On the Separation of Church and State

An opinion piece in yesterday's USA Today described Rick Warren's message:

"Christianity's future is not inside the Beltway, or even in this country [the US], but in China, Africa, Latin America, and developing countries around the globe."

Warren is quoted as saying, "If I thought laws could change people's hearts, I would go into government, but I don't, so I'm not."

I agree. Much of the reason we're here in Costa Rica is to be able to make a larger contribution to the future of Christianity than we could in the US.

Warren's statement about laws not being able to change people's hearts is wise, and, I believe, reflects the sentiments of the US' founding fathers. That's why we have what is commonly referred to as separation of church and state.

Costa Rica does not have separation of church and state. Catholicism is the state religion. The longer I live here, the more I see the wisdom in the US system. Here, one cannot be wed legally in the Protestant church. The couple can have a church wedding, but it has no legal standing. They must also go to a justice of the peace for it to become legal. We were once in a church service in Tejarcillos in which the local police barged into the worship service, interrupted the sermon and impounded the pastor's car because of an unpaid traffic fine. Needless to say, the pastor should not have let the fine go unpaid, but he was in the neighborhood nearly every day of the week, and very easy to find. Of all the hours in the week that they could have impounded his car, they chose to do it in the middle of our worship service. This would not have happened had he been the local priest.

In the US, it seems that every year, instead of "peace on earth and good will toward men," there is endless bickering over whether the period from Thanksgiving through New Years should be called the Holiday Season, Christmas Season, or something else. Nativity scenes will be challenged in court in a win-lose scenario. Someone will be left unhappy in each instance.

I'm told that I am one of six million bloggers out there. Well, for whatever it's worth, here is a proposed solution for all the endless conflicts over church and state:

The Declaration of Independence says that there are self-evident truths: That there is a God. How do you think we all got here? When you see a gentleman in a fine suit, you know right away it was made by a tailor. Your car was manufactured in a factory. Your house constructed by carpenters. All these things are self-evident. Yet they are infinitely less complex than our universe. It is absurd to say that the universe got here by chance, and we should not silence or censor ourselves in civil government just because some people do not recognize what is self-evident.

Now let us discuss what is not self-evident. It is not self-evident that Jesus died for our sins, and that we must trust in Him as Lord and Savior in order to have eternal life. This is truth that has been specially revealed. So is the existence of the Trinity. Not everyone recognizes these truths because they have not been revealed to all. In theological terms, there is general revelation (what is revealed of God in nature and the natural order of things) and there is special revelation (specific information about God's nature and our relationship to Him, which we get from Scripture and the Holy Spirit).

What we know from general revelation should not be considered an establishment of religion. This includes references to God on our coins, the Pledge of Allegiance, or other public declarations. It is self-evident that God exists. That which Christians understand from special revelation would be an establishment of religion. This inculdes swearing on the Bible and religious symbolism on public land, or state/municipal flags, coats of armor, etc.

The argument is often made, however, that religious symbols also have secular meaning that supercede their religious significance. This is a sticky argument, because it is completely in the eye of the beholder, and everyone interprets symbols differently and subjectively. So I propose the following: Any religious symbol that has stood for a certain amount of time should be exempt from the church/state controversy. I suggest that anything that has stood for a span of 60 years or less should be moved to private property. What has stood for more than 60 years ought to be accepted as part of the landscape and part of tradition. Why sixty years? One generation is generally considered to number thirty years. If something has stood for two generations or more, it should be considered to a part of the town, municipality, county, or state's historical tradition. Like it or not, such traditions often include religion. If the government chooses to cede the land containing the symbol in question to a private citizen or organization, it ceases to be an establishment of religion. A note of caution: It is important that the government treat all symbols equally. It must not cede the property with Christian symbols to private organizations while insisiting that a Muslim symbol be removed. That would be an establishment of religion.

What about the Ten Commandments? This is trickier because it comes from special revelation, the Bible. But I believe they should be accepted for several reasons. First, they are not the property of any one religion. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all accept them. So which religion do the Commandments establish? The idea of separation of church and state was to avoid having a state church, such as Anglicanism in England, Lutheranism in Germany, and Presbyterianism in Scotland. Or Islam in today's Middle East, and Catholicism here in Costa Rica. Posting the Ten Commandents in schools and courthouses stops far short of establishing a religion.

Furthermore, the commandments themselves are self-evident. One does not have to be a Christian to see that murder, stealing, and lying are inherently wrong. Less obvious commandments such as coveting lead to exploitation of the poor and minorities. Adultery leads to unstable families, unwanted pregnancies, and divorce, which lead, in turn, to abortions, poverty, and children left behind.

School prayer? It seems to me that to make a school prayer acceptable to everyone, you would have to water it down so much as to render it useless. Nevertheless, since God is self-evident, each school board should be able to decide for itself whether to acknowledge Him in corporate prayer. Prayers should not be done in Jesus' or any other name but God's. That would be an establishment of religion. Besides, what constitutes a prayer in Jesus' name is the attitude of our hearts, and not saying His name at the end of it as if it were a magic word. Christians would continue praying in Jesus' name inwardly.

Graduation speeches. The valedictorian of the class has traditionally earned the privilege of addressing the class and their loved ones on topics that the person deems worthy to speak on. It is a privilege that the person has earned. Are we going to say, "you can speak on anything you want except one thing: you can't acknowledge God or the role of your faith?" Yet such absurdities have played out over and over in our nation's high schools. Having said that, however, valedictorians should be careful to make "I" statements. "I thank my Lord and Savior Jesus for helping me get here." Not "You will go to heaven if you accept Christ." That is inappropriate for public school graduations. It can be done in private conversations and evangelistic outreaches at the person's church. We must also be tolerant of student valedictorians who are not Christians, but want to acknowledge the role their faith as played in their success. A person should not be censored, censured, or booed for saying, "I thank Krishna."
And, finally, Nativity scenes and what to call the period from Thanksgiving to New Years. Since time immemorial, Americans have taken December 25, and, at times, the days immediately before and after as a holiday. Why? Because it is the traditional date of Jesus' birth. (Actually, the date was appropriated from a feast day celebrating Apollo; Jesus was probably born in springtime). Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to call it Christmas and the Christmas season. That's just being intellectually honest. I don't see what's so offensive, however, in the term "holiday season." No one's saying we can't celebrate Christmas. It's just a way of acknowledging that there are Jews and Muslims in our midst who prefer to use the season to celebrate their own respective holidays.

Finally, if we're going to make and keep Christmas as a public holiday, doesn't it seem kind of silly to prohibit Nativity scenes in public places? And if the Muslims and Jews want to place their own symbols alongside our Nativity scenes, let them. It's not hurting anyone.

So...would this clear things up? Let me know your thoughts!