Revisiting Fundamental Principles

Freedom of expression, universal voting rights, and the separation of church and state are beliefs that our nation holds dear. These ideals are almost revered in American culture.

For a lot of people, the Constitution isn’t just a legal document; it’s almost like a sacred pact between the citizens and the government, reminding us that authority shouldn’t exist without our agreement.

The church has often claimed power throughout history, responding to kings, crowning emperors, and even igniting conflicts—both physically and mentally.

But here’s a thought: what if some of these foundational principles are now contributing to the oppression we experience today?

Authority or Influence?

Consider the separation of church and state, which was heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinkers. Many found it distasteful to mix theocratic power with governance, particularly in light of the corruption seen in European monarchies during the Middle Ages.

The founders were swayed toward a rationalist view of God—seeing Him as a creator who wouldn’t meddle with human affairs. They promoted natural law but were skeptical of any church authority that ventured into political realms.

In a bold move, they aimed to remove the church’s influence from governmental matters, often justifying it as a pursuit of religious freedom. However, the primary goal was really more about limiting the power of religious institutions in politics.

A Controlled Vision

This led to the crafting of a nation that attempted to confine God to church buildings, enforcing a kind of professional secularism where the divine didn’t interfere with human actions. But was there a real separation? In some senses, it seems more like a swap.

Filling the Void

The church may have lost some of its influence, but that void didn’t remain unfilled. When one authority wanes, another often rises. In this case, secular liberalism emerged as the new orthodoxy.

We have “experts” and bureaucrats informing us of the truth, rather than priests. TV stations, not bishops, celebrate the outcomes of elections. Instead of faith in God, we now place our trust in “science.”

It’s perplexing, isn’t it? We wonder why traditions seem lost, why morals feel like they’re cobbled together at random, and why Christian institutions seem less able to face cultural tides.

This confusion might stem from the very agreement that God shouldn’t get involved in societal issues.

Redefining Roles

I know this sounds rigid, but it’s a perspective I’m coming to see as I reflect more on our history. I grew up accepting the separation idea, but the more I explore, the more I feel it might have been misguided. Perhaps the Founding Fathers weren’t entirely correct.

What kind of church are we engaging with? Is it merely a building for worship? It must be more; after all, it represents the body of Christ. If Christ leads, how does His body function? What sort of strength does it bring? Jesus embodies more than just intellect; His church should actively engage with the world.

Historically, the church has claimed power and responded to authority, influencing political dynamics and winning battles—both spiritually and physically. This true power, it seems, is often overlooked in a contemporary context that considers it relegated to past eras.

Accepting Reality

We’ve immersed ourselves in secular thinking to the point where we hardly view it as an ideology. It feels like “just the way things are”—a perception that distorts our understanding of history.

As stated by Andrew Willard Jones, our view is fundamentally secular, even when we acknowledge the importance of religion. We tend to see secularism as a permanent fixture, while viewing religion as a fleeting notion.

Imagine navigating a complicated divorce. Can the church intervene in a court order? Jesus criticized the Pergamum Church for accepting immorality, which makes you wonder about the legitimacy of modern divorces under legal definitions. Are we not, in many ways, similar to that church?

Similarly, when the state redefines marriage to include non-traditional unions, one wonders where the church’s voice is in those discussions.

Let’s face it—this separation was always more of an illusion. The nation continuously imposes its view of theology. The state influences the church, just as the church pertains to the state. In fact, one could argue that churches only hold their identity when recognized by the state.

If a revival of Christendom is necessary, the church will need to reclaim some of that governmental power. There’s really no way around that.