From: lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Power
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:24:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

>>Spose it happens.  Christians hold all the authority in the United
>>States -- they are in power.  More than that, they keep non-christians
>>from holding certain positions or doing certain things or whatever.  My
>>questions is, how do you then witness to these non-christians?  You would
>>be witnessing from a position of power where the power is based upon your
>>Christianity.  I have difficulty imagining that being very successful.  I
>>suspect that most converts would be converting to power, not to Christ.  
>>And people who rebel against power would be pushed away from Christianity.
>>I feel that, in order to witness effectively, we must approach others from
>>a position of equality or subservience.
>>
>>Deep in my gut I feel that, while the political goals of groups like the
>>Christian Coalition may make ours a more godly nation, at least on the
>>surface, they would also turn many away from Christ.  Stephen Lawhead wrote
>>in one of his novels, "Even though a kingdom fell, it was not worth a
>>soul."  I agree.  I assume those seeking to move Christianity into a
>>position of power do so believing that they will be saving souls.  But in
>>the discussion I was involved in a few weeks ago, the discussion leader was
>>the only one who said anything about saving souls, and his comment was
>>ignored.  The discussion was about gaining control and power.  It literally
>>made me nauseous.
>>

1) A state religion is a bad thing.

In a conversation with a Greek friend about the treatment of
evangelicals in Greece, he pointed out that there is a long-standing law
against proseletization.  He asked what is wrong with enforcing the
law--it is after all a law.  That got me thinking.

I see several problems with such a law.  I find it ironic that the church
should sanction the persecution of someone for speaking of their faith.
Many martyrs died for breaking laws or customs against outside interference
in the realm of religion.

There are also serious problems when Caesar and the Church get too
friendly.  While this may be beneficial to certain churchmen, it is not
beneficial to the church.  Just as protected industries become less
concerned about quality and price, so too churches that don't have to
deal with competition in the realm of ideas become lethargic.  People
become complacent about their faith.  Having competitors forces a
church to stay alive because it forces people to think about what they
believe.

There are other problems with an overly cozy church/state relationship.
The state always wants something from the church.  It wants moral sanction
for acts the church should condemn.  It often wants the church to do its
dirty work.  The Spanish state used Dominicans in the Inquisition.  East
Germany's government used Protestant pastors as spies--and Romania's
government did the same with Orthodox priests.  These actions lead people
away from the church in disgust--either from a particular Christian
community or from faith.

The state also uses the church for cultural aims.  A recent example is
mentioned in Gilquist's BECOMING ORTHODOX.  A Greek bureaucrat put pressure
on the Patriarch of Constantinople to break an appointment with officials of
the Evangelical Orthodox Church.  The bureaucrat feared an influx of
evangelicals would weaken the Hellenistic character of the Greek Orthodox
Church.  Culture is important, but the church is called to transcend it.
Unfortunately, the Patriarch acceded to the pressure.  That the highest official
of the Orthodox Church cares more about the opinion of a bureaucrat than the
unity of the church is a tragedy.

2) Working to maintain some level of civic morality is a worthy Christian task.
   That which the society allows comes rapidly to be believed moral by most
   members of the society.  The more ones moral vision is warped by the culture,
   the harder it may be to lead the person to Christ because of the conflict
   of moral visions.

3) Given these two observations, I would oppose any religious litmus test for
   public service or civic participation.  This would tend to corrupt the
   religious bodies that it benefits.  I see no problem however with trying
   to have traditional religious morality (what Lewis called the Tao in
   THE ABOLITION OF MAN) imposed in law.  The oppononts of traditional
   morality have no qualms about trying to impose their morality on those
   they disagree with.  We should be more reticent than they are, but 
   legislating the Tao seems well within the realm of what can be done without
   necessarily corrupting the religious community with power (being human
   the danger always exists).

4) Just so you know where I stand, I work with Christian Coalition type people. 
   However, if they had a significant amount of power, I would probably
   oppose them.  I support highly decentralized power structures, with 
   strong seperation of powers and as much choice to different moral communities
   as possible (for instance, I would support a system like the Netherlands 
   where any group that can get together enough children--50-100 I believe--can
   get a government-financed school.  Thus, there are Protestant, Catholic,
   communist, etc... schools).  
  
   The freedom to propagate any belief should be protected, but not the
   freedom to perform any deed "that only affects me", as there are very
   few acts that "affect only me".

Dan