Priest and prince have always been united.[1] The “separation of church and state” is a myth which allows the polis to rationalize its hatred and evasion of God’s Law.
Notes
1. Genesis 14:18; 41:43-45; Judges 17:10; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10
References
Priests have always been instruments of the State.
The "palace" and the "temple" have always been united.
The polis is religious to the core.
The "separation of religion and state" privatizes the Christian religion whenever the religion of the State is the religion of Secular Humanism. The State then becomes its own god, and its own law.
Death Penalty Debate - "Separation of Church and State"
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Look at the conflicts between the Roman pontiffs and the emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick II in the High Middle Ages. Look at St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and his excommunication of Emperor Theodosius I in the late 4th century.
Are you arguing only that rulers are accountable to God's law, or are you also arguing that the institutional Church possesses supreme jurisdiction over civil rulers?
I'm not sure I see how either side in those conflicts moved the world closer to Micah's "Vine & Fig Tree" vision, though I appreciate anyone who rebukes rulers for civilian massacres.
"are you also arguing that the institutional Church possesses supreme jurisdiction over civil rulers" - In a sense, yes, but not in temporal matters. In matter of faith and religion, yes, the Church is superior to any state. The emperor/king/prince/republic is subject to the Church when it comes to faith and morals. However, in the modern world which has largely forgotten about God in our "lotus-isles of economic bliss," the power of the Roman Church is much diminished and to our eternal and temporal detriment.
"I appreciate anyone who rebukes rulers for civilian massacres" - Yes, St. Ambrose is my patron saint for this very reason (among others). His early courageous, pious, and successful resistance to the emperor of Rome set the gold standard for Church-state relations which many of the powerful reform popes of the 11th and 12th centuries stood upon in their battles against worldly tyrants.
"I'm not sure I see how either side in those conflicts..."
If not for the resistance from the Church, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa or his successor Frederick II, would have erected a gigantic modern state almost half a millennium ahead of schedule, and that could have destroyed the very idea of liberty in the West, not to mention its effects on the Church.
I believe God's Word has supreme jurisdiction over civil rulers in matters of faith and religion, as well as "temporal matters." If an ecclesiastical body (presbyterian or catholic) claims to wield the Word of God in some sense, how can it separate "religion" from "temporal matters?"
Post a Comment