I would like to ask - why would you affirm that this is true? Is it because some people have been in the habit of assuming the State is a reliable teacher of ethics? Beyond the three reasons you listed for abstaining from legislative action, should we not add a fourth: that we promote the State as being an institution, which competes with the Church, in defining legitimate values? Consider that since Christians are usually not a majority, any control they may attain over the State is likely to not last for long. (Government schooling makes a good example of an institution some Christians promoted initially, but now is controlled by those who are enemies of Christ. Would it not have been better to have never granted government control of education at all?).Steve wrote:If we take no legislative action, we take the risk that our secular society may lose ground in terms of its reflecting a Christianized culture.
Unlike the Church, the State has only one means at its disposal to implement its will - the use of violence, or the threat of its use. Thus, when considering any question of legislation I think our first question should be "Has God authorized believers to use aggression against their neighbor if they do ___?". If we lack any such mandate, does not the Non Aggression Principle follow given that the biblical teaching honors property rights? If a minarchist, or even anarchist (as in no human authority), is the correct view for a Christian to hold about government, it would, in my opinion, also be a good explanation for the lack of statements on political involvement by Jesus and the NT authors.
