Why aren't Mennonites Constantinian?

[Coifi]

I think from what I understand from your comments is that you don’t have the understanding that the gospel that Jesus taught was the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Correct me if I’m wrong!

I think tells us many times and Paul that there are two kingdoms - God’s and the world’s. We are called to be separate.
From John 18:36

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

I think you are misrepresenting my comments and forcing them into a false dichotomy. There are two kingdoms; St. Augustine is the best orator on this topic with his book The City of God. I do not think, though, that humans are universally incapable of participating in the kingdom of God when they participate in civil hierarchical structures. As an example of this, I present the Russian saints, the Passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. Being princes of Vladimir the Great and heirs to the throne, they were very political figures. Would you say that they are participating in the kingdom of God? Were they separate?

My point all along is that we should be wary when using modern categories to work out teachings of 2000 years ago. However, you do not seem concerned with that and its consequences, but seem more worried about preserving your church from the influence of the state. Which is fine! Anabaptists have strong reasons for wanting to preserve that distinction.

So, instead of arguing about whether one of us cares/understands the Kingdom of God (however that is defined), I think we should discuss whether or not human civil government can be redeemed by God. @Ned, do you think the Kingdom of God and human civil government are diametrically opposed to one another? Or do you think that the Kingdom of God can redeem civil government and be made a part of the Kingdom of God?

[Soloist]

I do not think, though, that humans are universally incapable of participating in the kingdom of God when they participate in civil hierarchical structures. As an example of this, I present the Russian saints, the Passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. Being princes of Vladimir the Great and heirs to the throne, they were very political figures. Would you say that they are participating in the kingdom of God? Were they separate?

There isn’t enough to know.
What is your response to the arguments here?
http://www.rusliterature.org/the-lives ... -and-gleb/

This in particular would make me question them being part of the Kingdom of God

Svyatopolk’s first victim was Prince Boris of Rostov. Shortly before his death Vladimir had sent him off with his band of warriors to fight the Pechenegs. When Boris received the news of his father’s death, Vladimir’s warriors were ready to take the throne for the young prince by force, but Boris refused, for he did not wish to raise his hand against his elder brother, and declared his readiness to respect him like a father. The warrior band left Boris with nothing but a handful of his own “youths” (young warriors) and he was murdered on Svyatopolk’s orders.

He was off leading military action against the Penchenegs…
Mind you, I’m not condemning the Russians for defending themselves but I do not believe someone in the Kingdom of God can wage war and kill.

[Coifi]

I do not think, though, that humans are universally incapable of participating in the kingdom of God when they participate in civil hierarchical structures. As an example of this, I present the Russian saints, the Passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. Being princes of Vladimir the Great and heirs to the throne, they were very political figures. Would you say that they are participating in the kingdom of God? Were they separate?

There isn’t enough to know.
What is your response to the arguments here?
http://www.rusliterature.org/the-lives ... -and-gleb/

This in particular would make me question them being part of the Kingdom of God

Svyatopolk’s first victim was Prince Boris of Rostov. Shortly before his death Vladimir had sent him off with his band of warriors to fight the Pechenegs. When Boris received the news of his father’s death, Vladimir’s warriors were ready to take the throne for the young prince by force, but Boris refused, for he did not wish to raise his hand against his elder brother, and declared his readiness to respect him like a father. The warrior band left Boris with nothing but a handful of his own “youths” (young warriors) and he was murdered on Svyatopolk’s orders.

He was off leading military action against the Penchenegs…
Mind you, I’m not condemning the Russians for defending themselves but I do not believe someone in the Kingdom of God can wage war and kill.

This seems like a slightly different question/argument than the one I had proposed in the context of my previous response. You seem to be asking if someone in the Kingdom of God can still be a sinner on earth. In particular, you would suggest that Boris and/or Gleb were murderers. Anyway, I would say that sinners can still participate in the Kingdom of God...despite their sins. However, I may be misunderstanding your question and argument in general.

I am unfamiliar with Mennonite pacifist arguments, so please forgive me if I come across as obtuse. I would like to learn more so if you have any recommended readings - perhaps regarding Menno Simons life - I would appreciate and welcome suggestions!

[barnhart]

...
My point all along is that we should be wary when using modern categories to work out teachings of 2000 years ago...

I think it is wise to use categories from 2000 years ago to work out the teaching of Jesus and his apostles in their own time. The Greek word Jesus chose for "I will build my church" was in common use to refer to seated government bodies. There was a more religious themed word used to describe the synagogue but that was not one Jesus chose. His gathering was in answer to Rome, not Jerusalem. Paul's writing is sprinkled with phrases and slogans borrowed from imperial Rome but turned to Jesus, (Son of God... the gospel of Jesus Christ... Savior of the world). It was clear to everyone, including the Romans, that the kingdom of Jesus claimed authority over Rome, not symbiotic cooperation. It was also clear Jesus intended his followers to submit and live in the authority of Rome rather than rule over it.

Yet today we find the majority of Christians follow those misguided tracks, a plato-esque division of kingdoms between body and soul, or a drive to conquer and rule over Rome in Jesus' name.

[Soloist]

This seems like a slightly different question/argument than the one I had proposed in the context of my previous response. You seem to be asking if someone in the Kingdom of God can still be a sinner on earth. In particular, you would suggest that Boris and/or Gleb were murderers. Anyway, I would say that sinners can still participate in the Kingdom of God...despite their sins. However, I may be misunderstanding your question and argument in general.

Repentant sinners can be part of the kingdom of God. By all historical accounts I’ve seen this morning, Boris was actively waging war.
His father forcibly converted his nation to Christianity too.
Also, reading the account of his murder, it’s a little questionable given historical practices to rewrite historical events into religious events and the stretch of timeline of him seeing the men going to kill him to the point of him being speared.
I see no particular effort to follow Jesus recorded for either his father or himself outside of Nestor’s brief mention.
The conversion of Vladimir seems politically motivated but historians argue on the timeline of his actions so that isn’t clear.

I am unfamiliar with Mennonite pacifist arguments, so please forgive me if I come across as obtuse. I would like to learn more so if you have any recommended readings - perhaps regarding Menno Simons life - I would appreciate and welcome suggestions!

Memo’s writings are available online and I believe he details his conversion in it.
I would point to the early confessions as a core of what most Anabaptists believe on the two kingdoms.
I can link both of those a little later this morning, I’m still a little distracted reading early Rus history.

[NedFlanders]

I think from what I understand from your comments is that you don’t have the understanding that the gospel that Jesus taught was the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Correct me if I’m wrong!

I think tells us many times and Paul that there are two kingdoms - God’s and the world’s. We are called to be separate.
From John 18:36

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

I think you are misrepresenting my comments and forcing them into a false dichotomy. There are two kingdoms; St. Augustine is the best orator on this topic with his book The City of God. I do not think, though, that humans are universally incapable of participating in the kingdom of God when they participate in civil hierarchical structures. As an example of this, I present the Russian saints, the Passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. Being princes of Vladimir the Great and heirs to the throne, they were very political figures. Would you say that they are participating in the kingdom of God? Were they separate?

My point all along is that we should be wary when using modern categories to work out teachings of 2000 years ago. However, you do not seem concerned with that and its consequences, but seem more worried about preserving your church from the influence of the state. Which is fine! Anabaptists have strong reasons for wanting to preserve that distinction.

So, instead of arguing about whether one of us cares/understands the Kingdom of God (however that is defined), I think we should discuss whether or not human civil government can be redeemed by God. @Ned, do you think the Kingdom of God and human civil government are diametrically opposed to one another? Or do you think that the Kingdom of God can redeem civil government and be made a part of the Kingdom of God?

In the end the two end up in opposite places, so yes.
No, God redeems individuals to His kingdom, a call to forsake those systems of the world.

2 Corinthians tells us to not be yoked with unbelievers. As a Christian does this he cannot participate with a government containing unbelievers. This is simple separation.

We are called to be ambassadors of Christ. Our allegiance is to Him and not to another country and flag.

Civil government is called to use force to contain evil while Christ commands that we resist not evil. Obedience is part of faithfulness. To not obey Christ is to deny Him in our actions.

[Coifi]

...
My point all along is that we should be wary when using modern categories to work out teachings of 2000 years ago...

I think it is wise to use categories from 2000 years ago to work out the teaching of Jesus and his apostles in their own time. The Greek word Jesus chose for "I will build my church" was in common use to refer to seated government bodies. There was a more religious themed word used to describe the synagogue but that was not one Jesus chose. His gathering was in answer to Rome, not Jerusalem. Paul's writing is sprinkled with phrases and slogans borrowed from imperial Rome but turned to Jesus, (Son of God... the gospel of Jesus Christ... Savior of the world). It was clear to everyone, including the Romans, that the kingdom of Jesus claimed authority over Rome, not symbiotic cooperation. It was also clear Jesus intended his followers to submit and live in the authority of Rome rather than rule over it.

Yet today we find the majority of Christians follow those misguided tracks, a plato-esque division of kingdoms between body and soul, or a drive to conquer and rule over Rome in Jesus' name.

Thank you for this presentation. It helps me understand what you consider important.

I'm familiar with the linguistic distinction to which you are referring and I know it was used to refer to the Roman governmental bodies. However, 'Ekklesia' is also used to describe the Israelites in the books of the Old Testament. Everywhere you see a reference to "the assembly" or "the congregation" or "the people" is from the same word. An example is Deut 4:10 - "Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children." See here for concordance details.

I would have to ask, then, what is your view of Israelite kings? They were, after all, the civil leader over the assembly of Israel.

Unless I can draw this back to Constantine, I would say we should start a new thread...However, I will draw it back to Constantine by suggesting that he was essentially serving in the same rule as King David did. Did he do it perfectly? By no means! But neither did King David.

Let me know if I have misunderstood your comments and I will endeavor to correct my own to better address your concerns.

[Soloist]

...
My point all along is that we should be wary when using modern categories to work out teachings of 2000 years ago...

I think it is wise to use categories from 2000 years ago to work out the teaching of Jesus and his apostles in their own time. The Greek word Jesus chose for "I will build my church" was in common use to refer to seated government bodies. There was a more religious themed word used to describe the synagogue but that was not one Jesus chose. His gathering was in answer to Rome, not Jerusalem. Paul's writing is sprinkled with phrases and slogans borrowed from imperial Rome but turned to Jesus, (Son of God... the gospel of Jesus Christ... Savior of the world). It was clear to everyone, including the Romans, that the kingdom of Jesus claimed authority over Rome, not symbiotic cooperation. It was also clear Jesus intended his followers to submit and live in the authority of Rome rather than rule over it.

Yet today we find the majority of Christians follow those misguided tracks, a plato-esque division of kingdoms between body and soul, or a drive to conquer and rule over Rome in Jesus' name.

Thank you for this presentation. It helps me understand what you consider important.

I'm familiar with the linguistic distinction to which you are referring and I know it was used to refer to the Roman governmental bodies. However, 'Ekklesia' is also used to describe the Israelites in the books of the Old Testament. Everywhere you see a reference to "the assembly" or "the congregation" or "the people" is from the same word. An example is Deut 4:10 - "Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children." See here for concordance details.

I would have to ask, then, what is your view of Israelite kings? They were, after all, the civil leader over the assembly of Israel.

Unless I can draw this back to Constantine, I would say we should start a new thread...However, I will draw it back to Constantine by suggesting that he was essentially serving in the same rule as King David did. Did he do it perfectly? By no means! But neither did King David.

Let me know if I have misunderstood your comments and I will endeavor to correct my own to better address your concerns.

The kingdom under the old law was an earthly kingdom. When Jesus came, He took the original plan of being the King that the Jews rejected and implemented it as a spiritual kingdom. Jesus said

Luk 17:20  And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luk 17:21  Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

See 1 Samuel chapter 8.
No longer do the people of God have an earthy leader or king but as what was intended and rejected by the Jews is now our King.

[RZehr]

Because of the hardness of their hearts, God allowed the Israelites to have a king to reign over them. But from the beginning it was not so. The original plan seemed to be to have God be their king, and prophets His spokesmen. The Israelites wanted a king to fight their battles instead of God fighting their battles for them - awfully similar to today.

In the NT I see another reset for Gods people, and again people want an earthly king to reign over them. The US Christian wanting Trump feels similar to me. When a people lose faith, they want a king.

[Coifi]

Repentant sinners can be part of the kingdom of God. By all historical accounts I’ve seen this morning, Boris was actively waging war.
His father forcibly converted his nation to Christianity too.

Also, reading the account of his murder, it’s a little questionable given historical practices to rewrite historical events into religious events and the stretch of timeline of him seeing the men going to kill him to the point of him being speared.
I see no particular effort to follow Jesus recorded for either his father or himself outside of Nestor’s brief mention.
The conversion of Vladimir seems politically motivated but historians argue on the timeline of his actions so that isn’t clear.

Memo’s writings are available online and I believe he details his conversion in it.

I agree that repentant sinners can be part of the Kingdom of God. Repentance is thee reason, I would say.

It seems, then, as though the issue we are discussing would be the moral status of war and killing. I understand that there are a lot of historical reasons why you and your brethren argue that it is an unequivocal evil. I am personally not so sure. All I know is, if we disagree on that, we won't see eye to eye regarding Boris, Gleb, Vladimir, and Constantine.

If not to follow Christ, why would you suppose Boris and Gleb submitted to being killed by their older brother?