Slogans like "Separation of Church and State!", "Keep your religion out of politics!" or "Don't impose your religion on me!" are the common refrain when discussing controversial moral issues like abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, same-sex unions and issues relating to the proper role of religion in public life. It is almost impossible nowadays to engage in debates over such issues without having to deal with objections like these, from both Christians and non-Christians alike.
As is obvious from the language, "Separation of Church and State" emerged from a distinctly Christian background. This is perhaps why such ideas are quite alien to majority-Muslim countries like Iran.
The distinction between the secular and sacred arose prominently during the time of the Protestant Reformation, due to various abuses of the Roman Catholic Church at that time. The Reformation was catalysed when the German monk Martin Luther wrote his
Ninety-five Theses in 1517 and nailed it to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg.
Martin Luther questioned the secular authority of the Roman Catholic Church on many occasions. One treatise in particular, "Secular Authority: To what extent it should be obeyed", published in 1523, laid down a general theory of secular government, which is widely referred to as the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.
Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms: Render unto God and Render unto Caesar
When questioned about whether to pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus replied with one of the most profound statements in the Bible:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;
and unto God the things that are God's.
(Matthew 22:21, KJV)
On the basis of Jesus' teachings, Martin Luther explained that there are Two Kingdoms which God has ordained: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World. God's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, which He rules through His Gospel, "to produce piety", while the secular world He rules through His Law, "to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds". Both must be sharply distinguished and permitted to remain, and "neither is sufficient in the world without the other".
There are several important implications that flow from this.
First, freedom of religion. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is perhaps one of Martin Luther's greatest legacies. Yet the implications of the emphasis on faith reach further and wider than mere personal salvation. By emphasising that the essence of religion is
faith, which is governed by the Gospel, it means that no worldly authority should presume to judge faith. Luther wrote:
Besides,
we can understand how any authority shall and may act only where it can see,
know, judge, change and convert. For what kind of judge would he be who should
blindly judge matters which he neither heard nor saw? Tell me, how can a man
see, know, judge, condemn and change hearts? This is reserved for God alone, as
Psalm 7[:9] says, “God trieth the heart and reins”; likewise “The Lord shall
judge the people” [Psalm 7:8]; and Acts 15[:8], “God knoweth the hearts”; and
Jeremiah 17[:9f], “Wicked and unsearchable is the human heart; who can know it?
I the Lord, who search the heart and reins.” A court ought and must be quite
certain and clear about everything, if it is to pass sentence. But the thoughts
and intents of the heart can be known to no one but God; therefore it is
useless and impossible to command or compel anyone by force to believe one
thing or another. It must be taken hold of in a different way; force cannot
accomplish it. And I am surprised at the great fools, since they themselves all
say, De occultis non judicat ecclesia
– the Church does not judge secret things. If the spiritual rule of Church
governs only public matters, how dare the senseless secular power judge and
control such a secret, spiritual, hidden matter as faith?
Furthermore,
every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see to it for himself
that he believes rightly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me,
so little can he believe or disbelieve for me; and as little as he can open or
shut heaven or hell for me, so little can he drive me to faith or unbelief.
Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of every one’s conscience, and
since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content
and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another,
as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force. For faith is a
free work, to which no one can be forced. Nay, it is divine work, done in the
Spirit, certainly not a matter which outward authority should compel or create.
Hence arises the well-known saying, found also in Augustine, “No one can or
ought be constrained to believe.”
Heresy was not to be prevented by force, because heresy is "a spiritual matter, which no iron can strike, no fire burn, no water drown". The use of force will only strengthen the heresy. Citing 2 Corinthians 10:4, Luther added, "God's Word alone avails here", because God's Word "enlightens the hearts; and so all heresies and errors perish of themselves from the heart."
Second, the Church should focus on preaching the Gospel. Among the criticisms that Martin Luther lodged against the Pope, bishops and priests was the criticism of their excessive interference with temporal affairs like life and property and their failure to preach the Gospel:
For my ungracious lords, the pope and the bishops, should be bishops and preach God’s word; this they leave undone and are become temporal princes, and govern with laws which concern only life and property. How thoroughly they have turned things upside down! Inwardly they ought to be ruling souls by God’s Word; hence outwardly they rule castles, cities, lands, and people and torture souls with unspeakable outrages.
He explains that their role is to focus on God's Word:
What, then, are the priests and bishops? I answer, their government is not one of authority or power, but a service and an office; they are neither higher nor better than other Christians. Therefore they should not impose any law or decree on others without their will and consent; their rule consists in nothing else than in dealing with God’s Word, leading Christians by it and overcoming heresy by its means. For, as was said, Christians can be ruled by nothing but by God’s Word. For Christians must be ruled in faith, not by outward works. Faith, however, can come through no word of man, but only through the Word of God, as Paul says in Romans 10[:17], “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”
Third, the State should focus on governing temporal matters like life and property. Martin Luther taught:
Worldly government has laws which extend no farther than to life and property and what is external on earth. For God can and will let no one rule but Himself. Therefore, where temporal power presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads and destroys souls.
Just as Luther criticised the religious authorities for their interference with temporal laws, he likewise criticised the princes for their attempt to exert spiritual authority, and then blaming the Gospel when they fail:
Similarly, the temporal lords should rule land and people outwardly; this they do not do. All they can do is to flay and scrape, put tax on tax, tribute on tribute, let loose now a bear, now a wolf. Besides this, there is no justice, fidelity, or truth to be found among them; what they would be beneath robbers and knaves, and their temporal rule has sunk quite as low as that of the spiritual tyrants. Hence God also perverts their minds, that they rush on into their senselessness and would establish a spiritual rule over souls, as the others would establish a temporal rule, in order that they may contentedly burden themselves with alien sins, and with God’s and all men’s hate, until they go under with bishops, priests and monks, one knave with the other. Then they lay all the blame on the Gospel, and instead of doing penance, blaspheme God and say that our preaching has brought about what their perverse wickedness has merited and still unceasingly merits, as the Romans did when they were destroyed.
Fourth, peaceful conscientious objection. At the time of writing, the princes had issued an order demanding that copies of the New Testament be delivered to the courts everywhere in order that they may be destroyed. Luther counselled peaceful civil disobedience:
... St. Peter says, Acts 5[:29], “We must obey God rather than men”. Thereby he clearly sets a limit to worldly government, for if we had to do all that worldly government demands it would be to no purpose to say, “We must obey God rather than men.”
If then your prince or temporal lord commands you to hold with the pope, to believe this or that, or commands you to give up certain books, you should say, “It does not befit Lucifer to sit by the side of God. Dear lord, I owe you obedience with life and goods; command me within the limits of your power on earth, and I will obey. But if you command me to believe, and to put away books, I will not obey; for in this case you are a tyrant and overreach yourself, and command where you have neither right nor power, etc.” Should he take your property for this, and punish such disobedience, blessed are you. Thank God that you are worthy to suffer for the sake of the divine Word, and let him rave, fool that he is [1 Pet. 4:14, 16; Acts 5:41]. He will meet his judge. For I tell you, if you do not resist him but give him his way, and let him take your faith or your books, you have really denied God.
... [If] their houses are ordered searched and books or goods taken by force, they should suffer it to be done. Outrage is not to be resisted, but endured, yet they should not sanction it, nor serve or obey or follow by moving foot or finger...
Fifth, the doctrine of vocation. Are Christians then supposed to exclude themselves from the world and be aloof of all kinds of temporal affairs, such as politics? Not at all! The entire treatise, "Secular Authority: To what extent it should be obeyed", is intensely concerned with issues of governance, namely, the proper role of secular authority. God appoints secular government to rule the worldly kingdom through His Law, even though they may err, as they obviously did during Luther's time. Martin Luther devoted one-third of his treatise, Part Three, to counselling his recipient, John, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, "what the attitude of his heart and mind ought to be with respect to all laws, counsels, decisions and actions, so that if he govern himself thereby God will surely grant him the power to carry out all laws, counsels and actions in a proper and godly way." Furthermore, Martin Luther exhorted Christians to be involved in serving the State, because it is established by God (Romans 13:1):
Therefore you should cherish the sword or the government, even as the state of matrimony, or husbandry, or any other handiwork which God has instituted. As a man can serve God in the state of matrimony, in husbandry, or at a trade, for the benefit of his fellow man, and must serve Him if necessity demand; just so he can also serve God in the State and should serve Him there, if the necessities of his neighbour demand it; for the State is God’s servant and workman to punish the evil and protect the good. Still it may also be omitted if there is no need for it, just as men are free not to marry and not to farm if there should be no need of marrying and farming.
The overriding purpose is love for one's neighbour:
If the State and its sword are a divine service, as was proved above, that which the State needs in order to wield the sword must also be a divine service. There must be those who arrest, accuse, slay and destroy the wicked, and protect, acquit, defend and save the good. Therefore, when such duties are performed, not with the intention of seeking one’s own ends, but only of helping to maintain the laws and the State, so that the wicked may be restrained, there is no peril in them and they may be followed like any other pursuit and be used as one’s means of support. For, as was said, love of neighbour seeks not its own, considers not how great or how small, but how profitable and how needful for neighbour or community the works are [1 Cor. 13:5].
Bishops and priests are not to be involved in temporal matters because it is not their vocation. Secular government is not to be involved in preaching the Gospel because that is not its vocation. But each individual Christian should uphold both Law and Gospel in his or her vocation, as an act of love.
Though Luther's life and other subsequent practices were not entirely ideal, this does not undermine his discussion of secular authority. Indeed, it is difficult to understate the impact of Luther's thought, as well as similar lines of thought of other Reformers like John Calvin. Much has been written about the influence of Protestant thought on the American model of Church and State. Likewise, the Catholic Church has since changed its position on Church and State after the Second Vatican Council, adopting a model which separates Church and State quite similar to Luther's vision (see
Dignitatis Humanae and the
Note on the Catholic Church’s freedom and institutional autonomy).
Religion and Politics in Singapore
What about the constitutional framework in Singapore? To what extent is it compatible with Biblical teachings?
The Singapore framework is largely compatible with Biblical teachings on Church and State, although there may be dissonance where the finer details are concerned.
Freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right in Singapore. Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees this right not only to individuals, but also religious groups:
Freedom of religion
15.—(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.
(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.
(3) Every religious group has the right —
(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
(4) This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.
As may be seen from Article 15(4), freedom of religion cannot be used as an excuse to violate "public order, public health or morality". Hence, for example, human sacrifice is punishable as homicide.
Non-interference of religious groups with politics. The Singapore government enjoins religious groups in Singapore to refrain from promoting any political cause. As the government stated in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony White Paper (Cmd. 21 of 1989):
19. The social fabric of Singapore will also be threatened if religious groups venture into politics, or if political parties use religious sentiments to garner popular support... [If] one religious group does this, others must inevitably follow. Political parties will then also become involved, advocating or implementing policies favouring one religion or another. They may be cultivated by religious groups, who can deliver votes in exchange for political influence. Whichever way it occurs, the end result will again be conflict between religions, this time added to political instability and factional strife.
20. This is why religious leaders and members of religious groups should refrain from promoting any political party or cause under the cloak of religion. The leaders should not incite their faithful to defy, challenge or actively oppose secular Government policies, much less mobilise their followers or their organisations for subversive purposes.
Under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A, 2001 Rev. Ed. Sing.), religious leaders may be restrained from making statements on various matters if they are seen to be mixing a toxic brand of religion and politics.
Non-interference of government with religious affairs. The right of every religious group to manage its own religious affairs is a protected right under Article 15(3)(a). The government only restricts religious freedom on the basis of "public order, public health or morality" under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Therefore, in 1996, then-Minister for Home Affairs, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, explained that three religious groups had been banned in Singapore, because their activities were "prejudicial to public welfare and good order". He
explained:
[In] the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the group, for example, claims a neutral position in war time. Therefore, this led to a number of its believers in National Service refusing to perform any military duties; some, in fact, refused to wear uniform.
In the case of the Christian Conference of Asia, the group professed to be a religious organisation but was in actual fact an organisation involved in politics. It encouraged inter-faith dialogues for political ends and involvement of religious organisations in politics.
In the case of the Moonies, the group brainwashed families and broke them up, and members gave up their possessions to the Church.
Conscientious objection. Conscientious objection exists under certain laws in Singapore, especially when there are serious moral and ethical issues involved. For example, under the Termination of Pregnancy Act (Cap. 324, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.), a doctor, nurse or midwife would not be under any obligation to participate in an abortion if he or she has a conscientious objection to abortion. On the other hand, no conscientious objection is allowed for National Service (
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor [1994] 3 SLR(R) 209). Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses can be sentenced to detention for objecting to military service in Singapore.
Our vocation as citizens. According to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony White Paper (Cmd. 21 of 1989), "[members] of religious groups may, of course, participate in the democratic process as individual citizens", as long as they do not do so as leaders of their religious constituency. In a democratic society, every citizen, regardless of religion, has the right to free speech and freedom of religion under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution respectively. Therefore, all are generally free to express their political views. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said during the
2009 National Day Rally:
You might ask: Does this mean that religious groups have no views and cannot have views on national issues? Or that religious individuals cannot participate in politics? Obviously not. Because religious groups are free to propagate their teachings on social and moral issues and they have done so on the IRs, on organ transplants, on 377A, homosexuality. And obviously many Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhist participate in politics.
In Parliament, we have people of all faiths and in Cabinet too. And when people who have a religion approach a national issue, they will often have views which are informed by their religious beliefs. It is natural because it is part of you, it is part of your individual, your personality. But you must accept that other groups may have different views, informed by different beliefs and you have to accept that and respect that. And the public debate cannot be on whose religion is right and whose religion is wrong. It has to be on secular rational considerations, public interests - what makes sense for Singapore.
As usual, the Christian should constantly be guarded against any kind of confusion between secular government and God's Kingdom. The Singapore government is not perfect, nor should we think it will ever be. No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18). In the event secular government exceeds the proper limits of its authority, "[we] must obey God rather than men" (Act 5:29).
Conclusion
Secular government, as well as the
prevailing culture of the time, is not to be confused with God's
Kingdom, and neither is God's Kingdom to be confused with secular
government. The Christian must always be conscious of the fact that he
or she is
in, but not of, this world. Jesus said:
I
have given them Your word and the world has hated them, for they are
not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that
You take them out of the world but that You protect them from the evil
one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by
the truth; Your word is truth. As You sent me into the world, I have
sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may
be truly sanctified. (John 17:14-19)
Thus, the
Christian is to be keenly realistic, recognising the fact of a fallen
world, and keeping oneself pure instead of blindly following the latest
popular fashions or trends. Nevertheless, the Christian is also fully
engaged in the world, speaking the Truth in Love (Ephesians 4:15). Gene
Veith writes in
The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals:
The
notion that God has both a spiritual rule and an earthly rule, each of
which He rules in different though related ways, frees Christians to be
engaged in the secular realm without being swept away be secularism. The
doctrine of the two kingdoms gives a blueprint for Christian
activism while safeguarding against the illusions of political - or
theological - utopianism. It transfigures the Christian's life in the
world while safeguarding against worldliness. At one and the same time,
the Christian lives in the world through vocation and lives in heaven
through faith.
Churches should refrain from engaging in politics, and focus on preaching the Gospel, continually shaping the consciences of individual believers. Individual believers themselves, in turn, should uphold Law and Gospel in the context of their vocation. This applies especially in a democratic society (
democracy means "rule of the people"), where the right and duty to govern society is vested in every single individual, as part of his or her vocation in the world.
