Church and State
There has been a lot on the news about the separation of Church and State, as Trump has signed some new order that blurs that line. To be honest with you, I haven't read more than the headlines on this issue, so I won't write much about the order, but I thought I'd share some of my thoughts with you about the separation of Church and State.
First, I would like to point out that moral law and state law are not the same thing. Moral law defines the difference between good and bad, whereas state law defines the difference between legal and illegal. In our society, moral and state law do not coincide. There are many discrepancies between what our society, as a whole, deems good versus bad, and what they have decided is legal or illegal. For example, it is not inherently wrong to drive 101 km/h rather than 100 km/h on a certain stretch of highway, although it may be illegal. On the other hand, it is not illegal to cheat on your partner when you have agreed to a monogamous relationship, although most people in our society would typically agree that that is not a great thing to do. And it is good that there is this distinction. Highways are a lot safer when we have agreed upon conventions on how to use them, even if they are arbitrary conventions, and people make stupid mistakes all the time, but fining them or sending them to jail for every single stupid decision will not make society any better.
The purpose of state law is to help society function better. In modern times, it is often based on a combination of tradition and research about human behaviour, so it is not completely arbitrary. But there are dozens of legal systems being used around the world that more or less function just as well, even though they are different.
Some of you believe that moral law is arbitrary, as well, and that every culture and society has developed its own set of arbitrary rules over time, also mostly for society to function. A lot of philosophers and apologists have debated a great deal about this, and I don't have much to add, except to say that I, myself, believe in a God-given absolute moral law.* Sure, there have been different standards in different times and places, but that doesn't mean there isn't an absolute law, it just means that our knowledge and implementation of it is imperfect.
In much of the Old Testament, Religion and State were not separated. God chose the leaders and kings of Israel through the prophets. But in other parts of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament, the Jews and the early Church were persecuted. When praying was made illegal during the exile in Babylon, the prophet Daniel did not try to change the law. He simply kept on praying, and trusted in God's faithfulness (Daniel 6). Likewise, when Peter and John were arrested and told to stop preaching, they did not try to change the lawmakers' minds, they simply followed their consciences (Acts 4:1-21). Israel was designed as a theocracy--a government led by God--but I see no indication in the Bible that a theocracy is God's design for all governments. Rather, the format of the government seems pretty low on the priority list in the New Testament. No commands or instructions, as far as I am aware, are given to try and change, reform, or even influence, government. Instead, the command is always to submit to the government, even when it is unjust (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:11-25).
So what does it mean to submit to the government in a democracy? Since democracy is supposed to be a society governed by the people, I suppose submitting to a democracy means submitting to the will of the people. If the people vote that brussels sprouts should be outlawed, then I will not eat brussels sprouts (a huge sacrifice, I know). Submitting to a democracy also means, I think, participating fully in the democratic process, which includes being an informed voter.
Of course, where God's law and the state law contradict, we are called to choose God's law, like Daniel and Peter and John. Note, however, that this is a personal choice--we are to count the cost, so they say (Luke 14: 25-35). We cannot compel one another to take risks based on our own belief, but each one should decide for themselves where they and their conscience stands.**
Jesus commanded his followers to be a light to the world (Matthew 5:13-16), so what, then, should we do to make the world a better place? It seems to me that changing the law is often not the best way to change the world (although sometimes it is). Look at what happened in the Prohibition--when alcohol was outlawed, did its consumption even decrease at all?
God gave us free choice. Even knowing how much we, as a species, would mess everything up, would hurt Him, each other, and our planet, He still thought it was best to give us free will and allow us to make our own choices. Who are we to try and take that away from each other?
This is why, when I vote, I try to vote for the policies and platforms that I believe will benefit marginalized people, as well as myself and the people I care about, the most. I do not vote to align moral law and state law.
Furthermore, the separation of Church and State is an important value in our society, and it provides important protections for people no matter what they believe. History tells us that religion can readily be used as a tool for discrimination and oppression, and as long as our governments are being run by fallible people susceptible to corruption by power, it is important to build checks and balances into the system. The separation of Church and State is one of these safeguards, and an important one.
*I don't think that everything in moral law is absolute--I think the standard for modesty, for example, is arbitrary, although the idea that you should be respectful of the modesty standards of the culture you are living in is not.
**Note that claiming to be following your conscience does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you like.
First, I would like to point out that moral law and state law are not the same thing. Moral law defines the difference between good and bad, whereas state law defines the difference between legal and illegal. In our society, moral and state law do not coincide. There are many discrepancies between what our society, as a whole, deems good versus bad, and what they have decided is legal or illegal. For example, it is not inherently wrong to drive 101 km/h rather than 100 km/h on a certain stretch of highway, although it may be illegal. On the other hand, it is not illegal to cheat on your partner when you have agreed to a monogamous relationship, although most people in our society would typically agree that that is not a great thing to do. And it is good that there is this distinction. Highways are a lot safer when we have agreed upon conventions on how to use them, even if they are arbitrary conventions, and people make stupid mistakes all the time, but fining them or sending them to jail for every single stupid decision will not make society any better.
The purpose of state law is to help society function better. In modern times, it is often based on a combination of tradition and research about human behaviour, so it is not completely arbitrary. But there are dozens of legal systems being used around the world that more or less function just as well, even though they are different.
Some of you believe that moral law is arbitrary, as well, and that every culture and society has developed its own set of arbitrary rules over time, also mostly for society to function. A lot of philosophers and apologists have debated a great deal about this, and I don't have much to add, except to say that I, myself, believe in a God-given absolute moral law.* Sure, there have been different standards in different times and places, but that doesn't mean there isn't an absolute law, it just means that our knowledge and implementation of it is imperfect.
In much of the Old Testament, Religion and State were not separated. God chose the leaders and kings of Israel through the prophets. But in other parts of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament, the Jews and the early Church were persecuted. When praying was made illegal during the exile in Babylon, the prophet Daniel did not try to change the law. He simply kept on praying, and trusted in God's faithfulness (Daniel 6). Likewise, when Peter and John were arrested and told to stop preaching, they did not try to change the lawmakers' minds, they simply followed their consciences (Acts 4:1-21). Israel was designed as a theocracy--a government led by God--but I see no indication in the Bible that a theocracy is God's design for all governments. Rather, the format of the government seems pretty low on the priority list in the New Testament. No commands or instructions, as far as I am aware, are given to try and change, reform, or even influence, government. Instead, the command is always to submit to the government, even when it is unjust (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:11-25).
So what does it mean to submit to the government in a democracy? Since democracy is supposed to be a society governed by the people, I suppose submitting to a democracy means submitting to the will of the people. If the people vote that brussels sprouts should be outlawed, then I will not eat brussels sprouts (a huge sacrifice, I know). Submitting to a democracy also means, I think, participating fully in the democratic process, which includes being an informed voter.
Of course, where God's law and the state law contradict, we are called to choose God's law, like Daniel and Peter and John. Note, however, that this is a personal choice--we are to count the cost, so they say (Luke 14: 25-35). We cannot compel one another to take risks based on our own belief, but each one should decide for themselves where they and their conscience stands.**
Jesus commanded his followers to be a light to the world (Matthew 5:13-16), so what, then, should we do to make the world a better place? It seems to me that changing the law is often not the best way to change the world (although sometimes it is). Look at what happened in the Prohibition--when alcohol was outlawed, did its consumption even decrease at all?
God gave us free choice. Even knowing how much we, as a species, would mess everything up, would hurt Him, each other, and our planet, He still thought it was best to give us free will and allow us to make our own choices. Who are we to try and take that away from each other?
This is why, when I vote, I try to vote for the policies and platforms that I believe will benefit marginalized people, as well as myself and the people I care about, the most. I do not vote to align moral law and state law.
Furthermore, the separation of Church and State is an important value in our society, and it provides important protections for people no matter what they believe. History tells us that religion can readily be used as a tool for discrimination and oppression, and as long as our governments are being run by fallible people susceptible to corruption by power, it is important to build checks and balances into the system. The separation of Church and State is one of these safeguards, and an important one.
*I don't think that everything in moral law is absolute--I think the standard for modesty, for example, is arbitrary, although the idea that you should be respectful of the modesty standards of the culture you are living in is not.
**Note that claiming to be following your conscience does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you like.
Comments
Post a Comment