What's the best system of government for Christianity?

[Radagast]

Of course we need governments. But as far as the OPs question over what is the "best" government for Christianity, I'd say none that we humans can possibly come up with.

I think the OP means the best of the ones available to us here and now.

After Christ returns, the question will no longer have meaning.

 

[Radagast]

Honestly, I don't believe it is ideal to have a Christian "state".

We have Christians living in Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and atheist states around the world. Would you really like to join them?

 

[Radagast]

Sure if you don't mind slavery and having absolutely 0 control over your destiny on earth.

I don't think you know much about monarchy in Europe.

Serfs in Europe were not "slaves." They might not have had many choices, but they had some.

 

[NW82]

From a Christian POV obviously Monarchy under Christ as King. From a secular POV, captialism has statistically proven to be the best overall for people. Although ignorant people will say socialism is better.

 

[All4Christ]

We have Christians living in Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and atheist states around the world. Would you really like to join them?

I don’t think it is ideal to live in an atheist state either. When I say Christian - I mean something where church and state are combined. I prefer separation of church and state, with the protection of freedom to believe and practice our faith. Obviously it is a wonderful thing if the majority of the people are Christian or if there are Christian values in the government - but I don’t think the government should dictate or be a big influence on the runnings of the Church.

 

[Radagast]

I don’t think it is ideal to live in an atheist state either. When I say Christian - I mean something where church and state are combined.

It's quite possible to have a Christian state where church and state are not combined. That is, where the state supports Christianity in principle, and is influenced by Christian ideals, but does not endorse any specific denomination. The Netherlands operated on that basis for quite a while, and this is what the founders of the US originally meant when they said "separation of church and state."

 

[All4Christ]

It's quite possible to have a Christian state where church and state are not combined. That is, where the state supports Christianity in principle, and is influenced by Christian ideals, but does not endorse any specific denomination. The Netherlands operated on that basis for quite a while, and this is what the founders of the US originally meant when they said "separation of church and state."

As I said, my meaning of “Christian State” was separation of church and state. I misspoke earlier. Having a government influenced by Christian values, etc is certainly good, so long as they don’t interfere on church matters or cause undue influence on the Church.

 

[Radagast]

so long as they don’t interfere on church matters or cause undue influence on the Church

That's taken as read by many continental Protestants, who have seen the negative aspects of having an official "established church."

 

[All4Christ]

That's taken as read by many continental Protestants, who have seen the negative aspects of having an official "established church."

It may be due to me still being tired, but could you expound on what you mean by that? “That’s taken as read by...”

 

[Radagast]

It may be due to me still being tired, but could you expound on what you mean by that? “That’s taken as read by...”

Continental Europe had, shall we say, a bad run with established state churches. The odd religious war or two, each lasting up to 80 years.

Hence the continental European idea of "separation of church and state" (transplanted to the USA, but interpreted in a novel way by SCOTUS over the past century or so).

As an example of the continental European idea, Abraham Kuyper (a Calvinist theologian and pastor) became Prime Minister of the Netherlands in 1901. But he was in coalition with a Catholic party, so his idea was to run the country on Christian lines, but not to favour Catholics, nor to favour the Protestant church he helped found, nor to favour the Protestant church he had split from (which had been a state church up until 1795).

 

[All4Christ]

Continental Europe had, shall we say, a bad run with established state churches. The odd religious war or two, each lasting up to 80 years.

Hence the continental European idea of "separation of church and state" (transplanted to the USA, but interpreted in a novel way by SCOTUS over the past century or so).

As an example, of the continental European idea, Abraham Kuyper (a Calvinist theologian and pastor) became Prime Minister of the Netherlands in 1901. But he was in coalition with a Catholic party, so his idea was to run the country on Christian lines, but not to favour Catholics, nor to favour the Protestant church he helped found, nor to favour the Protestant church he split from (which had been a state church up until 1795).

Thanks! That makes sense. I have a mixture of two experiences / understandings regarding that - the Eastern Christian (not first hand) experience and early American founding concepts that my grandma taught me growing up so thankful for her! Many in my family came from a Brethren (Anabaptist) background, so that was an important concept for them.

 

[Radagast]

Thanks! That makes sense. I have a mixture of two experiences / understandings regarding that - more Eastern and early American founding concepts that my grandma taught me growing up so thankful for her! Many in my family came from a Brethren background, so that was an important concept for them.

The Orthodox Church had a fairly comfortable relationship with the Emperor (way back when there was a Christian Emperor) and this has perhaps encouraged the Orthodox Church to have close ties with the state.

Different national history produces different attitudes.

 

[All4Christ]

The Orthodox Church had a fairly comfortable relationship with the Emperor (way back when there was a Christian Emperor) and this has perhaps encouraged the Orthodox Church to have close ties with the state.

Different national history produces different attitudes.

True. I still have reservations about that though, despite being Orthodox myself At times it works, at times it doesn’t.

 

[LightLoveHope]

True. I still have reservations about that though, despite being Orthodox myself At times it works, at times it doesn’t.

I quite like the type of state, where the long term powers in a society are represented, business, statesmen, religious moral representatives in one house, that is not elected, but represents the history and core of a nation, and an elected body that represent the people. Over this is a single president, who is a focus of emergency agency in times to trouble and steers the general direction of political discourse.

The idea of a hereditary rulers is absurd, assuming any individual born into a role is anything other than purely random who you end up with, which goes from disaster to quite reasonable.

When we had a rural society and nothing much changed other than the occasional wars the threats, roles mattered more than the skills of the people involved. Today with an intellectual , scientific and technological foundation, you need a ruling elite who are literally the best minds and aspirations you can have facing the challenges of the day. In the uk, it is the civil service who are drawn largely out of Oxford and Cambridge who are brilliant at adjusting to the changing circumstances in a very short period of time.

Countries run by idiots tend to do idiotic things. It is why the uk has managed to adjust and survive in the technological revolution and still find success, when it is all on the backs of the minds of the best out of our universities.

 

[Francis Drake]

I vote Monarchy

Speaking as a Brit, y

ou should know better than that!​

Didn't you Yanks throw our monarch out?

Monarchy is basically a road to dictatorship, unless you can turn it into a constitutional monarchy like Britain, where power is in parliament with an executive.

It took the Magna Charta, a civil war, an Act of Settlement etc before Britain reasonably balanced its governmental system.

For my vote, the USA has the best system, which is however a development of ours in the UK.

Unfortunately unscrupulous men can always pervert the cause of democratic government.

 

[timothyu]

. But he was in coalition with a Catholic party, so his idea was to run the country on Christian lines, but not to favour Catholics, nor to favour the Protestant church he helped found, nor to favour the Protestant church he had split from (which had been a state church up until 1795).

Logical but unrealistic in today's world as population are increasingly diverse. Other religions must be taken into account in the same way Jesus told the early Followers live live in harmony with the State but not part of it.

 

[SolomonVII]

Jesus lived a life mostly indifferent to government, as long as he could go where he wanted, say what he wanted, associate with who he wanted. He ate his honey and locusts with John, broke bread with whoever was there at supper, and looked to neither the Empire nor the Theocracy for any ideals on how to life his life, or what rules to obey.

Government is a problem for those who pay taxes or own land, make or pay a wage, or even raise families and have the social obligations that come with being a cog in the machine of Empire. For those who are truly free, like Jesus was, the best government would have been the kind that simply left him alone to lay his head on whatever rock was in the field at the end of the day.
In terms of the lifestyle of Christ, the question of which government is best is mostly irrelevant. He was a subject to no system of rules. He live the life of a free man like only a man with no need of redemption. In an age of slaves and yokes, the only yoke on Jesus was the yoke of our sins, that day in Golgotha.

What is more significant is how Jesus managed to live a life of such radical freedom for thirty years in an age of the tyranny of Roman, and theocratic thought police of that rule-bound theocracy that dominated the land in the lands of the Second Temple.

 

[timothyu]

Would He push a shopping cart and sleep in a cardboard box in a city of today.. or at least have womenfolk tend to the needs of He and His apostles, along with monetary aide? How would that be looked upon by today's system?? What would FOX say?

 

[Shempster]

I have often heard Anarchism and Monarchism. What do you think?

I cannot comment on those or any other human form of government. Each one will benefit one group while infringing on the other. There is absolutely no form of government that can work for everyone.
Jesus seemed to tolerate the Romans and did not fight them, but outsmarted them.
That is how we should be.
If we as individuals, simply follow the protocol that Jesus gave us (mostly in Matthew 5-7) then we would have a system of love, respect and tolerance. If somehow the whole world could live in that way, there would be no need for government at all.

 

[timothyu]

If we as individuals, simply follow the protocol that Jesus gave us

Is not the Red Cross seen as neutral? So were the earliest followers... to secular govts at least. Church another matter as usual..