Beth-El Baptist Church

12/21/2008

Greg Tomlinson


Should there be a separation of church and state?


A common theme in the United States of America right now is to take cases to court when either a public official, public school employee or even a student (elementary through High School) in some way acknowledges God and especially Jesus Christ. The claim is that it is against the Constitution of the United States of America. Although the real history of the phrase “Separation between Church and State” can be demonstrated to be the exact opposite of the modern sentiment, the real issue is that of the scriptures and the relationship between the civil government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) whether a Monarchy, Fascism, Dictatorship, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, Democratic Republic, or one of the many different forms of government.


  1. What is the history of civil governmental forms in the Old Testament?

Exodus 14:13-14, 30-31; 16:1-4, 28-29, 18:16-23, 20:1-17

Judges 2:1-4, 11-22; 17:6; 21:25 1 Samuel 8:5-20 cmp Deuteronomy 17:14-20


Israel as a nation began its existence as a Theocracy with a Prophet leader. God was their ruler, law maker, and military protection, the Prophet was the law deliverer, and there were judges who explained God's law to the people and evaluated their complaints. During the time of the Judges, God was still to be the Theocratic leader and men and women called 'judges' were used to deliver Israel out from under the authority of another people and restore them back to fellowship with God. As long as the people obeyed God, they prospered. After they disobeyed God, then God judged them and placed them under the authority of another people from whom God later freed them. The time of the Judges neared its end as everyone decided for themselves what was right and what was wrong. This opened up the way for the Monarchy. The people of Israel rejected God as their “King” and wanted to operate like all of the other (Godless) nations. The King over the people Israel is not to be like the kings over the nations. He is to be a King who rules according to the Law of God and not to rule according to his own desires.


  1. Did the civil government ever ignore or reject the counsel of the religious leaders?

1 Samuel 15:17-23 2 Samuel 12:1-11; 24:10-16

1 Kings 12:32-13:6 1 Chronicles 18:7, 16-22, 25-27

Jeremiah 7:13-19, 25-34


This is just a sampling of the times the Kings of Israel and Judah rejected the counsel of the religious leaders (prophets). In every case, disastrous results occurred. Saul was rejected as being king, King David fled from before his son Absalom. Pestilence was in the land for three days killing 70,000. The kingdom of Israel was divided into two pieces. In every case, when the civil authorities rejected the counsel of the Law of God, judgment came ultimately resulting in the disbursement of Israel (Northern 10 tribes) and the exile of Judah (Southern 2 tribes).


  1. Did the religious leaders ever ignore or reject the counsel of the civil leaders?

1 Kings 22:13-34 2 Kings 6:30-7:2, 16-20

2 Chronicles 26:13-21 Jeremiah 11:21-23; 20:8-12; 32:1-6

Isaiah 30:9-14 Amos 7:12-17


Kings and other civil authorities often told the prophets of God to quit prophesying unto to them. The prophets kept prophesying because they were driven by God to do so. In every case, the word of God was upheld and the civil leaders' counsel being rejected was the right and proper thing for the prophet to do.


  1. What does the New Testament have to say about the relationship between civil and religious leaders?

Matthew 22:17-22 John 19:12-19

Romans 13:1-7 cmp Acts 4:18-21; 5:28-33 1 Peter 2:12-15


In the Net Testament, Jesus proclaimed that there are some things that belong to civil authorities and some things that belong to God. The guarantee here is that the civil authorities are not God and that God is to reign as the supreme authority. As much as is possible, men are to live in obedience to the laws of the civil authorities. The one exception is when the civil authorities are operating against God's laws. The civil authorities are to operate as servants of God, carrying out the laws and commands of God. They are not to operate according to their own desires but according to the will and commands of God.


Summary:


Throughout history then, the civil authorities have greatly benefited when they listened to what the prophets of God had to say. When they ignored or otherwise rejected the counsel of God's people, disaster always followed, eventually. On the other hand, when the people of God ignored the civil authorities and followed the commands of God instead, the people of God were commended by God himself. This is very much in line with the original statement regarding “Separation of Church and State”. Historically, it comes from a response from Thomas Jefferson regarding a letter from the Danbury Baptists asking whether or not the Federal Government under Thomas Jefferson would institute a particular form of Christian service. Thomas Jefferson's very short reply was that “the wall of separation of church and state” was indeed stable. He indicated that the state would not involve itself in dictating how the church ought to function or believe. It closed off no avenues regarding how the church is able to function within the arena of civil government. This is quite the opposite meaning the “separation of church and state” clause has recently been identified as holding.