Church versus State

There is an organization that promotes the separation of church and state (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State). While their avowed purpose appeals to me, I share their desires but for totally different reasons and without banning the church from the market place. The AU believes that the church is a negative force in the social and political culture of the United States. My view, on the other hand, is that the government (state) is too restrictive regarding the church’s role in the society…particularly of the Christian faith. Any faith that attempts to evangelize without the use of force or intimidation should be welcome in the public square.

For Christians who may be fearful about such an open position, please recall the Hare Krishna movement of a few decades ago. My encounters with them were primarily limited to airports, and while I found them a tad annoying, they were harmless. And I never fell under their evil spell. There may be some Krishnas lurking around somewhere, but their movement seems to have lost its impetus and is no longer a visible presence. My view is that a state-enforced religion is inherently more ominous than a religious free-for-all in the marketplace. I have confidence in the truth of my faith, in the power of Almighty God and in the salvation message of Jesus Christ. State intervention is neither needed nor desired. If the state were to “implement” the Christian faith as an “official” government policy, then the distortions would begin immediately. I suspect that politicians and bureaucrats have no more respect for God and his Word than they do for the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the United States is indeed a Christian nation, the evidence will be in the fruits of the people….not in the laws, rules and regulations of Big Brother. The more involved the government becomes in defining the faith and its practices, the more likely it is that the government-approved Christian faith will be an abomination in the eyes of God. Freedom of religion in the United States should include the right to openly profess one’s faith….or no faith. It should allow one to question other belief systems without fear of reprisal or government punishment. Faith and belief are internal contracts with the Supreme Diety that often involve public professing. Public coercion, however, should never be part of the worship because the listeners’ hearts will be hardened and unwilling to hear the truth. In addition when a state endorses or promotes a singular faith, the priests either become politicians or the politicians become clergy as the two power centers are merged.

A state-mandated or state-endorsed faith is detrimental for another reason. Belief, faith and adherence are by their very nature individual matters. To collectivize them under the auspices of the state places another party between the believer and the Lord. We can note that within the evangelical Christian community there are differences or variances regarding doctrine, emphasis, organizational structure and ritual. Will the state mandate Methodism, Catholicism or Pentecostalism as the “official” practice of the state. What about all those independent bodies of believers who do not belong to any formal denominational organization? Will the state insist on pre-tribulation or post-tribulation teaching? Will baptismal immersion be required or forbidden? These are the types of issues that when incorporated into official governmental policy or protection can truly destroy the vibrancy of numerous congregations and their members.

One of the major tenets of the protestant Reformation was that the interpretation of Scripture should not be the sole province of the clergy. Each individual is responsible for reading, understanding and learning the Word. As a result there are many sects within the Christian galaxy who may agree on a few fundamental basics but differ widely on other aspects of the faith. If the government as chief endorser and promoter of the faith were also charged with promulgating the “correct” interpretation of His Word, the dangers of misuse and misapplication rise geometrically as government would twist the Scriptures to satisfy its own purposes. The essence of the Gospel would be undermined by self-serving bureaucrats, and the people could be placed in political or spiritual peril. Our nation would revert to the church states of old where political enemies of the governing class would be charged with heresy and removed from public discourse.

If the church is to survive, it must not be an entrenched arm of the government. The faith, the mercy, the grace and the knowledge of God are enough for the church to withstand any onslaught by private or public entities, but if the church and its teaching were co-opted by the government apparatus, the only true outlet for believers would be the underground. The modern remnant would be relegated to the catacombs just as the first century church was. The state-sponsored church would sink in corruption, true evangelism would be forbidden and the enemies of individual liberty would prevail. In the final analysis the church, any church, should be free to vigorously proclaim the truth, but the state or government should never endorse it or embrace it.

cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com