*Separation of church and state government

[Salty]

So,what is your definition of "Separation of church and state"

Does that mean that Christians should not vote
Does that mean that Christians should not run for office
Does that mean that pastors should not run for office
Does that mean that a pastor should not preach any message about a political issue
a) would that include policies such as abortion and hom0se/ual
b) are there other political issues that are ok
Should a church invite a politician to speak in his church

?????

 

[agedman]

Random thoughts:

The state should stay out of the Church.

That was the issue facing the early colonial formation and that of the constitutional convention(s).

The state run and supported church and therefore the separation clause.

The church members may be involved as much as they can in the "state."

The church as a denomination or an institution has nothing to do with the state nor should have influence in the state.

The church is not of this world kingdoms.

 

[JonC]

So,what is your definition of "Separation of church and state"

Does that mean that Christians should not vote
Does that mean that Christians should not run for office
Does that mean that pastors should not run for office
Does that mean that a pastor should not preach any message about a political issue
a) would that include policies such as abortion and hom0se/ual
b) are there other political issues that are ok
Should a church invite a politician to speak in his church

?????

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Depends on what you mean by "policies".
Political issues, no. Biblical issues, all.

 

[Revmitchell]

The government has no business trying to run the church

The church should do all it can to influence the government

 

[Baptist Believer]

So,what is your definition of "Separation of church and state"

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all persons, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.​

Does that mean that Christians should not vote

No. If Christians have the opportunity to vote, they should use the opportunity to exercise that opportunity in a spirit of Christian love for the flourishing of others. A Christian must place Christian values over political party, country, or tribal affiliations.

Does that mean that Christians should not run for office

No, but a Christian must not — in a general sense — try to use the power of compulsion (the sword of the government) to impose religious practices or convictions upon others.

Does that mean that pastors should not run for office

No, but pastors should understand that they must serve all people, not just people they like or agree with.

Does that mean that a pastor should not preach any message about a political issue

The gospel has political consequences, especially for social and economic justice (read the OT prophets), so biblical teaching along those lines is essential. However, shifting from biblical principles to endorsements of candidates undermines the ministry of the church and makes it a political rally instead of an outpost of the Kingdom of God.

a) would that include policies such as abortion and hom0se/ual
b) are there other political issues that are ok

If the Bible has something to say about a social issue, the pastor should preach/teach what he or she believes those passages mean.

Should a church invite a politician to speak in his church

I won’t definitely say no, but I can’t think of a good reason why a church should have a representative of one of the kingdoms of this world speak to a congregation during the scheduled time of worship.

If a politician wants to speak to the church community, make arrangements to do it in an area not devoted to worship and preaching; separate from normal worship times.

 

[Alcott]

The most literal defining of separation of church and state would hold that they ignore each other and have nothing to do with each other. Churches, then, would not be allowed to have water and waste services from a city government, could not be held to regulations forbidding the burning of garbage or digging wells and dumping wastewater on its land, and if a criminal suspect comes onto church property, law enforcement cannot come onto the property to apprehend him-- but can neither can LE keep church members from literally throwing him off the property.

I have used this argument many times with those-- usually avowed atheists-- who demand absolute separation of church and state. They usually change their view in some way or leave the argument.

 

[agedman]

The government has no business trying to run the church

The church should do all it can to influence the government

I'm not certain that the church as an institution should be involved.

Certainly, I don't like to think that some ungodly church institution would interfere.

However, I have no problem with church members of their own initiative and by the support of other members taking on the responsibilities of government.

I suppose that allowing the institution influence, then at some point I might disagree with the understanding of that institution.

For example: I understand the stand the RC church has concerning abortion, and I can even give a certain level of support to that thinking.

However, I would not be comfortable at all with them influencing the government to erect statues to whomever they want to venerate or require some doctrinal view be taught.

The same would be for any denomination, temple, mosque, tribe, race, creed, confederation, ... in which as an organized group seeks to change the government.

Let that group become a political party with a specific platform in which they might represent others of that persuasion to elected office to represent their needs.

But, that is the end of influence.

Too often politics are swayed by lobby and not by principle.

 

[AustinC]

Separation of church and state is an Anabaptist position, formed in the Reformation by men like Menno Simons. It posits that no government sanctioned church should exist, but every belief should be free to exist without impunity by any government body.

 

[JonC]

Separation of church and state is an Anabaptist position, formed in the Reformation by men like Menno Simons. It posits that no government sanctioned church should exist, but every belief should be free to exist without impunity by any government body.

It predates the Reformation.

Origen (185-253 AD) defended the practice of the Early Church to abstain from holding political office, voting for senators, and military service against Celsius' charge they were not faithful to their civic responsibilities. Origen argued that a Christian does not involve himself in secular affairs, but contributed still by caring for those within the Roman Empire (via Christian love for their fellow man).

Reference Contra Celsum.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It actually comes from Jesus.

“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”

 

[AustinC]

It predates the Reformation.

Origen (185-253 AD) defended the practice of the Early Church to abstain from holding political office, voting for senators, and military service against Celsius' charge they were not faithful to their civic responsibilities. Origen argued that a Christian does not involve himself in secular affairs, but contributed still by caring for those within the Roman Empire (via Christian love for their fellow man).

Reference Contra Celsum.

I don't see this as separation of church and state, but rather separation from the State.

 

[JonC]

I don't see this as separation of church and state, but rather separation from the State.

Read Contra Celsum. His point is that Christians are to be separated from civil government (they are not compatible). His argument centers on the believer's role as being in God's kingdom, not the world (he uses leadership examples).

That said, he was living under the pre-Constantine Roman Empire. I do not know that he looked at the possibility the State would ever try to be united with the Church.

The point (of the earlier Christians) was that the Church separated itself from the State (not the State from the Church). God calls Christians out of the World, not the World to withdraw from Christians.


This union was first realized by Constantine, expounded upon theologically by Augustine in The City of God as an overlap between two "cities". It is the traditional position of the Catholic Church (and the Reformed Church), but prior to the RCC it was not, to my knowledge, even considered a possibility.

 

[canadyjd]

Separation of church and state is an Anabaptist position, formed in the Reformation by men like Menno Simons. It posits that no government sanctioned church should exist, but every belief should be free to exist without impunity by any government body.

Yes. Correct. The “establishment clause” has to do with state founded churches. The baptists didn’t like their taxes being used to fund presbyterian churches.

So the state is prohibited from funding one or limited the other.

peace to you

 

[Cathode]

Once a Church itself is a legal entity, there is no separation between church and state.

I’ve observed some threads recently on different Church issues in the US, and it seemed to me that they were Corporations, with the state being final arbiter of disputes.
Pastors having to sign non-competition and non-disparagement clauses.

It’s all a commercial enterprise with tax exempt status, this may seem normal to people these days, but it is far from normal and far from scriptural.

 

[Salty]

Once a Church itself is a legal entity, there is no separation between church and state.

I’ve observed some threads recently on different Church issues in the US, and it seemed to me that they were Corporations, with the state being final arbiter of disputes.
Pastors having to sign non-competition and non-disparagement clauses.

It’s all a commercial enterprise with tax exempt status, this may seem normal to people these days, but it is far from normal and far from scriptural.

First - when you say "legal entity" are you talking about being "INC"?
The purpose of INK is so that if there is a dispute - the corp (church) is sued, not the pastor or trustees - personally
If a Church was to violate someones rights - say a non-attending neighbor - they have every right to sue the church
non-competition and non-dispargement??? I have never signed any such clauses.
and what would they force you to do!

 

[Cathode]

The separation Church and State was to limit government regarding religion. To have no officially espoused religion and to have no favoured religion.
It was designed to make government neutral regarding religions and allow plurality, and allow freedom of conscience regarding each man’s religion.
Thankfully so.
State imposed religion is no longer religion, it’s a cult.

Even as a Catholic, I would hate Catholicism to be made the official state religion, and totally fight against it. Religion will always be a matter of conscience for each person made in the image and likeness of God.

We take hard won plurality for granted these days but much of history shows culture, politics and religion entwined together, and great upheavals were the result.
The nature of societies in times past, meant a change in religion was a change in politics and war and destruction followed.

 

[Salty]

Its too bad that the State wont stay out of the affairs of the church!

 

[JonC]

Its too bad that the State wont stay out of the affairs of the church!

And vice versa .

 

[Cathode]

First - when you say "legal entity" are you talking about being "INC"?
The purpose of INK is so that if there is a dispute - the corp (church) is sued, not the pastor or trustees - personally
If a Church was to violate someones rights - say a non-attending neighbor - they have every right to sue the church
non-competition and non-dispargement??? I have never signed any such clauses.
and what would they force you to do!

I’ll give you an example of what I’m referring to.

In Australia for many years, there was no legal entity called “ The Catholic Church “, legally it didn’t exist, so it couldn’t be sued.
That has since changed somewhat with compensation for abuse claims to be made available, a mechanism is in place to pay out claims but not from a monolithic entity called “ The Catholic Church “.

The non-competition, non-disparagement reference was from a thread about a charismatic pastor leaving a Church recently amid certain disputes. He having to sign those clauses apparently.

I’m not casting aspersions on any one entity in particular, merely pointing out the insanity that can happen when churches are already tangled as legal entities recognised by the state. It’s kind of best not to be.

Each country is different I realise, with different secular “states “ to contend with, but the principle of real separation of Church and State comes back to whether a Church is recognised as legal entity by the State.

 

[Cathode]

And vice versa .

Its too bad that the State wont stay out of the affairs of the church!

Threats to Tax exempt status is how the State controls the Church, so that the Church does not become political.

That is why Churches should forgo Tax Exempt Status. The Apostles did not have Tax Exempt Status, and were not made mute for loss of it.

But the greedy little pigs across all the churches have made Tax Exempt Status their deep and comfortable wallow, at the expense of the Gospel and the good of the Kingdom.