Okay, so the zero-state solution won't happen. Ever.
But what position should Christians take?
If we are dealing with two nation-states fighting over territory to the detriment of individuals on both sides, where should our allegiance lie?
Dispensationalists, per the previous thread, have eschatological reasons for favoring the nation-state of
While searching for historical consistency is to be highly regarded, when ethical consistency is sacrificed in order to make things work out right, we must reject these conclusions.
If we give ethics a higher priority, we must place individual sovereignty first and accept a principle of non-aggression. This disallows support for a state which imposes arbitrary standards on non-aggressive innocents. Instead we are guided by Christ’s example to minister to individuals with both the physical substances which meet their immediate needs, and with the gospel message which meets their eternal needs.
But there is no mandate for action through the state. If anyone can direct me to a passage which contradicts this point, I would be most grateful.
Instead we are called to renounce political manipulation as evil, and to operate on voluntary grounds alone.
Every perversion of the gospel involves a Gnostic adoption of pagan means for achieving monotheistic ends at some point. Let us not fall into that trap.
We must not support the state of