Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

[The Barbarian]

Which makes the problem of demarcating where religious authority lies, and where state authority lies, even more vexxing if we do not want to compromise one of them. And I don't mean institutional authority of church governance, as that is ultimately just another worldly delegated authority dressed up in religious clothing. I am instead talking about where the line lies between personal moral conscience, and state authority. Especially in a democracy, Christians can't simply leave their values at the door of the voting booth and pretend that participating in selecting governance isn't tied with moral conviction.

What would Jesus do? He railed against injustice, false pride, and sin, but He never called on government to take action. If government asks you to obey in some way that is contrary to your faith, you must resist. But you are not called on to make the government an agency of faith. God neither needs nor wants a government handout.

 

[Fervent]

What would Jesus do? He railed against injustice, false pride, and sin, but He never called on government to take action. If government asks you to obey in some way that is contrary to your faith, you must resist. But you are not called on to make the government an agency of faith. God neither needs nor wants a government handout.

Jesus lived under a government in which the citizenry had little input. Democracies are supposed to act in the interests of their populations, so as a voter an individual Christian can never put aside their convictions to allow the government to either implicitly or explicitly endorse actions contrary to their conscience. When the government is "by the people, for the people," then whatever convictions the people hold should be expressed within that government. Which cannot be neatly separated into the secular and the sacred.

 

[PloverWing]

This is one of the central Liberal myths.. that anything "authoritarian" is evil in principle.

I would say that authoritarian governments too often become evil in practice. Not necessarily in principle -- I could theoretically imagine a perfectly wise king or queen who always made the best decisions for the welfare of the people in their country. But in practice, it's hard for a person, or a small group of people, to hold lots of power and not be tempted into bad places by that power.

Not Satan. He loves it. If people won't be ruled by virtue, they'll be enslaved by vices. Hmmm... what has America's trajectory been for the last couple centuries?

It's been a mix, because human beings are simultaneously both sinners and saints. But I'd say the big-picture trajectory has been towards increased recognition of human rights.

In the last couple of centuries (so, since 1824), we've gotten better at recognizing that Black people are people, women are people, people of non-Christian faiths are people, and Asian people are people, all deserving of full human rights. We still have a ways to go, but I like the overall trajectory.

Which constitution does America follow these days? Are you still trying to figure out if people should have freedom of association or instead be subject to state-enforced mixing of all cultures and ethnicities? Liberalism gets awful confusing, doesn't it...

We follow a constitution that has been amended a few times and that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

"State-enforced mixing of ethnicities". Let us speak plainly. We're talking about the government forcefully ending the practice of racial segregation. The liberties of one group who wanted access to education, employment, housing, and marriage came into conflict with the liberties of another group who wanted to deny that access. Even in a free society, liberties can conflict, and the government has to settle it if the parties can't resolve it themselves.

You're not arguing that we should go back to the practice of segregation, are you?

 

[The Barbarian]

Interesting. Jesus and the apostles never said anything about authoritarians being intrinsically evil.

Jesus pointedly refused to take political stands at all. He specifically never accepted tyrrany, either.

This is where the religion of Liberty formally breaks from the Word of the Lord.

You have it backwards. It's where the Word of the Lord comes up against the religion of authoritarianism:

Madison wrote a very good statement on how authoritarian states and God's church are incompatible.
Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785

founders.archives.gov

The founders knew what authoritarian states do to God's Church and his people, and wanted none of it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

This is what all authoritarians fear.

Not Satan.

Satan is the model for all subsequent authoritarians. Few human authoritarians come close to Satan's example. But he also fears liberty for the reasons Madison pointed out. Christianity (and most faiths, I think) thrive in free societies.

God says to obey those set above you.

So you agree that the American revolution was also a revolution against God's commandments.

You have it backwards. Because British law required representation for valid government, the colonies were merely following the law in establishing a legal government according to British law. They probably don't teach the Declaration of Independence in your country; the current regime would consider it crimethink. But still. In America, it's the Constitution set above us. We are a nation of laws,not men.

Which constitution does America follow these days?

We only have one.

Are you still trying to figure out if people should have freedom of association or instead be subject to state-enforced mixing of all cultures and ethnicities?

You're thinking of the issues your country has had with minorities. Segregationists once parroted Stalin's solution for ethnic minorities, but it never worked, did it? "State-enforced mixing of cultures and ethnicities" sounds like the boogeymen of white nationalists everywhere. If you think that's what liberty is, we've located the problem. The real problem is that those people want state-enforced separation of cultures and ethnicities.

Freedom of association is a right, but only on your own dime. Government can't and won't do it for you. If you don't like eating in restaurants with black or Jewish people, then eat at home or start a club that excludes the people you fear and/or hate.

Liberalism gets awful confusing, doesn't it.

John Adams once declared that one could never build a democracy out of "Spanish timber." Turns out he was wrong in the long run, but he had a point. Freedom failed in your country because there was little cultural grounding for it. People were "confused." Weak societies long for strong leaders.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yet American founding mythology follows that the Declaration of Independence was the furtherance of God's kingdom on earth through armed revolt and political conquest to usher in the age of Liberty.

No. That's the story some establishmentarians would have. But it's false.

The American Civil War is also claimed to be the further ushering in of God's Government (think of the Battle Hymn of the Republic)

Don't remember it being adopted in law. A lot of people have assumed God's blessing for Liberty, and given the fact that His Church tends to thrive in such societies, it might be so. But that's not the basis for American democracy. First Amendment and all that, you know. Or maybe you don't. Do that teach that where you went to school?

Most of the professing Christians who complain about Christian nationalism or the mixing of religion and politics actually celebrate it throughout American history, just as long as such a syncretization is always leading towards a universal liberalism and away from the particularities of the Bible.

You seem to have that backwards, too. Madison even complained about making churches tax-exempt. Jefferson specifically said that religious freedom was intended to protect Christians, Muslims, Jews, "Hindoos" and "infidels."

Out of one side of their mouths they tell other Christians to keep God out of government and be detached from the world of politics and simply spread the Gospel... meanwhile those same people are constantly politically active in defending tenets of liberalism and promoting "sacred democracy", promoting the sanctity of political documents like the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution, and essentially advocating for permanent revolution against monarchy or any non-liberal political structures.

Actually, the Constitution is not a sacred text, but a practical set of laws to govern a free and just society. We even change it from time to time as necessary. You've been rather badly misled by whoever you trusted.

They are commonly seen developing a religious zeal to defend modern liberal democratic institutions against any potential intrusion.

As Madison wrote, the founders had seen how other systems worked, and wanted none of it. Nothing seen since in authoritarian regimes has given us any reason to doubt their wisdom.

It might be that weak societies need strong leaders. But over time they can become capable of self-government. Germany was once cited as a necessarily authoritarian state. And yet, it's a functioning democracy now. Russia might be strong enough for that, some day.

 

[lifepsyop]

You have it backwards. It's where the Word of the Lord comes up against the religion of authoritarianism:

Madison wrote a very good statement on how authoritarian states and God's church are incompatible.

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785

founders.archives.gov

The founders knew what authoritarian states do to God's Church and his people, and wanted none of it.

This is more sacralizing of modern history... "Whig History" as it's known. Over a thousand years of Christendom was a long dark age of ignorance until the divine spirit of enlightenment and democracy saved humanity and rescued the church.

You have it backwards. Because British law required representation for valid government, the colonies were merely following the law in establishing a legal government according to British law.

Hmmm... was that British law established before or after they chopped off the king's head?

Yes, the American revolt was the exported culmination of a liberal revolution already underway in England.

I'm assuming that since you believe liberal democracy is sacred and God-ordained, you probably also believe it was perfectly lawful for parliamentarians to behead the king because he wasn't respecting the "divine right of representative government"

They probably don't teach the Declaration of Independence in your country; the current regime would consider it crimethink.

I'm just curious, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian agent?

But still. In America, it's the Constitution set above us.

Ha ha, good one, but no. The constitution is a museum piece. If anything, 20th century Civil Rights Law is the new constitution that the regime actually uses.

We are a nation of laws,not men.

That means absolutely nothing. Men's laws change on a whim. e.g. it used to be illegal to kill children in the womb and now they are slaughtered on an industrial scale. Good ol' American Liberty!

You're thinking of the issues your country has had with minorities. Segregationists once parroted Stalin's solution for ethnic minorities, but it never worked, did it? "State-enforced mixing of cultures and ethnicities" sounds like the boogeymen of white nationalists everywhere. If you think that's what liberty is, we've located the problem. The real problem is that those people want state-enforced separation of cultures and ethnicities.

Forcing cultures to mix at the point of a gun is just as evil as forcing them to segregate. There is nothing loving about that kind of violent social engineering.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is more sacralizing of modern history... "Whig History" as it's known.

It's just facts. That's what Madison wrote. Is hand-waving the best you can do?

Over a thousand years of Christendom was a long dark age of ignorance

I thought you claimed that was "sacralizing." Now, you're agreeing with Madison. Try to find a story and stick to it.

You have it backwards. Because British law required representation for valid government, the colonies were merely following the law in establishing a legal government according to British law.

Hmmm... was that British law established before or after they chopped off the king's head?

Cromwell was regarded as an illegal dictator by most English jurists, precisely because he didn't follow the law. Likewise Parliament was acting illegally by ruling the colonies without representation. Hence, the Colonists were merely acting within their rights as Englishmen.

Yes, the American revolt was the exported culmination of a liberal revolution already underway in England.

Dates back to the Magna Carta. Early 1200s. So a long culmination. But it wasn't "culminated" in 1776 or even later with the Bill of Rights. As late as the 1960s, some people were less equal than others under the law in some states. Ongoing process.

Ha ha, good one, but no. The constitution is a museum piece. If anything, 20th century Civil Rights Law is the new constitution that the regime actually uses.

Civil rights law depends on the 14th Amendment. Part of the Constitution. Thought you knew. But maybe they don't teach that in your country.

I'm just curious, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian agent?

I didn't know you were Russian. You just left a lot of clues that you weren't American. Do you have to be an agent of your government to post on social media here?

We are a nation of laws,not men.

That means absolutely nothing.

It means a lot to Americans. But as I said, other cultures may not be strong enough to depend on law instead of authoritarians.

You're thinking of the issues your country has had with minorities. Segregationists once parroted Stalin's solution for ethnic minorities, but it never worked, did it? "State-enforced mixing of cultures and ethnicities" sounds like the boogeymen of white nationalists everywhere. If you think that's what liberty is, we've located the problem. The real problem is that those people want state-enforced separation of cultures and ethnicities.

Forcing cultures to mix at the point of a gun is just as evil as forcing them to segregate.

Sorry to hear that. But where, other than in the Russian conscription system, does that happen?

There is nothing loving about that kind of violent social engineering.

That's what Russian dissidents are saying. Hope it gets better soon.

 

[Dale]

That's not what Jesus is saying there, that statement basically allows both the herodians and the pharisees to interpret it how they want to. It was a crafty non-answer to evade a trap question. Authority ultimately has to have its source somewhere, either God gives the state it's authority or the state determines how far God's authority reaches. There's room for some co-existence, but there's bound to be points of friction(such as in the example you mention, where the pharisees saw paying taxes as infidelity to God and the herodians saw a failure to pay taxes as sedition) eventually a person has to decide where their true loyalty lies.

Fervent: “It was a crafty non-answer to evade a trap question.”

Jesus does not give crafty non-answers. It was trick question, and Jesus handled it perfectly. The answer that Jesus gives his disciples, and members of the public, always cut to the heart of the matter, and that is what he does here. “Render unto Caesar things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God’s,” is a clear statement that we can draw a line between the religious and the secular. Apparently you are refusing to draw that line.

 

[Fervent]

Fervent: “It was a crafty non-answer to evade a trap question.”

Jesus does not give crafty non-answers. It was trick question, and Jesus handled it perfectly. The answer that Jesus gives his disciples, and members of the public, always cut to the heart of the matter, and that is what he does here. “Render unto Caesar things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God’s,” is a clear statement that we can draw a line between the religious and the secular. Apparently you are refusing to draw that line.

It is no such statement, it's a diplomatic answer that can be understood to be either an affirmative to the question or a negative answer to whether or not they should pay their taxes. Because there is nothing that belongs to Caesar that is not simply something God has placed in his hands. The Herodians would have taken it to mean pay your taxes, and the Pharisees would have taken it to mean don't pay your taxes. And both parties were satisfied, which is why neither party was able to raise a complaint against him based on their trap question.

 

[The Barbarian]

t is no such statement, it's a diplomatic answer that can be understood to be either an affirmative to the question or a negative answer to whether or not they should pay their taxes. Because there is nothing that belongs to Caesar that is not simply something God has placed in his hands. The Herodians would have taken it to mean pay your taxes, and the Pharisees would have taken it to mean don't pay your taxes. And both parties were satisfied, which is why neither party was able to raise a complaint against him based on their trap question.

A Zen master would say that Jesus "unasked" the question.

 

[Fervent]

A Zen master would say that Jesus "unasked" the question.

That's a good way to put it.

 

[Merrill]

My understand of the passage has always been this

Jesus has not come to fix your tax problems

Jesus wants your heart and soul, not your money

It is NOT to be interpreted as "Jesus told everyone to bow down to every secular authority that manifest itself"

and such interpretation is cynical heresy

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

My understand of the passage has always been this

Jesus has not come to fix your tax problems

Jesus wants your heart and soul, not your money

It is NOT to be interpreted as "Jesus told everyone to bow down to every secular authority that manifest itself"

and such interpretation is cynical heresy

I've always seen it as pragmatic. Governments in many ways unjustly demand money even without consent and they will in the end kill you if you fail to pay taxes. It is better to pay taxes to Caesar than to lose your life pointlessly resisting. It does not justify the use of naked force, by empires like Rome or the USA or any other country, it's just how things are.

 

[The Barbarian]

Titus 3:1 Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers, to obey at a word, to be ready to every good work.

 

[lifepsyop]

I thought you claimed that was "sacralizing."

I did, and you are.

Whig history (or Whig historiography) is an approach to historiography that presents history as a journey from an oppressive and benighted past to a "glorious present"

Pretty typical worldview really. We are prideful people.

Cromwell was regarded as an illegal dictator by most English jurists, precisely because he didn't follow the law.

Predictable that you lay all the blame on an individual, (your authoritarian bogeyman) while completely ignoring the role of parliament.

"On Saturday 27 January 1649, the parliamentarian High Court of Justice had declared Charles guilty of attempting to "uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people" and he was sentenced to death by beheading."

This was a successful uprising in the name of liberty. How could it be illegal if they were just living by the "law" of overthrowing tyrants in the name of representative government? Is this not what you keep repeating over and over again?

Likewise Parliament was acting illegally by ruling the colonies without representation. Hence, the Colonists were merely acting within their rights as Englishmen.

You said it was a nation of laws, not men... why are you focusing on their ethnicity? What does being English have to do with anything?

Dates back to the Magna Carta. Early 1200s. So a long culmination. But it wasn't "culminated" in 1776 or even later with the Bill of Rights. As late as the 1960s, some people were less equal than others under the law in some states. Ongoing process.

Indeed. The urge to revolt against authority goes back to the very beginning doesn't it? Personally, I think Nominalism had a lot to do with it also. This tendency of ours to strip all order and hierarchy out of the universe and reduce it all down to rational individual persons and properties. Very Lockean.

Currently this ongoing process is concerned with dissolving national borders. Which I'm sure you are pleased with. The particularities of individual nations must be dissolved just like the particularities of ethnic groups within those nations. Permanent revolution.

Civil rights law depends on the 14th Amendment. Part of the Constitution. Thought you knew. But maybe they don't teach that in your country.

"Civil rights law" dissolves the boundary between the public and private spheres. I'm pretty sure the framers of the constitution were going for something different. I read somewhere how those distinctions are kind of important.

Not that this "law" you keep going on about has any real tangible meaning. It's just wherever your ongoing liberal revolution happens to be in the current decade. The U.S. constitution only matters to you as far as it can be used to justify this amorphous progressive law of liberty.

 

[The Barbarian]

I thought you claimed that was "sacralizing."

I did, and you are.

It's just facts. That's what Madison wrote. Is hand-waving the best you can do?

Whig history (or Whig historiography) is an approach to historiography that presents history as a journey from an oppressive and benighted past to a "glorious present"

How, exactly, do you think Madison did that? He certainly pointed out the oppressive and benighted past (you also did that).

lifepsyop said:

Over a thousand years of Christendom was a long dark age of ignorance

So you and Madison are "sacralizing" thereby?

Pretty typical worldview really. We are prideful people.

You, maybe. Madison, not so sure.

Cromwell was regarded as an illegal dictator by most English jurists, precisely because he didn't follow the law.

Predictable that you lay all the blame on an individual

As "Lord Protector", he had unlimited power. Thought you knew. Do they not teach English History where you live?

"On Saturday 27 January 1649, the parliamentarian High Court of Justice had declared Charles guilty of attempting to "uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people" and he was sentenced to death by beheading."

The Supreme Soviet also declared what Stalin wanted. You're seriously surprised?

Likewise Parliament was acting illegally by ruling the colonies without representation. Hence, the Colonists were merely acting within their rights as Englishmen.

You said it was a nation of laws, not men... why are you focusing on their ethnicity?

You're confusing nationality with ethnicity. They weren't all ethnic Anglo-Saxons. But they were all English citizens, be they Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, German, Jewish, or whatever. In Soviet Russia, that was the ideal, wasn't it? Each ethnic group had their own republic. (except for ones not liked very much by Dear Leader)

Indeed. The urge to revolt against authority goes back to the very beginning doesn't it? Personally, I think Nominalism had a lot to do with it also. This tendency of ours to strip all order and hierarchy out of the universe and reduce it all down to rational individual persons and properties. Very Lockean.

Turns out, "order and hierarchy" in the past somehow turned out to make sure all the goodies ended up with the guys at the top. And not surprisingly, Locke's prediction that free societies would prosper more than oppressive ones has been repeatedly confirmed.

How's Russia been doing since democracy collapsed? Yep. North Korea? Venezuela? Hard to ignore, isn't it?

Currently this ongoing process is concerned with dissolving national borders.

Which national border do you think has been dissolved? Well, Putin is trying that in Ukraine, but his projected weeks-long "special operation" has run into some problems, no? Some libertarians would like the U.S. to return to the way our founders had it, with no immigration controls, but things are more complicated now. Still for something like 140 years, it worked pretty well. The United States became prosperous and a world power in that time. I know, they didn't teach that were you lived.

Civil rights law depends on the 14th Amendment. Part of the Constitution. Thought you knew. But maybe they don't teach that in your country.

"Civil rights law" dissolves the boundary between the public and private spheres.

In Russia, maybe.

Russian government ownership of various companies and organizations, collectively known as state-owned enterprises (SOEs), still play an important role in the national economy. The approximately 4,100 enterprises that have some degree of state ownership accounted for 39% of all employment in 2007 (down from over 80% in 1990).[1][2] In 2007, SOEs controlled 64% of the banking sector, 47% of the oil and gas sector, and 37% of the utility sector.[2]

State corporations are established by the Russian government to boost industrial sectors.[3] Rosstat figures show that 529,300 enterprises are partly or wholly owned by the state, of which between 30,000 and 31,000 are commercial companies (generating revenue).[4] The 54 largest enterprises account for over two-thirds of the total revenues generated by state-owned organizations.[4] SOEs account for 40% of the capitalization on the Russian stock market, one of the highest shares in the world.[4]

And Putin has more or less brought private businesses under informal state control.

I read somewhere how those distinctions are kind of important.

Maybe for Putin.

Not that this "law" you keep going on about has any real tangible meaning.

Ask Donald Trump. He might have a different opinion, these days...

It's just wherever your ongoing liberal revolution happens to be in the current decade.

Supreme Court seems to disagree with you on that. Reality is often disappointing, but it is real.

The U.S. constitution only matters to you as far as it can be used to justify this amorphous progressive law of liberty.

Liberty might annoy you, but notice what a lack of it has done for your country.

 

[Dale]

Jesus chose to touch this man --the Messiah didn't hide in the basement of a cottage out of fear of contracting a disease

Both He and His Disciples ministered to the sick (Luke 17:12, etc.), blessed them, etc. They didn't hide from the world because some health official told them to "socially distance"

Jesus never once put himself below the authority of Rabbis, and we are made clean through Him, not by following some arbitrary edict handed down by unbelievers. Jesus established the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:28-34, etc.) and established "The new and everlasting covenant". Christ demanded we love our neighbors as ourselves, and did not banish the sick from the presence of believers

And in the history of the Christian faith are countless examples where churches, priests, popes, etc. resisted the capricious and arbitrary commands and edicts from tyrants and atheists. The Soviet period is a good example of this.

Merrill: << Both He and His Disciples ministered to the sick (Luke 17:12, etc.), blessed them, etc. They didn't hide from the world because some health official told them to "socially distance" >>

You are adding a spin to the Gospels which is not in the original.

Merrill: << Jesus never once put himself below the authority of Rabbis, and we are made clean through Him, not by following some arbitrary edict handed down by unbelievers. >>

Jesus did uphold much of the OT law, except as modified in the Sermon on the Mount. It could be argued that OT law expired at the crucifixion, the resurrection, or the destruction of the Temple.

Here is one sign that your view of Jesus putting himself above the Jewish priests and rabbis falls short. All four Gospels agree that Jesus celebrated the Passover just before the Cruxifixion. Did Jesus say, “I am above the Levite priests. I don’t need them or the Temple.” Did Jesus sacrifice the paschal lamb himself instead of going to the Temple to have it sacrificed by a priest? He did not. Jesus granted the priests their place, during His active ministry on earth.

 

[Dale]

Let's unpack the real claim that is being made here

1. You assert that Jesus upheld the religious laws regarding lepers
2. You assert that Jesus recognized the authority of the priest in this matter

and I am claiming:

1. If Jesus was truly upholding the "law" in regards to lepers, He and His followers would not be interacting with, and ministering to lepers.
2. Jesus telling the man to present himself to the priest is not a demonstration of Jesus' deferral of authority to the priest.
3. There is a distinction between Christ's Law and the laws of the OT (and this has always been debated, but it is where I stand on the issue)
4. There is no evidence in the NT that Jesus admonished people for socializing with lepers, that He cast the lepers out of society and the religious community.

Merrill,

In post #132 I posed a simple question for you:

<< Was Jesus wrong to tell the leper to show himself to the priest? >>

In your reply, #133, you go off on a tangent about socializing with lepers but never answer the crucial question. If we take your hostility to regulations to its logical conclusion, Jesus must have been wrong to tell the lepers to show themselves to the priest, in accord with OT law.

I believe that Jesus did the right thing and the Gospels recorded it correctly. This a straightforward conclusion. Can you agree?

 

[Dale]

Yes, it's certainly true that Jesus' mission wasn't to be the conquering messiah that the Pharisees were expecting. And it remains true today that the current program is not a matter of Earthly conquest, but Jesus also made it clear we can't have divided loyalties. We either belong to His kingdom, or the kingdom of the prince of the powers of the air. And every Earthly government in some way belongs to the kingdom of the prince of the powers of the air, so at some point state and church are going to come into conflict and we must decide for ourselves who the true authority is.

Which makes the problem of demarcating where religious authority lies, and where state authority lies, even more vexxing if we do not want to compromise one of them. And I don't mean institutional authority of church governance, as that is ultimately just another worldly delegated authority dressed up in religious clothing. I am instead talking about where the line lies between personal moral conscience, and state authority. Especially in a democracy, Christians can't simply leave their values at the door of the voting booth and pretend that participating in selecting governance isn't tied with moral conviction.

Fervent: “And every Earthly government in some way belongs to the kingdom of the prince of the powers of the air, so at some point state and church are going to come into conflict and we must decide for ourselves who the true authority is.”

Saying that all governments are satanic tends to extremism. If all governments are satanic, those who have a state church or religious laws are also satanic. The same goes for governments that require prayer in schools. Entangling government and religion doesn’t solve the problem.

 

[Fervent]

Fervent: “And every Earthly government in some way belongs to the kingdom of the prince of the powers of the air, so at some point state and church are going to come into conflict and we must decide for ourselves who the true authority is.”

Saying that all governments are satanic tends to extremism. If all governments are satanic, those who have a state church or religious laws are also satanic. The same goes for governments that require prayer in schools. Entangling government and religion doesn’t solve the problem.

Extremism? I suppose one might say that, but it's simply a fact. Earthly kingdoms govern by using violence, whether they are ostensibly religious or not. Though I certainly never suggested that entangling religion and government solved the problem, simply that there's no way to create a neat demarcation between state powers and religious powers. Governing philosophy and theology are bound to have quite a bit of intersection, and at the end of the day every individual has to decide where their loyalty lies. God or government.