Question #2
Separation of the church and state is not a new concept. Within the past two thousand years of Christian history however the strategies and ideas of Christian leaders have changed several times. During the time that Christ walked the earth we can anecdotally perceive a very adversarial relationship between Jesus’ ministry and the local Jewish and Roman governments. This type of relationship continued for the first three centuries of the Christian Church. There was an almost total separation between the emerging Christian Church and the ruling governments at the time due to consistent and violent persecutions of the Christian Church and Christians personally. This persecution continued in spite of the efforts of Paul, Tertullian and other early church scholars to justify Christianity to the Roman Empire. This current climate of persecution saw Christendom spread far and wide across the known world and saw no headway in the relationship between church and state. (1)
The situation changed drastically after Constantine winning the final decisive battle of Milvian Bridge in 312CE became the sole Roman Emperor. In 313CE, Constantine legalized and legitimized the Christian faith as an acceptable practice within the Roman Empire. It is noted by the historian Eusebius that Constantine’s mother Helen was a Christian and it was through her influence that Constantine took these steps and ultimately became a Christian himself. Constantine also changed the nature of the relationship between church and state. With a strong Emperor on the throne of Rome, a state sponsored religion becomes a tool for unity and control. This is the change in relationship that Constantine fosters. For the purposes of this discussion, this idea of the sep...
... middle of paper ...
...ith the discovery of the New World, once again the balance shifts back to a church dominate relationship with the Puritans and other religious groups seeking freedom in the New World. However, the rise of self and the rise of freedom forever alter the balance and separation issue for the church and state. Today a sort of détente exists between the church and state. Each side continues to seeking the dominate position within the relationship but each side constrained by law from interfering to greatly with each other. The issue of separation of church and state is not the simple issue it is portrayed as today. This is a complex issue with a history that dates back well over two thousand years and while discussed at length there are now easy answers too even today.
Works Cited
Miles, Margaret R., The Word Made Flesh
Gonzalez, Justo L., The Story of Christianity V2
By 1763 although some colonies still maintained established churches, other colonies had accomplished a virtual revolution for religious toleration and separation of church and state. The British, after many years of religious revolution had established the Anglican Church. In which the king of England was the head of this church. This resulted in almost no separation of church and state. There were several colonies that had the state and the church separate. One state is Rhode Island; which being a prime example of a state with religious toleration because of it being founded by an outcast of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The founder decided that Rhode Island would be a haven for thinkers and other religions and such. Another state with some religious freedom was Connecticut, which gave us the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The cause of this difference was that most of the colonist had fled to the colonies to escape religious persecution. In fact they almost had a majority rule, therefore they did not want a powerful church to suppress or persecute them here in the new world. So they hacked the power of the church and made sure it stayed out of government affairs.
The New England colonies of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland [Pa. and Md.are not in New England] were founded with the express purpose of dispensing of with a statechurch [not exactly. Rhode Island was “put together.” Maryland did not have a single statechurch, but the Calverts did not intend to dispense with state support of a church]. In this theydeviated not only from the other British coloes in the New World but also from their Motherlandand indeed all the civilizations of western Christendom to date. Before the founding of RhodeIsland, Pennsylvania, and Maryland these three colonies, a state without an official state churchwas inconceivable. As the Church of England evolved in Britain, the other British colonies inNorth America adopted either Congregationalism, Anglicanism, or Presbyterianism [never a statechurch in the colonies] as their own “state church.” The idea of a state without a state church wasunprecedented (Cohen 9/30).In place of the usual state church, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland adopted anew concept: “liberty of conscience.” Here, “liberty” is synonymous with “freedom.” By“conscience” our forefathers meant one's personal religious persuasion and its duties, as RogerWilliams explained to Governor John Endicott: “... I speake of Conscience, a perswasion fixed inthe minde and heart of a man, which inforceth him to judge (as Paul said of himself apersecutour) and to doe so and so, with respect to God, his worship, etc.” (Williams 340) To thefirst citizens of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, civil “freedom of conscience” wasthe ability to live freely as a member of one's religion-that is, to perform such reli...
... the religious persecutions that were carried out by the Roman Catholic Church started to subside and the relationship between the Church and the State became a dichotomy.
The general court was set on a path to separating the beliefs of the church and the government. Luckily, years later a law would be passed in the Constitution that separates church and state.
...s argument seemed secondary to the states argument, but it ultimately proved lesser when the church deserted facts resorting to banishment. The state used valid evidence to support their side of the argument as well as strategizing well enough to figure out exactly what would be most beneficial. Although the state wanted to be completely separate from the church, the state realized the most expedient plan would be to be almost completely separate from the church. On the other hand, the church was too reclusive and greedy to give the state any power, let alone share power with the church. The church finally overcame its greediness and agreed to share some power concerning investiture. Additionally proving the states argument to be more compelling, the state got their way in the end by being able to submit the names out of which the pope would choose the bishops.
The Protestants who emigrated to America knew from experience of the negative effect the government had on religion when the two were operating together. With the mindset of creating a new perfect holy land, they decided to make sure both church and state worked separately. While Puritans still did everything they could to enforce their beliefs in New England, including exiling those who did not attend church regularly, the core idea of separation of church and state was in the minds of the people. In order to have a country that values the freedom of religion, the church has to be out of any government policy. Any laws that are created around a single church’s faith, even if the majority of the population believes in them, threaten the freedoms of all other denominations. Ame...
The Myth of the Separation of Church and State retrieved on January 7, 2005 from: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
" There is another reference to religion in Article 6, Section 3. This clause states "the United States" and the several States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution. but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust. under the United States" http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html. For the purpose of this paper I am going to focus on the establishment of religion above mentioned in the The First Amendment..
Flax, Bill. "The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State", July 9, Forbes, 2011 Web. 15 May 2015
On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in which he stated:
If that is the realm that the government controls, then what authority should the church practice over people? The answer is none over unbelievers (for that is God’s position to judge), but we are to hold those within the church accountable to God’s Word (1 Cor. 5:9-12). After all, will we not one day experience the perfect unity of religion and government in Christ’s perfect Kingdom? Stead aptly sums up what can bring about a true change in a society and a nation as he says “Believers need to be reminded that there can be no healthy or lasting change of social structures without a redemptive change in people, which is why Christ came two thousand years ago.” (52)
Without a God how do we know what is right from wrong. What is good or bad? The Ten Commandments tell us what is right or wrong and good or bad, but the constitution says the church has to be separate. If there is no God in our government we cannot have our Ten Commandments, how do we know what is right or wrong? The current opinion of courts is that the First Amendment bans religion in our government to protect the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from the government. The first amendment does not say church and state should be separate since our founders understood if church and state were completely separate, our government would fall apart.
Constantine I (February 27, 280 C.E.- May 22, 337 C.E.), also known as Constantine the Great, was the first Roman emperor to not only abolish persecution of Christians, but he was also the first to convert to Christianity in 312 A.D. Around 200 years later, in 496 A.D. Clovis I (466 C.E.- 511 C.E.), the King of the Franks, converted to Christianity, in which he was called a “new Constantine” . Constantine and Clovis’ reign through Christianity were alike in the way that they decided to convert. However, the two emperors were different in their commitment to God and their impacts on the church and state.
The separation of church and state has been a long debated topic in the history of America. Although founded upon Christian ideals, the framers of the Constitution explicitly outlined the government to function secularly, in what is commonly referred to as the “Establishment Clause”. When interpreting the Constitution in regards to religion, there are two primary philosophies. The first philosophy this paper will explore will be referred to as Positive Toleration. In general, the idea of positive toleration creates an environment that is encouraging of all religions. The second philosophy, which will be referred to as the “Wall of Separation,” encourages government freedom from religion. Although historically these two philosophies have jockey back and forth in public popularity, as America moves into the future, the Wall of Separation philosophy will take a strong-hold and will set the course for how the Establishment Clause will affect local government, schools, and private religious practice.
Integrating Faith and politics can be difficult. Arguments can be made for whether to have complete separation of faith and politics, or to fully integrate the two. A balanced middle-ground between separation and integration can be looked at also. Examples of each can be looked at in history. Complete separation of faith and politics has consequences (both positive and negative). Government that is separated from faith can be efficient, but very inhumane and controlling. Complete integration of faith and politics is influenced by God and the Bible, but it can be just as controlling as complete separation. Multiple disagreements in the Christian doctrine would also cause more challenges in the government. Having a middle ground where only some aspects of the government are influenced by religion can pose problems in certain areas. The middle ground could allow Christians to spread the Gospel (which is the goal of the church). When these three options are compared, one may see an option stand out as an obvious choice. The middle ground between separation and integration is where the church can both stay relevant in politics and participate in the great commission.