Theological basis for separation of church and state

There is a good theological basis for wishing to separate church and state. There are also many practical arguments for keeping them separate. We should make a point of being aware of purely pragmatic arguments for separation of church and state, because we may find ourselves in countries where the majority isn't Christian.

But... It is the theological argument that should guide our own decisions, when we are confronted with the opportunity to try to extend our religion's reach via state means, or by personal witness. I think it is clear which of these we should choose.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

The lack of a king does not equate to separation of church and state. We have a King (the governing authorities) and not the option of going back - and the question is what are we to do? When Kings were installed in Israel, it is clear God did not require them to separate religion from the state!
[quote=robbymcdowell]"Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
-Matthew 22:21/[quote]
What did Jesus mean here other than to tell us to obey the authorities (at least, in this instance)? How does this relate to separation of church and state?

Originally Posted by seebs

There is a good theological basis for wishing to separate church and state.

So what is this basis? If there is such a basis, then presumably there should be a clear concept of separation of church and state. How far does this go? Is the state allowed to uphold justice, or will religions be tolerated that allow murder, adultery, theft, etc.? Does it mean that teachers must not present any religious opinions in state schools? What exactly does it mean?

Does extending the reach of Christianity by state means prevent personal witness?

God did not require the kings of Israel and Judah from separating religion from the state, but God did ask this of the kings of Babylon and Persia.

The question, I think, has to do with whether our government has been established to govern a nation exclusively dedicated to God or not. I think the NT teaches that the church is to be formed out of all nations and all peoples. It is transnational, not national. The assumption is that the governments of nations will not be like the kings of Israel and Judah (who, as a whole, did not do a very good job of governing a godly nation!) but like the kings of Babylon and Persia, and that the church should not try to seize political power. However, without political power, the church can still speak prophetically to political rulers, just as the exhilic prophets spoke to the kings of Babylon and Persia.

It is the concept of authority and who has it. In the case of the church, it is a spiritual kingdom headed by Christ. This requires faith of its members to trust that the Lord is truly leading his body, just as in ancient Isreal. This goes against the state run church concept, when the government adopts a paticular religion or system of Christianity. Many expected the Lord to assume the role as an earthly king to lead Isreal. He taught against this model.

It does not imply that a nation or government cannot endorse the morality or precepts of the church, but that it is wrong for a government to "sieze" power from its true head. (I may have just opened a can of worms)

__________________
At my church we sing really slow. That way we can read ahead to see if we agree with it...

ACTUALLY,

In The System that our Founders set up, the BoRs ONLY applied to the FEDERAL Government and NOT the Individual States. Individual States were free to have established State Churches and Religions and several in fact did well after the Ratification of the Constitution. This was NOT a violation of any principle in law.

The Founders wanted individual states to be free to be as restrictive or unrestrictive as their own STATE Constitution's allowed.

Further, Judeo-Christian Principles were established as part of Common law:

Supreme Court of New York 1811, in the Case of the People V Ruggles, 8 Johns 545-547, Chief Justice Chancellor Kent Stated:

The defendant was indicted in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a *******, and his mother must be a whore," in contempt of the Christian religion. The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.

The Prosecuting Attorney argued:

While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.

The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:

Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. The authorities show that blasphemy against God and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society.

We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only impious, but is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.

The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions] [We are] people whose manners and whose morals have been elevated and inspired by means of the Christian religion.

Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed:

[that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].

The Supreme Court of New York in the case of Lidenmuller V The People, 33 Barbour, 561 Stated:

Christianity is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. The fact is everwhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, and well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1817, in the Case of The Commonwealth V Wolf stated the courts opinion as follows:

Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life, It is of the utmost moment, therefore, that they should be reminded of their religious duties at stated periods. A wise policy would naturally lead to the formation of laws calculated to subserve those salutary purposes. The invaluable privilege of the rights of conscience secured to us by the constitution of the commonwealth, was never intended to shelter those persons, who, out of mere caprice, would directly oppose those laws for the pleasure of showing their contempt and abhorrence of the religious opinions of the great mass of the citizens.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:

Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.

The jury finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information. That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility. I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.

The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty.

We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity without which no free government can long exist.

To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.

No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country. Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws.

Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.

While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.

The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina in 1846 in the case of City of Charleston V S.A. Benjamin cites an individual who broke the Ordinance that stated: "No Person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lord's day."

The court convicted the man and came to the conclusion: "I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updengraph V The Commonwealth Christianity, general Christianity, is an always has been, a part of the common law; "not Christianity with an established church but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

Dittomonkey, you obviously did not read the OP. This thread is about the theological basis for the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the constitution or laws of any particular state or nation.

*bump*

Jesus does say that His kingdom is not of this world. So why would the church care one way or the other if men of this world make it a law to seperate church and state?

We should be seperate in our hearts, not because the law of this world makes it so.

The world does what the world does.

We are to follow all laws and to submit to all authority. We are not here to be "rebels with a cause". We, as Christians, should have meek, quite spirits so to not offend the world. So when truth is spoken, and you are rejected and persucuted, you will know in your heart and concience that you are rejected and persecuted because of "truth" that you speak.

We can not make the world follow God's laws, men only follow God's laws when God allows it, when he puts "faith" in mens hearts and they begin to move toward him and want to please and find him.

Do you trust God for your protection or do you trust THIS worlds government for your protection? Do you trust God for your "rights" or do you trust THIS world for your so called "christian rights"?

If Jesus says that we should seek a new kingdom and a new country that is not of this world, why do some in the church believe they have "rights" in a world that is not ours? The prince of THIS world is not our prince and this world is not set up for us, the world the church should be seeking is set up under righteousness.

I pray that all in the church study to see what this means.

speaking truth by the Holy Spirit, SERVING ONLY Jesus Christ and God, our Heavenly Father

newname

No, the church doesn't need human laws, and when human laws start trying to dictate religious practice, we have always ended up with either persecution of Christians or corruption in the church.

Are not churches, alas!, always dictated by human laws? It is humans who have power over curches. From the bishops to priests to laymen... the church is overrun with humans!