Sunday, February 19, 2017

The church’s business in the government and vice versa

The issue of church and state is becoming a big issue, which I believe will grow louder and louder until everyone has to take a stand on it. It won’t be swept under a carpet much longer. In fact, I wager that it will become the number one issue, higher than the economy or war issues. I am looking at it from a different view than you perhaps. First, let me say, I am not for undermining Christianity or the Bible or faith or Christ. I’m sure I didn’t have to say that to you, because you know me better than that, based on my profile.

Lately I see more clearly how the 1st Amendment was written with regard to religion and government. “Congress shall make no law” for or against religion. The churches are accusing the U.S. Supreme Court of undermining the place of Congress in passing down decisions that apparently limit the freedom of religion allowed by the Constitution. A pronouncement by the U.S. Supreme Court can overthrow a particular law passed by Congress and an executive decree by the President. In the phrase of the above Amendment, the Constitution speaks to Congress and to a law specifically, not to the Supreme Court. Does the absence of Constitutional direction toward the highest court give it the freedom to wage war against the church in the place of the legislature?— I believe these to be some of the issues the churches are questioning.

Then there is the phrases “separation of church and state” or “wall of separation” which were coined by Thomas Jefferson, but which are not in the Constitution. As I read the Amendment, a “non-relationship” is to effect religion and government. The two were to be neither friendly nor enemies. This was for the benefit of both─benefiting both includes for the benefit of religion, the church. So why is the church bringing up this issue to the government at all today?─ There seems to be a different issue at stake here.

This is not a new situation. Thomas Jefferson had to deal with an upset clergy in his day over the hands-off position of the government. They wanted the government to recognize religion out of fear that the public would perceive the government as atheistic and antagonistic to religion, and thus encourage irreligion. Some of the Federalists genuinely didn’t want to receive the frown of God who had so graciously helped establish this nation. This may be the stance of many in the churches today, albeit it is “not according to knowledge.” (Rom. 10:2). I say that because the Bible separates church and state. Nevertheless, they want to see some evidence of religion in government history, whether federal, state, or local. They feel it adds credence to the advancement of faith in America. The religious leaders need all the help they can get. “After all, too many people seem to think religion is defunct; but look at our past,” say they, “see how religious our forefathers were!”

But does this describe true American history? Does it correctly describe our nation’s forefathers? Not really. And does it really describe true religion? Not at all. Is true religion helped by government aid or endorsement? Is it hurt by government laws and decisions against it? Does the presence or absence of religious icons posted on government property or in public schools affect anyone’s faith in the eternal purposes of God? I say, Definitely not.

Most Americans are Protestants, if not in faith, in background. The original Protestant protest was against the need for the involvement of non-spiritual organizations in the church. They said the sinner and God have direct communication. Government involvement in the dealings of God and man is neither required nor desired. Unless any approaching party is under conviction of sin and repentant, it needs to vacate the holy ground.

In other words, the Spirit of God is in no way hampered from His work by the lack of symbols and relics and governmental assistance. It “is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” John 6:63. I don’t mean to sound dogmatic. Please don’t take me that way. But what we all truly want is genuine Christianity. And I believe that you, the reader, want this, even if you have no religious affiliation. I believe that even atheists today want to see a Christianity with real self-sacrifice.

Christianity should endure difficulty, harassment, persecution, and hardship; and accept them without complaint because those Christians carry all their problems to Jesus in prayer and leave them at His feet. What the world needs today is a Christianity which carries a cross that doesn’t turn back; it needs Christians with the faith of John the Baptist who went to his beheading with the simple words of power from Christ, “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in Me.” Matt. 11:6.

The offense of Christ’s cross, His furnace of affliction has always been God’s method for cleansing us. The church of today needs cleansing, right? All throughout sacred history God’s people have almost every time ended up in trouble─(and here might be a sticky subject)─because they had walked away from their God. And until they owned up to it and genuinely repented, a period of trouble ensued. “Have ye forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him.” Heb. 12:5. Once they repented, then He would raise up a deliverer and save them. But He wouldn’t do it just because they cried. His children had to admit their disrespectful unfaithfulness to Him and turn their face toward Him again. These are His unchanging conditions.

A good question to ask: Has the church backslidden? Does the church need correction? It may be hard to see it because we are in the middle of the consequences of back sliding. But I say, if Protestantism is calling for aid from the state, she left her Husband and Provider a long time ago. We know by the testimony of the four gospels that a great display of religion is not necessarily evidence of consecration to God. Then the bombastic manner of today’s preachers, and specifically religious leaders’ irreverent treatment of the government, contrary to Bible injunctions, marks them as spiritual suspects.

Are we beginning to see similar characteristics today as were seen in the religious leaders who dogged Christ and His disciples for 3 ½ years? Is the church truly examining herself on a continuous basis, as the scriptures directs her to do, to know whether or not she is in the faith, so that when she preaches to others, she is not a castaway? Where is the reformation and renunciation of the world that accompanied conversion in the past? Where is the willingness to lose all for Christ? Where is the cross of Christ; the willingness to suffer quietly and endure as a good soldier of Jesus?

I’m not against a genuine fight of faith. I’m not against regaining lost ground for Christ. But I am against the political methods for Christianity that are used by the churches today. I am for a genuine, renewed spirituality among God’s people. We need true heart conversion and revival. We need a return to the Reformation, when men, women, and children laid down their rights, their possessions and livelihoods and even their lives for the truth. I am sad to say, at this point, that only tribulation can bring all this about. As it is written, “And it was said to them that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.” Rev. 6:11.

This post is not for or against the ACLU or the ACLJ. It’s for a revival in the churches, one that has not been seen since apostolic times.

No comments:

Post a Comment