Constantine I (also known as Constantine the Great) was a Roman emperor from A.D. 306–337. It is believed that the celebrated “great man” was buried in a stone coffin flanked, like the solar disk, by tombs presumably for the apostles of Christ, and arranged radially like a sunburst. It was hoped that through miraculously pious archeology, the remains of the disciples of Christ would all be able to be gathered together.

This ceremonial device was combined with the rites of raising dead emperors to the rank of divine creation. A clear sign of merging monotheism with decadent polytheism!

Constantine was not exactly impeccable (given the usual dynastic crimes) yet became a “nominal” Christian with pagan nostalgia. Scholars typically recognize his conversion as somewhat opportunistic and superficial.

In his book, When Our World Became Christian (312–394), the 90-year-old French historian, Paul Veyne, explains that Constantine achieved political gain by professing Christianity (although Christians then represented only 10% of the population of about 70 million comprising the Roman Empire) and from an imperial whim (to which he was entitled). His was apparently a megalomaniacal whim which saw in Christianity not only the avant-garde of history, but also a unifying element.

Self-established as a kind of “president” of the new ecclesial community, declared “bishop of foreign affairs,” but also “brother” (never “son”) of the high Orthodox clergy, Constantine was not truly converted. His baptism appears not to have marked the beginning of faith, but rather a kind of coronation which lasted several years (and to which he had no reason to submit, as pontifex maximus—Latin for “greatest priest”). A trend was now in place whereby the First Ecumenical Council soon after instituted Sunday rest for Christendom in honor of the pagan “venerable day of the sun.”

When, as a historian specialized in Roman antiquity, Paul Veyne manages to transform the “personal whim” of Constantine the Great into a fascinating historical turning point. He asserts that without this leader, Christianity would never have been anything but a sect—a minority merely tolerated at best, despite having the spiritual strength to renew and destroy imperial theology through its own well-organized vitality. The obedience of the masses to the emperor and the ancestral order of the multiethnic Roman Republic did not depend on the supposed “new ideology” fabricated by Constantine. Nor was it due to the subject of conversion (as a result of his famous dream about a cross in the sky accompanied by the message in hoc signo vinces—which means—”by this sign you shall conquer”). Constantine was sincerely convinced that he served the decree of Providence. The claim follows that our world has become nominally Christian since that time. Regardless of the details surrounding Constantine’s conversion, the emperor’s influence on Christianity remains a historical fact. There’s definitely a change of emphasis evident.

Due to imperial intervention, the Christian faith was promoted from the status of a minority religion to becoming a state-protected one. As a result, the number of members increased rapidly. It was only a matter of time before radical mutations took place within her ranks. While Christianity was converting the world, the world was converting Christianity. The negative effect was indisputable.

“The persecutions of the Smyrna period (2nd of the Seven Churches of Revelation) had tended to strengthen rather than weaken the church. Astute politician as he was, Constantine recognized that the persecution policy was a failure. While on the battlefield Constantine claimed to have had a vision in which he saw a cross with the inscription, ‘in this sign conquer.’ Taking this to mean that he should embrace Christianity, he ‘baptized’ his troops by marching them through the river, and had them write the Greek initials for Christ on their shields. He soon began to pass laws favoring Christianity over other religions, and by AD 321 heathen sacrifices had been outlawed as well as work on Sunday. Gifts were made to the clergy, and great churches were erected in Rome, Jerusalem, and especially in Constantinople, the new capital of the empire.

“Besides favoring the ‘true believers’ with funds from the royal treasury, Constantine organized church councils to deal with heresy, took an active role in the decisions made, and banished and persecuted those who were declared heretics. Thus the union of church and state was established, which would be the model both in the Byzantine Eastern Orthodox Church and in the western Roman Catholic Church until the Reformation over 1000 years later. ‘The imperial church came into existence, and a policy of imperial interference was fully developed. Departure from official orthodoxy had become a crime.’

“For the official church it seemed like a dream come true. They were finally not only legal but favored, so that they could get on with the mission Christ had given them to preach the Gospel in all the world. New ‘believers’ were pouring into the church, and the wealth and power of the empire were at their disposal to create the kingdom of God on earth. They never dreamed of what a corrupting effect the union of church and state would have, or what kinds of heresies the half-converted pagans would bring with them into the church.”1

Being a Christian in Constantine’s time had ceased to be a challenge—it had become an advantage. It was fashionable to embrace the religion that the emperor had accepted. And religious leaders were the biggest beneficiaries of the new policy. They received honors as the highest officials of the empire. Annual stipends were offered to them by the state in exchange for church service, thus benefiting from a special status.

What was once a vocation had become a profession. And so it remained. As a result, one of the most radical transformations of the Constantin era was the creation of an ecclesiastical caste that usurped the priesthood of all believers and the right of every believer to serve God.

Under the influence of Greco-Roman culture, the Church installed a system of hierarchy revolving around the head bishop.

The process of change began shortly after the death of the apostles. For example, at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch called in his pastoral letters for the parishioners to “look upon the bishop as a heavenly father.” The equality that Christ had preached turned into subordination.

During the same period, Clement of Rome was the first Christian writer to disconnect between the leader from the common Christian. He used the word “layman” for the first time. Tertullian continued the process of redefining relations between Christians, introducing the term “clergy.” Under these conditions, he could no longer be surprised that the Christian religion was to change direction, abandoning the path laid by the apostles.

The historian Charles Odahl, a specialist in the life of Constantine the Great, claims that the emperor sincerely believed that God had given him the mission to convert the Roman Empire to Christianity. There are certainly arguments to support this belief, just as there are arguments to the contrary.

The motivation of the imperial support given to Christianity matters less than its effects. And most were not positive.

The strong distinction between clergy and laity was one of the worst mistakes. Theologian Karl Barth has suggested that the term “layman” is even harmful to religious vocabulary and should be removed from Christian terminology.

The changes were so profound that even the religious reform of the sixteenth century failed to regain the collective dimension of the priesthood of all believers. Although conceptually, Luther brought the theology of the church back to the apostolic period in terms of the relationship between clergy and laity, in reality the practice continued to persist. The distinction between clergy and laity disappeared from the vocabulary of the reformers, but the excessive order and authority of those who were considered called to the service was maintained.

In the book Pagan Christianity, the American sociologist George Barna claims that the transformations of Constantine’s time allowed the professional clergy to obtain a priority role, while the laity watched, becoming mere spectators. In the opinion of the sociologist, the influence that came from the time of Constantine was so strong that not even today’s Protestantism has managed to return to its original apostolic form.

Thus, Protestant worship is corrupted by the tendency to regard worship as the work of the pastor. What remains for most lay people is to be limited to a very passive role, which is not conducive to spiritual growth.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the separation of believers into clergy and laity has done more harm, in the sense of undermining New Testament authority, than most heresies, says British researcher James Dunn.

This is demonstrated by the phenomenon of “McDonaldization” of churches. “Going to church these days can be like a fast-food meal. It may be quick and tasty. But it will not satisfy the soul.” The RNS [The Regulatory News Services] editor who supports this idea finds only the natural result of a mechanical reporting to church.

Participation is missing. The parishioners who come to church as a fast-food restaurant are the first to be accused. But their attitude is not the result of pressure from society. Even churches maintain a system that has proven bankrupt for centuries. But the score learned is too appealing and far too popular to be abandoned. As a result, the layman sat comfortably in the back seat.

“Separation of powers” is a phrase used in the political field, created and used for the first time by the French political thinker Charles de Secondat (1689–1755), Baron de Montesquieu. According to this model, state power must be divided into different compartments with separate and independent powers and responsibilities in order to avoid any form of absolutism. Moreover, state power is kept in balance through mutual controls (balance of power), thus protecting citizens from possible despotic actions of the state. French King Louis XIV (1638–1714) went down in history as a symbol of absolutism through the famous words, “L’…tat, c’est moi’’ (The state is me).

Separation between church and state is a classic principle of modern law and is found in most Western democracies. In practice, the meaning of this principle varies and depends on the particular historical context of its occurrence or on the legal practice specific to each country, which gives it its true meaning.

The separation of church and state is part of the “rule of law,” a concept developed by the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). Following the principle of the “social contract,” Locke states that the state has no legitimacy to control the conscience of the individual. Freedom is a natural right that must be respected by state authorities. Such an approach, which provides room for tolerance and mutual respect, would form the basis of the United States Constitution a few decades later.

Even the phrase “separation of church and state” is not explicitly found in the United States Constitution. Instead, there are three references that stipulate the relationship between religion and the state. The first reference, Article VI, section 3, states that no religious condition should be imposed as a criterion for holding a public office. The following two constitutional references are found in the first amendment. The second reference is in the so-called “establishment clause,” which guarantees that the government will not pass any law on the establishment of a particular religion. The third reference is known as the “free exercise clause” and guarantees that the state will not enact any law prohibiting the free practice of religion. Therefore, in the American model, the state is neutral and equidistant from religion, without being, instead, indifferent to the religious issue or antagonistic to it. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 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.”2

Not all democratic nations have regulated the issue in the same way. In France, for example, the state is declared secular, but the situation is different in some key respects from that in the United States. The French law stipulating the secular character of the state is the expression of the ideology of the Third Republic (1870–1940), which was the longest-lived political regime after the famous revolution of 1789. Secularism must be understood in the spirit of the French Revolution, which shared an obvious anticlerical (or even anti-religious) attitude. In 1794, by a decree of the National Convention, the budget by which the state subsidized the (Catholic) church was abolished. This decision was later confirmed by another decree (of February 21, 1795), which stated, in the second article, that “the Republic will not pay any cult.” With little variation, this attitude is maintained in France to this day.

It is remarkable that only in 1905 was the separation between church and state explicitly proclaimed in France. Currently, there is no state church in the French Republic, but freedom of conscience is ensured and freedom of worship is guaranteed, without them being paid or subsidized.

Secularism is therefore defined according to context and historical background. The reforms imposed by Atatürk (1881–1938) brought Turkey among modern states precisely through the clear separation of politics from religion. Thus, in Turkey, religious communities are placed under state protection, without their interference in state affairs or political activity. The preamble to the Constitution, as amended in 2001, states: “Sacred religious feelings shall absolutely not be involved in state affairs and politics as required by the principle of secularism.”3

In the European context, it is quite difficult to define the secularity of a state because there is no standard model. For example, if secularism were defined by the non-involvement of the state in the financing of cults, what status would Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Romania (etc.) have, which support the Church with funds from the state budget? Then, what can be said about deeply democratic states (such as the Scandinavian ones), which continue to have a national church by law? Or what about the constitutional restriction that does not allow the king to have a religion other than the “official” one (such as Lutheranism in Sweden or Anglicanism for the British monarchy)? Next, we will highlight the basic elements of the concept of secularism and the separation of church and state.

In some religious circles there is a preconception that the separation of church and state is the application of secular humanist ideals with an atheistic tone. For example, Wallie Amos Criswell (1909–2002), an American Baptist pastor, states: “I believe that all the recent fuss about separation of church and state ‘is a figment of some infidel’s imagination.’ ”4 A similar position is shared by Pat Robertson, “the mogul of Christian media,” stating in the 1980s that the words “ ‘separation of church and state’ are not in the U.S. Constitution, but were in the constitution of the Soviet Union, church-state separation was obviously an atheistic, Communist idea,”5 suggesting that this principle is the fulfillment of an atheist Christian goal.

For the Christian right, the separation of church and state is an embarrassing element, considering that, in a state populated by Christians, the state cannot be other than Christian. There is, therefore, a confusion between the church’s mission of evangelization (i.e., the Christianization of individuals) and that of socio-cultural domination through political instruments.

In the end, society creates the state (and not the other way around), but the role of the state is precisely to protect society, which is essentially a mixed multitude. For this reason, the state will protect both the small and the big, the many, but also the few. In this context, while we can speak of a predominantly Islamic, Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant society, we have no way of approving the concept of an Islamic, Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant state. And the reason is that all those who profess a faith other than the majority, or those who do not profess any are also citizens of the state who must represent everyone equally.

The democratic concept of the separation between state and church has in view, on the one hand, the clear distinction between the two—and on the other hand, the reaffirmation of the state as a state and of the church as a church. First of all, regarding the “common good,” the state has different working tools from those of the church, hence the need for separation. The attempt to impose religious dogmas through state force led to the atrocities of the medieval model. The reverse, the attempt to impose state policies through the church, illustrated the harmful nature of totalitarianism. Second, we are talking about reaffirmation because there are things that religion (the church) cannot and should not do in place of the state, just as there are things that the state can never do in the name of religion. A religious principle or custom must never become the subject of laws—the laws of the state cannot take into account whether a certain citizen is a practitioner of one religion or another. Seen in this way, the separation was not to bother, but rather to help.

It must be emphasized, however, that the plea for a secular state should not be confused with the plea for atheism. A secular state is not and should not be an attack on the religious life of a country because, in essence, a secular state should not favor or oppose the presence or practice of religion. Religious affiliation or non-affiliation is only a freedom exercised by the citizen and should never be monitored or regulated by a particular public institution.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) captured a key point: “Jesus came to establish a Spiritual Kingdom on earth; which, by separating the theological from the political system, led to the State’s ceasing to be one, and caused the intestine divisions which have never ceased to convulse Christian peoples.”6 The concept of a Christian state is not supported by Jesus Christ, who stated emphatically, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).

On the other hand, in the Old Testament social practice, the separation of the religious from the political was already affirmed. The covenant between God and His people was intended to be a direct one and no state structure or iconographic sign should mediate it: hence the initial lack of adherence of the people of Israel to the political structures specific to the time, to which he constantly felt the need to limit. In fact, from the very beginning we find in the law of Moses a distinction between judges, military leaders, and priests. Therefore, even the so-called Old Testament theocracy functioned on the basis of the “rule of law.”

“For Christians, mediation has definitely happened in the person of the incarnate Word. (…) No person or institution should or should not occupy this intersection of the human with the divine. The Son of Man occupies this space historically, and must remain vacant among men until the end of history.”7

Secularism means, of course, that religion should not seek to control the state and the choice of a religion or the choice not to be religious should be free. It also means that the state must allow religions to continue their activities and not suppress them. A secular state is, in essence, a democratic state, which allows freedom of faith, promoting tolerance and peaceful coexistence of different citizens in terms of economic status, political or religious choices.

In 1888, Ellen G. White predicted that politically active Christians would succeed in changing America’s Constitution and in securing a law enforcing Sunday observance. In her monumental book The Great Controversy, she writes: “It will be declared that men are offending God by the violation of the Sunday Sabbath, but this sin has brought calamities which will not cease until Sunday observance shall be strictly enforced.”8

Ellen White goes on to foretell that “Sunday observance shall be enforced by law.”9 But what of those who dissent? What of the Muslim? The Jew? The atheist? She writes that “all who refuse compliance will be visited with civil penalties” she writes, “and it will finally be declared that they are deserving of death.”10

In recent decades, some secular voices on the matter attest to the swiftness of such legal developments, which “have surprised even Vatican officials who helped bring them about.”11 Ellen White had concluded similarly as early as 1909, remarking that “the final movements will be rapid ones.”12

Church and state will unite to enforce religious practices. A spiritual decline, natural disasters, social chaos, and economic difficulties lead up to this Church and State union. If the devil wanted to unite people religiously, what vehicle might he use? What vehicle did he use in 4th-century Christianity? It was the travesty of the forced conversion of Constantine. Is our government likewise influenced by the churches today?

“The Sunday movement is now making its way in darkness. The leaders are concealing the true issue, and many who unite in the movement do not themselves see whither the undercurrent is tending. Its professions are mild and apparently Christian, but when it shall speak it will reveal the spirit of the dragon.”13

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated Associate Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist to serve as the sixteenth chief justice of the Supreme Court, in which role he served until 2005. The chief justice began to question separation of church and state jurisprudence and argue in favor of an accommodationist viewpoint. Accommodationism argues that government may assist religion in the public sphere, provided that it assists all equally. This is not a full establishment of religion, but it is certainly opposed to a separationist viewpoint. Rehnquist referred to the separationist doctrine as a myth and to the wall of separation as only a metaphor based on the Danbury Baptist letter (October 7, 1801) and not founded upon legal jurisprudence. He perceived what he believed to be inconsistencies regarding the Court’s interpretation and application of separationist jurisprudence. Prior SCOTUS jurisprudence decided each church and state case on its individual merits and recognized that each case varied in its unique character.

The following statements are telling illustrations of secular, Protestant and prophecy-founded viewpoints on the future of church and state alignment.

“The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be rankly and explicitly abandoned.” (Former Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist)

“The Constitution of the United States is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. . . . We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, ‘We’ve had enough,’ we are going to take over.”14 (Pat Robertson)

“The only hope for revival in America is legislative reform.” (Tim LaHaye)

“Victory is not a matter of if, but when.” (Jerry Falwell)

“Our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government.”15

“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.”16

“Those who are making an effort to change the Constitution and secure a law enforcing Sunday observance little realize what will be the result. A crisis is just upon us.”17

“Sunday observance shall be enforced by law.”18

If we truly want to declare our allegiance to God’s kingdom, then we must lay down the Roman sword and take up Jesus’ cross—His symbol of nonviolence, humility, service, and peacemaking—and follow Him in finding new and creative ways to live His love in this power-hungry, violent, materialistic age. As we strive to do this, the seventh-day Sabbath can be a weekly reminder of whom we worship, and in whose kingdom our heart lives. The Sabbath gives us the opportunity to step aside from the domination system, aside from Constantine’s empire, and remind ourselves that we live by a different set of values, and bow the knee to another Lord.