Antidisestablishmentarianism, an archaic word that is as hard to say as it is to understand, has its roots in the political and philosophical discourse of the 19th century, a time when questions regarding tradition and culture caused people to think about the merger of religious and government authorities. Though it has been removed from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, like other words in the English language, etymology can still provide its origin, meaning, and definition. 

To understand its full meaning, antidisestablishmentarianism needs to be broken down into parts.  The end of the word, with the letters (-ism), suggests that this is a framework, concept, or belief that people work in.  Words like despotism, republicanism, intellectualism, barbarism, and communism all denote a common doctrine or theory practiced by a group of people. The letters -arian denote a group of people themselves who believe in, or advocate for something; thus, words like libertarian, parliamentarian, and humanitarian suggest a commonality among people with similar beliefs. The -arian is the group, the -ism is the ideology.  An establishment, on the other hand, is something that has been initiated, created, or formed as an organization such as a public institution or government. Many people refer to the governing authority as The Establishment.  To disestablish something would consequently suggest that the organization be unorganized, broken apart, or altered from its current status.  The people who sought after the separation of church and state in England during the 19th century were known as Disestablishmentarians.   Those who were against this movement, of divorcing the religious and State authorities, also formed an ideology, known as antidisestablishmentarianism.  They were in essence against those who were against keeping the status quo. 

The history of this ideology begins with the story of a great schism in Christianity.  In the year 1533, Henry VIII, King of England fell in love with Anne Boleyn and sought Pope Clement VII to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.  Fearing retaliation from the Roman Emperor, Charles V, the Pope refused this annulment and threatened Henry VIII with ex-communication from the Roman Catholic Church should he pursue a second marriage.  Subsequently, Henry married six different wives over time and his disagreements with the Pope, coupled with his own ambition, led him to initiate the English Reformation giving birth to the Church of England which was separate from papal authority. Appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England, Henry VIII dissolved convents and monasteries throughout his country. He made radical changes to the English Constitution and ushered in the theory of the “divine right of kings”, a theory that suggests that it is God’s mandate that a king is pre-destined to political legitimacy and absolute monarchy, subject only to God alone. This authoritarian regime set up the Church of England, an establishment that has stood since 1534 despite centuries of contention, an English civil war, and a Puritan exodus to America.  It was not until the mid-19th century that people started to question this order. Some people wanted to disestablish the Church of England as it was constituted and engage in their own form of faith and religion, but it was unclear if seeking freedom of religion would be possible under the current establishment. 

Across the Atlantic, in the newly formed United States of America, the conversation of religious freedom was held by the men responsible for creating this novel form of self-rule government.  When we look at the founding documents of the US, the “separation of church and state” is not explicitly stated, however,  in an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist minister, the ideology that government and religion be untwined was understood to be strongly held among Americans.  In the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  

It was written with the intention that no denomination, nor specific dogma would be given preference over the people of the newly constituted republic. While it can be debated whether some or all the Founding Fathers were religious in practice, President George Washington, in his farewell address of 1796 stated, “…of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports… ”.  Prior to this, Washington had also written a letter to a Hebrew congregation in which he said, “…everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid”  (www.founders.archives.gov, May 06, 2002).  This idea demonstrated an understanding that, in America, people of all faiths or those who subscribe to none are free to worship and practice their beliefs as they choose.  And, while it was maintained that a nation cannot stand but upon moral principles, it was made clear that the State shall not be a coercive force used to make people believe, or even behave, in a certain way.  

The ideals forged in the Bill of Rights were also echoed by men like Thomas Chalmers, a Scottish minister of the 18th and 19th centuries who argued in favor of non-intrusion ideology.  His thoughts on developing a Free Church suggested a similar principle--a desire to separate the church and the government. Yet, in his time, Chalmers faced people who thought it was unnecessary and even wrong to advocate that the Church should discontinue its patronage from the government.  Thus, both in America and in England we find people against the idea to separate or disestablish their faith from their subjection to the crown. 

From this thinking comes the long-held conservative belief that the traditions upheld by 18th and 19th-century peoples of Great Britain and the United States were largely biblically based, and that the laws corresponded to these faith traditions. The political framework known as conservatism is not as much a philosophy as it is an attitude. Historically associated with right-wing politics, the term “conservative” has now been consorted with a wide range of views, with traditionalism and hierarchy combing with “law and order” to make up many of its tenets. Those who identify as conservative often believe that morality needs to be regulated; their philosophy pertains to a belief that the correct values that society should adhere to are derived from a religious precept, and that they must be preserved in the community.  It is their contention that the government is responsible for, at a minimum,  laying the groundwork for appropriate behavior and that laws must be instituted to protect society from things deemed objectionable.  Policies regarding things such as same-sex marriage, drug usage, prostitution, and militant atheism need to be legislated or outlawed by the State. Conservatives believe that without the Establishment morality would cease to exist in society.  From this conviction, inferences have been made in the public square. In 1954 the phrase “One Nation Under God” was officially added to the United States Pledge of Allegiance.  Two years later, “In God, We Trust” became the motto of the United States under President Eisenhower, and that verbiage is now found on all currencies printed by the US Treasury.  Moreover, a general intolerance for different or dissenting viewpoints from traditional conservative values has grown, and those who may not call themselves “Christians” continue to be marginalized in various aspects of society, a modern demonstration of how the disestablishment crowd is mocked and scorned. 

Notwithstanding the right-wing injection of religion into State affairs, the left-wing political ideologies, often called liberalism or progressivism, have also found their own mergers with State authority and religious principles.  Those on the left who call themselves religious see the biblical commandment for charity to be something that must be orchestrated by the government.  They often invoke the “welfare clause” from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution as a reason to tax and redistribute money to those they deem to be “in need” or “underprivileged”. They ridicule people who oppose  State-sponsored charities and claim moral superiority to those who feel that private organizations could do the job better. Liberal establishmentarians want to use government to force people to act in a way they feel God has called people to behave.  They supersede the council that was given by church authorities and demand that power be placed in the hands of civil government. 

Of course, there remain those who are fundamentally opposed to religion, they may be agnostic or atheist and fall anywhere on the political spectrum.  These people seldomly stand silent when issues such as prayer in public schools or the public display of religious texts arise, such as allowing the Ten Commandments to hang from municipal buildings because it offends some of them.  However, this understanding of the separation of Church and State is also flawed.  Rather than adhering to any faith-based religion, they replace the prophets and holy scripture with mandates and legislation. Their deity is not an omnipresent and omniscient higher authority, but instead, an elected official, democratically elected by the “voice of the people''. In turn, their religion becomes the State itself and, in some cases, it can become their goal to ensure its powers infiltrate every facet of humanity;  leaving them to fall prey to a distinct definition of the Establishment, whether they call it a church or not.  This secularism, an ideology that can be ascribed as the marriage of Church and State, demands no profession to any dogmatic institution or faith in which they give obedience. The result of this gospel is seen in contentious elections, oppressive laws against disenfranchised citizens, war, violence, and economic demise.  The left-wing ideologues and the right-wing zealots fight each other over whose philosophy will be inculcated throughout the nation.  Each incites their own morality on the other and when it is not recognized the division has a disastrous outcome, one that is comparative to the crusades of ancient Christendom and Islam. 

It goes without dispute that many atrocities throughout the history of the world have been committed in the name of religion. Much suffering has been realized in the name of God by the subjects of kings, magistrates, presidents, and worldly authorities who have exploited religion to conquer and pillage.  While sovereignties have collapsed and have been rebuilt according to religious precepts, immorality exists where principles do not. Perhaps it is part of the human condition that compels people to forcefully propagate their innate philosophies to those around them and, oftentimes, using the Establishment as their enforcement mechanism.  Still, religious freedom is considered a human right by millions world-wide, which suggests individuals have a desire to believe in something that serves a higher purpose than themselves. The Apostles of the New Testament taught that subjection to the governing powers was ineludible, as long as that subjection did not violate the higher, divine, law of God, which supersedes any temporal political jurisdiction.  At their core, the Apostles were disestablishmentarians, as were many of America’s founding fathers and their contemporaries overseas in Great Britain who argued against the established Church of England. 

For Christians, reason dictates that morality and religion do not derive from the same place, nor should they be upheld by the same authority. There should be no established State religion from which legislation is written. There should be no church that governs the actions of Man. Ideas come and go and philosophies develop and fade away just like words.  Antidisestablishmentarianism has vanished from the common vernacular, but the concept is very much alive, it lives on in modern political practice, but perhaps it is time it vanishes as well.