Christian Nations?, A Discussion of Church and State

I am a strong believer in the one-storey universe. The trouble, as regards to civil government, is in defining what that "Christian mindset" means, and if it is appropriate for the government to legislate such. Using Christian principles (such as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill" for instance) as a basis for civil government and civil law is less problematic then using civil government to legislate faith in God into civil law.

Sooo....I am not so sure if what you say really makes sense to me.

Well, not being an expert in Byzantine law, I can't comment on to what degree that faith in God was legislated into civil law. However, if a government is going to take the "one storey Universe" seriously, then it will enact legislation that complies with Christian morality, and it will do what it can to support the Church.

Or, should governments be officially agnostic (or Deist)? A government is going to end up taking a theological stance eventually -- why not side with the Truth?

That just it, how exactly is a civil representative government to "take the one storey Universe" seriously?

The best intentions of this sort of idealism (the notion of a Christian government, or Christian state) notwithstanding, it is a recipe for disaster.

Civil governments obtain their authority from the consent of the governed, with its purpose the civil affairs of the state. It is not empowered to concern itself with ecclesiastical matters.

So all governments should be officially agnostic? Or should they espouse some sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding theology?

Yes that great American experiment the founding fathers embarked upon a few centuries ago. What alternative are you suggesting, or are you still in devil's advocate mode?

I have no alternative -- still playing the Advocate role. However, it seems to me that Scripture and the Fathers are rather silent on the part of having an agnostic government. Can you support the "American Experiment" with Tradition?

Dear Nemo,

I have already used Tradition to make my case. Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world, and to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

I am not sure what position you are advocating, you have no position on this matter, really? The onus is on you to demonstrate, using Tradition, the case for the merging of ecclesiastical and civil institutions.

Run!!! Nemo!!! Run!!! the onus is on you.
What am I saying. Swim!!! Nemo!!! Swim!!!

ROFLOL!!

Well, if people are really interested, I can post a term paper on my blog that I wrote years ago on the subject. That is, if I can still find it....

In the meantime, Celine, see if you can dig up some Patristic interpretations of your two Scriptural allusions.

No need to reinvent the wheel, a lively discussion about Christian Monarchy is going on here.

Here's a gem:

"A major problem with the idea of a Christian monarchy seems to me to be that whilst in principle there is no necessary contradiction between positing a theoretical right to rule on legitimation by reference to a divinely sanctioned mandate, rooted in biblical authority, and a democratic form of government, in practice the notion of a sovereign deity as supreme lord is put into place by mortal men who disagree as to interpretation, and this can lead to abuse. An example is the conflation of divine right with nationalism. The result has often been a theocracy, where a priestly caste has attempted to rule, usually with dire results; ancient Egypt, the Aztecs, modern day Iran, and of course the Taliban all spring to mind. And one is mindful of Christ's reference to the separate spheres of influence - "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" etc."

Please indulge us O Sage of the High Seas Economic Division

It may take me a while to digest what I have read, but I wanted to drop you a quick post to thank you, Celine, for turning me on to Monachos.net. It's a really wonderful site.

Jonathan I am glad you find it helpful. The community section (discussion area) is full of great topics with some amazingly rich participants. The Patristics section also is formidable. The site is run by Fr. Deacon M. C. Steenburg, himself a heavyweight as a professor of theology at Oxford.

Watch out, we may turn into coneheads!

Well, if people are really interested, I can post a term paper on my blog that I wrote years ago on the subject. That is, if I can still find it....

In the meantime, Celine, see if you can dig up some Patristic interpretations of your two Scriptural allusions.

Nemo,

I have found precious little about this subject in the Patristics. There are of course the case studies from which, by inference, we can learn ( the Byzantine, and the Russian empire for instance).

I will gladly stand corrected and eagerly await your input, as I found myself foolishly, out of habit and ignorance, defending Calvinistic soteriology against Tradition. Needless to say I didn't have much leg to stand on. Meanwhile, as regards to this subject, I will cling to the founding fathers as my point of reference.

Wait...I'm confused. Are you saying that something you've written here was Calvinist?...and if so what was it? I don't recall you posting anything like that.