Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 5
Both men criticized the “false dichotomy” that says, “If you can vote on a sewer, why not vote for president?” What categories or boundaries did early Christians seem to assume between ordinary civil life (taxes, roads, courts) and participation in “the affairs of state”?
Another way to ask: What lines did early Christians seem to draw between normal civic life (like taxes and roads) and getting involved in running the state?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests early Christians accepted ordinary civil realities (like taxes and legal procedures) while treating political power-struggles and state decision-making as “foreign” to their citizenship in God’s kingdom.

Support from Transcript:

  • David on early Christians: they “stayed out of politics,” and Tertullian calls state affairs “entirely foreign to us.”
  • David notes civil life still existed (roads, walls): soldiers could “build walls or build roads,” but Christians refused war and oath-taking—showing boundaries around violence and allegiance.
  • David: “I’m going to pay my taxes as Jesus commanded us to do,” but that doesn’t mean stepping into Caesar’s decision-making world.
  • David distinguishes legal rights from politics: Paul insisting on a lawful trial is different than “elect[ing] the president”—“two entirely different things.”
  • Dean calls the “sewer vs president” move a misleading smear, like using small defensive actions to justify “atomic warfare”—a “false dichotomy.”
Discussion Follow-ups Where is the line today between living under government and sharing in government? What practices (oaths, coercion, party identity) most clearly signal crossing into “affairs of state”?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next