Sermon Tone Analysis

Separation of Church and State

This is the concluding lesson in our treatment of the Baptist distinctives.

Using the acrostic B-A-P-T-I-S-T-S, we have discussed the B – our view on the Bible, the A – the autonomy of the local church, the P – the (individual) priesthood of the believer, the T – the two ordinances Baptists recognize and practice, the I – individual soul liberty, the S – regenerate (or saved) church membership, and the T – two offices, elder and deacon.

Now we come to the final S – separation of church and state.

Historical Considerations

The separation of church and state is, or should be, an issue dear to the hearts of Baptists.

Baptists emerged as a specific body in the midst of a crippling adversity.

Baptists bled in their earliest years of the seventeenth century, and they remained handcuffed in much of the eighteenth century.

They bled from the whip of religious oppression, and they were constricted by the arms of both church and state.

Born in the midst of great pain with freedom denied, Baptists, a minority people, grounded their affirmation for religious freedom to some degree in their own historical experience of persecution and pain.

Early Baptists strongly supported the concept of separation of church and state.

Early Baptists strongly supported the concept of separation of church and state.

John Smyth’s 1612 Propositions and Conclusions was perhaps the first confession of faith of modern times to demand freedom of conscience and separation of church and state.

Said Smyth, “The [government official] is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to leave Christian religion free, to every man’s conscience . . .

for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience.”

John Leland (1791) wrote a pamphlet The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, saying “Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men, than it has with the principles of mathematics. . . .

Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing.”[1]

John Smyth’s 1612 Propositions and Conclusions was perhaps the first confession of faith of modern times to demand freedom of conscience and separation of church and state.

Said Smyth, “The [government official] is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to leave Christian religion free, to every man’s conscience . . .

for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience.”

John Leland (1791) wrote a pamphlet The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, saying “Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men, than it has with the principles of mathematics. . . .

Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing.”[1]

Such sentiments were a significant departure from the norm at that time.

Most European governments had official ties to the church.

For example, the Church of England is the state-authorized church in Britain, and the Lutheran Church is the state church in Germany.

The founding fathers in America wanted to prevent the government from having any influence over spiritual matters.

Baptists were among the leaders in establishing freedom of religion as a right of American citizenship.

In the U.S., the government is not supposed to help or hinder religious expression.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Government cannot dictate theology to churches, and churches cannot tell the government what to do.

Nevertheless, religion and government in America have always been closely related, well before the notion of separating them emerged in the current system of government that was established by the Constitution in 1787.

The motivations that brought many colonists to the New World were religious; many were attempting to escape religious persecution in Europe and hoped to find a place where they would be free to worship as they pleased.

The Puritan Pilgrims, for instance, fled to the New World to avoid the persecution for their then radical ideas by the Anglican (Church of England) majority in England.

In America, they wanted a system of government that would protect their religious rights.

Ironically, they immediately established a system hostile to those with divergent beliefs.

For the first few decades in America, religion was connected to the state.[2] Religious persecution was common.

Those who dissented from the official theology were jailed or expelled from the community.

For a while it looked as if the religious battles that had been the scourge of Europe would be experienced in America as well.

But the founding fathers, and many Protestant leaders, insisted on freedom of religion.

They wanted the church to be disconnected from the state.

They didn’t want the state to officially endorse a specific religion, neither did they want the government to hinder or persecute anyone for a dissenting religious view.

Many of the founding fathers were Christian and the influence of Christianity upon the government has been significant.

Evidence of Christian principles permeated government.

American money has the inscription “In God we trust,” Congress employs a chaplain who leads in prayer before each session, and the Ten Commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court.

But few saw such influence as an official endorsement of Christianity and few complained about it.

Everyone was still free to practice his religion, or lack of it, as he saw fit.

The famous statement that a “wall of separation” exists between church and state does not come from the Constitution or from the Bill of Rights, but from a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend.

Unfortunately, the courts and other government bodies now see a total disconnect between the state and religion.

In years past, it was common in schools to recite the Lord’s Prayer, display the Ten Commandments, and talk openly about the Bible.

Today, all such practices are unlawful or strictly limited.

Many consider any recognition or appreciation of religion by the government to be a violation of the establishment clause.

Groups like the ACLU are striving to remove all religious influence from government and education.

Only by removing all religious influences from governmental procedure and the public school system can America ever achieve the separation of church and state envisioned by the founders of this nation, they suggest.

While it is true that the government should not officially endorse a certain religious point of view, it is also true that government needs all the help it can get regarding morality.

Without such influence, government soon loses its moral compass.

Some argue that since prayer and Bible reading have been eradicated from the public schools, public morality has plummeted.

Immorality, situation ethics, and hedonism have replaced Biblical morality.

While the church should not dictate policy to government, it should give advice in the moral realm and call the citizens and officials to a high standard of behavior.

Although the church is exerting less and less influence within the government, the government is exerting more and more authority over the church.

The dangers of governmental control over religious expression are obvious.

Could you imagine the red tape, mismanagement, and frustration that would occur if churches were accountable to a government bureaucracy?

We should be thankful that churches in the U.S. enjoy the freedom from governmental control that they do.

Such freedoms are slowly eroding.

The separation of church and state is still a turbulent issue in our country.

Some on the religious right are pushing for prayer, Bible reading and the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools.

Fifty years ago, such things were common in most schools.

Others fight against any religious expression in school or government, asserting that such expression amounts to an official endorsement of one religion over another.

In the early 1960s, the tide began to turn against allowing prayer and religious expression in government or school.

Today, religious expression is severely limited in such contexts.

What position should Baptist take?

Historically, Baptists have supported the separation of church and state.

While Christian influence in the state is desirable from our perspective, such influence should come from individual believers, not from the government itself.

The state should allow believers to freely exercise their religious ideas through prayer, Bible reading, witnessing, etc.

But the government should not officially recognize or endorse any particular religious viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is our own.

Government officials should be free to express their religious points of view, but the government as a whole should not take an official position regarding religion.

America is not a Christian nation.

One may argue that it was founded upon Christian principles and that historically the U.S. was at one time a Christian nation, but the majority of the people in the U.S. are not Christians and Christianity is becoming less relevant to our society all the time.

If anything, our nation is post-Christian, which means that most citizens have rejected Christian ideas.

Baptists should fight for freedom of religion for all.

Baptists have historically fought against interference from the government in religious affairs.

They should continue to do so.

Whether the U.S. government continues to recognize Christianity is irrelevant as long as it does not restrict freedom of conscience.

Definition: Separation of church and state implies the following:

There should be no essential union between organized religion and human government.

Human government should not seek to control the internal affairs of organized religion or of individual religious beliefs or practices.

No denomination or organized religion should control human government.

This does not suggest that governmental leaders cannot express religious views or that religious symbols cannot be displayed in or on state-owned buildings.

Simply put, separation of church and state requires the government to stay out of church affairs and the church to stay out of government affairs.

The government and the church should remain separate.

Biblical Bases for Separation of Church and State

;

;

Implications:

Implications:

Give to the state what belongs to the state.

What “belongs” to the state?

Christians are obligated to pay taxes, even when they disagree with what the government does with their money.

Christians should strive to be law-abiding citizens.

However, Christians are free to protest against the government and to work to change laws and policies when necessary.

Such actions should be lawful and appropriate.

Ultimately, the government derives its authority from God.

Those that resist legitimate governmental authority resist God.