Separation: Is it Unbiblical?

Myths About the Separation of Church and State

• Church / State Separation • Church / State Myths • Ten Commandments • Sabbath Laws • Jehovah's Witnesses • Separation of Church & State

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

Myth:
The "separation of church and state" is unbiblical and should be stopped.

Response: Sometimes, a person might try to argue that there is no Christian basis for believing that church and state should be separated. The purposing of making such an argument appears to be to convince people to reject the notion of separation on religious grounds - if it is not biblical, then it is not Christian, and if it is not Christian, then it is not something which a Christian should accept.

Although the Bible is rarely unequivocal and clear on issues, there are examples which can be used to demonstrate that early Christians did not think it proper that the state be used to enforce religious beliefs - or at least when it comes to other people's religious beliefs. Here are two:

But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal. They said, "This man is persuading people to worship God in ways that are contrary to the law." Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, "If it were a matter of crime or serious villainy, I would be justified in accepting the complaint of you Jews; but since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves; I do not wish to be a judge of these matters." And he dismissed them from the tribunal. Then all of them seized Sosthenes, the official of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the tribunal. But Gallio paid no attention to any of these things. (Acts 18:12-17)

About that time King Herod laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. He had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword. After he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. (This was during the festival of Unleavened Bread.) When he had seized him, he put him in prison and handed him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending to bring him out to the people after the Passover. (Acts 12:1-4)

In the first example, the representative of the state (Gallio, proconsul of Achaia) is shown in a good light because he refuses to use his state office to enforce the religious doctrines of the Jews. The Jews, in turn, are shown in a bad light because they are infuriated that their religious rules won't be enforced by the state - thus they take matters into their own hands and simply attack Paul right there. Unfortunately, Gallio becomes less sympathetic for not moving to intervene.

There is a strong parallel here between that passage and some events which happen in America. It has occurred more than once that members of a minority faith (sometimes Christian) have asked the government to stop promoting or supporting the religious beliefs of the majority (Christians), only to then be attacked - often physically - for daring such a protest. I wonder, however, if those particular Christians are familiar with the above passage from Acts?

The second passage from Acts above presents a mirror image of this scenario: the power of the state is used to promote one religious vision and repress another. Herod attacks the members of the early Christian Church, having them arrested and even killed. Herod certainly isn't shown as being a good person for this, and the Jews who are pleased at the elimination of their competition and of those who are spreading "heresies" also don't appear as sympathetic characters.

To argue that there is neither biblical nor Christian precedent for separating church from state requires ignoring important aspects of the history of the early Christian community. It may be that these same early Christians would have been happy to use the power of the state to repress others; however, there are not many Christians today who would be willing to admit to such a position themselves.