There is an
organization that promotes the separation of church and state (Americans United
for the Separation of Church and State). While their avowed purpose appeals to
me, I share their desires but for totally different reasons and without banning
the church from the market place. The AU believes that the church is a negative
force in the social and political culture of the United States. My view, on the
other hand, is that the government (state) is too restrictive regarding the
church’s role in the society…particularly of the Christian faith. Any faith
that attempts to evangelize without the use of force or intimidation should be
welcome in the public square.
For
Christians who may be fearful about such an open position, please recall the
Hare Krishna movement of a few decades ago. My encounters with them were
primarily limited to airports, and while I found them a tad annoying, they were
harmless. And I never fell under their evil spell. There may be some Krishnas
lurking around somewhere, but their movement seems to have lost its impetus and
is no longer a visible presence. My view is that a state-enforced religion is
inherently more ominous than a religious free-for-all in the marketplace. I
have confidence in the truth of my faith, in the power of Almighty God and in
the salvation message of Jesus Christ. State intervention is neither needed nor
desired. If the state were to “implement” the Christian faith as an “official”
government policy, then the distortions would begin immediately. I suspect that
politicians and bureaucrats have no more respect for God and his Word than they
do for the Constitution of the United States of America.
If the
United States is indeed a Christian nation, the evidence will be in the fruits
of the people….not in the laws, rules and regulations of Big Brother. The more
involved the government becomes in defining the faith and its practices, the
more likely it is that the government-approved Christian faith will be an
abomination in the eyes of God. Freedom of religion in the United States should
include the right to openly profess one’s faith….or no faith. It should allow
one to question other belief systems without fear of reprisal or government
punishment. Faith and belief are internal contracts with the Supreme Diety that
often involve public professing. Public coercion, however, should never be part
of the worship because the listeners’ hearts will be hardened and unwilling to
hear the truth. In addition when a state endorses or promotes a singular faith,
the priests either become politicians or the politicians become clergy as the
two power centers are merged.
A
state-mandated or state-endorsed faith is detrimental for another reason.
Belief, faith and adherence are by their very nature individual matters. To
collectivize them under the auspices of the state places another party between
the believer and the Lord. We can note that within the evangelical Christian
community there are differences or variances regarding doctrine, emphasis,
organizational structure and ritual. Will the state mandate Methodism,
Catholicism or Pentecostalism as the “official” practice of the state. What
about all those independent bodies of believers who do not belong to any formal
denominational organization? Will the state insist on pre-tribulation or
post-tribulation teaching? Will baptismal immersion be required or forbidden?
These are the types of issues that when incorporated into official governmental
policy or protection can truly destroy the vibrancy of numerous congregations
and their members.
One of the
major tenets of the protestant Reformation was that the interpretation of
Scripture should not be the sole province of the clergy. Each individual is
responsible for reading, understanding and learning the Word. As a result there
are many sects within the Christian galaxy who may agree on a few fundamental
basics but differ widely on other aspects of the faith. If the government as
chief endorser and promoter of the faith were also charged with promulgating
the “correct” interpretation of His Word, the dangers of misuse and
misapplication rise geometrically as government would twist the Scriptures to
satisfy its own purposes. The essence of the Gospel would be undermined by
self-serving bureaucrats, and the people could be placed in political or
spiritual peril. Our nation would revert to the church states of old where
political enemies of the governing class would be charged with heresy and
removed from public discourse.
If the
church is to survive, it must not be an entrenched arm of the government. The
faith, the mercy, the grace and the knowledge of God are enough for the church
to withstand any onslaught by private or public entities, but if the church and
its teaching were co-opted by the government apparatus, the only true outlet for
believers would be the underground. The modern remnant would be relegated to
the catacombs just as the first century church was. The state-sponsored church
would sink in corruption, true evangelism would be forbidden and the enemies of
individual liberty would prevail. In the final analysis the church, any church,
should be free to vigorously proclaim the truth, but the state or government
should never endorse it or embrace it.
