The ideological cartel that presently wields so much
influence over our government is using a religious doctrine (Separation
of Church and State) to justify discriminating against Christians.
While those who know Constitutional Law, are aware that the
Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state, the
courts have used a phrase from one of Thomas Jefferson's letters, to
redefine the First Amendment. At the same time, religious sentiment
favoring separation of church and state has been used to neutralize
opposition to what they were doing.
At the time Jefferson used the phrase "separation of
church and state," that phrase meant "free exercise of religion," not
exclusion of religion from government. Only a few years before that
letter was written, Baptist pastors had been jailed because of their
religious beliefs, and Jefferson's letter was assuring some Baptists
that the new government would not repeat such discrimination. However,
the phrase "separation of church and state" is now used to justify
discrimination. In the name of separation of church and state, atheists
are free to seek legislation that is in accord with their religious
beliefs, but Christians are not. Atheists are free to disseminate their
views through the publicly supported schools and universities, but
Christians are not. At the same time, separation of church and state is
used to deny Christians any voice in the abortion issue, while
justifying the cold-blooded murder of almost fifty million babies.
Therefore, it is time for Christians to stop parroting undefined
cliches about church and state, and find out what the Bible actually
has to say.
The very fact that rulers who reject God, harden
their heart, and fail to trust in Christ will be condemned to hell,
tells us that God wants rulers to worship Him, repent, and trust in
Christ (Ezekiel 33:11). Moreover, the time will come when every knee,
including the knee of every ruler, will have to bow before Him and give
account (Philippians 2:9-10, Revelation 19:16). Therefore, they should
conduct their affairs, and the affairs of state, as men who must
account to God.
The Biblical distinction between church and state
goes back to the time of Moses, and can be seen in the difference
between the roles of Moses and Aaron. While the authority wielded by
Moses was clearly political in nature, in that it involved judging
civil litigation and punishing criminal behavior, Aaron's job had to do
with worship, sacrifice, and mercy. Moreover, since God's law condemns
sin while the gospel extends His mercy, the roles of church and state
parallel the distinction between law and gospel.
However, while the Old Testament priesthood had a
role similar to that of the church, and was an establishment of
religion, it was not a church in the modern sense of the word. While
some worship services were offered, the congregational system that we
now have has its roots in the Synagogue. Moreover, the primary role of
the rabbi, as opposed to that of the priest, was educational. The rabbi
was a teacher, who would teach the law (as well as reading, writing,
and arithmetic) during the week, while leading the worship service on
the Sabbath. For that reason, the role of education belongs to the
church, not the state.
While God has assigned the church and state
different roles, the Bible nowhere calls for a rigid "wall of
separation." Although church leaders should be free to condemn the sins
of rulers, they have no business trying to tell rulers how to do their
job, and should never try to use the power of the state to advance the
gospel (2 Corinthians 10:4). Furthermore, they should never use the
pulpit to promote partisan politics. The purpose of preaching is to
spread the gospel, and pastors who get involved in politics are likely
to anger and offend those who need their council. At the same time, the
government is not to interfere with the work of the church or meddle in
its internal affairs, and individual believers have every right to be
involved in politics and to express their opinions without being told
to keep their beliefs out of government.
Although God allowed the head of state to build His
temple, we should not confuse the temple with local congregations, and
we should not confuse one-time donations with government support. While
rulers have a right to donate their own money, they should not be using
the power to tax as a way of forcing others to support the church.
Furthermore, it is imperative to the work of the gospel that
congregations be free from government control, for the members have a
responsibility to keep false prophets out of the pulpit. [1 Kings 5:5,
Isaiah 44:28, Matthew 7:15, 1 Corinthians 10:15, 1 Corinthians 5:4,5,
Acts 17:11, Romans 16:17, Galatians 1:8,9, 1 Peter 2:5, 2 Chronicles
26:16-21]
Even though church and state have different roles,
and exist as separate institutions, both should acknowledge the
Lordship of Jesus Christ. However, any attempt on the part of an
earthly ruler to place himself over both church and state, should be
seen as a mark of the anti-Christ. While God has given the power of the
sword to the state, that it might carry out His wrath against
evildoers, the sword is not to be used to carry out the work of the
church (Romans 13:4, 2 Corinthians 10:4). Furthermore, because the
church is a vehicle of God's mercy, it has no business putting people
to death, or using the state to do so (Revelation 17:18, James 1:20).
I might also add, that because the Ten Commandments
represent an authority higher than that of any earthly ruler, they
safeguard freedom by placing a limit on the abuse of power. However,
for that safeguard to work, there must be a mechanism in place for
holding rulers who violate them accountable for their crimes, and that
requires a division of power. Rulers should never be allowed to commit
the very crimes that they were put in office to punish.
While some governments have required their citizens
to be members of an established church, salvation requires more than
membership and the outward performance of a sacramental rite is not
what makes a person a citizen of heaven. While the rite may give us
God's promise of forgiveness, it is only through personal faith in
Christ that we receive what is promised (Galatians 3:22). Therefore, a
"state church" generally includes many who are unsaved, and who
desperately need to be evangelized. Yet such churches usually hinder,
or even persecute, believers who would carry out that evangelization.
Although, in terms of the law, the state can require an outward civic
righteousness, it can never make anyone righteous (Romans 3:19-20).
Furthermore, the more invasive the law becomes, the less it is
respected. Therefore, those who think that they can make people
righteous, or at least prevent crime, by adding law to law, are under a
delusion.
When our national Constitution was adopted, all but
five of the original thirteen states had a state church. The purpose of
the First Amendment was not to prevent such churches, but to assure the
states that the Federal government would neither abolish the religious
establishment that they already had, or impose one on them.
Furthermore, the references to freedom of speech, press, petition, and
assembly simply enumerate various ways in which the free exercise of
religion has been denied in the past. Therefore, that Amendment was
adopted to protect our right to control the education of our children
and express our beliefs politically, not deny it. Yet today, the
"rights" of pornographers and subversives are protected, while
Christians are told to keep their opinions out of government and
education.
What is being passed off on our society, as "separation of church and
state" is not only unbiblical, but also anti-Christian. In fact, it is
nothing more than an atheist doctrine cloaked in Christian terminology.
Furthermore, it totally misrepresents what the Constitution says.
Therefore, those who work to promote it are working to advance tyranny
and subvert freedom.