Church and State

Remember what I said about the radio program "This American Life" a few days ago? Well, the show this past weekend (June 4-5, 2005) is well worth listening to particularly if you have a desire to try to be culturally relevant as a Christian. The show is titled "Godless America" and it explores the recent trend of what I'll call "fundamental Christian activism". Over the course of an hour two stories are run; the first dealing with Christian activism in the public forum and the second with one woman's grappling with some of the more unseemly sides of the Bible.

Putting the second half of the show aside (it is told in the vein of a personal story rather than strict journalism, per se), the show does a decent job of looking at both sides of the problem. Put better, this show is very typical of what the program as a whole does quite well. Rather than looking at the big topics of the day from the perspective of the movers and shakers in this world, "This American Life" looks at it from the perspective of the ordinary, everyday person. So rather than examine in detail court decisions regarding the separation of church and state, we hear how one high school biology teacher feels like she was forced by her principal to take an oath confessing the supremacy of the Bible in her life.

If you are of the Christian persuasive and take your faith seriously, this will not be a comfortable show to listen to but I still think it is very worthwhile. Ira Glass does a good job of not caricaturing the Christian faith by calling extreme practices the norm. I don't think there will be any confusion just where he stands on all of this but his bias is actually the best reason to listen to the stories he has assembled. Though I can't say for certain, (especially now that I live in a culture that is highly overtly Bible-Belt-ish), I would be willing to bet that his viewpoint is the viewpoint of many who are on the outside looking in. Ira Glass communicates very clearly how he feels about the growing tide of Christian activism in the public forum and does it in a way that is neither inflammatory nor stoked with rhetoric.

(The second half of the show is a monologue by a woman who, after examining the Bible and realizing just how un-candy-coated some it is, has walked away from the faith. Man, I wish somebody (aside from her unhelpful priest) could have been there to help her understand some of these uncomfortable passages. She raises a lot of good questions about the nature of God as revealed in the Bible but, sadly, doesn't seem to have found any answers. )

For me, the story resurfaced a question that has been dormant in my mind for a while but is one I REALLY need to pull up the frontal parts of my brain again. Putting aside all the rhetoric from both sides about the religious views of the Founding Fathers and the words actually used in the Constitution we are left with the following reality. Our nation was founded on the unique principle that church and state should not be joined at the hip as was commonly the case throughout much of Europe. I'm talking about state governments mandating a religious orientation and taxes going to fund the promotion of a particular religious establishment. Again, setting the details aside, I think this is something that nearly everybody in the good ol' USA thinks is a pretty darn good idea. Religious freedom is something we all value; none of us desires to have other people telling us what is and isn't the right way to believe. We all want the right to decided for ourselves what is an isn't correct without coercion from others.

In the same breath, though, there are many people of many different beliefs that are quite convinced they have THE ANSWER and fit would just be best if all believed the same way. And sometimes, every so often, these people form a majority; this is the politically-active Christian church as it stands today. From a nationwide perspective, on average, Christianity has a slim majority. It may or may not feel like it where you are living now, but let me tell you, down here in the Bible-Belt, its pretty clear.

Given this situation, what's the best course of action for the church? The Constitution will probably prevent a radical transformation of our country into a church-run state but what level of activism is appropriate and beneficial? Are we, the church, doing ourselves any favors by drawing the line where we have drawn it? From a national perspective, there are significant political efforts underway to do everything from get the the Ten Commandments plastered on every public building in existence to making homosexual marriages illegal. What kind of image of Christ do we present by being so active, so militant in pursuing our agenda in the public arena?

Personally, I see both sides of this. The church has a very important role in demonstrating and guiding society (aka people) to Christ and we need to be making a stand and letting our secular culture know that we do not approve of the choices it makes at times. Case in point: homosexuality. The Bible is VERY clear about homosexual practices and, even though it is unpopular and will probably be even more so as time goes on, the church has the responsibility of making it clear how God sees this. Our society needs to know that this is not the direction we need to be heading and that there are some very serious consequences to these choices. The church is in a world of hurt when it abandons this role.

On the other hand, these are just my personal religious beliefs. I know there are a ton of people out there who see differently and cramming my faith into their lives isn't doing either of us any good. They get upset because they feel they are being forced to believe something they don't and I'm upset because they are stubbornly refusing the truth. Is this doing either of us any good? More importantly, from the Christian perspective, have I brought this person any closer to a right relationship with God by my actions? Its hard to imagine how we do any good in with such a militant or forceful approach. It seems to me that we are only hardening the soil while trying to plant.

What to do? Do we pursue the goal of Christianizing the nation or do we verbalize our dissent while no actively hindering the path others have chosen? The only answer I have right now is "yes". As I puzzle over this more and more, I have reached the tentative conclusion that in the public forum, the church cannot forsake its role as a lighthouse to society but also cannot take up the role of steering the endangered boat as well. Christians in government are good but not for the purpose of Christianizing our culture. I think we, the church, could all agree that we don't just want people to act like they have submitted their lives to Christ because thats the accepted, cultural norm, we want them to actually do so. Constantine already tried all of this and it didn't work out so well in the end. As always, people are changed through personal relationships and something a government can never mandate.

That's what I got for now. Again, try to listen to the radio program; its a good thing, trust me.