Good Neighbors?

Good fences make good neighbors...

In the opinion of Robert Frost, this was not true. However, lately I wonder if such a statement might actually be true for the Church. There are those in America who think so. There are also a large number of Christians who do not agree, who think the existing fences should be torn down and kept down if we are to achieve a safe, free, moral country. I am referring, of course, to the debate-inspiring issue of separation of Church and state. While not necessarily a hot-button issue (except in some organizations and in some churches), it is one that always rests under the surface of political and religious disputations, and normally works its way to the center of the argument eventually in everything from abortion, school prayer, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and other fiery discussions.

A spirited debate has been taking place on my friend, John's, blog. The entries and comments, including my own, has gotten me to thinking a bit more about this issue. Hence my proverbial hat tossed into the ring, my two cents being spent.

Growing up, what little I knew about the establishment and point of the separation of Church and state led me to think it an unfortunate thing. I grew up in a predominantly Republican, predominantly Christian world (and the truth as to whether or not it was actually this way never would have made it passed my naivety). I understood the central struggle of Church and government to be that the government thought the Church irrelevant and its morality worthless. Therefore, if the Church could affect the government in such a way that it would change such a view, respect the institution ordained by God, and go ahead and start upholding the Church's standard of morality, so much the better. Today, I realize there's really nothing wrong with the first part, or even the second (though Christians shouldn't determine their worth by what their government thinks of them). However, the third part is backwards, at least as far as I understand Scripture and the teachings of Christianity's central figure, Jesus the Christ.

There are two problems with the separation of Church and state, one falling on either side of the issue. For those who are against it, the problem becomes that, to marry the two, you come to two scary outcomes. Scary outcome number one, the government relegates the Church. Even scarier outcome number two, the Church relegates the government. We have pictures in history of both things happening in different countries, and the lines are so blurry between the two it is hard to tell how anyone got any kind of worshiping, humility, or missions work done. It could not have been easy.

For those that are for Church and state being separated (as it is now, as broadly addressed in the First Amendment), the outcome is not quite as scary, but it is dangerous. What is bred from such strong support of the separation, both in the Christian and non-Christian, is an us vs. them mentality. Now, there are a lot of things in our society that can spark such a disparaging outlook upon the world, and this issue, unfortunately, is one of them. It is easy for the proponent of the separation to maintain a relieved joy in the respective autonomy of the Church and the state, but, if not held in check, the proponent can eventually pull back from any kind of involvement in the other. "I have no business affecting change within the government," says the Christian. "After all, I'm a Christian. My allegiance lies only with the kingdom of God." "I'm not going to church," mutters the statesman. "It has nothing to do with who I am and what I do."

The Book of Romans addresses both problems quite pointedly - though in a slightly indirect way - in the thirteenth chapter. "Everyone must submit himself or herself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established ... Consequently, he or she who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted..." Anti-separation people - this means, like it or believe it or not, God has some purpose for whatever government you want to be assimilated into (or, rather, let's be honest, whatever government you want to assimilate). Pro-separation people - this text flies in the face of your us vs. them mentality as well. Did you notice the word "submit?"

"Submit." Serve. Affect. Work with. Get involved.

But what about Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, even the Roman Empire during it's persecution of Jews and Christians and other third-class religions of the time? How can we possibly subject ourselves to such authority and still maintain a clear conscience?

This is why the text does not use the phrase "bend over and take it." Here in the verse, "submit" is not a state of being, just as it is not in Ephesians 5 (speaking of hot-button issues in the Church). It is a word of action. It means to get involved, to desire what is best for both parties, to see another's desire as just as valid as - if not more than - your own, and to work toward such ends to the best of your ability.

Maybe I'm reading into the text. Some might accuse me of this. Others might call me out on the text itself, saying it is not exactly relevant to the issue. Still others might take offense that I used the phrase, "bend over and take it."

But I think of Robert Frost. I think of the phrase, "Good fences make good neighbors..." and I wonder if maybe it is possible to build a fence and still know your neighbor to be good. Perhaps, instead of insisting on the fence, or seeking to tear it down, we should invite our neighbor to join us between the posts. Maybe, together, we can work on it, repairing it, and in doing so, learn more about each other, what makes each other tick. Maybe I can show my neighbor where the gate is, simply so, if he were ever so inclined, he might take an innocent stroll in my lawn and take notice how I tend my garden, how I maintain my home. Maybe I can stroll in his as well.

Hey, it beats standing judgmentally at my window, peering out across the razor wire through binoculars.