Been busy so I haven't gotten to this, but here goes...
Im just saying that looking at the history of especially the American church, thats a stretch.
zephyp wrote:GS78 wrote:Im just saying that looking at the history of especially the American church, thats a stretch.
Well, I would agree with you for two reasons -
1 - the American Church has
some leaders with few morals and questionable character. I know that from first hand experience. Many are good but there are enough that arent.
2 - it would be very difficult for us to have a justice system of laws and punishment based on Christianity - almost impossible - at least IMO. If any Christians need that explained then you need to study the teachings of Jesus. If you think I'm wrong please do explain. Now, the current justice system could and in some case is quite similar to Old Testament law.
I. Church as an institution vs. implementation
Yes, every institution decays over time and can become very corrupt. As long as sinful men run these organizations, such will be the case. Generally, this occurs because institutions have a certain degree of power and wicked men will always try to gain that power and use it for their gain vice the original purpose. The same could be said about government. I believe that our founding fathers had some very good ideas about government as an institution. However, over time we have corrupted it. I don't like the corruption at all; that doesn't make me an anarchist. On the contrary, government as an institution is valid and necessary. The founding fathers didn't argue against government as an institution, but rather against that current implementation because it was perverted and corrupt. I dislike some things my government does and I argue against them. The argument isn't Government or no Government, but rather what the proper responsibilities and limits (or lack there of) of a Government are. The Church is a valid institution too, but like any other can be corrupted.
Romans 13:1-7 exemplifies the ordination of the Government. The two best expositions I have found on this passage are Johnathan Mayhew's 1750 Sermon,
When is Resistance Duty? (
http://www.bluestockingpress.com/mayhews-sermon.htm) and James M. Willson's 1853 exposition, republished as
The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government. (
http://www.americanvision.com/search.aspx?find=willson)
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. -- Romans 13:1
Government as an authority (institution) is established by God. However, read the two references and understand the limits of Christian submission to that authority. Arguing the ordination of the Church seems silly...
II. The role of the Church and Christianity in government
Christianity isn't something you just do on Sunday. I can't be a Christian on Sunday and then forget all about it and act differently the other six days. Arguably, despite the appearance on Sunday, such an individual isn't a Christian. The Church and the Government as institutions are ordained by God. They exist as vital societal institutions, but with different roles and responsibilities. The OT blurs this because God was dwelling among his people and ultimately fulfilling all three offices (prophet, priest, and king). It properly was a theocracy. However, after that period, the judges and the priests were separate. As is correctly pointed out here (
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/),
We learn more about God's view of bloodshed from David. David is a man who loved God and who was loved by God. God raised him up to defend Israel. God sent David to physically fight to defend Israel. When David killed Goliath and Philistines in battles, it was at God's command. They were righteous killings. Now, with that understanding, let's look at a few passages:
1 Chronicles 28:3 "But God said to me, 'You shall not build a house for My name, because you have been a man of war and have shed blood.'
1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build a house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.
But wasn't David obeying God in engaging in these wars? Yes. Did David sin in shedding this blood? No. But shedding blood is so significant to God that David was unfit to for certain "ministries".
The Church can not bear the sword and still fulfil it's ordained responsibilities. Government bears the sword as it was ordained to do; how it bears the sword determines its' validity as an ordained authority. Government can not bear the sword and fulfil the responsibilities of the Church. This could be summed up as:
Government bears the sword to enforce and restrict violations of ethics, while the Church does so for morality, but with out the sword. Philosophically, ethics and morality can't be separate (atheist try very hard), which leads me to my third point.
III. A moral government mirrors Christianity out of necessity
It is too small a thread to argue why ethics and morality can not be separated philosophically, please grant me this premise.
Both institutions being ordained by God, when fulfilling their roles and responsibilities correctly, by necessity mirror His character. Becoming more "Christ like" involves acting morally and ethically more like Christ (God). That is one of the chief principals of Christianity. The Church is self-explanatory. Our founders had is right, while not all of them were Christians, there was nearly a universal acceptance that a proper Government would mirror the principals of Christianity ethically. Not as a theocracy, but as a valid institutional authority using force to restrict ethical violations. The sword (force) was and is the proper tool to enforce ethics violations. It is the basis for our self defence. The ancient "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" was actually a moratorium against excessive force, either by the Government or by individuals. E.g. locking someone away and ruining the rest of their life because they owned a piece of metal you say they shouldn't. Today it is perverted to mean retaliation and revenge.
The Church can not use force and still fulfil its' spiritual goals and "enforce" morality. Similarly, the government can't use the sword to force morality. In a created order which is actively upheld by its' Creator, actions which are contrary to the Creator's decreed organization, i.e. institutions not fulfilling their roles and/or over stepping them, will ultimately be judged and fail. When civilizations become corrupt and perverted they collapse; always have, always will.
Prohibition failed because we tried to use force to regulate morality. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, but rather the excessive use of it. Excessive use is immoral and the purview of the Church, but that isn't grounds for the Government to use force. When a drunk endangers someone, the use of force (proper level, not excessive) and punishment are valid responses from the Government. Morality only comes from a changed heart, using force to enforce ethics is designed to prevent others (innocents) from being harmed.
Drugs, guns, the crusades, etc., etc. all seem to follow this pattern. The use of force, either by the Government or the Church against immorality always seems to fail and I suggest, always will. Morality can only be brought about by a changed heart, nothing else. The sword has nothing to do with it, only God does. Ethics follows a similar pattern. There are more ethical problems the less moral the people are:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
The Constitution is a contract limiting the power of the government by these ethical standards. An immoral people, who by definition could care less about what God requires of them, will not be bound by a piece of paper. In fact the Bible repeatedly notes that God restrains the nations in their wickedness less the righteous perish. Theologically, this is called common grace. The less moral the people are, the more restraining force the Government will need to use to prevent ethical violations.
Conclusion
The Government is a valid authority ordained by God, but submission to it is limited. The Government uses the sword to enforce the laws. By necessity, a valid and proper Government will use this sword, "the justice system," in such a manor as to mirror the Creators institutional decrees, and consequently, the principals of Christianity. Until the justice system mirrors these attributes, it will fail. The Government can not overstep its' authority in its' quest of enforce ethics and expect a good result. In other words, you can't properly enforce ethics unethically...it's a contradiction and impossible.
