@Seun,

Once upon a time, the military was also our judge, lawgiver, and governor. That's just the definition of dictatorship.

You leave out one important factor. God encourages and respects the freewill of man. The military dictators don't.

Analytical:

Since you require examples of people that affected governments horizontally by being involved (doesn't have to be agitation as you put it), where then do you place Joseph, Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra etc.

None of the people mentioned above were politically active or agitated for power. Indeed every single one of them was in some sort of servitude. It was divine favour and not human effort that elevated them. Again I believe you are using unrelated terms and events synonymously. So, being led, favoured and exalted by God (using human vessels, regardless of their beliefs, regardless of the govermental/political situation on the ground), and being used to fulfil Gods purpose and Glorify His name does not equate to being politically active, even if it leads to you having political influence.

Analytical:

While we pray, there also has to be God's people in place to affect policies and decisions that will serve to bless people. What shall we say of Daniel, the 1st of 3 presidents in Babylon, through whom an unbelieving king passed a decree that only the God of Daniel shall people worship. Would you know that Daniel and his 3 friends went through a rigorous selection process before they could be part of that government in a foreign land. Their exploits we all know.

I don't agree with your premise. Which is essentially saying, God needs believers to be in certain positions before He can effect His will. Who placed Daniel? did Daniel arrive in Babylon (as a captive slave) and join a political party, begin networking, articulating his political agenda and building a well defined constituency .

Analytical:

Or is it Joseph we should talk about, as the prime minister of Egypt, through whom God preserved the world in time of famine? If more than anything else, I think we need more of such set people for our time- people that will carry the banner of Jesus high in the high echelons of power and politics and bear their influence upon a crooked world and establish righteousness and justice in the land.

Joseph, the one in whom the "Spirit of God was". That is the key. When they see that in Christians, the uncommon wisdom, the moral probity, the unflinching righteousness, they will give God glory.

No, a Christians testimony, is his/her witness. We testify to the saving work of Christ (Gods goodness, mercy and grace) by our conduct in a corrupt and evil world, adopting it's mores to assume power which we then hand over to God. That is unadulterated "Dominionist" thinking. I personally don't see any scriptural foundation for it. Trying to effect the same end as mentioned Biblical figures mentioned, but by different means is error. As Paul said to the Galatians. You can't finish in the flesh that which is started in the Spirit and vice-versa.

God bless

@ TV01,
Please answer my question, Is it wrong for christians to go into Politics?

Good question. My answer: Nope.

mrpataki:

@ TV01,
Please answer my question, Is it wrong for christians to go into Politics?

Apologies.

If one can do so without compromising their faith in anyway, go right ahead.

Happy now?

@ Gwaine,
I guess your "nope" was in response to my question,

So where do you place scriptures like Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach thereof?

If christians are not to be found in politics?

@TV01,

None of the people mentioned above were politically active or agitated for power. Indeed every single one of them was in some sort of servitude. It was divine favour and not human effort that elevated them. Again I believe you are using unrelated terms and events synonymously. So, being led, favoured and exalted by God (using human vessels, regardless of their beliefs, regardless of the govermental/political situation on the ground), and being used to fulfil Gods purpose and Glorify His name does not equate to being politically active, even if it leads to you having political influence.

Can you separate divine favour from human effort? Have you seen where God elevated a novice to the position of a professor? My point is that while I believe in divine favour, it is not independent of the human vessel that God has favoured. Joseph went through different stages of administration, Daniel was schooled and well learned, Esther went through beauty classes - all these were human efforts. What you term divine favour is God crowning their human effort with success. Divine favour is when man's ordinary is complimented by God's extraordinary.

It appears you do not have a problem with exerting political influence, rather you are totally against the process of attaining political influence. Let me ask you a question. In that parable I cited in Luke 19, how many of those people were told what exactly should be done with their talents? How many were told how to multiply their resources?  The master expected them to use their common sense without violating thier conscience to negotiate and multiply their resources. So while the destination is certain, the means is left to the individual.

I don't agree with your premise. Which is essentially saying, God needs believers to be in certain positions before He can effect His will. Who placed Daniel? did Daniel arrive in Babylon (as a captive slave) and join a political party, begin networking, articulating his political agenda and building a well defined constituency

God uses men in different positions to get His will done. Through Government (politics), God delivered the world from famine through Joseph and delivered the Isrealites from genocide through Esther.
Daniel may not have practiced politics the way it is done today because such establishment wasn't in place during his days. The only government in the world during those times were dictatorship and monarchies. Democracy as we know it today was never in place. The question we need to ask is does politics contradict the spirit of the New Testament?

Joseph, the one in whom the "Spirit of God was". That is the key. When they see that in Christians, the uncommon wisdom, the moral probity, the unflinching righteousness, they will give God glory.
No, a Christians testimony, is his/her witness. We testify to the saving work of Christ (Gods goodness, mercy and grace) by our conduct in a corrupt and evil world, adopting it's mores to  assume power which we then hand over to God. That is unadulterated "Dominionist" thinking. I personally don't see any scriptural foundation for it. Trying to effect the same end as mentioned Biblical figures mentioned, but by different means is error. As Paul said to the Galatians. You can't finish in the flesh that which is started in the Spirit and vice-versa.
God bless

You seem to be deluded that the Bible has spelt out everything we should do at every point in time, all of the time. God has given you wisdom which He expects to be put to use in your daily activities. God told me to work to earn my keep, but He never told me to be an Engineer. I am an Engineer because I have the passion for it and I believe it is a means for me to work and take care of my family. The end product is that I am working and earning a living as stipulated by God.
The Apostle Paul used the means of writing to accomplish his vision and spread God's Word. Can you show us where Jesus did the same thing? So did Paul begin in the spirit and ended in the flesh because he followed a different means than Jesus?  You are using the internet today to spread God's Word. Did Jesus or the early church use that means? So are you now in the flesh because you are going about in cars, trains and airplane when Jesus never used those means of transportation?

So you see the means is immaterial as long as it doesn't compromise our conscience and God's Word. Politics, is a means to an end. That means can be used righteously or sinfully the same way the internet can be used righteously or sinfully.

@ Gwaine,
Sorry I just understood your response.
Thanks God bless. Thought it was the other way round.

@TV01,

If one can do so without compromising their faith in anyway, go right ahead.

So can you tell us how to determine who will not compromise their faith prior to participating in politics?

Also, can you tell me any human endeavor that does not provide the opportunity for us to compromise our faith?

You leave out one important factor. God encourages and respects the freewill of man. The military dictators don't.

You cannot claim to respect the someone's freewill if you intend to punish that person for not obeying you.
Otherwise, military dictators could also claim to respect freewill while implementing their own form of hell fire.

@mrpataki,

My "nope" was in direct response to your question: "Is it wrong for christians to go into Politics?"

The reason why I believe that God is directly involved in the governments of the world is because I see things a bit differently. The deists believe in an "intelligent supermind" who is the first-cause of the universe; but they do not believe that 'he' is involved in the affairs of men! I'm not one of those who see things as either this or that, but rather accept the fact that God is directly involved in the affairs of men! Infact, the word used is: "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men" (Dan. 4:17)!

The idea that God is not involved in the political processes of civil governance is a weak thought. I trust that such texts as Rom. 13:1-7 should help shape our thinking about Christians involved in civil ruling. May I ask a few questions:

  1. Should Christians become lawyers?

  2. Should Christians become Administrators?

  3. Should Christians become Accountants and Economists?

If Christians can be any one of the above, at what point do such vocations become entirely disconnected from civil governance?

My submission is that Christians can and should pursue political vocations if they feel this calling upon their hearts. As long as we are called to be the light of the world, is the political arena a forbidden dungeon that Christians should never influence?

Well, that's my opinion anyway. . . but I feel that God has called us to be light in every aspect of our earthly lives.

Regards.

mrpataki:

@ Gwaine,
Sorry I just understood your response.
Thanks God bless. Thought it was the other way round.

Okay. Blessings.

@ Seun,
My question is Has God punished you for implementing your own free-will?

@ Gwaine,
Many thanks for that response.

My question is

Shall we continue in Sin and expect Grace to abound? God forbid!

So also,

Shall we continue to watch our Nation drown in Sin and Error and expect that the Excellency of God's Word will thrive therein? God forbid!

It is high time indeed that aside from the place of prayer, we need "Righteous and Godly Men" at the seat of Power, we should stop hiding under the blanket of Politics is a dirty game and Christians are not expected to be in it!

Aye!

@ Seun,
Let me re-phrase my question in the Present continous:

Is God still punishing you for implementing your own free-will against his supposedly "dictatorship" rule over you?

If Yes, I would appreciate an adequate illustration with it.

If No, why do you see Him as a dictator?

TayoD:

Can you separate divine favour from human effort? Have you seen where God elevated a novice to the position of a professor? My point is that while I believe in divine favour, it is not independent of the human vessel that God has favoured. Joseph went through different stages of administration, Daniel was schooled and well learned, Esther went through beauty classes - all these were human efforts. What you term divine favour is God crowning their human effort with success. Divine favour is when man's ordinary is complimented by God's extraordinary.

Please stop using slight of hand to buttress your position. We are discussing "Christian participation in party politics" here. I did not say we sit around and wait for divine intervention. The novice to professor thing is false. You are taking as read that God wants us to engage in poloitics and will crown our efforts if we do so. Where is that notion in the Bible? Please show me. The learning that Joseph went through was not political tutelage. Ditto for Daniel and Esther. To make the arguemnt for Christians in politics, you have to try and align uncorrelated events and misapply the biblical narrative.

Who amongst those mentioned was actively seeking political power? God elevated them in order to fulfil His own purpose. The fact that He used earthly rulers to assign the authority or influence to them was His plan, not theirs. What they went through was to prepare them for the roles.

TayoD:

It appears you do not have a problem with exerting political influence, rather you are totally against the process of attaining political influence. Let me ask you a question. In that parable I cited in Luke 19, how many of those people were told what exactly should be done with their talents? How many were told how to multiply their resources? The master expected them to use their common sense without violating their conscience to negotiate and multiply their resources. So while the destination is certain, the means is left to the individual.

This is a variation of your oft cited "by any mean necessary approach". Which effectively enables you to overlook scripture and point to the end as a means of justifying unbiblical practices. (Like trying to justify divorce because of the calling on a persons life ~ please! Again, this passage does not speak to overt agitation for political power. It seems a lot of your doctrine is merely theoretical. As I answered mr pataki above, please detail how you will wield political power (let alone obtain it without compromise), to the glory of God. A politician purports to serve those he represents. Could you ban abortion, stop wars, banish gambling? You are representing unbelievers, so even if you manage to ascend any kind of political height, if you don't work to their (evil) interests, they will soon be shot of you. It's a work of the flesh, so your position either becomes untenable, or you are forced to compromise to stay in power. If the whole process hasn't corrupted you already.

TayoD:

God uses men in different positions to get His will done. Through Government (politics), God delivered the world from famine through Joseph and delivered the Isrealites from genocide through Esther.
Daniel may not have practiced politics the way it is done today because such establishment wasn't in place during his days. The only government in the world during those times were dictatorship and monarchies. Democracy as we know it today was never in place. The question we need to ask is does politics contradict the spirit of the New Testament?

God uses whom he will when and as he pleases. He used Nebuvhadnezzar to judge Israel and all the surrounding nations, then judged Babylon & Nebuchadnezzer. Their has always been political intrigue and conspiracy. It flourishes wherever their is an earthly seat of power. it may be more genteel these days, but the bible is full of examples of kings being usurped or conspired against, even by their own flesh and blood. That's how it was done in those days. Daniel et al did not employ those methods. You revisionist history and extrapolation to contemporary times are both whimsical at best. And again a prime example of the kind of sophistry rampant in some denominations these days.

Gotta go, back later

@TV01,

Please stop using slight of hand to buttress your position. We are discussing "Christian participation in party politics" here. I did not say we sit around and wait for divine intervention. The novice to professor thing is false. You are taking as read that God wants us to engage in poloitics and will crown our efforts if we do so. Where is that notion in the Bible? Please show me. The learning that Joseph went through was not political tutelage. Ditto for Daniel and Esther. To make the arguemnt for Christians in politics, you have to try and align uncorrelated events and misapply the biblical narrative.
Who amongst those mentioned was actively seeking political power? God elevated them in order to fulfil His own purpose. The fact that He used earthly rulers to assign the authority or influence to them was His plan, not theirs. What they went through was to prepare them for the roles.

You go on telling us to show you where God says we should get involved in politics, yet you are unable to show us where He said politics is sin. If you think through scripture (the scriptures are a collection of God's thoughts), you will never come to the conclusion you have made. God crowns our efforts with success. See Proverbs 16:33  The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. Isn't that the method used by the Apostles in picking a replacement for Judas? What about the Deacons? Infact, the same principle is seen in appointing a Bishop. The Bible says anyone who "desires to be a Bishop. Desire preceeds God's choice of man for any endeavour. How could God have appointed Daniel into politics if Daniel didn't desire it. Same with Joseph and Esther. So you see, divine intervention follows a man's desires and pursuit.

Deuteronomy 1:13 Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. Now isn't this democracy to you? This is the people voting for the folks they desire to rule over them. That is the premise which we follow today. We seek amongst ourselves, those who are wise and understanding to rule over us. Where else can we get such except in the Church? Obasanjo is like a modern-day Josph who left prison to become king. Can you please tell us how he could have become nigeira's president if he never got into politics? Or would you think God will flout our constitution and impose somone on us against our will?

This is a variation of your oft cited "by any mean necessary approach". Which effectively enables you to overlook scripture and point to the end as a means of justifying unbiblical practices. (Like trying to justify divorce because of the calling on a persons life ~ please! Again, this passage does not speak to overt agitation for political power. It seems a lot of your doctrine is merely theoretical. As I answered mr pataki above, please detail how you will wield political power (let alone obtain it without compromise), to the glory of God. A politician purports to serve those he represents. Could you ban abortion, stop wars, banish gambling? You are representing unbelievers, so even if you manage to ascend any kind of political height, if you don't work to their (evil) interests, they will soon be shot of you. It's a work of the flesh, so your position either becomes untenable, or you are forced to compromise to stay in power. If the whole process hasn't corrupted you already.

Of course we go by all means necessary to get our desires fulfilled. As long as those means are not a compromise of our values as Christians. No wonder Jesus said the the children of this world are wiser than the children of light. While we are stupidly waiting for God's intervention, they are busy making use of their God-given brains and talents to make things happen. Your argument is prety theoretical too as far as I am concerned. A Christian in politics does not represent unbelievers. He represents his constituency which include both believers and unbelievers alike. Of course we can stiop abortion if we have enough Christians in power to vote against it. While we cannot vote against sexual immorality, we can at least vote against making prostituion legal and making sure unwanted pregnancies are not terminated. A situation where you have to compromise will have you take a honorable position that is ever available to a public servant - resignation.

God uses whom he will when and as he pleases. He used Nebuvhadnezzar to judge Israel and all the surrounding nations, then judged Babylon & Nebuchadnezzer.  Their has always been political intrigue and conspiracy. It flourishes wherever their is an earthly seat of power. it may be more genteel these days, but the bible is full of examples of kings being usurped or conspired against, even by their own flesh and blood. That's how it was done in those days. Daniel et al did not employ those methods. You revisionist history and extrapolation to contemporary times are both whimsical at best. And again a prime example of the kind of sophistry rampant in some denominations these days.

So do you refer to as political intrgue and conspiracy the methods employed by Mordecai and Esther to deliver their people from genocide? Are these compromising actions by the duo? Even David had his son conspiring to kill him.  So what exactly is your point? You have turned yourself to the judge of the the denominations. Unfortunately/fortunately, I can not wish you God-speed at such an endeavour.

Thanks TayoD for that highly limn response of yours. Was very blessed on it.
@ TV01,
Please show me from the scriptures, men that just stood aloof that God elevated like just like that.
If a christian decides to go into politics, I believe that he must have seen a place where he feels God wants him to correct and put in order in the nation.

I will use a scripture from the bible to further enhance my point of Christians that enter into politics.

Numbers 11:16 - And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.

Numbers 11:24 -And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.

These seventy men were people that had over time shown appreciable consideration in the place of leadership, responsible with task given to them, not power mongers, but servants to the people, not denominationalist, not tribalist, not critics, but responsible men with a duty of purpose written over them.

I believe if there are righteous and godly men who can fill such sits of power even in our own time right from the church, must we then say because "It's a work of the flesh", it becomes untenable for a christian to occupy such sits of leadership

back again.

I'm seeing that some of the erroneous thinking is very much down to drawing conclusions from the application of the "Power & Might" of men and subsequently trying to justify it by "seemingly corroborating scriptures.

First of all, your quoting of the eldership selection in the OT is a point in question. That had nothing to do with politics. They were called to service on the back of their integrity, experience and maturity. Full stop. Their selection was not as a result of agitation.

It's also patently obvious how fuzzy such thinking is when you say things like this:
A Christian in politics does not represent unbelievers. He represents his constituency which include both believers and unbelievers alike. Of course we can stiop abortion if we have enough Christians in power to vote against it.

True God fearing, Christ following Christians will never be able to take political power, simply because in numerical terms there will never be enough of them. Most people (including many who profess religious beliefs, including many who claim to be Christians), are walking the broad path. There are few that find the narrow way. Please ponder that.

There is no countrry (constituency) anywhere, that has a majority of true professing Christians

Neither is there any country (constituency), where you can campaign on unabashed Christian values, and be duly elected. Even in parties that claim to be "Christian" spiritual imperatives are always marginalised or way down the list of priorites. Even then, none of them dare to couch their manifestoes in scripture or unashamedly Christian prose. Please show me one.

You are also entirely missing the corrupting influence of the state on pure Christian witness. There are 16 (I think), Christian Bishops in the House of Lords, and not a few professong Christian MP's. Please show me one piece of legislation that has the imprimateur of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ on it.

In fact, the day after (the very next day!) a piece oflegislation was passed favouring homosexuals (2005 summer or so), the Church of England, amended it's bye-laws to reflect same! It's why you have Bishops argueing about changing the limits on abortion and not for it's abolishment. It's hypocrisy and compromise and leads those who do not know better to think that is the official Christian position.

Again you fail to plot the natural outworking of this kind of thinking. Imagine for a moment, that Christians did assume political power. Would they legislate righteousness. No, that is not possible. Our Gospel is theological not idealogical. Often with Political power comes military might. The natural carnal outworking is to then enforce militarily what you can't legislate for. Welcome to the crusades!

It's such warped thinking that has got the so-called Christian right, blindly following a war-mongering president!

I'm not sure if there's so much you can't see or it's just sheer doggedness (or should that be dogmaggedness   ). Like I said "Might & Power" doctrine, utterly bogus.

I remain to be persuaded.

God bless

@TV01

I can see some confusion here:

1. You are equating participation in governance and agitation

These two are not the same thing.  The example of Deuteronomy I cited, which was also used by TayoD, is an instance of the participation of a people in choosing their leaders to represent them, which is simply politics.

The wikipedia defines politics as:

Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in all human (and many non-human) group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:

a.  The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.

b.  Political science.

c.  The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.) "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer).

d.  The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government:

I just hope you are not beginning to redefine what politics is.

2. It seems you are saying it's difficult for a christian to be involved without compromising rather than that (s)he should not be involved at all.

Clarify so I can get where you stand clearly.

@TV01,

I'll respond to all your submisions soon.

In the mean time, can you tell us what area of our day to day life is not a source of corruption to Christians. You single out politics as if it is the only vocation that will corrupt a christian absolutely. Please tell us what endeavour you are involved with that is above corruption.

@ TV01,
In a bid to slap out a point, you may begin to profess heresy and errors if caution is not heeded to.

TV01:


Our Gospel is theological not idealogical. Often with Political power comes military might. The natural carnal outworking is to then enforce militarily what you can't legislate for. Welcome to the crusades!

It's such warped thinking that has got the so-called Christian right, blindly following a war-mongering president!

Where did you get that concept out from in the bible? Let me start from there.

@Analytical.

Thanks for you post and attempt to clarify and focus the discussion.

I note the dictionary definitions of politics you appended.

I am not referring to "civil service", but to "the pursuit of elected office and the authority/power that goes with it". Nothing to do with modes of governance, administration, organisational behaviour or any of that. If anyone is discussing at odds with that please say, so we can re-focus.

Additionally, one has to view these things from a scriptural/spiritual perspective. Thers's only one God. Sovreign, Omni(p,p,s), but there are two sources of power. Yes, indubuitably, God ultimately ushers everything towards the ultimate conclusion of His own will, but one must not fail to see the kingdoms of this world (and the ensuing authority are under  the sway of the evil one).

Luke 4:5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."

John 14:30 - I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.

1 John 5:19 - We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Ephesians 2:2 - in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
 
So I feel those claiming that God rules in the affairs of men and thereby assuming that all things political are expedient to Christians are missing the nuance of scripture.

So for example, did God raise up Idi Amin? How about Pol Pot? Or the crop of war-mongering megalomaniac leaders in many states today? Or Herod (who killed only God knows how many babies and toddlers to eliminate the Messiah?) And what of Nebuchadnezzar? No, no, no! Even Pharoah was ultimately used for God's purposes, but that doesn't mean he was primarily seeking to serve or glorify God. But ultimately God used Pharoah for His purposes, just as He used Nebuchadnezzar to judge Judah and the surrounding nations, prior to judging Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar.

The systems, authority and power in this world are under the sway of the wicked one. His great tool is deceit. He divises a problem, then he offers you solutions. So he has you chasing red herrings. Deceit is a many headed snake.

Political power is not the mandated way for Christians to advance the kingdom. The dominionist (and totally erroneous) thinking that says Christians will take dominion of this world (thus preaparing the ground for the 2nd coming) and then hand over power to The Lord, is an example.

Christians further the KOG one soul at a time. The world is passing away and our mandate is to save souls out of it. Notice the parallel of Sodom & G. Did Lot ask for time so that he could seek elective office and legislate against gay-homosexuality? Did he form a lobby group, did he petition his local member of parliament? No he rounded up his brethren and fled. Just like S&G, the world is not for refurbishing or salvaging.

If you can serve and excel in civil service, by all means do so. But a grab for political power to further so called Christian ends, while laudable on the face of it does not bear scrutiny.

Nowhere does the Bible mandate Christians using the prevailing power structures of the time to advance the KOG.

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

Acts 1:6 - Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

It's a misunderstanding even the disciples had. Our kingdom is not from or of this world. We don't need neither can we use the power structures in it to further the KOG.

Psalm 94:20 - Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You?

God bless

TayoD:

In the mean time, can you tell us what area of our day to day life is not a source of corruption to Christians. You single out politics as if it is the only vocation that will corrupt a christian absolutely. Please tell us what endeavour you are involved with that is above corruption.

"I work in the porn industry. But that doesn't compromise my faith in Christ" The dynamics of worldly power, access to and labouring for the same are inherently corrupt. Geddit?

mrpataki:

In a bid to slap out a point, you may begin to profess heresy and errors if caution is not heeded to.
Where did you get that concept out from in the bible? Let me start from there.

Bone up on Christianity in it's historical context. Examine global events today in the light of history and scripture!

God bless

@ TV01,
Sorry but your point is. . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . .

@TV01,

True God fearing, Christ following Christians will never be able to take political power, simply because in numerical terms there will never be enough of them. Most people (including many who profess religious beliefs, including many who claim to be Christians), are walking the broad path. There are few that find the narrow way. Please ponder that.
There is no countrry (constituency) anywhere, that has a majority of true professing Christians

No wonder you are paralysed in your thinking. You have already accepted a conclusion that has limited your ability to see beyond a particular dogma. Not only are you ideologically wrong in your conclusion, there are modern day examples to show that you can be the salt of the earth (a city set on a hill) without dragging yourself in mud. And by the way, please share the source of your statistics with us. Or are we to accept your conslusion just because it came from TV01? The "way" talked about by Jesus in that scripture is nothing but Himself. Don't go stretching it to mean something else.

Neither is there any country (constituency), where you can campaign on unabashed Christian values, and be duly elected. Even in parties that claim to be "Christian" spiritual imperatives are always marginalised or way down the list of priorites. Even then, none of them dare to couch their manifestoes in scripture or unashamedly Christian prose. Please show me one.

I shared with you recently the case of Michelle Bachmann who in public said she was a fool for Christ in pursuing her elective office. She was taunted and persecuted over this statement and her stand against abortion and homosexuality (even though her sister is a lesbian). During the debate, her opponent mocked her belief (faith) that a wife should be subject to her husband.  She has been called all sorts of name for her uncompromising stand. Infact she lobbied and wrote a legislation to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Despite all this, she won convincingly in a Democratic State. She won in a State that is so non-Christian biased that a muslim was elected during the same election season. Doesn't that put paid to your uninformed statement? Michelle Backmann has shown herself to be an exemplerary public servant who practices what she believes based on her faith. She has shown that abortion isn't necessary. That alternatives abound and that there is hope even for an unwanted child. To prove this, she adopted 23 children into her home proving she is indeed a child of the one we refer to as the Father of the fatherless.

You are also entirely missing the corrupting influence of the state on pure Christian witness. There are 16 (I think), Christian Bishops in the House of Lords, and not a few professong Christian MP's. Please show me one piece of legislation that has the imprimateur of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ on it.  In fact, the day after (the very next day!) a piece oflegislation was passed favouring homosexuals (2005 summer or so), the Church of England, amended it's bye-laws to reflect same! It's why you have Bishops argueing about changing the limits on abortion and not for it's abolishment. It's hypocrisy and compromise and leads those who do not know better to think that is the official Christian position

You are getting things totally wrong. How many of the Catholic Bishops who molested the young boys in their care ran for elective office? You are putting the blams on politics when you should be targeting the 'flesh'.  And by the way, that the legislation to favour homosexuals was passed does not mean the Bishops were compromised. You just need to find out what they voted for to come to that conclusion.

@TV01,

Additionally, one has to view these things from a scriptural/spiritual perspective. Thers's only one God. Sovreign, Omni(p,p,s), but there are two sources of power. Yes, indubuitably, God ultimately ushers everything towards the ultimate conclusion of His own will, but one must not fail to see the kingdoms of this world (and the ensuing authority are under  the sway of the evil one).
Luke 4:5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."
John 14:30 - I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.
1 John 5:19 - We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
Ephesians 2:2 - in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,

Your argument falls flat on its face when we realise that Jesus made the following statement after His resurrection: Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.   

And why have you forgotten 1 Corinthians 3: 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.   It appears you have chosen to be left behind in the Old Testament (I'm sure you know Jesus lived in the O.T.)

So for example, did God raise up Idi Amin? How about Pol Pot? Or the crop of war-mongering megalomaniac leaders in many states today? Or Herod (who killed only God knows how many babies and toddlers to eliminate the Messiah?) And what of Nebuchadnezzar? No, no, no! Even Pharoah was ultimately used for God's purposes, but that doesn't mean he was primarily seeking to serve or glorify God. But ultimately God used Pharoah for His purposes, just as He used Nebuchadnezzar to judge Judah and the surrounding nations, prior to judging Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar.

I will answer you with scriptures here:

Daniel 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Got enough?

TayoD:

No wonder you are paralysed in your thinking. You have already accepted a conclusion that has limited your ability to see beyond a particular dogma. Not only are you ideologically wrong in your conclusion, there are modern day examples to show that you can be the salt of the earth (a city set on a hill) without dragging yourself in mud. And by the way, please share the source of your statistics with us. Or are we to accept your conslusion just because it came from TV01? The "way" talked about by Jesus in that scripture is nothing but Himself. Don't go stretching it to mean something else.

My bad sir, please remind me of the nation-state that is a majority bible believing and professing country. One that is governed according to Christian tenets. Or a Christian theocracy perhaps!

Ideologically wrong? So as not to mistakenly ascribe anything to you, kindly clarify exactly what you mean by that.

How is being the salt of the earth synonymous with being in politics. Did you post in haste? I'm struggling somewhat to understand the points you are trying to make here. The only muddy thing here is your thinking mate!

TayoD:

I shared with you recently the case of Michelle Bachmann who in public said she was a fool for Christ in pursuing her elective office. She was taunted and persecuted over this statement and her stand against abortion and homosexuality (even though her sister is a lesbian). During the debate, her opponent mocked her belief (faith) that a wife should be subject to her husband. She has been called all sorts of name for her uncompromising stand. Infact she lobbied and wrote a legislation to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Despite all this, she won convincingly in a Democratic State. She won in a State that is so non-Christian biased that a muslim was elected during the same election season. Doesn't that put paid to your uninformed statement? Michelle Backmann has shown herself to be an exemplerary public servant who practices what she believes based on her faith. She has shown that abortion isn't necessary. That alternatives abound and that there is hope even for an unwanted child. To prove this, she adopted 23 children into her home proving she is indeed a child of the one we refer to as the Father of the fatherless.

Persecution is potentially the lot of all Christians. Her being mocked for her faith does not validate a political position.
Presumably unbelievers were previously unaware that abortion is "not necessary"? (your words!).
Again, election validates nothing. A vote for her was not necessarily a vote for Christianity. Like you said a Muslim was elected to. Is it a Muslim state, was the Muslims election an endorsement of Islam? Votes are on the basis of shared values/common cause, not common faith. Don't mistake these as being synonymous. A vote for a "Christian politician" does not equate to a vote for Christ or a soul won.

Again you are trying to twin unrelated events. You don't have to be a politician to adopt children. But it is laudable Christian witness.
You are arguements are sounding desperate

TayoD:

You are getting things totally wrong. How many of the Catholic Bishops who molested the young boys in their care ran for elective office? You are putting the blams on politics when you should be targeting the 'flesh'. And by the way, that the legislation to favour homosexuals was passed does not mean the Bishops were compromised. You just need to find out what they voted for to come to that conclusion.

Again you are arguing off-point, or maybe just not seeing the point. In reverse order. The bishops are compromised by making common cause with those who have a different agenda and a different Lord. Your point is particularly feeble, as you overlooked the mention I made of the COE changing their bye-laws to conform with the very same legislation. Does that not speak volumes to you? Clearly signifying who their Lord is. I have said severally, the whole hierarchical structure found in most denominational churches is a work of the flesh. It's outworking in the Catholic church is mirrored in other denominations. The underlying structure and doctrinal weakness are evident are present in them also. Name your denomination and we'll show you similar outworking.

In sporting parlance I'd say you need "More strength work in the winter months"

God bless

TayoD:

Your argument falls flat on its face when we realise that Jesus made the following statement after His resurrection: Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.   

If power in that sense is already The lords, what exactly is "Christian politics" agitating for?

TayoD:

And why have you forgotten 1 Corinthians 3: 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.  

John 15:19 - If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

James 4:4 - Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

1 John 2:15 - Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

I must say TayoD, mindful of the fact that the World comprises of different elements and means different things in context, you butchery of scripture is still quite painful to read .

TayoD:

I will answer you with scriptures here:

Daniel 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Again you miss the nuance. It was only because it was within God's plan and suited His purpose that he allowed Nebu to ascend to the throne. You are pulling the rug out from under your own feet. If God indeed raises up all kings/rulers, it begs the question I asked earlier, "What is the point of political christinaity? All your pointers to the righteous being in power & righteousness exalting a nation are also invalidated, as this would mean God doesn't always want the righteous in power, so again where does that leave "CP"?

I'm here.

God bless

@TV01,

I have carefully read your inputs, but then am not quite sure if you've a grasp on the imporant roles Christians are called unto so as to influence their world for God's glory. However, I'll first have to acknowledge on the surface my agreement with this line in your reasoning:

TV01:

Political power is not the mandated way for Christians to advance the kingdom. The dominionist (and totally erroneous) thinking that says Christians will take dominion of this world (thus preaparing the ground for the 2nd coming) and then hand over power to The Lord, is an example.

It is true that political power is not the mandated way for Christians to advance the Kingdom of God; and in my exposure, dominion theology hasn't helped the case at all.

However, that something is not mandated does not make it expressly forbidden. What we should understand is the balance offered in Scripture about civil matters of governance vis-a-viz the style of world governance in its various forms. This balance can be viewed in several context - both at the inidividual level and at the collective level.

Call to mind, for example, the calling that is not mandated and yet not expressly forbidden in I Cor. 7:21 - "Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." Notice that being called as a servant is not mandatory as much as being made free. However, we should not miss that last clause - use it rather!

The above does not licence a manifesto for political vocations among Christians, surely as the context shows. But then, it sets forth an example of how we should not push this idea of a mandate too far as to miss the fact that in God's economy, issues are not that constrained.

In a wider sense of application, you seem to espouse the view that Christians are to sit and passively allow issues around the world to play out without any input. I do not take such a position and the reasons are multiplied.

Christians have a civil responsibility to influence the decison making processes in any country where they live. This is not a passive calling, but an active one. I think this is one way we can understand the Lord's words that we ought to let our lights shine in the world - Matt. 5:16. Some of the ways we can influence effective political governance is to speak up against social ills of any country where we live.

Abortion, Religious Freedom, Child Abuse and Violence, Drugs and Environment, Homosexuality, Human Cloning, Racism, etc, are some of the political and social issues that Christians are supposed to actively participate in order to influence the formulation of government policies on them. Christians should not be merely concerned with grumbling about taxes and the increasing cost of living. If we do not engage in our civil and political responsibilities in these areas, then we are failing to pursue our God-given vocation to make a difference in our world.

TV01:

And what of Nebuchadnezzar? No, no, no! Even Pharoah was ultimately used for God's purposes, but that doesn't mean he was primarily seeking to serve or glorify God. But ultimately God used Pharoah for His purposes, just as He used Nebuchadnezzar to judge Judah and the surrounding nations, prior to judging Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar.

Exo 9:16 - "And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."

That was God's own direct statement to Pharaoh, clearly marking the point that God was involved in the political government in egypt even though the wicked Pharaoh was true to the letter as a tyrant. It wasn't a matter of merely Pharaoh "being used" for God's glory; but God issued His word that He raised the Egyptian King for a purpose.

TV01:

[color=#000099]John 18:36 - Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."
. . .
It's a misunderstanding even the disciples had. Our kingdom is not from or of this world. We don't need neither can we use the power structures in it to further the KOG.

In the world, but not of it - that's the key. And while in the world, are we to passively be 'Christians' and stand aloof from the concerns of people in the world? I think that Christians can very well be policemen and hold good jobs in law enforcement agencies to fight crime in our socities. They can work in various capacities as lawyers who are involved in the governing bodies and policies of various nations.

The point to note is that Christians can fulfill their vocations even in political corridors and still practice their faith without molding themselves to the political ugliness of ungodly polities.

If power in that sense is already The lords, what exactly is "Christian politics" agitating for?

Christian politics is about being the light and salt of the earth. It's about making "manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place." For your information, I am not advocating a theocratic state. Not at all. Infact, I do not believe in a theocratic state in this present dispensation. On the other hand, ALL things, including government are ours and if I see government in the hands of the enemy, I will do all i can to get it back in the hands of the Saints. And if it's in the hands of the Saints, you can be sure it's in the hands of God. Tell me, when the Bible says "ALL things are yours", including the world, does it include or exclude Government? If it includes government, how can we attain that position without politics? Even a Civil Servant still has to be confirmed by a vote in the House. How shallow minded can you be?

A question to you as well. If the Bible says All things are yours, why then do you have to work to receive that whcih God says already belongs to you? Why aren't you just sitting down at home and have God send you silver and gold which the Bible declares belongs to God?

I must say TayoD, mindful of the fact that the World comprises of different elements and means different things in context, you butchery of scripture is still quite painful to read

Can you please tell us what the World means in that context? Also explain what the Bible means when it says ALL things. Do you remember when I shared with you what the Bible defintion of 'World' is?

Again you miss the nuance. It was only because it was within God's plan and suited His purpose that he allowed Nebu to ascend to the throne. You are pulling the rug out from under your own feet. If God indeed raises up all kings/rulers, it begs the question I asked earlier, "What is the point of political christinaity? All your pointers to the righteous being in power & righteousness exalting a nation are also invalidated, as this would mean God doesn't always want the righteous in power, so again where does that leave "CP"?

What nuance is there to miss? Like someone said, "the Bible is so simple, you will need someone to help you misunderstand it." You sure are helping people misunderstand what the bible is saying. How much clearer does this scripture need to be? Daniel 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. Political Christianity follows God's principle to obey the laws of the land. Our constitution demands politicking to attain a governmental post which in itself is service towards God.

I am still waiting for you to show us and prove to us how God will put someone in power today without the avenue of politics. I cited Obasanjo to you earlier. Please show us how God would have put him in power without politics.