As the 2024 presidential election enters the homestretch, support for former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris appears to be increasing— especially among people of faith.

The direct engagement of Christians in the political fray is familiar, but a trend is emerging from this election cycle that needs more consideration. While conservative Evangelicals have long argued the wall of separation between church and state was a myth, more progressive-minded Christians have championed the wall as a vital protection for both the church and state.

With progressive faith leaders and faith-based groups* becoming more vocal in their support for the Democratic nominee for president, one question keeps coming to mind: “Have progressive Christians abandoned the wall separating church and state?”

Before we examine that question, let’s educate ourselves about the term itself. The separation of church and state is a very American idea and practice. When separatists from the Church of England arrived on the shores of America during the 17th century, many were fleeing religious persecution.

However, after George Winthrop declared America a “city on the hill,” an adaptation of biblical imagery, the persecuted quickly evolved into the persecutors. Persecution of Baptists and Quakers was so prevalent in the Massachusetts Bay Colonies that former Anglican minister Roger Williams declared the need for a “hedge or wall” between the “garden” of the church and the “wilderness” of the world.

As America’s resistance to tyranny evolved during the 18th century, so did its resistance to religious persecution. After the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the United States Constitution, the First Amendment set the tone for the importance of church/state separation: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson built on Williams’ metaphor, advocating for the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. America’s third president responded to a letter written by a group of persecuted Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut.

Jefferson responded: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Almost a century and a half later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black supported the wall of separation in the 1947 majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing.  Black wrote, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

For centuries and into the Civil Rights Movement, progressive Christians have championed the wall of separation between church and state—especially when white Christians argued for segregation based on their faith. While arguing against segregation and the God-given rights of all people, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously reminded everyone that the church “is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.”

Let’s move forward to today. In recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, in some cases, conservative justices have elevated the Free Exercise Clause above the Establishment Clause, offering a blow to proponents of the separation of church and state.  In more conservative states, elected leaders and state legislatures are chipping away at the wall by pushing their religious beliefs on all citizens.

Both examples leave significant cracks in the wall separating church and state.  However, even if the court and state legislatures chip away at the wall, it doesn’t mean the concept should be redefined or abandoned.

Progressives need to be careful when seeing these cracks emerge. Based on the latest support of Vice President Harris by faith leaders and groups, progressive Christianity appears to be growing more comfortable with the idea of partisan politics. 

Therefore, a set of questions arises:

Are progressive Christians abandoning the wall of separation between church and state?

At what point in this new relationship with politics and politicians does the church become the “master or servant” of the state?

Is this support of a candidate or Democratic party a one-time moment, as progressives believe they are standing against tyranny?

Will progressive Christians return to the wall after the apparent tyranny is defeated?

Will progressive Christians be able to find their voice if their chosen candidate secures the presidency but implements policies going against their beliefs?

Are progressive Christians devolving into what they decry in conservatives?

These are but a few questions worth pondering.

Let me be clear to my progressive colleagues and friends: These questions are honest, cautionary inquiries for progressive Christians, not direct condemnations. Progressives need to be wary of letting politics form their faith. Instead, we should allow our faith to inform our politics.

The latter can be accomplished without abandoning the wall. Just as the church needs to be protected from the state, the state needs to be protected from the church. And believe it or not, that includes me. One of the great practices within this American experiment is the checks and balances of self-governance. As a fallible person, I am subject to the temptation of power. Therefore, I must acknowledge the need for the state to be protected from me. That’s good self-governance.

Christians can and should vocalize their support for their chosen candidates, but with the understanding that support should never breach the wall separating church and state. As a rabbi friend once reminded me, let’s not replace one Christian nationalism with another.

As a progressive Christian myself, I never want to become what I decry. I do not want to abandon the wall for political expediency. As I seek to maintain a prophetic voice in the milieu of the political arena, I must admit the arena becomes blurry with the fog of partisanship.

Thus, the perch upon the wall provides a pulpit of clarity for me. As Dr. King prophetically reminded us, let’s continue to be the state’s conscience without being its master or slave. The wall separating church and state provides the sacred space to maintain our prophetic voice—a voice upholding the gospel’s inclusivity, love, and justice.

Therefore, progressives, be careful out there. Let’s continue our advocacy and prophetic ways, but let’s not accidentally leave a crack in the wall that cannot be repaired. The wall separating church and state must remain intact as people of faith continue to be the conscience of the state without trying to control it.  

*Note: 501(c)3 groups such as churches and other nonprofit entities, like Good Faith Media, are prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service from endorsing candidates or engaging in partisan politics.  If they do, their tax-exempt status could be revoked.