Adventists Oppose Each Other in Saint Lucia Elections
April 14, 2016: In at least one district in the British Commonwealth country of Saint Lucia both of the candidates for parliament are Adventists. A representative of the Adventist denomination was quoted by the St Lucia Times referring to this situation as “unfortunate” and reminding local churches that denominational policy prohibits presentations about candidates or political parties during church activities.
The incumbent member of parliament for Castries South East is Guy Joseph from the United Workers Party, an Adventist church member. And so is Joachim Henry, the candidate running against him from the Labor Party.
Dr. Robert Lewis, member of parliament from Castries South is also an Adventist, according to the newspaper. And, “a number of Seventh-day Adventists have in the past taken part in elective politics.”
The Adventist representative quoted by the newspaper cautioned against the possibilities of division and conflict within the church during an election season. He also stated that Adventists who run for office or participate in government must “ensure what they say on the political platform is ‘guarded’ and wholesome.”
The Caribbean island nation has a population of 174,000 of which seven percent identified themselves as Adventists in the most recent official census. It is the largest Protestant denomination in the country where 70 percent of the population is Catholic due to its origins as a French colony.
Let me see if I got this… We are cautioned not to make statements in the pulpit favoring one party or another; as that can lead to division in the church…. But individual members can run for office; making them a standard bearer for their party in the district or territory in which they run. Hence, they place themselves in the midst of partisan politics and participate in the “rough and tumble” associated with the political game. We’re free to play the “divide and conquer”game; just not within the confines of the church.
Folks, isn’t it time we face the facts…. Adventists have no business running for political office. Hasn’t the current political war/s within the U.S. taught us anything…. that an SDA has no business being caught up in it. Hasn’t Ben Carson’s political run proven anything to us? First and foremost we have a message to share with the world….not a general message that is generally accepted in Evangelical environs…. but a unique message that demands us to incrementally or be forthright as the case may present itself. Ben Carson was never going to talk Prophecy and the Beast while the spotlight was on him. His words were carefully scripted to appeal to the masses. The fulness of our message took a back seat. He could never say nationally what he said at Avondale SDA College. Politics is the art of being “all things to all people” while appearing to have a bottom line…. until that gets in the way of your ambitions…
Dwayne,
Have you not read what Ellen White wrote in the book “Education” to encourage youth to dream about the ways they can have a positive impact on their communities and the nation, including serving in legislative bodies and the halls of justice? So I think your opposition is based on misunderstanding. If God expects us to live according to the principles He teaches and promises to bless the nations that obey Him, what better way could an Adventist have a positive impact on their city or nation than by running for and serving in elected office?
I’m delighted to see more than just one Adventist running! My question is if they are focused on obeying the principles of God, or popular politics, because if it is the latter, they potentially could do great harm.
The English-speaking Caribbean Seventh-day Adventist church has witnessed a number of members as participants in the political scene. If we vote, there is no logical reason why we cannot run for office. And, we can set a standard for others to follow. In Jamaica, the prime minister is a Seventh-day Adventist and in the past, several government ministers have been practicing Seventh-day Adventists. In several islands, Seventh-day Adventists are political leaders. There is no need to resort to the diatribe that we have witnessed in some developed countries. In Anguilla, years ago, the chief minister (akin to president) was a Seventh-day and was the same in Montserrat, another island. Perhaps, we can take witnessing to a higher level. Political parties don’t need to descend into dirt. There might be a better way
I am not shocked at Dwayne V Turner’s comment on the involvement of SDAs in the General elections in St. Lucia. Turner is the guy who would want to prescribe how intelligent SDAs must divide their time among the duties that make demand upon them. At least, no political office for them. If I understand the thinking of some SDAs, he is defending the well being of the church. But I want to assure him that his zeal is without merit, and may well be hurtful to the cause of the church, and that of St. Lucia. As I said before, in the case oof the brethren in Jamaica, the brethren in St Lucia are citizens; and they have all rights to serve their people in the best way they can, and see fit. Why does brother Turner want to prevent these brethren from serving their people?
He is drawing our attention to the situation in the USA, and asks, ” Has Ben Carson’s run proven anything to us?” Yes, Bro. Turner. Ben’s Run has taught us that the people of the USA do not think Ben Carson is ready to be President of the USA.
Again, I quote Bro. Turner, “Ben Carson was never going to talk prophecy and the Beast while the spotlight was on him”. May I ask you, brother, Why must Ben Carson talk in a political meeting about the Beast and prophecy? He is not on a church pulpit. And let me tell you this . The less any SDA talk about the Beast and some of the speculative prophecy they spew, the better for the church. If you are a preacher, do you spend all your time preaching?…
I continue my reply to Bro. Turner. You asked ” Folks, isn’t it time we face the facts… Adventists have no business running for political office”. I am an Adventist, and I should like you to give us the authority for such a statement. William Noel draws you attention to an advice from Mrs. White in the book, “EDUCATION”. I want authority from the Holy Bible, and if Mrs White agrees with that, I am happy.
The responsibility of every candidate offering himself/herself to serve his/her people is to speak the truth, and do not misrepresent the Godly standards they profess. S D Adventists are not expected to do less”. We are the best people to give the world a good example in all things. To shy and hide away, saying that politics is a dirty game, and decent people must keep out of it is a false stance, and the retreat of cowards and weaklings. Stand up for God and for the Faith at all times and anywhere. Many of our people are telling us they long to get out of this world; but if while here they fail to attend to the ills of this world, they go no where when they leave here. There is a lot of work to be done in these Caribbean Islands, and if the attitude of our church leaders is to prevent honest people from working for their fellow men, they better think differently. The example of Jesus teaches us that part of the work of preparing souls for the hereafter, is helping them live decently in this present world.
Nathaniel,
I cited Ellen White because many Adventists regard her as authoritative. I appreciate your devotion to scripture and wish more would take the same approach to issues. I can find nothing in scripture to prevent a believer from holding public office. God appointed leaders of the Israelites and over the centuries many of the people rose to offices of public leadership. God promoted Esther from obscurity to Queen and her uncle, Mordecai, to a position of high authority in a kingdom dominated by people who did not worship the God of heaven. The prophet Daniel served as what we would call Prime Minister in Babylon and his three friends who were once thrown into a fiery furnace served in positions of authority.
Besides, the region where these Brethren are running for office is at least 85% Adventist — an Adventist territory. Would Mr. Turner have a Roman Catholic representing an “Adventist territory”. Don’t Adventists have a civic responsibility. When will we ever wake up?
Joseph was governor of Egypt and Daniel was prime minister in Babylon. There is no record of any political maneuvering, but they definitely served in a political climate. Would there be more Josephs and Daniel that can stand forth in solid service. The current prime minister of Trinidad and
Tobago, while not a practicing Seventh-day Adventist, has Adventist roots in Sabbath School as a young boy. Adventists have been influential in politics. I wonder about in Esther also. Perhaps, we can take a leaf out of her book. She was shrewd as ever–she was a politician par excellence.
Dear Dr Lashley,
You say that Daniel and Joseph served in political office during their time and this is true but remember they did not campaign for office but because of their outstanding and godly lifestyle they were chosen to serve. We as SDAs know that politics in these times is a dirty game so as good Christians if we are chosen then so be it, my advice is let go and let God guide us,
Dear Colleagues
The stories of Daniel and Joseph demonstrate that there is a place for the Seventh-day Adventist Christian in politics. We can show those that follow a better way and politics does not have to be associated with wrong doing. If then, I can serve my country, why cannot I promote on a platform the program that I have in mind? So Clyde is correct when he suggests that the Daniel and Joseph might not have been included in politicking the way we know it. But remember, that Joseph “found favor in the eyes of those he served–he cultivated the hearts of the baker, the jailer and Potiphar. I don’t think that these men were merely quietly good. By their lives they exerted the influence. We too in our church posts are very political–we exert influence, and we cultivate those who we hope will support su
Well, I see that my comments have become “the center of attention”. That’s Ok! I welcome discussion; passionate, but not personal. Let me just say that you are not dealing with a novice here. I do my homework. I am well aware of the SDA’s in politics, having collected and preserved news clips, documents, and video on anything associated with obvious, provable compromises of our faith made by SDA’s working in office. Why would I do that; because it’s obvious that many of us believe in “finding the good” in something; even if that means ignoring the contradictions. I stand ready to “roll up my sleeves” and discuss Adventists in politics for as long as you wish.
I wish to answer all your queries and challenges but only have but so much space… but will get to them in subsequent posts. But, let’s start by asking this question….. Did Ben Carson’s presidential candidacy aspirations prove to aid his Sabbath-keeping or become a contradiction? Have the Seventh-day Adventist politicians in Jamaica been able to remain true to their faith while in office? The Governor General (Patrick Allen)? The former Prime Minister’s wife (Lorna Golding)? The current Prime Minister (Andrew Holness)? Notice, I never called anyone “Sir”. Will explain.
How about the former Prime Minister of Antiqua and Barbuda? (James Carlisle)? Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D – Texas)? Success stories come with facts; not perceptions. Daniel’s experience must be separated from…
Continuing…. You asked for Biblical direction… let’s start there…. Matthew 22:21 says, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. It means that Caesar (the government) has full right to demand certain responsibilities of it’s citizens; i.e. taxes, civil behavior, respect of other persons etc. but there are things that are uniquely God’s, therefore, infringement on religious conscience & conviction, on the part of Caesar, is what the follower of Christ must resist. We all know that and have taught this down through the years. Yet now, the “nobility of office” derived by fellow SDA’s has skewed believers thoughts about drawing the line between Caesar and God. Ben Carson explained to a reporter that he thinks he is keeping the Sabbath, while campaigning, because it is “doing good”. Patrick Allen encountered several situations that caused him to have to choose between his faith and the expectations and duties of the G.G. office, i.e. the signing of the Casino Gaming Bill, the Governor’s Cup in Portmore, being knighted by Queen Elizabeth, the honoring of the Jamaican Track Team on Sabbath, to name just a few. By the way, each of these situations were well highlighted in the local newspapers and radio as being a contradiction to the SDA faith; except the knighting event. Jamaica watched as the compromises happened. I would suspect that Sylvan Lashley can respond to this. Listen, I’ve just got…
Dwayne Turner, you have just gone into a hornet’s nest. You have called names of SDA politcians who you think misrepresented the church in office. You gave ,as you think, facts to bolster your argument ; but you have many more names to mention. Politics or no politics, we are going to have faithful and unfaithful, thoughtful andthoughtless SDAs I, and others, can call out a much longer list of SDA ministers, teachers, and other Conference leaders who violated the trust in them while in office. Men who seduced women away from their husbands, who sexually abused young people, who mis appropriated or stole church funds who took sides in disputes among members,etc,etc.. If your reasoning is to be followed, we should have no one presenting himself for church office. You may be willing to overlook the errors of Non-SDAs governing your country; but you do not want any SDAs in government. Or is this another case of hiding the weaknesses of the brethren from public view? I say again, give the brethred a chance to help their community; and pray for them that they fail not, even as we pray for those who serve the church.
For some people, one of the attractions of membership in a religious organization seems to be that, as a member, they can then think of themselves as speaking for “the Church” when they tell other people what to do.
I avoid eating out on the sabbath day. If there are voting members of our congregation who eat out on that day, there are steps I should take. Ultimately, however, it is up to the congregation as a whole to decide what, if anything, to do about it.
This next suggestion could use some clarification but I’ll save that for those who request it. Let’s have high standards for membership, higher standards for leadership and no standards for fellowship.
Let’s now turn to your text you offered as proof that SDAs aught not to enter as candidates in the politics of their countries. This text has taken a beating in this forum. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. This means that the state has a claim on my resources and my regard , and God has His claim on my life as well; and it is my duty to honour God’s claim upon me, as well as to honour the state’s claim upon me. Jesus also explained that a most important way of rendering to God His things is to care for the needs of the needy around us – “In as much as ye have done this to the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it to me” The political system provides for the basic needs of our people, and we need godly people to take care of our needs. Our members must not be afraid or ashamed to come out in defence of the poor in our communities. Do not be hindered by the myopia of some of our leaders,who wish to control both our material life as well as our religious life. God wants you to do better than that Only be fair and just in your stewardship, and give evil people no occasion of charging you as wrong doers.
The power of the state depends on force. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight.” One of the reasons Adventists didn’t (dont?) bear arms is because the quarrels of worldly, secular, governments are not our quarrels.
Because the sword establishes worldly government and because worldly governments rule by force, (try not paying your taxes) Adventists are in a peculiar position when it comes to worldly office. Elections do not change the nature of government – Rulers are rulers, whether or not they are elected. They wield the sword. Amish and Jehovah Witnesses don’t vote or hold office and they are more consistent in this than Seventh-day Adventists. Quakers, who are nominally and inconsistently pacifists, and who have almost disappeared, are more like Adventists.
Dwayne Turner thoughts are interesting. Do the true disciples of Christ seek worldly power? Do they run for church office?
Permit me to spend some time with Bro. Clyde Lewis. You think that is is acceptable for SDAs to assume political office if appointed or nominated. Whose selection is more appropriate, that of the people, or that of one other leader? What if that leader is corrupt?. There was no democracy in the time of Daniel and Joseph; but today in our region we have a democratic system in which the people choose their representative. Pastors, give the people a chance to work for their fellowmen. God does not prevent them. You pray for their success, and that their faith fail not!
When I was a member of our parliament, it was the ministers of other denominations who encouraged me and asked me for whole hearted service. Not a word from my pastors who should have advised me and supported me. They felt that was the wrong place for me; but I was able to assist USC (then CUC), and I was happy to do so, when it sought incorporation.
Brother Moore…. I am here at church…preparing for Bible class when I saw your posts…. First let me say, that I’ll not let you make a straw man out of what I have written and then respond as if you are going to the heart of my argument. Let me also say that I have not begun to really bring to light the compromises that I briefly touched on. Time has not yet allowed, and I don’t think it right to “dominate the posts”. But I have not yet supplied you with enough details; showing the compromises I speak of; for you to be able to respond intelligently to them. I have not sought to “dominate the discussion” as I feel that a free flow of discussion is in order. But let me assure you that I have yet to scratch the surface on what I am referring too.
Let me ask you this however…
Did you check into the examples I referred to in my previous post? When you said, “You have called names of SDA politcians who you think misrepresented the church in office.”, it leaves the impression that you don’t believe that has happened. Although I have not supplied specifics even remotely close to my specifications, I would still ask have you looked into it? My brother, the issue is never been about personal wrongs commited in office, its about misrepresenting what Adventists teach! My brother, we have not one success story of Adventists in political office; because seeking/excepting the position is already compromise. I will be more detailed in subsequent posts.
In line with my previous post about being peacemakers, please let me suggest the following.
It is appropriate to maintain a “line in the sand” between religious beliefs, religious practices and religious prohibitions on the one side and political concerns on the other side. There is plenty of work to do on both sides of that line and, admittedly, people who aren’t sure exactly where that line is would do well to stay well on one side of the line.
There is work to be done on both sides of the line, however, and people who know how to do that without blurring the line should be free to do so.
I caution Christians in general and adventists in particular to avoid attempting to use the political system to “help” the poor. I believe it is advisable for any Christian and especially any adventist to so function in the political arena (if at all) in such ways as to NOT be perceived as leaning very far either direction along the spectrum of political ideology. As much as I “like” and admire Dr. Carson, he has positioned himself as a “conservative” and that is unfortunate. I would be just as concerned if an SdA were to enter the political arena leaning as far the other direction (ideologically).
It is possible to work for simplification of the tax-and-welfare system without leaning either direction. People who can’t maintain that kind of balance probably should look elsewhere than to serving in an elected office.
I personally believe that aligning oneself with a political party is a mistake. I say this because neither party can represent church teachings (separation of church and state) in general and Christ in particular. One could try to do so as an Independent, I suppose. But they would not get votes. We did notice that Dr. Carson, who had been Independent, felt he had to align with a party. Yet he turned out to be too nice a person to draw attention to the issues he espoused. He also lacked knowledge on some issues. In his resistance to bad-mouthing others, he did reveal a Christian witness, but that is not what the (mostly ignorant) populace wanted.
Good Day, Bro. Turner.I do not think you understand the point I made in my comment of April 16 at 4:27 am. You said in your post later the same day that “…it leaves the impression that you don’t believe that has happened”. It is not that I do not believe. I know some of it happened; but i warn you against opening the hornet’s nest; because if you go on calling names of SDA political offenders, we can also call many more names of non-political offenders in high offices within the church, committing more serious offences than those you refer to. In other words,politics is not the only area where SDAs mis represent the church. Entering politics is not the worst misrepresentation of the church. Offering oneself for office in the church and practising adultery, lying ,sexploitation,…etc is as evil as indulging in corrupt political activity.
You may not agree with me,because you said, and I quote you, “My brother, we have not one success story of Adventist in political office; because seeking the position is already compromise”. When you think and say something like that, no one can argue with you on that. You have already prescribed. The truth in that statement lies in your interpretation of what is a “success story” Has there ever been a success story in Caribbean politics? Has there ever been a success story of Adventist preachers in the ministry? Most of us would like to see greater success both in politics and in the ministry in the Caribbean
This is just a word of advice to my brother, Turner. i draw to your attention to a couple of quotes from your offering of April 16;
“I have not begun to really bring to light the compromises that I briefly touched on”
“But I have not yet supplied you with enough details showing the compromises I spoke of” … I will be more detailed in subsequent posts”.
My advice to you is to save the details. I suggest that if you wish to tell us of the incidents, you may detail them without attaching the names of individuals to them. Giving me details will not influence me to accept that Adventists must not offer themselves for public office. It will only assist in convincing me that some of our brethren can be as corrupt as the rest of sinners. Prehaps the wrong Adventists are offering themselves. If Adventists who are greedy for gain and glamour run for public office, they will , of course, misrepresent the church. Badventists misrepresent the church anywhere – in parliament or in the pulpit.
It is not true to say that politics is a dirty game. It is no more a dirty game than religion or economics or football. It is some of the players who are dirty; and it is they who are giving the game a bad name. If you blame politics for the problems in society, blame the church too, since we have bad people in both of them!
What is success?
I submit that much of our success–whether in evangelism or in the political arena, will be unknown to us this side of heaven.
I testified enough times before committees of the Utah legislature that I don’t remember now exactly which issue was being discussed on the occasion that, when it was my turn to speak, I didn’t have any written notes. The speech I made on that occasion, however, was one that COULD have been used with regard to other subjects. “There is more than one version of the golden rule. One version is, Whatever it is that you want, make sure everyone else who wants it can have it too. Another version is, “Whatever it is that you want, make sure everyone else has it too, whether they want it or not.”
Of the several other people who had testified that day, none of them had mentioned the golden rule. Many of the citizens who did speak to the issue wanted for everyone else what ever it was they wanted for themselves. What I said very much needed to be said. Nobody else did.
Do I remember whether the vote on that particular issue went the way I wanted it to go?
No. Can’t say that I do. But there are times when, if we pay attention, we can articulate principles other people might otherwise fail to take into account. If nobody else is saying what needs to be said, it seems to me that somebody who understands such things needs to be there and know how to participate in the process.
“There is more than one version of the golden rule. One version is, Whatever it is that you want, make sure everyone else who wants it can have it too. Another version is, “Whatever it is that you want, make sure everyone else has it too, whether they want it or not.”
Very good motto to remember.
Elaine,
That sounds like a version of the “golden rule” that Karl Marx might have written. Or a modern liberal-socialist politician. That’s quite different from what Jesus taught. He wasn’t talking about material things, but our relationships with others.
I though it was “those who have the Gold, get to make the rules” 8-).
Bro. Moore, good day to you as well.
In my next post I will prove the issues I have raised. I don’t just give you things “I heard” or briefly looked into, I research them thoroughly (and I do mean thoroughly) and then present them.
Let’s look at the notion of “a hornets nest” in calling out names of SDA politicians. I make it my business to keep “in house” that which is truly “in house”. I would not expose to non-SDAs, or even the church, the person issues of any individuals within God’s church. That’s between them and God. It is only when an SDA politician takes public stances, hitting television, radio, and the www, and that stance taken represents a contradiction to what we believe, and there is no retraction of their erroneous stances; then, and only then do I began to raise questions. The question I pose to you is this: Is the good name of an SDA politician more important than the honor and vindication of God’s name? Shall they be protected, while God’s church is left unprotected? SDA politicians are scrutinized in the media everyday for their words and actions. Shall we not at least examine their positions vs. what we teach? If we can, there is where I believe you will see that SDA’s have no business in politics.
You said, “politics is not the only area where SDAs mis represent the church,” but let’s remember that the topic here is SDA’s in politics.
Also, we need to talk about Daniel; which I believe is a grossly disconnected…
Bro. Moore,
The “compromises” of SDA politicians I refer to are “compromises of our faith”, not political corruption.
Let’s get down to examples that I believe are indicative of compromises all SDAs face when contemplating a career in politics…
1. Ben Carson believes in the Sabbath…. does he not? Yet, he signed books and campaigned on the Sabbath…. Could he or any other SDA be expected to do differently and is that not compromise?
What about the 4th Commandment?
2. Patrick Allen, Governor General of Jamaica – Upon the announcement of him succeeding retiring GG Kenneth Hall a tidal wave of discussion immediately broke out in the local Jamaican newspapers, as to the inherent contradictions between our SDA faith and the expected duties of the GG. One entry into the Jamaican Gleaner, by an obvious SDA member, summed up the inherent compromises; which I will supply in my next post.
3. Patrick Allen Casino Gaming Bill debacle – http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100502/news/news2.html Also, must see – http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100603/cleisure/cleisure3.html
Do we believe in Gambling?
If we don’t believe fellow Adventists who warn against compromising our faith, at least listen to non-Adventists; whom we seek to win.
4. The new Fiji President Conrote, an SDA, was the previous military commander of Fijian military. How on earth can you command the military and be faithful to Commandment #6?
Just for starters
I’m sorry….I don’t think I’ll be able to continue on this subject…. I don’t know if even this comment will come through… but I spent a good deal of time trying to highlight (within the allotted “characters available”) some very important references to incidents that illustrate what I have been proposing; that SDA’s have no business in governmental office…. only to find that, just as I am beginning to prove my case, the moderator did not allow my post in. Censorship is one of the worst forms of control, because, under the guise of “free flow of discussion”, it allows a person to decide what contributions to discussion are worthy of entry into the discussion. I have not mentioned anything that is not 100% public knowledge. My expressions have not and will not be curt or unkind. I may be pointed, but only from passion. Its because I have mountains more information to post, on a topic of interest, than I will ever be able to share. I have merely challenged what has been called “a blessing”; alleging that more examination should take place concerning things we report as “a blessing”.
Dwayne,
Don’t take the “awaiting moderation” status personally. it is an artifact of the current design of the web site, and is no respecter of persons or opinions. It is an equal-opportunity obstruction. Ditto for the arbitrary truncation of comments that do not in fact exceed the character limit.
Welcome to the frustrations of commenting with the current Atoday web design 8-(.
I may be wrong about my previous post…. if I am…. please accept my apology….
Dwayne,
Are there SDA politicians who have taken stances publicly that are a contradiction to what “we” believe?
There are some things about which all Seventh-day Adventists agree. Who Jesus is? Mostly. Which day of the week Jesus rested in creation and in redemption? Except near the International Date Line, almost all Seventh-day Adventists agree. That the return of Jesus will be literal? Yes.
And I would almost certainly agree with you at least in this sense; That any adventist who functions in the political arena should be careful about not only what doctrines–religious or political–he promotes but how he promotes them.
You, however seem to be proceeding from the assumption that any and every member of our denomination is obligated to promote only what you believe.
When I was asked by the local conference to testify before a committee of the Utah legislature, I identified myself as a Seventh-day Adventist and said only things with which I thought all Adventists believe and tried to use only language with which I thought all Adventists would be comfortable.
On those occasions, however, when I testified as a private citizen, I didn’t mention my denominational affiliation AND, because I had previously testified on behalf of the conference, I included in my opening remarks a statement that I was there as a private citizen–not representing any one except myself.
Imagine…the dream of some of the leaders and members of the denomination comes true! Everybody in a given country is Adventist now! Whoopee! Except…now we can’t have government…oops!
Bro. Metzger,
If you reference my April 17, 9:26 pm post, you will see my dilemma. It’s apparent that I’ll not be allowed to make my case; citing incidents that are totally public knowledge. My references to incidents/situations, complete with links for readers to investigate, will prove that, yes, Seventh-day Adventist politicians have taken positions that are contradictory to what we believe. The violations I cited were:
1. Improper Sabbath-keeping
2. Plethora of Contradictions between Adventism and Duties of the GG
3. Casino Gambling Bill Conflict
4. Military Participation
Brother, please note that above numbers 2. & 3. were extensively discussed on radio, tv, and the main newspapers of Jamaica (Gleaner & Observer). The listening audience, viewership, and readership of the aforementioned media vastly outnumbers the followers of Atoday.org.. In other words, it is common knowledge in Jamaica. The volume of coverage on those issues was massive; thoroughly parsed and discussed. All of our SDA beliefs that would contradict with the duties of GG were discussed from the very day the announcement came of a newly appointed SDA Governor General (GG). Facts, not perceptions, that need to be examined. Yet, Atoday decided to make my argument incomplete. I have seen jabs, digs, pokes, and downright disrespectful things written on this site about our GC President. Censored? No!
I’m at a lost to know how or if I should participate here.
Dwyane,
When I was a boy in the 1940s & 50s, there was seldom a sabbath that we didn’t either a) have guests for the noon meal, b) go on a picnic–usually with other adventists, c) attend a potluck meal or d) accept an invitation to dine a someone else’s house. My parents were musical so we often participated in music jams on sabbath afternoons. Sometimes we played “sabbath games” my parent bought at the Book & Bible House. We much more often had guests come to our house than we went elsewhere.
It wasn’t until many years later that it occurred to me that my parents seldom or never discussed theology on sabbath afternoons. I now believe it was because they didn’t want to argue about theology and they really didn’t know how to discuss theology without arguing. If they didn’t mention doctrinal questions, it was easier to maintain the myth that all adventists believe exactly what all other adventists believe.
You may also prefer to believe that no adventists could possibly disagree with your political philosophy. That is not likely to be true but it is easier to pretend that we don’t disagree about political questions if we avoid participating in the political process.
In my not-so-humble opinion, it would be better to learn how to participate in discussions about religious or political beliefs without arguing than to simply avoid such discussions.
Debbonnaire,
You have hit on exactly the ‘problem’ in places in the Inter-American Division like Jamaica, or in some African countries, where the Adventism is prominent and increasingly more prevalent.
When and where we have been successful in growing the church to the extent that we are no longer a small minority faith community, it becomes inevitable that Adventists are called upon to participate in the administration of civil government.
I completely concur with Stephen Foster that in some parts of the world, Adventists are inevitably taking-on increasing responsibility for civil affairs. Adventist missions have included an emphasis on higher education. And in several parts of the globe, this has propelled Adventists and people with Adventist education, into positions of prominence in government and commerce.
One of my “Sunday” relatives is heavily immersed in global commerce in “developing nations”. A few years ago he was talking to me about something he had encountered in his work. He say that Adventists have done an excellent job of educating people in these regions, for service in government and commerce. But unfortunately, he said, this education had not seemed to wean them from the graft and corruption that was prevalent in their native lands. He did not say this disparagingly, it was merely his observation.
Now we would like to think that being Adventist, or having and Adventist education, would develop in us a better character than those around us. And often it does, but not always. And as Adventists rise in attainments in education, and government, and commerce, our human character flaws also become more prominent.
And church leaders have good reason to be concerned that the inevitable conflicts and foibles and failings, that are associated with public life, can reflect unfavorably on the church. So Adventists are confronted with both threats and opportunities in civic life.
Jim Hamstra,
Thank you for that clarification… and with that, I will happily reiterate my post of April 17, 9:29pm. It was just so frustrating to enter what I consider an important post that goes to the heart of this discussion; but that very post wasn’t admitted in. Maybe my inclusion of links is the problem. Thanks again.
Stephen Foster,
Though your thoughts were directed to Debbonnaire, I would like to comment. I agree fully that where we SDAs are prominent; we may be called upon “to participate in the administration of civil government”. This is a credit to God who gave us this message! It’s a given, when faithfully followed, the beliefs that we espouse will certainly lead to high character; which will translate into admiration from observers, as was Daniel. But doesn’t this demand that we:
1. Scrutinize the duties/expectations associated with these offices, so as to determine whether we may find conflicts in office that would ultimately lower the respect of observers of the faith we espouse?
2. Be ready to turn down anything that would lead to compromise?
In Jamaica, many SDA’s and non-SDAs weighed-in on public forums, as to whether or not Patrick Allen’s duties as GG would be consistent with Adventistism. Union/Conference/University leadership islandwide, called a press conference to allay all fears of the public and give an endorsement to Patrick Allen. They even dismissed, as unimportant, potential Sabbath conflicts.
If you strip-off the “http://” stuff, and put the remainder of the URL in “double.quotes” it generally goes through.
It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. And congratulating others who have done well, in any legitimate sphere of endeavor, qualifies as doing good, in my book. Ditto for helping others on Sabbath. Jesus did not just worship at the Synagogue on Sabbath, He went about looking for opportunities to do good. Even to the point of doing good things that could have been done on another day.
Regarding signing “undesirable” legislation. As I understand it, for your Governor General that is a strictly ceremonial duty. He is technically signing on behalf of the Queen. I am certain that many Adventist attorneys have had to sign documents they did not agree with, on behalf of their clients.
Bro. Jim thanks for the tip. Will try and reenter.
Let me first state that I am from the good ‘ole USA. I have researched Adventists holding political offices in many places, including Jamaica, which has, because of the high profile of the SDA Church there, provided me with the best insights as to what happens to our witness when we become politically entrenched.
But let me say this… Generalities don’t allow us to get to the crux of the matter. When Ben Carson alleges that campaigning for the Presidency as proper Sabbath-keeping, is that or is that not violating God’s holy Day? If it isn’t… then we can all define our noble endeavors as “doing good” and not skip a beat at sundown on Friday. We’ll just continue to work, study, and play and call it “doing good”.
As to the Governor General of Jamaica signing laws in behalf of the Queen… Shall we place ourselves in compromising situations, and then claim to “only be acting in behalf of”. Very sad that no one will speak up, but there are many that know that the Island of Jamaica was ablaze with debate over the 2 plus months delay in signing the Casino bill. During the delay, it was well highlighted that our church teaches “no gambling” and the GG would be disciplined by his church if he signed, but create a constitutional crisis in Jamaica if he didn’t. Finally, his deputy GG signed it (in his behalf).
How about being knighted? Can SDAs join secret societies? Be Masons?
Here is the post I sought to bring in….
Brother Moore,
The “compromises” of SDA politicians I refer to are “compromises of our faith”, not personal corruption.
Let’s get down to examples that I believe are indicative of compromises all SDAs face when contemplating a career in politics…
1. Ben Carson believes in the Sabbath…. does he not? Yet, he signed books and campaigned on the Sabbath. Could he or any other SDA be expected to do differently and is that not compromise?
What about the 4th Commandment?
2. Patrick Allen, Governor General of Jamaica – Upon the announcement of him succeeding retiring GG Kenneth Hall a tidal wave of discussion immediately broke out in the local Jamaican newspapers, as to the inherent contradictions between our SDA faith and the expected duties of the GG. One entry into the Jamaican Gleaner, by an obvious SDA member, detailed all the inherent compromises. (Will send to your email, upon request)
3. Patrick Allen’s Casino Gaming Bill dilemma: “jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100502/news/news2.html”
Also: “jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100603/cleisure/cleisure3.html”
Do we believe in Gambling?
If we don’t listen to fellow Adventists who warn against compromising our faith, at least listen to non-Adventists; whom we seek to win.
4. The new Fiji President Conrote, an SDA, formerly the commander of the Fijian military. How on earth can you command the military and be faithful to Commandment #6?
Just for starters…
Dwayne,
When you wrote, “This is a credit to God who gave us this message!”, to what message do you refer? What are “the beliefs that we espouse”? What is, “the faith we espouse”?
If you subscribe to a creed (a list of doctrines employed for the purpose of determining a person’s orthodoxy), you can point to such a list as “the beliefs that we espouse”. The problem with that is that the preamble of the the SdA list of “Fundamental Beliefs” states that it is not a creed.
Let’s take gambling, for example. There are members of our denomination who believe that a) liberty is indivisible–if we deny liberty to others, we deserve it not for ourselves and, under a just God, it cannot long continue and b) the best way to protect the liberties that are important to us is to protect the liberties of those with whom we profoundly disagree.
Some adventists would vote to prohibit gambling because they are opposed to gambling.
Other adventists, even if they are apposed to gambling, would vote against a bill to prohibit gambling because liberty is the more important principle.
My wife and I took a gamble when we bought a house. We expected the value to appreciate at least enough to keep up with inflation. When Sally was offered a position in another state, I stayed behind to sell the house. It took me six months because of the crash of the housing market. We gambled. We lost.
Bro. Metzger….
To make “to what message do you refer” a prerequisite for us drawing conclusions on the issues I refer to absolutely insures that all wrongs will be sanitized because “truth is relative”. That’s the fundamental disconnect that has us all passionate on both sides of contemporary issues in the church. One side rationalizes and intellectualizes every issue and the inevitable conclusion is “there is no right or wrong in this matter”. While the other side points to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy as proof. Pretty sad that we’ve come to a point that although we’re all privy to the same message that clearly teaches that “righteousness exists” and “so does sin;” but we conclude that we can’t really know which is which.
Doesn’t it bother you that in most situations I cited, the general public had a different expectation of Seventh-day Adventists; only to realize that today’s SDA Church doesn’t stand in the same place? Was it a blessing to have an SDA authorizing the signing of a Casino Gambling Bill into law; where it has never been? When you’ve had Christian faith coalitions resisting the entrance of gambling to Jamaica; only to see one who is a part of a church that says it has “the truth” being the one to sign the bill into law. Should we feel good that peoples high spiritual expectations of us were disappointed? Is that something we should feel good about? My experience is that these questions won’t get answered.
Dear Bro Turner, I understand your anxiety to keep the church looking good and clean inthe eyes of the world. One of the ways of doing this is to keep your members from accepting political office. That is a failed way to protect the church. You don’t keep your children from burning down your house by keeping them from matches, or by keeping matches from their reach. That may work for a short time; but after a while ,you will fail. The better way to teach your children to save your house is to teach them the proper use of matches. All the failings and misrepresentations you describe in your comments, spring from a failure of the church to instill godly principles into the character of your members. You spend so much time building barriers around them, that you neglect putting real fibre into their character.
Daniel is our MODEL. Daniel did not set out to represent the interest of the Hebrew people – he represented his God. He demonstrated in his ministry the noble principles which he imbibed as a servant of the Most High. In Babylon all the evils of state trappings, and all manner of idolatry were around him; but he stood firm to his convictions, and to his God. It is because Daniel and Joseph resisted temptation and turned their back to evils why their lives are immortalised in the pages of sacred history.
It is one thing to hide all the thrash from the world, and give the impression that we are clean; but it is another thing to expose them to reality.
Brother Turner, Your question is, “How on earth can you command the military and be faithful to commandment #6?”. It is biblical that Moses and Joshua and David and Solomon commanded the military; and according to the beliefs of the SDA church, they all had commandment # 6. What is your exception?
You noted that in Jamaica the public and the brethren pressured Governor General Allen to back off signing of the Casino Bill. The Bill was signed by his Deputy instead. That is what should happen. If your brother shows an inclination to do wrong in office, those of you who are more commmitted to do right, must help guide him. Then you must institute a sensitisation programme to elevate spiritual and moral standards among the members. If the church is worth it’s salt it must produce good spiritual leaders for the church and the community. Doing the right thing may not, and will not be easy; but we must not resort to a coward’s retreat and hide from the people who need us most.
Sabbath Greetings Bro Moore.
I am of the firm opinion that we as SDAs are forgetting that we are placed as lights in this world, that the people may be guided aright. When the 3 Hebrew young men were challenged by the Babylonian King to bow down to the golden image, what was their response because remember they were high officials in the realm and they were placed there because of their godly living but I spite of death threats they decided not to bow down and we know the story, the king recognized the God of heaven as the only God. The problem with us as SDAs is that self is so prevalent amongs us that when an sda is elected or called to higher office we send the news worldwide and there is great rejoicing that a sda is prime minister or running for president or is a Governor General . That type of rejoicing must stop and we must rejoice that our names are in the book of life.
Also when elected to office as prime ministers or governor Generals we should be as the close down all the casinos, the night clubs, rum shops and leave the results with God.
Brother Moore,
“Failure of the church to instill godly principles in the character of the members”? So if I got this right… if these individuals, that I cited, did the right thing they would have “represented their God”, instead of the State? In other words, we should take political offices, that have duties/expectations that are clearly defined as “contradictory to our faith” and “represent God like Daniel?’ Isn’t the better course to not get into such a predicament in the first place? Comparing Daniel and political offices in a democracy or a republic today is like comparing apples to oranges. The better example to use is Moses; who had a clear path to the “pharoahship” and withdrew because of the contradictions to his faith.
Reread my posts concerning the Casino Gambling law. I never said that the GG was pressured by the public and the brethren to sign the bill. A coalition of Christians had been resisting the entrance of Gambling into Jamaica for years. But, at the time of signing, it was well highlighted that for Patrick Allen to sign such as bill would constitute a violation of SDA beliefs. The “pressure effect” came from a roughly 2 1/2 months delay in signing the bill; while Patrick Allen was out of the country (he was here in the US receiving an honorary doctorate/s). It was his delay in signing that raised a “moment of truth” question as to whether Allen was at an impasse. There are many who know this and can corroborate this.
Bro. Turner,
Instilling godly principles in person doesn’t mean they’re going to make the same decision as you imagine they should. Being in public office puts you in a position to see, evaluate and manage more dimensions of an issue than are seen by the eyes of one who is strongly opinionated. I’m not saying you are wrong, just that there probably is more to the picture than you are seeing. What is more, you may one day pay a price for the harsh words you utter today when you seek the cooperation of elected officials on other matters and they remember your criticisms.
Brother Turner,
For me, personally, there are truths that are absolute. Jesus is creator, redeemer and savior. Salvation is by grace alone thorough faith alone. No creed but the Bible. The priesthood of all believers. The heavenly nature of the millennial kingdom. The seventh-day-ness of the sabbath. For a man to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination. (And yes, that the word, “abomination” means it is also a sin.) Some prophecies are conditional.
I believe the final deception before Jesus return will be about religious liberty. I also believe Seveth-day Adventists or seventh-day sabbath keepers in general will be a special object of coercion by those who think they are doing God service by trying to get everyone to conform to their particular concepts of morality.
What about right now? Is the use of coercion with regard to religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions the mark of the beast right now? I believe it is. I’ve already used the issue of gambling as an illustration. Here’s another.
Should I use coercion against people whose concept of morality differs from mine? Or people who seem to have no morality at all? If two guys come to see a house I am offering for rent (if I had one) and they are holding hands, should I find an excuse to rent the place to someone else? Should I interpret civil laws as a legal defense to discriminate against them?
The “Daniel Coalition” which seems to tout Daniel as a role model and pioneer for SDA’s in political office begs the question: Would Daniel be proud of himself being immortalized this way?
Let’s talk about Daniel in office…
1. Daniel was in the Median Empire only as a result of their takeover from Babylon (A captive, not a citizen).
*This fact cannot be overlooked. All SDA’s in office today are citizens of their respective countries and have run for office and won elections, (Except the GG of Jamaica, which is touted as a “non-political” office. Nevertheless, if he didn’t want it, he could have turned down the offer).
2. Daniel was appointed by Darius to be first of 3 Presidents and over 120 princes. (He did not run for office).
3. Daniel was responsible for running the business/affairs of Darius and the Median Empire. (Running the affairs of an Empire does not make him a politician)
4. When confronted with expectations that violated his conscience (fidelity to the Law of God), he clearly choose his faith over compromise.
Note: There’s a different expectation when you seek an office vs. being appointed, as a captive, to do a work. The by-product of the first approach is that you happily embrace the duties that come with the office. The second approach suggests you will do what you can do; but nothing more. Much like SDA’s joining the military vs. registering as conscientious objectors.
Moses’ example is germane to this…
Daniel and Joseph were appointed rather than elected to office, because their governments were absolute monarchies. They were Subjects, not Citizens. Nobody was elected. It makes no sense to claim that it is OK to serve as an appointed official in an absolute monarchy but not as an elected official in a democracy.
Brother Turner,try not to misread or misunderstand other people’s comment in this forum. In my comment on your case of the Casino Bill and the involvement of GG Allen, I stated that it was good that the brethren and other members of the public pressured the Governor General “to back off from signing the Bill”. You understood me to state that these people pressured the GG “to sign the Bill”. If i thought that they pressured him to sign the Bill, my following statements would not make sense.
Moses turned his back on the politics of Egypt only to play a central role in the politics of his nation; and his role was not only bloody, but also ruthless. The same can be said of the outlook of many SDA leaders. They reject the politics of their societies; but they are ruthless in church politics. You may not mind this ; because in the church these actions are carried out under the watchful eyes of the other brethren; and the whole matter is treated in-house. The public media seldom get to discuss these happenings,and we think this is good for the church. It is our business.
Nathaniel,
Perhaps you and Bro. Turner could shed some additional light on the topic. I saw a statement that a majority of the population on St. Lucia were Adventists. What is that percentage? Of those who hold elected office, how many are Adventist? I ask this because, if the number of Adventists holding elected office is representative of the population, I wonder if the criticisms of the “casino bill” are not the continued expressions of one who opposed it when some amount of support from Adventists was necessary for it to be approved. If so, then it would seem there are other views on the topic we are not hearing expressed here.
I do not know the actual proportion of the population who are SDAs in these tiny Caribbean Islands; but to put it at 80% is an exageration. I cannot think of any of them where SDAs form even one half of the population. A quick look at the Population stats of these islands on the net will give us a fair estimate. Many of these islands already have some form of gambling; and much of the legislation is an attempt to regulate them, especially to be able to find a framework to tax the proceeds from them. Dwayne Turner insists that he has done intense research on the topics he’s put forward; so he may have the relevant stats at his finger tips.
Nathaniel,
The claim was that certain districts were over 80% Adventist, not the entire island.
Jim Hamstra,
My attempt was to challenge the assertion that Daniel’s position is comparable to being a politician today. You bring up him being under an absolute monarchy, which I agree, therefore he is not elected by the people, but rather appointed by the monarch. You are expected to do the monarch’s biddings and answer to him. This Daniel did, until he was challenged by a law that conflicted with his faith. Since he was appointed, never sought or ran for that office, and as also being, as you put it, “a subject”, I am asserting that Daniel was in a much stronger position to disobey the Kings 30-day law; than if he had sought or campaigned for his office.
When one takes the oath of office at inauguration (such as the GG of Jamaica), he is pledging to fulfill the duties of the office as required by the state constitution. This means he is pledging to make the affairs of the state preeminent over all other personal considerations; possessing no mental reservations whatsoever. When you run into conflicts you can and will be reminded of your oath (As Patrick Allen repeatedly has been), but as “a subject”, appointed by the monarch, if you disobey an edict/law/order of the king; at least you can say, “I never sought to be in this position”. Or you can make it clear to the king, “I will always be true to my God”. But you can’t say that as a politician, because you sought an office with prior knowledge of its inherent contradictions.
Brother Moore…
you said….
“In my comment on your case of the Casino Bill and the involvement of GG Allen, I stated that it was good that the brethren and other members of the public pressured the Governor General “to back off from signing the Bill”.”
then you said…
“You understood me to state that these people pressured the GG “to sign the Bill”.”
and for these assertions you cautioned earlier in your post…
“Brother Turner,try not to misread or misunderstand other people’s comment in this forum.”
Brother Moore, respectfully, I would ask you to do just as you alleged I didn’t do… Read and comment based on what was posted…unless you are saying that you have an independent knowledge of the Casino Gambling issue.
I did not say that the brethren and the public pressured Patrick Allen to back off from signing the bill. In saying that I said that, you have misread what I said. If you are personally asserting that the public pressured him not to sign the Gambling Bill, that would not be true. In fact, the public pressured him “to sign” the bill; “the brethren” (Union President) took a non-committal position concerning Patrick Allen signing the bill! The only thing the brethren did was reaffirm our stance against gambling. They painfully tried to walk the fine line between his duties and his faith. Let me be clear, this and other issues have not ended up having a “line-in-the-sand” witness as did Daniel’s stand; but rather a “caving…
continuing…. “caving in” witness.
Brother Noel… let’s not confuse the locations in question. The article is about St. Lucia. The Casino Gambling issue I referred to is in Jamaica.
Just a side note – Where does 80% even show up on this page (including the article)? Is this a “misread”? Smile, subtle jab.
Brother Moore…
Let’s be frank and open… When you say,
“Dwayne Turner “insists” (emphasis mine) that he has done intense research on the topics he’s put forward; so he may have the relevant stats at his finger tips.” It seems that you’re challenging my assertions. Have you done research on what we are discussing, either independently or looked up the links I provided? I don’t speak as a novice. I research down to the toenail. Because, I am a firm believer that it takes digging to unearth the truth concerning an issue that may be perceived as “good” or innocent”, if you don’t do your homework. But, it makes no sense for you and I to speak conclusively on issues that haven’t been researched. I possess back up for back up in what I say. I have collected and preserved every article or commentary associated with the Appointment of Patrick Allen (including “boots on the ground”) and its subsequent effects upon Jamaica; including new perceptions of Adventists in Jamaica since he took office in January, 2009. Mainly, because I believe the Great Controversy is most intensely played out where Adventism is strongest numerically.
William and Jim, I had a brief look at the latest stats of a number of the states with a high concentration of SDAs. Pitcairn was the only one with almost 80% SDA, with Jamaica ,Antigua, Anguilla, St Lucia, Grenada and a few others between 8% and 13%. I don’t know what the figure is for particular districts within the states, as Jim pointed out. I doubt that real SDAs would want to legalise casino gambling in their country; (I may be mistaken!)but if the question comes up for consideraton in Parliament, any SDA who is a sitting member of the House will have to consider how he would relate to the situation, whether he would take the “Daniel” stand or the other stand. And as I said before, the gambling industry may already have existed in the economy, and the legislation might be to regulate it for the purpose of taxation, or of discouraging it, or even of phasing it out. Legislation can be used to establish industries and to encourage certain habits of consumption; or it may be enacted to stifle industry and discourage habits of consumption.
Participating in legal construction can take several forms. One can initiate action, one can support the action of others, or one can oppose the action of others, no matter whether one is in Government, or whether in opposition. Parliament is not like the Church where a fiat is laid down, and the offender is either disfellowshipped or censored or defrocked. In Parliament you can vote for, vote against or abstain. Democracy rules.
But finally…. let’s get down to it…
If it is true that SDAs can safely run for and assume political offices today…. can we first examine the rough-and-tumble aspirants are expected to engage in, in order to obtain an office? This is not tiptoeing through the tulip patch….it’s dirty business! Let’s look on a national level and see 5 areas associated with running for office.
1. Pollsters – Hired (amongst other duties) to find out the issues that locals care about; so the politicians can make “poll tested statements”.
2. Surrogates – Hired to only present their candidate favorably and/or spin, cover up, or flat out lie about things that do not help their candidate.
3. Debates – Designed to boost yourself up, while finding no good; even putting down your opponent. Truth and facts are bandied about. When Ben Carson claimed to “take the high road”, he did not do so when talking about Democrats.
4. Researchers (akin to trial teams) – Hired to find out any dirt they can to use against the opponent.
5. Misspeak – A word designed to claim “temporary insanity” when making a recent statement. Not because it’s true, but because you “took a hit” for saying what you said. Interestingly, the claim of having “misspoken” always seem to only be associated with what you said that hurt you.
So far, I ask you….
A. Is this an accurate assessment of the political campaigning?
B. Is this consistent with aspiring to be like Christ?
An SDA in parliament does not have to compromise any principles, either of his church, or of his own conscience. When temptation comes, he can resist; and there is no compulson to sin. As far as I know, the biggest problem is in towing, or not towing the party line; and that too can be resisted if it offends any member. Any SDA who offers himself to represent his people must have guts and nerve; and must be ready to stand for truth. There is no need to feel guilty, except he is not sincere about what he does.
My advice to my brethren is: do not go into political office to seek glamour and gain for yourself, if the gain is not also for your people! Greed in any situation is unwise, and using the resources of the mases to enrich oneself is contrary to the principles of justice, whether you are employed by the church, or by the state.
Bro. Turner must remember that there are SDAs in other parts of the world than the USA.in all parts of the world. You mention the malpractices in the US elections campaign to warn us against campaigning in any other part of our globe. You hold up the “sins” of Dr Carson and a few others as enough to keep all SDAs from political aspiration . Brother, you are directed to consider the example of Jesus; and this is in your teaching, that He considered all fallen humanity, and saw real evil men: liars, thieves, fornicators, murderers, atheists, idolators, papists and politicians, with a host of satanists; and He still came down to earth to die for these. While here He mingled with these same evil people, and went so low as to touch their lepers, their depraved and their outcasts. If He thought and acted like some of us – too righteous to mix with ” the scum of the earth”, we would all die in our sins. God forbid!
The SDA Church or any other church organisations have the authority or right to
dictate whether a member should pursue politics. If they determine some sin of commission has been committed they can disfellowship said member. It’s between God and the individual as to choices. Politics is the dirtiest business on Earth. Rarely is a person not drawn into the brotherhood of corruption that is involved in politics. It starts in the local burg, and advancement is determined by how well you play the game, with the prime movers. If you don’t play the game of the entrenched “old boys”, you have no power, you are ignored. Anyone who stays more than a single term, in “elected positions”, is tainted with joining the club. i personally in today’s
political climate “DO NOT VOTE”. The total fabric of the political scene is corrupt to
the utmost, and i will not be responsible for the corruption that continues. Now as to politics in the Caribbean, i can’t speak to the degree of corruption therein, but you know it exists, and what “price” is commanded by the bureaucracy to participate??
In this day and age “Caesar Rules”. Need we be continually informed of the latest
questionable sins and or suspicions of sins within the Church, as some have said they have documented “every one”?? Hummmm.
Continued…>>>>The first sentence above should read……..”do not have the authority or right”……
Brother Turner, I am baffled by your stance. You are again insisting that you research every iota of the claims you make in this forum; yet you seem to be unhappy that I say you so claim. I am not sure my level of psychology can find a solution to this predicament. It is beyond my undrestanding how what I say is a challenge to your assertions. Do I require your permission to give my observations?
I looked up the articles you referred to in the Gleaner. I agree with the President of the Conference that a firm stand must be taken against gambling; but if he was saying that th GG is obliged to sign the Bill as a representative of the Queen, I do not agree. In the end he did not sign; but his deputy did; and that is the arrangement he could make with the Government and his Deputy. He did not have to allow so much anxiety and so much delay if he had made a workable arrangement with his people before hand. And that is what Jesus was trying to say in his parable: “The children of the world are wiser in their generation than the children of light”. And his stand should be made known to all concerned, in the Government and in the country,so there will be no surprises when the time comes for such exception. There is an acceptable way out in every case, if people want to be forthright. That is the kind of compromise which can be made in such cases. It happens all the time in Government affairs. The right thing can be done without keeping all SDAs out of politics.
You know…. any onlooker to our conversation will realize that nothing I have posted has really been addressed or has been fairly represented. Bro. Callahan… I don’t document sins or suspicions of sins within the church, but rather the compromises that have taken place, as a means of helping others to see for themselves. The critical watchmanship aspect of what God expects of us has fallen by the wayside. “Live and let live” rules the day. The members individualism is seen as the primary area of protection. Yet, Joel 2:17 tells us, “Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?” Heritage refers to “legacy”. That rich legacy of the SDA church has been subverted by today’s cultural, contemporary-driven SDA church; and we seem to be “proud of it”. The world questions us, based on what we used to be about, and we fight hard to assure them that we are not the same as before. The Loren Seibold/David Corn (MotherJones.com) article exchanges on SDA understanding on the prophecies prove that. They laugh at us and we don’t seem to see it; because of our strong will to be accepted and normalized. When I was a boy it was, “when in doubt, don’t do it”. Today, the doubts and compromises are downplayed. Sad state of affairs.
Bro. Moore… you skipped past parliamentary members running for office and went to whether or not he can successfully be true to his faith while in office. And yes, I know that the process by which a person runs for office in the US can be different in other nations. Yet, still, there is always a competitive nature associated with running for elected offices. The citizenry must pick between you and the other candidate/s. Hence, you put yourself in a position to use some of the political machinery I named in my previous post. Question is, does God want us to typecast, denigrate, cast doubts and dispersions against our political opponents; whom would be seen as “a soul to be saved” outside of the political arena?
You know… it’s difficult to write. We don’t seem to answer questions here. I have asked many questions…None answered. Is that a round about admission that what I am saying is true? Assertions have been made that its A-OK for Adventists to serve in office. I have documented real live examples of the pitfalls that come with the territory. Rather than dealing with the particulars of my assertions, posters seem to quickly typecast the documentation of these issues in the first place; charging me with highlighting “peoples sins”. At the end of the day… it simply means the questions I have raised can’t be dealt with by those in opposition. If, in fact, the things I have represented as “compromises”, are not compromises… prove it!
Brother Moore… I at least appreciate that you have finally addressed the substance of what I have written. No need to stress yourself. Addressing the issues head-on is what I seek; as you have just done. When you use the word “claim”, it suggested to me that the issues I have spoken about may or may not have happened. When I did not see you offer any personal knowledge on the same issues, yet make conclusive assessments on those issues, it became frustrating; an obvious disconnect. I pride myself on answering thoroughly questions people ask me, as I believe all should do if we truly believe what we say we believe. I can assure you, if you ask me a question, I will give you an answer. Your last post is what I have been seeking; dialogue not based on some theoretical hypothesis that may or may not ever happen, but rather what has happened, what is happening, and what can be reasonably expected to happen in the future.
Turning to what you wrote…
You said, “That is the kind of compromise which can be made in such cases.
Are you sure the GG did the right thing in having his Deputy sign the bill? The deputy GG acts at the behest of the GG. He signed for the GG; not for himself. Did the fact that the GG didn’t sign it himself clear him of all culpability concerning the bill?
But let’s go back…
How about having to be “Knighted” by the queen; joining a secret order. Can an SDA join a secret society and remain true to his God?
Continuing…. If I have to attend a religious function, as the local, state, or national representative of the people, and are expected to call a man “Father, or Reverend, or Rabbi;” out of expected respect for his position, will Jesus simply wave off my addressing someone by a title that is only due God?. This comes with the territory folks. If SDA’s holding a political office is ok… there should be an answer to this question. This scenario can be reasonably expected to confront SDA’s from nation to nation. How about the GG or Ben Carson calling Francis “Your Holiness”(State Title), or “Holy Father”(Spiritual Title), with all this prophecy running through their heads? Come on folks… let’s get down to the nitty gritty…. there are a multiplicity of trappings awaiting SDA’s in office. Discussion of “Actual Scenarios” can only do justice to this discussion.
Pivoting…
The SDA Leader in St. Lucia said, “Adventists who run for office or participate in government must “ensure what they say on the political platform is “guarded’ and wholesome.” Is that a tacit admission that politics is fraught with “unguarded talk” and “unwholesome behavior”?
You don’t have to be “guarded” when what you endeavor passes the biblical test.
Phil. 4:8
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report…
When a religious community is in the minority in any area, that minority generally considers the wider community to be “the world”. The minority will criticize the larger, point out its sins, reject its social actions, etc. But, let that minority become the majority and the tables are turned. The majority, in any situation, has to assume responsibility for the upkeep and well-being of the community. In St. Lucia, I know of a community where Adventists are the clear majority. The area is “Adventist territory” — recognized and accepted. Our dynamic evangelism has done that. That area is “Adventist world”, and has been for decades. In other words, Adventists are “the world” in that area. So, I ask, who should assume responsibility for the well-being of the area? Would all the Brethren expressing negative opinions put a Roman Catholic to head an Adventist community. Well, let them express their opinions. The local Brethren will know what to do. There’s no stopping the sun from rising.
You know… I think we are doing Daniel a disservice by calling him “a politician” and his work in the Median courts “politics”.
Webster Dictionary’s definition of “Politician” is:
1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession
b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons
I do not see Daniel fitting into any of these descriptions. Yes, He was the President, in charge of overseeing the affairs of Darius’ Monarchy. But that’s just it! It wasn’t Darius Government; it was his Monarchy. Since approval of Daniels work comes from the top down (Darius approval), not the bottom up (the citizenry of the Median Empire), it is inconceivable to think of Daniel as being in government; as we know it. I believe that he had a work assigned for him to do and he just did his job.
If he was a politician, he could have easily identified a set of compatriots or a posse, that would look out for him, in turn for him giving them “favors and privileges from the President.” This could have politically dealt with the obvious phony support he had from those under him. But he didn’t do that! I don’t think just because we see the word “President” we can presume to connect his title with a modern day application of the word “President”.
Brother Turner, here you go again; and I quote you, “Any onlooker to our conversation will realise that nothing I have posted has really been addressed or has been fairly represented” This is a faulty conclusion. If you pay attention to what others are saying, you will realise that almost all of your concerns are being addressed; but you want others to accept your point of view uncritically. Have you paid attention to what Clarence Pamphile posted about the situation in parts of St Lucia which he labelled, “Adventist World”? Almost all the other comments addressed some aspect of your posts; but you fail to acknowledge them; because,(I think) they do not agree with your main thesis – that no SDA must accept political office, because it is fraught with dangers, and it compromises the good name of the SDA church. Your main proof is a string of evils associated with political campaigning, and blunders committed by SDA practitioners. Some of us try to impress you that there are situations when there have to be exceptions; and I proffer that nothing is wrong about SDAs running for, or accepting political office, if they would stand for principle, and refuse to dishonour God. Your stand is that by accepting, or running for office, is already a compromise of church principles.
You are seeing the issues through the eyes and lenses of a preacher or pastor only, and even so, one who is living in another world – not in OUR WORLD.
Yes Brother Lewis, I would like you, and the folks you described as “we” to be my political leader or Head of State. Let me quote first from your comment of April 22, at 9:43pm,before I comment. You wrote, “Also when elected to office as Prime Ministers or Governor Generals we should be as the… close down all the casinos, the night clubs rum shops and leave the results with God”. You may have a good idea here; but may I remind you that we are talking about secular states here.
In the days when Israel was a theocracy, and throughout the times of the kings, when you had the priests and the prophets, and God as the supreme Leader and Head of the armies of Israel, they did not, or could not get rid of idolatry, oppression of the poor, adultery, Polygamy, and a whole host of sins and irregularities. I should like to see how you, and “we” will suceed in closing down the gambling dens and liquor stores in today’s secular states!
Jesus tried to chase out the business dealers from the temple, and almost paid with his life for the venture. I wish you good luck, brother!
Brother Moore… you seized upon my statement that assesses the substance of the responses to what I have raised. First of all, let me assure you that I have no personal issues with those who disagree with me. However, if the arguments against what I have said are sound, then direct responses to my proposed myriad of pitfalls in politics should be met head on and conclusively debunked; but they haven’t been. With all due respect, you too have chosen to emphatically disagree with me without citing examples to the contrary. Just saying “others disagree” is not an argument. There must be a reason.
I ask…
1. Can SDA’s be knighted?
2. Is the assertion that “today’s equivalent to Daniel’s position is an SDA holding political office” a valid point?
3. Are there any success stories of Adventists remaining true to their faith, while in office? If so, cite a few.
4. How about the expectation of an SDA politician (or any politician) to relate to all his/her constituents with what they deem “respect”; including addressing faith leaders by their respective “church-given” titles (Father, Reverend, Rabbi); despite God’s warnings not to do so. (Matt. 23:8-9 & Psalms 111:9)
5. Representative politics – Can you truly represent the interests of your constituents if “the will of the people” is not “what you believe”? Does God excuse you for advocating for that which is against His word; just because “its your job”?
Bro. Turner,
Your long postings and lists of questions are starting to remind me of the mythical character Don Quixote, who fancied himself a noble knight aboard a noble steed, yet whose mount was quite swaybacked and slow and his charges were against windmills, not the evil dragons that existed only in his imagination.
Bro. Noel…. seeking to invalidate my questions by use of a quip to analyze the nature of my questions is not an invalidation, but instead, a confirmation that there are no solid answers to my questions. My reason for persistent posting was to confront this idea of SDA’s being politicians head-on; examining the validity of the claims that it is not a problem and is not inconsistent with our faith. It is not me you owe it to, to answer those questions, but to yourself and to God. Taking positions on issues is not a light thing, just because we’re participating in a “cool electronic forum”. Far more people read posts in Adventist forums than those who actually participate and they may possibly make up their minds on doctrines, standards, issues etc., based upon what they read. It behooves us all to engage substantively, either pro or con. The veracity of our assertions are revealed in our answers.
The Bible tells us, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” 1 Peter 3:15
That’s how I’ll leave this issue…. unless further engaged…..
Case closed…
Additionally…. most recently, I have spoken to individuals who come from the very same district as the two Adventist candidates in St. Lucia. They have assured me that there are deep divisions amongst SDA’s in that district; because of members being on opposite sides of political parties. I have learned that they “worship together” on Sabbath and then “hit the campaign trail” against each other on Sunday. This, I understand, has caused strife and division. So the caution of the unspecified local SDA leader is useless. I also understand that one of the candidates (I’ll not name) was asked questions about the SDA faith and could not answer any of the questions. Herein lies a fundamental problem and goes to the heart of the issues I have raised… We have people running for office, who are SDA’s, that are either novices of the faith, or do not believe or have issues with cardinal doctrines of our faith. Yet, they are credited with not only being Adventists, but “Super Adventists”, merely because of their notoriety. The truth is, many of them have stances or make choices that fall under the “reasons for discipline” section of the church manual. However, the church “looks the other way”, tacitly deeming them “untouchable” so they are left to “run free”, tarnish the beliefs of the church, and “redefine Adventism”. But let me assure, why they get “a pass” is because many people in the church wish to redefine Adventism too.
Dear Bro Turner, Guaging from your last statement, I perceive that you are already getting tired. I hope you read Bro Noel’s of the 24th at 7:17pm. Since you seem to prefer the cathechism style, let me answer your summary questions as you wish.
Can SDAs be knighted?
Yes, it has been done more than once.
2 Is the assertion that “today’s equivalent to Daniel’s position is an SDA holding political office” a valid fact?
Not wholly: only in part; but an SDA can, if he wills, be as faithful to God as Daniel was in his time and circumstances.
3 Are there any success stories of Adventists remaining true to their faith while iin office? If so, cite a few.
Yes. I am free to give you one example – Nathaniel. I am no judge of people’s thoughts and actions. You seem to have that authority by virtue of your research skills and of your zeal to deffend your church. If people are not sure they are immuned from errors and mistakes in all other aspects of their daily lives, I do not know how they can be sure they will not make blunders in their political office.
4 This question is too lengthy for the space we have
Answer: It depends on how the individual interprets what he understands by what Jesus said in the text you cited; and what his socialisation is. First, it is jesus speaking – Not God. He advised the people to call no man: “Father”; and asked them not to “be called” Rabbi or Master. He did not prohibit them from calling other people, “Rabbi or Master”…
QUESTION 5. Can you truly represent the interest of your constituents if “the will of the people” is not “what you believe?” Does God excuse you for advocating for that which is against His word; just because its your job?
It is possible. Is “what I believe” necessarily a matter of right or wrong: good or bad? I do not believe in jumbies and ghosts; but suppose my constituents do not want me to locate a cemetry near to their homes or village, for fear of jumbies coming into their homes at night,is it wrong for me to find an altrrnative site as a burial place? Or if my constituents ask me to ask a building contractor to halt operations near their church on a Sunday morning, because the noise is disturbing their worship service, should I ignore them, because I do not believe that Sunday is the correct day of worship?
As for the second part of your question, one must always obey God. What you call his word is another story! If you mean the Bible, I can tell you that the Bible does not forbid the wearing of jewels, the drinking of wine, smoking cigarettes, or even wiping out the heathen nations. You, perhaps, can tell us which of the forgoing is against His word and which is not. God will excuse whom He will, and does not excuse whom He will not. I cannot answer for Him.
I hope you are satisfied that I have answered all your questions.
By the way, Bro Turner, Knighthood, as applied to what the Present Governor General of Jamaica subjected to, does not have anything to do with a secret Society. The term “knight” there is just nominal. These awards are given for meritorious service, or note worthy acts, and have nothing to do with induction into a secret society.
Bro. Moore,
This is all I have desired… substantive discussion. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, as I have spent precious time posting.
That said, your answers raise many concerns in my mind…
1. Past precedent for SDA’s being knighted does not make being knighted right, anymore than Eve biting the fruit excuses Adam. I have researched the order in which Patrick Allen was first knighted (he has been knighted twice). He’s knighted, ‘Knight Grand Cross in the Order of St. Michael and St. George.’ An order, by virtue of its structure, is always associated with exclusivisity and secrets. Yes, knighting is given for “meritorious service”, but being knighted in “an order” makes you a part of “the order”. The following wikipedia link has an extensive write up on this order:
“en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St_Michael_and_St_George”
Additionally…
The knighthood candidate has a public knighting and a private ceremony. The private ceremony settles all questions as to the dark world associated with knighting and orders. The following link provides the order and litany of the ceremony in which Nigel the Byzantine was knighted into the same Order as Patrick Allen in 2000:
“www.adrianempire.org/documents/manuals/CeremoniesKnighting.pdf”
The ceremony particulars are listed on pages 8-14 of the document. See especially pages 9 &10. Once read, I ask this question, “Does an SDA have any business being involved in this?”
Additionally, the “St. George” part of the order of St. Michael and St. George points to a man who held the rank of of Tribune in the Roman army back in the 300s AD. He the Patron saint of England that is invoked for protection of the military. The concept of a “Patron saint” is in direct conflict with our beliefs concerning the State of the Dead. Should an Seventh-day Adventist become an inductee into something that is organized in honor of dead folks?
How about all the protocols expected of you to follow. You are given what to wear to meetings, what to wear at certain times, what you are to be dressed in at your funeral. Is there a conflict here?
Interestingly enough… if you look in the “Precedence and Privileges” section of the wikipedia link I provided you will see this:
Furthermore, honorary (foreign) members and clergymen do not receive the accolade and thus are not entitled to use the prefix “Sir” or “Dame”.
This means that you must give up the position of clergy in order to be knighted and in order to be referred to as “Sir”; which Patrick Allen is now addressed as. Wonder why of all the professions in the world, the profession of ‘Clergy’ is singled-out as the profession you must give up in order to be knighted and called “Sir”? Apparently the “powers-that-be” don’t see the two as compatible. These are not my stipulations; these are “the orders” stipulations.