On July 4th, the Coeur D’Alene Chamber of Commerce made a decision that certain religious symbols, including the cross, were unacceptable. Notably, the pride flag was not mentioned as unacceptable. This selective restriction of religious symbols hints at a societal shift, a slow return to a pagan society. This decline in religious values is not just a cultural change, but it also has a profound impact on governance. We are witnessing the dawn of a post-Christian, post-reason age, where the objective truths that have held Western Civilization together for 1000 years are under threat.

What happened in Coeur d’Alene resulted from the church stepping away from the public square. Let’s give the Chamber the benefit of the doubt in that they responded to what they believed to be the dominant cultural mindset and banned what others defined as offensive. The banning of religion was most likely, in their estimation, a commonsense approach to making sure there was no strife in a parade they sponsored. The desire to prevent strife was probably because they were only hearing from one side of the coin, and the other side was completely silent until the decision was made.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding (Proverbs 9:10). However, fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7). This profound truth underscores the crucial role of religious values in our society. The Barna group released a study showing that only 25% of those who say they are Christians are practicing Christians.[1] It’s evident that both political parties are experiencing a dearth of practicing Christians. While it’s not to say that there are no practicing Christians in either party, they have certainly become a minority. This void has been filled by individuals driven by a hunger for power, wealth, recognition, and/or fame. For some, this has become their form of religious devotion, and they approach politics with a zeal reminiscent of religious fervor.

A Constitutional Republic built on liberal religious tolerance is one of the most demanding forms of government ever devised. Before the Great American Experiment, almost all forms of government defined their right to rule by power. This power was typically derived from a deity down to a single individual, i.e., the King, or a small ruling class, i.e., the aristocracy. The Divine Right of Kings, popular in the late Medieval/Early Enlightenment, illustrates this power structure:

Based on these biblical principles, the divine right of kings claims monarchs have been placed in their positions by God, making them accountable to God and God alone. Rulers have a divine right to the throne and the authority they wield. Only God, according to the divine right of kings, has the right to remove a king or emperor or to judge him for his actions. This effectively means kings cannot be deposed, rebelled against, or curtailed by their subjects. To rebel against the king, according to the divine right of kings, is to rebel against God.[2]

A high authoritarian government is a very low civil participation government. A low civil participation government means that a subject must do what he is told to do in the manner in which he is told to do it to remain in good standing. Being told what to do without thought tends to breed laziness. A Constitutional Republic is a very high-participation government that demands a high civil participation rate. The advantage is near unrestrained freedom, which is the Achilles heel of our Republic. John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[3] In the face of unrestrained government, moral and religious people limit their freedom by self-restraint, thus allowing the government to operate in the proper sphere without micromanaging or dictating law to the populace. The church has always been the linchpin in our form of government since it upholds the moral values our entire system of government is predicated on.

We understand there is hesitation and potential doctrinal disagreements over the amount of participation the church must or can have in civil government. We understand and respect your desire to adhere to said doctrines. If you are uncomfortable supporting a political cause as a church body, we ask that we be allowed to ask for volunteers who are willing to serve in the public square, representing the objective moral foundation inherent within a Christian worldview. While we cannot address all doctrinal differences, we can address the elephants in the room: the separation of church and state and Romans 13. To that end, we give a short response below.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the letter to guarantee the Danbury Baptist Association that a federal church would not be instantiated, in contrast to the European tradition of a state-sponsored church. We can look at this as a wall. Jefferson intended the wall to be built between the church and government/state and not the church and society/public square. A recent example of the state interfering with the church is churches being required to close down.  The separation of church and state is intended to prevent this very thing, as the shutting down of churches has a long history in state-established churches throughout European history and, in some cases, pre-independence America.

The debate surrounding Romans 13 is too long to discuss here, so we will endeavor to highlight the key point. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established (Romans 13 1-2). God has established the existing authorities. We acknowledge and expect Christians to follow Romans 13 in light of our form of government, where the people are the government and all officials in office today are the subjects of the people. So, when the elected officials overstep their civil authority to rule justly i.e., Abortion on demand, the closing of churches, endorsing gay marriage, and promoting lawlessness, it is the right and duty of the people to non-violently address their grievances.

With this knowledge in hand, who better to serve in government than the people this nation was founded to be run by? The very nature of wisdom is vested in God, and sinful people bereft of the Holy Spirit are inherently and wholly incapable of accessing divine wisdom. In that vacuum, individuals who inherently lack wisdom are stepping in. We are seeking to fill out local offices with practicing Christians. Christians who don’t simply pay lip service but put faith into practice, Christians who are merely interested in carrying out their mandate to serve others at the expense of self. We are calling for the church to return to the public square.

[1] Barna Group, “Signs of Decline & Hope Among Key Metrics of Faith,” Barna.com, March 4^th, 2020, accessed August 1, 2024, from https://www.barna.com/research/changing-state-of-the-church/.

[2] “What is the Divine Right of Kings,” Got Questions.com, October 13^th, 2023, accessed August 1, 2024, from https://www.gotquestions.org/divine-right-of-kings.html.

[3] Brett Waite, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” Quoting John Adams’s letter to the Massachusetts Militia October 11, 1798, December 7, 2023, accessed August 1, 2024, from https://onlinecoursesblog.hillsdale.edu/our-constitution-was-made-only-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/.