Although both church and state are ordained of God, they are always to remain separate entities in the Church Age. God has separated the two in order to protect the world from the tyranny of religion. When church and state unite, freedom is destroyed as occurred in Spain during the Inquisition (1478-1834), England under the Puritan Oliver Cromwell (1649-1658), France rescinding the Edict of Nantes under Louis XIV (1661-1715), and in some parts of South America today. Self-righteous Christian activists who gain power become viciously intolerant of diverging theologies and tyrannical toward believers and unbelievers. Believers are persecuted for the ‘crime’ of disagreement. Unbelievers may be forced into religious conversion denying them true volitional response to the Gospel.
The true Church, believers in Christ, should have influence on a national entity as invisible heroes but should never be identified as the state nor seek political control of the state. When the principle of separation of church and state is disregarded, the results are disastrous to the citizens of that nation. Civil and religious freedoms disappear. . . .
[T]he activist Christian loses his savor as the salt of the nation. Christian activism is built on the false philosophy that the end justifies the means, which includes criminal violence. Believers who become activists seek to settle spiritual issues with political solutions. These arrogant, self-righteous Christians forget that spiritual issues belong to the believer alone. The spiritual life and values of the Church cannot be forced on the unbeliever or the believer. Only the separation of church and state gives both human and spiritual freedom allowing the optimum expression for human volition. . . .
R. B. Thieme, Jr., Freedom through Military Victory (1996)
This is kind of a formal expression of my standard response to the paranoid liberal atheist. The ones I have known in person are obsessed with all kinds of imagined oppressions and injuries, usually dealing with the necessity of being nice to other people, the fact that most people are disgusted by their personal perversions, and the fact that the natural world does not conform to their personal fantasies. My attitude is that they should be free to spiral down into neurotic addictions and incessant whining, since as a Christian I am not interested in coercing them with the group therapy of a “political solution.”
I have a serious prejudice against politics and complete disdain for anyone who takes politics seriously. Every time I hear someone say that they “always” vote for the same party, I immediately start wondering if they have an IQ over 80, and mentally I equate them with a trained dog. I start to imagine crowds of sans-culottes in the streets of Paris, miserable Soviet Communist Party bureaucrats who destroyed their own country, and bourgeois German citizens who ignored or enabled Nazi atrocities.
I realize that this is a very bad attitude, so I try to be tolerant and just look at politics as a kind of absurdist performance art. From that perspective, the most interesting players are the entertaining ones and the honest ones. All the rest are just fodder for statisticians and sociologists, so that they can end up as footnotes in some future history books that try to explain the stupidities of our present age.
Moreover, my attitude is an irrational prejudice, since sometimes I find myself thinking politically; that is, I may make a decision for purely political reasons. Upon reflection, I may even decide that my political motivations are correct, so that I end up having to justify it somehow. I’m still working on that. Maybe it will turn out that the political animals are right after all, and my belief that they were wrong was due to the fact that I was living in a bubble, so to speak.
However, even after acknowledging my support for a “political solution,” I still support the right of others to resist it, and I still feel free to change my mind about my support; and those sentiments are antithetical to the political spirit.