Not of this world

narscissa · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 21 Nov 2003 Posts: 38

Our Saviour said His kingdom is not of this world. Further He stated that if it were, in fact, of this world, then would His servants fight so that He would not be handed over to those intent upon killing Him.

The disciples were expecting a different sort of Messiah, an earthly king rather than an heavenly & spiritual one. They were naturally disappointed when, instead of overthrowing the hated Roman rule and enthroning Himself in their midst as King, Christ allowed Himself to be crucified -- put to death and sealed in a tomb as if He were nobody.

Modern day disciples -- or at least some folks who claim to be His disciples -- re-enact this error continually. Whenever they imagine that they must take up the use of compelling power -- be that military or legislative force -- to make others around them (non-believers included!) have to live in accordance with Christian morality, they are refusing the cross and displaying their willful ignorance of the real nature of Christ's kingdom. When they allow themselves to stoop to the level of shallow, crass, rude politicking to attempt to trample the rights and liberty of conscience of others, claiming they have a divine imperative to clean up the world through the use of compelling force, they are like so many Peters whipping out swords and hacking off innocent ears with them. And as He said to Peter, could they but HEAR the word of the Lord, they would hear Him admonishing, "Put that sword away -- you know not of what spirit you are!!"

Except that this time around they will not be so fortunate as the disciples. The disciples merely experience disappointment a few days which was totally eclipsed by greater joy in our Master's resurrection. This time around their error will lead them eventually to the position where they will readily accept the mark of the Beast (remember, it can be in the forehead as well as the hand, so merely keeping the right day for Sabbath is not enough to avoid it!) and eventually turn on their own brothers and sisters, kindling the fires of persecution against them despite having once known better. (Yes, some of them even now are in our midst spreading not merely their confusion but the actual deadly deception which has potential to ensnare the very elect.) The glorious triumph -- this time the Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead in Christ -- will not be so for them, for they will have allied themselves against the God of Heaven, and forfeited their inheritance in His kingdom -- a kingdom which is not of this world.

narscissa · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 21 Nov 2003 Posts: 38

"God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth; but He did not do this. Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power." {DA 759.1, emphasis mine.}

tall73 · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 04 Aug 2004 Posts: 96

I have a few problems with the premise you have used. Iagree that Jesus did not want us advancing our cause by force. However, there is a distinction to be made between religious and moral issues. I think by using primarily this one passage you are overlooking something important.

I adapted an article I am working on regarding this issue. Let me know what areas I am missing. This is an issue that can be difficult to balance.

The Biblical data outlines a moral role for the government. In Romans 13 Paul advises Christians on how to relate to the government.

Everyone must submit himself 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, he who 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 he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent 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 because of conscience.

Here we find that the role of the government is to punish the wrongdoer and commend those who do right. This authority comes from God. The government then is seen primarily as a moral agent. The government is God's servant restraining wickedness, and thereby slowing the hardening of men's hearts by sin. Though the Bible predicts widespread immorality in the last days we should try to restrain it for the sake of God's work. We know it is much more challenging for someone to come to Christ when they have a lifetime of sins that hold on to them. Seldom anymore do I have a Bible study with someone who does not have to make a break with any number of addictions, sinful habits or immoral relationships. Truly does Jesus say that the increase of wickedness causes love to grow cold. The government plays a key role in restraining this tide of wickedness. The role of the Christian then was to submit to these requirements willingly. Peter says the same in his letter, even encouraging Christians to submit to a persecuting government whenever possible to silence those who accused Christians of bad behavior.

The teaching of Paul and Peter must now be applied to our modern day systems of government, and that becomes a little dificult. For those who find themselves living in a monarchy of one form or another the role of the Christian is much the same as Paul outlines. But what about areas where some form of democracy is in place? What is the role of a Christian when they help determine the laws of the land? Unfortunately we do not have clear evidence on this question because the Bible writers were not concerned with theory, but practics. But can we not deduce some things from the biblical counsel? If it is a biblical role of government to restrain wickedness then should we not whenever possible make our influence one that would commend the good and punish the wrongdoer?

Moral or Religious?

The world is currently caught up in a global terrorism crisis, and many of the freedoms that we have cherished are in danger of being sacrificed for safety. In such a time we must realize how precious our religious freedoms are. While it is true that the government has a biblical mandate to reward good behavior and punish bad, this does not in any way indicate that it should dictate religious behavior. To the contrary, anytime the state attempts to impose religious beliefs we must follow God not man. Peter and John made this clear in Acts 4 when confronted by the Sanhedrin. It was clear in the examples of Daniel, etc.

Any law that aids a religious group, mandates a state religion, forces a particular religious belief or practice is completely against God's design. But in the church there is a danger of taking things too far by saying that the church should not have anything to do with the decisions made in government. We know from our understanding of prophecy that in the future the government will impose religious views upon us. But this does not mean that we should back away from aiding the government in its God given responsibility of upholding morality. In light of biblical counsel, we should uphold moral laws just as vehemently as we oppose laws which would enforce religious belief or practice. God gave government authority in a moral sphere, and we should do all we can to uphold it. But He did not give government authority in a religious sphere, and when it attempts to enter into this area we must oppose it. .

Real Life Decision Making

It was perhaps easier for the Christian to make political decisions in Paul's day. The common man had no choice in what laws were passed. They submitted to those laws in harmony with God's will. In a democratic society we must make decisions about what laws will pass, what representatives to place in office, and generally, what course of action will promote the good and punish evil. When voting on particular legislation this can be fairly simple. For instance, my state had a referendum on beginning a state lottery. As I believe that God is opposed to gambling I felt it my duty to go to the polls to resist this effort to bring gambling to my community.

But what about voting on representatives for congress? Here it may be that no one candidate embodies our views. My personal choice is to vote for the one who I think will uphold the right the majority of the time. Some may feel that any choice would be wrong, and so as to not vote for one who might do harm they do not vote at all. BOTH ARE BIBLICAL OPTIONS and are based on the role that God has assigned government. Both are trying to further the right. This is why we must not get embroiled in political controversy, or advocate one person over another. Rather we must encourage our members to think through for themselves the role that the government has been assigned and make informed decisions to uphold the right and punish wickedness.

Activism in Adventist History

Our pioneers struggled with the role that they should take in regards to the government. The issues of temperance and slavery were both addressed by early SDA leaders as moral evils that should be done away with. The issue of temperance is particularly instructive. Here was a divisive moral issue which involved personal freedom. But early church leaders took a decisive stand. Ellen White in particular was aggressive in temperance reform. Here is a statement regarding the role of the Christian in legislation.

While we are in no wise to become involved in political questions, yet it is our privilege to take our stand decidedly on all questions relating to temperance reform. Concerning this I have often borne a plain testimony. In an article published in the Review of November 8, 1881, I wrote: "There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?...We talk of the results, tremble at the results, and wonder what we can do with the terrible results, while too often we tolerate and even sanction the cause. The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example--by voice and pen and vote--in favor of prohibition and total abstinence. --Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914

These are strong words? Do we hear an equally strong voice from Adventism today resisting moral ills and calling for definite action? Or are we simply deploring the results of evil which we know must eventually come while ignoring what could be done?

In the question of voting we also have some interesting historical passages. The church in the annual meeting of 1865, in light of questions about the appropriateness of voting made the following statement.

The Annual Meetings of 1865 –
The act of voting , when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity, and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper. We recognize civil government as ordained of God, that order, justice, and quiet may be maintained in the land; and that the people of God may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.

In fact their resolution was simply upholding the biblical statements. It is right and proper to resist evil which is paralyzing society and moving many unwittingly to destruction.

We should not make this the mission of the church, however. Each indivuidual should be instructed on what the Bible says regarding the role of government, and may act his consciience dictates in regard to voting. It is my belief that as servants of God and witnesses for him we should with pen voice and vote resist moral ills, voting to uphold the right and punish wrong.