A Christian Response to Church and State

In Matthew 22, a group of Jews asked Jesus if they should pay taxes to Caesar. For the Jews, this was a religious question. There was no separation between religion and government. Until the unwanted rise of Herod the Great, the Jews had been led by the priests--- they were the clergy, the Congress, and--- when uncircumcised Greeks tried to desecrate their Temple-- the generals. Romans also blended religion and government--- Caesar was Lord, Emperor, and God. The Jews thought they had Jesus backed into a corner. If he said to pay taxes, that was blasphemy against Yahweh God who should be the head of the Jewish government. If he said not to, that was blasphemy against the man-God Caesar. Either one was punishable by death. Instead, Jesus rejected the premise that loyalty to a government was a religious requirement. He told them to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mt 22:21). This is one of the first times in western history that someone attempted to separate God and government.

It took a long time for Christians to be able to understand this separation. The world into which the early church was born had no such concept. The statement “Jesus is Lord” was a political statement challenging the lordship of Caser. When Constantine granted Christianity legal status in the early 300’s, he and his successors remade the emperor position in the trappings of the image of Christ. Popes were political leaders and kings ruled by “divine right.” When the Protestant Reformation prompted decades of religious wars in Europe, Germany resolved it by allowing each prince to decide which version of Christianity their land would follow--- and to enforce their versions with a sword.

          If the United States has a special blessing from God, it is in the rediscovery of this division between “what is Caesar’s and what is Christ’s.” The term “separation of church and state” has a long history in the United States. It was first used by the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams, when he promised those who settled there that there would be a wall of separation between “the wildness of the world and the garden of the church.” Williams knew that the great fear of Christians is not that the church will influence the state, but that the state will start controlling the church. Williams had seen this in some of the more extreme forms of Puritanism that were springing up in New England. These would cumulate in the senseless murder of women, men, and children during the Salam Witch Trials. Inevitably, when state and church mix, the start becomes the enforcer for a particular form of Christianity.

          The phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” shows up again in 1802 when Thomas Jefferson responded to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association. A minority denomination, the Baptists were worried that the local government (largely controlled by Episcopal church members) would limit their ability to practice their faith, particularly adult baptism. Jefferson assured them that the wall between church and state will protect their church from the government’s interference and ensure that their members have full rights as United States citizens.

          The wall of separation keeps showing up in American court cases and rhetoric. As early as 1879, the Supreme Count declared that Jefferson’s use of it “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the first amendment.” In 1962, the Supreme Court followed this long history of invoking this phrase to help interpret the first amendment of the Constitution when they declared a law requiring students to take part in prayer in a public school as unconstitutional (Engel v. Vitale). And thus, the culture wars began. The phrase has become a lightening rod for conservative versus liberal understandings of God’s role in American government and public forum. The phrase changes meaning from decade to decade, state to state, and group to group, making it a useless term today.

          But if we go back to the early meaning of “Church and state” or the more biblical language of “Christ’s and Caesar’s” what does it mean? First, let us clarify what appropriate separation is not. It does not mean blocking Christians (of any flavor) from roles in government or positions of influence. Anyone in those roles would be expected to govern out of their own convictions and ethics; and if they are a Christian, that identity is expected to be the defining aspects of their character. The separation also does not prevent private individuals or religious groups from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and assembly. It will affect the role of a person when they are acting as a public servant and not a private citizen. It also does not exempt religious people or institutions from following the law. A cult leader cannot rape young girls and justify it by saying his faith allows him to or a church cannot violate a building code any more than any other building owner. This separation also leaves Christians and other groups free (freer than without the separation even) to advocate, preach, and teach in the public forum.

          What the wall of separation does provide is protection for the church from the state. There has never been a simply Christian government in history. There have been many Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, Dutch Reformed, Nestorian, and Orthodox governments.  As soon as someone tries to make a government Christian, it forces the question, “whose variation of Christianity?” Everyone has the same answer, “Mine!” Even an action as seemingly benign as allowing a Christian teacher to lead prayer in their class brings this up. If they are Catholic, can they teach the students to cross themselves? If they are Oneness Pentecostal, can they leave out the Trinity? If they are Assemblies of God, can they pray in tongues? And then the government must issue rules on what they can and cannot pray. Christ already taught us to prayer; I really do not want the state to give it a try.

          Ancient Israel was a theodicy (of sorts), so there is not a lot of separation between Temple and State, but there is one interesting story in 2 Chronicles 18 where the good Jewish King Jehoshaphat and the evil Israelite King Ahab are going to battle together. Jehoshaphat desires to seek the will of God before they go. Ahab has 400 prophets on standby in his court. He calls them and they all prophecy victory. Jehoshaphat does not want to hear from Ahab’s prophets; he wants to hear from God’s prophets. Finally, they find one prophet of God, Micaiah, who Ahab dislikes because “he never prophesies anything good about me” (2 Chron. 18:7). He is not one of the court prophets and he does exactly what Ahab does not like and prophecies a great loss. Throughout the narrative, the scribe emphasizes that the lying prophets belong to the leader of the state and the truthful prophet serves God, not the state.

When Christian leaders or groups align themselves too closely to a government, a secular leader, or a political party, loyalties can bleed, and they cease to be God’s alone. They may start making allowance for ungodly behavior to stay on a person’s good side, ignore the aspects of a party’s platform that dehumanize those created in God’s Image, or tone down or turn up a certain message to keep their spot at televised prayer meetings and political talk shows. By staying separate from the state, the church is free. It is free to preach against evils in society and government; it is free to advocate for change or continuation of laws that honor God’s image in people; and it is free to agree on somethings and disagree on others with those in power.