Church and state

[Tom 1]

Interested in a wide range of views on the integration of church and state, practice and purpose, personal as well as theological.

In 2 Tim 2:4 and 1 Cor 5:12-13 Paul seems to be advocating a church only mindset, obeying the law where it doesn’t transgress God’s law, as in Romans 13/Acts 5:29, but otherwise keeping your head in the church and not concerning yourself with what the ‘civilian’ world is up to. Obviously though a lot of what the state does, wherever you live, affects everyday life, so to what degree is it acceptable, or advisable, for Christians to focus on what the world is doing, as opposed to affairs of the kingdom?

What do people see as reasonable levels of church involvement in the state, and what kind of compromises might be seen as acceptable? An extreme example would be, in my view, the Catholic support for Franco’s brutal regime in Spain, and, on the other end of the scale, the active minimising of the role of the church by the state in communist nations. In the middle are European countries, e.g the UK or Sweden, where the state churches, by dint of their involvement as public commentators at least, seem to be swayed by the social zeitgeist. A bit of a mixed example is the current support of Trump in the US by evangelical groups, willing (if not eager) this overlook his personal behaviour in return for policies promoting religious freedom - interesting in the light of 1 Cor 5:11 (assuming Trump claims to be a Christian....? Not sure if he does).

Anyway, interested in your thoughts on this general subject and any examples of it working well, or not so well.

Thanks

 

[akaDaScribe]

Interested in a wide range of views on the integration of church and state, personal as well as theological.

In 2 Tim 2:4 and 1 Cor 5:12-13 Paul seems to be advocating a church only mindset, obeying the law where it doesn’t transgress God’s law, as in Romans 13/Acts 5:29, but otherwise keeping your head in the church and not concerning yourself with what the ‘civilian’ world is up to. Obviously though a lot of what the state does, wherever you live, affects everyday life, so to what degree is it acceptable, or advisable, for Christians to focus on what the world is doing, as opposed to affairs of the kingdom?

What do people see as reasonable levels of church involvement in the state, and what kind of compromises might be seen as acceptable? An extreme example would be, in my view, the Catholic support for Franco’s brutal regime in Spain, and, on the other end of the scale, the active minimising of the role of the church by the state in communist states. In the middle are European countries, e.g the UK or Sweden, where the state churches, by dint of their involvement as public commentators at least, seem to be swayed by the social zeitgeist. A bit of a mixed example is the current support of Trump in the US by evangelical groups, willing (if not eager) this overlook his personal behaviour in order to gain some high level influence - interesting in the light of 1 Cor 5:11 (assuming Trump claims to be a Christian....? Not sure if he does).

Anyway, interested in your thoughts on this general subject and any examples of it working well, or not so well.

Thanks

I think the government should stay out of social issues and allow the cultural tides of pressure handle them, unless there are significant quantifiable imbalances of treatment of people that impede them from experiencing equal rights beyond negligible variations.

 

[Albion]

A bit of a mixed example is the current support of Trump in the US by evangelical groups, willing (if not eager) this overlook his personal behaviour in order to gain some high level influence - interesting in the light of 1 Cor 5:11 (assuming Trump claims to be a Christian....? Not sure if he does).

I'm sorry that you chose to depart from an otherwise interesting proposition in order to get in this personal opinion.

Evangelical Christians, to the extent that they support the President, do so mainly because he has promised, and has acted, to restore religious liberty in this country. The idea that their motivation is to "gain some high level influence" is offensive as well as wrong.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm sorry that you chose to depart from an otherwise interesting proposition in order to get in this personal opinion.

Evangelical Christians, to the extent that they support the President, do so mainly because he has promised, and has acted, to restore religious liberty in this country. The idea that their motivation is to "gain some high level influence" is offensive as well as wrong.

To make that clearer by ‘gain some high level influence’ what I mean is what you are suggesting, not personal political influence. I don’t know the details of any agenda but I assume from what you are saying that evangelical support is about gaining influence over government to restore religious liberty, or to lobby on other issues seen as important to the evangelical movement. My question is partly about that kind of thing (as far as the US example goes, I’m interested in a wider view also) - e.g what are the potential risks and benefits to the evangelical movement of getting involved in politics in that way, or, more specifically, of identifying with someone like Trump?

 

[JohnC2]

The other side is to realize what Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul were preparing followers to do.

They were preparing followers to flee Judea and Jewish settlements in the province of Syria prior to it’s destruction. Literally preparing them to become wanderers and immigrants with God again.....

Remember that Jesus even went so far as to prepare his followers to be driven out of one place - and just go to the next.... and you might be driven out of that place too.

And like Jeremiah’s word to the Jews fleeing prior to the Babylonian captivity - make wherever you finally land your new home...

And this was to be a LONG time gone - not a short vacation abroad to weather the storm....

And as such - it’s important to remind people of their place... You are a visitor in somebody else’s house. Keep your head down. Don’t become a troublemaker which will bring scandal upon God.....

You will be an alien in a foreign place. Adopt local culture and custom while you continue to worship God... Eat whatever is put before you with thanksgiving, etc.:. Even go so far as to take local names for yourselves so you blend in better....

Don’t get entangled taking sides or causing trouble with local politics of places where you are a VISITOR... That’s always a bad policy....

This is extrordinarily good and practical advice for when you are on the move.

But once you finally settle into a place and become part of the place.... And things settle down and you have a say in the matter - look back toward the Old Testament where God provides guidance pertaining to being in a place where you have a say in the matter and you are making an impact as a resident/citizen/national....

 

[Tom 1]

The other side is to realize what Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul were preparing followers to do.

They were preparing followers to flee Judea and Jewish settlements in the province of Syria prior to it’s destruction. Literally preparing them to become wanderers and immigrants with God again.....

Remember that Jesus even went so far as to prepare his followers to be driven out of one place - and just go to the next.... and you might be driven out of that place too.

And like Jeremiah’s word to the Jews fleeing prior to the Babylonian captivity - make wherever you finally land your new home...

And this was to be a LONG time gone - not a short vacation abroad to weather the storm....

And as such - it’s important to remind people of their place... You are a visitor in somebody else’s house. Keep your head down. Don’t become a troublemaker which will bring scandal upon God.....

You will be an alien in a foreign place. Adopt local culture and custom while you continue to worship God... Eat whatever is put before you with thanksgiving, etc.:. Even go so far as to take local names for yourselves so you blend in better....

Don’t get entangled taking sides or causing trouble with local politics of places where you are a VISITOR... That’s always a bad policy....

This is extrordinarily good and practical advice for when you are on the move.

But once you finally settle into a place and become part of the place.... And things settle down and you have a say in the matter - look back toward the Old Testament where God provides guidance pertaining to being in a place where you have a say in the matter and you are making an impact as a resident/citizen/national....

Interesting perspective, thanks

 

[Tom 1]

I'm sorry that you chose to depart from an otherwise interesting proposition in order to get in this personal opinion.

Evangelical Christians, to the extent that they support the President, do so mainly because he has promised, and has acted, to restore religious liberty in this country. The idea that their motivation is to "gain some high level influence" is offensive as well as wrong.

Nb I’m referring to prominent evangelical leaders who publicly and actively support Trump, not all evangelicals, if that makes it clearer.

 

[Albion]

To make that clearer by ‘gain some high level influence’ what I mean is what you are suggesting, not personal political influence. I don’t know the details of any agenda but I assume from what you are saying that evangelical support is about gaining influence over government to restore religious liberty, or to lobby on other issues seen as important to the evangelical movement.

Not at all. I am saying that Trump has taken the side of religious freedom which Obama had worked to suppress. That's reason enough for Evangelicals to support Trump.

The idea that a desire for some level of influence over the government was what motivated Evangelical Christians is just not true, no matter how it is worded..

 

[Tom 1]

Not at all. I am saying that Trump has taken the side of religious freedom which Obama had worked to suppress. That's reason enough for Evangelicals to support Trump.

The idea that a desire for some level of influence over the government was what motivated Evangelical Christians is just not true, no matter how it is worded..

Ok, maybe I got the wrong impression.

More generally, surely influence over how the state is run is one of the principle motivations behind church involvement in the state? There are other reasons, but it seems obvious to me that is one of them, and has been for centuries, or since the birth of civilisation if you take other religious groups into account.

 

[Albion]

Ok, maybe I got the wrong impression.

More generally, surely influence over how the state is run is one of the principle motivations behind church involvement in the state?

Maybe, but that's pretty vague. If a person or church wanted to be left alone by the state to preach and practice their religion without encumbrances, would that be correctly described as wanting power over government? I would say not. And is voting and showing ordinary support for one or another officeholder tantamount to church involvement in the state? There is very little desire for a theocracy among Evangelicals in the USA or anything close to it. Actually, it is quite the opposite.

 

[SkyWriting]

Interested in a wide range of views on the integration of church and state, practice and purpose, personal as well as theological.

In 2 Tim 2:4 and 1 Cor 5:12-13 Paul seems to be advocating a church only mindset, obeying the law where it doesn’t transgress God’s law, as in Romans 13/Acts 5:29, but otherwise keeping your head in the church and not concerning yourself with what the ‘civilian’ world is up to. Obviously though a lot of what the state does, wherever you live, affects everyday life, so to what degree is it acceptable, or advisable, for Christians to focus on what the world is doing, as opposed to affairs of the kingdom?

What do people see as reasonable levels of church involvement in the state, and what kind of compromises might be seen as acceptable? An extreme example would be, in my view, the Catholic support for Franco’s brutal regime in Spain, and, on the other end of the scale, the active minimising of the role of the church by the state in communist states. In the middle are European countries, e.g the UK or Sweden, where the state churches, by dint of their involvement as public commentators at least, seem to be swayed by the social zeitgeist. A bit of a mixed example is the current support of Trump in the US by evangelical groups, willing (if not eager) this overlook his personal behaviour in order to gain some high level influence - interesting in the light of 1 Cor 5:11 (assuming Trump claims to be a Christian....? Not sure if he does).

Anyway, interested in your thoughts on this general subject and any examples of it working well, or not so well.

Thanks

Treat others the same as you would wish to be treated yourself.
On and off the pulpit,
on and off the campaign trail.

 

[Tom 1]

Maybe, but that's pretty vague. If a person or church wanted to be left alone by the state to preach and practice their religion without encumbrances, would that be correctly described as wanting power over government? I would say not. And is voting and showing ordinary support for one or another officeholder tantamount to church involvement in the state? There is very little desire for a theocracy among Evangelicals in the USA or anything close to it. Actually, it is quite the opposite.

So the main interest or action on the part of evangelical Christians is in the main limited to voting for the candidate who best represents the outcomes they would like, such as religious freedom? In the UK, the major churches, the C of E in particular but the Catholic Church perhaps to some extent have some limited influence on policy in some areas, and are at least part of the conversation at higher levels. A long way from anything like a theocracy but they have at least nominal involvement. Anglican leaders have a voice in the national conversation on controversial issues, and this seems to have led to what I would see as compromise on some issues, e.g gay marriage and transgender issues. Perhaps if the church stayed out of politics altogether compromises of this sort wouldn’t happen. Maybe churches in the US have a less established political voice, and hence less of a sense of representing their congregations in political or social matters. I don’t know to what extent that is or isn’t the case.

 

[Albion]

So the main interest or action on the part of evangelical Christians is in the main limited to voting for the candidate who best represents the outcomes they would like, such as religious freedom?

I was just saying that there's quite a difference between Evangelicals being generally supportive of some candidate or officeholder and wanting political power. In my opinion, you went much too far in your description towards the latter idea. In this country, what most churchmen want is freedom of religion, not to be the power behind the throne or to have the ear of the president whenever any piece of legislation comes up. There are a few organizations which want such activism, but when we speak of Evangelicals or Evangelical churches, it really isn't that way.

 

[grasping the after wind]

To make that clearer by ‘gain some high level influence’ what I mean is what you are suggesting, not personal political influence. I don’t know the details of any agenda but I assume from what you are saying that evangelical support is about gaining influence over government to restore religious liberty, or to lobby on other issues seen as important to the evangelical movement. My question is partly about that kind of thing (as far as the US example goes, I’m interested in a wider view also) - e.g what are the potential risks and benefits to the evangelical movement of getting involved in politics in that way, or, more specifically, of identifying with someone like Trump?

When one's choice is between two very immoral people one is constrained to choose the one that will do less of what one considers to be evil. One does not do so because one blinds oneself to the immorality of the lesser evil one does so because the only other choice is to allow the greater evil to prevail.

 

[Albion]

But even if we acknowledge that such was the perspective of a lot of people who voted in the last election, Trump was supportive of the concept of freedom of religion. We had been moving away from that in this country.

To be sure, Hillary, who is said by her supporters to be a sincere Methodist, kept it under wraps if that is true, and of course would never be against abortion on demand.

 

[Tom 1]

I was just saying that there's quite a difference between Evangelicals being generally supportive of some candidate or officeholder and wanting political power. In my opinion, you went much too far in your description towards the latter idea. In this country, what most churchmen want is freedom of religion, not to be the power behind the throne or to have the ear of the president whenever any piece of legislation comes up. There are a few organizations which want such activism, but when we speak of Evangelicals or Evangelical churches, it really isn't that way.

Fair enough, I’ve changed the wording of that part of the OP. There are some evangelical leaders who seem to be quite keen to overlook some of Trump’s personal failings, in a way they weren’t for Bill Clinton, as Trump seems to be willing to back their agendas - perhaps it’s a chicken and egg question, maybe Trump was planning policies favourable to religious freedom or others liked by evangelical leaders, or maybe those leaders were or have been an influence on him. In any case I take your point that most Evangelicals are not interested in political manoeuvring, and just want the freedom to live according to their beliefs.