Political office

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I am also baffled why delivering prescriptions to people in very remote rural areas requires also delivering pornography to people’s houses. The two don’t seem connected at all.

In the context of working as a mail carrier for the USPS, yes, one requires the other, if both are being delivered. Because you don't get a personal say in what you will and will not deliver; in fact, much of what you deliver is hidden and confidential and unknown to you, so you really don't have much of an opportunity to know whether you are delivering life-saving meds or a pornographic magazine.

If we leave the context of this occupation, there are tangible ways of doing one without the other. Work with a pharmacy. I work in a home for adults with disabilities, and the pharmacy delivers to our door every day. That guy has exactly the job that allows him to deliver meds without being obligated to deliver pornagraphy, a privilege not afforded to postal workers.

[Bootstrap]

I am also baffled why delivering prescriptions to people in very remote rural areas requires also delivering pornography to people’s houses. The two don’t seem connected at all.

In the context of working as a mail carrier for the USPS, yes, one requires the other, if both are being delivered. Because you don't get a personal say in what you will and will not deliver; in fact, much of what you deliver is hidden and confidential and unknown to you, so you really don't have much of an opportunity to know whether you are delivering life-saving meds or a pornographic magazine.

If we leave the context of this occupation, there are tangible ways of doing one without the other. Work with a pharmacy. I work in a home for adults with disabilities, and the pharmacy delivers to our door every day. That guy has exactly the job that allows him to deliver meds without being obligated to deliver pornagraphy, a privilege not afforded to postal workers.

How is this different from, say, making knives or hammers or word processors that can be used for good or ill?

[Bootstrap]

More liberal groups, such as MCUSA, probably allow or encourage people to be involved in influential government positions as long as their proximity to the violence of the state is indirect and not direct. So they might serve a function as a public servant or on a legislator, but would not serve as a soldier or policeman. They would also probably emphasize local positions, which can be more relational, versus state or national positions, which are more political and weild more impersonal authority.

I think this is actually deeply rooted in the Marpeck tradition versus the Sattler tradition. To the Sattler tradition, government itself is inherently evil, and participating in government in any way is bad. To the Marpeck tradition, government has a valid role that can be compatible with Christianity, but often is not.

A GPT-generated overview of how some early Anabaptist leaders saw this:

Views on the Relationship Between Church and State from Early Anabaptist Leaders

• Michael Sattler (Schleitheim Confession):
  • On the separation of the church from the state: "For the Christian is distinguished from the non-Christian in this, that he is not of the world, just as Christ is not of the world."
  • On non-participation in state affairs: "The sword is used outside the perfection of Christ. It does not behoove a Christian to serve among the [military] weaponry nor to sue in law."
  • Source: Schleitheim Confession, 1527.
• Menno Simons:
  • On the separation and distinction: "The regenerated do not go to war, nor engage in strife. They are the children of peace who have beaten their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and know of no war."
  • On government: "We confess that magistrates are necessary for a good government and the punishment of the wicked."
  • Source: Complete Writings of Menno Simons, c. 1540-1561.
• Dirk Philips:
  • On the distinct kingdoms: "There are two kinds of obedience; one of faith, which is due to the word of God; the other of infidelity, due to the requirements of the magistracy."
  • On Christian's behavior in the world: "A Christian is part of the Church and not part of the world, even though he is in the world. He fights with the sword of the Spirit, not with a physical sword."
  • Source: Writings of Dirk Philips, 16th century.
• Balthasar Hubmaier:
  • On the role of the state: "The sword is an ordinance of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and puts to death the wicked, and protects the good."
  • On the Christian's duty to the state: "The spiritual do not wield the worldly sword nor engage in warfare for the Gospel is a message of peace."
  • Source: Writings of Balthasar Hubmaier, c. 1524-1528.
• Pilgram Marpeck:
  • On coexistence and dual roles: "Christians are to be taught that they are not to be separated from the secular so far as external things are concerned."
  • On participation in civil duties: "They should serve their magistracy in all demands that do not conflict with the consciences bound in God."
  • Source: The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, 1530s-1556.

Can a Christian work for the state according to Anabaptist perspectives?
According to Pilgram Marpeck and more integrated views within Anabaptism, Christians may work for the state or engage in civic duties as long as such roles do not compel them to act against the teachings of Scripture. This suggests a nuanced approach, allowing for a balance between secular engagement and spiritual commitments.

[Bootstrap]

I think GPT softened Sattler on this. Here's a quote that gives more of a feel for how strong and black-and-white he was on this:

https://courses.washington.edu/hist112/ ... 0FAITH.htm

Fourth. On separation of the saved: A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them [the wicked] and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who [have come] out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other.

To us then the command of the Lord is clear when He calls upon us to be separate from the evil and thus He will be our God and we shall be His sons and daughters. He further admonishes us to withdraw from Babylon and the earthly Egypt that we may not be partakers of the pain and suffering which the Lord will bring upon them. From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all popish and antipopish works and church services, meetings and church attendance, drinking houses, civic affairs, the commitments [made in] unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteouness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us.

Therefore there will also unquestionably fall from us the unchristian, devilish weapons of force -- such as sword, armor and the like, and all their use [either] for friends or against one's enemies I would like the records -- by virtue of the word of Christ, Resist not [him that is] evil.

[Bootstrap]

I think there are conservative Anabaptists who work for the public school system? How do they reconcile this with a mostly Sattler perspective? I assume they do not lead anyone in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. My refusal to do so really upset my supervising teacher back in the day ...

I'm mostly Marpeck. To me, the issue is not working for government per se, but some of the things the government might want me to do. I would not feel comfortable doing what a Justice of the Peace is required to do, for instance. I would be fine with delivering mail. I would not swear any oath or promise to defend against enemies, but I would be happy to affirm some things. I would be happy to help rebuild the bridge in Baltimore, even though some immoral things might be transported over it.

[Josh]

I am also baffled why delivering prescriptions to people in very remote rural areas requires also delivering pornography to people’s houses. The two don’t seem connected at all.

In the context of working as a mail carrier for the USPS, yes, one requires the other, if both are being delivered. Because you don't get a personal say in what you will and will not deliver;

But we should. The right thing to do would be to not deliver pornography to people's mailboxes.

I am very disturbed by this point of view that it's OK to do immoral things as long as an employer is telling you to do it.

[Bootstrap]

But we should. The right thing to do would be to not deliver pornography to people's mailboxes.

I am very disturbed by this point of view that it's OK to do immoral things as long as an employer is telling you to do it.

So I assume you could not work as a postal carrier. And presumably not as a UPS or FedEx carrier? Do you distinguish government from private entities here? I assume you would not sign up for the job and illegally destroy people's mail.

What about software or hardware that can be used for good or for ill? Would you be unable to work for a cellphone manufacturer? Would you be unable to help program the Android operating system - or any other operating system? Is it wrong for Christians to work on Internet software or word processing software that can be used for good or for ill?

[ken_sylvania]

I am also baffled why delivering prescriptions to people in very remote rural areas requires also delivering pornography to people’s houses. The two don’t seem connected at all.

In the context of working as a mail carrier for the USPS, yes, one requires the other, if both are being delivered. Because you don't get a personal say in what you will and will not deliver; in fact, much of what you deliver is hidden and confidential and unknown to you, so you really don't have much of an opportunity to know whether you are delivering life-saving meds or a pornographic magazine.

If we leave the context of this occupation, there are tangible ways of doing one without the other. Work with a pharmacy. I work in a home for adults with disabilities, and the pharmacy delivers to our door every day. That guy has exactly the job that allows him to deliver meds without being obligated to deliver pornagraphy, a privilege not afforded to postal workers.

How is this different from, say, making knives or hammers or word processors that can be used for good or ill?

A person shouldn't make knives, hammers or word processors intended for an evil use. But in general, a knife or hammer can be used for either good or evil, with the decision being made at some point after the item is manufactured.

Whereas in the case of a delivery worker, some of the objects he would be asked to deliver are already known to be evil, and by delivering them he is knowingly involving himself in that evil.

[RZehr]

But we should. The right thing to do would be to not deliver pornography to people's mailboxes.

I am very disturbed by this point of view that it's OK to do immoral things as long as an employer is telling you to do it.

So I assume you could not work as a postal carrier. And presumably not as a UPS or FedEx carrier? Do you distinguish government from private entities here? I assume you would not sign up for the job and illegally destroy people's mail.

What about software or hardware that can be used for good or for ill? Would you be unable to work for a cellphone manufacturer? Would you be unable to help program the Android operating system - or any other operating system? Is it wrong for Christians to work on Internet software or word processing software that can be used for good or for ill?

I would be comfortable with UPS or FedEx simply because I have no way of knowing what is being delivered. Their stuff is packaged. With knowledge comes responsibility.

Same way I would not be justified in selling ammunition if I knew it was going to be used to kill people. But if I had a sports store, I would be okay with selling ammunition.

But with duel use, I do not find it incumbent upon me to verify the end use of everything that passes through my hands.

[Josh]

So I assume you could not work as a postal carrier. And presumably not as a UPS or FedEx carrier? Do you distinguish government from private entities here? I assume you would not sign up for the job and illegally destroy people's mail.

What laws are more important? God's laws, or men's laws?

What about software or hardware that can be used for good or for ill? Would you be unable to work for a cellphone manufacturer?

Perhaps I could work for one, designing and delivering filtering software so people could use a smartphone without being subjected to so much filth.

Would you be unable to help program the Android operating system - or any other operating system? Is it wrong for Christians to work on Internet software or word processing software that can be used for good or for ill?

That is completely different from delivering pornography to people's homes.

The simple fact is that delivering pornography to people's homes is wrong, and I would have a difficult time justifying why I did it on judgment day.