On the Separation of Church and State

Is it an idea that leads to power without restraint?

Confessions of a Wandering Scot

Let me start with a few confessions.

Firstly, I do not trust the state. I have seen it operate against good men acting in noble causes. For example, it moved against John Shields for seeking justice for his disabled son who was raped when in the care of both the church and state. It unlawfully arrested him, abducted his son and wrongfully convicted a good man. Today the state can answer none of the charges John lays against it, but still will not address the affront to justice that it perpetrated. Or my dear departed friend Robert Green, who was targeted for speaking up for Hollie Grieg. Hollie is a Downs Syndrome girl from Aberdeen, who, as a child, was the victim of a Satanic peadophile ring. Her abusers included senior state officials - headmasters, social workers, a senior police officer, and a sheriff (Scots judge). Robert was arrested, convicted, and jailed for publicly naming those accused. Later, he was jailed again, this time without a trial, when the police believed he might reveal the identities of the high-profile members of the “Violate Club”, a sexual fetish club organised by an Airdrie Lawyer. In both these cases, I have examined all the relevant documents in detail. Furthermore, I have seen how admirable men have been treated by an unjust, callous, and cruel state with my own eyes. I have good reasons for not trusting the state.

Secondly, I am a Christian of the First-Century type. First Century Christianity is very different from the church-based faiths that chacterise the mainstream of Christianity today. It has none of the importations from paganism and Greek philosophy that came later, none of the changes wrought by the centralised Roman Church, and none of the compromises with Marxism, progressivism, or scientism that have come in recent times. For most of Western history, I would have been called a heretic. For much of it, I might have been subject to martyrdom by the state for my non-conforming beliefs.

In short, I cherish the freedom to seek spiritual truth and to publish my findings without a coercive, authoritarian, religious or state organisation sending the boys round to “correct my thinking”.

I should equally cherish the separation of church and state. I used to. But I no longer do. I have abandoned that old faith. In this article, I will try to explain why.

History of the Idea

The separation of church and state is principally an American idea. Or at least it was an idea born in the English colonies in the New World. The earliest mention was by Roger Williams, who talked of a “high wall” to keep the “wilderness” of governments out of the affairs of religion. As a deeply religious man, he would be aware that wilderness is a biblical metaphor for chaos and for sin. It is the very opposite of Eden. Thus, the early idea of separation was to keep the degraded and sinful state from controlling and subverting the work of the church in bringing the message of life-changing salvation to the people.

The First Amendment to the US constitution was ratified in 1791. It states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This amendment, taken literally, imposes a restraint on the federal government, not on churches, nor on religion, nor even on the state governments. Most American states had established churches whose clergy were paid by the government out of taxation revenue. Dissenting churches, whose members were forced to pay taxes to support the established clergy, sought disestablishment. Dissenting ministers were accused of seeking to separate the church from the state, undermining the foundations of the latter. It was thus as a slur that the phrase “separation of church and state” entered common usage in the US.

The idea that the First Amendment mandates a separation between church and state was first explicitly stated in a long-forgotten 1802 letter from the third (and then current) President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, to the Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut. He wrote:

…religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which 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 & State…

But the letter was not published. Rather, the controversy continued, and efforts were made to pass further amendments to secure the separation of church and state. When these failed, history was revised. The claim was made that the First Amendment had been enough and was always recognised as the definitive barrier between faith and government. Thus, the idea became established dogma.

When the concept was expressed by another politician and deist, and the fourth President of the United States, James Madison. He chose to state it in a more utilitarian manner:

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.

Rather than seeing the state as an evil, from which religion must be protected, as Williams did, Madison was focused here on the simple avoidance of bloodshed. In his formulation, the two domains must be kept apart, for to mix them is just too dangerous, too incendiary. But the implication of this view is often missed. Madison implicitly accepts the validity and wholesome nature of the state viewed in isolation. But he sees that the admixture of belief must inevitably result in slaughter. The conclusion is obvious: religion is the combustible component. This was to come to the fore much later.

Over decades, the conflict surrounding the idea raged. Initially, protestant dissenters supported the concept to limit the influence of the larger, more organised, Anglican Church. Then, with Irish and German immigration building the importance of the Roman Catholic Church, it was used by the (nativist) protestants to limit the power of the (immigrant) Church of Rome. Finally, it was used by the secularists and other non-Christians to vanquish the protestant interpretation of the First Amendment and completely sever all connections between government and religion.

Thus, what started as a restraint on the federal government became a discriminatory restriction placed only on certain churches, and then evolved into a confinement placed on all churches, completely driving Christianity from government. By the time the secularists were approaching this final destination, it was too late for the protestant denominations, who had opened the door, to recover the position. They found themselves in a cage of their own crafting.

A contrasting biblical viewpoint

How, then, does the biblical world view compare with the concord formed in the USA?

One example or type is Melchizedek. He was both King of Salem and the priest of the most high God:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (Gen 14:18)

Abraham recognised him as a priest and gave him a tenth, a tithe, of all that he had, as the nation of Israel would later give a tenth to the priestly Levite tribe. And Abraham was the man selected by God as the father of a new nation, a nation that would be called to a holy purpose.

Paul makes it clear, in his letter to the Hebrews, that the Messiah, Jesus, is also a High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek as was foretold in Pslam 110:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psa 110:4)

This, Paul clarifies, was a prophesy of Christ and refers to both a high priest and a king. In other words, both roles will be combined in the single person of Christ as they were in Melchizedek in the time of Abraham:

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; (Heb 6:20, 7:1-2)

God chose Abraham to found a special nation, called by God to fulfil a holy purpose, that being ultimately to reconcile all the nations to God. When he called these people to accept this commission, God said:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. (Exo 19:5-6)

What then was the government of that nation, as instituted by God? Initially, it was one man, Moses. In one man resided the twin powers of church and state. But that man did not believe he could undertake such a task. He doubted and he rejected the offered position:

And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. (Exo 4:11-13)

This is quite an offer. God says he will provide all the skills, all the inspiration, all the direction, and all the wisdom needed. What was Moses’ response?

Essentially, it was “Can’t someone else do it?”

The Lord’s reaction to this was anger:

And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. (exo 4:11-16)

This is often seen as God yielding to Moses’ wishes and weakness and giving him a helper in the person of his brother. But note, the Lord was angry with Moses. Was this a punishment as well as an accommodation? Later, after Israel had fled Egypt and were in the wilderness, it was Aaron, the priest, who went into the presence of God each year on the Day of Atonement, not Moses.

Undeniably, if this is a separation of Church and State, it was not created or desired by God, but rather a compromise forced by man’s weakness. It separated the ruling party (Moses) from the presence of God. It delegated to the Church (Aaron) the task of communicating ideas to the people. Finally, it made Aaron subservient to the instructions of the ruler.

So in this biblical example, the separation of church and state is a forced compromise that is contrary to the wishes of God, and consequently, it has harmful effects:

1. The state, represented by Moses, is unable to communicate ideas to the hearts of the people, but must rely on another party - Aaron, the priesthood, the church

2. Aaron is not independent but is bound to take instructions from Moses (the state personified) as though from God.

3. The contact between God and the ruler of the nation is broken, or at least reduced, as the distance inserted between the two by Moses’ unbelief manifests in his exclusion from the Holy of Holies, the place where God’s presence resides.

When Christ taught his followers to pray, he said to God:

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done; on earth as it is in heaven.

Hence, God’s Kingdom, His government, is central to Christianity. With this object in mind, we now turn to the return of Christ that is predicted by scripture and prophecy, and by Christ’s own words. At his return, Christ will also be both king and high priest.

As King, He will sit upon the Throne of David

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (Luk 1:31-33)

As High Priest, he is central to the restoration of the nations to God:

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Heb 9: 11-12, 15)

Thus, in the Kingdom of God, the High Priest and the High King are unified in the single person of Christ. It is clear that, whatever temporary compromises we are currently making, and whatever the reasons or justifications for those arrangements might be, the Kingdom of God will have none of it.

The Unintended Consequences for the Nation

As we are currently organised in a manner contrary to God’s will, I have been pondering what the effects of this decision might be. We have seen claims that it will protect faith from the evil state, and that it will protect the state from corrupting excesses driven by faith. What, I wonder, are the real and unintended consequences of this veil?

Without God and faith as the central focus, the state is left somewhat adrift. Questions crowd in:

• On what basis does the state govern?

• On what basis do the people obey?

• What should the state actually do?

Thus, in the absence of God, higher purpose, or divine wisdom, the state must find value-free justifications for its edicts and commands. Usually, this comes down to some utilitarian approach of “what works” or "greatest good for the greatest number", “maximising happiness and wellbeing”, or some similar dangerous concoction. These ideas depend on outcomes, or at least upon human perceptions of those outcomes. But outcomes and perceptions both depend on people. And people are notoriously unreliable. Their actions are driven by their fears, desires, and lusts. So the state must, sooner or later, address the problem of the human heart. Now, absent Christianity, how is it to do this? How does it improve the people?

The underlying reality is that the more honest, the more hard-working, the more thrifty, the more generous, the more compassionate, the more kind, the more courageous, and the more creative a people are, the better and happier the nation becomes. As that situation and happiness are the ultimate justifications for the state’s existence, eventually the state must decide to shape and develop the people. Having excluded the Christian call to repentance as the core idea, how is the state to accomplish this transformation? It comes down to very few alternatives:

• Violence (the state has a monopoly on the legal use of violence)

• Deception

• Control

Violence is everywhere visible in state actions, but was perhaps exemplified by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). It was a society entirely held together by fear. Fear of the state. Fear of the Gulag. Fear of execution. When Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform this system in a programme called Perestroika (literally, this could be translated Build Back Better). It was nothing more than an updated version of the Czech “Socialism with a Human Face” programme of Alexander Dubček. It removed the fear from the system. The result was an overnight collapse.

Deception is perhaps best illustrated by the recent COVID-19 panic and the response of the Western democracies. In Britain, we had the “Nudge Unit” — The Behavioural Insights Team. They say of themselves:

We examine how human behaviour, messaging, and decision-making shape the success of interventions, from increasing vaccination uptake to ensuring adherence to preventive measures.

Our work offers practical recommendations for policymakers, health organisations, and communities to navigate the pandemic more effectively.

And their deception ensured a high uptake of a harmful and ineffective shot, fraudulently called a vaccine, the imposition of economically ruinous lockdowns, and the sad sight of people applauding the workers in the health sector as those same workers filled empty hours by choreographing TikTok videos. The problem with deception, it seems, is that it is a two-edged sword. The deceivers must be themselves deceived to be effective.

Control is the triumph of the bureaucratic state over the population. It uses legal, organisational, and educational tools to achieve compliance by the population. It punishes thinking that is heretical, ie, analysis or discussion that involves people deciding what the truth is independently of the state machine. Its finest moment was also during COVID-19 when New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said:

We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth.

All of these options are oppressive, some overtly so, some more subtly. But all share a common factor. They do not build up the people to be wise, discerning, and innovative. Rather, they deaden the population and make worse the very problems the state seeks to conquer. The negative feedback is everywhere. Tax-driven free healthcare reduces incentives to stay healthy. Tax-provided financial support undermines the family. Centralised education curricula erode the plurality of thought and destroy critical thinking. The more the state seeks to improve the people, the more it is seen to fail.

Having shut itself off from the actual single source of truth, the Lord God Almighty, the state cannot deal with the problems it faces. This leaves the state on the Road to Nowhere. The opening lines to the Talking Heads song of the same name summarise the state’s position rather well

… Well, we know where we're goin'
But we don't know where we've been
And we know what we're knowin'
But we can't say what we've seen

… And we're not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out

The Unintended Consequences for the Church

For the church, separation often means vacating the battlefield. In education, in social and healthcare, and as a leading voice in setting the goals of society, the separation of church and state leaves the former marginalised. Instead of serving God and preparing people for His Kingdom, the church often adopts a secondary role, serving the state. As Aaron treated Moses as though he were God, the mainstream churches treat the state as Lord and master.

An example: again from the time of Covid-19. In Scotland (of all places) Nicola Sturgeon, a political leader ordered that the churches be closed. And with very few exceptions, the churches complied.

The wonderful John-William Noble was one pastor who did not. After the lockdown was over, he castigated the Churches of Scotland for behaving as though Nicola Sturgeon was the head of the church.

I am suggesting here that John-William is speaking only to the remnant. For the mainstream churches as a whole, where the separation of church and state has been accepted, he is wrong. Nicola Sturgeon was indeed the head of the church in Scotland. This is the compromise the churches have made, their Faustian bargain. To escape active suppression and persecution, the churches comply with every state demand. They adopt the worldview required by the state. They remain quiet as the state destroys the people via violence, deception, and control.

And there is something more subtle at work. In accepting the belief that the church and state are allies, largely serving the same good ends, and destined to support one another, the mainstream churches have been deceived. They have adopted a mindset that does not allow them to proclaim the truth fearlessly. Instead, they are silent, cowed, frail, and irrelevant.

My Current Position

In governing people in a way that generates happiness, plenty, and national success, wisdom is required. And not only in the rulers. The wise ideas must be communicated to the people. They must adopt them, believe them, discuss and debate them, and understand them. In a myriad of ways every day, the people must govern themselves.

Governments cannot operate in this field. They lack the skills, they lack the ideas, and, most of all, they lack the wisdom. What they substitute for Christianity is a view of the people as product and problem. They are a product of the government machine and their failings are a problem for the government machine. This offers little scope for individual agency, it eschews personal accountability except accountability to the state, in short it is oppressive.

Whereas God’s laws are founded in love, the states are founded on threat. Take Tony Blair’s 2002 speech on reforming the criminal justice system:

We are considering legislation that would allow us to withdraw housing benefit from people convicted of anti-social behaviour offences, and would make landlords take some responsibility for anti-social tenants; and examining withholding child benefit if parents are not co-operating in stopping their children playing truant.

And don’t imagine this was because the problem was not understood. For in the same speech Prime Minister Blair said:

We know that ultimately the best defence against crime is stronger families and a stronger sense of personal responsibility.

But to these ends, the state has nothing to offer. Families are founded on love, commitment, and devotion. You will not find these ideas in parliamentary legislation. They do not have the language. What do they have instead? Mr Blair continued:

So we have invested billions of pounds in fighting youth unemployment and helping some of our poorest young children get a head start.

By 2004 our Sure Start programme will be reaching 400,000 children under four in 500 of our most deprived areas - supporting parents to give their child a better start in life.

They have taxation revenue, borrowed funds, and bureaucracy. They have crude sanctions, devoid of love and understanding. All too often, these initiatives are arrayed against social ills that are created by the welfare state itself.

In conclusion, the state, by separating itself from God, that is to say, from truth, is left without even the language to address the real issues. In place of the truth, it rolls out a substitute ideology and expensive, wasteful, and coercive plans. It seeks to force the population to display a similitude of righteousness while refusing to have any discussion on what real righteousness is. It fails because it has cut itself off from that wonderful counselor that is the foundation of wisdom.

And what of the threat of flawed religious zealotry gaining the power of the state? If there is a justification for the separation, then surely that is it. Well, separation has not helped because, in the vacuum created by the retreat of Christianity in public life, a new religion has emerged. Called Marxism, Woke, Postmodernism, or Critical Theory, it has all of the worst aspects of religious excess, without any restraint supplied by the truth. For the very concept of The Truth was its first target.

And what does this new state religion do? It defines righteousness as lockdowns and war, the mass murder of the unborn, sexual depravity, institutionalised racial discrimination, and the mutilation of confused little boys and girls. It calls these things pandemic response, the rules-based international order, reproductive rights, queer theory, diversity equity and inclusion and gender affirming care. And it is not finished yet. It has no limits, no endpoint.

Thus, even the hope that separating the state from the church would restrain religious zealots who might, in their arrogance and pride, seek to employ the state monopoly of legalised violence to compel all to follow after the crazy religious extremes is in vain. For we have a new and toxic religion of the Marxist left filling the void left by the retreating mainstream Christianity.

The solution is not for righteousness to hide itself in the hope that by denying its cloak of virtue to evildoers, it might restrain them. This does not work. Instead, to quote President Donald Trump, we must:

Fight, fight, fight!

As Christians, we want for nothing. We have the commandments of God as our law. We have Christ, the soon-returning King, as our High Priest and saviour. We must not compromise nor be afraid, but instead proclaim the truth ever more boldy.

We are a separate nation, called out for a holy purpose. That is the only separation we should recognise. In our hearts, in our minds and in our actions and works there must be no division. But rather a unity in Christ.

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

¹⁷ Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

¹⁸ And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 2 Cor 6: 16-18

We should call out the state for what it is, the unclean thing. That means we must oppose it, not become it or try to harness it. We must reject its bribes and its threats. And when it seeks to make us afraid and to compel our consent, we must be calm and respond as the 23rd Pslam:

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Or if you prefer it in Scots:

Nocht am I wantin, for the Lord is ma hird.