Church and State in the United States
by Thomas Wm. Madron

June 27, 2002. On June 26 a California Federal court ruling, which states that the phrase "under God" makes the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, has sparked a new debate throughout the United States. Then, on June 27 the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Cleveland's voucher plan was 'a program of true private choice,'" upholding "the use of public money for religious school tuition in a decisive 5-to-4 ruling that the majority called a logical outgrowth of recent decisions and the dissenters described as a fundamental break with the past" (New York Times, June 27, 2002). "Today's decision is bad for education and bad for religious freedom," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU.

As United Methodist Communications commented, "On the eve of the Fourth of July, the country finds itself once again debating separation of church and state." Unfortunately there is a considerable amount of misinformation being disseminated about the court rulings and about the nature of the separation of church and state. The issue is not about whether the founding fathers believed in God, nor is the issue about whether they thought a belief in God was a good thing. The issue is whether payments of tax money for the support of sectarian schools and requirements to assent to a belief in God constitute a violation of the Constitution's requirements for separation between church and state.

Methodists in particular should be concerned about the outcome of this issue because it was in large part the reason for the founding of the Methodist Episcopal Church (one forerunner of the United Methodist Church). During the Revolutionary War Anglican (Church of England) property was confiscated and Anglican ministers (priests) were thrown out of the fledgling United States. The reason for this is that the Monarch of England, then as now, was the head of the Church of England. It was hardly appropriate that a Church of which the head was the Monarch of England should be allowed to stand when the newly formed United States was waging war against that very Monarch.

During and following the Revolutionary War Methodists were unable to obtain the Sacraments because Wesley expected them to do so from the local Anglican priest. Since these were no longer available, and Wesley could not get any of his preachers ordained for service in the United States, he decided to ordain people for the United States himself. Thus, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States was the direct result of the politics of the Revolutionary era.

There was a second issue, as well. The monarchies of Europe, including that of England, assumed authority to rule through the theory of the "divine right of kings," which, simply stated, claims that kings and queens can rule because they have been appointed by God. In contrast, in the United States, the prevailing theory was (and is) that the authority to rule comes from the people. This is clearly the stated source of authority claimed by the Constitution of the United States.

The range of opinion concerning the relationship between church and state in the United States in its early years was as varied as it is today. What was agreed upon in those early days, however, was that the distinction between what was "civic" and what was "religious" should be clearly demarcated. This has historically meant no tax money for the support of any religious institution or subdivision of a religious institution itself. It was clearly understood that this issue cut both ways: when tax money is accepted, then at least some control is surrendered to the government, and when an institution is taxed, then some control is also surrendered. For these reasons religious institutions in the United States have neither been taxed nor have they been eligible to receive money derived from taxes.

When it comes to such issues as prayer in the public schools, or to the Constitutionality of a phrase such as "one nation under God" as found in the U. S. Pledge of Allegiance, the issue is less clear. A kind of visceral reaction by many is to say, "what's wrong with that?" Think about it from the other direction, however. Would we, as Christians, accept a phrase such as "the divine right of the United States" into the Apostles' Creed? Maybe some would, but it would be both bad theology and blasphemous.

When "one nation under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 it was opposed then, as now, on the premise that it violated the Constitution's provisions regarding the separation of Church and State. But this phrase, as part of the Pledge, is also problematic theologically, as well. First, it seems to say that anyone that does not share a particular belief in God cannot be considered a good citizen. This is clearly a problem. Furthermore, if we say, as some have said, that this kind of reference to God is a relatively meaningless cultural statement, then we insult God and this attitude too becomes become blasphemous.

Although we no longer have to fear a Church whose head is a monarch against whom we are rebelling, we do have to be sensitive to the fact that church people and churches can be seduced by the lure of money and power, just as can other institutions. As Christians, however, we expect the Church to rise above the narrow political concerns of a particular period of time. Many of the problems the world has faced in the past and faces today is from those who do not distinguish clearly between what is God's and what is in the public domain. Both are important but they are different and have different objectives. We should celebrate those different objectives, not try to eradicate them.

For more on the United Methodist perspective on these issues click here (http://umc.org) . Additional information may also be obtained from the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society by clicking here (http://www.umc-gbcs.org/) . The United Methodist Church has produced an interesting short multi-media presentation on these issues. You can find the link on umc.org, or you can just click here for the "Windows Media" version (other versions are available through the link to umc.org, above). An interesting history of the "Pledge of Allegiance," by Dr. John W. Baer, may be found here . The web site for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State provides additional information and detail regarding Church and State issues.