Did you know that in Russia, only 16% of adults say religion is “very important” in their lives, even though the Orthodox Church plays a leading role in public life and politics? This astounding fact isn’t merely an oddity of post-Soviet life it’s a warning about what can go wrong when governments attempt to stoke faith through policy.
The new IRS ruling to give religious congregations more leeway to publicly support political candidates without endangering their tax-exempt status has reopened the debate about the so-called “wall of separation” between church and state. House Speaker Mike Johnson, spouting a common conservative mantra, insisted that “the Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around.” But as the record plainly demonstrates, when government gets too close to religion, the outcome is far less than desired.
Throughout the modern era, countries that have blurred the lines between church and state often see declines in religious participation, not the spiritual revival policymakers hope for. Take Sweden: only 3.8% of Swedes worship weekly, yet the Church of Sweden still has millions of members and was the official state church until 2000. Most Swedes linger on membership lists due to habit or tradition, but religion has grown more cultural than religious a faraway shared memory rather than a vibrant, private practice.
The paradox is intensified when government subsidy establishes religious “monopolies.” In Israel, for instance, the Orthodox Jewish community has state endorsement and dominance over all life cycle events, from marriage to education. Many Jews have felt squeezed in the process: Those who do not wish to marry according to Orthodox law often go abroad or have a common-law union instead. The outcome? A deepening rift between observant and secular Jews, with some opting out of religious observance entirely.
Scholars have compared religious institutions to corporations in a marketplace competing for followers. When government plays favorites through policy, recognition, or funding it skewers that marketplace. A study of 54 Christian-majority nations discovered that state-backed religion actually undermines trust in both religious institutions and government. Individuals are less likely to give to religious charities or participate in services when they perceive that religion is merely an extension of the state.
This is not unique to Europe or the Middle East. In the US, the so-called “free-market” approach in which all religions are free to compete without state regulation has long been the foundation of America’s status as a religious outlier. As overall church membership and attendance dwindle, the percentage of Americans who are deeply religious has remained stable for decades. Approximately 29% of Americans pray multiple times a day, and about 7% worship weekly more than once. Some observers say that this vitality is exactly because the state remains detached, with religion allowed to express itself on its own terms.
But as the U.S. moves toward entangling religion and politics whether in the form of public funding for religious schools, official prayer ceremonies, or policy shifts such as the IRS decision many fear the unintended consequences. As an onlooker described it, “Efforts to dismantle the wall between church and state are also a slow march toward state management of religion, where it’s the state’s business to determine which religions are legitimate and deserving of taxpayer dollars.” When government begins to choose which faiths are valid, religious diversity and authenticity can be compromised.
Such changes challenge religious communities and leaders in real ways. As religion grows more politicized, confidence in religious institutions can break down particularly among those feeling their traditions are being politicized for political ends. Authenticity requires staying centered on central beliefs and community, and not being distracted by pursuit of state validation or power. When the politics and culture get chaotic, many believers cling to tried-and-true adaptation mechanisms: cognitive reappraisal, self-compassion, and seeking meaning in adversity. As psychologist Florin Dolcos said, “It appears that religious people are making use of some of the same tools that psychologists have systematically identified as effective in increasing well-being and protecting against distress.”
In the end, what history teaches us is plain: when faith is freely chosen, it flourishes. When it is managed, subsidized, or politicized by the state, participation and trust decline. For those of us who are living through these changes whether clergy, academics, or concerned citizens the way forward might be to reassert the importance of “soul freedom,” as Roger Williams termed it, and defending room for all to pursue meaning on their own terms.
