"In the biblical view, the state is no longer divine, and is not a church; it doesn't absorb the whole of our existence. A seperate source of spiritual awareness appears, moreover, to challenge its authority--the prophets in Israel, the Catholic Church in the Christian era. Most to the point, the king or emperor is neither the law incarnate nor a divinity to be worshipped; rather, in the phrase of Bracton, he 'is under God, and under the law.' The entire course of Western constitutional history has been a series of footnotes to this concept--attempting to translate its theory into practice."
M. Stanton Evans, The Theme Is Freedom, 1994

and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating...
(full disclosure: Stan generously gave me a research credit on the book)

How did we go from what the Founding Fathers interpreted as the separation of church and state, which was that the state would not establish a specific state religion, to eradicating the concept of God from anything having to do with the state? Especially if it’s a Christian God.

I've got a 'gut feeling' that there will be a summer terrorist attack, and the only cure is more cowbell.

Interesting quote. Very interesting concept.

ASDF,
Isn't it a good idea to keep government and religion as separate as possible? I'm not a religion-phobe but it seems like something deeply personal, and as such best practiced on a personal level.

Ancient Mariner,

Pagan spirituality may be "only" personal, but Christianity is not. Christianity is practiced in community, as the Body of Christ. Even more, it is necessarily engaged with the culture as a result of our creation and Gospel mandates; the first being "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion..." (Genesis 1:28) and the second being "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20). We can no more keep our religion only "personal" than we can deny our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

That said, it is only in western Christianity, and nowhere else, that the concept of separation of church and state arose. The first has the keys to heaven and is the glue of community. The second possesses the sword of justice. They're functions are not to be mixed and confused. However, this is a far cry from separation of state from church, just as freedom of religion is not to be mistaken for freedom from religion. May we never forget that this last vain hope of the secularist is cannibalistic. Where the spirit of God is, there is liberty." And nowhere else.

Yes. I do think it’s a good idea to separate the two as the government should not be in the religion business. And it isn’t. However, as most people believe that there is a God (subject to religious interpretation) how is it that our government, at the urging of a minority, has been bullied into edging out any reference to it?

Eric,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You seem to be taking a Evangelical Christian/Imperialist position here, which disturbs me. I have limited time here so I’ll get right to it. How would the Christian mandates apply to someone who is non-Christian or, as in my case, agnostic. You seem to be taking a one-size-fits-all approach to life and society based on a book that may or may not be true and that many of us don’t take as the word of a higher power.

I’m not worried about the keys to heaven as much as I am living a happy, productive, free life. Are you suggesting that only people who practice religion can avail themselves of freedom and liberty? Also, are you further suggesting that we in this country have no right to free ourselves from the indoctrination of religion as we see fit? I’m a little unclear of what you’re getting at in your post.

You also state “Where the spirit of God is, there is liberty." And nowhere else.” Where specifically are you talking about?

Thanks again for your response.

ASDF,
Good question, that does seem to be the way we’re heading in the U.S. I think as some religious groups don’t seem to be able to accept the fact the fact that there are many non-believers there, so do some non-religious groups have a problem accepting that there are many out there who go believe in a higher power. It seems to me that both are so weak in the beliefs that they go off the deep end when confronted with an alternate perspective.

Ancient Mariner,

That's not imperialism you are hearing, that's the call of the Gospel, it is the call to evangelism. It is the call to missions. And that is decidedly not a function of government, but of the church and the believer.

(Incidentally, hope on over to my blog - linked through my name - for a moment, and you will see pretty quickly that I am anything but an imperialist. In fact, check out my latest post - "If This Is The 'Cost Of Freedom,' What Are We Buying?" - and you will see this is so.)

What I am suggesting is that you owe your freedom to the church, and ultimately to the Lord our God. It is by grace that you are called to live at this time in this place with such abundant freedoms and prosperity. Rejoice and give thanks! And it is by this same God's grace, through Christ's finished work on the cross, that you can find atonement for your sins. I was blessed to have believers share this message with me as I am sharing it with you. The State didn't share it, and should not. But Christians did, in obedience to the Gospel mandate mentioned in my previous post.

Eric,
I read your posts from time to time and respect you very much. Having said that I could disagree more with your last post. In my opinion you’re taking two entirely separate things and trying to make them inseparable. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’d be curious to hear how the others on this blog feel.

Oops, meant to say couldn't disagree more. Sorry, rented fingers.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with it, AM, as you described yourself as an agnostic. However, I pray that you someday will. In the meantime, I hope I've at least demonstrated why trying to consign Christianity to a personal closet is to deny our religious liberty. Our faith is personally efficacious; its fruits, though, are focused outward to our brothers and sisters in the Lord and to the wider community and the world. (This is one reason we have hospitals, for instance.)

That aside, I thank you for your kind words. It is good to have discussion without name calling - a rarity in the blogosphere, I know.

Best,
--Eric

Thanks, Eric. My best to you as well.

AM

Mariner, (prepare for a broadside!! :D)

I think the subject of the quote relates quite well to one thing: if it has much validity, we don't want our state wondering *too* far from our religious tradition, because other religious (and non-religious) traditions cannot or do not talk so much about the state being answerable to anyone. Especially something on this earth that it has a good chance of beating or eluding.

In addition, even concepts like religious freedom have been argued to derive their inspiration from such scripture as Paul saying "Let each man be convinced in his own mind."