How Should We Separate Church and State

[mkgal1]

I'm not posting this is the politics forum, because .....well, I guess because--according to what I've been told---I hold to "controversial theology" and I wanted to be able to speak openly. I saw this interview this morning and it's got me thinking. I agree that Jesus' agenda was definitely "political" (depending on how one defines that word)....so I wonder HOW we are to properly draw the lines between church and state and what that actually should mean. I'd love it if you could watch the interview prior to posting in order to understand the question I'm asking:

 

[miknik5]

I'm not posting this is the politics forum, because .....well, I guess because--according to what I've been told---I hold to "controversial theology" and I wanted to be able to speak openly. I saw this interview this morning and it's got me thinking. I agree that Jesus' agenda was definitely "political" (depending on how one defines that word)....so I wonder HOW we are to properly draw the lines between church and state and what that actually should mean. I'd love it if you could watch the interview prior to posting in order to understand the question I'm asking:

I don't agree that Jesus' agenda was definitely "political" at all...

How could it be "political"?

He didn't come to arbitrate between men.
He came to bring together what had been separated because of all these "outward names and labels" we have given ourselves...

 

[miknik5]

I'm not posting this is the politics forum, because .....well, I guess because--according to what I've been told---I hold to "controversial theology" and I wanted to be able to speak openly. I saw this interview this morning and it's got me thinking. I agree that Jesus' agenda was definitely "political" (depending on how one defines that word)....so I wonder HOW we are to properly draw the lines between church and state and what that actually should mean. I'd love it if you could watch the interview prior to posting in order to understand the question I'm asking:

im watching it now...sorry.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not posting this is the politics forum, because .....well, I guess because--according to what I've been told---I hold to "controversial theology" and I wanted to be able to speak openly. I saw this interview this morning and it's got me thinking. I agree that Jesus' agenda was definitely "political" (depending on how one defines that word)....so I wonder HOW we are to properly draw the lines between church and state and what that actually should mean. I'd love it if you could watch the interview prior to posting in order to understand the question I'm asking:

CHURCHES SHOULD BE FREE TO express their views and conduct their
affairs with a minimum of Federal restrictions. Every corporate body recives
some benefit from governmental services and in return should conduct
themselves as required by federal law.

 

[Targaryen]

I don't understand exactly what you are trying to express in this case. Are you saying the church body is wrong? The Pastor? What exactly made this a case of Church and State?

 

[miknik5]

I'm not posting this is the politics forum, because .....well, I guess because--according to what I've been told---I hold to "controversial theology" and I wanted to be able to speak openly. I saw this interview this morning and it's got me thinking. I agree that Jesus' agenda was definitely "political" (depending on how one defines that word)....so I wonder HOW we are to properly draw the lines between church and state and what that actually should mean. I'd love it if you could watch the interview prior to posting in order to understand the question I'm asking:

Ahhh?


This is a diversion...it's a shifting the focus off of CHRIST unto an "agenda" which is the result of those who do not know CHRIST...

And so this man patches up a temporal problem with temporal solutions...but does not provide what really lasts.


And the people like it that way...







Thi

 

[miknik5]

CHURCHES SHOULD BE FREE TO express their views and conduct their
affairs with a minimum of Federal restrictions. Every corporate body recives
some benefit from governmental services and in return should conduct
themselves as required by federal law.

The "body" of CHRIST's true purpose is to preach and exalt CHRIST.

 

[miknik5]

I don't understand exactly what you are trying to express in this case. Are you saying the church body is wrong? The Pastor? What exactly made this a case of Church and State?

I say this reverend is confused and forgot THE BETTER PART.

 

[miknik5]

He is doing a backwards attempt to appease flesh.
Removing the names of white generals as if these supposed historical monuments are being worshipped or even considered as nothing more than idle...idols...

If one even considers them to be so,

He is attempting to appease black men and women by "taking a stand" in removing white male prominent figures of history.

Unbelievable.

Yeah!

This should solve all the world's problems!!!

 

[Targaryen]

I say this reverend is confused and forgot THE BETTER PART.

Actually, not at all. But, that's fine. You can go back to your limited view of the church if you want. The Church's role is to glorify Christ yes, and serve as the barer of his message in the world. I think you willingly negate that bit.

 

[miknik5]

He needs to wake up and see that what he is doing is adding more confusion in areas that were not even thought of...

Now we have white reverends trying to tear down historical monuments as if this matters...

What will this solve?

 

[miknik5]

Actually, not at all. But, that's fine. You can go back to your limited view of the church if you want. The Church's role is to glorify Christ yes, and serve as the barer of his message in the world. I think you willingly negate that bit.

CHRIST, you mean?
the limited view of the ONE GOSPEL?

Yes...
I will.

 

[miknik5]

Bye

 

[W2L]

He needs to wake up and see that what he is doing is adding more confusion in areas that were not even thought of...

Now we have white reverends trying to tear down historical monuments as if this matters...

What will this solve?

It wont solve anything. People will still hate and be discontent with life.

 

[Targaryen]

It wont solve anything. People will still hate and be discontent with life.

So you're suggesting we as the Church should stand idly by while hate is sown? Interesting.

 

[mkgal1]

How could it be "political"?

Did you happen to watch the video (that's why I requested that it be viewed....because it answers that question pretty well, IMO). ETA: I just now saw your post that stated you're watching it.

 

[W2L]

So you're suggesting we as the Church should stand idly by while hate is sown? Interesting.

Of course not. Do you think taking down statues will diminish hatred? That was my point. I see politics and how they play out. Politics will always be full of hatred.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't understand exactly what you are trying to express in this case. Are you saying the church body is wrong? The Pastor? What exactly made this a case of Church and State?

Sorry I wasn't clear at all what I was trying to express.

I really admire Rev Rob Lee....and think he's doing just what the body of Christ ought to be doing (speaking out against hatred and bigotry....loving inclusively.....and not allowing the pressure of his congregation to change his behavior).

I hear so many people saying that "clergy shouldn't get involved in politics"....but maybe we need to first define what "politics" are? If speaking out against hatred and bigotry is "political" (which I don't believe it is).....then what is the function or scope of influence clergy is supposed to have.

....for some reason I don't believe that's any more clear. I'm trying to multi-task right now and it's not going so well.

 

[Serving Zion]

I'm not posting this is the politics forum, because .....well, I guess because--according to what I've been told---I hold to "controversial theology" and I wanted to be able to speak openly. I saw this interview this morning and it's got me thinking. I agree that Jesus' agenda was definitely "political" (depending on how one defines that word)....so I wonder HOW we are to properly draw the lines between church and state and what that actually should mean. I'd love it if you could watch the interview prior to posting in order to understand the question I'm asking:

Jesus Christ is the King of Truth (John 18:37) and righteousness (Revelation 19:11), and we enter covenant to represent Him on earth for that purpose. Truth and righteousness have vital place in both politics and religion. But I don't know why you have suggested that church and state ought be separate things, and why you have shown this video too (mind, I am not in or from USA, I do not have the social context of an insider).

This video seems to be more about racism than separating church and state, and more about suppressing the words of truth and righteousness in pulpits (John 16:2, Luke 19:14, 2 Peter 2:1c).

 

[mkgal1]

But I don't know why you have suggested that church and state ought be separate things, and why you have shown this video too (mind, I am not in or from USA, I do not have the social context of an insider).

This video seems to be more about racism than separating church and state, and more about suppressing the words of truth and righteousness in pulpits

I think maybe it's best if I back up a bit and begin here (where separation of church and state is discussed). My reason from throwing that into the mix is because of the vast number of people that get angsty whenever a person of clergy tries to approach this topic.

But first:

Americans are frequently reminded of what the revisionists deem our greatest achievement: “Separation of Church and State.” Crosses are ripped down in parks. Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere found in the Constitution or any other founding legislation. Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today.


The phrase “separation of church and state” was initially coined by Baptists striving for religious toleration in Virginia, whose official state religion was then Anglican (Episcopalian). Baptists thought government limitations against religion illegitimate. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed their cause.

The preamble in Act Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (1786), affirms that “the Author of our Religion gave us our ‘free will.’” And that He “chose not to propagate it by coercions.” This legislation certainly did not diminish religious influence on government for it also provided stiff penalties for conducting business on the Sabbath.~https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfl...-separation-of-church-and-state/#3d9b38a95d02

I'm actually unclear--and wishing to understand better--where those lines are legally drawn.