Given the Crusades etc, what do you make of the idea of a Christian State?

[Mark Quayle]

I think at some point all laws will be biblically based. And it will still be country by country. I don’t think there will be a one world government until Christ returns, having put all His enemies under His feet. Until then, He reigns from the right hand of the Father.

I don't know of any laws that are not already moral law, (i.e. morality-related— "this is right, that is wrong"), and as such are in some way Biblically based. As they are stated, perhaps, many of them are not visibly moral, (i.e. they are immoral or amoral, not referring to a moral purpose). Some of them are even demonic in purpose, I think, but the principles behind them and their enforcement are morality-related.

I completely agree about the one-world government. But I doubt that until then, even the laws of any one country, nevermind all laws, will be ostensibly Biblically based.

 

[Hammster]

I don't know of any laws that are not already moral law, (i.e. morality-related— "this is right, that is wrong"), and as such are in some way Biblically based. As they are stated, perhaps, many of them are not visibly moral, (i.e. they are immoral or amoral, not referring to a moral purpose). Some of them are even demonic in purpose, I think, but the principles behind them and their enforcement are morality-related.

I completely agree about the one-world government. But I doubt that until then, even the laws of any one country, nevermind all laws, will be ostensibly Biblically based.

Biblically based isn’t necessarily the same as morality based. There are folks that think pro-abortion laws are moral. Being grounded in scripture is the best way to go.

So let’s pretend that at some point, we have 75 Senators who are actual Christians. What laws would they write? They would write God-honoring laws. There may be disagreements over what scripture says, but at least they’d be using the same book.

 

[com7fy8]

Given the Crusades etc, what do you make of the idea of a Christian State?

Well, I think there are people who believe the Crusades were a bad idea. And so, someone who believes this might say, of course a Christian State would be bad because we see how the Crusades were bad.

But what wrong people do should not decide what we do. Satan could even rig a fake Christian State thing that will turn out bad, then get everyone to suppose a Christian State can't be done right.

We see this sort of reasoning in deciding church policies. An idea comes up, and somebody says no it can't work because it has been tried before. But it is possible it was not tried by people who were right with God and guided by God. And Jesus guarantees . . . "without Me you can do nothing," in John 15:5.

But it is apparent that in 2000 years or so God has not guided an obedient person with help to succeed in having a Christian State.

My opinion why is . . . this is an evil world where God is keeping Satan and his while Jesus saves souls for spending eternity with Jesus. Then Satan and his shall be flushed to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone. This world is a holding place, a prisoner-of-war camp location.

And we in Jesus already are in Jesus Christ's one "holy nation, His own special people" > in 1 Peter 2:9. We are not bound by some area of land on this earth; but we are all around this world, plus in eternity. And our ground is God's love > we are "rooted and grounded in love" > in Ephesians 3:17.

And we ourselves are ruled by God's own peace in our hearts . . . now, already . . . while we obey our Heavenly Father >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

So, if we want to have God's rule, simply now obey this rule, and we now have all which our Father now desires to do and to share with every one of us . . . right now. And so we are not ruled and controlled by this evil world. Simply by obeying God now in His almighty peace, we are in His creativity for how to love each and every person; in this almighty power of peace we are unstoppable so we do exactly all that God pleases to do with each of us, at any moment . . . while we obey.

"'In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.'" (Genesis 22:18)

So, like with Abraham . . . because we obey God in the ruling of His peace in our hearts, we now are getting even "all the nations of the earth" "blessed".

In Jesus this works, because Jesus Christ is the Lord of all. And Jesus rules all, including with absolute control of the evil world which He is processing to its place for eternity, with all its sewage and toxic waste away from where we will be with Jesus on the new earth.

So, do we rule with Jesus? Yes. How?

Here is how . . . "first of all" > by prayer >

"Therefore I exhort first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

So, I guess we could say the Christian State already in power is the . . .

state of prayer.

With God, our prayer can accomplish more than all secular rulers of history combined have done. In one moment we do more, with God.

But what about example? Leaders are told to lead by example, so they can accomplish all which is possible in the ministry of God. So, wouldn't this be more important than what a lot of praying might do? I think our good example is included in what God means by prayer. We be examples of how Jesus is and loves, and prayer helps to spread the grace of this to other people. So, I see how example is included in what God means by prayer.

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

Whatever is really in us is what we can be spreading to help make others the same way. Therefore, our example in the sight of God, during our praying, is important.

And we see how Christian housewives can so help a disobedient man . . . by their example > 1 Peter 3:1-4. But prayer is included in their example. By their good example, they by means of God can effect their men, deeply, in their character, to change them to become truly obedient . . . not merely being controlled by "Christian State" outward regulations.

And this deep ruling is already happening, now . . . wherever we are obeying God.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hi all,
this is both a theological and historical question - and I couldn't find an appropriate theology forum for it so the History forum it is. It came up in another unrelated thread but I thought it needed more exploration so posted here. I'll summarise my thoughts so far.

First, we become bullies.
I just posted a thread about John Dickson's book "Bullies and Saints" which outlines how Christians often seem to get it wrong when we are in charge. History shows we become the Bullies in the title of his book.

Second, I can't see it in the NT
I just can't see a theological basis for a Christian state. Not only did Jesus say give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is God's, but Paul called the ROMANS "God's servants to go do you good!" The ROMANS! (Romans 13). Admittedly this was before they had gone into full persecutor / beast state mode - when John refers to them as the 'beast' in Revelation 13. But there seems to be an acknowledgement that secular states are there to stop total chaos - so be grateful and get on with the gospel.

Third, I'm troubled by the uniformity.
A "Christian State" seems to require a majority be Christian. Jesus taught we would be in the minority until he returns. Consider:

Matt 7:13 "13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

John 16:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well.

And the many verses on how it will be hard in the last days (which started 2000 years ago, see Acts 2 and Hebrews 1.)

Rather I would say we can have a Christian influence on the State - a battle which we will win in some issues and lose on others - precisely because of the fact that we will pretty much always be in the minority. Yes, Constantine's conversion was a thing - but I think that was a rare occasion in history. Also, a turning point for many wins in political life that are still considered normal today, such as a first for hospitals and many things we consider part of the welfare state today. So now we look out at our nations and fear how they are becoming immoral - but sometimes forget how far we have come.

Fourth - attitudes to political policies can get dumbed down.

I like how former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - an evangelical himself - raises various questions as we think through the Christian's impact on the state. I'll hand over to Kevin:-
_______________

"...In particular, I would like to reflect on the various models of political behaviour adopted by Christian politicians themselves.

Model number one is what I call the "vote for me because I'm a Christian".

This is the model that I find to be most repugnant.

It is the model that says that simply on the basis of my external profession of the Christian faith, that those of similar persuasions should vote for me.

This is about as persuasive as saying that because I am a Sydney Swans supporter, that all other Sydney Swans supporters should vote for me as well because we ostensively adhere to the same belief system.

This model is alive and well in the United States. Thankfully it is much less alive and much less well here in Australia. Although there are some dangerous signs that for certain Christian constituencies within our country, this represents an increasingly appealing message.

It is a model for which I can find no underpinning scriptural, doctrinal or theological authority.

Model number two says "vote for me because I'm Christian and because I have a defined set of views on a narrowly defined set of questions concerning sexual morality".

Regrettably this model has an increasing number of supporters within the broader Christian community.

It is a community which tends to read down rather than read up the ethical teachings of the New Testament " producing a narrow "tick the box" approach to passing so-called Christian "morals" tests.

I see very little evidence of that approach in the Gospels.

I see much more evidence of it in 17th and 18th century European pietism.

Once again it will come as no surprise to you here that I am not attracted to model number two either.

Model number three says something like this: take models number one and two above and add to them the additional tag of "family values". That is "vote for me because I am a Christian; vote for me because I have a defined set of views on questions of private sexual morality; and vote for me also because I wrap myself in the garments of something called "family values'".

Regrettably it is my view that the term "family values" has become one of the most used and abused terms in the Australian political lexicon...."

...much more at this link...

Kevin Rudd on politics and Christianity

Maybe read up on Dominionism. This model will give you an idea of the theological path such a movement must follow.
Blessings

 

[Mark Quayle]

Biblically based isn’t necessarily the same as morality based. There are folks that think pro-abortion laws are moral. Being grounded in scripture is the best way to go.

So let’s pretend that at some point, we have 75 Senators who are actual Christians. What laws would they write? They would write God-honoring laws. There may be disagreements over what scripture says, but at least they’d be using the same book.

Agreed, but if we take that up a level or two, to where one view trumps the others, and the others are outlawed, we have a problem. That is already what we have in a supposedly non-religious religion I call Liberalism, or rather a particular sort of Liberalism, a soft tyranny, that promotes political correctness and chaos.

 

[Hammster]

Agreed, but if we take that up a level or two, to where one view trumps the others, and the others are outlawed, we have a problem. That is already what we have in a supposedly non-religious religion I call Liberalism, or rather a particular sort of Liberalism, a soft tyranny, that promotes political correctness and chaos.

I don’t see that happening with true Christians. And scripture indicates that it won’t happen. His kingdom will grow until it fills the whole earth. I’m confident that those who are His followed will work out a way to govern which will bring Him glory.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

If a democracy was also high majority Christian, what would stop the electorate from electing all Christian representatives who would then enact Christian value laws enforced by Christian value courts? It would be a natural and inevitable result. I am not talking about forcing people to be Christian... we know that would not be possible or fair. I am talking about Christian-value moral laws.

 

[Homeowner]

First, the Crusades were initially begun as a response to Islamic invasions of Christian lands. To condemn the rationale behind it is the equivalent of condemning the Ukrainians today for firing at the Russians.

It seems the Pope also thought it was a grand idea to get troublesome knights (Think Tony Soprano here instead of Lancelot as a historical knight) to stop pestering serfs and upsetting church led social order and to go somewhere to die for the cause.

 

[Hammster]

If a democracy was also high majority Christian, what would stop the electorate from electing all Christian representatives who would then enact Christian value laws enforced by Christian value courts? It would be a natural and inevitable result. I am not talking about forcing people to be Christian... we know that would not be possible or fair. I am talking about Christian-value moral laws.

I’m sure that’s how it will play out.

 

[The Liturgist]

Didn't the Catholic Church essentially control most of Europe for a long time?

A Christian state would be impossible at this point b/c too many different denominations.

But there are several officially Christian states including the United Kingdom, where Christianity, specifically the Church of England, remains the majority religion, and with 20 million members, is one of the largest denominations in the world.

And there are Catholic countries where Roman Catholicism is the official religion and most people are adherents. I think Greek Orthodoxy is official in Greece; Cypriot Orthodox in Cyprus, Macedonian Orthodoxy in Macedonia, and Serbian Orthodoxy in Serbia and possibly Montenegro, and likewise Armenian Orthodoxy in Armenian and Ngorno-Karabakh, and Georgian Orthodoxy in Georgia (in the Caucasus region, not the US state, obviously, although it would be awesome if there were a large diaspora of ethnic Georgians to Atlanta; I would support renaming the US State to New Georgia to avoid confusion, however, most ethnic Georgians live in Los Angeles and New York, which is unfortunate for those who like Khachapuri, which is this amazing pizza with an egg and a meat, like pastrami; I know of one good place in downtown LA which has it - the Georgian owners tell me it is popular among hipsters who are hungover, but I have never been hung over in my life so I couldn’t comment).

I am not sure if Ethiopian Orthodoxy was restored as the official religion in Ethiopia after the abolition of the despotic Derg Communist regime which martyred Emperor Haile Selassie for refusing to renounce the Christian faith and plunged the country into poverty.

 

[The Liturgist]

Nothing makes a Christian (nor other religious person) less qualified by reason of being religious. That is not my point nor did I mean to imply such a thing. I do not believe in the common [mis]use of the phrase, "separation of church and state". To my view, the first amendment precludes the disqualification of any religious believer on the grounds that he is religious in any way.

I am of the same view. I would support legislation designating all denominations of Judaism and Christianity as the historic religions of the United States and the granting of additional constitutional protections beyond the First Amendment, but more important to me than that is a ban on abortion.

Indeed the prohibition of abortion and euthanasia, the avoidance of economic policies that cause inflation or otherwise hurt the poor, and further illegal interference in the operation of churches such as occurred in the first months of the Covid pandemic, and lingered for an absurd time afterwards in California, are the only political positions I allow myself to have, as well as the preservation of the Bill of Rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the hard-won laws prohibiting discrimination and segregation on ethnic, religious or racial grounds, as a member of the clergy. I feel that these positions are required by my religion, because I cannot consciously support legal abortion.

When I resumed active duty as a clergyman, I renounced formal allegiance to my political party not because privately I might disagree with them, but rather because I have a moral obligation not to create a stumbling block for pious Christians from other parties, of which there are many, including members of this forum.

The only very slight exceptions to this is I do advocate for mass transit systems including the aerospace industry, Greyhound and other bus operators, and Amtrak, but I disagree with the policies of many mass transit agencies and Amtrak, and I believe that some of them tend to purchase new equipment that is not necessary while neglecting infrastructure that is. I also support nuclear power and investment in maintaining the highways, power grid and water distribution systems, and the construction of new canals and aqueducts to alleviate recurrent droughts and flooding in some parts of the US. I also support the preservation of historic buildings, landmarks and national parks and wish that Disneyland and Walt Disney World could be partially purchased and added to the National Park System to the extent that the historically significant attractions designed under the direction of Walt Disney, like the Monorail, Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, et cetera, could be restored to their historic form as cultural landmarks and in that form preserved and made accessible to low income families, who in the past decade have been priced out of visiting the parks due to a huge increase in ticket prices. However, these are not really party-political issues; I never preach them from the pulpit, but rather they deal with issues which most people don’t get worked up about.

By the way, I am not trying to veer off-topic or start a debate about any of these political issues, I am just trying to say that I feel that as a member of the clergy, I can only care about political issues that are either compelled by my Christian faith or which else are politically uncontroversial, such as infrastructure development. Like, who really wants potholes on their highways?

I never endorse specific candidates; I have to be careful also to preserve the 501(c)3 tax exempt status of my church versus being a 501(c)4 political advocacy group.

 

[The Liturgist]

First, the Crusades were initially begun as a response to Islamic invasions of Christian lands. To condemn the rationale behind it is the equivalent of condemning the Ukrainians today for firing at the Russians.

Indeed. That said the Crusades were botched, and the Crusaders did cannibalize Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians when they ran out of food, and the Fourth Crusade was a war against the Byzantine Empire for the sake of suppressing Eastern Orthodoxy.

I believe it was the lack of Christian unity which prevented the Crusades from being successful. However, in the 19th century, solidarity with the Christians of Greece and Eastern Europe in the 1820s and 1870s (the latter following a Turkish attempt at genocide against the Bulgarians and Romanians that horrified the West in its brutality) did lead to the liberation of those lands from the Turks. Unfortunately the Nazis and then the Soviet Union got most of them, except for Greece and Cyprus, where the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus has caused a state of religious apartheid, with peace and safety of the Cypriots largely maintained by the British Royal Air Force base at Epirotiki, which is kind of on the southern frontier dividing Northern Cyprus from Cyprus proper. Fortunately it appears there is some de-escalation of hostility.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am of the same view. I would support legislation designating all denominations of Judaism and Christianity as the historic religions of the United States and the granting of additional constitutional protections beyond the First Amendment, but more important to me than that is a ban on abortion.

Indeed the prohibition of abortion and euthanasia, the avoidance of economic policies that cause inflation or otherwise hurt the poor, and further illegal interference in the operation of churches such as occurred in the first months of the Covid pandemic, and lingered for an absurd time afterwards in California, are the only political positions I allow myself to have, as well as the preservation of the Bill of Rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the hard-won laws prohibiting discrimination and segregation on ethnic, religious or racial grounds, as a member of the clergy. I feel that these positions are required by my religion, because I cannot consciously support legal abortion.

When I resumed active duty as a clergyman, I renounced formal allegiance to my political party not because privately I might disagree with them, but rather because I have a moral obligation not to create a stumbling block for pious Christians from other parties, of which there are many, including members of this forum.

The only very slight exceptions to this is I do advocate for mass transit systems including the aerospace industry, Greyhound and other bus operators, and Amtrak, but I disagree with the policies of many mass transit agencies and Amtrak, and I believe that some of them tend to purchase new equipment that is not necessary while neglecting infrastructure that is. I also support nuclear power and investment in maintaining the highways, power grid and water distribution systems, and the construction of new canals and aqueducts to alleviate recurrent droughts and flooding in some parts of the US. I also support the preservation of historic buildings, landmarks and national parks and wish that Disneyland and Walt Disney World could be partially purchased and added to the National Park System to the extent that the historically significant attractions designed under the direction of Walt Disney, like the Monorail, Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, et cetera, could be restored to their historic form as cultural landmarks and in that form preserved and made accessible to low income families, who in the past decade have been priced out of visiting the parks due to a huge increase in ticket prices. However, these are not really party-political issues; I never preach them from the pulpit, but rather they deal with issues which most people don’t get worked up about.

By the way, I am not trying to veer off-topic or start a debate about any of these political issues, I am just trying to say that I feel that as a member of the clergy, I can only care about political issues that are either compelled by my Christian faith or which else are politically uncontroversial, such as infrastructure development. Like, who really wants potholes on their highways?

I never endorse specific candidates; I have to be careful also to preserve the 501(c)3 tax exempt status of my church versus being a 501(c)4 political advocacy group.

As you may imagine, I don't want church any more involved in any government status or recognition than necessary, but that is mostly for practical reasons —I don't want the church beholden to the government in any way.

You mentioned two different things caused by taking political position: 1 you don't want to alienate believers. And that a whole different issue from 2 you don't want to alienate the government.

 

[The Liturgist]

As you may imagine, I don't want church any more involved in any government status or recognition than necessary, but that is mostly for practical reasons —I don't want the church beholden to the government in any way.

You mentioned two different things caused by taking political position: 1 you don't want to alienate believers. And that a whole different issue from 2 you don't want to alienate the government.

Well, if I felt compelled, I would forfeit the 501(c)3 status and I know of some churches which don’t have it. I will refuse to give Holy Communion to any Politician who supports abortion, euthanasia and sexually immoral practices, any Judge who rules them lawful, any government officials who interfered with the operation of churches during the Pandemic, any government officials or candidates who threaten the Bill of Rights or who are racist, including supporters of racially divisive ideologies, and anyone who openly supports them unless they repent of their grave sins, and without telling my congregation which candidates to vote for, I do urge them not to vote for any candidate who falls into the above categories.

I am extremely pro law enforcement but I will also refuse the Chalice to police officers who were involved in the shutting down of churches during the pandemic and have not repented.

I have also decided that all New Zealand Government and Opposition MPs who voted for the recent act prohibiting Christian churches from ministering to homosexuals according to Scripture are henceforth also excommunicated in my congregations, and like the aforementioned groups must repent and in some cases undergo a penance before being admitted to the Eucharist. This is of course theoretical as while I have had Australian visitors, and do meet Kiwis occasionally, I haven’t ever had a member of the New Zealand parliament in my congregations at least that I am aware of. I probably wouldn’t recognize them. I am considering adding mention of New Zealand to the prayer for persecuted Christians included in our service, which is either said (or intoned) as part of the Litany or as a stand alone Collect. There is mention of specific countries and regions in the Collect already.

If any of this offends the IRS, I will pay taxes before changing the doctrine (and sue them, because if Scientology gets to be tax exempt, then so do I).

 

[RandyPNW]

Awkward, but I was asked to re-post from one thread to this one. Here is my initial post:

This is kind of a sore subject for me right now. I was just booted off of another forum because of my views on this--temporarily, but I don't think I'll be going back. I would love for you or your friend to take another look at this. It is easily misunderstood because things are understood a little differently today than they were in the past. And my views are based on something that is past, and not likely to return any time soon.

I hesitate to get into it again because of the turmoil I've just been through, though I love talking about it. In my sense of a "Christian State," the State can be a democracy, a republic, a monarchy, etc. What makes it a Christian State is the fact the vast majority of citizens are Christians, and agree on a common morality, based on the religious standards. Agreeing on a standard, broad Christian Theology, such as the creeds, does not require that there be a State Church.

It can also tolerate those of other faiths as minorities, assuming they live by the same moral standards as Christianity would require. It is not about persecuting people who must be motivated, as you said, by their own conscience.

Liberal Democracies can be Christian but they tend to be mixed, as I see it. Liberal Theology is tolerant of a diversity of Christian views, including heretical Christian views. Historically, liberal theology tended to depreciate the idea of the supernatural, miracles, and personal spiritual change, or mysticism.

It also tended to view God as a philosophical concept more than a knowable Being, rendering different faiths similar without critical differences. Muslims, Jews, and Christians may all be viewed as similar monotheistic faiths. And other religions may even have a sense of supreme Being, or even a good vs. evil.

In the founding of the US Constitution, the idea was religious and Christian, but it was as much deist as it was the more conservative kind of Christianity. And so, liberal democracy in America and in Europe tended to be tolerant of all religions, and wished to avoid establishing Christianity in the State.

And due to the deterioration of Christianity I'm not shocked that liberals and the philosophes rose up against traditional Christianity and State Christianity. However, what they proposed was the opposite of what God had proposed with ancient Israel. Whereas God required all within a believing State to accept only the one true God, liberal Christian States began to accept many gods in the legal sense.

While I think that checks and balances are important to counter the abuses of a Christian State, getting rid of the Christian State entirely is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Even worse, it is defying what God's ideal was with ancient Israel. So there is that.

I would just add this. I state my beliefs here not under the illusion that Christian States will be restored before Jesus' return. On the contrary, I think Paul's promised "apostasy" (2 Thes 2) has been taking place since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

However, I believe we must uphold biblical standards as to what we *should* believe in, so that too much tolerance of false religions does not become a part of our Gospel testimony. This will not bring a complete repentance, and it will justify some in their false sense of security in faiths that have some "good" in them.

Thanks for the link--I'll check it out.

 

[RandyPNW]

This was my next post...


Okay, I've listened to it, and it is really what I expected--a comparison of secularists' views of religious freedom with many Christians' views of religious freedom. And as I said, the problem with this is, it is mixing up ideas of religious conscience with the necessity of a uniform morality within society. And it ignores the differences in political conditions between a secularist or pagan State and a definitive Christian State.

Again, established Christianity is not the same thing as intolerance of religion, nor is it acceptance of all religion. To guarantee a specific moral baseline, there is a necessary theological requirement, if only broadly put. If the Christian standard is too loose, then all kinds of moral questions enter, such as is abortion okay, is homosexuality okay, etc.

By the way, when I say there must be a theological prescription for the Christian State, I'm suggesting that orthodoxy be required only as an acknowledged standard for Christian churches, even if heretical churches are tolerated. There need be no punishment for being unorthodox except in matters of State policy towards the favored religion. The State may, for example, donate tax money to orthodox churches, while not showing the same favor towards heretical churches.

The important distinction here is that the Christian State acknowledge what is truly orthodox and what is heretical, without having to punish the corruptor of true Christianity. For example, the Jew would be identified as against the NT without having to be punished for it.

Standard Christian theology would prohibit the loosening of certain moral conventions, which is necessary in a just society, from a Christian pov. Paganism in the State may justify genocide, or any number of abominable non-Christian practices.

Jews, and even Muslims, tend to have similar moral standards to Christianity, although Islam tends to be both ethnically-biased and aggressive. Jews have an ethnic bias, but have not been in a position to be aggressive, outside of Palestinian claims to that effect.

The assumption that establishment of a theological Christian base in a State is oppressive is the secularist argument--not the Christian argument. Tertullian may have argued as a minority, having to deal not just with Roman paganism but also with his own heretical Montanism. So it was hardly anything more than a justification for free religious expression, and certainly not a recipe for a Christian State.

It is important, I think, to recognize the changing tides of Christianity in the State, and that Christians cannot treat the State as any more Christian than those who lead it. There has to be a deference to current conditions, honoring political leaders, even when there is disagreement on a biblical basis.

The biblical standard for the true religious State discards even the rights for heretics under the assumption that all know God and are not in transition from paganism to conversion. In many Christian States, the secular rulers were Christian but not entirely Christian.

Still, the biblical standard is without exception an orthodox prescription. There was tolerance for other faiths in ancient Israel insofar as they were sojourners, who would choose to reside in Israel only if they converted and accepted the religious standards.

Otherwise, sojourners had to practice the accepted morality even with their religious differences. If they refused to commit to Israel's standards, they would remain sojourners, and would not become permanent residents. The exceptions were mistakes on Israel's part.

Paul below applies the same principle in a mixed religious marriage...

1 Cor 7.15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

The following verses show the similarities and distinctions between Israel and the foreigner in a theocratic State. There was to be love, justice, and compassion for the foreigner, but also a high degree of moral compliance, and even acknowledgment of the theological distinctions of the theocracy.

At the same time, the differences were acknowledged such that it was actually a curse to have the foreigner ascend above the majority and their high level of covenant commitment to God.

Exo 22.21 Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
Exo 23.9 Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.

Lev 18.26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things.

Lev 19.10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.

Lev 19.34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Lev 24.16 Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

Lev 24.22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.

Deut 14.21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner.

Deut 15.3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you.

Deut 17.15 be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.

Deut 23.20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite.

Deut 28.43 The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower.

 

[RandyPNW]

3rd post--I know--these are responses out of context and without posting the messages I was responding to. But once again, here was my post....

I understand--thanks for making the point, and it's both a good point and a relevant point, as I see it. However, I can't also help thinking that God has asked for the right and best system, even while knowing the best and right system would not be properly observed over the long run.

In other words, the presence of sin in humanity has not stopped God from asking of nations that they do the right thing, even while knowing they would not continue doing the right thing over the long run. Many systems of government run with a minority ideology in power, whether monarchies, communist governments, or even systems of democracy where only a minority party rules. We agree to live by a minority position, and the majority supports it, if only because we have no choice.

We all, as a group, will disagree on what the right thing is, and what religion is reasonable, acceptable, and right. But we should all agree that someone must be in power maintaining a semblance of peace in our society. And so, some fraction of our country must lead, and we will swear allegiance to it, even if it doesn't totally represent our own beliefs.

So the most obvious example of this is the Hebrew Theocracy itself under the Law. God established, through Moses, a society based on belief in only one God, one Religion, and one basic theological system undergirding a single moral system of justice, righteousness, and compassion. And God did this while at the same time stating that Israel would not always continue in it.

In fact, God insisted on this system, even after it failed, requiring that it reconsolidate and reinstate it properly, because after all, it is the way, the truth, and the life. What else would God request? Even with all of the inevitable failures of mankind, under any political system, the best system is what God would ask of us, because in doing this, the best operation of justice is given to all.

 

[RandyPNW]

Finally...

↑
Not at all. Abraham was promised that he would be the father of God's people living God's way in God's land - and that this would eventually bless the whole world.
In Gen 17 God promised Abraham that he would spiritually father many nations. Jews may think that he simply had a lot of children through different wives, who ended up founding a number of nations. But in the NT we are told that this promise is fulfilled in the Church, which is a spiritual inheritance.

Gen 17.5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.
Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

So the "nations" promised to Abraham were Gentile nations beyond the nation of Israel, in particular when they are designated as "Christian nations." And if they are to be called "Christian nations," they must have Christian States, or governments.

Since the Enlightenment, the whole idea of Christian States has been denounced. And to some extent, the criticism is warranted. However, that doesn't mean modern liberal states are superior to Christian States in the ideal sense, ie when Christian States are properly working. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

↑
It's a good thing that the church isn't individualistic but a community then!
I would distinguish, first of all, between the majority of Christian citizens in the Christian State and the minority group of *true Christians* that number among them. Those who truly follow Christ are always a smaller number than "Christian citizens" in a Christian State.

However, acceptance of a Liberal non-Christian State in place of a Christian State is a concession to the ideal of a pagan majority. And that means the Christian witness no longer challenges a pagan consensus and the need for mass repentance in the world. This is not, I believe, the Gospel! This is a withdrawal from politics and from a message that is universal, and a retreat into a kind of "individualism," as I describe it.

↑
Actually it would be nice to withdraw and let society have their "Dawkins." However, he can't resist advertising on buses, etc. No, I would do audiobooks, but I don't do a lot of traveling in my car anymore--that's where I would find them most useful.

Please don't think that because I disagree with your podcasts that I think they're anything less than stellar! I can easily see the quality of these men. I just have to address things that are of interest to me, which isn't so much important to Christian fellowship as much as an attempt to make our witness more straightforward and effective.

I don't think we are going to change the world if our message isn't stronger than the political systems the world is advocating for. Christianity is always going to be oppositional, in a sense, because it is a universal call to repentance, applicable to all men and to all of their systems.

↑
But I used to do a lot of driving, and loved to listen to what we call "Talk Radio" over here, largely conservative political opinions. My brother is huge on Audio Books in his car, particularly since his Glaucoma has gotten much worse.

↑
Christian States didn't come into existence by "bullying." The strong Christian witness proved itself in the history of States, with its failures and successes, and the leaders ultimately recognized a growing conscience among the people.

Establishing a religion that was already ascendant in the population was not "bullying." While society is corrupt and abusive, reform may appear to be very attractive to the whole.

But as Christian States are declining and the populations capitulate to temptation and to sin, such as greed and lust, people are less interested in maintaining a conscience.

In the current day and age, I don't think we could establish Christianity in the State without "bullying." People are moving away from religion, though there are still pockets of intense interest.

So we agree--Christianity should never be forced upon the public. A Christian State happens when a large majority of the population call for uniform Christian standards for the public.

And it has often allowed freedom of conscience and expression. It is when heretics openly attacked Christian orthodoxy that the problems began. It became an issue of social order, and not just religious differences and "conscience" issues. It is one thing to hold an aberrant opinion, and another to challenge the public orthodoxy and morality.

If you want to see this discussion in its original location, click HERE

 

[Skye1300]

I think a Christian state would definitely be better than the way things are now with godless people running things. I don’t think God/Jesus doesn’t want a Christian state, those verses just show that the world won’t allow a Christian state.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think a Christian state would definitely be better than the way things are now with godless people running things. I don’t think God/Jesus doesn’t want a Christian state, those verses just show that the world won’t allow a Christian state.

All I can say to that is that the founders of the united states had historical reasons for the first amendment. And I don't want those events repeated, as they will necessarily be if the first amendment is ignored or abolished.

Ha! I can hear the media, in a situation where one group sees brotherhood, concern and safety for the population and another sees tyranny: "This wouldn't hurt, if you only stop struggling!" "Submit! Go with it; you'll see it isn't so bad after all."

Only God himself can do such a thing right.