blogs :: Ex Veritate Vita :: July 1, 2009

Separation of Church and State-- But what if the church is wrong?

by Jasmine Wilson

I am sure most of the readership of theotherjournal.com is familiar with those within the Christian tradition that are highly critical of the nation-state's sway over evangelical Christianity. Separation of church and state has seemed to be a way that the church can be protected from prosecution, yet really it is just a way of relegating Christian faith to the privatized sphere while liberalism (in the vein of Mill, Locke, and others) becomes the dominant "religion" of the nation- a religion that preaches the autonomous individual's conscious as the proper authority for how one lives his or her life. The state then protects each individual, and the individual in turn serves the state. I was reading an older book this afternoon that I had not read in its entirety, Rodney Clapp's "Border Crossing," and a number of the essays in that book touch on this topic. Originally I was thinking of writing a post on embodiment, and the tacit knowledge that "peasant Roman Catholics" have, which I thought was a fascinating phrase that Clapp quoted from Hauerwas. But then, I happened to hear a snippet on the news about the Worthington family from Oregon City, Oregon, who after the death of their daughter from an easily treated disease were prosecuted for abuse. It has made its way into the news because the trials are going on right now and expect to last until the end of July. A snippet of Carl Worthington's defense was shone, in which he stated, "It never crossed my mind to call a doctor." He and his wife had engaged in faith healing; they annointed her with oil, had her eat bread and drink wine, and they prayed with her, even inviting other members of the church over to their house.

According to the principles of Clapp's and others' argument, it would seem like the Worthington's should be praised for putting the church first and their relationship to the state second, especially since so many Evangelical Christians do the opposite. The Worthington's beliefs were so embodied into their every day life that it did not even occur to them to rely on someone outside the field of the church. A friend of mine got into an argument about this with his mother the other day. She was convinced that the Worthington's were right to do what they did. He was flabbergasted; a girl had died because of these people, and yet his mom sided with them? Both mother and son are self-professed Christians. So who's side should we take? The news anchors were clearly against the Worthingtons, saying in a clear bias at the end of the report, "So many parents out there are shocked and can't even comprehend how someone could do this to their kids." Then they moved on to the next report.

Another thing that complicates this issue for the average person is that the death was that of a child. Various scholars have remarked on the fragility we place on children; the death of a child is more heart-wrenching because of their "innocence" than the death of a Iraqi soldier, for instance. Perhaps this can be traced to the all-encompassing religion of liberalism-- while the autonomous individuals of the Worthington's should be allowed to make choices regarding their own faith in their home, if it involves a child who is not allowed a choice, as the parents are, but instead must agree to what her parents decide, the state then has the role of protecting children. So then, a child ceases to be part of the "private sphere" of the home that religion is relegated to, and instead becomes part of the public sphere, protected by the state.

Next is the matter of “common sense.” Clapp has a lot to say about how “common sense” is not very common. But in the world of liberalism, common sense must take precedence over dogma. One panelist on a video I found on Youtube declared that in many of these cases, common sense goes out the window, but for the sake of our progeny, no matter what one believes, the child’s welfare should take precedence, according to some neutral, objective, universal “common sense.”

So then, where does this leave us? It seems wrong to me to actually side with the State over a church. But perhaps that is the right option for this case. And maybe the solution would be found in the definition of the word “church.” The Worthingtons were ascribing to the particular church tradition that affirmed faith healings, and denied the work of “secular” physicians. The majority of the church catholic (little “c”) would disagree with that assessment. So when writers write about how Christians should allow their allegiance with “the church” to take precedence over their allegiance to the state, they should qualify in a practical manner just what it means to give one’s allegiance to the church. Is it just the majority of Christians, regardless of denomination? Would the Worthingtons’ allegiance to their church qualify as giving allegiance to the church?