How Should We Separate Church and State

[redleghunter]

Radical left....good grief.

Must this delve in to absolutely false equivalency?

Not an answer but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Except a bishop or two.

 

[redleghunter]

Cause it shouldn't be done from the pulpit. That's when politics and church should NOT mix.

Frankly I agree with this based on moral reasons. However, if the clergy want to they have the freedom to do so. Unless we are the vicar we don't have a right to tell a bishop to close their pie hole.

Which is what the thread is about. Pay attention.

Oh I have my ample Irish ears tuned.

 

[redleghunter]

To have a church officially established by Government would make that church seem inauthentic. Political instead of holy.

Yes and no one in our American history advocated a national church. The establishment clause in Amendment One took care of that.

However the Free exercise clause is what some want to govern.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Thinking so leads to doing so.

In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you.
This is the thinking part.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets. Enter through the narrow gate.
For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

James 2:8
Matthew 22:40
Luke 6:31
Romans 13:8
Romans 13:10
Galatians 5:14
James 2:8
Mark 12:29-34
Romans 13:8-10
Galatians 5:13,14

Can you please elaborate on, "Thinking so leads to doing so," in the light of Matthew 5:28.

What I think is another way to pose the same question, can there be adultery without sexual intercourse (coitus)?

 

[Radagast]

Frankly why do you care if a bishop stands up and calls a politician wicked?

The bishop is a US citizen too.

Indeed. And if bishops can't call politicians wicked, who can? Recall that St Ambrose actually excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius I for war crimes.

However, when the clergy completely identify themselves with one particular side of politics, they compromise their primary duty.

The pastor in the OP, for example, seems to have prioritised his views on "White Supremacy" over everything else. If he mentioned God at all in his talk, I missed it. He mentioned Jesus once, but in a purely secular way: "I know a Jesus who is liberating and offering us hope." Given that, I suspect his former parish have been unhappy with him for quite a while (not that he was with them long).

 

[SteveIndy]

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

Politics has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity, politics are of this world and represent the affirmation of man's independence from God, his revolt against God, and his pretentious attempt to play God. Christians are of another world and have their own constitution and are therefore separated from this world and its attempts to create a paradise for themselves.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

The separation of state and church is relatively new. It is a product of the enlightenment era on one end and cultural marxism on the other.

Both Church and State are to work synergistically, the state is to promote those things within their sphere of influence which helps in salvation.

Hello saint

I think you just blew my mind! Ive being doing amateur study re marxism and the enlightment and never thought to explore that connection.

I think you and I could be friends

Cheers ive got some investigating to do. God bless saint

 

[W2L]

State=Earthly kingdom

Church=Heavenly kingdom.

Holiness=separation of church and state.

 

[DamianWarS]

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

To which "state" do you refer to that Jesus's "political agenda" was directed to?

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you please elaborate on, "Thinking so leads to doing so," in the light of Matthew 5:28.

What I think is another way to pose the same question, can there be adultery without sexual intercourse (coitus)?

Funny you should ask:

New International Version
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

New Living Translation
But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

English Standard Version
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Berean Study Bible
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Berean Literal Bible
But I say to you that everyone looking upon a woman in order to lust after her already has committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

[redleghunter]

However, when the clergy completely identify themselves with one particular side of politics, they compromise their primary duty.

Good point. Clergy should be rooted in Biblical truth and not a party or ideological platform.

The pastor in the OP, for example, seems to have prioritised his views on "White Supremacy" over everything else. If he mentioned God at all in his talk, I missed it. He mentioned Jesus once, but in a purely secular way: "I know a Jesus who is liberating and offering us hope." Given that, I suspect his former parish have been unhappy with him for quite a while (not that he was with them long).

This pastor was on "The View" for a reason. The producers shopped for him.

 

[redleghunter]

Politics has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity, politics are of this world and represent the affirmation of man's independence from God, his revolt against God, and his pretentious attempt to play God. Christians are of another world and have their own constitution and are therefore separated from this world and its attempts to create a paradise for themselves.

Indeed as Kingdom citizens we are not 'of this world' yet we do still live in this world physically. Which means in most Western countries Christians have a right to vote and should vote.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Funny you should ask:

New International Version
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

New Living Translation
But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

English Standard Version
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Berean Study Bible
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Berean Literal Bible
But I say to you that everyone looking upon a woman in order to lust after her already has committed adultery with her in his heart.

Question remains, can there be adultery without coitus?

What is "adultery in heart"? Is it such intent that for sure coitus is part of the "lust" meaning?

Is there a parallel with not being reconciled as is warned about just prior - so it is just a warning against what "looking at" may lead to, and in a situation with absolute strictures against any coitus it would not apply?
Especially since the Greek used for "lust" is the same as for "covet," as in a guy wanting to take the wife of another (have as his wife including coitus) as prohibited by the commandment.

(What I am wanting to explore is WHY there cannot be, why there is not, kissing in churches like St. Paul recommends 5 times, a recommendation very much ignored by Christians.)

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Politics and religion are a super complex thing. But I think its about finding a spot somewhere inbetween. I'd love a country that is solely based on christians views/rules. However I realize even that would not work because as christians we can't even agree on things as it is. It would just be a battle of denominations instead of political parties. Or we would just form "religious political parties". Like groups that agree on certain issues and give themselves a party name like "The Truth Seeker Party" or "The Rights To All Party".

But given I am in america I just accept this is not a christian country anymore. I do think we need some rules that alow "religious" people to have certain rights. Such as not having to bake a cake for certain events like a wedding because (in my mind) baking said cake means taking part of/approving/helping out certain people to marry. But this law would prohibit "religious" people from rights past such events as weddings. Like if you were a waiter as a restaurant you couldn't say "I don't want to serve you because your of a certain lifestyle. Because serving them has nothing to do with their marriage/getting married.

And I realize this would mean other religions would have to have rights not to do certain things to. It would be a mess though since some religions can be more hostile/racist...etc to certain people. Which is why none of this would ever happen anyways. To complex. And not to mention you would have some people in christianity alone wanting to pass laws about not having to serve blacks for example, because yes, those people still exist and think the bible says such things (rolls eyes).

 

[thecolorsblend]

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

Separation of Church and state is intended to protect the Church; not the state.

As it happens, I do believe in established religion. It's not a magic bullet for anything, but it does enshrine actual values into law. As an American, I keep hearing about all these "universal values we all have in common" but nobody seems capable of listing off many relevant items.

 

[mkgal1]

However, it should not be using that force to influencing voters, or become a lobbying group that seeks to overturn laws or create new ones that may even be detrimental to broader society. Something which the so-called Christian Coalition in the US seems to either forget or ignore outright.

What's confusing to me is that voters look to their church leaders to help them decide what is or isn't "detrimental to broader society". That's what's sort of blown up recently. For example: all the social media memes that say things like, "Dear God, Why do you allow so much violence in our schools? Signed, Concerned Student; Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in schools any longer. Signed, God". I have heard subtle remarks like this coming from the pulpit.

During this last election here in the U.S......I lost a few friends over the issue of how we are to treat our Muslim neighbors (my former friends had the attitude that "they need to leave"---neglecting to understand that Islam isn't a geographical place to go back to).

The issue of the repeal of DACA is another confusing issue (for instance). For those that aren't aware of what that means.....from what I understand....we have roughly 1.8 million people living in the U.S. that were brought here as children. Because of immigration laws that stated that citizenship is not available to *anyone* that has *ever* resided in the US illegally.....the path to legal citizenship in the country they grew up in was impossible for them. Our former president created something called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that allows for this group of eligible people to apply for reprieve from deportation. To me.....that goes along with what the Bible says about "welcoming the stranger".

If we are to "live like Christ".....we have to know what that looks like---and to me, the ideas of "guns for everyone" and "kick out those immigrants" don't look too much like what I read in the Bible.

 

[mkgal1]

To which "state" do you refer to that Jesus's "political agenda" was directed to?

The *Kingdom* of God (Luke 17:21) is not some future place.

 

[mkgal1]

Separation of Church and state is intended to protect the Church; not the state.

As it happens, I do believe in established religion. It's not a magic bullet for anything, but it does enshrine actual values into law. As an American, I keep hearing about all these "universal values we all have in common" but nobody seems capable of listing off many relevant items.

I think this describes--in a nutshell---what I'm trying to address.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

An interesting interview and not the first time a clergy spoke out in good conscience only to be disciplined by the church. This used to happen all over the place in South America over liberation theology. When you stand in a pulpit you stand on the gospel and the dictates of conscience. Without commenting on the interview at least initially I wanted to offer an insight from Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States. While a sitting President President Jefferson was sent a letter from the Danbury Baptists worried that there would be a Federal Church. Jefferson assures them that there is a 'wall of separation', indicating the Federal government cannot interfere in organized religion and vise versa.

What is not well known is President Jefferson is speaking to them in their own theological language. That wall he is speaking of is the family garden wall, spoken of often and elegantly in the Prophets, Song of Songs and by early Protestants. This family garden could not be taxed since it was exempt, so to speak. Like this garden wall, religion has long been considered a persons private business beyond the reach of secular authority.

Just thought that was an interesting little anecdote from history.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mkgal1]

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

I agree.....but from what I understand the federal law is a bit ambiguous on where the line is drawn (in the U.S.).

Here's what I'm referring to:

After attending a “Your Vote under God” gathering featuring four of the most conservative politicians in Texas, I have been educating myself about Gateway Church and its pastor, Robert Morris. Founded in 2000, the church boasts a weekly attendance of 36,000 at six Dallas area campuses and an additional campus in Scottsdale, Ariz. The “mother ship” in the posh Dallas suburb of Southlake claims over 13,000 members.

Gateway Church has been accused of erasing the line between church and state, and there is merit to the charge. The ultra-conservative politicians who spoke at the “Your Vote under God” forum see white evangelical megachurches as a prime source of support.

Although Gateway Church is officially bi-partisan, every member is expected to vote for politicians who are pro-life and opposed to gay marriage. With 36,000 attendees spread over six Dallas-Fort Worth campuses, Gateway has the power to swing elections.

Not surprisingly, senior pastor Robert Morris and Apostolic Elder James Robison serve on Donald Trump’s Executive Council of Evangelical Leaders. James Robison says he gets at least two phone calls from Donald Trump every week. And when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wanted to swing the religious community behind his “bathroom bill,” he had Morris on speed dial.

Gateway Church has close ties to the world of conservative politics and has been accused of being a Dominionist church, part of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Dominionists aren’t looking to escape the world via rapture; they want to transform the world in all its aspects: religion, family, education, government, media, arts and entertainment and business. Dominionists are postmillennial, believing that Christ won’t return on the clouds of glory until God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

Dominionism is evangelical triumphalism run wild. It blossomed in the days of white evangelical expansion and will die the moment the evangelical tide begins to turn.~https://baptistnews.com/article/megachurch-bubble-burst-will-mean-american-culture/#.Wbgz6LKGO03

.....but, on the other hand, this church was involved in an IRS investigation that threatened their tax-exempt status because of an anti-war sermon:

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."~Antiwar Sermon Brings IRS Warning

Complaints about the sermon led to an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) into whether the sermon voided the church's tax-exempt status as a prohibited political endorsement. The church responded by claiming that the IRS is selectively enforcing the rule by not pursuing actions against conservative churches. In response to the investigation, Rector Ed Bacon gave a sermon called, "Neighbor Love is Never Neutral."[2]

In September 2006, the IRS issued a summons against All Saints demanding that the church turn over documents related to the controversial sermon. All Saints Church's response was that the IRS was violating the church's First Amendment rights and that the Church would challenge the IRS's actions in a summons enforcement proceeding in the United States Federal District Court. The church then established a charitable fund to raise money for its legal defense.

The Pasadena Star News reported that All Saints would remain defiant against the IRS. Rector Ed Bacon asserted that political activism was "in the DNA" of the church.

Result of IRS investigation

On September 25, 2007, CCH reported in Federal Tax Day:

On September 10, 2007, the IRS notified the congregation that it was closing its investigation. The IRS determined that the sermon was political campaign intervention. It offered no explanation as to why the sermon violated the ban on political intervention. The IRS also did not indicate if it intended to impose excise taxes under Code Sec. 4955 [see 26 U.S.C. § 4955] on the church or its officers. However, it did not revoke the church's exempt status.[12]
According to the Pasadena Star News, the IRS told church officials that the sermon constituted an endorsement of a candidate. Rector Ed Bacon demanded that the IRS apologize and that the IRS be investigated.[13]

The Rev. Ed Bacon stated:

While we are pleased that the IRS examination is finally over, the IRS has failed to explain its conclusion regarding the single sermon at issue. Synagogues, mosques and churches across American have no more guidance about the IRS rules now than when we started this process over two long years ago.[12]
The Church's legal counsel has asked the IRS for a clarification of the decision, and for assurance that the IRS did not act under pressure from the White House. The Church has also requested that the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) examine the IRS's investigation.[14]~All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California) - Wikipedia