I have often wondered how the prophecies of the book of Revelation concerning the establishment of a global political, economic, and religious system might be fulfilled. More specifically, I continue to ponder how the wall separating church and state will be demolished in the Western world. The destruction of this wall and this great separation is necessary for realizing all the components of the totalitarian system described in the book of Revelation. What must happen for this to come about? After all, we live in an era of secularism, humanism, human rights, and liberal democracy. It seems unthinkable.
The origins of the idea of the great separation
The idea of the separation of church and state is not accepted worldwide. There are countries where this idea is entirely foreign and hostile, as their political systems are based on the integration of state and religion into a single entity. But is this idea of separation self-evident for the Western world, something the West has always nurtured and acknowledged? The answer is no; separation was not always self-evident (although we have become so accustomed to it that we sometimes fail to see how unconventional it is).
The idea of separation took root in the 16th century within the radical branch of the Protestant Reformation known as Anabaptism. It was then formulated in the next century into concrete constitutional solutions proposed and implemented by figures such as William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania. Penn, fascinated from a young age by Quaker doctrine, aimed to establish Pennsylvania as an official Quaker colony, respecting the fundamental Quaker principle of religious freedom. This principle was enshrined in the first constitutional document (Frame of Government) and applied to all who believed in one God. In this way, Penn was ahead of his time, a precursor of religious freedom in America, which only truly triumphed after the War of Independence in 1776.1 Pastor Roger Williams also wholly rejected the Puritan theocracy in Massachusetts, eventually founding the colony of Rhode Island. This colony was the first in modern times to completely separate church and state under the principle that the government cannot compel anyone to adhere to any particular religious beliefs or practices. Williams became a leading figure in the tradition of state neutrality concerning religion and political liberalism in America. He was also one of the few colonists who vocally protested against the extermination of Native Americans.2
The sphere of faith and state coercion
John Locke, the English political philosopher, developed the concept of the separation of church and state in his work titled A Letter Concerning Toleration, in which he presented the justification for the doctrine that the state should not interfere in religious life and should guarantee religious freedom. Locke argues that tolerance is the criterion of the “true church.” God did not grant people the right to compel others to accept their own religion. The realm of faith lies beyond the reach of state power, and the responsibility for seeking the best path to salvation should rest with the individual. The separation of religion from politics simultaneously presupposes the existence of religious freedom and freedom of conscience within the state. However, according to Locke, religious tolerance has its limits. It does not extend to those who claim privileges that exempt them from obeying state law, nor to those who are unwilling to tolerate others with different beliefs, nor to a church whose faith requires obedience to a foreign ruler, which includes not only Muslim communities but also, notably, the Roman Catholic Church.3
Tolerance
There can be no doubt that the idea of religious freedom formulated by Penn, Williams, and Locke is one of the most important values defining the identity of countries belonging to the circle of Western culture. For liberal thought, “… the starting point … was the fight for religious freedom, i.e., freedom of conscience, which logically led into the fight for complete freedom of thought and speech.”4 John Locke breaks with the traditional understanding of tolerance as disapproval of the tolerated behavior. In the traditional sense, tolerance was not a value or a virtue; it was an attitude adopted for social reasons. Tolerance involved patiently enduring behavior considered wrong in order to maintain social peace. We also read in A Letter Concerning Toleration that Locke departed from this understanding. He elevated tolerance to the status of a civic virtue, a foundation of modern society. For Locke, tolerance is a natural consequence of the Christian attitude of love for one’s neighbor. It is the result of separating the secular and spiritual spheres.5 Let us therefore summarize: the world before the idea of separation of church and state was formulated and implemented by radical Protestant thinkers in the 17th century was a world in which the unity of religion and state was the foundation of the political system. Starting with the builders of the first civilizations, through the period of the Papacy in medieval Europe, until modern times, people have known no other political order except this union of church and state.
Polish experiment
In my view, an exceptionally interesting case is the history of the idea of tolerance in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which since 1569, was a federal state composed of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania—the former Poland. While in Western Europe during the 16th century people were killing each other in the name of God, a remarkable event occurred in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1573, the Polish parliament enacted a pioneering document in European history—the Warsaw Confederation, which was a document guaranteeing religious freedom in the Commonwealth. Poland thus became a safe haven for all those persecuted for their faith.6 Everything changed in Poland when the wars of the 17th century between Protestant Sweden, Orthodox Russia, and Muslim Turkey (the Ottoman Empire), as well as the Counter-Reformation led by the Jesuits, ended religious tolerance in Poland. The once-established religious freedom in a state is not something guaranteed and can unfortunately prove very fragile, as evidenced in Poland during the 16th and 17th centuries. Today, Poland’s Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state; however, the Catholic Church has a significant influence on state politics, which in practice means that the constitutional separation of church and state is often questioned.
An idea materialized in reality
The practical realization of the idea of the separation of church and state began with the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically the First Amendment of 1791, which stipulated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” From the provisions of the First Amendment, two clauses concerning religious freedom are derived: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The first emphasizes the neutral character of the state, thus necessitating the separation of church and state and the prohibition of establishing any religion as the official one. The second clause underscores the rights of all religious groups to freely practice their religion within the United States and prohibits the authorities from any interference in their doctrine or worship.7 According to Mark Noll, an American historian specializing in the history of Christianity in the United States, “From the perspective of European Christians, the American experiment in establishing the separation of church and state was doomed to failure, as nothing similar had been attempted in European history before.”8 However, it was indeed the United States that set the direction for other countries. In Europe, revolutionary France introduced legislation regulating the separation of church and state in 1795, and later other countries followed suit. Today, the principle of the “great separation” is the dominant solution in democratic states, essentially in most countries around the world—at least formally.
Sixteen words
As Clifford Goldstein once observed: “We may think that the Constitution clearly and specifically defines our religious freedoms. Not quite. The basis for these assurances for a nation of two hundred fifty million citizens with hundreds of different denominations is found in just sixteen English words: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ ”9
Religious diversity in the United States
The ideas of religious freedom and pluralism enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution have allowed the development of a society with extraordinary religious diversity. A 2008 analysis of the religious composition of U.S. citizens reveals the presence of adherents to virtually all religions in the world. The largest group is Christians, constituting 78.4% of the population, with Protestants comprising 51.3%.10 This study shows that American society remains predominantly shaped by Protestant tradition, which influences American political culture. The principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state are indeed owed to Protestant thought and Enlightenment ideals. If Protestants, who uphold the legacy of William Penn, Roger Williams, and John Locke, guard religious freedom in the U.S., the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution will be preserved. However, if Protestantism in the U.S. turns against the principles of religious freedom, embracing the legacy of Puritan theocracy, then religious freedoms will be trampled upon and constitutional guarantees nullified. In that case, the United States will speak with the dragon’s voice.
Fragile matter
The separation of church and state is the foundation of freedom and tolerance in every country where such freedom exists. The United States currently protects religious liberty and the separation of church and state. However, according to the prophecy of Revelation 13, she will lead the world into religious deception, creating the “image of the beast,” a global religious-economic-political system. It is regrettable that this country, where millions of people have found refuge from war and persecution, religious freedom, and prosperity, will become a country that will trample on religious and civil liberties and force obedience to religious commands. The U.S. will become a tyrant. The lamb will become a beast and speak with the dragon’s voice.
Does anyone in the U.S. speak the dragon’s language? Yes, there are Protestant and Catholic fundamentalists who believe in the idea of a Christian America, who would replace Jefferson’s wall of separation of state and religion. Fundamentalists see the American state as politically and economically weak, with unjust laws and demoralized customs, for which fundamentalists blame the principles of secularism, rationalism, religious tolerance, liberal pluralism, and individualism. They are convinced that the changes will be achieved with the help of their elected political leaders who will make the legal, social, and moral changes they want.11 Ellen White warns of such a scenario: “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.”12 The religious right in the U.S. persistently and consistently strives to realize the “image of the beast,” and one dreadful day, according to Bible prophecy, it will eventually succeed in its efforts.
A thin veil
What surrounds us—the entire structure of our political, social, and religious reality—seems remarkably stable, predictable, obvious, and routine. We can feel calm and secure. We enjoy religious freedom—freedom of conscience, speech, and the press. All these wonderful, hard-won freedoms and civil rights are part of our everyday life. We benefit from the prosperity and liberty of the Western world. We observe and experience this serene social and political reality as if we were strolling down the street in an American town, enjoying the sight of white houses, neatly trimmed green lawns, flowers in gardens, and the gentle breeze swaying the American flag at each home. Yet behind this sleepy, blissful everyday life lurks a shadow, a sinister darkness, a sense of dread and fear. We suspect that within the structure of this cheerful daily reality lies a crack, a glimpse of something else. Instinctively, we might sense a lurking, hostile, and terrifying alternative reality. The veil separating these two realities—one real, the other potential—seems incredibly delicate and fragile. Behind the orderly routine of our liberal democratic world lies a demonic darkness of political theology, the union of religion and state, religious despotism, and religious persecution.
The nature of the human mind
In his book Sacred and Profane: The Nature of Religion, Mircea Eliade, the Romanian religious historian, argues that the religious sphere is primordial compared to the secular world. According to Eliade, humans are inherently spiritual beings. Religion represents the most profound expression of the human mind. People are naturally open to the religious sphere, as the human mind is fundamentally oriented towards what is sacred and transcendent, which it can revere. Thus, from the dawn of history, humans have been religious beings and have remained so—often unconsciously—up to the present day.
Although many people in Europe and the Western world live in a desacralized and highly secularized world, stripped of religious feelings, they remain religious at a profound level of their minds because humans are intrinsically religious beings. This means that such individuals have a deeply rooted potential to reclaim a religious experience of life.13 If this is the case, then religious individuals who interpret their faith in a legalistic manner will be inclined to impose their religious truths on others. In legalistic religions, there is a significant potential for authoritarianism and despotism, especially towards other religious adherents and those who follow different religious doctrines. Furthermore, religious but sinful human nature often seeks to impose its will and authority upon others.
The illusion of stability
Political theology is the concept of viewing politics as a sphere of social life regulated by religion. Mark Lilla, an American philosopher, highlights that political theology represents a primordial form of human thought, serving for millennia as a deep well from which ideas and symbols were drawn to organize social life and inspire actions both good and evil. However, due to intellectual complacency, there has been a neglect in recognizing that political theology has not vanished and still possesses the ability to shape human thought and life. In the era of the “great separation,” which began roughly four hundred years ago, Western civilization represents an anomaly. What started as a thought experiment evolved into a practical experience within the societies from which we inherit our values. The experiment continues, yet, increasingly, people in the West forget why separation of church and state was initiated in the first place and what challenge it was originally meant to address. Meanwhile, that challenge has never ceased to exist. This mental fragility is disconcerting; hence, our world of liberal democracy and religious tolerance remains precarious. Concepts such as modernization, secularization, democratization, and others function as the fairy tales of our times. They provide people in the West with the illusion that they are safe. These concepts serve in our culture the same role that fairy tales do: they make the world comprehensible, reassure us of the irreversibility of ongoing processes, and absolve us from responsibility for maintaining the world in its current form.14
Conclusions and perspectives
If sinful human nature is essentially religious and if man’s eternal thinking about politics is political theology, then we can better understand how in a world where liberal democracy prevails and societies are very secularized, civil rights and religious freedoms are universally recognized—there will be the emergence of an oppressive religious-political-economic system. A dark night is coming for the world. A great crisis is coming, which will allow the demons of theocracy and religious persecution to once again take over human minds and entire societies. I wrote that the United States was the first to establish the constitutional separation of church and state, setting the course for other countries that followed. Unfortunately, in the times just before the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, “America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite with the papacy in forcing the conscience and compelling men to honor the false sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example.”15 However, as long as the wall separating the church from the state stands, we have an obligation to guard it to the very end, praying to the Lord for grace and defending the principles of freedom in speech, acting against hostile forces seeking to introduce, through state-sanctioned and/or state-instigated violence, a new social order based on “religious” doctrines.
Endnotes:
- A. Noll, Protestantyzm, publishing house Łódz University 2017, p. 58
- Ibiden, p. 60
- Tomaszewska, Bóg i religia w filozofii Johna Locke’a, published 29 August 2022, https://teologiapolityczna.pl/anna-tomaszewska-bog-i-religia-w-filozofii-johna-lockea, accessibility: 15.07.2024
- Walicki, Nieporozumienia wokół liberalizmu, “Przegląd polityczny”, no. 109/110, Gdańsk 2011, p. 25
- Drelich, List o tolerancji o kilku ograniczeniach zasady tolerancji, http://liberte.pl/list-o-tolerancji-o-kilku-ograniczeniach-zasady-tolerancji, accessibility: 05.07.2012
- Szczepańska, Taka tolerancja religijna istniała tylko w Polsce. Dzieje konfederacji warszawskiej, published 28 January 2024, https://historia.dorzeczy.pl/nowozytnosc/543291/konfederacja-warszawska-taka-tolerancja-religijna-byla-tylko-w-polsce.html, accessibility: 17.07.2024
- Pomarański, Współczesny amerykański fundamentalizm protestancki, publishing house UMCS, pp. 73, 74
- A. Noll, Protestantyzm, publishing house Łódz University 2017, p. 70
- Goldstein, Dzień smoka, publishing house Znaki Czasu, Warszawa 1996, p. 63
- S. Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Affiliation, report Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2008/02/01/u-s-religious-landscape-survey-religious-affiliation/, accessibility: 18.07.2024
- Pomarański, Współczesny amerykański fundamentalizm protestancki, publishing house UMCS, pp. 14, 15
- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 445.1
- Eliade, Sacrum a profanum. O istocie sfery religijnej, publishing house Aletheia 2022, p. 221
- Lilla, Bezsilny Bóg – religia, polityka i nowoczesny Zachód, publishing house W.A.B. 2009, pp. 9-12
- Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 6, p. 18.2
Marcin Watras lives in Katowice, Poland. He is interested in the philosophy of religion and trends in society. He works for the European Union.