Faith and the State

The USPS is suggesting a "Mother Theresa" stamp to honor her for her humanitarian work.  But some atheists are objecting to it on the grounds that she is too much of a "religious" figure.  Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor told Fox News:  "Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did."

I'm thrilled she thinks that frankly.  I can think of no better reason to serve people than to be motivated by faith.  Most atheists and agnostics adamantly insist that humanitarian work is done often and frequently by those who have no extrinsic faith. And they are correct in some cases, though historically Christianity has been the fuel that has both fired and sustained most such efforts.


Scripture is clear that sometimes “Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law” (Rom 2:14). Christians are called to love above and beyond those loved by the pagans (Matt 5:47). But that’s not to say that pagans don’t sometimes love – even out of less than ideal motives. I’m not always certain what would motivate such action, perhaps guilt, maybe to make themselves feel good, maybe even to earn heaven.

That being said, we have two dynamics unfolding in American culture that are at odd with one another. One is an increasingly broad definition of “religion.” In our pluralistic culture, we are being encouraged to be more open-minded about what qualifies as a valid religion. Not only the major world religions, but odd variations are vying for recognition (not to mention tax-exempt status). At the same time we have another dynamic taking place. That is the attempt to remove religion and its expression from the public square. Not only can you not worship in public, now (as you’ve noted), you can’t even receive recognition for doing something if your motives were religious in nature. These two trends are on a collision course. They are utterly incompatible with one another in a nation that prizes any notion of “freedom.”

Something has to give. If “religion” means anything to any of its adherents, it will be a motive for a wide variety of charitable acts. Even at the national level, the government is seeing great benefit from working cooperatively with “faith-based” organizations. These organizations are more motivated and more productive in their attempts to address societal ills. But we have to address our discomfort with the faith that goes along with such service. Those of us who are Christians need to particularly wrestle with our sentiments. We have been very inclined to push prayer in schools and public displays for Christmas and other holidays. But will we find ourselves creating a monster we don’t want to live with when Christians are no longer in the majority in our culture? Then we may find that all our hard work has been so Muslims can pray and Hindus can meditate in the public arena.

Christians in America have been nurtured on the notion that the church is benefitted by the aid of the State to accomplish its goals. But the most vibrant church in history was an early church opposed by both non-Messianic Jews and a hostile Roman government. Perhaps when we see such rejection we ought not to combat it, but celebrate?