When New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill (D) was sworn into office on Tuesday, she placed her hand on a copy of the Constitution, not the Bible. The atypical decision made a statement about Sherrill’s view of religion and government — and a promise about how she plans to govern. Essentially, it’s safe to say that Sherrill plans to take God out of government.

But before that claim can be justified, we must first rewind to a more foundational query. Why do elected officials place their hand on any document when taking the oath of office? In fact, why do they even take an oath of office at all?

After nearly 250 years of American history, swearing-in ceremonies may seem perfunctory. But ceremonies can take many forms, and the founding generation chose to install elected officials in an oath ceremony.

Oath ceremonies date back through much of known history and involve a solemn, verbal affirmation of loyalty, taken before witnesses. By placing his or her hand on a Bible, the oath-taker magnifies the solemnity of their oath by acknowledging that they swear not merely before human witnesses, but also in the presence of God. In civilian life, the most familiar parallel is a couple’s exchange of marriage vows, in which they solemnly swear loyalty to each other before God and man.

Of course, not every elected official holds to their oath with proper reverence, just as not every person who utters marriage vows remains faithful to them. The purpose of the oath is to bind an individual’s conscience, which means little to an individual whose conscience is seared. (Sadly, such individuals are all too common in politics, as the lust for power attracts those with hardened consciences, and perverse incentives harden the consciences of others.)

From the founding era, an overwhelming majority of officeholders have taken their oath with their hand on a Bible. However, this was customary rather than required. Article VI of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for any elected office, either at the federal or state level. Consequently, any office was open to an agnostic, atheist, or member of a non-Christian religion, to whom swearing on the Bible would mean little. Indeed, in 1825, President John Quincy Adams took his oath of office on a book of law, in an effort to avoid entangling religion with government.

For a time, the oath-taking ceremony remained meaningful, even when it did not constitute a sacred oath taken on the Bible before God. Coasting on a heritage of widespread Christian influence, Americans in the modern era still valued honesty, largely believing that a man’s word was his bond, even if the concept had devolved into humanistic individualism. Vestiges of conscience still remained.

Yet, today, such an appeal to conscience as oath-taking requires is almost meaningless in our post-modern culture. One’s conscience is an intangible faculty that judges one’s actions according to an external standard of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15). This implies a metaphysical, even supernatural, reality — a possibility that post-modernism rejects outright. Post-modernism denies the existence of external moral standards, as well as the existence of anything non-natural — that is, anything not subject to the instruments of natural science. Thus, post-modernism, at best, is skeptical about the very existence of a faculty called the “conscience,” and absolutely denies that such a faculty is anything more than a reflection of a person’s psychology.

As a result, oath-taking ceremonies have been cheapened by elected officials swearing on documents of little intrinsic significance beyond their own personal connection. In 2023, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) was sworn into office on a Superman comic, while other officeholders have taken their oath on a Dr. Seuss book and a Malcolm X autobiography.

Today, many elected officials still swear their oath on the Bible or (if they are Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish) the writings of some other religion. As this is the default, an elected official does not necessarily have to take the ceremony very seriously to pursue this route.

However, when an elected official makes an atypical choice, it is usually to make a statement. According to Pew Research Center, Mikie Sherrill identified as Catholic during her time in Congress. Yet what she really believes — at least in so far as public office is concerned — seems to align more with fellow Catholic Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) than with the official doctrine of her church.

In a congressional hearing last year, Kaine argued that human rights come not from God but from government, stating, “The notion that our rights do not come from our laws or our government should make people very, very nervous. … The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government but come from the creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes.”

By choosing to take her oath of office on the Constitution instead of the Bible, Sherrill seemed to make the same point: that she will be guided as governor not by what the Bible says, but by what the Constitution says.

Of course, the founding generation drew many principles found in the Constitution from Scripture, either directly or indirectly. But Sherrill’s move seems calculated to deliberately sever the connection to Scripture. She does not need a biblical worldview because she already has another worldview — a postmodern, progressive one (as is evident from her congressional voting record).

For those wondering what policies a progressive worldview leads one to pursue, the newly radicalized Virginia legislature has provided a helpful laundry list.

The important issue here is not the action of taking an oath on the Bible, nor even an explicit acknowledgment of biblical principles in governance. The important issue is the total worldview shift to a post-modern ideology that denies human sinfulness, denies human limitations, denies absolute truth, and denies the need for “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” By taking her hand off the Bible, Sherrill can no longer append her oath, like George Washington, with “so help me God.”