(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
The Selective Separation of Church and State
I recently watched with amusement as Vice-President Kamala Harris spoke at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta on Sunday where she was likened to the biblical Esther because of her readiness to rescue her people from annihilation. Pastor Jamal Bryant went on to address what he perceived as the threatening policy agendas of the Republican ticket before insisting that Harris was born to be president and to lead a nation for such a time as this. The pastor then claimed that God had “anointed” them to flip Georgia in 2020 and that He would do so again.
When the Vice-President assumed the podium, she declared that our country is at a crossroads and that we should all ask what kind of nation we want to live in. Our answer, she asserted, must come by way of action and voting rather than mere words. Remarkably, the presiding pastor also chastised black men who were unwilling to support a sister in an effort to drum up additional support for the Democratic presidential nominee.
Now, to be clear, the arguments being made were not what made the scene humorous to me, nor did I find it offensive. Admittedly, I see the vision of the Democratic platform as a contradiction to the Christian faith rather than its fulfillment. In my view, comparing Mrs. Harris to Esther is laughable. Yet, these disagreements notwithstanding, I maintain the right of any politician and any pastor to contend their point of view with others. What is mindboggling, however, is how many secular elites on the left bemoan what they call a lack of separation between church and state for everyone but themselves. By doing so they remind us of what we already knew, namely – you cannot separate morality from policy.
Historically, Baptists have been the greatest proponents of the “the separation between church and state,” but few phrases suffer more misuse than this one. If you expose the atrocities of the abortion industry, offer a biblical definition of marriage and gender, or appeal to the morality of any public policy, many will quickly lament the mixture of religion and politics as if the two cannot coexist. Ironically, the loudest voices claiming that the church is becoming too political have no problem at all when their politics becomes more and more theological.
Though the First Amendment guarantees that Congress will pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion, it also guards against prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Sadly, many recklessly abuse this sacred right by insisting on the freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion. Today’s common refrain is that faith has no place whatsoever in the public square.
We need to acknowledge that the concept of “separation between church and state” is not found anywhere in our U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase in 1802 while writing to Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. These believers expressed concern that the ratification of the First Amendment did not go far enough in protecting religious minorities from governmental intrusion.
Remember, many of America’s earliest citizens sought freedom from the oppression of the state sanctioned Church of England, and Baptists in particular were fearful of similar overreach in their new land. For smaller denominations, the rising influence of early Congregationalists and the taxes funneled to them felt eerily similar to the missteps of their previous experience.
Thus, Jefferson sought to reassure these Christians of their freedom to practice and verbalize their faith without interruption from the government. Rather than exile Christian ideas out of political debate, our third president sought to preserve their expression by eliminating the fear of legal blowback. From his perspective, the First Amendment successfully prevented the federal government from espousing a preference of religion without eliminating the presence of religion from our budding republic.
Tragically, our modern sensibilities erroneously maintain, contrary to Jefferson, that Christian influence is more dangerous than governmental interference. Religious liberty is the foundational cornerstone upon which our nation was built. Our founders understood that the best ideas will rise to the top when we persuade, not punish, those with whom we disagree. Discriminating against distinctly Christian ideas because of their morality is a failure to recognize that a code of ethics governs ALL expressed views. Even the most secular adherents are often quite religious about their atheism!
Christians rightly understand that government is a gift from God established for the good and safety of society (Rom. 13:1-7). The kingdom of God, however, is not of this world (John 18:36), so the former has no jurisdiction over the latter. As salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16), followers of Jesus are to contend for the souls of men and women first (Matt. 28:19-20), followed by the welfare of the cities wherein they live (Jer. 29:7). We have every right to express our views concerning morality, legislation, and the people who lead us. The world would be even more frightening if we did not. Regardless of outcomes, we should rest knowing that the kingdom of our God will prevail over the kingdoms of this world (Rev. 11:15).
Adam B. Dooley
October 23, 2024