Wish I had GPS!

I’m a theology geek before I’m a political geek, but I do love both topics. My good friend Justin Fontes has been informally posting a series of questions on Facebook that are designed to examine the intersections of faith and culture. As one would expect, his questions in that digital public-forum result in a variety of passionate responses from diverse viewpoints.

Justin recently posed the question mentioned in the title of this post, “Is ‘Separation of Church and State’ Biblical?”. Here’s the response I came up with:

I’m in agreement with Mathew about the original intent of the separation of church and state as a historic American political doctrine. The nation was founded with a Judeo-Christian ethic by Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, and Jewish individuals (among others) who sought freedom to practice their faith free from governmental interference. It had nothing to do with constraining religion; quite the opposite, it was meant to protect it.

As for separation’s theological correctness from a Biblical perspective, the bottom line is that it is neither Biblical nor un-Biblical; it’s simply not addressed in scripture. Outside of God’s Covenant with the specific nation of Israel in the Old Testament, the Bible doesn’t prescribe a specific system of government. However, if the question is, “Is separation of Church and State biblically-compatible?”, I’d most assuredly answer in the affirmative.

There are a number of scriptural principals to consider. Again, no one government system is prescribed for the Church age by scripture. In the New Testament, neither Christ nor or any of the Apostles rebuke the secular governmental systems of the day. In Mark 12:17, Christ actually ignores the question of whether or not the Roman occupation is unjust, but states that it’s right to pay taxes to Caesar (understanding of course that God’s Kingdom transcends all earthly rulers and nations). In Romans 13, Paul explains that Christians are to be subject to their ruling authorities, to include paying taxes and giving respect when it’s due. Interestingly, these commands are not predicated upon the governmental system in place, or the moral character of the leader(s) of said government; these are constants, whether under a democratic republic, or a communist regime…

However, that’s not all. Most interestingly, Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 2: “1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

My take on that passage is this: Paul commanded prayer for governmental leaders, so that they would be blessed as civil leaders (and be saved, if not believers) and allow Christians to live “peaceful and quiet lives”. His primary motivation was to build God’s Kingdom by protecting the Church from civil intrusion (particularly from Rome at the time he wrote) as it missionally spread the Gospel. If a nation’s government has a hands-off approach to issues of faith, allowing religious institutions to exist without intrusion, then half of Paul’s motivation for the command to pray for that government is already accomplished within that nation. To me, that means separation of church and state, at least as it was originally defined by the founding fathers, is certainly compatible with the principles of scripture. Of course, we don’t have that luxury, anymore… but I digress.

For those of us who are followers of Jesus, our governmental role as members of the New Covenant is primarily one of prayer. We pray for our government leaders on multiple levels: on the personal level, that God would regenerate their hearts and draw them to salvation in Christ; on the administrative level, that God would give them wisdom and discernment in their administration of the civil law and national defense; and in their relationship with the church, that God would grant the church protection from intrusion, so that the government is “hands off” in matters of faith, allowing us to lead “peaceful and quiet lives.”

At least, that’s my geeky approach to it. I’ve just begun reading an excellent book by Hunter Baker called “The End of Secularism” which promises to address many of these issues (so far, I’m in the early historical summary section). I’d recommend the book to anyone reading this thread. It contains much to chew on.

Am I on the right track, or have I gotten way off base? As always, I’d welcome your thoughts in the comments section below.

Edit (1/14/10): Justin has resumed blogging, and does so At Land’s End.