Inseparable Church and State: Right people invite national blessings (Part II)
By Charles Mwewa
My article of this title which appeared in the Zambian Eye on March 10th, 2016, raised several issues and this is my response to those issues. One respondent inquired what “Separation of Church and State” meant; another wanted elucidation on the concept of God in relation to non-Christian religions; and still another argued for the Separation of Church and State owing to what he called the problem of “power theory or doctrinal differences.”
Both the American and the Zambian constitutions support the fact that Church and State should be distinct but inseparable. Thus, the US First Amendment prohibits against, “the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion,” and the Zambian constitutional preamble declares Zambia a “Christian nation…tolerant of other religions.”
When making any arguments for or against the Separation of Church and State, context matters. For the most part this doctrine is not problematic when contextualized to Zambia. The Zambian political history is founded on the Christian missionary expansion into the interior of the continent of Africa. Missionaries opened, and, in fact, provided impetus for political organization. Churches established schools and health-centers and also acted as political liaisons between the British government and the natives. The founders of the Zambian nation recognized the intrinsic necessity for God, and it was their intention that Zambia would be founded upon virtues which had their foundation in Judeo-Christian ethics.
Virtues such as freedom, justice, order and respect for human rights and their inherent dignity have their basis in morality and Christian values. These are the same virtues and values that modern nations seek to enshrine into their national psyche. Inseparable Church and State is not advocacy for clergy interference into political affairs. Church and State are distinct entities; each has a particular function in society. However, the two cannot be inseparable. We cannot, for example, go back to 311 A.D, when the Roman Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity and made Christianity the state religion of Rome. In the same vein, we cannot use the British model of the inseparable Church of England and the monarchy. Nor still adapt the Iranian model of a theocracy. All of these models do not adhere to the notion of inseparable Church and State as it relates to post-Westphalian modern nation state.
Indeed, can we assume the fact that Church and State are inseparable to mean that those who govern should be, of necessity, be “saintly” men and women? That will be too far-fetched, and no nation, hitherto, has people who do not falter on divine commands. What we cannot dismiss, however, is the fact that whoever governs (elected officials) should have some regards to the law of God, for it is this that gives effect to our man-made laws. Bottom-line is nations must be governed by good laws, and good laws can only be passed by “good” men and women. Can bad people make good laws? Of course, they can, but that is always a big gamble. And the fact that there is really no-one “good” makes it hard. But we should make an effort to recognize that only people who strive to live with integrity and some of fear of God can truly govern without exploiting national resources, and without corruption and disregard for law and good conscience. To find these kinds of “good” people, there should be a synergy between Church and State. And this is one of the ways in which the Church and State cannot separate.
To infer sameness from the word “inseparable” is to miss the meaning of “Inseparable Church and State” altogether. Two things can be inseparable yet very much not the same. Separation does not also mean isolation, either. In other words, the notion of separation in its antithesis connotes ideas of “unity”, “working side by side”, and etc. The doctrine of Separation of Church and State stands for the proposition that: (1) Church and State can work together; (2) Church and State can find commonality; (3) Church and State can influence similar social agenda; (4) and Church and State can shape each other positively. From this perspective, it is necessary that the two institutions work side by side, share ideas and the Church influence State philosophy. It is highly injurious to a nation’s moral caliber for the State to acquire philosophical basis from any other source other than Judeo-Christianity values. Religion, morality, and knowledge are essential to good government. And good governments are made of “good” men and women who will order society by creating good laws.
For those who argue that Church and State cannot see eye to eye because Jesus did not accept earthly power or that those nations with Christian philosophical bearings have not eliminated lawlessness or which of the gods of Moslems, Buddhists or Christians should be credited? First of all the argument is “Church and State” and not any other religious institutions. And second, Jesus spent all of his earthly life instilling principles which must be followed in every sphere of life, including in government. He promulgated love, honesty, altruism, order and diligence. He said not to be of the world but he did not say that his adherents should leave the world. He said that his kingdom was not of this world but he did not say that he was not a king. In fact, he made a distinction between paying taxes to Caesar (State) and also giving alms to God (Church). His adherents taught and wrote that government is an instrument of God for good. And despite the popular theory to the contrary, Jesus did not exist in a non-political environment. Jesus spent more time reshaping the political fascia of the time than articulating a religious agenda. He defended his mission as “fulfilling the [religious] law” and not abolishing it. But he condemned extortion, corruption, dishonest in public office, loading it over the weak and inequalities between men and women, between the governed and the governors, and so on. Even his death was sanctioned by politics, not religion. The State carves laws that deter and denounce bad behaviors; the Church preaches values that instill good behaviors acceptable in society.
The Sectarian Theorem which postulates that the Church and State should be separate because they have two different agendas is also misleading. Church should move in solidarity with the State. The only mistake the Church can make is to influence social and political transformation by usurping State functionality. The clergy should not arrogate the role of politicians, and vice versa. The two should remain inseparable yet distinct. In that way, the Church will not be “conformed to the world,” and the State will not “establish a national religion or dictate to men [and women] how to worship God.”
The Church is an institution of republican democracy. It plays this role by mobilizing for change through working in concert with the State. The Church is the “soul” of the State as both are commended and subjected to common morality. The State is not supposed to corrupt the Church. Hence, the State should not dictate who, why and how the Church conducts business. The Church should be free to teach the people biblical values. Where the Church is hijacked by the State, it ceases to uphold good moral conduct, leaving society to degenerate into a corrupt system, a system where the governors misuse their authority to obtain favors at the expense of the governed. Government was never meant to be society’s master, but a servant, and hence the term “Minister” or “servant” is associated with government leaders.“Neither the Church nor the State should have any form of institutional control over each other.” Civil authority should be separated from ecclesiastical authority. But both should pursue the same moral values.
Last, inseparable Church and State is the best way to keep the governors in check. The notion that only separating Church and State will ensure that the Church is not silent on political issues is a contradiction in terms. Moreover, the proposition that if the Church is independent of government, it will have the greater right and responsibility to hold government accountable is not completely valid, either. Inseparable Church and State does not mean that the Church is not independent of State, because it is. Inseparable Church and State also does not mean that Christians will be involved in politics and non-Christians will not. Inseparable Church and State does not mean that religious leaders ought to be given political power simply because they are part of a religious apparatus. Some of the most corrupt leaders are Christian leaders; and some of the most decent leaders are non-Christian leaders. What it means, however, is that, whoever chooses to participate in politics accepts to be guided by Christian ethical values. This is what makes Church and State inseparable.