Category: church

Ok, now I see what you mean. For OPCers, there is a strong line between church and state:

Thus, it is not only important to distinguish between the institutions of church and state, but the source of each institution’s guidance, and the definition of the purposes of each must be identified. It is not even enough to say that the goals of the state are temporal, and of the church eternal. It must be added that the sources of guidance and purposes are dramatically different. The essential interests of one are not the same as those of the other. As our confession defines the purpose of the state: “It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people” (WCF 23.3). Rulers are not tasked with promoting or enforcing the “true religion.” They are called to maintain civil order for all of its citizens, including Muslims, Jews, and atheists; and special revelation commands Christians to support them in this distinct endeavor.

And, more specifically:

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matter so faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

That said, the points of these passages seems to be the protection of the church against state interference. Back in the day, with the Anglican and Catholic churches, there were strong ties between church hierarchy and civil government. A religions like the minority Presbyterians would seem to be interested in either severing these ties or at least ensuring the civil authorities didn’t cross the church/state line into the church’s authority.

What these don’t address is how Presbyterians should behave in the realm of civil government, when they are in fact in charge. I’ve found at least one area (capital punishment) where the church gives specific instruction of an area of civil government.

I don’t think there is a huge connection between religion and local politics or partisan politics and local politics (two lenses you could view this post through), but I think there are a few things worth discussing.

Karen Veldheer has twice now sought a seat on the Olympia City Council. Her reason for candidacy has been the hard fought battle against somewhat notorious developer Tri Vo. Her activism in that realm has garnered her support from some pretty important local Democrats.

In her application for now Mayor Doug Mah’s council seat last year, she also cited here membership and work with the Reformed Orthodox Presbyterian church, a more conservative version of the church in America founded by John Calvin. In the same application she lists her involvement in the local Christian homeschool organization and her pastor as a reference.

All of these are fine things. Until a few weeks ago I attended church regularly and even volunteered, so I’m not looking down my nose at Karen culturally. I think involvement in a community of faith is an admirable thing.

That said, where does one’s faith life leave off and one’s civic life begin? Her campaign is built upon her experience with her battle with a developer: environmental protection, consumer protection and responsive government. If you poke around the website of her church, these aren’t issues they speak directly to at all.

What they do address are social issues like the rights homosexuals. Which, as you might imagine, they aren’t big fans of (here and here).

Pretty direct stuff on that topic:

You see: no special treatment for the homosexual, no concession to any type of sin, but a gospel with such power that members of the early church who had been enslaved to all of these types of sin were delivered from them. Some of them were homosexuals before. But they were no longer such after they were liberated by the Lord Jesus. It is our conviction that this is still true today.

I understand how people in political circles can disagree about some things and come together on other issues. This could be what is going on here with Democrats like Brendan Williams, Karen Fraser, and Sandra Romero among her supporters.

Or, it could be that Karen attends her local church, but firmly disagrees with them on social issues. I can tell you first hand that a lot of Catholics like me disagree pretty firmly with the mother church on social issues.

Either way, there is also a local issue to address here. Where does Veldeer stand on the Equal Benefits Ordinance, which requires city contractors over a certain dollar amount to provide domestic partner benefits? Would she consider it special treatment or a concession to sin?

Olympia has a long tradition or supporting domestic partnerships, being one of the first cities in Washington (over ten years ago now) to start a domestic partner registry. So, while this particular issue may not be front and center right now, mostly because it is so uncontroversial within the city, it is worth asking Veldheer where she stands.