I mentioned my Church and State paper the other day. The outline is a couple posts down. Here is the introduction. I’ll post some excerpts in the coming days.
The Church’s relationship to the State has been, and currently is, a matter of deep contention. Standing apart from, being one with, and living in co-existence with, (to greater and lesser degrees) are three of the major ways Christians have chosen to interact with the State. In contrast, I will offer three ways in which the Church can witness to the State: Directly, Indirectly, and as a separatist alternative. In this paper, we will examine both contemporary and historical ways the Church has chosen to relate to the State. I would like to give us a path to follow, as we consider how we in this country might properly exercise our citizenship in this nation and the Kingdom to come.
2 comments:
I don't think most Christians promote false worship in the name of religious liberty. They are open to allowing it.
The harder questions have to do with the implications of your statment. What do we do with our ultimate truth claims? If one's conviction is that woman must wear burka's, or that faith alone saves, or that reincarnation makes euthansia perfectly permisable, or whatever, what are we going to do with that in the real United States we live in. If what your saying is true, how can we avoid the ultimate solution/coercive tactic, capital punishment.
Although I would like to see the church leaders leading our country I feel the strength comes in them leading as citizens who hold a strong faith then as a church leader running a country. I value my faith values in my state but I know that I don't have the same as even my Senior Pastor. Then what? By the church not leading we have a consistent platform to work from that is not driven by each leaders own religious or political preferences.
Post a Comment