The Battle for Supremacy: Church v. State

During the time of a unified Catholic church before the Reformation, there was a controversy that still holds some weight today. A controversy dealing with the scriptural understanding of who actually holds supreme authority on earth - church or state.

With such decisions coming from the government on freedom of religion, the question must again be asked - who has that control? Since the question is not new, let's spend some time examining the history of the viewpoints.

The argument between church and state authority stemmed first of all from an understanding that both the church and the state did have legitimate authority. To prove this, the two camps misused Luke 22:38, where Jesus proclaims that two swords is “enough.”

However, this misinterpretation does not answer the question of which “sword” had the higher authority. Of course, both the church and the state wanted to exert that influence themselves and thus had “biblical support” for the supremacy of their authority.

The legal rulers used Romans 13 to illustrate that the members of the church were to be “subject” unto the authority of the government. Furthermore, Romans 13 clearly states that to resist this authority is to resist God Himself. Taken with Romans 13's labeling of government officials as "ministers of God…for good,” this passage, according to the rulers, provided ample support that the government was a high authority on earth, and indeed higher even than the church.

On the other hand, the church used support from the book of Matthew. In chapter 16, Jesus tells Peter that He will build his church “upon this rock.” This the church uses to indicate that Peter is a representative of the church itself. Thus, when within the same verse, Jesus promises to give Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” the church finds this to mean that the church has immense authority upon earth. Further support can be garnered for this from the fact that Jesus goes on to explain, that whatever Peter shall “bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” and the same for that which he shall loose on earth – a sentiment that is repeated later on in Matthew 18. This according to the church, means that everyone (even government) is bound to follow the edicts of the church.

As we examine these arguments as we approach today's questions, I think we should clearly see the varying difficulties that both of these positions dictate. If we are honest in our interpretative framework, at best what both of these positions are able to prove is simply that both the church and the state should have legitimate authority.

Romans 13, as stellar as it is to show Christian's obligations to government, does not give the government control over spiritual concerns. It doesn't give the government control over the church itself, only over the members of the church in the sphere of politics.

The verses in Matthew honestly don't mention government subservience to church either, or any reason why governmental affairs should be handled by the church. At best, the church could only use this to claim authority over the life of the Christian. Even that interpretation takes a few giant logical leaps away from the text itself.

Thus, it is my contention that both the church and the state are wrong in this viewpoint. Ultimately, the church should have its authority over its own members and spiritual concerns, but the state should have its own authority over political and legal issues. An argument can be made that both should be concerned with moral concerns (but then the question becomes, how much authority over morality do you give to the slimy government?).

Of course, keeping the divide between the two authorities is much easier said than actually done. The fact is, that each of the two authorities have a desire to control the other from time to time, such as demonstrated by this very argument.

In actually solving this conflict then, it becomes necessary to write (and have an enforcement mechanism for) a separation between church and state. Ultimately, there is no perfect solution, but I believe that the United States system is probably a fair model to emulate in creating a new one.

In it, both the church and the state are ultimately protected from each other. In the “free exercise” clause, each individual is given the opportunity to choose for themselves which religion they want to enter or even to not be religious at all, whereas the “establishment” clause gives a practical application to the free exercise clause broadly speaking.

These work to protect the church from the state, as well as the harmful effects of the church controlling the state in that there is no way to use the coercive power of the government to violate the freedom of conscience. It's a win-win for all.

Oh, and since you're probably wondering why the church needs protected from the state, and the state needs protected from the church, let's just say, there's another politics post in two weeks, and it might just be related to this one... 

Why the Bible should not be used to Support your Viewpoints

James 4:4 proclaims,

"Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

This clearly indicates that we need to completely isolate ourselves from the world, and have nothing to do with that which it includes. We can't be trying to get enjoyment out of that which the world produces. Hollywood is evil, Doctor Who is evil, and generally speaking, the Lord hates television!

This is further corroborated by I John 2:15 when it says,

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

So yes, all those people who would have the audacity to quote Doctor Who in their blog posts about God are great heathens and heretics, and you shouldn't listen to them at all.

Obviously, I'm using satire. As a guy who spent too much of his weekend catching up on Doctor Who, as opposed to planning his campaign for Freshman chaplain, I clearly do not believe that all television is evil and shouldn't be watched.

But how do I keep that opinion in light of these verses, which many have used to make similar arguments to the ones that start this post? The answer can be summed up in one word - context. This prior Friday, we examined the context of James 4:4, so you know that by world, it means our sinful nature. The same poetic language is indeed at work in I John 2:15, as evidence by examining its context in I John 2:15-17,

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

So how is it that educated individuals tend to use these verses in ways that disagree with their context? It is quite obviously incorrect to say that James and John were stating that the culture of the world is entirely inappropriate, so how is that mistake made?

In my opinion, it is because of a phenomena called "proof-texting." Now proof-texting does not just imply the use of a single verse out of its context for communication purposes. If the verse has the same meaning without its context as it does with it, then it is legitimate for you to save time in your communication by quoting only one of those verses (I certainly do from time to time). However, if you go out trying to prove an agenda, and you take a verse from a Google search that seems to prove your point without actually paying attention to the context, that's proof-texting.

That is what I am calling out today because it actually highlights a deeper problem. No one should be going to the Bible to support HIS ideas about life. The Bible is not a stockpile of evidence to be used to build our cases. The Bible should not be conformed to our mold of the world; our mold of the world should be conformed to the Bible.

Yet proof-texting doesn't seek to find what the Bible says about certain issues. It just seeks to find any Biblical evidence in which the argument the user has is supported. That's how we can get arguments such as the ones above.

It's also how we can get an even more heinous argument often used by pro-abortion Atheists.

Christians get so wrapped up about abortion and how we MUST protect life, but I wonder whether they even read the Bible they support so often! It says clearly in Psalm 137:9,

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Well, yes, that would seem a bit problematic if this verse actually meant that people should be happy about themselves when dashing little ones against stones. Rather, we see simply a statement of fact that just punishment is being placed upon Babylon. Indeed, the evil of Babylon is being returned upon its own head, evidenced in the way that some other evil people will rejoice when they dash the little ones of Babylon against the stone. So you see, quite to the contrary of condoning this atrocity, the Bible is using this as an obvious example of a damnable act.

When you truly see how proof-texting can be used to support such unbiblical agendas, it should make you think twice about utilizing it as evidence for what you think are Biblical agendas. No matter how great your intentions, it is wrong to use the Bible for the purpose of just looking for support for your pre-established viewpoints.

When reading or hearing others opinions as well, you should be careful to know that the context actually supports what the scholar says it does, and that he is not guilty of proof-texting. Because sometimes, arguments can sound Biblical, and while not being denied by the Bible, not actually be supported by it either.