What religion the State?

[RandyPNW]

Although I heartily agree with your conclusion, I'll have to point out that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion...he only legalized it. It was Theodosius who did that about 80 years later.

Constantine's position was, I believe, politically driven in that he himself was not baptized until on his deathbed. Here is the thing to understand: The emperor of Rome also sat in the office of pontifex maximus--the "highest priest" of all legal Roman religions. If you see a statue purported to be a Roman emperor wearing his toga draped over his head, that is the emperor operating in the office of pontifex maximus.

When Constantine legalized Christianity, in the eyes of pagan Rome (not the Christians, but all the others0 it made him legally pontifex maximus of Christianity as well as their pagan religions. However, if he had gotten baptized, he would have been required by the Church to repudiate his office as pontifex maximus of the other religions--which, remember, were still the majority both demographically as well as politically and economically. He kicked that can down the road by holding off his baptism.

Yes, Constantine tolerated and encouraged Christianity, and Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. This was what Jesus said, that the Kingdom of God would be taken from Israel and given to a nation worthy of it. That nation was the European nation. And it came to be known as Western Civilization.

God clearly wanted to deliver *the Kingdom* to Europeans and to others throughout the world. To do that God wanted the Christian State to be established in each of the European nations, which is exactly what happened.

Only today do we not buy that because we've been tainted by Enlightenment philosophy over the last few centuries. Our educational system is replete with paganistic mindsets and philosophy. We're taught that tolerating all religions is good, and that exclusivity and dogmatism in Christianity is bad. Whatever happened to, "The Way is narrow that leads to life?" Whatever happened to, "Have no other gods?" We've conceded way too much to the enemy of our minds and souls!

 

[Aussie Pete]

This is a modern argument, which has been slipping away from a genuine Christian consensus for generations. The argument that Christianity is corrupt and should be depoliticized is just hate talk for Christianity.

While it's true that Christian government can be corrupted just like any other form of government, it remains the truest and best form of government, if it is actually practiced. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

In a Christian State many are bound to be "professional Christians," or "nominal Christians." That's okay--at least they are partly Christians and provided a social order for the country that is best for it. Men in Early America were these "professional Christians," and actually more deist than real Christians.

However, they were able to strike a compromise between deists and Christians so that we can coexist for a time. That may have been the best that could've been expected at the time. But of course, a full and genuine Christian State would be the best.

That would require 100% of people to be born again. There will be no Christian state until the Kingdom of God is established on earth. Real Christians can't agree. Worldly make believers are even less likely. A Christian state is unlikely to the the paradise you imagine. If the Baptists were the majority, prohibition would be reintroduced. That went over well, I don't think. The pacifists would want to disband the military. Some would want to outlaw guns. Others would cheerfully arm people for free. And so on and so forth....

 

[Aussie Pete]

Yes, Constantine tolerated and encouraged Christianity, and Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. This was what Jesus said, that the Kingdom of God would be taken from Israel and given to a nation worthy of it. That nation was the European nation. And it came to be known as Western Civilization.

God clearly wanted to deliver *the Kingdom* to Europeans and to others throughout the world. To do that God wanted the Christian State to be established in each of the European nations, which is exactly what happened.

Only today do we not buy that because we've been tainted by Enlightenment philosophy over the last few centuries. Our educational system is replete with paganistic mindsets and philosophy. We're taught that tolerating all religions is good, and that exclusivity and dogmatism in Christianity is bad. Whatever happened to, "The Way is narrow that leads to life?" Whatever happened to, "Have no other gods?" We've conceded way too much to the enemy of our minds and souls!

We have never seen the kingdom of God on earth. The "Christian state" is only a poor shadow of what the real Kingdom of God will be like. Even at its best, Europe was rife with conflict, injustice, poverty and nationalism. It was the British empire that allowed peace to prevail for nearly 100 years. In that time, Britain may have been the closest to a Christian nation. That ended with the death of Queen Victoria. It's been downhill since. But the Kingdom of God? No way.

 

[Clare73]

It depends on how you define a "theocracy." For me, a religious State is a form of theocracy. But one can separate political leaders from religious leaders and still have a religious state.

This is what happened in Europe in the Middle Ages. The Pope was a religious leader who got too wrapped up in politics. The political leaders in Europe were Christians, but could not countenance interference from the Pope, whose role was advisory--not political.

And so, this kind of separation I can stomach. But to equalize Christians and Muslims politically is not wise. And that is in effect what depoliticizing Christianity would be.

The Constitution is a plural document.

 

[Clare73]

We have never seen the kingdom of God on earth.

Because it is invisible and within (Luke 17:20-21).

But it's here (Luke 11:20).

 

[RandyPNW]

The Constitution is a plural document.

Yes, I'm not denying that, nor am I arguing that. Pluralism is a form of idolatry, if it indicates all religions have equal rights. I do not believe that, nor does God believe that. He said, "Have no other gods." If you don't want to accept that, take it up with God.

Yes, the Kingdom of God requires that the invisible God operate through human agencies on earth. But that happened in ancient Israel, and it happens in Christian States in the non-eschatological sense.

When Jesus said "the Kingdom has come upon you," he was saying that the invisible God had been manifested through himself in Israel. It was not just a purely invisible event.

 

[RandyPNW]

We have never seen the kingdom of God on earth. The "Christian state" is only a poor shadow of what the real Kingdom of God will be like. Even at its best, Europe was rife with conflict, injustice, poverty and nationalism. It was the British empire that allowed peace to prevail for nearly 100 years. In that time, Britain may have been the closest to a Christian nation. That ended with the death of Queen Victoria. It's been downhill since. But the Kingdom of God? No way.

That is supremely ignorant. The Byzantine State was a Christian State that lasted for a millennium! I understand that your reference to a "theocracy" has to do with our hope for an eschatological, idealistic State with God. And that is legitimately one definition for "theocracy."

But as I said, I'm using the word "theocracy" more loosely to apply to Christian States. When I've said this before, many Christians, in wishing to preserve their notion that "Separation" is the ideal Christian State, argue that there never has been such a thing as the "Christian State!" If it didn't exist at all, why would there be need for "Separation?"

How absurd is that? There have been many Christian States, beginning with the Christianized Roman Empire itself! Most of the nations in Europe were Christian at one time or another, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. But I understand this is not your argument.

You should recognize that when I define my own use of a "theocracy," I'm not applying "theocracy" strictly to the eschatological Kingdom. Jesus himself said that God's Kingdom was with Israel in the OT era. He said that God's Kingdom would be "taken from" Israel. That indicated that Israel did in fact *have* God's Kingdom on earth when they were under the Law and firmly in covenant with God through the Law of Moses.

 

[RandyPNW]

That would require 100% of people to be born again. There will be no Christian state until the Kingdom of God is established on earth. Real Christians can't agree. Worldly make believers are even less likely. A Christian state is unlikely to the the paradise you imagine. If the Baptists were the majority, prohibition would be reintroduced. That went over well, I don't think. The pacifists would want to disband the military. Some would want to outlaw guns. Others would cheerfully arm people for free. And so on and so forth....

When I define the "Kingdom of God" in its non-eschatological state of existence, I'm *not* requiring that 100% of the citizens of that State be "born again!" I'm only suggesting that the average citizen be identified as "Christian," whether "born again" or not.

But there have been Christian States that do allow minority populations with other religions. This also would not prohibit them from being called "Christian States." I believe the U.S was largely a "Christian State," even with religious minorities being tolerated. But the U.S. has been losing its Christian identity for some time now. We now have Muslim political leaders, just as the UK has in London.

 

[RandyPNW]

Becase it is invisible and within (Luke 17:20-21).

But it's here (Luke 11:20).

The Kingdom of God was also manifested in a temporal form in ancient Israel. Jesus said this...

Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

The Kingdom of God cannot be "taken away" unless it was first there! And it was not there "invisibly." It was there in the form of human government operating in accordance with God's Law and God's Covenant.

 

[RandyPNW]

I am not in favor of freedom from religion, only in favor of no prescribed religion by the state, which is what "separation of church and state" means.
The USA is not a theocracy. It's a republic.

A Republic can also be a Theocracy in the loose sense of the word in which I use it. It happens when the Republic is a Christian State, when all of the political leaders are Christians. That used to be the case in the U.S. for the most part. But the doctrine of Separation has been used to dilute Christian influence in our political system.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Becase it is invisible and within (Luke 17:20-21).

But it's here (Luke 11:20).

The kingdom has not come yet. Ultimately, it means the overthrow of all world authority and power and the rule of Christ imposed instead. The kingdom of God is fundamentally where Satan is driven out. The world still is in the control of the evil one. We are still at war with Satan's wicked forces. He is already defeated. Some day the warfare of the Saints will bring him down and he will be finished. We are not there yet.

 

[Aussie Pete]

When I define the "Kingdom of God" in its non-eschatological state of existence, I'm *not* requiring that 100% of the citizens of that State be "born again!" I'm only suggesting that the average citizen be identified as "Christian," whether "born again" or not.

But there have been Christian States that do allow minority populations with other religions. This also would not prohibit them from being called "Christian States." I believe the U.S was largely a "Christian State," even with religious minorities being tolerated. But the U.S. has been losing its Christian identity for some time now. We now have Muslim political leaders, just as the UK has in London.

Again I put the blame for this at the feet of the church. It should never have come to this, but I've seen it coming for a long time.

Personally I don't agree with calling people Christian if they are not born again. That may give them a false sense of security. Also, when the nominal "Christians" commit sin such as wife abuse, adultery, get drunk and such, it reflects badly on the real Christians.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I'm not denying that, nor am I arguing that. Pluralism is a form of idolatry, if it indicates all religions have equal rights.

It's not about religions having equal rights, it's about citizens having freedom to worhsip as they choose.

I do not believe that, nor does God believe that. He said, "Have no other gods." If you don't want to accept that, take it up with God.

Yes, the Kingdom of God requires that the invisible God operate through human agencies on earth. But that happened in ancient Israel, and it happens in Christian States in the non-eschatological sense.

When Jesus said "the Kingdom has come upon you," he was saying that the invisible God had been manifested through himself in Israel. It was not just a purely invisible event.

I'm sure you'll understand if I take Jesus at his word that, "The kingdom of God does not come with careful observation, (not visible). . .because the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21)

 

[Clare73]

The Kingdom of God was also manifested in a temporal form in ancient Israel. Jesus said this...

Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Jesus is referring to the kingdom of God he brought with him from heaven being taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles in the new covenant.

The Kingdom of God cannot be "taken away" unless it was first there!

Precisely. . .it was there, he brought it with him (Luke 11:20) to give to Israel.

And it was not there "invisibly."

Again, I'm sure you will understand if I take Jesus at his word that
the kingdom had come to us (Luke 11:20), that
the kingdom of God is invisible (Luke 17:20) and that
the kingdom of God is within (Luke 17:21), in the hearts of those where he reigns and rules.

 

[Clare73]

A Republic can also be a Theocracy in the loose sense of the word in which I use it. It happens when the Republic is a Christian State, when all of the political leaders are Christians. That used to be the case in the U.S. for the most part. But

the doctrine of Separation has been used to dilute Christian influence in our political system.

Actually, time and increased population yielding fewer percentage of Christians has influenced our political system.

 

[Clare73]

The kingdom has not come yet.

I'm sure you will understand if I take Jesus at his word that
the kingdom has come to us (Luke 11:20), that
the kingdom of God is invisible (Luke 17:20) and that
the kingdom of God is within (Luke 17:21), in the hearts of those where he reigns and rules.

 

[RandyPNW]

Again I put the blame for this at the feet of the church. It should never have come to this, but I've seen it coming for a long time.

Personally I don't agree with calling people Christian if they are not born again. That may give them a false sense of security. Also, when the nominal "Christians" commit sin such as wife abuse, adultery, get drunk and such, it reflects badly on the real Christians.

I'm not really at odds with the spirit of your post--just looking at these issues a little differently. I don't believe the Church has the authority to change a pagan state to being a Christian State. We outright disagree there.

But if you say that faithfulness to God in the Church can bring about profound changes for the better in a pagan State, I would have to agree with you. Setting a good witness doesn't get rid of the unrepentant and brazen sinners, who steadfastly refuse to submit to God. But there will always be those who respond to our message. Ultimately, God will judge the defiant.

 

[RandyPNW]

It's not about religions having equal rights, it's about citizens having freedom to worhsip as they choose.

I see no difference between the two? What is the difference between giving all religions equal rights and giving all people freedom to worship any way they choose?

I'm sure you'll understand if I take Jesus at his word that, "The kingdom of God does not come with careful observation, (not visible). . .because the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21)

That does not speak to the issue we're concerned with here. We both agree with Jesus that the Kingdom lies within us. It *always* does!

But that says nothing about how it is manifest in an earthly Kingdom, does it? And that's the whole point. When God said the Kingdom would be taken from Israel, He did not just mean that His Spirit would be taken from *within* Israel, invisibly!

Jesus was certainly not saying the Kingdom of God *only* resides invisibly within Israel. It's plain that under the Law, God's Kingdom existed in temporal form within Israel's government. And God's Kingdom exists within any temporal form of government that exists in relationship with God's covenants.

No, Jesus meant to say that the Davidic Kingdom had been mostly lost, and that what remained of it, in himself, would be taken away from Israel so that they would no longer have a nation in the promised land, replete with a covenant relationship with God. Jesus was taken from them, the Davidic Kingdom was taken from them, and their nation was taken from them. Most importantly, their covenant relationship with God was taken away from them.

The only covenant Israel had left to rely on did not require a Kingdom in Israel at all. The Jewish Church could survive without God's Kingdom in Israel through the covenant of Law. Jesus' New Covenant was the invisible means of covenant relationship with God today for all nations. And though the Kingdom can still rest on Christian nations in the New Covenant era, the final eschatological state of the Kingdom will not arrive until Jesus comes back.

 

[RandyPNW]

Actually, time and increased population yielding fewer percentage of Christians has influenced our political system.

Undoubtedly. I don't believe our leaders are acting like "Christians," if they are even Christian at all, when they allow into our country people without vetting them. Without moral standards by which to judge the worth of people entering our country, we are no better than those who invite burglars, murderers, rapists, terrorists, and those with contagious illnesses.

 

[chad kincham]

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 early government was overtly Christian, to the Max.

The first congress and every subsequent congress has an official Christian chaplain, who opens every session with a Christian prayer, and the first congress used federal funds to import KJV bibles from England for use as readers in the schools.

The founders also set up Christian chaplains for every branch of the military.

The biggest church in America in 1860 was in the US Capital building.

And there are tons of other examples.

Shalom