How Should We Separate Church and State

[mkgal1]

Do they love their enemy? Did the Jews? Catholic fathers? Islam? They live by the flesh

In reading this back a second time......I sure hope you don't mean "they live by the flesh" to be including Jews, Catholic fathers, and Islam (which isn't a people group but a religion). Maybe it's me....but your posts seem almost cryptic.

 

[Phantasman]

I will try one more time.

Is the answer to my question about your use of "worldly thought" in your response there? This train of discussion began with this post of yours, where you posted:






I was just trying to get a handle on what you're calling "worldly thought" in reference to what Rev'd Rob Lee had said. Your response was:



Maybe my rephrasing the question will help: what do you consider "worldly thought" that Rev'd Rob Lee has communicated?

I went to his blog. He's an activist that's trying to change people with religious teachings. He is mixing politics and religion. What do you think the Rev Al Sharpton does? You cannot teach spiritual truth through politics. It was politics that tore apart Christianity of the first three centuries.

So I ask you........where do YOU draw the line of what the world is and what Jesus says to do about it.
John:
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Yes there is evil in the world. But who gave Christians the right to make the world different? If you could, that's almost like saying Jesus lied when he had to return because even the elect would not last.

John:
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Trying to "change" the path of the world is futile. In the end, it's going to suffer the same fate as the flesh.

 

[Phantasman]

"They" you're referring to above are the White Supremacists (I'm guessing, based on what you quoted from my post).

But, earlier, when I'd asked about your reference to "worldly thought"....I had interpreted that to be referring to Rev'd Rob Lee's words, because you'd posted:


.....so I'm still confused by what you're trying to say about "worldly thought" (because it certainly doesn't seem "worldly" to encourage people away from their bias and bigotry--which is what Rev Rob Lee was doing, and you called that "out of bounds" and posted that you "wouldn't follow a person" doing/saying what he's said). But then you also wrote this...


....which is what the Rev'd was also encouraging....and I, of course, agree with...so I don't understand how you're saying he was "out of bounds" and you wouldn't follow him. ????

His time could be spent better elsewhere. The world is politics. It has no purpose in Christianity as well as Christianity in politics.

 

[Phantasman]

In reading this back a second time......I sure hope you don't mean "they live by the flesh" to be including Jews, Catholic fathers, and Islam (which isn't a people group but a religion). Maybe it's me....but your posts seem almost cryptic.

Yes. They see nations (physical) as important. Like most all wars, they seek their own dirt, and will kill men to obtain it. They are patriarchs, seeing a male superiority that extends into spirit, when it is clear that is doesn't. This is a small part of a larger picture.

The flesh profits nothing. The physical profits nothing. We are "free" through Christ to rise above the worlds ignorance through the spirit that quickens us. We do not cast pearls before swine.

 

[mkgal1]

I went to his blog. He's an activist that's trying to change people with religious teachings. He is mixing politics and religion. You cannot teach spiritual truth through politics. It was politics that tore apart Christianity of the first three centuries.

"An activist that's trying to change people with religious teachings"? And that doesn't sound to you like a Christ-like clergy member's vocational mission?

Politics is defined as: the process of making decisions applying to all members of each group. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community.

I don't see any reason why people wish to separate faith from the actual process of making decisions applying to groups of people (as much as we are able to). IMO....that IS what it means for our faith to be put into action (we self govern....we are involved in the "politics" of our individual families; churches; communities...all the way out as far as our influence allows).

Yes there is evil in the world. But who gave Christians the right to make the world different? If you could, that's almost like saying Jesus lied when he had to return because even the elect would not last.

Um....Jesus did (the way I read my Bible, anyway):

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its savor, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.~Matthew 5:13

You are the light of the world.~Matthew 5:14

Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled to God.~2nd Corinthians 5:20

For in Him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are His offspring.'~Acts 17:28

Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it.~1st Corinthians 12:27




​

I could probably sit here for the remainder of the day quoting applicable Bible verses....but I don't have the time to do that. I hope you get the idea from those few passages. I think your Calvinism could be bumping up against my Arminianism (but I may be wrong).

​

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight

But yet......we're still here.

Trying to "change" the path of the world is futile. In the end, it's going to suffer the same fate as the flesh.

Yeah....we have a whole separate belief framework. I'm not of the opinion that life is like those Disney cars that are on a rail and we just sit and hang on for the ride (with the steering wheel just there for show and no actual function).

 

[mkgal1]

Yes. They see nations (physical) as important. Like most all wars, they seek their own dirt, and will kill men to obtain it. They are patriarchs, seeing a male superiority that extends into spirit, when it is clear that is doesn't. This is a small part of a larger picture.

That's a very broad brush you're using there.

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

Hmmm.....let me see if I can untangle the confusion I caused.

I mentioned a couple of things in the OP (btw.....did you happen to watch the video? Because that may clarify better than I can communicate without your seeing the video). I mentioned "Jesus' agenda was political" (IMO)....and that was one thought. I brought that up because that was a point mentioned in the video--and it's also in reference to complaints I see or hear repeatedly whenever a pastor or religious page on social media addresses topics like White Supremacy/Racism (for example).

On a separate-- but related-- thought.....I was asking about where the supposed boundary lines are if it's true that topics like racism are "too political" for a pastor/clergy or a website/social media page that represents a religious organization to address.

I hope that helps clarify some.

I read the OP and watched the video. I know the greater issue seems to be approaching racism and how the church should confront it but this isn't an issue of "church and state" and perhaps you should consider renaming the title of the OP to something closer to what you actually want to discuss such as "is racism 'too political' for the church"

 

[mkgal1]

but this isn't an issue of "church and state"

I brought "church and state" into the discussion because that's what I interpret "too political" to mean (as if it's crossing a line that clergy ought not cross).

I'm not too concerned about how I titled the thread (because I did also want to discuss the separation of church and state and what that actually means). But thanks for the suggestion.

 

[SBC]

I asked for other solutions to how we--as a Body of believers--are to deal with issues like racism (since you seemed opposed to my suggestion of "speaking out against hatred and bigotry")...and you answered:

I am not sure why you feel compelled to speak AGAINST "hatred and bigotry".

Hatred means a strong dislike.
Bigotry means intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I am not opposed to having a strong dislike of something.
Nor am I opposed to not tolerating opinions of others I don't agree with.

However Hate and Bigotry (along with a few other terms) has become the new politically correct way to endlessly antagonize and instigate people of polar opposites.
Why fuel it, making it a daily headliner? Seems like a waste of time to me, and does NOTHING whatsoever to Glorify God.

I don't see that as a responsible or effective solution. Violence only creates and escalates more violence.

Not necessarily. But it may create anger of the one who was the scoundrel to begin with.

I will not go about infringing on others, but I will oblige another of what he has already thought he might expect if he infringes on my family.

....and what about protecting others?

Protecting others? How so? Sending young boys to foreign lands? You making sure I have auto, house, boat, property, life insurance, locks and bolts on my entrances?

And, what are these "others" doing to protect themselves? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

I have protection - it's called Christ the Lord. And our Service to the Lord is to spread His Word that others may choose to also submit unto Him and Serve Him.

I don't see Christ's teaching to be about an attitude of "every man for himself".
Instead.....I see it more about caring for others just as we care for our selves (and Jesus even responded to the question of who we are to care for....and it's not just "those in our clubs").

You leave out the equation of what do others do for themselves? In this modern day society the NORMAL, is for one to do NOTHING for themselves, and expect anyone, everyone to take care of them. Why? Seriously, do you really believe 1/2 of this country is destitute and requires another to provide their basic needs ?

I care for myself, by earning. So are you on the bandwagon to care for others, as you do yourself, when others don't care to earn?

Speaking directly about racism (with also recommending the cure....encouraging to love others....to have empathy.....to have compassion and, for those of us that are privileged to have white skin, to put ourselves in the "shoes" of others that aren't as privileged) is different than being "enticed by negative". Resorting to vengeance and violence, in my opinion, would be equivalent to "being enticed by something negative".

I said nothing about vengeance.

Oh yipes. Privileged to have white skin? You have got to be joking.
Racist - another one of those politically correct instigating terms, that people fling around as if it is supposed to gain a reaction of defense. pffft.

Loving all people, friend and foe does not mean submitting to accepting their behavior.
The Lord has blessed me with a piece of ground to care for and protect, and so I do.
That has nothing to do with spreading Gods Word or giving others in need aid or being charitable with things I have been blessed with.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Paidiske]

I am not sure why you feel compelled to speak AGAINST "hatred and bigotry".

Hatred means a strong dislike.
Bigotry means intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I am not opposed to having a strong dislike of something.
Nor am I opposed to not tolerating opinions of others I don't agree with.

However Hate and Bigotry (along with a few other terms) has become the new politically correct way to endlessly antagonize and instigate people of polar opposites.
Why fuel it, making it a daily headliner? Seems like a waste of time to me, and does NOTHING whatsoever to Glorify God.

It seems to me that the part of the equation you're missing is unequal power. When there is a culture of hatred and bigotry, coupled with one group having more power than another, the group who are hated or against whom there is bigotry are in a vulnerable situation.

Speaking up against hatred and bigotry then becomes about protecting the vulnerable; those who would otherwise miss out on educational opportunities, employment opportunities, the ability to play their part to the full in our society, and so on.

I do believe that protecting the vulnerable glorifies God, by uplifting those who bear God's image in their very being.

 

[SBC]

You may not be threatened at all (but that probably means you aren't black or Jewish....correct?).

What world do you live in that everyone has not experienced being threatened, bullied, gossiped about, called names, intimidated, attacked, had something stolen, and on and on?

However.....this wasn't a peaceful protest (nor did they "mind their own business"). Have you read personal accounts from people that were there (like the group inside a church on Friday evening praying for the event)?

Nope.

And - so what is your solution?

Do you know what "terrorism" is defined as. In case you don't....here you go:

The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

The Legal definition -

Terrorism -
"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

I would say that encircling a church (with people of color inside) marching with Tiki torches that are reminiscent of the torches used to burn crosses chanting "blood and soil" could be called "intimidation and/or instilling fear" with a goal that's ideological in nature.

What you did not mention was - were the chanters trespassing? I mean, is that a PRIVATE Church that ONLY certain people of the public can be on that property?

What was the VIOLENCE or unlawful FORCE against anyone?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

Not one bit?

This is the attitude that I, quite honestly, find appalling. I think it's actually the same attitude that's most often behind the retort of "you're getting too political" though.

Careful what find appalling - The EVENT was what was taking place at the Church!

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

Call it what you want....but they weren't "protesting" (that's an absurd description of what they were doing).

Hold on a minute - that was a response to your general statement - not the church group you opened this OP with. So I gave a general reply - and now you pretend it is about your church group, and call my reply absurd? Try to pay attention to what you are saying before jumping on me!

Your comment!

How much do we allow, though? Don't you believe it goes too far --and beyond "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" --when groups are allowed to form and granted permission to protest in public while they are carrying guns and chanting things like "Blood and soil...." and "Jews will not replace us"? How is that not terrorism?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Radagast]

It seems to me that the part of the equation you're missing is unequal power. When there is a culture of hatred and bigotry, coupled with one group having more power than another, the group who are hated or against whom there is bigotry are in a vulnerable situation.

The difficulty in the United States is that one of of the groups without power is impoverished blue-collar rural white people without college degrees. They are subject to bigotry from the college-educated (being vilified as "rednecks" etc.), they suffer extremely high death rates, their children suffer educational and employment disadvantages, and (being rural) their problems don't get shown on television much.

These are of course the people who (largely out of desperation) voted for Trump, though many of them had formerly been Democrats.

Speaking up against hatred and bigotry then becomes about protecting the vulnerable; those who would otherwise miss out on educational opportunities, employment opportunities, the ability to play their part to the full in our society, and so on.

Indeed.

 

[SBC]

Well....I actually agree with the statement that it's shocking to see so many Americans turning their backs on Christianity (but we probably need to be a bit more specific than that---because we have Neo/Nazis and White Supremacists claiming to be Christians and a gov'ment classifying a group that protests them as a terrorist group).

And ? That is exclusive to white people? uh, no.

In America....we have a representative government. Like Paidiske posted earlier....that doesn't mean our government is ever going to align perfectly with the values of the Kingdom of God (but....it seems to me that we can come generally close by allowing for equal access under the law....and equal protection for ALL). In my opinion....that is one way the church can be God's hands and feet...to, at least, have the goal....as much is in our power to do so....to reach for that equal protection for everyone.

And ? What did this particular group do to exercise their "rights" under the law? And were they denied such right?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

It seems to me that the part of the equation you're missing is unequal power.

All power comes from God.

When there is a culture of hatred and bigotry, coupled with one group having more power than another, the group who are hated or against whom there is bigotry are in a vulnerable situation.

Hatred and bigotry are instigating terms, used to fuel a feud and deflect.
Truth is; fueling a fire does not quench the fire; it enlarges the fire; which does nothing about the feud but make it worse.

Speaking up against hatred and bigotry then becomes about protecting the vulnerable;

How much TIME and EFFORT did a Christian's EXAMPLE spend headlining STANDING AGAINST what is wicked?

Seems you missed the POINT -
Spiritually - the understanding is TO STAND FOR what is RIGHT -
Naturally - the understanding is TO EXERCISE the RIGHTS one does have -
Ignorantly - the fact is supposed do gooders, spend their time STANDING AGAINST -

What is happening here IS - a thread was opened TO STAND AGAINST something. And that STANDING was perpetuated BY a cleric, and the purpose of this thread was to FIND how many agreed with the cleric.

As soon as SOMEONE did not jump on board - the ones WHO agreed with the cleric - began attacking the ones who DID NOT JUMP on board.

those who would otherwise miss out on educational opportunities, employment opportunities, the ability to play their part to the full in our society, and so on.

EXCUSES, to justify behavior. Nothing different than what ANY group does to get their WAY considered and supported.

I do believe that protecting the vulnerable glorifies God, by uplifting those who bear God's image in their very being.

The INTENT of this thread was to get people to STAND AGAINST, the white race, by Christians Bashing them, and ANYONE who does not join in, becomes ALSO attacked.

You don't even SEE, the crux, is Christians promoting;
the black race IS too poor, too uneducated, too powerless, too intimidated, too ignorant to take care of a nuisance, JUST as any other person afforded the same rights to do so.

So WHERE are the Christians proposed SOLUTIONS for these poor, too uneducated, too powerless, too intimidated, too ignorant to take care of a nuisance?

Oh, ya right - hold court in the public platform - declare those white men terrorists and what? Send them to Gitmo? Because that is where terrorists are housed. And for what? Because they were a nuisance to other people?

Excuses are old and worn out.

How about the FACTS for a change - WHAT DID these people DO to alleviate a nuisance?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Paidiske]

I suspect we are coming at this question with totally different experiences colouring our approach.

I was born under the apartheid regime in South Africa. And the way I see it, it's not that the people who protested apartheid (and contributed to its eventual fall) were just standing against apartheid; they were standing for a particular vision of society which honoured the value and dignity of every single person in that society.

I suspect that almost every stand "against" something could be viewed, from a different point of view, as standing "for" something else, because these are matters of a clash of cultural values.

So I don't think we need to seek to make sure we never stand "against" anything. I think we need to make sure we stand "for" the right things.

 

[mukk_in]

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:

I'm not sure if the true Church (filled with both the holiness and compassion of Christ) led by the Holy Spirit (hard to find these days ) should be separated from the state sis .

 

[SBC]

The difficulty in the United States is that one of of the groups without power is impoverished blue-collar rural white people without college degrees. They are subject to bigotry from the college-educated (being vilified as "rednecks" etc.), they suffer extremely high death rates, their children suffer educational and employment disadvantages, and (being rural) their problems don't get shown on television much.

Oh good grief -

without power -
impoverished -
rural -
white -
without college degrees -
suffer death
their children suffer educational disadvantages
their children suffer employment disadvantages

subject to bigotry
subject to college educated people
vilified by names, they call themselves

their "problems" are not widely broadcast.

Well that IS funny to say the least.

Are you one of these "so called" rural white people?
Or are you one of those "college educated people" qualified to DECIDE "their problems", and "their solutions to the problems you have decided ARE their problems"?

These are of course the people who (largely out of desperation) voted for Trump, though many of them had formerly been Democrats.

"Their desperation" was to NOT vote for a politico Democrat, who promotes, people are too ignorant to take care of themselves?

Fascinating!

Seems to me - the Christian attitude is supposed to be - butt out of other peoples business and allow THEM to take care of themselves according to their own abilities.

Why is their wealth, or lack there of, their education level, their elected rural living, their children, their right to vote for their own reasons, ANY of your business?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

I'm not sure if the true Church (filled with both the holiness and compassion of Christ) led by the Holy Spirit (hard to find these days ) should be separated from the state sis .

Religion IS separated from US Government's control -
Religion IS NOT separated from the People.

God Bless,
SBC