What Church Should Be Constitutionally
Separated from the State?

by Samuel G. Dawson

The distinction between a local church, the universal church, and denominations is at the heart of the controversy over the separation of church and state, which in our time has come to be the separation of religion and state, or even the separation of morality and state. This article discusses the separation of church and state with focus on "church," showing that no legitimate church is entangled with the state.

Rights Notice

These electronically-transmitted pages are copyrighted © 2002 and belong to Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson. All rights reserved. You are free to download this electronic material for personal use, to make copies to share with others, or to mirror on your local web site, with the following restrictions:

• The material must remain intact and unmodified from the form supplied here, including header and footer and their graphics, copyright notice, the URL and postal addresses.

• You may not charge for this material. If you have any questions about using this material, please contact the publisher at gtp@gospelthemes.com.

Copyright

All scripture quotations are taken from The American Standard Version New Testament, © 1901, 1929 Thomas Nelson and Sons. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Copyright © 2002 by Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson

Publisher

Gospel Themes Press
2028 South Austin, Suite 906 Amarillo, TX 79109-1960

Hard copies can be purchased in booklet form directly from Gospel Themes Press. Click here to Place an Order.

What Church Should Be Constitutionally
Separated from the State?

Samuel G. Dawson

The distinction between a local church, the universal church, and denominations is at the heart of the controversy over the separation of church and state, which in our time has come to be the separation of religion and state, or even the separation of morality and state. This article discusses the separation of church and state with focus on "church," showing that no legitimate church is entangled with the state.

We now give a brief verse-by-verse commentary on this chapter.

"Separation of Church and State" Is Not in the Constitution

Notice carefully the text of the first amendment to the Constitution, the first of the Bill of Rights that deals with the establishment of religion. In its entirety, it reads:

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.

Notice that the words "church" and "separation" are not even contained in the amendment, yet this is supposed to be the basis of the constitutional separation of church and state. Actually, the phrase is contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson while he was President, written to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury association that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. In his letter, Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn 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 and State. (Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. [NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984], p. 510, January 1, 1802.)

We’ll see both the letter that the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson and his response in full later in this article. For now we note that Jefferson’s letter was not legislation; it was not even proposed legislation, but merely a private letter to a religious group. Although it contained Jefferson’s opinion on an important subject, it was not law, much less part of the Constitution of the United States. No representative ever proposed it as legislation, it was never debated in the Senate, it was never signed into law, and never passed upon by the Supreme Court. It had all the authority of personal correspondence of a President, which is to say, none whatsoever.

In the Washington Times of 2/3/2002, author Larry Witham points out that Jefferson penned his famous phrase about the "wall of separation" between church and state to please partisan supporters and answer critics, according to a new study of his letters. Witham affirmed the phrase was born of politics, not philosophy, according to the chief of manuscripts at the Library of Congress, who researched Jefferson’s papers for an exhibit on religion and the Founding Fathers. Documents on display at the Library of Congress show that two days after writing the 1802 letter, the third president began attending weekly worship inside the House of Representatives, and that Jefferson also allowed worship in federal buildings. "That phrase about the wall doesn’t mean much in light of his behavior, does it?" James H. Hutson, the library’s chief of manuscripts said.

The Meaning of the Word "Church"

The author feels that in the extensive discussion concerning the separation of church and state, sufficient attention has not been paid to the word "church." In the original language of the New Testament, the collective noun "church" came from a Greek word, ekklesia, which means "called out," used of a (perhaps nonreligious) group of people called out of one relation into another. It is important to note that the word church is not necessarily related to religion, even in the Bible. For example, it is used of a mob of silversmiths in Ac. 19.32, a group of people called out of Ephesus. They gathered in opposition to the apostle Paul’s teaching against idolatry, which was sure to impact their incomes if it caught on. Seven verses later, the town clerk broke up the riot, telling the group their concerns could be settled in the regular town assembly, again using the word ekklesia, or church. These uses of "church" were not even religious. In Ac., 7.38, Stephen referred to Moses as "he that was in the church in the wilderness" of Sinai, a reference to the Israelites delivered from Egypt.

When speaking of Christ’s church, the Bible uses the word in two senses, the universal church and local churches. The universal church consists of all those in fellowship with God, whether in the Old or New Testaments, alive or dead; this church began with fellowship with God. Death doesn’t affect one’s membership in this church; there is only one of these, it has no organization, no address, no phone number. It is indivisible, composed of only those in fellowship with God, and it was founded by God.

Local churches consist of those in fellowship with each other in a particular location. They consist only of living people, have local organization, may have begun only last week, have addresses, phone numbers, and composed both of those in and out of fellowship with God. They are founded by human beings, and may be easily divided.

The Way We Use "Church" Most of the Time

There is a third way the word "church" is used, but it’s not so used in the Bible. We use it of a denomination. "Denomination" is a modern word, referring to a plurality of local churches acting collectively, usually as directed by their denominational creed. The Methodist denomination consists of all churches that function collectively in that denomination. The Episcopal denomination is a collection of local churches that function collectively to do the work of that denomination. These denominations do not think of themselves as the universal church, but as collections of local churches.

Donald G. Tinder, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology gives the following definition of a denomination in the religious sense:

Denominations are associations of congregations--though sometimes it might be said that congregations are localized subdivisions of denominations--that have a common heritage. Moreover, a true denomination does not claim to be the only legitimate expression of the church. (Donald G. Tinder, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing House, 1984], p. 310.)

Thus, a denomination is a collective of congregations. When congregations function as a unit, they function denominationally. Tinder admits our naïveté concerning the rise of the denominational concept:

Even though denominations within Protestantism have come to be the largest expression of organized Christianity beyond the level of the congregation, there has never been much theological reflection on denominationalism. A look at theological textbooks or church creeds confirms this. Probably the simplest explanation for this omission is the Bible in no way envisages the organization of the church into denominations. It instead assumes the opposite, that all Christians--except those being disciplined--will be in full fellowship with all others. Any tendencies to the contrary were roundly denounced (I Cor. 1.10-13). Paul could write a letter to the Christians meeting in various places in Rome or Galatia with every assurance that all would receive the message. Today, for any city or country, he would have to place the letter as an advertisement in the secular media and hope. (Ibid., p. 310.)

No denominations existed in the New Testament, and out of over 800 claiming allegiance to Christ in the United States alone, not one existed in the first century, a fact the vast majority of them freely admit.

The Denominational Church Is the Way Jefferson Used It In His Letter to the Danbury Baptists

Here is the exchange of two brief letters, given in full. The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801. (All obsolete spellings are in the original.)

Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions -- That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's 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. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.

Nehh Dodge

Ephram Robbins

The Committee

Stephen S. Nelson

Thus, Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congregationalist establishment in that state. On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

Sources: Robert S. Alley, Professor of Humanites, Emeritus, University of Richmond, from his article, "Public Education and the Public Good," published in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. And Lipscomb, Andrew and Bergh, Albert, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 16, pp. 281-282.

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist association; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words concerning the separation of church and state from Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:

When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world... (John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution [MI: Baker Book House, 1987], p. 243.)

The American people knew what would happen if the state established a particular denomination like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state-established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.

This Is Not the Way Separation of Church and State Is Used Today

Although Jefferson makes clear that he was speaking of a national denomination as many early Americans had just escaped in England, it should be clear to all that separation of a denomination and the state is not at the root of the present escalating restrictions in our time.

For example, what local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when children recite the pledge of allegiance containing the words "under God"? Absolutely none; they are not a local church, the universal church, nor a denomination. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when a toddler says grace before snack time in kindergarten? None whatsoever. The toddler is not a local church, the universal church, nor a denomination. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when local governments display Christmas chreches on public property? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when ministers give graduation addresses? None, as long as the ministers are functioning personally, and not as agents of their denominations. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when the ten commandments are displayed in courtrooms? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when a prayer is given at a high school football game? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when a moment of silence is observed? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when crosses are displayed at sites of traffic deaths? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when Kum Ba Yah is sung at a day camp? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when Christmas melodies are played in a bell tower? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when nonreligious symbols are displayed by local government? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when a President-elect is sworn into office using a Bible? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when a student gives a Bible during a school Easter party? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

• What local church, universal church, or denomination is involved when a moment of silence is observed during times of national mourning? None. If the separation of church and state were constitutional, there is no church involved.

Founding Fathers Weren’t Against Morality in Government

We have seen that the "separation of church and state" wasn’t based in the constitution. We now note that the present abhorrence of religion and/or morality didn’t exist among the Founding Fathers. In a letter dated April 17, 1787, Benjamin Franklin stated: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." (Townhall.com, Published: 7/23/01 Author: Linda Bowles)

On Thursday, June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin delivered a speech to the Constitutional Convention, which was at the time embroiled in raucous debate and endless squabbles. He asked: "Do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? ... if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." (Ibid.)

Franklin requested that "henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." (Ibid.)

The entire assembly quickly agreed, and that is the way it happened as our Constitution was being developed. One may argue whether God inspired our Founders, but there is no question He was prayerfully invited to participate. He was not walled out.

In his farewell address, George Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." He maintained that " ... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." (Ibid.)

No one explained it better than President John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (Ibid.)

Summary

The current movements to restrict the expression of religion and morality in our society based on the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State" are lacking much. The mantra is not in the text of the constitution. In none of their objections is a local church, the universal church, nor a denomination involved. Finally, such fears were not shared by the constitution’s authors, but were entirely contrary to their public statements and practices.

© 2002 by Samuel G. Dawson. This article may be freely reproduced only in its entirety, including the following paragraph.

This booklet is available at the website: http://gospelthemes.com where copies can be made to distribute freely as long as the booklet is kept intact along with all of its headers and footers and the copyright and publisher information and addresses. Or you can order hard copies of this booklet from Gospel Themes Press, 2028 South Austin, Suite 906 Amarillo, TX 79109-1960 USA.

[Samuel G. Dawson is the author of several books on nondenominational Christianity, including Fellowship: With God and His People, The Way of Christ Without Denominationalism, Denominational Doctrines: Explained, Examined, Exposed, and the recently-published Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: The Uniform Teaching of Moses, Jesus, and Paul, available at www.gospelthemes.com]

Would you like to see more of Samuel G. Dawson's publications? Visit our Bookstore and Free Online Materials. Return to top.

http://gospelthemes.com Copyright © 1999 Gospel Themes Press, 2028 South Austin, Suite 906 Amarillo, TX 79109-1960, USA. All rights reserved.