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.

[Fenris]

But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states.

In the ideal, post-messianic world, perhaps. In the real world no religion looks good when it has political power. See the Crusades or the Inquisition as real life examples for why this is a bad idea.

[RandyPNW]

The best laid plans do go astray. Remember that the principle of a dominating religion of general consensus is on display in the Jewish state, right? Many Muslim states exercise the same right. Since I'm a Christian, and believe intensely in that religion, I feel that I should advance that religion in a nation if 90% of the people believe that.

Don't worry, Fenris--that condition does not exist in the U.S. And nobody is going to torture you to give up your beliefs now, nor in my ideal Christian State. I believe Christian politicians need to be separated from Christian church leaders. when church leaders take political power unto themselves, that's when problems occur.

[Athanasius]

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.

Are you talking about the same bloody first four centuries that everyone else has in mind when thinking about Constantine, Nicaea, various heresies and how they were dealt with, Diocletian, the ECFs, etc.? These weren't exactly peaceful times and probably serves as the example for why separating religion and state is desired by so many.

That's to say nothing of the history of the church from the 5th century to now, or heck, even the recent abuses by the institutional church, the bad theology, its awful real-life consequences, etc. There's going to be no period in history where you could point at the Christian church qua state religion and bask in the glory that was that state's commitment to the teaching of Christ. Disagreement from the Danes notwithstanding.

Basically, your ideal is utopian until instituted by Christ himself. Until then, any human attempt to marry Christianity to the state will see the former corrupted by the latter. That's how it's been and always will be, and that's why I wouldn't even argue for it in theory.

[Fenris]

Remember that the principle of a dominating religion of general consensus is on display in the Jewish state, right?

Israel is a "Jewish state" in that most of the country is ethnically Jewish. The government is a parliamentary democracy, not a theocracy. 

Many Muslim states exercise the same right.

Many Muslim states do in fact use Shariah law as a basis for their government. They are not democracies and in fact treat their citizens (although "subjects" is a better word) quite badly.

Since I'm a Christian, and believe intensely in that religion, I feel that I should advance that religion in a nation if 90% of the people believe that.

And I believe that the United States is a culturally Christian country, albeit also a western democracy. This is a Good Thing.

And nobody is going to torture you to give up your beliefs now, nor in my ideal Christian State.

The "ideal state" that you're talking about doesn't exist and has never existed. It could only exist in a post-messianic world, with all of humanity unified under God's rule.

[RandyPNW]

A Jewish state is a religious state, unless you define being "Jewish" in a strictly cultural, non-religious sense. I would suspect that being "Jewish" is used in both ways, both cultural and religious, depending on the individual.

And so, I would agree that Israel is not a theocracy, because cultural Judaism is being proposed, and not a strictly religious Judaism. But I don't believe that Israel was called to be a democracy by God. Rather, it was called, from the beginning, to be a theocracy. And this demonstrates the fact that Israel has not yet attained its future standing with God. I can only pray this happens one day.

Democracies can be Christian or not, Jewish or not--democracy itself is not necessarily separated from religion, although it can be. Ultimately, however, a philosophy or a religion will dominate, as a national consensus evolves. A majority position always evolves.

I agree that the perfect state does not yet exist, but I do believe to be perfect it must be a religious state, accepted and blessed by God. However, to promote the ideal state is not to expect the perfect state yet. The ideal should always be promoted, even though perfection cannot be achieved.

[Fenris]

A Jewish state is a religious state

Israel is a parliamentary democracy.

And so, I would agree that Israel is not a theocracy, because cultural Judaism is being proposed, and not a strictly religious Judaism. But I don't believe that Israel was called to be a democracy by God. Rather, it was called, from the beginning, to be a theocracy. And this demonstrates the fact that Israel has not yet attained its future standing with God. I can only pray this happens one day.

It will, in the messianic era.

I agree that the perfect state does not yet exist, but I do believe to be perfect it must be a religious state, accepted and blessed by God.

Agree!

However, to promote the ideal state is not to expect the perfect state yet. The ideal should always be promoted, even though perfection cannot be achieved.

Disagree! Until humanity is perfected (in the messianic era) we should be careful to separate religion and politics. That doesn't mean we can't look to the bible for religious values, but we shouldn't even consider theocracy. Too many real life examples of that ending in catastrophe.

[Athanasius]

Too many real life examples of that ending in catastrophe.

i.e. all of them.

[Fenris]

i.e. all of them.

Yeah, I was going to make exception but none exist. Even the most direct examples like the 40 years in the desert (Moses was a direct intermediary for God!) or Israel during king David and king Solomon's time (both kings who were also prophets and had other prophets to keep them on the straight path) showed that we're not ready for that just yet. Until humanity is willing to submit to God's rule, any attempt at theocracy is going to show just how fallen man can be. 

[RandyPNW]

A Jewish state is a religious state

Israel is a parliamentary democracy.

And so, I would agree that Israel is not a theocracy, because cultural Judaism is being proposed, and not a strictly religious Judaism. But I don't believe that Israel was called to be a democracy by God. Rather, it was called, from the beginning, to be a theocracy. And this demonstrates the fact that Israel has not yet attained its future standing with God. I can only pray this happens one day.

It will, in the messianic era.

I agree that the perfect state does not yet exist, but I do believe to be perfect it must be a religious state, accepted and blessed by God.

Agree!

However, to promote the ideal state is not to expect the perfect state yet. The ideal should always be promoted, even though perfection cannot be achieved.

Disagree! Until humanity is perfected (in the messianic era) we should be careful to separate religion and politics. That doesn't mean we can't look to the bible for religious values, but we shouldn't even consider theocracy. Too many real life examples of that ending in catastrophe.

Yes, I understand that when things go south, religiously, and religious States become tyrants, that it is best to separate your own religious views from the corrupt religious views of the State. But to then conclude that genuine religion should be separated from the corrupt religious State is to deny that corrupt religious State the answer to its own problems with corruption. Genuine religion is, in fact, the answer to the problem of religious corruption in the State.

It may be impractical to try to insert your own genuine religious views into a corrupt State, when the population supports that corruption. But in that case, it is still best to promote true religion in the State as the answer to its problems, even when people will not accept it as the answer to their problems.

The reason for this is simple. Some within the State will accept genuine religion. And when the time comes, following judgment, for restoration, those who have learned authentic religion will be able to rebuild the State properly, on a proper foundation.

[Athanasius]

Yes, I understand that when things go south, religiously, and religious States become tyrants, that it is best to separate your own religious views from the corrupt religious views of the State. But to then conclude that genuine religion should be separated from the corrupt religious State is to deny that corrupt religious State the answer to its own problems with corruption. Genuine religion is, in fact, the answer to the problem of religious corruption in the State.

It may be impractical to try to insert your own genuine religious views into a corrupt State, when the population supports that corruption. But in that case, it is still best to promote true religion in the State as the answer to its problems, even when people will not accept it as the answer to their problems.

The reason for this is simple. Some within the State will accept genuine religion. And when the time comes, following judgment, for restoration, those who have learned authentic religion will be able to rebuild the State properly, on a proper foundation.

You're idealising.

Consider David, a man after God's own heart, who, as king of Israel, slept with Uriah's wife and then murdered him. The problem is not that there isn't a sufficiently wonderful formulation of religion. The problem is us, the people who try and fail to live up to the ideals of said religion. Those failures aren't graceful either -- see David as the quick example. And even if we have a leader who lives closer to those ideals to anyone else, they'll still fail, and what happens when, not if, that leader's successors go completely in the opposite direction? And you're assuming that the population will go along with this rebuilding of the state on the 'proper foundation' of genuine religion.

On this side of the new creation, religion mixing with politics will never work.

[Fenris]

It may be impractical to try to insert your own genuine religious views into a corrupt State, when the population supports that corruption. But in that case, it is still best to promote true religion in the State as the answer to its problems

It is best to promote true religious values to the state as the answer to the state's problems. Not the religion itself.

[agnostic]

If Christianity is the official religion, which version of the Bible is the official Bible? KJV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, ASV? Are the deuterocanonical books of Catholicism recognized? What about the other books used by the Orthodox? Ethiopic? Must it be English? Hebrew? Greek? Latin? Syriac? Who even gets to define "Christianity" here? Mormons consider themselves Christians. JWs use the same set of books as other groups. A lot of Protestants say directly that Catholics and Orthodox aren't Christians at all. Are Black churches that teach Liberation Theology "Christians"? I know a lot of (white) Christians who insist they're not. What about Christian pluralism? Is it considered a heresy by the government? What about Christian anarchy? Is that considered sedition under this system? Will non-Christians be treated like second-class citizens? What penalties will there be for refusing to convert?

I am perpetually baffled by Christians who think the goal of their religion should be about seizing control of government and asserting authority over others, to enforce "Christians ideals." Power. Strength. Wealth. I see it as the utmost rejection of what Jesus actually taught.

The more Christianity tries to rule people, the more it loses its soul.

[RandyPNW]

A Christian State has a right and a responsibility to rule, just as any other kind of State has the right to establish order, defend itself, and require compliance with the rules of society. Constantly, reference is made to the end of a Christian State, when it has failed, or when it is in the process of failing. You might as well cite evidence of a poor builder to show that houses cannot be built.

The many kinds of Christianity would be chosen by the individual State. That's why Scotland may want Presbyterianism, Switzerland Reform Theology, Germany and Scandinavia Lutheranism, and Italy and France Catholicism. Etc. etc.

Amazingly, most all of these Christian brands unite around the creeds, with some disputed peripheral points. So the conservative approach to the Christian religion is already pretty well established in history, and has been since the Early Church. Liberal Christians have no interest in the established definition of Christianity, but continue to modify their perception of what Christianity is or should be.

I raised a couple of stepsons who were very much against Christianity. I never required them to confess faith in a religion they didn't believe in. And though they wanted to practice things in our home that we did not agree with as Christians, we did not require them to denounce their beliefs and practices--we only required them to live in harmony with a house ruled by Christian laws.

What this meant was that they could not play their Satanic music or watch lewd TV. They were required to be respectful around Christian friends, though they were not. They failed early in their teens, but after becoming adults they learned they could stay in our home and be respectful towards our sense of a Christian home. Outside of the home they were on their own.

In the Christian State I imagine it would be much the same. People could have their own beliefs and practices, as long as they do not cause public outcry and public disorder by engaging in practices hostile to Christianity.

[Athanasius]

The many kinds of Christianity would be chosen by the individual State. That's why Scotland may want Presbyterianism, Switzerland Reform Theology, Germany and Scandinavia Lutheranism, and Italy and France Catholicism. Etc. etc.

And there have never ever never been wars between different Christian theological traditions, right? Ireland has never known such trouble, nor has England, or Great Britain, etc.? There definitely weren't any 16th-century wars of religion in France, and those first four centuries after the death of Christ were super peaceful, right? And there definitely wasn't any unrest leading up to these periods, either.

You can pontificate this idealised reality until you're blue in the face but it just doesn't work, and history has bodies piled miles wide and miles high to attest to what actually happens when people attempt states founded on religious principles.

Except for 19th century Denmark and its perfectly Hegelian Christian state.

Amazingly, most all of these Christian brands unite around the creeds, with some disputed peripheral points. So the conservative approach to the Christian religion is already pretty well established in history, and has been since the Early Church.

On an alternative version of earth, maybe.

Liberal Christians have no interest in the established definition of Christianity, but continue to modify their perception of what Christianity is or should be.

There aren't any true Scotsman, either.

I raised a couple of stepsons who were very much against Christianity. I never required them to confess faith in a religion they didn't believe in. And though they wanted to practice things in our home that we did not agree with as Christians, we did not require them to denounce their beliefs and practices--we only required them to live in harmony with a house ruled by Christian laws.

How do you think a state enforces those laws, particularly around morality? It isn't going to be mere loving exile. In times past I'd be killed, or castrated, or sterilised, or lobotomized, or committed to a mental hospital, tortured in an attempt to cure me, etc. etc. etc. So-called Christian ideals lay at the foundation of these insanely anti-Christ practices.

What this meant was that they could not play their Satanic music or watch lewd TV. They were required to be respectful around Christian friends, though they were not. They failed early in their teens, but after becoming adults they learned they could stay in our home and be respectful towards our sense of a Christian home. Outside of the home they were on their own.

So they learned to be one kind of person in front of you, and themselves everywhere else.

In the Christian State I imagine it would be much the same. People could have their own beliefs and practices, as long as they do not cause public outcry and public disorder by engaging in practices hostile to Christianity.

We wouldn't want Socrates corrupting the youth, either. But what if those people did cause public disorder? Would we ban them from social media, and form mobs to get them fired from their jobs, and refuse to forgive them unless they repent, and impose a view of the world that couldn't be debated with, etc. etc.

Any similarity to our current social milieu is purely intentional given its highly religious character.