Welcome back to the Fourth Wave Podcast. We are quite a number of episodes into our season on government so far, and we are about to take our first episode which moves beyond the Bible. I placed a lot of emphasis on the Bible, not only because the Bible is foundational for a Christian world view, but also because it's important to lay everything out on the table. Most American Christians have a a pretty narrow view of government, which is largely inherited assumption in my opinion. And I think it's important to confront those assumptions not only with sifting through a significant amount of texts, but also in discussing those texts as a flowing narrative.

So as much of the view which holds government in high esteem is taken from a small selection of passages read in isolation, my hope is that by spending the amount of time we did on the Bible, we will at least create some cognitive dissonance for those who who hold to the simplified view. Because we've given you a pretty big bird's eye view of things and to just try to Romans 13 something, I hope by this point would be pretty difficult for you. Today, we are going to move beyond the Bible, but just barely. So in my opinion, the next best thing we could get to the Bible is going to be looking at the teaching of those who were disciples of the ones who wrote the Bible. So while time can sometimes allow us to learn new things, it can also cause us to lose things.

Perfect preservation is a is a difficult thing to accomplish, especially over thousands and thousands of years. I consider it imperative then to look at what the very, very early church taught. Specifically, church prior to Christianity's marriage with the state, with Constantine. So we're basically talking about the church pre March. And that group is generally called the Anti Nicene Church because they were the church which preceded the Nicene Creed.

So if you wanna hear some more specific arguments to why I think the early church is important and how I discern what they can teach us, I'll put a link to a previous episode I did where I talk about that very thing. But that's not really the scope of this episode, so I wanna focus on the content of the early church here. Just know that the majority of the text below are from the Anti Nicene church, though some are a little bit later. Before I jump into the quotes, I want to mention a few important things. First, I understand that quotes are pulled out of much larger contexts.

I have not read even close to all of the early church writings, though it is a goal of mine to read more and more over time. I I would strongly recommend that you dig into each of these quotes yourselves, especially if there is some that you're like, woah, that that one's crazy. Definitely look at its context and dig into it more. I'll try to make quotes, notes of quotes, which I think would likely require some more context. Second, I'll list the sources where I can, but there are a few quotes that I found without really good source documentation, and I, again, will try to make note of that.

Where I was able to use, Google Books, if I didn't read the text myself. I use Google Books which is really helpful if you plug in a quote and type Google Books after it, Google Books will actually show you in the documents like that quoted text and you can read several pages around it. So a lot of these quotes I did actually look up via Google Books and searched around it to get the immediate context, but even still with immediate context, there's the context of the work itself and such, which does make things more complex than just a simple quote. In light of these first two points, I also wanna point out that even if a few of these quotes were to be dismissed, you know, if you did look some of them up and you're like, oh yeah, that doesn't really fly, there are plenty of other quotes that I think would stand. So these quotes are meant to show a cumulative case for what general ideas were floating around.

They're meant to show what was floating around in the very early church. Counter quotes are the dissolution of a few of the quotes I present, doesn't dismiss the fact that what I'm presenting was a significant stance, if not the main stance of the early church. Finally, I have organized the quotes in a specific fashion. So the first portion of quotes will be specific to the government and high offices. They will clearly denounce certain positions and shed light directly on the government.

That set of quotes will be followed up by quotes which are more illusion than direct reference. They will denounce certain actions and attitudes which would seemingly undermine participation in government, or at least certain government functions outright. We have quite a number of quotes to get to here, so we're gonna have to get started here pretty soon. But if you find it overwhelming to listen to all of this, as I know that archaic quotes can be difficult to listen to, especially if you're getting lots of them all at one time, then you can find all of these on my site linked in the show notes where I've compiled them. However, if you do go that route, know that I haven't organized them for government, but rather for a non violent case, so they're not gonna be in this order that you get here.

In this episode, I do exclude some of those quotes, from that site and, I rearrange them. Alright, I think that's probably sufficient, I'm sure there are some caveats that I left out, but let's go ahead and jump in. First quote is from the Apostolic Tradition around the year February and just note that when it talks about wearing red or purple or things like that, generally they're talking about having some leadership position like magistrate or something like that. Quote, one who is a gladiator or teaches gladiators or swordsmanship or military skills or weapons training should stop or be excluded. A soldier in the sovereign army should not kill or if he is ordered to kill, he should refuse.

If he stops, so be it. Otherwise, he should be excluded. Concerning those who wear red or believers who become soldiers or astrologers or magicians or such like, let them be excluded. One who has the power of the sword or the head of a city and wears red, let him stop or be excluded. A catechumen or a believer, if they want to be soldiers, let them be excluded because they distance themselves from God.

End quote. The next quote is from Hippolytus from, who's around the year February as well. The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established. Brothel, sculptors, charioteer, athlete, gladiators, give it up or be rejected.

A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear. If he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected. A proconsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God. End quote.

Alright, so in the first two you can see already that magistrates, those who wear red, they've been kind of selected out as have soldiers, as being things which are problematic. So you get the, in the first one you've got more of an, not ecumenical document, but a broader church document which is representative of a larger group of people. And the second one you've got Hippolytus who, you know, speaking for himself but presumably, he's speaking the mind of a lot of people in the church at that moment. And you can see that when it comes to magistrates, one of the main issues is that the bearing of swords is a problem and the taking of an oath. So those two things seem to be problems just that are very clear with magistrates.

So as we hear a lot of these other quotes, just kind of keep your ears open because a lot of times it's going to come down to oath taking, bloodletting, and worshiping idols. Those are three things that kind of get drawn out in regard to various professions. Okay, we've got Tertullian, who is also around the year February. Quote, But now inquiry is made about the point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith. Even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments, There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness.

One's soul cannot be due to masters, God and Caesar. So Tertullian is one here who actually gets at something a bit deeper and he says, hey, no, no, no, look, I understand that the sword is a main problem with with being a soldier and stuff, but you don't understand you can't serve God and Caesar because the devil is behind Caesar. And so there really are two various approaches that you can take to government here in terms of the Bible and Christianity. Now you could look at it outright and just say that, hey look, government is of the devil because just like at the Tower Of Babel when people get together, that's a usurpation of God, it's not trusting God's kingship. The other way you can go about it is by saying, Hey look, whenever people get together in form of government, how do governments function but by the sword?

Laws are basically, they've got sword behind them because if they don't, they're not really laws. So even a stupid parking ticket, right? The most harmless offense you can think of. I could just choose not to pay that, right? Well, eventually, it's going to come down to the government if they don't knock on my door and come make me pay the fine, which I think probably they wouldn't.

But, you know, if I get pulled over later and I've got this parking fine on it so so real story here, I got a I got a ticket like ten years ago, and I hate getting tickets, but I got a ticket. And so I, you know, I was looking to pay this thing and I couldn't pay it. It told me where to go online and it just, like, it wouldn't pay. And so I searched this thing every day for like a month and my ticket still wasn't in. And so I talked to this friend of mine who's a police officer and he said, Oh yeah, sometimes police officers don't like put it in right away and know, they, he'll put it in later and sometimes they just forget or just don't do it, they just, you know, are trying to scare you and whatnot.

So I swear to you, I mean I don't swear to you because swearing owes, right? But I'm telling you, I went to this website, it was like 04:30PM or whatever and it resets, at 5PM it closes, whatnot. So I searched this thing, the very last moment that I could could almost search it, and my ticket was still not in the database. I'm like, awesome, the guy just let me go or forgot about it. Well, it wasn't like a month or two later and I get this warrant for my arrest in the mail.

Basically it said, hey, if a police officer encounters you, they pull you over for something else or if they, I don't know, whatever, whenever they might encounter you, if they find out that you basically didn't pay this, you have a warrant out for your arrest and you will be arrested. For a parking ticket, it was like $90 parking ticket, not parking ticket, moving violation or something. So, yeah, ultimately, it would have come down to a police officer says, I'm sorry, you're under arrest. And if I would have said, No, just like I didn't pay the speeding ticket, I'm not gonna be under arrest. At that point, guns, tasers, whatever come out and for a $90 ticket, you have force behind it.

Like any law, any violation of the state ends up only being enforced through force. Now, most people do things voluntarily and they do it so that force isn't needed, but ultimately, every single law has force behind it. And so, the question is, like with Tertullian and all these other guys, is it really possible for me to pass a law, for me to be in a lot of governmental positions, especially legislative or executive, where I'm not doing something that has force behind it? Anyway, that was kind of a tangent, but I think a good one to kind of give you an example. Alright, next up, Martin of Tours.

He is actually later, so he is going to be post Nicaea, he's like around three fifty ish. So here's his quote, quote, Hitherto I have served you as a soldier. Allow me now to become a soldier to God. Let the man who is to serve you receive your donative. I am a soldier of Christ, it is not permissible for me to fight.

End quote. This next one is from Origen. Quote, If everyone were to act the same as you Christians, the national government would soon be left utterly deserted and without any help, and affairs on Earth would soon pass into the hands of the most savage and wretched barbarians. End quote. So that was actually a quote from Origins Against Celsus.

So obviously this guy was not a Christian and his critique was, Hey look, Christians, you don't join the government. Like, if everybody was a Christian, how would we have a government? And if we didn't have a government, we'd just be in the hands of barbarians. Alright, this next one is Marcus Minucius Felix. Now, he was around 200 and my understanding is that this was written when he was an enemy of Christianity.

So he actually became a convert, but he was an enemy of Christianity and I think this was written as when he was an enemy. But I could be mistaken here. So here's his quote, quote, Their alliance consists in meeting at night with solemn rituals and inhuman revelries. They replace holy rites with inexplicable crimes. They despise temples as if they were tombs, they disparage the gods and ridicule our sacred rites.

They look down on our priests although they are pitiable themselves. They despise titles of honor and the purple robe of high government office, though hardly able themselves to cover their nakedness. So I think enemy attestation like with Marcus here as well as with Celsus, I think those are important because they give you glimpses of not just what people say about themselves, but what the enemies are saying. So if you've got Christians who are saying, Yeah, we don't really join the government because it's got lots of problems, and the enemies are saying the same thing, then you know, well, the Christians who are saying they don't join the government aren't really just, you know, just saying that, like, oh, we're so pietistic, we don't do this, when in reality they do. But if their enemies are saying the same thing, then you know that they probably really don't.

So I think those are our two important quotes there, so that you can kind of get a rounded out view of what other people are saying as well. Here's another one by Tertullian, quote, To begin with, the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be super added to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?

End quote. And I do not have a citation for that one, so that might be one that you want to look up and follow. Alright, here's a quick Tertullian one and I have no idea what the context of this one is, but it's a I'm sure there's a lot more to it than than this, but it's it's so catchy, this little one liner. Quote, Shall we carry a flag? It is a rival to Christ.

End quote. Alright, this next one is, and like I said, some of these were focusing on soldiers because they're really the position, the governmental position that Christians have most available to them if they want it, and so it's the thing that they're dealing the most with. And we can try to make inferences from that to government, especially when we're able to find some on government that basically have the same kind of thought process behind it as they do with soldiers. But but this one I like because it's from the Council of Nicaea, and I I the three twenty five one. And I like it for a number of reasons.

So first of all, it's late, it's it's after Constantine is already in power. You're but but it's right after he gets power. And so you're gonna kind of get this snapshot of the church kind of frozen in this moment that is is this big transition. So they've already started to make some changes, but they're not fully changed yet, and so you can kind of it's almost like an ice core, like you get this moment frozen in time, and you can see kind of some of the old traditions, but then you also see some of the new atmosphere that's coming. So I like it because it's early and you kind of see this transition period happening.

Secondly, I like it because it's an ecumenical council and so this isn't just like Tertullian talking. You can dismiss Tertullian because you can say whatever you want to say about him or origin. I mean, you can dismiss him like people have been doing for a long time when individuals are much more complex than just being able to dismiss them or accept everything that they say. But Ecumenical Councils, I mean, things like the Apostolic Tradition, things that are probably, or like the Didache, which are probably representative of at least a body of believers and maybe several bodies, are are really good. But then I also think they can have like particular regional influences and stuff on them.

So having something like the Council of Nicaea which is more ecumenical, like you're covering the Christian world, that's pretty cool because what you're gonna get out of that is representative of at least a significant number of people. So listen to what the Council of Nicaea has to say here. As many as were called by grace and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned like dogs to their own vomit, so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations. Let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases, it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like.

End quote. So man, that's pretty harsh, harsh stuff there in the Council of Nicaea for people who enter the military after becoming Christians. If you're in there and you can stay in there without killing anybody, okay, go for it. But yeah, to kind of renew your military vows was a no no in the initial council. Pretty big ramifications there for people who did.

Alright, here's one from the Testament of Our Lord which is actually, I think the latest quote I have on here. It is from the fourth or fifth century, actually maybe there's a Chrysostomone later that, don't know. Testament of Our Lord, fourth or fifth century, it's not an ecumenical document, but it's one that would be more broadly representative than an individual. Quote, If anyone be a soldier, or an authority, let him be taught not to oppress, or to kill, or to rob, or to be angry, or to rage and afflict anyone, but let those rations suffice him which are given to him. End quote.

So obviously the or in authority was a key in that quote there. Alright, Speritus circa 01/1980. Speritus answered, I do not recognize any empire of this present age. I serve that God whom no person has seen or can ever see with these eyes. I have not stolen.

On the contrary, when I buy anything, I pay my taxes, for I know only one Lord, the King of Kings, the Ruler of all nations. Okay, this next one is from I do not wish to be a ruler. I do not strive for wealth. I refuse offices connected with military command. Fornication I detest.

No insatiable hunger for gold drives me to go to sea. I do not fight for victory laurels. I am free from the mad thirst for fame. I despise death, I stand above every illness, no grief consumes my soul. End quote.

Next one is from Maximilian of Tebessa, around February. Quote, Why do you want to know my name? It is not permitted to me to serve in the military since I am a Christian. I cannot serve in the military. I cannot do wrong.

I'm a Christian. I will not do it. I cannot serve the military. I will not serve. Cut off my head.

I do not serve the world, but I do serve my God. Okay, we've got John Chrysostom next. He's writing around, you know, the late three hundreds, early four hundreds. And I would imagine, I don't know much about John Chrysostom, but by this time, it would be hard for me to think that John Chrysostom is like totally against government office and stuff, but maybe he is, I don't know. So I would, anybody who is after Constantine, I would definitely look more into their works and their quotes to see the context for these.

But, here's Chrysostom, quote, I am a Christian. He who answers thus has declared everything at once, his country, profession, family. The believer belongs to no city on earth but to the heavenly Jerusalem. End quote. Also from Canons of Hippolytus, around three forty, Whoever has received the authority to kill or else a soldier, they are not to kill in any case, even if they receive the order to kill.

They are not to pronounce a bad word. Those who have received an honor are not to wear wreaths on their heads. Whosoever is raised to the authority of a prefect or the magistracy and does not put on the righteousness of the gospel is to be excluded from the flock, and the bishop is not to pray with him. End quote. And finally, for this section we have Athenagoras.

Quote, For we have learned not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak. End quote. So the important thing there is we've read a lot about soldiers and magistrates and things like that, but here he's talking about not going to law, which is something that Paul talks about not taking brothers to court. Okay, for the second section, even though in the first section it definitely focused on things like not killing and oath taking and all that stuff, a lot of those were still explicit, you know, they explicitly named soldier or magistrate or going to law. Here, we're gonna have quotes which focus on actions that you could extrapolate into the government discussion.

Because when we talk about government later and what government does, what their function is, and we figure out, is being a Christian compatible with what the government does? And then that's gonna be important. So, here's the second section. Start with Lactantius, and he was around 300. Quote, For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those beings which are esteemed lawful among men.

Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all, but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man whom God willed to be a sacred animal. End quote. Okay, we've got one from Athenagoras here, 01/1960 ish, 01/1980, something like that. Quote, What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm while such is our character that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh till we have killed someone.

The former charge therefore, being false, if anyone should ask them in regard to the second, whether they have seen what they assert, not one of them would be so bare faced as to say that he had. And yet we have slaves, some more, some fewer, by whom we could not help being seen. But even of these, not one has been found to invent even such things against us. For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly, who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you?

But we, deeming that to see a man put to death as much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How then, when we do not even look on lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? End quote. Here's another one from Lactantius. If anyone should be so shameless as to inflict injury on a good and just man, such a man must bear it with calmness and moderation.

He will not take upon himself his revenge rather, he will reserve it for the judgment of God. He must maintain innocence at all times and in all places, and this commandment is not limited to merely his not being the first to inflict injury on another, rather he should not even avenge it when injury is inflicted on him. For there sits on the judgment seat a very great and impartial judge. End quote. So that one I was, might be a little bit more of a stretch, inferring, you know, Lactantius from knowing the other stuff that he writes.

Now he's saying that we forego judgment because God is ultimately the judge, and so when we can't even bear to see a man put to death, even if it's just, you know, it's a murderer that's being put to death, that's not for us, like we can't bear to see a man put to death justly and that's not on us in large part because God is the judge. And so, you know, that one there, I think you can make a bunch of inferences from other things that Lactantius said, which would mean, definitely can be an executioner. I don't know that I could make laws that would support the death penalty, things like that will have implications for government interaction later down the road. Okay, we've got Tertullian here and he's going to be talking about the law again. So accessing the courts.

The son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law. Indeed, if putting my strength to the question, I banish from us the military life. End quote. Here's one by Although what I have said has raised a loud clamor, permit me here to proceed freely, since I am making my defense to emperors who are philosophers. Who of those who analyzes syllogisms, resolve ambiguities, predicates axioms, and what the subject is and what the predicate, who of them do not promise to make their disciples happy through these and similar disciplines?

And yet who of them have so purified their own hearts as to love their enemies instead of hating them, instead of upbraiding those who first insult them, which is certainly more usual, to bless them and to pray for those who plot against them? On the contrary, they ever persist in delving into the evil mysteries of their sophistry, ever desirous of working some harm, making skill an oratory rather than proof by deeds their business. With us, on the contrary, you will find unlettered people, tradesmen and old women, who, though unable to express in words the advantages of our teaching, demonstrate by acts the value of their principles, for they do not rehearse speeches, but evidence good deeds. When struck, they do not strike back. When robbed, they do not sue.

To those who ask, they give, and they love their neighbor as themselves. End quote. Alright, we've got a quote here by Ambrose in the late three hundreds. Now Ambrose is definitely not a non violent guy and he's definitely not one who is anti government. But I talk about him a little bit in in one of the other episodes in our numerous seasons, I forget which one.

Even though Ambrose is not non violent and not against the government of his day, I think he, there's still some inklings that you see from him where he's got some carryovers from previous Christian thinking. So let me read this, quote, I do not think that a Christian ought to save his own life by the death of another. Just as when he meets an armed robber, he cannot return his blows, lest in defense of his life, he should stain his love towards his neighbor, end quote. So just like Augustine here, Ambrose wasn't about self defense, but I don't know what he would have thought about defense of another. And I also know that, I think it was Ambrose who wrote some pretty bad stuff against like the barbarians and things and how we should go kill him.

So his his robber here probably would have been like a fellow Roman, maybe a fellow Christian robber. So he's got some messed up ideas of of how he shifts categories. So what he's talking about here, he truly believes but he would define his categories narrowly, right? Like, who's my neighbor? Nevertheless, I think that's still way more way different than we Christians, conservative Christians in The United States would think of things.

So the fact that he thinks any robber is not worthy of a bullet to his his chest says a lot. Alright, we've got Clement of Alexandria here, January. Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings. Got another John Chrysostom quote here: Christians above all men are not permitted forcibly to correct the failings of those who sin. Secular judges indeed, when they have captured malefactors under the law, show their authority to be great and prevent them even against their will from following their own devices.

But in our case, the wrongdoer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion. So it's interesting that a couple things, Ambrose highlights secular judges, he doesn't highlight Christian judges. I'm sure by this time, there were Christian judges, but I don't know what Chrysostom's thoughts are on them. And secondly, he says that Christians use persuasion, so he differentiates how secular government works versus how Christianity works. Alright, so those are essentially our quotes.

We've got quite a lot of quotes from the early church. Some of them specifically talk about positions, government positions, magistrates, proconsuls, people who wear red, purple, and then we also talk about other positions like judges or being in the military especially. So we've got specificity, but then we also have actions like not suing or not killing, not seeing capital punishment, even if it's just, things like that, which are going to come into play in terms of thinking about, well, what do different government officials do? What is the role of government? And we'll get into that discussion a lot later, but this is going to be really important and we're gonna come back to this because our question is going to be, what do Christians do with what we are supposed to be, what we are called to be and what the government is and is called to do?

How do we reconcile those things and can we reconcile those things? That's all for now. So peace and because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. This podcast is a part of the Kingdom Outpost Network. Please check out the links below to find other great podcasts and content related to nonviolence and Kingdom Living.