The debate over the separation of church and state as well as religion’s role in politics has been intense and ongoing for years. In this week’s Acton Commentary, Tony Oleck seeks to add clarity to the debate. In his commentary, Oleck balances the desires of the Founding Fathers with what it means to be a Christian. Get Acton News and Commentary every Wednesday in your email inbox. Click here to sign up today.

Controversial Christianity: Understanding Faith and Politics

By Tony Oleck

As the race for the 2012 party nominations for president heats up, the question of religion and its place in politics surfaces yet again.  Whether the controversy is over mosques or Mormonism, religion permeates much of today’s political talk, despite various pleas for a “separation of church and state” from both the secular and religious worlds.  But what does the separation of church and state truly mean?

While many use the phrase to refer to a complete isolation of religion from politics, history tells us that the most famous advocate of this principle in America, Thomas Jefferson, may have had a different idea of what a “wall of separation between church and state” really meant.  In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship. . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church & state.

What Jefferson sought to prevent was state intervention into religious affairs. And the separation of church and state, as our founding fathers understood the phrase, meant the avoidance of a church-state.  A church that acts as or controls the state is not in accordance with Christ’s message, but a church that informs the state is.  If the role of the state is to allow for and to promote the freedom and well-being of its citizens, then it has only to benefit from the Christian understandings of truth, freedom and God’s undying love for the world.

I am reminded of something a former English teacher once told me about religion and politics.  “It’s like when I go to get my car fixed,” he said, “I don’t determine which mechanic to go to by what religion he practices.”  While I would agree, I tend to take the leadership and future of my country a little bit more seriously than whether or not my radio works.  Granted, a candidate should never be excluded from office for solely religious purposes, but a Christian nevertheless need not feel ashamed for supporting a particular candidate because of his or her religiously-based position on certain social issues.

Why did our founding fathers describe man as “being endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”? And why were the words “In God We Trust” and “One Nation under God” added eventually to our currency and our pledge of allegiance, respectively? It was because they realized that only in recognizing man as having been created in God’s own image as a species set apart could America grow and prosper.  It was this common Christian heritage that allowed the state to grow in the first place.  While not all of America’s founding fathers were necessarily practicing Christians, they understood that for the American experiment to succeed it must at the very least be founded on Christian principles; on both faith and reason. They understood the transformative nature of Christ’s teachings and the dignity and truth which they expounded to human beings.

This is not to say, of course, that the United States only has room for Christianity as a system of belief.  Religious freedom is a necessary condition for a just and prosperous society.  As Pope Benedict XVI said in his World Day of Peace address this past New Year’s, “Where religious freedom is acknowledged the dignity of the human person is respected at its roots and through a sincere search for truth and good, moral conscience and institutions are strengthened.  For this religious freedom is a privileged path to peace.”

But while religious freedom is necessary for peace, it is never an excuse for inaction.  Christians often feel the need to separate their religious beliefs from their political views so as not to “impose” their beliefs on others, but this separation is contrary to the Gospel message.  Because acceptance of the Gospel and the subsequent sharing of the Gospel go hand-in-hand, a Christian who is content to confine his faith to the walls of his own home may be a Christian by name, but he is an atheist by practice.

Christianity is more than a moral code. It is by its nature both transformative and truth-seeking. And if Christianity is meant to transform our lives and to expound truth (whether that truth is culturally attractive or not), then it becomes necessary that we allow our faith to inform our politics.  It offers the lens of a true enlightenment, through which we can understand the meaning and purpose of political action in the first place.

  • Seogrella

    It is so sad that the present generation was raised in a “political correct” world which has distorted the wisdom of past generations and rewriten our history to apeace the masses. What a diservice to our Country and to our forefathers, and most of all, to our future generations

  • Bishop Robert E. Smith, Sr.

    All Politics are based upon systems which includes or excludes God on purpose!

  • Ted R. Weiland

    “…while religious freedom is necessary for peace…” Read this: Peace is justified the promotion of polytheism. The First Amendment that tragically so many Christians hang their religious hat on, as if it provides some great Christian principle, is nothing but a provision for First Commandment violations and is thus seditious against Yahweh. See “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.php.

    • Ted R. Weiland

      The second sentence should read: Read this: Peace is justification for the promotion of polytheism.

  • Ted R. Weiland

    “…the mandate for separation of church and state is inherent in Article 6 on two levels: 1) The Constitution is declared to be the supreme law of the land, which makes any law (secular or Biblical) contrary to this “supreme law” null and void and non-executable by the Constitutional Republic, 2) Religious qualifications for government officials are denied, which prohibits Biblical qualifications:

    ‘…the elimination of a public oath to uphold the Kingship and Law of Jesus Christ in the civil realm automatically erected an ethical “wall of separation” between the Crown Rights of Christ and the new Federal Government, thereby barring all Christians from ever holding public office from that time forward. The fact that professing, and no doubt many genuine, Christians continued in the new system to hold such offices does not negate this assertion. It only demonstrates the “intellectual schizophrenia” (the term is R. J. Rushdoony’s) among Christians that has plagued the church for the last two thousand years….’”

    Excerpted from “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land?” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.php.

  • Bob

    GOD’s law is the supreme law. Not any laws imposed by man. 

  • Hamiltonfed34

    Ted,
     
    Religion is left to the States. Hamilton quoting Blackstone, wrote the “any human law (Constitution) that is contrary to the Divine Law (bible) is null and void. So the Constitution is not inspired but is founded on the Bible.

    • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

      It matters not what Hamilton, Blackstone, or any of the framers said. What matters is what they legislated, and what they legislated was not only often antithetical to Yahweh’s morality as found in commandments, statutes, and judgments, but also antagonistic to Yahweh’s very sovereignty. Once again, Christians have been lied to and we’ve been gullible enough to believe the lies.