This evening I would like to direct our attention to one of the most critical issues that is
involved in this debate about abortion and that's the issue of the relationship of the
church to state government.
I think I'd like to begin by reminding you that America did not begin at the First Continental
Congress.
American history books do not begin with the writing of the Constitution or of the Declaration
of Independence.
But we know that very early in the seventeenth century settlers came to the shores of America
as colonists principally to escape severe religious persecution.
We know that the first governing document in American history was one that was intensely
religious and theological.
I'm thinking of course of the Mayflower Compact.
But I'd like us to just go back in time a little bit for a moment or two and remember
what it was that provoked these multitudes of people to leave their possessions, to leave
their native lands, and come to this country.
They came as I said to escape religious persecutions, but those religious persecutions were not
simply a matter of intermural wars between dissonant religious groups.
But the chief proponents of persecution were the European state governments.
Now, what Western society learned apparently from the bloody persecutions of sixteenth
and seventeenth century was that when a particular religion is elevated to a privileged position
by the state, that is, when a particular religion is, as we call it, 'established,' then all
of the powers of that government -- the power of the sword, the power of the army and so
on -- may be brought to bear, to squelch and to persecute those who have a differing religious
viewpoint.
And so by the time our nation as a republic was officially formed with the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights, the fathers of our country were very, very careful to do everything
in their power to prevent the same type of setup that had produced the violent persecutions,
and hatred, and religious wars that had occurred in Europe.
And fundamentally two things we're determined by the Constitution.
The first is that in this nation guaranteed by the Constitution, all religions will have
the right of free expression.
That, of course, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, is the First Amendment of the United States,
but it's only part of the First Amendment and it's only part of the clause with which
the church is so jealously concerned.
The First Amendment in the Constitution also explicitly prohibit the establishment of religion.
That is, of granting special ecclesiastical privilege to Presbyterians instead of Roman
Catholics, to Roman Catholics instead of Jews, to Jews instead of Muslims.
Part of the whole melting pot concept was whatever you believe and whatever are the
particulars of your theological persuasion and your worship, you are welcome to express
those religious beliefs and practices freely under the protection of the state.
At the same time, in order to secure both things namely the guarantee of the free exercise
of religion on the one hand and the restraint against attempts of one religion to usurp
authority over all others, we had the laws established to prohibit one church from becoming
the state church.
And so we developed a concept that has often been called the separation of church and state.
Now, what I'd like to do in our time together in this session is to try to get some clarity
about what that concept means because I detect a considerable amount of confusion about what
is meant by the separation of church and state.
I have to say that in my teaching profession in the Theological Seminary sometimes I get
very agitated and excited with my students and I say, "One of the most important distinctions
as a student of theology you will ever learn is the distinction between a distinction and
a separation."
For example, in our view of man as Christians we distinguish between the soul and the body
of a human being.
Now, when I make a philosophical distinction of that type, I do no personal violence or
personal harm to you or anyone else, but if I separate your soul from your body I have
just killed you.
So we need to understand the difference between a separation and a distinction -- and what
the framers of our original documents of the government -- we're trying to get at was that
we must distinguish between the church on the one hand and the state on the other as
two distinct institutions and each institution has its particular identity, its particular
agenda, its particular responsibility and its particular calling.
It is not the task of the church to create a standing army.
It is not the task of the church to deliver the mail.
It is not the task of the church to wage war, to bear the sword.
It is the task of the church to preach the Gospel of Christ.
It is the task of the church to administer the sacraments, to pray, to worship, to do
all of these things that we associate with particular religious endeavors.
By the same token, it is not the responsibility of the state to administer the sacraments
or again to establish the religious practices of a given denomination or world religion.
These are distinct institutions, and insofar as we may distinguish them and recognize that
there are boundaries to the sphere of authority of each of these then we can talk properly
of separation.
But I'm afraid that in recent years, the very idea of separation of church and state has
come to mean one of two things -- the divorce of church and state.
As if these two institutions were intrinsically and essentially mutually exclusive opponents.
That was not the original idea.
If it were the original idea, the framers of our constitution would not have stressed
so heavily the inalienable right of free exercise of religion.
There're lots of people who today who are very hostile to Judaism, to Christianity,
to Islam, to any religion, and they would hope that we would die from this exercise
of it that the exercise would bring a fatal heart attack or something so that we would
just dry up and go away.
But at that point people are in conflict, not only with the church, but with the state
as it was originally intended.
Now, as I say, both institutions have their particular roles to perform.
And as far as the role of government, that belongs to the state, not to the church, and
the church by its own theology, by Scripture itself, is commanded by God to bend over backward
to be submissive to the civil magistrates.
I'll give you an example of it that's right in front of your eyes at this very moment.
If you look behind me you will see two flags.
On this side, we see of course the American flag.
On this side the flag that is presented here is the flag of the Christian church.
Two flags -- the church and the state.
But there is a law in our land that governs and regulates the display of the flag of the
United States.
And it says that when another flag is displayed along with the flag of the United States that
the flag of the United States must be in the superordinate position while the other flag
is in a subordinate position which is defined by Congress as the right and in the left.
So as I face you on my right stands the American flag.
On my left stands the Christian flag.
Symbolically saying that the church by allowing its standard and its flag to fly at a subordinate
position to the state flag, the church is saying that in civil matters the church is
to obey and submit to the government.
Now, of course that does not mean that the church is saying that the state is the ultimate
authority.
The church is not trying to commit treason against God by submitting to the state but
rather the church understands its responsibility of obeying the civil magistrates as actually
being a part of the church's duty as declared by God.
That God said that 'If you're going to obey me then you must also obey the rulers who
I have placed over you.'
Now that gets us to the other point that is often overlooked in our culture today, is
that in the original concept of the division of labor between church and state, the idea
was this, that the church is established by God, it's created by God, it's ordained by
God, it's instituted by God, and its regulated by God.
And yet at the same time, the state as an institution is ordained by God, created by
God, instituted by God, regulated by God and is supremely and ultimately accountable to
God.
In simple terms, ladies and gentlemen, that means that in the original concept of this
distinction of church and state, the state recognized that the state was not autonomous,
that the state was not a law unto itself but that the state itself is under God.
And to be under God means to be accountable to His authority.
So the distinction originally, dear friends, was not between the sacred and the secular,
but it tacitly assumed theism not defined in the peculiarities of Christianity or Judaism
or Islam, but recognizing that we are all, church and state, and everybody created by
God and accountable to God.
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, United States as a government and as a state was
not formulated officially as a Christian nation, but it was formed initially officially as
a theistic nation.
And the issue today has become not so much the separation of church and state but rather
the separation of state and God.
That's a big difference, isn't it?
Between saying the church and the state are separate, but both under God to moving to
the idea that we are separating the state from God as if the state could be a rival
to God or could be autonomous.
A law unto itself.
That was not the original plan and there's nothing in our subsequent legal history that
has overthrown that basic premise of the original documents of our country.
Now, the problem we have as I mentioned in our first session is that when we get to this
question of abortion, people were saying "Wait a minute, those who are most vociferous in
their opposition against abortion tend to be speaking out from religious platforms,
and from religious convictions, and representing religious institutions."
When the first question of abortion was raised even before Roe v. Wade, the most outspoken
group against abortion in America was the Roman Catholic Church and many, many people
who were not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church or adherence to the Roman Catholic
Church were offended by that and they felt that their personal rights were being violated
by this unwarranted intrusion into the public arena of debate by a particular ecclesiastical
institution.
And that sense of fear of intrusion and fear of religious manipulation has not diminished
as the fuel has been added to the debates of abortion, but it has of course increased
in sometimes, in some cases, to the point of intensity.
And that is no small matter because I think all of us have some understanding of what
happens in nations when religious wars break out, and when states intrude too heavily into
religious affairs and religious institutions, intrude too heavily and unlawfully into government
affairs.
Now, some have come to the place where they believe that the church has its sphere, the
state has its sphere and one thing the church must never do is to speak out on political
issues or on government issues.
We recognize the right of the church to speak to religious issues but the question I have
tonight is "What about ethical issues?"
Most churches, historically, all the way back to Old Testament Israel have seen that part
of their religious duty was to exercise what is called 'prophetic criticism' to the culture
in which they live.
John the Baptist, you remember, was executed by King Herod because John the Baptist made
a criticism of the King's ethical behavior.
I mean the vast history of religion has been this: that we are not supposed to use the
sword on people.
But the freedom to speak on ethical issues is seen not merely as freedom to churches
but as a duty imposed by God.
I cannot freely exercise my religion if the state forces me to be silent on ethical questions.
I said earlier that the New Testament, for example, stresses that Christians are to bend
over backwards to be models of civic obedience to honor the state, to honor the king, to
honor the prince, to honor the government rather than to be rebellious and anarchist
in their mentality unless, or until, the state commands the church to do something that God
forbids or forbids the church from doing something that God commands.
We remember in the very first century there were dreadful persecutions launched by the
Roman government against the emerging Christian church.
And the Christians of that time were ordered by the government to stop preaching.
On the one hand, they had their mandate from God to be models of civil obedience but now
the civil magistrate is saying to them "you must not preach any more," and at that point
you remember what the apostles did.
They say "We have a dilemma here.
Do we obey God or do we obey man?"
Whenever there is a clear conflict there, the only right thing that any religious person
can do is to obey God.
That does not mean that we are free to exercise civil disobedience willing nilly.
That does not mean that we have the right to disobey the civil magistrates whenever
we disagree with them or whenever we're inconvenienced by them.
If they impose a burdensome tax, we're to pay it.
If they pass laws that we disagree with, we are to obey them unless by obeying them we
are actually disobeying God.
And so it's a very complicated matter, isn't it, to understand how that relationship is?
But religious institutions not only have a religious view of the church and a religious
view of life and of human beings.
But virtually every religion has a religious view or a theological perspective on the role
of government.
I'd like to take a moment or two to remind you of the lessons that are set forth in Paul's
Epistle to the Romans in the thirteenth chapter of that book, which is the classical location
in the New Testament wherein the role of the government is defined.
Paul begins with an admonition directed to Christians.
He's not speaking to non-Christians, to unbelievers.
He's speaking to believers when he says, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers
for there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God."
There's irony here, isn't it?
Here, the Apostle Paul is writing to Christians living in Rome.
He said "I want every one of you to be submissive and subjective to the civil government."
He says that because there is no authority, there is no power ultimately, the Apostle
says, except that power and authority that comes from and is derived from God himself.
The powers that be are ordained of God.
Can you imagine how difficult that would've been for Christians living in Rome under one
of the most corrupt governments imaginable?
For their leader to say to them "Hey, be careful here.
Bend over backwards.
Obey and honor the civil magistrates because those civil magistrates, even the Roman Emperor,
is ordained of God".
It makes you wonder whether Paul still believed that when the power of the sword of the Roman
Emperor was used on his neck and he was killed.
But Paul never challenged the right of the government to govern.
But then he goes on to talk about this a little further when he says "whoever resists the
authority resist the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive in themselves
judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil."
And he goes on to say that the governor is called to be a minister of God.
I'm a minister in the church but our elected officials are called to be ministers of God
every much -- to every degree as I am or any clergyman is.
But he ministers not by serving in the church but by serving in this institution called
the state.
Now again, if we consider the role of the state, we see that both in terms of the Jus
Gentium, the natural law of which we've already spoken, as well as the theological principles
that come to bear on that -- on that subject -- is that there are two most primary or most
basic, I should say, reasons for the very existence of any state government.
The first, ladies and gentlemen, is to maintain, to defend, to protect and to promote human
life.
That's the raison d'etat of human government.
Government exists to protect the lives of its people.
Secondly, to protect the property of its people.
And then also, as I said, the second most basic thing really is defined in terms of
the establishment and promotion of justice.
The protection of life, defending of life, the maintenance of life, and the establishment
and promotion of justice, ladies and gentlemen, are the justification, the moral justification
for any government's existence.
And that those things that I've just mentioned, not only are the chief responsibilities of
the government to carry out, but both of those areas are intensely ethical.
I don't think the church does have the right to lobby the state to get preferential treatment
in their church raffles, or preferential treatment in their taxes or preferential treatment in
the administration of the sacraments and that sort of thing.
But when the state fails to be the state, when the state becomes lax in defending and
promoting and maintaining human life, when the state loses a passionate commitment to
justice, then ladies and gentlemen, the church must speak and every Christian is called to
speak and to vote on these areas.
No Christian ever has the right to vote for his own personal vested interests.
No Christian ever has the right to vote for an unjust law.
In other words, no Christian, no person ever has the right to do what is wrong.
Let me say it again.
No one ever has the right to do what is wrong.
But how many times have you heard this phrase, in the midst, not only the abortion controversy,
but every time an ethical issue is in dispute in terms of civil legislation?
You hear it.
It's become almost a refrain.
"You can't legislate morality."
Now again, that phrase, that maxim has undergone an evolution, a change in its historic meaning.
Originally, people protested against passing laws that tried to curb or restraint or restrict
the mortality of people.
And people were saying "You know, just because you pass a law against stealing does not mean
now automatically no one will ever steal," because people will find ways to break laws,
and -- but morality in this sense that you can't legislate morality originally meant
you can't legislate behavior.
You can pass laws that you hope will give moral direction and perhaps influence the
morality of the community, but the very fiat, the very act of enacting the law doesn't in
and of itself change the behavior.
But the way that phrase is used today means you can't legislate morality means we shouldn't
have the government involved by passing laws that touch upon moral issues.
That's not the government's job.
The government's job is to be taking care of economic problems and so on, but the government
and the state should not be passing laws that regulate moral behavior.
I've asked you to examine some of these things carefully.
How carefully must you examine a statement like that to see how frivolous it really is?
I mean what else do we legislate but morality?
What else do we legislate as government, but those matters that are intensely ethical.
Ladies and gentlemen, whether or not you steal from your neighbor is an ethical and moral
issue.
Whether or not you drive your automobile on the highway with reckless abandon in a way
that makes you a clear and present danger to anybody that happens to come in your path
is a moral issue.
Ladies and gentlemen, homicide is a moral issue.
In fact, levels of taxation become moral issues.
Matters of regulating ecology are moral and ethical issues.
If you say that the government doesn't have or shouldn't be involved in legislating in
areas that are of ethical import or moral import, about all you have given your elected
officials responsibility of doing is determining the state flag.
You can't even have them decide the state bird because whatever bird is particularly
elevated in the state house will get special ecological advantages over the other, it might
upset the whole balance of nature, and that's an ethical matter.
Don't you see that when we are in the arena of legislation, we are dealing with profoundly
ethical issues, none perhaps or deeply ethical than this question of abortion.
My convictions on abortion have been strongly influenced by my religious convictions and
my theological convictions.
Does that mean now that as a Christian, I'm disenfranchised from speaking on this question?
Does that mean that anyone who is persuaded of a particular ethic from a religious orientation
no longer has the right to vote?
Again, I still don't have the right to vote my religious convictions that would bind another
person's theological conscience but it is the role of the church to be the church.
And it is the responsibility of the state to be the state, to promote justice, to defend
life, to protect life wherever that life is found.
For more infomation >> Man Arrested After Seeking Lewd Relationship With Child - Duration: 0:28. 
For more infomation >> New report confirms relationship between discrimination and high Māori incarceration rate - Duration: 2:20. 
For more infomation >> 7 Tips to end a relationship on good terms - Duration: 2:43. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét