How much does performative national religion count to God?

And what does He think of a nation that claims to be chosen but neglects and abuses the very people He cares about the most - the poor, the refugees, and the marginalized? The prophet Isaiah described just such nation. “For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God.” Isaiah 58:2 NIV.

This nation was big on performative religion while actively passing “unjust laws” and issuing “oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people.” Isaiah 10:1-2 NIV.

Meanwhile, they were loud and proud about their religious worship, fasting, singing, and praying.

“Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists.” Isaiah 58:2-4 NIV

Through Amos, God’s message was even more explicit to the church:

What can we conclude? That God is offended by a church or a nation obsessed with a performative, national religion but neglectful of justice for the poor, the stranger and the marginalized.

The Last-Day Counterfeit

Startlingly, this pseudo-religion is just what the Bible describes as being popular in earth’s final days. Paul described the people of the last days as loving money, being self-centered, boastful and proud, brutal, loving pleasure rather than God - and, to top off the list, “having a form of godliness but denying its power.” 2 Tim. 3:5 NIV.

A form of what? Godliness. Godliness? Yes, you read that right!

In other words, Paul predicted a Christian culture that is really good at going through the motions of religion, professing to advance God’s kingdom, worshipping Jesus, but not actually obeying Jesus or living by the power - or love - of Jesus. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when He said that “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.” Matt. 24:12 NIV.

Jesus further describes this deceptive counterfeit religion as consisting of Christians who will call Jesus “Lord” and even prophesy and work miracles in His name:

In fact the miracle-working component of this last-day counterfeit Christianity is such a prominent feature that Jesus emphasized it again in His last sermon before the cross: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.” “…False messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” Matt. 24:4, 24 NIV.

Jesus later communicated to his aging disciple John that one of the last empires on earth (identified by some as the United States) would be involved in performing miracles and compelling worship (see Rev. 13:11-15). And guess what title John gives to this miracle-working nation? That’s right, the False Prophet! (See Rev. 19:20). Apparently this last-day phenomenon really takes the cake as far as deception goes.

Note carefully what Jesus is telling us: there will be last-day miracle workers, controlling the levers of government, who will come as Christians but be imposters. This will be so widespread that Jesus felt the need to emphasize it.

The takeaway? Don’t be fooled by the form of godliness - even if it does miracles and claims to be Christian! Look instead for the real fruit of obedience to all of God’s commandments, including the command to love our enemies.

A Religion that Kills

Jesus continues: “The time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.” John 16:2 NIV. Here, Jesus describes a religion that celebrates hatred and destruction of enemies as a virtue. But remember that Jesus never commissioned His followers to destroy in His name (see, e.g., Luke 9:54-56).

In Revelation, Jesus calls this counterfeit Christianity “Babylon the Great.” The first time Babylon is mentioned in Revelation is in the Second Angel’s Message: “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great,’ which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.” Rev. 14:6 NIV. Note two things: first, Babylon is making the nations drink its wine, and second, Babylon is engaging in (spiritual) adultery.

Revelation chapter 17 colors in the picture. There, a woman, often used to symbolize a church in the Bible, sits atop a beast, representing a political entity (see Dan. 7:17, 23). She is called “the great prostitute” (Rev. 17:1) “with whom the kinds of the earth committed adultery” (v. 2). This woman is a powerful church that “rules over the kings of the earth.” Rev. 17:18 NIV.

Now things come into focus! Babylon is a church - or confederation of churches (see Rev. 17:5) - that is spiritually intimate with the kings of the earth. Why is this called adultery? Because the church of Christ has only one spouse, Christ (2 Cor. 11:2). James calls friendship with the world “adultery.” (James 4:4). Thus, Babylon represents a church that professes to follow Christ, but relies instead on political power to coerce and persecute. The kind of “friendship” that constitutes spiritual adultery isn’t being friends to our neighbors in the world - that is, in fact, what God wants His church to do. But James is talking about something quite different and defines what this spiritual adultery looks like:

Spiritual adultery happens when the church abandons the power of God and tries to accomplish her spiritual mission using coercion and domination, and that is exactly what Babylon does through political power: they kill and dominate in the name of God. That is spiritual adultery.

Subscribe now

Christian Nationalism’s Empty Promises

Today’s American Christian nationalism is beginning to look a lot like what both Jesus, John, and James described: a church-state union, complete with government-sponsored worship services, that is obsessed with public displays of Christianity, but devoid of real justice for the least of these. A religion that denies the separation of church and state and uses political power to promote its version of Christianity, including Sunday rest laws, and seeks to destroy America’s enemies in the name of God. A religion that exalts human leaders and love of nation above following Jesus, the Prince of Peace. A religion that supports outlawing abortion but neglects to address the economic or social problems that drive many women to end a pregnancy. A religion that supports brutalizing and indiscriminately deporting immigrants, including religious asylum seekers, while platforming a nativist brand of Christianity. A religion that is high on performative Christianity but ultimately untethered from sound biblical truth.

Many Christians are rightly concerned with the moral rot in American culture, including the glorification of violence and promiscuity in movies and video games, the widespread breakdown of the nuclear family - with its documented negative effects on children, the empty promises of satisfaction through illicit and unbiblical sexual relationships, the proliferation of addictive substances, the soul-destroying effects of on-demand pornographic materials, and more. But despite its promises, Christian nationalism offers no lasting solutions to these problems - only a crusade to destroy the wrongdoers, and a misguided belief that coercive Christian morality will return America to some mythical golden age where everyone was supposedly religious and conforming. Like Revelation’s Babylon, Christian Nationalism is a confusing blend of good and bad, where the lines between legitimate Christian social action and coercive bad religion are constantly blurred.

What Is the Solution to the World’s Problems?

If Christian nationalism isn’t the answer, though, what is? How should the church address society’s problems? Isaiah 58 points out the problem but also gives us the answer.

Instead of performative religion and coerced conformity, the church is called to “loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke…to set the oppressed free and break every yoke…” to “share your food with the hungry and…” to “provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe them, and” to not “turn away from your own flesh and blood…” Isaiah 58:6-7 NIV

Does loosing the chains of injustice sometimes involve political activism? Absolutely. Christians may rightly work to make the world just through law and engage as good citizens to make the world a better place for everyone in it. The church can also have a voice in promoting justice. But the true church will never try to make the world Christian through law. More on that in a moment.

When the church lives out this other-centered love, the ancient promise of God’s glory filling the earth will become a reality:

What’s more, Isaiah 58:12-14 describes true worshippers as also being those who “call the Sabbath a delight and the Lord’s holy day honorable.” This is no surprise as we recall that Sabbath rest is inseparable from social justice. In Exodus 23:9-12, immediately after the command to “not oppress a foreigner,” God commands rest on the seventh-day Sabbath so that “the foreigner living among you may be refreshed.” The church that serves a broken world like Jesus, will introduce the world to the joy of Sabbath rest - a weekly pause to better know God and to better love our fellow man.

Kingdom Living in the Here and Now

How should the church introduce the world to the kingdom of heaven? John the Baptist has an answer.

As the Messiah was about to appear, John told his listeners to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Matt. 3:2 NIV.

When his listeners asked how they could live out that gospel in the here and now, John spoke truth to power:

In other words, John preached social justice.

While the church proclaims the gospel and calls the world to repent, what the church does for the world is to live out the love and justice of God. Jesus calls Christians to live the Golden Rule - to do to others as you would have them do to you - to do justice, to love mercy. This is what John and Jesus preached and lived.

And when the church lives like Jesus, the world will be turned upside down.

In contrast with Christian nationalism’s goal to legislate religious values in the name of Christ, followers of Jesus can and should speak up for social justice. We should vote for laws that protect the weak and oppressed including, for example, the unborn and refugees. But we do so as people who love our neighbors and want what is best for them - not from a desire to destroy them, to impose our faith, or to simply control their lives.

Jesus never called the church to start a campaign to make the Roman Empire Christian, nor did he tell His followers to defend Christianity with political power. What He does call us to do is live with love, serve the poor and the stranger, and defend the marginalized and oppressed.

The Power of Holy Spirit is What We Need

The church’s message has always been the everlasting gospel, and its mission to “go and make disciples of all the nations…” Matt. 28:19. John the Baptist knew this when he preached repentance.

But how does the church proclaim that message and fulfill that mission? Christian nationalism says it’s through Christians exercising dominion over the world - by taking over government in the name of God. But John the Baptist and Jesus show us that the only way is through doing justice, loving people, and serving the least of these, not through power or force. And Christ’s method alone will bring true success in reaching people’s hearts for the kingdom of God’s grace.

What will happen when the church lives like this?

Did you catch that?

That right there is what the church needs - the power of the Holy Spirit, the power of God’s love!

It is a Spirit-less church that seeks “the support of the secular power” in order to control society (see The Great Controversy, p. 443), with the result being a “form of godliness” without the Spirit and love of God.

Someday soon, the kingdom of glory will come! Jesus will appear above the world in blazing glory with billions of mighty angelic beings. There will be a great earthquake unlike any in history and the sky will roll back like a scroll (Rev. 6:12-17). Every living being on planet earth will see this event in real time (Rev. 1:10). Jesus will blow His trumpet and call forth the sleeping believers from their graves, and the living believers will join the resurrected believers to meet Jesus in the air (1 Thes. 4:16-17). Jesus will take His people to be with Him in heaven where they will sit on thrones judging the world for “a thousand years.” Rev. 20:4-6; John 14:1-3. After the thousand years, the New Jerusalem will descend to this desolated planet and Jesus will resurrect the wicked. All who have ever lived will stand before the judgment seat of God (Rev. 20:7-15). At that judgment, one thing will matter: how we treated Jesus in the form of “one of the least of these brothers and sisters.” Matt. 25:40 NIV.

What is the church called to do in the world? Not to grasp for power, but to love like Jesus.

Christian nationalism is Satan’s intentional and attractive counterfeit to misrepresent Jesus and repel genuine seekers.

So what do we do now? Pray for the Holy Spirit. Ask the Spirit to guide you as you study the Bible and learn about Jesus. And then ask Jesus to love the world through you.

Stephen Allred is Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council, a religious liberty ministry of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He is a licensed attorney and an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

Along with this attack on the separation of church and state is the idea that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause should be “disincorporated” and not applied to the individual states. Proponents of disincorporation believe that states should be allowed to legislate in matters of religion if they wish, and this once fringe idea has now become mainstream.

Proponents have a point. The First Amendment - as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights - originally applied only to the federal government and, at the time of its ratification several states had established churches (all were disestablished by 1833). But after the ratification of the Civil War amendments - specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court began to apply the rights found in the Bill of Rights to the citizens of the states. Professor Fred Gedicks has written that “the Fourteenth Amendment extinguished the state immunity from federal interference [and] extended…personal immunity to protect the people against state as well as federally established religions.” Most disincorporation proponents agree that the Free Exercise, Free Speech, Free Press and Assembly Clauses all apply to the states, but will argue - inconsistently - that the Establishment Clause should not apply to the states. But Gedicks has persuasively argued that the incorporation of the Establishment Clause is logical, faithful to the text of the constitution, and supported by history.

Did the Founders Intend for the States to Establish Religion?

At the center of this debate is the question of whether the Founders intended for the states to be free to establish religion. Some, like Patrick Henry (of “give me liberty or give me death” fame), undoubtedly favored state religious establishments. But others - including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, whose views ultimately carried the day - were opposed to the establishment of religion at either the federal or state level. And that opposition included opposition to the funding of religion through “assessments” - or taxes, even if those taxes were directed by the citizen to the religion of his choice.

Here’s the story: in 1784, the Commonwealth of Virginia faced a choice. Patrick Henry, then a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, believed that Virginia “taxpayers who were Christians should be assessed for the maintenance of the Protestant church of their choice.” Henry proposed a bill to this end which he titled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.” Why did Henry believe this bill was necessary? Because, as the bill stated, “Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society” and therefore the government must make sure that American society had competent teachers of the Christian faith. To make the new tax more palatable, Henry’s bill explicitly disavowed favoritism of any particular Christian church and allowed citizens to direct the tax to the Christian church of their choice.

James Madison, also a member of the Virginia House at the time, vigorously opposed Henry’s bill. In a shrewd move, Madison and other opponents in the General Assembly helped elect Henry to the governorship of the commonwealth, which removed him as a Delegate and thereby neutered his influence in the Virginia House. Madison was able to get other lawmakers to postpone a vote on Henry’s bill until the following year. Meanwhile, Madison launched his successful campaign to defeat the religious assessment bill by writing a petition addressed to the General Assembly of Virginia which he titled a A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.

James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is a masterful argument in favor of the separation of church and state. While written in 1785, Madison’s petition is still as relevant today as it was two and a half centuries ago, and that petition is reproduced in its entirety below. Certain sections which are especially insightful have been highlighted in bold or italics.

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia: A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,”1 and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1.   Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”2 The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.3

2.   Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people.4 The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

3.   Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.5 We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

4.   Because the Bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,”6 all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.”7 Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

5.   Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy.8 The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

6.   Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

7.   Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

8.   Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

9.   Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.

10.   Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.

11.   Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State.9 If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and charity,”10 which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

12.   Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation11 from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

13.   Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

14.   Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. “The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly.”12 But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

15.   Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government,”13 it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of14 our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound15 to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.

Source: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163

Subscribe now

The Church State Council is the oldest public policy organization in the southwestern United States devoted exclusively to issues of liberty of conscience and religion and the separation of church and state. As Seventh-day Adventists, we stand in the Protestant and Enlightenment traditions of protesting the combination of church and state to define or promote theological “truth,” or to punish “error.” We ask nothing of the state except that it protects religious freedom for all peaceful people of faith. We take our faith seriously, and we defend the right of others to do the same.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, a group of American Christians, calling themselves the National Reform Association, grew into a powerful lobby. Many of the NRA’s members had been abolitionists, and now that the Civil War had resolved the issue of slavery, their goal was to finish the job of reforming America. The NRA correctly understood that the United States had not been founded as a Christian nation, with one of their leaders later lamenting that “our Constitution and government has this Godless, Christless character by the design and purpose of its founders.”1 However, the NRA was determined to change that. In A Manual of Christian Civil Government, the NRA laid out their rationale for seeking several amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including one which would acknowledge “the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler of nations and…his revealed will as the supreme standard to decide moral issues in national life, and thus indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of the government on an undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.”2 They also promoted the teaching of religion in public schools and a national Sunday law.3

American society was drifting more and more toward godlessness and sin, and many Christians felt that something had to be done. “There are certain evils and certain signs of coming evil which give us anxiety,” NRA Vice President Jonathan Edwards noted. “These evils and evil omens we trace back to an omission in the Constitution, and it is evident that if this omission be supplied the evils will be averted.”4 Many of the NRA leaders viewed public policy through the lens of reformed covenant theology, seeing God’s promises to the theocracy of ancient Israel as applicable to modern nations. They argued that Jesus Christ Himself wished to reign directly as king over America’s government.

“My Kingdom Is Not of This World”

Jesus, however, never attempted to sit as king on any earthly throne. Instead, He had refused the Devil’s offer of rulership over “all the kingdoms of the world” (Luke 4:5), declaring to Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). Jesus never raised an army to take back Jerusalem from the Romans. To the contrary, He told His servants to put away the sword instead of fighting to advance His kingdom (Matt. 26:52; John 18:36). By teaching to “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17 NIV), Jesus showed that His kingdom was not just another political entity, but a kingdom of an entirely different order. Furthermore, Jesus had forbidden His disciples to destroy the Samaritans who rejected Him, showing that Christians are never justified in using force matters of faith (Luke 9:54-56). Besides, if God is love, religious devotion cannot be coerced, because “when religion becomes an affair of law, it ceases to be a matter of love.”5

As the NRA was gaining influence with national lawmakers, Ellen G. White, a founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, warned against their goals. “The National Reform movement, exercising the power of religious legislation, will, when fully developed, manifest the same intolerance and oppression that have prevailed in past ages. Human councils then assumed the prerogatives of Deity, crushing under their despotic power liberty of conscience; and imprisonment, exile, and death followed for those who opposed their dictates.”6

White wrote of those who “are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority.”7 She compared these Christians to the religious leaders of Christ’s day, arguing that they were falling into the same error of seeking an earthly kingdom instead of the spiritual kingdom which Jesus had come to establish.

Plus, There Was Prophecy…

For Adventists, like White, there was also the warning of prophecy, and most importantly the third angel’s message: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath.” Rev. 14:9-10 NIV. With other Protestants, Adventist saw the first beast of Revelation 13 as representing the apostate church of the Dark Ages. Adventists also had concluded that the second beast of Revelation 13, with two horns like a lamb, represented the United States. They taught that the two lamb-like horns represented civil and religious liberty - attributes that made America great and resembled Jesus. But they saw the dragon voice as being the oppressive elements of American government, things like slavery and the repression of religious liberty in the form of Sunday rest laws, which the NRA also championed. Adventists also understood that the image to the beast (Rev. 13:14) would be formed when the Protestant churches united with the American government to repudiate the principles of the constitution and create a new form of government that looked like the papacy, a union of church and state.

Furthermore, the prophecy went on to say that the second beast, America, would transform into a “false prophet,” working great signs and wonders (Rev. 13:13; 19:20). Jesus, of course, had warned that false prophets would come, not as atheists or godless communists, but “in My name,” and would perform great signs and deceive many (Matt. 24:4, 24). This pointed toward America’s government taking upon itself a Christian character while persecuting dissenters in Christ’s name, something which Jesus had foretold (see John 16:1-2 and Matt. 24:4, 24).

This counterfeit Christian end time movement would arise against the backdrop of the universal battle between Christ and Satan. A propaganda war in which Satan sought to malign the character of God by making it appear that He uses fear and coercion to gain people’s allegiance. The God of the Bible, however, manifested His true character of self-sacrificial love on the cross, where He died to save His enemies. Contrary to Satan’s lies, God persuades with love and allows His creatures the freedom to choose.

All this led Adventists to be opposed to any type of religious legislation. Plus, history had shown that when the church assumed political power dissenters were always persecuted. In contrast, the early Christian church never sought political power but had turned the world upside down by simply preaching the gospel while serving the poor, advocating for the oppressed, and loving their enemies. Adventists saw the American church’s alignment with political power as spiritual adultery (James 4:4), and any church who sought the support of the secular power as being a part of spiritual Babylon spoken of in Revelation.

Thus, when White warned about the NRA, she connected it to the worship of the beast and its image and urged other Adventist leaders to labor “earnestly to counteract” the efforts of the NRA. She lamented that some Adventists ministers failed to see the connection between the NRA and the enforcement of the false worship warned against in Revelation, writing: “The National Reform movement has been regarded by some as of so little importance that they have not thought it necessary to give much attention to it and have even felt that in so doing they would be giving time to questions distinct from the third angel’s message. May the Lord forgive our brethren for thus interpreting the very message for this time.”8

Déjà Vu: Christian Nationalism

The NRA’s ideas never completely died out. In fact, one could argue that they are having a renaissance in the form of today’s Christian nationalism. Many present-day Christians share the same concerns that animated the NRA over a century ago. Morality has declined, Americans are confused about traditional sexual values, and secularism is often hostile to those traditional values. Many of the solutions proposed today align with those proposed by the NRA: politicians promising to put God back in government; posting of the Ten Commandments on public schoolroom walls; government-led prayer and Bible reading in public schools; and Sunday rest laws. The idea seems to be that if our government simply acknowledges God, and uses the power of law to promote religion, He will be happy and all will be well.

Yet, Jesus and the prophets consistently rebuked performative public religion by the religionists of their day. “Everything they do is done for people to see…” Matt. 23:5 NIV. Instead, they taught that the public manifestation of true religion was about serving widows and orphans and doing justice in society. “Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps,” God said, “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” Amos 5:23-24. See also James 1:27.

God’s rebuke of performative religion gets to the heart of this issue. When the church imposes public religion as a response to societal injustice, it’s an indication that the church is morally bankrupt. Why? Because it exposes a church that cares more about the forms of religion than the suffering of humanity. And a church that needs the power of government to impose her religion, is a church that has lost the power of love and the Spirit of God. History also shows that government-imposed religion has often cloaked some of the worst injustices in history.

Subscribe now

Instead, Christians should be the first to live out our faith in acts of justice and mercy in society. But we can never be justified in using the law to impose our religion on others. Unlike religion, which has to do with worship of a deity, societal justice is concerned with how people treat each other. Societal justice promotes values that can be shared by religious and non-religious people alike. This was the position of White and other early Adventists, who were strong advocates of societal justice in areas like the abolition of slavery and prohibition. They agreed that Christians should vote their social values, but they saw the NRA’s goals to Christianize the American government as fundamentally wrong. Christians should advocate for just laws in social and economic areas, White taught, but should never advocate for religious laws. Force in matters of faith is always wrong, since it goes contrary to the God’s character of love and simply promotes hypocrisy.

The Solution and the Promise

How then do we go about influencing the world to be a better place? First, on a political level we advocate for freedom in matters of faith for all people, religious or nonreligious. We should only use persuasion and never coercion in matters of faith or religion. As Christians, we then use that freedom to proclaim the good news and love all people - even our enemies. Which leads to our second point.

In matters of social injustice, we stand up for the oppressed. We do justice and love mercy. We advocate for good and just laws to protect the poor, orphan, stranger, and widow (see, e.g., Isaiah 58). We recognize that government may legitimately exercise force to protect the oppressed, but that it may never legitimately use force in matters of faith.

The Bible indicates, however, that Satan will trick a lot of Christians into setting up a counterfeit kingdom of God on earth before Jesus returns – one that says it’s from Jesus, but is actually antichrist. This kingdom will seem righteous, but it will employ force in matters of faith. This will not be of God.

But here’s the really good news: during a time when spiritual darkness will be thick, God’s character of love will shine brighter than ever though His people who want to live and love like Jesus! In fact, the last day people of God will look a lot like the church in the book of Acts - a church that is proclaiming the gospel and living it out by welcoming the stranger, feeding the hungry, advocating for the oppressed, and loving their persecutors. (See Isaiah 60:1-3, 61:1-2; Matt. 25:31-46; Matt. 5:44).

And then, Jesus will gloriously return in the clouds of heaven, with billions of angels - coming to rescue His persecuted people and call them to meet Him in the clouds. (John 14:1-3; Acts 1:10-11; Matt. 25). The oppressive empires of this world - including the counterfeit kingdom - will be destroyed. The true kingdom of God “will crush all those kingdomsand bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.” Dan. 2:44 NIV. Then “the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.” Dan. 7:27 NIV.

An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Liberty magazine.

Stephen N. Allred is Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council, a religious liberty ministry of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He is a licensed attorney and an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

Williams’ bluntness continued to offend his fellow colonists. He proclaimed that they had no right to steal land from the natives. He further declared that the title claimed by the colonists to the New England land was “invalid because derived from the King of England, whose claim to it, Williams had decided, was fraudulent.”3 Williams preached that religious assessments were wrong and that compelled worship and oaths by nonbelievers only produced hypocrites.4 Forced worship “stincks in Gods Nostrills”, Williams noted, and “[i]t meant in fact ‘a Soule or Spirituall Rape, more abominable in Gods eye, then to force and ravish the Bodies of all the Women in the World.’”5

Finally, the Boston authorities had had enough. In October 1635 Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.6 He “had committed no act of rebellion, nor even of disloyalty. He had only expressed is beliefs.”7 Those beliefs, though not criminal, were eccentric and deemed by the ruling Puritans to be dangerous to the social order.8 Williams’ banishment, however, did not silence him. In the remaining decades of his relatively long life, he wrote numerous books and pamphlets and established Providence in 1636, which later became the colony of Rhode Island.

The Bloody Tenent

In 1644, Williams published The Bloudy Tenent, of Persecution, for the cause of Conscience, discussed, in A Conference between Truth and Peace. In the book, Williams laid out the principles that undergirded his beliefs, starting with the proposition that “the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of protestants and papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.”9 Civil magistrates, Williams argued, only have jurisdiction over civil matters and are not “judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian, state and worship.”10 Nor should those of “Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-christian consciences and worships” be persecuted or fought against with the sword.11 Williams then asserted that he would use “pregnant scriptures and arguments” throughout the book to argue against the “doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience”, which he proceeded to do.12

For his scriptural arguments, Williams began with Christ’s parable of the wheat and the tares. In the parable found in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus used the symbolism of wheat to represent His true followers and the tares, or weeds, to represent the “people of the evil one.” Matt. 13:38 NIV. When, in the parable, the servants of the farmer discover that someone has sown weeds in the field of wheat, the landowner replies that the weeds are the work of an enemy. When the servants ask if they should go and uproot the weeds, the landowner forbids them “because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.” Matt. 13:29, 30 NIV. Later, as Jesus explained the meaning of the parable to his disciples, he clarified that the harvest is the end of the world and the harvesters are angels. “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.” Matt. 13:40 NIV. Williams concluded that the command of Christ to “let them alone” meant that men are forbidden to attempt to persecute in matters of faith.13 Why? Because, Williams argued, the tares were “so near” the wheat in appearance “that good men may be taken with them” and thus “Christ calleth for peaceable toleration, and not for penal prosecution.”14 Besides, “they who are now tares, may hereafter become wheat.”15

Williams also pointed to Christ’s rebuke of his disciples who wished to call down fire from heaven on the Samaritans who rejected him. This was evidence that “persecution for cause of conscience” was against the doctrine of Jesus Christ.16 Christ’s parable of the workers who come into his work at the eleventh hour taught that as long as someone is alive, their eternal destiny is still undecided, but “if those that come not till the last hour should be destroyed, because they come not at the first, then should they never come, but be prevented.”17 Finally, Williams – perhaps with a bit of sarcasm – quoted from King James, who in a 1609 speech to Parliament had stated that “God never loves to plant his church by violence and bloodshed.”18

Alan Simpson has persuasively argued that Williams was not concerned with modern notions of democracy or politics, as such, writing that “[a]ny attempt to understand Roger Williams must begin with the fact that from first to last he was a religious enthusiast.”19 But Williams did opine on the proper role of civil government, arguing for the use of civil force to “defend the innocent, and to rescue the oppressed.”20 Williams also makes the case that civil “peace and quiet” in a society do not depend upon the government nor the inhabitants being Christian, noting that “many stately kingdoms and governments in the world have long and long enjoyed civil peace and quiet, notwithstanding their religion is so corrupt, as that there is not the very name of Jesus Christ amongst them.”21 And Williams also challenged the political systems of his day – a system where the church and the civil power were tightly intertwined. To Williams, this union of the Christian church with the political powers – beginning with the Emperor Constantine the Great – was evidence of the church’s apostasy. “The unknowing zeal of Constantine and other emperors, did more hurt to Christ Jesus’s crown and kingdom, than the raging fury of the most bloody Neros.”22 How had Constantine injured the church? Williams argued that by “maintaining” the Christian religion “by the material sword…by this means Christianity was eclipsed, and the professors of it fell asleep…until the whole world became…Christendom.”23 The result was that good “wheat” had been persecuted and “thousands of those precious stalks” plucked up by the emperors and bishops who had intended to exalt Christ but ignored his command to let the tares alone.24 What was the solution? Williams argued that Protestants, Catholics, pagans and other faiths should all coexist peacefully in civil society, and that the only sword that should be used in matters of faith was the sword of the Spirit – which represented using the persuasive power of the Bible to change people’s minds.25 To Williams, this was what Jesus taught and what the early church in the time of Acts practiced, with Williams asserting that “Christ Jesus never directed his disciples to the civil magistrate for help in his cause.”26 In essence, “Williams was calling the church back to the New Testament model.”27

The Legacy of Roger Williams

But what influence, if any, did Williams have on the debate surrounding the separation of church and state at the time of America’s founding? Leroy Moore has argued that “Williams’ works were not readily available in America during the Revolutionary Era. Also, the great reference works of the time contained no word about either him or the epochal events in that corner of the world called Rhode Island.”28 But John Coffey argues that “Williams’s reputation was resurrected in eighteenth-century America by Baptists like Isaac Backus, a fervent campaigner for the civil rights of religious minorities.”29 John Barry notes that works by Backus and Stephen Hopkins which reprinted parts of Williams’ writings were widely read during the time of the American Revolution.30 Other Baptists, like John Leland, influenced James Madison who wrote in the Constitution of the United States that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (U.S. Const. art. VI). Coffey asserts that around this time American sectarian advocates of religious freedom and more secular rationalists “came together to form a potent alliance. In Virginia, Baptists like John Leland joined with Jefferson and Madison to campaign for religious liberty. Baptist and Quaker pressure enabled the Enlightenment men to push their bills for freedom of religion through state legislatures. In both England and America the pressure of the sects was a crucial factor in the emergence of religious liberty.”31

What is undisputed is that America’s founding fathers such as Jefferson and Madison were influenced by John Locke and, as historians have noted, Locke was influenced by Williams. So much so, that David Little observed that “Locke’s ideas are…simply restatements of the central arguments in favor of freedom of conscience developed by Roger Williams in the middle of the seventeenth century, when Locke’s opinions on these subjects were being shaped.”32 In 1785, Madison would go on to write his famous Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, where he would argue against the General Assessment bill that was intended to provide tax support to churches in Virginia. In the Memorial, Madison wrote the following words: “If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.”33 Later, Madison would author the Bill of Rights, including the religion clauses of the First Amendment which provided for the separation of church and state in the United States.

Far across the Atlantic, in Geneva, Switzerland stands the International Monument to the Reformation. Stretching on for 100 meters, the monument features the stone statues of four magisterial Protestant reformers: William Farel, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and John Knox. Immediately to the left of these imposing statues, stands a smaller statue of Roger Williams holding a book in his hand with the words “Soul Liberty” inscribed on the cover. How did the influence of Williams extend so far that he was included as one of only ten men in the Reformation Wall? Perhaps the Reformation motto, inscribed in Latin on the wall gives us a clue: Post Tenebras Lux. After darkness, light. This is the essence of what Williams taught – that it is the light of truth alone, rather than “swords and guns”, that can “dispel and scatter” the “fogs and darkness” of error and heresy.34

It was Williams’ insistence on liberty of conscience, through the separation of church and state, that cemented his legacy as a quintessential Protestant. And one could argue that religious freedom itself – both in America and elsewhere – owes it very existence to Roger Williams and those like him who were willing to boldly speak truth to power. In the words of one historian, truly “in Roger Williams England did give us of her very best.”35

Stephen N. Allred is Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council, a religious liberty ministry of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He is a licensed attorney and an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

Born in London most likely in 1603, Williams had been educated at Pembroke College, Cambridge.3 Ordained in the Church of England, he had become a Puritan and been radicalized.4 In England, Williams met and befriended John Winthrop, the man who would later become governor of Massachusetts, as well as Thomas Hooker, the future founder of Connecticut, and John Cotton, soon to become a prominent Boston clergyman and Williams’ future adversary.5 Some believe that it was Winthrop himself who alerted Williams that his own agents were coming to arrest and deport Williams back to England.6

Subscribe now

But while Winthrop believed that Williams was a “godly minister” and a man of learning, he also saw him as “unsettled in judgment” because of his unorthodox beliefs.7 Among the most radical of those beliefs was the idea that there should be a “hedge or wall of separation” between what he called “the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”8 Williams was unique for his time, for “no Englishman [had] demanded such freedom so early or with such sweeping rigor.”9 Because Williams argued for something as drastic as the separation of church and state he was a dangerous man to the Puritans. His views, if they were allowed to spread, could corrupt the entire Massachusetts Bay Colony and “cause its descent into sin.”10

The story of Roger Williams and the Puritans of Massachusetts is the story of two opposing versions of religious freedom that continue to vie for legitimacy to this day. On one hand are those who believe that religion needs the support of government. In their view, government has a role in enforcing certain religious or moral standards so that society can prosper. On the other side are those who, like Williams, argue that religion does not need the support of government to flourish. On the contrary, government should neither promote nor hinder religion but simply leave it alone. In this two-part article, we will attempt to summarize the key contributions of Roger Williams to the ongoing debate about religious freedom and the role of religion in civil government.

Freedom for Me, and Perhaps for Thee

The 17th century Puritans had acquired their name because of their belief that the Church of England needed to be purified from the vestiges of Roman Catholic worship and teachings.11 Their conviction that God had created society as a unified whole led them to conclude that not only the church but all of English society needed reform.12 Those Puritans who believed the church was too corrupt to be reformed advocated for separation from the Church of England. Roger Williams was of this latter group of Puritans – a Separatist.13

England, the Puritans believed, was God’s chosen land with which he had made a special covenant, as with Israel of old.14 Yet, England had breached the covenant relationship with God by failing to renounce sin. Drunkenness, card-playing, whoring and dancing were some of those sins, plus the Crown’s “refusal to seek out and punish Catholics, the open celebration of Mass in royal palaces, [and] the Church of England’s drift toward Catholicism.”15 The Puritans feared that God would soon abandon England. Because of their views the Puritans were persecuted.16 This, along with their belief that England was suffering under the judgments of God, propelled the Puritans toward the New World with the goal of creating a haven for religious freedom. But these Puritans had loftier goals yet. They believed they too were following in the footsteps of ancient Israel, “an elect nation destined to lead the world back to God’s true religion and end the tyranny of Antichrist.”17 Thus, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony the Puritans aimed to create a city on a hill, the New Jerusalem, God’s chosen nation in the New World.18 Unlike England, which had broken her covenant with God, the government of New England would be based “upon laws which in all causes would follow the rule of God’s word.”19 Massachusetts would be a “commonwealth of the godly.”20 In this society, church and state would be “intimately interwoven.”21

The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony believed in religious freedom – or at least in a limited type of religious freedom. To the Puritans religious liberty was the freedom to live a life which the ruling authorities defined as “good and godly.” And it was the responsibility of those same authorities to see to it that each citizen lived a godly life.22 If the government did not curb sin, the Puritans believed, “society would fall apart.”23 Governor Winthrop argued that freedom to simply do as one chose was “evil and corrupt” and that genuine liberty meant “libertye to that onely which is good” and “to quietly and cheerfully submit, into that Authoritye which is sett ouer you.”24 In other words, religious freedom to the Puritans was religious freedom for me and those who agree with me.

Roger Williams: the Separatist

It was Roger Williams’ skill in shorthand – and “his intelligence, his earnestness, his intensity” – that caught the attention of Sir Edward Coke, the famed English jurist.25 Perhaps Coke needed a stenographer or maybe he saw in Williams a protégé he could pour himself into. Regardless, at the age of twelve or thirteen, Williams went to work for Coke. Coke and Williams became so close that the older man often referred to Williams as his son, with Williams warmly reciprocating the affection.26 In the following years Coke took Williams with him wherever he went. Williams was at Coke’s side as he represented “great and important clients” and served in numerous important offices, including Speaker of the House of Commons, attorney general for two monarchs, chief justice of the King’s Bench, and member of the King’s Privy Council.27 With Williams, Coke met with kings and went to Parliament. No doubt these experiences, including watching Coke secure the passage of the Petition of Right in 1628, left a deep impression on the young Williams and influenced his views on individual rights, law and government.

But Williams would grow beyond Coke. His views on religious freedom would spring from his own deep, Christian convictions. He was “neither a lawyer nor [a] revolutionary. Yet he would articulate legal principles and a definition of freedom more original and more far-reaching than his mentor’s, and he would become a revolutionary.”28

On February 5, 1631, Williams arrived in Boston harbor on board the Lyon.29 The recently established church in Boston was urgently in need of a pastor since their own was temporarily returning to England on the same ship that had brought Williams to America. Additionally, most churches had two ministers – a pastor and a teacher. Williams’ reputation as a pious and godly minister had preceded him and when the church leaders in Boston met him, they liked him and promptly offered him the post of teacher.30 As John Barry notes, this was an extraordinary opportunity for Williams. As a young man “no older than twenty-eight and possibly younger,” he was being invited to occupy one of the most influential positions in English America.31 But Williams did not jump at the opportunity. Instead, he met with the Boston church leaders and questioned them about their beliefs and practices. In the end, he declined the offer stating, with startling bluntness, “I durst not officiate to an unseparated people.”32 Williams’ rejection of this opportunity of a lifetime highlights the premium he placed on religious purity. And for Williams, the pursuit of separation from the world was foundational to his understanding of religious liberty.33

Stephen N. Allred is Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council, a religious liberty ministry of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He is a licensed attorney and an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

The Lamb symbolizes Jesus Christ, and John, the author of Revelation, observes that the earth beast has some lamblike virtues. America was founded on the idea of civil and religious liberty and the separation of church and state - radical ideas at the time. The concepts of civil and religious liberty find support in Jesus Christ Himself, who never coerced in matters of faith and came to save and not destroy (Luke 9:56 NKJV). The early Adventist publication the American Sentinel summarized a “Christian theory of government” this way:

“The SENTINEL espouses the Christian theory of government; the theory enunciated by Christ: that man shall render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s and to God the things which are God’s; the theory that so far, as man or civil government is concerned, the heathen, or the infidel, or the atheist, has just as much right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as the Christian has; the theory that under civil government any man has just as much right not to worship God as the Christian has to worship him; the theory that, though a man be a Christian, he is not thereby entitled to authority or lordship over other men’s consciences or rights; the theory that will reach all men by the power of truth, in love and persuasive reason, and not by the power of the sword or of civil law, in bitter persecution and oppressive force.”1

Like the earth beast, the United States arose to international prominence sometime after the sea beast received its deadly wound in the late 1700’s. According to Revelation, this earth beast then grows to exercise worldwide domination. All along, the prophecy predicts that America “speaks like the dragon.” The dragon, of course, is Satan himself. Revelation 12 also describes the dragon attempting to destroy Jesus as a baby and then later giving its power, seat and great authority to the sea beast — characteristics indicating that the dragon also represents the Roman Empire.

Early Adventists saw the violation of human rights - both civil and religious - as evidence of America speaking like the dragon. For example, one Bible scholar, John N. Andrews said this:

“In appearance he is like a harmless lamb but when he raises his voice in acts of authority his dragon-like character is revealed. This is a two-faced hypocritical beast that first appears with mildness and equity but has the fierce prompting of a dragon heart. The institution of slavery most clearly reveals the dragon spirit of this hypocritical nation.”2

According to the prophecy, the dragon talk - the violation of civil and religious liberties - would continue until this nation would make “the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.” Rev. 13:12 NIV. Religious coercion would follow the general violation of civil rights.

Christian Nationalism

Adventists saw a partial fulfillment of Revelation 13 in the late 1800’s with the advent of what they called “National Christianity” manifested through the National Reform Association, a political movement led by Christian church leaders. When the NRA lobbied for a “Christian amendment” to the United States Constitution, the Adventists mounted a sustained opposition campaign. The Sentinel observed that the “avowed purpose of the National Reform Party is to secure an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, by which every man will be compelled to acknowledge that God is Sovereign, that Christ is Ruler, and that the Bible is the supreme law. Whether a man believes it or not, is no difference, he must be compelled to acknowledge it because they profess to believe it.”3

The NRA’s goal was to

“Give all men to understand that this is a Christian nation; and that, believing that without Christianity we perish, we must maintain by all right means our Christian character. Inscribe this character on our Constitution... Enforce upon all that come among us the laws of Christian morality.”4

In addition to a constitutional amendment, members of the NRA also advocated for a national Sunday rest law.

Adventists opposed the idea of declaring America a Christian nation and enforcing religious morality5 because they believed it was contrary to the teaching and example of Jesus and warned against in Bible prophecy. Adventist leader Ellen White wrote:

“The National Reform movement, exercising the power of religious legislation, will, when fully developed, manifest the same intolerance and oppression that have prevailed in past ages. Human councils then assumed the prerogatives of Deity, crushing under their despotic power liberty of conscience; and imprisonment, exile, and death followed for those who opposed their dictates.”6

White also called this Christian amendment movement “the plain, direct fulfillment of prophecy”7 Revelation had foretold that it was through enforcement of false worship that America would again speak like the dragon, and Adventists understood that force in matters of faith - even if it was the Christian faith - was from the dragon and not of God.

Subscribe now

Christian America: The False Prophet

The prophecy continues, noting that America transforms from a “lamblike beast” to what John the Revelator later calls “the false prophet” (see Rev. 19:20).

“And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people.Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.” Rev. 13:13-14 NIV.

The Bible indicates that a dramatic shift takes place in America, with religion dominating the American government. The prophecy indicates that this religion will be a form of Christianity. How do we know that? First, Jesus Himself tells us that before His return “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time.” Matt. 24:24-25 NIV.

Jesus explicitly warns that false prophets will show “great signs and wonders” to deceive, if possible, the elect. John seems to be pointing us back to the words of Jesus when he uses the same Greek words in Revelation 13, telling us that America will transform into a false prophet and deceive the world by performing “great signs”.

How will these false prophets and Christs come and manifest themselves? Again, Jesus explicitly tells us: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.”Matt. 24:4-5 NIV.

Jesus tells us that the false prophets who deceive many will come in His name. According to Jesus, the false prophets to look out for are the ones coming as Christians - which makes sense if the goal is to deceive. America will transform into a “Christian” government that claims to speak for Jesus and performs signs and wonders in His name.

Additionally, the prophecy tells us that America will order the world “to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.” Rev. 13:13-14 NIV. All the Protestant reformers interpreted the sea beast of Revelation 13:1-10 as representing the medieval Roman church - a Christian church that dominated the state. According to this prophecy, the United States will create a Christian government that looks like the medieval papacy and impose that form of government on the world.

In her classic book, The Great Controversy, Ellen White wrote the following:

“In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends…When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the State to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.”8

American Imperialism

America’s founding fathers wanted a “country without a king and a church without a pope.” Adventists had thus interpreted the two lamblike horns on the American beast to represent civil and religious liberty, or republicanism and protestantism, the ideas which they believed had made America great. Protestantism had championed the idea of the separation of church and state as a protection for liberty of conscience, and republicanism was the rejection of monarchy and the idea that the power of government rested with the people.

As such, National Christianity - a repudiation of true protestantism - wasn’t the only thing Adventists protested against. They also protested against imperialism. After all, the prophecy predicted that America would exercise “all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and [make] the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast…” Rev. 13:12 NIV.

When the United States annexed the Philippines in 1899, “[t]he majority consensus among Protestant Americans was that the United States had the right to impose rule over the Filipinos in order to ‘civilize’ the ‘barbaric’ natives by evangelizing them.” However, historian Jeffrey Rosario observes that “Adventist leaders were among the few anti-imperialist voices who dissented from the majority opinion and opposed the United States’ imperialist policy in the Philippines.” Writing about Alonzo T. Jones, Rosario says the following:

“Basing his critique on an understanding of Bible prophecy, Jones was adamant about applying Revelation 13’s lamblike beast to America’s infringements on republicanism, and not merely religious liberty issues. While most Adventist expositors pointed to America’s apostasy from the principles of Protestantism, ‘very little has been said about the apostasy of the nation from its fundamental principle of republicanism.’ Imperialism, Jones maintained, was a breach of both the principles of Protestantism and republicanism, and failure to recognize that fact would result in missing out on the opportunity of declaring ‘the true significance’ of America’s current events in light of Revelation’s prophecy.”9

In harmony with this idea, White herself had warned that the United States would eventually “repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican government…”10

Today’s Attacks on Civil and Religious Liberty

Today, America is again seeing the rise of “National Christianity,” a direct challenge to the idea of protestantism and the separation of church and state. Bettina Krause has documented how Vice President J.D. Vance recently argued that state and local governments ought to be able to legislate in matters of religion, and Timon Cline, at the most recent National Conservativism Conference in Washington, D. C. “spoke nostalgically of a pre-Everson America, where ‘states had robust blasphemy, Sabbath, and obscenity laws. Proselytizing was not a free-for-all. Morals were as regulated as health and safety.’”

Earlier this month, the influential Heritage Foundation, the authors of Project 2025, released a special report advocating legislation promoting “A uniform day of rest that limits commercial activity.” Their rationale? Such a day “can provide temporal boundaries that help communities to set aside time for religious observance, family gatherings, outdoor activities, and rest. A stable base of research shows that these practices correlate with better mental health, stronger social bonds, and more stable family structures.”

America is also seeing new and unprecedented challenges to the concept of republicanism. America has long had imperialistic tendencies, from the Philippines to Afghanistan - and now Venezuela (and Greenland?). Additionally, the erosion of civil liberties has taken place under both Democratic and Republican administrations, undermining the principle of republicanism. However, the recent rapid acceleration of the concept of the unitary executive, championed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by the current administration, is alarming. It undermines Congressional oversight of the executive branch and weakens the separation of powers. The founders feared a monarchy and “to guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called ‘the foetus of monarchy.’”11

The Bill of Rights was created by men who had themselves experienced oppression from the British crown, including warrantless searches and seizures by armed men who worked for the king. They thus ratified the Fourth Amendment, which states as follows:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV

The idea of the Fourth Amendment is this: no executive, deciding alone, should have the right to invade people’s homes, etc., without first having a proper warrant from a neutral magistrate. Alarmingly, today several news outlets are reporting that “A newly disclosed whistleblower complaint indicates that Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorized its officers to enter homes without judicial warrants in the cases of people with deportation orders, a sweeping reversal of longstanding rules.” And this is just one example. Actions like these undermine the very concepts behind the Bill of Rights and can only lead to the further erosion of rights for all Americans.

What Do We Do Now?

When National Christianity was threatening America’s religious freedom in the 1880s, Ellen White wrote the following:

“It is our duty, as we see the signs of approaching peril, to arouse to action. Let none sit in calm expectation of the evil, comforting themselves with the belief that this work must go on because prophecy has foretold it, and that the Lord will shelter His people. We are not doing the will of God if we sit in quietude, doing nothing to preserve liberty of conscience. Fervent, effectual prayer should be ascending to heaven that this calamity may be deferred until we can accomplish the work which has so long been neglected. Let there be most earnest prayer, and then let us work in harmony with our prayers.”12

That is still good advice in 2026.

Revelation 18 predicts a repeat - but on steroids - of Revelation 14’s message warning against the union of the church and the state. “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’…For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her…”. Rev. 18:2, 3 NIV. Babylon represents apostate Christianity in all its forms. According to the prophecy, Babylon will make all the nations drink of her teachings - and the political leaders will be intimate with her. God’s people will warn against this union of church and state.

The Good News

But there’s a bright side to all of this! What happens next is amazing. Jesus Himself speaks from heaven.

“Then I heard another voice from heaven say: ‘Come out of her, my people,’ so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.” Rev. 18:4-5 NIV.

And people will listen!

“The great work of the gospel is not to close with less manifestation of the power of God than marked its opening. The prophecies which were fulfilled in the outpouring of the former rain at the opening of the gospel are again to be fulfilled in the latter rain at its close. Here are “the times of refreshing” to which the apostle Peter looked forward when he said: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus.” Acts 3:19, 20.

Servants of God, with their faces lighted up and shining with holy consecration, will hasten from place to place to proclaim the message from heaven. By thousands of voices, all over the earth, the warning will be given. Miracles will be wrought, the sick will be healed, and signs and wonders will follow the believers. Satan also works, with lying wonders, even bringing down fire from heaven in the sight of men. Revelation 13:13. Thus the inhabitants of the earth will be brought to take their stand…Notwithstanding the agencies combined against the truth, a large number take their stand upon the Lord’s side.”13

And then God will judge Babylon and the False Prophet and all the oppressive powers of this earth.

“But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.” Revelation 19:20 NIV

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Stephen N. Allred is Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council, a religious liberty ministry of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

In January 1886, Seventh-day Adventists in California launched The American Sentinel, a monthly periodical aimed at upholding the separation of church and state in America. The first issue noted that its purpose was “the defence of American Institutions, the preservation of the United States Constitution as it is, so far as regards religious tests, and the maintenance of human rights, both civil and religious.” The Sentinel argued that it would “ever be uncompromisingly opposed to anything tending toward a union of Church and State, either in name or in fact.” The Sentinel’s opponent was none other than the National Reform Association, an organization promoting Christian nationalism in America, a phenomenon the Sentinel called “National Christianity.”1

Organized in 1864, the National Reform Association had originally formed with two goals: “the abolition of slavery and an amendment to the Constitution making the United States a Christian state.” Many Adventists were active social reformers, believing that the golden rule should shape their social values. Thus, along with the NRA, Adventists had argued for the abolition of slavery and the prohibition of alcohol. The NRA had loftier goals, however, and with the ending of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment, they aimed to finish the job of reforming America by amending the U.S. Constitution and declaring America’s government officially Christian.

Societal Justice, Yes. Religious Legislation, No.

While Adventists could unite in efforts to encourage civility and social justice, religious laws were of a different nature altogether. Leaders like Ellen G. White and Alonzo T. Jones drew the line at any kind of religious legislation, with White writing:

“The National Reform movement, exercising the power of religious legislation, will, when fully developed, manifest the same intolerance and oppression that have prevailed in past ages. Human councils then assumed the prerogatives of Deity, crushing under their despotic power liberty of conscience; and imprisonment, exile, and death followed for those who opposed their dictates.”2

The NRA wanted more than mere societal justice - they wanted America’s government to enforce private Christian morality and religion. In contrast, Adventists opposed these goals. “We believe,” the Sentinel’s editors wrote, “in strictly keeping the moral law, in deed, in word, and in thought; but we decidedly oppose the project of the National Reformers to put civil government into the realm of morals, to make civil rulers moral governors, and to make a set of ambitious clerics the supervisors of men’s thoughts and the conservators of men’s consciences.”3 For a broader discussion on legislating morality and religion, see: Should Religion Be Legislated - And What About Public Morality?”

For her part, Ellen G. White endorsed the message of The American Sentinel, writing in 1889 that

“The Sentinel has been in God’s order, one of the voices sounding the alarm, that the people might hear and realize their danger and do the work required at the present time… Let every worker for God comprehend the situation and place the Sentinel before our churches, explaining its contents and urging home the facts and warnings it contains.”4

Adventist Opposition to Making the Bible the Law of the Land

Nevertheless, the National Reform Association rapidly gained popularity, with a supermajority of evangelical church leaders soon subscribing to its platform. The Sentinel observed that the

“avowed purpose of the National Reform Party is to secure an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, by which every man will be compelled to acknowledge that God is Sovereign, that Christ is Ruler, and that the Bible is the supreme law. Whether a man believes it or not, is no difference, he must be compelled to acknowledge it because they profess to believe it.”

The Sentinel then went on to quote from the NRA’s official publication, the Christian Statesman, which further described their goal to “Give all men to understand that this is a Christian nation; and that, believing that without Christianity we perish, we must maintain by all right means our Christian character. Inscribe this character on our Constitution... Enforce upon all that come among us the laws of Christian morality.”5

Subscribe now

Sunday Laws and Religion in Public Schools

Under this broader umbrella, many NRA members also promoted Sunday legislation, Puritanical blasphemy laws, and government-led Bible reading in public schools. Adventists had already experienced the brunt of religious legislation when many were jailed for breaking state Sunday laws. This had undoubtedly awakened in them the desire to advocate for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. But Adventists, including the Sentinel’s editors, advocated for much more than mere Sabbath accommodation or against Sunday laws. They argued that the religion of Jesus precluded any use of force in matters of religion or faith and held that the church should not legislate in matters of religion, period. In short, when it came to any kind of religious legislation, Adventists believed that the church and state should remain separate. Sunday laws were merely the symptom of a deeper problem: coercion in matters of faith. The Sentinel argued against the National Reform Association’s proposed Christian amendment to the US Constitution, and they also argued in favor of public education and against “a scheme of religious exercise, worship, and instruction, in the public schools throughout the Nation…”6

To the NRA, the matter at hand was a holy war, and they believed God was on their side. Only evangelical Christians would be recognized as first class citizens in the NRA’s America. In the Christian Statesman the NRA’s W.J. Coleman had written:

“What effect would the adoption of the Christian Amendment, together with the proposed changes in the Constitution, have upon those who deny that God is the Sovereign, Christ the Ruler, and the Bible the law? This brings up the conscience question at once.... The classes who would object are, as ‘Truth Seeker’ has said, Jews, infidels, atheists, and others. These classes are perfectly satisfied with the Constitution as it is. How would they stand toward it, if it recognized the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ? To be perfectly plain, I believe that the existence of a Christian Constitution would disfranchise every logically consistent infidel.”7

No Authority or Lordship Over Other Men’s Consciences or Rights

Because of their opposition to the NRA’s agenda, the National Reformers accused Adventists of siding with atheists and infidels. In an attempt to humiliate their opponents, the editors of the Christian Statesman asked: “Does the SENTINEL espouse the secular or infidel theory of government?” Over at The American Sentinel, A.T. Jones responded by arguing that Christians should have nothing to do with enforcing religion by law:

“The SENTINEL espouses the Christian theory of government; the theory enunciated by Christ: that man shall render to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s and to God the things which are God’s; the theory that so far, as man or civil government is concerned, the heathen, or the infidel, or the atheist, has just as much right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as the Christian has; the theory that under civil government any man has just as much right not to worship God as the Christian has to worship him; the theory that, though a man be a Christian, he is not thereby entitled to authority or lordship over other men’s consciences or rights; the theory that will reach all men by the power of truth, in love and persuasive reason, and not by the power of the sword or of civil law, in bitter persecution and oppressive force…”.

Jones ended with this challenge: “That is the theory of government which the SENTINEL espouses. Does the Christian Statesman agree with it? If not, why not? Come now, don’t dodge.”8

Stephen N. Allred is the Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council, a religious liberty ministry of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

One of the fundamental problems with Christian nationalism is that it insists, contrary to the example of Jesus, that Christianity should be imposed as the law of the land. It teaches that America’s government is a Christian one and that it should favor Christians.1 What’s wrong with these goals?

Roger Williams, the devoutly Christian founder of Rhode Island, argued that civil government could legitimately enforce the moral principles contained on the second table of the Ten Commandments— those commands that deal with social relationships and public morality. In other words, civil government can legitimately regulate certain behavior between human beings. But Williams also argued that civil government may never legislate the first table of the Ten Commandments— the commandments that deal with religion, private morality, and the worship of a deity. Unfortunately, Christian nationalism ignores this distinction.

Williams argued that Jesus didn’t seek political power or employ force in matters of faith, so neither should His followers. Ellen White agreed, writing that “God never forces the will or the conscience; but Satan’s constant resort— to gain control of those whom he cannot otherwise seduce— is compulsion by cruelty...” Ellen G. White, Darkness Before Dawn, p. 35. She continued, warning that “Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines.” Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 443

In her writings, White critiqued the Christian nationalism of her day — largely represented by an organization called the National Reform Association. In 1890, the NRA published a “Manual of Christian Civil Government” in which they said their goal was to “secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will… indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.”

In her classic book, The Desire of Ages, White wrote:

“Today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority. Since Christ is not now here in person, they themselves will undertake to act in His stead, to execute the laws of His kingdom…The establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ. They would have received Jesus, had He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His will and the agents of His authority.” Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 509

If you want to read more about this, check out our article on Christian nationalism and the kingdom of God.

Legislating Public Morality: A More Nuanced Discussion

What seems clear is that Christians are never called to enforce religion— which has to do with worship and spiritual matters— on others through the state. Instead, when it comes to spiritual matters, we are called to appeal to people’s free choice as we share the gospel of God’s gift of salvation.

But what about issues that aren’t inherently religious but instead are about human moral behavior? Should we allow our biblical social values to inform how we vote? Should we engage as citizens in advocating for public morality and social justice? I would argue that we can, if we do so thoughtfully and guided by the golden rule.

In my book, Do Justice: The Case for Biblical Social Justice, I wrote the following:

[A] “useful tool that clarifies which moral principles should be made into laws and which should be left to individual conscience is the distinction between public morality and private morality. For our purposes, public morality can be defined as a behavior that somehow [tangibly] harms other people… while private morality can be defined as a behavior that causes no direct harm to society and therefore should be left to individual conscience or preference. Public morality can legitimately be regulated by the state, while the state would be overstepping its bounds to regulate private morality.”Do Justice: The Case for Biblical Social Justice, pp. 89-90.

In other words, harmful (and immoral) behaviors such as murder, theft, and child abuse should be regulated by the state. But private behaviors between consenting adults, even if considered immoral from a religious standpoint, should not necessarily be regulated by the state.

As Lemuel Sapian has written: “The answer to sexual confusion is not silence, nor is it the temptation to confuse the Church’s authority with the power of the civil magistrate. The answer is faithful proclamation, freedom of conscience, and a Church that first lives the holiness it calls the world to embrace. Paul reminds us that our first responsibility is not to moralize the world into behaving like the Church, but to ensure that the Church actually lives as the Church.”

Furthermore, in a pluralistic society such as America is today we don’t win people over by imposing “Christian morality,” as such, on non-believers. Instead, we should do what Francis D. Nichol, a long-time editor of the Review and Herald, articulated back in the 1950s:

“I cannot see how we, as champions of religious liberty, can safely enter into the discussion of laws at all unless we ever hold to the clear-cut principle that civil statutes must be built upon and defended by civil reasons. This, of course, does not say for a moment that various civil prohibitory laws, such as those against murder, robbery, and so forth, are not also found in the Good Book. It means that if we are going to avoid confusing the realm of the religious and the civil, we must find a sufficient justification on civil grounds for these various statutes, altogether apart from any Biblical arguments.” Francis D. Nichol, Answers to Objections (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1952), p. 858.

When Christians come to the public square, we should promote legislation with civil reasons that, while they may be informed by our Christian social values, can be understood and shared by all people, Christian and non-Christian alike. At the same time, we should never support government coercion in matters of faith or any kind of religious legislation.

One Christian politician articulated this well:

“My faith shapes my values, but applying those values to policymaking must be done with principles that are accessible to all people, religious or not. Even so, those who enter the public square are not required to leave their beliefs at the door.” Senator Barak Obama, “Politicians need not abandon religion”, USA Today, 2006.

In summary, arguing for societal morality with “principles that are accessible to all people, religious or not” fits exactly with what Jesus told us: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Luke 6:31 NIV. If we would not want to be coerced in matters of faith or private morality, we should not coerce others in matters of faith or private morality.

Subscribe now

Why Would the Devil Promote Religious Legislation?

Why would the Devil be behind efforts to enforce Christianity as the law of the land? For an answer, look back to the biblical book of Acts. The church was persecuted and politically powerless, yet it was spiritually alive and grew by leaps and bounds. Satan knew that a church dependent on God’s Spirit, even if persecuted, would continue to thrive and grow. So the Devil changed his strategy and, through the emperors Constantine and Theodosius, gave the church something it never had before: political power. At first, this change seemed innocuous, and even good. But what slowly happened? The church that was persecuted began to persecute. Instead of being filled with the Holy Spirit, the church was drunk with a different kind of power which it used to persecute dissenters.

In the words of Pastor Ben Cremer,

“One lesson that we Christians have not learned in the last 2,000 years is that Jesus had no political control over the Roman Empire and he still changed the entire world. We keep trying to change the world the way the Roman Empire did, instead of the way Jesus did.”

Once again, Satan wishes to destroy the church with political power. It seems innocuous and even good, but the inevitable result will be the persecution of religious minorities. And in the end, it will be the downfall of the church - the ultimate fall of Babylon. The last message Jesus gives to the world before His return is a warning against spiritual adultery to a church that cheats on her heavenly Spouse, committing adultery with the kings of the earth (Rev. 14:6-12; 17:2).

So, what can we do now? Pray, and ask God how you can use your influence to speak out against the unification of church and state, and instead encourage God’s people to pray and seek His face for the true Power from above.

Stephen N. Allred is the Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

But what you don’t see is the apostles urging the fledgling church to rise up and take over the governments of Rome or Judea, or even telling them to conquer territory where they could set up a Christian kingdom on earth. Instead, those first Christians lived out the words of the song: “This world is not my home, I’m just a passing through.” In the book of Acts, we find the followers of Jesus concerned with little else than preaching the good news about Jesus to everyone they met and ministering to the poor and needy. The church was so filled with the power of the Holy Spirit that people— and often their enemies— fell in love with Jesus. Those first Christians were obsessed with Jesus and His mission.

And that obsession led to persecution. In fact, Jesus had predicted it: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” John 16:33 ESV

How did Jesus tell them they were to respond to persecution?

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves… you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Matt. 10:16, 22 ESV

Additionally, Jesus told them to love and rejoice, even in the face of persecution: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” Matt. 5:43-44 ESV

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Matt. 5:11-12 ESV

And what did He say would keep them going?

The knowledge that “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5:10 ESV

One of those early disciples, Peter, suffered persecution himself. About thirty years after the ascension of Jesus, he wrote his first epistle to a church that had continued to face almost constant persecution. He encouraged the church to live such good lives that people would have a hard time believing the bad things said about Christ-followers.

Following Jesus Today

What about us today? How do we, as followers of Jesus, know how to relate to those who persecute us?

Is it appropriate for Christians to assert their civil rights? If so, how?

Jesus Himself asserted his legal rights while standing before Caiaphas. “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” John 18:23 NIV. Jesus, it seems, was taking an opportunity to point out injustice.

Of course, Jesus also allowed Himself to be unjustly condemned and executed. His prayer of forgiveness for His enemies demonstrated divine love even in the face of the most egregious miscarriage of justice of all time.

In at least two other cases, we see the early Christians asserting their civil rights. Paul and Silas were accused of disturbing the peace and subsequently beaten and imprisoned. Under Roman law, citizens had certain rights not enjoyed by noncitizens. Paul asserted those rights to the newly converted jailer. The jailer told Paul, “The magistrates have ordered that you and Silas be released. Now you can leave. Go in peace.” But Paul said to the jailer: “They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.”

“The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed. They came to appease them and escorted them from the prison, requesting them to leave the city. After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and sisters and encouraged them. Then they left.” Acts 16:36-40 NIV

Later, Paul, when appearing before the corrupt ruler Felix, again asserted his right as a Roman citizen to have his case heard by Caesar. “I appeal to Caesar.” Acts 25:11.

Citizens of Heaven First

Like the first Christians, we live in a tension as dual citizens. While our primary citizenship is in heaven, we also enjoy the rights and responsibilities of the land in which we live.

In America, for example, we have certain God-given rights which are recognized by our Constitution. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the unification of church and state by forbidding the government from establishing religion

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also guarantee that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” These protections apply to all “persons” within the United States, regardless of citizenship or legal status. As Americans and as followers of Jesus, it is appropriate for us to assert these civil rights in the spirit of Christian love and freedom.

At the same time, when a law of the land would require us to break the law of God, “we must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29. Our heavenly citizenship comes first, and we live by that kingdom’s principles above all others. When confronted with unjust earthly laws that would cause us to violate our conscience or the word of God, obedience to God requires us to engage in civil disobedience.

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote about this in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he was imprisoned for participating in nonviolent demonstrations against racial segregation. Some clergy cited Romans 13 and Paul’s admonition to submit to the governing authorities and criticized King for breaking the segregation laws. King responded with the following:

“One may well ask, ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

How does one know if a law is unjust? King argued that “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

Each of us has to determine when and how we will respond to unjust laws. But again, when a law requires us to disobey God, the Bible makes it clear that “we must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29.

Called to Be Peacemakers

In the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught that the peacemakers will be blessed. Paul reminds us to, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” Romans 12:18 ESV. This includes how we relate to the rulers of this world.

Even when faithfulness to God requires us to disobey the law of the land, we are to “be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (Colossians 4:5–6, NIV).

Ellen White reminds us that we don’t check our Christianity at the door just because we’re dealing with the government or political issues:

“The less we make direct charges against authorities and powers, the greater work we shall be able to accomplish...If we wish men to be convinced that the truth we believe sanctifies the soul and transforms the character, let us not be continually charging them with vehement accusations. In this way we shall force them to the conclusion that the doctrine we profess cannot be the Christian doctrine, since it does not make us kind, courteous, and respectful. Christianity is not manifested in pugilistic accusations and condemnation.”

Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, pp. 395–397

However, like John the Baptist, who “rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done,” (Luke 3:19, NIV), we may be called to speak truth to power in the face of lies and evil. Yet, like Jesus, we will always do it in love.

The Example of the Three Worthies

The three worthies of Daniel chapter 3 show us a good example of this. They respectfully obeyed King Nebuchadnezzar as far as they could by coming to the dedication of the image - even though they likely knew what the king’s real agenda was. But when the king required them to disobey God, they respectfully but firmly refused. The king attempted to destroy them, but God used their faithfulness to eventually save their persecutor and to inspire people to the end of time.

Like them, we must remember that even our enemies are candidates for the kingdom of heaven. In fact, according to Jesus, what makes His followers different from the pagans is simply this: we don’t love only our friends; we love even our enemies (Matt. 5:43-47).

Loving our enemies is only possible through a divine miracle. That love begins growing within us when we realize that Jesus loved us— you and me— when we were His enemies (Rom. 5:10). How amazing is that! And who are we to withhold that love from others?

One day, Jesus will return. His people will no longer be persecuted and oppressed. We will reign victorious in that heavenly kingdom (Dan. 7:27). And when that kingdom comes, there will be those who, like Saul of Tarsus, once persecuted but who responded to divine love, reversed course, and became mighty champions of God’s love.

Pray this prayer with me: Lord, make me an instrument of Your truth, Your peace, and Your love in a world that needs to see who You really are.

Subscribe now

Stephen N. Allred is Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

A few days ago, I was startled by a headline that read: “Trump administration plans to send hundreds of Guatemalan children in government custody back to their home country.” The article told the story of how hundreds of children who came to America “unaccompanied” were now being returned to Guatemala — in the “wee hours of the morning,” I later learned. “Internally, officials have called the removals repatriations and not deportations…implying the children impacted are not being involuntarily removed. Advocates and former officials, however, expressed skepticism about [the] children’s understanding of their removal, particularly because many don’t have attorneys.”1 For obvious reasons, generally even repatriations of children must be approved by an immigration judge. Within hours, a judge had temporarily blocked the planned deportations until a hearing could be held.

It made me wonder: if all of these minors were being reunited with a parent or guardian in Guatemala, why the rush and secrecy on the part of the government? Immigrant advocacy groups argued that many of the children did not meet the criteria to be deported - meaning, they had no parent or guardian to return to in Guatemala.

Regardless of who’s at fault for the fact that these children are unaccompanied, we should care what happens to them, shouldn’t we?

I recalled the hundreds of children who were forcefully separated from their parents under the first Trump administration. What had happened to them, I wondered? I found a report which alleged that “the government refused, in many cases for days or weeks, to disclose the circumstances and whereabouts of separated children to their parents.” The report indicates that the family separation policy was intentional, even though it wasn’t necessary.

“Some children sobbed uncontrollably. Many felt abandoned. Nearly all were bewildered, not least because immigration officials would not tell them where their parents were or gave responses that proved to be lies. Children forcibly separated from their parents experienced anxiety, had nightmares, regressed to earlier developmental stages, or found it difficult to trust others and form attachments. Some lashed out. Others stopped speaking.”2

In the words of two doctors who served as experts for the DHS Office for Civil Rights, the policy amounted to “‘an act of state-sponsored child abuse,’…and a Border Patrol agent described his role in carrying out forcible family separations as ‘the most horrible thing I’ve ever done.’”

The point of this policy was to use separation to deter asylum seekers from coming to the US border. As of late 2024, Human Rights Watch reported that “as many as 1,360 children have never been reunited with their parents six years after the United States government forcibly separated them at the US border to deter migrants.” Over thirteen hundred children taken from their parents and never reunited? That is cruelty at its worst. And there’s a word we have for this kind of separation — kidnapping. And kidnapping, regardless of who does it, is evil.

The Pro-Life Movement

In the midst of all of this stands conservative American Christianity, which during the past 50 years has become synonymous with the pro-life movement. In 1976, the Republican Party adopted an anti-abortion position as a reaction against Roe v. Wade. Many evangelical Christians flocked to the party and then helped elect Ronald Reagan, who championed the issue, in the next presidential election. Like many Christian churches, my own denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, has taken a “pro-life” position against elective abortions.

Does Pro-Life Include Caring for Immigrant Children?

But what does it mean for Christians to be pro-life? Is it limited to defending prenatal life? Does being pro-life include caring for children after they are born? Does it include caring about the quality of a child’s life, or is it only about making sure children have the right to merely exist? And does it include immigrant children?

While abortion is always a bad thing, the Bible does not speak explicitly to the issue of abortion. This is not to say that there are not important principles from the Bible that teach us to protect prenatal life - there are. And we can and should care about the issue of abortion.3 But if we care about abortion, an issue that the Bible does not explicitly address, shouldn’t we also care about issues the Bible does speak directly and explicitly to — issues like speaking up for the fatherless and orphan and not oppressing the foreigner and stranger?

Just a couple of days ago, I received an email from a prominent conservative Christian legal advocacy group with the subject line: “Children Are a Gift, Not a Commodity.” Was the email about unaccompanied minors? No, it was about the evils of IVF. Again, it is good and fine for Christians to have convictions about protecting prenatal life. But what strikes me as strange is that those who are the most obsessed with prenatal life are often the ones silent about the separation of 5-year-olds from their immigrant parents. Do we really care about all kids, or only unborn American kids? I was heartened that many religious leaders— including some conservative Christian leaders— spoke out against the Trump administration’s family separation policy in 2018. But why are we silent now?

Subscribe now

God Takes Up the Cause of the Fatherless and Foreigner

The fact is that over and over again in Scripture, God Himself takes up the case of the orphan and the destitute foreigner— often joining their cause together as one:

“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry.” Exodus 22:21-23 NIV.

“Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.” Exodus 23:9 NIV.

“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 19:34 NIV.

“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.” Deuteronomy 10:18 NIV.

“Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.” Deuteronomy 24:17 NIV.

Read those verses again. Let their message sink in. God is trying to tell us something here. Additionally, the sheer number of verses that command fairness and kindness to the foreigner - and these verses are only a sampling - should tell us that God cares about all people— including those who we consider outsiders and strangers.

Pro-Life for All

Every human being, no matter their nationality or race, is made in God’s image. Yes, this includes children in the womb, but it most definitely also includes Guatemalan children confined in an ICE facility who are often being carelessly moved around like pawns on a chessboard.

The Bible explicitly speaks to how we should treat people— both born and unborn— and it makes no distinction as to whether those persons are “documented” or citizens of a particular nation. Nations can and should have immigration policies, but as Christians, we must advocate for those policies to be fair and just, not cruel and capricious. And if we are truly pro-life, we will care about all children created in the image of God, both born and unborn.

Remember, our mission is a simple one: to share “the eternal good news” with those who live on the earth. Is this good news limited by citizenship or nationality? No, it is for “every nation, tribe, language, and people.” Rev. 14:6.

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12 NIV.

Stephen N. Allred is the Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

He continued, noting that “from the early 1900s through the 1960s, millions of predominantly white immigrants entered the country unlawfully, but faced virtually no threat of apprehension or deportation. Businesses lawfully employed these immigrants, who were eligible for public benefits when they fell on hard times.” Some of these illegal immigrants included the ancestors of well-known Americans, including Jared Kushner, whose “forebears crossed multiple European borders illegally, falsely listed a sponsor in the US, used an assumed name, and lied about their country of origin in order to enter the US in the 1930s.”

The Early Church Confronts Racism

Racism, whether structural or individual, has been around since biblical times. The early Christian church confronted the issue when “the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.” (Acts 6:1 NIV). The apostles did something admirable. Instead of sidestepping the race issue, they gathered the believers together to deal with it by selecting seven deacons to oversee the daily food distribution. What the church did next was remarkable: they elected seven men from among the very group bringing the complaint of racial discrimination. All seven deacons who were put in charge of the daily distribution were Hellenistic Jews. Talk about taking a complaint seriously!

Unfortunately, the Christian church has largely forgotten its early history. During past centuries, some Christians even became advocates of race-based slavery and segregation. The history of the American Civil War and the Civil Rights movement tell a sad story of racist views propped up by a misapplication of scripture, with prominent mainline clergy during the Civil Rights movement advocating for “separation of the races” as a biblical value.

Racism and Nationalism

Racism and nationalism— defined by Google dictionary as identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the detriment of the interests of other nations— often go hand in hand. Take Nazi Germany, for example, where Hitler accused Jews of destroying Germany and united ethnic Germans against this racial group as enemies of the state. Patriotic Germans were expected to show their love for the fatherland by getting behind the expulsion of Jews. Historian Robert P. Ericksen shows how the vast majority of Christians in Germany enthusiastically supported Hitler and his race-based persecution of the Jews, which included stripping Jews of their German citizenship and deporting them from Germany (and, of course, later exterminating over 6 million of them).

Today in America, a similar phenomenon is taking place in relation to immigrants— both legal and undocumented— and even some naturalized citizens. Our political leaders are alleging that immigrants— mostly people of color— are the cause of America’s economic and civic woes. Immigrants are portrayed as almost sub-human and therefore justifiably subject to harsh treatment, like concentration camps, (often permanently) separating small children from their parents, and deportations without due process.

Religious Nationalism

Something else is happening. A recent Department of Homeland Security recruitment video depicted armed military personnel hunting down immigrants, with a voiceover quoting a Bible verse: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then voices can be heard chanting over and over, “You can run on for a long time, sooner or later God’s gonna cut you down.” The message is that immigrants are criminals to be hunted, and that God is behind this mission.

This troubling video is just one example of how religion and nationalism are rapidly fusing together in America. Christians are expected to enthusiastically support a political ideology that includes the harsh treatment of immigrants— not because they are necessarily criminals, but simply because they are from another nation.

The evidence, however, shows that the vast majority of immigrants— including undocumented immigrants— commit far fewer crimes than native-born Americans, and only a small minority of those being targeted for deportation actually have criminal records.

Additionally, there is a racist undercurrent to much of the anti-immigration rhetoric in our country today. Without a doubt, racial profiling is happening in immigration raids around the country. By indiscriminately detaining people solely based on their race or ethnicity, or their Spanish or English accent, the immigration officers are violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires that, before detaining someone in public, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally. Those immigrants being targeted are mostly people of color. You don’t read reports of immigration agents pulling over cars filled with white people.

The Remnant and Racial Inclusion

Before Jesus returns, God has a clear message for a world inflamed by racism and divided by nationality. He makes it abundantly clear that His last-day church — the remnant of the woman’s seed (Rev. 12:17) — is an anti-racist church. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:28 NIV.

Speaking of that church, the book of Revelation portrays its message as necessarily anti-racist. Listen: “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people.” Revelation 14:6 NIV.

The message is successful because the next scene shows “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.” Rev. 7:9 NIV.

Those same people, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, are described as keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14:12). One of those commandments is the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Yet, Jesus prophesied that love for neighbor would be in short supply before His return. “Because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” Matt. 24:12 NKJV.

And racism is, at its root, devoid of love.

Anti-Racist Christianity

While some Christians have used a misinterpretation of the Bible to justify racism, others, like 19th-century writer and visionary Ellen G. White, were consistently opposed to it, writing that “Christ commissioned His disciples to proclaim a faith and worship that would have in it nothing of caste or country, a faith that would be adapted to all peoples, all nations, all classes of men” (Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 819). As an ardent abolitionist, White argued for civil disobedience in the face of the Fugitive Slave Act. After the Civil War, White was so committed to anti-racism that she argued for government aid and reparations to the former slaves and their descendants:

“Are we not under even greater obligation to labor for the colored people than for those who have been more highly favored? Who is it that held these people in servitude? Who kept them in ignorance, and pursued a course to debase and brutalize them, forcing them to disregard the law of marriage, breaking up the family relation, tearing wife from husband, and husband from wife?…Is there not much due to them from the white people? After so great a wrong has been done them, should not an earnest effort be made to lift them up?” (Ellen G. White, The Southern Work, pp. 14–15).

White also saw an opportunity for the gospel with immigrants coming to the United States, noting that it made no sense to go on missions to foreign lands when we were neglecting to love and work for the immigrants in our own land.

“The souls in China are no more precious than the souls within the shadow of our doors. God's people are to labor faithfully in distant lands, as His providence may open the way; and they are also to fulfill their duty toward the foreigners of various nationalities in the cities and villages and country districts close by.” (Ellen G. White, Christian Service, p. 199).

On a much more basic level, the Bible commands love for neighbor regardless of race or nationality. The story of the Good Samaritan is Exhibit A, with Jesus teaching that our neighbor includes any fellow human being. Jesus also spoke the words recorded in Leviticus 19:34, which states that “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” (NIV).

How Should We Respond?

As Kamasaki asked earlier, “one cannot help but wonder if they weren’t from Latin America but white immigrants from Europe, would they be treated differently?”

The history of immigration policy and practice in America seems to answer that question in the affirmative.

Which leads to another question: If we, as Christians, are supporting racially discriminatory immigration policies and practices, have we lost sight of our mission? Are we so caught up in nationalistic fervor that we think it’s justifiable to arbitrarily exclude certain groups from the good life we enjoy?

This isn’t to say that Christians cannot believe in national borders or fair immigration laws. But it is to say that a Christian cannot conscientiously support policies or practices that promote or allow cruelty or are based on unholy distinctions, like those that target or exclude certain groups based on their race.

Besides, isn’t the goal to love all people and share God’s truth with them so they can become citizens of the kingdom of heaven? Or have we let love of an earthly country eclipse our love for the kingdom of God, forgetting that we ourselves are actually “foreigners and exiles” on earth (1 Peter 2:11)?

Perhaps we need that eye salve that Jesus offers (Rev. 3:18) so that we can prioritize the mission of the kingdom of God, and see all people as God sees them: fellow human beings, created in His image, to be loved and born again into that kingdom where “whosoever believes” is freely welcomed as a citizen (John 3:16).

Stephen N. Allred is the Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

Subscribe now

The Christian and the “Law of the Land”

Scripture unequivocally asserts that, if we must choose between the two, we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). Paul instructs us to pray for government leaders and respect their authority (Romans 12–13), but he also boldly asserted his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 25:11). This precedent makes it clear: while Christians respect governing authorities, we do not owe blind obedience to human laws that stand in opposition to God’s law. The question we must ask is—what does the Bible say?

Migration in Scripture: A Story of Faith and Survival

The Bible is filled with stories of migration and immigration, demonstrating their profound role in God's plan. Abram was called to leave Ur because its society and laws were hostile to God’s ways; only in a new land could he thrive. Isaac and Jacob were also migrants, continually moving through Canaan. Jacob fled violent threats for a better future, later joining his son Joseph in Egypt to escape famine—a natural disaster that forced his entire family to migrate.

Centuries later, the Hebrews became scapegoats in Egypt, feared for their growing numbers. Oppressive laws enslaved them, culminating in a death decree to curb their population. The Hebrew midwives defied this order, resisting unjust laws to protect innocent lives. Moses’ mother likewise resisted, hiding him from Pharaoh’s soldiers. Through divine providence, an Egyptian princess rescued him, despite knowing he was a Hebrew. Moses ultimately led his people out of Egypt, fulfilling God’s promise.

Ruth, a Moabite—part of a people historically hostile to Israel—also exemplifies the significance of immigration in scripture. Though widowed, she chose to leave her homeland and embrace Israel as her own, declaring, “Your people will be my people, and your God my God.” She labored in the fields, relying on God's law, which mandated care for the poor, widows, and orphans. Eventually, she married Boaz and became an ancestor of King David—and ultimately Jesus.

Even Christ Himself was a migrant. His parents fled to Egypt to escape Herod’s massacre, forced into exile by imminent danger. Later, His earliest followers fled persecution, migrating for survival. The Apostles remind us that we are all pilgrims on this earth, longing for a New Heaven and New Earth (1 Peter 2:11; Hebrews 11:13). Migration and immigration are deeply woven into the biblical narrative, often arising from faith, natural disasters, violence, and oppression.

Migrants in the Commandments and the Gospels

God commands His people to love the stranger, forbidding persecution and abuse (Leviticus 19:33–34). Deuteronomy 10:18–19 reminds us of our own migrant history, insisting that foreigners be treated with dignity. Scripture leaves no room for discrimination—neither by race, nationality, nor gender—for “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Satan thrives on division, sowing discord among believers (James 4:1), but Christ calls us to unity and love—even for our enemies (Matthew 5:44). He commands us to preach the Gospel to all people (Mark 16:15–16) and to embrace a universal love—not one that prioritizes only those closest to us.

Some argue for an “order of love” (Ordos Amoris), suggesting that love should first be extended to those nearest to us, then to those who resemble us, and finally, to all others—if anything remains. But Jesus refuted this concept. In His parable of the Good Samaritan, the true neighbor was not the priest or Levite—those closest in kin—but the despised outsider. Christ did not say, “For God so loved the Jews,” but rather, “For God so loved the world” (John 3:16).

Conclusion: Our Calling in Today’s Crisis

Migration and immigration have always been an answer to human need—as it was in biblical times, so it is today. Religious persecution, famine, injustice, and racial oppression continue to drive people toward safety and freedom. But division, fear, and hatred of the "other" are sins that fracture God’s creation. As believers, it is our duty to resist unjust laws and advocate for righteousness.

This nation was founded upon the pursuit of religious freedom—many of our ancestors were immigrants, seeking refuge. As Christians, we are called to obey God over man, to be light in the darkness, and to teach Christ’s Gospel of universal love. True faith does not restrict compassion to those nearest to us but extends it to all, regardless of borders. We follow Christ alone, guided by the perfect law of liberty.

Subscribe now

William Davis, D. Min., is Associate Director of the Church State Council. He is an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister, and an advocate for persons with disabilities. Pastor Davis is bilingual and bicultural, and assists Spanish speaking persons seeking the Council’s assistance.

In 1888, Senator Henry Blair, a New Hampshire Republican, introduced a federal bill "to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord's day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” Subsequent efforts to enact national Sunday laws have often downplayed the religious purpose of these laws and instead promoted the social or environmental benefits of legislating a weekly rest day.

Today, the issue of a federal Sunday rest law is once again being promoted by politicians. The Trump Administration has nominated Jonathan Berry, an author of Project 2025, to an important post in the Department of Labor. As others before him, Berry argues that Sunday laws benefit the working man:

Conservatives have placed a new spotlight on the policy and politics of work. In his VP acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Senator JD Vance announced he and President Trump would “commit to the working man.” As confirmation, Trump invited Teamsters president Sean O’Brien to speak at the RNC…In an era of teleworking, smartphones, and 24/7 accessibility, it is more imperative than ever to reclaim time for rest. Restoring God’s rhythm of rest and work would make both more meaningful.

Christians and Social Justice

As a principle, Christians ought to be in favor of fairness and justice for the working man, as Berry puts it — and everyone else, for that matter. God is on the side of the vulnerable, and we should be as well. Here’s a piece I wrote a few years ago on the Adventist stance on labor unions that discusses this issue more.

Ironically, Berry, who portrays himself as a champion for workers’ rights via Sunday legislation, reportedly supports weakening workplace discrimination enforcement, which protects workers, including religious workers.

Bringing Back Blue Laws

Berry continues his argument for Sunday laws by expressing regret that the “blue laws” of the past are no more:

Unfortunately, the Sabbath norm, painstakingly built up by the Christianization of cultures over two millennia, has largely disappeared from society. Culture alone is unlikely to restore this norm, given the economic and political alignments that undergird the status quo…The revival of “blue laws” and other measures to guard Sabbath rest is thus one more example of a prudent policy intervention to protect the subjectivity, the personhood, of workers.

This is surprising language coming from a political conservative who ostensibly believes in small government and laissez-faire capitalism. But political principles and economics aside, the First Amendment actually does create a free market for religion by prohibiting the government from establishing any religion or prohibiting its free exercise. And Sunday laws, regardless of their supposed secular benefits, are religious at their core.

Sabbath Is More Than a Day Off

This is because the idea of Sabbath is about much more than a day off for the laboring man. The biblical Sabbath originated as a day of worship to God, and observance of a weekly rest day is central to Christianity and other faiths as well. While proposals to enforce Sunday as a social benefit may seem benign, the reality is that government involvement in a patently religious observance is outside the jurisdiction of any civil government. Jesus taught that God and Caesar have different realms when He said: “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matt. 22:21). No government has the right to enforce a religious observance.

There is one other small problem: not even the Bible itself commands rest or worship on Sunday!

In fact, the Bible teaches that God blessed the seventh day of the week, not the first.

“By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” Gen. 2:2-3 NIV

The Sabbath commandment in the heart of the 10 Commandments refers back to creation and reminds us to:

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy…For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Ex. 20:8, 11 NIV.

Was the seventh-day Sabbath changed by Jesus? No, in fact, Jesus, “as His custom was,” kept the seventh-day Sabbath by going to synagogue (Luke 4:16). The apostles and the early church did the same (see, e.g., Acts 16:13; 17:2), and nowhere does the Bible command people to observe Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Sabbath. As Catholic apologist Karl Keating notes, “It was the Catholic Church that changed the day in post-New Testament times.”1 And it was Emperor Constantine the Great who “introduced the first civil legislation concerning Sunday in 321, when he decreed that all work should cease on that day, except that farmers could work if necessary. That law, aimed at providing time for worship, was followed later in the same century and in subsequent centuries by further restrictions on Sunday activities.”

The biblical book of Revelation chapter 13 indicates that false worship will be enforced by law right before Jesus comes. By bowing to the false worship, people will show their allegiance to a state which has taken upon itself the task of enforcing religion, but those who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” will show their allegiance to God (Rev. 14:12).

Worship Must Be Voluntary

But even if policymakers were proposing Saturday-Sabbath rest laws — the day which the Bible commands us to “remember”, I would still be opposed. Why? Because, again, no human being has the right to enforce the worship of God or any other deity. And Sabbath (or Sunday) is all about worship of a deity.

Here’s the thing: God will only accept worship that is freely given. In the words of my favorite founding American, Roger Williams, forced worship “stinks” in the nostrils of God.

I absolutely believe that our world needs Sabbath rest. But people will not experience Sabbath rest through forced compliance. Sabbath rest only comes by freely accepting Jesus, and with Him comes the rest of salvation that we experience each week as we rest in His grace on the seventh-day Sabbath (see Hebrews 4:9-10). So how can we share the good news of Jesus — and Sabbath rest — with our world? Back in 1829, a Mr. Johnson of Kentucky, in a Senate report on the subject of prohibiting Sunday mail, said it best:

“Our Constitution recognizes no other power than that of persuasion, for enforcing religious observances. Let the professors of Christianity recommend their religion by deeds of benevolence, by Christian meekness, by lives of temperance and holiness. Let them combine their efforts to instruct the ignorant, to relieve the widow and the orphan, to promulgate to the world the gospel of their Saviour, recommending its precepts by their habitual example; Government will find its legitimate object in protecting them. It cannot oppose them, and they will not need its aid. Their moral influence will then do infinitely more to advance the true interests of religion than any measure which they may call on Congress to enact.”

There it is: live out God’s love to those around us! That’s the power of the gospel that far exceeds the power of any government legislation.

(By the way, you can take action and oppose Jonathan Berry’s nomination by signing on to a letter like the one here).

Christian nationalism has now apparently taken up the mantle of the 19th-century National Reform Association. While the goal of creating a Christian government might seem laudable, history warns against the perils of uniting church and state. Ironically, despite the current hostility of many Christians toward the concept, the modern idea of separation of church and state originated with devout Christians — people like Menno Simmons and Roger Williams. Their experience of being persecuted by “Christian” governments is reminder enough that whenever the church takes up the sword of government in the name of Christ, religious freedom for all ceases to exist.

Underlying the Christian nationalist ideology is an assumption that earthly governments and nations should somehow function as God’s kingdom on earth — that nations can be chosen by God as a theocracy, and that God is pleased when governments enforce His laws. The Puritan ideal of America as a city set on a hill, the New Jerusalem in the New World, echoes this theme.

Ellen G. White, writing in the latter part of the 19th century, summed up the Christian nationalism movement of her day:

“Today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority. Since Christ is not now here in person, they themselves will undertake to act in His stead, to execute the laws of His kingdom. The establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ. They would have received Jesus, had He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His will and the agents of His authority.” Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 509

Yet Jesus stated that His kingdom is not “of this world” (John 18:36), thus signaling the end of any earthly nation being specially favored as God’s kingdom. The apostle Peter later applied the promises of the ancient theocracy of Israel to the church as the new Israel:

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God…” 1 Peter 2:9-10 NIV

In the New Testament, the kingdom of God is manifested — not through a civil government or nation — but through the church. The church is the embassy of heaven on earth. Paul reminds believers that they are first and foremost citizens of that heavenly kingdom (Phil. 3:20). Nowhere in the New Testament are believers commanded to pick up the sword of the state in order to build up God’s kingdom. To the contrary, Jesus reminds Peter to put away the sword, and Paul tells us that the weapons of the church are not physical ones but rather spiritual weapons: the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. See John 18:11; 2 Cor. 10:4; Heb. 4:12.

Nevertheless, from the time of Emperor Constantine until today, the church has found it almost impossible to resist the allure of political power. Again, White writes:

“When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the state and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of “heresy.” ….Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines.” Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 443

“Thy Kingdom Come”

So, what about the kingdom of God - is it here now? Or is it coming later?

The Kingdom of Grace

According to Jesus, the kingdom of grace is here among us now (Luke 17:21). Whenever we live out the golden rule, the kingdom of God’s grace is here. Whenever we love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, the kingdom reigns.

And how does Jesus describe this kingdom of grace?

Its citizens are the poor in spirit, the meek and the humble, the pure in heart, the merciful, and the persecuted. (See Matt. 5:1-16). It’s a kingdom where life can be summed up by the golden rule: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matt. 7:12 NIV.

A kingdom filled with poor, humble, and persecuted people - where mercy is celebrated? That’s not the kind of Christian nation most people want!

In fact, modern Christian nationalism seems all about the power but without the love. It’s about politics focused on enforcing correct moral and religious behavior, forgetting that God reaches hearts by His Spirit. It wants the “law” of God — or at least a version of it — posted on the walls of schools and courthouses, but never the beatitudes.

But an earthly government with a powerful king sitting on a throne, and destroying enemies, was not the kingdom of God Jesus was talking about.

Because the kingdom of God that is here now is the kingdom of grace, not the Old Testament theocracy or the kingdom of glory which the Jewish nation expected the Messiah to usher in. The kingdom of grace was not what they were looking for then and it’s not what most people are looking for now.

The Kingdom of Glory

Jesus tells us when the kingdom of glory will come: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.” Matt. 25:31.

Who will be a part of that glorious kingdom? Jesus tells us who it will be - and no surprise, because it’s just like those described in the beatitudes.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’” Matt. 25:31-36 NIV

In other words, the kingdom of grace, where meekness and mercy prevail, prepares us for the kingdom of glory that will be ushered in when Jesus Christ returns in flaming glory in the sky.

If you want to find the kingdom of God now, look for those who are loving God and loving others - those serving the hungry, incarcerated, and the alien. Look for the pure in heart and the persecuted. That’s the kingdom of God according to Jesus.

In fact, the surest evidence of a counterfeit kingdom of God is one where the proponents come in Jesus’ name but don’t do what Jesus says (see Matt. 24:5; 7:15-23).

The book of Revelation indicates that the powers that be will unite in an attempt to create a counterfeit kingdom of God on earth - one led by the Great Harlot church and her daughter churches. Satan may even counterfeit the coming of Jesus and claim to be Christ, performing great signs and wonders to deceive and mislead people into believing that this is the 1,000 years of peace! (See Rev. 13:13-14; 2 Cor. 11:14).

The Kingdom of Glory Is Coming!

I don’t know about you, but I want that kingdom of glory to come soon so that the lies and deceptions of Satan can be exposed and the suffering people of God rescued from the false christs and prophets who persecute God’s true people (John 16:1-3). The kingdom of glory is a place where the persecuted, the merciful, and humble will reign on thrones with God. In that kingdom,

“He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’” Rev. 21:4-5 NIV

When and where will the kingdom of glory come?

In Daniel chapter 2, the prophet Daniel foretold world history with his interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome would pass away. After the Roman Empire, the nations of our modern divided world would come. And then Daniel prophesied that “in the time of those kings” — meaning in our day — “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.” Dan. 2:44 NIV.

But how will God set up His kingdom? In the vision, Daniel saw a multi-metal image representing the great empires of the world. But the kingdom of God was not an extension of the metal image. It was not set up as a part of the kingdoms of this world. The kingdom of God was symbolized by a rock, “cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold to pieces” (Dan. 2:45 NIV). The glorious kingdom of God will only come when Jesus returns in glory in the clouds of heaven and destroys the kingdoms of this world.

Here’s how you can recognize the kingdom of God when it comes:

• The second coming of Jesus will usher in the kingdom of glory: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” Matt. 25:31-32 NIV.

• The coming of Jesus will be bright and glorious and worldwide: “For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” Matt. 24:27 NIV. “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him…” Rev. 1:7 NIV.

• Jesus will not be found on earth at His second coming: “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” Matt. 24:26-27 NIV.

• At His coming, Jesus will gather His people and resurrect His sleeping saints to return with them to heaven: “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” Matt. 24:30-31 NIV. “The dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.” 1 Thess. 4:16-17 NIV.

• At His return, the counterfeit christs, including the antichrist beast and the kingdoms of this world, along with the living wicked will be destroyed: “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.” Matt. 13:40-41 NIV. The kingdom of God “will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.” Dan. 2:44 NIV.

• Those who trust and obey Jesus will reign with Him in that everlasting kingdom of glory: “Then the sovereignty, power, and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey Him.” Dan. 7:27 NIV.

Until then, don’t be fooled by any nation, politician, political party, church, or leader that claims to be setting up God’s kingdom on earth and who proceeds to use coercion in matters of faith. Those are just Satan’s way of fooling people and sullying God’s reputation. Not until Jesus returns in great glory to take His people to Heaven will His kingdom of glory reign.

Here’s our take-away: Live with joy as a part of God’s kingdom of grace in the here and now! How? Love God, and love your neighbor and invite them to join you as a citizen of that heavenly kingdom which is still to come in all its glory.

Stephen N. Allred is the Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

First, the case that the biblical antichrist is a religious-political system instead of just one person is another study in itself. So is the idea that the antichrist power is not merely an end-time phenomenon, but rather a centuries-old institution that experiences a deadly wound and then a resurrection of power and influence at the end of time.

To answer the question about where America is headed, we’ll focus on the second “lamblike beast” of Revelation 13. But we’ll touch on the first amalgamated beast as well. While the first beast is commonly associated with the antichrist, he wouldn’t be able to accomplish his last day shenanigans without the support of the second beast which we will examine here.

And in case you’re concerned that this post is unpatriotic, it’s not. This is simply a brief overview of some clues the Bible gives about America’s future. And Mark Twain reminds us what patriotism really is: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

The Beast with Lamb’s Horns

Here’s how Revelation 13:11 describes the second beast: “Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon.”

Revelation is full of allusions to the Old Testament, and specifically to the book of Daniel. Daniel 7:17 tells us explicitly that a beast in apocalyptic prophecy symbolizes a “king” or “kingdom.” Both beasts in Revelation 13 have horns, but unlike the first beast, the second beast has no crowns on its horns, indicating that this power is unique and not a monarchy like the first beast-nation.

Going back to the mid-1800’s, Bible scholars within the Adventist tradition have identified this second beast as symbolizing the United States of America. They concluded this for a few reasons:

First: “Then” in verse 11 indicates a time element. The second beast-nation would arise after the first beast, and perhaps around the time the first beast received its deadly wound. Many of the Protestant reformers and other Bible scholars up until the mid-19th century identified the first beast as the papacy. More on that in another post.

Secondly, the second beast comes out of “the earth” - springing up relatively peacefully like a plant as a new nation in a new world. This is in contrast to the first beast who arises from the tempestuous sea, representing a populous area (see Rev. 17:15). This, and the lamb-like horns, emphasizes the youthfulness of this nation.

Thirdly, this nation has two horns like a lamb. The Lamb, in all other parts of the book of Revelation, symbolizes Jesus Christ. This nation has some “Christ-like” characteristics. Some have suggested that the two horns - with horns representing power - represent civil and religious liberty, or the separation between church and state. These are the characteristics that make America “lamblike” - not enforcing the Lamb’s religion, but rather granting freedom for people to choose in matters of faith. The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom is in alignment with Jesus, who told His disciples he came to earth to save and not destroy those who rejected Him (Luke 9:56).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U.S. Const., amend. 1

America’s constitution guarantees a separation between church and state - an idea that has allowed those of minority faiths - or no faith at all - to thrive in this land of opportunity. Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, wisely argued for a wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world. Unfortunately, the separation of church and state is under attack by those who are in power today.

America Speaks Like the Dragon

But, the nation would also “speak like the dragon.” The dragon, of course, primarily represents Satan. But secondary it represents the Roman Empire, which attempted to destroy Jesus at his birth (see, e.g., Rev. 12:4; Matt. 2:16). The Roman Empire later persecuted Christians and then morphed into a “Christian” empire, with Emperor Constantine enforcing Sunday observance by law. Early Adventists theologians, all of whom were staunch opponents of American slavery, concluded that America was speaking like the dragon by allowing the abomination of chattel slavery on American soil, and by the nation’s legislature, á la Constantine, seeking to enforce Sunday observance by law, as happened in the late 19th century.

No question, God has blessed America, but unfortunately prophecy predicts that this land will give in to the instincts of the dragon and jettison the principles of the First Amendment that have made her great. Finally, the beast representing America uses its global superpower status to enable the antichrist beast to enforce its worship and mark on the world.

From Beast to False Prophet

Revelation continues:

“And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived.” Rev. 13:12-14 NKJV

Notice that John sees this government taking on a new role: that of working great miracles! He notes this change by giving the second beast a new name: False Prophet.

“Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.” Rev. 19:20 NKJV

The title “false prophet” immediately brings up two points:

First: the fact that John calls the transformed second beast a “false” prophet (and not simply a prophet of Baal, or a prophet of some other god) means that America transforms into a nation that falsely claims to be a mouthpiece or a prophet for the true God - Jesus Christ. In other words, a false prophet is only false because they really aren’t representing who they claim to represent. America will falsely claim to speak for Jesus but won’t.

Second: In a passage with remarkable parallels to Revelation 13, Jesus spoke of false prophets at the end of time: “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” Matt. 24:24 NKJV.

This sounds familiar! How does Jesus say these false prophets will present themselves? “For many will come in My name, saying, “I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” Matt. 24:5 NKJV.

Revelation 13:13-14 seems to be pointing us back to the words of Jesus in Matthew 24. According to Jesus, the false prophets at the end will come in His name - as Christians.

Testing the Spirits

Since both true and false prophets will come in Jesus’ name, how can we know the difference between them?

Jesus again: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” Matt. 7:15-16, NKJV.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” Matt. 7:21-23 NKJV.

Simply put, we have to test the message of a prophet by the Bible. “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20

Does a true prophet tell a nation to set up God’s kingdom on earth? Not according to Jesus: “My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36 NKJV.

Does a prophet of God tell God’s people to fight for political power? Jesus continues: “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” John 18:36 NKJV

Jesus did not condone using the sword of political power to advance God’s kingdom.

Does a true prophet tell Christians that they should force others in matters of faith? When His disciples wanted to destroy the Samaritans who rejected Him, the Bible says: “But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.” Luke 9:53-56 NKJV.

A movement that claims to be Christian with a goal to gain political power and coerce others in matters of faith is not a movement from Jesus.

So, according to Jesus, the false prophets at the end will come in His name - as Christians.

This means, that America, the lamblike beast, will transform into a “Christian” nation that will force a false version of Christianity on the world.

Today, something like this is beginning to happen: the forces of Christian nationalism hold the reins of political power in all three branches of our federal government. Professed Christian “prophets” have the ear of the President of the United States. Movements to make Christianity the law of the land, and to enforce Sunday and blasphemy laws are gaining traction and popularity.

According to Revelation, America will take the lead in false worship that causes people to break God’s commandments (see Rev. 14:9, 12). Christian American will then use its influence to convince the world to create forms of government that oppress and persecute any who stand in her way (the image to the beast). And she will use supernatural signs and wonders to do this.

“And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” Rev. 16:13-14 NKJV

Not only that, but Christian America will lead the way in setting up a counterfeit kingdom of God on earth. A counterfeit Christ will bless this new kingdom, and it will seem to be the long-awaited millennium on earth. Miracles will be performed and false worship will be enforced. Nearly everyone will be convinced, and the world will marvel after the beast.

There’s a Good Ending

That’s depressing, right?

Well, yes. But there’s good news.

Just like the church in the book of Acts, God’s end-time church will be focused on one thing: telling everyone about the good news of a King whose kingdom is not of this world and warning them not to participate in this deceptive counterfeit kingdom of God that is sweeping the Christian world. “Don’t drink the false teaching of Babylon, the church-state union! Here’s the true water of life from Jesus, instead!” That’s the kind of kingdom building God’s true church will be — should now be — doing. They won’t be seduced by the temptation of political power, but will be recruiting citizens from every nation, tribe, tongue and people for the kingdom of heaven.

John saw God’s last message represented by a mighty angel “coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illuminated with his glory.” The angel shouts out that:

“Babylon the great — representing the counterfeit church that has turned away from Christ — is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.” Rev. 18:1-3 NKJV

Finally, the voice from heaven calls: “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.” Rev. 18:4 NKJV

Will anyone respond? Yes, indeed.

But the LORD will arise over you, And His glory will be seen upon you. The Gentiles shall come to your light,And kings to the brightness of your rising. Lift up your eyes all around, and see: They all gather together, they come to you. Isaiah 60:1-4 NKJV

And soon enough, the King will return to take His people to be with Him where He is (John 14:1-3). That kingdom will never end, “and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” Dan. 2:44

Stephen N. Allred is the Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.

Some may see this as a good development. “They’re bad guys. Who cares? Lock ‘em up and throw away the key!” But just because the President says they’re bad, doesn’t mean they are. And what if a future President - one you don’t trust - uses the same methods? This is why due process is so essential to any free society. Without it, justice is left to the whims and unverified assurances of an executive who may or may not be trustworthy. And even if, as some argue, only citizens and lawful residents have due process rights, how would someone, if detained or deported, prove their status without any kind of judicial review?1

WHAT IS DUE PROCESS?

What is due process of law? At a minimum, due process is the guarantee that a government will follow established laws and procedures and treat people with fairness before depriving them of life, liberty or property. Both the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution guarantee “due process.” The constitution does not limit this due process to citizens alone, but to “any person” within the United States. Historically, the Supreme Court has also recognized that due process includes not only a fair process (procedural due process) but also certain fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and parental rights (substantive due process). Here, we’ll focus on procedural due process.

In real life, when a person is accused of a crime, due process requires that before they can be punished they are entitled to notice and having their case heard before an impartial fact-finder to determine if they are guilty of the alleged crime.

Countries where due process is limited or non-existent include Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, where a command from the dictator is all that is required for his enemies to be executed. In Guatemala and Argentina, military regimes “disappeared” tens of thousands of dissidents in the 1960’s and 70’s. These victims had no due process and vanished without a trace, their fate known only to the regimes that killed them. Or consider the Philippines during the presidency of Rodrigo Roa Duterte, where death squads carried out summary executions of suspected drug dealers, ostensibly at the command of the president and without any due process.

But America is not a police state where the President is judge, jury and executioner. America’s very existence is built on the idea that we are a nation of laws, not of dictators. This means that people have a right to their day in court and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

To be sure, dictatorships are often more efficient than democracies. Due process has a way of slowing things down. And when there’s a crisis, people want action and they want it now. Which is why civil rights often fall by the wayside in times of war or national emergency. Yet, in hindsight nations often regret the civil liberties they have relinquished by the failure to follow due process of law. Just ask the 120,000 Japanese Americans who were forcefully relocated into internment camps during World War II, coerced into leaving behind their livelihoods and homes. Most Americans today would agree this was an egregious civil liberties violation that should never have occurred.

GOD AND DUE PROCESS

This prompts the question: should Christians get behind the idea of due process?

Yes. Absolutely.

God is a God of due process. What was God’s response to Adam and Eve’s disobedience? Full transparency and due process before the execution of judgment. He came searching for our first parents and dialogued with them. Even though He already knew the answers to His questions, God went on a fact-finding mission. His goal was not only to be fair but for His creatures to know He was being fair. So God engaged in a transparent process by which Adam and Eve admitted their own guilt. Even then, God did not destroy them. He expelled them from the Garden but allowed them to live. In God’s justice system, there is mercy and a second chance.

God’s dealings with Satan illustrates His fundamental commitment to due process. Instead of instantly destroying Satan, God has allowed him to not only exist but to have the time and freedom to prove his case. God, meanwhile, is illustrating that He is committed to love, fairness, transparency and free choice in this battle between Himself and Satan. Ultimately, we are the jury who will freely decide whether God is fair and just. The Apostle Paul tells us what the verdict will be: “every knee will bow…and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Phil. 2:10-11.

The laws of ancient Israel incorporated concepts of due process:

• Accused presumed innocent until proven guilty: “Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?” John 7:51 NIV.

• Testimony of at least two witnesses required to convict: “One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Deut. 19:15 NIV.

• Justice was to be impartial: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.^” Lev. 19:15 NIV.

• Bribes were prohibited: “Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent. Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the LORD your God is giving you.” Deut. 16:19-20 NIV.

God’s actions toward nations and the world illustrate His commitment to due process. He sent Jonah to give “notice” to Ninevah before His judgment came upon them - a punishment which He deferred when they repented. He did the same for Israel through the prophet Jeremiah and others. God granted “probation” to nations and individuals, including the Amorites, ancient Israel and their kings, and spiritual Babylon (see, e.g., Gen. 15:16; Dan. 9:24-27; Matt. 23:37-39; Rev. 18:5). God investigates and deliberates before pronouncing judgment. Before judgment on Sodom, God said “I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” Gen. 18:21 NIV.

The Bible describes God’s commitment to transparency in a scene of the pre-advent judgment. Daniel describes a very public event where there is an inspection of “the books”: “Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.” Dan. 7:10 NIV. And Paul tells us: “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” Rom. 14:10 NIV. Finally, God is committed to proportionality. Unlike the popular caricature of a God who punishes the wicked for eternity for a lifetime of sins, a big-picture view of the Bible shows a God who ultimately honors the choices of the wicked to disconnect themselves from Him, the source of life. However, He does not torture them forever. Their punishment is in proportion to their sin that they have chosen to identify with. (See, e.g., Luke 12:47-48; John 3:16; Jude 7; 2 Pet. 2:6). (Check out this website for resources reconciling the Bible verses that appear to teach eternal torment with the verses teaching the annihilation of the wicked).

DUE PROCESS AND PROPHECY

Why else should we care?

Revelation 13 describes two “beasts,” both of whom actively persecute God’s people. Beasts represent nations in Bible prophecy (see Daniel 7:17). Since the Protestant Reformation, many have identified the first beast-nation as the papacy, while others believe that the second beast-nation represents the United States. The prophecy symbolizes the United States by a beast with “two horns like a lamb” but speaking “like the dragon.” This depiction of a schizophrenic political power aptly represents America’s historical commitment to religious liberty and separation of church and state, but also its evil actions in enslaving African Americans, slaughtering Native Americans, worldwide empire-building, and finally persecuting God’s end-time people. See Revelation 13:11-17. Surprisingly, this prophecy indicates that America transforms from a government with the “two horns” (which some see as representing the separation of powers, or separation of church and state) into a “false prophet” that works miracles (see Rev. 13:12-13; 19:20). In other words, America becomes a professedly “Christian nation” that persecutes in the name of Christ. All of which aligns with the words of Jesus:

“All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.” John 16:1-3 NIV.

Persecution inevitably involves a violation of substantive due process, often accompanied by a denial of procedural due process.

Ultimately, Christians should care about affording others due process because Jesus tells us to “do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matt. 7:12 NIV. And we serve a God who lives out that Golden Rule in His own commitment to due process for us.

Stephen N. Allred is the Director of Government Relations for the Church State Council. He is a licensed attorney and ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister.