Rooted & Reckoned

Tag: politics

  • America Was Never Intended to Be a “Christian Nation”

    There’s a lot of talk these days about America being a “Christian nation.” Some treat the idea as obvious history. Others treat any challenge to it as an attack on Christianity itself. Both sides are missing the actual point.

    The United States was never intended to be a theocracy or an officially Christian nation.

    The proof is written directly into the First Amendment:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    That first clause — the Establishment Clause — was deliberate. The founders had watched Europe tear itself apart for centuries with state churches, forced conversions, religious wars, and persecution of dissenters. They wanted no part of that on American soil (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785; McConnell, 2000).

    They were not trying to create a secular utopia. Most of the founders and early citizens were Christians of various kinds. But they were also painfully aware of what happens when government and one particular form of religion become too tightly entangled.

    Important clarification: There is NO “separation of church and state” in the Constitution

    The exact phrase “separation of church and state” never appears in the Constitution. It originated in a private 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, where Jefferson used the metaphor of a “wall of separation” to reassure the Baptists that the federal government would not interfere with their religious liberty or establish a national church (Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802; Dreisbach, 2002; Hamburger, 2002).

    Jefferson was expressing his preference that the federal government stay out of religious matters, not that religion must be banished from public life. In fact, the First Amendment does two things at once:

    • It prevents the federal government from establishing an official religion or favoring one denomination over another.
    • It protects the free exercise of religion — meaning the state is permitted to participate in and benefit from religious influence, as long as it does not coerce belief or establish a state church (McConnell, 2000; Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, ratified 1797 under Adams).

    The founders expected religion (especially Christianity) to have a healthy, public role in shaping morality and virtue. They simply did not want the government forcing people into one form of it.

    What the founders actually believed

    They assumed a moral and religious people would be necessary for the republic to survive. Washington, Adams, and others said this repeatedly (Washington, Farewell Address, 1796; Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 1798). They believed Christian ethics generally produced good citizens. But they deliberately rejected the idea of an official Christian theocracy with enforced religious conformity (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785; Curry, 1986).

    This is very different from the “Christian nationalism” talk we hear today. The founders were protecting religious liberty for everyone — including future Jews, Muslims, atheists, and dissenters within Christianity — because they understood that once government picks a favored religion, freedom eventually dies (McConnell, 2000; Dreisbach, 2002).

    Why this matters now

    When Christians today insist that America must be legally recognized as a “Christian nation,” they are often arguing for something the founders intentionally avoided. When secularists claim there must be a total “separation of church and state,” they are reading into the Constitution something that isn’t there.

    Jesus Himself refused to use political power to advance His kingdom. When the crowd tried to make Him king by force, He withdrew. When Pilate asked if He was a king, Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

    The gospel advances by persuasion and transformation of the heart, not by legislation or state power.

    Christians should be salt and light in every nation — including America. We should advocate for justice, morality, and human flourishing. But we should never confuse political power with the Kingdom of God.

    America was founded as a constitutional republic with religious liberty, not as a theocracy. The founders knew the difference. We should too.

    Citations:

    • James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)
    • Michael W. McConnell, “Why is Religious Liberty the ‘First Freedom’?” (2000)
    • Daniel L. Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (2002)
    • Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (2002)
    • George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)
    • Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 (1797)
    • Thomas J. Curry, The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment (1986)

  • Murder, Debate, and the Loss of Human Dignity

    A Note Before We Begin:
    I am aware this is a sensitive subject. I am not writing to endorse Charlie Kirk’s politics, nor to excuse every word he spoke. My intent is to respond, as a Christian and a pastor, to the disturbing way some have celebrated his murder. This post is about human dignity, biblical faithfulness, and how followers of Christ should respond when even those we disagree with are cut down.

    I realize I’m late on the Revelation Monday post. I intend to write and schedule my posts for the next three weeks in the coming days. Thankfully, they do not take long to write if you are intimately familiar with the details at hand. I can write very quickly about WVU football. Lacrosse? Not so much.

    I, like so many others, am bewildered by the state of our nation, particularly after the events on September 10, 2025, when Charlie Kirk was murdered in public, in front of thousands in person—including his family—and many more online.

    Romans 14:1–4, 10–13 reminds us not to “pass judgment on disputable matters,” and Colossians 3:12–13 tells us to clothe ourselves with humility, gentleness, and patience. I want to keep that frame in mind as I process what I’ve seen since Kirk’s death.

    Murder Is Not Debate

    I’m not a political person. While I was aware of Mr. Kirk and his organization, I paid no attention. I don’t even really watch the news, and only found out about this because a friend asked me: “Did you see what happened to Charlie Kirk?”

    When I looked it up, my first response was simple: “This does not surprise me.”

    Was that a comment on what Kirk said or did? Not at all. This was the ultimate form of ad hominem attack—when one cannot defeat an argument and so resorts to destroying the person. In this case, physically.

    Murdering any human being simply for having a difference of opinion is wrong. Always wrong (Exodus 20:13).

    False Comparisons

    What has angered me almost as much as the act itself has been the response. Some people are openly celebrating his death. One vendor terminated from Paycor Stadium said: *“Rest in ***! I swear some of y’all would mourn Hitler if he was shot!”

    Let’s stop right there. This is comparing an apple to a sperm whale—a false equivalency. To equate a polemicist with a genocidal dictator not only demeans debate, it trivializes the very real evil of genocide.

    I’ve done some light research into Kirk’s statements on race, DEI, and Affirmative Action. I won’t excuse or condone everything he said. Some of it was wrong, unhelpful, or inflammatory. Personally, I support my company’s DEI program because I believe it celebrates uniqueness rather than exacerbating differences.

    But let’s be clear: Charlie Kirk did not start a genocide. He didn’t order mass murder. He was a husband and father who said controversial things. That does not put him in the same category as Hitler or Bin Laden.

    Human Dignity and Imago Dei

    I grew up in rural West Virginia, where even our dialect (“hoopie”) could draw strange looks. In Columbus, Ohio, I experienced both confusion and outright insult for simply being from Almost Heaven. Words can wound deeply, and yes, Kirk’s words sometimes wounded.

    But Christians must remember: every human being bears the image of God. Even those we find deeply wrongheaded or offensive. To celebrate a man’s murder is to mock the Creator who gives life (Psalm 139:13–16).

    Tribalism and the Death of Discourse

    Our Founding Fathers warned against political parties for a reason. We’ve become so tribalized that differences of opinion are seen as hatred, and those across the aisle as enemies. That’s nonsense.

    I’ve seen nearly every logical fallacy weaponized this past week: false equivalency, Godwin’s Law, straw men, ad hominem, hypocrisy. People can’t defend their views without anger, and that’s sad.

    Even worse, I’ve seen this venom spill from the mouths of those who call themselves Christians. Faith isn’t just lip service. James 1:19 says we must be “quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger.” Philippians 2:3–4 commands us to value others above ourselves. Proverbs 18:13 warns against answering before listening.

    If you claim to follow Christ, stop attacking people and stop celebrating murder.

    Conclusion

    Charlie Kirk said things I disagree with. Maybe you do too. That’s fine—we can debate ideas. But celebrating his death is an abandonment of both reason and faith.

    If your only argument is to call someone a derogatory name, you’ve already lost. And if your response to an opponent’s life is to cheer their death, then you’ve revealed your heart.

    As Jesus warned, on that day many will hear:

    “Away from me, I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23).