The buzz over Christian Nationalism, muddied by the lack of a definition of what exactly Christian Nationalism is and who is guilty of it, is an opportunity to reflect on the proper relationship of religion and government. Despite the dire warnings of an imminent and existential threat from Christian theocrats, it’s important to note that this kind of discussion of the limits of the religious influence on the state could only happen in a culture widely shaped by Christianity. In fact, many scholars of religion argue that the idea of religion is itself a product of Christianity. That’s because in most cultures throughout the history of world, religion cannot be separated from the rest of society. It is too intertwined. Christianity, however, is different. The Church’s first 300 years as an illegal minority religion established it as a separate and independent entity from the state. This history was the origin of the idea that religion can be disentangled from the rest of culture.
When Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire, the question of how to negotiate the relationship between church and state emerged. This was, of course, new territory for both sides. Overall, the clergy were thrilled to have a Christian emperor. Still, many had been tortured for their faith under Constantine’s predecessors. The idea that they would simply roll over and fully submit to the emperor greatly underestimated their grit, courage, and faithfulness. Thus, the Church, to various degrees, maintained its independence.
For several centuries, the church and the state generally cooperated, but around the eleventh century, things got complicated. The papacy began to compete with the kings and the Holy Roman emperors over who was supreme. At times, one side had the upper hand. At other times, the other did. In the end, the basic conflict over the proper jurisdiction of church and state became a constant, central theme of Western political life.
After the Protestant Reformation, Protestant countries typically saw the church as a branch of the state with varying degrees of autonomy for ecclesiastical and disciplinary affairs and varying degrees of toleration for religious dissent. The relationship between church and state in these areas was much closer than in Catholic or Orthodox regions.
In the United States, the establishment clause of the First Amendment prevented Congress from establishing a national religion. States, however, were allowed to have established churches, and most did until the early 1800s. The point of the First Amendment was twofold. First, it avoided the inevitable conflict that would result from a national denomination. Second, it maintained a free marketplace of ideas. James Madison, the architect of the First Amendment, believed this would help religion flourish in the country. In other words, its intent was not to prevent religion from informing politics and government but to keep the government out of the business of religion.
The French Revolution followed a much different route, attempting to instead sever all ties between religion and politics and create a purely secular state with a purely secular approach to politics. As one of the architects of the French Revolution, Denis Diderot, rather dramatically put it, “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Freedom, however, was not how it all turned out.
Instead, hundreds of thousands of people died in the Revolution and the wars that followed. In fact, millions more have died in similar attempts to create a purely secular political order, especially in Marxist countries. And yet, somehow, this secular vision of politics has dominated political theory for the last 200 years, especially in Europe. It is now largely dominant in the U.S. as well.
The West is a global anomaly in seeing religion as something separate from culture and society that can be separated from the state and kept out of politics. This is a mistake. Humans are, as John Calvin observed, “incurably religious.” Religion involves our most fundamental beliefs, even if we designate those beliefs to be non-religious.
Either way, these beliefs will drive culture and politics. So, Christians should know better than anyone that faith and religion cannot be isolated from politics. Given the incredible opportunity we have as citizens of a democratic republic, Christians should advocate for what is true and good, not only as what is best for us, but in order to properly love God and our neighbors.
Photo Courtesy:©Getty Images/liveslow
Published Date: November 6, 2024
John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host of BreakPoint, a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN), and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.
The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of CrosswalkHeadlines.
BreakPoint is a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can't find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 – 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.