PART I
A LOOK AT THE PAST FOR BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS

CHAPTER II
BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

The question of the military chaplaincy is closely related to the doctrine of church-state relations. Baptists claim to derive their doctrines from the scriptures rather than from the teachings of men. Baptists must search for biblical and theological foundations for their distinctive teachings concerning church-state relations and religious liberty. In order to arrive at a consistent future position on the military chaplaincy Baptists should take this necessary preliminary step.

It has been suggested that the Baptist teaching concerning the separation between church and state has been taken out of eighteenth century rationalism rather than out of the Bible. A thorough search into Baptist teachings is required to determine whether this is true. It cannot be dismissed lightly. It is a crucial point. Loyed R. Simmons has said, "If ever a people were predisposed toward a particular and distinctive point of view, Southern Baptists must be so characterized with reference to a deep and lasting commitment to the 'high wall' concept of the separation of church and state." This study will examine the validity of this statement. Nevertheless, various Baptist leaders through the years have utilized biblical source material as the basis for their thinking and positions on church-state issues.

How Old Testament Sources Have Been Utilized

Caution must be used in making claims that attempt to justify the doctrine of separation of church and state on the basis of the Old Testament. There is much material in the Old Testament that can be used to teach that church and state were generally united rather than separated. Many Baptists contend that in Israel the religious institutions were merged together in a way that is absolutely prohibited in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Because of the divine covenant Israel's religious and political life were as one, and without the covenant there would have been no state or religion of Israel. But, having said that, one must also note that there was a separation of function between king and priest. The king was primarily a war lord or commander-in-chief over the army of Israel; he was not the priest. The Hebrew prophets, too, were distinct and separate from the rulers and kings. The prophet continuously dared to remind the community that the king was subject to the judgment of God. He was free and independent and consequently in a position to challenge the commander-in-chief on matters pertaining to the covenant and the law of God.

During the Exile the religion of Judaism became more separate from the state than before. The brief period under the Maccabees saw the one time when priests were also warriors. It is significant that they were not held in the highest esteem by devout Jews of their day or of subsequent history.

Roger Williams pointed out biblical and theological sources for Baptist beliefs concerning religious liberty and separation of church and state. Even though Roger Williams was a publicly-professed Baptist for only a short time, the writings which we have from him reflect beliefs and doctrines on these subjects as held by Baptists of his time and of subsequent generations. The most helpful extant writing of his position is the famous The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, which was published in 1644. This document will be analyzed rather thoroughly for the purpose of searching out biblical sources for his (and early Baptists') beliefs.

Williams clearly spoke out in his opinion that civil magistrates and officials are to govern only in civil matters and never in religious matters, and that persecution because of religious beliefs or practices was wrong. In answering the argument that the church and state are like twins, Williams wrote that "a civil magistrate may be neither a member of a true church of Christ nor in his person fear God, yet he may (possibly) give free permission without molestation (and sometimes encouragement and assistance) to the service and church of God." He cited the case of Abraham who was permitted by the idolatrous and pagan rulers to set up an alter to Jehovah for worship. Additionally, he gave the example of Cyrus who proclaimed liberty to all the people of God in his dominion and allowed them freely to go up and build the Temple of God at Jerusalem, and Artaxerxes after him confirmed the same liberty.

Williams stated that the civil ruler was not to make any laws regarding punishment for religious worship according to one's conscience, and he supported this position by alluding to Daniel, chapter six, where it is mentioned that King Darius commanded that anyone who prayed to any except himself should be cast into the den of lions. In another reference to Daniel, he praised the "nonconformity of the three Jews to the whole conforming world" for refusing to fall down before the Golden Image even though it meant they were to be cast into the fiery furnace.

Some contemporary Baptist spokesmen have related distinctive Baptist beliefs regarding religious liberty to the Old Testament concepts. Some of these concepts have obvious bearing on the military chaplaincy. David L. Mueller has pointed out that "Man as God's creature owes his ultimate allegiance to God (Ex. 20:2-3). Submission to lesser powers as ultimate, either voluntarily or through force, is sin and idolatry." Nolan P. Howington has pointed out that the prophet Amos teaches (chapters one and two) that God holds men of all nations fully responsible for their mistreatment and persecution of their neighbors. This demand for moral responsibility in conduct applies equally to the larger social groups and to the individual.

There is always the danger of substituting external national factors for the internal dynamic response of the people of God. Wayne E. Ward has elaborated on this danger as follows:

When Israel saw her role as automatic and inevitable because of her Father Abraham, her custody of the Temple, and her possession of the Torah, she could no longer be the People of God.... It is clear that an established religion, or a "culture religion," or a family religion, is no religion at all in the Biblical sense. These fail exactly at the point where Israel did: the loss of true concept of the Covenant Community, the People of God, by substituting the deterministic and external factors of race, culture, or nation for the dynamic concept of free response to the call of God to serve him.

Having examined some of the statements of the mid-seventeenth century alongside some of the last half of the twentieth century on Old Testament concepts, the same procedure will be followed regarding New Testament concepts and distinctive Baptist beliefs which are pertinent sources for the purpose of this study.

How New Testament Sources Have Been Utilized

There are many more New Testament sources than Old Testament sources used by Baptists to support their positions on religious liberty. A group of Baptists in Charlestown, in 1665, cited some key passages in their Confession of Faith:

We acknowledge magistracy to be an ordinance of God and to submit ourselves to them in the Lord, not because of wrath only, but also for conscience sake, (Rom. 13:1; I Pet. 2:13, 14). Thus we desire to give unto God that which is God's and unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Roger Williams provided an example of similar usage of the New Testament. He alluded to the Roman Emperors and Governors under them who permitted the Jews in the time of Christ to have their Temple and worship, although "in things civil they were subject to the Romans." Continuing his argument for separation of church and state, he said, "The Scriptures and the (historical) records concur that the first Churches of Jesus Christ, (the patterns and precedents to all succeeding ages), were gathered and governed without the aid of any Civil Authority." He also cited the instance of the church in Ephesus which was distinct from the city or civil state of Ephesus. He wrote in the Bloudy Tenent "as the lilly is amongst the thorns, so great a difference is there between the church in a city or country, and the civil state, city or country in which it is."

Williams drew a clear distinction between a civil state and a spiritual state, between civil officers and spiritual officers, civil weapons and spiritual weapons, civil vengeance and punishment and spiritual vengeance and punishment. This he based largely on texts like II Cor. 10:3-4, "for though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds." (R.S.V.) He said, "Civil weapons are most improper and unfitting in matters of the spiritual state and kingdom, though in the civil state most proper and suitable." He meant that heresy may be cut down by the sword of the Spirit but not by a civil sword. Likewise he felt that the will and heart of a man could be influenced toward God by the sword of the Spirit but not by a civil sword. He said, "God needs not the help of a material sword of steel to assist the sword of the Spirit in the affairs of conscience."

David L. Mueller has recently said that, "Any state or earthly power which seeks to legislate man's relationship to God denies therewith the spiritual nature of that relationship, i.e., that it derives from the interaction of God's spirit and the human spirit.” Roger Williams spoke to these same issues many times to the effect that any coercion in religion violates the doctrines of justification by faith. He said:

...an unbelieving soul being dead in sin (although he be changed from one worship to another, like a dead man shifted into several changes of apparel) cannot please God, and consequently, whenever such an unbelieving and unregenerate person acts in worship or religion, it is but sin... while a sword of steel compels them to worship in hypocrisy. (Heb. 11 and Rom. 14.)

Continuing in the same direction, he said, "A sword of steel may produce a carnal repentance ... but only the Lord Jesus can give (real) repentance. (Acts 5:31)."

Williams pointed out clearly the inconsistency of enforced conformity of worship when he related it to a similar enforced conformity or participation in the sacraments or ordinances of religion. He referred to Acts 2:42 and the practice of the Apostles where worship is directly connected with the breaking of bread in communion. If a civil state feels authorized to compel worship it may just as lawfully and logically compel observance of the sacraments or ordinances such as baptism or holy communion, since they are all of similar nature.

Anson Phelps Stokes says that Roger Williams took his biblical authority for the doctrine of separation of church and state from the various "come out" and "be ye separate" texts, such as Rev. 18:4; Isa. 52:11, and II Cor. 6:17, as well as from the general principles of Christianity summed up in the two great commandments, Matt. 22:37-39.

Williams used the texts in Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13 to support the civil magistracy, but he denied that the magistrate had any authority over the conscience of his subjects.

Roger Williams used one text in support of separation of church and state which was used again and again in later generations; this is John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world." His comment on this was as follows:

I observe that although the Kingdom of Christ, the Church and the Civil Kingdom or Government be not inconsistent, but that both may stand together; yet that they are independent according to that Scripture.

He denied that "Christ's ordinances and administrations of worship are appointed and given by Christ to any Civil State, Town or City."

A memorial from Massachusetts Baptists to the Philadelphia Congress also quoted John 18:36 in claiming the right of liberty of conscience:

It may now be asked, "What is the liberty desired? The answer is: As the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world (Jn. 18:36), and religion is a concern between God and the soul, with which no human authority can intermeddle..., we claim and expect the liberty of worshiping God according to our consciences, not being obliged to support a ministry we cannot attend."

In 1775, at a meeting of the Massachusetts Assembly, the Warren Baptist Association, acting under the stimulus of Isaac Backus, presented a resolution on the subject of religious freedom, which included the following:

Our real grievances are, that we have been taxed on religious accounts where we were not represented...; and for a legislature to impose religious taxes is a power whuch their constituents never had to give; and is therefore going entirely out of their jurisdiction .... Christ says, "My kingdom is not of this world" .... Yet, we are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers to religious worship, is not a mere favor .... but a right .... granted us by God, who commands us to stand fast in it....

Here, again, is noted the use of John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Jesus, in John 18:36, seemed to draw a line of demarcation between church and state. He denied that his kingship is of an earthly or civil nature; it is, on the contrary, of a spiritual nature. By the use of the expression "kingdom of God" he meant the eternal reign of God in the human heart, rather than the idea of territory or country. Baptists have always resisted the church's attempt to take on the character of functions of a political or civil kingdom "of this world."

Much of the basis of Baptist beliefs regarding religious liberty and separation of church and state is found in the attitude of Jesus toward the state and his teaching on the state. Jesus made one direct reference concerning the state in respect to paying tribute to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17; Matt. 22:15:22, and Luke 20:22-26). Special attention must be given to the meaning of this passage, inasmuch as it is of great significance to this study. By saying "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" Jesus recognized the dual citizenship of the Christian to the state and to the Kingdom of God.

The question is not whether the Christian is to obey the state. The question is whether the Christian is to give to the state that which rightfully belongs to the state and whether or not he gives back to God what is God's. As citizens there are certain things, such as taxes, which are due the state in recognition of services rendered and privileges enjoyed. However, the supreme tribute of one's entire life belongs to God. While the rightful obligations of the citizen to the state are to be recognized, for the Christian absolute obedience belongs only to God.

Oscar Cullman said, "Do not give Caesar more than his due! Give him nothing that belongs to God!" This principle obviously sets definite bounds around the domain of the state and prohibits the deification of the state and requires that the attempted elevation of the state to the sphere of the Kingdom of God must be resisted. James Wood concluded from this premise that "such recognition requires the complete independence of the church in its relations to the state."

Another Biblical concept which has profoundly influenced the thinking of Baptists is that of the doctrine of Christian freedom as found in the New Testament. It is readily admitted that the personal, inward, spiritual qualities of this freedom are not in all respects identifiable with the modern connotation of religious freedom; yet certain "freedom" passages have given inspiration to many who applied them to certain political and civic situations.

Dale Moody has pointed out many of these theological implications. Much of Christ's message and mission was concerned with freeing men from sin, death, and the power of Satan. Jesus came "to proclaim release to the captives" and "to set at liberty those who are oppressed" (Luke 4:18). He came to set at liberty those who were in bondage (Mark 3:27). Also Paul wrote, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (IlCor. 3:17). Many who were oppressed politically by ruthless church-state power drew strength and encouragement from such New Testament passages on Christ and freedom. Many of these ideas are at the very heart of church-state relations. Paul will always be remembered for his many impressive uses of the word "liberty". He treated liberty not only in a political sense, distinguishing the bondsman from the freeman (Col. 3:11), but also in other senses, such as freedom of conscience and freedom from various forms of bondage. A recent writer on the use of the word "liberty" by St. Paul and the early church, says,

To the rise of Christianity we very specially owe an advanced conception of the conscience and its corollary, the claim of freedom to act in accord with the behests of conscience. "Am I not free?" cries St. Paul (ICor. 9:1).

Baptists have been strongly influenced by the Pauline teaching that the state is divinely ordained and its functions divinely instituted. This concept, put forth in Romans 13:1-7, leads to an obedient, respectful attitude toward governing authorities. This is not to say that the state is divine, but that as an institution of political authority it is ordained of God. Neither is this to justify an uncritical attitude toward the state. Christians who accept the absolute sovereignty of God cannot at the same time accept the absolute sovereignty of the state.

Early American Baptists in the days of the Revolutionary War demonstrated they felt that if the state fails to exercise its legitimate functions it abrogates its authority over its citizens. Christians then are no longer bound to their obligations to the state. In case of conflict between duties to God and the state, the duties to God have priority. Nevertheless, Paul takes good government for granted and teaches obedience to the government and the obligations of citizenship, including the paying of taxes (Romans 13:2,3,5-7; I Timothy 2:3,3).

Baptists have not been as strongly influenced by the Johannine view of the state as by the Pauline view. However, the Johannine teachings on church and state relations are important in the biblical and theological foundations for current Baptist positions. An essential point to remember is that whereas Paul spoke of the state as an institution, John thought of the state as a specific historic reality in terms of the Roman Empire. By the time John wrote the Apocalypse, the state had come to be perceived as Satanic and the enemy of the Kingdom of God. This evil was expressed in totalitarianism and persecution of Christians.

It has been noted that "the mark of the totalitarian State is that it always demands supreme allegiance, which belongs only to God." Christians refused to worship the emperor. They were to "be faithful unto death." (Revelation 2:10) Yet nowhere does John counsel violent resistance to overthrow the state. He teaches that Christians should passively resist the totalitarian demands of the state which conflict with faithfulness to God. When there was no other alternative but to disobey the state, then the Christians must say as did Peter and John, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29).

The above discussion has not attempted an exegetical study of the referenced scriptures. It has, frankly, been an examination of what certain Baptist leaders in the field of church-state relations have had to say about pertinent scriptures in that area. This is one way to get at those doctrines upon which Baptists (and others) have considered relevant biblical models, images, and texts.

It is true that the scriptures cited in this chapter do not in so many words teach the separation of church and state. But Baptists have always seemed to have the insight to discern in such scriptures the implicit, if not the explicit, teaching of religious liberty and have inferred from it the corollary separation of church and state. E.Y. Mullins said, "It required spiritual discernment to discover the doctrine... and yet when once discovered by the unbiased mind, it was accepted as a self-evident truth."

These scriptures illustrate the fact that long before the Jeffersonian view of the "wall of separation of church and state" Baptists had discovered from the Bible principles upon which their distinctive doctrines of religious freedom and separation of church and state were founded. This is not to say that their doctrines were as clearly expressed or as fully thought out as they became toward the end of the eighteenth century. But a good case can be presented that such doctrines were based on their interpretation and application of scripture rather than on rationalism. The chapter on the historical development of these doctrines will show that there was an alliance between Baptists and rationalists in the eighteenth century, but this was an alliance of two separate groups that had discovered truth from two separate sources. Neither of them was the source of the thinking or conclusions of the other.

An examination of these distinctive Baptist teachings indicates that there are several ethical and social issues involved beyond those of religious freedom and separation of church and state. The duty of the citizen toward the state inevitably is related to his duty in war time. This introduces the issues of war and peace, pacifism, conscientious objection, military service, and the chaplaincy. As this research progresses, attitudes of Baptists toward these issues will be examined with a view to studying the advisability of a reformed contemporary and future ministry to military personnel.