120 Sermon Illustrations on Separation Of Church And State

Most Americans believe it should be legal to have voluntary student-led prayers at public school events, display the Ten Commandments inside a court building and allow religious displays on city-owned property, according to research released by Ellison Research of Phoenix.

As part of the survey, Ellison presented a number of scenarios to a representative sample of 1,007 American adults and asked whether various modes of religious expression generally should or should not be legal in the United States.

Results indicated that 90 percent said the law should support religious groups renting public property, such as a public school gym or a library room; 89 percent said it should be legal for a public school teacher to permit a moment of silence for prayer or contemplation for all students during class time; and 88 percent believe it should be legal for public school teachers to wear religious symbols, such as a Star of David or a cross, during class time.

Ellison also found that 87 percent believe voluntary student-led prayers at public school events, such as football games or graduation ceremonies, should be legal; 83 percent believe the display of a nativity scene on city property, such as city hall, should be legal; and 79 percent said it should be legal to display a copy of the Ten Commandments inside a court building.

Those who responded were less unified in their answers to three specific scenarios. Sixty percent believe the display of a scene honoring Islam on city property, such as a city hall, during the Muslim holiday Ramadan should be legal even though 83 percent thought a nativity display should be legal.

Also, 52 percent believe it should be legal for a religious club in a high school or university to determine for itself who can be in their membership, even if certain types of people are excluded, and 33 percent said it should be legal for a landlord to refuse to rent an apartment to a homosexual couple.

While highly religious Americans as well as those who have a conservative political viewpoint strongly support individual religious and moral rights, Ellison found that a high proportion of non-religious Americans and those who have a more liberal political viewpoint share a similar perspective.

For instance, 92 percent of people who regularly attend religious worship services believe voluntary student-led prayers at public school events should be legal, while 83 percent of those who do not regularly attend worship services also believe this.

Solid majorities of people who do not attend religious services agree it should be legal to have a moment of silence in public school classes, for teachers to wear religious symbols during class, for religious displays to be allowed on city property, for religious groups to have equal access to public facilities and for the Ten Commandments to be displayed inside a court building.

Some of the scenarios are positioned in the mainstream media as issues championed by evangelical Christians, but Ellison said that is only part of the truth.

Evangelicals are significantly more likely than other Americans to believe most of the scenarios should be legal in the United States today, but non-evangelicals usually have the same perspective as evangelicals -- just with majorities that are not as strong.

For instance, while 97 percent of evangelicals believe it should be legal for the Ten Commandments to be displayed inside court buildings, 77 percent of non-evangelicals also believe it should be legal.

What may be most surprising is when the scenarios are viewed according to political affiliations and beliefs. Ninety-five percent of those who describe themselves as politically conservative believe voluntary student-led prayers at public school events should be legal. The same perspective is held by 90 percent of self-described moderates and even 73 percent of those who call themselves liberal.

Eighty-eight percent of conservatives believe nativity scenes on city property should be legal, meanwhile, as do 88 percent of moderates and 70 percent of liberals.

The picture doesn’t change when party affiliation is substituted for political viewpoint. Ninety-five percent of Republicans believe voluntary student-led prayers at public schools should be legal, along with 87 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats. Ninety-two percent of Republicans believe teachers should legally be allowed to wear symbols of their religious faith during class time, along with 88 percent of independents and 85 percent of Democrats.

The majority of Democrats and self-described political liberals believe the law should allow nativity scenes on city property, displays honoring Islam on city property, displays of the Ten Commandments in court buildings, teachers wearing religious symbols, moments of silence for prayer or reflection during class times, equal access to public facilities for religious groups and voluntary student-led prayers at public school events.

In addition to the finding that 83 percent of Americans say a nativity scene on city property should be legal while only 60 percent say a display honoring Islam during Ramadan should be legal, 58 percent of the overall sample said both should be legal, while 15 percent said both should be illegal. One percent believe honoring Islam should be legal while a nativity scene should be outlawed. At the same time, 25 percent of all Americans surveyed said a nativity scene should be legal but not a display honoring Islam.

Americans who believe a nativity display should be legal but not a display honoring Islam tend to be women age 35 or older who are either conservative or moderate politically. This perspective does not hinge on religious belief or practice. Evangelicals, born-again Christians and people who attend worship services are not significantly more or less likely than others to say a nativity scene on city property should be legal but not a display honoring Islam.

Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, said this research shows that the labels placed on people often don’t accurately define who they are and what they believe.

“There’s too often a stereotype in today’s world that one side -- be they defined as churchgoers, conservatives, the religious right, Republicans, evangelicals or whatever -- want to turn the U.S. into a theocracy or shove religion down everyone’s throats, while the other side -- again, be they called Democrats, the non-religious, liberals or the unchurched -- are anti-religion and fighting to make this a purely secular society,” Sellers said.

“On most of these issues, these different groups have a lot more in common than the stereotypes would suggest,” he added. “Most people simply support the right to individual religious expression, even if another person may not like that expression.”

Sellers also noted that the study can be seen as being about individual freedoms rather than just religion.

“By definition, giving rights to one person means taking rights away from another,” he said. “If I have the right to paint my house any color I want, my neighbor loses the right not to have to look at a purple house. Americans clearly come down on the side of freedoms and rights for individuals and groups, and against restrictions.

“They believe in the right of a student to express herself at graduation, or the right of a church to rent a public school gym for its services or the right of a public school teacher to wear a Star of David on his lapel,” Sellers said. “The majority feels those who don’t wish to listen to a prayer at graduation or see the Ten Commandments in a court building have the right to ignore these things but not the right to stop others from expressing themselves.”

He also cautioned that the findings from the study do not say Americans support individual rights and freedoms at all costs.

“This research is not a legal document with exact definitions of individual cases, but a generalized idea of what Americans believe,” Sellers said. “Because people believe in a teacher’s right to wear a religious symbol does not necessarily mean that would apply no matter what the symbol, how it’s displayed, etc.

“It means in general, they believe teachers should have that right of personal expression. But Americans also take into consideration how their own freedoms impact others,” he said. “For instance, one-third feel a landlord should have the right to do with his property what he wishes, while two-thirds disagree if that means a homosexual couple loses the right of equal access to housing.”

________

Based on information provided by Ellison Research.

In Michigan, a homosexual man is suing two Christian publishers — Zondervan and Tyndale House — for $70 million dollars. Bradley Fowler claims they violated his constitutional rights and caused him “emotional distress” by publishing versions of the Bible that call homosexuality a sin. In my view, Fowler is suing the wrong party, but perhaps he realizes he is likely to have difficulty hauling the real author into court.

While the lawsuit may strike us as funny, we ought to take such attacks on Christian teaching seriously: We are going to see many more of them if same-sex “marriage” is foisted upon us by the courts.

As Seana Sugrue explains in The Meaning of Marriage, edited by Robert George and Jean Bethke Elshtain, marriage is a pre-political institution, rooted in biology and moral obligations. Sugrue writes, “The reality of sex differences between men and women, leading to the potential for offspring, is essential to the pre-political foundation of marriage.”

But marriage as a political form of social order, independent of the state, “is precisely what advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ seek to change,” according to Sugrue. “Marriage rooted in procreation and sexual differences is to be replaced by marriage for the gratification of two consenting adults.”

But unlike traditional marriage, “same-sex ‘marriage’ requires a condition of soft despotism to exist,” Sugrue warns.

“In claiming for homosexuals the right to marry,” she reasons, the “state also claims for itself the ability to declare what constitutes marriage ... It transforms marriage from a pre-political obligation into its own creation.”

But as an artificial creation of the state, same-sex “marriage” is “an institution that needs to be coddled ... Its very fragility demands a culture in which it is protected.” This means, as Sugrue argues, that “once marriage becomes a statist institution for the sake of consenting adults, the state will increasingly be called upon to create the social conditions to protect these unions.”

The need for coddling means the state will use public education for this end, and align itself against churches that refuse to recognize same-sex “marriage.”

So, the state has to use its power against two of society’s civil institutions: the family and the church.

Sugrue is right: We are already seeing the courts go after institutions and people who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage” where it is imposed. State-ordered gay “marriage” is an attack, not only on legitimate marriage, but upon religious freedom and the freedom not to have one’s children indoctrinated into alien ideas about marriage.

You need to understand the reasoning here so that we can present this argument in a winsome way to our neighbors. And we better be supporting efforts to pass constitutional amendments and laws defining marriage as one man and one woman; the issue is up in Florida, Arizona, and California this year. We also need to find out what the presidential candidates want to do, because they will be choosing the next Supreme Court justices who will ultimately decide this issue.

If we do not act, lawsuits against Bible publishers will no longer be a joke, but a despotic reality.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Erik Stanley says the power to tax enables the government to destroy the free exercise of religion. Barry Lynn says that it isn’t unreasonable for organizations that pay no taxes to accept some federal oversight.

Debate: WHY SHOULD CHURCHES BE TAX EXEMPT IN THE FIRST PLACE? WOULDN’T IT BE A BETTER APPROACH TO DENY THE TAX EXEMPTION TO ALL CHURCHES?

HANDS OFF OUR CHURCHES, IRS

Point: Erik Stanley

There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel’s nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that’s not just my opinion; it’s the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches “creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” The Supreme Court also said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

Barry, as someone who claims to be devoted to the separation of church and state, surely you can agree that exempting churches from taxes is a better way to separate state and church than taxing them. I agree with the Supreme Court that an exemption for churches from taxes tends to reinforce a very healthy separation between church and state.

That’s why your opposition to the Pulpit Initiative doesn’t square with your approach to church-state relations. Let’s look at the facts: The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service’s increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish. Barry, I know you’ve seen this because you report a lot of churches to the IRS for alleged violations, but the IRS only acts on a minuscule portion of your complaints. What standard does it use? Who knows why it chooses to go after some churches and not others? When does a pastor’s sermon somehow cross the line?

Conditioning tax exemption for churches on refraining from speaking about certain things is just as dangerous as taxing churches outright. Those conditions break down the healthy “wall of separation between state and church” articulated by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The conditions allow the state, through its discretion and power, to punish disfavored views and to reward favored ones. The free exercise of religion cannot survive in such conditions. The camel has had its nose under the flaps of the church tent for far too long. It’s time to push him outside, where he belongs.

________

Erik Stanley is senior legal counsel and head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.

TAX EXEMPTION IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT

Counterpoint: Barry W. Lynn

Erik, here is a very current (I just dreamed it up) Barry Lynn proverb: “Sometimes when a camel sticks his nose in the tent, the camel smells unpleasant things.” Your answer to today’s question is breathtaking in two ways. First, it really suggests that our tax authorities must look away any time a religious institution asserts that what it is doing is based on its spiritual understanding. Second, you seem to believe that the Constitution somehow mandates that all religious institutions be tax exempt, even though the Constitution says no such thing.

When any group accepts a tax exemption, it agrees to play by certain rules and accept a certain degree of oversight. Federal law actually makes it more difficult for the IRS to audit churches than other charities. In addition to this modest “no electioneering” rule, for example, tax-exempt groups cannot collect money for a “charitable” purpose and then use it all for the personal benefit of the director and her family (or the pastor and his family). Do you seriously believe that the IRS and possibly even criminal investigative bodies have no right to try to scrutinize possible misbehavior?

Second, government at the local, state and federal level made a decision early in our history to grant tax exemptions to churches and other bodies. The Constitution does not mandate it; and indeed, even the decision you cite -- the Walz case -- doesn’t say that tax exemptions are required by the 1st Amendment. In general, governments believed that churches along with other types of community groups enhanced and supplemented government services such as feeding the hungry, housing those in need of shelter and in general using private funds for public good. (Although this is a debate for another time, I note that more and more religious groups are now asking for a government bailout through the “faith-based initiative” and to keep their tax exemptions.)

I do concur with you, Erik, that the power to tax does have the potential power to destroy. However, I see no evidence that restricting the ability of a pastor to convert his church into a political action committee is intended to cause, or has caused, the destruction of religious enterprises. Although your effort this coming Sunday to have pastors flout the law against electioneering seems focused on pulpit rhetoric [pastors made a decision to endorse political candidates from the pulpit], why not have a few of them say, “And we are taking up a second collection today for the McCain-Palin ticket”? After all, the Supreme Court has frequently equated “speech” with “money” in rulings on campaign financing.

One of the principal jobs of the law is to draw lines about what is and isn’t permissible. In my judgment, the IRS has gotten this piece of its work correct almost all of the time. More cases and guidelines help inform church leaders about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to exercising the privilege of a tax exemption. If a pastor wants to know whether something he or she is about to do will violate the prohibition against aid “in support of or in opposition to a candidate,” the best start is to ask this question: Am I doing or saying this to help elect or defeat my favored candidate? If the answer is yes, then don’t do it.

________

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn is executive director of AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and a longtime civil liberties attorney.

“It is not a religious display,” Dan Barker told Seattle’s KING-TV. “It is an attack on religion.”

The president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation was referring to a placard his group placed in the Washington State Capitol designed to counter the message he believes is conveyed by presence of a nativity scene.

“If there is going to be a nativity scene that’s pro-Christian, which basically insults those of us who are not Christian, by telling us we’re going to go to hell unless we bow down before that Baby Jesus, then we want an equal time, too,” Barker said during an interview on Fox News.

So what in Barker’s mind constitutes equal time with a simple display of a nativity scene? A sign that reads:

“At this time of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There

are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is

only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition

that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire apparently agrees with Barker that the message contained on the placard constitutes equal time because she approved its placement in the Capitol.

It must be noted that the nativity scene, which was placed by a private group, is accompanied in the Capitol’s rotunda by a “Holiday Tree” and a menorah. While the atheist sign constitutes an attack on religion in general, Barker makes it clear that his beef is with Christianity.

“December is not a Christian month,” Barker said in his interview on Fox News. “...[N]obody thinks Jesus was born in December if he was born at all. We all love this time of year. And if Christians are going to stick their foot into the season, we’re going to put ours in as well.”

While there is no doubt that offense is in the eye of the beholder, I have found that a person’s reaction to a benign display reveals more about the person than it does about the display.

Barker contends that a simple nativity scene, void of any written message, communicates that people are going to hell unless they bow down before the baby Jesus. And at that, he is offended.

Atheists like Barker simply need to get over it. Jesus was born. He is the One and Only Savior of the world. But to many others he was simply a good teacher, and to some simply a moral philosopher.

You see what you want to see when you look at a nativity scene. I see hope for a troubled world. Barker sees religion, which he hates. I am not Jewish, but I am not offended by a menorah being placed on public property. December is when Jews celebrate Hanukah. It is appropriate.

A “Holiday Tree” could easily be considered a Pagan symbol -- there is nothing in Judaism or Christianity that relates to decorated evergreen trees as a symbol for anything. That said, I am not bothered by their placement in capitol rotundas.

If Barker had wanted to place a symbol somehow relating to the celebration of his religion, which happens to be atheism, perhaps it would have been somewhat appropriate. However, the placard he placed is nothing more than an attack on religion. And Barker made it clear that is what it was intended to be.

The attack on religion that is on display at the Washington State Capital is designed to be provocative and to raise hackles. The best way to deal with it is to turn the other cheek.

Barker wants you to be angry and offended. Don’t give him any satisfaction. Ignore him. He is just another Ebenezer Scrooge -- a Grinch -- disgruntled by the joy inherent during the Christmas season.

Recognizing time-honored religious traditions hardly constitutes an endorsement of a single religion by the state. However, a written message conveyed with the intent of an attack on religion -- and a single religion at that -- seems to run counter to the intent of our constitution.

By allowing an unprecedented attack of religion in the public square, Washington Gov. Gregoire may have opened a Pandora’s Box of future protests with which she is ill-equipped to deal.

Could the rise in government spending — from economic stimulus to health care reform to education spending — endanger the vitality of religion in America? That’s a question University of Virginia Professor W. Bradford Wilcox discussed recently in the Wall Street Journal.

Wilcox zeroed in on a fascinating study entitled “State Welfare Spending and Religiosity.” The study’s authors, Anthony Gill and Erik Lundsgaarde, found an “inverse relationship between religious observance and welfare spending.” Put more simply, the more a government spends on welfare, the fewer people go to church.

This is why it is that church attendance is so low in welfare states such as Denmark and Sweden compared to countries like the U.S. and the Philippines — where government doesn’t provide cradle-to-grave assistance.

Anthony Gill hits the nail on the head. “For many centuries,” he writes, “average citizens and local communities have often relied upon the support of religious organizations to meet their various social needs, including assistance for the poor, counseling in times of crisis, and education for the young.”

But as the government grows, it elbows out the church and other voluntary associations. So Gill writes, “Many people have found that they can get the same services from the government without having to give a time commitment to the local church.”

Now, we would like to think that most people don’t stay in church just because they get can get help in times of trouble. But the truth is that many people first encounter the Church when they are in need: at a crisis pregnancy center, a soup kitchen, or in counseling for drug abuse or alcoholism. So as Wilcox writes in the Wall Street Journal, “Many of those who initially turn to religious organizations for mutual aid end up developing a faith that is as supernatural as it is material.”

Now, as Wilcox points out, there are other factors behind declining church attendance in America. But the recent turning of the body politic toward government as the answer to all our problems does not bode well for the Church.

Nor does it bode well for the future of American democracy.

In his classic book, Democracy in America, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at how Americans could accomplish almost anything through voluntary associations — especially churches. They built schools, hospitals, sent missionaries all over the world. He wrote, “I frequently admired the boundless skill of Americans in setting large numbers of people a common goal and inducing them to strive toward that goal voluntarily.”

De Tocqueville doubted that government could ever accomplish all that American citizens could do through their associations. But he also warned that if government should supplant the good work of these associations, the American people would ultimately end up dependent upon government. And this, he said, would imperil not only American democracy, but “civilization itself.”

In times of trouble, it’s natural to echo the question of the Psalmist: Whence cometh my help?

Sadly, it seems that more and more Americans these days would answer, “It cometh from Uncle Sam.”

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Some argue that Christians shouldn’t be involved in government and point to Paul’s statement to the Philippians: “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). Paul reminds the church that their ultimate citizenship is in heaven and their ultimate allegiance is to Christ. This does not mean that earthly citizenship does not matter. In Romans 13:6-7, Paul tells the church to “give to everyone what you owe them” and includes paying taxes and paying respect. Jesus also commands His followers to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21). This includes honoring citizenship responsibilities like paying taxes.

Practically, Christians have dual citizenship. If you were born in the United States, you are automatically a U.S. citizen. If you were born in Kentucky, you are a native Kentucky citizen. As a citizen, you have obligations. Paying taxes, voting and participating in your community are a few citizenship duties. Fulfilling these duties is part of practically loving your neighbor.

Throughout Scripture, we see several examples of God’s people engaging in government. In fact, there are two main categories of heroes in the Old Testament: prophets and political leaders. Sometimes, their roles overlapped. Joseph served as second only to Pharaoh in Egypt. Daniel counseled and served four different pagan kings in Babylon and Persia. Esther, Moses and David were also political leaders used by God.

Christians who believe in the Lordship of Christ cannot but be good citizens in this earthly realm. In fact, they ought to be the best citizens, unselfishly involved as they’re able, even involving themselves with politics at some level. Christians must engage politically either through voting, helping good candidates get elected, or running for office themselves. The good of their neighbor and the good of the community is at stake. If God’s Word speaks to all of life and culture, then why would believers shun a platform of influence where these principles could be lived out through Christian leadership? If God’s principles speak to righteousness and justice, then why shouldn’t Christians bring their perspective to government?

Opponents of civil rights leaders in the 1950s and 1960s often argued that the heart of a racist could not be changed through the law. To this, Martin Luther King Jr. responded, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, religion and education will have to do that, but it can restrain him from lynching me. And I think that’s pretty important also.”

The purpose of the law was never meant to change hearts. Only God can do that. The function of the law is to restrain evil. The law implicitly protects human rights: life, liberty and property. It prohibits certain activities and imposes consequences on those who do wrong. It may be said that the law is about telling society what is expected and using force to stop someone from imposing their immorality on somebody else.

This reminds of an interesting conversation with a judge in Kentucky.

“Well, I’m a Baptist, and my faith tradition teaches there’s a separation of church and state,” the State Supreme Court Justice representing the 1st Judicial District at the time told me and a colleague. It was a chance meeting; as we were walking through the capitol, we crossed paths with the distinguished justice, who invited us into his office and gave us a brief tour of the courtroom. He continued, “I believe it’s necessary for the good of the church to stay out of politics.” His comment, not meant to be confrontational, came up during our conversation when I told him about the Commonwealth Policy Center’s work with churches to help them think about politics biblically and engage the culture appropriately.

The most common objection leveled at Christians seeking to influence the law and culture concerns “separation of church/state.” Many mistakenly assert that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says something about “separation” or “separating church and state.” It does not. It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is a restriction on Congress – not a restriction on churches or individuals. It wasn’t even understood at the time of its writing to be a restriction on states. In fact, there were state-sponsored churches until the early 19th century.

The phrase “separation of church and state” can be traced to a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Conn. The Danbury Baptists were concerned about the state restricting their religious freedom and meddling in church affairs. At the time, there were state government-sponsored churches, and minority denominations like the Baptists were deeply concerned about unfavorable treatment from the government. To their relief, Jefferson assured them that the First Amendment “erects a wall of separation” protecting them from the federal government infringing on religious freedom.

Followers of Jesus who take the Lordship of Christ seriously see government as under God’s rule. To the believer, God is both Lord of the church and Lord of the state. Followers who take Jesus at His word cannot but pray for, engage, and influence government. This honors God and is for the good of others.

This does not mean that once in power, Christians can force their faith on the public through a law. This wrongly usurps the power of the Holy Spirit to bring someone to faith, and such power by the state would also violate conscience. Nor does this mean that Christians in public office can impose Christian doctrines on the population. For example, the law cannot compel church attendance (as did the Puritans) as a prerequisite to citizenship or holding office.

There are clearly two distinct realms of church and state. But they are not isolated. In fact, there is a nexus between the two. It may be said that the church deals in soul craft, or spiritual formation of individuals. The state, on the other hand, regulates how citizens should live with one another in community. The Declaration of Independence recognizes the nexus between what the church teaches, that there is a God who gives each of us rights, and the role of the state, which protects the inalienable God-given rights of its citizens.

A good society in which human rights are respected relies upon individuals embracing sound Christian doctrine and is tempered by sound Christian engagement. England’s Lord John Fletcher Moulton said citizens in a good society adhere to “obedience to the unenforceable.” In other words, subjects must embrace a personal self-discipline that the law cannot force. This is an obligation to something higher and unseen. Virtue is the result. The teaching of virtues comes from the church. This is why the church should be considered an ally in the state’s objective of keeping order and upholding human rights. When the church faithfully engages in the spiritual formation of its members, it inevitably creates good citizens, and this certainly makes the job of governing easier for the state.

There must be a healthy balance between the Christian community and the political realm. The church teaches the idea of human rights, moral restraints and love of neighbor. The state protects individual rights and restrains immorality. Our second president, John Adams, understood this when he told the Massachusetts militia, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Both the church and the state operate under God’s authority. Followers of Jesus must deliberately and carefully take the principles of the Christian faith with them into all of life, including the public and political realms.

________

Richard Nelson is founder and executive director of the Commonwealth Policy Center in Kentucky.

This article is excerpted from “Christianity and Politics: A Memoir of Spiritual Formation and Field Guide for Christians in the Public Arena” by Richard Nelson (2024)

Seven hundred years ago, Italian scholar Marsilius of Padua helped lay the foundation for our modern ideas of popular sovereignty. In his book Defensor Pacis, written in the context of an ongoing battle in Church-state relations, he anticipated the idea of separate spheres for Church and state.

Though tensions over the balance of power between Church and state were probably inevitable, it took surprisingly long for them to develop. In the Roman Empire, the state regulated religious practice. Christianity was an illegal religion in the Empire for nearly 300 years, but when legalized, a precedent was set for the Church to operate separately from the state. For centuries, the two sides cooperated without much fundamental conflict.

In the Latin West, questions about the relationship between Church and state arose at the end of the eighth century. In 799, Pope Leo III was accused of a variety of crimes. He appealed to Charlemagne, the king of the Franks, for judgment. Though unsure whether he had jurisdiction over the Pope, Charlemagne acquitted Leo. Since this suggested Charlemagne was over the Pope, Leo decided to redress the balance by crowning Charlemagne emperor on Christmas of 800, implying papal authority over that office.

After Charlemagne, both the Church and the state suffered serious decline for nearly a century. The title of emperor fell into disuse, and the papacy descended into a period of moral degeneracy. In the late 900s, with the aid of Church reformers, the Germanic King Otto I managed to centralize enough power to be named Holy Roman Emperor. He and his successors deposed a series of corrupt popes and appointed reformers in their place.

These reforming popes soon found their dependence on the emperor both theologically and politically problematic. Politically, by playing around with the rules and making deals with the emperor’s enemies, they managed to loosen the papacy from imperial control. Theologically, they began to argue that as the eternal is superior to the temporal and the spiritual to the physical, the Church is superior to the state and the pope to the emperor. In effect, this meant the Church was over the state. The logic was that, since the civil government was established by God to enforce righteousness, and the pope was the vicar of Christ on Earth, he should be arbiter of what is righteous, and secular rulers must obey. If they failed to do so, the pope claimed the right to depose them, even the Holy Roman Emperor.

Unsurprisingly, the Holy Roman Emperors disagreed with this logic. An early conflict was over who should name and install bishops. Since Otto I, bishops had been part of the imperial government, and emperors had insisted on their right to pick the bishops. The popes argued that bishops are primarily ecclesiastical offices and should be appointed and installed by them. This issue came to a head when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Emperor Henry IV and tried to depose him, while Henry also tried to depose Gregory and even invaded Italy to make it stick. The issue was eventually resolved by their successors. But the basic question of whether the pope was over the emperor or the emperor over the pope continued to fester, sometimes resulting in war, excommunications, and the appointment of anti-popes.

In the context of these conflicts, Marsilius of Padua wrote his book. He took the imperial side, arguing that the Church had no jurisdiction in secular matters. It should interpret Scripture and define dogma, while secular affairs were the responsibility of the civil government, whose members were to be elected or appointed by the most important citizens. In the same way, he believed that clergy, including the pope, should be elected by the people or their representatives.

Even within the Church, papal authority was limited since supreme authority was vested in Church councils called by the emperor. Marsilius also argued that tithes should be eliminated, Church property should be seized by the government, and clergy should live in holy poverty. Marsilius’s work was supported by prominent Franciscans, including William of Ockham, who championed the ideal of apostolic poverty, and was later promoted by Thomas Cromwell to support Henry VIII during the English Reformation.

Defensor Pacis was an important step in advancing ideas of popular sovereignty and democracy, though it implicitly supported imperial authority. Despite its anticlericalism, it made important contributions to ideas about the proper relationship between Church and state. Given current debates about Christendom and Christian Nationalism, studying historical works like Defensor Pacis could enrich our understanding of the place of the Church in civil society.

________

Copyright (c) 2024 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

The actual birth of Jesus Christ may have been an obscure event lacking human fanfare. However, depictions of the first Christmas in the form of nativity scenes on public venues seem to draw lots of attention these days, especially from groups particularly antagonistic toward Christianity.

One group that seems to take special umbrage to the placement of mangers on government property is the Freedom From Religion Foundation. A nonprofit group based in Wisconsin, FFRF recently acted on behalf of an anonymous East Texas resident who complained about a nativity scene displayed on the courthouse lawn in Henderson County.

In a letter to county officials, FFRF indicated the nativity placed on government property represented an “endorsement” of religion and forced “taxpayers of all faiths and of no religion to support a particular expression of worship.” The group contends the presence of the manger on county property is a violation of the First Amendment.

“It [the nativity] sends a message of intimidation and exclusion to non-Christians and non-believers this time of year,” FFRF co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor said. She said she’s not planning to file a lawsuit, but will not hesitate to do so if Henderson County does not comply with her request. FFRF has filed suit in the past in similar situations.

The FFRF website indicates the organization “works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state. The Foundation is the nation’s largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and skeptics) with over 17,000 members.”

While FFRF has every right to exist and to promote its views and strive to educate the public on the same, it would help if the group had a better understanding of what is known as the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The aforementioned clauses are stated in clear, succinct language. Taken together they state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....”

The Supreme Court articulated the clear understanding of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in Everson V. Board of Education. The 1947 case dealt with a tax-funded school district that provided reimbursement to parents of both public- and private-schooled children taking the public transportation system to school.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the reimbursements were constitutional because they were offered to all students regardless of religion and because the payments were made to parents and not any religious institution.

Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion and did not mince any words in regard to the court’s understanding of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. Black wrote:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion....’”

Rather simple, isn’t it? The government cannot enact a law that says you must give allegiance to a specific religion. Neither can the state pass legislation that says you can’t pursue a particular religion. That’s it.

There are three schools of thought concerning the application of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. One is a separatist position held by groups like the FFRF. Those holding this view believe there should be zero religious expression on government venues. Thus, they oppose any and all nativity scenes on public property, period.

Another view is known by some as the acknowledgment position. Those who adhere to this perspective believe the government should initiate and even underwrite religious expression. Hence, these folks are not only in favor of mangers on public property, they would have the government fund the display.

I believe both of the aforementioned positions are misguided and, in fact, wrong. A third school of thought is the accommodation position. This view allows for individuals to express or freely exercise their religion on public property.

The accommodation position allows for nativity scenes to be displayed on public property so long as they are privately funded. Additionally, all religious groups must be welcome to display symbols of faith.

In spite of what the Freedom From Religion Foundation believes, the nativity on the county courthouse in East Texas in no way represents a law respecting an establishment of religion. Reports indicate the display is privately funded, thus in my view it is nothing more than an individual or group freely exercising their religion.

The claim by FFRF that the presence of the nativity on the Henderson County courthouse lawn represents a message of intimidation and exclusion to non-Christians and non-believers this time of year is an overreaction and an attempt to create victims where there are none.

The actual birth of Jesus, according to the Bible, went mostly unnoticed. Some shepherds attended and later dignitaries from the East came bearing gifts, but for the most part the inhabitants of Bethlehem and nearby Jerusalem ignored the birth of God’s Son.

Those who are offended by the public displays of nativity scenes are welcome to follow the example of the aforementioned citizens of first-century Israel and just ignore them.

Your view of politics -- or, more specifically, the role of Christians and Christianity in politics -- is probably wrong (at least at times).

Don’t be offended; my views over the years also have been wrong -- and I must continually resist being seduced by some wrong thinking about this matter.

Some readers got no further than the headline of this editorial, deciding the subject matter is of little to no interest, illustrating at least one wrong view of politics. Others aren’t reading these words because they firmly believe Christians’ involvement in politics is not only unnecessary, but also actually harmful to a godly life -- yet another incorrect way for Christians to assess politics.

Those faulty views and others could play a significant role this election year. With the general election just under three weeks away, this is no time for Christians to hold and propagate misunderstandings about politics and government.

A sure guide to understanding this matter is theologian Wayne Grudem and his book, “Politics According to the Bible” (Zondervan, 2010). Before explaining the biblical demands of Christian citizenship, Grudem outlines “Five Wrong Views About Christians and Government.” They are:

• Government should compel religion. This view is easy to set aside in modern-day America, since, as Grudem notes, there are no responsible Christian voices today arguing for this perspective. Still, it’s a position with which Christians should be familiar since it is the predominate view among some in the world, especially in Islamic nations.

Grudem notes several biblical teachings that demonstrate this view is incorrect. In Matthew 22:20-21, Jesus answers the Pharisees who attempted to entrap Him concerning the matter of taxes. “In Jesus’ statement about God and Caesar, He established the broad outlines of a new order in which ‘things that are God’s’ are not to be under the control of civil government (or ‘Caesar’),” Grudem argues.

• Government should exclude religion. This is the view promoted by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, among others. Grudem notes many public policy consequences of this view, including attempts to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, banning prayers at public events, and prohibiting students from religious activity in schools. Additionally, these advocates argue laws against abortion, for example, are unconstitutional because they would codify religious dogma in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

“These arguments ... make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law,” Grudem writes. That Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign against racial discrimination was based on his biblical views did not make the laws that resulted from his campaign constitutionally suspect, Grudem cites as one example.

Grudem also notes this false view would invalidate the religious reasoning that is evident in America’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which cites God twice in its first two sentences, and it would remove religious influence from public life. “Therefore, the ultimate goal of this viewpoint is not only the destruction of all belief in God, but also the complete moral disintegration of a society,” Grudem writes.

• All government is evil and demonic. This view, along with the next one, seems to be growing. Grudem reviews and critiques the arguments of Minnesota pastor Greg Boyd in Boyd’s book, “The Myth of a Christian Nation,” which has been influential among some younger pastors. Grudem summarizes Boyd’s argument that the realm of government is Satan’s and the use of governmental power is worldly, contrary to the way of life taught by Jesus.

Boyd primarily relies upon Satan’s claim during his temptation of Jesus that all authority “has been delivered to me” (Luke 4:6). Grudem answers, “Do we believe Satan’s words that he has the authority of all earthly kingdoms, or do we believe Jesus’ words that Satan is a liar and the father of lies?” He goes on to cite a number of passages (Daniel 4:17; Romans 13:1-6; 1 Peter 2:13-14) that teach government is part of God’s design.

Boyd’s “government is evil” perspective causes him to embrace absolute pacifism. “Boyd has wrongly taken one of the ways that God restrains evil in this world (changing hearts through the Gospel of Christ) and decided that it is the only way that God restrains evil (thus neglecting the valuable role of civil government). Both means are from God, both are good, and both should be used by Christians,” Grudem writes.

• Do evangelism, not politics. I believe this is the most widely held incorrect view of Christianity and politics, and it can be related to the previous view. Since there is little to no redeeming value of Christian involvement in government, Christians should only invest efforts in evangelism as the surest means of changing society. At first, this view may seem correct -- even spiritually superior. It’s not.

Grudem argues that this perspective comes from “too narrow an understanding of ‘the Gospel’ and the kingdom of God.... ‘The Gospel’ in the New Testament is not just ‘trust Jesus and be forgiven of your sins and grow in holiness and go to heaven’ (though that is certainly true, and that is the heart of the Gospel and its foundational message.) No, the Gospel is God’s good news about all of life!” citing Jesus’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20).

Just as no one would question that churches have a duty to teach their people about God’s will for their families, businesses and educating their children, Grudem says it is also the responsibility of pastors to teach about God’s expectations for government, noting that some Christians are even called by God to influence government.

“When did people in the United States stop owning slaves? It was not when the Gospel had been preached throughout the South, but after the U.S. government made it illegal through the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. That happened when many Christian abolitionists influenced the government of the United States to change its laws,” Grudem writes.

Grudem cites a lengthy list of historical examples of Christian influence on government resulting in the protection of human life and improved human conditions. “If the Christian church had adopted the ‘do evangelism, not politics’ view throughout its history, it would never have brought about these immeasurably valuable changes among the nations of the world,” Grudem writes.

• Do politics, not evangelism. Although some critics of the Religious Right insist that this is its implicit agenda, virtually no responsible evangelical leader believes that politics is the ultimate answer to the problem of humanity. The incorrect view that Christians should concentrate on politics to the exclusion of evangelism is actually the perspective of the liberal “Social Gospel” movement, Grudem notes.

Grudem rightly cautions that those who argue for greater Christian involvement in politics and government: “If we (and I include myself here) ever begin to think that good laws alone will solve a nation’s problems or bring about a righteous and just society, we will have made a huge mistake.” Amen!

If the five incorrect views are to be rejected, what is the proper understanding of Christian involvement in politics and government? In answer, Grudem offers the “significant Christian influence on government” viewpoint.

Grudem says his alternative “is not compulsion (view 1), it is not silence (view 2), and it is not dropping out of the process (views 3 and 4), nor is it thinking the government can save people (view 5).”

Instead, “The ‘significant influence’ view says that Christians should seek to influence civil government according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible (when rightly understood). But while Christians exercise this influence, they must simultaneously insist on protecting freedom of religion for all citizens.” He also contends Christians engaging government should do so in a “winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, [and] persuasive” manner while not compromising the “truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word.”

It seems every four years it’s said the presidential election is the most important in our lifetime (or similar hyperbole). Although the 2012 election does seem to be very pivotal, I’ll leave it to others to evaluate such claims -- with the knowledge that God is sovereign whatever the result.

Still, Christians have a biblical duty to be properly informed about and engaged in our government, including the means by which we choose those who will lead us. Especially during an election year, pastors have an opportunity to help their members understand this duty and not be misled by wrong thinking on this vital matter.

Eight hundred years ago, a document was signed that guaranteed the freedoms we still enjoy today. And I’ll tell you about the crucial role the Church played in its creation.

June 15th marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta — a document that has been called “the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

As you might expect, Great Britain is pulling out all the stops to celebrate the anniversary. And as you might also expect, the celebrations are omitting an important detail: the role of Christianity in “the foundation of freedom.”

The Magna Carta, Latin for “Great Charter,” was a product of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. Forty-five years earlier, King Henry II was implicated in the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. And now, in 1215, rebellious barons were objecting to what they saw as King John’s infringement on their traditional rights, including unlawful imprisonment and excessive taxation.

With the disagreement threatening to turn into a civil war, the Archbishop of Canterbury, working as an intermediary between the King and the barons, helped to draft a proposed charter that would settle the dispute.

The charter was not limited to the barons’ concerns. As historian David Carpenter has written, what made the Magna Carta beloved by the likes of our Founding Fathers and Nelson Mandela was that the charter “asserted a fundamental principle — the rule of law. The king was beneath the law, the law the charter itself was making. He could no longer treat his subjects in an arbitrary fashion.”

As Carpenter says, “in 1215 itself both John and his enemies would have been astonished had they known that the Charter would live on and be celebrated 800 years hence.” In 1216, they fought the war the charter was intended to avoid. But John’s successors reaffirmed their commitment to the Magna Carta, and in 1289 made it part of the laws of England.

Since then, virtually every opponent of despotism and tyranny in the English-speaking world has drawn inspiration from the Magna Carta, which declared, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice.” When the Founding Fathers complained about “taxation without representation,” they were appealing to the Magna Carta.

Given the centrality of this document to our way of life, it behooves us to tell its story accurately and completely. Unfortunately, that is not happening. That’s why British churches have started a major campaign that focuses on the Christian influence on the charter.

The Church of England’s Synod of Bishops has stated that “It is important that the Church’s crucial role in Magna Carta and its rights is not air-brushed out in 2015 — as was the role of Christians in the anti-slave trade celebrations.”

As the Bishops remind us, “The Church in England was central to the development of legal and human rights centuries before the French Revolution ... the first parties to the charter were the bishops — led by Stephen Langton of Canterbury, who was a major drafter and mediator between the king and the barons; and its first and last clauses state that ‘the Church in England shall be free.’”

In other words, no human rights without religious freedom.

Perhaps the secular air-brushing isn’t that hard to understand, after all. The very words of the Magna Carta are a stumbling block for a culture that is eager to cast off its Christian heritage.

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

=======================

"The Magna Carta & the rise of religious liberty," by Stephen Douglas Wilson, Baptist Press, June 15, 2015.

Eight hundred years ago on June 15, 1215, a group of English nobles at Runnymede forced a reluctant King John to endorse a document of grievances against royal authority.

Written by Stephen, the archbishop of Canterbury, the Magna Carta was designed to be a compromise between rebellious nobles and the king. The work contained allusions to protecting religious liberty that, remarkably, would be embraced by England, the United States and much of the West today in subsequent centuries.

Before discussing how the Magna Carta -- “The Great Charter,” now at its 800th anniversary -- started the long journey of governments recognizing the principle of religious freedom, some clarifications are in order.

The Magna Carta itself was not written specifically to address religious freedom and, in fact, the document functioned primarily as a set of grievances on the part of some rebelling nobles against King John and a set of actions and compromises to address those grievances.

Revised time and time again in the centuries that followed, new information impacted the original issues in 1215. Later English rulers signaled their support or opposition to these various revisions. And finally, more significant language in other important documents of later ages enshrined religious liberty on both sides of the Atlantic.

With those clarifications, and with aspects of religious freedom quite different in the 21st century than in 1215, various provisions of the Magna Carta nevertheless shaped the unfolding concept of religious liberty. For instance, Article One stated, “First that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.”

While this provision seems incredible for its time and comports well with contemporary Western and Christian thinking, it should be noted that Article One was written in the context of a three-way fight for English church dominance between the papacy, the king and some members of the English nobility. The provision itself seems directed more against royal interference with the church and the fact that many English churchmen had joined in the rebellion against King John.

Furthermore, while declaring that the English church “shall be free,” it was understood in 1215 (300 years before the Reformation) that the church functioned as part of the universal church dominated by the papacy and that it possessed the beliefs and practices set forth by the papacy. As an aside, the pope himself later annulled the document. Although unstated, perhaps he became concerned with how the document might restrict papal influence within the British Isles in the future. Nevertheless, as a principle, Article One established a bold precedent for future religious freedom.

Among other provisions in the document, Article 22 restricted fines on the private property owned by church clerks to only the value of the particular property without reference to the total value of an ecclesiastical holding in the kingdom (that is, the church as a whole would not be assessed for its holdings within the kingdom -- a practice that the English monarchy may have sought to impose in view of its funding shortfall at the time).

Article 27 empowered the church to supervise the liquidation of the property of free men who left no will. This provision probably preserved a practice already in place, but with this provision, the framers formally ensured that that the church, rather than the state, be involved in these personal but important post-mortem decisions.

Article 62 issued pardons for all (including individual clergymen) involved in the dispute between the crown and clergymen who had joined the rebellion against the king. This continued a pattern within the document of also protecting the rights of clergymen apart from the protections on the church itself -- an important aspect of religious liberty.

Finally, Article 63 again confirmed the freedom of the English church with similar language as found in Article One.

Other articles that seemingly expanded the privileges of the nobles apparently referenced the clergy as well. Some of these guarantees included provisions for trials in local courts, protections against unlawful seizures of goods or persons, and respect for property rights. The framers of the document noted that all these customs and liberties applied to “all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen.”

For the next few hundred years, various English political figures invoked the Magna Carta in defense of both political and religious liberty rights. Furthermore, the British and American political bodies, building on the lofty but hazy principles of the Magna Carta, eventually added more substantial protections to religious liberty. The British Act of Toleration of 1689 recognized the rights of all Protestants, including Baptists, to practice their faith without interference. In 1791 and 1829, the British Parliament legalized the status of Catholics by the Roman Catholic Relief Acts.

In the United States, the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights of 1791 gave specific protections to religious liberty that included the abolition of religious tests for public office and specific guarantees for citizens to practice their faith. Other Western nations, as well as many non-Western nations, offered similar protections in the years after the 1790s.

The struggle for religious liberty has been in progress for 800 years. At a time of escalating religious liberty issues, what started on the fields of Runnymede in 1215 remains relevant to the present day.

________

Stephen Douglas Wilson is an adjunct professor at West Kentucky Community and Technical College and a former member of the SBC Executive Committee.