Church-State relationships

Nancy and I have just returned from a family church camp put on by the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (Continuing). The camp was held in a very small community in western Virginia. Noah’s and Ben’s families were there; and we very much enjoyed seeing all of them.

The main speaker talked on the subject of The Establishment Principle of the church, an exposition about the relationship of the church to the government. The speaker was the Reverend Gavin Beers, of Ayr, Scotland. Reverend Beers presented four types of church/government relationships:

Type 1: Government dominated by the church.
Type 2: Church dominated by the government.
Type 3: Volunteeristic, i.e., people free to choose their own form of religion without governmental interference. Supposedly, the government would be neutral in all aspects of religion, allowing all religious groups to worship and behave as they see fit.
Type 4: Establishment principle, in which there is full cooperation between the church and the state. The church is allowed freedom to worship God and behave according to biblical principles. The state would not interfere with church operations. The state would suppress apostasy and punish heresy. Neither church nor state would dominate the other; the two would walk hand in hand, as friends.

Type three relationships are the present-day principles that most Western societies aim at manifesting.

Rev. Beers made the point that types 1, 2, and 3 are not consistent with the examples given in the Bible; most of his examples were taken out of the Old Testament. Only type 4, i.e., the establishment principle is biblically sound. I was told by one attendee that all the objections to the establishment principle are pragmatic objections. I would fully agree with that assessment—in my view, the establishment principle will not work in any present-day polity.

The reason that the establishment principle will not work is that we live in a multicultural world where there is no consensus of correctness in religion. Many different cultural groups have just as many different religious beliefs; and each one thinks all the others are wrong.

One major function of government is to prevent bloodshed among the populace. We, as humans in society, understand that types 1 and 2 relationships have resulted in extreme forms of violence and bloodshed among the people. I believe that none of us would like to go back to those kinds of church-state relationships. In like manor, I would be very reluctant to think of the establishment principle as the best way for church-state relationships to be set up.

It sounds good to think of the church and the state walking hand in hand as friends; but the truth is that if the state is authorized to stamp our apostasy and punish heresy, it would become necessary for the state to determine what apostasy is and what heresy is. That becomes very problematic, in my mind! In giving the state the function of figuring out what to punish and what to stamp out, we come very close to functioning in a type 2 relationship—the entity that holds the sword holds the control over the other.

So…we Westerners have come to the conclusion that we just want the government out of our religious business; we want to be left alone, if possible. On the other hand, we want the option of expressing our religious beliefs freely and of helping other people to see religious things the way we do. I believe that the proper Christian thinking would leave it at that and expect the Holy Spirit to do the work of conversion. I believe that the Christian faith can hold its own in any kind of reasonable discussion—we do not need the force of the state behind our belief system. Let us function openly in the marketplace of ideas.

We Christian peoples should have learned from history the dangers of governmental intervention in religious matters. I am told that the magistrates of the ancient Persian Empire discovered the value of separating religions from the administration of the government; and the result was, for the most part, peace among the populace. But…over and over, again, governments have been established that interfered with freedom of religion. History is full of that kind of civic governmental meddling in religion—all to the detriment of the people.

I believe that Rev. Beers makes the mistake of thinking that the descriptions of church-state relationships in the Old Testament are prescriptive of the way things should be today. I believe that those descriptions  were just that, i.e., descriptions. They were not prescriptions of what we should be doing today. As a matter of fact, organizing church-state relationships as Rev. Beers suggests it is an open invitation to conflict, persecution, limitation of Christian freedom, and bloodshed.

We Western democratic republicans have demanded freedom of religion. Well, if we really mean that, it means that all religions must be granted that religious freedom. “Freedom of religion” is not just freedom for Christians; it is freedom for all religions in the realm.

I must admit, however, that Rev. Beers suggested that the establishment principle might apply only in the millennium. I would suggest that it might only apply even at a later time—that is, in heaven, itself.

Another objection I have to the establishment principle is that I just do not have enough antipathy toward other religious people to apply it. I would just as soon see them practice their own forms of religion in their own ways—with two caveats:

1)   I want freedom to present the claims of Christ to my neighbors. I am willing to listen to them if they wish to express their religious beliefs to me; but I want to be able to reason with them about the basic features of Christianity. I firmly believe that the Christian faith can hold its own in a straight up reasonable debate. I also believe that the Holy Spirit can act on the hearts of unbelievers. I do not need to worry about getting some external, governmental force to back up my desire that they be converted; nor do I welcome the government ferreting out apostasy and heresy. I do not welcome governmental interference in my evangelical efforts.

2)   I want the government to intervene in religious conversations, even to the point of exerting force, if any particular religion is advocating overthrow of the government. That is the only reason I think that government intervention is appropriate. Following are two examples of anti-government rhetoric that should certainly be censored by the government:

a)    The Wahhabi branch of the Sunni Islamic religion has several mosques in the United States that advocate violent reaction to the American way of life. A study conducted by the non-governmental organization, Freedom House, found Wahhabi publications in mosques in the United States. These publications included statements that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion … for Allah's sake", that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century", and that Shia and certain Sunni Muslims were infidels. This kind of doctrinal teaching should be monitored by the government and silenced for the public peace.  

b)   The Reverend Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has been documented as saying several very un-American statements in public discourse. Rev. Wright was the pastor of President Obama and his wife for many years, but it must be said that the president and his wife have strongly repudiated these un-American remarks and have withdrawn their membership from that church. This kind of anti-American talk needs to be silenced by the government for the sake of the public peace. There are other examples of anti-American rhetoric going on in our country, e.g., flag burning, etc. All of this should be forcibly suppressed by the government.

So…what do I think should be the proper relationship of church to state? I believe that Christians should be actively advocating for Christian principles in government by helping Christians get elected to government office. I believe that we have the responsibility of keeping ourselves informed of social and political affairs and for writing letters and e-mails to our representatives expressing our beliefs. I believe that we should be presenting Christian issues from the pulpits of our churches and actively promoting Christian politicians there.  I also believe what was said by President Ronald Regan. He said that if a candidate for office expresses 60%-80% of what you want to see in that office, vote for him. There are no perfect candidates. Not to vote is to violate your sacred duty as an American citizen. We are the most fortunate people in the world to be Americans.

To bring this discussion down to practicalities, if you are opposed to the policies of the Obama Administration and you refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, you are automatically voting for President Obama.