Church and State are often treated like rival siblings fighting over the TV remote, but Scripture presents them as distinct, yet complementary, institutions under God’s ultimate authority. As “cultural Christianity” fades, something else inevitably moves into the empty seat. The real question isn’t whether God belongs in public life; it’s who we think is actually running the place.

While I have expressed concern over certain Christian “Dominion” efforts, I have also maintained that no government is truly secular, nor should we desire it to be. Doug Wilson once observed, “Every government is a theocracy. The question is, ‘Who is Theo?’” ¹ Certainly Wilson is a controversial figure and my reference to this quote should absolutely not be seen as any kind of endorsement. Nonetheless, the underlying point reflects a biblical reality: all authority ultimately answers to something higher (Romans 13:1; Psalm 2:1–4).

America’s Christian Roots

“Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith…”
Those words from the Mayflower Compact (1620) tell us something important: colonial America was not conceived as a religiously neutral experiment. It was a covenantal community, more like a church-influenced settlement than a sovereign nation, seeking self-rule under God.

The early colonies expected religious conformity and explicitly aimed to advance Christianity. They operated within the Reformed tradition, which deeply shaped their understanding of society, law, and moral order. Historian Douglas F Kelly notes:

The American colonies were heavily influenced by large numbers of Calvinist immigrants, of both Congregational and Presbyterian persuasion…As this approach was worked out in the North American colonial and then revolutionary events, a system was developed in several states and the nation that provided historically unprecedented civil and religious liberties. This American system drew from many sources, including secular Enlightenment thought, but the Calvinist outworking of the two-powers view of church and state was prominent in the process. ²

From Covenant to Constitution

In contrast, the American Founders a century and a half later took a different approach. The Constitution deliberately avoided establishing a national church, emphasizing liberty over theological uniformity. In short, early colonial America sought to build a Christian society, while founding-era America sought to build a free society, trusting faith to flourish best without government coercion. The Constitution certainly did not intend to erase Christianity from public life; it simply removed government control over it.

The Founding Fathers were religiously diverse. Some were orthodox Christians (Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman). Others were Deists or Unitarians (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin). Still others were more difficult to categorize (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton). Nonetheless, what united them was belief in God, moral law, and the necessity of religious liberty. While America was not founded as a theocratically Christian nation, it was never intended to be a strictly secular one, either. As Adams famously wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ³

The Separation Controversy

It surprises many to learn that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, it comes from an 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which he referred to a “wall of separation between Church and State.” Jefferson’s purpose was not to exclude religion from public life, but to reassure Baptists that the federal government would not interfere with their religious liberty.

By contrast, the actual language of the Constitution is found in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Notice first where the restriction is placed: on Congress, that is, the federal government. As written, this limitation was not binding on state or local governments. Properly understood, the Establishment Clause provides several common-sense protections that benefit all Americans, including:

Preventing the government from creating or controlling a national religion
Protecting citizens from coercion in matters of religious belief or practice
Prohibiting the state from favoring one faith over another
Safeguarding religious liberty by limiting government power

Just as important is what the First Amendment does not do. It does not:

Remove religion from public life or public discussion
Prohibit voluntary public prayer
Silence churches or individuals from expressing religious convictions
Forbid moral reasoning informed by faith
Ban culturally relevant holiday displays, even when they are religious in nature

This constitutional framework served the nation well for roughly 150 years. That began to change in the twentieth century, as the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine to apply the Establishment Clause to the states, Beginning with Everson v. Board of Education (1947), which permitted the government to provide neutral public benefits (like bus transportation) to religious school students. However, this was followed by Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington v. Schempp (1963), which removed state-sponsored prayer and Bible reading from public schools. With these cases, the Supreme Court significantly expanded the meaning of the Establishment Clause beyond its original scope. Historian Stephen Mansfield gives us some context:

Let us remember that Thomas Jefferson was not present when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were framed. He was the American ambassador to France. Also, he wrote the Danbury letter containing the “wall of separation” metaphor nearly a decade and a half after the First Amendment was written…Never is a case built from the intentions of the First Amendment’s framers. Yet Jefferson’s phrase is taken as the sole key to interpreting the First Amendment’s meaning. This is despite the fact that for the months from June 7 to September 25, 1789, when some ninety founding fathers were debating the language of the First Amendment, there is not one mention of the phrase “separation of church and state” recorded in the Congressional Record. ⁴

With this in mind, the question then becomes “What IS the proper relationship between church and state?

Separate, but Complimentary

Martin Luther King Jr. rightly observed that “The church…it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.” ⁵ While it is true that spiritual government (Church) and political government (State) are two separate institutions, they should ideally work together for the common good. For example: In ancient Israel, Moses was the political leader (Exodus 18:15-16), while his brother Aaron served in the Priesthood as the spiritual leader (Exodus 28-29) A similar relationship is seen between King Josiah and Hilkiah the Priest (2 Kings 22.) Another example would be Nehemiah the Governor (Nehemiah 7:1-7,) and Ezra the Scribe (Nehemiah 8:1-8.) Above all, the highest law is God’s Law, and He expects all human governments to be subject to it (Psalm 2:10-12; Isaiah 8:20.)

So, Who IS Theo?

Government does not, and cannot, exist in a vacuum. Every law, policy, and moral judgment rests upon assumptions about human nature, morality, justice, and ultimate authority. The real question is not whether religion influences government, but which beliefs will shape it. What is often called “secular” is not the absence of religion at all, but the rise of a different one. This is a vital distinction.

Public officials necessarily make moral judgments about justice, human dignity, punishment, and protection. These judgments are rooted in beliefs about what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Any government that claims to be neutral is simply masking its underlying worldview. For centuries, Western governments operated within a framework shaped by Christian moral teaching, even when many citizens were not personally devout. This is what we mean by cultural Christianity. Biblical concepts such as:

The inherent dignity of every human being (Genesis 1:26–27)
Equality before the law (Acts 10:34)
The value of charity and care for the vulnerable (Micah 6:8)

…were absorbed into legal systems, political thought, and social norms. However, cultural Christianity has limits. Paul warned of a form of faith that retains outward appearance but lacks inward power:

“Having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.” (2 Timothy 3:5)

When Christianity is reduced to tradition rather than transformation, it cannot sustain itself. Over time, the moral fruits remain briefly, but the roots are forgotten. Yet worship does not disappear. Rather, it is redirected. Society organizes around sacred commitments other than God.

“They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” (Romans 1:25)

Such worship does not usually involve temples or idols of stone. Instead, it focuses on things like:

Personal identity
Autonomous desire
Sensual pleasure
Political power
Collective outrage

Christian language is borrowed, terms such as “justice”, “love” and “dignity”, but they are divorced from their proper biblical meaning.

In contrast, the early church flourished not through cultural dominance, but through sacrificial faithfulness in a pagan empire. The task of the church is not to defend hollow tradition or chase political power, but to proclaim and live out the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is the only foundation capable of sustaining justice, mercy, truth, and hope.

Choose Your King

Governments rise and fall, but Jesus Christ reigns forever. No law can save you. No political system can forgive your sins. Only Christ can. He lived without sin, died for sinners, rose in victory, and now calls every person to repent, believe, and follow Him.

If you’ve placed your hope in politics, lift your eyes higher.
If you’ve been angry at the culture but distant from Christ, come home.
If you’ve never trusted Him, today is the day.

Turn from sin. Believe the gospel. Submit to Jesus. Regardless of what governments may do, every soul ultimately answers to Christ.

Keep It Real,

James

NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Wilson, D. (2025, August 7). Interview with Pamela Brown [Television segment]. CNN. Transcript retrieved from https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2025-08-07/segment/01

3. Adams, John, to the officers of the Third Division of the Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.

5. King, Martin Luther, Jr. Strength to Love. Harper & Row, 1963.

===================

WEBSITES:

BLOG:

“Keeping It Real” with James H Boyd

“THE LEGACY” AUDIO PODCAST:

On iTunes
On Google
On Podbean
On SoundCloud

SOCIAL MEDIA:

DONATE

#jameshboyd #keepitreal #yourfriendjames

Start Here

Explore

Ministry

Stay Connected

Affiliations & Credentials

Church, State and Theocracy