In the previous two articles on issues related to the separation of church and state, we traced the history of the formation of the idea of the great separation and the threats posed to it by human nature and contemporary global trends in politics, society, and religion. In this article, I would like to look at selected historical and contemporary examples of the crumbling of the wall separating church and state.
A brief history of religious freedom in the Roman Empire
In the November issue of LandMarks, I wrote that man’s age-old thinking about politics is political theology, that is, politics as a sphere of social life regulated by religion. From its beginnings, Christianity has stood in steadfast opposition to the pagan world, a world that requires conversion and lives under the rule of demonic supremacy. Therefore, Christians have sought to maintain a biblical separation from the pagan world, not accepting the relationship between light and darkness. To put it another way, Christians did not think about political theology. However, in the fourth century, an epochal change occurred. Emperor Constantine created a new world order.
In 313, the Edict of Milan was promulgated jointly by the emperor of the western part of the Roman Empire, Constantine the Great, and the emperor of the eastern part, Licinius. The promulgation of this document established religious freedom in the Roman Empire because the imperial document was not merely tolerant but expressed the idea of religious freedom based on the belief that true faith and worship could not come from coercion. Until then, Christianity had been an illegal and persecuted religion, but from then on, Christianity became a legal religion and, more specifically, was legally equated with other religions of the Roman Empire.1
Certainly, the religious freedom brought about by the promulgation of the Edict of Milan was extremely valuable and good. What is worth noting is that religious freedom was something unusual in the ancient world, something unprecedented. The Edict of Milan was promulgated not in the vacuum of socio-religious life but in the specific religious and political context of the ancient world. This context assumes a symbiotic relationship between religion and politics, creating a homogeneous social system in which religion and the state are mutually supportive. The Edict of Milan did not fit into such a world. It is also clear that Christianity, with its religious-political dualism, i.e., the professed principle of separation of religion and politics, in line with Jesus’ words on paying taxes: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), did not fit the pagan world of the time. “In the ancient states, political purpose was equated with religious purpose and political power with religious power. The monarch was both ruler of the state and high priest.”2
Beginnings of the union of church and state
Christians now had to choose to transform and overcome the prevailing pagan principle of the union of religion and state or to submit completely to this principle. Unfortunately, Christianity chose the second option. Within a relatively short period of time, after the edict was issued, the Christian Church merged with state power, using the state’s coercion to enforce what it considered to be orthodoxy and exterminate what it considered to be heresy.
The birth of the Christian state
In 380 A.D., Emperor Theodosius issued the Thessalonian Edict, which established Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.3 The church gained influence over the state, but the state also gained influence over the church. The balance of gains and losses of the union of church and state seemed unequivocally positive but led to the greatest deviation in Christianity. Christians, led by church leaders, adapted very quickly and very easily to the new order of things, recognizing in it the restoration of God’s theocratic covenant with Israel. Christian dissidents who did not benefit from this union were persecuted by the state and established Catholicism.4
Thus was born a political-religious alliance, its roots dating back to the Tower of Babel, which would later develop into a power that would usher in a theocratic totalitarian system in medieval Europe, bloodily persecuting all opposition. The Bible calls this political-religious power the beast. Nimrod founded the world’s first empire in which religion and the state were one.5
Christian inspired legislation
The construction of a new political-religious system was highly promising, and it may have seemed that Christianity had achieved a transformation in the cruel and decadent pagan culture of the Roman Empire, influencing the state to make legal and social changes. The Roman state passed many Church-inspired laws: the abolishment of crucifixion as a punishment, the elimination of bloody gladiatorial performances, and banned other cruel rituals. The state abolished the burning of birthmarks on the faces of slaves, and their liberation was encouraged. Pro-family laws emerged: the prohibition of abortion, adultery, and concubinage, restrictions regarding divorce, and assistance for widows and orphans. In addition, the emperor ordered soldiers to say public prayers on Sunday, supported the Church’s finances, placed Christian symbols in public places, and legally sanctioned Sunday, banning work on that day.6
Initially, the Edict of Milan by Emperor Constantine granted everyone the freedom to practice their religion according to their conscience, but later the Edict of Thessalonica by Emperor Theodosius established Christianity as the state religion, thereby invalidating the right to practice religion according to one’s conscience.
However, morality and religion imposed by state laws never lead to a true renewal of the heart. Religious legislation resulted in intolerance, and it didn’t take long before using state coercion to enforce religious laws was established. In short order came persecution—first of non-Christians, and later of Christians who disagreed with the official Church in something. Finally, Pope Leo I sanctioned the death penalty for heresy in the fifth heresy.7 Only those Christians who led lives in desolate places where the power of the imperial might of papal Rome did not reach remained free from persecution.
Christian America before the Constitution
We should note that Protestantism has also proved vulnerable to the temptation to use state coercion in matters of faith. Political theology is written into human sinful nature more strongly than we may think. Yes, the Reformation brought to the world the extraordinary light of God’s truth, progress, and much good for humanity. However, it did not abolish the church-state connection in Europe, which was the root cause of intolerance and lack of freedom of conscience and speech. Anabaptists, persecuted by both Catholics and most Protestants, were among the few Protestants who denied the church-state connection.8
A historical example is the Anglican Church’s persecution of dissenters. During the 16th and 17th centuries, thousands of religious nonconformists were forced to seek refuge on the American continent. Many of those who failed to escape were imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Therefore, America is referred to in Revelation as the “land” that came to the aid of God’s people (Revelation 12:15, 16). Here, we find another paradox of history, which is not a paradox but a confirmation that the mentality of people operating in terms of political theology is extremely difficult to eradicate. The same people who found refuge from religious persecution in Europe on American soil persecuted Christian minorities, such as Baptists and Quakers.9
The lack of separation of church and state in America caused Protestant newcomers, mainly Puritans, to try to transfer the model of church-state relations to American soil. How oppressive and tyrannical a social system can be when the church influences politics is shown by the example of religious laws introduced in the state of Virginia in 1610; of particular interest is the law on the observance of the so-called Christian Sabbath, or Sunday: “Every man and woman shall repair in the morning to the divine service and sermons preached upon the Sabbath day, and in the afternoon to divine service, and catechising, upon pain for the first fault to lose their provision and the allowance for the whole week following; for the second, to lose the said allowance and also be whipped; and for the third to suffer death.”10
The Christian America Project
Just as in the days of the Roman Empire, the church, through its influence on politics, sought the moral renewal of the empire, so today, the religious right in the U.S. is influencing politics and the government to enact legislation that the Christian right believes will halt the moral decline of the American people and lead to their moral renewal.
Social barometer—the Supreme Court
In relation to the wall of separation of church and state, a peculiar barometer of changes is taking place in politics, society, and religion. This barometer is the Supreme Court of the United States and its decisions because “the responsibility for interpreting American constitutional principles lies precisely with the Supreme Court, its jurisprudence clarifies the understanding of all principles, including those relating to religious freedom. The endless number of new doubts related to the interpretation of constitutional principles also allows the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence to admit a certain amount of dynamism. It is all the greater because this institution is not an interpretive monolith, but a place where different positions and opinions clash. An example of such divergence is precisely the coexistence in the Supreme Court of different positions on the assessment of the degree of separation of state and church between supporters of strict separation and supporters of symbiosis of the spheres of politics and religion, allowing the state to adapt, in a certain way, to the religious needs of citizens. The problem of the degree of separation of church and state is often an issue of public debate, in which the opinion of the Supreme Court is treated as conclusive.”11
The role of the President of the United States
However, let us remember that the Supreme Court does not operate in a vacuum. The President of the United States has a fundamental influence on public opinion on this issue, and his attitude, both formal and informal, to religious freedom and the social role of churches, has repeatedly set the boundaries of the separation of state and church.12
If the influence on the understanding of the separation of church and state becomes a question not of constitutional guarantees but more of the will of the majority, then we have a problem that threatens the very existence of the separation of state and church. A democratic majority elects the President, and the President appoints certain judges whose ideological profile agrees with the ideological profile of the democratic majority. The Supreme Court, structured in this way, then decides the degree of separation of church and state by a majority vote. We must then ask: Is the United States a democracy, ruled by a majority, or is it a constitutional republic, in which it is decided not only by the electoral vote of the people but also by constitutional principles that stand above the current majority?
Pro-religious Supreme Court of a global superpower
We certainly are living in perilous times for the idea of separation of church and state, for the Supreme Court, in which conservatives are in the majority, in a series of recent rulings, has undermined this wall of separation, thus undermining American legal traditions designed to prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.13
Conservative judges appointed by President Donald Trump seek to minimize the impact of President Jefferson’s separation wall. In three 2022 cases, the court backed a Washington State soccer coach who officials suspended for leading a Christian prayer with players after a game. Using the doctrine of free speech and the right to the free exercise of religion, the judges found that the coach had the right as a citizen to lead the post-game prayer. In addition, the judges approved taxpayer money for students to attend religious schools in rural areas without public high schools nearby. Finally, the Supreme Court overturned the City of Boston’s decision to remove a flag with a cross from the front of City Hall. In that case, too, the right to free speech and the right to the free exercise of religion provided the basis for supporting the display of the flag on public property. Currently, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court supports the trend of linking free speech to religiously motivated activities.14
However, as Judge Sonia Sotomayor, quoted by Reuters, accurately noted, such an approach “brings us to a place where the separation of church and state becomes a violation of the Constitution.”15
Now let’s take a look at the composition of the Supreme Court, because something is very wrong here. “The current Court consists of six conservative Catholics in the majority: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, as well as a liberal Catholic (Justice Sotomayor), a Jew (Justice Kagan) and a Protestant (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson).”16
These decisions of the Supreme Court in a country with hundreds of different faiths are alarming and puzzling. The Supreme Court now has a majority of Catholic justices who will be able to advance their interests and political-religious agenda. This was not an accident but a deliberate, planned action. Random events do not exist in big politics, and it is all the more frightening because, as Ellen White noted: “The Roman Catholic Church, with all its ramifications throughout the world, forms one vast organization under the control, and designed to serve the interests, of the papal see. Its millions of communicants, in every country on the globe, are instructed to hold themselves as bound in allegiance to the pope. Whatever their nationality or their government, they are to regard the authority of the church as above all others. Though they may take the oath pledging their loyalty to the state, yet back of this lies the vow of obedience to Rome, absolving them from every pledge inimical to her interests.”17
Pro-religious President of global superpower
President Donald Trump believes he received miraculous divine protection during a near-fatal attack in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024.18 In other words, President Trump feels anointed by God to play a historical role and repay the debt of gratitude for saving his life by divine intervention on the day of the assassination attempt. How can such a debt be repaid? If only by implementing a Christian-nationalist agenda allowing churches to participate in power, giving Christians a privileged position in the country, and thus disregarding the separation of church and state. This is what the Christian right wants, and this is what President Trump promised at the National Religious Broadcasters annual meeting in Nashville on February 22, 2024, attended by leaders of the largest evangelical communications media. “If I get in, you’re going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used before.”19 He continued: “I really believe it’s the biggest thing missing from this country, the biggest thing missing. We have to bring back our religion. We have to bring back Christianity in this country.”20
The horizon of prophetic time
Under these conditions, the majority of Christian churches in the U.S. will gain influence similar to that which the churches held over the government in the days of Constantine the Great. Then, an alliance of Catholics and Protestants will use the state’s authority to implement a religious agenda, just as in the Middle Ages. This is the future. The U.S. still upholds religious freedom and the separation of church and state. However, history does not stand still. Current societal trends, Christianity, and politics are causing the eschatological perspective to accelerate sharply. The wall that separates church and state stands, but we must fervently defend it. In the dynamically changing world around us, let us be vigilant. Let us prudently read the signs of the times and be ready to bear witness to truth and freedom.
Marcin Watras lives in Katowice, Poland. He is interested in the philosophy of religion and trends in society. He works for the European Union.
Endnotes:
- Zbigniew Jaworski, Wolność religijna według Edyktu Mediolańskiego – w 1700 rocznicę wydania, published by Biuletyn SAWP June 2014, Vol. 9, No. 11 (1), pp. 17–29
- , p. 22
- The Edict of Thessalonica, February 2, 2021, historytoday.com/archive/months-past/edict-thessalonica, accessibility: 01.08.2025
- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. D. 311–600, Publisher Grand Rapids 2002, p. 55
- Dave Hunt, Kobieta jadąca na bestii, publishing house Fundacja Świadome Chrześcijaństwo 2024, p. 51
- , pp. 54–75
- Jonatan Dunkel, Apokalipsa, publishing house Orion plus 2001, p. 93
- , p. 85
- Mark A. Noll, Protestantyzm, publishing house Uniwersytet Łódzki 2017, pp. 59, 60
- Articles, Lawes, and Orders, Divine, Politique, and Martiall for the Colony of Virginea, in William Strachey, For the Colony in Virginea Britannia: Lawes, Divine, Morall, and Martiall, etc. (London: Walter Barre, 1612), 1–7, 19, from the website: religioninamerica.org/rahp_objects/excerpts-of-colonial-laws-related-to-religious-establishment-and-toleration/, accessibility:
01.12.2025 - Marcin Pomarański, Współczesny amerykański fundamentalizm protestancki, publishing house UMCS, p. 75
- , p. 78
- Lawrence Hurley, Andrew Chung, U.S. Supreme Court takes aim at separation of church and state, June 29, 2022, reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-takes-aim-separation-church-state-2022-06-28/, accessibility: 01.15.2025
- Michael Kryzanek, The Doctrine of Separation of Church and State, 30 May, 2023, bridgew.edu/stories/2023/doctrine-separation-church-and-state, accessibility: 15.01.2025
- Lawrence Hurley, Andrew Chung, U.S. Supreme Court takes aim at separation of church and state, 29 June 2022, reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-takes-aim-separation-church-state-2022-06-28/, accessibility: 01.15.2025
- Marci A. Hamilton and Leslie C. Griffin, How Did Six Conservative Catholics Become Supreme Court Justices Together?, 3 May 2023, https://verdict.justia.com/2023/05/03/how-did-six-conservative-catholics-become-supreme-court-justices-together, accessibility: 01.16.2025
- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 580
- Peter Smith, White evangelical voters show steadfast support for Donald Trump’s presidency, 7 Nov 2024, pbs.org/newshour/politics/white-evangelical-voters-show-steadfast-support-for-donald-trumps-presidency, accessibility: 01.19.2025
- Trump Promises to Grant Christians Unprecedented Political Power, youtube.com/watch?v=CbVqE6pacc8, accessibility: 01.19.2025
- Ibid.