CHAPTER  NINE
ONE  NATION  UNDER  GOD

When Americans recite this in their pledge of allegiance what do they mean by this?  What does it mean?  What should it mean?  To some it may simply mean we are a nation under God.  But all nations are under God. They are all under his law, under his providence, and subject to his judgments.  To some it may mean we are a Christian nation.  But what does that mean?  What are the responsibilities of the government and of the citizens in a “Christian nation?”  Without a clear definition it can be made to mean almost everything and anything. To some it may mean we ought to be a theocracy enforcing every jot and tittle of the divine will as revealed in scripture.  To others it may mean little more than Jefferson’s Deism and the general references to the Creator in some of our organic documents.  I will not venture into the quagmire of what it has historically meant at various stages of the nation’s development, but will set forth what it ought to mean.  What does it mean in our times to be a “Christian nation?”  What are our responsibilities to the Lord as a nation state under the New Covenant?

Two  Divinely Appointed Institutions:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.   (Acts 20:28).

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.   (1 Timothy 3:15).

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  For he is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.   (Romans 13:1-7).

Actually there are three, and only three, divinely appointed institutions sanctioned by the scriptures.  These are, first of all, the family, established by God in the Garden of Eden when he made a “help meet” for Adam, instituting marriage; secondly, civil government, established by God in the covenant with Noah; and finally, the church, founded by God in the family of Abraham.  Now of these, the latter two especially relate to issues of religious liberty. 

Now these are institutions that are ordained of God.  They are founded upon divine authority and established to fulfil divine purposes.  This is obvious when one considers the church.  The scriptures repeatedly call the church the “church of God.”  All churches, no matter how far they may have drifted from the word of God, maintain that they are still the church of God.  No church ever claims that it is simply a man made institution and that it has no divine origins and no divine purposes.  The church may act as if it exists only for man’s purposes, but it always claims to be a divine institution. The testimony of  scripture with respect to the divine nature and origin of civil government is equally clear as in the case of the church.  Unfortunately, civil governments have not been nearly as consistent in making that claim of themselves.  Rather we have been deluged for several centuries with infidel views of civil government.  Whether this be Rousseau’s or Locke’s version of some kind of social contract, they all unite in proclaiming that the institution of civil government is strictly of human origin.  We are told that human beings, for reasons sufficient to themselves, have seen the utility of these arrangements and have contracted with each other to set up governments.  We hear that “the voice of the people is the voice of god,” making the people the god that has authorized and established government. We hear half truths teaching “that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” (Civil elders, like ecclesiastical elders, have a dual role; they are primarily ministers of God and secondarily representatives of the people.  They derive their authority primarily from God’s institution of their office and his providential placing of them in it, and secondarily from the people who chose them.).   What we rarely hear is that government, in an inescapable sense, is religious; that government is founded by God; that all governments are ministers of God; that they will be held accountable to God.  What we rarely hear is that the moral ground of their authority is not the voice of the majority but the will of God.  What we rarely hear is that they have limited authority and limited purposes, limited by God’s revealed will.  What civil magistrates need to hear is that they cannot legislate as they please but only to implement that which God has already legislated. What they need to hear is that they are accountable not only to the voters but ultimately to God. 

Two Sets of  Ministers:
Now, if all this be true, then it logically follows that the officers in both the church and the state are servants and ministers of God.  That is, they serve God in their office and they represent Him and His authority when they exercise that office. They exercise an office that God has appointed.  They hold this office in an institution that God has established.  The very foundation of their authority rests upon the commandment of God.  Again, this has generally been acknowledged in the churches.  Ecclesiastical elders are generally regarded as servants and ministers of God.  God owns them as his servants and representatives and warns, “Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” (1 Chronicles 16:22).  The scriptures repeatedly call them such.  Isaiah says of the priests, “But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God.” (Isaiah 61:6).  Similarly Joel says, “Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD...” (Joel 2:17).  Paul says, “But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God” (2 Corinthians 6:4), and styles himself, “Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (Titus 1:1).

However, just as government has not generally been recognized as being of divine origin, neither have civil magistrates generally been regarded as ministers of God.  Not only is this true, but it is often regarded as a virtue.  The United States as a nation is somewhat schizophrenic about this.  We want the President to be a religious man.  We want him to go to church on Sundays and to say “God bless you” at appropriate times.  We are not ready for an avowed atheist in the Presidency, in the style of Madalyn Murray-O’Hare.  But at the same time we thoroughly expect, yes demand, that the President will act as a completely secular person whenever he acts officially, in approving legislation and setting public policy.  From 9:00 to 5:00 he is expected to turn his religion off.  In his official capacity he must not act as the minister of God. 

Now it is true that under the Sinaitic Covenant the civil heads of state had a special relationship to God.  The judges were directly called and raised up by God.  The kings of Israel were likewise chosen by God, through the anointing of God’s prophet, before they were elected by the tribes.  They were called “captains of the Lord’s heritage” and other titles that bespoke their status as special ministers of God.  But although that status may have been special in the theocracy, it was certainly not unique to it.  There are many examples of pagan kings being addressed as ministers of God and being called to account by God for how they have exercised their office.  And although they are called indirectly by God’s providence, yet they are ordained of God, raised up as his ministers to fulfil his will, and accountable to him.  This is made abundantly clear when we review the scriptural testimony of how God regarded the following pagan monarchs.        

O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.  I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. (Isaiah 10:5-6).

I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me.  And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.  And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him.  And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.  (Jeremiah 27:5-8).

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,  Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.  (2 Chronicles 36:22-23).

That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.   Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;  I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:  And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.   (Isaiah  44:28-45:3).

Similarly, the scripture is filled with warnings and rebukes of God’s prophets utterred in God’s name against various pagan nations.  God is calling his ministers to account for how they have ruled.  He raises up ecclesiastical ministers to rebuke his erring civil ministers and remind them to rule justly according to his commandments and precepts. God obviously knows nothing of this modern theory that the civil magistrate is a secular person, accountable only to his subjects, and forbidden by the nature of his office to rule his subjects in God’s fear and according to God’s will.  From ancient times to the present, from the Noahic Covenant through Paul’s declaration in Romans 13, we see that all civil governors are ministers of God.

If they were not ministers of God, if they were not clothed with divine authority, then how could they rule?  When we sin, we sin primarily against God.  David wronged Bathsheba, Uriah, and Ahithophel, yet when he confessed he declared, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.” (Psalm 51:4).  Unless civil magistrates have authority from God, how can they punish other men for their sins against God?  God himself says, “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense.” (Deuteronomy 32:35).  Neither can men avenge themselves personally. And if they have not that right they certainly cannot delegate that to their elected representatives in the government.  For Paul teaches, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19).  Without a theistic, a moral foundation for its authority, civil government is reduced to ruling by brute force.  Then we all become like the Soviet Union where might is right.  Then at best we are reduced to the tyranny of democracy, the tyranny of the majority over any and all minorities.  However, all men are creatures and subject to the Creator.  No man can justly complain about having to submit to the minister of God. 

Two  Tables  Of  The  Law:
We have two institutions, both founded on the revealed will of God.  Both have God’s will as the foundation for their moral authority. We have two sets of ministers, ecclesiastical and civil.  Both offices are established by God to carry out divinely ordained functions, and are accountable to God.  Then we have the two tables of the law.  And here we can see one of the chief purposes of the division of the law into two tables.  The law as James tells us is one, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10).  Yet God purposefully divided it into two tables.  Rushdoony’s view that all ten commandments were on both tables destroys this division.  He maintains that that there were two copies of the covenant, one for each party.  But Moses came down from the mountain with both tables which combined contained one copy of the entire Decalogue.  Both tables were archived in the Ark of the Covenant.  In a theocracy this would make sense.  God was the King of Israel, and he ruled them from the mercy seat on the Ark in the Holy of Holies.  He enforced all the “ten words,” not only with the spiritual censures of the Jewish Church, of which He was the Head, but also with the sword of the civil magistrate as the King.   Both tables were in the Ark, the seat of God’s government over Israel.  But there were two tables and the distinction is real. 

And what is that distinction?  The scriptures teach that “love is the fulfilling of the law.”  As Paul taught,

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.  For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10). 

The law defines love. The law teaches us how to love.  And the first table of the law, according to Christ, teaches us how to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and mind, and strength.  Similarly, the second table of the law, as Paul states in the above quotation, teaches us how to love our neighbor.  The first table of the law therefore regulates our relationship to God; the second table regulates our relationship to our fellow men. 

Now the state does not regulate our relationship to God.  It was established after the flood as an earthly ministry of justice.  Before then God had administered justice among men personally.  God had personally dealt with Cain.  God had dealt with the generation of the flood in his providence.  He had, in his vengeance on their sin, literally washed them off the face of the earth. But these means had not been sufficiently effective.  In spite of the example of God’s judgment on Cain, a few generations later, Lamech publicly boasted that he had slain two young men.  In spite of Noah’s faithful preaching for many years before the flood, the threat of God’s providential judgments did not deter the continuous evil of that generation.  So God in his goodness and mercy to his creation went another step.  He established civil government.  He established an additional restraint on sin.  He did this for the sake of his elect. He did this so that another universal judgment would not be required again until the end of the age, until the Messiah had come, and all the elect had been gathered in.  Civil government was to be his visible presence, bearing his sword, marking iniquity in his name, exacting his vengeance, and being a terror to evildoers.  And the commands that he has given the state to enforce, as we have seen from Genesis 6 and Romans 13, are all second table commandments.  The state, with the exception of Israel under the Sinaitic Covenant, is not to enforce the first table of the law.  The state was established long before the church was founded in the days of Abraham.  It was founded before there was any public worship to regulate.  It was founded when there was only patriarchal family worship.  And even under the Sinaitic Covenant only public worship, not private worship, was regulated by the state.

The church is the new Israel of God. As Peter stated it, the church is that holy nation that Israel was to be.  The church is the covenant community where men have covenanted to be God’s people.  And therefore it is in the church that both tables of the law are enforced. 

And now we can finally get to what it means to be “one nation under God,” what it means to be a scriptural nation state under the New Covenant.  It is a nation where both church and state are recognized as being institutions ordained of God and established by his revealed will.  It is a nation where both civil and ecclesiastical elders are recognized as ministers of God, clothed with his authority and acting in his name.  It is a nation where the civil elders enforce the second table of the law, applying God’s sanctions against those sins in his name.  It is a nation where the church is recognized as the visible covenant community of the elect of God in Jesus Christ in which both tables of the law are enforced. 

One Nation:
As previously noted, there are only two public covenanted institutions that are ordained of God.  These are the church and the state.  They involve two sets of elders and the two tables of the law.  These two, generally occupying mutual geographical space, remain one nation.  Sovereign (humanly speaking) governments generally define a separate nation state.  Within that nation state the church exists as that holy nation spoken of by Peter.  Nonetheless, it remains one nation, not two.  Neither is the church a nation within a nation.  Church members remain subject to their respective civil governments.  Indeed, their church membership should indicate their acceptance of the very ground of that subjection, the will of God.  Church members are full citizens of the nation, rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but reserving to God the things that are God’s.  There is no difficulty in this, nor any conflict of loyalties, unless Caesar attempts to usurp the things of God.  Then Christians have, and will engage in principled resistance to unscriptural tyranny.  But at all times they remain members of the civil commonwealth and subject to all its lawful commands.

The United States:
The United States is one nation.  But in a sense it was composed of two separate republics, a civil republic and an ecclesiastical republic.  Both of these republics were reorganized in the late 1780’s when the United States of America was founded.   The civil republic was reorganized, and, contrary to popular mythology, this was not done along the lines of the Roman republic or Greek democracy.  Rather, it was reorganized along the lines of the Old Testament Hebrew Republic.  It was not based on the dregs of ancient pagan cultures but on the polity established by Moses under divine direction.  From the laws of Moses we get a bi-cameral legislature composed of a house of popular representation and a senate, a graded judiciary, and a chief executive.  We get the treaty making powers of the Senate and other features of our federal constitution.  As the tribes of Israel formed separate republics, united by a common federal government, so the colonies, as separate republics, united under a federal government as the United States of America.  It was this federal union that was the model for our own.1

The American War of Independence was fought for republican principles of government, and these principles are applicable in both church and state.  The Stuart kings of England had seen the connection and had maintained the principle, “No bishop, no king.”  They realized that if men will not accept hierarchical rule in the church, neither will they accept it in the state, and vice-versa.  The principles are a unity, so they rejected all Puritan efforts to reform the church and institute Presbyterianism in place of episcopacy.  At the time of the American Revolution the colonies were not only concerned about arbitrary rule in the state but also in the church, particularly the threat of the Church of England being established in the colonies with a bishop lording it over their consciences.  This they consistently resisted, and the Hanoverian kings, like their Stuart predecessors, were quick to see the connection. In fact the king and his advisors called it a “Presbyterian revolt.”  When this revolt was successful, these principles of scriptural republicanism were instituted in both church and state to establish both a new civil and a new ecclesiastical order. 

In 1789 the United States of America was organized with a new constitution.  It was comprised of four levels of republican government.  The first was the local or municipal government, then the county, the State, and the federal governments.  All levels could reserve specific rights and functions to themselves, but others were delegated upwards per the specific State and federal constitutions.  A similar process occurred in the Presbyterian Church.  It was reorganized as the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).  It too had four levels of government.  This graded system of ecclesiastical courts consisted of the session, governing the local church, the presbytery, governing a group of churches in a geographical area such as a county, the synod, governing the churches in an area the size of a State, and the general assembly governing all the churches in the nation.  Presbyterianism, the governing of the church by elected elders (presbyters), is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a republican commonwealth, and as such it was prominent in the founding of the American republic.  

Consistent with the principle of religious liberty there were of course many other churches and denominations in the early American republic.  However, Presbyterianism and its cousin, New England Congregationalism, had been the dominant ideological forces behind the American Revolution.  And when they joined in 1801 under the “Plan Of Union” the PCUSA became not only the logical twin of the infant civil republic, but the most influential denomination in the nation.  The importance of this parallel ecclesiastical republic was publicly recognized, and both Presidents Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson are on record expressing their concerns about what was transpiring at the General Assembly of the PCUSA.  The existence of these two parallel republican institutions gives us a prime historical example of scriptural separation of church and state and of what it means to be one nation under God. 

The First Amendment:
The first amendment has become a somewhat controversial element of the federal constitution.  Depending on whose ox is being gored Christians have viewed it as either the hero or the goat.  In the hands of the ACLU it has been used to eradicate any vestige of Christianity from the public life of the republic.  It has also been used by Christians to defend their institutions from the onslaught of a secular-humanist state in a post-Christian era.  What is the true intent of this amendment?  Is it a bulwark from which Christians can defend their liberties or is it a prescription for a secular state? The original intent of this amendment, as we shall see, was not nearly so schizophrenic.

The American republic was originally composed of the union of the thirteen colonies.  These colonies had fought a bitter and painful war to emancipate themselves from a tyrannical federal government in England.  They were cautious about repeating the experience.  All the original colonies had their own State constitutions.  These constitutions all recognized God and regulated the relationship of church and state in a unique way.  The colonies were not prepared to delegate this function to the federal government.  It was one of the rights reserved to the sovereign States under the tenth amendment.  But to make doubly sure, and at the insistence, not of secular humanists and infidels, but of the clergy, it was clearly spelled out in the first amendment.  At the time there were various church and state arrangements in the colonies.  In Massachusetts the Congregational Church was the legally established church.  In Virginia the Episcopal Church was legally established, and tithing to it was compulsory (George Washington during his presidency opposed the move of the State of Virginia to render this tithe voluntary.).   Roman Catholicism, illegal in Massachusetts, was protected in Maryland.  The Quakers dominated Pennsylvania, and the Presbyterians New Jersey.   None of these arrangements were affected by the first amendment.  That amendment, being in the federal constitution, applied only to the federal government.  With the federal government barred from interfering with the free exercise of religion and from legislating in this area, the States were free to decide these matters for themselves.  All of them in time opted for religious liberty, and voluntarily divested themselves of established churches.  All of them, however, maintained the right to regulate the relationship, not only of church and state, but of Christianity to the state.  Thus they maintained chaplains in their State legislatures, had public days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving,  took their public oaths on the Christian scriptures, and recognized the Bible and the God of the Bible in their institutions of learning.  They considered themselves to be Christian republics, to be part of that “One Nation Under God.” 

If this was so, what ever has happened to bring us to where we are today?  Well, whatever happened, we can see that the problem is clearly not with the first amendment.  In point of fact the problem lies with the  fourteenth amendment.  This was a major power grab by the federal government, particularly the federal judiciary.  The result of this amendment was that the individual States became subject to the federal constitution.  All the restrictions that had heretofore only applied to the federal government now applied to the States. And the federal judiciary would now scrutinize every piece of State legislation to ensure that it conformed to the federal constitution.  The States were no longer sovereign but mere extensions of the federal government.  And they were forbidden now to enact any legislation with respect to religion.  Now they could not even have prayer and Bible reading in their State schools without running afoul of the federal judiciary.  Now Jefferson’s warning about the threat to the liberties of the republic from an unelected judiciary began to take on new meaning. 

All of the radical and unpopular social reconstruction of the nation has been done by the Supreme Court in the guise of enforcing the federal constitution on the States.  The banning of prayer and Bible reading in the schools, elimination of scriptural capital punishment, the legalization of abortion, and most recently the legal protection of sodomy, have all been forced on the nation by the federal judiciary.  It is extremely doubtful if this agenda could have made it through many of the State legislatures and certainly not through the federal legislature. At least not at the times the various components were imposed by judicial fiat. The fourteenth amendment has been the legal wedge used to divorce the nation from any vestige of Christianity in its public institutions.  The fourteenth amendment has become the prescription for a secular humanist state.

Separation of Church and State:
Separation of church and state is clearly taught in the scriptures.  The reason that it is regarded with some suspicion by conservative Christians is because it has been corrupted to mean something totally different.  It has been used to mask and defend totally unscriptural ideas.  It has been an excuse to maintain a complete separation between religion and the state. It has been used to justify a secular state, a state that is for all practical purposes atheist.

Properly understood, separation of church and state simply means that institutionally these two organizations are to be kept totally separated. They have separate functions, and neither should interfere with the other’s legitimate carrying out of those functions.  It means that civil magistrates are not to carry out ecclesiastical functions and ecclesiastical elders are not to carry out civil functions. It means that office bearers in the one should not also hold office in the other.  It means that they should both co-exist according to God’s ordinance and respect each other’s jurisdiction.  But although they are to be institutionally and organizationally separate and not to interfere with each other, they do have mutual authority over each other.  That is, when ecclesiastical persons commit offenses against the second table of the law the civil magistrate ought to take note of it and deal with it.  If ministers of the Church of Jesus Christ commit sins such as murder, adultery, fraud, theft, etc., they are not immune to civil prosecution.  The civil magistrate is to visit them for these sins and deal with them accordingly.  Similarly, when civil magistrates who are also church members commit offenses against the law of God, the ecclesiastical elders should deal with it.  Civil magistrates who are church members are still under church discipline and should be disciplined and even excommunicated if contumacious and unrepentant of their sins as a civil magistrate.   Having politicians vote for public wickedness such as abortion on demand or homosexual rights and shield themselves from responsibility for their actions as church members by the argument of the separation of church and state is a mockery.  And even if they are not church members, the church can and should publicly rebuke their wickedness and even, in extreme cases, call for God’s anathema upon them.

Historically these relationships have been completely distorted, especially the church-state relationships in medieval Europe between various civil governments and the Roman Catholic Church.  In England part of the church-state confrontations between Thomas A’Becket and Henry II was due to the fact that the Roman Church claimed exemption for its officers from any civil prosecution whatsoever. Also, the church courts did not have the power of the sword, so that the most that could be done to a cleric, regardless of his crime, was to be degraded in office.  To qualify for this exemption from civil prosecution, all that one had to do was read a text from the Bible in Latin, the so-called “neck verse.”  In addition to this anyone could flee from civil justice by entering a church and claiming sanctuary. When one of Henry’s nobles executed a priest for raping a young girl, it caused a major crisis in church-state relations.  Since the King had the authority to appoint the Bishop of Canterbury, who served as primate of England, he was not inconsistent in claiming authority over a priest.  Both positions are clearly unscriptural.  The king has no authority to appoint officers in the Church of which Jesus Christ is the only Head, and no church officer is exempt from civil prosecution for his second table crimes.  The Roman Catholic church claimed the authority to excommunicate the king or any of his nobles.  This is clearly a biblical right of the church.  But the Church also claimed the right to absolve the excommunicated person’s subjects and vassals from any further allegiance to their lord.  There is no scriptural warrant for such actions, and it could obviously wreak havoc in the civil state.  Similarly the Church threatened any recalcitrant king with interdict.  This was to suspend all ministering of the sacraments, especially of the mass, in his realms (Henry’s fourth son, John, was excommunicated, and his realm placed under interdict because he refused to appoint the Pope’s choice as Archbishop of Canterbury.).  In a church that preached sacerdotal salvation this was tantamount to telling his subjects to dispose of their king or they all would be subject to eternal damnation.  All these things represent unscriptural entanglements of church and state. 

Institutionally separating church and state and correcting all the above stated abuses is one thing.  But to separate all religion from the state and to establish a secular state is another.  Paul and Christ both clearly exhorted that we ought to obey even pagan magistrates in their exercise of their lawful authority.  But although their lawful authority is not compromised by their lack of religion, or professing of a false religion, that does not mean that that is the way things ought to be.  Paul clearly taught in Romans 13 that the civil magistrate is God’s minister, enforcing God’s commandments.  The foundation of his authority is moral and rooted in the ordinance of God.  Ideally the civil magistrate ought to be a Christian.  He ought to openly profess that he is a minister of God. He ought to rule by appealing to the moral foundation of his authority.  And the laws he enforces ought to bind the consciences of his subjects because they have their origin in the precepts and commandments of God.  The basic submission is to God, and we submit to the lawful authority of the government because we are submitting to the ordinance of God.  Tyranny, such as what is practiced in totalitarian states, has no legitimacy and can only rule by fear.  Democracies fare a little better, but ultimately the same question can be asked of them.  Why should the minority submit to the wishes of the majority?  There is nothing infallible about majorities and their wishes, and their decisions are frequently unjust and corrupt.  The lynch mob is the ultimate example of majority rule at its worst.  Ultimately, the voice of the people is not the voice of God, and democracy cannot claim legitimacy simply because it represents the majority.  Only as the minister of God, representing the Creator who has lawful authority over all men, can government truly legitimize itself and have a solid moral underpinning for its authority.  In short, proper separation of church and state means recognizing the divinely ordained distinctions of God’s ministers and God’s institutions.  It does not mean denying God and his institution of civil government and erecting in its place a secular, atheistic state.