Adventists Participate in Meeting of Religious Leaders and U.S. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump
June 23, 2016: Pastor Doug Batchelor was an invited guest among the 1,000 religious leaders who met with Donald Trump on Tuesday in New York City. Batchelor is a pastor in Sacramento (California) and leads the Amazing Facts television ministry affiliated with the denomination’s Northern California Conference. Trump is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for president of the United States.
So far as Adventist Today could determine, Batchelor was the only Adventist clergy in the group, but Dr. Ben Carson, a well-known Adventist church member and retired surgeon, introduced Trump near the beginning of the day-long private meeting. Carson ran against Trump starting last year until it became clear earlier this year that he was not winning enough support in the primary elections to be a viable candidate.
Evangelical Christians are a key group for any conservative candidate for elective office in the U.S. and the main purpose of the meeting was to seek the support of many Evangelical leaders who voted for candidates other than Trump in the recent primary elections. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist clergyman who has been an elected state governor and a candidate for president, chaired a morning session in which selected participants asked pre-screened questions of Trump.
Key questions covered topics such as abortion and the Supreme Court, religious liberty and immigration. Most of the Evangelical religious leaders have as a majority priority the appointment of Supreme Court judges who will reverse a decision from decades ago that protects the right of a woman to have an abortion. Many have spoken out in favor of outlawing abortion in the U.S. Trump has taken the same position in recent months although for a number of years he was supportive of abortion rights.
Evangelical leaders are generally critical of what they call “politically correct” language that is respectful of women and minorities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender (LGBT) individuals. Carson has sneered at being “politically correct” in some of his public comments, but Trump has made a number of the most offensive comments about immigrants from Mexico, women, journalists and people with disabilities.
Trump’s personal life has not been very conservative or Christian during much of his life. He has been divorced and remarried, owns gambling establishments, operates a major beauty pageant and markets alcoholic beverages. He has made rude remarks about the religious faith of others, including a comment about Carson’s Adventist faith. He has said that he is a Presbyterian, but it is unclear which Presbyterian denomination he is affiliated with.
Carson has endorsed Trump and even been mentioned by some as a possible vice presidential running mate. Some other Christian leaders have also endorsed Trump, but many told journalists as they left the meeting on Tuesday that they were not yet ready to do so. This included Dr. James Dobson, the noted family life expert. Others were even more negative about Trump and refused to attend, including Russell Moore, chairman of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; Max Lucado, the Texas pastor and best-selling author; and Bible scholar Denny Burk who has labeled Trump “a Mussolini-in-waiting.”
Batchelor made it clear on his Facebook page that his attendance “was not an endorsement.” He said of Trump’s answers to the questions asked by the group, “Some answers were good, others were pretty vague.”
“I must say he’s a whole different person when he is sitting down in a conversational style,” Batchelor continued, speaking of Trump. “At a rally he’s swaggering and bombastic, today he seemed pensive and humble. … Now we will wait and see if they arrange a similar interview with Hillary [Clinton],” the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party and former U.S. Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady.
Brother Batchelor and Dr. Carson are entitled to attend whatever political gathering they want to as individuals BUT not as representatives of the SDA Church. While I am not surprised, I am disappointed that they are among many evangelicals who are listening to Donald Trump. Trump says that he is a faithful Presbyterian and member of Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, the congregation released a statement saying he is not an active member. And, of course, Trump’s three marriages, ownership of bars and gambling businesses, are painfully out of step with Christian restrictions against divorce.
Conservative Christians vote solidly Republican, they are also fierce traditionalists who feel that their values are increasingly under assault by modern society. They seems toappreciate someone who makes no apology for using politically incorrect rhetoric—even if this includes a bit of profanity or misogyny—because they believe society is increasingly intolerant of many of their sentiments, too.
Trump’s support among evangelicals is substantial. Evangelicals need to ask themselves whether Trump’s brashness is enough to make them overlook many of the values they hold most dear. After the Republican National Convention, they may find that they got what they wanted but no longer want what they got and thought they needed.
Think about how much literature Batchelor could have bought for the price of an airline ticket from Sacramento to new York?
Sam,
OK, no candidate running for president is perfect. But you’re surprising me because you’re about the last person I would have expected to swallow the political rhetoric of the Clinton campaign. Yes, Trump has used some profanity. But a mysoginist? Only in the imaginations of his opponents! Even Trump’s ex-wives speak respectfully of him and the Trump Organization has had not a single sex discrimination complaint filed against it accusing him of any wrong. Not one. In contrast, Hillary Clinton is one of the world’s worst mysoginists because of how she worked to systematically destroy the public character of the dozens of women who slept with her husband.
A more important issue you should consider is that Hillary Clinton’s disrespect for the Constitution will help fulfill a prophecy about America one day rejecting every Constitutional principle on which the nation was founded. Do you want to hasten that? Or, do you want to delay it so you have more time to grow the Kingdom of God before times become difficult, even desperate?
Oh, so now it is OK, in light of historic Seventh-day Adventist eschatology, for Adventists in this forum to advocate for/against a particular presidential candidate in the hopes of delaying the prophesied events of Revelation 13? Is this how you feel William?
(I’m seeking a clarification of your position.)
“Historic Seventh-day Adventist eschatology”? I thought that most reasonable Adventists had moved well beyond an eschatology relevant only to 19th century American culture and have now a more realistic understanding of how and why that eschatology had been created. . “Historic Seventh-day Adventist eschatology” does make any sense in the 21st Century.
Erv,
Let’s face it; those whom you would describe as “reasonable Adventists” (when identified) would likely be described by me as Adventists in Name Only.
I would think, for example, that a reasonable Adventist to your way of thinking does not actually believe that the same Jesus who is identified and chronicled in the New Testament will literally return in the clouds with power and great glory, and with a retinue of angels, and with “the trump of God;” and that dead people will be raised and caught up in the sky, etc., etc.
So, you are perhaps describing just a small minority of (actual) Seventh-day Adventist Christians as “reasonable Adventists;” who of course, for now, are barely believers.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at the presumptive nominees for both leading parties. However, for William Noel to suggest that Trump occupies the moral high ground compared to Clinton on constitutional issues is naïve and utter nonsense. For one example, Trump’s call to ban all Muslims is flagrantly unconstitutional in violation of the 1st Amendment. Also, Trump’s prodigious use of imminent domain for so called public purposes in the past has been unconstitutional as well.
William, I couldn’t agree with you more. Hilary seems to me a very ambitious, shrewed woman who has been dogged by controversy. She says she is for defending women who have been abused, but that only apples to women abused by men other than Bill Clinton. She systematically destroyed each woman who was sexually abused (raped – for a better word) by her husband. What a hypocrite.
“Brother Batchelor and Dr. Carson are entitled to attend whatever political gathering they want to as individuals BUT not as representatives of the SDA Church.”
And this is absolutely right, Sam.
Sad to say, the SDA church is getting more and more involved in politics and “civil righteousness” instead of being totally involved in advocating the kingdom of God by way of the bible and bible evangelism.
I trust no independent ministry from Atoday, Spectrum, Amazing Facts, 3ABN, Amazing Discoveries, ADvindicate, Fulcrum 7 or any other ministry that has no accountability to a church membership. All of these ministries are accountable to no one but themselves.
None of them are “the church” nor are they accountable to the church. They have no members who “join” their ministry as church members do. So Doug can speak his own personal opinion about various issues, but it is not the opinion of the church nor any other member but himself, and of course, anyone who may agree with him.
He belongs to some “church council” that is not SDA either. And I guess this is why and how he was invited. Having stated this, I support his ministry on a limited level knowing I have no “official” so say in what he says or does. Nor in what AF says or does.
I endorse the doctrine of original sin and he and AF does not. And I think this doctrine is essential to any viable explanation of sin and atonement. So you know I don’t endorse his ministry on some wholesale level.
I trust no independent ministry from Atoday, Spectrum,
Bill,
Do you really see these two news agencies as “ministries?”
Just think if there was no Spectrum or AToday, how much real news we would be receiving and able to talk about?
“Bill,
Do you really see these two news agencies as “ministries?”
Just think if there was no Spectrum or AToday, how much real news we would be receiving and able to talk about?”
Of course they are “ministries”, George. They have a religious agenda and a political agenda. But apparently the SDA church does too.
And just because I oppose your spirituality, George, does not mean I endorse the spirituality on any wholesale level of Advindicate or Fulcrum 7. Advindicate seems to be more open to challenging dialogue than Fulcrum 7. I have never had a post deleted at Advindicate. But have had more than a few deleted at Fulcrum 7.
My latest run in was on the issue of the theology Dennis Priebe and his explanation of sin and atonement. They are having some conservative “get together” that Fulcrum 7 is advertising and endorsing. And you have Priebe and Kirkpatrick and other false teachers like Kevin Paulson who have a warped view of the “final generation” that is not biblical nor support by EGW.
But they think they are going to “save the church” from all you liberals who have warped the gospel. They have a warped view of the law, and you have a warped view of the gospel. And I am getting steam rolled in the middle.
The only person “winning” is the devil. Like the civil politics of the USA where we have no viable option. It’s all about the doctrine of original sin that the church refuses to endorse. So their theology is warped on every level.
You say you don’t trust outside ministries,Isn’t the SID accountable to the church? How is that working out?
“You say you don’t trust outside ministries,Isn’t the SID accountable to the church? How is that working out?”
I don’t know who the “SID” ministry is?
And I only mention “accountability to the church” because you can be a member and “officially” protest as a member. Something you can not do if you support any independent ministry.
And the church may not care or listen to your complaint, but at least technically, you still have a right to challenge them when you have no right concerning an independent ministry.
Sam, I listen to Trump now and then. For example, he was recently ridiculed for saying that Muslims cover for Muslims and can not be trusted. Decried as a bigot, racist, lunatic, we shortly thereafter discover that the Orlando shooter’s wife had good reason to know what he was up to but didn’t report it i.e., she covered for him; then, she disappears, a possible accomplice or material witness to the largest mass killing in U.S. history.
Again, Trump was right.
I wonder if there is a way to determine how many Adventists in the United States will vote for Trump in the upcoming US presidential election? Given Trump’s public statements so far, how any serious Adventist Christian can bring him or herself to vote for him is something of a puzzle. Dr. Carson’s support of Trump is regrettable.
I guess we only have to go back to the 1930’s in Germany, with the rise of Adolf Hitler. In his public speech’s Hitler was not at all hesitant about what he planned to do if he assumed power. We know how the majority of German Adventists responded to him–he was enthusiastically supported. Many Adventists apparently have a tendency to support “strong” leaders no matter the moral implications of their agendas.
Erv,
Considering the principles by which Dr. Carson lives and that he espoused in his campaign, that he would endorse Trump indicates to me that he either has abandoned those principles, or Trump is not the horrible villain that Liberals are trying to make us believe he is. Carson knows Trump far better than you or I and I have great respect for him, so I choose to trust that his knowledge of Trump refutes the claims you are believing.
Erv,
If you want to try to find out approximately how many Adventists will vote for Trump in November, I would suggest that you try to find out how many white Adventist American citizens there are in the United States; then multiply that number by 0.60; and then multiply that result by 0.60 again.
Then I would suggest that you try to find out how many black Adventist American citizens there are in the U.S., and multiply that number by .60; and then multiply that result by 0.05.
Then I would recommend that you try to find out how many Hispanic Adventist American citizens there are in the U.S., and multiply that number by .60; and then multiply that result by 0.25.
That’s I would do.
Stephen,
Be careful with your predictions because Trump drew far higher numbers of votes from blacks, hispanics, blue collar workers and women in the primaries than any of the political pundits predicted. If anything, this election cycle has shown the pollsters and pundits wrong in almost every case.
William Noel,
The pollsters have not been wrong in every case. In fact, the pollsters, when taken aggregately, are very seldom wrong. That is how Nate Silver was able to predict with 100% accuracy (or very close to it) the state-by-state results of the 2012 presidential election and therefore predict the 2012 Electoral College results so precisely—by taking all of the major and most reputable polling information as the source material.
On the other hand, the pundits ARE often wrong; and were wrong about Trump in the Republican primary process from the beginning. But please don’t (or please do, it’s up to you) make the mistake of thinking that because Trump may have received more “votes from blacks, Hispanics, blue collar workers and women in the [Republican] primaries than any of the political pundits predicted,” that this will translate across the board (with those demographics) in a general election.
Blacks, Hispanics, blue collar workers, and women who do not vote in Republican primaries generally vote quite differently than blacks, Hispanics, blue collar workers, and women who do vote in Republican primaries.
You can believe that or you can not believe it; it makes no difference.
Stephen,
OK, so you have the gift of prophecy regarding elections. Really? Trump’s results in the primaries exposed a lot of pollsters and pundits as liars, so I wish you wouldn’t be in such a rush to join them.
William Noel,
These responses of yours are getting increasingly emotional and inane. I haven’t predicted anything. I have simply provided Erv Taylor with a formula that I would use to estimate how many Adventists are likely to vote for Trump in November.
The model I’m recommending is loosely based on the percentage of voter turnout in the 2008 election, which was high in relative terms; and merely assumes that, no matter the ethnic or racial demography, Adventists will vote in relatively high numbers. The model that I propose also conservatively assumes that Trump will carry 60% of the white vote, 5% of the black Adventist vote, and 25% of the Hispanic American Adventist vote. Those figures are loosely based on the percentages that Mitt Romney won of those respective demographic groups in 2012.
I don’t have the gift of prophecy; but rather believe that the past is prologue in American politics; and that the key to American politics is demographics.
I also believe that Nate Silver is onto something; given that he has an undeniably accurate track record for predicting presidential election outcomes by accumulating and analyzing polling information.
The problem is that the alternative is not any better and in my opinion even worse. How can anyone vote for Hilary Clinton is beyond me. She is a liar and I would say an embezzler. She was complacent and perhaps even participant in the deaths of others involved in the investigation of the Whitewater Rose Law firm. I don not believe Vince Foster committed suicide.
Mr. Trump appeals to people who are primarily moved to political action by dire warnings and prophecies of doom (beware of Islam, liberals, intellectuals, women-on-the-rise, spies, infiltrators, humanists, etc., etc.) and there is surely a subculture among Adventists whose minds resonate to such messages from charismatic leaders and writers. If you or I, Dr. Taylor, wish to arrest the attention of this group of Adventists, we would be advised to headline our overtures with a message of distress.
For some years, it has been known that individuals who focus on conserving and preserving the past tend to be motivated most effectively by messages that propose that all is lost, or nearly so. We are finding that church members who wish to preserve high-octane conservatism, generally need to form concentrated enclaves of like-thinking people to satisfy their psychological need for a strong diet of woe-is-the-world calories.
I also believe that many who leave the Adventist faith do so in part because they do not hear harbingers of woe from the pulpit to a degree necessary to satisfy their cravings. Such self-selected individuals would appear to be seriously moved by the snarl of Mr. Trump, whether or not they ultimately vote for him….
I very much respect the view that Mr. Noel expresses about Dr. Carson. My only comment is that that while he obviously was a distinguished surgeon, his lack of sophistication about contemporary American politics is evident. His problem is not a moral one as with Trump, his problem appears to be that he naively entered an arena with which he had no experience and could not deal with its realities. Trump must be very good one-on-one to be able to con Dr. Carson.
Erv,
Could Carson’s (“evident”) “lack of sophistication about contemporary American politics” possibly be an explanation as to how/why he may have been an easy mark for the Trumpster? It’s been said, “Don’t ignore the obvious.”
Erv,
Speaking as a former newspaper reporter who regularly interviewed politicians at different levels, I can tell you from experience that the public persona and private person can be very different. It is easy to form ideas about the person you see on TV, but if you haven’t met them and worked with them, do you really know them? No. You have only an idea of what you think they are. For example, I remember when Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was running against Bush 41. I never got to meet the man for longer than a quick interview, but what his security people told me about him was a person who in private was almost exactly the opposite of his public persona. In contrast, I have known governors and senators and mayors who were exactly the same in private as their public image.
I agree with the observation that Carson may not have had “what it took” to be successful. What that may have been beyond being so soft-spoken, I don’t know, but that drew him a lot of criticism. At the same time, I remember reading in the biographies of several who have been involved in presidential campaigns about what an education the campaign was, that nothing can adequately prepare a person for it.
I wish to throw out a question on voting that, heretofore, has not been sufficiently answered for me.
When we talk about supporting or voting for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party; we seem to be ingratiated towards views/issues/policies we like and the candidate or party that holds them.
As you all know… at the upcoming DNC & RNC conventions, they will vote “party platforms” respectively. Each “plank” in the platforms are individual issues that, when combined, make up the party platform. If there is a plank, or planks, within each parties platforms that are contradictory to what we believe in the SDA Church, or any plank/s of a candidate is contradictory to what we believe (assuming the candidate chooses not to fully embrace his/her party’s platforms), are we responsible, by our vote, for only the planks we agree with, or are we responsible for the platform on a whole; which undoubtedly espouses contradictory positions to what we believe?
Dwayne,
Presidential candidates in both parties so often take positions on issues that are different from the party platform that one should perhaps ask what is the value of the party having a platform.
I think the challenge for voters this year is that Trump is not your typical politician and he doesn’t use “politi-speak.” He’s a very successful CEO who has created jobs for somewhere around 42,000 people in the US. So he speaks the language of business, so he doesn’t make specific promises but talks about objectives because he knows from experience that any promise he makes is going to be the first casualty of trying to make it happen. Instead, he is promising to find solutions and do what it takes to achieve certain objectives. If you’re used to politi-speak, you’re going to be disappointed. But if you’re frustrated with the failures of Liberalism, he offers the hope of fixing at least some of the problems it has inflicted.
“Dwayne, more and more people are supporting some political party as equal to, or over and above any religion or church. So both parties are becoming a “religious cult” that many people will consider as their first loyalty over and above their church and loyalty to whatever church they may be members of.
Sad to say, it even transcends their loyalty to the bible and biblical principles of separation of church and state. Their civil loyalty is their “church” and you can see them on this forum.
In years past, people opted for the best of two viable options. Now, any rational person will be forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils”, and not the “better of two goods.” Why anybody would suggest that either candidate is qualified to be president is beyond any viable or rational consideration.
Now it is their “religion” to support some party, and politics are now a “religious cult.”
Bill Sorenson;
I actually agree with you on your evaluation of church and politics. It does seem as if the parties have become cults to many and hold more importance than their church. Having said that I don’t know why so many Christians and Adventists are so willing to believe the worst about the candidates. I don’t think either would make a good president, but there are some wild accusations and extreme labels going around, especially concerning the colorful Trump.
Apparently he has raised two successful children. Neither he nor his family drink or smoke. That reminds me of an uncle (now deceased) who was a bootlegger but never drank in his life! I am not sure what that reveals–different values from ours. BTW I don’t intend to vote.
” BTW I don’t intend to vote.”
And I think that is a viable option at this point. But I will make this one comment about the two candidates.
To compare Trump and his moral failures to Hillary and her totally irresponsible actions in government office is like comparing apples and oranges. Hillary is an elected government official that must be held to a much higher level of accountability for what she does as a public servant, than Trump who is a private sector business man. She has betrayed a political trust and politically raped the American public by way of her office along with her husband.
Trump has used various legal loopholes to “steal” millions of dollars by way of the bankruptcy laws. None the less, he was in no political office when he did it.
It is the difference between a pastor who steals the tithe and a church member who steals someones car. Neither situation is really acceptable. But the pastor should be held to a much higher level of accountability because of his office.
Just so, Hillary should be held to a much higher level of accountability by betraying a trust as an elected government office holder. And to compare the failures of the two as being on the same level is bogus.
Bill,
No disagreements from me. I just want to point out; Trump’s primary qualification is his success a businessman. Who admires that sort of success? It isn’t just his bankruptcies. Its his famous ‘squeeze’ of the wounded that is so appalling. It trade, you can press, to your advantage, a vendor, supplier, or even customer that is having difficulties, you can squeeze money or concessions out of them. It is exactly what you ought not to do if you are trying to follow the golden rule. True business ethics revolve around service, just like in government. Does anybody believe HRC or the Donald have a clue what ‘service’ really means?
The presidency is an office of trust. They will be elected to serve – but they won’t know how. All either one cares about is profits and power.
Dwayne,
I believe that Ellen White spoke with prophetically in suggesting that we cannot vote confidently for any political party; which seems inclusive of the fact there are bound to be planks in any party’s platform that are problematic; and/or that there are candidates of any political party in which it would be foolhardy to place any confidence.
This is not to say that we should not vote; but that we should be aware that we cannot vote confidently for any party.
Apparently SDA’s talking about what they know not is common. Dr. Taylor, for example, no doubt a distinguished scholar in his field, which is not eschatology, nor theology, recently informed us that the IJ doctrine is not biblical. Actually, it is biblical and did not originate with EGW but with Brother Everts and then James white, decades before EGW wrote the GC. Now he informs us that SDA eschatology is out of date.
Perhaps he should inform Adolph Deissmann, the distinguished Greek scholar who identified koine Greek as that of Scripture, of that bit of news. Deissmann, in the 1800s, upon examining the papyri discovered in Egypt, identified the mark of the beast in Revelation 13 as the seal of imperial Rome. He did this quite convincingly, since he found the Greek word translated as “mark” along with the actual seal/mark itself, affixed to documents written in koine Greek. Those interested can actually see the historic “mark of the beast” in Deissmann’s work “Bible Studies” s.v. charagma i.e., χάραγμα
I very much appreciate the statement of Hansen commenting on the question of who first constructed the only unique doctrine of classic Adventism–the Investigative Judgment. It is an interesting historical question and merits additional discussion. I don’t recall stating that EGW invented the idea. That certainly is not correct. However, apparently it was her acceptance of the idea that caused it to become normative in Sabbatrian Adventism. But that argument needs to be supported with specific historical citations.
Erv, The remark you made was that the IJ was not a biblical concept. Among SDA, if a doctrine with the weight of the IJ is not Biblical, where else could it possibly have come from, if not from EGW?
Re EGW being the source of the IJ concept. Historians who have investigated the primary sources suggest that the interaction of who had what idea when in early Adventism is complex. Remember, it was a small “band” with all kinds of what some would call “crazy” ideas floating around and, shall we say, a large number of somewhat unstable individuals populating it. Also, remember EGW was down on the floor with the best (?) of them at one point. I suspect that it was James, the hard headed business type, who would say, “Hold on, wait a minute” this kind of stuff can rapidly get out of hand.” EGW later had a vision which confirmed his concern. And still later, she “remembered” that she was fighting against fanaticism. Ah, the power of the selective memory.
I grant that Deissmann was a Greek scholar but it should be said that the word “charagma” has a wider meaning than the one he applied. The word “charagma” can mean the mark left by the bite of a snake, a fatal mark, whether it be a Roman snake or not. It can mean the impress on a coin, whether it be a Roman coin or not. And, yes, as Deissmann observed, it can mean the government stamp on a decree. But Deissmannn chose to limit it to a Roman decree. That is too narrow an application. It can apply to a decree of any government. The initial application in Rev 13 is no doubt imperial Rome but it has a wider application. The word is rich in meaning. John may even have been drawing on ideas like the mark that Cain received, also Eze.9:4-6, and the mark of ownership placed on slaves.
And, yes, Dr Taylor is correct when he says we have moved well beyond “historic SDA eschatology.” No longer do we teach that “the daily” (Dan8:13) is paganism. Or that the “King of the North” is Turkey or Russia. Or that the “kings of the east” are the Chinese who will sweep across southern Asia to fight a literal battle at Armageddon. When the SDA population passed a total of 144,000 (sometime in the 1930s, I think) we gave up teaching it was a literal number. And if you want a bit of a chuckle then look up Uriah Smith’s D & R comment on “knowledge shall be increased” where he lists, among other signs of the end, the invention of suspension bridges, oil wells, the typewriter and the…
Milton,
LOL, Grant that Deissmann was a Greek scholar? That’s like saying that Tischendorf had some good books in his library.
Here’s what Deissmann said about Xaragma:
“Now the Papyri put us in a position where we can
do justice to this possibility. They inform us of a mark
which was commonly used in imperial times,^ which
(1) Is connected with the Roman Emperor,
(2) Contains his name (possibly also his effigy) and the
year of his reign,
(3) Was necessary upon documents relating to buying^
selling, etc., and
(4) Was technically known as χάραγμα”
Bible Studies, 1901 edition, p 241
Notice that Deissmann says the “mark” of Rome’s Imperial seal was related to buying and selling. Sound familiar? “No man might be able to buy or sell except those with the mark.”
Does all SDA historicist interpretation hold up? Probably not but this one particular idea stands up pretty straight
Interesting stuff, Hansen. But, pray tell, what is the ‘mark’ which Deissmann identified? DCLXVI ?
And would not Deissmann be doing no more than teaching the preterist position, ie, it applied back then. You are still left with the problem of proving, historically, that clerical Rome is the same Beast as was represented by Imperial Rome.
William Noel on June 23, 2016 said:
‘Sam, OK, no candidate running for president is perfect. But you’re surprising me because you’re about the last person I would have expected to swallow the political rhetoric of the Clinton campaign.”
I DON’T LIKE EITHER CANDIDATE, AND I FEEL LIKE THE AMERICAN VOTER HAS A HOBSON’S CHOICE IN 2016 On the one hand we have a candidate, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, who has a penchant for saying stupid things.
On the other hand we have a candidate, the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party, who has a penchant for doing stupid things. Such deeds include, the vote to go to war in Iraq, lying about the cause of the Benghazi raid to surviving members of their families when she knew better, insisting that all of her e-mails while Secretary of State, be routed through her own private server instead of the legally-required use of government-provided secure e-mails, and then ordering the destruction of over 30,000 e-mails in an attempt to evade subpoenas relating to the same…in a word, stupid…
Most persons I speak to are like me, frustrated with the Hobson’s choice of having to choose between a person who says stupid things and another who does stupid things!
Amen, Sam! You forgot to mention The breathtaking corruption of The Clinton Foundation and HRC’s perversion of one of the highest offices in the land for personal gain. And then there is her crony socialism.
Don’t worry – I am well aware of Trump’s many flaws. I am simply suggesting that, just as I understand the anybody but Trump mindset, so those who hold this position should be able to understand the anybody but Hillary mindset. Of course the reality is that we are so polarized that most folks who say anybody but Trump would not support any Republican, and most people who say anybody but Hillary would not support any Democrat.
Sam,
A lot of the “stupid stuff” Trump has said is simply the inability of people who are used to “politi-speak” to understand the plain talk of a CEO who outlines objectives and tasks subordinates to figure out how to make things happen instead of making promises we all know probably will never be delivered.
I have never been a supporter of Trump, and don’t wish to begin doing so now. But for a variety of reasons, it should be very easy to understand why a lot of intelligent folks who love America and liberty will choose him over the Democratic alternatives.
I have no quarrel with the column except to protest that it should be filed under “Commentary.” This does not remotely resemble objective reporting. It is viewpoint journalism, which is fine. It just violates truth in packaging principles.
I wonder if Nate would identify the statement(s) in the news piece that he says is an opinion piece that, in his opinion, represents opinion and is not the reporting of what happened?
I beg your pardon, Nathan,
I missed completely where this report advocated for or against Elder Bachelor’s attendance or voting for or against any of the candidates or even voting or not voting at all.
Fill me in, please.
As for Elder Bachelor attending, why do you suppose he attended?
Indeed, the description of political correctness mischaracterizes the debate so that proponents are assumed to be wonderful and opponents bigoted. Quite a subjective presentation.
This article strikes me as meaningless filler.
Bachelor says, “Some of his answers were good, others were pretty vague.”
Now that is reporting some powerful insights into the situation.
Shame on Batchelor. Double shame on Carson
Shame on Batchelor. Carson has embarrassed himself for many months now so his involvement with Trump is no surprise.
So there is a populist sitting at the feet of another populist. How populists and demagogues unite is quite frightening on a day, when the unthinkable already happened in Europe.
Andreas:
Like many people I have to start by saying I don’t like Trump and won’t vote for him or Hillary. It seems like we have to say that to keep from being called something or other. It’s not PC to say anything good about Trump, especially to a European.
However, to compare him to prewar Germany is irrational. What is frightening is to see this country split over politics and unwilling to listen to one another. We are faced with left-wing corruption on one side and inexperience and tactlessness on the other. Trump has played his game too well and moved from stirring up the anger over the last decade to now losing favor.
EM, I am slightly amused by my lack of clarity and your implicit prophetic vision (which you yourself seem to reject).
When I said “on a day” … I wrote on the very day Europe woke up to a formerly “Great Britain” having decided to exit the EU. I was not referring to pre-war (or pre-nazi) Germany … Yet your idea of linking events of pre-war Germany is less irrational than you would have it…
My point was populism, i.e. easy answers to complex questions. That is indeed the common denominator for the Nazi-strategy before gaining power, for the argumentation of Brexit proponents (many of which already regret their decision) and for Trump’s election campaign. It is also the strategy of populists within our own church – which often tme even answer questions nobody is asking. Our need to have quick and easy solutions is not only morally wrong, but will have a price tag that has been regularly under estimated (nobody expected a 30+ year low of the British pound on “the day after” – to give a harmless example).
Dialogue – yes, absolutely (good luck though, if you try that on Donald Trump). Dialogue is the very opposite of populism (and I painfully remember Adventist populists refusing to dialogue). Listening to one another … well, I don’t think you have to convince a counselor of the importance of that. 😉
Wow, I hope these comments in no way represent us as Christians. Love just went down the drain. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are souls Jesus died for and our comments and attitude tells them what is really in our hearts.
Thank you, Arlene. Much needed reminder.
Arlene,
I don’t think any of the people commenting above are making salvational comments about Trump or Clinton. To disagree strongly with someone is not wishing them spiritual ill will.
Dwayne and others,
The following is NOT an attempt to provide an “official” adventist answer.
I’m 72. Even before I became a voting member of the SdA organization in 1959, I was aware of the way Ellen White used the word, “conservative” to describe those who rejected advancing truth but, in my early twenties, I was even more opposed to the political policies of people who described themselves as political liberals.
As time has progressed, I have become more and more aware of platform planks of both of the major political parties in the U.S. I have never considered myself a member of an organized political party. For several election cycles, I voted for a candidate of a major party as a way of voting AGAINST whatever candidate I considered to be more dangerous to liberty. Liberty depends at least partly on avoiding political extremes. Most political candidates realize it is difficult to get people to get excited about moderation so their rhetoric tends to be far right or far left.
I believe U.S. citizens should vote, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we value the freedom to vote. I also cherish the secret ballot as necessary to freedom so I’ve developed an answer for any “news” reporters who might be assigned to conduct exit polls.
(continued)
(continued)
I have political opinions about the meaning of the first amendment, the second amendment, the tax code, entitlement programs, religious liberty, foreign aid, health care & education to name a few. I’d be glad to explore the advantages and disadvantages of my political positions with anyone who knows how to avoid political dogmatism. I hesitate, however, to do so on any site that predominately uses the word, “Adventist”. With one exception–religious liberty.
When I discovered that Dr. Carson referred to himself as an adventist, I assumed that he understood “religious liberty” the way my adventist parents did. HIs suggestion about a flat tax was likely to alienate moderates so I tried to contact him through his campaign machine with advice about how to minimize the danger of being perceived as too conservative to attract fiscal moderates. I’ve received several emails from him since then, none of them mentioning my specific suggestion. This morning I got another email from Dr. Carson. It reads, in part, “You’ll be happy to know that Mr. Trump was very concerned about restrictions on religious liberty and supported the right of church leaders to speak more forcefully in favor of candidates.”
I guess Dr. Carson didn’t read some of my other emails to his campaign because that is the exact opposite of “religious liberty” as my parent understood the term.
(continued)
(continued)
My advice is that if you think our society (in the U.S.) has gone too far to the left, you might want to vote for a conservative candidate. The converse might also be true. OR, as an alternative, you might want to consider voting for someone you consider to be a moderate.
I understand Ellen White’s advice on the subject to mean that if you vote for someone to do something that is wrong, you are as culpable as the politician who writes the legislation. I don’t understand her advice to mean that we shouldn’t try to steer the ship of state along a moderate course, even if that means voting for candidates who are members of political parties with planks with which we disagree.
That some of you don’t see an obvious editorial bias in this “News” feature speaks volumes about the blindness of the Left to its ideological filters.
Take a look at the statement that the Supreme Court protects the “right” of a woman to have an abortion. This statement presupposes a half truth. Furthermore, I am unaware of evangelical leaders who have spoken in favor of a federal law outlawing abortion. To my knowledge, they support reversal of Roe v Wade, which invented a previously non-existent qualified Constitutional right to an abortion.
Second – “Evangelical leaders are generally critical of ‘politically correct” language that is respectful [of women and minorities].” It is risible to suggest that the foregoing quote is not blatant editorializing.
Finally, the entirety of the sixth paragraph is pure gratuitous editorial trash talk.
I guess that for some folks, objective factual reporting is presumed to occur when the biases reflected in news reporting align with their own biases. It’s very sad to see intelligent, highly educated commenters being unable or unwilling to differentiate between facts and opinions.
Hi again, Nathan,
I reread the article after your follow up comment. After considerable consideration of both, I fail to see your asserted sadness revealed in your comment or editorializing revealed in the article.
I’m not saying you didn’t see editorializing, I’m just saying I don’t. Like words in the bible, words simply do not mean what we often use them to mean.
The point you in general are making, it seems, that is to the complexity of what we are observing, certainly seems to be a reality.
Bill,
We are not all Humptey Dumptey, When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
The blatantly inaccurate, …Supreme Court judges who will reverse a decision from decades ago that protects the right of a woman to have an abortion. Is either editorializing or stupidity. It isn’t a description of Roe v Wade or Planned Parenthood v Casey. It’s slanted writing, pure and simple. Or possibly they don’t know what they are talking about.
I appreciate and respect the decision of Doug Batchelor to accept the invitation and attend the Religious Liberties meeting. I am thankful that the SDA faith is well represented by both Doug Batchelor and Dr. Carson. My sincere appreciation to both men. I pray that they continue to seek God’s guidance in every decision.
~Pray /\
Nathan,
Before the Roe v Wade decision, there were people in the United States, including several physicians, who were working to prohibit elective abortion. Why? Because there was no federal prohibition against abortion.
To write that, “Roe v Wade…invented a previously non-existent qualified Constitutional right to an abortion” displays at least as much of a bias as you accuse the writer of the article of displaying. Roe v Wade actually created a prohibition with regard to abortion under some circumstances where no federal prohibition had previously existed.
You are correct, Roger. I do have biases. But I don’t advance them as part of “news” stories. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
I am unaware of a movement to ban abortions at the national level when Roe was decided. Do you have a citation for that? Not that it matters. That was over 40 years ago. This news piece suggests that many at the Trump event favor a federal law banning abortion. I’m simply not aware of that, though I’m sure there are many big government social conservatives who don’t appreciate the Constitutional limits on federal power any better than Democrats do.
I believe you are wrong about Roe v Wade. It did not prohibit abortion at any level. Rather, it left states the authority to ban abortion under certain circumstances.
I voted Republican in every election since I was old enough to cast my first vote for Richard Nixon. But I will not vote for Trump, and I certainly would never vote for Clinton. He is an equal opportunity offender who does nothing more than shoot his mouth off. As a recent and former Democrat who supported Hillary in 2008, he is clearly a wrecking ball that is destroying the Republican party. He has an inflated ego that won’t quit. The Democrats have moved so far to the left, with Bernie Sanders still pushing. The middle, moderate center seems to be gone in either party. We have the two worst choices in this election.
There is at least one other voters choice in November 2016 election. Libertarian party nominated two former state governors for president and Vice President. Gary Johnson nm and Bill weld ma. They will probably be on ballot in all 50 states. Not my choice but a choice.
Hansen and Ervin,
Many Christians read Rev. 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. But if you were to read that text aloud and add the words, “upon the earth”, no futurist would even notice.
The same with regard to John 14:3 Many Christians think it means, “I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where you are, there I may be also.”
A similar thing happened in the nineteenth century. Hiram Edson and his friends had misread Daniel 7. The judgement was set…One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven. Edson and his friends had understood it to mean “one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven to the earth.”
For over a year, Edson and two of his friends, Crosier and Hahn, restudied their Bibles. They almost certainly didn’t know about young Ellen Harmon’s visions. In 1846, Edson and Hahn agreed to pay for the publication of a paper about their discovery on condition that Crosier would write it out. No, young Ellen didn’t have any visions on the subject until she read the Day Star Extra. Google it and read it. James White later referred to their discovery as the “Investigative Judgement”. Much of what is included in 21st cent. preaching on the subject isn’t even in the original document.
Roger, Your story contradicts both Arthur White and the order of events portrayed in the Review. Off topic anyway
Roger,
Could you be more specific about where this “original document” is located.
“Liberty depends at least partly on avoiding political extremes. Most political candidates realize it is difficult to get people to get excited about moderation so their rhetoric tends to be far right or far left. ”
I like the above quote. It just seems more true today than ever in the past–at least the recent past. It was significant that voters did not go for someone like Kasich who had both experience and moderate resolutions.
Nathan: I appreciate your practical thinking and understanding of bias and the emotions.
Sam,
In bringing up profanity you apparently have not listened to the left-wing comedians who dominate evening TV. I occasionally listen to them for a few minutes. A few nights ago, I think it was Bill Meirs, I turned on and he sickened me with his profanity (every other word it seemed) and mocking of religion and politics.
I have a young relative who says this is how he gets his “news.” And another lady who told me she voted for Obama because of what she heard on Saturday Night Live. We have an electorate many of whom choose to be entertained and ignorant.
Doug and Trump have a few things in common which might have led to the invitation. Perhaps Trump knew Doug’s father in Florida, since they both have/had roots there. There’s also a New York connection. Doug, of course, represents a very legalistic wing of Adventism. Maybe Mr. Trump appreciates that kind of thing.
There’s a lot of information online about George Batchelor. A lot of stuff is not online. Curiously, I bumped into a retired airline pilot in Central China who knew Batchelor senior.He was an outsize individual and a great American patriot. Maybe that’s why Mr. Trump invited Doug.
I would rather suspect DB was invited by suggestion of Ben Carson.
The more interesting question for me would be, have their been other Adventists who were invited but declined.
Political activity from within the SDA pulpit is ongoing. In 2012 Dwight Nelson preached a 4 part series entitled “Three Angels, One Warning.” Part 3 was entitled “American Confusion” and was given on November 3, shortly before the US election. It was widely hailed as a great sermon about religious liberty and NARLA even sent a web link to its subscribers. His point seemed to be that while God backed no one political party “confused” American apostate Protestants and Catholics could unite and usher in the “end times” through Romney. The inference was more than clear. A vote for Romney was a vote for the devil. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XopS_fli5w. Here’s a link to an EGW Estate historical sketch clarifying the issue of voting in the early SDA church, it’s worth your time. http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/Voting.html. Speaking of voting, someone said “We cannot labor to please men who will use their influence to repress religious liberty….” Fundamentals of Education, pg475. Ask the Little Sisters of the Poor, nuns who serve the poor elderly (these nuns are being sued by the US because of their moral belief about contraceptives) if they agree with that statement! Who was that person Nelson backed?
Jeff,
Our parents encouraged my siblings and me to be thinkers–not mere reflectors of other men’s thoughts. A very high percentage of people would rather be followers–followers of religious systems or followers of political ideologues–than to think for themselves.
Following, of course, is easier. Real thinking–evaluating ideas in terms of advantages AND disadvantages and looking for solutions to real problems, including new solutions to old problems–is much more “work” than most people are willing to do, especially in the light of the fact that thinkers often disagree with one anther and almost always disagree with the ideologues.
It is easier to decide to condemn people who vote than to decide which is the lesser of two (or more) candidates who disagree with us (thinkers) on one or more issues. If the only issue important to me was religious liberty (it isn’t) and if I understood that issue the way my parents understood it, I would still be faced with a dilemma. The last political trend before Jesus returns is likely to be so far to the “conservative” end of the spectrum that religious minorities in general or seventh-day sabbath keepers in particular will be singled out as “causing the displeasure of God”. On the other hand, that final swing of the political pendulum is likely to be a reaction to (and occur right after) a swing too far to the liberal end of the spectrum.
Jeff,
Now that I’ve listened to the video you linked for us, I’d like to comment further. Was Pastor Nelson’s point that Protestants and Catholics could unite to usher in the end times by voting for Romney? Was that inference clear?
Had I heard that sermon the day it was delivered, it would have greatly discouraged me to know that an adventist pastor was speaking to that subject the sabbath day before a national election. I think I would have thought that Pastor Nelson was pointing out something that many adventists didn’t realize at that time–and still don’t. But as to whether he was “clear” about it, well, there are many adventists (as well as Christians in other denominations) who, if they hear scripture quoted in a sermon and then hear what they consider to be an emotional appeal, will assume that the pastor is urging them to do whatever they consider to be “traditional” for that denomination–even those adventists who think that they are morally obligated to vote Republican.
Yes, it is true that, in a University setting, the average person sitting in the pews is probably sophisticated enough to understand Pastor Nelson’s intention but I’m not at all sure that would be true of the majority of people who watched the live streaming.
Jeff,
Now that I’ve read the historical sketch you linked for us, I’d like to make two additional comments:
Comment One:
“Shall we meddle with politics? No, if we must mingle in the noisy crowd, and shout the praises of the poor, puny man who is to be raised to the pinnacle of power. No, if we must give currency to the many-voiced, slanderous reports, which fill the political atmosphere with clouds and mists. But we may deposit a ballot quietly in the box in behalf of freedom, and as quietly give a reason therefor.” Joseph Clarke in an article in the Review Dec. 14, 1876.
Freedom? What, exactly, is “freedom”?
To some people “freedom” means freedom for themselves and those with whom they agree.
There are at least two versions of the Golden Rule: 1) Whatever you want, make sure everyone else who wants it can have it too. 2) Whatever you want, make sure everyone else has it too, whether they like it or not.
I’m not a single-issue voter but, on the subject of religious liberty, I hope to always have the courage to vote for the freedom of even those with whom I profoundly disagree–freedom even for those whose lifestyles I find reprehensible. I can do no less if I would want them to work for my freedom if or when the tables were to be reversed.
Comment two:
Given my convictions about religious liberty, what am I to make of the following quotation?
“While we are in no wise to become involved in political questions, yet it is our privilege to take our stand decidedly on all questions relating to temperance reform. . . .
There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?” Ellen White article in Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914. (Italics supplied.)
Shall I abandon my religious liberty principles and, instead, use civil laws to impose my lifestyle choices on everyone?
“That some of you don’t see an obvious editorial bias in this “News” feature speaks volumes about the blindness of the Left to its ideological filters.”
Nathan I absolutely agree with you. The quality of journalism at AToday has a lot to be desired. An editorial giving news of an event, in this case Pr Bachelor attending a Trump meeting, should be totally objective with no subjective innuendos.
Peter,
Perhaps the bias you see is in the decision to report rather than to ignore Elder Batchelor’s attendance at this event. If so, by all means make that point.
That point is worth discussing.
The journalistic quality of the article is simply not an issue short of you submitting a paragraph you’ve edited to remove the bias you see.
Some suggestions for AT: 1) Always list the name of the person who writes an article. If someone proofreads it, we don’t need his name but it it is “edited”, list the editor’s name. If it is a collaborative effort, list the names of the people who helped to write the article. 2) If the article is examined by people of a variety of views before publication to minimize “bias” in the wording, publish it as a news item. If or when that doesn’t happen, list the article as “news and comment”. 3) Whoever edits the articles should look for such glaring commissions as the failure of this article to note who or what organization sent invitations to the meeting and who invited whom, what were the criteria for issuing invitations etc. Where that information is not yet available by the publishing deadline, include in the article (or a side note) what attempts were made to gather that kind of information.
My hope is that taking these steps will minimize the criticisms some people have made.
Hansen,
If my wife didn’t have an Internet connection at our house for her schoolwork through Western Governor’s University, I probably wouldn’t have ready access to the Internet. Until or unless I have the wherewithal to do other kinds of research, can you provide us with information about whether or how we can access Arthur White or the Review’s version of the order of events on the Internet?
Yes, it is off topic but my perception is that what many adventists have been taught about “the investigative judgement” tends to color their political views. By the way, I seldom speak with non-adventists about this subject because it is WAY down on my list of priorities but, when I do, I don’t call it “the investigative judgement”. In my experience, that name for it gives some non-adventists the impression that adventists aren’t even aware of any other aspects (the sentencing phase and the executive phase) of the final judgment.
Roger, The Advent Review remarks by Everts and J. White were printed here:
BATTLE CREEK, MICH, FIFTH-DAY, JANUARY 29, 1857.
BATTLE CREEK, MICH., FIFTH-DAY, JANUARY 1, 1857.
Both these articles can be read in their entirety at the SDA office of archives, statistics, and research website
https://www.adventistarchives.org/
Arthur White’s brief on the origins of the IJ can be found in his EGW biography, vol 1, ch. 23, p354
The archives office has done the church a great service by making these articles available. If this is David Trim’s handiwork, he should get a medal.
Evert’ s article especially makes it clear that while there was no question about when and where Jesus was, just what he was doing was not well understood prior to 1857.
I picked up this gem from Arthur White at the Advindicate website.
EM,
If you Google Day Star Extra, you will find several hits where you can read the 1846 document.
Many adventists are acquainted with the Ellen White quote, “I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint.” Many take that to mean that she was “authorized” by the Lord to recommend that article and that, therefore, the article itself should be taken, if not to be inspired, then at least as if it has the same authority as inspiration. Many adventists fail to notice that Ellen White (I don’t know whether she had married James when she wrote that) “felt” authorized–whatever that means. The word, “authorized” in that statement is likewise taken by many adventists to mean that young Ellen had some kind of “authority” that other Christians don’t have. That, in turn, is extrapolated into the idea that clergy have authority that laity don’t have. In over twelve years in adventist schools, I was never introduced to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. I now believe that was intentional–that the curriculum was developed by people who wanted to train my generation to be followers of a religious organization or its officers.
Our parents weren’t followers, they were leaders, so it never occurred to my siblings or me to be followers.
No matter who wins the election, America will get better than it deserves.
–
Trump will, like during most of his campaign speeches, be a magnet for the malcontent , spoiled rotten brat, barbarian mobs.
–
Clinton will increase the national gender conflict issue.
–
Isaiah 3:12 “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”
(If Hillary gets to be POTUS…what will Bill be called???)
America is getting more perverted & depraved by the day. It has a culture of debt and celebrity obsession. Drugs, booze, tattoos, perverted entertainment, abortion, LGBT, materialism. Most church attenders don’t really spend much time in the bible or spiritual matters. Do a survey and see how much of the daily 1000 minutes are spent away from the system of the world. Most SDA don’t expect Jesus to come back in 20 years and don’t really want Him back anytime soon for whatever reasons. 99% of Christianity is deceived on the decalogue commandment that gets more attention in the 4 gospels than all of the other 9 combined. 75-90% of churchgoers have never read the whole bible once.
NOT TOO SALTY folks.
Most Christians have warped concept of gospel, grace, salvation and don’t have a clue as to what it means to repent.
2 Chron 7:14??? I won’t hold my breath waiting.
For the Inspector Clouseaus, who read, without seeing leftist bias, and shrug -“nothing to see here; let’s move on” – may I suggest a thought experiment. Suppose I were to write a “news” story about Hillary Clinton meeting with a group of liberal pastors – like Jim Wallis – that included a well-known Adventist. Suppose further that I contextual used the story by pointing out that HRC’s supporters want a Supreme Court that will continue to deny unborn babies the right to live before they are 23 weeks old. Some would like to legalize abortions right up to the time of birth. Ya think any commenters from the Left might cry foul?
Suppose I went on to to remind you that, while HRC now campaigns for LGBT rights, it wasn’t very long ago that she stood behind DOMA. And while she claims to be a strong supporter of equality for women, you wouldn’t know it by looking at executive positions and pay at The Clinton Foundation. Furthermore, when her husband was president, she called those who did what she now advocates – “believe the victim of sexual assault/harassment” – members of a vast right wing conspiracy.
Of course, I would have to be judicious in contextualizing, so as to maintain plausible deniability when the dog whistle responders accuse me of bias. But you get the picture. When the newsworthy aspect of a story for AToday is “Doug Batchelor attends,” you need to find a way to pad the story and still call it news.
It would be a stretch of liberal interpretation of Scripture for me to vote for either candidate when one examines their moral, business and political history. I am sure that either one would jump at the chance to be the second beast of Rev 13. John repeatedly refers to love of world and Father, 1 John 2:15-17; john 17:26. Neither would know the difference. Let us share this remaining time sharing the love, mercy and judgment of the Lamb instead of confronting airheads.
Hi again, Nathan,
Thought experiments are by definition hypothetical. The accusation of bias and editorializing here is pointed and specific to a 9 paragraph news report.
So let’s be practical.
If the 9 paragraphs specifically can be made more neutral in your estimate, please help the AT editors improve on their commitment to keeping news reporting and editorials separate.
Here is how you can help.
Rewrite a paragraph or three of the report to help us all understand what you believe a better way is in serving your need for unbiased news reporting of Seventh-day Adventist related activities.
I realize this isn’t easy and it would be really helpful.
That said, increasingly it appears like your point is simply reporting Elder Batchelor’s invitation to and participation in a political event with Donald Trump is evidence on the face of bias by any news source. If this is your point, you should probably be taking this up with Elder Batchelor, as should he not have attended, there would be no report. And I realize this wouldn’t be easy, either.
And if it is just simply that you would prefer not to have AT report on Elder Batchelor, your point is welcomed, though AT is not likely to endorse such bias.
Hansen,
I appreciate the attempt to help me with my research. I found the Jan. 1, 1857 edition of the Review but it included an article about the sabbath day, one about Syria and the Holy Land and one titled, “Our Rule of Life” but I didn’t find an article about the origins of the answer to the disappointment. Can you tell us what the heading of the article is?
Page 72 “Communication from Bro. Everts” Top of the page, middle column
I’ve already read that article. It IS about the investigative phase of the final judgment but I didn’t notice anything about who discovered or when our under what circumstances that the sanctuary to be cleansed was in heaven, that that cleansing is the anti-type of the Day of Atonement, etc. I looked at the Jan. 29, 1857 issue too. So far, haven’t found anything there about the history of how those discoveries were made.
Help?
If you think this is too off-topic to continue the conversation here, please feel free to email me at r.metzger44@gmail.com
I am at a loss why some think Batchelor does not have the freedom to attend a meeting such as he did. Are Seventh Day Adventists denied such freedoms and the freedom to vote in the country we live in?
I noticed other well known persons did not attend. Perhaps they are afraid of people throwing stones such as is going on here. I believe in freedom no matter what organization you may belong to. Many have complained about what goes on in Washington for many years as its all ran by insiders. Now the chance to change that is before us and here we sit confused about what to do. We do have a congress and house of reps. to help keep things right.
My prayer is that God will lead in this election and put in power who He would like.
The news media is the one making billions from what is going on keeping us all confused so we don’t have a clue of how to vote. We must look deeper as there are so many untruths being told to cause confusion with both candidates. At least we know about the one who has already been in power and what she and her husband are like. Do we want more of the same or take a chance on something perhaps different?
Has the SDA Church lost so much fairh that we feel we must tiptoe around public sentiment? Our Bible heroes attended meetings with kings and governers with the confidence born of an assurance that they were on God’s mission. Some were in the employ of pagan rulers and directed the course of history! I see Bachelor’s visit and Carson’s role as a hopeful sign that the SDA influence may be beginning to grow back to where we can honestly consider it fitting into prophecy again
While the headline is s high of a stretch – “Adventists Participate…” – the text of the article pretty much overlooks the questions that might be asked of Batchelor. I wish the following questions had been posed: Why did you attend? Do you understand that, as a prominent SDA pastor, your attendance might be viewed as an openness to Trump, the presidential candidate? Did your boss know you were attending, and was it approved?
Other than protecting the cause of religious liberty, I see no legitimate reason for a prominent SDA pastor to attend this type of political event. I have a fundamental belief that those who by vocation and reputation carry the banner of Christ should not allow themselves to be compromised by the perception that they are vetting political candidates as part of a political identity group. The church should not be perceived as a political power broker. I think it does have a legitimate function – and that is to safeguard the God-given liberties incorporated in the First Amendment.
IMHO, Batchelor should have stayed away, and his boss should caution Batchelor that the church draws the wrong kind of attention when a pastor attends this type of political event in his capacity as a high profile SDA Church employee.
So Nathan you are saying if you are in SDA leadership you have lost certain freedoms?
I don’t think Doug indorsed in any way but I think perhaps his attendance was a good thing to show we do not bury our heads on these issues.
Yes Steve, that is what I am saying. The commitments we make impose both internal and external constraints.
As to the second issue, I realize many disagree with me about whether and how the Church should use its voice and authority in the political arena. I think Christ provides a pretty clear message for the church to stay out of Caesar’s realm.
Certainly, if there was a practical way for Batchelor to separate his pastoral identity from his actions as an individual citizen, I would have no problem with whatever he chose to say or do as a citizen. But he can’t do that. And he clearly was invited to this event as a prominent religious voice. Would you be okay with Ted Wilson attending this type of event? Where would you draw the line when it comes to the church Wading into political currents?
Nathan,
I think Ted Wilson could attend if he would like. I would not care as it’s his freedom to do so. I do expect our church to be involved in things that involve our liberty and freedom of worship to make sure these are not taken away. If we do not show up for things it sends a clear message of the wrong kind.
It seems to me you suggest not showing up for this kind of thing which is also political in nature.
I would hate to be a pastor as I enjoy the freedoms of the America many of my relatives have fought to hold on to. Some have given their lives for these freedoms including freedom of speech of what we are doing right now.
I see nothing wrong with attending a political rally or speech. That does not mean I would vote for that person but would be for educational purposes only. I think our church leaders have the right to do the same and pity any who would be afraid to do so for fear of what is happening here on this site.
Steve,
Steve,
My parents were SdA before I was born in 1944. They had an extensive home library, including many Ellen White books and, when the SdA Bible Commentary came out, they bought each volume as it became available.I became a voting member of the organization in 1959. I attended adventist schools for twelve years before graduating from Campion Academy in 1962. I’ve been a member of about a dozen SdA congregations in about a half-dozen states (U.S.) and held elected offices in several of those congregations. I’m no more of an authority than anybody else but I think of myself as well acquainted with what was customary among SdAs during the last half of the 20th century.
During that time, there were many SdAs who thought Christians shouldn’t participate in the political process at all–not even vote. Part of the rationale was that Christians who get involved in the political process tend to get so focused on political questions they lose sight of the primary goal of promoting the gospel. Another factor in that thinking was that if adventists want to take “present truth” to all people, regardless of their political leanings, it is best to avoid arguing about political issues.
(continued)
(continued)
During that time, it was the policy of our denomination to avoid making “official” statements about any political issues except religious liberty. SdA clergy were expected to avoid promoting ANY political party and, lest their statements about political issues be taken as “official” statements of SdA policy, pastors didn’t make statements about political issues.
The exception was matters related to religious liberty. It turns out that there were some disadvantages to pastors and conference officers even being involved in attempting to obtain “accommodation” by employers of sabbath keepers’ schedule requirements. In those days, labor unions were the biggest barrier to sabbath keeping in the workplace. Many adventists took that to mean that, if they were to vote, they were obligated to support the political party that was perceived as being anti-union.
(continued)
(continued)
Adventists don’t take EVERY verse of the Bible “literally”. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is one example. We do, however, take the Bible literally in many ways that mainline denominations don’t. The result of that is that, theologically, adventists have some things in common with members of fundamentalist denominations. Their lifestyle is closer to that of adventists, for example. So when adventists’ fundamentalist friends promote “conservative” political ideas, SOME adventists tend to get excited about promoting political conservatism.
I started voting when I was in my 20s but I took several precautions. I never joined a political party. When I participated in the political area on other issues than religious liberty, I tried to be perceived finding solutions that address the legitimate concerns of both liberals and conservatives. I have tried to teach people how to discuss such topics as religion and politics without arguing. I haven’t told people (other than my wife) which candidates I have voted against.
(continued)
(continued)
Meanwhile, in the U.S, most of my adventist friends have leaned farther and farther to the political “right” to the point that they now embrace ideas about “religious liberty” that are opposite of the ideals our parents inculcated in my siblings and me. Many SdAs have adopted a new definition of “religious liberty”–freedom to use the political process to promote “our” religious beliefs, “our” religious practices and “our” religious prohibitions–not realizing that doing so sets a dangerous precedent. In the U.S, many SdAs now subscribe to the doctrine that it is appropriate for Christians to use our religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against people whose lifestyles we disapprove–not realizing that that doctrine will be employed to justify discrimination against seventh-day sabbath keepers.
Our General Conference has sent “observers” to meetings of various “councils of churches” but we haven’t “joined” those organizations, partly because such organizations tend to become overtly political.
The title of the above article is unfortunate because it gives the impression that Doug Batchelor “participated”. That’s different from merely being an observer. Please note how easy it is to be considered as favoring a political candidate, merely by attending such an event.
(continued)
(continued)
No. it isn’t ILLEGAL for pastors to attend political rallies. Nor should it be. If Doug Batchelor was there in the hope of being able to explain the advantages of NOT using the political process to promote religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions, that might have been a worthwhile goal. We shouldn’t oppose any pastor’s attempt to do that.
Right up until last week, I was still hoping that was one of Dr. Carson’s goals. An email he sent me last week has dashed that hope. He has moved so far to the political right, he is now opposing some of the very religious liberty goals I have worked my whole life to promote.
ROGER
Thank you so much for your kind words of wisdom: i am not very political and do not belong to any party but do feel it”s wrong for any organization to dictate weather an employee can attend or not and read between lines things that are not there>The message that sends to me is not to belong to any church and that churches are really dictatorships>I serve Jesus christ and Him only:not a church authority>
FYI, two statements for those who have no problem with Brother Batchelor’s attendance.
News item in the Washington Post:
“At a rally in Jacksonville, Fla., Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump contrasted his own religion with that of Ben Carson’s saying, “I’m Presbyterian. Boy, that’s down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist I don’t know about.”
Politically, the matter could become an issue in the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses. As the Des Moines Register notes, “some conservatives have argued Seventh-day Adventists … aren’t Christians.”
October 24, 2015 (Reuters)
“Batchelor made it clear on his Facebook page that his attendance “was not an endorsement.” He said of Trump’s answers to the questions asked by the group, “Some answers were good, others were pretty vague.”
“I must say he’s a whole different person when he is sitting down in a conversational style,” Batchelor continued, speaking of Trump. “At a rally he’s swaggering and bombastic, today he seemed pensive and humble. … Now we will wait and see if they arrange a similar interview with Hillary [Clinton],” the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party and former U.S. Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady.”
“Pensive and Humble” really? How AMAZING and FACTUAL is this? I never knew one iota about HMS Richard’s “non-endorsements” or his political leanings. Sad day for my retired friend who sent money to Doug’s ministry and now regrets it.
Sam,
How “amazing and factual” are a person’s own description of their observations when they were in the room and you were not? If you disbelieve Doug’s words about being in the same room with Trump, what else will you disbelieve?
Our goal should be HIS goal. Is it not to take the saved out of the world and to take the world out of the saved?
Does this imply some grant of right or privilege to the world (or the evil therein)? How can one give unto Caesar, be Caesar and not give ones best within HIM? Who’s strong house are we suppose to split?
Is GRACE not restrictive; removing certain privileges by default? Can we do or think of those things that would hurt us or others? Is that not the simple Truth in Love? Did GRACE not create the simple Truths of Love? Is this a loss of freedom or a grant of freedom; within HIS immense Love?
In alternate, does GRACE create some privilege to remove HIM from anything? Does it limit our freedom or remove the command to be HIS beacon and help? Does it remove anyone’s requirements or rights in such? Does Love allow focus on anything or anyone other than the Body. Do we have anything other than HIM and us? Does it not separate and weaken the Body to focus on anything other than HIM and us (and HIM again)?
Is society not the same? If we do not focus on “all” of us, do we focus on any of us? Does anyone wishing to separate and represent only only some now weaken all of us? Is HIS granted Wisdom not expected from all of us; by HIM?
I wonder if Bachelor can say that he is following all that EGW recommended about mixing religion with politics. For people like him EGW is the last word for everything, therefore I hope he is not behaving hypocritically…
Steve,
I grew up thinking that the church consists of believers and that the legitimate purpose of church organization is the help the clergy serve the laity–not the other way around. I heard my adventist parents speak about this often enough to know that is how they understood the purpose of church organization.
I’m an adventist in the sense of believing that the purpose of the second advent of Jesus is to raise those who have died in faith and take us with them to heaven. The good news is that our denomination is still promoting that doctrine. The bad news is that, to some degree at least, that “message” has been nearly obscured (in some parts of the world) by a message about the supposed authority of an organization or its leaders, past or present.
The challenge–for me at least–is how to let my neighbors know I’m a protestant with a special emphasis on the nature of the kingdom and the nature of the king without them being distracted by my denominational affiliation into thinking that I’m just LdS (Mormon) of a slightly different hue.
Okay Bill, here’s how I would rewrite the article. First of all, the headline would read “Prominent Adventist Pastor Attends Trump
Meeting With Religious Leaders”
Everything is fine until the fourth paragraph. The second sentence of that paragraph should simply say that most want judges who will reverse Roe v Wade, a decision that restricted the ability of states to ban abortions. I would not say that many have spoken out in favor of a national law outlawing abortion, because I do not know that to be true.
The third paragraph is problematic because it is non-specific. I don’t know what “politically correct” language is being referenced, and I suspect the writer doesn’t either. The statement strongly implies that evangelical leaders are opposed to treating women and minorities with respect. In doing so, it demonizes evangelical leaders. I find this suggestion bigoted and unsubstantiated. The entire fifth paragraph is tangential to the topic and simply seeks to cast Trump and evangelical leaders in a negative light. At least the writer could have added at the end of the paragraph that Trump’s offending comments have been widely condemned by evangelical leaders. The fifth paragraph should be deleted.
I would delete the sixth paragraph. It is pure opinion (though I agree with it), and is in no way reporting on the event or Doug Batchelor’s attendance. It is pure, unadulterated trashing.
Continued below
I would have stayed on topic had I written the news piece by interviewing Adventists from different perspectives and political persuasions to see how they reacted to a prominent Adventist minister attending this type of political event I light of the traditional Adventist position regarding political involvement. I would have tried to get I out from Batchelor to find out why he attended and how he squares that with Ellen White’s counsel and Christ’s example.
This could have been a really interesting story if the writer hadn’t gotten sidetracked with making Trump the story. I know the media is obsessed with Trump, but somehow, I would have hoped that the AToday news team could have resisted getting diverted by its emotional antipathy for Trump and evangelical leaders.
Prominent SDA Church leaders getting involved in presidential campaign appearances is a big deal. That could have been a very good story, exploring the historical position of the church and EGW counsel as context. But instead, the AT news team simply used what should have been the story as a pretext to dump on Trump and the evangelical leaders whose support he seeks.
Thanks Nathan,
You’ve been helpful and useful. Let me respond, I hope, in kind.
Your headline properly identifies Doug Batchelor as a prominent Seventh-day Adventist pastor rather than a church representative. That said, Ben Carson, another prominent Seventh-day Adventist, introduced Trump to the group of invited mostly Evangelical church leaders. So the original headline is on key.
I read the fourth paragraph to reference not attendees, but the wider circle of Evangelicals and as such the paragraph is on solid footing.
Are Evangelicals ‘generally’ critical of using LGBT to identify people as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transsexual as somehow a path that requires them to accept LGBT individuals? Overwhelmingly so. See:
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476651599/acceptance-grows-slowly-but-steadily-for-gay-evangelicals
Trump’s personal life background provides a contextual contrast to that of the attendees. I find it useful.
I have no doubt that AT would have enriched their report with your very suggestions had more resources (hint, hint) be available.
Unlike you, I do not feel ‘emotional antipathy for Trump and Evangelicals leaders’ having crept into this story.
You are right, prominent Seventh-day Adventists getting involved in a presidential campaign appearance is a big deal. By simply reporting, this story confirms that with a high degree of attention to factual reporting both of the event, and the background of those attending.
It’s not really a question of whether you find the contextual disparagement of Trump useful, Bill. The fact is that you already knew all of these things. And whether or not you find it helpful, it is still highly biased opinion designed to arouse negative feelings toward Trump in the reader.
Also, you strongly filtered what the news article said about LGBTs, betraying a realization of how offensive it was to say that evangelicals oppose speaking respectfully of LGBTs.
As you still seem to think this news piece is responsible, unbiased reporting, tell me this: If you asked 10 people, after reading the news story, whether the writer is pro-Trump or anti-Trump, how many do you think would say the writer is pro-Trump? If you said zero, go to the head of the class.
Pastor Batchelor attended a get acquainted with the candidate meeting. I guess many of you think it makes good sense to snub the possible next POTUS. Aside from the possible personal reasons Pastor Batchelor might have had for attending the meeting, it doesn’t really make good sense for denominations of any stripe to make enemies with world leaders, or powerful people.
SDA made that mistake in China by preaching last day event sermons connecting Mao, Communism, Armageddon, and the end of the world, etc. The result? When Mao came to power, Adventism was the first denomination the Communists set about destroying, through infiltration, accusation meetings, worker organization. There was landslide apostasy, imprisonments, confiscation of church properties, and general oppression. All foreign connected Christian churches were shut down but SDA were first on the list.
When a potential POTUS offers you his hand, don’t spit on it.
What an interesting thing to say! But, in agreement with Ervin, some evidence might make the case more strongly. My parents were converted to SDAism in China, in the early 1940’s, the pre-Mao era. (My father participated, as driver/mechanic, in an overland missionary journey to Tibet.) As soon as Mao had won the civil war, they applied to come to Australia, and were accepted. They never mentioned Mao’s vengeance against the SDA’s. But then, they were not prone to talking too much about those difficult times. I have always felt that they left China as they had left Russia……. ie, Communism was not for them. (Of course, I am so glad they did).
My first reactive thought is that the SDA church in China probably had a natural preference to the more conservative side of politics. In this case, they may very well have been urging their members to support Chiang Kai Shek’s Kuomintang. (It would be interesting to hear if the SDA church in Taiwan has anything to say about this). CKShek eventually fled to Formosa and set up his government in exile. If Hansen has any info regarding the support of CKS by SDA, that might go a long way to explaining the Communist / Mao revenge.
Maybe if they’d followed Ellen’s advice to stay out of all politics…….?
By they way, can we be certain that the Mao-placed infiltrators into the church administration have now all gone?
Serge,
Where did Ellen White counsel SDAs to stay out of politics? Perhaps you could enlighten me because I’ve heard that claimed since I was a child, even to the point of some claiming that we shouldn’t even register to vote. But I’ve never been able to find it. What I have seen is in the book “Education” where she encourages youth to aspire to serving in the legislative bodies of their nation. I think a lot of what people claim is her counsel to stay out of politics is really unthinking fear about the mixing of church and state and jumping to the conclusion that the only way to avoid mixing the two is to stay out of politics.
In contrast with that, this past Sabbath on 3ABN the story was shared about how interaction with state officials in West Virginia helped ease a significant regulatory roadblock that threatened to limit the size of a free medical clinic that Your Best Pathway to Health will be offering next month in Beckley, WV. Getting “involved in politics” was what led to the roadblock being removed.
Hansen – I have never heard that the SDA denomination was a particular personal focus of Communist China’s attempt to eradicate religion from its culture. I question that assertion.
What makes you think that Batchelor not attending would have been a snub, equivalent to spitting on Trump’s hand? There are different ways to decline to attend an event. Furthermore, do you really think Trump or his campaign had much to do with the identities of the invitees? I seriously doubt that Trump knew Batchelor was there or that his absence would have been noted had he not attended. To suggest that Batchelot, and the SDA Church by extension, would have risked making an enemy of Trump, had Batchelor not attended, strikes me as preposterous. Besides, if the church was inclined to wade into commentary on political figures, no politician is more worthy, on rhetoric alone, of its moral opprobrium as Donald Trump. And I say that as one who generally “sneers” at the elitist cult of political correctness.
Finally, I think the church qua church should stay out of politics, except to protect religious liberty. If it is fulfilling its mission, it will inevitably have enemies. The world will hate it.
“Hansen – I have never heard that the SDA denomination was a particular personal focus of Communist China’s attempt to eradicate religion from its culture. I question that assertion.”
How much time or effort have you spent researching the issue? Have you ever read the China published book on Modern Christian history in China which specifically mentions the SDA church as an enemy of the State. How much research have you done in the Shang Hai Communist Party archives?Because you are unaware of something which you probably have spent little time researching, it is suspect? Be serious.
Hansen,
There is a long history of old cultures being insular and suspicious of anyone who is different. For example, in the Appalachian Mountains of America there is an old story about those whose families have been there for 200 years viewing anyone whose family hasn’t live there for at least four generations as an “outsider.”
Christianity has been viewed in the same way in many cultures, in particular because of how the teachings of Jesus contrasted with and upset traditional belief systems. My favorite Sabbath School teacher when I was a child had been a missionary in China and told many stories of the opposition they faced. When the communists took power, their first effort was focused on “cleansing” China of all foreign influences, which meant driving-out all foreigners and eradicating all traces of their teaching, including Christianity.
Hansen suggested that “SDA made [a] mistake in China by preaching last day event sermons connecting Mao, Communism, Armageddon, and the end of the world, etc. The result? When Mao came to power, Adventism was the first denomination the Communists set about destroying . . .” I do not doubt Hansen’s statement, but would like to ask if he might provide a reference of any kind that presents details of what happened.
Erv, Provide an email address and I can send you a detailed document, including names of Chinese church leaders who publicly denounced the GC president, went to prison, disappeared, etc. and the circumstances under which these things happened.
Years ago, I heard one of these gentlemen speak at PUC, hailed as a hero of Chinese Adventism. I assume his public denunciation of the GC president was just a temporary lapse.
Erv, I’m sorry that I can’t provide any documentation at this time. I spoke out of turn.
“When God wants to move in history, he doesn’t always pick the favorite evangelical,” said Lance Wallnau, an influential leader in the Seven Mountains movement. In 2011, he declared that it is the obligation of Christians to “seize those high places” in order to bring about the return of Jesus Christ. He said that God brought Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill to power at crucial moments in history, the way He is now raising up Donald Trump for our time. And he knows this, Wallnau said, because God told him so. Wallnau said God told him specifically that Trump is “a wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness.”
One of the key aspects of conservativism is to say, character matters in public office and in the citizenry and virtue has an important role to play in our culture and in our politics… And so when you have conservatives who were saying in the previous Clinton era that character matters, rightly so, who now are not willing to say anything when we have this sort of reality television wanting to lead our country. Are there some Adventists actually waiting for Doug Batchelor to endorse a presidential candidate? I hope not!
It wasn’t very long ago that we were seeing magazine cover stories about preachers and other Christian leaders’ outsized influence on American politics, with titles such as “Thunder on the Right” and “The Right Hand of God.” Hopefully, Brother Batchelor can avoid this detour.
Just getting the invitation means that Batchelor has high connections to the Republican Party. Perhaps it was through Carson? In any case, that in itself is more polical involvement than Batchelor should take publicly.
A church leader could attend both major parties’ events if the goal were offering an Adventist perspective and voice in religious liberty issues. Otherwise, the issue becomes inappropriate political activity for a pastor. A related question is whether a minister is drawn to such involvement by the allure of being deemed influential enough to be included.
My2cents,
The Trump campaign described those invited as “high-profile” Christian leaders from across the spectrum and a number of them have TV ministries, so I think that probably had more to do with it being part of a group such as the National Religious Broadcasters than any party affiliation. For example, I saw interviews with two black ministers from northeastern cities who both said they had voted for Obama in ’08 and ’12 and who said they also describe Trump’s humble, approachable nature during the meeting and appreciated his focus on taking a business-based approach to government.
I just received a “fundraising” letter from Ed where he spotlighted Trump. I am not a supporter of Trump, but when did AT become a vehicle for personal opinions for or against presidential candidates?
And some here have the audacity to condemn Doug Batchelor for attending his rally? He is free to do whatever he wants as a citizen. He does not represent the SDA church, and certainly not me–we are poles apart. I see nothing to indicate that he went as a supporter. Unlike others, perhaps he was not afraid to listen to other viewpoints or wanted information for the future. He could have been gathering information for a future sermon in declaring Trump an envoy of the pope! 🙂
“This paper explores the complicated relations between the Communist state and the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the post-1949 era. It highlights the longstanding impacts of the Three-Self Reform Movement (renamed as the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in 1954) upon the religious practices of the Chinese Adventists. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement was a state-controlled mass organization designed to sever the churches’ ties with the Western missionary enterprises and to co-opt native church leaders into the socialist order during the early 1950s. Through this mechanism of co-optation, the Maoist state proclaimed to establish a self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-administrating church
2
on Chinese soil, even though the real purpose was to bring all the highly diffused Protestant denominations under the state’s control. In addition, the state launched countless political campaigns to demonize foreign missionaries and persecute Christians whose views of church-state relations differed from the government.2 In this hostile environment, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was the first Protestant denomination to be denounced by the state in 1951.”
In the early 70’s, the Pacific Union Recorder and Review I read faithfully. I was very interested in the reports about the SDA work in Australia, Sanitarium foods, Avondale, Brinsmead. I imagined SDA in Australia as well respected, popular, thriving, admired.
When the Chamberlain case broke, I was shocked by the reports of the Australian reaction. Rather than a strong defense of Adventists, I read of them being denounced as Satan worshippers, cultists, lunatics. I realized that the SDA presence in Australia was nothing like what I perceived.
You can read glowing reports of woman pastors in China, the thousands of “faithful” SDA, and dream whatever you like. The Taiping Rebellion was led by a real lunatic, with Sabbatarian leanings and a strong emphasis on the Decalogue. Sound familiar? It was the most destructive civil war in modern times, nearly bankrupted the Qing Dynasty and contributed to the fall of the empire.
That’s what some people think about in China when they think of Christianity. President Xi has recently spoke of the good of religion in the lives of ordinary people. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism were the three he mentioned. Start talking about the Sabbath, tithe [sending Chinese money to the GC in Washington], the Cross, you might be surprised at the governmental response. Gonna stand firm for your faith? Good luck.
God is holding back the winds of strife. Does he use His people for this purpose? I think the answer must be, YES. To see evil and do nothing is to perpetuate evil. With God’s guidance, We must do all we can to alleviate evil where we see it… I am with Ben Carson on Trump…