How Christianity Invented the Separation of Church and State …
(but has never really believed in it)
This entry was inspired by a fairly insightful editorial by Conservative Steve Chapman for the Chicago Tribune. While I think that,
in his analysis of modern politics, he’s pretty spot on, there’s one fundamental
problem with his article:
An unspoken assumption that religion and politics united is somehow
new. The article discusses the left-wing
politicization of religion in the '60s and '70s, and right-wing politicization of
religion in the '80s, '90s and 2000s – which is correct – but he seems (subtly)
to imply that this politicization is somehow a recent deviation from the more
usual separation in American history.
Perhaps this was a choice on the writer’s part to focus on the recent
past, but if so, a nod to history might have been in order, as the church has
long danced a tango with political powers dating back to its very beginnings.
The notion of a separation between church and state is popularly
assumed to be an invention of the United States Constitution … but it
isn’t. The basic idea has its roots in
antiquity when Christianity was outlawed for its first 300-or-so years, making
it really hard (if not necessarily impossible) to get ahead in government/state and be a (good) Christian.
This early history created a fundamental theological outlook that would
– much, much later – evolve into the theory of separate realms for state and
church.
That’s where Chapman is off. It’s
also where Christianity separates from both Judaism and Islam, its parent and
cousin religions. The idea that church and
state should BE separate is not, historically, part of those
traditions. So why do we (from a Euro-Christian-Western
viewpoint) see it differently?
First, for a huge chunk of history, “atheism” as we now define it
didn’t exist. In the ancient (and medieval)
world, “atheism” = “not my gods.”
Religion was an intrinsic part of life, not to mention the health of governments
(whatever the government might be). In a
few cases such as Egypt’s pharaoh, the ruler was a god. More often, the ruler was seen as having divine
sanction or approval, and acted as divine representative. God/the gods were on his side. (Or on her side in a few cases.) Be that as it may, the king ruled by the will
of the gods, and a perceived loss of divine favor could result in being
deposed. The Assyrians even developed an
elaborate “scapegoat” ritual to deflect divine wrath and allow the king to
return to his post. Many kings were also
high priests of whatever religious cult was paramount. There were exceptions (Israel notably among
them), but overall, this held true.
Among the things a king might be expected to do involved appointing
other priests, building new temples/restoring old ones, building other religious
structures, officiating at specific rituals, and performing sacrifices for the
well-being of the people he ruled. Just
to give an example of HOW seriously a king could take this, on his deathbed,
among the very last things Alexander the Great dragged himself up to do? Make the morning sacrifice to Zeus (and
Herakles) for the well-being of the Macedonian people. YES, it mattered that much. He stopped only when he could no longer stand.
Was he exceptional? Not
really. He was notably devout, but his
choice wasn’t peculiar. It was EXPECTED
– the most fundamental part of his “job” as king: keep god/the gods happy.
Also, when the Greeks of the Iron Age ditched the old wanax (Great King) of Mycenaean times and even outgrew the basileus (mayor/glorified chieftain/king) of the dark age to
adopt oligarchies and (eventually) democracy?
The role of basileus (king) DID NOT DISAPPEAR. Instead, it became a year-long elected
office (or one chosen by lot, depending on city-state) so the basileus (and his wife) could perform the RELIGIOUS duties
traditionally assigned to the “king.”
So yes, even when there was no POLITICAL king, they still had a
RELIGIOUS king. Because performing
certain civic rights were, well, civic – essential to the health of the STATE (and its
citizens). Later, when Rome evolved from
republic to empire, the emperor (Imperator) took the role of Pontifex Maximus,
the highest priesthood in Rome (literally the high priest of the College of
Pontiffs; pontiff = priest). And he
would continue to hold it, yes, through Constantine
(supposedly a Christian), up till Gratian, arguably in 376, more likely
383. Theodosius I is the one who truly killed
its use. “Pontifex” continued in the
Christian church as the term used by priests.
And THAT is why the pope is called the “Pontiff.” It’s Latin for ‘priest,’ friends.
My point is this: religious
activity as a priest was assumed to be part and parcel of
government and the duty of a king/emperor throughout most of the Ancient Near
East and the Mediterranean Basin. THAT IS THE WORLD THAT BIRTHED NOT JUST JUDAISM, BUT ALSO
CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM.
Now … why are people surprised that religion and politics might go
hand-in-hand?
They always have.
It’s an ANOMALY when they don’t – an anomaly owing
to the fact early Christianity was a religio illicita, or
illegal religion. Without digressing
into a full survey of early church history, from the time of Trajan on (see
Book 10 of the Younger Pliny’s letters), being Christian could be deadly. There were
no wide-spread persecutions and pogroms, à la Hollywood pop flicks, but there were periodic cases of Christians put on
trial and convicted as Christians (“on the name alone,” to
quote Pliny). Because many public
offices involved RELIGIOUS celebrations for traditional Greco-Roman cult (see
above), Christians could not (usually) aspire to political office – certainly
not HIGH political office – and remain good Christians.
As a result, a chasm developed between “the world” and “the
church.” In “the world,” there was the cursus honorum – the
Roman “Race of Honor” – while the Christian church developed an
alternative path of a cursus sanctum, or “Race of
Holiness.” One had to CHOOSE. Become a Prince of the Church, or a Prince of
the World. As Paul himself insists, one
could not be both. Well, not until after
Constantine. Then the chasm began to
close …
… except it never really did, especially in the West. With the tradition of celibacy growing among
priests and the obvious need for kings and emperors to marry and produce
legitimate heirs, a priest could not also be a king. That division
remained. Instead, the question became,
“Who holds the REAL (ultimate) power?” Popes
or kings? It fueled all sorts of
medieval controversies, most notably the Investiture Controversy, but hardly limited
to that. I will, however, bow out of
further medieval discussion, not being a medievalist and recognizing my limits.
Yet this unique history allowed an idea to ferment that “church” and
“state” should be different realms, separate. When church and state get in bed together, it
breeds subversion of both Christian ideals AND good government … at least,
according to traditional Christian theology.
So the peculiar development of Christianity as “illegal” for its first
few centuries set the stage for the eventual concept of “Separation of Church
and State.” That notion isn’t just a
product of the Enlightenment and rise of science, or even a logical result of divisions
that arose during the Reformation. The
fundamental assumptions that support it go back much further, to the very birth
of Christianity.
Judaism doesn’t share that history.
Islam doesn’t share that history.
A lot of other world religions don’t, either. We, here in the west, need to RECOGNIZE they
don’t, not ask why they insist on religion and government together as if it’s
some sort of strange, mutated beast.
WE are the strange, mutated beast.
I may, personally, believe in separation of church and state, but that
doesn’t mean I don’t understand it’s atypical in human history. Only when we consider how such separation
developed can we begin to formulate an intelligent – not assumptive
and biased – discussion with other religions who have other histories.
Judaism’s history assumed Theocracy for the nation of Israel, with the
Davidic King acting as a human stand-in for Yahweh (e.g., God). Likewise, Muhammad was both the religious and political leader of the early Ummah, or Islamic
Community. And while the emphasis was on
religion over politics at least initially, nonetheless the notion
that “religion” and “politics” should be separate was never
a part of Islamic history, either. Any
such concept in Muslim countries is pretty recent, owing largely to exposure to
Western religions/philosophies and the increasingly cosmopolitan world where
not all citizens belong to one belief system, or to any belief system at all.
That’s where the BIG EFFIN’ CHANGE LIES. With the Communication Age, and an
increasingly mobile society with large immigrant populations from really different ethno-religious backgrounds – and also the rise of (modern) atheism (or at least
agnosticism) – it can no longer be assumed by most First-World (and many
Second- or Third-World) Countries that all, much less a majority, of their
citizens will share the same beliefs. Obviously
“Immigrant” countries like the U.S. see this demonstrated most profoundly …
which is WHY separation of church and state got a kick-start in immigrant
countries … but it’s becoming increasingly common in countries that still
maintain an official state religion (however “technical” it may be).
I think it important to understand the very long, very convoluted
history of religion in government in order to recognize that it really is not that strange for them to go hand-in-hand. Even an “illegal” religion like Christianity
wanted to influence the government. No
sooner did the Christians have the upper hand than they began to outlaw OTHER
religious expressions, starting with “heresy,” then moving on to traditional
Greco-Roman religion (e.g., “paganism”), philosophy, and even their cousin
religions, Judaism and (later) Islam.
Despite her troubled and fractional history with Roman government,
Christianity did not give up on the idea of influencing rulers and lawcodes. And it still hasn’t.
As the original article noted, Christians today span the political
gamut from ultra-conservative to very, very liberal, as much as it might
surprise some to hear that there are ultra-liberal Christians. But several Christian denominations lean Left,
from the Quakers to American Episcopalians to subgroups of other mainstream protestant
churches (Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Methodist, and even American
Baptist). We should also include the
Metropolitan Community Church, the first not just to welcome but to ordain gay
and lesbians pastors. Likewise,
everything from Liberal Theology (yes, it’s a theological school, not a
political term) to Liberation Theology are very much on the LEFT.
This Left is usually perceived as less “pushy” than the Right, due in
part to a theology/philosophy of tolerance that tends NOT to make headlines. Yet these groups are still politically
active. Rewind a couple of decades to
the ‘60s and early ‘70s, and it was a different story as to which type of
Christian was in the news the most. The
“Born Again” movement began on the West Coast and was considered fairly liberal
in its early days. Christian Rock and
other forms of Contemporary Christian Music – particularly popular in
Evangelical churches today with a strong emphasis on outreach – were born in
the then-radical musicals Godspell
and Jesus Christ Superstar, and the Street Gospel songs of
Larry Norman … “Jesus Music.” Similarly,
the Civil Rights Movement had a number of religious leaders (Martin Luther King
being obvious), and the Sanctuary Movement of the ‘80s had a number of Left-leaning
ministers and other church workers as active participants. So while the Left may not have a theology of
theocracy or Dominionism, they certainly do seek to influence political life in
accordance with their beliefs, and vote by their conscience.
So whether the matter is seeking to make abortion illegal (Pro-Life),
or to establish government-funded agencies to aid the poor (Social Gospel),
both the Right AND the Left do seek legal and political change based on ethical
codes derived from their own interpretations of Christian scripture.
Thus, when we talk about separation of church and state as an ideal
today, it needs to be a more nuanced conversation. First, we must recognize that “church” – or
more properly religion – in political life is not restricted only to the more
conservative voices, or solely the purview of extremists (be they al-Qaeda or the
Westboro Baptist Church). Believers – whatever
the belief – are all over the theological, and political, map.
Second, and more importantly, we need to remember that separating
religion and government is not somehow “historically correct,” or “the way it
used to be, and ought to be again.” The
“way it used to be” would, actually, unite religion and
government.
I would propose that consciously separating the two has become
necessary in our increasingly diverse world.
That hardly precludes individuals from voting based
on their conscience – nor should it – but the State (and the states) should
avoid any clear preference for one particular faith, or one sect/denomination/theological
paradigm within that faith.
We no longer live in a homogenous world, ethnically or religiously, and
must come to terms with this reality. Diverse
societies have real advantages. They
tend to be more intellectually vigorous, more innovative, and less
stagnant. But they also require a higher
level of tolerance towards others. These
societies only last when difference is perceived as interesting, not a threat.
So separation of “church”/religion and state is – to be completely
honest – artificial, historically speaking. But it’s also important to a modern, civilized
society in the Communication Age.
