When is a State Church good (on the whole), and when is it bad

*

I believe that, ideally, in a Christian society, Church and State should be one, in harmony - as in Byzantium at its best: there should be no autonomous secular realm.

Thus we get State and Churches linked by various mechanisms, more or less closely.

*

As long as the State is Christian, or is becoming Christian, this is good; but when the State becomes non-Christian or anti-Christian, it will drag-down the State Church, inevitably.

*

The clearest example was Russia, which went from being the most devoutly Christian society in the world to the coercive and violently murderous atheism of the the Soviet Union - and when Russia descended into Communism, the State Church was dragged down, and became merely an agent of the State.

(Now the Russian State has become and continues to become more Christianized, the Church is becoming healthier).

*

In England the Church of England (headed by the Monarch, who appointed Bishops and approved liturgy) worked pretty well for as long as the State was Christian, but as the State became increasingly anti-Christian and atheist, the Church was inevitably dragged-down.

*

Of course, a Church does not have to be a State Church to be dragged down by secularism - the Church of Scotland is not a State Church, but it has been politicized and secularized much the same as the C of E.

*

But a higher degree of independence from a secular State does enable a Church to hold-out for longer, and more completely, against secularism. Thus the most devout of religions and of Christian denominations in the modern West, are among the most independent of the State.

*

As so often, the best arrangement under the best conditions, is different from the best arrangement under seriously sub-optimal conditions.

*