Poll: Citizenship, Ambassadorship, and the Two-Kingdoms

[Ernie]

In 1967, (1977 in Canada) the USA began allowing dual citizenship. Currently 49% of countries around the world allow dual citizenship. The other 51% still disallow dual citizenship.

Early Christians, early Anabaptists, and many Anabaptists today commonly see a very clear division between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Allowing an ambassador from another country to vote in a US election is just as incongruent as a citizen of the kingdom of God voting in an earthly election. Ambassadors for the nations of this world try to influence other governments. But they do not vote in the elections of those nations.

I think the whole debate of voting at the polls comes down to whether a person thinks dual citizenship is permissible in the kingdom of God, and whether one believes that ambassadors from foreign countries should be voting in the elections of countries other than their own.

The Poll is derived from this writing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_kingdoms_doctrine

[barnhart]

I wanted to choose the Anabaptist option but the last two sentences give me pause. I can't quite raise a consistent NT argument for the prohibition of voting for all believers even though I think it is a healthy practice. I guess that puts me in the reform option by default according to these definitions.

[Neto]

While I do not vote, and find involvement in the secular governmental system to be somewhere in the realm of 'very unwise' to 'just plain wrong', I also think that there may be subtle but important differences between the concept of "the kingdom of this world" in the New Testament usage, and that of "a secular government" in the modern sense. The Biblical reference is to a world view that is posed in opposition to all that is godly. It is 'the flesh' against 'the spirit/Spirit'. Secular governments fall into various places on a spectrum of "moralistic" to "immoralistic", although generally not really based on any sort of true Christianity. Perhaps that is enough to fairly equate the two as the same, since a fake, no matter how real it looks from various 'angles', is an antiChrist.

This hesitancy does not, however, provide or create any doubts in my convictions regarding the responsibility as a follower of Christ to remain separate from all secular governmental action and participation. I mainly just smell a bit of a 'straw man' in the third option - an identification of two somewhat different things as being one and the same.

[Bootstrap]

I wanted to choose the Anabaptist option but the last two sentences give me pause. I can't quite raise a consistent NT argument for the prohibition of voting for all believers even though I think it is a healthy practice. I guess that puts me in the reform option by default according to these definitions.

I also think the Anabaptist and early church option leaves no room for significant writings of the early church and Anabaptism. For instance, Pilgram Marpeck would not be able to vote for it, or the author of the

This poll seems to require us to choose between three systematic theologies. I'm not a real believer in the authority of any systematic theology. Only the Bible has that kind of authority. The analogies chosen in a systematic theology should not be the basis of understanding what Scripture says.

[Sudsy]

I could get nit-picky with certain wording in # 3 but this best describes my belief. Living up to that belief though is another thing and what this all means in practise would differ from others in this selection.

[Bootstrap]

I could get nit-picky with certain wording in # 3 but this best describes my belief. Living up to that belief though is another thing and what this all means in practise would differ from others in this selection.

Of the three, #3 is also closest to my beliefs.

Some places where I disagree with the wording are described in this post: viewtopic.php?p=243096#p243096, and also in this post: viewtopic.php?p=243106#p243106.

[Josh]

I ticked “Other”. A nuance is that not voting isn’t central to my belief system; it’s incidental. I can’t participate in some institutions that I think are very good, like the Fish & Game Department, since they must need use force. I wouldn’t feel comfortable having to detain and possibly shoot someone on behalf of fragile ecosystems. However, it is lawful and proper for someone else to do so in the office of Warden.

I am reminded of the 7th commandment in the Noahide laws:
“Establish courts of law and ensure justice in our world.” Even before Christianity, Jewish tradition was this commandment was binding on all peoples, even those who weren’t Jews and thus the rest of the OT law was not binding. That doesn’t mean I have to be the court officer though. I just think the establishment of such things is good and should be supported.