The Tragic Triumph of Separation of Church and State

Somewhere under the radar of the controversy surrounding Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright is a larger issue which transcends the politics of the moment and stretches back to the beginning of the American experiment in religious liberty. The early embrace of the secular principle of separation of church and state (which is, politically speaking, as extra-constitutional as it is, religiously speaking, unbiblical) suggests a low ecclesiology and a low Christology at the very heart of the American concept of religious liberty. This, as history has borne out, was a fatal mistake.

Genuine religious liberty can thrive only within the context of a high ecclesiology and a high Christology. The church serves not only a pastoral role in tending to the spiritual needs of its members, but also a prophetic role in addressing the temporal needs of society at large. Jesus Christ is Lord not only of the church, but also of the state. If this were not the case, the early church would never have been so violently opposed by the pagan Caesars, who made their own claims to supremacy over both spiritual and temporal matters.

The early Christians did not enjoy the political freedom to practice their religion precisely because the practice of their religion was perceived as a threat to the established political order. But they understood their true freedom came from a higher Authority to whom they owed their ultimate allegiance; and allegiance to that higher Authority meant practicing their faith in spite of official political opposition. It was not this kind of "freedom," however, which formed the basis for the concept of religious liberty during the founding of America. Christians in the New World did not fear a pagan emperor persecuting them for their faith. Rather, they feared the state recognizing a particular sectarian group as the "official religion," forcing all others to the margins of society. The tragic triumph of "separation of church and state," however, has been the marginalization of all expressions of the faith. The church's prophetic role in the transformation of society has been suppressed. Jesus Christ's rightful claim, being fully God and fully man, as Lord of the whole created order, church and state alike, has been usurped by a vapid, innocuous, and utterly impotent American Civil Religion.

The Obama/Wright kerfuffle and the reaction of political pundits on both the left and the right provide a very practical illustration of the utter spiritual ineptitude of American society. Wright's "sermons" are, to say the least, riddled with faulty theological assumptions and the denomination to which he and Obama belong, the United Church of Christ, fell into apostasy long before either of them became household names. But that is an ancillary matter to the larger issue at hand.

Whatever its theological underpinnings, the church in which Wright preached and to which Obama belonged claims to be just that, a church. It presents itself as a body of faithful believers under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, called out of the world and into a covenant relationship with the triune God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the fact that the church itself is named Trinity further underscores this point). Membership in a local church is primarily a matter of divine election, not personal selection. That is, a person is a member of the church because God has chosen the person, not because the person has chosen the church. This understanding of church membership has long been lost in an American culture where "Attend the church of your choice" has become a pious cliché.

It is not surprising that Obama's association with Wright and his church has become a political liability. But this says as much, if not more, about the aforementioned American "choice" culture as it does about Obama's religious preferences. It has become something of a sport among activists, special interest groups, and journalists to examine the memberships, affiliations, and associations of nearly every candidate for elective or appointive office, hoping to find that they belong to some club or civic organization which has controversial membership requirements, holds controversial views on sensitive political topics, or is led by someone who has made objectionable public statements. Once exposed, the offending candidate will dutifully resign from the organization in question or, at the very least, repudiate the objectionable views of its leader.

This, of course, is the exact scenario being played out in the Obama/Wright controversy. But the organization in question is a church and the leader in question is its (now former) pastor. It is easy to understand, with this church and this pastor specifically, how Obama's affiliation has come to be framed in the same manner as membership in a voluntary association. But this does not excuse the whole of American society, across the political spectrum, having largely adopted this view of the church in general. The church is not a voluntary association. It is a covenant community into which only those called of God and enabled by his grace may enter. There are legitimate reasons for withdrawing from the fellowship of a local expression of this community or calling into question the views of one or more of its leaders. Abuse of pastoral authority (i.e. using the pulpit to advance a personal agenda rather than to proclaim the Word of God) is one of them. Political expediency is not.