Why I believe in Separation of Church and State
By Don S. Wilkey, Jr.
Pastor FBC Onalaska

John Wesley said that the reason for the need of the Protestant Reformation can be laid at the feet of the merger of church and state.1

Wesley, the pillar of Methodism, said this corrupting influence ruined the church and sent it into its centuries long decline. Modern author Gary Wills writes that the Unites States borrowed government ideas from other nations. The only original idea our founding fathers had was separation. Thus our nation’s one contribution that stands alone is the concept of separation of church and state.2

Church/state expert, James Wood of Baylor University, warns that the blending of God and politics makes an idol of the state.3 It was Thomas Jefferson’s idea that religious freedom was the root of all freedoms. Jefferson called religious liberty “the most sacred of human rights.”4 Roger Williams, an early Baptist leader in America, rose up against the idea of an official state church. He decried the way powerful nations determined the religion of powerless people.5 Williams pushed for religious liberty for all religions, not just Protestants. He criticized the state for its forced conversions of Native Americans.

Religious liberty expert James Dunn quipped to those who dismiss church state separation, “you might be far closer to Jesus than James Dunn, ...but frankly, my dear, you’re not a Baptist.”6 One time SBC professor Fisher Humphreys said, “the loss of the principle of the separation of church and state is the greatest tragedy in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention”.7

In the classic movie “Catch 22,” there is a revealing scene in which the chaplain comes to see the colonel. He had been wanting to visit the officer to share his concerns. The colonel tells the chaplain to keep working though the chaplain seems unclear on his role in the war effort. The colonel said to keep teaching the troops about God and he had better not find out there was an atheist who would be dealt with.

Thus the idea of forcing faith on men is portrayed. The chaplain says he is concerned about the morale of the troops who believe that sending them off on so many flying missions over enemy territory is only furthering the ambitions of commanding officers. They are sent off on more missions than is required by service regulations. It is implied that the flights serve the personal ambitions of the colonel. To which the officer responds it is none of the chaplain’s business. The chaplain finds himself with the job description of supporting the state’s positions but not challenging the state’s moral actions.

Ultimately, when the church and state become mixed this often becomes the role of the clergy. As an American and a Baptist I support a free church in a free state.

Endnotes:
1. Donald Durnbaugh, The Believer’s Church, MacMillan Co. London, 1968, pg. 215.
2. Gary Wills, Under God, Simon & Schuster, N.Y., N.Y., 1990, pg. 383.
3. Baptist Joint Committee Calendar, March, 1992.
4. Pam Perry, “Religious Liberty”, Report From The Capital, Nov./Dec. 1993, pg. 6.
5. Edwin Gaustad, Conscious, Roger Williams in America, Eerdmans, 1991, pg. 30.
6. Report From The Capital, July 11, 2001, pg. 1.
7. Report From The Capital, April 18, 1995, pg. 4.

June 2003