Introduction⤒🔗

Ask any politician what the foundations of our political system are and there is a fair chance that the principle of separation of church and state will be mentioned as the first thing. There is not much discussion about this, and in any case it is not one of the burning topics that can be identified, on the basis of which parties can distinguish themselves from one another during an election campaign. It is not something that causes serious political debates in the Chamber of Commons or in the media. In the Netherlands, the issue of granting legal consent for the intended marriage of Prince Maurits to the Roman Catholic Marilène van den Broek was the proverbial exception to the rule.

Nevertheless, I would like to make a few comments about the principle of the separation of church and state, as it is often taken for granted in discussions. I note that this undisputed proposition, this axiom of the modern constitutional state, is not altogether without risks for the position and functioning of the church in our society. My objection to the generally accepted speaking in terms of “separation of church and state” is that this seems to have led to both of them having received a fixed position in their mutual relationship, each having been assigned its own domain that they should respect. These domains are separated and when the separation is being ignored, a territorial urge soon becomes evident.

Recent Developments←⤒🔗

“Separation of church and state” is often understood as a warning that applies in two ways; as a Dutch saying goes: “Let the cobbler stick to his last.” Now, against the background of earlier phases in the history of the relationship between state and church, with all its inherent distortions of its own functioning, the fear of too close a relationship — in particular a mixture of both institutions — is not entirely inconceivable, but I have the impression that in response to phenomena such as the ecclesiocracy and the Caesaropapism, the reaction has been that we are in danger of ending up at the other extreme: an over-accentuation of the principle of separation between state and church, with as a result an absolute alienation between them. For the sake of convenience, this principle is also often translated as a separation between religion and politics.

Honesty dictates that this is a process that is primarily promoted from one side. And I can honestly state that this process, although it did not start during the “Purple Cabinet” (a cooperation between socialist and liberal parties), has received strong impulses in the last four years. Perhaps I can mention two recent and striking occasions on which such impulses were observed in the Netherlands.

I am thinking in the first place of the attitude that was adopted in The Hague with regard to the action of churches vis-à-vis an issue that affected people seeking asylum. More specifically, I am referring to the reactions of the governmental factions, in which the Labour Party’s spokesperson made, in my opinion, the boldest expression by stating that the churches, by giving food, drink and a roof over the heads of strangers who were out on the streets, placed them “outside of our democratic legal order.” But even the mainline Christian party thought it necessary to note that because of their actions, the churches invited the reproach that they took over the place that belonged to the government. I personally disagree strongly with the four spokespersons of the four major parties, which together account for 84 percent of Dutch voters. There is, of course, no question of occupying someone else’s chair, let alone a display of civil disobedience, or proclaiming “your constitutional state is not ours.” What happened here was that churches gave expression to the diaconal assignment that they have by virtue of their own ministry and, to be honest, it seems to me that there is little wrong with that.

A second example concerns the broad social concern, which is largely supported by the churches, against the 24-hour economy. The Minister of Economic Affairs, who I might classify as the political exponent of the ideology of flexibilization and dynamic activity and therefore someone who could have learned a lot from the motto “Time to live,” announced right after the first reports about a massive protest from the churches that they had no contribution to offer “because the churches had no knowledge of economics.” Let the cobbler stick to his last — do we not recognize the separation between church and state?

It is this attitude of the state that seems to definitively rule out the old adage that underlies the Christian presence in society: namely, “We have a Message for the world.” I also sensed the effect of this disregard for the social function of the church with my Labour Party colleague Ella Kalsbeek when she remarked that the church should not interfere too much in politics, but needs to deal with “what is really important in life.” Now I am happy to agree with her in this comment, but it seems to me that interference in politics is by no means excluded.

From Another Perspective←⤒🔗

It is this tendency that gives me reason to look at matters from a different angle. I would like to challenge the churches to not let themselves be sidelined through these attacks on their social functioning and the reach of their message by ignoring the domain of civil society. On the contrary, I want to encourage them to continue to do everything in their power to express their views to politicians at relevant points and at inconvenient moments. The more restless politics becomes on account of this, and the more it reacts negatively to this, the more certain it is that the churches are serving a useful function in this.

It is remarkable that the mantra, “Let the cobbler stick to his last,” is almost exclusively directed at the churches. I do not particularly have the impression that trade unions or employers’ organizations, Greenpeace, or the Nature and Environment Foundation sometimes get a response from government or political groups that they are interfering with matters that do not concern them, and that they have insufficient or no understanding of things, or that their views on matters placed on the political agenda are not appreciated for other reasons.

I can think of no other reason for this than an incorrect but widely accepted interpretation of the principle of separation of church and state. For the churches, and therefore also for “our“ churches — I am thinking in particular of the deputies for contact with the government — but also for an organization such as the Interkerkelijk Contact in Overheidszake or just CIO (Inter-Church Committee for Governmental Affairs), there is therefore legitimate reason to be concerned about this development. After all, the relationship of mutual involvement and interaction between church and state is their basis of existence. If this contact for one of the conversation partners would only imply a periodical polite listening to a person who considers that a certain number of people are in fact considered to be insufficiently equipped to act as a fully-fledged conversation partner, then you need to seriously ask yourself whether dialogue still serves any useful purpose. In other words, if the separation of church and state were to be seen as the existence of watertight compartments between two institutions that do not have much to say to each other, then the churches would have to ask themselves seriously whether a conversation with the government should still be pursued.

From Separation to Distinction←⤒🔗

In the circles of the political group of which I am a representative, it is partly because due to this that the separation of church and state is not so easily talked about. Our view on society and the relationship between the various inherent social relationships present is preferably expressed in terms of “distinct callings and responsibilities.” Focused on the current theme, it is therefore about the distinct obligations of church and state. For Christian political involvement, this is an extremely important principle, as it has always been. And anyone who is somewhat familiar with the history of Christian politics in the Netherlands knows that this concerns a very vital element with regard to the mutual relationship of the current Christian political parties.

As early as 1860, Groen van Prinsterer wrote, “Church and state stand apart from each other, each acting within its own sphere.” And I quote someone from our own ecclesiastical circle, J. J. van der Schuit, who concludes in his address Church and State in 1929: “On the basis of the New Testament we can and must stand up for separation of church and state…. We desire separation in the sense of distinction.” Church and state fulfill distinct responsibilities. But they do serve the same Lord! Ultimately their aim is to seek the glory of God. But where the church seeks this as a community of faith, the state seeks it as a public institution based on law.

It is important to emphasize that the state cannot be traced back to the church and the church cannot be traced back to the state. In the exercise of their respective callings they act independently and do not derive authority from each other but from God. This also removes any grounds for any form of ecclesiocracy (secular government exercised by or on behalf of the church) or Caesaropapism, in which the secular ruler also rules the church. We recognize this also in the proposition that the churches act “in their own right.”

Speaking in terms of different “callings” (or “offices”) implies at the same time that church and state do not exist for themselves, but that they perform a service in the kingdom of God. Both are placed under the absolute sovereignty of God. That is why Christian politics speaks of “the government as a servant of God” and asks the government to be prepared to acknowledge this. In this context I speak of “the theocratic disposition of the government,” in which we are not seeking a theocracy as the desired form of state, but instead we have an eye for the attitude of those who carry authority in the state: that the state needs to know its place.

Biblical Principles Regarding the Position of Church and State←⤒🔗

It appears to me that much is to be said for having the relationship between church and state marked primarily by what they share in common: to act in service to God and to seek his honour. From the perspective of the church, there is at least a threefold task in relation to the state and the government. In the first place, there is the biblical command to pray for the government (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Secondly, it is part of the church’s task to equip believers through preaching and pastoral care to carry out their social responsibility. This applies also in the field of politics. And thirdly, the churches should see it as their calling to address the government as soon as it threatens to renounce its high calling.

We do not seek to return to a political type of preaching, in the sense that it is proclaimed in detail from the pulpit what political policy should look like. That is particularly the responsibility, or as I may put it, the calling of the (Christian) political parties. Yet at the same time I would like to defend the proposition that there are not many topics in preaching or speaking that might be excluded in advance from the involvement of the churches, be it matters of economic concern, asylum policies, the protection of life, or social policy. I immediately add that in the churches, if they want to speak with authority, they will always need to function as a church when they address the government and appeal to it.

With regard to the topics that are dealt with in interactions with the government, the churches have their own unique perspective. In that sense, I would recognize the expression, “Let the cobbler stick to his last.” The churches and their representatives are not the experts “par excellence” when it comes to the admission criteria for asylum seekers, the duration and levels of social benefits, or the setting of emission standards for CO₂. But then it is not about the extent of the social speaking of the church but about the manner of speaking.

My proposition would be that I do not hear the churches often enough, because there is little reason for optimism about the extent to which people realize that the government is a servant of God, or how much that servanthood marks the functioning of state and government. The fact that the church is a religious community may be an argument for some to consider that its social significance is limited, but to me it is precisely the convincing reason to state that this character gives it a very special place in society. Along with Stuart Fowler I would like to refer to it as “the key role of the church in society.” This central place of the church stems from the fact that the Word of God is entrusted to the church, in the realization that the authority of that Word is not limited to the church. After all, God’s revelation is of decisive significance in all areas of life and therefore also in its social contexts. It is in the church that Christians are nourished by the proclamation of the Word and that they are equipped to exercise their calling in the various manifestations in which they occur: as a parent or as a child, as an employer or an employee, as a member of the congregation or as an elder, as a citizen or as a politician.

It is against this background that speaking about the separation between church and state therefore deserves the necessary clarification. The fact that there are separate callings does not preclude mutual involvement in the least. From the point of view of the state, a lack thereof would only be a disadvantage, while from the point of view of the church there would be a serious lack of responsibility in that case.