Separation of Church and State

"Separation of Church and State" was preached by Dr. Mark McElreath at the City Baptist Church of Atlanta on August 11, 2024. 

Find out more about the City Baptist Church of Atlanta at www.mycitybaptist.com.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Welcome to the City Pulpit, Bible messages from the pulpit ministry of the City Baptist Church in Atlanta. And then this last S here, the separation of church and state. Now, this phrase has become quite possibly one of the most misinterpreted and misapplied statements in American history. Now, we're going to look at some through ancient and medieval history, but we're going to take quite a few examples from American history because Baptist played such a key role in the separation of church and state. And yet, although that has been misapplied, I would say, in the last 80 years or so, the negative understanding is that it means the church cannot hold or express any opinion in government matters or show any expression of religion in public. We see that because in some places religious statutes have been taken out of public square. Copies of the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall in courthouses have been removed and things like that. Well, that's not what this means, separation of church and state. The correct understanding is that the church and the state are two separate organizations. The church does not run the state, and the state does not run the church. The church is not supported by people's taxes, nor is the teaching of the church the official law of the land. Now, I also want to mention this when I say the word state, I'm not talking about Georgia or Florida. I'm talking about what we would say is the civic government. It is the government that is set up that is ruling either a city or a county or the federal government at the national level itself. That's what we mean when we say state. So look here, let's go look at some examples in Scripture. And you see that there, we've given several. Let's go to Matthew 22. Matthew 22, let's read verse number 15. And uh we're going to read several of these. We could spend, you could probably preach entire messages on each of these passages, but I want to just pull out some of the key things that help us understand this distinctive in particular. Matthew 22, let's begin reading in verse 15. Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true and teachest the way of God in truth, and neither carest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not? And they're saying, Look, should we pay taxes to Caesar? And Jesus, verse 18, perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye, why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny, and he saith unto them, Whose is the image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Ringer therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marveled and left him and went their way. Now we understand they're trying to catch Jesus in his words. Well, if he says that we shouldn't give to Caesar, then we can call him a rebel and we can get him in trouble with the Roman government. But if he says that we should give to Caesar, then he's going to get in trouble with the Jews, because we know that Caesar is overtaxing the Jews. And yet what does Jesus say? Verse 21, he says, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's. And you see there, letter A, that two separate spheres exist. There is the sphere of civic government, and Jesus says, Look, what they ask of you, give it. In fact, one example would be when the Roman soldiers would come, and you had to, if a Roman soldier asked you to carry his load or his armor or his weapons, you'd have to carry it for one mile outside the city. And Jesus said, look, if they ask you to do it, then do it. In fact, if they ask you to do it, you should take it two miles and go further. But then he also says, what Caesar asks, give it. But also what God asked, you should give it. And I believe showing here there's two separate spheres of influence and authority. Let me give you another example as for the book of Romans. Let's look at Romans chapter 13. In Romans chapter 13, we pick up in verse number one, Paul is writing here. And he says in Romans 13, verse 1, let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. That's a pretty strong statement to start with. Higher powers, he's talking about, is civic government authority that's been placed. Now look, he says, for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Now that is such an interesting statement when you think. The powers that be, those who are ruling and reigning, some would say, You're telling me in the 1930s and 40s when Mussolini is reigning that it was ordained of God? When you go back and look at some of the terrible dictators that God is the one that allowed these to rule? Yes, and you know what? Even Cyrus, and all the way back in Isaiah chapter 40, you know what he said? Cyrus rules, and you know what he called him? He called him, he's my shepherd. He allowed even the evil king Cyrus to rule, and yet God worked his will and way through him for good. But look at verse number two. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. He says in verse 3, For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to 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. Now, verse three and four kind of stand together. And what's interesting is twice in verse four he refers to civil government authority as the minister of God. Now I think that's more of a almost an indictment against those who are serving in authority, in a governmental authority. Look, God has ordained that you be there. You are his minister or his servant, and so therefore, what is it saying? Verse 4, he is the minister of God to thee for good. Now, this brings up a whole nother thing we won't get into, but what is good, the only good that we can know, is from the authority of God's word. And so the civil authorities have the opportunity and the responsibility to punish the evil and provide for the good. And yet he says, look at verse 5. Wherefore you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. Verse 5 is getting into not just what is going on, but why we should be subject to these powers. And he gives two reasons why. He says, for wrath, what he's saying is, if rulers are ruling properly, then you don't want to be an evil one that's going to face prosecution and going to face the justice system. But also he says, it is for conscience sake. He says, just for your own conscience before God and before other men, you should follow what the government has told you to do. Now look at verse number six. He says, For this cause, pay ye tribute also. For there are God's ministers. There's that minister of God, God's ministers again, attending continually upon this very thing. He says, look, we ask you to pay taxes, pay taxes. Verse 7, render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. So we read this, and it makes me think about, especially when I read verse 7, that there's tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear. It makes me think about many years ago when we were in Ethiopia. It seemed like we were always in the government office having to get something stamped or paying some uh fee for paperwork or something. There's always something going on. And we could have very easily said, Look, I'm I'm done with this, you know, I don't have to do these things. And yet, Paul writing here, he says, Look, if they ask for tribute, give them tribute. If they ask for custom, and we went through customs enough, then give them custom. Render therefore all their dues, verse number seven. And so two clear responsibilities really, I think, come out of this passage. First of all, for civil government, they're to protect the good and prosecute the evil, and they're to collect tribute for the social well-being. Now, that is the realm of the state. But look here at letter C the realm of the church. Let's go to Matthew 28. Matthew 28. We saw in Romans 13 that the civil government is protecting the good, prosecuting the evil. They're collecting tribute for social well-being. And then Matthew 28, look at verse 19. Jesus says, Go ye therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. This is the responsibility of the church. And what is that? The proclamation of the gospel and to continue the teachings of Christ. You know, he says here, teach all nations. And when we think of nations, we think of, you know, the I'd have to look up the number 250 or 251, however many it is, uh, recognized entities today. Uh the Olympics are going on. I think today is the final ceremony, and there's 200 some odd nations represented there. But really what he's saying here is we're going, and we're not so concerned about where the lines are drawn, because by the way, those lines are always being redrawn. But we're going and we're finding people, we're proclaiming the gospel to them, and then he's saying here in verse number 20, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I've commanded you. They're continuing in the things that I taught you, and then the next generation is going to do what? Continue in the things that they were taught, and the next one's going to continue in the things they were taught. And so we find there is the realm of the state, and there's the realm of the church. Look at letter D there. But Jesus is king. Go with me, please, to John 18. Because we're really getting into the heart of the matter here. When we consider John 18 and verse 28, we're coming to the crucifixion account of the Lord Jesus Christ. And in John 18 and verse 28, he says, Then led they Jesus from Caiphas unto the hall of judgment. It was early. They themselves went out into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat Passover. Pilate then went out unto them and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. Now, this is a whole nother matter at hand, but it's so amazing to me. The Jews say, Look, we can't put anybody to death, but will you put him to death for us? That's what they're saying. Verse 32, that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again and called Jesus and said unto him, Art thou the king of the Jews? Okay, he's asking him a clear statement. Are you king of the Jews? Verse 34. Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation, and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me. What hast thou done? And Jesus answered. And this is key in verse 36 here. He says, My kingdom is not of this world. Now, if you'll mark that in verse 36, My kingdom is not of this world. Now we understand that the Lord Jesus Christ rules and reigns in the hearts of those who know him as their Savior. But he has not set up a throne anywhere on this earth. Now, we as, and I'm a what would be called a dispensationalist, I believe that time is coming where Christ will literally set up a throne. He will literally reign from Jerusalem. That day is not today, that time is not now. He says, My kingdom is not of this world. But if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight. That I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now is my kingdom not from hence. That's really the crux of the matter here. Jesus says, My king, yes, I'm a king, but this world is not my kingdom, because my subjects are not fighting. You're eyes to this day. Christians, true Christians, and especially Baptists, have never taken up arms against a religious opponent. Now, there have been those, and you can go through times in history, and uh there's there's an account in Germany, in Munster, Germany, where an entire city was taken over and they actually had to come in. Civil authorities had to come in and they were trying to actually enact Old Testament rule in there. There have been times where those have been tried. But Jesus is saying, we've not set up a civil government here. Otherwise, if we did, I would have my people storm and take me away. They could overcome you. Look at this. Pilate says, verse 37. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king, and to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth, and everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith, What is truth? When he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no fault in, I find in him no fault at all. Will you therefore that I release unto you the king of the Jews? And then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Baribas. And now Baribas is a robber. And so Jesus is king, but he's king of a world to come. Now, go with me to Acts chapter 5. Because we come to Acts 5. You know what happens in Acts 5? We can put it this way, the rubber meets the road. Okay, so we've been taught where to pay tribute where tributes do, be subject unto higher powers. Okay? Great. Here we are, Acts 5. Acts chapter 1, we have the exposure of the gospel. You are witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, in Judea, and in Samaria, and in the uttermost parts of the earth. The church begins with Christ and his disciples. It's empowered at Pentecost. Now the New Testament church is growing. They're preaching the gospel, they're preaching Jesus Christ. Look at Acts chapter 5, verse 17. Then the high priest rose up, all they that were with him, which is in the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with indignation. Why? And they laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison, because they're preaching the gospel. And so they're thrown into jail. Look at verse 19. But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors and brought them forth and said, Go stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life. So what happened? They're preaching the truth, and they're taken and they're thrown in prison. Now an angel comes, lets them out of prison, and says, What? Go preach again. The thing you were just thrown into prison for, go do it again. Look at verse 21. And when they had heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the sinners the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. They say, We threw them in prison once, we can throw them in prison again. Verse 22. But when the officers came and found them not in the prison, they returned and told, saying, The prison truly found, we shut with all safety, and the keeper standing without before the doors, but when we had opened, we found no man within. Now when the high priest, the captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people. And I love this. If you just use your holy imagination for a minute, think about these, the high priests and all these people going and looking for them in the prison, they have no idea where they've gone, all the doors still shut. And he says, Look, those men that you said you threw in there, they're out preaching in the temple again. It's almost a funny thing to think about. But then verse 26, he says, Then went captain with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people lest they should have been stopped, lest it should have been stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council, and the high priest asked them, he says, saying, Did not we strangely command you that you should not teach in this name? And behold, you fill Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Now verse 28 is civil authority with full jurisdiction over these men and can tell them what to do. And he says, Didn't we tell you this is what you were supposed to do? Then what is their response in verse 28? Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. We follow the letter of the law all the way up until it comes into contrast and contradiction with the law, God's word. He says we ought to obey God rather than men. So one Bible writer puts it this way. He said, We Christians do not seek ways to disobey our leaders and laws. For the Bible teaches us to submit to the government. However, should the state require us to violate Scripture, we must obey God and disobey the civil authority. And I love this final statement. He says, we would rather be lawbreakers in the sight of men than lawbreakers in the sight of God. And so when it comes down to it, and now I'm thankful, we have many protections today to stand up in this church building and preach the gospel, to go out onto a public university campus, talk to people about the Lord, pass out tracts, openly speak about the Lord. Jothy, you know that can't be done everywhere, right? She knows it better than most. Now, we have a responsibility to take those liberties and use them. If we do not use them, we will lose them. But if there ever came a time where they said, we will lock your church up, we will take your people away, if you're going to stand and preach the Bible and preach the truth, then we stand and preach the Bible and preach the truth because we ought to obey God rather than men. So, in summary, there's no union between church and state here. And there's no control of the church over the state, and there's no control of the state over the church. Now, there's a number of historical examples, and I give you some, kind of boil them down, some of them in history, but throughout much of history, civil government has ruled along with the church, and it was nearly impossible to see where one began and the other ended. I've given you the example there of the state church model of England. And in Henry VIII, in 1534, he wanted to divorce his wife. The Catholic Church wouldn't let him do it, and so he said, fine, I'll start my own church. And really, out of whole cloth, he starts the Church of England. There is an act called the Act of Supremacy in 1534, which makes him the head of the Anglican Church. To this day, the king or queen of England is still called the Defender of the Faith. They're the head of the Church of England and they're head of the nation. Now that's somewhat of a puppet figure ahead now, we understand, because of prime ministers of things. But that is an example of where the state and the church were very mingled, and you couldn't really tell where one began and where one ended. Let her be there. You see, modern-day communism in the 20th century has controlled religion in many countries. And the state tells the preachers this is what you can preach, this is what you can't preach, we're going to give you some money, this is what it can go toward, this is what it cannot go toward. Also, Nazism in Germany is a great example of this. Since the Reformation, the Lutheran Church, or started with Martin Luther, was the state church of Germany. And so for centuries leading up to the 20th century, to be a good German was to be a good Lutheran, and to be a good Lutheran was to be a good German. And so when you come to 1933, Adolf Hitler is made Chancellor of Germany. He uses the Lutheran Church to wield power, not just in social matters, but also in governmental matters. And you have people who revolt, you have people such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer that starts the confessing church. He says, We're the true church, following the truth. But he was an ordained Lutheran minister. You have the church having all of its money is coming from the state government of Germany. All of its people are ordained by the state government of Germany. All of its buildings, its church buildings are maintained by the state government of Germany. And so what the state says goes. And if you don't follow along, then you lose all the money. You lose all the power. This is the danger of mingling church and state. In several European countries, even today, have state churches or have had state churches. Church buildings maintained by government funds, clergy paid by government funds. The head of that country is usually the head of the church. And those religious views are often the only ones allowed to be taught in government schools. Now, an example, also in America. If you see there, the top one there I give you is Roger Williams. But many who came to America were wanting to get out from under a state church. They left England because they didn't want to be a part of the Church of England anymore. Because we had men like John Bunyan in the 1600s who said, I'm not going to take a license from the Anglican church because then the Anglican church is going to tell me I can preach this or I can't preach this or I can meet here or I can't meet here. And so for well over a decade, John Bunyan goes to prison in Bedford Jail, where he gets the idea for Pilgrim's Progress, is how you know the name. But sadly, many people who fled England to get away from the control of the state church came to New England in the northeastern United States and set up their own state churches. Either Anglican or coming to America became Episcopalian Church, or you'd find the Presbyterian Church. And so even the pilgrims did this. When they came over, they did this in the Plymouth colony. And so the government often operated as one civil authority, punishing those with differing religious views. But then you have a man called Roger Williams. Now he was forced out of New England by the congregationalists. The congregationalists had a state church. They kicked him out of Massachusetts, and he was kind of a wanderer. He knew that we need to, he had all these Baptist distinctives. He knew that we should only allow saved people into the church. He knew that the only people that should be getting baptized are people who've truly been born again. He knew we should not have control. The state government should not be controlling the church. And so he goes and finds some land. He buys it from the Indians. And you know what he does? He calls it Rhode Island. Starts his own state. Takes him over a quarter of a century to finally get a land grant from the king. And he signs it, I think, in 1663, I believe. And grants him the land for Rhode Island, starts the capital in Providence for separation of church and state. You also see there the name John Leland. John Leland is, we owe much as Baptists to John Leland. You see, up until the Revolutionary War, 1776, the state of Virginia had a state church. And it would, it was the Episcopal Church, which is really the Anglican church, and they would jail Baptist preachers who did not obtain a license to preach in Virginia. If you didn't get a license from the Episcopal Church, they wouldn't let you preach. And if you were found preaching, they would throw you in jail. And John Leland would help support these pastors and their families who had taken a stand for separation church and state, and who would help support their families while they were in jail. John Leland was a Baptist pastor who labored in both Virginia and Massachusetts. He was a pastor and a patriot who believed in religious liberty without coercion of the state. And I've given you a little brief piece there. He wrote something called the Rights of Conscience in 1791. I want to read to you just a short bit of that. He says, to say that religion cannot stand without a state establishment is not only contrary to the fact, as has been proven already, but it is a contradiction in phrase. Religion must have stood a long time before any law could have made, uh could have been made about it. And if it did not stand almost 300 years without law, it can still stand without it. The point he's making is if religion can stand on its own for hundreds of years, it doesn't need the state to come up and back it. And if it needs the state to back it, then it isn't true religion. He also says here, there's the story of John Leland and James Madison. Anyone know which president James Madison was? Very good. Our fourth president of the United States was close friends with John Leland. In fact, John Leland, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson were all close friends. And in 1788, John Madison, or James Madison, look at it here, was trying to get Virginia to ratify the new United States Constitution. And John Leland, an influential Baptist leader, sent Madison a letter explaining that Baptists could not back the Constitution because of its glaring lack of religious liberty. You see, John Leland was worried that all the baggage that we brought over from the Church of England, we were going to have a state church here in America. That's what we were trying to get out from under. And so you can go today, you can go to Orange County, Virginia, or Orange County, Virginia, I should say, where John Leland and James Madison met. You can go there now. It's called Leland Madison Park today. And John Leland said, we will ratify, Virginia will ratify the Constitution if you immediately make provision for religious liberty. And there was such, it's an amazing thing because there was such influence of Baptist pastors in Virginia that they could hold up the ratification of the Constitution by saying, look, we need a Bill of Rights. And the first amendment, which we're going to get to in a little bit, was that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. And that came from John Leland, a Baptist pastor in Virginia, standing up for this. You see here Isaac Bacchus. Isaac Bacchus is a man who suffered greatly, even physical harm, was beaten multiple times. Isaac Bacchus really was almost like a colonial era lobbyist. He traveled the Northeast and even down into some of the southern states lobbying groups, political groups for religious freedom. In fact, he was sent by a group of Baptists to the Continental Congress in the late 1700s to go before the Continental Congress as they're drafting the Constitution of the United States to make sure that religious liberty language goes into it. He traveled throughout the colonies campaigning for religious freedom. He was against paying taxes for state churches in the colonies. He was against state licensure of preachers, and he was for limitations on the publications of religious books. Limitations in that a state should not just be promoting or pushing one specific denomination or religion. Also, Isaac Bacchus pastored the same Baptist church for 60 years. He was an amazing man. Look at the First Amendment there. Because this is what comes out of the work of John Leland and Isaac Bacchus. The states get behind the Constitution, they ratify it. And then there are some amendments that are added on. This First Amendment, and I want you to see it, you have it there spelled out. Our First Amendment is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Now I doubt there are one in ten, maybe one in a hundred Americans who could tell you what the First Amendment is. This is another note, but if we do not know what our rights are, how can we stand for them if we do not know them? This is a right, by the way, it's a right granted to us by God, but we live in a country that also said this is a right that is that is also granted to you by your government. And there are two clauses in this amendment that are very important. Alright? I want you to see those. Number one, there's the establishment clause. That is, as it says here, respecting an establishment of religion. And then there is the free exercise clause that speaks of prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And the wording shows the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution to keep the government from establishing any official state religion or restricting the exercise of a religion. Because both of these happened in England. There was a state religion in England, and anyone who had a differing view, the civil authority, the government authority, they put it down. And the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to keep the federal government from controlling religion. Because look, I don't want the government controlling my health care. I certainly don't want it controlling my religion. So look at letter F there. We find Jefferson in the wall of separation. Now, this is very much where we get the idea of the separation of church and state. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter. Now, granted, this is a private correspondence, a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut. He stated in that letter that the First Amendment's establishment clause built, as he said, quote, a wall of separation, end quote, between church and state. This metaphor of a wall was never used to interpret the First Amendment until the case, and it's called Everson versus the Board of Education in 1947. They were upholding the constitutionality of a program that was paying people back for transporting children to parochial schools. Anyway, the Supreme Court said, you know, government should not have control over religion. It shouldn't have any say. You know, all the it said lots of great things in this case. But then at the very end of their brief in this Everson B. Board of Education, they said, they referenced the Thomas Jefferson quote of it has given us a separation of church and state. And it was at that point in 1947 that subsequent trials and subsequent briefs would use that phrase, I would say misuse that phrase, to bring an even greater divide between religion and the state. This was not Jefferson's intent. There are strong historical indications that he did not mean this. Some of those reasons are while Thomas Jefferson was in office, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building for Christian worship services, and Thomas Jefferson would attend them on Sundays. So if he believed in a separation of church and state, why would he allow church services to be held in the Capitol building? Also, Jefferson approved a paid government musicians to assist in the worship of those church services. Well, if he believed in a separation of church and state, meaning they have nothing to do with each other, why would he have government employees coming and playing in these church services? Also, Jefferson approved similar worship services in his own executive branch at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. Later, when Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, he designated a space in the rotunda of the University of Virginia for chapel services and indicated that he expected students to attend weekly services. So Thomas Jefferson in no way said religion should be entirely taken out of the state. His main idea and his intent is that the government should not control the church. He writes this, I'm going to read you a rather long quote here, but he wrote something called the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. This, I believe, is to truly understand what he meant by this. He was writing this, he drafted a bill in the Virginia legislature in 1779 concerning the right of freedom of conscience for all men. It passed eventually in 1786, but he said this We, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious service, place of worship, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall he be enforced, restrained, or molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of seceding assemblies constituted, um constituted with powers equal to their own, and that therefore declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare and do declare that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind. And the point he's making there is that no person should be forced to believe anything, go to any religious service, support any religious service that they feel like they should not have to. He is trying to get the government out of religion, not religion out of the government. And then these are some, I think, wonderful things that Judge Thomas Cooley gives. If you look at letter G there, uh he was a uh judge well over a hundred years ago at this point, but he gives an excellent summary of the constitutional law at the state and federal level as it pertains to the church and state relationship. He states those things which are not lawful under any of the American constitutions may be stated thus. One, any law respecting an establishment of religion, two, compulsory support of taxation or otherwise of religious instruction. Three, compulsory attendance upon religious worship. Four, restraints upon the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience. And five, restraints upon the expression of religious belief. He says the Constitution has no power to do any of these. Make anyone go or keep anyone from going. Make anyone give toward a state church or hold back if they would like to give. But religious liberty, I've given you kind of this final statement here, and the separation of church and state is a clear Baptist distinctive. But this does not mean that we as Baptists should shy away or neglect the political process. Christians should use every bit of influence they have in shaping and defining public policy and elections. If nothing else, I think it shows us the greatest weapon, maybe we could say that we have is that of influence. God has given us influence and we can wield that influence. God has given us opportunities in the people we meet, the people we know, and you know, we pray for elected leaders on Wednesday nights. And the reason is if we're not praying for them, who is praying for them? If we're not trying to influence them in the right way, who is trying to influence them in the right way? And we have the truth. We know what is right. And so we have this wonderful opportunity. And so, uh, I when we talk about separation of church and state, I don't believe any framer of the Constitution said we need to take all the religion out of the public square. They just wanted to make sure the federal government wasn't forcing people to worship or was it keeping people from worshiping. But also, we've got to understand this is, if we go back to the Bible, this is a right given to us by God. This is one, even if even if a country or a government or a ruling party didn't give it to us, we have it of God. No man can rule over the country. Thank you for listening to the City Club. For more information about the City Baptist Church of Atlanta, please visit www.mycitybaptist.com.