Separation of Church and state

The Church
schoel
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:11 am

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by schoel » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:30 pm

TheEditor wrote:Hi Schoel,

Certainly. It's a "knotty" problem because humans are involved. :lol: When theological paradigms are involved and cognitive dissonance rears its head, then the decisions will always be difficult. As far as persecution goes; I spent years growing up a JW. From the secular world nuclear annihilation was a given, when would it happen was the only question. From my church base, persecution for Jehovah's people was always "just around the corner". Having gotten it from both ends growing up, I'm kinda burnt out on the whole "persecution" thing. Seems to me Jesus advised "fleeing" if you are being persecuted.

Regards, Brenden.
Thanks for the clarification. My statements regarding persecution wasn't intended to be inflammatory or manipulative, but an attempt to identify why the American culture has relatively light persecution towards believers. I have a suspicion that it is because the church in America is way too cozy with the US Government.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by TheEditor » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:31 pm

Agreed.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

schoel
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:11 am

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by schoel » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:50 pm

Jepne wrote:Great questions, Schoel - I posted them on my FB page without your name - please advise if this is not ok with you.
This is completely ok. These ideas did not originate with me (see Anabaptists, 1st century believers, etc) and I stand on the shoulders of much greater men and women than I by repeating them.

I pray that the questions challenge American Christians to reconsider allegiance to any state.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by thrombomodulin » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:18 pm

MMathis wrote: A dead soldier gave you the right to have a church. Not CNN or a politician.
mattrose wrote: American citizens, I think, should be very thankful for American soldiers. They've helped to preserve an almost unheard of level of freedom relative to world history. But the type of freedom they've preserved is not really a biblical value in my opinion.
The above quotes affirm the idea that freedoms and rights proceed from the State. I would like to raise the question of whether this idea is correct.

Consider men who lived without the State (e.g. Adam, Seth, Cain, etc,.). Would you say that these men had freedoms, or were they without them? Surely these men were free (e.g. to have had a church - if I may make an anachronistic example). Their freedoms, however, could not have been granted by the State - since there was no State.

The State is the kind of institution that has the essential characteristic that it is a claim to have a monopoly on violence in a given territory. It has only really one means at its disposal to implement its will: it is the threat of violence against someone, or actually conducting an act of violence against someone. This is the opposite of freedom. Thus, it seems to me to be a correct view that the State is the kind of institution whose actions are inherently inhibitions on freedom, rather than a provision of it.

Of course, one can argue that State X is better than State Y, because State X infringes on the freedoms of its citizens less than State Y does against its citizens. This is no doubt true in exactly 50% of the cases. Nonetheless, I would like to question whether Christians should support any State at all since all States are in the business of infringing on God given freedoms. If we are thankful for American soldiers, does that not imply that we condone war? In other words, that we value having a certain amount of freedom under State X, more than the life of men from State Y?

PR
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:11 am

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by PR » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:32 am

It seems to me that one of the God given roles of the state is to keep evil down to a dull roar.

Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


While far from perfect, our system on government has done a fair job of this compared to the rest of the planet. Now there are areas, such as abortion, where it has failed miserably.

Also, our financial prosperity has allowed God to give American Christians a significant role in global evangelization.

So at the end of the day, are we essentially talking about a half full or half empty prespective? Remember, we live in the fallen side of the Kingdom.

Thanks,

Phil

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:51 am

PR wrote:It seems to me that one of the God given roles of the state is to keep evil down to a dull roar.
There are various views of the State held by Christians. Your reply is consistent with the most commonly held view of the State, which some have called the "revitailzed divine right of kings" (RDRK). This view of the State has many difficulties, for which I have not found a satisfactory solution.

One of the difficulties is that the actions characteristic of the State are at odds with the instructions given to Christians. For example, should we love our enemies, or kill them? Are we to judge those outside the church, or not? Are we to respect property rights of others, who have not engaged in wrongdoing, or violate them through taxation or compulsory service (e.g. jury duty, military draft)? Are we to allow any pair of men to freely engage in commerce with one another, or are we authorized to act in a third party capacity to prohibit exchanges?

A proponent of the RDRK view will affirm that these differences are not valid concerns because there are separate roles for rulers, and those who are ruled. In other words, they are affirming that there are any number of actions which are justified for a ruler to carry out, and that those same actions are not justified for those who are ruled to carry out. Perhaps this is the right answer, but I find it unsatisfactory for at least two reasons: First, in a system of government that welcomes citizen participation (e.g. through voting) the distinction in roles are blurred. For example, most would agree that coveting my neighbors wealth and taking it from him, sans the State, is wrong. Is it not wrong for social security beneficiaries to covet the wealth of those who are working, and vote in such a way as to accomplish the same result: that wealth of their neighbors is taken from them so as to be given to themselves? Another example: It would not be right for me to compel my neighbor to pay for the education of my children, sans the State. But is it not wrong for me to vote on a ballot in favor of property taxes that accomplish the same thing? Second, there must be some way of identifying who the rulers are and over whom any given ruler is authorized to rule. In certain cases in old testament times, this was known when a prophet of God was sent to anoint a man to be a king. I am not aware of any ruler today who has, or can, make such a claim to affirm his position. How then do we know if those who claim to be rulers are indeed authorized by God to be there? This leads to the question of secession: how is any ruler to know whether he, or another ruler, is authorized to rule over any particular person? How should the righteous ruler, in modern times, reply if his subjects were to say "another man has arisen, and we wish to be subject to him instead of you?", or even "What share do we have in you, what part in your kingdom?" (1 Kings 2:16). If one answers that question in such a way as to allow for unlimited secession, does it not follow that this cannot be reconciled with the concept of the State, and thus RDRK is invalid?
PR wrote:So at the end of the day, are we essentially talking about a half full or half empty perspective?
No, I rather see this as a question of ethics, and consistency in the application ethics. I'll give an example: My church praises veterans on holidays like memorial day. The pastor has criticized Dietrich Bonhoeffer for rebelling against the "Lord's anointed". The WWII veterans and Dietrich acted to accomplish the same objective, why should one be praised and the other condemned?

PR
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:11 am

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by PR » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:31 am

You make some good points thrombomodulin. The end of my post, "Remember, we live in the fallen side of the Kingdom." was meant to acknowledge some of these problems. The "now, but not yet" aspect of living in the Kingdom of God in this fallen world is challenging at times.

Let me take a little different tack in answering your questions. It doesn't seem that the first century church got too caught up in the political realm. Think about the Caesar worship and so on. ( I had to go check a bottle of salad dressing to see if I spelled it correctly!) I know they weren't living in a democracy, and that didn't seem to deter them from evangelizing, ministering to the poor and so forth. And the church grew greatly during that time period. Not unlike the church in China today. Maybe the type of rulership we live under is simply not very important. We live in a different Kingdom now, but still we answer to the Kingdoms of this world. We do what seems to us to be right in the voting booth and so forth, but at the end of the day we fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our salvation.

"The pastor has criticized Dietrich Bonhoeffer for rebelling against the "Lord's anointed"." Please don't take this the wrong way, but personally I don't think I'd be able to stay at this church. Does he think Hitler was the Lord's annointed?

Thanks,

Phil

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:26 pm

PR wrote:You make some good points thrombomodulin. The end of my post, "Remember, we live in the fallen side of the Kingdom." was meant to acknowledge some of these problems. The "now, but not yet" aspect of living in the Kingdom of God in this fallen world is challenging at times.
Thanks. Yes we do live in a fallen world. I can only wonder what we are to do about it - if anything.
PR wrote:Let me take a little different tack in answering your questions. It doesn't seem that the first century church got too caught up in the political realm. Think about the Caesar worship and so on. ( I had to go check a bottle of salad dressing to see if I spelled it correctly!) I know they weren't living in a democracy, and that didn't seem to deter them from evangelizing, ministering to the poor and so forth. And the church grew greatly during that time period. Not unlike the church in China today. Maybe the type of rulership we live under is simply not very important. We live in a different Kingdom now, but still we answer to the Kingdoms of this world. We do what seems to us to be right in the voting booth and so forth, but at the end of the day we fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our salvation.
One of the alternative views to RDRK is that the of "competing kingdoms", where the kingdoms of this world are not viewed in any way as being allies with the kingdom of God. Could it be that Jesus and the first century Christians were not caught up in the political realm because they saw it as a competing kingdom, unworthy of their support? I'm content to avoid or minimization participation in any affairs of the State, lest I participate in, support, or condone the wrongdoing of the State. This is a given, since I hold the view that the State cannot exist without being engaged in wrongdoing (e.g. secession problem above).
PR wrote:"The pastor has criticized Dietrich Bonhoeffer for rebelling against the "Lord's anointed"." Please don't take this the wrong way, but personally I don't think I'd be able to stay at this church. Does he think Hitler was the Lord's annointed?
I would like to say I have taken some liberty in not following my pastors words precisely, but I think I faithfully communicating the ideas he expressed from the pulpit. It is just the typical RDRK stuff that one is likely to find in just about any church. He had unequivocally affirmed that Hilter was in the "ruler" position for citizens of Germany, and as such it was wrong for Dietrich Bonhoeffer to rebel against him. He also affirmed that President Obama was quote "the Lord's anointed". In the context of that sermon he was advocating the idea that the top ruler of every modern day sovereign nation is in the role of ruler with the divinely ordained RDRK prerogatives. Hence my extrapolation to conclude the same title applies to Hilter. I asked him to address the above contradiction in a private conversation at a subsequent time. He did acknowledge the contradiction and expressed uncertainty as to whether we can really know if Dietrich Bonhoeffer (or the soldiers) should be considered murders or hero's.

User avatar
Jepne
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:08 pm

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by Jepne » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:51 pm

I have been appreciating this discussion - thank you for the time and heart you are putting into it.

We have studied Bonhoeffer and my impression is not that he rebelled against the German gov but that he did what was right by helping Jews to escape and helped make provision for the nation for when the gov fell, which it would inevitably do. I am not clear as to whether he actually helped with the assassination plot.
"Anything you think you know about God that you can't find in the person of Jesus, you have reason to question.” - anonymous

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Separation of Church and state

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm

Jepne wrote:I have been appreciating this discussion - thank you for the time and heart you are putting into it.

We have studied Bonhoeffer and my impression is not that he rebelled against the German gov but that he did what was right by helping Jews to escape and helped make provision for the nation for when the gov fell, which it would inevitably do. I am not clear as to whether he actually helped with the assassination plot.
Jepne, thanks for mentioning that. I am not very well informed about Bonhoeffer, and I had been assuming that he was involved in the assassination plot. If was not involved, then I probably have said some things in error above.

Pete

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”