In the daily course of answering questions by email, phone, and in person, related to matters of faith, we invariably have to begin with the reminder that:

A text, without a context, is a pretext¹“Errors in Understanding Biblical Texts” by Don and Joy Veinot

Sometimes the issue is the historical-grammatical context of a passage of Scripture. Other times it is a narrative or story about a historical event, and sometimes it is about the context of a current event, including something written in the past, part of which is being used in a narrative today. For example, just before I (Don) started writing this blog, I received an email about two videos by an LDS leader, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland. One was purported to be an inspirational story about Joseph Smith Jr. (founder and president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), who had died in a shootout in Carthage, IL, on June 27, 1844, and his brother Hyrum. In this narrative, Elder Holland portrayed Joseph and Hyrum riding to Carthage, fully aware and ready for their coming martyrdom, using Holland’s version of the story as evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. It is likely quite a compelling and inspirational tale for the already persuaded. However, in its historical context, it is not a true story at all. In reality, Joseph and Hyrum were arrested and put into jail, pending a trial for treason. Guns intended for their escape were subsequently smuggled into the jail by other Mormons, with the ignominious result that Joseph Smith was shot and killed in the attempted escape from lawful incarceration.²For those who are interested these articles will be helpful, “Mormonism’s king was dead” by Sharon Lindbloom, “Final Moments at Carthage Jail and the Death of Joseph Smith” by Bill McKeever and “Imminent Martyrdom” by Sharon Lindbloom There was no prior expectation of glorious martyrdom on the part of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. No, Joseph Smith’s death was the result of a tawdry criminal escape attempt from lawful incarceration. Smith died in the ensuing gun battle. No glory there. The Out-of-context use of historical documents in newly spun narrative tales is deceptive. The audience believes the story because the individual or group telling it seems authoritative and reliable, or because the myth has been circulating long enough that people are already convinced and invested, so they do not doubt it but pass it on.

This happens in the arena of faith and politics as well. “Jesus was a Palestinian Refugee” is a relatively new narrative making the rounds, drawn out of the historical context of the current time in combination with the out-of-context use of Scripture.³“Jesus was NOT a Palestinian refugee” It is a ridiculous assertion, but one that resonates with people who want to believe it.

Another claim that has been making the rounds for quite some time is that the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, who significantly influenced the authors of the United States Constitution, was very strict about “a wall of separation between Church & State.” If we look at this in its historical-grammatical context within the current popular narrative, we have to ask whether the story is true, partly true or deceptively false. I came across a very helpful piece by Marcus Sterling. As a matter of full disclosure, we always give full credit to the original sources, and when quoting the full piece, we always get permission in advance. In addition, as a discernment ministry, we vet individuals so that readers of this will know something about the writer. I contacted Marcus through his Facebook page and introduced our ministry, the organizations we belong to, and our statement of What We Believe. Before quoting him, I wanted to know if he was a Christian Nationalist or possibly held to the idea of building a Christian theocracy. Thankfully, he does not. There are theological issues on which we would clearly disagree, and after our exchanges, we have no doubt that we would have a grand time debating various issues. That being said, looking at the question of “a wall of separation between Church & State,” in its historical-grammatical context, is something all of us should do. The use of this statement in the current story demonstrates that the widely believed narrative is false and deceptive:

History has a funny way of getting twisted by people who weren’t there to live it. The most dangerous distortions are the ones that have had centuries to fester. So let’s take a look at the Danbury Baptists.

Picture Connecticut in October of 1801. The Congregational Church, the old Puritan establishment, is the official religion of the state, and it will remain so until 1818.

If you are a Baptist, a Methodist, or an Episcopalian, you must petition the local justice of the peace for a certificate to worship separately, and that justice can refuse you.

Your taxes still flow to the Congregational coffers. You are, in every civic sense that matters, a second-class citizen.

The Danbury Baptist Association, representing twenty-six churches in western Connecticut, is living under this regime, and they’re getting nervous.

They aren’t sitting around worrying that the Church is going to take over the federal government. They are terrified that the government…state and, potentially, the federal government is going to crush their way of worship.

They needed to know that the heavy hand of the federal magistrate wasn’t coming for their altars.

So, they write to President Thomas Jefferson, and he writes back on January 1, 1802. He agrees with them and paraphrases the First Amendment, telling them that the American people had declared “that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’” thus building “a wall of separation between Church & State.”
—
Modern secularists love that phrase. They’d hang it like a neon sign over every courthouse and school board meeting in America if they could. But they have the nature of it completely backwards. Jefferson wasn’t building a prison to keep God out of the public square. He was building a fortress to keep the State out of the sanctuary. It’s a shield for the Church, not a muzzle.

Now, the left will protest that this letter was no private musing, and on that narrow point, they are correct. Jefferson drafted his reply in consultation with two Cabinet members, Attorney General Levi Lincoln and Postmaster General Gideon Granger, and the letter was published in newspapers across the country.

He intended it to be a political statement. Fine. Let’s take it as a political statement. What does it actually say? It says that the wall protects the citizens from the government.

Every clause in that letter places the restraint on the magistrate, not on the minister.
—
The First Amendment is a negative right. It doesn’t tell you what you can do; it tells the government what it can’t do. It’s a chain on the wrist of the State.

When the founders wrote those words, they were acknowledging that power seeks to devour, and the conscience must be guarded against the appetite of kings.

By twisting Jefferson’s letter to mean that religious expression must be scrubbed from public life, the modern Left is actually doing the very thing the Danbury Baptists feared…using the state to dictate the terms of our existence.

The Congregational establishment of Connecticut taxed dissenters and denied them full civic standing. Today, the mechanism is different: cultural pressure, legal threats, and administrative exclusion…but the coercion is still the same.
—
For those of us walking the narrow path, this goes deeper than constitutional law.

We don’t demand religious liberty just because it’s written on parchment. We demand it because coerced faith is spiritually dead. God is the ultimate author of liberty. Go back to Genesis.

When God placed Adam in the Garden, He placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil right there in the middle. He didn’t put a high-voltage fence around it. He didn’t strip Adam of the ability to rebel.

If God wanted a world of automatons, He would have created robots, not people with the gift of free will and the dignity to choose. As it says in 2 Corinthians 3:17, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” A government that tries to force religion… or force the absence of it… is acting against the nature of God Himself.

Any ruler who exceeds his mandate and reaches into the domain of the soul has ceased to govern and begun to tyrannize.
—
The wall exists to ensure that when we say “Yes” to God, it’s our own voice speaking.

It ensures that our worship is an offering and that we come to God as servants…not slaves

We fight for this wall not to hide from the world, but to keep the world from corrupting the sacred space where man meets his Maker.

We must tear down the myth and rebuild the wall as it was intended: a rampart against tyranny, ensuring that the State remains the servant…and God remains the King.⁴Templar Mind – History has a funny way of getting twisted…(Marcus Sterling)

The first line of the First Amendment is simple and straightforward:

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

In context, it is, as Marcus pointed out, “a chain on the wrist of the State.” It prevents the Federal and State governments from intruding into the affairs of faith. Not only does it not prevent religious discussion in or teaching in the public square, public institutions, or schools, but it actually encourages “the free exercise thereof” in all of them. In other words, the Constitution protects religious citizens in exercising their beliefs and expects that, as voting citizens, their faith and/or non-faith will influence the government through the elected representatives. The historical-grammatical context tells a very different story from that of modern secularists.

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. (Colossians 3:23-24)Ω

© 2026, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.