In the
biblical
narrative, these
assumptions are
key to
understanding
the nature of
church and
state:
-
The level
playing field
choice between
good and evil
in the Garden
of Eden;
-
The war of
the ancient
serpent
against the
Messianic
lineage, where
the devil
seeks to
establish
"sorcery at
the right hand
of power" in
human
politics, so
as to destroy
the religious,
political and
economic
liberty for
all people to
see the Gospel
demonstrated
and taught,
and thus to
believe in it;
thus, the
raising up of
"godly counsel
at the right
hand of
power";
-
The debate
during
Passover Week,
where Jesus
gives his
enemies a
level playing
field to rake
him over the
coals with
their toughest
questions;
they do so and
end up
silencing
themselves in
his presence;
Jesus wins the
debate, but
does not take
human
political
power; instead
he goes to the
cross, pays
the price for
sin, and in
the power of
his
resurrection
gives the Holy
Spirit to
believers who
will give that
level playing
field to all
people across
history to
choose
citizenship in
the eternal
kingdom of
God.
______________________________
On April 11,
2007, John
Rankin addressed
a Mars Hill
Forum at Patrick
Henry College
with Barry Lynn,
executive
director of
Americans United
for Separation
of Church and
State, looking
at this issue.
Barry responded
well, though not
agreeing that
the metaphor of
“the wall of
separation
between church
and state” needs
to be changed.
They found no
stated
disagreements in
terms of history
or biblical
ethics – it was
more a matter of
a different
political prism
they each hold,
where both say
no to
state-established
religion. John
argued that “the
wall of
separation” is a
negative
metaphor, and
only divides;
his proposal is
for the positive
metaphor of “a
level playing
field” for all
religious and
political ideas.
Here is his
prepared text
for the evening
(with some
slight edits).
_____________________________
Good evening
in the name of
Jesus, the
incarnate God of
the Bible,
Yahweh Elohim.
This greeting is
appropriate for
me to give in
any setting
where people
yearn for
religious,
political and
economic liberty
– for these
liberties are
part of the
unalienable
rights upon
which this
nation is
founded.
Historically,
unalienable
rights have only
one Source – the
God of the
Bible, and they
are given in the
biblical order
of creation. And
I desire and
pray for all
people to enjoy
these liberties
equally. Of
necessity, we
need this
foundation to
address our
question
tonight: “What
is the Nature of
the Separation
between Church
and State?”
To wit: the
nature is rooted
in the simple
metaphor of a
wall, and
metaphors can be
wonderfully
instructive, and
as easily
misleading. Dr.
Daniel Dreisbach
of American
University, in
his definitive
work, Thomas
Jefferson and
the Wall of
Separation
between Church
and State,
focuses on the
nature of the
metaphor as
Jefferson and
others used it.
Tonight I
will seek to
define the use
of this
metaphor, and
why I consider
it a poor one to
begin with, even
before it was
later misused.
It is both
reactive and
negative in
nature. Then I
will propose a
new metaphor,
which is
proactive and
positive in
nature. It is
also
quintessentially
radical, being
rooted in the
biblical order
of creation and
the person of
Jesus.
I am
particularly
interested to
see what my
colleague Barry
Lynn thinks of
my metaphor, for
indeed, his
organization,
Americans United
for Separation
of Church and
State, roots its
identity in its
interpretation
of the metaphor,
“a wall of
separation.”
On January 1,
1802, President
Thomas Jefferson
answered a
letter from the
Danbury Baptist
Association of
Connecticut. The
Baptists were
grateful for his
election in the
bitterly
contested 1800
campaign against
President John
Adams. They
highly regarded
Jefferson’s well
known views on
religious
liberty.
Adams was
vociferously
supported by the
New England
Congregationalist
clergy
establishment,
which was in
lockstep with
political
Federalism, and
they called
Jefferson an
infidel and
atheist. The
Congregationalists
came from the
Puritans and had
some excellent
original
theology,
especially in
terms of the
concept of
vocation or
“calling,” and
the economic
power it
unleashed still
blesses this
nation. But it
also had a
central
weakness,
seeking to
establish an
earthly
theocracy, where
all citizens in
Massachusetts
and Connecticut
in the 17th
century either
had to be
Congregationalist,
or by the force
of state taxes,
they had to
support the
Congregational
Church.
Later,
non-Congregationalists
were exempted
from these
taxes, so long
as they
verifiably
attended some
other Christian
church. But the
Baptists
complained that
this was only a
human privilege
of “toleration”
being given by
the
establishment –
truly a
condescending
negative. They
rightly wanted
equal access to
the unalienable
right of
religious
liberty – a true
positive for all
people.
In his letter
of response to
the Danbury
Baptists,
Jefferson saw
that it was
published widely
and immediately,
taking advantage
of the
opportunity to
strike back at
the
Congregationalist
clergy and the
Federalist
political
establishment,
a) to rebut the
charge he was an
infidel and
atheist, and b)
to advance the
cause of
Republicanism –
that is, the
preeminence of
state’s rights
in view of a
limited federal
government. He
used language
that kept the
federal
government out
of institutional
religion, lauded
freedom of
conscience in
religious
matters, and
then used the
famous metaphor:
“I contemplate
with sovereign
reverence that
act of the whole
American people
which declared
that their
legislature
should ‘make no
law respecting
an establishment
of religion, or
prohibiting the
free exercise
thereof,’ thus
building a wall
of separation
between Church &
State...” The
letter was not
wholly
satisfactory to
the Danbury
Baptists, but
largely so, even
as Jefferson
used it for his
own purposes.
Jefferson was
quoting the
First Amendment
before using the
metaphor, yet he
was in France at
the time of its
composition and
ratification
from 1787
through 1791.
Thus his
metaphor is
neither
constitutional
nor should it be
legally
definitive. And,
unlike much
modern
interpretive
gloss, it does
not separate
political and
religious life.
As the
exegesis of Dr.
Dreisbach
sustains,
Jefferson
referred to a
wall of
separation
between the
federal
government on
the one hand,
and state
government and
the
institutional
church on the
other. It was
not a wall
separating
religious life
and political
life. Though he
rightly opposed
an established
Anglican church
in his native
Virginia,
nonetheless as
Governor he
signed “A
Proclamation
Appointing a Day
of Publick and
Solemn
Thanksgiving and
Prayer” in
November, 1779.
He opposed the
federal
government doing
the same, and
thus was charged
by Adams and the
Federalists of
being an infidel
and atheist. In
other words, he
was acting as a
partisan
Republican
against partisan
Federalists. The
texture of
reality is not
so facile as it
might otherwise
appear.
Now I say he
rightly opposed
a state
established
church, based on
principles of
religious
liberty. But
even yet, as
President he did
not seek to have
the Congress
require the same
of Massachusetts
and Connecticut,
both of which
still had state
establishment of
the
Congregational
Church. He
believed it was
a state issue to
resolve, not a
federal one, and
as it turned
out, it was
resolved within
two decades. The
Danbury Baptists
wanted
disestablishment,
not the language
of a wall of
separation, and
even though
Jefferson agreed
in principal, he
was not a
Federalist, and
did not appease
them here by
interfering with
state politics.
Jefferson’s
wall was not
regarded as
anything
definitive by
his peers, and
largely fell out
of the public
eye, apart from
a fleeting
appearance in
1879. But in
1947, in the
Everson v. Board
of Education
U.S. Supreme
Court Decision,
Justice Hugo
Black quoted the
metaphor and
added something
novel to it. It
was something
both
non-Jeffersonian
and
non-constitutional,
saying such a
wall should be
“high and
impregnable.”
Americans United
for Separation
of Church and
State was
founded the same
year, and ever
since, the wall
metaphor has
been used by
them and the
American Civil
Liberties Union
(ACLU) et al. to
separate much
government and
religion in a
sense that is
foreign to
Jefferson’s
purpose. As some
scholars say, it
is the wall that
Hugo Black
built.
But at the
prior level, how
does the wall
metaphor
actually apply
to the substance
of the First
Amendment
itself?
The First
Amendment reads:
“Congress shall
make no law
respecting an
establishment of
religion, or
prohibiting the
free exercise
thereof; or
abridging the
freedom of
speech, or of
the press, or of
the right of the
people peaceably
to assemble, and
to petition the
Government for a
redress of
grievances.”
Against a
backdrop of
nationally
established
churches in
Europe, the
Anglican Church
in England, the
Roman Catholic
Church in France
and the Lutheran
Church in
Germany, for
example, the
seeds of
religious
liberty grew
well in the
Colonies and
nascent United
States. In the
one and a half
centuries from
the Puritans in
Plymouth, and
through the
power of the
First Great
Awakening, the
finest fruit of
the Reformation
began to take
hold by the time
of the
Declaration of
Independence in
1776 and the
First Amendment
in 1787 – no
political
coercion in
religion. Laws
only apply to
actions, even as
Jefferson stated
in his Danbury
letter just
prior to what I
quoted earlier:
“religion is a
matter which
lies solely
between Man &
his God, that he
owes account to
none other for
his faith or his
worship, that
the legitimate
powers of
government reach
actions only, &
not opinions...”
Critically
here, the First
Amendment is a
restriction on
the federal
government, and
for the sake of
protecting the
four liberties
that follow.
There is no
restriction on
religion, even
as established
by a state (and
if a person did
not like one
state’s
established
religion, he or
she could freely
move to another
state). The
federal
government shall
make no laws
setting up an
established
institutional
church, which
would be
discriminatory,
and this is what
“establishment
of religion”
means. On such a
basis, it shall
not prohibit the
freedom of
religion,
whether in the
individual
conscience or
the freedom of
people to form
an institutional
church. The
federal
government shall
have no veto
powers over the
church, and
since no
institutional
church is
established by
the United
States, none has
a privileged
position to make
demands of the
federal
government. This
is a type of
natural
distinction, but
not for the sake
of a “high and
impregnable”
wall of opposing
camps with the
federal
government as
master; but for
the sake of a
mutual
cooperation in
the pursuit of
religious,
political and
economic
liberties.
What this
means is that
all people are
equally free to
participate in
political life,
based explicitly
on what they
believe, whether
as Jews,
Christians,
Muslims, Hindus,
Buddhists,
pagans, atheists
or otherwise –
so long as we
all honor the
equal access to
political life
and argument for
those who
believe
otherwise, all
within the rule
of law.
Too, if Hugo
Black’s “high
and impregnable
wall” were
literally in
view in the
First Amendment
text, then as
the syntax would
then make clear,
any range of
particular
religious
expression can
be banned or
severely limited
in government.
Thus likewise,
speech, the
press, public
assembly and
redress of the
government can
also be banned
or severely
limited. The
First Amendment
is clear –
religious
liberty is the
first freedom;
and only when we
are free to
believe what we
choose, do we
then have the
freedom to speak
those beliefs,
publish those
beliefs,
assemble on the
basis of those
beliefs, and
critically, to
redress and
challenge
government
policies based
on those
beliefs.
Earlier I
said that the
metaphor of “a
wall of
separation” is
reactive and
negative. Any
wall that
isolates is by
definition
negative. But
history also
shows why
negatives happen
– this is the
nature of war,
even a just war
waged to protect
the innocent.
But ultimately,
if we only react
to the reactions
or negatives of
others, we will
all drown in the
same miserable
soup. Hugo
Black’s “high
and impregnable”
wall of
separation was
crafted against
a long
historical
backdrop of
religious
intolerance, and
hopefully none
of us here want
such
intolerance.
So, how and
where can the
proactive and
positive gain
the greater
influence?
Here the
language of
Jefferson is
helpful – as the
scribe for the
Committee which
drafted the
Declaration of
Independence,
even as the
heterodox
rationalist he
was.
In the
Declaration, we
read these
words: “WE hold
these Truths to
be self-evident,
that all Men are
created equal,
that they are
endowed by their
Creator with
certain
unalienable
Rights, that
among these are
Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit
of Happiness –
That to secure
these Rights,
Governments are
instituted among
Men, deriving
their just
Powers from the
Consent of the
Governed...”
By
definition,
“unalienable
rights” are
those rights
which human
government
cannot define,
give or take
away. They can
only be
acknowledged as
prior to and
greater than the
existence of
human
government, and
which human
government must
serve. Jefferson
and his
colleagues knew
that by
appealing to the
Creator, that
King George III
could not trump
them in any way
– for though he
was violating
the lives,
liberties and
property rights
of the
Colonists, and
could lay claim
as the highest
human authority
for the British
Colonies, he
could not trump
the God of the
Bible. Thus,
Jefferson the
rationalist,
Franklin the
deist and the
other 54
signatories –
the vast
majority of whom
were actively or
formally
orthodox
Protestants,
with one bold
Roman Catholic
in their midst –
they all agreed
on a theological
and historical
point of
reference.
No pagan
religion or
secular
construct has
ever conceived
of such
unalienable
rights. In pagan
religions, the
gods and
goddesses beat
up on each other
and on us – the
very opposite of
unalienable
rights. In the
Epicurean swerve
that presaged
Darwinian
macroevolution,
the universe
does not know we
exist, spits us
forth and
swallows us up
with no concept
of unalienable
rights. The
deism of the
Enlightenment is
likewise
impotent – being
a philosophical
idea of an
amorphous and
ahistorical
deity which has
no articulation
or concept of
unalienable
rights.
The
unalienable
rights were
expressed in the
Declaration with
a Jeffersonian
philosophical
flair – “life,
liberty and the
pursuit of
happiness.” In
the Fifth and
Fourteen
Amendments, they
are legally more
precise in the
third instant,
“life, liberty
and property.”
The liberties in
view are
codified in the
First Amendment
– religion,
speech, the
press, assembly
and redress of
grievances; and
summarily
covered in the
arenas of
religious,
political and
economic
liberty.
Thus,
Jefferson would
only view the
First Amendment
through the
prism of
unalienable
rights given by
the Creator – a
radically
theological
idea, and his
“wall of
separation” can
have nothing to
do with
separating
religion from
political life.
It was a
reference to his
bottom-up
Republican view
of the federal
and state
governments, in
contrast to the
top-down
Federalist view.
This being
the case, and
given our love
for metaphors in
human
communication to
sum up something
as historically
intricate as the
First Amendment,
what is a
positive
metaphor to
serve its first
freedom, of
religion, and
its cognate four
freedoms?
In Genesis
1-2, we find the
biblical order
of creation. It
precedes and
defines the fall
into sin – best
defined as
broken trust –
which is then
introduced in
Genesis 3. And
the promise of
redemption, also
introduced in
Genesis 3, seeks
to restore us to
the original
good trajectory
of the order of
creation.
We have two
choices in life.
Give and it will
be given, or
take before you
are taken. This
contest is most
importantly a
question of
power – the
power to give
versus the power
to take. Giving
is proactive,
taking is
reactive.
The only
place in written
history where
the proactive
and positive
power to give
are fully
present, and
unpolluted by
broken trust,
war, disease
etc., is Genesis
1-2. And here
the content of
unalienable
rights is
rooted, even
while its
language is not
technically used
– for indeed,
“unalienable” is
a double
negative
compound word,
and there is no
negative to
negate in the
biblical order
of creation.
Rather, we have
the positive
gifts which
precede and
define the
rights we
redemptively
call
unalienable.
Human life is
made in the
image of God,
human freedom is
given in the
first words to
the first man by
the sovereign
Yahweh Elohim,
and we are given
the stewardship
over the
creation to
work, produce,
prosper and be
free in the
buying, selling,
trading and
bartering of our
property – all
as original
gifts of God,
and all of which
lead to true
happiness within
the human
community in
God’s sight.
Life, liberty,
property and the
pursuit of
happiness.
Crucially
here, we have
the only
proactive
definition of
human freedom in
history. In
Genesis 2:15-17,
we are given a
level playing
field to choose
between life and
death, good and
evil, truth and
falsehood. The
language used
here, in the
Hebrew, is
itself a great
metaphor, “in
feasting you
shall
continually
feast” from an
unlimited menu
of good choices,
versus “in dying
you shall
continually die”
if we eat the
forbidden fruit.
How many
people here
tonight do not
like the idea of
a never-ending
banquet to enjoy
with your
friends and
family, with an
unlimited menu
of good choices?
This is the
biblical
definition of
freedom. Thus,
we are all
theologically
united, and I
have discovered
that the same is
true even among
pagans and
secularists.
This is also
the radical
nature of the
biblical order
of creation –
nowhere else in
pagan religious
origin texts or
secular
constructs are
both good and
evil placed side
by side, with
the freedom
given to choose
between the two,
with the long
range confidence
that truth will
rise to the top,
and with the
power of the
atoning death
and resurrection
of Jesus to
ensure its final
possibility for
those who
believe. This
leads us into
great and
detailed
theological
territory beyond
my available
time. But in
essence, we
cannot be free
to say yes to
God unless we
are first free
to say no. This
is the freedom
of dissent,
though we will
always reap what
we sow. As it
says in the RSSV
(that is, the
Rankin
Sub-Standard
Version), “God
so loved the
world that he
gave us each the
freedom to go to
hell if we damn
well want to.”
And I am not
using “hell”
gratuitously,
for as Jesus
says, people
choose darkness
because they
know their deeds
are evil, and do
not want to come
into the light,
the light that
defines the
kingdom of God.
One radical
element here is
that Yahweh
Elohim gives the
ancient serpent,
Satan himself, a
level playing
field access to
the Garden to
tempt Adam and
Eve. Only truth
can get away
with such
hospitality. As
well, the
theocracies
under the Law of
Moses, and under
Jesus when he
returns, are
both communities
of choice. There
is no such thing
as an imposed
theocracy in the
Bible – “Choose
this day whom
you will serve”
says Joshua.
Jesus follows
the same during
Passover Week,
where he offers
a level playing
field for his
sworn enemies to
rake him over
the coals with
their toughest
questions. And
by being proven
blameless in the
process, thus
able to die for
us as the
spotless Lamb of
God, the use of
the level
playing field is
the basis for
our salvation.
Interestingly,
when Jesus came
into Jerusalem
that week as the
Son of David,
the anointed
heir of the
founding king of
Jerusalem, it is
the most
explosive
church-state
debate in
history, because
of King Herod
the Tetrarch’s
fears, and of
his religious
and political
sycophants.
The Jewish
religious elite
had been bought
off by Herod the
Great from 20
B.C. on
following,
building them a
temple more
magnificent than
that of Solomon,
from whence they
derived great
wealth and power
and status. But
it came with a
price – they had
to agree not to
interfere with
