Time to Clarify This ‘Separation’ Misconception

Congratulations to the United States on its 250^th anniversary! Many nations and governments have risen and fallen during that span of two-and-a-half centuries, and here’s hoping the “American way” continues to survive and thrive for many years to come. 

Is our nation perfect? Of course not. However, in the history of humankind there’s never been a perfect nation. But it’s fair to say the United States is unique and exceptional in numerous ways. As I noted in my last post, many foreign visitors to the U.S. for the World Cup can attest to that.

 

Determining what makes our nation distinctive is fodder for endless debate, but much credit goes to two documents that have spanned the 250 years and continue serving as guideposts for our society. These, of course, are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It would do us all good to read both in entirety at least once in our lives. 

 

The second paragraph of the Declaration, after declaring the 13 colonies’ intent to separate from mother England, starts with these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” There is considerable disagreement about what was meant by “Creator,” but it’s clear the Founding Fathers recognized a divine hand in creating “all men,” as well as in beginning and establishing the infant nation.

 

In fact, in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, ratified on Dec. 15, 1791, the First Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Recognizing the importance of religious belief and practice, it was number one on the list of guaranteed rights.

 

Over the years this became known as the “Establishment Clause.” It’s the basis for what is commonly known as the “separation of church and state,” although I believe its meaning has been misconstrued with the passage of time. Many have come to understand it as prohibiting any intersection of faith and government – an “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” divide.

 

Countless articles and books have been written about whether religious practice and governance are necessarily incompatible, but being an Independence Day baby myself, I offer some thoughts. 

 

Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, is credited with coining the concept in 1644, describing a "hedge or wall of separation" between the government and religion. However, his hope was to protect the church from state and governmental corruption, keeping “the wilderness of the world” separate from “the garden of the church.”

 

Then there was Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father, primary author of the Declaration of Independence, and third President of the United States. His famous use of the phrase stems from an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he referred to the First Amendment as building a "wall of separation between Church & State." He explained in the letter the amendment prevented the establishment of a national church, and that the Baptists need not fear government interference in their expressions of religious conscience.

 

What seems significant is the First Amendment’s wording prohibits government from establishing a national church or religion, as had been the case in England, but does not say one’s faith or religious convictions should be excluded from civic deliberations and responsibilities. Kind of like a One-Way sign on a street. It prohibits traffic going one way, but the other direction is completely permissible. There are many reasons for concluding our leaders through the years have believed that while government should not mandate religious practices, faith and religion can and should have an influential role in governance.

 

Some might argue the Constitution clearly separates the two. Not necessarily. As author Thomas Sowell, a noted economist, historian and social theorist has observed, “Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true – but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.”

 

An objective review of history shows from its founding, many American leaders have not only respected the Bible but also considered its teachings invaluable for building and preserving our nation. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration, stated, “The Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world…. It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published.”

 

John Jay, who served as President of the Continental Congress and was appointed the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington, said, “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the Word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next.” 

 

Noah Webster, known as the “father of American scholarship and education” and publisher of the first distinctly American dictionary, expressed, “All of the miseries and evil when men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from them despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

 

President Andrew Jackson said, “It [the Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests.” President Abraham Lincoln commented, “The Bible is the best gift God has given to men. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it, we could not know right from wrong.”

 

William Douglas, who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1939 to 1975, asserted, “We are truthfully one nation under God and our institutions presupposed a divine being.” And President Theodore Roosevelt declared, “The teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally…impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teachings were removed….”

 

In 1864 Congress began legislation that ultimately led to “In God We Trust” being placed on all coins, and that became the official U.S. motto after World War II. The words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 at the direction of former World War II general and President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

The list goes on and on. I highly recommend The Founders’ Bible, which contains not only the entirety of the Scriptures but hundreds of well-researched and documented articles, commentaries and notes about what American statesmen and leaders through the past two centuries-plus have thought about the Bible and its importance for every level of society.

 

Our nation has become increasingly diverse in its citizens’ faith and religious practices. However, many of the values and principles upon which our land was established were uniquely drawn from the Scriptures, including the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, the Sermon on the Mount, and its other timeless teachings. 

 

These, according to John Adams, the second President of the United States, are indispensable: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And in a letter to his brother, William, in 1816, John Jay stated, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their leaders.”

 

Such statements are likely to evoke cries of protest and outrage today, but in the words of Psalm 33:11-12, “The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.” 

 

As we pause to celebrate 250 years as a sovereign nation, amid all the chaos, conflict and strife, it might be good to ponder the wisdom of our Founding Fathers – and the Word of God. Perhaps the answer to our greatly divided society is striving once again to become “one nation, under God, indivisible….”

What’s God Got to Do With It?

There’s been considerable discussion about how – and even if – spiritual faith should intersect with how a privately owned company should be run. What's God got to do with it, right? The question has even reached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I’m not the person to weigh in on this issue from a legal perspective, but a broader concern is involved here. We often hear religion or faith described as “personal,” as if it’s something to stored away and dragged out only at appointed times and special occasions. “Faith is faith, and work is work, and never the twain shall meet” seems what society would have us believe.

This type of thinking often manifests itself in all strata of society, including the Oval Office. When President Obama discusses issues of faith, he often uses the term “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion.” This distinction is significant.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is very specific in guaranteeing freedom of religion, and to me this is very different from freedom of worship. In the minds of many, worship is an isolated religious activity, removed from the flow of everyday life. To them it takes place in a church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other worship center – set apart from daily realities.

An ornate cross on a tabletop or desk
might be reflective of one's belief,
but genuine faith requires action.

This might suffice as “religion” for some, but many people sincerely find their beliefs influencing every aspect of their lives. Frankly, I cringe when people call me “religious.” To me that sounds rigid and superficial. I prefer being considered very spiritual, my spirituality being informed by the Bible.

There was a time when I, too, confined my religious/spiritual activities to an hour or two on a Sunday, only to spend the rest of the day – and remainder of the week – living as if there were no God. I’d attend worship services, then get frustrated in the church parking lot because people in front of me were slow in exiting. They were making me late for the football game on TV!

Then a discovery transformed what I believed: God was not a deity who’s “out there,” distant and unknowable, but Someone desiring an up-close-and-personal relationship with me. This meant much more than having my sins forgiven and receiving the promise of eternal life. It meant a new way for living each day, gaining God’s power to pursue life as He desired. God didn’t just want a sliver of my life, an hour or two each week. He wanted all of me, including my work.

Years ago a friend introduced me to Acts 17:28 which states, “For in him (Jesus) we live and move and have our being.” This means more than having a different mindset; it also involves changing our “modus operandi” – our method of operation or way we do things.

One of the curious aspects of Westernized thinking is we can claim to believe one thing and then unapologetically act in contradiction to that belief. However, the Bible clearly teaches true belief means acting upon what you believe. “In the same way, faith by itself, if it not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17).

Over the years I’ve met hundreds of business and professional people, devoted followers of Jesus, whose thinking and actions are shaped by principles and truths they’ve learned in the Bible. They can’t separate their professional lives from their faith any more than they could remove their heads and continue walking.

The apostle Paul stated, “…I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). This is true for every genuine follower of Jesus. Spiritually, His life is manifested in us and He affects every dimension of our being.

It’s not a matter of being “religious,” or of worship for that matter. It’s a matter of living out the values and convictions Christ has given us – and this includes the workplace, whether we’re business owners, top executives, or simply employees.

To do otherwise is truly hypocritical.

A Problem of Prepositions

The ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are up in arms. People are making bold references to religion and faith – in public, no less. What’s a nation to do?

Here are just a few recent examples of these heinous, unconscionable acts: A pastor uses the word “God” six times, and quotes one Bible verse, in a seven-minute talk at a public school. Students pray over the PA system just before kickoff at football games. At some local government meetings, officials open with a brief prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase “under God.” And a congregation decides to erect huge metal crosses on church property within easy view from the interstate highway.

Doesn’t the Constitution clearly call for a separation of church and state? What’s religion – or faith, or spirituality for that matter – got to do with real life? And how dare people who embrace such beliefs rub it in the noses of those who don’t?

Well, I think I’ve figured it out. It’s simple, really – it’s a problem of prepositions.

In case English wasn’t your strong subject in school, a preposition is a word that links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence. Prepositions include words such as “about,” “across,” “after,” “by,” “except,” “into,” “on” and “to.”

They also include “of” and “from.” And therein lies this dilemma we face with this compelling issue surrounding church and state.

The First Amendment of the Constitution's Bill of
Rights says government cannot restrict free
exercise or expression of religious faith.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” (I highlighted the preposition “of” in bold italics on purpose.) Nowhere does the Constitution make any provision for freedom from religion, although people certainly have the right – as many have exercised – not to believe.

Referred to as “the establishment clause” after its adoption, the amendment prohibits Federal or state governments from establishing an official church, along the lines of the Church of England, which early American immigrants had fled. But “establishment of religion” and freedom from religion are two very different and distinct things. Frankly, it’s a grammatical issue that Mrs. McGillicudy and her freshman English class at Anywhere High School could easily resolve.

Clearly in our age of “tolerance” and “enlightenment,” there are those who argue against any references to matters of faith and religion in the public square. But everyday we all are subjected to a “faith” and religion of a different sort – the worship of knowledge and the human intellect, the notion that the only things that matter are those that can be seen, felt and measured.

Faith, of course, doesn’t meet that criteria. After all, Hebrews 11:1 explains, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

But we’ve gone too far – and we did it too long ago. For many people, studies indicate the vast majority of people, spiritual beliefs are an important and influential dimension of their lives. Countless followers of Jesus, for example, would affirm the apostle Paul’s words in Acts 17:28: “For in him we live and move and have our being.” We could no more exclude Christ from every facet of our lives than we could do without oxygen.

Granted, many people believe differently. Muslims pray to Allah, and the most devout do that numerous times every day. Hindus, Buddhists and others pursue their beliefs in their own ways. And I wholeheartedly support their right to do so.

But we don’t need freedom from any of those. If an imam chose to offer a Muslim prayer at a public gathering; if a rabbi that doesn’t believe Jesus is the Messiah prayed to the God of Abraham; or other spiritual leaders gave prayers or offered thoughts on their respective beliefs, we should respectfully listen – and choose to disagree if we wish. There's no need to argue or become antagonistic.

Why can’t we return to the long-lost realm of common sense and realize – or rediscover – that our revered Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion? If anything, it assures freedom from the establishment of non-religion.

Valedictorians . . . and Worldviews

The Tennessee Legislature has been considering a bill to permit students to express religious beliefs through homework and art without fear of reprisal for presenting those views.

Opponents, of course, argue that’s a violation of the so-called separation of church and state. One legislator said she’s “a little bit confused,” thinking the legislation if passed would “pretty much blur the line” of separation.

I’m weary of this rhetoric. The Constitution clearly expresses the state cannot impose religion on the people. But nowhere does it deny individuals the right to express and integrate their faith wherever they are, even in public, government-sponsored settings.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” That does not say someone relating spiritual beliefs – whether in homework, an artistic creation, or even a valedictory address – is “establishing religion.”  And it does not restrict where someone can freely exercise religious convictions.

To deny someone the right to communicate what they believe – as it relates to both subject and setting – seems a clear violation of another portion of the First Amendment, which further states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….”

Just because we hold different views, must
we be prohibited from expressing those views?

I realize there are situations when free speech needs to be restricted – shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, for example. But whether in an essay, on an test, or even during a graduation address, to deny individuals the right to appropriately express their faith – or lack of it – within the context of their message, disregards both the intent and spirit of the revered First Amendment.

The underlying issue is “worldview.” If someone is an atheist, everything he or she sees, hears and interprets is sifted through a “there is no God” worldview grid. Similarly, someone possessing a deep faith in God views the world around them from the perspective of His existence and daily involvement in their lives.

In Acts 17:28, the apostle Paul wrote, “For in Him (Jesus Christ) we live and move and have our being.” His worldview was of God being vitally involved in every area of life.

Just as the oxygen we breathe surrounds our every step whether we acknowledge it or not, spiritual beliefs permeate our thoughts and actions. What we believe – or don’t believe – has a profound impact on what we do, how we think, how we respond to circumstances we confront, and how we interact with people and the world around us.

That does not justify proselytizing or belittling views of those who disagree with us. First Peter 3:15 provides an excellent guideline for communicating our beliefs, whether in a homework paper, a college exam, a podium, or a private conversation: “…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

I can’t separate my faith from my everyday life any more than I can separate my head from my body. Nor should I be expected to do so. Isn’t it about time our government acknowledged that and ceased seeking to skew the fine principles of the Constitution to appease a vocal minority?