Does the disestablishment of religion in America make it harder for the church to influence the state?
Does the state have any absolute basis for law if it is officially separated from the church?
It's instructive to compare England and America on these questions. England has a state church and freedom of religion. We have freedom of religion and no state church. Americans tend to be more nervous about politicians with religious points of view. The British media seems to be more welcoming to religious points of view in the political dialogue. Try to imagine C.S. Lewis reading The Case for Christianity over American radio. He did just that on the BBC during WWII. Why does English Atheist Christopher Hitchens identify more with America than his native land? We have separation of church and state but his fatherland is still in bound to its medieval past. But only about 5% of the British population is in church on Sunday compared to about 35% in America. What's up?
After discussing this in class today a student piped up:
"A state-religion opens the door for the church and state to discuss issues, but it doesn't necessarily make the people of that state more Christian."
Pretty impressive for an eight grader, eh! What do you think? Comments?
4 comments:
Yes, this is pretty insightful indeed. I guess that young man doesn't have an allergy to gingo biloba? or, um, especially thinking!
Good questions to ponder, yet not sure of the complex answers. I would tend to think that the US is the offspring, or maybe double side of this coin. I tend to think the US is a little more spiritual, in part, because of our heritage of being zealous for Christianity made some of those folks leave England, Holland, Scotland etc. to come to America - also in part - because there was a state church. Now, I think this was a little less true with large migrations of the 1800-1900s, and it cerainly wasn't true with Spanish and French colonies in the Americas, which were R.Catholic.
Anyway, this reminds me of the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 191 which states "....the church.... countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate....." Did they really mean that the way it sounds I wonder? It seems as if the Westminster divines supported a state-run church, and if so, they certainly had their reasons. What do you think?
Related, why don't American churches that claim strict adherence to the WCF, also support a state church?
Cheers Amigo..... I have just been eating like salad a lot lately.
Barber said: "this reminds me of the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 191... It seems as if the Westminster divines supported a state-run church..."
Actually, the divines were quite opposed to state churches. The Westminster Confession of Faith originally had strong language declaring that the truest Christianity was one of separatism. When the Scots brought the WCF to the colonies, that language was eventually stripped out to allow the colonial Reformed to participate in the constitutional government of the U.S. (They were the original "good faith" subscriptionists.)
Interesting thoughts in general, Matt. Ironically, I think many Christians think and act as if Christianity IS the state religion of the U.S.
That said, I don't see it happening, in the U.S. or most other nations today-- except perhaps a nation like Iraq, where a constitutional declaration of Islam as the state religion could occur. Even then, which Islam? Shiite? Sunni? Wahab? That's when the state-led persecution begins, and that leads to the sort of thing that drove the pilgrims to the "new world." Where would they go now? Antarctica? the Space Station?!?
Thanks Ed, that is helpful. But I am still wondering, what do you think being "countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate" means? Is is simply that a church as not for profit (like a 403 b) is sort of countenanced and maintained by the government? It does at least seem to be saying that the civil authorities have some sort of role in church affairs.
I think Farrakan of the Nation of Islam proposed that one state be given over to them so their group could migrate there and be separate, kind of like the early Mormon settlement of Utah. Maybe native American nations are the closest we currently have to real independant governing of life and worship.
Thanks for the comments Ed.
I would argue that non-coercive state religion is still happening today in England. And regardless of whether we see it happening elsewhere today, a state church makes it easier for the church to influence the state since there is no separation. Churchman can't be told to shut up in the presence of the secular state like they are here.
I would also argue that the state churches of Christendom testified that all things hold together in Christ in a way that we in America can't.
I think we also need to realize that all the great accomplishments of the Middle Ages (like the Thomistic synthesis), the Renaissance, the Reformation, and even Johan Sebastian Bach were made possible by the state. Unfortunately those state churches also tended to be coercive, but couldn't a non-coercive version be a great benefit? At least a greater benefit than the secular state we now groan under?
Post a Comment