State Church (Symphonia)

[KulturedKaveman]

A rather handsy representative from Colorado once said she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”

I know it’s not a popular view but over time I have come to agree with her and see the wall of separation as a dated position born out of the 18th century enlightenment and trauma from the 30 Years War.

Through all of human history from Paganism to the early modern era dominated by Christianity, the Church gave legitimacy to the state and comforted the people. The whole idea was the God of your ancestors has a hand in the present day. The kings, republic, high council or whoever worshiped the god of their fathers and undertook their endeavors for their posterity’s glory in his name. It essentially institutionalized and “made cool” spirituality and morality. This interplay between church and state is called Symphonia in Orthodoxy.

Then atomization and secularism happened. Nature hates a vacuum, and the university system has had no qualms with filling it. Imagine if the church played a role similar to academia in our society? Americas biggest mistake was not establishing a state church.

This next part I’m somewhat ignorant about so correct me if I’m wrong. Most of the world had state faiths before the mid 20th century. Our northern neighbors had a Church of Canada and the Roman Catholic Church enshrined. Greece and Russia had Orthodoxy. I think Greece still does in fact. Germany had two like Canada. Mexico enshrined Catholicism. It’s just when America became number 1, we exported our secularism. The Islamic world as wrong as they are theologically still “get it” though.

The way I see it is like I mentioned above - no separation of Church and State crates a counterweight to academia and an alternative to the marxism in higher edumacation. It acts as a release valve to our bloated welfare state too. Imagine if a state church removed the pressure of welfare and could improve the inner lives of those on the system instead of cutting a check for nothing at best and destroying peoples inner lives at worst? In Quebec I believe this intertwining of Church and State gave them a cheap universal healthcare system. And most importantly…

Legitimacy of government. Without the the concepts mentioned above we devolve into a might makes right situation. People with guns tell you what to do. They have no authority or legitimacy. They’re just in charge because reasons. I know I will sound like a boomer saying this but has anyone noticed a link between increasing secularism in the West and more tyrannical governments? I have!

On the other hand, if you’re American too, we’ll have a time of it with the reinstitution Symphonia. There’s just so much religious diversity in the country. I know this will be a controversial take but let’s see some discussion.

 

[Samseau]

True fact: The longest lasting countries and governments have all been theocracies.

Of our small, limited 2500 year history, the countries with a state church or religion are far more stable and last past the dreaded 250 year mark far more than any other country to the contrary.

The Orthodox Church ran the Roman empire from ~300 ad all the way to ~1400 AD. A tremendous 1100 year run. Catholics broke away from the Church and ran Europe from ~800 AD to ~1500 AD, a solid 600 year run. Most forms of government barely even survive a century, let alone a millennia.

Our entire "western world" (a nonsense term) is in fact the fruit of Christendom, and, as such, we would not even have civilization without our theocratic history. That is why since the breakdown of theocratic order in the 16th century there has been a slow breakdown of civilization ever since. Without a foundation eventually the house collapses into sand.

America in particular has no chance, since it's "freedom of religion" and not even "freedom of Christianity," which means that the state will be an extreme tyranny to make up for lack of holy values before it collapses into a mad max world. At least if America had been nominally Christian there would be an easier transition into a theocracy. Instead we have to build from the ground up.

But yes, a theocracy is 100% the way to go, of course denominational fights would be difficult but perhaps not insurmountable. Hopefully this forum will serve as an example.

 

[El Dorado]

This next part I’m somewhat ignorant about so correct me if I’m wrong. Most of the world had state faiths before the mid 20th century. Our northern neighbors had a Church of Canada and the Roman Catholic Church enshrined. Greece and Russia had Orthodoxy. I think Greece still does in fact. Germany had two like Canada.

So, here in Canada, we have freedom of religion as guaranteed by the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, we have no officially state-sanctioned church, like the UK. The Church of England is the official Church, all members of the Royal Family must by law be baptised in the CofE, the Monarch/Sovereign has the title of Fidei Defensor/Defensatrix (Defender of the Faith). But this only applies to the UK, not Canada. By numbers, Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian faith in Canada. In 1763, at the end of the Seven Year's War between Great Britain and France, King George III issued a Royal Proclamation which guaranteed, among other things, that newly-conquered French colonists could keep their French language and Roman Catholic religion. Of the Protestant faiths, we have the Anglican Church of Canada, which is our branch of the CofE. However the largest Protestant denomination here in Canada is the United Church of Canada, formed in the 50's or 60's by a merger of liberal Baptists, Methodists, and Congregationalists. I don't know if there's a direct counterpart in the USA. It's a poisonous, heretical, even blasphemous entity: it tolerates and celebrates homosexuality and performs homosexual "marriages", allows women into the priesthood (the Pastor of the local United Church in my area is a "married" lesbianist), believes that the conversion and Christian baptism of heathen Native children in Indian Residential Schools was wrong, and that religious syncretism between Christianity and "Native Spiritualism" (actual demon-worship) is A-OK.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

As degenerate as our secular society has become, anyone who longs for a sacralist system simply has not read into it past a surface level. It's all fun and games until you're burned to ash on a pike after having your eyes and tongue removed for suspicion of heresy; heresy being defined by whatever state-church you happened to be born under. Those days are long gone and never coming back.

That said, Christians need to think about what comes next when the secular machine inevitably collapses in on itself. Whatever it will be, it must be built on God's Law.

Even in that case, a perfect law does nothing to change the heart, as the Old Testament demonstrated time and time again.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

It's all fun and games until you're burned to ash on a pike after having your eyes and tongue removed for suspicion of heresy; heresy being defined by whatever state-church you happened to be born under.

Then 400 years later be canonized as a saint by the same church. Many, many such examples.

 

[Samseau]

As degenerate as our secular society has become, anyone who longs for a sacralist system simply has not read into it past a surface level. It's all fun and games until you're burned to ash on a pike after having your eyes and tongue removed for suspicion of heresy; heresy being defined by whatever state-church you happened to be born under. Those days are long gone and never coming back.

That said, Christians need to think about what comes next when the secular machine inevitably collapses in on itself. Whatever it will be, it must be built on God's Law.

Even in that case, a perfect law does nothing to change the heart, as the Old Testament demonstrated time and time again.

You're describing Catholicism, not a Christian theocracy. Big difference. There is a reason why Byzantium had to be brought down from without, Satan couldn't bring it down from within. With Catholics, Satan was easily able to bring it down from the inside because there was so much heresy at the top.

Edit:

And yet, in spite of Catholic abuse, the Catholic theocracies were far more prosperous and enlightened than any modern country today!

 

[KulturedKaveman]

As degenerate as our secular society has become, anyone who longs for a sacralist system simply has not read into it past a surface level. It's all fun and games until you're burned to ash on a pike after having your eyes and tongue removed for suspicion of heresy

This only happened to false teachers. Not the common man. I did my homework on this. You could recant and they wouldn’t do that to you. More secularist fear mongering. The only ones who went to the steak didn’t recant their teachings.

Fun factoid too, Roman Catholicism when they had the inquisition - the inquisition jails were somewhat more comfortable and common criminals would commit blasphemy then recant for better accommodations. Look it up. They were also given a right to council which was groundbreaking at the time.

Now I’m not advocating for an abusive system like what happened in the counter reformation and the events leading up to it. I just think that the state should say this is who we are and what we’re about - stop glorifying spiritual “big other” and endorsing it. There will obviously be religious minorities - but they will have to act like it and stop being celebrated.

Even in that case, a perfect law does nothing to change the heart, as the Old Testament demonstrated time and time again.

The ancient Hebrews were groundbreaking too for human rights and individual freedoms. Even their slavery had its limits and if you were a slave, your kids would eventual be free through the jubilee system

 

[KulturedKaveman]

I don't know if there's a direct counterpart in the USA. It's a poisonous, heretical, even blasphemous entity: it tolerates and celebrates homosexuality and performs homosexual "marriages", allows women into the priesthood (the Pastor of the local United Church in my area is a "married" lesbianist), believes that the conversion and Christian baptism of heathen Native children in Indian Residential Schools was wrong, and that religious syncretism between Christianity and "Native Spiritualism" (actual demon-worship) is A-OK.

Sounds like the United Church of Christ here states side. They’re ironically the spiritual direct descendants of those who settled New England - John Winthrop, Anne Hutchinson, and Thomas Hooker and friends.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

More secularist fear mongering.

Tell that to those who were drowned, burned on a pyre, sliced in half.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you recant your denial of the filioque on pain of death? How about if you were locked in a dungeon with no light for 7 years? I'm assuming you would rather be able to remain true to your convictions without the state trying to execute you for it.

 

[Narekatsi]

Tell that to those who were drowned, burned on a pyre, sliced in half.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you recant your denial of the filioque on pain of death? How about if you were locked in a dungeon with no light for 7 years? I'm assuming you would rather be able to remain true to your convictions without the state trying to execute you for it.

Your arguments remind me of Dr. James White. Not saying you (or Dr. White) are wrong, just that the reasoning reminded me of his argumentation regarding sacralism and the death of Fritz Erbe (including the 7 year example).

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Your arguments remind me of Dr. James White. Not saying you (or Dr. White) are wrong, just that the reasoning reminded me of his argumentation regarding sacralism and the death of Fritz Erbe (including the 7 year example).

Thanks for the compliment!

His main application when he brings that up is not to just point to "those Catholics over there" but the fact that people who you think you have a commonality with are just as liable to kill you if given the opportunity. In that example, Luther with Baptists.

 

[analyst_green]

This isn't black or white, there's no reason why we can't have a sacralist system that also maintains a "bill of rights" of sorts. Obviously modern republicanism has been a failure, but let's learn from the good things it has brought in the US such as the right to bear arms, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, or freedom of speech. If we can keep this but also have the church inform state decisions, we can get the best of both worlds. So no burning heretics on a pyre, but also no sodomy propaganda or state worship of materialism.

In the US a true theocracy is impossible because no church has a majority. In Europe it would be easier. Russia could become Orthodox, Sweden could become Lutheran, England Anglican, etc. So in America, there would have to be agreeance on common Christian values. Perhaps some sort of council could be established using the lowest common denominator, such as the "Mere Christianity" exposed by CS Lewis.

Byzantium is touted as a great example of monarchy in practice. And it probably was the best we've had, but ultimately all government is a necessary evil. Byzantine emperors would often be usurped and killed by their competitors, and their children would sometimes be castrated to ensure there were no progeny. I don't think any of us want to go back to castrating babies.

 

[KulturedKaveman]

Tell that to those who were drowned, burned on a pyre, sliced in half.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you recant your denial of the filioque on pain of death? How about if you were locked in a dungeon with no light for 7 years? I'm assuming you would rather be able to remain true to your convictions without the state trying to execute you for it.

A sacralist system does not have to be abusive. In fact, any system I could see can and would have religious minorities. They would just have to recognize they’re guests in a Christian land. I think this is why Byzantium is held up as an example despite their leadership being essentially Game of Thrones. Even though they were an open monarchy as in anyone could be emperor, just go raise an army and have at it, they KNEW who they were as a society and didn’t waver on it unlike 2020s America. They were Orthodox Rome. Orthodoxy was the faith of the land but I think they actually gave Muslim envoys a mosque and there were Latin monks on Mt. Athos until the 1400s.

What’s interesting is the drowning, slicing in half etc is still sinful. We are to love our enemy. Anyone who participated in the crap wanted to anyway and was using religion as an excuse. We sometimes got to fight stuff. St. Cyril talks about this, but the torture and inquisition in the west was largely political first and foremost. One example would be Jan Huss in the 1400s when they burned him at the stake. How much of this was what he was teaching VS the Holy Roman Empire didn’t want a Czech independence movement on their hands?

While I kind of see Godfather’s point, a secular system won’t protect us from these things at this point - the stuff he mentioned… trust me - the Marxist element in America is secular but would love to do that stuff to everyone on this forum. The only thing stopping them from executing us for our convictions is they’re not yet a super majority and they got the media in their pocket so they need to make their job somewhat easier. That’s why I see the separation of church and state as dated. With the post 2016 left the feeling is no longer mutual even if it is an “enlightened” idea.

On a side note - can someone find me an example in the west of someone being tortured over the Filioque? I’ve never heard or read of it happening.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

On a side note - can someone find me an example in the west of someone being tortured over the Filioque? I’ve never heard or read of it happening.

It was a hypothetical question. People were drowned over pointing out that the New Testament doesn't teach infant baptism.

As bad as people are bashing on Federalism, it was very successful while it lasted. What we have now in America is not indicative of the America that was founded. We democratized our system to a point that would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers.

Obviously, a righteous King is the best form of government. But there is only one righteous King. Until He comes back, man's sin is a reality that we have to deal with, not only from outside the state but most especially from the inside, hence, checks and balances. All forms of government can be corrupted because man himself is fallen.

No one here is arguing for a secular system.

 

[Samseau]

Godfather: You continue to narrowly focus on Catholicism, when there is a clear alternative to the Papist model of a State Church. No one (except Catholics) wishes for a return to Papism.

None of the abuses of the Catholic Church existed in the Roman/Byzantine theocracy, even though they had barbaric laws. For example, if you spoke criticism of the Emperor, you could have your tongue cut out. But as far as heretics were handled, at most you'd be exiled or your church would get shut down. Pagans had their buildings torn down. Talmuds were left alone until 600 AD and then a lot of synagogues were shut down, and tons of chews were exiled or killed because they betrayed the Empire.

In fact within Byzantine history the state was 1000x times kinder to Christians than they were to non-Christians, most of the animosity chews have towards Christians today come from the Byzantine era. Jews who rejected Christ did not get citizenship and were 3rd class. On top of that there was nonstop war against Islam.

Compare that to Catholicism which tried to direct efforts towards the external enemy, but was subverted by a single Bishop that convinced the 4th Crusade to sack Constantinople. This evil Bishop was successful because he simply said he had Papal blessing when in fact he was lying. But since there was no way to check the Bishop, the Crusade went forth and destroyed half of Christendom.

Nothing of the sort ever occurred within the Orthodox Church because no one Bishop could ever pretend to have ultimate authority ("I speak on behalf of the Pope"), since we keep an oligarchy just like Jesus created when he gave power to the Apostles.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

For example, if you spoke criticism of the Emperor, you could have your tongue cut out.

That's the reason mankind has gradually moved away from Emperors and Kings. What do you do when get a corrupt Emperor who promotes everything you're against? It's not like you can criticize him.

Compare that to Catholicism which tried to direct efforts towards the external enemy, but was subverted by a single Bishop that convinced the 4th Crusade to sack Constantinople

The papacy is a perfect example of why a single, strong-man leader is problematic. All it takes is one evil King with ultimate authority to undo all the good the Kings before him did.

we keep an oligarchy just like Jesus created when he gave power to the Apostles.

If you're arguing for a plurality of dominion, then I agree. That only brings us back to a kind of Federalism.

If you want to critique the way America was founded then you could say that it wasn't explicitly Christian enough. As much as the Founding Fathers understood the corruptible nature of man, I think even they would be shocked if they could see just how far that could go.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

Do you have proof or source towards Byzantium being a theocracy? It was as much of a theocracy as France or Austria were at the time. What I mean by this is that it had a state religion, but never had a priest or any member of the clergy be directly involved as an emperor or something that large in its government.

Theocracies themselves would be the Papal States or some of the old crusader states, that had clergy as kings and other roles. Other states had clergy as a part of the land, with varying power, but never a king priest or any of the government forms of nations like the Papal States.

Doesn't help that the OP itself has a question so biased towards the ill defined concept. I mean, who is going to disagree with "No king but Christ and his representative should represent us"? It's just a tad bit idealistic.

 

[KulturedKaveman]

Do you have proof or source towards Byzantium being a theocracy? It was as much of a theocracy as France or Austria were at the time. What I mean by this is that it had a state religion, but never had a priest or any member of the clergy be directly involved as an emperor or something that large in its government.

Theocracies themselves would be the Papal States or some of the old crusader states, that had clergy as kings and other roles. Other states had clergy as a part of the land, with varying power, but never a king priest or any of the government forms of nations like the Papal States.

Doesn't help that the OP itself has a question so biased towards the ill defined concept. I mean, who is going to disagree with "No king but Christ and his representative should represent us"? It's just a tad bit idealistic.

Yeah that is true a theocracy is more like the Papal States or Iran with the Ayatollah. Byzantium if you do your homework had a state church but was not at all a theocracy. It was more like an anarcho-monarchist state with a non-feudal administrative system like China. The throne was literally up for grabs by anyone who wanted it, you just had to oust the emperor which is a throw back to Ancient Greece and Rome. The Orthodox Church, the codex justinianis, and a formal bureaucracy kept the world turning while Emperors were doing whatever. The west had hereditary rule and feudalism. Americas government doesn’t even have God in the equation - hence the question. You could have a federal system with a “church of America” or a “Christian supreme council” like how they have different councils and caucuses in congress.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

Americas government doesn’t even have God in the equation - hence the question.

I don't live in America, but it never even had religion as any part of the state. Before the 1960s or so, it was a very Christian and traditionalist nation. After that point, Jews and atheism took over during the post war era.
Christian nationalism is the answer. Kicking out the small hat tribe might be more than enough as well. When you're drowning because of a heavy weight, and you remove said weight, you can only go up from there. Refer to Germany after 1933.

 

[KulturedKaveman]

Christian nationalism is the answer. Kicking out the small hat tribe might be more than enough as well. When you're drowning because of a heavy weight, and you remove said weight, you can only go up from there. Refer to Germany after 1933.

I don’t even think you need to go that far. All you have to do is respect the Jews religious autonomy and they can have their privately funded synagogue. But no money for Israel and their non scientific stuff like psychology and sociology is banned from public universities- no state money for stuff that goes against the spirit of the nation. No grants for you

This brings me back to my main point, a hypothetical “church of the United States” would be an alternative to the Jewish academia. That’s really the root of this place’s rot.