David and I are in the midst of an ongoing dialogue about the separation of church and state in this country, one that seems to pop up again every time one of us hears a story that we think relates to it. And yesterday, a National Public Radio piece about immigration reform prompted a new round of discussion.

The story in question was a commentary I heard regarding Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Cardinal Mahony and other religious leaders are incensed about legislation moving through Congress right now that could criminalize religious workers providing services to undocumented immigrants. Cardinal Mahony, seeing this as a direct violation of the Biblical mandate to “love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (from Leviticus 19:34) and other injunctions to provide charity to the outsiders in our midst, has publicly announced that he will order his priests to defy any such federal legislation. Protestants, Catholics, Hispanic evangelicals, and interfaith partners are also lashing out at the legislation, feeling that it would infringe on religious rights.

Lawmakers have fought back, saying the legislation is not targeting churches and that any American should be punished for actively helping smuggle immigrants into the country illegally. Of course, the law is extensively broadening what that means. And a Presbyterian-related group has already run afoul of the law on this issue—two young adults working with PC(USA) Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase’s No More Deaths are currently awaiting trial for trying to help undocumented immigrants seek medical attention after finding them sick in the desert.

This particular case reveals the complexity behind the church-state relationship, and perhaps the false dichotomies we set up when we talk about “separation.” Because unlike the ruckus in Ohio (see Kelsey Busts Out Her Bible), where many of us agree that religious leaders shouldn’t be endorsing specific candidates, these churches aren’t attacking particular public officials. Rather, they are reflecting the current social climate, in which religious groups of all theological and political stripes are becoming increasingly bold in attempting to shape the political direction of the nation.

Now, David argues that as a matter of conscience, individual Christians can and should bring their faith to bear on the political process. He draws the line, however, when church bodies—like the entire Archdiocese of Los Angeles, or the entire Presbyterian Church (USA)—take a stand against the government on a political issue. Whenever I say that I’ve heard about clergy protesting something, his litmus test is whether those clergy were protesting as individuals or as representatives of the entire church. Groups of Christians who get together and form organizations like, say, Focus on the Family are also all right, since they’re not a “church” as such. But the formal church bodies? Not okay, unless the state is trying to force the church to do something inconsistent with church teachings. Then resistance is necessary.

The mantra of second wave feminism was that “the personal is political,” though. And what I tell David is that in a complex society of so many interlocking layers, we simply can’t help it when our faith lives and institutions bleed into the public arena. Of course, I also look at the Bible through a prophetic perspective, in which folks like Elijah and Jeremiah and Jesus are speaking truth to rulers and authorities all the time. As David would say, these were individuals speaking based on their own faith. I then remind him that the early Christian church defied the government, too. He shoots back that the state was trying to dictate belief to the church.

And how does the church taking potentially divisive social stands play into its very nature as the multicultural, multifaceted body of Christ? We Presbyterians struggle with this all the time, as we seek the will of God and come to very different conclusions. Even in the case cited above, one article said that people in the pews of the Archdiocese are split 50-50 on immigration reform. With such division, what does it really mean when a church body takes a stand, anyway?

Perhaps the whole issue of church-state separation really hinges on this single question—what is a church? Is it the formal tax-exempt charity that the IRS defines it as? Is it a group of religious people getting together around a common issue, like immigration reform? Or is it anywhere in which the Holy Spirit is present? If “church” is the former, then we can pretty clearly define where and how it should interact with the state. But if we accept the latter definitions, then we get into what David likes to call “a gray area” when he’s not sure how to answer.

There’s one point, though, on which David and I agree. Our social protest and action as Christian women and men should look toward the life and ministry of Jesus Christ—the man who told us to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, while paying the ultimate price for defying the ruling powers and laws of his day.

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” --Matthew 18:20

Kelsey