Church

Nomodiphas: What are you advocating here: a rule of the state by the church? A lot of people accuse Christians of wanting a theocracy—of wanting the church to rule. They say that the Bible advocates this and that this was the system of Old Testament Israel. What do you make of those claims?

Philosophos: I think that the claim that that ancient Israel was a theocracy is completely false. I don’t think many Christians want a theocracy, and if they do they are wrong for wanting one. I for one do not want a theocracy, but I do want our government to be just and I believe that only a government founded on the truth found in God’s Word can be just. The church and the government are two separate spheres with two separate functions. The government is to administer justice while the church is to bestow mercy. When the government takes on functions outside of its sphere it corrupts both itself and the function it has taken on. The same goes with the church. When the church seeks to rule and administer justice it corrupts not only itself, but also justice. One need not look far into history to find examples of the church being more concerned with power than with the Gospel. These times tarnished the image of the church and corrupted the notion of justice.

Nomodiphas: But what about the Old Testament, wasn’t there a significant merging between state and religion? Isn’t that the ideal setup?

Philosophos: No I do not think that ancient Israel had theocratic system. I do not think there was any significant merging between religion and state. Did the state of Israel have an ‘official’ religion of sorts? Yes. That was because of their special status as God’s chosen people. They made a specific covenant with God (and renewed it a number of times) in which they agreed to worship only Him. Because of that Israel had only one legitimate religion. All other religions (such as witchcraft) were illegal and where thereby outlawed by the state. This appears radical to us, but it was not at all radical for the time. Most states in this period had state religions. Rome had its Gods and Greece had theirs. It was common. Why do we assume that our current system is right and theirs was wrong?

God worked through the existing system of that time and chose one people through which to reveal Himself to the world. His goal was to the show the world that they may have their gods, but Israel had the one true God. Government was involved in religion to the extent of protecting the one true religion. And one could say the Hebrew government had an obligation to do this, that this was justice because the people had made a covenant with God and it is the duty of the government to uphold freely willed covenants.

Religion did influence politics, this is true. Prophets advised the rulers, rebuked the kings, and at times were persecuted by the kings of Israel. These godly men counseled their rulers then just as Christian men can and should do now. And godly men did rule as well: Moses, David, Hezekiah, Josiah—just as men who know God can and should rule now.

It is true that some men held more offices than one. Samuel was both a prophet and a political leader. David was a worship leader and a king. Just as today one could be a prophet or a worshiper and be involved in government. What is key to notice is that the high priest was never a ruler. From its very conception the nation of Israel had a distinction (though not a separation) between church and state: Moses was the law giver and political leader, while his brother Aaron was the high priest. The rulers and the priests had separate functions. The state and religion had separate duties. These roles were not to be confused. King Saul was heavily rebuked by Samuel for merging these separate fields and confusing their functions, when he as king offered a sacrifice before a battle that only a priest should offer.

Anyone who thinks that Israel had a theocracy is very ignorant in my opinion. Yes the laws given to the Israelites were from God, but all good law systems agree with the truths found in the Hebrew law code. All good laws come from God, for God is just and wants us to understand justice. Why is it somehow better to rely on abstract reasoning or popular opinion as the source of our laws? The Law of Moses is tried and tested and found to work. It seems to me to be as legitimate a source as any for the foundation of laws.

Yes religion influenced their government, but religion influences every government! Yes the state protected the religion, but in doing so it was enforcing a contract. God never intended religion and government to merge or to have the same roles. They are two separate fields with two distinct functions. This is true, but it is also true that God never intended for us to have one part of our life that is sacred and another part that is secular. Our lives are to filled with constant awareness and communion with the sacred and the sacred is to influence every thought and action in our lives. There was always a distinction between the fields, but never a separation.

As far as things go now I think the church and state should remain distinct, but not separate. Why is it that people’s faith in secular humanism can and should influence how they act in office, but their faith in God is somehow an illegitimate influence on their decision making process? The same people that want the church out of the government are the ones that are most keen to have the government take on the church’s functions.

Our founders were not concerned about religion influencing the government. Many of the founders were deeply religious and those who were not recognized the value that religion has for a country. There is nothing in the Constitution that says church and state must be separate. The Constitution simply says that ‘Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.’ They were most worried about state involvement in religion. They did not want the government dictating what is or is not orthodox. They knew about Constantine’s involvement in the early church as well as the post-reformation wars. They worried that the government would involve itself in religion and attempt to influence it in the most advantageous way to itself.

Nomodiphas: So Christians can and should both serve in and advise the government. The church and state should maintain their distinct functions but need not remain separate. So the church may not rule, but it may advise rulers and yet there is a danger of governmental involvement within the church (though the state was involved in Israel’s religion in order to enforce a covenant). I am clear about your thoughts about how the church should be involved in the government, but to what degree should the government be involved in religion today?

Philosophos: I don’t think it does any good to force people into the church. When Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome he forced millions of unbelievers into the church and thereby corrupted the doctrines of the church. This also led the church to become dependant on the state (which prevented the church from acting in its proper role of advising or criticizing the state). Further, there is also a worry about the state getting involved in matters of orthodoxy and persecuting true believers (as happened many times in Europe). I don’t think state involvement in religion is a good idea, even if it means we must tolerate false religions. Christianity is the truth and after all sides are said and heard the Truth will win out. Looking at things from that perspective, false religions seem tolerable.

Nomodiphas: But one must ask: does one have a right to believe in a falsehood?

Philosophos: I think so, God gave us the ability to choose our beliefs, but we will be held accountable for what we choose to believe.

Nomodiphas: And does one have a right to advocate false beliefs?

Philosophos: No, one does not.

Nomodiphas: Then doesn’t it follow that the government has no obligation to protect the rights of those who desire to preach falsehoods?

Philosophos: No, you are correct in asserting that it does not, but I also think that it is not within the government’s power to decide what is true and false for us. God presents us with the truth and leaves it up to us to reject or accept it. I don’t think the government may take that choice from us by imposing a state religion. I believe we should have freedom of religion to a great extent (thought I don’t believe in complete freedom of religion, I think those that cast spells on others should be punished. Witchcraft was a capital crime in Israel. Today we don’t make laws like this not because we think it is ok, but because we don’t think it is possible. I think it is very much possible to cast spells and it should be illegal, though enforcement would be a challenge). It is true that the state did protect religion in Israel, but I think they did so because of the covenant the people had freely and repeatedly made with God. We have no such covenant with God. We have made many good decisions and have thereby been blessed by God, but we are not God’s chosen people. So choosing religion, or more appropriately, choosing to accept or reject God’s gift of salvation should not be done by the government. It is to be left up to the individual, for every individual will be held responsible for what he chooses.