Which "Son of David" Does the Church Represent

"When the suffering, the sick, and the blind call out "Son of David," its as
much a question as it is a cry. Which kind of Son fo David are you,
Jesus?" The kind who maintains jsutice and righteousness, or the kind who
builds military bases?"--Rob Bell in Jesus Wants to Save Christians p.
79.

So my friend Chris copied a portion of Charle's Murray's In Pursuit of Happiness, which makes the case that the Govt. took over the churches responsibility to help the poor and needy and as a result, the church doesn't get or spend the money it once did to to help. See the following link: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/note.php?note_id=214903110157&ref=mf

My questions are these:

1. Was the church too much a part of the state and the state too much a part of the church, so govt. and church activities were combined?

2. Is the religous right too much (or has been too much) a part of the state--so the church is seen as "building military bases"--Being a Solomon instead of Jesus?

3.  Is the religous left too much (or has been too much) a part of the state?

4. Is the church seen as worthless in the world's eyes because when it was a "part of the state" it gave its responsibility to the state--so the state gets credit for helping the poor and needy, doesn't do it well, but is at least seen as doing something and the church is seen as doing nothing?

5. Is the church seen as worthless in the world's eyes because it is percieved as building and supporting the building of "military bases"?

6. How can the church lament it percieved condition and envision a new and better tomorrow--where it makes a difference for Christ? See my blog on Hannah.