The Cozy Relationship Between Church and State: A Double-Edged Sword

It was GK Chesterton who famously said, "The coziness between church and state is good for the state and bad for the church." This insightful remark touches on the complex relationship between religion and politics, a dynamic that has played a significant role in shaping societies throughout history. In the United States today, we see this dynamic unfolding in unexpected ways, particularly in the political support that religious groups lend to certain politicians. One of the most striking examples of this is Donald Trump’s relationship with Evangelical Christians, a group that overwhelmingly supported him during the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections. In fact, a remarkable 81% of Evangelicals voted for Trump, according to the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). This statistic is all the more surprising given Trump’s personal history and his often controversial rhetoric.

To understand why such a high percentage of Evangelicals supported a man who seemed an unlikely candidate for their endorsement, we need to look at the broader historical context of the relationship between church and politics in the U.S. Over the past 60 years, Evangelical Christians have been a powerful political force, particularly in the Southern and Midwestern states; and, they have often allied with political leaders who champion their conservative values. For many Evangelicals, issues like opposition to abortion, support for traditional marriage, and religious freedom are paramount. Donald Trump, despite his personal flaws, was able to position himself as a defender of these values. His administration appointed numerous conservative judges, including three Supreme Court justices, and took a strong stance against abortion. His rhetoric and policies aligned with many of the concerns of the Evangelical community, and in this regard, he earned their loyalty.

However, this "coziness" between the church and the state, as Chesterton warned, is not without its dangers. While the alignment between political power and the church can provide short-term gains for the church, it can also have significant long-term consequences. The Church risks losing its spiritual authority and moral clarity when it becomes too closely tied to political power. Rather than serving as a voice of conscience, the church can become an instrument of political agendas, vulnerable to the whims of the political party with which it is presently aligned.

This is particularly problematic when the political leader in question does not embody the ethical or moral values that the church purports to uphold. Donald Trump’s personal life, including his divorces, inflammatory rhetoric, and often divisive actions, stands in starkly contrast with the teachings of humility, forgiveness, and love that are central to the Christian faith. This is where the tension between Chesterton's warning and reality becomes evident. In supporting Trump, many Evangelicals may have gained political victories, but they risked losing the very moral clarity that religious conviction can provide.

Moreover, the alliance between Evangelical Christianity and political power has further polarized the American public. The "culture wars" that have come to define much of U.S. politics are deeply entwined with religious beliefs, and the close relationship between Evangelicals and Trump only amplified these divisions. Rather than being a unifying force, Evangelical influencers became a tool for deepening partisan divides; with similarly committed progressive Christian voices also seeking influence, each side uses the language of faith to justify their political positions.

The consequences of this cozy relationship between church and state extend beyond just Evangelicals. As religious identity becomes more politicized, it alienates individuals who may not share the same beliefs or who feel that their faith has been hijacked for political purposes. This diminishes the church’s ability to be a force for moral guidance and social good as its influence becomes tied to the ebb and flow of political fortunes.

Chesterton’s warning about the coziness between church and state remains as relevant today as ever. While it may benefit the state (and the church in the short term), it is ultimately bad for the church, which risks losing its independence, moral authority, and universal appeal. The strong support that the Republican party received from Evangelicals illustrates the dangers of this entanglement, and the ongoing political influence of religious groups in America raises important questions about the future role of faith in public life. If the Evangelical church is to retain its spiritual integrity, it must resist the temptation to align too closely with any political figure or party, no matter how advantageous the alliance may seem.