Benjamin Cremer was raised in a strict fundamentalist home in Idaho and home-schooled. He became an Evangelical Christian minister. Several years ago, he began to question his church and eventually was expelled. He is now affiliated with the Wesleyans and keeps asking hard questions.
On June 26th, the Trump Administration’s Religious Liberty Commission released a draft report calling for a reexamination of the traditional understanding of separation between church and state. The report argues that religion and government should be viewed as partners rather than distinct institutions and recommends expanding the role of religious expression within public life and government institutions. Supporters see these proposals as necessary protections for religious freedom.
Others, however, have expressed serious concerns. They warn that when government begins treating religion as an essential partner rather than maintaining neutrality among faiths, the rights of religious minorities, dissenting Christians, and nonreligious citizens become more vulnerable. History repeatedly demonstrates that when governments become closely aligned with a dominant religious tradition, those outside that tradition often find their freedoms diminished.
From a Christian perspective, this concern should not be dismissed lightly. The church has often suffered most when political power became intertwined with religious authority. The same New Testament that calls believers to proclaim Christ boldly also presents a church that transformed the world without controlling the state. The earliest Christians did not seek privileged status within the Roman Empire. They sought faithfulness to Jesus.
For this reason, many Christians continue to defend the separation of church and state not because they want less Christianity in society, but because they want the church to remain free from political control and governments to remain free from religious domination. They recognize that religious liberty is strongest when government protects the freedom of all faiths rather than privileging one faith over others.
The Historical Problem
Few ideas are more misunderstood in modern American politics than the separation of church and state. Many people hear the phrase and assume it means separating God from public life, silencing religious voices, or forcing faith into the private sphere. Historically, however, the principle emerged largely because Christians had experienced the dangers of governments controlling religion and religions controlling governments.
The separation of church and state is not an attack on Christianity. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest protections Christianity has ever received.
For most of history, governments and religions were deeply intertwined. In ancient Egypt, rulers were often considered divine. In the Roman Empire, religious devotion and political loyalty were fused together. Citizens honored the gods not merely as a matter of personal belief but as an act of civic responsibility. Religious conformity was seen as essential to social stability and national prosperity.
The earliest Christians lived within this system. Their refusal to participate in emperor worship and sacrifices to the Roman gods was viewed as dangerous. They were often accused of undermining the social order because they would not give ultimate allegiance to the empire’s religious expectations. The church began as a minority movement that understood firsthand the dangers of state-controlled religion.
Ironically, after Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, many Christians began wielding the very power that had once been used against them. Over the centuries, state churches often persecuted dissenters, imprisoned religious minorities, punished heresy through civil law, and sometimes used violence to enforce theological conformity.
Catholics persecuted Protestants. Protestants persecuted Catholics. Both often persecuted smaller Christian groups such as Anabaptists, who were the most persecuted set of Christians during both the Protestant reformation and Catholic counter reformation. The result was centuries of religious conflict throughout Europe.
One of the most devastating examples was the Thirty Years’ War, a conflict fueled in part by religious and political rivalries that killed millions and left large portions of Central Europe devastated.
The lesson became increasingly clear that when governments gain authority over religion, faith becomes vulnerable to political manipulation. When churches gain governmental power, the temptation to coerce rather than persuade becomes difficult to resist.
The American Experiment
The founders of the United States were deeply aware of this history. Although many founders held religious beliefs themselves, they also understood the dangers of establishing a national church.
The First Amendment begins with two related protections: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two principles work together. The government may not establish or favor a particular religion. At the same time, the government may not interfere with citizens freely practicing their faith. This arrangement was not designed to weaken religion. It was designed to protect it.
Many of the strongest advocates for religious liberty were Christians themselves. One of the most important was Roger Williams, a Baptist minister who argued that government involvement in religion corrupts both institutions. He famously described a “wall of separation” that protected the church from the state as much as it protected the state from the church. For Williams, faith must be freely chosen. Genuine belief cannot be compelled by political power.
The New Testament Perspective
The New Testament offers remarkable support for this principle.
Jesus consistently resisted attempts to merge God’s kingdom with political domination. When crowds wanted to make him king by force, he withdrew. When questioned about Roman taxes, he responded, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Before Pontius Pilate, Jesus declared that his kingdom was “not from this world.”
Probably the most remarkable example is Jesus refusing the temptation from Satan to have power over all the kingdoms of the world, which would have been the entire Roman Empire at the time. Jesus refused because he didn’t come to seek power over others for himself, which is how earthly empires operate. He came to bring and share the power of God with the world.
This did not mean that Jesus was unconcerned with public life. His teachings had profound social and political implications. Rather, it meant that God’s kingdom advances through witness, service, truth, sacrifice, and love, not through coercion and control. The earliest Christians transformed the world without controlling the state. They cared for the poor. They welcomed strangers. They rescued abandoned infants. They crossed ethnic and social boundaries. They proclaimed Christ as Lord. They did all of this while possessing little political power. Their influence came through faithful witness, not governmental authority.
Why This Matters Today
The separation of church and state remains essential because the temptation that confronted Christians throughout history still exists.
Whenever Christianity becomes closely tied to political power, faith risks becoming a tool for preserving social status, cultural dominance, or national identity. That is exactly what we are seeing today. Christian Nationalism has accepted the temptation that Jesus rejected, to have power over the kingdoms of this world.
A Neo-evangelical sect of Christianity that runs the Heritage Foundation, is seeking to inject its own brand of Christianity over everyone else in our nation, even over other kinds of Christians. It is seeking to not only define what is truly “American” but what is truly “Christian.” This will inevitably lead to the erosion of of both civil and religious liberties. This also opens the door for other religious groups to control high positions of power in the future. However, my hunch is the Heritage Foundation and company don’t plan on releasing the controls any time soon, so they aren’t worried about another religious group gaining power over them.
When the church fuses itself with the nationstate, it begins to ask different questions. Instead of asking, “Are we being faithful to Jesus?” It asks, “Are we winning?”
Instead of asking, “How do we love our neighbors?” It asks, “How do we maintain control?”
Instead of measuring success by loving God and our neighbors as ourselves, it measures success by influence.
History repeatedly demonstrates that when Christianity becomes fused with state power, the result is often harmful both to the church and to society. The church becomes less prophetic because it becomes invested in protecting power.
The state becomes less just because it begins favoring particular religious groups over others. Both institutions are weakened.
Separation Is Not Silence
Defending the separation of church and state does not require Christians to withdraw from public life. Christians should vote. Christians should advocate for justice. Christians should speak about moral issues. Christians should serve in public office. Christians should bring their convictions into public conversations.
The principle simply means that government should not establish, privilege, enforce, or coerce religious belief. Faith flourishes best when it is freely embraced rather than politically imposed.
A Christian Defense
Ultimately, the separation of church and state is not rooted in hostility toward Christianity. It is rooted in humility.
It recognizes that the church is at its best when it relies on the power of the Spirit rather than the power of the sword. It recognizes that authentic faith cannot be manufactured through legislation. It recognizes that governments make poor churches and churches make poor governments.
Most importantly, it recognizes that Jesus never instructed his followers to seize political power in order to build the Kingdom of God. He instructed them to take up their cross, love their neighbors, serve the vulnerable, tell the truth, and follow him. The church’s greatest strength has never been its proximity to power.
Its greatest strength has always been its faithfulness to Christ.
Now I’d like to hear from you!
Did you find this helpful? What thoughts came to your mind as you read? Feel free to respond to this email and share your thoughts with me. I look forward to reading them.
Diane Ravitch's blog 