Entering into politics was absolutely not a disqualification for a Christian! Jesus did not call Zacchaeus to leave his life as a tax collector; He called him to give back what he had taken unjustly. In Phil. 4:22, Paul mentions saints sending greetings who were "part of Caesar's household." Politics is not an inherently sinful vocation because (Rom. 13) governments are appointed by God. One can argue the best way to fulfill that vocation, but God can call a Christian to be a public servant. :)
In regard to 2 Tim. 2, the context is that this world (politics, jobs, sin) should not be our focus; we should be eternally-focused. It's dangerous to see politics as an end in itself; the Christian is a citizen of 2 kingdoms: earth & heaven. We shouldn't "set our mind on earthly things" (Phil. 3) but Paul also condemns those who, in the name of "heavenly things" leave jobs and mooch off the church (2 Thess 3). We are called to serve God in earthly things (including politics), but temporarily.
Also, haha, I usually don't get involved in tumblr debates. Please know that everything I said was meant to be in a spirit of love-- it's hard to tell sometimes with these ask box character limits. blessings to you! :)
Thank you, sister. I pray that as I continue from here, it would be clear that I too am speaking out of love, as well as a desire for understanding and that anyone paying attention might grow together. My writing style is sometimes borderline sarcastic, though I edit myself when I notice it. I just ask for grace.
I may have been remembering incorrectly, because I still cannot find any instance of early church fathers condemning public office. I can, however, find Justin Martyr quoted as saying, "He called Abraham and commanded him to go out from the country where he was living. With this call, God has roused us all, and now we have left the state. We have renounced all the things this world offers." Speratus wrote, "I recognize no empire of this present age." While they don't go as far as I remember, they certainly seemed opposed to the governing authorities that God established.
Which brings me to Romans 13. I am generally opposed to a face-value reading of these verses, for a few reasons.
The implications that governments such as the Nazi regime were instituted by God (verse 1), that to resist such a regime is to resist what God is doing (verse 2), and that they did not bear the sword in vain (verse 4). Even looking back to the empire that Paul was living, Rome opposed and murdered Christians for refusing to worship the emperor. This doesn't seem consistent.
During the temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4, Luke 4), Satan offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world, an offer that Jesus takes seriously. He does not respond that the kingdoms are not Satan's to give, but that God alone is deserving of worship. How can Satan offer to God what God Himself has instituted?
John records Jesus multiple times referring to Satan as the prince or ruler of this world (12:31, 14:30, 16:11). While this is not specifically in political context, in light of Satan's offer to Jesus we may reasonably assume so.
I find it more reasonable to conclude that the state is not instituted in the same way the church or the family are instituted, but rather that they are not outside of His plans. That the state is instituted in the same way Satan is instituted. God is aware of them and God is not surprised when they do the things they do (I would refer you to Job 1:6-12 for the institution of Satan, though then it even seems that God has been paying no attention to Satan).
That a government instituted by God and doing the will of God "does not bear the sword in vain" is also inconsistent with the anti-war nature of the Gospel. As far as I've studied, a reasonable conclusion would be that in verses 2-4, Paul is advising Roman Christians to lay low. In v5 he comes out and basically says "do not incur the wrath of the state, do not offend consciences" (perhaps in the same manner as 1 Corinthians 10?) They were already on the radar for refusing the religion of the state, there was no need to go around getting themselves thrown in jail because they refused to pay tax (verse 6). Basically, as I understand, respect the people above you who can and will look for reasons to throw you in jail and ruin your witness and reputation.
"Part of Caesar's household." I would sooner gather that there were saints serving in Caesar's house, perhaps as slaves. What do you feel the implications are?
In regards to 2 Thessalonians 3, I absolutely agree. However, as I've mentioned in a previous post on this topic, we know that there are jobs that are not right for Christians to take. My step-mom once argued that a Christian with nursing experience should take a job at an abortion clinic if there were no other work available, a sentiment I strongly disagree with. Likewise, I don't think a Christian should be willing to turn to the sex industry if it means they can work and put food on the table for themselves and the needy, as the nature of the position makes it impossible for one to honor God with their body. If we gather, then, that political office is an unfit position for a Kingdom commissioned Christian, then there is no reason to assume a Christian should try to be faithful in such a role. Note: I am at this point referring to offices with any sort of legislating power, or any power to go to war. I cannot find any qualm with a Christian working as a public servant, other than perhaps the idea of working in a system that we can somewhat reasonably conclude is controlled by Satan.
As it will soon be 3 hours past my bed time, I am starting to lose my trains of thought and will end this here. If I am in error, I am open to being wrong, and as I said, desire grow in understanding together.