The different roles of church and state, and the separation of the two, seems to have become a subject of some debate and discussion in Evangelical circles lately, probably motivated by the issuance of the “Frankfurt Declaration of Christian and Civil Liberties” which I had commented on in my previous post. In connection with that it seems, the Ligonier Ministries has recently put out (or reissued) an old interview on the subject with the late R.C. Sproul, which can be seen above, the transcript of which is given below (the original transcript it seems had been edited by the Ligonier folks, and parts of it was messed up; I have tried to restore it from the video as best I could, emphasis added):
“When we talk about the separation of church and state—you know all the historical questions that came from Jefferson, and the latter wasn’t in the Constitution or Declaration or anything—but it was accurate in so far as there is a division of labor that the Bible makes clear, that God ordains the church, governs the church; God also ordains the state, and He governs the state. A few years ago I was invited to speak at the inaugural prayer breakfast of the Governor of Florida. And on that occasion I said to the governor, I said, ‘Today is your ordination day, that you have been ordained by God for this position of political authority, and you will be answerable to God for how you carry out this mission.’ So we distinguish between the spheres of activity. It is not the responsibility of the church to ‘bear the sword’ [Rom. 13:4]; it is not the responsibility of the state to be giving the sacraments, and all of that. So there are different duties and tasks that are assigned between the church and the state. Unfortunately, in our culture today, the mantra of separation of state and church has come to mean something quite different, namely the separation of state from God. It is one thing to separate the church from the state; it is something else to separate the state from God. The state has declared its independence from God, and wants to have its own authority rather than to be accountable to the things of God. Now you get a question like abortion, and the church speaks out against it; and a lot of people scream about that, saying, ‘This is a violation of church and state,’ and so on; and it is an unjust intrusion of the church into the political realm. However when we speak to an issue like abortion, which is the most significant ethical issue I believe this nation has ever had to deal with, far more serious than even the diabolical problem of slavery. But in this case, we are not asking the state to be the church; we are asking the state to be the state, because the state’s primary raison d’être, its primary reason for existence in its original creation by God, primarily is to maintain, protect, and honor the sanctity of human life; and when the state fails to do that, it fails to do its task before God. Now again, in the Scriptures, we see even in Old Testament, where there was a theonomy there, a theocratic state, that the prophets from time to time had to call the kings to task. And in the New Testament, you see John the Baptist being critical of Herod for his illicit marriage, and that is why he was killed and so on. So the church, though it is not supposed to be the state, always has, in my opinion, a responsibility to offer what we call ‘prophetic criticism’ to the state when the state becomes quote, as Oscar Cullmann once indicated, ‘demonized’.”
That is his explanation of the concept of the “separation of church and state”. But that definition is somewhat skewed. It is a distorted Calvinism-inspired definition. The concept of the separation of church and state, as outlined in the Constitution, is purely and strictly a legal issue or concept, not a moral or ethical one. It is defined in the First Amendment as follows (emphasis added):
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It prohibits any kind of government interference in religion, period. It is not about government promoting good religion, and demoting bad religion. It prohibits any kind of government interference in religion. And it is strictly a legal issue. It simply defines freedom of religion. It has nothing to do with ethics or morals. It means that if somebody wants to make a religion worshiping Satan (and they do, there is something called the Church of Satan), they have the freedom and right to do so. The Constitution guarantees them that right. That is the true definition of the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of a religion. That is the true meaning and definition of the separation of church and state.
Now this does not mean that the government should not be moral or ethical, or that it should not make good laws promoting righteous principles. Of course it should. Neither does it mean that churches and other institutions should not act to advise, lobby, or encourage governments to act righteously in those ways. Of course they should. But that is a separate issue from the “freedom of religion,” or the “separation of church and state”. What will promote a “righteous government,” in a democratic society especially, is the righteousness of the people; because a righteous people or nation, will elect a righteous government. All of that, however, is entirely a separate issue from the freedom of religion. In a truly democratic and free society, the freedom of religion is absolutely paramount. It is sacrosanct. If some people want to make a religion for themselves worshiping a tree, a stone, or the devil, they have the freedom and rights to do so. The government has no right to interfere. That is the true meaning of the separation of church and state. It is about the freedom of worship, not the “division of labor,” as R.C. Sproul has tried to define it.
No comments:
Post a Comment