|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 6, 2015 9:25:34 GMT -8
Jaybee, I'm curious where your current thinking lies regarding how a Christian in a government-representing office should let their faith influence their conduct? (As opposed to how it shouldn't)
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 7, 2015 15:32:19 GMT -8
I don't believe it is a Christian's place to be involved in the civil sector in the first place as a law/policy maker.
The reason is that a Christian will make decisions based upon the morals of Christ which will then be enforced through the armed power of the state. Something I do not believe is appropriate - the enforcement of Christian morals by force upon the unsaved.
I ultimately believe that the Christian is to be a good, nonvoting citizen of their state.
Even a vote is an attempt to sway the power of the state in the Christian's interest for enforcement by the armed state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2015 18:50:38 GMT -8
If not a law or policy maker, should a Christian serve as a law/ policy enforcer? (Policeman, for instance)
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 10, 2015 13:15:32 GMT -8
I would say no - a Christian should not be involved in acting as an enforcer of the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 11, 2015 17:47:39 GMT -8
Luke 3:12-14 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them. Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
I think this passage in Luke could be marshaled strongly against such a strict view. John the baptists advice here clearly allows for his hearers to remain enforcers of the state, as long as they remain fair and honest. I don't think Luke intends us to think his advice is contrary to the gospel/ Jesus message, or he would have been careful to delineate that. Rather, Luke probably presents this advice to Theophilus as one of many of his examples of how messiah-faith is not inherently anti- government but is in many ways complimentarian.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 11, 2015 23:36:45 GMT -8
There are many aspects I see in this passage.
Before I bring up my thoughts, I would ask: Can a Christian morally support a choice for the lesser of two evils, or when presented with such a choice must he deny choosing either of the options?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 12, 2015 12:12:17 GMT -8
Considering to deny the choice might in and of itself be yet a third evil, I would say, yes, there might be times when we have to choose a lesser evil.
I believe Paul did this in regard to slavery, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 14, 2015 10:59:42 GMT -8
I somewhat agree, and it is in that sense that I do not think everything that was tolerated or recommended in the Bible was the ideal, but it was a launch in the right direction.
Therefore, while the lesser of two evils was considered a move towards improvement, it was simply a step to the better end state.
From what I have read, the tax collectors would tell people they owed more in taxes than they really did, and the tax collectors could keep the excess money they collected. Also, the soldiers were corrupt, falsely bringing up charges against civilians and making the civilians pay bribes to get the charges dismissed.
JtB is addressing a single issue in this passage, that of generosity/not stealing - Luke 3:10-14.
John is talking to a culture of conscripted soldiers just like Paul dealt with a culture of slavery. The ideal situation for Paul would likely be no slavery at all, but that was not the reality of the situation at the time. Therefore, Paul moved towards "less evil" slavery dynamics. Likewise, John can be telling the soldiers - probably involuntary conscripts - how to be "less evil" within the status quo of present culture.
Doesn't mean John wouldn't have preferred not to have soldiers at all, but like Paul, he was working in the reality of his day. Not looking to make a quantum leap to immediate perfection, but cause manageable steps in that direction, starting with not stealing money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 21, 2015 19:17:27 GMT -8
So, how do you personally respond to the typical query that comes up in these kinds of discussions; "Wouldn't you call the police if someone was breaking into your house? And if so, isn't it hypocritical to say no Christian should be a policeman?"
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 30, 2015 9:52:57 GMT -8
The state as an instrument can serve God's purpose to protect me. At any given point, it can also be an instrument to persecute me. Either function being caused or allowed by God. The state as an entity exists apart from the personal responsibility of a Christian. The personal responsibility of the Christian is laid out in Romans 12-13, and at no point does it say the Christian is to work as an active member of the state. In fact, mostly in Romans 12, the personal responsibility of the Christian would appear to disallow a Christian to operate within an organization (the state) which keeps its powers by force or the threat of such.
My views have been greatly solidified by early church writings before the church married the state in the time of Constantine and on. During the first 300 years of the church, Christians did not serve in the military or within state positions. Celsus (late-100's to early-200's AD), who was very much opposed to Christianity, observed this. Claiming that Christians refused to perform their due military service for the state, and that if the Christians were able to convert enough people then government offices would be empty because Christians refuse to hold offices of state.
In response to Celsus, Origen said:
Relating to military service - "We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army--an army of piety--by offering our prayers to God."
Relating to state office - "But we recognise in each state the existence of another national organization founded by the Word of God,... And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God--for the salvation of men."
From early church writings, it appears the church only saw itself as a passive part of the state within which a believer found himself - paying taxes, praying for the state, etc. The church did not believe it could actively take part in either actively wielding the sword for the state, or holding an office of state which was really backed at some level by the power of the sword.
I have yet to find record in the first 100-200 years of the church of a Christian who joined or stayed in military service. In fact, most creeds I have found from the first 200-300 years of the church called for the exclusion of believers who would serve in the military. This does not mean that believers were not in the military ranks, but it is obvious they were the deviants rather than the norm.
Beyond military service, I have found again that it seems the norm that Christians were understood to not be willing to participate in state office.
Back to more on your question: God has used the secular and even the evil to serve his purpose of good. In this sense, if God wishes to have be in a place where I am under the police protection of my state, then so be it. At the point that police protection is removed, so be it.
Much of the police question and what I touched on here would also fall into pacifism, of which I am 90% there and I find most of the church in the first 300 years was perhaps 100% there.
The real change in pacifism and state service changed under Constantine. I believe that Constantine and the "Holy Roman Church" which grow out of the work of Constantine to make a state/church marriage is likely related to Paul's "man of lawlessness." Under Constantine, the church became entangled in the idea of state sanctioned/enforced Christianity. Thus, military and state service was a means to the end of Christian service.
This was a huge departure from the first 200-300 years of the church, and I believe a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 30, 2015 20:55:28 GMT -8
My thinking goes increasingly this direction in many ways, but still I have reservations. A further question: is it morally wrong for a non-Christian to be a policeman?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Oct 1, 2015 21:00:59 GMT -8
Moral right and wrong are absolutes, so the question has to be: is it morally wrong to be a policeman?
Short answer: yes
Inherent to policing is the threat of physical violence to subdue evil. Peace thru superior violence.
This is contrary to the gospel which does not beat evil by bringing greater violence, but disarms it with pure love and goodness.
The main focus of Revelation is that the martyrs have conquered against the evil people. Not by violently meeting it head to head with swords, but by peacefully enduring evil to death for the love of God.
I am not a total pacifist, I believe there could be times for altercations, but the police officer does not have the luxury of picking and choosing the times as he is led by the Spirit. He has submitted himself to the leading of the state rather than the Spirit to tell him when the time for altercation is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 2, 2015 16:18:39 GMT -8
Just want to put this here for reference, not necessary as a proof-text.
Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
So I'm hearing you correctly: you are saying that when policemen are fulfilling their God-instituted service, they are sinning?
Also, despite his job the policeman is still free to follow the Holy Spirit's leading. It may cost him his job, of course, but if he is convinced that the majority of his work is God-ordained, he could still remain employed. There is no intrinsic swearing off of his primary obligation before God that I am aware of. Btw, many argue that in the early church it was the requirement that Roman soldiers worship the Emperor, not the killing per se, that caused many of the Church Fathers to speak against Christians joining the army.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Oct 2, 2015 16:53:07 GMT -8
The state in Romans 13 is seen as an agent OF God - a servant of God in that sense, but never as a "godly" agent.
The text only speaks to submission to state authority, not a Christian's place to personally wield state authority. "Submission" to the state is passive compared to active "service" to the state.
Starting back in Romans 12:9-21 the lifestyle of a believer is presented, a lifestyle in stark contrast to the duties of armed members of the state to eliminate enemies.
Certainly a policeman just driving down the street, stopped and helping a stranded motorist, searching for a lost child, or running into a burning building is not sinning anymore than say an abusive dad who is cooking a meal for his child or driving them to school.
But there is a reason police are armed, and it is because their primary role goes beyond the above actions. They are explicitly "law enforcement" personal to the point of execution if need be to any enemies of the state or personal enemies.
To revisit my first paragraphs and your last, it is not service to the state that is God-instituted, but what is God instituted is that the state will serve God's purpose. And as it serves God's purpose, the believer remains submissive to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Oct 15, 2015 17:38:20 GMT -8
Here is an interesting comparison of scriptures related to this topic:
Romans 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Romans 13:4 ...For [Ruler/Government] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
The Christian is to never avenge, but the governments are the instruments of God to carry out vengeance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 17, 2015 10:22:14 GMT -8
Granted, and always an important reminder, but ultimately the question boils down to whether there is a difference between our personal/individual mandate as Christians and a Christian filling the God-intended civic role. I don't see an open- shut case in scripture, but I am increasingly convinced that it would be schizophrenic to attempt to do so, especially when one is asked to act in contradiction to our PRIMARY obligation to live out the sermon in the mount.
|
|
