The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted.

The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: “The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.”

Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.

* Last year in Turkey five Islamic extremists bound, tortured, and killed three Christian religious workers.

* In Malaysia the nation’s highest court ruled that a Christian convert could not change her official religious affiliation without a ruling of apostasy in Sharia court — punishable by death or prison.

* Earlier this year Christian converts in Bangladesh were beaten and expelled by Muslim villagers.

* Last year in Sudan demonstrators demanded death for a British teacher — convicted and then deported — for allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Mohammed.”

* In 2006 the Afghan government, which survives only because of allied military forces, sentenced a Christian convert to death, before allowing him to emigrate for reason of “mental illness.”

* In Nigeria last year a Muslim mob murdered ten Christians, injured scores more, and destroyed nine churches in response to a claim that a Christian student drew a cartoon of Mohammed on the mosque wall at school.

* In Iraq in early March the body of kidnapped Chaldean Archbishop Paulus Faraj Rahho was discovered. Up to half of the prewar community of 1.2 or so million Iraqi Christians have fled abroad.

So it goes throughout the Islamic world. Not every Muslim hates Christians, Jews, and members of other faiths. And no, not every Muslim country persecutes religious minorities.

But pick any persecuting nation at random. There is a good chance that it will be Muslim, even if it is formally allied with the U.S. government.

YOU WOULDN’T KNOW that from the Western reaction. Right now, talk of interfaith dialogue and Muslim persecution is in the air.

Last November more than 300 Protestant leaders publicly asked for forgiveness for Christian sins against “our Muslim neighbors.” Vatican officials and Islamic leaders have been meeting to plan an interfaith summit. President George W. Bush recently named a special envoy to the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is dedicated to combating “Islamophobia.”

Fine. But the first item on every agenda should be the fact that most Islamic nations persecute their religious minorities. (Read more …)

I contemplated using the following video to start the discussion, but some of the images are very graphic and would be too much for some of you. I post it here because I think it adds a dimension to our discussion which we have not yet engaged, however, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU PRAYERFULLY CONSIDER NOT WATCHING IT if the sight of graphic violence would negatively affect you. Personally, watching this video made me physically ill for several hours.

Here is an excerpt…

“Anglicanism and Islam were both founded by men who wielded total power. Under Henry VIII, politics swallowed religion. Under Muhammad, religion swallowed politics. Consequently, Anglicans struggle to defend their religious identity against a political agenda and Muslims struggle to defend their political rights against a religious agenda. Roman Catholics believe that the boundary between religion and politics is no less essential than the bridge.

In his first encyclical, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice … cannot prevail and prosper.”

The State has sovereign authority in the temporal sphere. The Church has sovereign authority in the spiritual sphere. The Church, as a body, realises that she must not identify herself with a political party, or devote herself to any political programme. Christianity cannot be an ideology. But while Church and State are autonomous, they remain interconnected because the most fundamental influence shaping every human culture is its understanding of God.

Constantine was a great emperor in many ways, including his dealings with the armies, legalities, and politics. These, united with his Christian faith made him not only a great emperor, but allowed his people to embrace his decisions and seek advice from him. At first, Constantine was hesitant to get involved with the churches conflicts and sought for the church to handle their own problems. However as time passed, and much like we do today, the Christians used his political power to solve their disputes. Much like it is in today’s culture, we base our decision of what the role of a political leader should be within the church, depending on their doctrinal views that they hold. For example, if the President of the United States was a Southern Baptist who wanted to create a new creed of the bible’s inerrancy within the church, I doubt we would have objections. However if the President of the United States was a Methodist, we as Southern Baptist might have strong objection to whatever that President might want to input within the church.

For the first time the Christian church had someone on their side that was dictating how the empire was going to transact with Christians. Constantine overturned the prior judgments upon the Christians with the freedom to worship Christ, the return of all the Christian heirlooms and relics that were taken from them, and linked Christianity as the Roman Empire’s religion. Since Christianity was now attached to the Roman Empire name, much like God attached His name to the Israelites, Christians felt that it was their duty to instruct the Roman Empire how to deal with things to keep their name holy. We see the same tactics in today’s politics we hope that if we can get a “Christian” into power, than we can use that leverage to get our moral beliefs to reflect our country, state, and cities.

One of the biggest problems that Christianity faces is its division amongst itself. Many Christians today see these divisions as something recent. On the contrary, Christianity has been debating doctrinal absolutes since the death of Christ. Constantine fought several himself including monasticism, and donatism. But the one that he is must famous for was arianism. Constantine was requested to deal with the issue of the deity of Christ. Arius was teaching that Christ did not co exist with God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Thus Constantine brought all the bishops together and formed the Council of Nicaea. The outcome of the debate was that the teachings of Arius were heretical, and the Trinitarian belief was established. There can be positive and negative outcomes when the state has influence on doctrinal absolutes. The problem that we face, is each division among Christianity believes they know the absolutes, so depending on what division that state leader believes in, can be positive for some and negative for others. The states decision on absolutes won’t necessarily change individuals’ beliefs but can have an effect on the masses, as people tend to follow their leaders.

As a Christian we all desire to have that church and state relationship, as long as it adheres to what we believe individually. Who wouldn’t desire a nation that women and men alike would cover their bodies to prevent others from lusting? Or that all types of pornography would be illegal, where you could walk down the streets without fear of seeing an explicit billboard or driving passed a strip club. Where god’s word is the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to laws and regulations on the land. Where homosexuality, abortions, and same sex marriages are not only outlawed but forbidden. Where the majority of the society not only practice these laws but practice in their faith because of their fear of god. Some would go to even say that this unity of church and state could never be possible, but I would beg to differ. Not only is it possible, but it is currently working and in place in a country we know as Saudi Arabia. For you see they follow the Shari Law, which not only adheres to the above but goes into more and more strict laws. While reading those lines, we picture them with our Christian beliefs. And though many of us would love to live in a country that instilled those beliefs, we as Christians wouldn’t move to Saudi Arabia because of its church and state relationship. I bring this point up for one reason, though I believe it is extremely important for us as Christians to be involved with the state, if we turn Christian America into what Muslim Saudi Arabia is, who will we then reach for Christ. For I believe that for the same reasons we will not move to Saudi Arabia, if America becomes our heaven away from Heaven, non believers will not desire to move to America. The church and state relationship is important, because I desire my freedom to worship Christ, however we have to be careful to not turn America into a dictatorship.