• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Church / Government Relations

prism

Lutheran tendencies
Joined
Jul 17, 2023
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
776
Points
113
Age
76
Location
"Conservative", So. Ca.
Faith
Berean (Acts 17:11)
Country
USA
Marital status
Married
Politics
Leans Right
How much influence should each have on the other?
We're the Reformers correct in appealing to their respective emporors?
Or were the Anabaptists Correct in their approach to government?
 
How much influence should each have on the other?
We're the Reformers correct in appealing to their respective emporors?
Or were the Anabaptists Correct in their approach to government?
Depends on the context. While we are not of this world, we remain in the world as agents of God's revelation and part of that revelation includes Romans 13:1

Romans 13:1
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

That means the relationship between church and state differs from place to place and the governing authorities God established in that locale. Here, in America, we live in a pluralistic society that is governed by a representative republic where the Constitution is the preeminent rule of law (lex rex) That Constitution stipulates the (federal) government is prohibited from making any law that restricts the free express of the individual's religion. That includes the establishment of a state religion. In other words, by default, the implicit assertion is that religious diversity is protected and to be expected. Equally true, however, is the fact that America more than 80% of Americans are theists and more than 65% of those are Christians (down from 90% in the 1990s!).

None of that may exist in a monarchy (rex lex), or where those forms of democracy exist that do not limit the government's rule over religion, or a given religion is not predominant in the populace.


There exists in America an enormous unjust hypocrisy because, despite the Bill of Rights' First Amendment, the courts have also perverted some words Thomas Jefferson wrote to decide there is a separation of Church and State, not a separation of Church from the State. Leaders in a New England Baptist congregation wrote to Thomas Jefferson, during his tenure as POTUS, expressing their concern that religion might be considered a right granted to the individual by the state and not a right that is inalienable (incapable of being changed by the government).

"It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

President Jefferson's response was the now infamous letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in which Jefferson assured the elders the government CANNOT do such a thing simply because there exists a wall separating the government from doing so - the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Unblessedly, times change and with those changes so too does the understanding and allegiance to what for one generation is an absolute. Shortly after the Civil War the US Supreme Court began to take a different view of Jefferson's now proverbial "wall" of separation, deciding religious influence on the government was to be limited, not only government legislation of religion. Furthermore, while legislation restricting the free expression of religion is prohibited..... influence is not. These two avenues of change gained momentum with the rise of modern liberalism, the government provision of public education, and the influx of religious diversity following two World Wars (and lesser conflicts in other countries). Some reversal of that trend was accomplished with the rise of Evangelical fundamentalism and the influence of theologians like Francis Schaeffer, but that influence was limited in scope and power and its force was not enduring. Concerns about postmodernism were replaced with post-postmodernism. We currently reside under a bane of all democratic systems; the tyranny of the one percent (Schaeffer warned the Church about this, along with many, many other philosophers over the last two centuries outside of the Church).


If, for example, the US Senate and the US House of Representatives were 100% populated by Christians (authentic converts to Christ as God views that condition) that would 1) be an unconstitutional anomaly, and 2) not likely solve much, despite the imaginations of some that is the goal. The first problem would be the failure to represent to the nation's pluralism (both religiously and politically). The second problem is demonstrated on a daily basis anytime a large group of Christians get together to decide on policy. Sample ten members of this forum and try imagining them reaching a consensus on ANY matter, not just those that are the most important to civil society.

While much more could be said about this, I'll stop for now with two last veins of commentary. God, the Creator, has created creation with an enormous amount of diversity, that diversity exists at all levels of creation, and each constituent element of that diversity is a reflection of Himself in some way or another. Much of it is adulterated by sin, but that's a sub-topic for another post. We should, therefore, expect diversity in governance, as well as diversity between one group and another, one city and another, one county and another, one state.... Of all the forms of government possible, it is the representative republic form that God established among His people (repeatedly), and neither the theocracy, the monarchy (1 Sam. 8), or the straight democracy. Despite His repeated establishment of republican (not Republican) governance, God also permitted, tolerated, and worked within all other forms throughout human history.

Lastly, the principles of scripture always more powerful and successful than the letter of scripture. Correctly understood, they never conflict with one another. Jesus' (along with the New Testament authors' shared example) repeated practice was to apply laws of God and the Law of Moses in principle, not with legalism. Legalism Kills. It kills the body politic just as much as antinomianism. What Jesus (and the other NT writers) practiced is nowadays called theonomy but, sadly, that has become misunderstood, misused, and abused (as has every form of governance in which theonomy could be correctly applied). Most Christian criticisms of theonomy critique Reconstructionist theonomy, not theonomy in and of itself, or that not held by Reconstructionist Dominionists and that, imo, is a shame simply because New Testament Scripture repeatedly applies God's laws in principle over the letter. One notable example from scripture would be the way Jesus and the NT writers applied Deuteronomy 25:4's "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing." That Law is explicitly cited twice by Paul (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:8) and implicitly cited by all four of the gospel writers and James, but not once are any of those references related to oxen or grain threshing. Taken as a whole, God's jurisprudence is restitutional and rehabilitative, not vindictive and retributional (a day has been set for the latter), but we humans screw that up chronically. Here's the fundamental rub: Any legislator, POTUS, or Justice that is elected to represent the people who does not understand this is not going to legislate, lead, or judge well. It will not matter whether they are Christian, or not.

Despite my not being a citizen of any other country, living under any other form of government, it is possible to still speak to those forms of government using what I've described above. The rock-bottom footers-to-the-foundation reality is that any country with any kind of government that is populated by God fearing, God loving people who actually live by that fear and love will be more successful than a country inhabited by godless people under godless governance. Human history is littered with the remnants and cultures who've failed in that regard. The US may one day be one of them :(. Dispensational Premillennialists assure us that is the case ;), but then again, they think the Church will become impotent and need rescuing 😮.
 
Church/Government Relations

How much influence should each have on the other?
Since both entities are to be governed by the same precepts and principle they should, ideally, influence each other in inherently positive ways to positive effect.

Now that you've picked yourself up off the floor, having fallen out of it due to either hysterical laughter, feinting, or possibly having rolled your eyes so forcefully your inner ear was adversely affected, and you lost your balance ;).....

I mean that.

Think of the antithesis: A Church not governed by God's precepts and principles and a government also not governed by God's precepts and principles. I'm not sure such things can exist but for the sake of the argument let's suppose such a thing. How would they also not have an influence on the other? Therefore, we see one of the problems to be avoided is the notion of complete separation where neither has any influence on the other. The goal, presumably, would be their having proper and correct influence on one another. I, personally, will cite the repeated example provided by scripture, what we now call the representative republic (and I will respectfully suggest they were all theonomic representative republics). Once the Hebrews entered the promised land God established the Judges to rule the Hebrews, not the theocratic state or the monarchy. As God established the Church, He, again, established elected officials who governed using the precepts and principles of God's revelation, not the theocratic state or a monarchy.
We're the Reformers correct in appealing to their respective emporors?
If measured by Romans 14:1, then the answer is affirmative. If measured by the example of the Judges and the structure of the New Testament era Church then the answer is predominantly, but not entirely, negative. The monarchies that followed the Roman Empire until Napolean were built on the premise God had selected specific individuals and specific bloodlines to rule. That's not scriptural (even though at the time it was argued thusly). However, because discretion is the better part of valor, simple logic dictates the Reformers' practice...... lest they each and all be summarily executed for defying the powers that be. Living under the despotism of the Babylonian kings did not stop God's people from worshipping the King, or in creating means of governance within their ranks that were alternatively subordinate to and superior to those of Babylon...... and that would include the reforms made (or attempted) by the likes of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the prophets.
Or were the Anabaptists Correct in their approach to government?
We are in the current depraved predicament very much because of the Anabaptist perspective.

The premise the Church defines history is noble but it's also idolatrous. God defines history, not God's people (assuming we share a definition of the "Church" as solely those genuinely converted from life to death in Christ and Christ alone, and not one of the many other alternative definitions that includes disingenuous or false converts). Furthermore, the eschewing of participation by the Church and every one of its individual members necessarily leads to surrendering large portions of the world, of civil governance, social policy, and the hearts and minds of individuals and institutions other than the Church to sin. That is the very antithesis of scripture's repeated mandates beginning with the very first command God ever spoke to humanity. Theologically speaking, it means there are parts of creation God does not rule, or parts over which He is not sovereign (or, at a minimum, He is not sovereignly using the Church in those domains).

However, to be fair, this should not be limited to the Anabaptists because throughout history many sects within Christianity have eschewed or openly disdained and prohibited the Christian's participation in politics, social policy, and civil governance outside of the Church. Some of them arose during the 19th century's Restoration Movement and they had a much more direct and powerful influence on western societies and the world as a whole than the Anabaptists of the Reformation. John Darby once published a pamphlet declaring Christians had/have no business participating in politics! This line of reasoning greatly contributed to the rise of atheistic philosophies and practices in the 1900s. A huge portion of the Church refused to speak up against Darwinism, Marxism, secular Existentialism and all the ~isms that they begot. The abdication of the public marketplace of ideas is what led Francis Schaeffer and his progeny (Alvin Plantinga, Jerry Falwell, Bill Bright, Lesslie Newbigin, Nancy Pearcey, Chuck Colson, Carl Truesdale, etc.) to speak up! Before any of them there was Spurgeon, Van Til, Machen, and others, most of whom are so (wrongly) obscure few Christians know their names.

Every single Christian should read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy. ALL OF THEM!!! Every single institution within Christianity should use Schaeffer's trilogy to aid its members to develop a Christian worldview they can actively apply to all aspects of life (and because of its frequently esoteric content the Church should help God's people understand it). The fact is the gospel has the answers to all humanity's questions and there is no other worldview that can do so (and any worldview that does not borrow capital from Christianity). We should all be present and vocal in the marketplace, wherever God has us placed therein.

I met a woman in my neighborhood the other day. She was a complete stranger to me until that moment. As we talked, I discovered she knew my wife and not only had they met but she knew of my wife long before those two had met because she'd heard of a woman involved in home schooling who'd articulated some viewpoints on homeschooling, missions, politics, and other sundry topics my neighbor had heard second-hand and third-hand from others. She wondered who this woman was that influenced so many others. Then she met her. Meeting her, my neighbor did not instantly realize who'd she met. It was only by contemplating her own thoughts that she realized my wife was the woman whose identity about which she'd long wondered. The odd thing is that my wife does not consider herself an advocate, influencer, or activist. She just shows up and speaks her mind. She happens to have a very sharp mind whose clarity and purity of thought cuts through the muck so well, apparently, others take note 🤨. When Donald Trump ran fora second term the Democrat:Republican ratio of poll administrators was 5:1 ☹️. It does not matter whether a person is liberal or conservative, that ration is not healthy for ANY democracy. Ever. My wife, and others, decided to get involved and that involvement meant promoting the practice (and the rationale on which it was built) to other conservatives. This past election the ratio had improved to 2:1. That's still abysmal, but a marked improvement, and it probably had a legal influence of the election results.

All of which would be alien to the 16th century Anabaptist so, again, I don't think it's fair to couch the op's inquiry in the dichotomy of the Reformers versus the Anabaptists (who were also reformers, btw).
 
Dispensational Premillennialists assure us that is the case ;), but then again, they think the Church will become impotent and need rescuing 😮.
Nice points until this blanket statement.
 
Nice points until this blanket statement.
It was a joke. Hence the emojis. Albeit a joke built on truths about DPism, but it is not my intent to divert the discussion thusly.
 
It was a joke. Hence the emojis. Albeit a joke built on truths about DPism, but it is not my intent to divert the discussion thusly.
Fine, I have a few myself about CTs and RTs, but agreed, it wouldn't be worth the diversion.
 
Back
Top