Grace Church
257 Kendall Street
Burlington, WI 53105

(262) 763-3021

October 5, 2008 Uneasy Neighbors: Church & State Separation 1 Timothy 2:1-4 Sermon 11 Pastor Luke Emrich from the New Life Church in West Bend preached his sermon last Sunday, (September 28th) knowing his remarks might invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. But that was the whole point, so Pastor Emrich forged ahead with his message: Thou shalt vote according to the Scriptures. In his sermon he said, “I'm telling you straight up, I would choose life. I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. But friends, it's your choice to make, it's not my choice. I won't be in the voting booth with you." Last Sunday, 33 pastors in 22 states, made pointed recommendations about political candidates, an effort orchestrated by the Alliance Defense Fund. This conservative legal group plans to send copies of these pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation."   This morning we’re continuing our series, Kingdom Principles in a Political World. We want to work through Uneasy Neighbors: Church & State Separation. The Apostle Paul picks up on some of this tension in his letter to a young pastor. Turn to 1 Timothy 2:1-4 (p. 839). Did you catch that, “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness?” Peaceful lives are not assumed. Our allegiance to the Kingdom of God often brings us into conflict with another authority, the State.   So what does God’s Word say about separation of Church & State? Is there a Biblical worldview on this issue? Most of us have asked, “How much should the church involve itself in politics?” and “How much should I, as a Christian citizen, be involved in politics?” That’s what we want to work through this morning. Let me first though make some disclaimers.   The first is that I cannot possibly be comprehensive in one message. I must limit my comments on many points where, if time permitted, much more could be said.   Second, and most importantly, my approach is going to be primarily theological. By that I mean we’re going to talk about what Scripture says and talk about doctrines that run throughout Scripture rather than studying one particular text. I want to help you develop a “theological argument” on these issues and assist you in thinking Biblically about Church & State relationships.     And thirdly, I am in process in my thinking on these matters myself. I’ve done a lot of reading and thinking on these issues through the years yet I have a long way to go. Today’s sermon reflects where I'm at now, not necessarily where I'll be 5 or 10 years from now. We want to begin with a foundational proposition and then work from there on this issue of the Separation of Church & State. The foundational proposition is… 1. Jesus Christ must be Lord of our political views. A lady asked her pastor, “Will you please tell me in a word what your idea of Lordship is? Holding out a blank sheet of paper the pastor replied, “Lordship, is to sign your name at the bottom of this blank sheet and to let God fill it in as He wills.”   Poll after poll, election after election demonstrates that the #1 issue for why Americans vote for who they vote for is the performance of the U.S. economy. Most Americans, Christians included, vote their wallets. They vote for whoever they believe will benefit them the most financially. The brutal fact is that most Americans would vote for Osama Bin Laden as president, if they thought that he’d help them make more money and benefit them financially. Matt. 6:24 says, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money”   Tragically, believers whose lives are otherwise in submission to Jesus Christ have a tendency to forget about His Lordship when they enter the voting booth. Now some Christians believe that politics are dirty and worldly and that, as citizens of heaven, Christians have no business with politics at all, even to the point of refusing to vote. Others get involved whole hog, but their involvement is more emotional than rational. Very few seem to have thought things through biblically.   If Jesus Christ is Lord of all of life, we must allow Him to be Lord of our political views. 2 Cor. 10:5 commands us to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” That must include our political thinking. 2. The intent of our Founding Fathers was to keep the State out of the Church. Did you know that our Constitution never talks of or uses this term “separation of Church and State.” Interestingly, there is a country that did have it in their Constitution, the former Soviet Union.   Our Founding Fathers were, with the 1st Amendment, seeking to prevent a State Church. Pilgrims and Puritans came to this great country to escape the tyranny of a State Church. There was no thought of having Christianity and the Church uninvolved with the government. Christianity has been a vital part of American culture from the beginning.   Pastors in early America preached election sermons, recommending to their congregations who they should vote for. On top of the Washington Monument, you’ll find these Latin words, Laus Deo, which simply means “Praise be to God!” The Ten Commandments hang over the head of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In the rotunda of the Capitol is the figure of the crucified Christ. On the walls of the Capitol dome are these words, “The New Testament according to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” In both the House and Senate Chambers you’ll find the words, “In God we trust.” Various passages of Scripture are on the walls of the rooms of the Library of Congress.   Did you know that our Constitution is based on the Bible? The University of Houston asked how much Bible is in our Constitution and then engaged in a ten year study of the Constitution. Scholars examined 15,000 documents of our Founding Fathers and narrowed these down to 3,154 that had a direct impact on the Constitution. What they found was startling! The three men most often quoted by the Founders were Baron de Montesquieu, a French philosopher; William Blackstone, an English jurist; and John Locke, a British philosopher. Four times more than Montesquieu, twelve times more than Blackstone and sixteen times more than Locke, our Founding Fathers quoted from the Bible! 34% of all quotes found in the Constitution originated in the Bible. Another 60% of the principles given by the Founders in the Constitution originated in the Bible. Without the Bible we would not have 94% of our Constitution! Now this is the same Bible which can’t be read in the public schools. So will they outlaw the reading of the Constitution, since nearly all of it originated from the Bible?   The Founding Fathers would be appalled at our modern interpretation of the Separation of Church and State. When Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase “wall of separation,” it’s certain that he never would have anticipated the controversy that surrounds that term today. His metaphor has become so powerful that Americans are more familiar with Jefferson's phrase than with the actual language of the Constitution.   Those words are from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptist Association. This group of churches had heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was to become the official denomination of the United States. They were very alarmed and sent a letter to President Jefferson, and he responded with a letter of his own. In his January 2, 1802 letter he told them they didn’t have to worry about one denomination within Christianity taking over the government because, "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."   That's the origin of the phrase. Jefferson’s intention was crystal clear. It has nothing to do with the separation of the state from Christianity, but the state and one official denomination, or a State Church. His letter went on to explain that there would always be complete freedom of worship for all orthodox religious practices, for true religious practice would never threaten the purpose of government. Today though all we hear of Jefferson’s letter is that one phrase "separation between church and state." It’s completely misquoted and misused. The context, the application or the intent is never considered. And based on this misinterpretation, prayer was outlawed in the public schools in 1962. By the way, do you know what that terribly offensive prayer was? “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Wow! We certainly wouldn’t want God’s blessing on ourselves, our parents, teachers or our country.   School prayer was just the first casualty of this new definition. Within a year the Supreme Court removed Bible reading and any religious classes or instructions. The Ten Commandments and Beatitudes soon came down, and we’re still paying the price today. The State of Arizona couldn’t have a Bible Week though it had been doing so for nearly seventy years, along with some thirty other States and the Federal government. Her school principal told 8-year-old Jessica Williams that she could not sing Outside the Gate, a gospel song at her school’s talent show because students were not allowed to sing religious songs so that no one would be offended. The prison sentence for a child rapist was overturned because the Judge, when imposing punishment, quoted from the Bible. She quoted Matthew 18:5-6: “But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it would be better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” The Supreme Court declared a four-line nursery rhyme unconstitutional because, although it did not contain the word “God,” it might cause someone to think it was talking about God.   Is it any wonder that Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist stated in the 1984 case of Wallace vs. Jaffree, “The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” 3. The Biblical relationship between the church and a secular government is frequently hostile. Abraham Lincoln observed, “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?” Our Lord gave us a brand new ethic in the Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:43-44).   That’s exactly what Rabbi Michael Weisser did. Rabbi Weisser lived in Lincoln, Nebraska and for more than three years, Larry Trapp, a self-proclaimed Nazi and Ku Klux Klansman, directed a torrent of hate-filled mailings and phone calls toward him. Larry Trapp promoted white supremacy, anti-Semitism and other messages of prejudice, declaring his apartment the KKK state headquarters and himself the Grand Dragon. His whole purpose in life seemed to be to spew out hate-ridden racial slurs and obscene remarks against Rabbi Weisser and all those like him.   At first, the Weissers were so afraid they locked their doors and worried themselves almost sick over the safety of their family. But one day Rabbi Weisser found out that Trapp was a 42-year-old clinically blind, double amputee. He became convinced that Trapp’s own physical helplessness was a source of the bitterness he expressed. So Rabbi Weisser decided to do the unexpected. He left a message on Trapp’s answering machine, telling him of another side of life…a life free of hatred and racism.   Rabbi Weisser said, “I probably called 10 times and left messages before he finally picked up the phone and asked me why I was harassing him. I said that I’d like to help him. I offered him a ride to the grocery store or to the mall." Larry Trapp was stunned. Disarmed by this kindness and courtesy, he started thinking. He later admitted, through tears, that he heard in the rabbi’s voice, "something I hadn’t experienced in years. It was love."   Slowly the bitter man began to soften. One night he called the Weissers and said he wanted out, but didn’t know how. They grabbed a bucket of fried chicken and took him dinner. Before long they made a trade: in return for their love he gave them his swastika rings, hate tracts and Klan robes. That same day Larry Trapp gave up his Ku Klux Klan recruiting job and dumped the rest of his propaganda in the trash. "They showed me so much love that I couldn’t help but love them back," he finally confessed.   My friends, that’s what God has called us to do…even when we’re mistreated by those in governmental authority. We are to return good for evil. Can you just imagine what could happen if we truly began to live lives that showed the love of Jesus to those in authority over us? We're not the first Christians who’ve struggled with these issues. Relations between church and state have been notoriously controversial throughout the Christian centuries. To oversimplify, four main models have been tried — Erastianism (the state controls the church), Theocracy (the church controls the state), Constantinianism (the compromise in which the state favors the church and the church accommodates to the state in order to retain its favor), and Partnership (church and state recognize and encourage each other's distinct God-given responsibilities in a spirit of constructive collaboration). This fourth one, Partnership, is what the New Testament teaches. So what does it mean to be “partner” of the State?   a) It is not total separation. There is no such thing as total separation of church and state. This phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” is not in the Constitution. The same Congress which drafted the Constitution reaffirmed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 which states, “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged.” Thus, religion and morality (based on religion) were a part of the foundation of our nation's educational system. The Founding Fathers would be aghast at the current interpretation of the First Amendment which excludes any mention of God or the Bible from public schools and many other government functions.   Since part of the government's God-ordained function is to promote justice, and since, by necessity, that involves the legislation of morality, it is absurd to talk about a total separation of church and state. The church concerns itself with morality and justice, so there’s a lot of overlap.   But many want the Church to sit silently by while our culture goes to Hell in a hand basket. The late U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater typifies this attitude. In 1981 in a Senate hearing Goldwater said, “I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. And the religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. The great decisions of government cannot be dictated by the concerns of religious factions…We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now.” While politicians like Barry Goldwater have a right to their opinion, constitutionally, we also have a right to vote them out of office, as well as to exert as much muscle as possible on moral issues. There’s no such thing as total separation of church and state because both institutions concern themselves with morality.   b) It is not total identification. The church must continually be careful that it is known for the Gospel and righteousness, not a particular political stance. We need to remember several things in this regard…   First, it’s evangelism, not political power that is God's primary means of dealing with this world's problems. If we forget this, we fall into the trap of the liberal theologians who promoted the social gospel. Since the major problems in this world stem from sin in individual hearts, the only real solution is to see every person brought into a right relationship with God. Jesus didn't command us to go and win political races; He commanded us to go and disciple all nations.   Then, the doctrine of depravity must always be in view when the church touches politics. I believe that Christians err and open the cause of Christ to possible scandal when they become overly enamored with a particular political party or candidate. Neither party is thoroughly right or biblical. There’s a mixture of good and evil in both parties. And all candidates (and all Christians) are fallen sinners who are susceptible to the lust for power and prestige. Thus, we also are liable to the danger of using our political muscle for private gain rather than for the public good. And we dare not trust the government to do more than God designed it to do.   When (as in the current election) one party (and it's presidential candidate) takes a clear stand against such clear-cut moral issues as abortion and homosexual rights, and the other party (and it's candidate) takes a clear stand on the opposite side, I think that a Christian has virtually no choice on who to vote for, whatever your normal political leanings. But at the same time we must make it clear that we are voting on matters of Biblical righteousness, not on a partisan political basis. The church's primary concern is for the gospel and righteousness, not for partisan politics. So the relationship between church and state is not one of total separation, nor is it one of total identification. It is… c) It is one of confrontation. The church must confront the state on matters of immorality and injustice. In the Old Testament the prophets called the kings to account on these matters. In the New Testament, John the Baptist and Jesus confronted the religious and political leaders. Paul confronted governor, Felix and his wife Drusilla, concerning righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25). He preached to Festus, Agrippa and Bernice. This brings up a difficult question: How far can we push Christian morality (legislatively) in a secular society? During the colonial days some states punished people who traveled on Sunday. Obviously, we don't want to go that far (most of us would be guilty!). Franky Schaeffer argues that we need to go for all we can or else ultimately we won't have a free country. Personally, I don’t think so. If we press for all we can without being clear about the limits, we’ll create a severe backlash against Christianity by secularists who will fear that we’ll be burning witches soon if they don’t stop us. Now I’m still working through this, but I think theologian, John Warwick Montgomery, has the most balanced approach. He suggests that…   * We must distinguish between biblical moral absolutes and gray areas. Abortion is clear-cut. I don’t see how any Christian who believes the Bible can argue in favor of abortion. On other issues (the war in Iraq would be an example), committed, godly believers differ. On such gray areas you may choose to fight for your position as an individual Christian citizen, but please make sure that you make it clear that these are personal opinions, not God's revelation.   * We should seek to legislate only those laws of God that even lost people can comprehend. The nation of Israel was a theocracy, we’re not. There are Biblical truths that a lost person just doesn’t get. We must not seek then to legislate even genuinely Biblical moral teachings where the value of that teaching will be recognized only by those who’ve already accepted Christ as Lord and the Bible as God's Word.   For example, we don't want to prosecute people who swear or even adulterers, though such things violate God's law. To force unbelievers to abide by such laws would be counter-productive in the long run in that eventually people would rebel against Christianity and cast off all influence of the church. Ed Dobson insightfully observed that “One of the dangers of mixing politics and religion is that you begin to think the only way to transform culture is by passing another law.” It’s not!   * We should strive to legislate all socially valuable moral teachings of Scripture whose value can be meaningfully argued for in a pluralistic society. Laws against abortion, laws protecting the handicapped and the elderly, laws against pornography and child abuse—all of these can be argued for on the grounds of broad social appeal, even for the non-Christian. Our reason for arguing for such laws is because God's Word is clear on these matters. But these and many other values can be agreed upon by a broad coalition of people, many of whom would not accept Christ as Lord or the Bible as God's Word. If we argue these issues on the basis of scientific, social, and ethical grounds (such as the Golden Rule) which even the nonbeliever can accept, then if the matter becomes the law of the land, the unbeliever who disagrees with it is less likely to feel that a particular religion has been forced upon him.   * In the political arena, if the choice is between a reasonable compromise that has a good chance of passing versus the uncompromised position which has a poor chance of passing, go for the compromise. Now I’m not suggesting that we compromise our moral or Biblical standards. I am saying though that in a fallen world, where we are dealing with unbelievers, we may have to settle for less than God's best.   In the area of abortion, for example, although I believe that it is immoral to kill a developing baby simply because it’s the result of rape or incest, I would settle for an amendment banning abortions except in those cases rather than in holding out for an amendment which bans all abortions. By accepting the compromise we’d end 95% of all current abortions. Then, we can go to work on the other 5%. This fits in with my understanding of what Jesus said in Matthew 10:26 “Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” I'm not suggesting that we compromise our standards. I am saying that we need to be politically wise, and win a battle before we seek to win the whole war. Conclusion: These are not easy issues and godly believers have differed and will continue to differ on how involved a believer should be with the State. Let me remind you that three Biblical heroes were also top leaders in wicked secular governments: Joseph, Esther and Daniel. They were able by God’s grace and wisdom to live holy lives and also be effective politically.   Uneasy Neighbors, that’s a good term for this Church and State Separation dilemma. We believe that while government should not sponsor religion, neither should it be hostile to religion. Government can accommodate religious activities. Government should provide protection for the church and provide for the free expression of religion. But government should not favor a particular group or religion over another.   We must reject the idea of a "naked public square" (where religious values have been stripped from the public arena). And we should also reject the idea of a "sacred public square" (where religious ideas are sponsored by government). What we should seek then is an "open public square" (where government neither censors nor sponsors religion but accommodates religion). Government should not be hostile toward religion, but neither should it sponsor religion or favor a particular faith over another. Government should maintain a benevolent neutrality toward religion, and accommodate religious activities and symbols. The extent to which we as Christians should attempt the integration of Christianity and citizenship has always divided committed Christians.   One of our Founding Fathers, John Witherspoon, struggled with this issue back in 1776. As a minister of the Gospel and the president of Princeton Seminary, he felt strongly that the church should not become entangled in civil affairs. "When our blessed Savior says, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' [as] he once preached, “He plainly intimates to His disciples that they have no title to intermeddle with state affairs." Yet, when John Witherspoon was urged to serve as a delegate to the 1776 Continental Congress, Witherspoon, an astute Christian citizen, finally accepted the call. History records that it was his voice, as much as anyone's, that turned the tide of debate that tense, hot July 4th in Carpenter Hall. His resounding speech at a critical hour united the delegates in a common conviction to pick up the pen and sign the Declaration of Independence.   Folks; God has called us to be salt and light in a decaying culture. I don’t always understand what that means and neither do you but as He leads, let’s determine to obey!