Hey Sue,
I'd like to ask for some clarification on a few things from your post, but I do think you've got some interesting insights as well. I was speaking with a pastor a few years back, in Canada, who was really worked up about some potential upcoming changes in the law. I don't remember exactly what it was, but it was something like, churches were classified as public clubs, and some upcoming change would restrict what could or couldn't be said in public clubs. So this pastor was worried that churches would lose their buildings, and pulpit preaching was going to become illegal, so what would become of the nation? I remember thinking a pretty similar thing to what you seem to be saying -- the church doesn't need government support to be the church. We're not going to stop doing God's work just because we don't have our own buildings. The situation that pastor was worried about is not the situation now, but it could be, and probably will be, one day. So do we fight to keep what we have, or do we roll with the punches, and think up different ways to keep on doing the work of the church?
These days, I work closely with the Salvation Army, which accepts financial support from the government and various organisations. The money they get from the gov and companies is used for specific humanitarian endeavors... disaster relief, family counseling, disability support work, prison chaplaincy, that sort of thing. I personally don't see the way the Salvos work with the government to be a bad thing. To me, it means that the Salvos are publicly respected for their track record of serving people, and making good use of the funds with which they've been entrusted. In my experience, the gospel message the workers are passionate about giving is not compromised by the Salvos' work alongside the government or other organisations. The truth is being spoken, and people are being saved. So... I guess I'm struggling somewhat understanding what you mean when describing the institutionalised church as turning to the the gov as its head instead of Christ, being idolatrous, etc. I don't live in America -- what's going on with the church in the USA? Maybe you can list some examples of what you mean? Is the message of the gospel being compromised by something the church is doing?
Also, there seems to be a secondary discussion going on here, which is something I've been thinking about for a number of years: how do we know when we're being spoken to by the Holy Spirit? How do we distinguish the Spirit's guidance from something that may be, say, a strong and convincing urge that comes from ourselves? I have, and I'm sure most of us here have experienced this as well, heard plenty of people claiming to be speaking by the Spirit, when what they're saying clearly contradicts Biblical teaching -- but they're so convinced about what they're saying. My experiences witnessing that sort of thing have made me very wary of what I think may be the Spirit's guidance -- I don't want to believe something that just comes from myself; surely there are ways of testing the validity of what we feel may be the Spirit's voice. I've been convinced the Spirit was speaking to me before, and later realised I was wrong -- or more specifically, the Spirit was speaking to me, but I had interpreted the meaning incorrectly, dangerously. When we hear the Spirit, then, how do we know that it is the Spirit, and secondly, how do we know if we've correctly interpreted what the Spirit has given us? I've talked to people on this forum before about Acts 21, where lots of people receive a prophecy that Paul will be taken prisoner in Rome. Everyone agrees on the message, but not everyone agrees on the interpretation... actually, everyone but Paul interprets it as a warning for him to avoid Rome. So how do we deal with messages from the Spirit? How do we test their validity, and how do we know how to correctly interpret them?
Roads.........I too have been told that Canada has or is about to institute the restrictions that your friend has told you. It would mean that preachers can not speak against homosexuality or abortion as it would constitute "hate speech".
I have also been told that England has already passed a law of the same kind of restrictions aimed at the church.
Have you heard anything such as that?
As for the Holy Spirit and His leading, that is what I have been trying to impress upon Sue. Sometimes, when we want something so bad, we force it into being the truth but to do that means the truth has already been compromised.
Blessings!