By the Remnant Herald
Recent comments by former United States President Donald Trump regarding the power he would bestow upon Christians should he be elected again this November have many people talking about how this may blur the lines even more between politics and religion. Last February, his promise to those who attended the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville, Tennessee, was unambiguous:
“When I get in there [the White House], you’ll going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used it before. It’s going to bring back the churchgoer…” Web-site of YouTube: Advent Messenger — Trump Promises to Grant Christians Unprecedented Political Power. February 23, 2024
These remarks are in line with what Donald Trump proclaimed over eight years ago:
“I want to give power back to the church, because the church has to have more power.” Charisma News, February 18, 2016. Lake Mary, Florida
A large percentage of American evangelicals, rightly concerned at the rapid decline of morality in society, argue that their use of political power will help solve the nation’s ills. In 1979, a leading figure of “the religious right” declared:
“Our nation is falling, because we have removed ourselves from the guidance of Almighty God. Everywhere we turn, Christian values are assaulted and are in retreat. As Christians, we are not going to take it any-more…If Christians unite, we can do anything. We can pass any law or any amendment. And that’s exactly what we intend to do.” Robert Grant, Director of Christian Voice, in Washington, D.C., on June 14, 1979. Quoted in Ministry, December 1979
Sister White wrote that such power will be harnessed by the church to impose its will upon the state:
“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.” The Great Controversy, p. 445. 1888 edition
This development, foretold in Revelation 13, is an unmistakable breach of the separation of church and state. Article VI of the United States Constitution (“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”) and The First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) were written, as explained by Charles Haynes, Director of the Religious Freedom Education Project (USA):
“Taken together, these two clauses safeguard religious liberty by protecting religions and religious convictions from government interference or control. They ensure that religious belief or non-belief remains voluntary, free from government coercion … This does not mean that the government can be hostile to religion. The government must maintain what the Supreme Court has called ‘benevolent neutrality,’ which permits religious exercise to exist but denies it government sponsorship. The no-establishment clause serves to prevent both religious control over government and political control over religion.” Website of Web Archive: Freedom Forum Institute: History of Religious Liberty in America. December 26, 2002 (Originally written in 1991)
In June 1962, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, in a majority opinion on the Engel v. Vitale case, wrote:
“Its [the Establishment Clause] first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.” Website of The National Constitutional Center (USA): Supreme Court Case: Engel v. Vitale, 1962
While supporters of the abolition of the separation of church and state may deny that their religion would be degraded as a consequence, history has unfailingly shown that this has always been the predictable outcome—not just with Christendom but other religions as well (consider how the Islamic faith in Iran has been weaponized since 1979 to silence critics of the ruling government. Other examples could be cited).
The change of sentiment amongst a sizable number of evangelical Christians towards active participation in American politics originated in the 1960s following a series of decisions rendered by the United States Supreme Court that they fervently believed were contributing to the rapid moral decline in American society. Majority verdicts banning official prayers in public schools (July 1962); allowing the possession of adult pornography (April 1969); upholding government aid to parochial schools (June 1971); supporting nation-wide first-trimester abortions (January 1973)—together with efforts to include the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would forbid all discrimination based upon gender—stirred millions of conservative Christians to abandon their neutrality towards politics by uniting with movements such as the Moral Majority to elect politicians who pledged to promote their cause in office. In November 1980, Ronald Reagan famously won that year’s presidential election in an impressive landslide, defeating incumbent Jimmy Carter, thanks to the overwhelming support he received from “the religious right.” That same support base helped deliver Donald Trump’s memorable win in the 2016 presidential election.
While one cannot, of course, predict the winner of the 2024 presidential election at this stage, we should note the growing support base Donald Trump is accumulating.
“New polling shows a commanding +23% lead for President Trump among Michigan Catholics, a key voting block for November in this super competitive battleground state. Right now, per a survey commissioned by the League of American Workers, Trump earns 54% of the Catholic vote in the Great Lakes State vs. 31% for Biden and undecided at 15%.
“Historically, the Catholic voter base has a stellar record in determining the presidential winner. In fact, before the 2020 election, for a half century, the Catholic vote went to the presidential winner in every contest but one.
“In 2020, Pew showed only a slight 1% edge for Trump, 50–49% among Catholics … But those same states today reveal a very different reality. In fact, if current trends hold, Trump could well enjoy a victory among Catholic voters that far exceeds his prior 2016 triumph.” Web-site of Town Hall (USA): Trump Romps Among Battle-ground Catholics. March 19, 2024
The political potency of the Catholic-evangelical voting block is such that a growing band of Trump supporters is now calling themselves “Christian nationalists.” Opinions vary as to what that phrase actually means. Some are fearful of a coming religious dictatorship that will be buttressed by the power of the state. Such apprehensions contain a high degree of validity—not only from what we study in Revelation 13 and the latter part of The Great Controversy—but also from proposals put forth by The Heritage Foundation in its Project 2025 (Presidential Transitional Project), designed to revamp the executive branch of the American government should a Republican president assume office.
It would vastly expand the President’s current powers to unprecedented levels by appointing his kind of people into positions of responsibility in a bid to quash political interference, maladministration, and corruption. Opponents claim this will offer the Republican president extraordinary leverage to act on a whole range of issues with almost no restraint in the name of national security. But a sizable proportion within the Democratic Party and of those who espouse radical politics share that same lust for plenipotentiary power, too. America has long cultivated its dragon-like propensities, which become more prominent as the nation rushes speedily toward the Sunday Law crisis (Revelation 13:11). The pendulum will swing, the long-expected crisis will come, and it is vital for us to be ready for the end times!
About: The Remnant Herald is an Australian publication produced by Remnant Ministries. The current editor and author is Elvis Placer, and we have reproduced this article with his permission. You can contact Elvis Placer through email at rh1844@pm.me or call the office clerk at +61 3 9706 2173 to request a FREE subscription to the Remnant Herald.
0
0
0
America is speaking like a dragon.
Christian nationalism is making a return with a vengeance since 1888.
Things are moving fast. The final movements will be rapid.
I belive that one should be careful how we take Iran and use it as an example of oppressio. Of views that differ. There are Jewish communities and christian communities in Iran that go all the way back to ancient Persia. We ought to be more careful than to broadly quote the Western press whose ideology has so corrupted their reporting that they cannot be implicity trusted. Stick to what tou know…
The weaponisation of religion as a tool of oppression is not limited to nations who call themselves Christian. Iran was cited in this article as an example of how its national government uses the Islamic faith as a pretext to silence its political opponents — the focus was on the government of Iran, not its citizenry. The current Indian nationalist government has been employing the Hindu religion for years as a means of curtailing its political detractors, especially if they adhere to another faith. I was in India five years ago and this was freely admitted by a number of Seventh-day Adventists whom I had conversed with, who have lived in that country all their lives — both ministers and laity. One does not need to refer to Western media sources to document these developments — the local press in those nations furnish the necessary evidence to prove the point.
“And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17). The reverse reading is true — where the Spirit of the Lord is not present, there is oppression, irrespective of country, race and creed. Human nature without Christ is the same the world over — history testifies of this. The world needs Jesus, and with it the liberty of the gospel which upholds freedom of conscience for every individual.