How Should We Separate Church and State

[mkgal1]

I found the sermon that Rev'd Rob Lee preached the weekend after Charlottesville (that apparently was the sermon that led to his resignation)...and I am inspired by it. I believe that's "doing church right":

Today we’ve been talking about the silence of God, and the timing of God. But yesterday, there was a silence of a different kind, not the silence of God, but the silence of the church and her people. Yesterday, in Charlottesville, Virginia, the KKK, white nationalists, and Neo-Nazis marched on the town and attacked clergy, and counter-protesters in violent acts of oppressive racism. It was not safe to be black or a person of color in Charlottesville yesterday. So I have to ask you, what were you doing yesterday? God, who calls us not to silence but to redemption was watching, and if you didn’t see the oppression, if it somehow missed you on social media or the nightly news you only have yourself to blame. Because God is never blind to the suffering of people, and we can’t be either. Just two weeks ago from this very pulpit I proclaimed that God has no hands or feet or mouth but ours. And if you are silent at a moment like this, if you do not condemn the racism you see through whatever channels and avenues you have, you can leave church now because you’re doing church wrong.

When we’re baptized into the United Methodist faith or make a profession of faith, we are asked if we reject evil and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves, and if for some reason you are sympathetic to the white nationalists, if this is making you squirm in your pew then you need to reconsider your place in the kingdom of God. Because in the kingdom of God there is no racism allowed, and the last will be exalted. So that’s bad news for Broad Street. For too long, we have sat on the throne of exaltedness as the downtown, rich, white church, trust me, I’ve been complicit in it as well. Until we get off our thrones and into the streets to proclaim and re-claim what racism has taken away, we’ve missed the point of Christ’s death and resurrection.~The Reverend Rob Lee

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

I think that's exactly what the idea was in the beginning of the U.S. (to avoid the whole state church scenario---compulsion of faith--that was happening in Europe)....but I'm referring specifically to the backlash that I've heard and read so much recently from people responding to just about anything that's an issue outside of vague spiritual messages. IOW.....these people seem to only be content when clergy "stays in their own lane" which is defined by this group as clergy being limited to sermons strictly referring to the Bible and not really addressing any current-day issues. IOW....to them, "political" means anything that is referring to today....and "spiritual" is referring to what happened in biblical times.


....but can the two actually be divided? I think this is what I'm wresting with.

Shouldn't be a problem if the understanding of biblical context is applied. But would need to be carefully done when addressing present issues. Either way, not being holier than thou as if you're a know it all and it's your way or the high way.

It's possible to separate religious and political beliefs to a point. That would be not forcing your beliefs on others by using government, just because it's what you believe. If what you believe has context relating to issues you or other's face, I don't think it can be separated. Except what you personally do about it to address an issue, careful not to cross the line of using religion to support your opinion or push a certain narrative.

 

[Edo2]

I found the sermon that Rev'd Rob Lee preached the weekend after Charlottesville (that apparently was the sermon that led to his resignation)...and I am inspired by it. I believe that's "doing church right":

I've heard pastors say both locally and nationally say that the healing between the racially should happen through the church but yet don't do much to promote that healing.

Even though i didn't really agree with how he said things in the video or the vma awards i can get behind what he saying here because he is right. Even though get what he saying i do prefer the wording serving christ right instead of doing church right.

Good job pastor

 

[mkgal1]

It's possible to separate religious and political beliefs to a point. That would be not forcing your beliefs on others by using government, just because it's what you believe. If what you believe has context relating to issues you or other's face, I don't think it can be separated. Except what you personally do about it to address an issue, careful not to cross the line of using religion to support your opinion or push a certain narrative.

I think I'm understanding what you're saying about separating ideology from theology and not forcing one's beliefs on to others by using the government.....but I still think that goes back to one's ideology (some believe it's their place to "save" others....and that means imposing the "right" religious beliefs on to others). Do you see what I mean?

As far as racial issues (and being silent or even believing Rev Rob Lee was "out of line" by saying what he said)....I have no idea how that's not a clear decision as to what is right. It surprises me that is still considered a controversial and questionable topic.

 

[mkgal1]

An example of what I mean....about where it goes too far to impose religious beliefs on to others: there's a group of ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel that believe they are "protecting" others by imposing their beliefs into the legal system:

I know better than most how unexpectedly a country can be changed from within.

I was born in Iran before its 1979 revolution, when it was a secular country with a modern constitution and equal access to the law, but ruled by a dictator with an iron fist.
In the eyes of then-US President Jimmy Carter, Iran was an "island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world." He said as much to the country's long-serving monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, in a public toast in Tehran in December 1977.

But within the supposed "island of stability" there was a substantial minority population that was religiously conservative, politically active and zealously committed to imposing their values and agenda upon the state. When the Shah failed in his duty to address the needs of his citizens -- when the government was revealed to be kleptocratic, inept and corrupt -- the religious conservatives saw their chance.


With the backing of much of the population, they helped organize a massive revolution that roiled the country and forced the Shah and his family to flee as his kingdom was transformed into the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In this case, the revolution was sudden and violent. But not all revolutions happen in this way.
Some occur quietly and gradually, with one group injecting its ideology into the state, forcing more government concessions and taking on greater political power until, one day, you wake up and find this group has more or less taken over the state.

That is precisely what I see happening right now in Israel with the Haredim, an extremely conservative religious minority of ultra-Orthodox Jews. The ultra-Orthodox represent a diverse but devout and anti-modern group that's been challenging the secular nature of Israeli society for years and could change the very fabric of the country.
~Reza Aslan: Why I worry about Israel's future - CNN

Who are the Haredim? - CNN Video


.....to me, that's a long way from voting for representatives that support protecting seniors through rent control and supporting pastors and clergy that speak out openly against racism.

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

are you saying the "state" is the Kingdom of God?

 

[Phantasman]

The mystery is your "belief" not the the Reverend's

I hope you find it as well:

Mark:
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

1 Corinthians:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

The Holy Spirit will reveal it to those who are free from the doctrines of men.

 

[mkgal1]

I hope you find it as well:

Mark:
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

1 Corinthians:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

The Holy Spirit will reveal it to those who are free from the doctrines of men.

So the "mystery of the kingdom of God" reveals that it's "worldly thought" to oppose hatred and the marginalization of people (in your opinion)? Does that line up to the Sermon on the Mount in your mind?

 

[mkgal1]

are you saying the "state" is the Kingdom of God?

No. When I say that I believe that Jesus' agenda was "political" I mean that it (His teaching) described how we are to treat others ("others" not being limited to those in our "club" ....but everyone). Mainly.....how important it is that we care for "the least of these".

 

[mkgal1]

This blog post articulates what I'm referring to:

“You should stay out of politics and stick to preaching the Gospel.” – Bill, a Christian

Several times a day I’m chided by a well-meaning friend, complete stranger, or soon-to-be-disconnecting social media acquaintance for being “too political” as a Christian and or as a pastor. Curiously, I most frequently I hear these sentiments from Conservative Christians—and I’m never quite sure what “Gospel” they want me to stick to, but it certainly isn’t the one Jesus mentioned:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come – Jesus (Luke 4:18-19)

I’ve long ago learned that this carefully constructed code language can almost always be translated as, “The personal faith convictions which you are expressing publicly are now bumping up against my daily life—and this makes me uncomfortable and I want to make you stop.”

Embedded in the reprimand is the myth that there is somehow a way of being spiritual without also being political; some sharp, easily identifiable, universally accepted line delineating the sacred from the secular, the supernatural from the practical, religious matters from civil ones—and that Church People can and should learn to “stay in their lanes”.

The only problem with such suggestions, is that if you are a committed person of any faith tradition, life is the lane. It’s all spiritual stuff.

For me, this means that my faith isn’t an isolated activity that I engage in between many other non-religious ones. It is the very lens through which I view everything, and it likewise informs every facet of my life: the work I do, the words I write, the causes I support, how I spend my money, how I experience community, the way I vote, how I see and discuss the world. To suggest I separate my spirituality from any area of my life is like asking ask my brain to function independently from my circulatory system. The two are ultimately inextricably linked. Their existence is symbiotic.~https://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/07/10/why-my-faith-is-political/

 

[SkyWriting]

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

There is no line drawn except in the courts.

 

[mkgal1]

There is no line drawn except in the courts.

I'm not sure if that's true. According to what happened to All Saints church in Pasadena....it was up to the I.R.S. (alone) to decide where the line was drawn (but they never clarified their decision). It wasn't a court case.

The Internal Revenue Service has told a prominent Pasadena church that it has ended its lengthy investigation into a 2004 antiwar sermon, church leaders said Sunday.

But the agency wrote in its letter to All Saints Episcopal Church that officials still considered the sermon to have been illegal, prompting the church to seek clarification, a corrected record and an apology from the IRS, the church's rector told standing-room-only crowds of parishioners at Sunday's services.

The church also has asked the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS, to investigate allegations that officials from the Justice Department had become involved in the matter, raising concerns that the investigation was politically motivated.

"To be sure, we are pleased that the IRS exam is over," the Rev. J. Edwin Bacon Jr. said in his 9 a.m. sermon, which was interrupted several times by applause. "However, the main issue of protecting the freedom of this church and other religious communities to worship according to the dictates of their conscience and core values is far from accomplished."~IRS ends church probe but stirs new questions

.....but if you're saying that otherwise it's all connected, then I completely agree with you.

 

[redleghunter]

So, tell me, does your own ideology not color your theology? Please tell me otherwise. And for added points, try not using the Bible in doing so.

Who are you responding to with the above blind post?

 

[Targaryen]

Who are you responding to with the above blind post?

You knew it enough to quote. Not enough to answer. Good Job.

 

[redleghunter]

You knew it enough to quote. Not enough to answer. Good Job.

Was it for me? If so please use the quote function.

 

[Targaryen]

Was it for me? If so please use the quote function.

Or you can answer the question without playing games, hmm?

 

[SBC]

(speaking out against hatred and bigotry.....

Why? What does that accomplish, but to keep a continuous focus on HATE ?
Where is that taught in Scripture?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

How Should We Separate Church and State<--- OP

As intended.
The State shall not establish a State Church.<--- they haven't.
The State shall not prohibit anyone from believing what they want.<--- they don't.
Period.

That does NOT prohibit State Servants from believing what they want.
That does NOT prohibit the People from believing what they want.
That does NOT give ANY religion or faith power to supersede the Law.
That does NOT prohibit ANY Pastor from influencing his own congregation.
That does NOT prohibit ANY State Servant from Publically saying GOD BLESS AMERICA
....or God Bless the American People.
That did NOT prohibit America adopting the Star-Spangled Banner as it's National
....Anthem, nor it's complete lyrics that say "In God We Trust".
That did NOT prohibit the US Constitution being signed in the "year of Our Lord".

Americans have traditionally been Steeped in Christianity - but like Christ FORCED no one to believe - neither does the Government or the US Law.

The Laws of the United State WERE fashioned after the Standards and Principles of the Bible.....(well back, when we had Statesmen, before we had POLITICIANS, and a Crooked Supreme Court, that supersedes the Congress and makes LAW based on the opinion of a few.)

Shocking IMO, to see SO MANY Americans turning their backs on Christianity - but then, prophecy must come to pass.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[DamianWarS]

No. When I say that I believe that Jesus' agenda was "political" I mean that it (His teaching) described how we are to treat others ("others" not being limited to those in our "club" ....but everyone). Mainly.....how important it is that we care for "the least of these".

the suggestion of the OP is that Jesus contributed or interacted directly somehow with a type of contextual "church and state". if the "church" is Jesus or his message/followers then what is the "state" in this scenario? I ask because I simply cannot reconcile the expression "church and state" with the teachings of Jesus except on a extremely broad level found in "loving your neighbour" which is no longer "church and state" its "people and people" or perhaps more irresponsibly "us and them".

The closest "state" that Jesus commented on would be within a context of a religious system but that misses the point as to what "state" is and would be more "church and church". In the 1st century the "state" would be the roman empire and Jesus doesn't really comment on the roman empire in regards to protest or partnership. So I'm confused what you mean by "church and state" in relation to Jesus' teaching because I find it absent.

 

[Paidiske]

Disclaimer: I am not in America. I am a priest, though, so tread this line in my own daily work.

To me, there are two intersecting imperatives.

One is to recognise that the mission of God (in which the Church participates) has a dimension of transforming injustice, challenging violence and pursuing peace and reconciliation. Those are matters which it is appropriate for clergy to comment on and lead their faith communities in.

The other is to recognise that we cannot align the kingdom of God with any political party, nation or other partisan human group. So it is not appropriate to attempt to tell my congregation which party to vote for (or not vote for) or the like.

The way this plays out for me is that I feel comfortable discussing (criticising) policy, but I don't comment on party or person.