Critique Two - Part Three - Stating the Obvious

Separation of Church and State appears as the second principle of "loose consensus" proposed in the Secular Humanist Declaration. It is no surprise that this principle would be included as the humanist would have religion removed from all thought if possible, much less from matters of governance. I hesitate to even comment on this topic as it seems so very uncomplicated, but there has been such a focus on this issue in contemporary American culture that I fear something more duplicitous is taking place.

First, the separation of church and state, if taken at face value, is a quite reasonable and common sense statement. What is the purpose of the Church? In Paul's letter to the Ephesian church chapter 4 and verse 12 he states that the people are given gifts"...to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Chirst." In short the purpose of the Church is to equip the Saints to be more like Christ and to serve. What is the purpose of the State? Simply put, to govern the people, which for the United States means to provide protection so the people can realize their inalienable (or God given) rights to life, liberty and property. So, the Church and the State are naturally separated functionally in that they look to serve different purposes. Making much of the separation of church and state would be akin to jumping up and down and demanding the separation of the judicial branch of government from the executive branch. No one brings this up because everyone understands that those two branches of government are naturally separate in that they serve two different functions. To exclaim the separation is to state the obvious.

This is why I believe the continued pressing of this point is more duplicitous than a mere stating of fact. Cries of outrage on this issue do not come forth because of the desire to clearly state the difference in function of the two entities, nor do they come to make sure a priest is never elected to public office; rather, separation is invoked because people want to be out from under their accountability to God and feel that if they can secularize governance politicians will be accountable only to the people. It is interesting that the founders of this country understood all too well that although there was a natural separation in function between church and state, that all men were accountable to God individually, and therefore held themselves to a higher standard of governance. Our Declaration of Independence speaks of our Creator who bestowed upon us certain inalienable rights. These rights were being infringed upon by the English rulers of the day, which led the founders to fight a War for Independence.

How should this separation work out practically? I give two examples. One comes from a time when a King was in power over a united kingdom. During a time of war this king stayed home instead of going to battle, which was his rightful place. While at home looking over all he had command over, he saw the wife of a soldier who was fighting at her bath. He desired to meet with her, made the arrangements and engaged in an adulterous relationship. Intent then on covering up the activity the king sent the woman's husband to the front lines of battle where he summarily died. This activity was wrong, and where no one in his court would dare present himself to the king to question this activity a lowly prophet came and told the king a story and in so doing brought the king into account before God for his activity. King David's prayer of contrition is found in Psalm 51:4: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge." The king and the prophet went about their tasks independently serving their separate purposes, until the king violated God's absolute moral law. Then the prophet rebuked the king, not to replace him on the throne, but to bring him back in line with a law that was above them both.

At one time a Supreme Court ruled that it was OK for separate facilities, so long as they were equal, to exist to keep one group of citizens from coming into contact with another on the basis of color. One man, a minister, began a peaceable demonstration, with a strong backing of support and encouragement from his church affiliates to deny this activity. This man spoke in many arenas and gave his very life for the position that all men where created, and therefore had intrinsic worth that was not given by any man and could not be taken away or subverted by any man. In a speech that changed the outlook of an entire nation, including the state, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, in part, "...And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true...And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last. Free at last. That God Almighty, we are free at last."

The separation of church and state is a re-statement of fact; namely that the two entities serve and different purpose. However, both entities exist under the authority of, and are accountable to, God. This fact is immutable and does not change no matter how many times we cry out and remind each other of the separation of the two bodies. Mr. Kurtz would have a separation of church and state so that government officials would not feel obligated to abide by an absolute moral law. In the next few posts we will discuss why this position results not in absolute freedom, but in absolute depravity and bondage.