Our Social Principles

Para. 164 V. The Political Community
C) Church and State Relations—The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and state. In some parts of the world this separation has guaranteed the diversity of religious expressions and the freedom to worship God according to each person’s conscience. Separation of church and state means no organic union of the two, but it does permit interaction. The state should not use its authority to promote particular religious beliefs (including atheism), nor should it require prayer or worship in the public schools, but it should leave students free to practice their own religious convictions.

We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life.

An issue that keeps coming up these days is the relationship between Church and State. Do we allow the 10 Commandments to be placed on public property? The Supreme Court walked a pretty fine line recently with two cases in Kentucky and Texas. During the Christmas season everything that is ‘public’ was named ‘holiday’ instead of Christmas. President Bush was even criticized by some of his Christian Right contingency for putting “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” in his Christmas cards, (or are they holiday cards now? What’s a Christian to do?

The Social Principle that follows is the United Methodist position on the relationship between Church and State. A couple of things are worthy of note. It is clear that our church supports the concept of such a separation. But notice that means ‘no organic union…’; the two cannot be the same. That is originally what Thomas Jefferson was worried about. In Europe the tradition was that they were organically the same, and that meant wars and persecution. The need for a separation is to protect the weak and the innocent, and to avoid the abuse of power. While I find myself frowning about the ‘winter party’ at school, and resist the phrase ‘happy holidays’ with some vengeance (it just sounds too commercial to me), I recognize the need to protect those in our society who are not Christian.

That brings me to my second observation. The Social Principles also make clear that separation does not mean to discourage interaction between Church and State. Also, says that it “should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from the public.” That I heartily agree with. While we do not equate school and church, we should not be shy about claiming who we are as Christians in the public arena – we should not feel forced to make our cards all ‘holiday cards’ rather than Christmas cards. Nor should we be timid about allowing our faith to form and fuel our political life. I am more worried about the fact that many Christians cannot name the Ten Commandments; much less live by them, than whether they are posted at the local courthouse. I am far more concerned that at school our children have the background and the courage to be Christian examples during the ‘winter party’ than what the festivities are called. But, that’s just how I see it.

Pastor Jim

Becoming A Reconciling Congregation

At the December 2005 Church Council meeting, the council decided to refer the question of becoming a Reconciling Congregation to the congregation.  To read more on this important issue, please see the announcement on Becoming a Reconciling Congregation