Tenured Historians of the Golden Calf | Doug Wilson

In this episode of Blog & Mablog, Pastor Doug Wilson discusses that persistent phrase "the separation of church and state. When we say that we are in favor of a separation of church and state, what are we saying exactly? Whatever do we mean by it? Or if we were to carelessly toss out Jefferson’s phrase “wall of separation,” as though we knew what we were saying, and someone were to press us on where that wall was located precisely, what would we say? It would separate what from what? In a frenzy of enthusiasm, we “built the wall.” What are we keeping out? Does anybody know?

Get one free month of Canon+ with code NQNQ

Free Books:

Current Canon+ subscribers can give a year’s subscription of Canon+ for just fifty bucks—$49.99 instead of $95.88

The secular order is burning down around our ears, and here we are, arguing about whether triangles have three sides.

Blog and Mablog is presented by @CanonPress

[matthewwalton]

The sound of Doug roasting David French on a spit is a comforting sound.

[Jordan-qdxe]

I think k I learned more from this than any other American history class.

[YESHUASlave]

Love it: 'cows are powerful man'!
Its 4:30 in the morning and my Family is/was asleep, i reach that statement and gave a pretty loud chuckle. Thanks be to GOD for all these great Gifts

[MrLlamajockey]

Definitely using the word 'bumfuzzled' from now on. Every day.

[dreamdiction]

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule". H. L. Mencken (1932).

Mencken was talking about politics but the same applies to religion.

[Captin]

I think the Lord for removing the veil that the world has put over or tries to put over people's brains, eyes to see and ears to hear. Thank you Doug for being part of the spirit's work in this area!

[LittleOneWithWings]

Wow, remarkable to consider how much can change in such a brief span of time, just a generation or two. This was a great piece. Bothers me so much when people claim our nation was not founded on Christian principles, or that church and state means untethering our governing completely from Christianity and the Word of God, AKA, morals. It's happening now and we are reaping the consequences, but as you have pointed out it doesn’t have to be too late.

[ctvtmo]

Love your politics Doug! You should run for office. And thank you for the free stuff.

[Fragrences-byGeorge-ForMen]

We are not only a nation divided but individuals divided.

[geneticsmatter]

It’s like how your sandwich and your glass of water are separate on the dinner table during lunch. Just because it is wise to keep the glass of water separate from the sandwich doesn’t mean that there is no water in the sandwich. It doesn’t mean that all of the ingredients in the sandwich must be thoroughly dehydrated of all their water, like processing a grape into a raisin.

[apologiaromana]

Catholic here! Really enjoyed this one! That bit about the WELS Lutherans was funny

[mary-janechambers]

‘’Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord’’ Psalm 33:12

[christophertaylor]

Jefferson's "wall of separation" was not about religious power vs government power, it was a rejection of a state religion, or a state-sponsored religion.

[levibaer]

Interested to hear your opinion about the seeker sensitive movement, to include “Christian music” being transformed into modern music, and it’s relationship to the golden calf. If there be any relationship.

[stevenboyd]

And now here we are in the middle of 2024 and reaping the whirlwind of what happens when you shutter the grace of God out of your society by denying the value of the previously established covenant

[mchristr]

"Kantian lug nuts" indeed. We Americans are thoroughly committed to the moral imperative--and pridefully so--whatever that might be.

[stevenboyd]

Ad hoc - ramshackle - government we are there now.

[JPGoertz]

Thank you for this, Mr Wilson. It is appreciated. However, without the "Reformation of Christianity" in the 1500’s there would not even be a need for that discussion. The Catholic model (aka „sanity“) provided for a rightful and healthy separation of Church and State - the control of the former over the latter, if need be. It was the reformators who sold Christianity to the Nobles, from the Count of Hessia to the King of England. Their ideas and theology was so important to them as to submit to local rulers and give them sway over church matters. Only the subsequent injustice and total control of worldly rulers over people made the separation of Church and State necessary. Before this, Bishops and Popes (who had not dynastic interests and could thus, ideally, not always practically) sacrifice themselves to protect the souls of people. The King of England (or even the Catholic King of France) could not do that due to the Christian nationalism of their times. I do not think that we need Christian nationalism. We need the Church and a State. And we need ONE Church under ONE Head. Otherwise we cannot stand up to ONE state under ONE Head. And there the buck comes back to you Protestant people: What do you really want? God save us from a theocracy. We need Christian men running the state. Yes. And a Christian man as a Pope who is a counterbalance to any other ruler. For that we need ONE church. How would it be to have a Calvinist dogmatist as President without a separation of Church and State? Soon the tabernacles would be thrown out from the Catholic Churches as they were in former centuries. Which does not mean personal faith should not determine action and voting. Absolutely. But the state must not have a role in establishing a religion. That is what the separation of state was meant to guarantee. And I agree.

[Pandaemoni]

On the "no religious test" clause, the Founders were aware that Jews existed in the United States and it seems clear the clause would have applied to them, not just among Christian denominations. In fact, many states had clauses, as I understand it, that specifed that state office holders should be Christians buit neutral as to the denomination of Christian. All the Founders would have had to add is to say that there could be no religious test "other than an affirmation that Jesus Christ is Lord" (or something similar) and there would them be a filter.

Similarly, Virginia's statute for religious liberty (penned by Jefferson and passed into law a year before the Constiitution was written) was explained by Jefferson as offering religious freedom to “the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian, the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and [the] infidel of every denomination.” Again, they seemed to be aware of these other religions in Virginia (and surely Madison as father of the Constitution) was. And George Washington, while President and before the ratification of the first amendment, wrote a letter to a Rhode Island syngogue affirming that, though a minority, American Jews would “possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.”

So they seem to be aware of non-Christians and still wrote a clearly absolute provision on religious tests. I can see a strong argument that they were wrong to do so, but not that they thought it would only apply to Christians seeking federal office. (I am not under any illusion that the Founders on the whole had especially high opinions of non-Christians, but they surely were aware that that clause could have applied to them and still chose to leave the wording as is.)

[mercermouth]

This winks to some David Barton history lessons...