THE Christian Citizen complains of “unfriendly critics” who “misrepresent” the Christian Citizenship League, “by assuming that Christian citizenship means a union of church and state.” Then the Citizen sets up the following defense against that charge:—
“Now it ought to be so clear as not to require repetition that a separation of church and state does not separate the individual Christian from the state. Under the old absolute monarchies there was a difference between duties to the state and to God. Then the Christian only had to see that he ‘render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.’ But in a republic like ours the individual is himself a part of the state, and becoming a Christian and a member of the church, which is separate from the state, does not make him any less a part of the state.”
Now, whether we shall be counted an unfriendly critic or not (we think we are friendly), this defense needs to be analyzed. From what we know is in it, it is possible that there may be something there that the Christian Citizen has not seen.
First. “A separation of church and state does not separate the individual Christian from the state.” And “the individual is himself a part of the State, and becoming a Christian and a member of the church, which is separate from the state, does not make him any less a part of the state.”
The individual is originally a part of the state. He is originally not a Christian, and therefore has no connection, nor any part, with the church, because the church is separate from the state. Originally, then, the individual is wholly of the state alone.
But now he chooses to be a Christian. He wants to unite with the church. In other words, he desires to form a union of himself and the church. He “is a part of the state;” and the church “is separate from the state.” Now the problem is, How can he remain “a part of the state” and form a union of himself and the church without at the same time and in that very act, so far as it is possible for him to do, forming a union of the church and the state?
The Christian Citizen says he can do it, but does not tell how. We say that he cannot do it, and tell how.
The church is composed of individuals, and the state is composed of individuals. The church is composed of individual Christians: the state is composed of individual citizens. The individual citizen is first: he is born to that; he is a “part of the state”—there is a union of himself and the state. He chooses to form a union of himself and the church. He does so. The Christian Citizen says that when he does so, he is “not any less a part of the state;” and at the same time insist that the church is separate from the state. But in that individual citizen it is not separate from the state. In him the individual citizen and the individual Christian are the same identical person. And as he is still a part of the state, and has now become also a part of the church—it follows as certainly as that two and two make four, that in that individual there is a union of church and state.
“The church is separate from the state.” The individual citizen is “a part of the state.” He forms a union of himself and the church, still remaining “a part of the state.” Then it is absolutely settled that in himself there is formed a union of church and state. It is therefore as impossible for an individual citizen to form a union of himself and the church and still remain a part of the state, without at the same time and in that very thing forming within himself a union of church and state, as it is for two bodies to occupy the same identical space at the same identical time, or for the same individual to be two distinct persons.
The great difficulty with this whole National Reform Christian Citizenship people is that they set up outside of and away from individual men a figment that they call the church and another figment that they call the state. Then, as they conceive that these two figments can never be united in what they are doing, so they isist that they as individual men can go on and do all that they choose without forming any union of church and state. But it is in the individual man where the union of church and state is always first formed. No union of church and state was ever formed, or ever occurred, outside of individual men, until a union of church and state was first formed inside of individual men. And the union of church and state was never formed inside of individual men, in any other way than that which is set forth in this defense of the Christian Citizen. This defense itself is essentially the advocacy of a union of church and state.
Second. “Under the old absolute [obsolete?] monarchies there was difference between duties to the state and to God. Then the Christian only had to see that he ‘render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.’”
Now it was the Lord Jesus who first put this “difference between duties to the state and to God,” as announced in the words “Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” And this difference was made by the Lord Jesus Christ for Christians, for church members, for those who believe in him, as certainly as for anybody else in the world, if not more so. This commandment—“Render unto Cesar,” etc.—was given for Christians, as well as for others, and for all time. It is a vital principle of the Word of God and of the religion of the Lord Jesus, and cannot be relegated to the old absolute (or obsolete) monarchies to pass away with them.
To say that this scripture relates only to the old absolute (or obsolete) monarchies, is only to say that the authority of God and the Lord Jesus Christ is that of an old absolute (or obsolete) monarchy.
The Christian Citizen allows that where this scripture applied, “under the old absolute [or obsolete] monarchies, there was a difference between duties to the state and to God.” And the only way in which the Citizen can save itself from that difference now is to fasten this scripture to “old absolute monarchies” and repudiate them both together. But any scheme that is compelled to repudiate the words of the Lord Jesus to save itself, is dangerous on the face of it. And any “Christians” or Christian citizens who are ready to repudiate the words of Jesus Christ to save their scheme, are not to be trusted in any pretensions that they may make in their efforts to make that scheme successful.