I don’t read this as Boebert trying to make church part of the government, as was the church under King George when the US was founded.

Those with an agenda may make more of Boebert's comments, as if only extremes are possible. But there is a lot of room for points of view in between.

Before the current court there was a systemic shift against Christianity, that showed up in IRS rulings against Christian churches allowing their facilities to host AA meetings, and similar public services, by falsely claiming that they were “for profit.”

Boebert is reminding us that the Founders were personally guided by Christian faith, openly said so, and made that statement on our currency - “In God we trust.” This is in stark contrast to recent anti-Christian banning of crosses, Christmas symbology, and things like removal of the tablet of the Ten Commandments, and removal of the phrase from our currency.

I agree with Boebert that such actions by government not only fail to honor the Founder’s personal guidance by Christian faith, they are unConstitutional under the First Amendment; a trend against Christianity which we would be smart to reverse.

Institutional capture.

Leftists work to capture any institution they can. They try to capture both church and state.

Destroy institutions and rebuild from scratch.

We have a problem, because churches own a lot, and leftists will capture them. They will weaponize the financial power of churches against Republicans. They will fire Republican priests.

Separate Republicans and Democrats. Divorce. Secede.

Democrats claim Republicans are Nazis, but Democrats wage institutional genocide on Republicans. Universities experienced a genocide of Republicans. Democrats commit genocide, therefore Democrats are the Nazis.

It can go both ways. The state can pick a "church" it can partner with, or even dictate, like what we've seen China do with Christianity and with Budhism in Tibet.

There's a difference between the fundamental beliefs of a religion and 'the church' - like the law as it's written and the law as it's interpreted by judges/lawyers. Or how religious texts are written and interpreted by different denominations/sects/cults.
We've seen how 'the church' has become compromised by the state (look no further than the WEF's influence on the pope and Roman Catholic church for example).
Separate faith and religion from the state, so the state doesn't become the religion (which is the plan by the 'elites' within the state - they want to become deities and gods). Doesn't mean you should separate/abandon the core fundamental teaching/ideology - just the dogma and heirarchical power structures that demand obedience, particularly to faith based (rather than evidence and merit based) ideas and personalities.

Better than what we have now, where lying is the OK and "lawmakers" can't tell the difference between men and women, nor what is right or wrong.

The type of government they gave us was for a moral and religious people, wholly inadequate to govern any other.

Bad thing. Who decides which denomination directs the govt? Don't know where she gets the idea the founding fathers wanted it that way.