What Religion the State Part II

[RandyPNW]

I do believe that in the Millennium, Christian states will be restored. And we should declare a Gospel of what "should be," and not what we think cannot be.

If you are speaking of the thousand years that Jesus will reign on earth, I seriously doubt that there will be such a thing as "Christian states".   There will be nothing but Christians on earth during that period.  At least, that's how I understand it.

I speak of a Christian Theocracy, using the term "theocracy" in a guarded way, knowing that today the sense of theocracies is often autocratic and abusive. But I believe Israel was God's original theocratic state, and meant to pass on the sense of theocracy to many nations, to Christian nations.

A Christian State, or theocracy, is one whose people predominantly adhere to a single religion, to a single morality. The theology is often pretty set in stone, at times, and at other times, fairly liberally interpreted.

The US was founded as a kind of Christian State, or theocracy. A Christian Theocracy can take many forms, from autocratic to very tolerant, from highly theological to largely moral. The US allowed for a high level of theological tolerance, but adhered mostly to the idea of a Christian public with a pretty well established morality.

This morality, however, has changed, and deteriorated, due to the allowance of theological and religious freedom. The country is much less a Christian State now than it was at first.

We can't really reestablish a more strictly-Christian State again, since we already let the cat out of the bag. We may experience Christian revivals, but I doubt  we can go back to doctrinaire Christianity, since it would lead to civil war, or to social disorder to the extreme.

I happen to be in favor of the Christian State, regardless of how possible it is to go back there now. It is part of the Gospel of God's Kingdom. God does not play games with theological liberty, and He doesn't make room for counterfeit Gods. He states the truth and gives us enough liberty to hang ourselves, if that's what we want to do.

I recommend you read "The Light and the Glory," by Peter Marshall and David Manuel. Or, I suggest you read my link here: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1754/6613/files/03-28_Justice_David_Josiah_Brewer_7d79e4ab-187d-4d7b-8268-4a06999f0c5d.pdf?v=1634887890

I do understand that the common notion today of a theocracy involves authority vested in a religious ruler that is autocratic by nature. However, I'm using a nuanced view of a Christian Theocracy, the equivalent of "Christian State."

I do this to point out the common lines between Christian theology and Christian morality, between Christian politics and religion. These really are one and the same, the politics and the religion, even though there are distinct classes of rule in the State government and in the Church government.

There is a difference between Secularism and Secular Rule. When the States of Europe were more Christian, the secular rulers were simply Christian politicians. Ecclesiastical rulers ruled over their sphere of influence, which was in the churches. But the Christian religion permeated the whole State, the secular rulers ruling with Christian morals and theological underpinnings in mind.

[Fenris]

A Christian State, or theocracy, is one whose people predominantly adhere to a single religion, to a single morality. The theology is often pretty set in stone, at times, and at other times, fairly liberally interpreted.

The US was founded as a kind of Christian State, or theocracy.

No, it wasn't.

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The Constitution, Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."

[RandyPNW]

A Christian State, or theocracy, is one whose people predominantly adhere to a single religion, to a single morality. The theology is often pretty set in stone, at times, and at other times, fairly liberally interpreted.

The US was founded as a kind of Christian State, or theocracy.

No, it wasn't.

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The Constitution, Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."

Doesn't address the issue within the parameters that I defined a Christian Theocracy as. The U.S., as the link shows you, indicates it was a *Christian country.* This is, I think, beyond dispute, even though clearly there were non-Christians who were tolerated and equally accepted as US citizens.

A Christian Theocracy can tolerate non-Christian minorities, as long as they embrace the accepted morality. Jews who believe in the Law of God should have had no problem with that, and apparently did not. After all, Christianity is based on the Law of God.

This form of Christian Theocracy did not want to establish a particular Church denomination, nor even a particular Religion. Not establishing the Christian State legally was, I think, a mistake. As I showed you, some US leaders acknowledged the US was a Christian State nonetheless.

But a Christian country was expected to elect Christian leaders by free choice, since it was acknowledged that the vast majority of the population was Christian. And as such, the political leaders were largely Christian, and reinforced Christian law by applying Christian morality as the inspiration for their legislation.

Both Democrats and Republican leaders still do that today. Democrats tend to draw upon the Bible for their laws of compassion towards minorities and workers. And Republicans tend to draw upon the Bible for their sense of distrust for political leaders and less government.

The vast majority of them would not draw upon the Koran for their inspiration. Even agnostics would likely acknowledge that Christian cultural values inspired Western laws, though their interest primarily has been in liberalizing them even further.

[IMINXTC]

Many, including myself, scoff at the merest notion that this particularly horrible bastion of institutionally based slavery ownership was rooted in Christianity.

[Fenris]

Doesn't address the issue within the parameters that I defined a Christian Theocracy as. The U.S., as the link shows you, indicates it was a *Christian country.* This is, I think, beyond dispute

Actually, it's not beyond dispute. We're disputing it right now. I present evidence that the founders did not want the state to be a theocracy and you say "read my link". Yes, not very compelling. 

A Christian Theocracy can tolerate non-Christian minorities, as long as they embrace the accepted morality.

Accept the morality, or accept the laws? Those are two different things. In any case there is no idea of "tolerance of non-Christian minorities so long as they do such and such". There's tolerance for religious minorities. Period. Any non-Christian minorities have no special responsibilities that separate them from any other citizen.

This form of Christian Theocracy did not want to establish a particular Church denomination, nor even a particular Religion.

So we're a "Christian theocracy" that isn't even Christian. 

Not establishing the Christian State legally was, I think, a mistake.

Ah. A shame, I suppose if you were one of the founders things might be different. Or perhaps not.

But a Christian country was expected to elect Christian leaders by free choice, since it was acknowledged that the vast majority of the population was Christian.

I think most Christians actually vote for the candidate who they think will best represent them. And again, there's that pesky line in Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."

Both Democrats and Republican leaders still do that today. Democrats tend to draw upon the Bible for their laws of compassion towards minorities and workers.

Yeah, not that I've noticed. They draw on their own inner feelings of guilt and God only knows what else, and it's a mess.

And Republicans tend to draw upon the Bible for their sense of distrust for political leaders and less government.

Not in the bible, sorry.

The vast majority of them would not draw upon the Koran for their inspiration. Even agnostics would likely acknowledge that Christian cultural values inspired Western laws, though their interest primarily has been in liberalizing them even further.

Actually the west is properly described as "Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman".

[Fenris]

Many, including myself, scoff at the merest notion that this particularly horrible bastion of institutionally based slavery ownership was rooted in Christianity.

People need to know their place in a theocracy.

[RandyPNW]

Doesn't address the issue within the parameters that I defined a Christian Theocracy as. The U.S., as the link shows you, indicates it was a *Christian country.* This is, I think, beyond dispute

Actually, it's not beyond dispute. We're disputing it right now. I present evidence that the founders did not want the state to be a theocracy and you say "read my link". Yes, not very compelling. 

Again, I'm using "Christian Theocracy" as synonymous with "Christian country." Although I know this creates confusion I intentionally use the term "theocracy" because of the importance, I feel, for establishing the Christian State on the model of the old Hebrew State under the Law.

This is in contradistinction to an Islamic Theocracy, which I do not feel was inspired by God. Israel under the ancient Law, and Christian Nations are what I feel are legitimate "theocracies," inasmuch as the vast proportion of the country holds to the same religious standards and morality. And they are entirely justified in selecting leaders who are uncompromisingly in support of laws that sustain that common religion and its values.

A Christian Theocracy can tolerate non-Christian minorities, as long as they embrace the accepted morality.

Accept the morality, or accept the laws? Those are two different things. In any case there is no idea of "tolerance of non-Christian minorities so long as they do such and such". There's tolerance for religious minorities. Period. Any non-Christian minorities have no special responsibilities that separate them from any other citizen.

I disagree with you. Christianity assumes that people are in transition from God's original blueprint through spiritual contamination to sanctification, among those who are willing to make this change. To allow for the "contamination" stage, Christianity accepts that people have to be confronted with facts based on their own particular circumstances. One size does not fit all.

And so, Christianity can tolerate minorities who are not Christian but who do not threaten moral stability in the nation. I know what I'm talking about. I married my wife and her 2 kids. My step children were completely pagan, and I inherited them while they were already in their teens.

I had to let them choose their religion or not for themselves without allowing them to disrupt our home with all kinds of pagan practices. I could give you details, but why--they're better people today, and claim to be Christians.

The point is, for long periods of time, one or the other could live with us while they were young men without bringing their pagan practices into our home. When they could not resist indulging themselves they would have to move out.

I would not compare this to the Jewish experience in Christian countries because I believe that many times the Christian population was no better than pagans in their treatment of the Jewish People. They expelled them sometimes with false malicious accusations and without any sense of Christian love and compassion. These examples, however, do not mean  this is Christianity. This just indicates how far a Christian State can fall with people who go the wrong way.

This form of Christian Theocracy did not want to establish a particular Church denomination, nor even a particular Religion.

So we're a "Christian theocracy" that isn't even Christian. 

Yes, this is just like the Chosen People of Israel who did not always act like "God's People." See Hosea

I think most Christians actually vote for the candidate who they think will best represent them. And again, there's that pesky line in Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."

True.

Both Democrats and Republican leaders still do that today. Democrats tend to draw upon the Bible for their laws of compassion towards minorities and workers.

Yeah, not that I've noticed. They draw on their own inner feelings of guilt and God only knows what else, and it's a mess.

I have a hard time listening to Nancy Pelosi quote from the Bible.

And Republicans tend to draw upon the Bible for their sense of distrust for political leaders and less government.

Not in the bible, sorry.

I find it in the Bible in God's words to Samuel and to the Hebrews of his time, when He decried their wish for a more oppressive government less like God and more like the corrupt people. That, for me, is in essence the Republican argument against Big Government.

It's inherently flawed. The bigger it is, the more corrupt it gets. The bigger it grows, the more partisan it becomes, the more taxes it charges, the more people become dependent, etc. etc.

The only protection against an excessively-big and corrupt government is the Constitution with its limitations on Big Government. Separation of the Government into several branches helps (ie checks and balances). But critically important in this are people who are willing to maintain an attitude of reform at all times, a watchfulness against the tyranny of corruption.

An oppressive Christian government can be as bad as any other form of oppressive government. But if an effort is made by many to maintain true godly standards and moral practices, such a government can be both tolerant and true to ideals that please God.

The vast majority of them would not draw upon the Koran for their inspiration. Even agnostics would likely acknowledge that Christian cultural values inspired Western laws, though their interest primarily has been in liberalizing them even further.

Actually the west is properly described as "Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman".

I can go with that. European Civilization is a mix of pre-Christian paganism and Judeo-Christian Monotheism.

[Fenris]

Again, I'm using "Christian Theocracy" as synonymous with "Christian country." Although I know this creates confusion I intentionally use the term "theocracy" because of the importance, I feel, for establishing the Christian State on the model of the old Hebrew State under the Law.

But Christians are not "under the law". Paul is very clear on this. Christianity is a matter of faith and not deed. So a true "Christian Theocracy" has all the features of making sure that people are "believing the right thing" instead of "doing the right thing". The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind.   

This is in contradistinction to an Islamic Theocracy, which I do not feel was inspired by God.

That's because you are not a believer in Islam. Those who are do believe in their own theocratic states. And since you believe in theocracies, you are not one to tell them that they are wrong.

I disagree with you. Christianity assumes that people are in transition from God's original blueprint through spiritual contamination to sanctification, among those who are willing to make this change. To allow for the "contamination" stage, Christianity accepts that people have to be confronted with facts based on their own particular circumstances. One size does not fit all.

And so, Christianity can tolerate minorities who are not Christian but who do not threaten moral stability in the nation.

What you are describing is a state that has the ability to treat its citizens differently based on what their beliefs are. I don't know what country that is, but it isn't America.

I had to let them choose their religion or not for themselves without allowing them to disrupt our home with all kinds of pagan practices. I could give you details, but why--they're better people today, and claim to be Christians.

Yes, and your home is not a democracy with protections for people who think differently. But this country is. And thank God for that.

I would not compare this to the Jewish experience in Christian countries because I believe that many times the Christian population was no better than pagans in their treatment of the Jewish People. They expelled them sometimes with false malicious accusations and without any sense of Christian love and compassion. These examples, however, do not mean  this is Christianity. This just indicates how far a Christian State can fall with people who go the wrong way.

Oh yeah no kidding. That's what happens when you have a state that doesn't protect religious minorities. You know, like the one you want to create here.

Yes, this is just like the Chosen People of Israel who did not always act like "God's People."

Nobody is making a case for a Jewish theocracy over other religions. On the other hand, you are making the case for a Christian theocracy. So yes, Christian behavior matters. A lot. And I don't think that Christians generally (no matter how much I like you guys personally) have made the case that they deserve to tell others how to live their religious lives.

I find it in the Bible in God's words to Samuel and to the Hebrews of his time, when He decried their wish for a more oppressive government less like God and more like the corrupt people. That, for me, is in essence the Republican argument against Big Government.

The Republican ideas against big government are utilitarian, not biblical. Samuel tells the Jews not to wish for a king because they already have one: God. Not because he's a small government conservative (which is a complete anachronism).

It's inherently flawed. The bigger it is, the more corrupt it gets. The bigger it grows, the more partisan it becomes, the more taxes it charges, the more people become dependent, etc. etc.

Agree but as I said, this is a utilitarian idea and not a religious one.

An oppressive Christian government can be as bad as any other form of oppressive government. But if an effort is made by many to maintain true godly standards and moral practices, such a government can be both tolerant and true to ideals that please God.

Men are fallen, and so this is impossible. Power corrupts. Just look at the Catholic church. A big part of Luther's issues were the church's corruption. But somehow you think that if only "the right people" were running your theocratic state, everything would be fine.

I can go with that. European Civilization is a mix of pre-Christian paganism and Judeo-Christian Monotheism.

European Civilization is also Greek and Roman. Not their religious ideas, but their ideas on art and culture and science. Democracy is a Greek invention, not a Judeo Christian one. Same for freedom of speech. Same for harnessing the forces of nature to man's benefit. You do them a disservice by pretending that the only ideas in the world that matter come from the bible. 

[RandyPNW]

Again, I'm using "Christian Theocracy" as synonymous with "Christian country." Although I know this creates confusion I intentionally use the term "theocracy" because of the importance, I feel, for establishing the Christian State on the model of the old Hebrew State under the Law.

But Christians are not "under the law". Paul is very clear on this. Christianity is a matter of faith and not deed. So a true "Christian Theocracy" has all the features of making sure that people are "believing the right thing" instead of "doing the right thing". The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind.   

A few minutes ago you thanked me for instructing you in Jewish Law. And now you're instructing me in Christian Law?

Christians have had a long debate over the role of law in the Christian life. I don't know that Catholics or the Orthodox have ever denied the role of "law," generically, in following the example of Christ. For one, to follow Christ itself is a kind of "law." And two, to be like Christ is to follow a "lawful lifestyle," not engaging in vices, crimes, and sins.

So when Paul argues that we are not, as Christians, under the Law, he is arguing that we are not under the covenant of Moses' Law. The same principles of righteousness remain, albeit in a more fulfilled form. What was temporarily maintained by inferior sacrifices is now perfected by trust in Christ's perfect sacrifice of himself, so that we may live by virtue of his gracious gift.

Every political State requires law.  Christians would acknowledge that as much as any citizen who would want there to be rules in society.

This is in contradistinction to an Islamic Theocracy, which I do not feel was inspired by God.

That's because you are not a believer in Islam. Those who are do believe in their own theocratic states. And since you believe in theocracies, you are not one to tell them that they are wrong.

What, because I believe in a Christian State I have no right to disbelieve there are false theocracies? If I lived in their abusive, corrupted theocracy, they may not give me any right to express my view. But that doesn't validate their theocracy as just or legitimate.

Nobody is making a case for a Jewish theocracy over other religions.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. Claiming to have the one true God, while all other religions are false, is exactly what God's covenant with Israel entailed. It was applied only within the nation of Israel, but it excluded all other religions within that nation.

That is the model which provides the blueprint for a Christian State, or a Christian Theocracy. I think the word "theocracy" is the stumbling block, but I intend to use the word to emphasize the importance of an established moral system, even if personal belief remains in a transitional phase.

The Early Church argued for the creeds not just to establish minimal belief, but also to safeguard that the morality accompanying those beliefs remain intact. God determines our theological accountability, and the degree of tolerance we need to exercise in society. He did that at Sinai--He is still doing it today.

The Republican ideas against big government are utilitarian, not biblical.

So now you're going to tell me what Christian Republicans believe and why they believe it? I converted to Republican in the early 70s, when the 700 Club reached the state of WA. Pat Robertson convinced me of the importance of fighting for biblical values in politics. And he found this best accomplished in the Republican Party, although at that time there were many Democrats who were moderate and Christian.

I can go with that. European Civilization is a mix of pre-Christian paganism and Judeo-Christian Monotheism.

European Civilization is also Greek and Roman. Not their religious ideas, but their ideas on art and culture and science. Democracy is a Greek invention, not a Judeo Christian one. Same for freedom of speech. Same for harnessing the forces of nature to man's benefit. You do them a disservice by pretending that the only ideas in the world that matter come from the bible.

I don't agree, but this would be a long conversation more about politics. Pagan philosophy is, by nature, religious, even if expressed as an agnostic bias--a bias against revealed truth. Democratic processes are inherent to human nature, regardless of the history of its development.

[Athanasius]

I think the issue is that Randy isn't just talking about a non-standard idea of "theocracy", but a form of Christianity that is foreign to his listeners. But we still remember when councils were used to drive away the JW, then dismissed when they became inconvenient.

[RandyPNW]

I think the issue is that Randy isn't just talking about a non-standard idea of "theocracy", but a form of Christianity that is foreign to his listeners. But we still remember when councils were used to drive away the JW, then dismissed when they became inconvenient.

JWs aren't being driven out of the country, just recognized for what they are. My idea of a Christian Theocracy is actually very well known, if you have any knowledge at all of Western History. Christian states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.

[RabbiKnife]

I'm fond of fried spotted owl, California condor, and whooping crane, or "chicken alternatives" as I like to use the term.

[Athanasius]

I think the issue is that Randy isn't just talking about a non-standard idea of "theocracy", but a form of Christianity that is foreign to his listeners. But we still remember when councils were used to drive away the JW, then dismissed when they became inconvenient.

JWs aren't being driven out of the country, just recognized for what they are. My idea of a Christian Theocracy is actually very well known, if you have any knowledge at all of Western History. Christians states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.

Let's try to imagine that everyone participating has an understanding of what they're talking about, and even, might know something the others don't. You know, until proven otherwise. The old Christian states were anything but.

[RandyPNW]

I think the issue is that Randy isn't just talking about a non-standard idea of "theocracy", but a form of Christianity that is foreign to his listeners. But we still remember when councils were used to drive away the JW, then dismissed when they became inconvenient.

JWs aren't being driven out of the country, just recognized for what they are. My idea of a Christian Theocracy is actually very well known, if you have any knowledge at all of Western History. Christians states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.

Let's try to imagine that everyone participating has an understanding of what they're talking about, and even, might know something the others don't. You know, until proven otherwise. The old Christian states were anything but.

The old Christian states were not "non-Christian states." They were not Muslim states. They were a mixed crowd of nominal Christians, practicing Christians, and failing Christians, along with minorities with different religious convictions, yet willing to abide in a common moral conviction about how society should live.

[Athanasius]

The old Christian states were not "non-Christian states." They were not Muslim states. They were a mixed crowd of nominal Christians, practicing Christians, and failing Christians, along with minorities with different religious convictions, yet willing to abide in a common moral conviction about how society should live.

Alright then, let's do the dance again. Name one example and we'll discuss how terribly Christian it was in reality.