George Bush Jr said, "if you are not for us you are against us". Political involvement draws a line in the sand... we are either on Christ's side, or we are on the government’s side. You cannot follow two masters. You are either on one side or the other. This is what Christ taught us. This is what the Apostles taught their disciples. This is what those disciples recorded in their writings in the 2nd century. We got involved in politics only because of the Catholic Church. It was a mistake they made that has never been rectified. All Christians who are involved in politics are really Catholics, as this is what defines a Catholic in distinction to the earliest Christians.

Note: I do not mean that your salvation will be lost for voting or being a politician or a King; but we must remember that there are different levels of being "saved". It is "more difficult for a rich man", etc. He who has more finds it more difficult to give up. There are different bodies too, different glories, different gifts, different mansions, different crowns... Not all will recieve the same reward. Our reward is based, not on our faith, but on our faithfulness. Our faith gives us life; our faithfulness determines our reward. Once being saved, our goal is to pursue the better gift and greater faithfulness.