Church and State: What God Has Joined Together, Let No One Separate
December 16, 2007 by pistolpete
There is so much hulla-ballew around the blogosphere (and in other places) about the “separation of Church and State”. I don’t get it. There has never been a separation of Church and State in America. They’ve been married for over 200 years ago and, Lord willing, they’ll be married for another 200 more. Why do so many people today feel compelled to separate them?
The question should not be “How can we separate the Church from the State?” The question should be, “How can we help the Church and State live together with mutual respect?” In other words, “How can we help them have a good marriage?”
Within any marriage, there are good and bad ways to express yourself. The same is true within the marriage of Church and State. For instance, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to express faith in a public setting. Here are 5 examples of each -
Appropriate: Christian students form an after-school Bible club.
Inappropriate: Christian students club non-Christians over the head with Bibles.
Appropriate: A witness in court concludes his swearing in with “So help me God.”
Inappropriate: A judge swears at the defendant, “So help me God, you’re gonna fry.”
Appropriate: A football player kneels in the end zone and prays.
Inappropriate: The football player is nailed to the goal post as insults are hurled on him.
Appropriate: Christian prisoners receive private funds to build a chapel.
Inappropriate: An innocent preacher receives a life sentence so the chapel has a pastor.
Appropriate: Someone stages a living nativity on the White House lawn.
Inappropriate: Someone steals a Jewish child to play the baby Jesus.
Church and State: What God has joined together, let no one separate.
“What God has joined together, let no one separate.”
hmmm…i’m a little confused why you would think God desires the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdoms of the world to be joined? From this post you’re a little unclear about what you mean by the Church being joined to the State.
Maybe I should give you a chance to respond before hand…but I will say this: never in the history of the Church has a symbiotic relationship between the Church and State ever turned out. Ever.
And I’ll say this: my experience working for the United States Senate as an aide to a Senator and a missionary on the Hill gave me a unique perspective to see the incredibly sick relationship that the Church and State currently have. Both feed off of each other to further each others respective powerful ends, and the result is a Church that neither lives out Her identity nor is feared by the State.
Anyway, I’ll stop and I’ll look forward to some clarification…
-jeremy
The Pistol fires back: Good questions. Thanks for writing in.
It depends, in part, how you define “Church”. If by “Church” you mean a particular sectarian organization (Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc…) out to exert influence for its own self-serving purposes, then, yes, the Church/State relationship can be a sick one. Still, you must admit, it’s a relationship that goes back to the beginnings of the US. The Pilgrims did not flee Europe to be free from religion. They fled because of the oppressiveness of a particular church body.
Another way to define “Church” is a body of believers with a particular set of beliefs that can be expressed in non-coercive ways. A group of students gathering for prayer and Bible study are not out to intimidate school officials. A football player kneeling in the end zone for prayer isn’t just trying to impress the refs so he can get favorable calls. Even a group staging a nativity play at the White House is not looking to influence public policy. Do churches and church folk inappropriately “play politics”? Absolutely. But, this isn’t the fault of the faith itself, but the way a person expresses it.
This is the point of my post - Church and State can co-exist in a mutally beneficial way (like in a good marriage). Or, we can selfishly try to take advantage of each other to the detriment of everyone, believers and non-believers alike.
and I say the Church (ekklesia–called out ones), as in the Body of Christ who is the community of Jesusly restored individuals called to follow Jesus into His Kingdom-movement, will by default be an absolute afront to Empire, whether Empire Rome or Empire America.
If the Church properly lives out Her calling there will be no way for the Body of Christ and Empire America to coexist, because the Church will be the prophetic witness to the State to such an extent that She will threaten the Power of Empire. Now, however, the Church, both the Religious Right and Progressive Left variety use the State for Her own selfish powerful ends, and the Church is used by the State (both parties) to further It’s powerful ends.
And about the founding of this country as a ‘Christian nation’? Historical revisionism through and through. While religious motivations may have played a part, it’s no secret that England was a major colonial power of the day, and that’s what America was: a colony. If we were filled with such holy people and were truly a marriage between the Church and State as some would suggest, then why the mass slaughter of a people group that previously existed here for centuries? Why would we think we had a holy writ from God to steal property belonging to it’s previous inhabitants? Just a thought…
Anyway this is getting long :) I understand what you’re saying, but only because I know the argument, used to believe it myself, and have seen the unbecoming results. From my perspective it’s impossible for the Church, the Body of Christ properly lived out, and State to exist in such a ‘bonded’ relationship as you are talking. Surely they can co-exist, but Empires have a funny way of getting pretty pissed at the Church when she properly lives out her identity.
-jeremy
The Pistol fires back: You really get me thinking early in the morning. I like it.
1) The “called-out” ones still live in (though not of the world) and are therefore related to the Empire in some way (in some cases, as I point out, intimately).
2) Within this relationship, the Church is a “threat” as you say, even more a threat than if the Church were actually separated from the State.
3) I did not say, and do not believe, ours was ever a “Christian” nation (far from it). My point is that the Church has been married to the State since its inception. Within the Church, as we’ve known it, are deists, agnostics, secularists, even Democrats. We aren’t a “Christian” nation. We’re lucky to be a “Christian” Church.
4) Atrocities occured because the Church is a body of sinners who try to do saintly things and instead wind up commiting atrocities.
5) The day the Church truly lives out her identity will be the day Christ comes and Empires won’t have time to be pissed, because they’ll be destroyed.
I appreciate your perspective and value your firsthand experience.
Pete, I swear our parents were ACLU members and their rolling in their democratic graves as we speak.
What do you mean when you say you think the church would be more of a threat to the state bonded to it than if the two were separated and the church was an outside, yet influential prophetic voice?
IMHO, atrocities are sometimes committed by misguided sinners, but more often by power-hungry or fearful people who also happen to be religious and who hijack religion, or aspects of it, to defend the atrocity. This may be a subconscious or conscious process.
The Pistol fires back: I don’t think there are such things as Democratic graves. Not good for the environment. A good Democrat should donate his/her organs, cremate the rest and spread the ashes somewhere sacred, like Haight-Ashbury park.
All I’m basically doing is just trying to use the metaphor of a marriage. Let’s call the Church the wife (she’s a she in Scripture, after all), and the State the husband. A (good) wife has much more influence over her (faithful) husband than any outsider, no matter how prophetic that “other” woman is.
Though I don’t know what “IMHO” means, I would not disagree with your assessment about “power-hungry, fearful” folk who hijak religion being the ones who commit atrocities and then defend it. These are just the sort of sinners I had in mind. Religious crusaders. Saul before he became Paul. Good religious folk who love their religion so much they would kill for it.
Nonetheless, it wouldn’t be fair to conclude that since such religious extremism exists (and has existed), we should divorce religion from politics. That would be like saying because there are men out there who abuse their wives, I should divorce mine.
The firsthand perspective thing was for Jeremy — unless you are also a capital hill survivor, Pete?
The Pistol fires back: Alas, no. The one time I went to D.C., I got lost in L’Enfant Plaza. I was, however, President of the campus “Young Democrats” (can you believe it, sis?)
really bro? what caused you to turn red? please tell it wasn’t Santa worship — cause remember, santa = satan. i was thinking, perhaps our biological mother was a democrat, our father a republican — they did away with each other — so we had to be adopted out. what do you think?
The Pistol fires back: Turning away from the Democratic party sort of “evolved”. Actually, I’m still registered a Democrat. Among other things, it has to do with taxation. Republicans think if they give big busniness owners tax cuts, they can better help the poor people by giving them jobs. Democrats think they can help the poor by paying a bureaucrat to do very little but make the lives of the poor more miserable. (I worked as one of those bureaucrats once, so I know.) As for taxes, I like the idea of the FAIR tax. I don’t think you should be punished for having your own home (property tax), earning money (income tax) or saving money (capital gains), but for spending it (sales tax). This encourages us to have homes, work hard and save. Then, only spend when we have to or, like the Yankees, pay a luxury tax.
I’d love to hear more about your experiences as “one of those bureaucrats.”
I feel we can do better for the poor than either welfare or giving them a trickle, while we heap gold bars on the backs of wealthy corporations.
We could start with being as aggressive about cleaning up our inner cities as we are in Iraq. We could create a more level playing field by having all public schools funded equally. And Christians could invest energy into really getting involved in mentoring at-risk youth instead of fighting silly battles over public displays of Christianity and gay rights. Yes, I am opinionated :)
The Pistol fires back: I worked one summer for a county social services department on a government grant, ostensibly to study the homeless. I went to work each morning at 9 and came home each afternoon at 5. In 3 months, I was not once told what I was to do. I spent my time drinking coffee and chatting with a number of “lifers” who also had no idea what they were doing, and they preferred it that way. They had a modest income, but good health care and pension. They did as little as they could get away with.
I’m not sure what we can do with the poor. I get to know a number of poor people in my work as a pastor and, apart from providing them friendship, spiritual support, and some emergency assistance, most seem stuck in poverty. We have helped a few become gainfully employed or, at least, better navigate the social services system. The problem is so endemic, however, I don’t think throwing government money at it will make much difference.
I fully support reducing funding in Iraq (and for the military-industrial complex altogether). Not, however, to spend more elsewhere - but to spend down the national debt. I’m no economist, but I know if we spend an inordinate amount of interest paying interest on our national debt, soon we won’t be able to fund any program - in Iraq, the US, anywhere.
While I’m no supporter of “no child left behind”, I also don’t think equal funding for all schools is the answer. Some schools (richer and poorer) are simply better than others, and it’s not a question of how much money they have. We need to somehow provide school systems the incentive to use whatever resources they receive wisely.
Having said that, however, I do think, however, more funding needs to be directed into education. The fact the someone who takes care of toilets can make more than a someone who takes care of a child’s education is a sad comment on our society. But what are you gonna do? That’s America!
I’m fully with you on Christians taking more action and making fewer speeches (though I do spend more time blogging than serving the poor). Tony Campolo spoke at a Christian college once and said, “There are countless people in the world starving right now and you couldn’t give a shit.” He paused as the audience gasped. “The worse thing is, you care more about by the fact that I just said, ’shit’, than do about the people who are starving.”
Wow–that is some serious discussion going on–almost too serious for me–but…I will say this, The concept of “Separation of Church and State” did not come from the Constitution–it came from a well known Christian named Thomas Jefferson. He wrote a letter to a church discussing the point that never again will the Government dictate the arm of Christianity you must join to worship God. That is all he meant by the phrase. Interestingly, the founding fathers never envisioned a Country where everyone was not some form of a Christian. However, the US has correctly, over the years, discerned that the spirit of the Founding Fathers intent was that the Government should not be allowed to dictate how or who or what you worship as long as in so doing you don’t breach the peace in some way (Like skinning a live animal or sacrificing a young baby).
That notion, however, has been distorted to the point of insanity in the last 30 years. Now the Supreme Court has determined that saying a prayer in school is a problem-a school–which is only a quasi-governmental agency. The ridiculous notion is that somehow the concept as discussed by Jefferson also meant that you couldn’t even suggest a form of worship if you are an arm (or even a finger) of the Government–that is wrong.
To turn ridiculous into absurd–the Courts have decided that a monument reciting the 10 commandments outside of a courthouse or a bible contained in a monument outside a courthouse is somehow a violation of Jefferson’s principles. How we as a society have allowed “Government dictated religion” to now mean “any notion of religion so much as uttered by Government” I will never know. ALthough, if I read Revelation I do get some clues.
The point is–a government devoid of God is a government completely led by people–and people–as we all know–suck at running the government.
The Pistol fires back: You preach it, brother! This whole democratic ideal, in my view, has turned out to be a big bust. Give me a benign theocratic dictatorship anyday. If it worked for the Israelites, it’ll work for us.
i know this is not a deep comment to add to your thoughts but a comment on the nativity picture…I think those fake beards are innappropriate! They (beards) are all I can focus on and not the baby Jesus or the whole symbolism of the event. Just being funny…MERRY CHRISTMAS!
The Pistol fires back: Yeah, nativity scenes in general can be quite comical. You should some day read A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving. It has one of the most hilarious scenes I’ve ever read in all of literature, that takes places at a Nativity play. Merry Christmas to you, as well.