The relationship of the church to the state is a topic that is becoming increasingly prominent in the affairs of this country. It show up in discussions encompassing prayer in school, abortion, the right of certain schools to exist, the right of religiously Jewish soldiers to wear yarmulkes while in uniform, or Arab-American students to wear ceremonial daggers to school, the teaching of creationism, and especially this year, in presidential campaigns, as well as many other areas. Quite often an issue is labeled as a church and state issue, either by church members, journalists, or the "politically correct" (Taylor, p.100) that now dominate many universities, when, in fact, it is not. Conversely, real church and state issues are ignored. Part of the problem is a misunderstanding of how these two entities are to effect each other. The "relationship of the city of God to the city of man" (Adler, p.843) is an old problem. It affected Paul and Titus and it affects us today. Therefore, it is important for Christians to fully understand the relationship God intends between His people and secular government, and not to become confused by the clamor for separation which would appear to be in contradiction with Titus 3:1, "be subject to rulers, to authorities . . ."

The prevalent idea in North America today is that the church and government (the state) are to have nothing to do with each other. This first question that Christians must ask is if this idea is Biblical. The answer will dictate how Christians respond to the actions of the state. The Bible has much to say regarding church and state. As Paul Butler writes:

The first reference to the state in the Bible is probably Genesis 10:10-12 where the capitols of Nimrod's kingdom are discussed. The only reference, however, to God here is the description of Nimrod as a "mighty hunter before the LORD" (verse 9). Like most of the earlier references to the state, no directives are given on how to relate to it. It is simply there. However, we are told later in Daniel (2:21), and again in Romans (13:1), that "there is no authority except that which God has established." This raised an interesting question, what exactly is meant by the phrase "before the LORD"? The way it reads in most English texts connotes finding favour with God, however, most commentators reject this reading. Nimrod, they say, was a tyrant and a rebel against God. He is credited with organizing the building of the Tower of Babel (Candlish, p.174) and invading territory that was supposed to go to Shem's descendants (Candlish, p.177). With this in mind, "before the LORD" is interpreted as meaning "presumptuous in the face of Jehovah" (Barnhouse, P.67). The kindest commentators concede that "before the LORD" means Nimrod was allowed to continue through God's providence (Gibson, p.203).

The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that human government is a rebellion against God. If this were true, a complete separation of church and state would be warranted. However, this a contradiction of the teachings of the Old Testament (cf. Daniel 4). Babel was clearly in defiance of God, but Nimrod's cities were not.

As the Old Testament progresses, we find examples of civic leaders who were also religious leaders. These are in complete contradiction with our societies current idea of separation. The most notable are Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the God Most High (Genesis 14:18); and Moses, who talked to God and delivered both civil and religious laws. These roles obvious found favour with God since Melchizedek is well recognized as a type of Christ (Hebrews 5 and 7), and the coming of "a prophet like me (Moses)" was the promise fulfilled by Christ. It should be noted that neither of these leaders imposed state control of the religion or religious "control" of the government. The issue is not a matter of control, in the sense of manipulation, but rather one of cooperation (Butler, p.392).

In addition to the examples in leadership of the cooperation between religion and state, the Old Testament contains numerous injunctions to "obey and the king" (Ezra 7:26, Proverbs 24:21, I Samuel 12:12-14), in which one can hear the echo of Titus 3:1, and others to obey the king because of God (Ecclesiastes 8:2). It is made quite clear that God is in control of every government (I Samuel 10:24, Psalms 2, 78:8-11, Daniel 4:17, 25, 32), and that those who try to go it alone will eventually fail (Psalm 127:1-2). In the middle of this there is a quite a discussion (carried on intermittently) in Judges and I Samuel about the evils of asking for a king (Judges 8:22-23, I Samuel 10:18-19, 12:17-19). This would at first seem to be at odds with the references above, however, the king must be viewed not as representing government itself, but as a style thereof. This is what Israel rejected -- the structure God had set up.

II Chronicles 19;11 contains an interesting note to this discussion. Two men are assigned to act as judges; one in civil affairs, the other in questions about the LORD. This appear to be a definite separation of church and state, and it is, but not in the current understanding of separation. These men are specialist in each field; two of them make the load on each other easier and allows them to concentrate on their specific duties. Cooperation is still implied, if not directly stated.

As a Pharisee and scholar, Paul would (or should) have been acquainted with these discussions. His letters, as already mentioned, reflect this, echoing the commands to obey the government (Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1). It should be noted at this point that there are some who who would try to "explain" this passage in Titus by saying the "authorities" refer to angels (Quinn, p.179). This, however, does not fit the sense of the exhortation, nor does it fit with Paul's other teachings in Romans. For those who have a problem with this submission to what at times is essentially corruption, Spain points out that "Christians are committed to good conduct, as God defines it, regardless of the character of administrators of civil justice" (p.184). The fact is that verb in this verse is hupotassesthai, which is stronger than simply "be subjected", denoting rather an active "submit yourselves" (Kent, p.236). In addition to these instruction on submission to God-given government, believers are instructed to pray leaders (I Timothy 2:1-2). This may, at times, make the sitution more palatible! Beyond this, the emphasis in religion-state relations shifts. The thing to be remembered is that God is over the state, not equal with it (Fowler, p.209). This entails a separation of church and state in that the former outranks the latter. Cooperation is the rule, but as Peter says, "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29), i.e. where there is a conflict, God comes first.

The divine principle for church-state relations comes from Matthew 22:15-22, where Jesus declares "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (cf. Mark 12 and Luke 20). This was in response to the question of whether it was right to pay taxes to Rome or not, a potentially sticky problem, as most such questions are. The tax was more than just unpopular (most taxes are that!); the Zealots maintained that it was morally wrong to acknowledge any master but God. Paying taxes, of course, was just such and acknowledgement (Ridderbos, p.409). Jesus did not concede that this was a problem. His answer instead says several things. First, believers, since they are also citizens of the state, have a legal obligation to pay taxes. In framing the question, the student of the Pharisees used the word didomi for "pay", which carries the idea of voluntary payment. Jesus responds with apodidomi, a stronger variation of the word which indicates that something is "paid back". There are advantages to living under a government and these must be paid for (Fowler, p.206). Second, it demonstrates,

In fact, since God sets up rulers (Daniel 4 and Romans 13) they are his instruments in civic affairs, whether they realize or not, and therefore, "to render unto Caesar IS to render unto God what is God's. There is no necessary conflict of responsibility between God and the State" (Fowler, p. 208).

Therefore, according to Scripture, the relationship between church and state is one where God is the ultimate authority. The state is ordered by God, but it is to limited (Eidsmore, p.10). Believers are to obey it except where it oversteps its bounds and conflicts with God's commandments. The church is also ordained by god and should cooperate with and influence the government for good. It has a different ministry from the state, but it ought not be isolated from it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, Mortimer J. and Gorman, William, editors. The Great Ideas: A Syntopicom of Great Books of the Western World, vol II. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, William Benton, pub. 1952.

Barnhouse, Donald Grey. Genesis: A Devotional Exposition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1970.

Butler, Paul T. What the Bible Says About Civil Government. Joplin, MO: College Press. 1990.

Eidsmoe, John. God and Caesar: Christian Faith and Political Action. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984.

Fowler, Harold. The Gospel of Matthew, vol IV. Bible Study Textbook Series. Joplin, MO: College Press. 1985.

Gibson, John C.L. Genesis, vol I. Daily Bible Study Series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1981.

Kent, Homer A. The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus. Chicago: Moody Press. 1958.

Quinn, Jerome D. The Letter to Titus. New York: Doubleday. 1990.

Ridderbos, H.N. Bible Student's Commentary - Matthew. Trans. by Ray Togtman. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1987.

Spain, Carl. The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus. Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet Co. Inc. 1970.

Taylor, John. "Thought Police On Campus" Reader's Digest, (May 1991). Pleasantville, NY: Reader's Digest Association.