GEL - TITLE

Separation of Church and State

As American as the Forth of July?

Ken Smith

My basic supposition in this little essay is that as Americans, we pretty much all believe in the separation of church and state, even if we think we don't. I will be the first to agree that the principle of separation has been applied in some apparently ridiculous ways in the past half century. In short, I think it has been misused badly. However, the separation of church and state is, I will argue, an essential part of the American tradition. It is as American as the Fourth of July. Maybe more so.
     I think it is appropriate to begin our consideration of this issue in the fourth century A.D., when a powerful emperor named Constantine adopted Christianity. Constantine's “conversion” in A.D. 313 (I put “conversion” in quotes because there is some question about its validity), set in motion a pivotal process. It was during the fourth century that Christianity, for the first time, became interwoven with state power. Bishop Augustine of Hippo (354-430), one of the most brilliant and influential Christan thinkers of all time, laid out a thoughtful rationale that went a long way toward justifying this combination of religion and power.
     Augustine believed that state power could be legitimately used to punish heresy. In fact, Augustine's endorsement of state power directed against heresy probably seemed logical in his time. Today we have a hard time understanding Augustine's perspective because we have grown up in very different circumstances--in a country in which the separation of church and state is taken for granted. As I proceed, it should become more clear why I make this statement confidently.
     I should pause here to note that Augustine's thought can accomodate some degree of separation between Church and State. Perhaps his most profound insight is that there are “two cities”--a city of God and a city of Man, and that human beings must constantly deal with the clash between the two. Augustine said that we must never confuse the two. Eventually this Augustinian concept would be used to argue for separation of church and state.
     However, the great legacy of the era of Constantine and Augustine was a “Christian Europe” which took shape over the next thousand years. Like the citizens of the Roman empire, Christian Europeans had little to no comprehension of how a society could exist if church and state were separated. Devoted missionaries backed by state power gradually “Christianized” a vast territory. In the West, the mission was carried out under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church. In the East, Russia was “Christianized” by Eastern Orthodox missionaries after a Russian prince named Vladimir accepted Christianity in A.D. 987. I think Vladimir's approach is especially interesting.
     Prince Vladimir wanted a religion that could serve as a building block for Russian identity. So he deliberately sought out representatives of Islam, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism. Prince Vladimir wasn't impressed by Islam. One reason was that it forbad the use of alcoholic beverages. Vladimir could not envision a Russia without Vodka! He also thought Judaism was not appropriate for Russia. Roman Catholicism had some attractions, but it also did not quite fit the bill. But Eastern Orthodox Christianity, with its majestic icons and its intensely mysterious liturgy, was very attractive to Vladimir. Russia became officially Eastern Orthodox, and that has been the state religion for almost all of the past thousand years. One can't begin to understand Russia without paying close attention to its history of church/state integration.
     Throughout the Middle Ages, then, both western and eastern Europe were living examples of Church/state integration. Of course, there were frequent struggles between emperors and popes, and these struggles make for some of the most interesting and important history in the Middle Ages. There was, however, no really viable concept that church and state could be separated. The two were seen as integral.
     Then about five hundred years ago, the “unity” that had characterized Christian Europe began to collapse rather quickly. Martin Luther publicly challenged the foundations of the Roman Catholic religion. Scores of princes (including King Henry VIII of England) found in the Reformation a fine opportunity to throw off the yoke of Catholic church/state integration. Henry, of course, did not believe in the separation of church and state. He basically made himself the “pope” of England, and presided (as did his descendants, except for that obstinate, short-lived little Catholic girl Mary), over the “Church of England.”
     Two centuries of profound religious unrest followed in the wake of the Reformation. Extremely brutal wars were fought between Catholics and Protestants. Both sides were determined to establish (or re-establish) their faith as the official, state-enforced religion.
     These religious wars disgusted many observers. Many began to conclude that the integration of church and state was simply a great big mistake. Believers should be allowed, they thought, to worship God as their conscience dictated, and to evangelize freely. Governments and religious organizations should not be entangled with one another.
     The Anabaptists were perhaps the bravest and most insistent advocates of separation of Church and state. “Anabaptist” was the name given to those who believed in “re-baptism.” These believers, mostly Swiss and German, liked to study the Bible in little groups. They arrived at the conviction that infant baptism was wrong. Of course, all of them had been baptized as infants, because, as Voltaire later said, “all of Europe is baptized.” Voltaire was correct. The integration of Church and state was so complete that religious rituals were prescribed by law. To “re-baptize” was to flout the established order. It was a crime, which was in many cases punishable by death.
     It is perhaps hard for us to understand today why members of little Bible study groups who went out and baptized one another would be put to death for doing so. But that was the case. Thousands of Anabaptists were martyred for their beliefs--which included pacifism and refusal to swear legal oaths. All of these positions were based on the Anabaptist conviction that church/state integration was wrong.
     One of the early Anabaptist Martyrs was an evangelist named Felix Manz. In January, 1527 he was sentenced to death by authorities in the town of Zurich, Switzerland. He was to be executed by drowning, a death usually reserved for women and witches. His death sentence was based on the fact that he had flouted the authority of church and state by re-baptizing the folks in his Bible study group. “By water he had sinned,” said the decree, “by water he must perish.”
     “Manz shall be delivered to the executioner, who shall tie his hands, put him in a boat, take him to the lower Hut (part of the river that flows through Zurich), fasten his bound hands down over his knees, place a stick between his knees and arms [locking him into a doubled-up position], and thus push him into the water, and let him perish.”
     Lots more Anabaptists died this way. Others were burned to death. Some were tortured. Thousands had to flee to whatever safe haven they could find. Lots of them ended up in Holland, which though a religious country (predominantly Calvinist), was far ahead of the rest of Europe in instituting a degree of separation between church and state.
     Other Anabaptists--including my mother's ancestors, went to Pennsylvania. There they found religious toleration as well as fertile farmland. They were grateful to live in a colony founded by a man who understood the horrors of religious persecution--William Penn was a Quaker in England at a time when it was still a crime to be one. Quakers were frequently attacked and hounded out of England. I should mention that they were also often hounded out of New England--Ah, New England, that marvellous bastion of righteousness and Christian charity! But Pennsylvania was quite a bit different, and the persecuted believers who found refuge there thanked God every day that it was different.
     The founders of Virginia, arriving from England, believed in Church/state integration. This is is why Anglicanism (also known as the Church of England and the Episcopal Church), was the official religion. Anglican ministers were paid from the public treasury. Marriages weren't valid unless performed by the Anglican clergy. All sorts of disadvantages were placed on those who wished to set up their own independent religious organizations.
     For about 180 years, Anglicanism was Virginia's established religion. It was disestablished after the revolution, largely by the efforts of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison--the authors of our Republic's two greatest founding documents. Jefferson, who through most of his career was accused of trying to debase religion and morality, was especially adamant that there should be a separation between church and state. His very important “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” (1786) stipulated the following:
     “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
A full text of the Virginia Statute can be found at the following URL:
http://worldpolicy.org/americas/religion/va-religiousfreedom.shtml
     This document is profound in its implications, and was revolutionary at the time. It is worth noting that Jefferson ranked his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom right alongside the Declaration of Independence in importance. Before he died, Jefferson asked to have three accomplishments recalled on his tombstone: he wanted to remind the world that he had 1) written the Declaration of Independence; 2) authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom; and 3) founded the University of Virginia. Visitors at Monticello can still see Jefferson's tombstone inscribed with these credits.
     Now, there may be those who point out that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the constitution, nor in the Virginia Statute. The phrase comes from a letter written by Jefferson to a group of Baptists who were concerned about the long history of abuses by the established Anglican hierarchy in Virginia. The principle, however, is valid--and is in fact accepted by the overwhelming majority of Americans, including those who fear God and those who don't fear God. We agree that there MUST be separation between Church and state.
     Now, there may be some who will want to interpret “separation” as meaning that no religious ritual or speech can legitimately appear in the public sphere. That's simply a wrong interpretation of the principle. As I said at the beginning of this essay, the principle of separation has been applied in some apparently ridiculous ways. But the principle itself is not at all ridiculous. Quite the contrary: it is a bedrock principle that Americans should seek to understand and appreciate. It is most emphatically NOT a “myth” that needs to be discredited.
     I will offer an analogy that I hope will be helpful. Our Constitution specifies that there must be “separation” between the three branches of government. This does not mean, of course, that the president can't come and speak in the Senate or House, or that a Supreme Court justice can't visit with the president in his office or address the assembled representatives of the people. Such interpretations of the “separation of powers” would be ridiculous--but no more ridiculous than some of the recent interpretations of the principle of separation of church and state. If we want to get a better idea of what the separation of church and state is really about, I believe we should look at the broad sweep of history, not the narrow slice of the last fifty years or so.
     In closing, I am grateful that my ancestors came to America and took advantage of the freedoms that were in such short supply in Europe as it emerged from the Middle Ages. When I think of the long history of church/state integration that began in the fourth century A.D., I have to say that I am thankful to God that I live an age in which we have put that grotesque principle behind us.

Gel Home