The Ten Commandments Didn’t Break America — Forgetting Them Did

4 hours ago

10 min read

There is a strange thing happening in America.

We live in a country where nearly every worldview is allowed to shape public life except the Christian worldview that helped form much of the moral soil from which the country grew.

We are told that faith should stay private. We are told religion has no place in politics. We are told the Ten Commandments do not belong in public institutions because their presence somehow violates the Constitution. We are told that “separation of church and state” means the public square must be scrubbed clean of visible Christian influence.

But that is not what the founding documents say.

That is not what the First Amendment says.

And that is not how human beings actually work.

Every society is guided by faith commitments. The only question is which ones.

Some faiths are explicitly religious. Some are secular. Some are dressed up as neutrality, science, progress, tolerance, or public good. But underneath every political system is a vision of what is true, what is good, what is evil, what human beings are, what justice requires, and who gets to define reality.

That is theology, whether we admit it or not.

So when someone says, “Keep faith out of politics,” what they usually mean is, “Keep your faith out of politics while mine governs quietly in the background.”

The Ten Commandments debate exposes this clearly.

The question is not whether morality will shape our institutions. It will. The question is whether the moral foundation that helped shape Western civilization and American public life should be treated as forbidden simply because it comes from the Bible.

I do not believe it should.

The Ten Commandments and America’s Moral Memory

The Ten Commandments are not merely private religious sayings for synagogue and church. They are among the most influential moral texts in the history of Western civilization.

They teach that there is a moral order above human preference. They teach that human beings are accountable to God. They teach that life is sacred, marriage matters, property should be respected, truth is necessary for justice, and desire itself can become corrupt when it is not governed by righteousness.

You do not have to believe the Ten Commandments are the entire foundation of American law to recognize that they are part of the moral architecture behind it.

American law was not copied and pasted from Exodus 20. That would be an overstatement. But it is also an overcorrection to pretend the biblical worldview had no meaningful role in shaping the moral imagination of the nation. Early American law developed through English common law, colonial legal traditions, natural law reasoning, Protestant moral assumptions, and biblical categories that saturated the culture.

The founders did not create a theocracy. But neither did they create a morally naked nation.

The Declaration of Independence appeals directly to God-language. It speaks of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” says human beings are “endowed by their Creator” with rights, appeals to the “Supreme Judge of the world,” and expresses reliance on “divine Providence.”

The Declaration is not the governing mechanism of the United States in the way the Constitution is, but it is one of our two great founding documents. It explains the moral logic behind the American experiment. Rights do not come from government. Human dignity is not granted by majority vote. Justice is not invented by the state. There is a higher moral order to which governments themselves are accountable.

That idea is deeply compatible with the biblical worldview.

And the Ten Commandments represent one of the clearest summaries of that kind of moral order.

The Constitution Does Not Require a Godless Public Square

The First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from establishing religion. It does not prohibit religion from influencing government. It does not prohibit citizens from bringing faith into political reasoning. It does not require public institutions to pretend America was formed in a secular vacuum.

Historically, “establishment” referred to something like a state-sponsored church or official religious system, such as the Church of England. Even the U.S. Courts’ own educational materials acknowledge that the precise definition of establishment is debated, but historically it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches.

That is very different from saying, “No visible religious influence may appear in public life.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. It does not appear in the Declaration. It does not appear in the Bill of Rights.

It comes from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.

And even there, Jefferson was not arguing for the removal of God from public life. He was assuring a religious minority that the federal government would not establish a national church or interfere with religious conscience. Jefferson wrote that religion is a matter between man and God, and that the legitimate powers of government reach actions, not opinions. He then described the First Amendment as building “a wall of separation between Church & State.”

In other words, the wall was meant to restrain government from controlling religion.

It was not meant to restrain religious conviction from influencing public life.

That distinction has been badly blurred.

Today, “separation of church and state” is often used as if it means faith must be separated from politics, Christianity must be separated from education, and biblical morality must be separated from public reasoning. But that is not neutrality. That is a different faith system taking control while pretending not to be religious.

Because again, everyone brings faith into politics.

The atheist brings faith commitments. The secular progressive brings faith commitments. The Marxist brings faith commitments. The materialist brings faith commitments. The Christian brings faith commitments.

The question is not whether faith will shape politics.

The question is which faith will.

The Kuyperian Spheres: God’s Boundaries for Society

This is where Abraham Kuyper’s model of sphere sovereignty becomes incredibly helpful.

Kuyper argued that God designed society with distinct spheres of authority. The family, the church, the state, education, business, and other institutions each have their own God-given responsibilities. None of these spheres should absorb the others. None should pretend to be ultimate.

The family is not the state.

The church is not the state.

The state is not the family.

And the state is certainly not the church.

The biblical worldview does not give government unlimited authority over all of life. In fact, it limits government. The state has a real role. It exists to uphold justice, restrain evil, punish wrongdoing, and preserve civil order. But it does not have the authority to disciple children in ultimate meaning, redefine the family, replace parental responsibility, or become the moral priesthood of the nation.

That belongs first to the family and the church. This is where our current confusion becomes dangerous.

When the family fails to form children morally, the government steps in.

When the church fails to disciple people deeply, the government steps in.

When parents surrender their responsibility, the government steps in.

When churches trade doctrine for entertainment or therapy, the government steps in.

And once government steps in, it rarely steps back.

But there is another danger too: the government often tries to expand even when the family and church are doing their jobs. Modern government does not merely fill vacuums. It often creates them. It pushes into education, speech, sexuality, identity, conscience, parenting, and moral formation because the modern state increasingly sees itself as the manager of reality.

That is exactly what Kuyperian sphere sovereignty warns against.

The answer is not for the state to become the church. The answer is for each sphere to recover its proper role under God.

But this also means the state must not become hostile toward the moral truths that make ordered liberty possible.

A government that says, “We cannot establish a denomination,” is acting within its proper limits.

A government that says, “Christian moral truth has no place in public life,” has crossed into another kind of establishment, the establishment of secularism.

Why the Ten Commandments Still Matter Morally

The Ten Commandments are not outdated relics. They speak directly to the moral crisis of our age.

“You shall have no other gods before Me” reminds us that every society worships something.

“You shall not murder” reminds us that human life is sacred.

“You shall not commit adultery” reminds us that sexual faithfulness matters and that the family is not a disposable social arrangement.

“You shall not steal” reminds us that property, labor, and justice are connected.

“You shall not bear false witness” reminds us that truth is essential for any legal system, classroom, courtroom, or republic.

“You shall not covet” reminds us that social disorder often begins not with policy, but with disordered desire.

These are not merely religious commands. They are moral foundations.

Of course, they are religious. They come from Scripture. They are rooted in the authority of God. But the fact that they are religious does not make them irrelevant to public life. If anything, it explains why they have such enduring power.

A society that rejects God does not become morally neutral. It simply relocates authority.

If God is removed, the state often becomes the highest moral voice.

And when the state becomes the highest moral voice, freedom is always in danger.

Inclusion Is Not Establishment

This is the heart of the matter.

Including the Ten Commandments in public institutions is not the same thing as establishing a state church.

A Ten Commandments display does not create a national denomination. It does not force baptism. It does not require church membership. It does not make the government Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, or Pentecostal.

It acknowledges a moral and historical influence.

There is a massive difference between saying, “The government may not establish a state-sponsored denomination,” and saying, “The government may not acknowledge the moral sources that shaped our civilization.”

The first protects liberty.

The second erases history.

Now, there are legitimate debates about context. A Ten Commandments monument on capitol grounds, a historical display in a courthouse, a classroom poster, and a devotional exercise led by a teacher are not all the same thing. The Supreme Court itself has treated these contexts differently. In Van Orden v. Perry, the Court upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, considering its historical setting and broader context.

In Stone v. Graham, the Court struck down a Kentucky law requiring Ten Commandments posters in public school classrooms, concluding that the statute lacked a secular legislative purpose.

So yes, context matters.

But the deeper cultural question remains: why has the mere presence of biblical morality become so threatening?

Why is it acceptable to teach students about every other worldview, ideology, identity framework, moral revolution, and religious tradition, but Christianity, the faith tradition most responsible for shaping America’s early moral vocabulary, is treated like a constitutional contaminant?

That is not fairness.

That is not neutrality.

That is selective exclusion.

Faith Will Always Shape Politics

One of the great myths of modern America is that politics can be religiously neutral.

It cannot.

Politics deals with moral questions:

What is justice?
What is a human being?
What is marriage?
What is a child?
What is freedom?
What is evil?
What should be punished?
What should be protected?
What should be celebrated?
What should be restrained?

These are not merely technical questions. They are moral and theological questions.

If Christians are told to leave their faith out of politics, while secular ideologies are allowed to shape law, education, sexuality, economics, and identity, then we are not dealing with neutrality. We are dealing with a competing religion that refuses to call itself one.

Atheism is not the absence of faith commitments. Secular progressivism is not the absence of faith commitments. Materialism is not the absence of faith commitments. Every worldview makes claims about reality, morality, authority, and human nature.

So Christians should not apologize for bringing Christian principles into public reasoning.

That does not mean we seek a state church. It does not mean we coerce conversion.

It does not mean we confuse America with the kingdom of God.

It means we understand that Christ is Lord over all of life, including politics, law, education, and public morality.

The state must not become the church. But the state is not free from God.

A Better Understanding of Church and State

A proper understanding of church and state does not remove faith from public life. It limits the state from ruling over the church.

It says the government cannot establish a denomination.

It says the government cannot dictate worship.

It says the government cannot force conscience.

It says the government cannot become the priest.

But it does not say biblical truth must be hidden.

It does not say Christian citizens must become secular in public.

It does not say public institutions must deny the moral inheritance of the nation.

It does not say the Ten Commandments are forbidden because they are religious.

The founders were not trying to create a nation where God was absent from public life. They were trying to prevent the state from controlling the church and coercing conscience. That is a very different thing.

And in our time, we need to recover that distinction.

Conclusion: Recovering Moral Memory Without Creating a State Church

America does not need a state-sponsored denomination.

It does not need government-managed Christianity.

It does not need politicians pretending to be pastors.

But America does need moral memory.

It needs to remember that liberty cannot survive without virtue. It needs to remember that law cannot survive without truth. It needs to remember that rights make no sense if human beings are not created with dignity. It needs to remember that government is not God.

The Ten Commandments remind us of that.

They remind us that there is a law above human law. They remind us that the state is accountable. They remind us that moral order is not invented by courts, legislatures, or cultural trends. They remind us that the family, the church, and the state each have limits under God.

The modern misunderstanding of “separation of church and state” has trained many Americans to believe that public Christianity is dangerous while public secularism is neutral.

But secularism is not neutral.

It is simply another worldview competing for authority.

So yes, the Ten Commandments should be allowed in public institutions when presented in a way that recognizes their historical and moral significance. Not because the state should become the church. Not because America is the kingdom of God. Not because every citizen must be Christian.

But because a nation that forgets the moral foundations that formed it will eventually be governed by whatever ideology replaces them.

And when the family and church surrender their role — or when the state steals it from them — government will gladly become the new moral authority.

That is not freedom.