What is the Christian to do who feels called to serve in government? Is it a false calling?

I may be asking this out of context in the larger discussion, so your clarification might help.

Ok good point. “Constantinian” is a term that has been thrown about but not yet defined.

By Constantinianism I understand the active support of Christ’s Church by the civil authority.

When I said that Augustine laid down the exegetical framework for “Constantinianism” I am refering to Augustine’s interpretation of Jesus’ Parable of the Great Banquet found in Luke 14:12-24.

In response to Donatism Augustine wrote:

“I hear that you are quoting that which is recorded in the Gospel, that when the seventy followers went back from the Lord they were left to their own choice in this wicked an impious desertion and that He said to the twelve remaining ‘Do you not also want to go?’ But what you fail to say is that at that time the Church was only just begining to burst forth from the newly planted seed and that the saying had not yet been fulfilled in her “all kings shall fall down before Him, all nations shall serve him.” It is in proportion to the more enlarged fulfillment of this prophecy that the Church now wields greater power– so that she may now not only invite but also compel men to embrace that which is good.”

Letter to Donatus, No. 173 (Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited by Leonard Verduin in The Reformers and their Stepchildren, pg. 65-67)

And “Christ-less” civil magistrate. I don’t believe I ever used such a term.

Eliot and Augustine are very complex thinkers. I don’t think either can be enlisted in a sloganeering way.

I love you guys but you might need to replace the word “Augustinian” with the word “Anabaptist.” Augustine was a Constantinian who layed the exegetical foundation for a church-state. Lets keep that in mind.

Also, to enlist Eliot to defend a Christ-less civil magistrate will not do. His prose work Christianity and Culture will never allow it.

Anyway, thanks for setting this up, Bill et al. Hey- where are the italics for quasi-latin?

It seems that Caleb has set the issues squarely. At the time of the reformation there were two Protestant positions.

For the moment, grant continuity between the Lutherans and Reformed and have their position on one side. The other side were those who held to the Schleitheim Confession.

Their position was clear before Calvin wrote his Institutes. The State is “outside the perfection of Christ”. There were some “spheres” or “organizations” or “offices” that are not capable of redemption and “government” or “state” was simply one of those.

The position had historical precedent. In the ancient church there were two forbidden “professions”. They were not capable of “reformation”. Of course one was prostitution- and Bill and Caleb both know the other, right?

Anyway, I respect the classic Anabaptist/Menonite position. Sometimes it simply makes sense. However, I can’t square it with the scriptures. Therefore, since the State is not outside the perfection of Christ, then Protestants in the “magisterial” tradition have to work through the next steps.

Hopefully, these discussions will help believers to make those hard choices.

One of the participants has since left tNP on the grounds that it is too “conservative.”

I am afraid the the opposite of the Constantinian right (how does George Bush/ Pat Robertson fit into that category?) is an anabaptist left. At the end of the day, the Augustine must be read on the side of Constantine over against various forms of donatism.