Separation of Church and State

This time of year in particular, there is a lot of bluster in the air, at least on the national level, about the uncomfortable intersection between church and state. My goal here is not to weigh in on the legalities of this question, or to lament some 'war on Christmas', but to hopefully talk soberly about a more important disconnect - a disconnect between the hot air of partisan national voices, versus the realities on the ground.

If all one does is listen to the overheated rhetoric about religion and matters of the State that gets highlighted on the evening news, one would think that the division is so sharp and the chasm so deep that it would be a miracle to see anything like compromise or cooperation. But this simply isn't the case.

When I did my field work for the MDiv degree I recently received, I saw firsthand how faith communities and local governments were working together on a variety of matters with no hesitation about the legalities or prudence of such a partnership. Local governments and faith communities are working together on issues of homelessness, low-income housing, utility and transportation assistance, medical and prescription aid, and of course, hunger. Long before there was ever an official federal liaison for faith-based initiatives, many local governments had already seen the necessity of officially and formally working with the faith community where possible to address difficult issues. Many local governments have long had something like a formal department devoted to promoting cooperation and collaboration between government and the faith community on matters of mutual interest. Contrary to what one might think from exclusively following the contentious church-state battles in DC, there is, in many parts of the country, no real stigma between governments and faith communities in actively trying to work together on a variety of fronts. In many communities around the country, local governments have long realized that the faith communities are not only powerful players, but more importantly, are very committed to addressing social problems outside the church walls. Many local governments long ago realized that it is simply foolish and negligent not to actively seek opportunities for collaboration with players like these, and many have done so with little hesitation. Now it's true that some governments are skittish about extending a hand to faith communities, and it is also true that more than a few churches won't cooperate with the government, mainly for ecclesiastical reasons. And this is fair enough. But this is a long way away from the over-the-top rhetoric and sentiments about church-state cooperation that we hear pretty regularly from cloistered partisan interests and their cheerleaders in the press.

There was an article just today about how employees are increasingly bringing their religious beliefs into the workplace, and that for the most part, the shift away from employee automaton that has resulted has been pretty smooth. While there are clear lines that can't be crossed (favoritism, proselytizing, etc) that provide some red meat for the partisan faithful, the fact is that these lines are recognized as legitimate by virtually everyone, with very few incidents of people crossing such lines. As a result, workplaces around the country, from law firms to glass companies, allow voluntary Bible studies to take place on employer property, and more and more executive suite memos are citing religious-based principles and values as complementary of the company's principles and values. Again, the bluster in DC is disconnected from the realities on the ground.

There will always be partisans on both sides of the church-state question who actively try to push their position beyond the bounds of reasonableness. As a Christian, I know there is some legitimacy to the fear of many non-religious and even nominally religious people about the partisans on my side of the divide pushing our religion on society in a hard-nosed, uncompromising fashion. Chuck Colson is correct in saying that as Christians, we should be in the business of proposing, not imposing. But thankfully, there are also a number of non-religious friends of mine who acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns of religious people that there are mainly secular-minded interests trying very hard to put an unreasonable and belittling lid on religious expression and legitimacy in this country. Unfortunately, these respective partisans are the ones who get most of the air-play and drive the coarseness of the debate. Because these folks get all the attention, not only does the extensive positive collaboration between governments and faith communities go ignored in the national discussion, but observers who often don't know any better presume from the national debate that the two partisan sides depicted are the only two choices available. This inevitably skews one's perception of the question, and usually, it tends to either create a new round of partisans who faithfully take up the cause and join the bluster, or it creates disinterest, disengagement, and disappointment.

If we're concerned about what the divisions in this country are doing to the stability of the national fabric, we need to have the ability to separate the heated rhetoric from sober realities, and recognize that there are very real distinctions between the two. An inability to do this has largely resulted in the divides we see and regret, because we've allowed the usual partisan suspects to speak for us.