The Christian Worldview and the Separation of Church and State

Although America is conducive for the lifestyle and freedom of the believer in Christ, one must not make the mistake of thinking that to be Christian is to be American, or that to be American is to be Christian.

America, since its inception, has put into policy a separation of church and state. This is both good and bad from different points of view. It is good because the government has no say in religious matters (unless they threaten civil law) - This gives freedom to its citizens.

However, there are negative consequences that come from this policy. The separation of church and state has caused a subtle bifurcation between religion and societal living. This mindset, or perhaps "worldview", has infultrated the Christian faith. Religion has become a personal matter, and tolerance is the prime virtue.

The question is whether the good outweighs the bad, or vice-versa. Is it realistic to pursue a theocracy? How does the Christian relate to government... the world? Here are some negative consequences on the individual Christian and the church as a whole stemming from the "separation of church and state" mindset:

• Syncretism - Essentially, there is a trend of religion "a la carte" stemming from the prime virtue of Tolerance (which is a good thing, but is it really the best and most important of virtues?).
  
• Christian by day, someone else by night - self-explanatory.
  

These are definitely symptoms of "separation of church and state" Christians, but these symptoms are present everywhere and at all times; any elementary history of Christianity would show this. I do not think that the separation of church and state is really the cause of these problems... it might be a catalyst, but not the cause.

On the reverse side of this thinking, there are negative consequences to pursuing a theocratic-like approach to America (trying to infiltrate the government, pass only Christian laws, enforce them on the entire country). Now, don't get me wrong: Christians have the right to vote and they should vote from their convictions about issues. Good, moral... yes, even biblical laws are great to see in governmental policies because they are good for society. But I think that there is a difference between someone who voices their convictions about issues and someone who tries to enforce their convictions upon other people. Here are some negative consequences:

• Legalism - When Christian principles are followed just because they are "the rules", misconceptions about what it means to be Christian follow. i.e. Someone can be a moral person but still not be Christian.... someone who has placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ for rescuing them from spiritual death and separation from God - in the simplest of terms, that is initially what it means to be a follower of Christ. However, when someone just follows the Biblical standards of morality, that's great, but it has not saved them and it has not changed their hearts - which is the real issue, isn't it?
• Animosity towards Christians - I'm sure that a lot of us have experienced this in light of certain people in the Christian Right movement that have overstepped their bounds with their words and have really made all Christians look like Christian nationalist terrorists. That is not what it means to be Christian!
  
• Loss of witness - For those of us interested in reaching our neighbors for Christ, enforcing Christian laws on them is an ignorant approach. How can we reach our countrymen for Christ if we make them our enemies? Outward actions only go so far.... Are we not targeting the inner-person? Will not actions follow? It seems to me that the Bible portrays outward actions as evidence of faith... How can they precede it?

Maybe there is a different approach to relating to our government, our country, our world. Conquering them is out of the picture! Did Christ come to set up a political kingdom, or a spiritual one?