Saturday, August 6, 2022

Congresswoman Boebert's Lack of Constitutional Knowledge is an Indication of her Lack of Qualification to Serve in Public Office

Representative Lauren Boebert told a church in her home state of Colorado, "The church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it. And I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. It's not in the constitution."  

She got it wrong, of course.  But the church gave her a standing ovation, making them just as wrong as she was.  Personally, I think she should be held to a higher level of accountability for demonstrating such ignorance of the constitution as an elected official who should know better.  But this is an egregious example of an ideology that has made its way into the Christian faith across the board in most of its American denominational, and non-denominational, expressions.  

I think that anyone who wants to run for public office at any level, and especially for Congress, should be required to answer every question correctly on a constitution exam.  If they can't, then they are disqualified from seeking their party's nomination.  If becoming a member of Congress requires an oath of loyalty to defend the constitution, then everyone taking the oath should have an understanding of the constitution.  

The establishment clause itself, along with the various historical interpretations of it by the courts, is clear separation of church and state.  It should be disqualifying for a member of Congress to claim that "it isn't in the constitution."  There is plenty of written evidence to conclude that both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were the primary influences behind the establishment clause, believed that religious freedom depended on separating church from state.  After the constitution was drafted and ratified, Madison wrote, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."  

Thomas Jefferson was more direct.  In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, he wrote, "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."  

That's sixth grade American history content.  How did Boebert, and so many members of the church she was addressing, miss that?  She clearly doesn't have an understanding of the first amendment's establishment clause, nor of the intentions of the founding fathers whom she misquoted.  And she doesn't have an understanding of the mission and purpose of the Christian church, of which she claims to be a member.  

"I'm Tired of This Separation of Church and State Junk" 

Boebert is at least partially correct in asserting that "the government is not supposed to direct the church."  The constitution prevents the government from "prohibiting the free exercise of religion".  Like all other freedoms, citizens have a right to practice their religion free from government interference as long as that practice doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights or conflict with public morals or a compelling interest of the people.  Perhaps the Congresswoman, or anyone in the church who applauded her, can point to a specific example of where the government is "directing" the church.  

The constitution prevents the church from "directing" the government, and that's pretty clear.  Congress cannot pass laws which "respect the establishment of religion."  That has historically been interpreted to mean that there is no "state church" recognition by government, which may include support from tax dollars or by passing laws which favor Christian practice over that of other religious beliefs or those who do not practice any religious faith.  It prevents churches from using the power of government to require adherence to their particular beliefs and practices.  

Christian churches, according to their own theology, claim spiritual empowerment.  There is a long, long history of "established" relationships between churches and the governing authorities, mostly the monarchies of European countries, which weakened the church, in most cases making it a vassal of the governing authority and a tool of political movements that changed its mission and purpose and corrupted its leadership.  It has had a much different, and much more prosperous history in America under constitutional separation of church and state.  

I'm not sure exactly what Representative Boebert is referencing in getting "tired" of the separation of church and state.  American Christianity is wildly prosperous, accumulating unfathomable riches, owning massive amounts of tax-free property, most of which is occupied for a couple of hours a week, and it is a pervasive influence over society, culture and, yes, over government.  Somewhere around eighty-five percent of Boebert's colleagues in the Congress belong to a Christian church of some kind.

Boebert Misses the Christian Perspective of Government, Too 

Boebert's office denies that her words were an indication of a Christian theocratic perspective.  But her choice of words, "The church is supposed to direct the government," is a mischaracterization of the mission and purpose of the Christian church.  For most Christians, and particularly for those of the Evangelical branch of the church which uses the term "born-again" to describe their Christian experience, as Boebert does, the Bible is the sole authority for the church's doctrine and theology that governs its teaching, preaching and practice.  

The teachings of Jesus Christ are the contextual standard for interpreting the whole Bible, and specifically, for the New Testament where the Apostles defined Christian faith and practice for the church in its formative years.  The Christian church is a spiritual body, not a political party, united by common faith and belief in Jesus Christ as God's son.  It is empowered by the Holy Spirit, not government authority, it does not depend on that government for its power and ability to carry out its mission and purpose.   

Jesus, when asked if it was morally consistent with belief and faith in God to pay taxes to the pagan, secular Roman government said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."  Not only was that a recognition of the reality of government and politics of the time, but it was a clear separation of Christian faith and practice from government authority.  The mission and purpose of the Christian gospel is to convert individuals, regardless of their race, nationality or social position, not to control or direct government.  

In establishing the new covenant of Christianity, under the authority he had as the divine son of God, Jesus moved away from the old covenant, which was based on theocratic Israel.  The limits that had developed, including a sense of exclusivity as the "chosen" people, which had led to some catastrophic circumstances for the Jewish people, including conquest and captivity in pagan countries, were preventing God's purposes from being achieved.  The new covenant of Christ was a spiritual one, without the racial, ethnic and cultural restrictions of the old covenant, separated from the domain of government and politics by its spiritual nature.  

"My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus said to Pontius Pilate during one of his trials prior to his crucifixion.  And no offer of a covenant relationship between Christ and any other country, nationality, ethnicity or political identity group was ever offered.  The church's commission is to win disciples who will influence the world around them with the virtues and values of Christian faith, not to direct the government's activities.

Both Apostles Paul and Peter acknowledge Christian respect for and obedience to the authority of the government, which in their case was the pagan, secular, Roman government, as a visible testimony of a Christian's faith in God.  Those acknowledgements are found in Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-17.  It was the steadfast obedience of Christians to these instructions of the Apostles, in the face of severe persecution at the hands of the Roman emperors, over a period of time lasting more than 200 years, that resulted in the conversion to Christianity of tens of thousands of people of all races and nationalities in the Roman Empire. 

The mission and purpose of the Christian church is found at the end of Matthew's gospel: 

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.  And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Christianity converts individuals, not governments.  Christians, in a democracy, are free to be the kind of influence described by the analogies to salt and light according to the teaching and example of Christ.  But the church is not commanded to "direct the government."  

The Influence of Christian Nationalism is Concerning

In spite of the fact that Congresswoman Boebert's spokesperson claimed that she was not advocating for theocratic government in her remarks to the church, I'm still concerned about the way she worded her statement, and about the kind of response she got.  Christian nationalism is a pervasive influence among Evangelicals, many of whom believe that America should be a theocracy under Christian rule in the same way that Israel was a theocracy in the Old Testament.  Her statement, "the church should direct the government," calls her denial into question.  And it is still a statement that is completely inconsistent with the Christian gospel.  

I'm also concerned that an elected official exhibits such a complete lack of understanding of the constitution, and that as a professing Christian, also exhibits a lack of understanding of the Christian gospel.  I'm of the opinion that this is an indication that she is not qualified to serve as a member of Congress.  The only means of holding her accountable is for the voters in her district in Colorado to recognize this fact, and not re-elect her.  

No comments:

Post a Comment