Separation of church and state means a lot of things. But it does not mean that the faithful have no voice in the public square. It certainly does not relieve believers from urging government to act with wisdom, justice, and righteousness. And it clearly should not bar personal involvement in matters of law and public policy.
The United States Constitution is the highest law in this land. In two different places this most authoritative of legal documents has clauses relating to religion. The first appears in Article VI in the actual body of the original Constitution (“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”). The second place in the Constitution where religion appears is at the very start of the First Amendment, which was added to our Constitution in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. One clause guarantees that religion is not to be established by the government (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”); the other clause guarantees the free exercise of religion (“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”). The Constitution in this way implicitly recognizes that government and religion are best served when they are allowed to operate freely in their separate spheres. The church should neither be a tool of government nor lord it over government. Initially these clauses operated as a check only on Congress’s powers, but subsequently these clauses were applied to the respective states. Thus religious freedom was secured against all levels of government.
Unfortunately, there are those who have felt that separation of church and state means that there is no proper role for involvement in public life by those who have religious beliefs. This was never the intent of the Constitution or its framers.
Today I am an attorney admitted to practice in California and Hawaii. That almost did not happen. Partly this was because I was also interested in other areas of study and work. I was also given strong and sincere counsel against pursuing law. These people saw it as a profession inherently in conflict with the Christian calling. The desire to win a case, they told me, might lead one to compromise one’s religious principles. Others told me that separation of church and state is not so much a constitutional principle as it is a safeguard to protect innocent young people from the corrupting influences of those involved in law or politics.
Christians have come a long way over the past few decades. Today we not only recognize that one can be a Christian lawyer, but virtually all Christian denominations regularly consult lawyers and rely on them to ensure that we have all the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted. Though years ago in a Christian high school I received advice against pursuing law, students there now can find excellent advice on prelaw studies and can enter internships with government officials. In fact, students can intern in the legal counsel offices at my church’s national and international headquarters. This is true for many denominations.
Of course, the ambivalence concerning the juxtaposition of law, politics, and religion is shared not only by believers but also by nonbelievers.
Over the years many hostile to faith have argued against involvement in lawmaking or politics by believers. Christians, they suggest, should just stick to church work.
Devoting one’s life and energy to the work of the gospel is biblical (cf. Matthew, chapter 28). Yet we ought to be careful about discouraging any group of citizens from involvement in the lawmaking process simply because they have religious beliefs.
Conservative columnist Cal Thomas recently published some provocative comments on this topic. He wrote that “the Christian church was intended to be, not a hierarchy, but a ‘lowerarchy.’ As Jesus instructed His disciples when sending them out to share His redemptive message: ‘Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep’ (Matthew 10:9, 10, NIV).* The emphasis was on making disciples, not persuading Caesar about their point of view.”
Thomas is correct in arguing that the church was never primarily an instrument of temporal authority or societal change. The emphasis of the church was to save souls for eternity and to point people to a King and kingdom not of this world. But the tenor of his article can easily lead one to think that social or political involvement is not appropriate if you are a Christian. I don’t think this was his belief, but even if it were, Thomas does not have the last word on this topic.
Consider that the Nicodemus mentioned in the New Testament was an important government official. Consider that the centurion who went to Jesus seeking healing for his servant was an important government official. Consider that the kings of Israel were important government officials.
Undoubtedly, there is a role of involvement for believers to play in the public sphere. People of faith, simply because of and by virtue of their faith, cannot be excluded from the practice of law or the legislative process. We Christians believe that we have been called to be in the world but not of the world. Surely this calls for participation, not withdrawal. In fact, it calls for concerted participation that is true to our Christian faith.
This certainly does not mean that we will work for a theocracy. But it does mean that we are to be salt and light wherever we may find ourselves—even, and perhaps especially, if we find ourselves serving in a king’s court, as did Daniel; or tasked with saving a people from famine, as did Joseph; or called to serve “for such a time as this,” as did Esther.
King David of the Old Testament was a noted shepherd and psalmist. But he was also a skilled administrator, gifted ruler, and great, if somewhat controversial, king. The history of the Jewish people records his seeking to rule consistently with God’s will. One passage is reminiscent of the shepherd who became king: “He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Samuel 23:3, NKJV).†
Jesus’ first cousin, John the Baptist, did more than just preach of repentance. He applied his theology to the real-world circumstances of his own time and place. In fact, he directed his remarks to a politician and criticized King Herod, saying, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18, NKJV).
Some today would say that a preacher should not speak to current political happenings or that a churchgoer should not be involved in politics. But such circumscribing of a faithful believer’s speech is not biblically supported and, in fact, flies in the face of the numerous statements of the Old Testament prophets who spoke of caring for the downtrodden and the less fortunate. Much of what we find in the Bible is an exhortation to social justice, not just otherworldly theology.
Protestant theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, as well as Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides, saw the call to social justice as inherent in the Scriptures. Catholic theologians Augustine and Aquinas noted that there was a social component to God’s call to righteousness.
The abolition of slavery occurred not just because President Abraham Lincoln was a president with a deep and sincere faith, but because many others of faith—preachers and laypeople—spoke out and got involved in mobilizing public opinion to end slavery in the United States.
Mother Teresa was known for her selfless and dedicated work in India. But few know that she also showed acts of compassion among the very poor in urban America. Here she had to deal with government, often seeking modification and accommodation of rules and regulations in order for her ministry to take place. In one instance a building code required installation of an elevator. Such an expense would have put this particular aspect of her ministry out of business. Mother Teresa had to work closely with government to enable her ministry, satisfying the requirements of Caesar as she sought to attend to the needs of the poor. Such involvement and interaction with government grew out of, and was not in conflict with, her faith.
Martin Luther King, Jr., took his faith to the streets and the segregated lunch counters to end segregation. We owe this Baptist minister our gratitude for calling attention to such injustice. One cannot imagine the civil rights movement in America without the key work of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).
People of faith have become involved in public matters in other countries and at times of great social stress. German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other nonconformist Protestants of the “Confessing Church” spoke out against and openly opposed the führer, Adolf Hitler. They, in fact, not only spoke truth to power but also put their very livelihoods and lives on the line. Bonhoeffer ultimately was imprisoned and executed for his involvement in an assassination attempt against Hitler. These believers felt that their faith compelled not simply dissension, but open advocacy on behalf of justice and against the discrimination and genocide directed at the Jews in their midst.
One of the most important pronouncements of Jesus, made at the very end of His earthly ministry, is recorded in Matthew, chapter 28. We call His remarks the Great Commission. Jesus declared, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NKJV).
There is nothing—including the practice of law or campaigning for office or involvement in the legislative process—that is beyond the ken of God’s sovereignty and care. There is no human undertaking that need not be accountable to God and cannot be redeemed by the sincere and conscientious involvement of godly folk.
People of faith are to speak to this world not only through our words but also through the work of our hands. That work may include advocacy of laws that meet the needs of those who are poor, homeless, hungry, and naked. Such governmental care does not preclude the church from direct care of those who are needy, nor is it a substitute for personal acts of charity. But such governmental intervention complements the work of the church. And it is not a violation of church-state separation to call the government to do what is morally right.
It is instructive to note that one of the decisive indicators of a follower of Christ was whether one ministered to those who are needy. When an attorney asked Christ about who would qualify to be a neighbor and hence receive kindness and support from another, Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan. When a rich young ruler asked Jesus what must be done to be saved, Jesus answered that obedience to the law was important and that caring for those who were poor was an essential part of genuine obedience. Each of these answers indicates that the Bible has real implications for society. Religion is not just something one does on the weekend. It consists not simply of praise songs or hymns and a sermon. It means living out one’s faith in the world but not as the world.
___________________________
David A. Pendleton is an attorney and a Seventh-day Adventist minister serving his fourth term in the Hawaii House of Representatives.
___________________________
*Texts credited to NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.
†Texts credited to NKJV are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend