Between what is Caesar's and what is God's, is there an indication somewhere in scripture where the red or blue dividing line is?

[gordon 2]

Where is the dividing line between what is the proper place of faith in politics and where is it improper? Counterproductive?

Can Christians "apply the golden rule today, (are they up to it?) to this question and come up with where the line is? Do they have prophetic vision for using it?

Is the line clear in scripture where political authorities have made their political-social project as being God's co-equal project to their own detriment? So that it is in fact a loss to the saints who put their effort into the project?

How should God's projects and the political project interact with each other... so that:
"Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”"

Do you think that it is possible that Christians can so occupy themselves with political projects that their efforts become counter productive, that is they can provide the environment to increase the world thinking they are doing the Lord's will? Do you think this is possible? That I can do this today?

I know these are alot of questions and put together for some brothers and sisters can only be frustrating. It is the best I can do however.

Would you mind if your church assembly, their greater fellowship with other assemblies, if under the guise of being conservative or traditional, and of the bravest morality, of said apostolic tradition, being acquainted personally with being in the Spirit or acquainted with a tradition that knows it, or you know a friend of a friend that knows it, would you mind working towards the political campaign of this guy, having done your due diligence that he did say and practiced this:

""You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”"

Where is your red line? How did you come up with it? Do you feel OK if you see your pastor or yourself handing out pamphlet at the Saturday flee market or even better the Sunday flee market in support of this candidate for the next election cycle? If so why?

I know lots of questions. Sorry. But do you have answers to maybe one or two of them? Or comment in general?

 

[Artfuldodger]

When you think about it, back then it wasn't really politics. It was a monarchy. Even slaves were told to obey their masters.
It's gets harder to figure out in modern times with no king or no slaves. With our Constitution, we have a right to abolish or alter our government if they take away our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now that's where the politics comes in and how do we balance that with scripture and Christianity?

I guess one has to figure out how to balance that political aspect with Christianity. Many would just use Christianity as the justification. Maybe they would be right, maybe not.
I've also wrestled with these questions.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I would be OK with my me or my preacher giving out pamphlets or whatever, as long as I was doing it from just the ideals of man. I don't agree with me or the preacher doing it as if we were telling you who to choose based on who God would choose.
I don't agree with preachers campaigning from the pulpit or any other public avenue if they are trying to mix religion into their message. Either preach the Gospel or campaign but not both.
I don't agree with Churches taking people to vote, etc.

If we are to give to Caesar to be taxes, then the Church could teach members and their community about taxes or do their taxes as a public outreach.

 

[gordon 2]

When you think about it, back then it wasn't really politics. It was a monarchy. Even slaves were told to obey their masters.
It's gets harder to figure out in modern times with no king or no slaves. With our Constitution, we have a right to abolish or alter our government if they take away our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now that's where the politics comes in and how do we balance that with scripture and Christianity?

I guess one has to figure out how to balance that political aspect with Christianity. Many would just use Christianity as the justification. Maybe they would be right, maybe not.
I've also wrestled with these questions.

I think you have a point about in modern times it is harder to figure out. Politics and faith are seemingly hinged on many more aspects of life then they were use to when there were authoritarian kings and Caesars and theocracies ie. authoritarian features.

I take the recent event comparatively of the French Revolution where the King of France had the RCC as his civil service and his promoter. When the French King was executed for treason--- his civil service fell from favor. Church authorities and pastors got to be out of favor. Some were hunted, some had to go in exile. Eventually the relevance and implication of faith itself got caught up in the social elements, events and ideas--that are still present today.

Do you think that faith( individual faith for some) can be thrown out with the bathwater in our democratic system in a similar fashion? When regimes change, when governments change, when Holy Spirit backed savoir politicians fall out of favor, do you think people might second guess their Christian faith-- and walk away even? As far as I can tell that is what happened in France where what is necessary and reason replaced faith to a significant degree. Do you think that this can happen now? ( If I'm right in my assessment of course. )

 

[Israel]

Would you mind if your church assembly, their greater fellowship with other assemblies, if under the guise of being conservative or traditional, and of the bravest morality, of said apostolic tradition, being acquainted personally with being in the Spirit or acquainted with a tradition that knows it, or you know a friend of a friend that knows it, would you mind working towards the political campaign of this guy, having done your due diligence that he did say and practiced this:

""You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”"

I am persuaded by your often return to this quote:

""You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”"

as a means of finding such a character questionable, that you re-read the apostle's (John's) commentary specific to that utterance.

 

[gordon 2]

I am persuaded by your often return to this quote:



as a means of finding such a character questionable, that you re-read the apostle's (John's) commentary specific to that utterance.

Yes I do. It is where the axe meets the chicken to make it cross the road with regards to the spiritual life one is pushed around by. You shall know them by their stews sort of thing. To John's most understanding mind Caiaphas is not unlike Pharaoh, a hardened old time leader who is prophetically put to use by the Spirit in spite of himself. Yep. For John perhaps it's the big "been there don't that" moment again. The great Solomon fumble if ever there was one.

In finding fault I am trying to use the fault's measure, that reason and necessity are everything sufficient to finding it. But my measure is another rule, a gentler one... said golden which would infuse completely the commandment " Thou shall not kill." without exception. Gentle man chose your prophets sort of thing; Who are your hero's in the wild west?

 

[Israel]

Yes I do. It is where the axe meets the chicken to make it cross the road with regards to the spiritual life one is pushed around by. You shall know them by their stews sort of thing.

John states that Caiaphas did not say this "of himself", but because he occupied the office of High Priest, regardless of personal inclinations, motives, dispositions...that in this (and because of that office) it was prophecy.

The question then is can a man bear that this is actually God speaking through him...even of God's economy?

It may not be that Caiaphas had any inkling at all of the righteousness of Christ...nevertheless the logic of God prevails...only the righteous can die for the unrighteous to their benefit.

An unrighteous man will only die for his own sin...and rightly...unable to impart anything of benefit to another.


The first man is of the earth, earthy...(and became a living soul)

The second man is from heaven (and is a life giving spirit)

 

[Artfuldodger]

I think you have a point about in modern times it is harder to figure out. Politics and faith are seemingly hinged on many more aspects of life then they were use to when there were authoritarian kings and Caesars and theocracies ie. authoritarian features.

I take the recent event comparatively of the French Revolution where the King of France had the RCC as his civil service and his promoter. When the French King was executed for treason--- his civil service fell from favor. Church authorities and pastors got to be out of favor. Some were hunted, some had to go in exile. Eventually the relevance and implication of faith itself got caught up in the social elements, events and ideas--that are still present today.

Do you think that faith( individual faith for some) can be thrown out with the bathwater in our democratic system in a similar fashion? When regimes change, when governments change, when Holy Spirit backed savoir politicians fall out of favor, do you think people might second guess their Christian faith-- and walk away even? As far as I can tell that is what happened in France where what is necessary and reason replaced faith to a significant degree. Do you think that this can happen now? ( If I'm right in my assessment of course. )

It almost sounds like the message from Jesus was that we should try and separate Church and State as much as possible regardless of who is in charge of the government or the Church. Leaders come and go but God never does.
The coin was just an example of government. It could have been anything but that the Pharisees used for their trap. I think many religious sects try to stay out of government from the way they think Jesus has lead them to do so.
Many get deeply into politics for what they can get out of it personally. A paved street, a better economy, etc. Maybe even a job. I can't say that is wrong or right. It's just human nature to try and get stuff for your self and family. Thus the main reason for politics. But if one can justify their political choices are based on God, that's an added plus.
Maybe I'm wrong and God don't really care how deeply you or your local Church gets into politics. Just as long as you know you are doing that for man, Caesar, or self. But to also give to God what is His. Which would be honor, worship, faith, help, giving, etc.

 

[gordon 2]

John states that Caiaphas did not say this "of himself", but because he occupied the office of High Priest, regardless of personal inclinations, motives, dispositions...that in this (and because of that office) it was prophecy.

The question then is can a man bear that this is actually God speaking through him...even of God's economy?

It may not be that Caiaphas had any inkling at all of the righteousness of Christ...nevertheless the logic of God prevails...only the righteous can die for the unrighteous to their benefit.

An unrighteous man will only die for his own sin...and rightly...unable to impart anything of benefit to another.


The first man is of the earth, earthy...(and became a living soul)

The second man is from heaven (and is a life giving spirit)

Yes... I edited my original response to you. All I can add is that in the Holy economy the fallen world is prophetic of the light that must save it whether it knows it or not. Uncle Caiaphas God rest his soul is the scriptural case in point. The fallen world's utterances are an upside down glossolalia where metal hard definite dead words are spiritual and so prophetic.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Where is the dividing line between what is the proper place of faith in politics and where is it improper? Counterproductive?

Can Christians "apply the golden rule today, (are they up to it?) to this question and come up with where the line is? Do they have prophetic vision for using it?

Is the line clear in scripture where political authorities have made their political-social project as being God's co-equal project to their own detriment? So that it is in fact a loss to the saints who put their effort into the project?

How should God's projects and the political project interact with each other... so that:
"Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”"

Do you think that it is possible that Christians can so occupy themselves with political projects that their efforts become counter productive, that is they can provide the environment to increase the world thinking they are doing the Lord's will? Do you think this is possible? That I can do this today?

I know these are alot of questions and put together for some brothers and sisters can only be frustrating. It is the best I can do however.

Would you mind if your church assembly, their greater fellowship with other assemblies, if under the guise of being conservative or traditional, and of the bravest morality, of said apostolic tradition, being acquainted personally with being in the Spirit or acquainted with a tradition that knows it, or you know a friend of a friend that knows it, would you mind working towards the political campaign of this guy, having done your due diligence that he did say and practiced this:

""You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”"

Where is your red line? How did you come up with it? Do you feel OK if you see your pastor or yourself handing out pamphlet at the Saturday flee market or even better the Sunday flee market in support of this candidate for the next election cycle? If so why?

I know lots of questions. Sorry. But do you have answers to maybe one or two of them? Or comment in general?

In short, Christians are first and foremost citizens of The Kingdom of Heaven. The principles Christ established take precedence over every aspect of our lives. We are to live within THAT sphere of influence and it is to define every decision we make including political, religious, social, civil etc.

Today almost everyone defines their identity FIRST according to their political, ethnic, racial, sexual, or gender preferences. It's their way of announcing THIS is who I am first and foremost, ; even many Christians do this. Each and every time I can't help but think it's just another perversion of God's intent, reversing the established order and placing man's preference to define himself over who God defines man as.

Just a short personal experience. When Trump ran in 2016 I found him such a vile human being, particularly regarding his treatment of women as sex objects, I felt I couldn't hold onto my allegiance to the Kingdom of Heaven and vote for him. I felt it would be placing my political allegiance ahead of my Heavenly one. I made it known, as well as my reasoning, to some at church my intent to vote for the Constitution Party candidate instead. It wasn't well received by some. It was even openly stated by one person that I find another Church to attend if I couldn't vote for Trump. Now I'm not saying this to beat my own drum or to denigrate anyone who does not feel the same. God knows I have no grounds to do either. I just use it as an example to hopefully help explain what I typed above.

 

[gordon 2]

It almost sounds like the message from Jesus was that we should try and separate Church and State as much as possible regardless of who is in charge of the government or the Church. Leaders come and go but God never does.
The coin was just an example of government. It could have been anything but that the Pharisees used for their trap. I think many religious sects try to stay out of government from the way they think Jesus has lead them to do so.
Many get deeply into politics for what they can get out of it personally. A paved street, a better economy, etc. Maybe even a job. I can't say that is wrong or right. It's just human nature to try and get stuff for your self and family. Thus the main reason for politics. But if one can justify their political choices are based on God, that's an added plus.
Maybe I'm wrong and God don't really care how deeply you or your local Church gets into politics. Just as long as you know you are doing that for man, Caesar, or self. But to also give to God what is His. Which would be honor, worship, faith, help, giving, etc.

Do you think that faith and politics can cross a line where the overt promotion of one for the other, the over use of one for the other, can be counter productive to the faith and its purposes?

When I read the Pharisees testing Jesus, I read " Ok for all your spiritual high minded talk and ideas how do you deal them in the real world where the instrument of exchange is mostly the coin with Caesar's stamp on it? We mean ok we have to deal our faith in such a world. Are you gona continue to pay taxes to Caesar who has no red lines to his wickedness to control and gain from what he claims is his? A man who account that only Romans have recourse to any justice in the end? Jesus what has all your "kumbaya" have to do with the real social landscapes we live with day in day out?" And so to this Jesus responds... we do live in a world of two currencies. They ( the Pharisees) are to exchange in both. Are we further along in Christ, in the golden rule, for the Holy Spirit's role in our Covenant or Dispensation? Can we leave it there that we in the end just have to wig it? Are we doomed like the Pharisee to ever unable to get out of our own way? Uncle Caiaphas do we rehabilitate, like the Russians Stalin, when we need Caesar to cover for our shame--because faith in Christ is not sufficient? Where is the line?

 

[Artfuldodger]

Do you think that faith and politics can cross a line where the overt promotion of one for the other, the over use of one for the other, can be counter productive to the faith and its purposes?

When I read the Pharisees testing Jesus, I read " Ok for all your spiritual high minded talk and ideas how do you deal them in the real world where the instrument of exchange is mostly the coin with Caesar's stamp on it? We mean ok we have to deal our faith in such a world. Are you gona continue to pay taxes to Caesar who has no red lines to his wickedness to control and gain from what he claims is his? A man who account that only Romans have recourse to any justice in the end? Jesus what has all your "kumbaya" have to do with the real social landscapes we live with day in day out?" And so to this Jesus responds... we do live in a world of two currencies. They ( the Pharisees) are to exchange in both. Are we further along in Christ, in the golden rule, for the Holy Spirit's role in our Covenant or Dispensation? Can we leave it there that we in the end just have to wig it? Are we doomed like the Pharisee to ever unable to get out of our own way? Uncle Caiaphas do we rehabilitate, like the Russians Stalin, when we need Caesar to cover for our shame--because faith in Christ is not sufficient? Where is the line?

"Where is the line?" I don't really know.

 

[gordon 2]

In short, Christians are first and foremost citizens of The Kingdom of Heaven. The principles Christ established take precedence over every aspect of our lives. We are to live within THAT sphere of influence and it is to define every decision we make including political, religious, social, civil etc.

Today almost everyone defines their identity FIRST according to their political, ethnic, racial, sexual, or gender preferences. It's their way of announcing THIS is who I am first and foremost, ; even many Christians do this. Each and every time I can't help but think it's just another perversion of God's intent, reversing the established order and placing man's preference to define himself over who God defines man as.

Just a short personal experience. When Trump ran in 2016 I found him such a vile human being, particularly regarding his treatment of women as sex objects, I felt I couldn't hold onto my allegiance to the Kingdom of Heaven and vote for him. I felt it would be placing my political allegiance ahead of my Heavenly one. I made it known, as well as my reasoning, to some at church my intent to vote for the Constitution Party candidate instead. It wasn't well received by some. It was even openly stated by one person that I find another Church to attend if I couldn't vote for Trump. Now I'm not saying this to beat my own drum or to denigrate anyone who does not feel the same. God knows I have no grounds to do either. I just use it as an example to hopefully help explain what I typed above.

Thanks for this. The Kingdom is where the saints really have their government and fellowship in my simpleton opinion. It is where all languages come onto the same definitions in their communications. I am so glad you testify of it in your life. It is a great joy to me. If ever we are to one another brother only for this, it will be sufficient that though we might disagree and get stressed sometimes... we are the sons of the same mother and father through our Lord Jesus Savior. Amen.

Now moving along... I suspect that because we want to model ourselves on Jesus and so God we might make the error that we are wise to also use the Pharaohs of the world to further our zeal towards the Great Commission, or to bargain with so to chase out ( exorcise) evil spirits from the possessed, or to save the lives of the innocent, or to restore sanity in public administration, to balance the books, decrease the debt burdens etc.

Lets assume that all this has been hashed out in our Kingdom but for some reason(s) we can't apply it with any good sense or practically in the real complex and contradictory world we complain about. Will will continue to lobby and make deals with the political institutions who lobby the saints in turn. Sometimes we will make gains for Christ, sometimes we will spite our faces for our noses ( you know what I mean) and loose ground for Christ. We expect this give and take. Or is this the way it is supposed to be. Should we retreat sometimes with the Gospel and just be like Caiaphas and think and do what is needed to move the project and so managing ourselves this way?

Ok so. I have children that think Christianity is a farce. The love preached is not the love metered out. Christianity is a strange spiritual tradition where as the do-gooder it is a all a con man's act. It is an authoritarian regime playing a democratic act that has purposely set itself up to be just that! Where is the line to bring the children back? There are so many lines out there. What do they say in our Kingdom lately? Do you know or suspect where the line is where we give to Caesar and to God without tripping all over ourselves?

I think many try to do their due diligence in the light of the gospel when dealing in the world, but many follow a course they do not know at all.

"ur fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews say that the place where one must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21“Believe Me, woman,” Jesus replied, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You worship what you do not know;"

Do we worship, for all our smarts, that we do not know?

 

[Israel]

Oh.

You're talking about the schizophrenic who's entirely convinced he's sane.

Judas Iscariot. Judas of Kerioth. Judas of a name derived from the plural of the word for city...Judas of cities.

Oh, yeah, of course. The man displaying, or believing he can, two allegiances. Hold dual citizenship.

Yes, for now there's no shortage of "christian nationalists".

In all their forms.

In all their devotions.

And also yes. The Kingdom (though not a regime) is established under authority. Even all the authority that is.

It has to appear authoritarian to those who love to think of themselves as the electorate. The "makers" of Jesus Christ as Lord by their electing Him.

My, my, but they even hire pastors. Elect their leaders.

 

[Madman]

The snare was set and the question presented, a question of two answers, both would entangle.

 

[Madman]

Yes the dividing line is quite clear. Everything is God’s, as he is the creator, yet to what does he lay claim?

As for politics, we live in a representative republic and the best vote I could cast is for the man who most closely represents my views.

Joshua 24:15 “But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”

If none fit, then no vote is cast.

As for preachers “giving out pamphlets”. My priest the pamphleteer, it does not have much of a ring to it. My priest the prophet sounds better. Should he not be preaching the precepts of God, training and teaching the saints? Caring for the widows and the orphans is true religion.

 

[gordon 2]

The snare was set and the question presented, a question of two answers, both would entangle.

I'm not exactly sure what your getting at. Hope it is not that I was willing with questions to snare anyone or anything. Perhaps you see into something else however. Was it the question Jesus asked Judas?

My hoped for direction of the topic was not, is not, toward the individual Christian or how the individual goes about to eventually marking a ballot, rather it is questioning how Christian organization (s) of all kinds single organizations and in fellowship have got themselves embedded as full participant in the political sphere willing to be courted in campaigns, grooming church attendees to support campaigns and specific candidates, pamphleteering for candidates, etc.

At what point is this counter productive to the intend of the Gospel or the spiritual life of the Church as a credible institution ministering to the faithful and to the world? Or there is not problem, the church and politics are to trade with each other: The church gives itself to politics and politics gives it self to the church. this is how it is meant to be. It is where the sacrifice is?

I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of young people today in part, who must assess both institutions the church and politics by what they both do and what the say separately and when they are hitched up together.

Maybe there are no red lines. Maybe there is no contradiction and it is contradiction only to the young immature mind that spiritual organizations who advocate for the freeing of the world's captives turn around and in politics organize themselves to promote authoritarian regimes in the name of getting things done-- like changing laws that are by themselves just?

Or not indifferent to sin in their ranks, assemblies are indifferent to it in the world because being at war with the world all is just in love and war? War is never pretty. Maybe there is no line. Maybe giving to God and giving to Caesar is the same thing in this generation and was meant to be. Maybe the Kingdom teaches that in the world we are to give and take exactly as is happening today.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

rather it is questioning how Christian organization (s) of all kinds single organizations and in fellowship have got themselves embedded as full participant in the political sphere willing to be courted in campaigns, grooming church attendees to support campaigns and specific candidates, pamphleteering for candidates, etc.

Again, why didn't you just come out and ask that? It's so much easier to understand your request when you simplify it.

Short answer: because it's very easy to become distracted, lose focus and go off on a rabbit trail that may seem good, but isn't the true path. (Pilgrims Progress comes to mind)

 

[Israel]

What is of the world loves its own.

 

[Israel]

On the day of Pentecost is recorded in the scriptures one of the few messages/preachings (post crucifixion and resurrection) we have in length if not in toto. Surely there are snippets of others with commentary, Paul on Mars Hill, Peter to Cornelius, Paul to Agrippa, etc.

If we believe Peter was moved by the Holy Spirit there it seems it should be with some interest in us as to what was presented, to whom, with a clear proximity to recent events (the crucifixion) and Peter's own statements that none of these matters is unfamiliar to the hearers. Not exempting "their" part in it.

Not one hearer needed explained to him/them the manner nor significance of crucifixion, nor the clear stating of such as was Rome's reserved and decisive measure for dealing with what is considered enemy.

Nor would one need explained the significance that to be moved to "side" with such a man would place them not only in opposition to Rome and all its power, but to also place them in utter peril of that power that might now be no less exercised against them. Something greater than Rome, and any fear of it...moved them.

It's interesting to read. It's interesting to see outcome of such boldness. It's also interesting to see how little it bears in common with what most commonly is presented today.

Yet, many were added...knowing...(not wondering) where this put them "relative" to Caesar.

And this was their "start".

God is patient. And all powerful.

It's not bad for a man to consider his kinship. Even allow it to be called into question when need be.

What will dissuade one, will establish another according to God's will and grace.