T TOOK A WHILE for my conversation with the radical Muslim from Qatar to move beyond his grievances against America and an insistence that war is what "we" want.

The conversation had begun after a startling incident on our Seattle-bound 757. A wild-eyed and swarthy man in his late 20s collapsed with a bomblike thump in the aisle. In the ensuing chaos I noted that my seatmate seemed to be trying too hard to become invisible—and yes, he did look to be from the Middle East. Opening my news magazine to a report on the events of September 11, I drew him into a sometimes-chilling dialogue that lasted the rest of the four-hour flight.

Naturally, I told the young man about Liberty magazine. And eventually we moved to a discussion of Bible prophecy and what it might have to say about swirling developments in this already-out-of-control millennium. We had discussed the Koran at some length—touching on the curious fact that Muhammad implicitly acknowledges the seventh-day Sabbath in condemning Christians for not observing it—even as he allowed his followers to adopt the same holy days they knew from prior animistic worship. But as we discussed the role of America in Bible prophecy I was struck by how it captivated my Muslim friend.

Revelation 13:11 introduces a lamb-like beast, identified by early Adventist expositors as the United States of America. Ellen G. White is definitive in writing that "one nation, and only one, meets the specifications of this prophecy; it points unmistakably to the United States of America."¹ No other country has so enshrined freedom of religion in its law and practice—and yet, as Revelation reveals, this power will at some point compel a false worship. Part of the mechanism for this compulsion comes from power it exercises, including the use of "fire come down from heaven" (verse 13). Some suggest that this could be "false fire," as opposed to the true sign given to Elijah on Carmel, or it could be a reference to the atomic fire upon Hiroshima. The possibility of more such fire from heaven clearly shook the radical confidence of the young Qatari next to me on the plane.

Where Are We Now?
Seventh-day Adventists hold that the United States, so long a defender of religious freedom, will one day actually precipitate an attack on conscience—compelling worship of a false sabbath. But do the facts indicate we are approaching that shift?

A superficial take on the situation in the United States might actually lead to the opposite conclusion—that religion is in retreat. Indeed, that is the case in Canada, where increasing secularity and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, passed in 1982, have resulted in a bitter war against Christian values. In Canada today gay rights and a secular viewpoint trump Christian standards and practice. This militant and vicious repudiation of values was nowhere more evident than in the last Canadian election to determine a prime minister. The religious faith of one candidate was specifically and crudely attacked by political figures.

In the United States there is also a very real battle between secularists and persons of faith, but some of the public debate functions as a diversion from the real changes taking place.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Religious liberty proponents have been progressively troubled about free exercise since the 1988 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith upheld disallowance of benefits to an American Indian fired from his job for the religious practice of smoking peyote. Since that time the burden of proof for religious accommodation has progressively been on the individual, rather than a default allowance in which the state needs to prove ineligibility. As a result, a broad coalition of churches and civil libertarians joined forces to counter this shift by lobbying first for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and then for the Religious Liberty Protection Act. The second bill actually passed the House in 1999, but because of competing claims from gay rights and other groups the coalition fell apart before Senate approval. Both acts attempted to shift the burden back to the state. A little ominously, in my estimation, the language of the second act allows the state to restrict religious exercise if it has a "compelling state interest"—something implicit in principles of governance but dangerous when allowed to rest on the state's definition.

Prayer in public schools, posting of the Ten Commandments, and similar faith expressions are less important legally than for their role in the battle for America's soul. Religious expression is allowed in schools and other public places, contrary to a lot of public claims by interest groups. A very informative 1995 publication from the Clinton administration made that clear. What is disallowed, in a stance consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, is state-sponsored religious expression.

The Heart of the Struggle
But we are witnesses to a virulent battle between radical secularists and hard-core religionists for control of religious expression. The secularists, using everything from the gay rights agenda to an absolutely exclusionist view of the separation of church and state, would drive religion from the public sphere. A growing cadre of conservative Christian activists would use the power of the state to reinculcate Christian values and recapture an almost mythical vision of a one-time Christian nation. These persons are often as troubled by the non-Christian diversity in the United States as they are by the moral decline.

There is no question that we have crossed a divide of sorts in recent months. Writing in the New York Times Sunday Magazine (Jan. 30, 2000), George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen claimed that "whatever else it achieves, the presidential campaign of 2000 will be remembered as the time in American politics when the wall separating church and state began to collapse." While many of the markers for that collapse are evident in societal change and judicial reexamination, a major underlying reason for the shift away from "the wall of separation," as Thomas Jefferson so aptly termed it in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, lies more toward reasons that Seventh-day Adventists should comprehend.

During the campaign there was a not inconsiderable furor over the anti-Catholic views of Bob Jones Univer-sity. Attempts were even made to pass resolutions condemning the university for its alleged bigotry. Curiously, in defending Bob Jones University's right to hold these views, Charles Colson wrote this in the New York Times of March 2, 2000: "In truth, the gulf between evangelicals and Roman Catholics, opened by the Reformation, is being bridged. . . . Today we stand shoulder to shoulder as the most significant religious bloc in America." Shades of The Great Controversy! That change in dynamic explains so much of what is now happening in the United States.

It is a matter of plain historical fact that past restraints on state-sponsored religious activity were as much motivated by a desire to keep Catholic power under control as to uphold the Constitution. That has now changed, and the rush is on to draw the state into the battle against secularism.

The Power of Dollars
What was long said about law enforcement, and is now a major element in the battle to weaken terrorism, very much applies to understanding the shift in church-state issues: "Follow the money." In Canada, with its more secular history, the longstanding state subsidy for Catholic schools can arguably be resolved by a fair and even subsidy for all. Certainly the stakes are different there. But in the United States the growing clamor for state funding has a more particular goal. One we should be wary of, historically and prophetically.

For some time now Adventist schools and institutions in the United States have accepted certain kinds of state funding, usually with strict controls on both sides. Ellen White was quite clear in stating that if God moves on princes and rulers to give funds, it is not wrong to accept them. However, it is becoming clearer within our own system how the search for outside funding can lead to compromise of mission and even a publicly stated diminishment of our mission in order to qualify for the funds. Thankfully there is a renewed determination within Adventism to administer state funds and subsidies in ways to protect ourselves.

However, the greater threat is to the state itself. And we must resist its increasing willingness to give money to religion—to in essence "establish" religion. The Supreme Court itself hurried this process in its decision on Mitchell v. Helms, which upheld the right of the state to provide computer equipment for church schools. In persistent efforts of many legislators to advance vouchers we see a broad-based intention to publicly fund church schools—perversely, often over the objections of the electorate.

But nowhere is the new paradigm more visible than in the efforts of the present U.S. administration and a coalition of conservative groups to advance the faith-based initiative. Bolder than the similar 1996 charitable choice provisions, the faith-based initiative aims to fund church-based welfare programs directly, even if connected to the faith mission of the church. It is important to acknowledge the conservative Christian Coalition origins of this initiative, as well as the umbrella concept of "compassionate conservatism." Some insight into possibly more narrow intentions of the faith-based initiative came out in the objections of conservatives when it looked as though all religious charities might benefit. That is not their intention. This is part of the re-Christianiz-ing of America. While much particular good might come out of this planned public funding (at this writing, approved as HR 7 and awaiting Senate action), its general effect is a giant step across the line to state control. Ellen White wrote that "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."² While there is more implied here than faith-based initiatives could deliver, it is a clear "sustaining of institutions."

Since September 11
So much has changed since September 11 last year. Laws have certainly changed more quickly than we could ever have imagined. There are now laws like the U.S.A. Patriot Act, designed to strengthen government ability to root out terrorism. Passage of the act led one congressman who voted against it to wonder where that left him. In a country in which freedom is preeminent, it was disconcerting to hear the clamor of voices demanding security at the price of freedom. It was ominous to me that as passengers compared notes after our spooky flight, several made comments to the effect that all religious fundamentalists are a threat.

In the aftermath of September 11, top religious leaders volunteered that America was being punished by God, and in the words of one on national television, "We must put religion back into government." Adventists should recognize where all this is leading.

Suddenly the money trail is important, and charities with any link to terrorism will have much to answer for. Unfortunately the mechanism is now in place to imply guilt by association in other situations. Suddenly the hate crimes legislation takes on another aspect— with England, for example, in the process of criminalizing inflammatory religious speech. Suddenly the much-marginalized actions of France and Russia, registering and deregistering "sects," seem more like models for future action. Suddenly the calls for a new national religious unity have a logic that the populace understands. New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, fresh from a round of services at a mosque, cathedral, church, and synagogue, professed that this made him "know that we are getting through to God." Perhaps this is why an editor of World magazine observed (a little too tardily, I think) that the response to the national shock has been an upsurge in a troubling syncretistic religion (try Babylon). Suddenly the words "last movements will be rapid ones" spring to mind.³

Social upheaval is not new. But it is always significant. A few decades ago Simon and Garfunkel sang that "the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls." We dare not ignore the signs. A few weeks ago I watched Osama bin Laden deliver yet another chilling warning to America. His is an evil twist on the religious faith and the nationalist aspirations of many. But what he said was a revolutionary truism: "The wind of change is blowing." Jesus told us to be sensitive to changing weather.

_________________________
¹ Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 440.
² Ibid., p. 445.
³ White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 11.

_________________________
Lincoln E. Steed is the editor of Liberty magazine