In terms of practicality, I do have some questions as to how this plays out. Is popular Christianity overreacting against ardent secularism on issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance or “In God we trust” on our currency? Does “one nation under God” improperly define the nation as “Christian” and fail to reflect the religious plurality that is a growing reality in the United States?

Does the term “Christian nation” rightly apply to a nation that is predominantly Christian (demographically), or does it refer to one that actively seeks to promote Christianity? The integration of church and state, in terms of a man-administered theocracy, seems to be poor theology that sees the State (especially the US State) as a sort of “new Israel”, a nation chosen by God to promote His work in the world. In contrast, the view of integration you discuss seems to put government back in its proper place: protecting the relationships within society while allowing the Church (rather than the State) to function in its proper role as the body of Christ.

Would we do well, as Christians, to seek to advance (or protect) the rights of other religious groups as well; be it through the availability of Islamic chaplains in the military, etc.? (I do not know the practice with that currently; that is only an example, but seeking the rights of others seems appropriate and a way to secure our own as well) It seems that this may be the only way to put church-state relations back on their proper ground and secure the freedom to live out religion in the public square.

As a nation we must avoid the twin dangers of seeking a new theocracy, on the one hand, and seeking government sponsored atheism on the other hand (as exists in various autocratic regimes today). I appreciate your post for recognizing this.

I echo your call for Christians to base their political (etc.) views on Scriptural Truth. In this case we would surely be advised to know scripture well, especially where it does relate to civic society! It is shameful that popular analysis of the “separation wars” does not pick up on the subtleties of the matter.

Is “one nation under God” intended to imply anything more than the sovereignty God exerts over all nations on this earth, America included (but not exclusively)? If it does imply more, is it perhaps inappropriate?

These are certainly questions to ponder.

But the laws that I am talking about when I speak of an integration of Religion and Government are not laws respecting an establishment of religion (such as a religious test for holding office, or an anti-blasphemy law, or a law giving tax money to a religious denomination). Rather they are laws based on religious principles (for example, protecting unborn life and promoting the institution of marriage). I would argue that this embodies the practical difference between “Church” and “Religion” as it relates to the public arena.

Therefore, when you pose the question, “How would you distinguish whether or how a law supports or promotes religion, but does not support or promote church,” I would say that this is the wrong question to ask. We should question instead whether the government has assumed a responsibility that distinctly belongs to the Church, or vice versa. We as Christians should always promote Truth in the public arena wherever possible and rejoice when a law supports or upholds the Truth.

I realize that this is not a complete answer, but I invite you to read Part 2 of my blog post, which may help to clarify my thoughts concerning the integration of Religion and Government.

How, then, do you derive the idea that the clause should be limited to separating church and state, but not religion and state? The clause itself speaks of religion, not church.

Such a notion, by the way, raises a host of thorny questions that render doubtful whether or how this notion would work in the real world. How would you define religion and church in this context? How would you distinguish religion from church in this context? How would you distinguish whether or how a law supports or promotes religion, but does not support or promote church? Is it even possible for a law to support or promote religion without also supporting or promoting church? As the aim or raison d’etre of church is religion, isn’t support of the latter inherently support of the former?

My family and my children’s future is at stake. That’s reason enough!

This was something I was attempting to convey to those that signed the proposed marriage amendment petition, regardless of their stance. Too often, our society is being run by the minority with the loudest voice - whether it is the judge on the bench that rules a properly passed law as unconstitutional or the above example of these mayors sticking their thumbs to their noses at the public.

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on, it should be OUR decision.