[bit.listserv.christia] church and state

RDAVIS@UTKVX (Reid M. Davis, UTK) (02/09/90)

Dear fellow pilgrims,

     I see that this has become a very long posting, and
I apologize for that.  It is not intended as a "flame",
but I fear that it is a rather passionate essay on a
matter that concerns me greatly--a matter which I suspect
weakens the church in America (and probably elsewhere, too).

     It has been pretty well established by now that the
rumor about Madelyn Murry O'Hair's attempt to remove
Christianity from the airwaves is unfounded.  But some of
the responses to the original posting have reminded me of
an ongoing concern of mine, namely the separation of church
and state.

     As an introduction for some of you who may not be
familiar with the idea (in particular those of you not
raised in the U.S.), the Constitution of this country
(i.e. the founding legal document of its government--in
Germany the comparable document is, I believe, the "Grundgesetz".
For other countries I cannot speak) includes a statement,
considered fundamental to the concept of government in
this country, that (I quote from memory), "Congress shall
pass no law respecting an establishment of religion nor
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  The concept embodied
in this statement is commonly known as the principle of the
separation of church and state.  The phrase (this is for the
Americans in the crowd) "separation of church and state" does
not, to the best of my knowledge, appear in the Constitution
or any other fundamental legal document; rather, it is taken
from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson explaining his desire,
need, intention (I don't know the context of the phrase) to
erect a "wall of separation between church and state."

     There is an ongoing debate about precisely what the
separation of church and state should mean in this country.  In
recent decades the courts have used this principle to outlaw
prayer in public schools, to outlaw teaching the truths of the
Bible in public schools (in both cases I mean that the teachers
are not allowed to teach the students about God or to lead them
in prayer--it is, of course, impossible to prevent the schoolchildren
from praying silently on their own), to restrict the ability of
high school students to gather at school for christian activities
in the same way that, say, a chess club or athletic club would
meet (though some legislation has been passed which may have
changed that situation), to nullify state laws that mandated
the teaching of the creation account as an alternative to the
theory of evolution, to prevent various state, city, and town
governments from displaying nativity scenes at Christmas, and
to prevent any number of potentially useful collaborations between
christian groups and government at various levels.  Some christians
claim that such applications of the principle reflect a complete
misinterpretation of the principle (though my own opinion is that
these applications are precisely what the philosophy behind the
principle demands).

     Now after that lengthy chunk of background I finally reach
my concern.  My impression is that Americans, and christians in
America in particular, are overwhelmingly persuaded of the
wisdom and rightness of the Constitution and of the principle of
separation of church and state contained therein (even though
they might say that the principle has been misapplied in recent
years).  I have often heard (and seen in this list) christians
using the Constitution as a support for their position on a
given issue--e.g. "We cannot have prayer in schools because it
would violate the separation of church and state." or "We must
allow abortion because to do otherwise would violate the right
to privacy implicit in the Constitution."  This impression is
reinforced when I see that many (perhaps most) churches here
have an American flag at the front of their sanctuaries, and
when I hear congregations singing patriotic songs during worship
services.  I fear many of us are so convinced of the rightness of
the philosophy behind the "American way of life" that we treat
the principles of that philosophy as if they came from God, Himself,
and thus as suitable, along with Scripture, to determine what
pleases Him in a man or in a nation.

     Now as far as I can tell, the philosophy behind the "American
way of life" is a philosophy developed by men and should thus be
honored only insofar as it reflects the Way and Truth of God.
As christians we are certainly commanded to obey the laws of the
nation we live in (so long as such obedience does not cause us
to disobey the clear commands of God), but to embrace and honor
the philosophy behind them strikes me as a serious mistake
bordering on idolatry.

     In particular, God clearly teaches in His Word that all
men are called to seek Him.  And when they find Him (in Christ
Jesus) they must respond with faith, obedience, and worship, and
they should thenceforth live and speak so as to encourage others
to glorify God by the same faith.  In short, each man is called
to glorify God and to help others to do the same.  Further, God
teaches that nations have the same obligation (consider all the
warnings, judgements, and blessings spoken to various nations
in the prophets).  Thus it is the duty of every nation to seek
to understand God's righteousness and to enact laws which are
consistent with that righteousness.  A nation, like a man, must
honor the one true God in all it does.  A nation which forbids
its teachers to teach the children of Christ is surely in
rebellion against God--as is one that teaches them to believe
in other gods--as is one that seeks to convert them (or anyone
else) by force.  A nation which allows every imaginable form
of blasphemy and immorality to be practiced by the people because
of an adherence to principles of "freedom of speech", "freedom
of expression", and "right to privacy" is surely in rebellion
against God--just as much so as one which forbids people to
tell others about Christ and to read the Bible, or one which
persecutes people (Believers or not) because they will not
conform to a hypocritical legalism.

     In short, a nation which does not seek to love God with
all its heart and soul and mind and strength, a nation which
sets up any other idol (whether the idol of a particular
religion, philosophy or ideology or the idol of "pluralism"
which accepts every belief but honors none except toleration)
is in rebellion against God and will surely suffer His judgement.

     So why do I write all this?  CHRISTIA is, after all, supposed
to be about the practical christian life and this certainly seems
like a theoretical essay.  I write because I think we need to
understand that we are on enemy territory in whatever nation we
live in (I certainly know of no nation that has set itself to
honor God).  If I count on my government, my nation, or the
philosophy on which my nation is founded to support me in following
Christ, then I will be deceived.  If I imagine that any of my
attempts to "call my nation back to its christian roots" will
produce godly results, then I deceive myself.  God can indeed
draw a nation to repentance, but if I seek such a change from
anyone but Him, He will not be glorified.  And if I embrace the
philosophy which rules my nation and try to call it Christian,
then I may well find myself worshipping an idol and loving
that which my Lord abhors.  I was born in America, and according
to God's command I will attempt to submit to the authorities
He has placed over me there (so long as I would not dishonor Him
thereby); but my citizenship is in heaven, in the Kingdom of
God, and I will not love any kingdom of this earth.  I would
encourage us all to try discern the difference between what
God has taught us is good and what our culture/society/nation
has taught us is good.

     Anyway, that's the end of my speech.  I didn't start out
intending to write so much, and I apologize for it.  But I do
hope that some of this will help provoke you to good and godly
thinking.  As always I will be interested in your responses,
though I am a bit fearful of what I will hear, knowing that
feelings about this country, on one hand, and a readiness to
reject traditional beliefs, on the other, run very deep.  I
hope the net result will be glory to God and help to His people.

                                Your fellow pilgrim,
                                Reid