The Misunderstanding of Separation of Church and State

 The Misunderstanding of Separation of Church and State

            Recently in Korean society, the principle of 'separation of church and state' has been misused as an all-purpose shackle to prohibit the church from speaking in the public sphere or engaging in social service. This critical misunderstanding is nothing more than a delusion that threatens our fundamental rights and reverses the fundamental principles of the separation of church and state.

            The genesis of the separation of church and state was the historical event where individuals recovered freedom of conscience through the Reformation. This meant that individuals, not the state or the church, gained the right to face God directly. This spirit was institutionalized in the No Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. Witnessing the persecution of minority denominations by established state churches in Europe, the Founding Fathers created a "Shield of Liberty" to prevent the state from establishing a particular religion or using its power to infringe upon religious freedom. The separation of church and state exists to thoroughly protect religion from the tyranny of state power, not to isolate the church.

            However, the concept of the separation of church and state is completely distorted today. The greatest violation of this principle does not arise from the church's public activities, but from the state power's attempt to intervene in the sphere of religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lemon Test clearly articulates, if the purpose of a government policy is secular—such as welfare or disaster relief—cooperation between the church and administrative power is not a violation of the separation of church and state. To accuse and obstruct the church from volunteering to resolve welfare blind spots, citing the separation of church and state, is an act that actually infringes upon the fundamental rights of the people and denies the social functional role of religion.

            The true danger arises when the state attempts to conduct a review of religious content. The state must never review religious doctrines, the qualifications of pastors, or the internal affairs of denominations. The judiciary's deep involvement in church disputes to determine a pastor's qualifications is an insane act that infringes upon the freedom of conscience and autonomy, and it is a dangerous attempt to place the church under the control of state power.

            President Lee Jae-myung’s instruction at the State Council meeting on December 2, 2025, to review a dissolution order for a specific religious foundation due to political involvement is the most dangerous notion, as it transforms the principle of separation of church and state into a 'Sword' for the state to judge religion. While illegal political involvement should rightly be punished under current law, the executive branch attempting to determine the very existence of a religious organization based on the separation of church and state is an act that legitimizes the reckless intervention of the state. This is an attempt to invert the essence of the separation of church and state, weaponizing the shield of liberty to control religion.

            In the face of such threats, Christians cannot remain passive followers. According to Calvin’s doctrine of resistance, Christians must resist when secular power attempts to prohibit the offering of due glory and worship to God—that is, when it attempts to steal God’s rights.

            Today's oppression appears in forms different from past physical persecution. Examples include attempts to seize the freedom of evangelism and the freedom to criticize other religions under the guise of 'Political Correctness (PC)' or 'Hate Speech Regulation.' To prevent certain ideologically-driven groups from attacking the core message of the Gospel, which is 'Jesus is the only Savior,' is ultimately an act that prohibits Christians from giving due glory to Jesus Christ, and it is an oppression that we must oppose at all costs.

            The separation of church and state is not a matter of retreat but of preservation. We must clearly recognize its essence and ultimately protect our religious freedom and the sphere of conscience from the intervention of the state and contemporary ideologies.