Church and State
“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”
- Gov. Mitt Romney
Read the whole article here: http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America
Gov. Mitt Romney, a presidential candidate, is Mormon. While I have serious issues with Mormonism, I do like what he believes about not mixing church and state. I have no idea if this guy is sincere but we need more of this kind of influence in politics. Politicians are elected to run the city, province, or country. They are not elected to push morals on society. If a domocratic society wants legal abortions then so be it. Let the churches be a light to the world, if their morals are so valuable, society will see the wisdom in it.
Of course, the influence that the church has on society is not so great but that is not because we don’t have enough Christian Politicians, but because the churches are sick and wayward. There is but one way the church should be attempting to exert influence and that is by helping the poor, sick and needy. That is what we were asked to do. If the church would stop condemning the world and trying to run the country, maybe they could get down to the task that God has assigned them.
Tags: Christianity, Church Criticism, Hypocrisy, Politics
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
December 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Excellent observations, Ken.
In the old Europe model, church and state were mixed and the result was disaster. The founding fathers didn’t want the fortunes of the church and state to be intertwined for the exact reason you cited, so often the church is sick and wayward. It is essentially a worldly institution just as capable of error as any other. That’s not to impugn the efforts of many wonderful people working through those churches though.
However, we should be vigilant that that constitutional defintion of church, establishment of religion, be correctly interpreted. Some disingenuous folks want to stretch the definition of church to the point of denying free speech. It’s bad enough the state is always on the march gobbling up more and more segments of our society, kind of like the Langoliers of Stephen King’s movie.
I think through various negative forces the church is being slowly forced to wake up and start becoming a more authentic representative for Jesus Christ.
Regards.
December 12, 2007 at 6:33 pm
“That’s not to impugn the efforts of many wonderful people working through those churches though.” (Jim)
While there are many believers doing what is fruitful, the majority of the publicity goes to those who are political. I am not saying that the church needs to seek publicity, but the only way to rectify the situation is to denounce the wayward political agendas and get back to the right focus (community service).
There is no way to promote Christ in secular politics (even if you win you lose). The power of ministry of Jesus was in His personal service to the sick and needy. So it should be with the church.
December 12, 2007 at 10:10 pm
“Of course, the influence that the church has on society is not so great but that is not because we don’t have enough Christian Politicians, but because the churches are sick and wayward. There is but one way the church should be attempting to exert influence and that is by helping the poor, sick and needy.” (Ken)
You got my vote! I agree with you on this – and I have had this stance for quite some time also. I look at religio-political institutions and in them we see the name of Jesus defending ideas not quite attributed him by the disciples and vice versa – not defending ideas attributed to him by the disciples. It really is a catch 22 this poltical trap.
I think that alone is problematic enough to deal with – since we see churches becoming very country-like denominations – and not world wide structures – so in a very weird sense – they are partners with their own countries (ceasers) to the exclusion of certain Christian ideals (like helping the poor – widows, working in jails, visiting hospitals, community building, etc). I see a church in our countries whose primary focus or voice is to deal with issues that go nowhere – like gay marriage and war. Whatever happened to dealing with what’s happening in our countries and trying to make everyone’s life better?
December 13, 2007 at 12:07 am
Thanks Jason. As you know, I see this misdirection of the role of the church as very serious. Aside from the political crap, there are other big issues like the way the money is made such a big deal.
Please tell me somebody! What church is worth your donations if the bulk of it goes to those with a good home and a pension?
I know that is an unfair statement to many dedicated servants that do exemplary work, and the amount of income pastors make is not the issue. The problem is that they make the “donation” more of an obligation (or at least highly advised). If I were told upright that not one dime was expected of me to be a member (I don’t like membership but that is another matter) then the donation part of it would not be an issue.
Kind of got off topic, oh well.