Separation of Church and State
A Bible-Based Truth

David Qualls

Introduction
As Seventh-day Adventists we are acutely aware of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, especially that of Revelation 13, which foretell the scenario that will bring on the very end times. By looking at recent trends in the churches, in our country, and in the world, we see that we most certainly are on the verge of these events. By looking at history, we get a clue of how these events will most likely play out. What should we as Seventh-day Adventist Christians do as we see the day approaching? Should we just let them happen? Or should we actively speak out against wrongs that are taking place? Or perhaps we should ignore them and go about our business?

Revelation 13 speaks of a power, apparently a superpower, that enforces religious decrees. This we know from our study of scriptures to be that of the United States. In this land of freedom, church and state will unite and persecute God's faithful people who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12). The "...union of religion [church] and the State has marked the greatest apostasies from God, and has caused more misery than any other thing in all history."^[1] Today, voices in America are sounding a warning that this nation must come back to God or suffer under His judgments. These voices are calling on government to restore morality in the land. This trend toward entanglement of church and state has been building over the past 25 or so years. How are we to respond? Should we join our fellow Christians in their call to restore morality and thus the favor of God in our land? Should we use their methods? What does the Bible say about this topic? Does the Bible teach separation of church and state or does it teach that they should be united together?

Abraham Called Out
The complete separation of church and state is both biblical and Christian. From the beginning of the Bible to the end, this principle is clearly taught. Right at the beginning, in the book of Genesis, we find the principle. The first mention of a government or kingdom in the Bible is of Nimrod: "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth... And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel." (Gen 10:8, 10). Nimrod and his followers served other gods. Joshua 24:10. In that land, only Abraham believed God. God chose Abraham to be the father of His people, His church, on the earth. And from that state, God separated Abraham. Genesis 12:1. Thus begins a pattern that we see throughout the Bible: God separating His church from the secular kingdoms of this world. We should follow Abraham's example, for "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed" (Gal 3:29). Abraham representing God's church on the earth at that time, separated from all earthly kingdoms, "they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth," looking for a better country which God had prepared for them. Heb 11: 13, 10.

Moses and Israel Separate from the State
The same pattern is seen in the beginnings of Egypt as in the beginnings of Babylon and Assyria. Moses was called of God to lead his people Israel, the "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38), and to separate himself from the state of Egypt. Moses "refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter" (Heb 11:24).

Israel to be Separate
God's people, Israel (His church) was to be a separate people. God said, "lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations" (Num 23:9). "God never intended that His people should be formed into a kingdom, or State, or government, like the people of this world; nor that they should be connected with any kingdom, or State, or government, of this world."^[2] God wanted to rule His people directly. "Their government was to be a theocracy pure and simple--God their only King, their only Ruler, their only Lawgiver. It was indeed to be a church organization, beginning with the organization of "the church in the wilderness," and was to be separated from every idea of State. The system formed in the wilderness through Moses, was to continue in Canaan; and was intended to be perpetual."^[3]

But, as we know, Israel rejected God's ideal way and wanted to be like the nations around them. They forsook God's plan, and because they suffered the consequences by being overrun by the nations around them, their solution was to appoint a king over them. Notice the pattern; there are parallels to our day. They forsook God's commandments and ways, suffered the consequences, and then tried to solve the problem by appealing to a strong government to protect them--against God's wishes. God said to Samuel, "they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them" (1 Sam 8:7). And Samuel said to them, "Ye have this day rejected your God," and "have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us" (1 Sam 10:19).

The sad results of the setting up of a monarchy over the church / nation of Israel can be seen throughout her history. The kings of Israel, more often than not, were despots and wicked. Finally, God had to send them into captivity to the nations around them.

Christ's Relation to the State -- Our Example
More than any other figure in the Bible, Christ, the Son of God, lived and taught the separation of church and state.

"He refused to recognize, even by a sign, the wish of the people to make Him king. John 6:15. He refused, when requested, to act the part of a judge or a divider over men as to the rights of property. Luke 12:13-15. He refused to recognize the national lines of distinction, the wall of partition, which Israel in their exclusiveness had built up between themselves and other nations. He refused to judge, or to allow any others to judge, any one for not believing on Him. John 12:47, 48. He distinctly declared that, though He is a king, yet His kingdom is not of this world, and that it is not in any way connected with this world. John 18:36. He distinctly declared the separation of His religion from the State. ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' Mark 12:17."^[4]

Christ said of His followers, "Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 15:19; 17:16. Jesus had opportunity to reform the government of His day and it certainly needed reform. But He did not attempt to do this except by calling on individuals to repent and follow Him.

Christ's Answer to the Pharisees
Christ established the principle of separation of civil and religious authority when the Pharisees tried to entangle Him in His own words by asking Him whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matt 22:21. Let's pick up the testimony of Professor A.T. Jones before the United States Senate Committee as Senator Blair is questioning him.^[5] [See section "1888 Blair Amendment" later in this paper.]

Mr. Jones. -- ... In this the Savior certainly separated that which pertains to Caesar and that which pertains to God. We are not to render to Caesar that which pertains to God; we are not to render to God by Caesar that which is God's.
Senator Blair. -- May not the thing due to Caesar be due to God also?
Mr. Jones. -- No, sir. If that be so, then the Savior did entangle Himself in His talk, the very thing which they wanted Him to do. The record says that they sought "how they might entangle him in his talk." Having drawn the distinction which he has, between that which belongs to Caesar and that which belongs to God, if it be true that the same things belong to both, then he did entangle himself in his talk; and where is the force in his words which command us to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to God the things that are God's?
Senator Blair. -- Is it not a requirement of God's that we render to Caesar that which is due to Caesar?
Mr. Jones. -- Yes.
Senator Blair. -- If Caesar is society, and the Sabbath is required for the good of society, does not God require us to establish the Sabbath for the good of society? And if society makes a law accordingly, is it not binding?
Mr. Jones. -- It is for the good of society that men shall be Christians; but it is not in the province of the state to make Christians. For the state to undertake to do so would not be for the benefit of society; it never has been, and it never can be.

The Two Tables of the Law

Christ taught that there are two parts to His law:

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matt 22:35-40.

Here we see that God has partitioned His 10 Commandment law into two parts, the first table and the second table.^[6] The first four commandments have to do with our duty to God and God alone. The last six commandments pertain to our duty to our fellow man. This is illustrated in the table below.

The state has the right and duty to legislate laws pertaining to the 2nd table, but God reserves the 1st table to Himself. The things that pertain to God are not to be rendered to civil government. These things are to be rendered to God -- not to Caesar, nor by Caesar.

We again pick up the Senate testimony of A. T. Jones as he discusses this point with Senator Blair:

Mr. Jones. -- In answering the question, Christ established this principle: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." That tribute money was Caesar's; it bore his image and superscription; it was to be rendered to him. Now, it is a question of rendering Sabbath observance, and it is a perfectly legitimate and indeed necessary question to ask right here: Is it lawful to render Lord's day observance to Caesar? The reply may be in His own words: Show me the Lord's day; whose image and superscription does it bear? -- The Lord's to be sure. This very bill which is under discussion here today declares it to be the Lord's day. Then the words of Christ apply to this. Bearing the image and superscription of the Lord, Render therefore to the Lord the things that are the Lord's, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. It does not bear the image and superscription of Caesar; it does not belong to him; it is not to be rendered to him.^[7]

The Fourth Commandment contains God's seal:
His (1) Name, (2) Title, and (3) Jurisdiction

Romans 13
What about Romans 13 where Paul tells us to "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Rom 13:1. Then Paul goes on to list out some of the 10 Commandments. Indeed it is the duty of every Christian to obey the laws of the land and to respect government. However, notice that Paul lists out only commandments from the 2nd table of the law:

"For this, [7th] Thou shalt not commit adultery, [6th] Thou shalt not kill, [8th] Thou shalt not steal, [9th] Thou shalt not bear false witness, [10th] Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, [2nd great commandment] Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Rom 13:9.

Paul doesn't deal with the first four commandments here because these pertain to our duty to God, not to the state. He even uses the 2nd great commandment to sum up the 2nd table of the law. This is our duty to man. This is where we are to be "subject to the higher powers."

Separation of Church and State in the US Constitution
The United States Constitution contains the principle of separation of church and state. Many of the founding fathers were deeply religious. However, they took great pains to craft a document that does not interfere in religious matters. How many times does the Constitution mention God? None. How many times does it mention Christianity? Again, none. It is a secular document. In fact, the only reference to religion in the Constitution itself is Article VI: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the Unites States."

The First Amendment (Bill of Rights) contains the all-important phrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This provides for a neutral government toward religion, not just neutral toward religions. From this, President Thomas Jefferson coined the now famous phrase, "wall of separation of church and state" in 1802.

1888 Blair Amendment
The year 1888 is significant to Seventh-day Adventists in more than one way. Most are aware of the great Righteousness by Faith emphasis brought by A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner at the 1888 General Conference session held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. What many do not realize is that simultaneous to the events at Minneapolis, a federal law was being prepared in Washington, D.C. to enforce Sunday observance -- a National Sunday Law. This bill was known as S. 2983 and was introduced by Senator Blair into the United States Senate. A.T. Jones was asked to travel to Washington to testify on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist church against this bill.

Jones testified before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor on December 13, 1888 just a few short weeks after the Minneapolis conference. Events were truly coming to a head, both in the church and in the nation. The Seventh-day Baptists and other Sabbath-keeping groups had caved in to the pressure of the law by agreeing to an exemption for themselves. Jones however refused to compromise in the slightest. He testified that the law was against the Bible, not good for the country, and that Seventh-day Adventists would not settle for a compromise exemption for themselves. By his forceful and logical argument, he was able to turn the tide against the bill and it was not acted upon.

An organization was born out of that year's events, known today as the Lord's Day Alliance.^[8] This organization, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, exists solely to urge Sunday as the Sabbath. It advocates legislation to promote Sunday sacredness. Its leaders have met with Pope John Paul II and other religious and government leaders in their singular purpose of paying homage to Sunday. They along with many other organizations on the Religious Right, are actively working to unite church and state and to bring about the events that we have been told will happen.

[Jones' testimony is fully covered in the book, The National Sunday Law. See footnote 5 below.]

Should Christians Vote?
The following excerpts are from the writings of Ellen White on the subjects of voting, politics, and the duty of Seventh-day Adventists to actively support religious liberty:

Those who have charge of our institutions and our schools should guard themselves diligently, lest by their words and sentiments they lead the students into false paths. Those who teach the Bible in our churches and in our schools are not at liberty to unite in making apparent their prejudices for or against political men or measures, because by so doing they stir up the minds of others, leading each to advocate his favorite theory. There are among those professing to believe present truth some who will thus be stirred up to express their sentiments and political preferences, so that division will be brought into the church. {FE 475.1}

The Lord would have His people bury political questions. On these themes silence is eloquence. Christ calls upon His followers to come into unity on the pure gospel principles which are plainly revealed in the word of God. We cannot with safety vote for political parties; for we do not know whom we are voting for. We cannot with safety take part in any political schemes. We cannot labor to please men who will use their influence to repress religious liberty, and to set in operation oppressive measures to lead or compel their fellow men to keep Sunday as the Sabbath. The first day of the week is not a day to be reverenced. It is a spurious sabbath, and the members of the Lord's family cannot participate with the men who exalt this day, and violate the law of God by trampling upon His Sabbath. The people of God are not to vote to place such men in office; for when they do this, they are partakers with them of the sins which they commit while in office.

[It is interesting to note that in the last sentence (above), the danger signal to prevent us from voting for a particular candidate is not corruption or other sins of the office holder, but their record or potential record on religious liberty that is at issue. Of course their character is also important; in fact the two often go hand in hand.]

We are not to compromise principle by yielding to the opinions and prejudices which we may have encouraged before we united with God's commandment-keeping people. We have enlisted in the army of the Lord, and we are not to fight on the enemy's side, but on the side of Christ, where we can be a united whole, in sentiment, in action, in spirit, in fellowship. Those who are Christians indeed will be branches of the true vine, and will bear the same fruit as the vine. They will act in harmony, in Christian fellowship. They will not wear political badges, but the badge of Christ. {FE 475.3}

What are we to do, then? -- Let political questions alone. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" What can there be in common between these parties? There can be no fellowship, no communion. The word fellowship means participation, partnership. God employs the strongest figures to show that there should be no union between worldly parties and those who are seeking the righteousness of Christ. What communion can there be between light and darkness, truth and unrighteousness? -- None whatever. Light represents righteousness; darkness, error, sin, unrighteousness. Christians have come out of darkness into the light. They have put on Christ, and they wear the badge of truth and obedience. They are governed by the elevated and holy principles which Christ expressed in His life. But the world is governed by principles of dishonesty and injustice.... {FE 476.1}

Those teachers in the church or in the school who distinguish themselves by their zeal in politics, should be relieved of their work and responsibilities without delay; for the Lord will not co-operate with them. The tithe should not be used to pay any one for speechifying on political questions. Every teacher, minister, or leader in our ranks who is stirred with a desire to ventilate his opinions on political questions, should be converted by a belief in the truth, or give up his work. His influence must tell as a laborer together with God in winning souls to Christ, or his credentials must be taken from him. If he does not change, he will do harm, and only harm. {FE 477.1}

My brethren, will you not remember that none of you have any burden laid upon you by the Lord to publish your political preferences in our papers, or to speak of them in the congregation, when the people assemble to hear the Word of the Lord. . . . {2SM 336.2}

We are not as a people to become mixed up with political questions. All would do well to take heed to the Word of God, Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers in political strife, nor bind with them in their attachments. There is no safe ground in which they can stand and work together. The loyal and the disloyal have no equal ground on which to meet. {2SM 336.3}

He who breaks one precept of the commandments of God is a transgressor of the whole law. Keep your voting to yourself. Do not feel it your duty to urge everyone to do as you do.--Letter 4, 1898. {2SM 337.1}

There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and vote be on the side of temperance and virtue?" {PH093 8.2}

The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence, by precept and example, by voice and pen and vote, in behalf of prohibition and total abstinence. We need not expect that God will work a miracle to bring about this reform, and thus remove the necessity for our exertion. We ourselves must grapple this giant foe, our motto, "No compromise," and no cessation of our efforts till victory is gained. {PH093 8.4}

"Shall we vote for prohibition?" she asked. "Yes, to a man, everywhere," she replied, "and perhaps I shall shock some of you if I say, If necessary, vote on the Sabbath day for prohibition if you cannot at any other time."--Ibid. {3BIO 160.1} [Here G. B. Starr is relating an experience he had with Ellen White while she was in Iowa in the year 1881--an account Ellen White endorsed. {see 3BIO 160.2}]

Not to Sit in Quietude, Doing Nothing (Dealing with Religious Liberty)

[This was written at the time of the National Sunday Law before Congress in 1888]

It is our duty to do all in our power to avert the threatened danger. . . . A vast responsibility is devolving upon men and women of prayer throughout the land to petition that God may sweep back this cloud of evil, and give a few more years of grace to work for the Master.--RH Extra, Dec. 11, 1888. {LDE 126.3}

Those who are now keeping the commandments of God need to bestir themselves that they may obtain the special help which God alone can give them. They should work more earnestly to delay as long as possible the threatened calamity.--RH Dec. 18, 1888. {LDE 126.4}

Let not the commandment-keeping people of God be silent at this time as though we gracefully accepted the situation.--7BC 975 (1889). {LDE 127.1}

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.--5T 714 (1889). {LDE 127.2}

There are many who are at ease, who are, as it were, asleep. They say, "If prophecy has foretold the enforcement of Sunday observance the law will surely be enacted," and having come to this conclusion they sit down in a calm expectation of the event, comforting themselves with the thought that God will protect His people in the day of trouble. But God will not save us if we make no effort to do the work He has committed to our charge. . . . {LDE 127.3}

As faithful watchmen you should see the sword coming and give the warning, that men and women may not pursue a course through ignorance that they would avoid if they knew the truth.--RH Extra, Dec. 24, 1889. {LDE 127.4}

Oppose Sunday Laws by Pen and Vote

We cannot labor to please men who will use their influence to repress religious liberty and to set in operation oppressive measures to lead or compel their fellow men to keep Sunday as the Sabbath. The first day of the week is not a day to be reverenced. It is a spurious sabbath, and the members of the Lord's family cannot participate with the men who exalt this day and violate the law of God by trampling upon His Sabbath. The people of God are not to vote to place such men in office, for when they do this they are partakers with them of the sins which they commit while in office.--FE 475 (1899). {LDE 127.5}

I do hope that the trumpet will give a certain sound in regard to this Sunday-law movement. I think that it would be best if in our papers the subject of the perpetuity of the law of God were made a specialty. . . . We should now be doing our very best to defeat this Sunday law.--CW 97, 98 (1906). {LDE 128.1}

As the controversy extends into new fields and the minds of the people are called to God's downtrodden law, Satan is astir. The power attending the message will only madden those who oppose it. The clergy will put forth almost superhuman efforts to shut away the light lest it should shine upon their flocks. By every means at their command they will endeavor to suppress the discussion of these vital questions. The church appeals to the strong arm of civil power, and, in this work, papists and Protestants unite. As the movement for Sunday enforcement becomes more bold and decided, the law will be invoked against commandment keepers. They will be threatened with fines and imprisonment, and some will be offered positions of influence, and other rewards and advantages, as inducements to renounce their faith. But their steadfast answer is: "Show us from the word of God our error"--the same plea that was made by Luther under similar circumstances. Those who are arraigned before the courts make a strong vindication of the truth, and some who hear them are led to take their stand to keep all the commandments of God. Thus light will be brought before thousands who otherwise would know nothing of these truths. {GC 607.1}

... It is our duty to obey God, and when they arrest you, take no thought what you shall do. What you are to do is to follow Christ step by step. We need not commence weeks beforehand to examine the question and plan out what we will do when they do so and so, neither what we are to say. Study the truth, and the Spirit of the Lord will bring to your remembrance what you shall say. {5MR 68.3}

¹ Alonzo T. Jones, Christian Patriotism or Religion and the State, (Pacific Press Publishing Co.: Oakland, CA, 1900), p. 3 [reprinted facsimile, Leaves-of-Autumn Books, Inc.: Payson, AZ, 1986, 1989].

The reader should take note that while this paper, to a certain degree, relies on the able arguments of A. T. Jones in the topic under discussion, we are aware of his tragic fall into serious error after the turn of the century (post 1900). We do not endorse all views that Jones ever published. However, we recognize that he did make an enormous contribution to truth, especially around the time of the 1888 Minneapolis Meetings and in the decade following. We take note of Ellen White's statement of the possibility of things to come when she wrote in 1892, "It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God." {1892 letter to Elder Uriah Smith, 15MR 84.3}. All emphasis supplied throughout this paper.

Many today still recognize the value of the in-depth insights that Elder Jones brought to the discussion of many issues including that of our topic here. For example, the Religious Liberty video for 2003 (produced by the Office of Legislative Affairs for the Seventh-day Adventist Church), features A. T. Jones, among others, as a champion of liberty for the Adventist church.