The recent departure of 1000 of its 5000 members from Woodland Hills Church because Reverend Greg Boyd announced that his church would intentionally “steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a ‘Christian nation’ and stop glorifying American military campaigns”[1] underscores the need for clear thinking about the relationship of Church and State. Is America a “Christian nation”? If not, what is the place of religion in America?

Jon Meacham’s new book, American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of the Nation, brings some much-needed sanity to these important (and potentially volatile) questions.

Freedom For and From Religion

Late-nineteenth-century Presbyterian minister, Isaac A. Cornelison, stated the truth most succinctly: America is “a state without a church but not without a religion” (144). Meacham writes,

The great good news about America – the American gospel, if you will – is that religion shapes the life of the nation without strangling it. Belief in God is central to the country’s experience, yet for the broad center, faith is a matter of choice, not coercion. (5)

The American gospel is that liberty for all – including religious liberty – is a fundamental human right given by none other than God. But the “God” of the American Gospel is not the sole possession of any established religious institution, but rather, is in “the public domain.”

The Founding Fathers intentionally linked “the cause of liberty to the idea of God while avoiding sectarian religious imagery or associations” (75). Unlike Europe, the Fathers guaranteed that no one church would be permitted to be intimately united with the political powers of the State. This does not mean that the Founding Fathers were devout, nor does it mean they were completely godless. Instead, they refused to give any one religious institution ruling power over others. True liberty included the freedom to worship – or not to worship – according to an individual’s own desires.

Public Religion

The Founding Fathers believed that religion could be a force for unity, not division, in the new nation. They assumed that religion would serve the good of the nation by creating “basically virtuous citizens who [would be] able to maintain a republic that is itself basically virtuous” (79). Meacham writes,

What separated us from the Old World was the idea that books, education, and the liberty to think and worship as we wished would create virtuous citizens who cherished and defended reason, faith, and freedom. In our finest hours, we have been neither wholly religious nor wholly secular but have drawn on both traditions. (7-8)

Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between Church and State was “designed to divide church from state, not religion from politics” (19). Jefferson never intended for religion to be excluded from the public forum. He advocated a public religion that would influence, but not control, the state.

But public religion is not institutional worship or private piety. Public religion is limited to speaking of God in the broadest brush strokes. The Declaration of Independence provides the parameters for this discussion. The God of the Declaration is the “Creator,” “Nature’s God,” “the supreme judge of the world” and the providential protector. No more and no less.

These broad phrases should guide public discourse concerning religion and its relationship to politics. The God of the Declaration is not Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, or any other name by which individual groups approach God. Throughout United States history, different groups have attempted to change the generic God to Jesus Christ, but the proposal has always – and rightly – been quickly shut down.

 Meacham is right about the fact that “[s]erious believers will always find public religion wanting – lighter on substance, perhaps, than they would like, or vague to the point of meaninglessness” (179). But, “[p]ublic religion is not a substitute for private religion” (23). The place for detailed dogmas or specific worship practices is at home or Church Meetings, not the public form.

Freedom of religion is freedom for all religions – and also the freedom to practice no religion at all. George Washington said, “The bosom of America… [is] open to receive… the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges… They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any sect, or they may be atheists” (245-246).

This openness to all religions clearly demonstrates that the “right’s contention that we are a ‘Christian nation’ that has fallen from pure origins and can achieve redemption by some kind of return to Christian values is based on wishful thinking, not convincing historical argument” (18). Christianity, despite its influence, was never privileged as the supreme religion. Article 11 of George Washington’s treaty with Tripoli states the matter plainly: “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” (103)

The United States is a nation that has been influenced by Christianity, but it is not a “Christian nation.” This distinction is important. “Words have consequences, and there is a distinction – an essential one – between being a ‘Christian nation’ and being one whose public religion allows religious values, Christian or otherwise, to shape its manners and morals” (144).

The Delicate Dance

“The country is run by extremists because the moderates have sh*t to do.” –Jon Stewart

The relationship between Church and State is complex and precarious. It always holds open the possibility of abuse by extremists. Meacham writes, “The line between theology and theocracy, between public religion and consuming religious fervor that could distort the delicate American balance between religion and civic life, is a very thin one” (129). Extremely religious people can claim that their voice is not heard. Activist atheists can declare that their rights are violated anytime the mere suggestion of religious language is heard in the public square.

For this reason, the Founders created a system of checks and balances to create “a world in which it is likely that the center, not the extremes, will hold sway” (239). They assumed that the large majority of people who believe in a transcendent power would establish a “collective cultural consensus, grounded in ‘common sense’ [that allows] for the kinds of broad religious expression one hears in presidential and public rhetoric” (240).

The complete banishment of religion from public discourse would be just as damaging to liberty as the establishment of a State Church. It is for this reason, that extremists – whether believer or atheist – cannot overthrow a democracy. There are simply not enough of them to do so. This allows the center to hold firm. Meacham writes,

Given that the large majority do believe in a transcendent power, and given that the evocations of a transcendent power grew organically from the habits and hearts of the early Americans, it would be as unsound to ban the use of the word “God” from all arenas of public life as it would be to require every American to attend church services every Sunday. (82-83)

The separation between Church and State is not intended to stifle all discussion between the two entities. Instead it is intended to prohibit an unholy alliance between them. Religion can and should influence public policy, but it must not hold a privileged position.

An acceptance of this delicate dance would go a long way toward silencing extremists – both believers and atheists – who assume moral or intellectual privilege. Meacham states it best, “There is always a risk that politically active believers may assume an off-putting air of moral superiority, just as politically active secularists may assume an off-putting are of intellectual superiority” (18). The battle between those who claim to represent the moral high-ground and those who claim intellectual supremacy is groundless. The freedom of religion guarded by the secular state does not privilege unbelief over belief. Claims to moral supremacy grounded in religion or intellectual supremacy grounded in reason need more support than the authority of an institutional church or the protection of a secular state.

The current culture wars between extremists fail to recognize the subtle interplay between Church and State. They can never be completely separated. As Justice William O. Douglas stated so eloquently in 1952, absolute consistency is impossible to achieve:

The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other – hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; “so help me God” in our courtroom oaths – these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” (239-240)

“Can religion be a force for unity, not division, in the nation and in the world? The Founders thought so, and so must we” (237). But this unity cannot be achieved by religious extremists who use God for their own purposes, or by secular intellectuals who seek to completely remove religion from the public forum. Perhaps if both sides would accept the legitimacy of the other, then the barroom brawl would return to the delicate dance the Founding Fathers intended in the first place.

Quotes excerpted from American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation by Jon Meacham
© Richard J. Vincent, 2006