Church and State

The Seventh-day Adventist denomination from its very beginning has been a staunch advocate of church-state separation, especially in the United States, where there is clear constitutional provision for such separation, holding that the distinction between church and state is drawn in the New Testament: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” ( Matt. 22:21 ). On the one hand, civil government is ordained of God ( Rom. 13:1–4 ); therefore, whether the civil authority is wielded by a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or a pagan, it finds its source in God; all citizens are under the protection of, and are subject to, the civil power. Civil government’s legitimate concern relates to temporal affairs; the Bible says that in this sphere it is ordained by God. On the other hand, the church was given spiritual authority, and Christ was careful to emphasize that the authority of the church was distinct from temporal power ( Matt. 18:17 , 18 ; John 18:36 ). Only those citizens who have professed allegiance to Christ can be counted as subjects of the spiritual kingdom of Christ. The church concerns itself, as a matter of priority, with the soul and conscience of the individual. History reveals that frequently the state has used the church to gain its ends and that conversely, in other instances, the church has dominated the state. In either case persecution has resulted. Therefore, Seventh-day Adventists believe that the distinctly different purposes of Caesar’s kingdom and of Christ’s kingdom are best achieved when neither is subservient to the other and neither encroaches in the area that belongs to the other. The 1948 Autumn Council of the General Conference Committee issued the following statements regarding church and state relationships: “We believe in civil government as divinely ordained to protect men in the enjoyment of their natural rights, and to rule in civil things, and that in this realm it is entitled to the respectful and willing obedience of all. “We believe that all legislation which unites church and state is subversive of human rights, potentially persecuting in character, and opposed to the best interests of the church and of the state: and therefore, that it is not within the province of human government to enact such legislation. “We believe it to be our duty to use every lawful and honorable means to prevent the enactment of legislation which tends to unite church and state, and to oppose every movement toward such union, that all may enjoy the inestimable blessings of religious liberty . . .” ( Actions of the Autumn Council of the General Conference Committee [1948], p. 13). The committee passed the following resolutions: “ Relation of Church and State . WHEREAS, ‘The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world’ ( GC 297), and, “WHEREAS, The state should never invade the distinctive realm of the church to affect in any way the complete freedom of conscience, or the right to profess, practice, and promulgate religious beliefs; and the church should never invade the distinctive realm of the state, “ We recommend , 1.That we, the representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in biennial Autumn Council assembled, reaffirm our full belief in the historic doctrine of the separation of church and state, and our resolute purpose as a church to maintain that doctrine unimpaired in our relations with all earthly governments, remembering always that the trend toward union may be gradual and subtle. “ Loyalty to Government: WHEREAS, Governments have been set up among men, under God, to regulate human relationships ( Rom. 13:1–3 ; 1 Peter 2:13–17 ); and, “WHEREAS, Civil government includes the exercise of the police powers inherent in sovereignty, to prevent whatever may jeopardize the health, morals, safety and general welfare of society; “ We recommend , That we reaffirm our loyalty to civil government, pledging our sincere obedience to its laws, and praying for the peace of the country and for all those in authority. That we reaffirm, however, at the same time, our inalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience and to promulgate our religious beliefs among all men ( Acts 5:29 ; Mark 16:15 )” ( ibid. , pp. 14, 15). For other Seventh-day Adventist statements on the subject of church and state, see Religious Liberty . Church-State Separation in the United States . The Constitution of the United States erected safeguards to ensure the separation of church and state—a policy rare among eighteenth-century governments—and this separation has promoted prosperity and harmony for both the churches and the civil government in the United States. Separation of church and state is most often tested where money is involved. Complete separation of church and state means that state money, which is tax money, is intended for the support of legal and recognized activities that belong to the state. It means that church money, the tithes and offerings of believers, is intended for the support of the religious activities of the church. Church Schools and the State . Perhaps the greatest area of concern in church-state relations in the United States is in education. As the number of students has multiplied, and as the cost of education has increased, church-affiliated institutions have found it increasingly difficult to support their schools. When government funds became available, the temptation was great for the church to accept them. The argument against the use of government funds for a church-controlled school is twofold: 1. These government funds, received through the taxing power of the state, would be used to teach religious doctrines in which many of the taxpayers do not believe. 2. Control usually follows subsidy. If the church school accepted state money, it would sooner or later have to accept an unwarranted degree of government control. When a religious organization tries to dip into the public treasury to support its church school system (teach its distinctive beliefs), it invites the state to trespass in an area that belongs to God and not to Caesar. Parents who refuse the education public schools offer their children and patronize a religious school, in the United States at least, should assume the responsibility of financing that religious-oriented education. Therefore, to protect religious freedom the Seventh-day Adventist Church opposes the use of government funds to teach religion. The official action of the General Conference regarding state aid to SDA schools reads: “WHEREAS, The Seventh-day Adventist Church in the United States is in full accord with the principles of the separation of church and state as set forth in the federal Constitution, and has through the years supported this principle; “ We recommend , That in the United States the denominational policy for our schools of all grades shall be to refrain from accepting gifts of money, land, buildings, or equipment from government; or grants from public tax money for the salaries of teachers; or the maintenance, operation, or support of the services that the schools supply. “This shall not be construed to prejudice the acceptance of the regular functions of the Public Health Department, such as public health nurses’ services, vaccinations, inoculations, or tuberculosis surveys; nor shall it forbid the acquisition, for a consideration, of war surplus” ( ibid. [1949], p. 26). Medical Institutions . The same principles apply to the church’s medical institutions. In the official action referring to the medical work a careful distinction is made between capital development and operating expenses. The policy reads: “WHEREAS, Our medical institutions are an integral part of our denominational program; “ We recommend , 1. That in the United States our medical institutions refrain from accepting any government aid for operating or maintaining these institutions. “2. That inasmuch as our medical institutions render a recognized service to the medical needs of the communities in which they are located, government grants for capital development may be accepted. However, it shall be understood that a grant shall be received only after careful study by the operating board, and approval by the union and General Conference committees” ( ibid. , pp. 26, 27). A Complex Situation . Relations between church and state in recent years have been distinguished by an ever-increasing complexity of new problems for which no precedent exists. Frequently it is difficult to discover the line between involvement and separation, for instance, in the proposals of government loans at low interest to parochial schools, tax exemption for tuition payments to church schools, the donation of government equipment to church-affiliated college laboratories, government subsidies for teaching certain subjects in private colleges, and other plans, such as tuition vouchers paid from tax funds to be used by parents or students at the schools of their choice. Areas in which church-state problems may be encountered include public aid to sectarian schools; religious exercises in public schools; shared time or released time for religious instruction; censorship; chaplaincies; divorce; birth control; Sunday laws; ambassador to and from the Holy See; tax exemption for church properties; government aid to church and clergy; immigration quotas and naturalization requirements; military service; state aid to church-affiliated charity and welfare organizations; adoption regulations; and nondiscrimination in church employment. In many countries of the world additional difficulties between church and state are: Saturday attendance at state schools, compulsory religious services in the armed forces, restrictions on the holding of religious services, evangelistic work, sale of religious literature, baptism of converts, operation of religious institutions, visits by church leaders living in other countries, and publishing of religious literature. Principles and Application . SDA s support the principle of church-state separation, even though in the application of the principle in the complex issues and conditions of many lands they allow differences in practice. Where church-state separation does not exist or where, as in some countries, the governments to a large extent depend on Christian mission institutions to render public services in educational or medical areas, subsidies are accepted. It is recognized, however, that the acceptance of aid involves the risk of encountering government control or of a setback through the sudden loss of the financial aid. In some countries, governments have given land and property for institutions, or have aided in the operation of schools, hospitals, or clinics where such facilities would otherwise be lacking, or where the medical help or welfare work was greatly needed for the benefit of the local people. Regarding the application of the principle of church-state separation in other countries the General Conference Executive Committee in the Autumn Council of 1948 recommended: “That we reaffirm our belief that this fundamental principle of the separation of church and state should be worldwide in application; recognizing, however, that the applying of certain details of the principle may be different in different parts of the world, due to varied forms of government. “That in view of these considerations, it must, therefore, be left to the discretion of Division Committees to determine just how this principle shall be applied in their respective fields; but maintaining that in any overlapping of activities, the state should not enter the spiritual realm of the church nor the church the civil rights of the state” ( Action of the Autumn Council of the General Conference Committee [1948], p. 14). Thus, although there may be differences in application, the basic Seventh-day Adventist doctrine is the same around the globe: The church member is a loyal citizen, rendering to his or her government “the things that are Caesar’s,” and he or she is equally a loyal follower of Christ, rendering to his or her Maker “the things that are God’s.” The church asks religious liberty for its members and for all others. It regards its function as that of calling people to their duty toward God and fellow humans and to their privileges as children of God—not as that of gaining preferred position or material advantage from the state. See also Religious Liberty ; Sunday Laws .