He desperately wanted a drink, anything, water or wine, will do as long as could quench his thirst, to soothe this terrible onslaught of dry dust that so heavily swirled in the air reminding him of the dreary swamp mosquitoes of the his northern domains. The dry dust penetrated every crevice it could find and was so seething as if alive. And yet he did not call his servant and bore the lack of comforts stoically in keeping with his habit of sharing everyday hardships of bare military existence with his army. Here in the midst of the olive-beset hills though, these feelings could hardly be any more foreign tempting with an order to stop and rest, but not now. Simple pleasures of life within an easy reach of a spoken word would have to wait for much more glorious apogee. The never settling dust was churned by the warrior multitude in polished helmets, gleaming armour and with razor sharp swords that persistently glistened attempting to light up an already bright crisp day that promised to be anything but ordinary.
He was Constantine or rather Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantine, the soon to be sole ruler of the immense Roman Empire. Very soon as it was about to unfold with Constantine consumed by his fateful quest to overturn the last stronghold of defence that was the Eternal City itself, still under control of his archrival Maxentius. The Tiber, the last obstacle, was finally within his perceptive gaze and the future of the Empire was within his grasp. Few hours later, on the late afternoon October 28 312 AD, Constantine will have enough wine to bathe in, the decisive battle of the Milvian Bridge will be over and Maxentius will be dead caught in the treacherous Tiber currents upon his hasty retreat from the slaughter raging behind. Could have this ended differently? Impossible! God had spoken to Constantine through a sign of the cross just a day earlier. Caught completely mesmerized, Constantine’s face shone brilliantly as he clearly saw a cross rising up in the sky above tomorrow’s battlefield. The voice of the Lord came to him and announced “In this sign you will conquer!” It could not have ended differently or at least to those who take the story at its face legendary value.
Constantine Legacy – Emergence of “Christian State”
And if in need of further proof of Constantine intentions one is inexorably led to the Edict of Milan that proclaimed legalization of Christianity and complete freedom of practise for its followers. What followed was a remarkable transformation of this vibrant and growing sect into perhaps the most powerful religious movement in human history. This event and many other similar historical turns should clearly be celebrated by anyone claiming an allegiance to Christ. And yet it is not always the case. In fact, frequently it is quite the opposite. And the message of what has followed since is quite a mixed one at the very best.
The famed edict and other important events that followed hardly propelled Christianity into something worthy of Christ – pure, incorrupt and inspiring. Instead it appears that Christ was set aside for political expediencies of the powerful, first and foremost. What ensued could hardly be characterized as victory for Christianity – savagery, intolerance and wars of just about any length, size or reason. This is hardly a palatable canvass to further the faith and many have shied away, quite understandably, from any association with such besmirched past. So much so that contemporary Christians much rather forget crusades, inquisition and slavery, the less glorious and appetising bits of our past. Forget they may but not before some facts are examined.
Now, some would like to vehemently object to the usage of the unsavoury and sometimes outright gruesome past as having anything to do with authentic Christianity of the Bible. And my answer to these folks “You are absolutely right!” What were the theological foundations behind the crusades? Why were many a non-conformist savagely burned at the stake? Which part of Christ’s legacy elevated one ethnic group over another? Of course, the answer, again and again, is a resounding “NO”. The fact however is that had it been not for the Bible the powerful would have conjured up other excuses to subject the poor; and had it been not for the Bible the cruel would have twisted the arms of the weak all the same. The Bible was simply used as a façade to undertake all kinds of ungodly acts. Remember how the pious Henry VIII rejected the Catholic Mass to facilitate his unlawful divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon; how frumpish and very protestant Oliver Cromwell killed, raging against episcopacy; how very catholic Luis XIV built his unitary kingdom by rupturing peace with protestant Huguenots; and how Isabella of Castile endeavoured to commit her own version of Holocaust. Clearly all these avowedly Christian rulers fell hopelessly far behind anything even remotely resembling Christianity.
Am I trying to pick the most unappetizing pieces of history to the make the point? Yes, to some extent. What I am not saying, hovewer, is that the “Christian States” were completely evil and grotesque. Not at all as evidence aplenty of great piety in matters of political deeds, evoking cathedrals and inspiring art work. What I am saying is that these states on the totality of their deeds do not fare any better than those of infidels. What’s worse is that sometimes they fared distinctly worse when in direct comparison. Just recall the difference in treatment of Jews between the Spanish crown and its rivalling predecessors – the Moors, Islamic invaders.
No wonder that not many in the Christian circles celebrate the Middle Ages, precisely the times when Christianity and State were the inseparable. Even the fresh winds of reformation failed to produce much improvement in the state affairs while making incredibly progressive strides in all matters of theology. Maybe the state and church do not really mix, just like oil and water?
“Oh sure that was in the Middle Ages but what about now?” this is an inevitable question. Right!
And what do we observe? The general amelioration of the human condition replete in trappings of secular enlightenment! Hot secular fires of French revolution, nuanced Dutch mercantilism and staunchly communal Swiss provided much fodder for new ideas and ensuing developments. Now, we were still very far from any sort of an ideal and harmony as well-evidenced by indisputable evils of world wars and genocides of the past hundred years. And yet, our appreciation of multi-faceted nature of God’s creation has resulted in less intolerance, better cooperation and fairer laws. And all this is taking place at the time when the notion of “Christian State” is becoming ever more obsolete – fascinating…
God’s Own Experiment
OK all rhetoric aside, let’s talk about God’s own experiment in church-state creation - the institution of the state of Israel - the experiment that failed to produce anywhere close to the desired result. God Almighty gave chance and again to the recalcitrant sons of Israel only to witness perennially sinful disobedience cropping up, first in men’s hearts and then in their actions. God persevered and provided countless mulligan opportunities for redemption and restoration. God grew exasperated with his obstreperous children. He gave them carrots and sticks. Carrots of promises failed to work, sticks of devastation and defeats did not do much better. Finally, God brought his ultimate and unbeatable trump card – the sacrifice of his only begotten son on the cross. The emergence of Jesus drove the final nail in the coffin of church-state. From now on, church and state will go their separate ways. From now on faith and faith alone will be a uniting factor for those under the banner of the Lord. Territory, skin colour or language will no longer be a determinant of those serving the Most High. In fact, families will be divided and brother will rise against his sibling and parents will disown their own as the eternal boundary of the final judgement to come will cut through the most unlikely of places not sparing anything including the bonds of kinship and blood. And if in doubt on this count just listen to Jesus himself in John 18:36 – “My Kingdom does not belong to this world” said he when questioned by the authorative Pilot. Had it been he would not have taken up the Cross.
This is not new, of course, as just about any biblical scholar would concede that the prevalent Jewish expectations of that day were clearly at odds with the message of salvation. Yes, Jews expected the Warrior Messiah or President Messiah and instead received a Weak and Humble Messiah (Isaiah 54). Nothing emphases the disparity of expectations and reality more than Jesus’ refusal to deviate from the matters of the heart and plunge into the matters of the state. He did not deny or concede any taxation authority to Caesar; he was so utterly discreet as to use a fish’s mouth to produce a coin to pay taxes; and he hardly picked a quarrel with anyone but the teachers of the law. If anything he broke the rules, the rule the earthly state cannot stand without. He healed on Sabbath and eschewed ceremonial washing; he refused to see his family in the middle of a sermon; and made friends with the outcasts. If anything he was a rebel and an anarchist. He even fed the five thousand gratis without bothering with the moral implications of a free unearned meal; he destroyed public swine property in favour of delivering one little lunatic free of evil. He was above ordinary; he was not earthly except for his suffering; he was of God.
Maybe I am making too many strides in the wrong direction but what is clear is that Jesus went out of his way to make sure that his Kingdom was to be outside of the world as we know it and his singular allegiance was to the Father who was the only one to command his steps. These were not earthly state rules that he ever introduced; these were the matters unbound by earthly edicts; these were the matters of one’s heart and one’s heart alone.
Evidently, there were some incidences in which we might see a different angry Jesus, Jesus paying attention to burdensome Earth just as much as to the lofty skies, Jesus who sought an establishment of earthly rules as much as those outside of immediate human condition. His fiery onslaught on the market stalls in the temple is sometimes cited as one of such instances. Since he physically chose to overturn the tables of the money changers then by extension he in fact was willing to impose his ironclad will on unacceptably lax norms of the society. All is very well, except for the very fact that this took place on the grounds of the Holy Temple. And this can never be ignored - “My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a ‘den of robbers”
Just imagine Jesus verbally attacking a prostitute on some market corner anywhere else, admonishing her for peddling her sinful ways – impossible! Jesus of the Bible could not have done that save for the very temple itself. And this is very significant. Remember that Jesus came to lucidly demarcate the line of decision, as earthly rules would no longer be a conduit of God’s will. It was Jesus’ very own shed blood that was going to determine the eternal destiny of the human race. However all this would come to pass a little bit later. For now, he was still treading the planet and the temple was the very link that held God in touch with his people. But people grew callous and did not take heed. They prayed publicly but cursed privately; they washed their hands thoroughly but left their hearts un-bathed blithely; they padded their pockets contently and yet forgot the poor frequently. So far they strayed from God’s will that even the Holy Temple was no longer off-limits. The only solution was to rip apart this very connection and leave the people with no viable choice but Jesus. But before Roman legions could actually destroy the physical temple, Jesus himself had to take an authority over it by claiming it with his fury. They will go together - the Temple up in flames and Jesus up to eternal glory. This was final and irreversible. This was never about the state and was always about the faith.
Pauline Admonitions
All these arguments might be convincing enough but what if I am mistaken, and that after all Jesus was as much about our earthly arrangements as about our celestial well-being. The only way to test this in my estimation is to proceed further down the Cannon, assessing the very rules of such earthly entanglements. In the scripture apostle Paul seems to be the one to go by. And that’s where we should look. Paul of course was extremely prolific on just about any misconception and trap that could befall the church. Whether it had to do with church duties, customs or general tenors of behaviour, Paul was always there to admonish, correct and encourage. When it comes to the outside world save for actual evangelistic advice, Paul becomes significantly sparser - at first as if to appear unconcerned with the fate of unsaved and disobedient. It is not so, of course as he did find few occasions to state his position in terse abundance.
In the Letter to Corinthians 5-9:11 we hear “In the letter that I wrote you I told you not to associate with immoral people. Now did I mean pagans who are immoral or greedy or are thieves, or who worship idols? To avoid them you would have to get out of the world completely. What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a believer but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don’t even sit down to eat with such a person”. Now what exactly is Paul telling us here? Many things really, but what is a truly inescapable is that the rules of engagement that Paul sets out for the church are definitely not the same as those applied to the rest of the world. On the basis of this statement it appears that confusing the notions of the church and the state (the world) is nearly impossible. The state cannot be the church and the state cannot be the church. By extension, the notion of Christian cannot be applied to both at the same time. The competing parties cannot possibly share the same name with completely harmonic equanimity.
And if still in doubt Paul follows this up with yet another unmistakable salvo - “After all, it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says “Remove the evil person from your fellowship”. Adhering to Paul’s admonishing the once celebrated adulterer was driven from the fellowship and the lesson was forgotten by many who in the centuries to follow would continue seeking to reconcile irreconcilable – church and state.
Persisting with “Christian Nation”
Paul’s direct call for separate judgement on the issues of the church and the matters of the state is scintillatingly succinct and axiomatic. There is no further need to discuss and postulate; the two just do not mix. And yet many under the guise of the Bible bolted in the precisely opposite direction. Starting with Constantine and continuing with modern day politicians and clerics many affirm the false need to preserve our National Christian Principles. I cannot fault Constantine personally for his conversion to the sign of the cross or for his liberalization of the Christian church from the jaws of persecution. The former is a very personal spiritual matter and the latter is the extension of the godly morality that calls “free will” as the cornerstone principle of genuine conversion. What I do fault Constantine and his numerous successors for is the usurpation of the name of God for mostly carnal purposes of power and influence - precisely the wrong tack on the way to discovering God’s truth. This was the time when “Christian Nation” was born. Obviously not everyone agreed. But for times of tyrannical uniformity such voices were mostly silent.
However with modern plurality and liberation of speech the smouldering dispute caught on some real flames. This dispute goes to the very core of issues that we face on just about daily basis. One camp, with secularists and religionists alike, see the church and the state as an odd, uneasy pair. Another camp, made of just about exclusively of religionists, attempts to assert its influence on the state through claims of spiritual heritage. It is if attempting to say that there ever has been such a time when a truly godly state was in existence. Now being under siege this state requires all the help it can get and more. There is no place where this debate rages fiercer than in and about the United States of America.
This, founded on the very best principles of democracy, state is of course a very young sapling in terms of the world history. Diverse and ever-changing thanks to immigration and demographics, it has always struggled to find its singular identity. Being the foremost protector of speech, a definition of such identity hardly lands itself to any unique cause outside of the very fiat by which the country was founded in the first place – the Constitution. It is the only immovable aspect of the American lore that attempts to provide any degree of clarity as to why the place came into being in the first place. But since the Constitution values individual liberties and protections of speech as its cornerstones, it has never really stood in the way of societal evolution it has never been able to effectively stifle change, any change whatever it might mean. There are not ethical associations, religious tests or royal lineages that are protected by the fateful document. What really holds it together?
State Incarnate – A Mistake?
There are a thousand of answers to this question. One of the most popular explanations of the elusive adhesiveness is the belief in some special divine blessing that rests firmly above the blissful nation. The notion is certainly a very uniting and extremely uplifting one, providing much in a way of proverbial American swagger and aplomb. These of course vacillate with the ever-ebbing fortunes of the modern state – wars, crime waves and market crashes come and go and whenever there is too much of a good thing at any point of time, the talk of blessings and the lack thereof becomes pervasive.
Suddenly, the notion of a state transmogrifies in an individual who could be cursed, saved or blessed depending on his behaviour. It did of course happen during the God’s experiment with the church-state of Israel but could it still happening now? I would just personally turn to Paul. Alas, he gives us little in a way of support. Without it, I can only conclude that “Nation” cannot have personal attributes of salvation but rather it is a temporary concept that is essentially unrelated to the Godly purposes vis-à-vis the humankind. Again, if we take Jesus at his face value whatever stately god there is - on the state money, or on the state seal or in the shadows of the state flag, it cannot be possibly God of the Bible. Instead we are dealing with kind of a civic religion that seeks conversions in a purely one-dimensional, physical sense. Above, what commonality could there be between the civic religion acclaiming the virtues of democracy while the church inherently strives for something quite the opposite – theocracy?
“No, no” I hear the voices of the discontented, “That cannot be so, the Christian God of the Bible gave this nation (USA) to the faithful and now its enemies are taking it away. God help us!” OK, I will shut my eyes, close my ears and forget about Paul or at least what he had to say back in Corinthians. Let’s indulge ourselves in saying that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation under the God Almighty. Let’s assume that being such this nation could be treated as individual and not just any individual but a church member. And remembering Paul and Jesus just momentarily, let’s assess this new member as Jesus estimated Pharisees and Paul judged the immoral man in Corinth – by their deeds.
First of all, the inception or rather conversion itself as in the case of the United States they have to be one and the same. And being that the United States is the child of God it had to be have been founded and converted through a message delivered by Godly evangelists and apostles. Upon a cursory review nobody fits the profile better than the ever-ephemeral founding fathers. These legendary men must have been an equivalent of either Paul or Peter judging by their creation, they must have had an incontrovertible Godly character and bond that would have left precise and unmistakable Christian legacy. And here I hear “Houston we have a problem!” Not only the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers fail to produce incontrovertible Christian credentials but most of them left a totally different witness, the witness of Deism – a very popular Unitary view that while acknowledging the God Creator it left very little room for him to continue affecting his creation thus leaving the reason as the only viable etalon of human endeavours. Deism, while allowing for God to subsist, basically turned its back on anything supernatural including Jesus himself. And this is not all as Thomas Jefferson, as an example, frequently remarked on the evils of the organized religion (i.e. various Christian denominations), George Washington persistently eschewed Presbyterian communion and Benjamin Franklin attended Masonic lodges.
Jefferson actually went as far as writing Jefferson Bible that while extracting the best wisdoms of Jesus did not include his miracles or resurrection. George Washington repeatedly refused, in writing or otherwise, to acknowledge anything that had to do with his spiritual beliefs. Thomas Paine was actually decried by some Christians of the day as an atheist. This is a very colourful picture indeed, and if one adds the very Constitution itself, the document that utterly fails to mention God[1] even once, into the mix, the account of the presumed conversion becomes exceedingly sketchy.
Now, the Declaration of Independence of 1776 did mention the word “God” or to be exact “nature’s God”. It also evokes Creator and universal morals, much in keeping with the discussion to follow in the next mini-chapter. There is obviously nothing to say that this was the God of the Bible, moreover given the deist beliefs of the founding fathers, “nature’s God” seem to fit quite well into the picture where Christianity does not play a role. And if in doubt read the following from so-called Treaty of Tripoli which was solemnly presented for ratification to the US Congress in 1796 by non other than John Adams “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”[2]
What about the state affects? Well, the Pledge of Allegiance was written over hundred years after the birth of the state and thus cannot be considered a part of the founding lore. Besides, its original version did not contain any reference to God until changed by the US Congress in 1954 after the intensive lobbying effort, among others, undertaken by Knights of Columbus, a fraternal catholic association with involvement in masonry according to some. The fiery patriotism of the Civil War put “In God We Trust” on the Treasury coins and in 1957 the same was applied to the state paper currency. Again, despite the evocative in nature, “In God We Trust” is hardly surrounded by many Christian symbols while neighbouring on many a very cryptic, almost Masonic, one. So what can one deduce here? Not very much other than to say that these clearly played no part in the founding of the state and any associated Godly, specifically Christian, ties are muted at best.
Another, oft used, argument is that the American state must be “Christian State” since overwhelming majority of the citizens at the time of its funding were Christians. However, this does not seem to be the case either. Undoubtedly many came to the foreign shores in search of the religious freedom but they were likely in the minority as many original colonies were of purely economic nature such as Virginia Company. And if in much doubt, just consider the revolution itself which erupted and was primarily fought on the economics. Just recall the famed Boston Tea Party and “No taxation without representation”. And who did they have to separate from if not from the “Christian State” itself – Great Britain? Besides, according to some estimates the regular church attendance in the late 1700s in the United States was estimated by some to be significantly lower than that of Europe in the same time period. Go figure…
How about applying a test of deeds? It might work. Well, I do not think so, unless dropping a couple big ones on Japanese civilians or gratuitously assaulting numerous sovereign nations would qualify as righteous. “But this is now when the nation is corrupt and back-slid” say some. “Look into the incorruptible yonder of the past!” Sure except that I am frequently tempted to quote the Ecclesiastes 7:10 “Do not say “Why were the good old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions”.
Alright let’s give some people slack and look. Oh, where are those Indians that used to live here and now no more; and why they are fields full of slaves who obtained such favourable conditions at a point of a gun sanctioned by the very state we are testing? Not convenient, I see. How come there is so much vice, green and corruption? Why do the rich live leisurely off “trusty[3]” wealth while poor fish for scraps in the gutter? Why did you burn Salem “witches” on the basis of hearsay? Are you not the newly converted son of God? Where are the deeds of your newly found faith?
Of course the imaginary questioning above is utterly ridiculous as the notion that a state could be blessed, cursed, saved or damned. People in it – yes, the state itself no, IT IS NOT A PERSON. Alas, the exceeding economic prosperity and might of the American state has made it difficult to refute the preposterous. When arguing the obvious with the proponents of the state-personhood complex I cannot help but marvel at their inconsistencies since the United States came into upper reaches of the prosperity orbit precisely at the time when is falling from Godly grace into damnation and immorality, and not at the time of its pure innocence of a new convert. And if this is not enough what do we say about the prosperity of the ungodly ranging from the cosily hedonistic European socialism and the freshly polluted skies of the heathen China, on to the oily Satanic riches of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. Undoubtedly, the notion of statehood personified in the view of God is most likely utter nonsense. And if this is the case, than the pining of some for the elusive “Christian Nation” is in vain.
Now does it mean we should take the state out of the church altogether? Of course, not as Paul commanded us praying for our rulers. However, he specifically said to pray for peace that emanate from such rulers and not for their conversion. Did Paul not care about the salvation of the rulers? Surely he did and he said so quite profoundly in Acts, however, “praying for the rulers” is likely meant “rulers” as a general notion, as those representing the state. And since not the state but the people in it can be converted, the best hope that we have from the state is peace and freedom to practise our beliefs.
Ungodly Morals?
This was a truly remarkable gathering spot. It could hardly be used for any public meetings as the very centre of it was beset by an unkempt garden that once in a while was restored to some surprising momentary glories by lackadaisical state gardeners when bothered to take a break from their smoking intermissions to do some pruning, planting and weeding. As for meetings private it was hardly conducive either as heavy traffic swarmed all around suffocating anyone looking for a moment of private silence and contemplation. And as to make the surroundings utterly unbearable the city planners had managed to lace the place with irresistible attractions. As a result, humanity kept bouncing between numerous governmental offices nearby, traversing between ballet and dramatics of two theatres facing the square and if that was not enough fighting with bright-shouldered hordes of steely shoppers scourging about in search of rare state offerings.
And yet some folk still used the unlikely location for very, very private meetings. The place was the square in front of Moscow’s Bolshoy Theatre and the calendar was set somewhere in the 1970s. The Soviet Union was just about to outlive its demoralized self and the people that gathered here were “Golubiye” or “Blue”, a zippy sobriquet for homosexuals in Russian. The homosexuality was illegal in the workers cradle as the party leaders preferred much uniformity in all matters including very personal ones. After all it was just easier to govern that way. Harassed and ridiculed, the alternate lifestyle community vainly searched various ways to remain inconspicuous. One of the busiest thoroughfares of the state seemed to provide a good cover and if asked pretending to be in some theatre or department store line-up was a good one. The deficits in the workers state were galore and queues aplenty – a perfect cover.
Then or now, such state of affairs would be unthinkable in the United States or anywhere else in the western world. And yet when measured to the strictest Biblical standards such heavy-handed attention to sin would be anything but immoral, at least to the liking of many pining for “Christian Nation”. But how is it possible that an avowedly atheistic state with its ideological core solely rooted in the doctrines of materialism had such a law? Honestly I do not know exactly. But whatever the reasons, it goes on to show that states are just amoral beings that from time to time happen to match biblical morality. And this is no surprise since everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, has morals that come from God.
Just consider Letter to Romans 1:18 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. You see all men were endowed with basic understanding of God and his morals, not only Christian men but all men. Obviously all men did not follow God by not giving either thanks or glory. And yet at the same time some unwise and mostly ungodly men such as many a Greek philosopher or a Roman policy maker recognized from time immemorial certain, more convenient, pieces of the puzzle that could contribute to betterment of their version of social order. Therefore it is not surprising that just about any society that manages to function for any significant length of time employs very similar moral structures in their laws.
If one thinks that he can steal or kill with impunity in Islamic Iran, or Buddhist Nepal or atheistic China is likely to be disappointed upon finding of facts. And this is not all of course as for example abortion is currently illegal in Iran as it was in the Soviet Union. Their expressed reasons differed but their results were similar. And yet in the United States the abortion is not only legal following the Roe vs. Wade of 1973, but was also legal for the better part of the first hundred years of the country’s existence. And if you in doubt regarding my logical twists on the matter of morality and how it is available to all human kind, please consider perusing some timeless musings of the venerable C.S. Lewis in his “Mere Christianity”.
Now, let us proceed further down the passage quoting the Letter to Romans 1:21:23 “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles”. Very interesting piece since it, at the first glance it refutes my previous argument, making it impossible to claim wisdom and yet be at odds with the Almighty. But do not give up yet. Besides, could there be such a thing as two different wisdoms – the worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom. One wisdom is incompatible with the rejection of God and the other is not – emphasising once again that the purely material matters of the world is not what concerns Paul in this passage. In fact, had it been otherwise could we be witnessing today such magnificent technologically and so deficient spiritually structures such as Egyptian pyramids, Burmese Buddhist temples and New York skyscrapers. Hardly! Could we be sending utterly baffling and complex chunks of metal into the open vistas of cosmos with the live being in them and then actually getting them back safe, most of the time? Inconceivable! Yes, men could be extremely sagacious and yet extremely foolish all at the same time. Yes, it is possible that men in their earthly wisdom used some of the godly tools and yet coming short of the truth itself. Yes, God’ creation is dual, it is material and spiritual, it is ungrateful and pious, both at the same time.
And if still in doubt consider ploughing further down the Letter to Romans 1:24:25 “Therefore God gave them over in their sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than Creator – who is forever praised. Amen!” I say “Bingo!” God gave them over to their shameful desires and he is not asking us to drag them back in any but a spiritual sense”. Can the spirituality be overridden with laws of the state?
The answer is the resounding “NO” the laws of the state are ineffective of changing the spiritual condition. Just look back at the any time when avowedly Christian states were presiding over the world affairs. Whether the absolutist France under the very Catholic Luis XIV or England under the very Protestant Elisabeth I, the world has been wallowing in misery, wretchedness and senseless wars. And if the current nominal state of affairs is any indication then the last time I checked, the Lutheran country of Denmark with God plastered all over its state symbols and Church irretrievably edged into its Constitution is viewed by many as an utter pit of hedonism. Where does it leave the United States with its Masonic currency symbols and no mention of God in the Constitution?
A very interesting question considering that according to some, apostate Europeans are no match for pious Americans in the God’s department. Clearly, there is not a single shred of correlation between the stately usages of God’s names while ascribing them to worldly power and actual political, social or religious outcomes. Remember “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s…” give the governments freedom to act in their collective realm and leave the spiritual realm to its own devices of the individual free will. Alas, we got it the other way around with our spiritual leaders continually striving to enter the political arena while advocating ever-diminishing governmental influence over the matters of the increasingly individualistic “dog-eat-dog” world of modern economics and social order. The latter statement is a very interesting policy making argument and perhaps should be pursued in a separate discussion. For now why do not we attend to the church and the state some more?
Swinging to the Extremes
And here comes the tasty bit. What are we, as Christians, supposed to do in this world? What our involvement should really be? How do we influence those around us? Or do we pursue influencing anyone at all? And so on and so forth. This is an extremely legitimate and ever-current discussion, isn’t it? But sometimes we tend to jump into is without considering some of the underlying positions such as our relationship to the state in which we live. That’s why I have sought to bring some clarity into the state-church discussion - the conversation that has been necessary before delving further into some practical applications.
Before considering some historical examples (little repetition, sorry), it is suffice to remind everyone about the Letter to Corinthians 5-9:11. I personally find the Pauline advice to be the most viable impartation of Godly wisdom in the matter. I.e. do not disengage from the world and yet do not judge the world but judge those inside the fellowship. Now, about the history. In the early going it was obviously very tough when Christians were persecuted, whipped and martyred with harrowing regularity. And yet they did not withdraw from society, spreading God’s word and message of salvation. The results were astounding as the small unknown sect was becoming ever more influential and present in the public discourse. It was dangerous and yet inspiring to so many who sought to effect the change from within the heart.
All this of course changed when Emperor Constantine, perhaps acting on some very constructive instincts, set forth the motion by which the world came to be dominated, judged and reshaped by the church - much to the contrary to Paul’s advice. The results were of course less than desirable. Then came the advanced philosophies of enlightenment and politics and industrialization pushing the church from the centre stage. Many at this time, especially in the Protestant circles, swiftly retreated more or less completely from the public arena. Only a small number remained with the likes of William Wilberforce labouring in the public eye.
An overwhelming number of evangelicals, specifically North American evangelicals, waiting for an immediate coming of the Messiah avoided the state as much as it was logistically possible on other hand. The pendulum had swung from one extreme into the next and many Christian found themselves in contravention to the Paul’s good advice once again. The more secular the society around them became the deeper into isolation they dug.
By the 1960’s they had enough – winds of drugs, sex and rock-n-roll blew in too uncomfortably for many and unexpectedly for just about all. Many understood that society found itself in the midst of an incredible soul-searching exercise. And just to add few spoonfuls into the mix: the questionable wars in Indochina, sky high oil prices at the pump and Roe vs. Wade - the challenges to the prevailing cocooned Christian position of then become apparent. And yet we blew once again with some of our leaders jumping on the pendulum and swinging where it has not been for a couple of centuries. Now, once again, we wanted to dominate, judge and reshape.
The state was to be re-made by an active show of political unified force through such movements and organizations as Silent Majority and Christian Coalition. Perhaps very positive and constructive undertakings in their core, these went way beyond the Pauline advice and very quickly at that. Suddenly, we were seeking re-establishment of the “Christian Nation”, the impossible notion. We conscripted historians, writers and theologians to re-make the failed argument once again. We no longer sought conversion through personal free will; we sought domination through edicts and laws. We had much initial success and converts, imbuing on the sweet fragrant potion of power. We finally could reshape legislatures and install presidents. All this was truly amazing stuff and here was the pitfall.
You see, the formula turns out to be rather simple as nothing feeds power better than certainty. Nothing nourishes certainty better than one-dimensional propaganda and nothing creates better propaganda than a five (four or three is even better) point program. Forget about the nuances and impartiality, this stuff is for the weak and indecisive. Let’s form power blocks instead; and be as influential and decisive as possible.
Certain key types in the movement and their outside friends smelled the opportunity miles away. Savvy political operators saw an incredibly easy opportunity to seize a substantial chunk of electorate with incredible dare. Of course, this has never been about taking over the party but rather the other way around, as it has always been. And remembering propaganda does not like complexity the whole movement was stripped off many of its essential elements, soon emerging re-made in the Republican Party image. The church leaders, inebriated with newly found importance, never let on the deception by essentially sticking to a three-point agenda: gay rights, abortion and laisser-faire capitalism. The Republican Party never really cared about the first two and was only too happy to pull the throttle into highest gear on the third. Happy to surrender the pontificating tribune on the gay rights, they took the country, unchecked by ever tilting and docile electorate, into the land of many extremes. Human rights, equality (of opportunity at least) and societal economic well-being were thrown out of the window. Helping the poor or healthcare for the middle classes was no longer hip. And the church stood by not only unconcerned but smiling along the way.
They could drive their three pony carriage as far as they wanted in the newly recast “Christian Nation”. The healing and encouraging Christ of the masses was no longer on the agenda, on the church agenda as the state had never cared in the first place. No, now the Christ was wearing armour, carried a sword and ardently fought infidels. He passionately hated abortionists, loved flashy televangelists and longed to send all gays to the gallows. To claim the agency of the new “christ” in charge of the nation we needed to be constantly on the look-out for the attack from the ungodly. The churches become increasingly mobilized – more so in the political realm. We wrote petitions and held placards, were quick to condemn and slow to self-assess. The line between the state and the church has gradually become so blurry that some of our leaders have seen it fit to call for assassinations of foreign leaders and to condemn entire countries to perdition. Sometimes we have become so deluded as even to misunderstand that we were simply used. The turning point arrived at the time of fateful 1980 presidential elections when the evangelicals were persuaded to support religiously nebulous Ronald Reagan against an avowedly Christian Jimmy Carter. Mr. Reagan of course pandered to the illusion of “Christian State” while Carter clearly treated the state not as an extension of the church. This was his main failing in the eyes of many caught up in partisanship while ignoring his historic peace seeking efforts in the Middle East (Camp David Accord) and vis-à-vis the Soviets (anti-ballistic treaty). Pity…
To follow, the first fruit of our new political order, Mr. Reagan, busted the unions and opened the flood of cheap labour across the southern border; made deals with the oily Satan and sent the proceeds to enflame Central America; denuded the middle class and sent jobs to China. The results, followed by his able successors including pliable Mr. Clinton, did wait to materialize. The country now struggles with economic powerlessness, corporations post ever-increasing profits, the middle class can longer afford a physician and still nuke-less Iran poses the biggest threat to the world’s security.
So what about the church? By and large there is hardly anything new to report from the evangelical ranks. What is worse is that instead of taking a pause to ponder, we have gotten dragged right into so called Culture Wars. To advance this agenda most effectively our handlers seek persuade us that that we live in the “Christian Nation” in the first place and that this nation (i.e. this individual Christian) needs our urgently help as it is going to Hell in the hand basket. To make matters more apparent some portray certain cultural and political shifts as example of inexorable progression downward. It is not always easy of course and requires some considerable amnesia mixed with partial facts. Forget the habitual orgies of the Roman Empire, religious slaughter of the Middle Ages or massive drug use of 1960s. Do not consider that countries where abortion is illegal (should be a subject of a separate discussion) typically have higher abortion rates than those where it is more or less legal, or that favourable gay legislations have failed to produce any more gays (yet another discussion). Disregard all this and close yours eyes, very tight and it is scary out there and we are all going down. Down we may be going but unlikely for the reason that it is worse now than it has ever been. If in doubt just recall Ecclesiastes.
Surely nothing could be more futile than Culture Wars and yet it is pervasive. Mounting yet another defence of the Christian Nation we search for Islamo-Fascists, chase the illegals and bash the gays. Please understand that I am not calling for performance of homosexual rites or Islamic prayers in the church. This of course is contrary to the Bible, and yet following Paul’s advice, I find it hard to sit judgement on those outside as it is God’s prerogative. Besides when armed with a banner depicting Mohammed in the flames of Hell I do not look very approachable to my newly arrived neighbours from Pakistan, do I?
Listening to Jesus
Whatever our beliefs regarding the end of the world, the timing of the tribulation or rupture, one thing is absolutely unmistakable – “Christian State” was never going to a be a reality. The closer we move to the end of times worse Christians are going to be treated by the world. Gospel of Mathew 24-9 reads “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, you will be hated by all nations because of me”. Regardless of your timing beliefs, the general state of the relationship between Christian and the state is ultimately expected to significantly deteriorate. If Jesus said that it will happen why do we fight for something quite the opposite – “Christian State”?
So what role does the church play in the modern world? This is for this specific question that I mentioned William Wilberforce, a British parliamentarian of the 19th century who fought and prevailed in the struggle to abolish slave trade in the British Empire. Aside from being a Member of Parliament, Wilberforce was also a dedicated Christian who, acting out of his spiritual convictions, righted the cruel injustices of the slave trade. The lucrative and repugnant practice that was contrary to just about any set of morals, let alone the teachings of Christ. Wilberforce did not fight this issue on the basis of a platform of compromises but as a singular evil waiting to be excoriated and purged. Although a private supporter of Tories did not seek a particular party platform or positions of influence other than to advance his singular cause that he deemed righteous. He succeeded - the slave trade in the Empire was abolished and his contribution is still celebrated as a great achievement that had brought glory to Christ.
We do not know when the end will come and that the only true Christian State will follow the second coming in the meanwhile we have work to do. So instead of wasting our efforts on preserving “Christian State” let’s spread the word of salvation through visible, proud and Godly actions or justice and mercy in front of the whole world.
In doing so we should not be claimed or conscripted by any political party and act on the basis of our conscience and free will. We should be involved with the state, unabashedly and openly as Christians, without being goaded onto any particular platform that demands conformity and compromise. We should be free to choose whatever issues are important to us individually and act however dictated by our conscience. Only in this way we can follow Pauline advice in the closest fashion possible. We should stop longing for the “Christian Nation” that has never been and bring about change from within.
[1] The word “Lord” is used for the dating of the document, however, this is argued to be a common practice shared by secularists and religionists alike.
[2] Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bay and Subjects if Tripoli of Barbary.
[3] Standard Oil, DuPont etc.
He was Constantine or rather Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantine, the soon to be sole ruler of the immense Roman Empire. Very soon as it was about to unfold with Constantine consumed by his fateful quest to overturn the last stronghold of defence that was the Eternal City itself, still under control of his archrival Maxentius. The Tiber, the last obstacle, was finally within his perceptive gaze and the future of the Empire was within his grasp. Few hours later, on the late afternoon October 28 312 AD, Constantine will have enough wine to bathe in, the decisive battle of the Milvian Bridge will be over and Maxentius will be dead caught in the treacherous Tiber currents upon his hasty retreat from the slaughter raging behind. Could have this ended differently? Impossible! God had spoken to Constantine through a sign of the cross just a day earlier. Caught completely mesmerized, Constantine’s face shone brilliantly as he clearly saw a cross rising up in the sky above tomorrow’s battlefield. The voice of the Lord came to him and announced “In this sign you will conquer!” It could not have ended differently or at least to those who take the story at its face legendary value.
Constantine Legacy – Emergence of “Christian State”
And if in need of further proof of Constantine intentions one is inexorably led to the Edict of Milan that proclaimed legalization of Christianity and complete freedom of practise for its followers. What followed was a remarkable transformation of this vibrant and growing sect into perhaps the most powerful religious movement in human history. This event and many other similar historical turns should clearly be celebrated by anyone claiming an allegiance to Christ. And yet it is not always the case. In fact, frequently it is quite the opposite. And the message of what has followed since is quite a mixed one at the very best.
The famed edict and other important events that followed hardly propelled Christianity into something worthy of Christ – pure, incorrupt and inspiring. Instead it appears that Christ was set aside for political expediencies of the powerful, first and foremost. What ensued could hardly be characterized as victory for Christianity – savagery, intolerance and wars of just about any length, size or reason. This is hardly a palatable canvass to further the faith and many have shied away, quite understandably, from any association with such besmirched past. So much so that contemporary Christians much rather forget crusades, inquisition and slavery, the less glorious and appetising bits of our past. Forget they may but not before some facts are examined.
Now, some would like to vehemently object to the usage of the unsavoury and sometimes outright gruesome past as having anything to do with authentic Christianity of the Bible. And my answer to these folks “You are absolutely right!” What were the theological foundations behind the crusades? Why were many a non-conformist savagely burned at the stake? Which part of Christ’s legacy elevated one ethnic group over another? Of course, the answer, again and again, is a resounding “NO”. The fact however is that had it been not for the Bible the powerful would have conjured up other excuses to subject the poor; and had it been not for the Bible the cruel would have twisted the arms of the weak all the same. The Bible was simply used as a façade to undertake all kinds of ungodly acts. Remember how the pious Henry VIII rejected the Catholic Mass to facilitate his unlawful divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon; how frumpish and very protestant Oliver Cromwell killed, raging against episcopacy; how very catholic Luis XIV built his unitary kingdom by rupturing peace with protestant Huguenots; and how Isabella of Castile endeavoured to commit her own version of Holocaust. Clearly all these avowedly Christian rulers fell hopelessly far behind anything even remotely resembling Christianity.
Am I trying to pick the most unappetizing pieces of history to the make the point? Yes, to some extent. What I am not saying, hovewer, is that the “Christian States” were completely evil and grotesque. Not at all as evidence aplenty of great piety in matters of political deeds, evoking cathedrals and inspiring art work. What I am saying is that these states on the totality of their deeds do not fare any better than those of infidels. What’s worse is that sometimes they fared distinctly worse when in direct comparison. Just recall the difference in treatment of Jews between the Spanish crown and its rivalling predecessors – the Moors, Islamic invaders.
No wonder that not many in the Christian circles celebrate the Middle Ages, precisely the times when Christianity and State were the inseparable. Even the fresh winds of reformation failed to produce much improvement in the state affairs while making incredibly progressive strides in all matters of theology. Maybe the state and church do not really mix, just like oil and water?
“Oh sure that was in the Middle Ages but what about now?” this is an inevitable question. Right!
And what do we observe? The general amelioration of the human condition replete in trappings of secular enlightenment! Hot secular fires of French revolution, nuanced Dutch mercantilism and staunchly communal Swiss provided much fodder for new ideas and ensuing developments. Now, we were still very far from any sort of an ideal and harmony as well-evidenced by indisputable evils of world wars and genocides of the past hundred years. And yet, our appreciation of multi-faceted nature of God’s creation has resulted in less intolerance, better cooperation and fairer laws. And all this is taking place at the time when the notion of “Christian State” is becoming ever more obsolete – fascinating…
God’s Own Experiment
OK all rhetoric aside, let’s talk about God’s own experiment in church-state creation - the institution of the state of Israel - the experiment that failed to produce anywhere close to the desired result. God Almighty gave chance and again to the recalcitrant sons of Israel only to witness perennially sinful disobedience cropping up, first in men’s hearts and then in their actions. God persevered and provided countless mulligan opportunities for redemption and restoration. God grew exasperated with his obstreperous children. He gave them carrots and sticks. Carrots of promises failed to work, sticks of devastation and defeats did not do much better. Finally, God brought his ultimate and unbeatable trump card – the sacrifice of his only begotten son on the cross. The emergence of Jesus drove the final nail in the coffin of church-state. From now on, church and state will go their separate ways. From now on faith and faith alone will be a uniting factor for those under the banner of the Lord. Territory, skin colour or language will no longer be a determinant of those serving the Most High. In fact, families will be divided and brother will rise against his sibling and parents will disown their own as the eternal boundary of the final judgement to come will cut through the most unlikely of places not sparing anything including the bonds of kinship and blood. And if in doubt on this count just listen to Jesus himself in John 18:36 – “My Kingdom does not belong to this world” said he when questioned by the authorative Pilot. Had it been he would not have taken up the Cross.
This is not new, of course, as just about any biblical scholar would concede that the prevalent Jewish expectations of that day were clearly at odds with the message of salvation. Yes, Jews expected the Warrior Messiah or President Messiah and instead received a Weak and Humble Messiah (Isaiah 54). Nothing emphases the disparity of expectations and reality more than Jesus’ refusal to deviate from the matters of the heart and plunge into the matters of the state. He did not deny or concede any taxation authority to Caesar; he was so utterly discreet as to use a fish’s mouth to produce a coin to pay taxes; and he hardly picked a quarrel with anyone but the teachers of the law. If anything he broke the rules, the rule the earthly state cannot stand without. He healed on Sabbath and eschewed ceremonial washing; he refused to see his family in the middle of a sermon; and made friends with the outcasts. If anything he was a rebel and an anarchist. He even fed the five thousand gratis without bothering with the moral implications of a free unearned meal; he destroyed public swine property in favour of delivering one little lunatic free of evil. He was above ordinary; he was not earthly except for his suffering; he was of God.
Maybe I am making too many strides in the wrong direction but what is clear is that Jesus went out of his way to make sure that his Kingdom was to be outside of the world as we know it and his singular allegiance was to the Father who was the only one to command his steps. These were not earthly state rules that he ever introduced; these were the matters unbound by earthly edicts; these were the matters of one’s heart and one’s heart alone.
Evidently, there were some incidences in which we might see a different angry Jesus, Jesus paying attention to burdensome Earth just as much as to the lofty skies, Jesus who sought an establishment of earthly rules as much as those outside of immediate human condition. His fiery onslaught on the market stalls in the temple is sometimes cited as one of such instances. Since he physically chose to overturn the tables of the money changers then by extension he in fact was willing to impose his ironclad will on unacceptably lax norms of the society. All is very well, except for the very fact that this took place on the grounds of the Holy Temple. And this can never be ignored - “My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a ‘den of robbers”
Just imagine Jesus verbally attacking a prostitute on some market corner anywhere else, admonishing her for peddling her sinful ways – impossible! Jesus of the Bible could not have done that save for the very temple itself. And this is very significant. Remember that Jesus came to lucidly demarcate the line of decision, as earthly rules would no longer be a conduit of God’s will. It was Jesus’ very own shed blood that was going to determine the eternal destiny of the human race. However all this would come to pass a little bit later. For now, he was still treading the planet and the temple was the very link that held God in touch with his people. But people grew callous and did not take heed. They prayed publicly but cursed privately; they washed their hands thoroughly but left their hearts un-bathed blithely; they padded their pockets contently and yet forgot the poor frequently. So far they strayed from God’s will that even the Holy Temple was no longer off-limits. The only solution was to rip apart this very connection and leave the people with no viable choice but Jesus. But before Roman legions could actually destroy the physical temple, Jesus himself had to take an authority over it by claiming it with his fury. They will go together - the Temple up in flames and Jesus up to eternal glory. This was final and irreversible. This was never about the state and was always about the faith.
Pauline Admonitions
All these arguments might be convincing enough but what if I am mistaken, and that after all Jesus was as much about our earthly arrangements as about our celestial well-being. The only way to test this in my estimation is to proceed further down the Cannon, assessing the very rules of such earthly entanglements. In the scripture apostle Paul seems to be the one to go by. And that’s where we should look. Paul of course was extremely prolific on just about any misconception and trap that could befall the church. Whether it had to do with church duties, customs or general tenors of behaviour, Paul was always there to admonish, correct and encourage. When it comes to the outside world save for actual evangelistic advice, Paul becomes significantly sparser - at first as if to appear unconcerned with the fate of unsaved and disobedient. It is not so, of course as he did find few occasions to state his position in terse abundance.
In the Letter to Corinthians 5-9:11 we hear “In the letter that I wrote you I told you not to associate with immoral people. Now did I mean pagans who are immoral or greedy or are thieves, or who worship idols? To avoid them you would have to get out of the world completely. What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a believer but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don’t even sit down to eat with such a person”. Now what exactly is Paul telling us here? Many things really, but what is a truly inescapable is that the rules of engagement that Paul sets out for the church are definitely not the same as those applied to the rest of the world. On the basis of this statement it appears that confusing the notions of the church and the state (the world) is nearly impossible. The state cannot be the church and the state cannot be the church. By extension, the notion of Christian cannot be applied to both at the same time. The competing parties cannot possibly share the same name with completely harmonic equanimity.
And if still in doubt Paul follows this up with yet another unmistakable salvo - “After all, it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says “Remove the evil person from your fellowship”. Adhering to Paul’s admonishing the once celebrated adulterer was driven from the fellowship and the lesson was forgotten by many who in the centuries to follow would continue seeking to reconcile irreconcilable – church and state.
Persisting with “Christian Nation”
Paul’s direct call for separate judgement on the issues of the church and the matters of the state is scintillatingly succinct and axiomatic. There is no further need to discuss and postulate; the two just do not mix. And yet many under the guise of the Bible bolted in the precisely opposite direction. Starting with Constantine and continuing with modern day politicians and clerics many affirm the false need to preserve our National Christian Principles. I cannot fault Constantine personally for his conversion to the sign of the cross or for his liberalization of the Christian church from the jaws of persecution. The former is a very personal spiritual matter and the latter is the extension of the godly morality that calls “free will” as the cornerstone principle of genuine conversion. What I do fault Constantine and his numerous successors for is the usurpation of the name of God for mostly carnal purposes of power and influence - precisely the wrong tack on the way to discovering God’s truth. This was the time when “Christian Nation” was born. Obviously not everyone agreed. But for times of tyrannical uniformity such voices were mostly silent.
However with modern plurality and liberation of speech the smouldering dispute caught on some real flames. This dispute goes to the very core of issues that we face on just about daily basis. One camp, with secularists and religionists alike, see the church and the state as an odd, uneasy pair. Another camp, made of just about exclusively of religionists, attempts to assert its influence on the state through claims of spiritual heritage. It is if attempting to say that there ever has been such a time when a truly godly state was in existence. Now being under siege this state requires all the help it can get and more. There is no place where this debate rages fiercer than in and about the United States of America.
This, founded on the very best principles of democracy, state is of course a very young sapling in terms of the world history. Diverse and ever-changing thanks to immigration and demographics, it has always struggled to find its singular identity. Being the foremost protector of speech, a definition of such identity hardly lands itself to any unique cause outside of the very fiat by which the country was founded in the first place – the Constitution. It is the only immovable aspect of the American lore that attempts to provide any degree of clarity as to why the place came into being in the first place. But since the Constitution values individual liberties and protections of speech as its cornerstones, it has never really stood in the way of societal evolution it has never been able to effectively stifle change, any change whatever it might mean. There are not ethical associations, religious tests or royal lineages that are protected by the fateful document. What really holds it together?
State Incarnate – A Mistake?
There are a thousand of answers to this question. One of the most popular explanations of the elusive adhesiveness is the belief in some special divine blessing that rests firmly above the blissful nation. The notion is certainly a very uniting and extremely uplifting one, providing much in a way of proverbial American swagger and aplomb. These of course vacillate with the ever-ebbing fortunes of the modern state – wars, crime waves and market crashes come and go and whenever there is too much of a good thing at any point of time, the talk of blessings and the lack thereof becomes pervasive.
Suddenly, the notion of a state transmogrifies in an individual who could be cursed, saved or blessed depending on his behaviour. It did of course happen during the God’s experiment with the church-state of Israel but could it still happening now? I would just personally turn to Paul. Alas, he gives us little in a way of support. Without it, I can only conclude that “Nation” cannot have personal attributes of salvation but rather it is a temporary concept that is essentially unrelated to the Godly purposes vis-à-vis the humankind. Again, if we take Jesus at his face value whatever stately god there is - on the state money, or on the state seal or in the shadows of the state flag, it cannot be possibly God of the Bible. Instead we are dealing with kind of a civic religion that seeks conversions in a purely one-dimensional, physical sense. Above, what commonality could there be between the civic religion acclaiming the virtues of democracy while the church inherently strives for something quite the opposite – theocracy?
“No, no” I hear the voices of the discontented, “That cannot be so, the Christian God of the Bible gave this nation (USA) to the faithful and now its enemies are taking it away. God help us!” OK, I will shut my eyes, close my ears and forget about Paul or at least what he had to say back in Corinthians. Let’s indulge ourselves in saying that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation under the God Almighty. Let’s assume that being such this nation could be treated as individual and not just any individual but a church member. And remembering Paul and Jesus just momentarily, let’s assess this new member as Jesus estimated Pharisees and Paul judged the immoral man in Corinth – by their deeds.
First of all, the inception or rather conversion itself as in the case of the United States they have to be one and the same. And being that the United States is the child of God it had to be have been founded and converted through a message delivered by Godly evangelists and apostles. Upon a cursory review nobody fits the profile better than the ever-ephemeral founding fathers. These legendary men must have been an equivalent of either Paul or Peter judging by their creation, they must have had an incontrovertible Godly character and bond that would have left precise and unmistakable Christian legacy. And here I hear “Houston we have a problem!” Not only the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers fail to produce incontrovertible Christian credentials but most of them left a totally different witness, the witness of Deism – a very popular Unitary view that while acknowledging the God Creator it left very little room for him to continue affecting his creation thus leaving the reason as the only viable etalon of human endeavours. Deism, while allowing for God to subsist, basically turned its back on anything supernatural including Jesus himself. And this is not all as Thomas Jefferson, as an example, frequently remarked on the evils of the organized religion (i.e. various Christian denominations), George Washington persistently eschewed Presbyterian communion and Benjamin Franklin attended Masonic lodges.
Jefferson actually went as far as writing Jefferson Bible that while extracting the best wisdoms of Jesus did not include his miracles or resurrection. George Washington repeatedly refused, in writing or otherwise, to acknowledge anything that had to do with his spiritual beliefs. Thomas Paine was actually decried by some Christians of the day as an atheist. This is a very colourful picture indeed, and if one adds the very Constitution itself, the document that utterly fails to mention God[1] even once, into the mix, the account of the presumed conversion becomes exceedingly sketchy.
Now, the Declaration of Independence of 1776 did mention the word “God” or to be exact “nature’s God”. It also evokes Creator and universal morals, much in keeping with the discussion to follow in the next mini-chapter. There is obviously nothing to say that this was the God of the Bible, moreover given the deist beliefs of the founding fathers, “nature’s God” seem to fit quite well into the picture where Christianity does not play a role. And if in doubt read the following from so-called Treaty of Tripoli which was solemnly presented for ratification to the US Congress in 1796 by non other than John Adams “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”[2]
What about the state affects? Well, the Pledge of Allegiance was written over hundred years after the birth of the state and thus cannot be considered a part of the founding lore. Besides, its original version did not contain any reference to God until changed by the US Congress in 1954 after the intensive lobbying effort, among others, undertaken by Knights of Columbus, a fraternal catholic association with involvement in masonry according to some. The fiery patriotism of the Civil War put “In God We Trust” on the Treasury coins and in 1957 the same was applied to the state paper currency. Again, despite the evocative in nature, “In God We Trust” is hardly surrounded by many Christian symbols while neighbouring on many a very cryptic, almost Masonic, one. So what can one deduce here? Not very much other than to say that these clearly played no part in the founding of the state and any associated Godly, specifically Christian, ties are muted at best.
Another, oft used, argument is that the American state must be “Christian State” since overwhelming majority of the citizens at the time of its funding were Christians. However, this does not seem to be the case either. Undoubtedly many came to the foreign shores in search of the religious freedom but they were likely in the minority as many original colonies were of purely economic nature such as Virginia Company. And if in much doubt, just consider the revolution itself which erupted and was primarily fought on the economics. Just recall the famed Boston Tea Party and “No taxation without representation”. And who did they have to separate from if not from the “Christian State” itself – Great Britain? Besides, according to some estimates the regular church attendance in the late 1700s in the United States was estimated by some to be significantly lower than that of Europe in the same time period. Go figure…
How about applying a test of deeds? It might work. Well, I do not think so, unless dropping a couple big ones on Japanese civilians or gratuitously assaulting numerous sovereign nations would qualify as righteous. “But this is now when the nation is corrupt and back-slid” say some. “Look into the incorruptible yonder of the past!” Sure except that I am frequently tempted to quote the Ecclesiastes 7:10 “Do not say “Why were the good old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions”.
Alright let’s give some people slack and look. Oh, where are those Indians that used to live here and now no more; and why they are fields full of slaves who obtained such favourable conditions at a point of a gun sanctioned by the very state we are testing? Not convenient, I see. How come there is so much vice, green and corruption? Why do the rich live leisurely off “trusty[3]” wealth while poor fish for scraps in the gutter? Why did you burn Salem “witches” on the basis of hearsay? Are you not the newly converted son of God? Where are the deeds of your newly found faith?
Of course the imaginary questioning above is utterly ridiculous as the notion that a state could be blessed, cursed, saved or damned. People in it – yes, the state itself no, IT IS NOT A PERSON. Alas, the exceeding economic prosperity and might of the American state has made it difficult to refute the preposterous. When arguing the obvious with the proponents of the state-personhood complex I cannot help but marvel at their inconsistencies since the United States came into upper reaches of the prosperity orbit precisely at the time when is falling from Godly grace into damnation and immorality, and not at the time of its pure innocence of a new convert. And if this is not enough what do we say about the prosperity of the ungodly ranging from the cosily hedonistic European socialism and the freshly polluted skies of the heathen China, on to the oily Satanic riches of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. Undoubtedly, the notion of statehood personified in the view of God is most likely utter nonsense. And if this is the case, than the pining of some for the elusive “Christian Nation” is in vain.
Now does it mean we should take the state out of the church altogether? Of course, not as Paul commanded us praying for our rulers. However, he specifically said to pray for peace that emanate from such rulers and not for their conversion. Did Paul not care about the salvation of the rulers? Surely he did and he said so quite profoundly in Acts, however, “praying for the rulers” is likely meant “rulers” as a general notion, as those representing the state. And since not the state but the people in it can be converted, the best hope that we have from the state is peace and freedom to practise our beliefs.
Ungodly Morals?
This was a truly remarkable gathering spot. It could hardly be used for any public meetings as the very centre of it was beset by an unkempt garden that once in a while was restored to some surprising momentary glories by lackadaisical state gardeners when bothered to take a break from their smoking intermissions to do some pruning, planting and weeding. As for meetings private it was hardly conducive either as heavy traffic swarmed all around suffocating anyone looking for a moment of private silence and contemplation. And as to make the surroundings utterly unbearable the city planners had managed to lace the place with irresistible attractions. As a result, humanity kept bouncing between numerous governmental offices nearby, traversing between ballet and dramatics of two theatres facing the square and if that was not enough fighting with bright-shouldered hordes of steely shoppers scourging about in search of rare state offerings.
And yet some folk still used the unlikely location for very, very private meetings. The place was the square in front of Moscow’s Bolshoy Theatre and the calendar was set somewhere in the 1970s. The Soviet Union was just about to outlive its demoralized self and the people that gathered here were “Golubiye” or “Blue”, a zippy sobriquet for homosexuals in Russian. The homosexuality was illegal in the workers cradle as the party leaders preferred much uniformity in all matters including very personal ones. After all it was just easier to govern that way. Harassed and ridiculed, the alternate lifestyle community vainly searched various ways to remain inconspicuous. One of the busiest thoroughfares of the state seemed to provide a good cover and if asked pretending to be in some theatre or department store line-up was a good one. The deficits in the workers state were galore and queues aplenty – a perfect cover.
Then or now, such state of affairs would be unthinkable in the United States or anywhere else in the western world. And yet when measured to the strictest Biblical standards such heavy-handed attention to sin would be anything but immoral, at least to the liking of many pining for “Christian Nation”. But how is it possible that an avowedly atheistic state with its ideological core solely rooted in the doctrines of materialism had such a law? Honestly I do not know exactly. But whatever the reasons, it goes on to show that states are just amoral beings that from time to time happen to match biblical morality. And this is no surprise since everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, has morals that come from God.
Just consider Letter to Romans 1:18 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”. You see all men were endowed with basic understanding of God and his morals, not only Christian men but all men. Obviously all men did not follow God by not giving either thanks or glory. And yet at the same time some unwise and mostly ungodly men such as many a Greek philosopher or a Roman policy maker recognized from time immemorial certain, more convenient, pieces of the puzzle that could contribute to betterment of their version of social order. Therefore it is not surprising that just about any society that manages to function for any significant length of time employs very similar moral structures in their laws.
If one thinks that he can steal or kill with impunity in Islamic Iran, or Buddhist Nepal or atheistic China is likely to be disappointed upon finding of facts. And this is not all of course as for example abortion is currently illegal in Iran as it was in the Soviet Union. Their expressed reasons differed but their results were similar. And yet in the United States the abortion is not only legal following the Roe vs. Wade of 1973, but was also legal for the better part of the first hundred years of the country’s existence. And if you in doubt regarding my logical twists on the matter of morality and how it is available to all human kind, please consider perusing some timeless musings of the venerable C.S. Lewis in his “Mere Christianity”.
Now, let us proceed further down the passage quoting the Letter to Romans 1:21:23 “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles”. Very interesting piece since it, at the first glance it refutes my previous argument, making it impossible to claim wisdom and yet be at odds with the Almighty. But do not give up yet. Besides, could there be such a thing as two different wisdoms – the worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom. One wisdom is incompatible with the rejection of God and the other is not – emphasising once again that the purely material matters of the world is not what concerns Paul in this passage. In fact, had it been otherwise could we be witnessing today such magnificent technologically and so deficient spiritually structures such as Egyptian pyramids, Burmese Buddhist temples and New York skyscrapers. Hardly! Could we be sending utterly baffling and complex chunks of metal into the open vistas of cosmos with the live being in them and then actually getting them back safe, most of the time? Inconceivable! Yes, men could be extremely sagacious and yet extremely foolish all at the same time. Yes, it is possible that men in their earthly wisdom used some of the godly tools and yet coming short of the truth itself. Yes, God’ creation is dual, it is material and spiritual, it is ungrateful and pious, both at the same time.
And if still in doubt consider ploughing further down the Letter to Romans 1:24:25 “Therefore God gave them over in their sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than Creator – who is forever praised. Amen!” I say “Bingo!” God gave them over to their shameful desires and he is not asking us to drag them back in any but a spiritual sense”. Can the spirituality be overridden with laws of the state?
The answer is the resounding “NO” the laws of the state are ineffective of changing the spiritual condition. Just look back at the any time when avowedly Christian states were presiding over the world affairs. Whether the absolutist France under the very Catholic Luis XIV or England under the very Protestant Elisabeth I, the world has been wallowing in misery, wretchedness and senseless wars. And if the current nominal state of affairs is any indication then the last time I checked, the Lutheran country of Denmark with God plastered all over its state symbols and Church irretrievably edged into its Constitution is viewed by many as an utter pit of hedonism. Where does it leave the United States with its Masonic currency symbols and no mention of God in the Constitution?
A very interesting question considering that according to some, apostate Europeans are no match for pious Americans in the God’s department. Clearly, there is not a single shred of correlation between the stately usages of God’s names while ascribing them to worldly power and actual political, social or religious outcomes. Remember “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s…” give the governments freedom to act in their collective realm and leave the spiritual realm to its own devices of the individual free will. Alas, we got it the other way around with our spiritual leaders continually striving to enter the political arena while advocating ever-diminishing governmental influence over the matters of the increasingly individualistic “dog-eat-dog” world of modern economics and social order. The latter statement is a very interesting policy making argument and perhaps should be pursued in a separate discussion. For now why do not we attend to the church and the state some more?
Swinging to the Extremes
And here comes the tasty bit. What are we, as Christians, supposed to do in this world? What our involvement should really be? How do we influence those around us? Or do we pursue influencing anyone at all? And so on and so forth. This is an extremely legitimate and ever-current discussion, isn’t it? But sometimes we tend to jump into is without considering some of the underlying positions such as our relationship to the state in which we live. That’s why I have sought to bring some clarity into the state-church discussion - the conversation that has been necessary before delving further into some practical applications.
Before considering some historical examples (little repetition, sorry), it is suffice to remind everyone about the Letter to Corinthians 5-9:11. I personally find the Pauline advice to be the most viable impartation of Godly wisdom in the matter. I.e. do not disengage from the world and yet do not judge the world but judge those inside the fellowship. Now, about the history. In the early going it was obviously very tough when Christians were persecuted, whipped and martyred with harrowing regularity. And yet they did not withdraw from society, spreading God’s word and message of salvation. The results were astounding as the small unknown sect was becoming ever more influential and present in the public discourse. It was dangerous and yet inspiring to so many who sought to effect the change from within the heart.
All this of course changed when Emperor Constantine, perhaps acting on some very constructive instincts, set forth the motion by which the world came to be dominated, judged and reshaped by the church - much to the contrary to Paul’s advice. The results were of course less than desirable. Then came the advanced philosophies of enlightenment and politics and industrialization pushing the church from the centre stage. Many at this time, especially in the Protestant circles, swiftly retreated more or less completely from the public arena. Only a small number remained with the likes of William Wilberforce labouring in the public eye.
An overwhelming number of evangelicals, specifically North American evangelicals, waiting for an immediate coming of the Messiah avoided the state as much as it was logistically possible on other hand. The pendulum had swung from one extreme into the next and many Christian found themselves in contravention to the Paul’s good advice once again. The more secular the society around them became the deeper into isolation they dug.
By the 1960’s they had enough – winds of drugs, sex and rock-n-roll blew in too uncomfortably for many and unexpectedly for just about all. Many understood that society found itself in the midst of an incredible soul-searching exercise. And just to add few spoonfuls into the mix: the questionable wars in Indochina, sky high oil prices at the pump and Roe vs. Wade - the challenges to the prevailing cocooned Christian position of then become apparent. And yet we blew once again with some of our leaders jumping on the pendulum and swinging where it has not been for a couple of centuries. Now, once again, we wanted to dominate, judge and reshape.
The state was to be re-made by an active show of political unified force through such movements and organizations as Silent Majority and Christian Coalition. Perhaps very positive and constructive undertakings in their core, these went way beyond the Pauline advice and very quickly at that. Suddenly, we were seeking re-establishment of the “Christian Nation”, the impossible notion. We conscripted historians, writers and theologians to re-make the failed argument once again. We no longer sought conversion through personal free will; we sought domination through edicts and laws. We had much initial success and converts, imbuing on the sweet fragrant potion of power. We finally could reshape legislatures and install presidents. All this was truly amazing stuff and here was the pitfall.
You see, the formula turns out to be rather simple as nothing feeds power better than certainty. Nothing nourishes certainty better than one-dimensional propaganda and nothing creates better propaganda than a five (four or three is even better) point program. Forget about the nuances and impartiality, this stuff is for the weak and indecisive. Let’s form power blocks instead; and be as influential and decisive as possible.
Certain key types in the movement and their outside friends smelled the opportunity miles away. Savvy political operators saw an incredibly easy opportunity to seize a substantial chunk of electorate with incredible dare. Of course, this has never been about taking over the party but rather the other way around, as it has always been. And remembering propaganda does not like complexity the whole movement was stripped off many of its essential elements, soon emerging re-made in the Republican Party image. The church leaders, inebriated with newly found importance, never let on the deception by essentially sticking to a three-point agenda: gay rights, abortion and laisser-faire capitalism. The Republican Party never really cared about the first two and was only too happy to pull the throttle into highest gear on the third. Happy to surrender the pontificating tribune on the gay rights, they took the country, unchecked by ever tilting and docile electorate, into the land of many extremes. Human rights, equality (of opportunity at least) and societal economic well-being were thrown out of the window. Helping the poor or healthcare for the middle classes was no longer hip. And the church stood by not only unconcerned but smiling along the way.
They could drive their three pony carriage as far as they wanted in the newly recast “Christian Nation”. The healing and encouraging Christ of the masses was no longer on the agenda, on the church agenda as the state had never cared in the first place. No, now the Christ was wearing armour, carried a sword and ardently fought infidels. He passionately hated abortionists, loved flashy televangelists and longed to send all gays to the gallows. To claim the agency of the new “christ” in charge of the nation we needed to be constantly on the look-out for the attack from the ungodly. The churches become increasingly mobilized – more so in the political realm. We wrote petitions and held placards, were quick to condemn and slow to self-assess. The line between the state and the church has gradually become so blurry that some of our leaders have seen it fit to call for assassinations of foreign leaders and to condemn entire countries to perdition. Sometimes we have become so deluded as even to misunderstand that we were simply used. The turning point arrived at the time of fateful 1980 presidential elections when the evangelicals were persuaded to support religiously nebulous Ronald Reagan against an avowedly Christian Jimmy Carter. Mr. Reagan of course pandered to the illusion of “Christian State” while Carter clearly treated the state not as an extension of the church. This was his main failing in the eyes of many caught up in partisanship while ignoring his historic peace seeking efforts in the Middle East (Camp David Accord) and vis-à-vis the Soviets (anti-ballistic treaty). Pity…
To follow, the first fruit of our new political order, Mr. Reagan, busted the unions and opened the flood of cheap labour across the southern border; made deals with the oily Satan and sent the proceeds to enflame Central America; denuded the middle class and sent jobs to China. The results, followed by his able successors including pliable Mr. Clinton, did wait to materialize. The country now struggles with economic powerlessness, corporations post ever-increasing profits, the middle class can longer afford a physician and still nuke-less Iran poses the biggest threat to the world’s security.
So what about the church? By and large there is hardly anything new to report from the evangelical ranks. What is worse is that instead of taking a pause to ponder, we have gotten dragged right into so called Culture Wars. To advance this agenda most effectively our handlers seek persuade us that that we live in the “Christian Nation” in the first place and that this nation (i.e. this individual Christian) needs our urgently help as it is going to Hell in the hand basket. To make matters more apparent some portray certain cultural and political shifts as example of inexorable progression downward. It is not always easy of course and requires some considerable amnesia mixed with partial facts. Forget the habitual orgies of the Roman Empire, religious slaughter of the Middle Ages or massive drug use of 1960s. Do not consider that countries where abortion is illegal (should be a subject of a separate discussion) typically have higher abortion rates than those where it is more or less legal, or that favourable gay legislations have failed to produce any more gays (yet another discussion). Disregard all this and close yours eyes, very tight and it is scary out there and we are all going down. Down we may be going but unlikely for the reason that it is worse now than it has ever been. If in doubt just recall Ecclesiastes.
Surely nothing could be more futile than Culture Wars and yet it is pervasive. Mounting yet another defence of the Christian Nation we search for Islamo-Fascists, chase the illegals and bash the gays. Please understand that I am not calling for performance of homosexual rites or Islamic prayers in the church. This of course is contrary to the Bible, and yet following Paul’s advice, I find it hard to sit judgement on those outside as it is God’s prerogative. Besides when armed with a banner depicting Mohammed in the flames of Hell I do not look very approachable to my newly arrived neighbours from Pakistan, do I?
Listening to Jesus
Whatever our beliefs regarding the end of the world, the timing of the tribulation or rupture, one thing is absolutely unmistakable – “Christian State” was never going to a be a reality. The closer we move to the end of times worse Christians are going to be treated by the world. Gospel of Mathew 24-9 reads “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, you will be hated by all nations because of me”. Regardless of your timing beliefs, the general state of the relationship between Christian and the state is ultimately expected to significantly deteriorate. If Jesus said that it will happen why do we fight for something quite the opposite – “Christian State”?
So what role does the church play in the modern world? This is for this specific question that I mentioned William Wilberforce, a British parliamentarian of the 19th century who fought and prevailed in the struggle to abolish slave trade in the British Empire. Aside from being a Member of Parliament, Wilberforce was also a dedicated Christian who, acting out of his spiritual convictions, righted the cruel injustices of the slave trade. The lucrative and repugnant practice that was contrary to just about any set of morals, let alone the teachings of Christ. Wilberforce did not fight this issue on the basis of a platform of compromises but as a singular evil waiting to be excoriated and purged. Although a private supporter of Tories did not seek a particular party platform or positions of influence other than to advance his singular cause that he deemed righteous. He succeeded - the slave trade in the Empire was abolished and his contribution is still celebrated as a great achievement that had brought glory to Christ.
We do not know when the end will come and that the only true Christian State will follow the second coming in the meanwhile we have work to do. So instead of wasting our efforts on preserving “Christian State” let’s spread the word of salvation through visible, proud and Godly actions or justice and mercy in front of the whole world.
In doing so we should not be claimed or conscripted by any political party and act on the basis of our conscience and free will. We should be involved with the state, unabashedly and openly as Christians, without being goaded onto any particular platform that demands conformity and compromise. We should be free to choose whatever issues are important to us individually and act however dictated by our conscience. Only in this way we can follow Pauline advice in the closest fashion possible. We should stop longing for the “Christian Nation” that has never been and bring about change from within.
[1] The word “Lord” is used for the dating of the document, however, this is argued to be a common practice shared by secularists and religionists alike.
[2] Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bay and Subjects if Tripoli of Barbary.
[3] Standard Oil, DuPont etc.
