I for one am going to be on the stand strong side. I am striving everyday to make less and less conpromises, and to be willing more and more to speak the Truth, and not back down or bend or give or conceed. But this way is often lonely… so often we are odd man out!

THanks for preaching it like it is!
Amen
Meg

What I _do_ want is for each institution to acknowledge the lordship of Christ and operate within its sphere accordingly.

For instance, the state does not have the responsibility or authority to declare heresy. That’s the church’s job. Historically, the state has had the authority to convene church councils for these purposes, but has no control over the actual decisions of these councils. The church does not have the authority to tell the state what sort of taxes to collect, or what the punishment for burglary should be.

But where do you think we should draw the line between the state and the church? What criteria should we use to determine whether an issue is a “church” issue or a “state” issue?

God gives three types of authority, one to each institution. The family gets the rod – you spank unruly children. The church gets the keys – the power to discipline members, up to the point of expulsion. The state gets the sword – the power to punish and execute criminals.

Like I say, there is some overlap. If I mistreat my wife, she has an appeal to the church to intervene. If I am physically abusive, she has an appeal to the state. So sometimes the lines are a bit fuzzy, but the centers are fairly clear.

Another example: there was a case many years ago where a church near me was literally “beating the devil out” of people. Someone died. The state rightly intervened.

The question of where you draw the line between church and state rapidly gets into lots of political theories. I would say that the state is responsible for protecting us from one another, as well as upholding public morality – certain types of sins that are made public. Public profanity would fall into that category, for instance. The church has to deal with a larger set of sins, such as dealing with cruel (but not physically abusive) husbands. The church also has to look after doctrinal matters. And, the church and the state deal with sins differently. The church is limited to censure and expulsion. The state is limited to things like fines, imprisonment, and execution.

Does the state’s responsibility to “protect us from one another” include a responsibility to protect us from those who would force their religion on us? For example, if you were living in a predominantly Muslim nation, would the state have a responsibility to protect you from extremists who wanted to kill you, or force you to convert, or participate in daily prayers?

I am not advocating a theocracy. I believe in freedom of religion and the liberty of the conscience. I want the state to acknowledge Christ as Lord. I see no contradictions here.

The state should acknowledge Christ as Lord _as it carries out its responsibilities_. It does not get new responsibilities (e.g., compelling religious observances) or lose old responsibilities (e.g., protecting people from harm). The state should make and enforce laws – within the areas it rightly governs – in accordance with the laws of Christ. Just like, as a father and husband, I rule _that area_ according to the laws of God. But I do not try to rule other areas. If I intrude on the state’s sphere, I am a vigilante. If the state intrudes on my sphere, or on the church’s, it is a tyranny.

It is God’s law that determines what responsibility the state has to protect us. Compulsion in religion makes no theological sense, and the New Testament contains no indication that such compulsion would be appropriate. Similarly, the Bible does not indicate that something like putting “under God” on our currency is some type of harmful infringement that non-Christians should be protected from.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits a state religion, which would be established by kind of declaration that you’re describing. And the point of the First Amendment was probably not just to keep the state from stamping itself “Jewish” or “Christian”. It was to preserve the freedom of people to practice whatever religion they chose: a freedom that would be endangered once the government aligned itself with a single religion.

So – do you want freedom of religion, or do you want our government to declare itself Christian? Or do you have another plan for keeping the Christian government from restricting the freedom of religion?