THE BIBLICAL CASE FOR CHRISTIAN SECULARISM: HOW NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY SEPARATES THE CHURCH AND THE SOCIETY
- Haulianlal Guite, IAS
In an earlier article I wrote on the social desirability of separating the churches from our social organizations. I am pleased with the response from readers, from those who share my faith and those who do not, as it appears many have already been thinking along the same line and so, affirm much of what I had to say.
There is however one critical gap to fill: whether our proposal to separate the church from social organizations, have any basis in scripture. For it is so often heard that secularism is anti-Christian, and the atheists themselves have capitalized on this misunderstanding, conflating atheism with secularism, so that even those who should have known better, genuinely mistook secularism for atheism.
It will be my contention here that secularism is one of the basic principles on which New Testament Christianity rests. I will therefore defend a position I call (for lack of a better term) “Christian Secularism” – or, the Christian conception of Secularism.
“Christian Secularism” conceptually involves 2 interrelated theses:
1. The official separation of church institutions from earthly/state institutions (which includes the absence of any official religion by the state and its institutions); and
2. The non-institutional integration of individual Christians with the state.
To begin with, let us first take a short look at the secular status of countries around the world.
SECULARISM AND STATES OF THE WORLD:
The map above shows the official position of countries on religious beliefs: blue color indicates “secular states”, meaning “no official religion”; grey color indicates “ambiguous”; red color indicates “non-secular”, meaning these are states with official religions.
Even a cursory look will show that the non-secular states are predominantly the Arab countries, with Islam as their official religion, and most of them being effectively Islamic theocracies (within whose unenviable company must be counted the Vatican City – the only Christian theocratic state that remains). Secularism has been practiced with the greatest success in the United States, whose Constitution specifically prohibits the state from having an official religion – a fact that greatly contributed to the enduring vivacity and vigor of Christianity in the social life of the average American.
The ground reality with respect to India is a little different. Among India’s 29 states, at least one state is (unofficially) working towards crushing the secularist spirit: Nagaland.
The NSCN(IM) adopts the motto “Nagaland for Christ” (read “Nagaland for Baptists”) as one of its “core ideologies”, forgetting that Christianity plays no part whatsoever in the cultural identity of Nagas a hundred years ago, and whose legacy is no older than the oldest grandpa alive. The insurgency movement as a result is involved in what is (embarrassingly) labeled “Christian Terrorism”: the forcible attempts by its cadets to convert the remaining non-Christians to become Baptists, both in Nagaland and the vicinities. If Nagalim is won by the stroke of some unlikely misfortune, one can imagine what a nightmare it will be for non-Baptists to live in that state.
Now the NLFT of Tripura is taking a cue from them, and intends to remold Tripura into a “Christian state”.
Given the huge public support there is for such efforts, it is clear to me there is a fundamental error in our self-understanding of what Christianity is, what the Church stands for, and how the Christian must live. It is time we look at the scriptures.
CONTRASTING THE PHYSICAL KINGDOM OF ISRAEL AND
THE SPIRITUAL KINGDOM OF CHRIST
One of the biggest differences between the Old Testament kingdom of Israel and the New Testament kingdom of Christ is in the nature of the kingdoms:
the Old Testament Israel was both a spiritual and earthly realm (like all other kingdoms and empires existing then), whereas the New Testament Church is a wholly spiritual realm (unlike all other kingdoms and empires existing then), with the earthly dimension completely missing.
In the Old Testament, priests wielded both civil and religious powers, punishing the people for both their sins and crimes; Judaism was the official religion and as such, all who did not kneel before the God of Abraham were prohibited from even living within Israel’s bounds; and Israelites were both cultural as well as religious Jews.
The change in the New Testament is nothing short of revolutionary: churchmen were made to wield only spiritual powers, while civil authorities wield earthly powers, with the effect that the churches are made to deal with sins and civil authorities with crimes; because the kingdom of Christ did not manifest itself in a specific land or a territory, no state had Christianity as its official religion, nor is it God’s plan for such; and finally, religion is now a matter of choice, no longer of coercion, for which reason it cannot be forced down people’s throats. But how did all these come to pass?
In Daniel 2:44, when Daniel interpreted the dream of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar which prophesized the future kingdoms of the world, he described the kingdom of Christ to be “one made without hands” – meaning, unlike other kingdoms so far existent, the kingdom of Christ would be instituted by God Himself. In Matthew 16:18, Christ Himself declared that He will build His Church. These two verses clearly prove that the kingdom of Christ would be very different from the worldly kingdoms in that it would be built by Christ Himself.
Another development happened when Christ was asked what the nature of the kingdom would be. In Luke 17:20ff he responded, saying, “… the kingdom of God does not come with observation. It cannot be said, ‘look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’…” This further shows one difference between the kingdom of God and all the others: the kingdom of God (or, the Church) cannot be observed, unlike other kingdoms. It does not have visible lands to be defended; it has nothing that can be seen. Because “the kingdom of God is within you”.
In John 18:36, Jesus told Pilate a revolutionary idea that latter had no inkling about, saying “my kingdom is not of this world”. And how so? “If my kingdom were of this world”, said Christ, “my servants would fight, so that I would not be handed over to you”. The verse clearly states that the kingdom of Christ, whatever it might be, is heavenly in origin (Matthew 16:18) and is not observable (Luke 17) and therefore, is not to be defended by violence.
In other words, if any church needs to be defended by the sword or by the force of arms, such as was so often done by the Catholic Church in the pre-Reformation era and by both Catholics and Protestants in the post-Reformation era, and as is presently done by the NSCN(IM) in Nagaland, that church seeded in violence is not the kingdom of Christ at all. It is for this reason that, when the passionate, hotheaded Peter defended Christ by slicing Malchus’ ear off, Christ rebuked him, healed the ear, and reprimanded, “those who use the sword shall die by the sword”. How Peter-like some of our mindsets still are!
As we look carefully at the New Testament, the new kingdom Christ founded through Peter on Pentecost, became increasingly different from any other kingdom. Unlike the expectations of many, the Kingdom/Church that was founded, did not occupy any property or land, did not cast shadow over any territory or country, had no palace and no earthly throne, and got no soldiers to call it its own. The more the Church matured, we learn that this kingdom is a spiritual rather than an earthly kingdom – which is why it was founded by Christ, cannot be observed, needs no defense by arms or soldiers, has no territory to protect, no fortress to man, nor any soldier for defense.
Unlike in the Old Testament times, such as in the time of Moses when Israelites left Egypt to head for Canaan and wielded the arms to defend themselves, the New Testament times found no such exodus from anywhere to anywhere – rather, the journey is now spiritual, from sinfulness to righteousness through faith in Christ expressed in the regeneration called Baptism. Rather than raise arms, the disciples of Christ now defend themselves with the Word of God. Rather than built cities and palaces, they build congregations and rebuild the souls. Rather than punish criminals, they do not address crimes at all, dealing only with sins.
To sum it up, the new kingdom of Christ called the Church, is no longer an earthly kingdom like ancient Israel. Its weapon is The Word, not the sword; its citizens are heavenly citizens confirmed by faith rather than by physical circumcision; its pillars are the doctrines that protect the Church; it no longer collects taxes, but performs voluntary offerings; and it no longer deals with crimes, unlike in the Old Testament times.
Which begs the question: if the Church has no earthly powers, no longer punishes people for crimes, no longer collects taxes, who does? Simple: the state, its institutions and its authorities. To this we now turn.
CHRISTIAN SECULARISM: SEPARATING THE CHURCH FROM SOCIETY
In Romans 13, talking of civil authorities, the apostle Paul commands the Roman Christians, saying, “let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (vs 1). Why? “For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God”. How exactly are these God’s authorities? “The person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God” (vs 2). What if one resists such authority? “Those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad)” (vs 3).
For a long time I myself do not understand how the apostle Paul could alleviate civil governments to such lofty pedestal, saying “the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God”. How could Paul say that? Did he not himself resist authorities so many times for the cause of his faith? Did not the Roman Empire persecute the Church? Did not Paul himself persecute before he became one of them? Given the social persecution of Christianity, how could Paul say such authorities are appointed by God?
Then it became clear to me: it is because the apostle Paul was talking not of spiritual matters but of earthly matters, of our earthly duties as citizens of world states! Paul himself often boasted how he was a Roman citizen in the first place! As we read the verses that follow, it becomes all the more clear.
In verse 6 it says, “for this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing”. In other words, whenever we perform our civic non-religious duties, such as paying taxes, paying revenues, paying respect and honor (vs 7), we are indirectly serving God.
A parallel case was made by the apostle Peter in his second epistle. He wrote, “submit yourself for the Lord’s sake”, not for human sake. But to who? “to every human institution, where to a king … or to governors sent by him for punishment of evildoers…” (I Peter 2:13-17).
In other words, Peter is admonishing us to follow human rules on matters related with civil affairs, because God gives to such authorities the power to rule thus! Nowhere in the New Testament are the church leaders empowered that way – only the civil, and not the religious, authorities, were. What this means in effect is that in matters of faith, God makes the Church supreme, whereas in all other matters, God makes the State supreme. In other words, God gives to the state and to the church their respective spheres of influence. To put it in our contemporary language, there is a strict separation between the role of the church and the role of the state – the church to deal with spiritual matters, the state to deal with civil matters.
And we are admonished to obey the state authorities as much as we obey the church authorities, “for such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men” (I Peter 2:17). Therefore, Christians are not to break the just laws; they are to pay taxes; they should not commit murder; they should not be thieves; they should not be corrupted. Which is why the apostle wrote again in I Peter 4:15: “…let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or a criminal or as a trouble-maker”. Doing any of these things will make us less than Christians. If the state punishes us at all, we should be so blameless that the only ground of punishment they find should be this: “if anyone suffers, let him suffer for the sake of being a Christian!” (I Peter 4:16).
In other words, every time you break the just laws, you break the law of Christ; and every time you do your work properly, obey the authorities, not indulge in corruption, and give respect to the rulers and governments, you are indirectly doing service to God, and living the life of a Christian. What we have here, in effect, is the second thesis of Christian Secularism: the non-institutional integration of individual Christians with the state.
This passage of the apostle Peter is all the more remarkable as it was written at the height of Roman persecution of Christianity, just before the apostle himself was to be imprisoned by the state for his faith. What a contrasts early Christianity is to the Christianity practiced in places like North-East India today, where, thanks to the forced conversions, Nagaland boasts of being “the only predominantly Baptist state in the world”! The Nagas should learn from the lessons of the scriptures, and realize that if the Baptist Church is to grow at all, it will grow by evangelism, not by insurgency.
Long ago, even before the Church was established, when the Lord was asked whether taxes should be paid to human authorities like Caesar, Christ had already said, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). There cannot be a better statement summing up the separation of the Church from the State. This is what, in short, we mean when we say that secularism forms the basic structure of New Testament Christianity.
THE PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SECULARISM
We have already established as a Christian principle the secular separation of religious from state authorities, and how the two shall not mix. The scriptures nowhere say, “render unto God the things that are Caesar’s”, or even “render unto Caesar the things that are God’s”, keeping the two entirely separate, with other leading passages (Romans 13, I Peter 2, Titus 3:1) telling us the things that are Caesar’s, and other passages telling us the things that are Christ’s.
We ourselves have so many social organizations, each with a committed purpose, intending to uplift our socio-political and community lives in a dozen ways. Now the question is: are these social organizations, religious organizations and therefore God’s, or civil organizations and therefore (as a manner of speaking) Caesar’s? It is clear that they are Caesar’s.
The Young Paite Association (YPA), for example, is not a Young Baptist Association or even a Young Christian Association – but rather an association for all Paites regardless of their faith. The SSPP is committed to the principle of promoting education among the highland youths, not among the Christian or Baptist youths alone. The Zomi Council is not the Christian Council or the Baptist Council, and thus, is the apex institution for our social organizations rather than our religious institutions. Given these, let me ask again: must we include directly religious elements in our worldly affairs in order to be acceptable to God?
We have already seen how, even when you do not utter the name of the Lord, so long as you pay your taxes, keep the customs of your fathers, obey the laws of the land and not be a criminal – so long as you do this, although you are doing man’s work, you are also serving God (Romans 13; I Peter 2). Likewise, in order to serve God in these organizations, you do not have to sing praise to Him, you do not need to invite pastors to pray on your behalf, or preach the Word there. There are other ways by which you can serve God in these organizations – by doing your work you are supposed to, by not being corrupt, by being impartial, etc., etc.
Attempting to serve God by such direct means like preaching, praying and singing spiritual songs in places like social functions, will only serve to create discord rather than concord as there are so many gospels today, so many contrasting ways of praying and so many contradictory songs sung, that we are at a lost to adopt which. For choosing one means not choosing the rest. In fact, I believe it can also amount to taking the Lord’s name in vain, thus breaking the second commandment.
Ask yourselves these 10 questions:
1. One believes in saying “The Lord’s Prayer”, another condemns it. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
2. One believes it is okay to sing Christian songs, another Jew completely rejects it. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
3. One believes “you need to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior”, while another Muslim cannot accept it at all. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
4. One believes singing spiritual songs with instruments is fine, another will not use instruments even at the point of death. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
5. One believes a function may be blessed “in the name of the father, of the son and of the Holy Spirit”, but this amounts to blasphemy for the Pentecostal. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
6. One believes a pastor’s prayer in such functions is acceptable, another sees the pastor as a heretic. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
7. One believes in the worship of Mary, another cannot swallow this. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
8. One believes prayer can be in the Pope’s name, while to another the Pope is the antichrist. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
9. One believes any theological research promoting “Jesus is the Lord God” thesis to be acceptable, while another feels all such research is worthless and false. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
10. One believes in the good of interdenominational interfaith worship, another who believes everyone else is wrong, cannot accept it. If we are to respect these differing religious viewpoints in the practice of our social organizations, how do we negotiate the way out?
In all these cases, the only practical solution that respects the contrasting viewpoints of both the sides is if we do not involve religious beliefs and practices in our social organizations and functions at all. Faith, it must be remembered, is unlike any human impulse. It is something for which most people are ready to die. It arouses the strongest of our emotions, the most sensitive urge; and even when we cannot follow the more difficult dictates like righteousness and love and forgiving one’s enemies and debts, we still dare to die in the name of our respective faiths. Precisely because faith is so powerful, it is so dangerous; therefore, in a multi-denominational multi-religious society like ours, the best way to prevent religious conflict in our social organizations is by allowing no church presence at all.
This, as we here amply demonstrate, is in the good old biblical tradition of Christian Secularism, and also the will of God. And I am sure any thoughtful person who wishes to have his religious freedom protected from the tyranny of other religions and denominations, will agree.
May our God-given liberties live long!