Adventist Pastor in Jamaica Reprimanded for Endorsing Prime Minister for Re-election
February 2, 2016: Dr. Michael Harvey, senior pastor of the campus church and vice president for spiritual activities at Northern Caribbean University (NCU), was the devotional speaker for a political party convention yesterday and urged support for the country’s prime minister. Today, Pastor Everett Brown, president of the denomination in Jamaica, told the media that Harvey violated the policy of the Adventist Church to stay out of partisan politics. The story was reported in both of the nation’s major newspapers, the Jamaica Gleaner and the Jamaica Observer.
Portia Simpson Miller, the prime minister, announced the date of the next election at a mass meeting of the People’s National Party (PNP) on Monday (February 1) in Half-Way Tree, Saint Andrew Parish. As is typical in a parliamentary system, this also launched her re-election effort. Harvey was invited to lead the invocation for the meeting and share a devotional.
“Our country and the party need a great leader to lead us through tough times,” Harvey is quoted by the Observer as saying about Simpson Miller in his remarks. He described her “as one who is in touch with God,” the newspaper said. “Someone who is socially aware, one who has a genuine love and can empathize with the people.”
“It is time to rise up and be counted,” Harvey urged the party members. “Rally to the cause. Because if it is a mountain we can climb it, if it’s a race we can win it.” He told the crowd “that they had a duty to ensure the PNP [was] returned to power,” according to the Gleaner.
“The stance taken by [Harvey] is a misrepresentation of our global church policy,” Brown said in a statement to the media. “As a worker of the church he should not be involved in partisan political activities to the extent that his comments may influence the actions of any of our members or give the public any impression that the church is aligned with any of our political parties.” He also noted that denominational employees “including those at NCU and every Adventist-owned institution do not support any political party.”
Asked about a provision in the country’s constitution that guarantees the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion or political opinion, Brown said that Harvey went overboard. “He is free to associate. He is free to go there. We have members on either side of the fence and on no side of the fence … but when you are a pastor in the church, you should not use your position … to carry a partisan political position. If you want to do that, you should relinquish your leadership position in the church.”
Brown told journalists that he had talked with Harvey about the situation. “When he speaks in public, he should refrain from taking positions that could compromise the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Two weeks ago Brown had issued a reminder of the denomination’s policy against supporting any political party or candidate. “It is the right of our members as citizens to exercise their franchise and vote for the candidates of their choice,” Brown said. “But the church will not publicly or privately endorse any political party or support partisan political activities.”
NCU also issued a statement today: “While individual members of the university community are free to support or oppose any candidate for office as they see fit, the institution remains neutral on all candidates for office and all university property remains a neutral space when it comes to elections.”
Harvey told the Gleaner that “my philosophy is that [Adventists] cannot stand idly by and allow things to happen. We must get involved to make the change and be the change we want to see.”
The Adventist faith is the largest Protestant denomination in Jamaica. Adventist clergy are often invited to speak or have prayer at official events. A number of Adventists serve in the national parliament. The head of state, Sir Patrick Allen who represents Queen Elizabeth II in the island nation, is an Adventist clergyman. He resigned his job as president of the Jamaica Union Conference when he was appointed by the Queen.
““The stance taken by [Harvey] is a misrepresentation of our global church policy,” Brown said in a statement to the media. “As a worker of the church he should not be involved in partisan political activities to the extent that his comments may influence the actions of any of our members or give the public any impression that the church is aligned with any of our political parties.” He also noted that denominational employees “including those at NCU and every Adventist-owned institution do not support any political party.”
They need to tell this to the Review publishers who are constantly and continually advocating some political position in the church paper. The SDA church is becoming more and more involved with politics and church leaders are leading out in this action. And every leader who does this should be fired and relieved from any official church position where they may have influence and authority to persuade church members about political issues.
As a church, we can oppose abortion, homosexuality, drunkenness gambling and any other specific issue that corrupts society. But not by way of supporting any political party or party leader. Laws against such things are “self evident……” and need no religious backing to support them. And each of us can vote as to what is most effective to deal with these issues. The official church has no such mandate by Christ.
Bill, I’d like to see an example of what you’re talking about. I’m not doubting you, but I’ve seen precious little partisan politics in the Review/World, and would just be curious to see an example of what you’re referring to.
Loren
we pray to god
Even as a layman (I don’t currently hold any elected office, even in a local congregation), Anytime people try to engage me in conversation about political candidates, I try to speak to what I consider to be their strengths and weaknesses. Dr. Carson. for example, is more conservative than I am with regard to domestic policy but I think on of the reasons millions of people think he would be a good president is that he seems to be true gentleman.
As I learn more and more reasons to not vote for other candidates, it becomes more and more of a temptation to encourage him. (It is less of a temptation for me than it would be for some other people. I literally don’t have $2 to contribute, even if I wanted to.) I think I’ll stick to my principles, however, because I want to be able to continue to say that I don’t endorse political candidates–especially those who are running as members of a particular political party.
“I don’t endorse political candidates–especially those who are running as members of a particular political party.”
What if everyone followed that example? I vote for the individual regardless of party. But it is impossible to become a candidate if not affiliated with a political party; it’s a Catch-22 situation.
Carson is seen as a true gentleman; but it takes much more than that kind of endorsement to be a president. One should be a true gentleman or woman, but in choosing our president I want honesty, clarity, and someone who exudes hope not fear that only he or she will make the country great again (it has always been great).
“Carson is seen as a true gentleman……..” Elaine, He may be seen that way by many and compared with Mr Trump he certainly would, but would a true gentleman publicly scold a president at a prayer breakfast with the president sitting close by or would a true gentleman accuse the president of being a sociopath or would a true gentleman mischeivously assert that the president may cancel elections and declare marshall law? Would a true gentleman indelicately refer to middle-easterner as dogs?
yes, a “gentleman” can of course scold any president at any time when the president is wrong. And there is much to scold Obama about.
Elaine,
You may have misunderstood me. Not endorsing a political candidate is different from not voting for a political candidate.
I customarily vote but I also think the secret ballot is such an important aspect of our constitutionally-protected rights, I avoid telling people how I have voted except on specific ISSUES that may have been on the ballot.
There are some political offices that are “non-partisan”. In addition to that, it is theoretically possible to run for most offices as an “independent”.
When will the hypocrisy of the SDA church end. Pastor Allen can be Governor General of Jamaica. He resigned from his position in the SDA church BUT took a secular post. What is the difference between that an endorsing a political candidate.
If endorsing a candidate is not right, leaving a church position to be a in a government election is wrong too. I think the SDA church has long lost its way.
Below is a quote
“The stance taken by [Harvey] is a misrepresentation of our global church policy,” Brown said in a statement to the media.“As a worker of the church he should not be involved in partisan political activities to the extent that his comments may influence the actions of any of our members or give the public any impression that the church is aligned with any of our political parties.” He also noted that denominational employees “including those at NCU and every Adventist-owned institution do not support any political party.”
Just by taking part in the voting process one in fact does support a political party.
I personally don’t know what the answer is, however Joseph and Daniel became high ranking officials in their respective Egyptian and Babylonian/Medo/Persian governments. Not really certain, God was probably instrumental for both. Don’t forget Esther and Moses.
Not really certain, Ben Carson has brought a lot of positive attention to Adventism in the last decade, may he have been brought forward for such a time as this?
Andy,
I have been accustomed to participating in the general elections in the US. I can do that without announcing support, either before or after the election, for any candidate or political party.
I am not aware of any law or any SdA policy against lay members participating in the political process. So far as I know, there isn’t any law or SdA policy against a lay member announcing support for a candidate or political party–or running for office ourselves.
In the United States, there are limits on the political activities of organizations that have tax-exempt status. Those limits include a prohibition against the organization promoting any political candidate or political party. Those same limits apply to anyone whose promotion of a candidate or political party is likely to be considered as representing the official policy of a tax-exempt organization.
Any organization–even a religious one–is free to promote political candidates or political parties if the organization does not apply for tax-exempt status.
Our denomination (at least in the United States) does have tax-exempt status. I don’t pretend to know what our denominational policy would be if the organization didn’t have tax-exempt status but, as it stands, denominational policy with regard to political involvement is intended to protect that tax-exempt status.
It is not be a violation of either U.S. tax law or denominational policy for clergy to vote.
Yes I think it’s law that religious leaders do not speak of these things from the pulpit. To me that’s really not freedom of speech.
I have often wondered about how the SDA church handled the Hitler years. Did we report Jews to be slaughtered? Did we turn a blind eye to the Hitler campaign by saying nothing? I would like to know the answer to these questions if any one knows. Seems this type of information does not exist.
I don’t think we should turn a blind eye to these kind of events. As some have mentioned earlier there are several events recorded in the Bible where the people of God were used to change the outcome of the governments at hand.It’s a proven fact they were not reprimanded by church leaders at the time.
ST,
I had wished that someone could answer your question about “the Hitler years” with historical evidence. If such evidence does not exist, I’m inclined to think it is because denominational leaders in Germany (or/and the occupied countries) thought it best for members to not only make those decisions on their own but discuss such decisions with each other as little as possible. If the golden rule had been promoted as it presumably was before “the Hitler years”, that was an adequate basis for individual decisions as to what course of action was best.
If religious organizations are free to choose whether or not to apply for tax-exempt status and if those that don’t apply for tax exempt status are free to promote political candidates or political parties, how does that policy impinge on freedom of speech?
On the basis of what evidence do you consider it a “proven fact” that church leaders in Bible times didn’t reprimand clergy (or anyone else who was paid from tithe funds) for political activism?
My testimony: “Regardless of our personal decisions on the subject of voting, reading the entire EGW subject below, we are to keep silent in God’s house, and even outside of God’s house our decisions. Remember, those who vote for a candidate we are told, we share in good and the evil actions of the candidates of our choices. Those who are not drifting along whither and wherever even an apostate church will go, being of sober mind, will understand the light shed by EGW. Others will pontificate in all their personal wisdom, void of God’s inspiration, and I will again have to speak out when having a leadership person speak in favor of Ben Carson, before the closing prayer during Wednesday Prayer Meeting”.
Chapter 39—Counsel on Voting
Our work is to watch, and wait, and pray. Search the Scriptures. Christ has given you warning not to mingle with the world. We are to come out from among them and be separate, “and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:17, 18). 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. If ever a people needed to draw nigh to God, it is Seventh-day Adventists. There have been wonderful devices and plans made. A burning desire has taken hold of…
President Browne, leader of the SDA denomination in Jamaica, did not like the idea of Dr Harvey, Vice President of the SDA university in Jamaica,endorsing the re election of Simpson Portia as Prime Minister. He held it was against the policy of the church. Portia did not win; but President Browne now has PM Holness for the political Leader of Jamaica. The last I knew of Holness he is an SDA. Let us hear what Browne has to say now about policy. Can an SDA lead a political party and become the leader of his country? Does church policy permit this? If church leaders cannot make sensible policies for their members, the forward looking members will put them in an uncomfortable place. Hats off to Dr Harvey, Michael Holness and the rest of Jamaicans who are seeing about their country!
“Chapter 39-Counsel on Voting” is out of date, and irrelevant in cases as obtain in Jamaica. Suppose we have a country with a majority of Adventists, how will it regulate its political life? The brethren in Jamaica are smart to Participate in the politics of their country in an attempt to rescue it from the miriads of problems which plague it. With both Heads of state now being SDAs, the church has an opportunity to support them in the transformation of the society. We too want Daniels, Josephs and Nehemiahs in our countries.