Skip ahead to:
Political Zeal
The oft-heard mantra of the “separation of Church and State” has two quite different meanings.
The meaning of two faiths
There is, or used to be, a worldview in which man interprets and rules the universe by his reason alone, and not by “religious conviction.” This is sometimes called “rationalism.” In this view, the State supposedly has no religion; it is neutral. Therefore, it can safeguard a healthy society, by leaving room for people to pursue their own religious convictions.
However, this kind of State is not really neutral at all. It constructs a faith, a religious hope, from man’s reason. It claims that reason allows us to see the way things really are. And, in the public realm, it removes competing ways of seeing the world. Therefore, the Church is told to keep itself to the realm of personal conviction: “Be thou separate!” In this way the Church is made subservient to the State’s view of how to improve the world.
Under a robust Christian worldview, however, humanity represents God in all of creation, both personally and as a group. Therefore, our final source of interpretation and authority is God alone. Human reason is never “neutral.” And precisely because of its corruption in the grasp for power, reason cannot be the bedrock for faith or the hope for improvement. In this view, therefore, the State acts under God to restrain human arrogance and to promote public welfare. The State shares with the Church an allegiance to Christ, but performs distinct functions in a different sphere of authority. The two are separate.
Christianity and political freedom
When the ideas that gave rise to the mantra were first articulated, they assumed a Christian worldview. The separation of Church and State was a Christian idea that was both practical and principled. Practically, it attempted to curb the corruption of power within nations. Its supporters held that there should be multiple ruling institutions in society. This meant that rule was divided and spread: no single ruler could become a tyrant, or speak in the name of God without checks and balances.
In principle, it also affirmed the dignity of representing God through governance, and rule belonged, in different but complimentary ways, to all people. Absolute, tyrannical power can only violate this widespread dignity. Thus, absolute rule should not be given to anyone. It was therefore Christianity’s view of power that, under one God, laid the foundation for political freedom.
With rationalism began a new faith—the exaltation of the reason common to the 18th and 19th century West. Stealing the Christian privilege of hope, but leaving behind humility and grace, this new faith boldly hauled anchor and sailed off into a post-Christian world. In so doing, the mantra “separating Church and State” came to reflect the faith of rationalism.
Christians need to be aware of the radical change in meaning this has involved. It has subjected political freedom to “reason”—and modern western obsessions, culture and philosophy. So, when we agree that the separation of Church and State is a Good Thing, we do not mean or agree that the State has no religion, or that religion is a private matter best kept out of the public realm, or that the Church is a threat to a healthy democracy. We do not agree that Christ’s realm, which includes the State and the whole public arena, should be surrendered to other gods.
What we agree is that the State is not the Church and the Church is not the State. They are distinct institutions with distinct powers and distinct responsibilities. But they are both institutions under God, and Christians have every right to enter them convinced that their faith should be exercised in full, not left at the door.
The renewed threat of tyranny
The advent of post-modernism makes this realisation increasingly urgent. The faith in so-called “neutral reason,” upon which rationalism was built, has largely been undermined by the observation that neutrality doesn’t exist; that no-one has a “view from nowhere.” Everyone speaks from a point of view, from a culturally constructed context. And, since the 18th and 19th century context created rationalism, how can it claim to be valid for everyone in all times?
Man’s political faith has therefore swung from arrogance to complete uncertainty. We now feel unable to assert that any particular point of view is more valuable than another. The ship of rationalist fools, now well over the horizon, has suddenly lost its compass. And once the realisation truly sinks in, uncertainty may quickly and cynically be replaced with a naked, unapologetic grasp for power: someone will simply grab the tiller.
With no faith worth defending, our political vision has failed. We are largely reduced to the ethic of consumerism: we pay the price for whatever makes us feel good. Perhaps fortunately, we still hear the unthinking remnant of rationalism: Church and State must be separate. At least they’re still talking about it. But now, more than ever, the State needs the faith of the Church.
So be careful: make sure people know what you mean when you agree that State and Church should be separate!