“Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state, not because they are beneath the interests of the state but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state.” Roger Williams, “Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered”
What follows is a look at a part of the relationship between church and state, one focused on the benefits that such a separation provides to both. It is also, of necessity, simplified. This blog focuses on the arguments from religion for the separation of church and state and the benefits to religion of such separation. The next blog will do the same but from the point of view of the government. For both blogs, when I refer to “church” it can apply to all institutional religions; Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, etc., as well as ancient religions that no longer exist.
In the beginning the state was the church and the church the state. The two were married and were united not only in acting as one but were often one in actuality. Religion’s role during these early cultures was to promote a shared identity among those of different family groups that comprised the first cities; to motivate individuals to work for and even die for the good of the new, larger groups; to help redistribute the wealth in ways both good and bad; to teach and promote the morality of that culture. Most of these goals were achieved through a mingling of both state and individual ceremonies, and sacrifices done at certain times and in certain ways. Such was necessary for family groups to merge to become cities consisting of many different family groups. It was necessary if these cities were to group together to form states and empires, and then nations.
However, as time passed, a strange thing started to happen. Instead of always being a part of the state with the goal of keeping the state together an individual moral concern came into being; one focused on the relation of the person to their god. A natural outgrowth from these beginnings, but one that meant that no longer was religion and state were always joined, but, instead, they could, and often were, in conflict. For an example, look through the books of the Old Testament to see how the prophets challenged and condemned the kings and rulers.
Just as governments changed over the years to eventually result in our different democracies – along with the more traditional dictators and kings and just plain thugs – so too did the role of religion change. Religion split. Not along theological lines, although it did that too, but upon its character and purpose. Gradually religion came to cover not just the ceremonies and sacrifices, not just keeping on god (s) good side and doing his will. It also came to include morality, how we should treat each other, even if it conflicted with the actions of the state. And while not a clean and clear split, it nonetheless was there. The choice between being a servant/master of the state or calling for moral actions, even including challenging the state if needed.
In looking back through history most of the atrocities of religion were committed when religion and state were entwined. The reason for this is that when entwined, just as most married couples share a name and identity, so too with religion and state – what was a threat to religion was a threat to the state and what was a threat to the state also a threat to religion. To not be the religion of your state was traitorous. To not support your state was blasphemy. Religion became a quick way to identify if you were friend or foe of the state. And thus blasphemy and forced conversion became necessary, and acts of aggression against other states in order to gain resources gained a religious cover.
It is interesting that the founder of Christianity was also one who was concerned about the individuals and not the state. Jesus passed on no parables, no sermons, no words for how to run a state, the best way to govern, what the state should and should not do. His words were about a person’s relationship with God and how to treat each other. The running of the state and the role of religion are different, and at times contrary. Jesus used his position of being an outcast to challenge the existing order.
However, that role was largely ignored by most of the Christians then when Constantine became converted and converted his empire into a Christian one. Instead of being concerned with individuals it became concerned with forcing individuals to be Christian and to furthering the empire. And so the violence that is now, inaccurately, laid solely at the feet of religion, also has its roots in the needs of the state.
Eventually, as we developed better ideas of governance, people began to realize that keeping the state and church entwined as in the past was not a good idea. We had grown beyond that as new institutions developed and news ways of creating identity were developed, so much so that most see the joining of church and state as before as being harmful to the state. However, it was also harmful to religion, or, at least religion as practiced by those who were concerned about morals and individuals.
This was one reason why the very first advocate and practitioner of a complete and thorough separation of church and state was not a secularist but was, instead, a Puritan theologian and the founder of the Baptist Church in America – Roger Williams. A man who not only preached complete separation but also practiced it when he set up Rhode Island colony under a charter from Parliament in 1644.
Williams argument for a complete separation of church and state was inspired by the religious wars and conflicts he saw around him, and based on the fact that humans are flawed and limited creatures. As such, their institutions are also flawed and limited. This included the institution of the church. Given this, for the state to force people to follow any particular religious doctrine could wind up damning them if those doctrines were wrong. Rather than forcing the damnation of so many people, far better for each person to be responsible for their own beliefs, and any change in belief done through persuasion instead. The power of the state must be separate from the actions of the church. William’s focus was on the individual and not the good of the state. He even applied this to atheists and Catholics.
So, how has having the church and state entwined hurt the church? Looking behind you can see it in strife and blood of history, as did the writers of the US Constitution. Looking around today, you can also see it playing out today.
- Instead of holding those accountable for their moral failings, they excuse and defend them; even exalt them if they feel that they can gain a political victory. They become hypocrites and lose status among many.
- Instead of identifying with people no matter who they are and no matter where they are from, they identify with country first. Even at the expense of the needy, the poor, the suffering, the children; the very people that were Jesus’ special concerns.
- They make the church a tool of the state; Christian Nationalism has a great deal more nationalism than Christianity in it.
- They tolerate a great many wrongs in order to get and keep power. And then use it to force others to follow their beliefs.
All of the above weakens what has become and should be the proper role of religion – challenging power. Governments, at least effective ones, have a great deal of power. Power can be abused. And even when not abused, it can be misused through ignorance, thoughtlessness, or unchallenged beliefs. Because of this, even the best of governments need institutions outside of itself to view it critically and to challenge it when needed.
When the church instead is joined to the state, then it becomes its tool and becomes identified with all its excesses and wrongs, as it should be. This can and usually does result in bloodshed and loss of liberties for many.
As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.” When the church is joined to the state it can no longer act as the conscience of the state but, instead, becomes the justifier of the state’s actions, no matter how reprehensible those actions might be. The church becomes tarnished and an institution of the state, and we lose one of the great moral forces for change in our country.
[…] Separation of Church and State From Both Sides Now: Part 1 –The Church […]