Page 1

In Support of Religious Freedom

Q. Is the separation of church and state a good thing?
This legal doctrine is, in our day, most often used to constrain the
church from engaging in the public life of culture.
Take, for example, the case of Iowa Governor Terry Branstad who, on
April 26th of this year drew criticism from organizations like the
American Civil Liberties Union and Freedom from Religion Foundation
after signing a proclamation that encouraged Iowans to participate in a
99-county Bible reading marathon that will take place in front of all
Iowa Courthouses from June 30 to July 3.
The proclamation was described by Branstad has historic and
encourages all Iowans to acquaint themselves with Judeo-Christian
values. However, the ACLU and FFRF have raised concerns over the bills
promotion of Christianity.
Claiming that the proclamation itself violates the separation of church
and state, many have called for the governor to withdraw the signed
document. 1
On the other hand, you have the 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson,
Letter to Danbury (CT) Baptist Association in which he wrote,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should `make no
law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Jeffersons letter was written in response to an 1801 dispatch from the
same Baptists who wrote congratulating him on what they saw as divine
intervention in Jeffersons election over John Adams, specifically
because Jefferson believed strongly that state and church were to be
separate. In this vein they joyfully wrote to Jefferson, We have reason
1

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_84207c22-37c5-11e6-95690f4b56de4309.html

Page 2
to believe that Americas God has raised you up to fill the chair of state
out of that good will which he bears to the millions which you preside
over. 2
So, were Jefferson and our Baptist fathers correct? Of is the wall of
separation a barrier to the free exercise of religion?
To be more specific, let me throw some lines from an important
historical document at you and you tell me if they favor the progress of
the Kingdom of God or oppose it:
1. Church and state should be separate.
2. no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the
state more than others.
3. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work.
While you think that over, let me tell you a story:
Go with me, in your imagination, to Zurich Switzerland. It is January 5th
and the temperature hovers around 0 degrees. You are standing with a
group of people on the banks of the icy Limmat River and you are there
to witness the execution of Felix Manz.
His crime? That requires a bit of history.
In 1518 Ulrich Zwingli became the head priest in the city of
Zurich. Soon Zwingli began preaching through the Bible and
pointing out the major differences between what the Word of
God said and what the Catholic church practiced. ster at the
end of 1518 and soon began to preach about reforming the
Catholic Church. The young man Felix Manx became one of
Zwinglis ardent students. But by 1524 Felix, and a few others
such as his good friend Conrad Grebel, became increasingly
dissatisfied with Zwingli, whose reforms did not go far enough,
2

http://erlc.com/article/the-baptist-alliance-with-thomas-jefferson-that-securedreligious-liberty

Page 3
they thought, specifically on the subject of who should be
baptized and how. Zwingli said infants, by sprinkling. Manz and
many others said believers should be baptized and by
immersion.
Finally, a group of people met in the house where Felix lived
with his mother, and they formed a new faith fellowship on the
basis of baptism following an open confession of faith in Jesus
Christ. Grebel baptized an older man, George Blaurock (c. 14911529) and then he baptized Grebel and the others gathered
there that day, January 21, 1525.
The group called themselves the Swiss Brethrenbut their
opponents, mainly Zwingli and the leaders of the Grossmnster
Church as well as the Zurich city council, derisively called then
Anabaptists (re-baptizers). In March 1526 the city council
passed an edict making re-baptism punishable by drowning.
On January 5, 1527, Manz was sentenced to death, because
contrary to Christian order and custom he had become involved
in Anabaptism. About 3 p.m. that afternoon he was taken by
boat onto the Limmat River, which runs not far from the front of
Grossmnster Church. His hands were bound and pulled below
his knees and a pole was placed between themand then he
was shoved into the river to die by drowning.
Manz was the first person to be martyred by Protestants. Some
in the crowd mockingly referred to Manzs watery death as his
third baptism. 3
Manz, quite clearly a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed at the
hands of other believers in Jesus Christ. Why? His story tells of the
chilling danger present whenever the state and the church are seen to
be one and the same.

Adapted from http://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-martyrdomof-felix-manz.html

Page 4
Remember those lines I mentioned earlier? They are from The Baptist
Faith and Message the section titled Religious Liberty - one of the
few sections left unchanged in the 1925, 1963, and 2000 editions.

It says in full: God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it
free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary
to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate.
The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the
pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no
ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state
more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty
of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary
to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil
power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual
means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to
impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no
right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free
church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of
free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right
to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without
interference by the civil power. 4
George W. Truett, long time pastor of First Baptist Dallas, TX said in
1920 on the East Steps of the National Capitol in Washington, DC:
Baptists have one consistent record concerning liberty
throughout all their long and eventful history. They have never
been a party to oppression of conscience. They have forever
been the unwavering champions of liberty, both religious and
civil. Their contention now, is, and has been, and, please God,
must ever be, that it is the natural and fundamental and
indefeasible right of every human being to worship God or not,
according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as long as he
does not infringe upon the rights of others, he is to be held
accountable alone to God for all religious beliefs and practices. 5

4
5

http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfmcomparison.asp
http://www.biblebelievers.com/truett_baptist_religious.html

Page 5
In my reading of Baptist history Dr. Truett is quite correct. Primarily
through suffering persecution at the hands of other believers in the
gospel, Baptists have seen in Scripture the necessary of the separation
of church and state in order to promote religious liberty a fundamental
human right.
Where do we see this in Scripture? 6
1. We first see the separation of the church and state in the Biblical
limitations placed on the government in Romans 13:3-4.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. W ould
you have no fear of the one w ho is in authority? Then do w hat
is good, and you w ill receive his approval, for he is God's
servant for your good. But if you do w rong, be afraid, for he
does not bear the sw ord in vain. For he is the servant of God,
an avenger w ho carries out God's w rath on the w rongdoer.
The governments responsibilities are to punish evil deeds, reward good
deeds, and render justice. So, God has given the government certain
duties, but enforcing a particular system of worship is not among them.
2. Freedom of religion respects the image of God in man identified in
Genesis 1:26, specifically mans volition (mans ability to make and take
responsibility for His choices in life). God respects our choices in that
He gives us freedom to make decisions regarding our future, even if we
make the wrong decisions think of Joshua 24:15:

And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day
w hom you w ill serve, w hether the gods your fathers served in
the region beyond the R iver, or the gods of the Am orites in
w hose land you dw ell. But as for m e and m y house, w e w ill
serve the Lord.
3. Jesus Himself extended freedom of religion to people, and the Bible
has several examples. In Matthew 19:16-23, the rich young ruler
comes to Jesus. After a brief conversation, the young man w ent aw ay
6

Adapted from http://www.gotquestions.org/freedom-of-religion.html

Page 6

sorrow ful , choosing not to follow Christ. The salient point here is that

Jesus let him go. God does not force belief in Him. Faith is
commanded but never coerced. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus expresses
His desire to gather the children of Jerusalem to Himself, but they were
not willing. If God gives men the freedom to choose or to reject Him,
then so should we.
4. Finally, it is Christ Himself who gave the category distinction between
Gods rule in the church through His Word and Gods rule in the civic
arena through civil rulers:
Mark 12:13-17 - Teacher, w e know that you are true and do

not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not sw ayed by
appearances, but truly teach the w ay of God. Is it law ful to pay
tax es to Caesar, or not? Should w e pay them , or should w e
not? But, know ing their hypocrisy, he said to them , W hy put
m e to the test? Bring m e a denarius and let m e look at it. And
they brought one. And he said to them , W hose likeness and
inscription is this? They said to him , Caesar's. Jesus said to
them , Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to
God the things that are God's. And they m arveled at him .
George Truett, in the same sermon mentioned earlier, describes these
words of Christ as, one of the most revolutionary and history-making
utterances that ever fell from those lips divine. That utterance, once and
for all, marked the divorcement of church and state. It marked a new
era for the creeds and deeds of men. It was the sunrise gun of a new
day, the echoes of which are to go on and on and on until in every land,
whether great or small, the doctrine shall have absolute supremacy
everywhere of a free church in a free state.
4. Finaly, the freedom of religion acknowledges that it is the Holy Spirit
who changes hearts, not the government (John 6:63). Only Jesus
saves. To take away the freedom of religion is to attempt to empower
human government, with its fallible rulers, to determine the eternal
destiny of every soul. But Christs kingdom is not of this world (John
18:36), and no one becomes a Christian by government fiat. We are
made Christians by the grace of God through faith in Christ (Ephesians

Page 7
2:8-9). What the government does or does not do has no relation to
the new birth (John 1:12-13; 3:5-8).
Taxes, then, are in the realm of government authority but the eternal
fate of Gods image bearers is decidedly not.
Challenges and Arguments
1. Increasingly, we see an attempt to have the separation of church and
state in a way that constrains religion without the necessary correlation
of religious liberty.
For example, Pulitzer prize winning journalist Leonard Pitts, writing in
the Miami Herald 7 to comment on the Kim Davis marriage certificate
controversy,
Taken to its logical conclusion, it is not just gay men and
lesbians who are threatened by the religious liberty
movement, but all of us. Is it too much of a stretch to suggest
that most of us probably run afoul of somebodys reading of
their religion in some way or another? Who would welcome a
future where you couldnt just enter a place and expect service
but, rather, must read the signs to determine if it caters to
people of your sexual orientation, marital status, religion or
race?
We tried something like that once. It didnt work.
Sadly, if people like Kim Davis have their way, we may be
required to try it again. They call it religious liberty.
It looks like intolerance from here.
We must be diligent in telling both our national leaders and our
neighbors that the church and state cannot be separate in without the
freedom of religious practitioners to live and practice their faith.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article34119702.html

Page 8
2. It is likely that we will continue to see legal attempts to begin taxing
churches and other religious institutions. This is a failure to understand
both the nature of taxation and the nature of the churchs relationship
to the state.
For churches to become subject to taxation would require an
assumption that freedom from taxation is a privilege granted by the
state. However, this is not the case taxation is to be a limited
imposition by the state upon the private property of its citizens.
Taxation is not the rule when it comes to property held by people and
institutions in the state; it is the exception.
Furthermore, if the church is to be meaningfully separate from the
church then recognizing the inability of the state to tax the church is a
fundamental requirement.
It appears that some think the church relates to the state the way a
private business, which is subject to taxation does. However, this is not
the case.
The church is entirely different from the nation, even when it resides
within a nations borders. The relationship of the church to the state is
much more like the relationship of a foreign embassy, say that of
France, within the borders of the U.S.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) describes the
relationship of embassy to host nation well:
Article 22.2 - The receiving State is under a special duty to take
all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission
against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance
of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
Article 22.3 - The premises of the mission, their furnishings and
other property thereon and the means of transport of the
mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or
execution.

Page 9
Article 23.1 - The sending State and the head of the mission
shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and
taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned
or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific
services rendered.
Article 23.2 - The exemption from taxation referred to in this
article shall not apply to such dues and taxes payable under the
law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the
sending State or the head of the mission.
3. What do we do about violence committed in the name of religion?
This is a complex question requiring much wisdom but a major aspect
of that answer is the states role in restraining evil.
A. The state must recognize what is actually evil and what is not.
- Advocating for ones religion or living consistently in it is not evil.
- Depriving people of life, liberty, and private property is evil and the
state should use its God-given sword to restrain that evil.
Conclusion: One last word from George Truett to conclude:
It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people,
always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary
and uncoerced, and that it is not the perogative of any power,
whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any
religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the
support of a religious organization to which they do not believe.
God wants free worshipers and no other kind.