Should U.S. public policy reflect viewpoints arrived at because of religious beliefs? What is the role of religion in national debate? Do religious viewpoints have a place in the public square?

Prompted by the many debates over legal recognition of same-sex marriage on this blog, I undertook to try to answer these questions. I do not claim to be an expert, but, have thought about these issues for over thirty years. I also am a trained Christian pastor (Master of Divinity, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1983), and trained scholar of religion (Ph.D. in Religion, outside area American History, Baylor University, 2000). I undertook this writing project as well to help me clarify my own thought. I grew up in the Primitive Baptist tradition, historically a strong supporter of the Separation of Church and State. My parents even were members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. My earliest thinking on the issue, therefore, was in a strongly separationist mode. The last ten or fifteen years, however, I have moved to the opinion that a strict separationist position is too simple, and too naive. I am not, however, and probably never will become a Christian Theonomist, advocating that the laws given to Israel on Sinai should become the law of our land and of every land. (The terms "Theonomy," "Dominion Theology," and "Christian Reconstructionism" often are used imprecisely as synonymns.)

So, where do I stand? (cont. below)


In my first post on these questions, I looked at the history of the United States. I pointed out that the Founders did not intend to create a thoroughly secular society in the modern sense. They assumed a created world operating by Divine Law, but did not intend that the dogma of any one Christian group should be imposed as policy. Furthermore, religious thought and language have had an important and honored place in American political debate and public policy formation. Increasing religious diversity has made religious thought and language more problematic in the public square. I concluded: "I hold the following: religious motivation and rhetoric and reasoning are proper in the public square, however, one particular sect or denomination cannot expect others to bow before it; public policy in a political system such as ours cannot be based solely on faith claims."

In my second post, I looked at the issue from the perspective of philosophy and observation. My conclusion is that religious ideas cannot be excluded from the public square. Religions, considered as systems of belief, cannot be separated absolutely from philosophies. Our assertions and arguments ultimately rest on philosophical/religious assumptions concerning the nature of reality, including human reality in its individual and social manifestations. We are still debating Plato's question of what constitutes The Good. Most Americans arrive at their answers to Plato through religious reasoning and assumptions. Public debate is healthier when our assumptions are made explicit. The downside of this observation is that a society requires a basic agreement of world-view to maintain cohesion.

My third post presented my view from a Christian perspective within the Reformed tradition. I first observed that Christianity has been a personal religion, but never a private one. Early Christians had rules of behavior for the Church, that is for the entire faith community. Later, when the situation changed from one of disadvantage to advantage within the Roman Empire, Christians sought to "Christianize" culture and politics, justifying their actions by appeal to the universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the growth of the Kingdom of God. The Reformed tradition has especially emphasized the lordship of Christ over all creation, including human society. Calvinists have seen the church and the state as agencies appointed by God to bring "God's order" to the world. Christians, then, cannot avoid but must seek to transform culture and government into patterns more consistent with God's will.

So, now the final question: given all I have argued above, what do I see as the role of religion in the public square?

First, while culture and politics are related obviously, they are not exactly the same thing. A Waco Farmer has observed that we do not implement the entire Ten Commandments as public policy. I would add, nor should we. For example, the command not to covet is better conceived as an issue of culture rather than of government. Culture is best shaped by passive and active witness. By Passive Witness I mean the Christian community living according to this commandment for all the world to see. By Active Witness I mean the public articulation of this command in a persuasive way. Even those commandments that have an obvious governmental aspect, such as not bearing false witness, have a limited relation to government in issues such as fraud or perjury. The broader issue of truthfulness is more of a cultural issue (I would never seek prosecution for lying about the size of the fish that got away) and should be promoted by Witness within culture.

Second, some issues are to be addressed by government. I have given the example of false witness above. Killing, it seems obvious to me, cannot be addressed simply by witness to culture. Therefore, the commandment Do not Kill, must find expression in the sanction of public policy (law) against murder. The fundamental assumptions supporting laws against murder are philosphical/religious. These laws are supported by a cultural consensus. I think it appropriate that both cultural attitudes and public policy be addressed by Christians as Christians, cultural attitudes through Witness, public policy through lobbying and voting. In their lobbying and other political activity, I think Christians may appeal to the tenets of their faith.

Third, in our system of government in which citizens have the right and power to work for creation of new public policy, or alteration of existing policy, I think Christians should use the democratic/legal means available to us. In other words, lobby our legislators and go to court rather than blow up buildings and assassinate officials. I do realize that abortion is a tough issue on this point. Those Christians who advocate violence against abortionists and abortion clinics, calling peaceful Right-to-Lifers “Wimps for Life,” must be heard when they ask us—if you had lived in Nazi Germany would it not have been a moral obligation for you to blow up train tracks carrying Jews to concentration camps?--Can we stand by and wait for political processes to work out while the unborn are killed? I would reply, humbly, that we have no perfect choices in life: in our political system I still think the better choice is to use the system, and to engage in strong Witness to the culture.

Fourth, what would such Christian lobbying and political activity look like, concretely? Let me use abortion as an example. I think political activity by Christians would have multiple aspects. One aspect would be explicitly Christian in language and rationale offered: we would offer reasons such as God’s justice prohibiting the unnecessary taking of human life, the biblical admonition to show mercy and compassion to the weak, etc. Another aspect would include an appeal to cultural consensus on shared values and assumptions: for example, in an earlier post I argued against abortion based on the cultural value that we should not deliberately take innocent life. Finally, one aspect always would involve an appeal to reason. In my post on abortion I reasoned that if we placed the burden on the one demolishing a building to know with certainty he was not killing a human being thereby, then we should place the same burden on an abortionist—he must know with certainty that he is not killing a human being. An appeal to Reason must be part of any Christian public policy argument to avoid arbitrary assertion of power by the faith community.