In a recent dialogue I had with a person about
whether President Trump’s election signals a reprieve from God,[1]
the question was asked “What about church and state?” The comment goes on to
claim, “1 should not anything to do with the other.”
This sentiment reflects the common thought of
secular people concerning the relationship of religion with government. But it is
based upon several misconceptions.
First, it views church as everything
Christian. In other words, it embraces the Catholic concept of one universal
church. More accurately it embraces the Protestant’s slightly modified version
of the same.
Secondly, it suggests that the doctrine is
secular, meant to protect the government of religious control. This idea was
certainly the farthest thing from the minds of the founders of the United
States.
The doctrine of separation of church and state
is one practiced by the Anabaptists, the forerunners of Baptists today. It
traces as far back as the fourth century when Constantine declared himself a
Christian and the head of the one, catholic (universal) church in his realm.
Many professing Christians welcomed the relief from persecution and happily
joined up. Many others refused choosing rather to continue suffering
persecution than to subject their church to the state. The original objection
between the Catholics and Anabaptists was, in effect, separation of church and state.
In the early days of the developing United
States it was the Baptists who presented the doctrine to the founders. It was
the urging of the Baptists, whose cause was heralded by James Madison, that the
United States recognized no state church but gave every church denomination
liberty to either succeed or crumble by freely preaching their ideas and
winning converts to their own system. It was to a group of Baptists in Danbury,
Connecticut that Jefferson wrote the words “separation of church and state.”
Baptists have always held to separation of
church and state and Baptists have never accepted the doctrine of any form of
universal or catholic church. Separation of church and state to the Baptists[2]
means first, that no church denomination has ability to use governmental power
for coercive purposes. Baptists had, for too long, experienced the weight of
governments forcing their tithes to go to the state church rather than the
church that preached the doctrines they believed to be biblical and requiring
them to attend services in those state established churches.
Separation of church and state, to those
Baptists also meant that government has no right of influence over the local
church. Each church must be free to preach the Word of God, as they believe the
Spirit of God led them to and practice their faith in a manner consistent with
that faith.
Separation of church and state did not mean to
either those Baptists that championed it or to the founders of our nation who
included it in the Bill of Rights (not in the letter of the phrase but in the
spirit of the amendment). The Baptists petitioned, lobbied and sought to
influence those leading in our nation and the leaders were, almost to a man,
practicing Christians of one denomination or another.
One can never understand the true intent of
separation of church and state without going back to the ones who introduced
it. They meant that no one church denomination should have exclusive influence
over the government and that the government should allow churches liberty to
practice their faith as they saw fit; not that Christianity should have nothing
to do with government.
Marvin McKenzie
In the fields
[1] THE IMAGINATIVE CONSERVATIVE, DidGod Just Grant America a Great Reprieve?, John
Horvat/Nov 25, 2016
[2] The people who introduced the doctrine to our country.
