The so-called “culture wars” of recent decades have been one of the most damaging distractions for Bible-believing Christians. A number of reasons could be given as to why this is so. But perhaps the most important of these reasons is the simple fact that Biblical religion and popular culture—whatever label the latter goes by—are not one and the same.
From time to time, certain folks ask me and others how we can hold certain convictions relative to so-called “conservative culture” issues and still be Bible-believing, Spirit of Prophecy-affirming, theologically conservative Adventists. Such questions make it necessary to help people understand that the written counsel of God serves as the exclusive authority for the Seventh-day Adventist Christian (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11), and that broad-brush ideological stereotyping has no place in defining the agenda for one whose exclusive lodestar in matters spiritual is the written Word.
Loyalty to a Label
Some folks give the impression of being more loyal to the accepted definition of a label than to the inspired perspective regarding a given issue. The liberal and conservative labels offer perhaps the best case in point. Too many in recent times have wrongly assumed that the generally accepted definition of these markers in the moral, spiritual, and theological realms extends to the use and understanding of these markers relative, for example, to economic and political issues. In light of such generalized thinking, one holding to a high view of authority so far as Scripture is concerned—a position usually labeled as conservative—is thought to be inconsistent if he or she holds to a secular political position from the opposite end of the spectrum.
But loyalty to the generally-accepted definition of a label is dangerous. At different times in history, what has generally been viewed as conservative Christianity has been equated with such unscriptural practices as slavery, segregation, and the mistreatment of those economically less fortunate. Hearkening back to what some might call the “good old days” is by no means the same as hearkening back to the Bible. It should make no difference what label someone attaches to us, so long as we are true to God’s written counsel in our convictions. If that means giving people freedom of choice relative to issues where we take a strongly negative moral position, we should hold to the rightfulness of such free choice, regardless of how others choose to label us.
The Line Between Church and State
There are those in Christian circles, even some Adventists, who confuse the tolerance of certain practices in civil society with the moral endorsement of the same practices. But thoughtful reflection on our part soon recognizes the folly of such reasoning. For example, in free America we practice freedom of religion. That means freedom for Roman Catholics, evangelical Christians, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, New Agers, atheists, and all points in between. But the mere fact that civil government in a free society permits each of the above persuasions to freely pursue their chosen beliefs and practices, in no way implies an endorsement of any of the above by the secular state.
The above distinction between tolerance and endorsement is unaffected by the contrast many will draw between the respective rightful and wrongful purviews of the secular state based on the distinction between the two tables of the Ten Commandment law—the first involving our duty to God and the second involving our duty to fellow humans. Whether we speak of the state tolerating unscriptural worship practices or unscriptural (but consensual) sexual practices, either way a secular government is allowing choices that the Bible forbids. Whether on the first or second table of the law, commandments are being broken by permission of the state.
For the Bible-believing Christian, the legal allowance of consensual choices that run contrary to Holy Scripture is based on our Lord’s declaration to Pontius Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Commenting on the church-state views of Roger Williams, the great apostle of religious liberty in colonial America, Constitutional scholar Leonard Levy writes:
To Christian fundamentalists of the Framers’ time the wall of separation (between church and state) derived from the biblical injunction that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world [1].
Here is where Biblical and cultural conservatism part company. In a non-theocratic state, Biblical conservatism maintains the sanctity of the conscience with regard to consensual issues. By contrast, cultural conservatism—at least the way many define it—draws no lines between church and state so far as many consensual issues are concerned. Such an ideology insists that to allow choices of a consensual nature with which one morally differs is in fact to approve such choices. But the Bible’s reverence for free choice maintains that while the kingdom of God may condemn certain choices and prohibit them for those seeking admittance thereto, the kingdom of God in the Christian Era is not to be confused with any humanly-governed civic construct.
And let’s be clear that the Bible is not identical with what many would style “liberal” or “progressive” culture either. This too is a fallible human system of thought, irrespective of what one thinks of its various perspectives. Every human idea or set of ideas must be subject to God’s Word. The latter must never be forced into harmony with the former.
The Berean Principle
No strain of human culture can be exempt from the scrutiny of the Berean principle---the need to test everything we hear or encounter by the written counsel of God (Acts 17:11). A label held in common by different or even related thought systems can’t make us assume that ideas grouped together under that label are necessarily all good or bad. Biblical religion stands above and beyond the interplay of human ideas. And too often, in the human experience, human ideas and philosophies—even in the spiritual realm—are permitted to take on a life of their own, extending their logic and implications far outside the limits set by the written Word. This mindset is never to be fostered, certainly not by Seventh-day Adventists, for whom the written divine standard of truth and error must remain supremely transcendent.
REFERENCES
1. Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co, 1986), p. 184.
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