The White House Faith Office A Dangerous Entanglement

And the LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. – 1 Samuel 8:7

In February, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to establish the White House Faith Office (WHFO), which, although new in name, has existed in some form since 2001.The White House fact sheet outlines the office’s goals: empowering faith-based entities to serve families and communities, advising the President on policies to be aligned with American values, coordinating religious liberty training, promoting grant opportunities, and working with the Attorney General to enforce constitutional and Federal protections for religious liberty.

At face value, most Christians will view this, along with President Trump’s other executive orders and actions, as positive. It’s not until we examine things through a Biblical and historical lens that we see the cracks start to form. Although many Christian groups would like us to accept that our country was founded as a Christian Nation it simply isn’t true, it was intentionally founded by Christians for the reason of maintaining religious liberty.  In 1797, President John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which was unanimously ratified by the Senate, stating, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” As Adams explained in a letter to Benjamin Rush, the founders sought separation because “nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”

The Baptist Philadelphia Association in 1774 rightly concluded, “Jesus Christ is the only Lord of conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men.” In 1773 Baptist minister Isaac Backus proclaimed, “Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics.” During our nation’s formation, the founding fathers, religious leaders, and citizens recognized the need to separate church and state, not to exclude God, but to guarantee people’s freedom to worship Him and acknowledge His sovereignty.

The wise men of that age arrived at these positions by applying scripture. Jesus was clear that we should pay the state the things that are the states and to God the things that are God’s. Here, it is clear that Jesus was referring to money, and I don’t want to speculate where the Bible is silent; however, when we consider this in conjunction with John 18:36, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world…’, we gain a fuller in understanding of God’s kingdom being separate from the kingdoms of men. Government and the church are separate spheres of influence that, for the preservation of the church, must remain separate.

To further emphasize this point, consider that Christians have been given spiritual authority, not earthly authority, as seen in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4, which states, “…for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh…”, and Ephesians 6:12, which says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but…against the spiritual forces…” We have been entrusted with a mission that operates independently of the world, as stated in Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men,” and 1 Peter 2:9, “But you are a chosen race…a people for God’s own possession so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him.” Furthermore, God warns His church not to become entangled with the world, as mentioned in James 4:4 and 1 John 2:15-16.In contrast, scripture, specifically Romans 13, states that the role of government is to bear the sword, avenging those who practice evil. 

Outside of the kingdom of Israel the Word of God specifies no direct role of government towards the church. In fact, the responsibility is on Christians to pray for our elected officials (this is again in line with our spiritual authority). Considering all these things we should not be celebrating the creation of a WHFO, in fact Christians should be a voice against its existence. If we don’t reject this, we allow the government to erode our reliance on Jesus, and replace it with the comfort of the state. Then we are headed down a road that leads to rejecting God as our king, and opening the door to repeat historical evils committed by states under the guise of Christianity. 

Historically, mixing state and religion has led to poor outcomes, almost always resulting in violence. The “Christian” guidance of the WHFO has already led to the killing of a Lebanese man. According to a report in the Christian Post, during a visit to the White House by evangelical leaders, it was relayed by Pastor Josh Howerton, that the administration took action on behalf of a Christian counterterrorism official against a man believed to be persecuting Christians abroad. President Trump green lit the military and within 24 hours of receiving the intelligence the man was dead. 

I understand someone could look back at my previous paragraph and argue that this is the role of the state.  If someone was violently persecuting any group within the United States or its territories, the government would have a duty to arrest and try them. Would the same people who make that argument be pleased if the next President of the United States filled the office with a Muslim officer who wanted the military to attack Chinese forces persecuting Muslims? The military should not serve as an arm of any religion. Although I’m glad Christians in Lebanon are possibly free from persecution, I’m uncomfortable with our government carrying out military acts in the name of my faith. If we allow this, how far are we from jailing people in the United States for ‘persecuting Christians’?

History gives us a wealth of reasons to reject this! The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades still harm Christian witness to this day.  England’s Test Act mixed government and religion so horrendously that it barred Catholics and religious minorities from civic participation until the 19th century. Louis XIV made Catholicism mandatory, and exiled Protestants. The Ottomans forcibly removed children from Christian families and trained them to be Islamic soldiers. More modern examples include Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Myanmar, all states that have allowed religion to be intertwined with the government and strictly enforce religious convictions upon their citizenry.

Examining our own country’s history provides further evidence against these types of offices.The Puritans enacted laws mandating church attendance, with fines for missing services. Blasphemy was punishable by death, and heretical beliefs could result in banishment or execution. Well-meaning Christians, through the government, enacted policies such as Prohibition, anti-Catholic immigration laws, Sunday closing laws, Comstock laws, restrictions on dancing and entertainment, and Native American assimilation programs, which involved removing children from their families and indoctrinating them. The office, recently rebranded by President Trump, has been used by past Presidents to allocate $2.2 billion to faith-based groups and promote COVID policies and vaccination through churches.

Upon further exploration of history, we should examine how government offices and policies have affected the groups or industries they aimed to protect. As Ronald Reagan said in 1986, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are : I’m here from the government and I’m here to help.” The laws establishing Native American reservations, intended to protect against westward expansion, ultimately isolated tribes and created a dependency on the federal government. The state argued that Jim Crow laws were to protect African Americans from violence. Intended to safeguard their health, labor protection laws for women ultimately excluded them from higher-paying jobs and advancement opportunities. We should reject government “protection” because it often backfires on those it’s intended to help, and it mistakenly shifts our reliance from God to the state.

Christians and Christian leaders must stand up against the church being used as a partisan tool to secure votes, support legislation, and influence policy making. Independence from state power is essential for Christianity’s prophetic voice, lest we allow politicians of any party to replace God the Father as our protector, thereby weakening our national witness. We can only pray that as the WHOF moves forward it doesn’t lead to the suppression of religious minorities. The church in America is currently at a turning point, where we must choose between grasping the spiritual authority given to us by God or standing with the government on the high mountain, accepting the lie that promises, “All this I will give to you.”