Listen each week to our FREE audio webcast (PODCAST):
1. Download iTunes for FREE [Click Here To download],
2. Once iTunes is installed on your computer, SUBSCRIBE to FindingTruthMatters [Click Here To Subscribe],
3. Open iTunes and enjoy a FREE weekly Podcast of FindingTruthMatters!

why christians need to engage in society...

a response to those who claim that the church should never interfere with secular government...

May, 2005

"The Church should just butt out of this debate- don't they realise we have separation of church from state in this country? "

what is "separation of church and state"?

Up until the time of the Reformation secular governments controlled churches within their territories. After the Reformation of the early 16th century and the general trend toward arriving at a more Biblically based model of church, churches readily understood that they should govern their own affairs and 'free' themselves from State control. These churches who were able to separate from State control became known as "Free Churches" (for example, "The Free Presbyterian Church", "The Free Reformed Church", etc.).

This is what is meant by separation of church and state.

what "separation of church and state" is not

The term "separation of church from state" was also popularised by the American Constitution which was written into it to so that the American Government did not have one denomination having precedence over another by gaining official "State-Church" status. Thus the expression was coined Constitutionally to ensure that the State stayed out of the affairs of the Church, and that all church denominations were regarded equally.

The concept of the church being denied the right to speak out on matters which Government's are responsible for, is not what 'separation of church and state' was ever meant to include!

The Old Testament narrates the history of the kings of Israel. Some Kings were good. Many Kings were bad. King David was good. His son, King Solomon, was bad. Interestingly, David welcomed prophets into the palace and was made the greater for it. On the other hand, Solomon had no prophet speaking into his life or reign. When David began to depart from God, the prophets corrected him and he made the necessary ammendments. Yet when Solomon began to depart from doing good, there was no prophet to correct him. The result was that he set Israel on a destructive course which would progressively get worse for the next successive generations and eventually lead to their downfall and overthrow.

of course there are forces at work to redefine "separation of church and state" to mean the "silence of church in matters of state"

There are many who have a vested interest in the church keeping quiet when they attempt to promote their agenda. Of course they don't want anyone challenging them. Of course they resent any prophetic voice daring to compare their agenda to God's standards.

Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

"The Church must always maintain a critical collaboration with Government."
Desmond Tutu

Some people who espouse a passionate stance on the separation of church and state claim that if God wanted to change anything in a society He wouldn't need a certain politician elected, or certain policies legislated. This type of separation of church and state argument is very shallow. A casual reading of the Scriptures immediately reveals that it is God's pattern to raise up men into positions of great influence. God does want to exert influence through key people for the good of all. This does not mean that the Church seeks to manipulate election outcomes to introduce religious laws. The goal of any influence the Church has with a government is the welfare of all citizens within its society.

It would be morally deficient of the church, its leaders and adherents, to stand by and not speak against (proposed) legislation which is clearly a breach of the Moral Code. This means that the Church has an obligation to bring the mind of God to matters where there is a clear moral implication involved. To not decry abortion, euthenasia, injustice, or corruption is moral failure. To believe that God's Moral Code is for all people, despite their adherence to, or rejection of, a religious framework is very reasonable. Further, to believe that the Bible includes a revelation of this Moral Code (which is also available outside of the Bible) is also reasonable. But Christians should not confuse "Morality" with "Biblical". We can strive to uphold morality without exclusively appealing to the Bible to do it. For example, is it a breach of the separation of church and state if a Christian applauds a government for its laws against murder yet decries that government's sanctioning abortion? No. This is not the imposing of religious ideals upon a secular society, but the appeal to the Moral Code which that society has already accepted as its basis for all laws.

The attack made on Christians who appeal to decency and morality when challenging a Government's (proposed) legislation, that they are breaching the separation of church and state is now shown to be wrong. As I have explained above, the expression was never intended to deny Christians, or any other religious groups, the right to express their opinions and enter into the political process. It was coined to prohibit governments from interfering in the affairs of any Church, or from any Church gaining precedence over those churches of a differing denomination. Church leaders should express moral viewpoints, especially on matters of clear moral breaches by government. To not do so would be a matter not of the separation of church and state, but a demonstration that some in the church were allowing secularists to do their thinking for them. It would therefore be a separation of Church and its state of mind.

© 2005, Finding Truth Matters