Lea
rning from the Lessons of History
The Founding Fathers who created the American system of
government understood well the lessons of history, from
the early days of the Crusades through the Inquisition,
the Reformation, and into 16 th and 17 th century England.
This bred in them a deep mistrust of religion -- any religion
-- if it were combined with the power of the state. It
was little different in the New World. In almost every
colony, one religious persuasion would gain the reins of
civil government to persecute those of any other persuasion.
The Declaration of Independence established "the laws
of nature and of nature's God" as the standard by which
civil government should function. Natural law is instinctive
in every man's conscience regardless of his religious beliefs.
It is from natural law that the Founding Fathers agreed
upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The language
of the First Amendment is clearly written from the perspective
of natural law and not from any particular religious belief.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were worlds apart in
their religious beliefs, but in regard to the principles
of American government, they were of the same general mind
because they both recognized and respected the difference
between religious belief and natural law.
Civil government must function from natural law, the law
of conscience. The Christian church functions from religious
principles. Trouble stems from the tendency of both religious
and governmental leaders to overstep their bounds and meddle
in each other's affairs, as John Locke observed:
I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish
exactly the business of civil government from that of religion,
and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one
and the other. [1]
The Founding Fathers of America included deists like Thomas
Jefferson, devout Christians like James Madison, and Freemasons
like George Washington. This was perhaps the most revolutionary
aspect of the American Revolution. Never before had men
of such different beliefs joined together in a civil government
to preserve not only their own rights and freedom, but
the rights and freedom of all.
Thomas Jefferson gleaned from the writings of Roger Williams
the term "wall of separation," [2] which
he used to make his very famous declaration in 1802, acknowledging
that through the First Amendment,
...the whole American people... declared that their legislature
should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building
a wall of separation between Church and State. [3]
All of the colonies except Rhode Island, where Roger Williams
had established in its charter a clear separation of church
and state, were afflicted with conflicts between those
two spheres of authority. It was to just such a conflict
that James Madison returned after graduation from college,
which he described in a letter to his college friend, Bradford,
in January of 1774:
...There are at this time in the adjacent country not
less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for
publishing their religious sentiments, which, in the main,
are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk
or think of anything relative to this matter, for I have
squabbled and scolded, abused and ridiculed, so long about
it, to little purpose, that I am without common patience.
So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty of conscience
to all. [4]
Madison came to understand that the real issue was greater
than mere "toleration of religion" as espoused by John
Locke. He saw the issue as "free exercise" of religion,
or "full and equal rights of conscience" for the individual. [5] He
understood that government should protect every man's freedom
of conscience, and that this was the limit of the government's
role in religious matters. What James Madison, one of the
principal authors of the Constitution, saw from the perspective
of civil government, Roger Williams had understood spiritually
100 years before him. [6]
Dictates of Conscience
The importance of the freedom to follow the dictates of
one's conscience is clearly evident in the way the First
Amendment of the Constitution, which guards this liberty,
came to be written. The writing of the Constitution took
place in the midst of great struggle and turmoil. Some
colonies wanted a state religion; others wanted no part
of any state-controlled religion. So at the Second Continental
Congress, one of the main issues was the degree of control
the state should exercise over the practice of religion,
and the degree to which any particular denomination
could be established as a state religion. These conflicts
were fierce and the issues were thoroughly debated
among the delegates present. Ultimately a majority emerged
who favored the spirit of religious liberty established
in Rhode Island's charter, thus it was incorporated into
the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution. [7]
The fact of this decision raises a troubling question:
What is it about the nature and history of Christianity
that caused these great statesmen to fear its grip on the
reins of power? Their decisions expressed in the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights sent a prophetic message to the
whole world, calling for an end to the tyranny of the church-state
liaison.
The "Myth" of Separation
Yet today there are Christians in America who claim it
is a myth [8] that
the framers of the Constitution wanted a complete separation
of church and state. They seek to tear down the wall of
separation in order to bring the moral principles of Christianity
to bear on the decisions of civil government. The spokesmen
of this movement claim that America was established as
a Christian nation and therefore the "separation of church
and state" is a myth. They intend to make America into
the theocracy [9] which,
they claim, the early colonists were seeking. They argue
that the " wall was originally 
introduced [by
Jefferson] as, and understood to be, a one-directional
wall protecting the church from the government." [10] Roger
Williams, however, made it clear that the wall of separation
must go both ways:
On the other side, the Churches as Churches, have no power ... of
erecting or altering formes of Civil Government, electing
of Civill officers, inflicting Civill punishments ... as
by deposing Magistrates from their Civill Authoritie... [11]
By calling for the abolishment of separation, these Christian
activists cite numerous examples of leaders in the colonial
era "never separating the struggle for freedom from Biblical
principles ... For Samuel Adams there was no separation
between political service and spiritual activities." [12] But
the proper context for public service being guided by right
moral principles is the "dictates of [each individual's]
conscience" and not as legislated dictum that forces the
beliefs and practices of a particular religion upon all
citizens.
The last 200 years of American history illustrate this
tension in the grappling of those on both sides of the
wall as to where to draw the line between the legitimate
spheres of authority of the state and the church. Where
would we be as a nation without the foundation of the First
Amendment that gives civil government the freedom to rule
according to conscience for the good of all its citizens
and gives individuals the freedom to believe and practice
whatever their conscience dictates to them?
Since the days of Constantine, the state and the Christian
religion have been continually jockeying for position to
use one another for their own ends. It is no different
today with movements like "Reclaiming America for Christ." Christians
are involved at every level of American government in the
guise of seeking moral reforms. But in doing so, they are
seeking not merely to bring this country's rulers back
to a standard of conscience, but to establish a broad-based
and intimate merger of the interests of the state with
the doctrines and political agendas of Christianity.
The stage is now set for the final drama of human history.
As the world plummets into moral chaos and unpredictable
outbreaks of terrorism, people are sacrificing their personal
freedoms for the apparent security of increased governmental
control over every facet of life. It will take a world
government to restrain the global forces that threaten
global destruction.
At the same time, the divided camps of Christianity are
drawing together in a superficial unity that will culminate
in a world religion bent on shaping the policy of the emerging
world order. The wayward daughters will come diplomatically
back under the wing of their mother, the Roman Catholic
Church, and together they will mount the state once more
and ride into temporal power. [13] True
to her nature, she will once again seek to silence every
dissenting voice.
But in these last days the age-old story of religious
oppression will have a new twist. For in the ranks of the
ostracized and persecuted will be a people, a kingdom which
the God of heaven will set up. Despite all opposition,
their emerging culture based on self-sacrificing love will
prove indestructible. Their life will be a demonstration
of the righteous standard of God, by which He will judge
the nations of the earth, bringing an end to both the political
and ecclesiastical powers of wickedness, and ushering in
a new age of peace.
[1] J. Locke, "A Letter
Concerning Toleration," in 6 Works of Locke ,
(London 1823 and 1963 photo reprint), p. 9.
[2] John Eidsmoe, Christianity
and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987),
p. 243; David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Wall
Builder Press, 1992), p. 42.
[3] Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson
Writings , Merrill D. Patterson, ed., p. 510, January
1, 1802
[4] Rives, Life
and Times of Madison , vol. I, p.43.
[5] Hunt, James Madison
and Religious Liberty, 1 Ann. Rep. Am. Hist. A., p. 163,
166.
[6] Michael McConnell, "Origins
of Free Exercise," Harv. Law Rev. (May 1990),
vol. 103, p. 1926.
[7] "Origins of Free
Exercise," p. 1949.
[8]The Myth of Separation ,
p. 91-46
[9]Theocracy: a
type of government which recognizes God as the supreme
ruler and which gives temporal authority to the church
to interpret and enforce His laws.
[10]The Myth of
Separation , p. 42
[11]Bloudy Tenent, p.
248
[12]The Myth of
Separation, p. 94
[13] Revelation 17:1-3
Back
Printer-friendly
