Between Prophecy and Power

In the present context we are likely to witness increasing geopolitical developments influenced by Christian religious perspectives, particularly in the United States. Many of these developments are shaped by deeply held beliefs about the fulfillment of the signs of the second coming of Jesus Christ, the interpretation of Bible prophecy, and the connection between those beliefs and the political trends of the time.

We will also increasingly observe significant pressures and tendencies to reevaluate religious freedom in many decision-making contexts, driven primarily, not by political interests, but rather by religious reinterpretations of the concept of the mission of the church. At the same time, these developments may bring back into the current political agenda older attempts to exercise religious influence or control over the understanding of one of the most profound and essential human rights: freedom of religion and conscience.

Theology, Prophecy, and Political Agenda

Many of these trends are influenced by a series of biblical interpretations known as dispensationalism. At the heart of dispensationalism are some key differences between two groups of God’s people throughout history. That is, the people of God in the Old Testament, namely Israel, as opposed to the people of God in the New Testament, the body of Christ, namely the church.

Dispensationalists consider that there are two separate entities with two separate covenants (testaments) with two very different purposes—and destinies! Dispensationalists interpret the prophecies about the future of Israel (not seeing them as mere allegory) as being literally fulfilled in the difficult times of the great tribulation and the last days leading up to the return of Christ.

A dispensationalist view of end-time prophecy would include Israel as a central figure in how current geopolitical events fit into a grand scheme. Thus various current political events could be seen as “fulfillments” of prophecy. Many groups or individuals would even push for certain policies to unfold according to what they perceive to be required by the biblical account or the biblical calendar. That is, their views on the end-times could very well influence their political stance. Such a perspective is, however, only one of many views represented regarding the role that Israel will play in eschatological events. In general, there are many ways to view these end-times events, and most can be attributed to the mix of faith and current geopolitics that make up the larger tapestry represented by discussions about Israel’s future.

Dispensationalists also advocate a two-stage return to earth of Jesus Christ. First, a “secret” or “unobserved” return—namely, the rapture—when Christ will come to this earth to take His people, in the days of these final generations of humanity, preceding a period of great tribulation and torment for those left behind on earth. Later there will be His visible return to earth!

How do Adventists see these concepts promoted by dispensationalism? In the Adventist understanding, when Jesus returns to earth at the end of time, it will be a visible, global event. This event will be seen by every human being on earth, in contrast to the secret rapture that some believe will occur before the tribulation, when only believers will be taken up to heaven.

When a religious group attempts to implement its faith by turning legislation into a surgical instrument to stamp it on public life, it destroys the very foundation of the freedom it seeks to protect.

In seeking to understand prophetic signs and events, Adventist strive to keep their perspectives separate from the common way of trying to tie the Bible to current human political developments. Thus worship, the loyalty of God’s people to their God, and the special value of religious liberty are viewed as the primary focus for end-time predictions.

Adventists see all believers from all walks of life making up God’s people under the control of Christ. The promise to David (referred to in Luke 1:32, 33) is seen as being fulfilled in Christ, who is the eternal king of the universe. The people of God today are a diverse mix of people from all walks of life. It is this worldwide body of believers that reflects God’s immense love for all of humanity.

Navigating the Intersection of Faith and Governance

The relationship between faith and politics can be tricky to balance. For centuries both have been focal points of human life. At times both have encroached on the domain of the other, thus undermining the very freedoms they seek to protect and promote.

The right to religious freedom is the fundamental pillar of the democratic world and the framework for religious practice and development. It allows for the practice of religion, including conversion to a faith or the abandonment of any religious belief or tradition. In essence, the right to religious freedom governs the freedom of all people, ensuring their individual right to practice their religion as they see fit, allowing people of different faiths to coexist peacefully, and respecting the rights of others. This does not mean, however, that the right to religious freedom can be used as an instrument to deny other rights through state power. In public institutions all religions must be treated equally, and all human rights, not just those of a single religion, must be upheld and protected. When a religious group attempts to implement its faith by turning legislation into a surgical instrument to stamp it on public life, it destroys the very foundation of the freedom it seeks to protect.

Much controversy has been created in past centuries, when attempts were made by those of religious views to gain legislative control to impose their religious views upon all citizens. One example often discussed in this context is the recent Heritage Foundation Project 2025 and the specific conversations surrounding Sunday observance. This is not the first time such ideas have appeared in American public life.

The Blair Sunday Rest Bill[1] of the late nineteenth century is a case in point. The supporters of the bill would have had its provisions to ensure observance of the Sunday rest of their choice, impose upon the nation a day of rest from work to enable its citizens to use their time in worship, good works, or pursuing moral recreation. But its opponents felt that such legislation would have been an unwarranted intrusion of religious influence into the affairs of the state and would have negated many of the freedoms of conscience to which its citizens were entitled.

Early Seventh-day Adventist leader Alonzo T. Jones testified in Congress against the bill, arguing that the state should not enforce religious practices, that religious freedom includes the right to observe another day or no day, and that conscience cannot be regulated by civil law. This bill was seen as a direct attempt to have the state enforce observance of a religious day of rest upon all its citizens, contrary to the spirit of freedom to which its supporters were opposed.

Spiritual and Moral Responsibility

Leaders within various religions have often played a significant role in shaping individuals’ opinions and interpretations of the current political climate. As people of faith seek to fulfill their divine mandate and calling to actively participate in the affairs of this world, they are often left to interpret and attempt to apply their interpretations of religious texts, such as prophecy, to inform their views on current geopolitical situations in the Middle East region. While this desire to serve and fulfill God’s calling by informing their views and contributing to discussions on public policy issues is noble, challenging the separation of church and politics in matters of state is difficult.

The path of the believer in matters of faith and politics is not an easy one. Scripture directs us to pray for those in positions of authority. Intercession in prayer for the leaders of a country can be considered a first and essential form of Christian mission toward the authorities of the state. In this context it is the duty of every believer to get involved in the world of politics; it is their privilege and responsibility to pray and seek to change things in order to bring about a more just world, as revealed in the teachings of the Word of God. The danger is that of imposing one’s own beliefs on others, limiting their freedom of conscience. Participation in public life is not only a right but also a responsibility for every believer. This means that he or she must uphold justice, defend human dignity, and promote moral values. In doing so, however, one should not cross the line between inspiring society and decision-makers to do good and coercion through the use and influence of the state that could become impunity. The function of the state is to protect human rights and freedoms, not to impose faith.

Why Religious Freedom Matters

Freedom of conscience has been the focus of the church throughout the centuries. Even after His death and resurrection, Jesus did not coerce anyone to believe in Him. There were those who had turned back and denied Him, but in every instance of their encountering Him after His resurrection, He gave them the opportunity to choose whether they would follow Him. In this way we see that He does not value the external actions of people over their internal motives. Joshua said to Israel, “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). And even the first angel’s message in Revelation 14:6 focuses on an everlasting gospel and an invitation for people to worship the Creator of heaven and earth and give glory to Him. This message is not forced upon people by the civil authority; rather, it is an open invitation. True worship can be given only when a person has been given the opportunity to make that choice freely.

Faith can inspire civic commitment and moral witness, but it should not seek the power of the state to impose religious faith.

In sharing their beliefs with others, Adventists seek to do so in a manner that reflects the nature and character of God. As they proclaim the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14, they do so with the belief that God’s method of reaching the world is by invitation, not by compulsion. God never sought to compel the obedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; instead, He gave them a choice. Ellen G. White notes that “God never compels the obedience of man. He leaves all free to choose whom they will serve.”[2] (See Acts 20:27.)

Understanding this concept is vital to grasping the relationship between religion and government. The civil government is expected to maintain order and justice in society and to protect the rights of its citizens. While government is called to regulate the civil actions of people, it is not the function of the state to dictate matters of faith and worship. To attempt to do so would be to undermine the freedom of conscience, which is such an integral part of genuine religion. History has shown that even the best of motivations to establish laws in order to promote moral and spiritual values can have the opposite effect of stifling the rights of conscience of those who do not share the views of the religious group seeking to establish the legislation.

The great controversy highlights the contrast between God’s methods and the methods of coercion. A relationship with God must be based on truth, invitation, and love—never on coercion.

This is one reason we stand passionately in defense of the principle of separation of church and state. A government should not impose religion or control human conscience. The right to believe and to manifest one’s faith must be protected. Religious freedom protects the right of each person to worship according to his or her conscience—or not to worship at all—without fear of civil sanctions or religious coercion.

In an age when prophetic interpretations increasingly influence public discourse and political agendas, Christians should remember that the kingdom of God advances through persuasion rather than coercion.

A Christian should be a good citizen and a witness to the world, demonstrating a high ethic of Christ’s teachings; yet in no case should the Christian seek to impose that Christian faith through state control. Faith can inspire civic commitment and moral witness, but it should not seek the power of the state to impose religious faith.

Religious freedom is an absolutely essential part of the total Christian experience, and therefore of the total human experience. Love, by its very nature, cannot be forced, and requires voluntary acceptance. Religious freedom remains essential because it reflects the character of God, whose love can be accepted only when freely chosen.

[1] Retrieved from https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Tracts/SL/SL18891215-24.pdf.

[2] Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1917), p. 511.