Posts

Posted on

Why “Separation of Church and State” Was Never the American Way

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case that most Christians have never heard of—Everson v. Board of Education. Yet that ruling, more than any other, reshaped the place of Christianity in American public life. In fact, the very idea that our Constitution demands a strict “separation of church and state” was essentially invented by that decision. But what if this idea wasn’t true to America’s founding? And what if it ran counter to the biblical role of government itself?

A recent Harvard Law Journal article by Timon Cline, Josh Hammer, and Yoram Hazony—three voices from both Christian and Jewish traditions—argues that the time has come to overturn Everson and restore the original vision of the First Amendment. Christians seeking to understand the world through a biblical lens, should pay close attention.

Government’s Biblical Responsibility: Promoting the Public Good

Romans 13 tells us that civil authorities are ordained by God to uphold justice and punish evil. First Peter 2 commands rulers to “praise those who do good.” This biblical principle was historically recognized by Christian thinkers and undergirded America’s early political structure. The Founders never imagined a government stripped of moral and religious foundations. Instead, they understood—as Proverbs 14:34 puts it—that “righteousness exalts a nation.”

The Harvard Law Journal scholars point out that America’s original constitutional design reflected this reality: under the First Amendment, the federal government was prohibited from establishing a national church or interfering with religious establishments at the state level. In other words, individual states were expected to shape public morality—including support for Christianity—as they saw fit.

The Great Distortion: How Everson Rewrote the First Amendment

How, then, did “separation of church and state” become national dogma?

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black reinterpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment using Thomas Jefferson’s offhand metaphor of a “wall of separation.” But Jefferson’s phrase came from a personal letter written 14 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified—and Jefferson wasn’t even in the country when the First Amendment was drafted.

This metaphor, the authors argue, was never meant to create a religiously neutral state. Yet Justice Black’s ruling applied this separationist vision to the states, effectively barring them from supporting religion in any public form. Ironically, the First Amendment’s clear limitation on federal power was transformed into a federal prohibition against state-level religious expression.

From a biblical worldview, this distortion matters deeply. Scripture never envisions the civil order as “neutral” toward the things of God. Rather, rulers are called to “kiss the Son” (Psalm 2:12)—to govern with justice that acknowledges God’s authority.

The Fruits of Everson: A Secular Public Square

What followed Everson is all too familiar. Prayer and Bible reading were banned from schools. Christian moral teachings were sidelined. Secularism—the active removal of religion from public life—became the assumed posture of government. As the legal scholars argue, this didn’t create neutrality; it created a functional state-sponsored religion of secularism.

Romans 1 describes what happens when a society “suppresses the truth” about God: moral confusion and cultural decay. We’ve witnessed this firsthand as public life—once broadly shaped by biblical norms—has become a vacuum filled by alternative ideologies.

A Forgotten American Principle: Local Freedom to Support Religion

One of the most insightful arguments from Cline, Hammer, and Hazony is that American federalism originally allowed each state to shape its religious character. States like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire maintained various forms of Christian establishment well into the 19th century. This wasn’t forced religion. Alongside these establishments, states protected freedom of conscience.

The genius of this system was local accountability. Each state, as a community, had the freedom to uphold religious practices appropriate to its people. This echoes the biblical principle of local leadership seen in Exodus 18, where Moses is told to appoint “capable men from all the people…to serve as officials” over groups at different levels.

What Christians Should Hope For

The Harvard Law Journal article calls for overturning Everson and returning decisions about public religion to the states. From a Christian worldview, this proposal aligns with key scriptural principles:

  • Civil rulers should promote the public good, including moral and religious formation.
  • Religious instruction should not be coerced but encouraged.
  • Parents and local communities should shape children’s moral education (Deuteronomy 6:6–7)1And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise..

Imagine a future where states once again have the freedom to support prayer in schools, Bible instruction, and moral formation—not by force, but by communal choice. Such a restoration would acknowledge the biblical truth that faith in God strengthens public virtue.

Caution: Supporting Truth Without Coercion

While we should hope for a return to public religion, Christians must remember that authentic faith cannot be imposed (2 Corinthians 4:2)2But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.. Government should create conditions favorable to righteousness, but not attempt to compel belief. This balance—supporting religion while protecting conscience—was wisely preserved in many early American states. It’s a biblical balance worth recovering.

Conclusion: A Time for Restoration

In their closing words, Cline, Hammer, and Hazony argue that Everson has become “the principal obstacle to the restoration of a genuinely conservative public life.” From a biblical worldview, they’re right. Removing Everson would not guarantee national renewal, but it would remove a legal barrier that suppresses the public expression of biblical faith.

In the end, Scripture calls both individuals and nations to acknowledge the Lord. As Psalm 33:12 declares, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”

We now live in a society where public policy denies basic realities:

  • That God created humans male and female (Genesis 1:27).3So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
  • That marriage is designed to unite one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24).4Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
  • That children are a gift to be welcomed, not commodities to be engineered (Psalm 127:3).5Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
  • That human life, from conception to natural death, bears the image of God (Genesis 1:26).6Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

When a society suppresses these truths, it suppresses the very foundation of human dignity and moral order. Christians should not respond with apathy or with abstract appeals to “religious freedom” alone. We should desire what these scholars recommend: a restoration of public religion—not to coerce belief, but to witness to truth.

It is time for our laws, schools, and public institutions to once again affirm what creation itself teaches. This does not mean a return to coercive state churches. It means restoring the freedom of communities to encourage what is true, good, and life-giving—and removing federal barriers that prevent states from doing so.

+++

Posted on

St. John Paul II’s “Letter to Women”

June 29 was the 30th anniversary of St. John Paul II’s “Letter to Women.” ( A MUST READ)

Some reflections on the uplifting importance of that letter….

Reflection 1

John Paul II’s first, and arguably, most profound point, is his expression of gratitude. Whether you’re a mother, wife, daughter, sister, employed in the workforce, consecrated virgin, or an educator (in whatever capacity), he thanks YOU. He doesn’t only thank you for the work you do, but for your very existence as a woman.

Reflection 2

As St. John Paul II continues in his reflection, he rightly brings awareness to the marginalization and lack of progress women have experienced. While it’s easy to see drastic progress in something like Title IX, we are simultaneously experiencing a “relapse” of this progress, spearheaded by lawmakers, organizations, and activists rushing to dismantle a law that has protected so many women. This is not the only deterioration we are seeing.

We live in a culture that no longer understands what it means to be a woman. We live in a culture that changes words like “breastfeeding” to “chestfeeding” or “women” to “wimmin” in the name of affirmation and inclusivity. We live in a culture where biological men compete in women’s sports. And we live in a culture that tells little girls they are boys because they enjoy wearing cargo shorts over dresses and prefer trucks over dolls. The list continues. So, what happened?

We not only forgot to thank women, but we also forgot to address that women are inherently different and unique, made in the Image and Likeness of God, with a specific vocation that only women can fulfill, to help. I’m not claiming the world became corrupt for this reason alone, but how are we expected to flourish in a culture that doesn’t respect or appreciate God’s given design for our bodies, let alone His plan for our lives?

Further reflections found here. But I’ll finish with this one.

“Let us remind our daughters, “tomboys” or not, that they are loved as a child of the Lord and are no less of a woman because they choose dirt over dolls, or dolls over dirt. Let us remind our friends that they can still be “mothers” by guiding their students, peers, or nieces/nephews toward the truth, single or not.”

Saint John PAul II’s “Letter to Women”

+++

Posted on

When Bodies Don’t Matter: The Gnostic Temptation of Our Age

In recent years, I started to notice a common thread running through several major cultural flashpoints: homosexuality, transgenderism, AI, and Covid. At first glance, these topics seem disconnected. But the more I examined them, the more I saw a hidden connection—a way of thinking that undergirds them all. That underlying theme is an ancient Christian heresy: Gnosticism.

What Is Gnosticism?

Gnosticism teaches that salvation comes through secret knowledge (gnosis) and that the physical world is flawed or even evil. In this view, the true self is immaterial, and our bodies are little more than prisons. Early Christians rejected this heresy forcefully. The Apostle John, for instance, insisted that anyone who denies Jesus came in the flesh is not of God (2 John 7).1For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Today, Gnosticism hasn’t disappeared. It’s just morphed into new forms.

Gnosticism and the Sexual Revolution

Take homosexuality and transgenderism. The underlying belief here is that our bodies don’t matter—or at least, they shouldn’t have the final say in who we are. If someone’s desires conflict with their biology, then biology must yield. In transgenderism especially, the body is treated not just as irrelevant but as an obstacle to overcome. It’s a mindset that says, “What I feel on the inside is who I truly am—my body just hasn’t caught up yet.”

This isn’t a scientific outlook. Ironically, it clashes with Darwinian evolution, which says our physical traits exist for a reason. Our anatomy speaks to our purpose. Even noted biologist-atheist Richard Dawkins has made similar observations, emphasizing that male and female bodies evolved for reproduction, and that denying the biological basis of sex is anti-scientific. He certainly doesn’t frame this as a critique of Gnosticism—but the resonance is striking. 

Gnostic thinking rejects the biological basis entirely. It tells us that truth is found in the internal self, not the external form.

Virtual Reality, AI, and the Disembodied Future

This disembodied way of thinking also shows up in technology. Virtual reality is now marketed not just as entertainment but as an alternative to real life. Marc Andreessen, one of Silicon Valley’s top voices, once argued that those who value the physical world are simply enjoying their “reality privilege.” For most people, he claims, the digital world offers more meaning, more justice, and more joy. In a widely shared 2021 interview, Andreessen framed virtuality as a more equitable frontier than physical reality, arguing that investing in digital life is not only desirable but ethically necessary for those lacking “reality privilege.”

Mary Harrington, a feminist critic of transhumanism, connects this to the rise in trans identities. Kids who grow up immersed in virtual spaces—from Minecraft to Instagram—come to believe that the body is endlessly editable. If you can modify your online avatar, why not your real one?

She labels this phenomenon “Meat Lego Gnosticism”, vividly depicting a mindset where our bodies are deconstructed and reassembled, like LEGO blocks, at our own discretion rather than respected as integral, given wholes.

Artificial intelligence takes this logic even further. Some experts now openly ask whether unplugging an AI that claims to be conscious would be morally equivalent to killing a human. Why? Because if humans are just biological computers, then a silicon-based computer might be a person, too. Once again, embodiment is dismissed as unnecessary—or even oppressive.

Christianity Is Embodied

The problem is that this is profoundly anti-Christian. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible insists on the goodness of the body. Creation was called “very good.” Adam and Eve were given bodies with sexual differentiation and purpose. The Law regulated food, clothing, and ritual purity—bodily matters. Circumcision, anointing, sacrifices, baptisms—these are not incidental to the faith. They are expressions of it.

And then came the Incarnation. After creating bodies, and calling them good, God took on a body. He didn’t just give us ideas or a philosophy—He lived, suffered, bled, and died. He rose again with a body, and He gave us bodily sacraments: bread and wine, water and oil.

Christianity is not a disembodied information exchange. It is a flesh-and-blood, incarnational way of life. When we start treating livestreams as a sufficient replacement for church, or when we reduce Christian teaching to mere data transfer, we’re slipping into a Gnostic mindset.

Many in the tech world find the very idea that our nature has been given to us—rather than designed by us—to be a kind of offense. Yuval Harari, for example, boldly declares, “Organisms are algorithms,” and envisions a future where human life is no longer shaped by divine design but by human reengineering: “Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design—not the intelligent design of some God above the clouds, but our intelligent design.”

For the modern mind, it’s galling to be told that our identity, limits, and even our flesh have been handed to us. The Christian worldview says we are fearfully and wonderfully made; the new Gnosticism says we are merely constructed—and ought to be reconstructed at will.

Why It Matters Now

Covid accelerated this shift. We were suddenly told that human bodies were dangerous. The ideal became disembodied—stay home, go virtual, avoid touch. What shocked me most was how quickly many Christians accepted this. The body, once central to Christian worship and community, became an afterthought.

But this wasn’t a new temptation. Gnosticism has always haunted the Church. What’s new is how persuasive it’s become in the age of digital technology and identity politics.

When Christians start believing that the body is incidental to the faith—or to being human—we’re not just making a theological mistake. We’re surrendering to the spirit of the age. We’re forgetting that Jesus rose with a body, that the Church is a Body, and that salvation is not just for our souls but for our whole selves.

Embodied Discipleship

What does it mean, then, to resist the Gnostic pull? It means leaning into our createdness. It means honoring our bodies as gifts. It means worshipping in person when we can, serving one another physically, and refusing to reduce faith to a collection of doctrines floating in the cloud.

To be Christian is to be human in the fullest sense—mind, soul, and body. Our world doesn’t need more clever ideas. It needs the witness of embodied lives: people who live out truth in their flesh and bones, who love with their hands and feet, and who follow a Savior who did the same.

Gnosticism says salvation is found in escaping the body. The Gospel says it’s found in the Word made flesh.

And that makes all the difference.

+++