What religion the State?

[RandyPNW]

I do not know why Christians want to separate religion from the State? I understand why they may want to separate an official denomination from the State, lest one denomination use political power to control and abuse the others. But the idea that the State should be without a religion or any other religion than Christianity is besides me. It's as if Christians want to return to what they think is the ideal in the Early Church, when Christians were faced with persecution by the pagan Romans.

God's ideal for the State has always been Theism or Christianity. He showed this by giving Israel not just a State religion but very specific rules to live by. It's really no different in the NT era, because now God wants all nations to adopt the Christian religion, whether they choose to or not. There is no better religion for the State than Christianity, unless of course that Christianity is not really functioning as such.

I think many are concerned that Christianity, when it is mixed with the State, is purely nominal and functions in a purely perfunctory way. But that is pure cynicism. If the State can embrace the Christian religion as a State, then it certainly may be able to practice it in an effective way, if only temporarily and partially.

Many call us back to when Constantine began to tolerate the Christian religion within the Roman Empire. They say that sounded the death knell of Christianity, because then the State would begin to impose its pagan ways on the Christian religion, and Christian officials would become purely servants of a pagan State, abandoning their true Christianity.

But this was never true. After Rome tolerated and then embraced Christianity, many great Church Fathers emerged to help solidify Christian belief and doctrine, to enable it to survive for many centuries. Many charitable enterprises were allowed to flourish, even if there were imperfections in this mix between true Christianity and official Christianity.

Today, as Christianity slips into minority status within the Western states, I don't think we should harbor any illusions, though. We cannot try to impose the Christian religion on the state. But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states. After all, we're preaching the Kingdom of God. He is the King of Kings, and will judge all states and all individuals, whether they accept it or not.

 

[9Rock9]

There is the concern that tying Christianity to the state will end up corrupting each other. Such a concern is not unwarranted, as it has happened.

I see it as part of the Golden Rule. I should treat others how I want them to treat me, thus I apply the same logic to religion in government. I want atheists, Muslims, Jews, etc. to respect my beliefs, so I should respect theirs (to the extent that doesn't lead to sin.)

A religious government may also force you to do something you may not agree with. Maybe they want you to bow down to an idol, or say you cannot dance or drink because those are sins.

It can also distort the Gospel in that people are only going through the motions rather than from sincere conviction and repentance. The state could also define "Christian" how it wants and tack on more rules to it.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

There is the concern that tying Christianity to the state will end up corrupting each other. Such a concern is not unwarranted, as it has happened.

I see it as part of the Golden Rule. I should treat others how I want them to treat me, thus I apply the same logic to religion in government. I want atheists, Muslims, Jews, etc. to respect my beliefs, so I should respect theirs (to the extent that doesn't lead to sin.)

A religious government may also force you to do something you may not agree with. Maybe they want you to bow down to an idol, or say you cannot dance or drink because those are sins.

It can also distort the Gospel in that people are only going through the motions rather than from sincere conviction and repentance. The state could also define "Christian" how it wants and tack on more rules to it.

"The state could also define 'Christian' how it wants..."
- Good point.
You can see the pattern/examples...in Christian history.
- Still going on.. in some countries.

 

[eleos1954]

I do not know why Christians want to separate religion from the State? I understand why they may want to separate an official denomination from the State, lest one denomination use political power to control and abuse the others. But the idea that the State should be without a religion or any other religion than Christianity is besides me. It's as if Christians want to return to what they think is the ideal in the Early Church, when Christians were faced with persecution by the pagan Romans.

God's ideal for the State has always been Theism or Christianity. He showed this by giving Israel not just a State religion but very specific rules to live by. It's really no different in the NT era, because now God wants all nations to adopt the Christian religion, whether they choose to or not. There is no better religion for the State than Christianity, unless of course that Christianity is not really functioning as such.

I think many are concerned that Christianity, when it is mixed with the State, is purely nominal and functions in a purely perfunctory way. But that is pure cynicism. If the State can embrace the Christian religion as a State, then it certainly may be able to practice it in an effective way, if only temporarily and partially.

Many call us back to when Constantine began to tolerate the Christian religion within the Roman Empire. They say that sounded the death knell of Christianity, because then the State would begin to impose its pagan ways on the Christian religion, and Christian officials would become purely servants of a pagan State, abandoning their true Christianity.

But this was never true. After Rome tolerated and then embraced Christianity, many great Church Fathers emerged to help solidify Christian belief and doctrine, to enable it to survive for many centuries. Many charitable enterprises were allowed to flourish, even if there were imperfections in this mix between true Christianity and official Christianity.

Today, as Christianity slips into minority status within the Western states, I don't think we should harbor any illusions, though. We cannot try to impose the Christian religion on the state. But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states. After all, we're preaching the Kingdom of God. He is the King of Kings, and will judge all states and all individuals, whether they accept it or not.

Religion (or no religion) is a choice and should remain that way. People are and should be free to make choices in that regard.

He is the King of Kings, and will judge all states and all individuals, whether they accept it or not.

True .... best to leave it up to God .... not man.

 

[RandyPNW]

Religion (or no religion) is a choice and should remain that way. People are and should be free to make choices in that regard.

Are you saying that the people of a State do *not* have the choice to collectively choose for a Christian State? Your answers are too short to give a clear answer.

 

[Clare73]

I do not know why Christians want to separate religion from the State?

I, for one, don't want the government regulating the practice of religion.

I understand why they may want to separate an official denomination from the State, lest one denomination use political power to control and abuse the others. But the idea that the State should be without a religion or any other religion than Christianity is besides me. It's as if Christians want to return to what they think is the ideal in the Early Church, when Christians were faced with persecution by the pagan Romans.

God's ideal for the State has always been Theism or Christianity. He showed this by giving Israel not just a State religion but very specific rules to live by. It's really no different in the NT era, because now God wants all nations to adopt the Christian religion, whether they choose to or not. There is no better religion for the State than Christianity, unless of course that Christianity is not really functioning as such.

I think many are concerned that Christianity, when it is mixed with the State, is purely nominal and functions in a purely perfunctory way. But that is pure cynicism. If the State can embrace the Christian religion as a State, then it certainly may be able to practice it in an effective way, if only temporarily and partially.

Many call us back to when Constantine began to tolerate the Christian religion within the Roman Empire. They say that sounded the death knell of Christianity, because then the State would begin to impose its pagan ways on the Christian religion, and Christian officials would become purely servants of a pagan State, abandoning their true Christianity.

But this was never true. After Rome tolerated and then embraced Christianity, many great Church Fathers emerged to help solidify Christian belief and doctrine, to enable it to survive for many centuries. Many charitable enterprises were allowed to flourish, even if there were imperfections in this mix between true Christianity and official Christianity.

Today, as Christianity slips into minority status within the Western states, I don't think we should harbor any illusions, though. We cannot try to impose the Christian religion on the state. But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states. After all, we're preaching the Kingdom of God. He is the King of Kings, and will judge all states and all individuals, whether they accept it or not.

 

[RandyPNW]

I, for one, don't want the government regulating the practice of religion.

Nor do I. When States begin to apply their religion to abuse the people, they are in a backslidden or corrupt condition. And this doesn't justify turning a Christian state into a pagan state, which will then use the force of the state to impose paganism!

When I propose that God chose the Christian State as the ideal state, I did not mean that men could not fall from grace and abuse it. They can and they did. But it still remains that the Christian State, when it is operating as it should, is better than a pagan state.

Until the Kingdom of God actually comes, there will be no perfect Christian state. But that doesn't mean that Christian states have not existed at times when they were not overly abusive and controlling.

I think you ignore all the good that is been done while Christian states were in power. Of course, in history we learn about the failures, and not so much about the successes.

 

[Clare73]

Nor do I. When States begin to apply their religion to abuse the people, they are in a backslidden or corrupt condition. And this doesn't justify turning a Christian state into a pagan state, which will then use the force of the state to impose paganism!
When I propose that God chose the Christian State as the ideal state, I did not mean that men could not fall from grace and abuse it. They can and they did. But it still remains that the Christian State, when it is operating as it should, is better than a pagan state.
Until the Kingdom of God actually comes, there will be no perfect Christian state. But that doesn't mean that Christian states have not existed at times when they were not overly abusive and controlling.

I think you ignore all the good that is been done while Christian states were in power. Of course, in history we learn about the failures, and not so much about the successes.

It's about freedom in the secular order.

No one has the right to make a state religious unless the majority of the people want it to be.

Unbelievers have rights also in the secular order.

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I do not know why Christians want to separate religion from the State? I understand why they may want to separate an official denomination from the State, lest one denomination use political power to control and abuse the others. But the idea that the State should be without a religion or any other religion than Christianity is besides me. It's as if Christians want to return to what they think is the ideal in the Early Church, when Christians were faced with persecution by the pagan Romans.

God's ideal for the State has always been Theism or Christianity. He showed this by giving Israel not just a State religion but very specific rules to live by. It's really no different in the NT era, because now God wants all nations to adopt the Christian religion, whether they choose to or not. There is no better religion for the State than Christianity, unless of course that Christianity is not really functioning as such.

I think many are concerned that Christianity, when it is mixed with the State, is purely nominal and functions in a purely perfunctory way. But that is pure cynicism. If the State can embrace the Christian religion as a State, then it certainly may be able to practice it in an effective way, if only temporarily and partially.

Many call us back to when Constantine began to tolerate the Christian religion within the Roman Empire. They say that sounded the death knell of Christianity, because then the State would begin to impose its pagan ways on the Christian religion, and Christian officials would become purely servants of a pagan State, abandoning their true Christianity.

But this was never true. After Rome tolerated and then embraced Christianity, many great Church Fathers emerged to help solidify Christian belief and doctrine, to enable it to survive for many centuries. Many charitable enterprises were allowed to flourish, even if there were imperfections in this mix between true Christianity and official Christianity.

Today, as Christianity slips into minority status within the Western states, I don't think we should harbor any illusions, though. We cannot try to impose the Christian religion on the state. But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states. After all, we're preaching the Kingdom of God. He is the King of Kings, and will judge all states and all individuals, whether they accept it or not.

Before tackling more, perhaps you could provide some kind of example of what a "state religion" of Christianity look like that isn't denominational?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you saying that the people of a State do *not* have the choice to collectively choose for a Christian State? Your answers are too short to give a clear answer.

Fundamentally the problem with a "Christian state" is that it is a contradiction in terms.

The historical experiment of marrying Church and State together has been, from the start until now, a total disaster.

Things done in the name of Christian states has been as atrocious as anything as any pagan empire before ever done. From the killing of Jews, heretics, and pagans, to intra-Christian wars fought between ostensibly Christian powers. The Wars of Religion, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, inquisitions, pogroms.

St. Cyprian was right when he said,

"The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 1, 6

And that blessed St. Martin has said,

"Hitherto I have served you as a soldier; allow me now to become a soldier to God. Let the man who is to serve you receive your donative. I am a soldier of Christ; it is not permissible for me to fight." - St. Martin of Tours

And here is what the golden-tongued preacher has said,

"I am a Christian. He who answers thus has declared everything at once—his country, profession, family; the believer belongs to no city on earth but to the heavenly Jerusalem." - St. John Chrysostom

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hazelelponi]

because now God wants all nations to adopt the Christian religion, whether they choose to or not.

uh... No!

As a beside, Protestant Christians read scripture to stand against - very strongly - any intertwining of the state and our faith. Every depiction of it is very negatively described in the new Testament era.

 

[RandyPNW]

uh... No!

As a beside, Protestant Christians read scripture to stand against - very strongly - any intertwining of the state and our faith. Every depiction of it is very negatively described in the new Testament era.

So far you want the affirmation of your opinion to be based on what--Protestant consensus, your view of Christian history? That isn't God, and that isn't Bible. Last I read, we were supposed to go not by majority opinion, but rather, by the word of God.

God established theocratic rule in Israel by giving them the Law of Moses. He preferred rule by prophet rather than rule by king. But once king became necessary, God preferred a King David over a King Saul.

But you want to consult who on this?

 

[RandyPNW]

Fundamentally the problem with a "Christian state" is that it is a contradiction in terms.

Fundamentally that is untrue. God established a theocracy in Israel. That is the OT equivalent of the Christian State.

So you think God was displeased when the Roman Empire converted into a Christian Empire? And you base this on what--the historical outcome or the Bible?

The historical experiment of marrying Church and State together has been, from the start until now, a total disaster.

You are judging the fruit by the inevitable historical outcome in any state, Christian or not. Just because a tree gets old and dies does not mean the tree didn't exist, is illegitimate, or is a bad thing.

Things done in the name of Christian states has been as atrocious as anything as any pagan empire before ever done. From the killing of Jews, heretics, and pagans, to intra-Christian wars fought between ostensibly Christian powers. The Wars of Religion, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, inquisitions, pogroms.

This has happened in every State in history--all states eventually go corrupt, simply because of the sin nature in mankind. It isn't the Christianity that causes men to sin. Rather, it is the sin nature in men that causes them to corrupt Christianity.

St. Cyprian was right when he said,

"The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 1, 6

Cyprian lived under pagan Rome--not Christian Rome. It is not the mixing of Christianity with the State that corrupts a society. Rather, it is the failure of those in the State who mix with Christianity who corrupt it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

So far you want the affirmation of your opinion to be based on what--Protestant consensus, your view of Christian history? That isn't God, and that isn't Bible. Last I read, we were supposed to go not by majority opinion, but rather, by the word of God.

God established theocratic rule in Israel by giving them the Law of Moses. He preferred rule by prophet rather than rule by king. But once king became necessary, God preferred a King David over a King Saul.

But you want to consult who on this?

The word of God told us the harlot riding the beast story. That is about religious (but not believing) Israel attaching themselves to Roman government powers, if the visual was somehow unclear.

it is because of my Christian faith I stand vehemently opposed to the intertwining of religion and state - not in spite of it.

I will jump up and down with warning against any attempt to repeat such deadly mistakes - to my grave if necessary.

I'll explain myself more thoroughly later in the day.

 

[RandyPNW]

Before tackling more, perhaps you could provide some kind of example of what a "state religion" of Christianity look like that isn't denominational?

-CryptoLutheran

I'm not "tackling" anything more than I have been for decades. I've long held to the biblical belief that God wants all of society, the individual as well as the state. He wants it all. And it was proven by God's call to Israel to serve Him first, and Him alone.

State religion that isn't denominational can be viewed in the history of the U.S. The U.S. began as a predominantly Christian country--the religion was Christian, whether it was evangelical, a state church, a separatist church, deism, or some other form. It was the consensus view and the religious approach for the vast number of Americans.

Since it had no State church but only a State religion, it had multiple denominations, and not a single denomination. There was no state church, even though there was a state religion. The deists, however, had built into their own view of Christianity the idea of free thinking, or freedom of religion. Their view of Christianity allowed all other religious expressions along with Christianity.

But this was not the view of more orthodox Christians, who believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation. Moral clarity existed in evangelical Christianity, and morality evolved with time in the deistic brand of Christianity.

In the many conservative Christian groups in the U.S. some brands of Christianity came from state churches in other countries. These include Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and others. But they were not the State Church of the U.S. The U.S. disestablished any notion of a single State Church, although belief in one God was implied in the writings of the founding Fathers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not "tackling" anything more than I have been for decades. I've long held to the biblical belief that God wants all of society, the individual as well as the state. He wants it all. And it was proven by God's call to Israel to serve Him first, and Him alone.

State religion that isn't denominational can be viewed in the history of the U.S. The U.S. began as a predominantly Christian country--the religion was Christian, whether it was evangelical, a state church, a separatist church, deism, or some other form. It was the consensus view and the religious approach for the vast number of Americans.

Since it had no State church but only a State religion, it had multiple denominations, and not a single denomination. There was no state church, even though there was a state religion. The deists, however, had built into their own view of Christianity the idea of free thinking, or freedom of religion. Their view of Christianity allowed all other religious expressions along with Christianity.

But this was not the view of more orthodox Christians, who believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation. Moral clarity existed in evangelical Christianity, and morality evolved with time in the deistic brand of Christianity.

In the many conservative Christian groups in the U.S. some brands of Christianity came from state churches in other countries. These include Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and others. But they were not the State Church of the U.S. The U.S. disestablished any notion of a single State Church, although belief in one God was implied in the writings of the founding Fathers.

Absolutely none of this answers my question.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Fundamentally that is untrue. God established a theocracy in Israel. That is the OT equivalent of the Christian State.

Are you saying that Christians should start practicing a pseudo-Judaism by observing the Torah, and then implement that as a national polity of civil law?

So you think God was displeased when the Roman Empire converted into a Christian Empire? And you base this on what--the historical outcome or the Bible?

I don't believe that governments can be Christian. The Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official state religion under Theodosius. If you want me to answer if God was displeased with this, the answer I can give you is I have no idea. However, I can say that things done by the state waving the banner of the Christian faith have most definitely been contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and the ancient fathers of the Church.

To that end, the fruit of power is always death; as such the Church has a moral obligation to eschew power, and to instead be the Church in the midst of the world.

What does it matter to the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed if the tyrant whose heel is on their necks offers sacrifices to Jupiter or attends Holy Mass?

You are judging the fruit by the inevitable historical outcome in any state, Christian or not. Just because a tree gets old and dies does not mean the tree didn't exist, is illegitimate, or is a bad thing.

Well yes, that's kind of the point. Power corrupts.

This has happened in every State in history--all states eventually go corrupt, simply because of the sin nature in mankind. It isn't the Christianity that causes men to sin. Rather, it is the sin nature in men that causes them to corrupt Christianity.

Yes, that's kind of the point.

Cyprian lived under pagan Rome--not Christian Rome.

St. Martin of Tours and St. John Chrysostom lived during the time of Christian emperors.

It is not the mixing of Christianity with the State that corrupts a society. Rather, it is the failure of those in the State who mix with Christianity who corrupt it.

It's almost as though when men pursue power over others they are corrupted, because that's sinful human nature; and Jesus calls us to a very different way of life,

"Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, 'What do you want?' She said to him, 'Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.' Jesus answered, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?' They said to him, 'We are able.' He said to them, 'You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.' And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'" - Matthew 20:20-28

Jesus' way doesn't make sense in human structures of power, because Jesus' way--God's kingdom--turns those things upside down and upon their head.

The Christian has no use for a sword, because Christ our God has disarmed us.

"In disarming Peter Christ disarmed every soldier" - Tertullian of Carthage

Therefore, it is not for the Christian to see how he can gain glory in the world, but how she may live out her vocation in Christ. How can I be a good citizen? How can I be a good neighbor? How can I speak up for justice on behalf of the oppressed? On behalf of the poor, the hungry, and the foreigner?

If a Christian is an emperor, then how can he be a humble and lowly servant to his subjects, to regard them no longer as subjects, but as brothers and sisters?

It is about Christian discipleship in vocation, not pursuit of vainglory.

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but forfeit his soul?" - Mark 8:36

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RandyPNW]

Are you saying that Christians should start practicing a pseudo-Judaism by observing the Torah, and then implement that as a national polity of civil law?

No, of course not!

I don't believe that governments can be Christian. The Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official state religion under Theodosius. If you want me to answer if God was displeased with this, the answer I can give you is I have no idea. However, I can say that things done by the state waving the banner of the Christian faith have most definitely been contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and the ancient fathers of the Church.

Yes, all govts. of the world have failed, including Christian govts.

To that end, the fruit of power is always death; as such the Church has a moral obligation to eschew power, and to instead be the Church in the midst of the world.

We are to rely on the power of the Holy Spirit, and not the arm of the flesh, correct. But to rely on armed power is not always wrong. To defend our country may be precisely what we should and need to do.

What does it matter to the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed if the tyrant whose heel is on their necks offers sacrifices to Jupiter or attends Holy Mass?

Those who worship false gods do not obey the true God, and rely on false models of morality.

Well yes, that's kind of the point. Power corrupts.

Yes, power does have the *tendency* to corrupt. King David exercised power, but he did it in the Lord quite often. This demonstrates the usefulness of a theocracy, when a king relies upon the Lord for his guidance and for his strength.

Yes, that's kind of the point.

St. Martin of Tours and St. John Chrysostom lived during the time of Christian emperors.

I was speaking of Cyprian. The other quotes didn't suggest much to me on the topic.

It's almost as though when men pursue power over others they are corrupted, because that's sinful human nature; and Jesus calls us to a very different way of life,

We are not to reject all power, but only carnal power. We need to exercise God's power to overcome sin. We need to use God's power to testify to the strength God gives us to live and to act in a moral way.

Jesus' way doesn't make sense in human structures of power, because Jesus' way--God's kingdom--turns those things upside down and upon their head.

I gave you the example of Israel. King David exercised power, and largely did a job that pleased God.

The Christian has no use for a sword, because Christ our God has disarmed us.

Luke 22.38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

Jesus did *not* tell his disciples to put their two swords away!

"In disarming Peter Christ disarmed every soldier" - Tertullian of Carthage

There were no Christian states yet in the time of the Early Church Fathers.

If a Christian is an emperor, then how can he be a humble and lowly servant to his subjects, to regard them no longer as subjects, but as brothers and sisters?

Yet, that's what Charlemagne was as head of the Holy Roman Empire.

It is about Christian discipleship in vocation, not pursuit of vainglory.

Christians soldiers can defend a Christian country without having "vainglory!"

 

[RandyPNW]

Absolutely none of this answers my question.

-CryptoLutheran

Nor does your answer indicate the problem.