Thread by @RScottClark

This just isn’t true.

https://twitter.com/oldlife/status/1320337044879691777

It simply doesn’t follow and there is no evidence that the apostles or early post-apostolic church intended to say Ekklesia, in Christsn use, meant what it meant in secular usage.

Ekklesia is used in the LXX (The Greek translation of the Old Testament) in place of the Hebrew word for “covenant assembly.“ This is how it is used in the New Testament.

We may not use the word Ekklesia as a lever to turn Christ’s Church into something it is not.

The "third-century" text cited is a 2nd century text, most likely from c. AD 150. The point of which is to say that Christian assemblies are *political* in the usual sense of the word. They are a politeia. The anonymous author (he calls himself a "Disciple")

was writing to an influential figure, perhaps someone in the Roman empire, to explain that Christians live in two cities simultaneously. He was echoing Paul in Phil 3:20. Our fundamental citizenship is in heaven.

The phrase "political theology" needs to be considered very carefully. Personally, I find it highly problematic. Ditto for the expression "Christian politics." On this see D. G. Hart, _Our Secular Faith_. @oldlife

Prayer, fasting etc are not "inherently political acts." We need to resist the cultural trend of politicizing everything. The early Christians most certainly did not do that. The writer to Diognetus, who was trying to persuade him to become a Christian, did not

portray every act of devotion as a "political" act. His argument, as was Justin's, was that Christian are good citizens where they are. As Christians we have no *political* agenda.