Is the Adventist Church Getting Too Political?
26 May 2008
Is the Adventist Church Getting Too Political?
image:
UK-based law student, Torsten Pedersen, expresses frustration over the political tone in a Roy Adams editorial.
In the Review, Roy asks Adventists living in Maryland to vote to keep 15,000 slot machines out of the state. Adams writes:
I’m not sure how many Adventists of voting age we have in Maryland, but the number has got to be in the tens of thousands. Should we all choose to exercise our right to vote—and assuming we all oppose the measure—it could make a huge difference on election day, when combined with the opposition of other equally concerned citizens.
That’s what I’m hoping for, given the gravity of the issue. According to a respected study conducted in the mid-1990s and cited in the Post editorial, the anticipated results of bringing gambling into the state will be “a substantial increase in crime.” It says there’d be “more violent crime, more crimes against property, more insurance fraud, more white collar crime, more juvenile crime, more drug- and alcohol-related crime, more domestic violence and child abuse, and more organized crime.” All leading the Post editorial to suggest that “[what] seems to promise quick cash on easy terms [is] in fact . . . a raw deal.” One legislator called slot machines “the crack cocaine of gambling.”
In Ellen G. White’s time the big issue was temperance legislation, and she couldn’t be clearer on what the responsibility of Adventists should be: “Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping [society’s] very foundations,” she said. “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 that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?” (The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Nov. 8, 1881).
I believe the same argument is relevant to the issue before us. It’s unconscionable when governments seek to balance their budgets by destroying the lives of the most vulnerable of their citizens, leading many into dependency and addiction. No voting Adventist in Maryland can in good conscience refuse to stand up and be counted this November.
Torsten responds:
Gambling does ruin lives and it saddens me every time I walk past the bookmaker that is located less than 100 meters from my front door. Neither do I object to Adventists, laypersons as well as ministers, advocating for or against certain political propositions, although I'm not certain I agree with Adams that gambling should be illegal.
What I object to is the church, or officials acting on behalf of the church, advocating specific political positions. The church can and should speak up on political issues concerning freedom of conscience and religion, but should not engage in, or become part of, the political discourse. Church members can and should be politically active, but not the church.
I have for a long time considered whether I should be a member of the Adventist church, now I think I should resign my membership. I maintain my belief in the core Adventist beliefs and seek the 'faith of Jesus,' but the church is becoming more like other evangelical churches that seek political influence and see themselves as moral guardians of society. I, however, cannot feel at home in a church that engages in politics.
- 24.01.2008, Update -
I've regretted writing the last paragraph since posting this entry late last night (at 03.00 AM). I'm not going to resign my membership of the Adventist church, and I shouldn't have suggested that disagreement with the church is a good reason to do so. The church is a fellowship of believers and what connects us is a belief in Jesus, not agreement over politics. I'll keep advocating that the church shouldn't engage in politics, but they are going to have to throw me out for me to leave.
In the comments, Johnny responds:
In Remnant and Republic by Charles Teel (and also the books by Doug Morgan and Edwin Hernandez) you can read about Adventist involvement on specific political propositions counselling the entire church to vote a certain way on bills and part of the political discourse. An example would be our contributing significantly to the defeat of a California law which sought to ban alcohol sales on their Sabbath (Sunday). We even all but explicitly endorsed President Harding in the Review actually. And Paulsen has spoken out pretty strongly against Iraq in reminding Adventists that it's against our faith to bear arms in his call for peacemaking. So this isn't something new, no.
I echo the worry that our church might sully itself in the manner of many Christians of the last few decades. However, I can't conceive of a perfectly apolitical position for any organization.
As he intimates, writing for the official church organ complicates things. For instance, if Roy felt that District of Columbia residents (or homosexuals) should have the right to vote (marry) and advocated for it in the Review, while he could also draw upon the same Adventist history arguments justifying his outspokenness, the majority of Adventists would feel confused or worse. He might even make a human and religious liberty argument but many would bemoan the politicization of the church.
So, in that case, the disagreement would appear because the members were not political enough in the majoritarian sense.
As Torsten intimates, a lot of Adventists are used to thinking of the church the way that Dick Cheney defines conservation (a sign of personal virtue). This has saved us from some messy fights (like abortion) but we've also been way too silent on issues of civil rights around the world. For most Adventists, being a member of the church allows them to signify personal virtue. But what happens when the virtuous means working together, publicly?
Should we, like a quiet family, tamp down our differences? Too repressive, I'd say. Should we, like the Religious Right, organize our church into single or double issue voting blocks? No, it's spiritually disastrous and clearly corrupting.
What are a few guidelines or principles that you think the official church should heed in our public moral witness?
Search
- Donna Haerich on Desmond Ford on the Atonement
- Nic Samojluk on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Don Rhoads on What's So Funny About Community Organizing?
- Don Barton on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Gillian Ford on Desmond Ford on the Atonement
- Gillian Ford on LiveBlogging - Built Ford Tough
- B Jones on Book Club Discussion--Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Adventist Perspectives
- Jared Wright on LiveBlogging - Built Ford Tough
- PLM on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Mike MacLennan on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
I'm not sure what you mean by messy in the second to last paragraph. Please expand.
I'm interested in hearing what a messy fight looks like and your choice of abortion makes for as good a case study as any.
We've always had editorials urging Adventists to vote, even on the Sabbath in one occasion (our Sabbath- Saturday) because an issue was so important.
I think the conclusion is that no, we're not "getting too political". We've always been "political" and we always will be "political".
Should Adventists vote against gambling in Maryland? I'd say yes. I can't imagine Roy writing in favour of homosexual marriage. However I get your point, and follow your segue, into a discussion on homosexuality within Adventist publications. I don't see anything wrong with either gambling or homosexuality being discussed openly. This is all provoking thought and conversation. I'd call that a success.
And frankly there are fewer articles about homosexuality than there were written about abortion. To date at least. That's my totally unscientific opinion but I've looked into archives of adventist publications on both issues in the past... I think we're in the beginning of our conversation on Homosexuality and believe we're going to have to have many more conversations, ink, sermons and conferences on this issue.
Actually, many good Adventist ethicists cut their teeth on abortion discussions, and included thesis chapters and articles on the discussions leading up to the GC abortion statement from Mike Pearson to Jerry Winslow and science of religion folk like Edwin Hernandez also to name a few. Actually they were a bit older than you and I are now.
If we're to look at how abortion played out in our community I think we did well and that we're doing a good job with homosexuality too.
Now, to answer your question:
I think if we're going to equate our public moral witness with politics we're in trouble. I think Ryan's podcast you did illustrates well what our public moral witness should look like. And that look isn't about McCain or Obama.
To what Ryan offered by way of what a local church can do, I'd add wider organisations like the North American Religious Liberty Association, Adventist Peace Fellowship, Dorcas, Maranatha, Adventist Health International and the Adventist Relief and Development Agency to name a few. They offer a public moral witness far more effective than any political stance.
Is the church's getting involved in political issues the "slippery slope" so often feared? How does the official church determine what issues it should foster and which should be fought against? Do they poll the members? Do they have the authority to speak publicly for or against certain propositions as church representatives?
Wil they take a public stand on homosexual marriage which will likely be on the California ballot this fall? Should they? Many Christian churches, I'm sure, will take an active part in this initiative proposed against homosexual marriage, despite the state supreme court members are nearly all Republican and appointees of Republicans. Will the church flex its muscles on this? We'll soon see.
By messy, I mean mimicking the inflated rhetoric and name-calling of the culture wars that have happened in several denominations, e.g., the purges of theological moderates in the Southern Baptist Convention or the threats of schism over women's ordination in the Anglican Communion in the 70s and 80s.
When it comes to politics Adventists should stick to their historical position of supporting separation of church and state. Not only has history proved this to be the best form of governance; it also makes logical sense for a slightly out of the mainstream group like Adventists from a self-preservation perspective.
F.D. Nichol and the other strong leaders from the 50s would be shocked at Adventists opposition to gay marriage.
"F.D. Nichol and the other strong leaders from the 50s would be shocked at Adventists opposition to gay marriage."
I,too, would be shocked, as I well remember his editorials in the Review. Please say more about this.
1. Womens ordination doesn't equal abortion.
2. Womens ordination has been _very_ messy (i.e. name calling, job shifting and inflated rhetoric)
3. the SBC uprising was about an entire conservative agenda not just political issues
Adventism had more than it's fair share of political and theological purges, name calling, firings, job shifting and inflated rhetoric in the 1970's. I'm trying to find a way of agreeing with you but I can't. I think our people are more political than some are comfortable with and more messy than some would like to imagine!
Johnny writes:
"I think if we're going to equate our public moral witness with politics we're in trouble."
Here I think that it's essential to define terms.
By politics I mean "public life," beyond the absurdity of mashing ones' morality into the cipher of one or another politician.
Furthermore, I mean policy. Ryan meets with a very political (and deeply flawed) Los Angeles mayor to lobby against other lobbyists on housing. He goes to Sacramento to meet with Reps and Sens on child health and global warming. That's a moral witness and one can't get more political than direct advocacy, whether it's the Workplace Religious Freedom Act or anti-gambling.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that we have a hodge-podge sense of what we stand for as Christians in our respective countries. We're comfortable protecting our own freedom to worship, but less clear about what our responsibility for the least of these calls us to do publicly.
Looking at the example of Jesus, it's hard not to imagine how we could not be involved with politics if we call ourselves followers of him. If he weren't a serious threat to the political and religious status quo, he wouldn't have been killed in a state-sanctioned execution. Jesus was a radical, even a rabble-rouser who directly engaged with the authorities of his day.
I don't really know how an organization can even strive to be apolitical--what would that look like? I think it's more of a delusional wish fulfillment to even think that's possible. As President Paulsen recently pointed out, not saying something is taking a stand too.
Alex,
I agree we should do more than religious liberty.
The thing is we always have been more political than that. We've made huge mistakes too. I think that if our church did not have it's strong Episcopalian character (our governance is a mix of Episcopalian and Methodist structures) that conservatives within our denomination might well have been able to do to us what they did to the SBC. Of course you know that from the bottom and the top there have been many attempts since the 1970's to have moderates, progressives and liberals within Adventism fired.
You're right that Adventism is able to hold onto diversity better than the SBC but the SBC, in their revolution, kept the seminaries but lost the universities. That's because there is nothing standing in between their largest meeting and individual institutions. I think the difference being that within Adventism institutions belong to local unions with local unions, going up to divisions, acting as institutional buffers against encroachment from above. They do this with the support/authority of the lay constituency which elects everyone beneath them including them. I think they're attuned enough to what the people want and I think they've shown courage from time to time. The NAD response to IBMTE is an example of this. The editorial by Chuck on hyper-orthodoxy highlights one specific example of how this plays out personally.
People work extremely hard to make it so womens ordination can be discussed, advanced and promoted if not globally, in some parts of our church. And if someone thinks Roy Adams is political then Adventism in Jamaica would drive them crazy. I don't see either our politics or schisms as good or bad things to be admitted or denied- they are our reality. If anything our past tells us that we can but speak our mind as God convicts us. I'd say it's our responsibility not only as a church but as individuals within the church.
I think the SDA Church should lobby, speak against and encourage members to vote against traditional moral wrongs that have a long history of disrupting society; gambling, prostitution, homosexuality, alcoholism, in short, an expansion of any of the last six principles of the Ten Commandments.
The Church has been slow to become involved in these issues by public means because they do present some difficult problems such as strange bedfellows, politicians who advocate the same issues, political candidates, political ideology, and diversion from our main objective of taking the gospel to the whole world. The Church is rather thin skinned and sensitive to its name having mud thrown on it, which is what will happen when it enters the political arena. The opposition will throw mud whether it is true or false, because they believe if you throw enough some of it is bound to stick.
Johnny,
Significant points in defense of institutional structures.
JB:
Slow to be involved?
Ellen White supported the very political temperance movement, and many Adventists advocated for the disaster of prohibition.
A ethic opposed to disrupting society is an interesting moral guide.
Apparently poverty doesn't disrupt society? Advocating for civil rights sure disrupted culture, was that wrong. But those values are exactly explicit in the Ex. 20 version.
Furthermore, it is exactly this conservative, six numbers of the law morality that Jesus is re-contextualizing in John 13, right before He dies:
34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Let's not turn a personal status quo into the main guide for our public moral witness.
"gambling, prostitution, homosexuality, alcoholism, in short, an expansion of any of the last six principles of the Ten Commandments."
Please show how any, or all of these are principles of the Ten Commandments. Are you reading principles into the last six that are not mentioned? It would seem so.
Where is gambling (what about casting lots?) where is alcoholism mentioned? Homosexuality, prostitution? These are not to be condoned, but if one accepts the Ten as incorporating all the sins of which man is capable, how so?
The June issue of "Christianity Today" notes that a former Hebrew professor female)in Southwestern's Baptist Theological Seminary, is suing the seminary and its president, Page Patterson, for wrongful termination. "She was fired because Patterson believed her teaching role exceeded the SBC's limitations on women in church leadership."
The U.S.District judge dismissed the case as an ecclestiastical matter because it would be an "unconstitutional intrusion into the affairs of the seminary as a religious organization."
I'm enjoying Alita's interview with Thompson:
http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/spectrum_interview/2008/05/25/alden...
Very timely!
Alex,
Yes, Adventists are pretty much a wuss when it comes to politics. Part of the problem lies in the fact we do not have a law school. If you really want good politics you must start with good lawyers. Theologians don’t make good politicians. We should have added a law school to Andrews University about 100 years ago. The reason Jews and Catholics have such great influence in politics is because they have many leading lawyers. The good part is our name has not been sullied by bad Adventist politicians; Warren G. Harding shows what can happen. So far the Adventist name is pristine.
I didn’t say disruption of society per se. I said moral wrongs which disrupt society.
John 13 does not overturn the Ten Commandments it only emphasizes the importance of unity and team work when working for a common goal.
Your final statement is some good advice, but if it is good for me then it must be good for you too. I will give you a good dose so open wide and take your medicine “Let’s not turn a personal status quo into the main guide for our public moral witness.”
If we start cranking out lawyers how long will the name remain pristine?
By default lawers are not morality driven. They will usually argue for whoever pays them.
I guess their morality is demonstrated by a friend of mine who gave up hundreds of dollars an hour to do work lobbying for Indian casinos.
Elaine,
The Ten Commandments are ten principles derived from two principles; love God and love your fellow man. The Ten Commandments are stated by way of terms of illustration and not by way of limitation. This is done so the average person can understand important concrete behaviors, important the world over, that have a direct impact on society. Beyond this, these ten principles may be expanded to cover every moral aspect of life. This is pointed out by the other moral laws in the Torah.
Prostitution and homosexuality falls under the seventh commandment. Alcoholism falls under the sixth commandment and gambling falls under the eighth commandment. This is done the same way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to have far a reaching impact on our lives from such a small document.
I feel that this is is an issue we ought to bring up at the next GC session.
Someone wrote in part: I am not for gambling; but this is inappropriate (the call for organized political action in favor of using the coercive power of the state to prevent this practice). People have free will; let us offer
clear arguments concerning the demerits of gambling ethically and spiritually and leave it at that."
I agree. Roy was going beyond the limits as he sometimes does.
Post new comment