Theological basis for separation of church and state

Crazy Liz · #1 15th July 2004, 04:46 PM

The idea of separation of church and state seems to come up frequently in these forums. When the phrase is mentioned, usually someone pipes up with the response that this phrase is not found in the US Constitution, but was invented by Thomas Jefferson, who once wrote a letter to someone about it. This "red herring" is used to sidetrack the discussion and de-legitimize the whole concept, since it's not part of the US Constitution.

Actually, the idea of separation of church and state originates as a theological concept, based on the experience of Christians persecuting other Christians during the Middle Ages and Reformation period. The idea was first advocated (I think) by the Anabaptists, who were persecuted by Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists alike.

It was their experience that no government can force anyone to be a Christian or to act like a Christian. When Christians in government tried to do this, they tended to use the power of the sword given to the state to suppress religious beliefs different from their own. We ended up with the Inquisition and other atrocities.

The Anabaptists proposed as a resolution to this probem that the government should only have jurisdiction over secular matters, not religious matters, and that churches should discipline their own WRT religious matters.

Here are some links about this Anabaptist concept:

http://www.gty.org/~phil/anabapt.htm

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/...-21-2001.shtml

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSE...glmps017.shtml

http://www.anabaptists.org/ras/31e30.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/glo....htm?terms=cal

...and a lot more here

Other Christians have continued to hold the belief that Christians ought to try to set up a theocracy on earth. This concept has been rejected by Anabaptists and all other Free Church Protestants because of our observations that no Christian ruler has ever succeeded in doing this. The more the ruler tried, the more church and state became aligned, the more the church became corrupted.

A second issue related to separation of church and state has to do with interpretation of scripture. I think by looking at the OT prophets, we can get a pretty good idea how Christians should act politically and speak to their government about moral issues.

I suggest as a model, we contrast the way prophets spoke to the rulers of Israel and Judah (holding them to a standard consistent with their claim to theocratic rule) and the way prophets spoke to the rulers of Assyria, Babylon and Persia (seeking justice for minorities within a secular or pagan pluralistic society).

I propose that Christians may seek redress from our secular governments in the same ways the prophets sought justice from pagan rulers. The prophets never asked a pagan ruler to tear down pagan idols and altars, as they called upon the rulers of Israel and Judah to do. However, they did call upon them to tolerate worship of Yahweh among their subjects, as well as calling on them not to force worshippers of Yahweh to worship other gods. Besides this distinction, there is some overlap in their messages to pagan and theocratic rulers. I think understanding these differences among the prophets will help us understand separation of church and state from a theological and biblical POV.

What do you think?

CSMR · #2 17th July 2004, 11:08 PM

Gentile peoples were criticised for idolatry - but given that they were idolatrous, would it have made sense to criticise their leaders further for not tearing down idols (as Jewish Kings were criticised)? Given that they are idolotrous, that is not something that they will do.
The Jews in dealing with others felt it more important to preserve God's name than to take them into the covenant; the situation is different with Christians, so there might be a reason for Christians to wish for more than Jews would here.
Another difficulty in learning from the prophets is that they spoke delivering God's judgement - perhaps we should do that to our governments, you would say?

- and not necessarily to get something done.

What would be a definition of separation of church and state, or theocracy? If you don't force anyone to be a Christian, but institute Christian preaching, is that theocracy? If a ruler is Christian, why wouldn't he do that? For a separated church and state, you presumably still try to have just laws - but then do you allow blasphemy? (Even Locke who supported religious freedom generally said that atheists can't be tolerated because they undermine the moral basis for law.)
OK, I have a bias here

And how are you doing, Crazy Liz? I've been away from the forums for a few months. (You probably don't remember me - I was last telling you how to give orders in latin I think).

Rev. Smith · #3 19th July 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Crazy Liz

The idea of separation of church and state seems to come up frequently in these forums. When the phrase is mentioned, usually someone pipes up with the response that this phrase is not found in the US Constitution, but was invented by Thomas Jefferson, who once wrote a letter to someone about it. This "red herring" is used to sidetrack the discussion and de-legitimize the whole concept, since it's not part of the US Constitution.

Actually, the idea of separation of church and state originates as a theological concept, based on the experience of Christians persecuting other Christians during the Middle Ages and Reformation period. The idea was first advocated (I think) by the Anabaptists, who were persecuted by Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists alike.

It was their experience that no government can force anyone to be a Christian or to act like a Christian. When Christians in government tried to do this, they tended to use the power of the sword given to the state to suppress religious beliefs different from their own. We ended up with the Inquisition and other atrocities.

The Anabaptists proposed as a resolution to this probem that the government should only have jurisdiction over secular matters, not religious matters, and that churches should discipline their own WRT religious matters.

Here are some links about this Anabaptist concept:

http://www.gty.org/~phil/anabapt.htm

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/...-21-2001.shtml

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSE...glmps017.shtml

http://www.anabaptists.org/ras/31e30.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/glo....htm?terms=cal

...and a lot more here

Other Christians have continued to hold the belief that Christians ought to try to set up a theocracy on earth. This concept has been rejected by Anabaptists and all other Free Church Protestants because of our observations that no Christian ruler has ever succeeded in doing this. The more the ruler tried, the more church and state became aligned, the more the church became corrupted.

A second issue related to separation of church and state has to do with interpretation of scripture. I think by looking at the OT prophets, we can get a pretty good idea how Christians should act politically and speak to their government about moral issues.

I suggest as a model, we contrast the way prophets spoke to the rulers of Israel and Judah (holding them to a standard consistent with their claim to theocratic rule) and the way prophets spoke to the rulers of Assyria, Babylon and Persia (seeking justice for minorities within a secular or pagan pluralistic society).

I propose that Christians may seek redress from our secular governments in the same ways the prophets sought justice from pagan rulers. The prophets never asked a pagan ruler to tear down pagan idols and altars, as they called upon the rulers of Israel and Judah to do. However, they did call upon them to tolerate worship of Yahweh among their subjects, as well as calling on them not to force worshippers of Yahweh to worship other gods. Besides this distinction, there is some overlap in their messages to pagan and theocratic rulers. I think understanding these differences among the prophets will help us understand separation of church and state from a theological and biblical POV.

What do you think?

The establishment clause in the US constitution has formed the legal underpinning for the speration doctrine. The Courts have ruled that since the Federal government is barred from establishing a religion, it must be entirely nuetral to religion, and is thus barred from giving active support to any such body. (This logic is also the basis for the tax exempt status of Churches, since they have no rights before or from the state, they are considered exempt from supporting the state).

The religious doctrine evolved over time, the issues you cited contrbuted a great deal. However, as early as 1176 in England the issue was hard fought ((the state lost that round)) - The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett, became embroiled in a three pronged dispute with the crown over taxes (the church didn't pay ANY - not just no land taxes, but the Clergy refused to pay head and poll taxes *the forrunner of income taxes*), over the rights of clergy to hold their own judicial courts, not only asserting jurisdiction over all clergy (a point the Crown conceded), but over citizens accused of crimes against clergy (The Bishop excommunicated a Knight who had been acquited by the Crown Justicer), and the right of the Archbishop to control clerical appointments, King Henry insisted on using the Bishop of Lincoln to coronate his son. The entire debate boiled down to who would run the country, the secular or ecclesiastical government. The Church argument was that since it was the representative of God, opposing it was opposing God. The King argued that since he owned the country, ((he did)), so long as he remained a good Christian it was his right, ordained by God, to rule.

After years of debate, and a long exile Henry II had Thomas killed, in his Catherdral. This proved to be a very bad idea, the Vatican canonized Thomas and the King had to do public pennance.

From then until now the Church and State have ebbed and flowed in their relative authority over one another, but outright seperation has been rare (Iran is a theocracy with some seculkar institutuiions, the western countries are secular states with religious institutions).

In the end, as you alluded, it is in the best interest of Church and state to remain seperate. As an Old Catholic. I'd be equally unhappy to live under a Muslim or evagelical Christian yoke, I petition the government for redress and protection and God for my blessings. I live by the morality I received from my creed, and hope all mankind will oneday CHOOSE to do the same. Until then I am content that the power of man's law reach only as farr as the vast majority of society wishes it to reach.

billwald · #4 19th July 2004, 03:31 PM

First, it doesn't matter what we think the Constitution "says" because it "says" whatever the Supreme Court says it says. We are ruled by case law, not the Constitution.

That is how the Constitution was written. Was it intentional or by sloppy writing?

Second, most any combination of church and state ends up in rule by a form of Talaban. I would prefer to take my chances with the present system than live under the rule of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Reconstructionists.

Patristic · #5 19th July 2004, 07:43 PM

The Church survived and flourished for 300 years while it had the weight of the Roman Empire bearing down upon it; If the Church grows and prospers while it is persecuted by the State and becomes corrupt when it is embraced by the State, then I think the neutral position of our government towards religion is a wise action.

CSMR · #6 20th July 2004, 08:33 PM

Well, Patristic, wouldn't you then prefer the US government to persecute the church, so that it can grow?
And what of the first union of Church and State which Constantine brought about? Perhaps you could say that once Christians were no longer being killed and other religions started to be persecuted there were so may Christians who were just nominal, the emperor now had so much power over Church policy and doctrine. But don't we owe to Constantine's conversion the spread of Christian belief throughout the Roman empire, and the development of orthodox church doctrine - in the persecution of the gnostics, dualists and those who rejected the Jewish scripture and in the council of Nicea?

Patristic · #7 20th July 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by CSMR

Well, Patristic, wouldn't you then prefer the US government to persecute the church, so that it can grow?
And what of the first union of Church and State which Constantine brought about? Perhaps you could say that once Christians were no longer being killed and other religions started to be persecuted there were so may Christians who were just nominal, the emperor now had so much power over Church policy and doctrine. But don't we owe to Constantine's conversion the spread of Christian belief throughout the Roman empire, and the development of orthodox church doctrine - in the persecution of the gnostics, dualists and those who rejected the Jewish scripture and in the council of Nicea?

So you really think Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and the others were going to adopt the strategy of persecuting the Christian Church and enshrine that principle in the Constitution? That is a bizarre position and one that wouldn't have made much sense seeing that the founding fathers would have bitten the hand that fed them since a majority of the country already considered itself Christian. Constantine's conversion and the cessation of persecution wasn't a bad thing; Paul tells Timothy in the second chapter of the first epistle to pray for all rulers, kings, and those in authority that we might live out our lives in peace. When Constantine converted that definitely became a reality for all Christians around the world. Nevertheless, I wouldn't say that the Christianization of the empire was all good. Many of the converts suffered from moral laxity and many things were altered to make it easier for people to enter or re-enter the Church if they apostosized. Just read some of the homilies by Chrysostom and you will see him express despair over the fact that so many people entered the Church but just recited the words with their mouths, but never truly meant it in their hearts. Furthermore, the state using military force and coercion to kill heretics or force schismatics back into the Church is not a good thing. Yes, I am glad about the formulation of the creeds of the councils, but nowhere does Scripture or Church Tradition speak of butchering heretics with the sword.

Harry the Heretic · #8 21st July 2004, 01:09 AM

Christ said that his kingdom was not of this world. Also when the judges of Isreal were rejected, as every man did what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21: 25), and requested a king, God called it a rejection of himself as the ruler of Isreal. The seperation of church and state is very important, wether it be by consent of the state, or without.

robbymcdowell · #9 21st July 2004, 01:30 AM

Separation of Church and State is actually mentioned in the Bible:

"Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
-Matthew 22:21

bliz · #10 21st July 2004, 01:58 AM

(Everyone always forgets Roger Williams! Before Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter, Rev Williams preached on a wall of seperation between church and state. Williams felt that the wall should be there to protect the garden/church from the forest/state.)