Posted by
CRB on Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:00:34 AM
By Jefferson's standard, per his letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptists, separation meant that the government would not establish a state church.
By the standard of the First Amendment, the government is prohibited from interference in or active participation in religious life:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (italics mine)
Now that we have the simple stuff out of the way, let's talk Biblical standards. The particular question that I want to address is this:
Is it right for the church to confront the government?
Is it right for the church to confront candidates?
Is it right for the church to speak to election matters?
To the first question, yes. John the Baptist confronted Herod and paid with his life. Values in government, even in law, has a place. The promotion of these values can be see in I Tim 2:1-8, where we encourage a justice to allow for peaceful existence (giving the Gospel more opportunity).
To the second, yes. Matters of sin deserve confrontation. Matters of destructive policy deserve equal confrontation. But let's not be too selective. There is as much sin and bad policy in one party as another, from any one candidate as from the other. We must be clear and theological in our approach, not partisan.
That said, I'll be specific. Clinton is willing to use the FBI as a private police force. Those 900 FBI files is suiable evidence. Obama is too close to Hamas and some other questionable relationships. McCain's willingness to limit speech (McCain-Feingold) is an idea that should be corrrected so that it does not go further.
To the third, yes. But we must be ready to pay a price. Some laws are unjust, and the 501(c)(3) rules that were put in place (to limit what LBJ saw in the 1950s as interference to his agenda) are as direct a violation of the First Amendment as is McCain-Feingold. Unjust laws require a response. But our response should not be mere disobedience, but tempered with a call to reform (that is, legislative repentence) for the sake of justice.
There is no separation of church and state when the church is placed under state authority. Do not be intimidated by the Left. (It's pretty transparent -- they want to speak to political issues, and even promote candidates, and get their values into law, but say that somehow "separation" prohibits us but not them. It's so shallow, so hypocritical.) We must respond to that; we should work to maintain liberty (for all) of the heart and mind. Not for the sake of partisanship, but sake of the Gospel.