An age-old debate; Separation of Church & State

It's pretty obvious our country has changed quite a bit in almost every way in the last hundred years. The least of that change certainly has not been in the debate on church vs. state. I have often heard people refer to our nation as a godless one and use the removal of prayer in schools as their biggest argument. I DO believe we have fallen short of some of God's best plans for us as a nation, but I do not believe that this is one of our more serious issues. Many Christians would disagree with me, but I believe the loss of prayer in schools is not the worst thing that has ever happened to this nation. Let's take an example from history on this one. Constantine, the Roman Emperor who converted to the Christian faith after seeing a vision in the sky during battle, paints an early picture of the separation of church and state (church and empire I guess). When he converted he made Christianity the national religion of the Empire and what happened- it declined. It got crusty and turned into motions in spite of, or maybe becuase, the fact that faith merged with government. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying government and religion are warring; all I'm saying is that God is in control. Three of the gospels record the story of Jesus saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" in response to a question about whether money should be given to the church or for taxes. Jesus seems to be more than okay with some separation here. God is bigger than governments and people, even when governements make laws that seem to opposed to God. His will cannot be thwarted by us, we can't screw it up. Maybe when government seems to be far from God and injustice is clearly seen we have a look at the deepness of our sin and our need for more reliance on God. I hope you don't see that as a trite little answer for my view on this. I'm not discounting injustice, sins of the nations, and all the people that are hurting because of corruption- but God is still in control and He deeply cares about each person in each nation of this world. I welcome your comments on this.

Tolerance vs. Endorsement

WASHINGTON (AP) — The first Muslim elected to Congress says he will take his oath of office using a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson to make the point that "religious differences are nothing to be afraid of." Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., decided to use the centuries-old Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in on Thursday after he learned that it is kept at the Library of Congress. Jefferson, the nation's third president and a collector of books in all topics and languages, sold the book to Congress in 1815 as part of a collection. "It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran," Ellison said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system," Ellison said. "This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of. USA Today" So...tolernace. Where is the line between tolerance of other people living other kinds of lives and adhering to other religions and speaking the truth of the gospel? I don't know exactly, but I do know that we can do both. We can tolerate without endorsing, we can accept without agreeing, we can love without fully identifying. In these changing times I encourage you to lead with love and hold back a bit of your words on these issues long enough to think about God being in control, long enough to realize that the world is not going to hell in a handbasket, and that God will reveal his truth as He wishes to who He wishes. I welcome your comments on practical ways that we can tolerate but not endorse.