Separation of Church and State

Here is an issue that never seems to be settled – what does the phrase, “separation of church and state,” actually mean? The question is rooted in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in regard to two clauses: 1) “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,” or 2) “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I doubt my thoughts carry too much weight, nor are they original but here goes.

First of all, separation of church and state is not the same thing as separation of sacred and secular. The Bible knows no such distinction. The “earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,” is a well-known phrase from the psalms that so succinctly tells us that God cannot be compartmentalized into some holy shrine apart from the rest of life. Jesus’ famous words, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s,” would have been understood by his hearers, not as a separation of sacred and secular, nor as a justification for the separation of church and state, but as a thoughtful reminder that “everything” belongs to God.

So, when a person of Judeo-Christian faith enters public life as a civil servant, their faith should inform how they conduct themselves. Those who have argued that they can put their faith on the shelf while they carry out their role in government seem to me to be making light of both their faith and their public responsibility. Again, there is no Biblical distinction between sacred and secular.

Nevertheless, there do seem to be some common sense reasons for the two clauses of the First Amendment. The founders of our nation brought with them their experiences of religious oppression which they did not want to see repeated in the newly formed U.S.A. So, they decided we should have no religion “established” by the government, and that government would do nothing to prevent our exercise of religion. That sounds reasonable. That way there is no opportunity for one particular faith perspective to hold a monopoly over any other. While I might be perfectly comfortable with a government aligned completely according to Wesleyan (Methodist) principles, you, as a Catholic, or Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Pentecostal, or Jew, might have some issues with that. So, practically speaking, there is some value to the so-called separation clauses.

One repeated criticism of our school system, for instance, runs like this, “Everything was great until they took prayer out of schools,” as if to say that all our recent social ills can be traced to that cause. All I need to remember is one of my son’s elementary teachers whose particular brand of religion was significantly different from mine. I did not want her using the classroom as a pulpit for her peculiar theology. Nor, I suspect, would she have wanted her children under my tutelage, fearing what influence my theology would have on them. Also, back when prayers were a part of every teacher’s responsibility in the classroom, there were no civil rights for people of Afro-American heritage. I wonder if they think things were better when there was prayer in schools. I say, if you want your child to grow up with faith it needs to happen in the home, at church, or at a private school. Our public schools are just that, public, and thus should be kept free of any hint of “established” religion.

Having said that, I also think that, at present, our schools have gone too far in trying to avoid “establishment,” to the point of often “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the government’s search for providing balance between different faiths, people of Christian sensibilities have actually felt persecuted in recent years. As great efforts have been made to honor the traditions of minority religions – Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc., sometimes the Christian voice has been silenced. Admittedly, this is rare.

I live in a county where City Council meetings at the various municipalities still begin with prayer, usually in Jesus’ name. Our school board still offers prayers at major functions. The law provides for a separation, but in practice the law gives way to community traditions and rituals of the majority. I do wonder sometimes how my Jewish brothers and sisters feel about that. What is it like to be the minority?

I believe that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. But nothing in my faith tells me that I can force anyone else to so believe. History is full of terrible stories of the Church gaining power and forcing its will on society. Therein lies the danger of the failure to separate church and state. The Church cannot be trusted with power. Neither can anyone else. Much better for the Church to act as a prophet to call attention to the abuse of power, than to wield the power itself.

Ah, well, that’s enough for now. I invite your feedback.