What religion the State?

I do not know why Christians want to separate religion from the State? I understand why they may want to separate an official denomination from the State, lest one denomination use political power to control and abuse the others. But the idea that the State should be without a religion or any other religion than Christianity is besides me. It's as if Christians want to return to what they think is the ideal in the Early Church, when Christians were faced with persecution by the pagan Romans.

God's ideal for the State has always been Theism or Christianity. He showed this by giving Israel not just a State religion but very specific rules to live by. It's really no different in the NT era, because now God wants all nations to adopt the Christian religion, whether they choose to or not. There is no better religion for the State than Christianity, unless of course that Christianity is not really functioning as such.

I think many are concerned that Christianity, when it is mixed with the State, is purely nominal and functions in a purely perfunctory way. But that is pure cynicism. If the State can embrace the Christian religion as a State, then it certainly may be able to practice it in an effective way, if only temporarily and partially.

Many call us back to when Constantine began to tolerate the Christian religion within the Roman Empire. They say that sounded the death knell of Christianity, because then the State would begin to impose its pagan ways on the Christian religion, and Christian officials would become purely servants of a pagan State, abandoning their true Christianity.

But this was never true. After Rome tolerated and then embraced Christianity, many great Church Fathers emerged to help solidify Christian belief and doctrine, to enable it to survive for many centuries. Many charitable enterprises were allowed to flourish, even if there were imperfections in this mix between true Christianity and official Christianity.

Today, as Christianity slips into minority status within the Western states, I don't think we should harbor any illusions, though. We cannot try to impose the Christian religion on the state. But we can testify to the fact it *should be* the religion of all states. After all, we're preaching the Kingdom of God. He is the King of Kings, and will judge all states and all individuals, whether they accept it or not.

While it would be great if all nation-states voluntarily adopted Christianity and, from the heart, the populace loved God, that's more of a pipe dream.

People on an individual basis need to decide to follow Christ with sincerity, not out of compulsion or fear of legal consequences.

I don't think God wants people to offer lip service and a fake profession of Christianity just so they can fly under the radar of the theocratic state government.

Furthermore, as a Christian, I don't want the state dictating to me what my beliefs are. Do you?

There is only One who can successfully execute a theocracy and that will be God Himself, Jesus Christ, during the millennial kingdom.

When you say it's a "pipe dream" you ignore centuries of Christian history! Have you even read Christian history? When the Roman Empire was Christianized certainly not all of the State became "evangelical Christians!" But the point is, the State tolerated the testimony of Christian truth to the world. And that truth spread throughout the Empire and beyond.

The civilization spawned by this Roman Christianity encompassed Europe and beyond. Again, none of the States that evolved were ever fully Christian, but the mere tolerance of and advocacy for Christianity allowed a tremendous Christian witness to take place. To deny this is to deny Christian history altogether!



This is the fallback position I always get when I talk about State churches, that a Christian State imposes Christianity upon the consciences of men, whereas in reality, a Christian State may impose Christian law without imposing anything on a person's conscience. A person may be required to abandon homosexual practice, but may avoid imposing a confession of personal belief.

Just because Christian states sometimes became corrupt, and abused people does not mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater! There are many good Christian laws that you will have to throw out if you want a *non-Christian state!* Is that what you want?

If you want freedom for non-Christianity, by default you will get idolatry and ultimately, a repression of Christianity, because Christianity believes only in one God. That's why secular humanists hate Christianity, because it believes there is only one way to be saved from eternal separation from Deity. They know Christians would desire only their system of justice to be applied to the whole word, just as the Scriptures say, "the knowledge of God will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea."



Of course God doesn't want perfunctory worship and feigned praise from men. He would prefer *genuine praise* from them! But when societies fall into spiritual decay, that doesn't justify setting up a corrupt political system, tolerating not just false praise but also the praise of false gods and the exercise of immoral behaviors.



It depends on what dictates you're talking about? Yes, I do believe a truly Christian State should impose laws against homosexual behavior. Yes, if the State was 90% Christian I would even say it's right to do as Israel was commanded to do, to outlaw corrupt religious ideals, including abortion, witchcraft, Satanism. i don't think Islam should be taught in the public schools alongside other non-Christian beliefs.



False. God required it of Israel. And Israel's failure didn't indicate that God failed, nor that He was wrong to set this up as the ideal State system. We are like Israel today--we have abandoned the belief in just one God for our State and allow the "high places" to remain. We're victimized by the propaganda of those who reject faith.

There may have been state-sponsored Christianity and it may have had a net positive effect on the advancement of the Christian agenda, but I don't think it was necessary.

The states adopted Christianity because Christianity spreads like wildfire. Christianity didn't spread like wildfire because states have adopted.

I think there is a major distinction here because it proves Christians don't need a centralized government or institutionalized Christianity in order to be successful. In my opinion, Christians are meant to be as tough as nails and willing to risk martyrdom for their beliefs. We don't need a state to be strong because we have Lord God Almighty on our side.

Final thought, let's just prop up a hypothetical scenario and simulate what our responses would be:

If you lived in a theocracy, what if the state adopted heretical teachings that they deemed the to be the "truth" , being fully convinced of their inerrancy like so many people often do? Would you still follow them?