Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In some of my other questions, I have read that in Christianity, State and churches are kept separate. I am curious to know, is there any concept of Christian state where biblical laws and doctrines are enforced or facilitated? Or Simply Christian are never suppose to strive for a Christian state?

share|improve this question
    
The Kingdom of Israel is a good starting place –  JustinY Sep 10 '12 at 1:59
5  
The separation of Church and State is really a US political concept, not a Christian one. A good answer here would probably need to talk about Romans 13, Augustine and the City of God, the Anabaptist idea of the different roles of church and state. –  DJClayworth Sep 10 '12 at 3:09
    
Were the Puritan efforts -- leaving England for religious freedom -- considered an effort at a Christian State? –  unregistered-matthew7.7 Sep 12 '12 at 11:26
    
@Roger: Research Armenia - they were the first "Christian Nation" in the entire world. –  Greg McNulty Sep 12 '12 at 17:36
add comment

5 Answers

up vote 9 down vote accepted

Christianity does not hold a "church and state must be separate" view at all; that might be part of the US constitution, but : not universal - and to all intents and purposes it is not even correct in the US, since it is quietly acknowledged that you don't stand much chance of election if you are openly non-Christian (regardless of your actual views). Indeed, there are still several US states that have, as part of their state constitution, that you can't hold office unless you believe in God (to all intents and purposes, the Christian God). OK, that sounds like a technicality, until people actually try to enforce it.

Now, let's step away from the US, and look at Europe; there are plenty of places in Europe that have an established church. Which is to say: the church that is officially recognised and has power. In England, the Church of England held massive power, and it is only recently waning - but even so, the C of E has unelected bishops that have an automatic place in the highest assembly in the land. That does not sound like separation. This is mirrored in a number of other countries, where the church holds not just social influence, but genuine political power. Historically, this power was put to direct use, often to suppress and enforce the religious statutes of the time. Heresy and blasphemy have been beaten down with sticks and pyres.

My point: the premise of the question is incorrect. Whether Christianity "demands" a separation between church and state seems largely a point of interpretation; for many, the "render unto Caesar" view (i.e. separation) is adopted, but conversely Christians of various ilks have worked hard to try to bring about such a state.

share|improve this answer
1  
I would disagree that there is no "demand in Christianity" as many theological traditions do see such a demand for separation, but I agree that it is not universal and that many have worked very hard to bring about such a state. Correct that detail and this could be another +1 from me ;-) –  Caleb Sep 10 '12 at 9:10
1  
@MarcGravell - it's only the federal constitution that says Congress cannot institute a religion: the states are free to do so if they like. See Article III of Part The First of the MA constitution - malegislature.gov/laws/constitution. The government of MA is required to give funding to a religious institution if they ask for it (it's longer than that, but that's the short version) –  warren Sep 10 '12 at 15:00
1  
@Caleb Anabaptists generally believe in distinct roles for State and Church. It's not a separation in the same sense as the US Constitution, but a separation nonetheless. –  DJClayworth Sep 10 '12 at 16:07
1  
1  
@Roger we could get into a lenthy discussion about what, if any, of national/secular law derives from the Bible. Much of the OT would get you arrested on significant charges. However, that would be a very different question. –  Marc Gravell Sep 12 '12 at 21:23
show 10 more comments

The idea that the Catholic Church should be separate from the state was condemned by Pope Pius IX

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55: 
“The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” 
Condemned.
share|improve this answer
add comment

The separation of church and state is a "Baptist Distinctive" but is not commonly held across the remainder of the Christian spectrum. To wit:

  1. The state church of England is the Church of England (Anglican).

  2. The state church of Scotland is the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)

  3. Most Orthodox denominations (Russian, Armenian, Ethopian) have specific integrations with the state. In the past, the Greek, Byzantine, and Syraic did as well.

  4. Historically, the role of the Roman Catholic Church in Italy, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, and many others was exceedingly close. The story of Barbarossa's pentinence in the snow was symptomatic and emblematic of a very long standing trend.

In short, it is not at all a "Christian" tradition by any means to separate the government from the church.

share|improve this answer
1  
As a technicality, the state church of England is the Church of England, not the Anglican Tradition. Likewise the church of Scotland. Other Episcopalian/Presbyterian churches don't get special treatment. –  DJClayworth Sep 10 '12 at 16:10
1  
As a technicality piled upon a technicality, the Church of Scotland is the national church but it is still separate from "the state" (the Crown, Parliament, etc.), which is constitutionally prohibited from interfering with its doctrine, worship, government and discipline (while the Church acknowledges the unique authority of the State to run the country). By contrast, Measures of the Church of England on such topics have to be approved by Parliament, bishops sit in the House of Lords and are royally appointed, etc. –  James T Sep 10 '12 at 16:27
    
Camilla was never a Catholic, despite widespread internet rumours. Her first husband was Catholic, and her children were raised Catholic, but Camilla never was. –  DJClayworth Sep 11 '12 at 19:16
add comment

There are in fact different concepts that emerged in christianity during the ages.

  • Early christians that lived under pagan emperors were taught by Saint Paul to respect civil authorities and pray for them so they come to truth.
  • When the persecutions ended and emperors accepted christianity, there was a temptation to accept millenarist view that Rome becomes the Tousand-Year Kingdom. It was however rejected by early Councils. The emperor became protector of christianity and the idea of "symphony" between Altar and Throne was strongly advocated (of course this "symphony" went through lot of crises, as iconoclast period shows)
  • In the West where the secular power was weaker and the pastoral power stronger, Pope managed to create a papo-caesarist model of states.
  • In the East again some rulers managed to subdue Church. Most notable here is Peter the Great, who destroyed the Patriarchate of Moscow. So the ceasaro-papist states were created.
  • Today, especially in the west the idea of Christian Democracy is very strong (this is the option present in many european parliaments), which states that christians should defent christian values by participation in democracy.

All in all - christians always believed that a christian should have some responsibilities when ruling others. The models of this participations reflect the shape of countries they lived in.

share|improve this answer
add comment

When Pilate asked Jesus about the accusations made against him, that he was calling himself the King of the Jews (and thus implicitly threatening Roman rule), Jesus told him that "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)

Also, consider one of the rhetorical traps the Pharisees laid for him:

Matthew 22: 15-21

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Here again, he draws a clear separation between worldly government and God's spiritual authority.

We are told that after the Second Coming, Christ will reign personally upon the earth, but it seems that until that time, we are not to be blessed with a true "Christian State" as such.

share|improve this answer
3  
This answers the question of whether there SHOULD be such a separation from a specific interpretative framework. While I agree with it as far as it goes, I think it fails to answer the question asked because it does not address the various approaches Christianity has taken historically. Many Christian traditions HAVE had a concept of a Christian state, which this fails to even touch on. –  Caleb Sep 10 '12 at 9:15
    
Even among traditions that reject the idea of a state entity being Christian, the interaction between religious and political spheres is still something that must be addressed, and saying they are separate kingdoms is only a premise for outlining whatever interaction they should have. –  Caleb Sep 10 '12 at 9:15
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.