The Great Executive Trojan Horse and the House of God

Taxpayers Cannot Sue Faith Based Initiatives funding via Executive Branch, Court Rules

As long as there has been a Church and a State, of any form or fashion, there has been a controversy over Church-State relations. One of the hallmarks of an oppressive society is too close a tie between the Church and State: Biblically only one culture, Israel has ever managed a successful Theocracy, by divine ordination, and all others, including Catholic Spain, and Protestant England have run into great difficulties when there is no recourse for a diversity of belief.

I am not advocating that there should be virtually no relationship between Church and State: that would also be foolish, for while the Church needs the State far less, the State does indeed need the Church for a stable society. This has become problematic lately because of the degree of corruption which the Church of varying denominations has exhibited : with graft, greed, embezzlement, sexual sin in the pulpit, even against children etc, it is a sad and sorrowful thing that the government occasionally has to step in, but when the Church, though it mentions the name of Christ behaves in a manner anathema to Him and His Word, we cannot be surprised when the laws of the land are applied to protect innocents, because the Church did not bear its own responsibility.

However, a far greater problem these days, is a lazy comfortable Church, particularly in America. American Churches of most denominations, at first were extremely reluctant to accept 'faith based initiatives' [what a rubric!], or any form of government intervention or funding or interference. There has always held a principle in scripture, that the State, even in the theocracy of Israel was not to involve itself in the workings of the House of God: two examples of the disasterous consequences were Uzziah the King entering into the Temple to perform the sacrifice, and Saul failing to wait for Samuel to do the same. In Revelation and Daniel, the ultimate 'evil' act comes with the 'desolation of abomination', the Anti-Christ, entering in to the Temple to defile it: again, the ultimate State intrusion into God's House. For centuries, nations faced either a Church which essentially was an arm of the State, or a Church which wanted little or nothing to do with state.

The United States has been a global experiment in whether there is some 'middle-ground' in the positions: from the time the 13 colonies were formed, there were differing faith stands of many of the leaders or early governors, e.g. Oglethorpe, in Georgia left the state eminently Catholic, while Brown in Rhode Island though Baptist gave rise to a state honoring tolerance. [the last Baptist to do that.] Once the states entered into a 'federation' it was pretty much intrinsic to the process that there would be some form of both religious liberty and at the same time a firm coloring of religion on the new nation's politics. There tends to be nations which have followed

1. A State Church in which all events, holidays, and even laws are colored by
one particular religious view [Spain-Catholicism, England-Anglicanism]
2. Nations which do not openly open the question but for which most in the nation
are of one religion or belief, e.g. animism in some smaller African nations
3. A Theocracy, the purist form of which was seen in Israeli history in which
God and King were a constant twosome, although even there, the office of King
or other state official was not to enter into the practice of worship
4. A State-Church Separation, held in law, which is seen in the US more than any other country, although troubled and stressed by a constant vying for one eminence over the other. No nation has really seen a complete separation.

In this light, and after a great deal of history, we can view the idea of "faith based initiatives" and a prior Bush invention "points of light" both of which give state comment or sanction on the validity of certain religious endeavors, the first of which, the initiatives give actual federal help to some endeavors. While these seem harmless at the outset, because the are administered across the board to all faiths represented in this country, I hold that they are suspect because they do not honor the principle of separation, especially of any kind of executive control over private worship and practice of religion. They are not as threatening of course as the great Trojan Horse which crept into the Church and Synagogue years ago of incorporation, or making the Church or synagogue into a state-approved or disapproved corporation, but they follow the same trend.


The article for discussion, deals with a recent court ruling in which the Executive privilege of granting faith based initiatives can basically not be challenged--it is an interesting and odd twist on how to get away with small footsteps towards government control of religion by moving the issues under the venue of the Executive Branch. We have let so much else go by: we are not concerned, for example at the state being able to close non-registered churches, most of whom we reason are little nutcase churches, or aryan churches, so the Church turns complacently to being a corporation with boards, minutes and the like. We kind of fell into that ourselves because corruption went unchecked in the House of God to the point of real crimes being committed, and because if the truth be known, our real committment to the Word of God over daily politics has lessened considerably, or we would have railed against incorporation openly. Most do not understand that when we agreed to incorporation our Churches, we agreed to allowing state control and intervention: it is now happening all over the country and not just in the minority churches: a large Baptist church in Terre Haute a number of years ago was closed down because of a complaint about bonds, and Indianapolis Baptist was closed down for non-payment of taxes, one of their faith based stands. Recently, on the opposite end an Episcopal Priest had his sermons reviewed by the IRS and related entities for giving cutting anti-Bush remarks from the pulpit: a no-no under 5013c ordinances. It's causing even mainline Churches to consider what we have gotten ourselves into. I suggest we have by incorporation allowed the Government to either capriciously or responsibly close down Churches and Synagogues: at the very least they have footing for continual harassment not unlike the days of Nazi Germany.

The government and proponents of registered Churches have a great advantage of a populace characterized by historical illiteracy: most just assume it has always been the way it is now, but nothing could be less true. Up until about 50-70 years ago, Churches and Synagogues registered births, deaths and marriages: not the State. When it was argued that the State would be more accurate, I have to laugh thinking how 'accurate' most government bureaucracies are, or what has become of our records with SSNs, and burgeoning illegal immigration.

Churches and rabbinical councils hold a much firmer place in history as those who set definitions and approvals of life events and their records than the State does, however, recently, we have turned that around in this country so effectively that most are appalled at the idea that a Church record would be seen as legitimate over a state one. In many countries such as Germany, Churches held the sway over education, and in this country that was true also in history: the dame schools, colleges, homeschooling and others were not initially nor for most of our history governed by the states or state supported: now we are confused at homeschooling, although public schooling was only even meant as an alternative for those who had no other options.
Now, the state will take away children who don't register with them as homeschoolers: while this has been relaxed greatly, there are still states in which a parent's established right to homeschool is challenged every step of the way.

Faith based initiatives then seem small in the great picture, as does a court ruling that one cannot challenge this seemingly 'good' thing. However, not long from now, the granting of helps and honors can turn in the wrong hands to the approval vs nonapproval of religious endeavor according to some state-set standard. These small cracks in the iron and clay feet of US State Church relations, have the great potential and almost guaranteed outcome of leading to a generic and secularized state-governed Church, no matter how much power the Church yields now. I am left totally uncertain that the Executive Branch should be given a free pass on this, even though it is in a benevolent direction.



-------------------------------------------------------------

While the above is indicative of Scriptural concerns, to be continued....
LS Blogs