The extent to which Seventh-day Adventist Christians should publicly involve themselves with issues related to the secular political world continues to ignite controversy and vex thoughtful minds in the church. The most basic (and practical) question is where the line should be drawn between issues and courses of action meriting public comment from pastors and church members, and those best dealt with privately—or at least outside the church’s channels and rostra of public communication.
The reader will note the repetitive use of the word public and its derivatives in the above paragraph. Contrary to what some believe, neither the writings the church holds as sacred nor the church’s classical teachings have ever forbidden Seventh-day Adventists from holding secular political opinions, nor even from seeking public office. Let us briefly review the inspired testimony on the question of Seventh-day Adventists and politics.
Reviewing the Inspired Stance on Secular Political Involvement
The following Ellen White statement is clear as to those political issues regarding which Seventh-day Adventists should be silent so far as our public witness is concerned:
Whatever the opinions you may entertain in regard to casting your vote in political questions, you are not to proclaim it by pen or voice. Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel’s message [1].
Notice she doesn’t say we should be silent regarding all political questions, only those “which have no relation to the third angel’s message” [2]. The record of Ellen White’s ministry is clear that issues such as racial justice [3], alcohol prohibition [4], and religious liberty [5] represented political issues where the public voice of Seventh-day Adventists was in fact needful, and therefore not inconsistent with the proclamation of the three angels’ messages (Rev. 14:6-12).
Many are familiar with those strongly negative Ellen White statements relative to political involvement on the part of Seventh-day Adventists [6]. In context, it is clear that these statements were addressed to Adventists in the setting of the bitter debate in American politics at the time over the nation’s currency, a controversy specifically mentioned by Ellen White in one of these testimonies [7]. This political dispute, made famous by the impassioned speech of William Jennings Bryan at the 1896 Democratic National Convention—in which he declared, “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold” [8], words which secured for him his party’s presidential nomination the following day [9]—was clearly an example of a political controversy in which Seventh-day Adventists were to play no public role [10]. But when viewed in the light of her collective counsel regarding issues of a political nature, these negative testimonies about politics were not intended to admonish Adventists to “avoid politics like the plague,” as some have wrongly assumed.
By the same token, contrary to another popular urban legend in some circles of the church, Ellen White did not counsel Seventh-day Adventists never to vote for people, only for issues. What she says is that we aren’t to vote for people who will use their influence to repress religious liberty and enact Sunday laws [11]. Obviously this means we should carefully consider the public records of those seeking office when in fact we vote for them, so that—so far as possible—we will select men and women for local and national leadership who will uphold liberty and justice for all. In another statement Ellen White is very clear that voting for individuals relative to the temperance issue was an imperative for Seventh-day Adventists [12].
Being familiar as most Adventists are with the Bible narrative, it isn’t difficult to remember such characters as Joseph and Daniel, two persons in the Sacred Record of whom no sin is recorded, yet who held political office at the highest levels in the pagan world of their respective times. Ellen White offers the following encouragement to Adventist young people so far as temporal aspirations are concerned:
Dear youth, what is the aim and purpose of your life? Are you ambitious for education that you may have a name and position in the world? Have you thoughts that you dare not express, that you may one day stand upon the summit of intellectual greatness; that you may sit in deliberative and legislative councils, and help to enact laws for the nation? There is nothing wrong in these aspirations. You may every one of you make your mark. You should be content with no mean attainments. Aim high, and spare no pains to reach the standard [13].
Again, such statements as the above do not lend themselves to the theory that Adventists should, without qualification, stay out of politics. Too often, unfortunately, Ellen White’s negative statements on political involvement referenced earlier have been used by church members against fellow Adventists whose political opinions they happen to differ with, without considering those other statements which reveal the overall balance in Ellen White’s counsels on this subject. When the total picture presented by Scripture and Ellen White on the question of political involvement is laid out, this balance becomes evident.
Threading the Needle
But how does one determine precisely where to draw the line so far as public involvement by Adventists in political controversy is concerned? How can we navigate these waters in a way so as to provoke the least possible division among God’s people, and thus keep the church’s focus on its Biblical mission?
It helps to remember that Ellen White’s counsels on political involvement have succeeded in sparing our denomination a great deal of internal feuding and distraction. Political debates which have dominated many pulpits in other churches have in the past been largely kept out of public discourse among Seventh-day Adventists, primarily because of the Ellen White statements noted earlier. When I read the indiscriminate political conversation presently heard on certain contemporary Adventist websites and social media forums, I fear too many have lost sight of this wise counsel from the pen of our prophet.
But clearly, from what we have surveyed, certain political issues do merit public consideration by God’s people. When in fact we recognize issues which merit such open consideration, how should we go about it? How should we thread the needle between appropriate and inappropriate public discourse in the church on these subjects?
Following are a number of principles which I believe can wisely direct us in this regard:
1. Certain political issues simply do not belong in public Adventist dialogue. Ellen White’s statements about the currency debate in the 1890s [14] give some major clues as to which issues are inappropriate in the pulpits and publications of the church—whether printed or online, Conference-owned or otherwise.
In today’s climate, I believe it is fair to say that controversies over taxation, the wisdom or lack thereof in government aid to the economically disadvantaged, the state’s role in providing health care for its citizens, and similar questions regarding the government and the economy, lie very much within the same purview as the currency dispute in Ellen White’s day. Pastors and church members can rightly hold their own opinions relative to such issues, but the latter do not belong on public church platforms or in public church forums.
2. Other issues relative to secular politics do in fact belong in the church’s public discourse. Matters of religious liberty, the role of the state in questions of personal morality, the current controversy over vaccine mandates and similar issues relative to the COVID pandemic—these are questions that can rightly be considered in public church meetings and in public conversations hosted by Seventh-day Adventists, online and otherwise.
But here is where greater wisdom than perhaps many of us have exercised is presently needful. Where the inspired pen is silent, a variety of perspectives are often—though perhaps not always—the best way whereby an issue should be addressed. Respect should be granted to those holding different viewpoints. In addition to such respect, careful thought should be given to the public image of the church in the airing of certain perspectives. Nothing that might stand in the way of our witness for the three angels’ message, or convey the impression that Seventh-day Adventists are hostile to civil government and public safety [15], should be given space on any Seventh-day Adventist platform, in cyberspace or elsewhere.
3. In the absence of an inspired mandate, proposed political solutions—even regarding those issues where public consideration by the church is appropriate—should never receive public endorsement. When Ellen White, as an inspired prophet of God, counseled Adventists to defy the infamous Fugitive Slave Act [16], or advocated civil legislation against the liquor traffic [17], she spoke with divine authority. But when uninspired persons publicly endorse political measures relative to issues on which we deem it appropriate for Christians to take a public stand, we are speaking from the standpoint of finite human wisdom, and we would best desist from such dogmatic recommendations in public.
In the year following my graduation from college, a special issue of the college newspaper covered the candidates and issues on the ballot in California during the 1982 midterm elections. One such article, written by a faculty member, endorsed a proposition then on the California ballot which advocated a nuclear weapons freeze between the United States and what was then the Soviet Union. The article was titled, “Yes on 12 is a Christian duty.”
Regardless of what one’s opinion at the time may have been regarding the nuclear arms race and what to do about it, I firmly believe such public pronouncements to be out of bounds for Seventh-day Adventists. Unless an inspired messenger like Ellen White is speaking, to publicly identify what a “Christian duty” is relative to a proposed political measure is to invite needless controversy and division among God’s people. We may have our own opinions as to the right course Christians should take, for example, in the pursuit of peace and reconciliation among the nations of the world, but in the absence of prophetic inspiration it is dangerous to invest any human solution with either the divine seal of approval or the divine stamp of condemnation.
Conclusion
As we near the close of time, my conviction is that it will be no more possible for Seventh-day Adventists to fully avoid commentary on secular political questions than it was for Ellen White and our founding pioneers. We simply have to identify, on the basis of inspired counsel, which political questions are appropriate or inappropriate for church members to address in public, as well as how best to facilitate such conversations and—in the absence of inspired counsel—to avoid giving public endorsement to human measures relative to such issues.
Our pre-eminent, overarching task as Seventh-day Adventists is the proclamation of God’s last message to humanity, through the preaching of the Word and the reflection in our lives of our Savior’s loving, sinless character. Human solutions to any earthly dilemmas, however necessary at times, are only temporary. Our Lord’s imminent and eternal kingdom is the only lasting remedy.
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 336.
2. Ibid.
3. ----Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 533-534.
4. ----Ministry of Healing, pp. 337-346.
5. ----Gospel Workers, pp. 389-390.
6. ----Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 475-486; Gospel Workers, pp. 391-396; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 331-333.
7. ----Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 331,332; see also p. 529.
8. “Cross of Gold speech,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
9. Ibid.
10. White, Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 331,332.
11. ----Gospel Workers, pp. 391-392.
12. ----Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 337.
13. ----Messages to Young People, p. 36.
14. ——Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 331,332.
15. ——Testimonies, vol. 6, pp. 394-395.
16. Ibid, vol. 1, pp. 201-202.
17. ——Ministry of Healing, pp. 337-346.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan