Corrected: Adventists Stir Political Change Among Minorities in NZ
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, April 2, 2014
Corrected April 9, 2014
The Adventists who spoke out for political change in New Zealand are not clergy, Adventist Today has confirmed with the denomination's local conference president. At least three of them are active lay members in the North New Zealand Conference known to Pastor Edward Tupai who uses the title Lead Pastor as conference administrator.
The Fairfax News and other secular news media described Teleiai E. Puni and five others who led out in a public meeting on Sunday, March 30, at the Manurewa flea market as clergy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In fact, they are not denominational employees.
The purpose of the event was to advocate support for the National Party among the Pacific Island ethnic minority community in New Zealand. It generated considerable public debate because Pacific Islanders have long voted for the Labour Party in New Zealand. The group announced that they had met with National Party Member of Parliament Cam Calder. "If we are to defend our Christian values and build a brighter future for New Zealand families, we need to engage our Pacific people and vote National," Puni said at the March 30 event.
The announcement brought a number of negative reactions. A meeting was announced for next Sunday (April 6) under the auspices of a Samoan Catholic Church with 23 churches of various denominations meeting to discuss political parties and Christian values, the newspaper reported. The Adventists "have been criticized for not consulting their parishes" on Facebook and Twitter sites where Pacific Island minorities communicate regularly.
Several comments noted that the Adventists had worn blue T-shirts with the slogan, "I'm a KEY person." Blue is the color of the National Party and John Key is a Member of Parliament. Comments were critical of religious leaders being involved in politics. "Jesus didn't say just love a certain group of people." Another comment from a former Labour voter said he believed "both parties have let our people down many times."
Voters in the southern region of the City of Auckland have long supported the Labour Party "thanks in large part to church-going Pacific Islanders." The newspaper quoted a Fundamentalist pastor Sooalo Setu Mu'a: "To change from wearing red to blue is not an easy thing for our Pacific communities who have been voting Labour over the years."
"There may be specific issues, but the larger reality here is that this reflects the fact that there is growing middle class among the Pacific Islanders in New Zealand," a source told Adventist Today. "The working class perspective does not fit some people like it once did and this may be more true among educated professionals than anyone else."
Could someone give us some more details about the particular issues motivating this particular action by Adventist pastors? Are specific spiritual issues involved?
I would suggest that the SDA Church stay out of politics all over the world, don't start supporting one party above another and don't start encouraging members by telling them who they must vote for!
I agree that SDA Pastors should stay out of politics wherever they are and that it causes dissension when they choose to support one political party over another.
Not only that it is not a positive witness to those not of the Adventist faith.
Maranatha
Politics are based on power and money. The kingdom of heaven is based on other-centred love and service. They are opposing systems. Unfortunately, the organized SDA church is also based on power and money. Fortunately many members of the organized church understand the structure of the kingdom of heaven and live lives of service.
It appears these Adventist Pastors in particular, have a limited understanding of history and prophecy. In this case, Daniel 2, and what the symbols of iron, clay, and iron mixed with miry clay, represent.
Adventists of all people should understand that the iron represents statecraft, the clay represents churchcraft, and the iron mixed with miry clay represents the mixing of the two, That is about all that needs to be understood in this matter.
The separation of church and state was a long held principle of Protestantism and the Adventist Church. When the Sunday laws are re-introduced Daniel says the iron that represents the state, is stronger than the clay that represents the church.
Perhaps it is time these Adventist Pastors read Daniel 2:42-45 again, and considered counsels such as the following, if they are to escape a politcal/religious division from occuring in their churches.
"The Lord would have His people bury political questions. On these themes silence is eloquence. Christ calls upon His followers to come into unity on the pure gospel principles which are plainly revealed in the word of God. We cannot with safety vote for political parties; for we do not know whom we are voting for. We cannot with safety take part in any political scheme. {CCh 316.2}
Those who are Christians indeed will be branches of the true vine, and will bear the same fruit as the vine. They will act in harmony, in Christian fellowship. They will not wear political badges, but the badge of Christ. {CCh 316.3}
What are we to do, then?—Let political questions alone. {CCh 316.4}
God's children are to separate themselves from politics, from any alliance with unbelievers. Do not take part in political strife. Separate from the world, and refrain from bringing into the church or school ideas that will lead to contention and disorder. Dissension is the moral poison taken into the system by human beings who are selfish. 570 {CCh 316.6}
Ronald,
I generally agree with you. Still, because of my involvement in community ministry, I believe there is a great need for Adventists, both clergy and members, to play a larger role in society than our fears have prevented us from doing in the past. For us to have a positive impact in society while avoiding the divisiveness that is risked by specific political allegiances requires that we first be actively involved in the ministry of God's love in ways that improve the lives of citizens. Such ministries will gain the respect of the public and officials so that they will more quickly listen to our concerns in other areas because they at least respect what is being done, if not see it as delivering such value that the community will be harmed by losing it. Is the involvement of Adventist clergy in partisan politics in New Zealand the result of the ministries of the church giving it the credibility to speak on social issues where spiritual issues are directly involved? Has the church climbed onto the "social justice" bandwagon with all the political baggage that comes along with promoting such concepts and thus become separated from it's spiritual roots? Or, something else. I'm curious to learn more.
Step 1: Church org takes a political stand.
Step 2: Politics gets violent.
Step 3: People die.
Step4: Humm, must be a sign of the end.
To Mr. McLeish: Pardon my ignorance. You said that "It appears these Adventist Pastors in particular, have a limited understanding of history and prophecy. In this case, Daniel 2, and what the symbols of iron, clay, and iron mixed with miry clay, represent."
Could you please enlighen us as to what the symbols of iron, clay, and iron mixed with miry clay represent and how you know that is what they represent.? Thank you.l
Hi Ervin,
As this position is not generally accepted by Adventist scholars I trust that you will understand it is not easy to answer your question in a few paragraphs.
Adventist scholars have generally accepted the symbols the iron and the clay in Dan. 2, apply to the divided kingdoms of Europe. cf. vss. 41-43. However Daniel is clear there are 4 metal, and 4 clay symbols that represent political and religious powers that rule from the time of Babylon to the Second Coming.
Consequently I propose the iron, and the four clay symbols have the following applications.
The iron legs represents the fourth king, the first Roman Emperor and his kingdom the Roman Empire, cf. 2: 32, and 37. The images head represented king Nebuchadnezzar and the first kingdom.
The iron of the feet and the toes, cf. vss. 33, 41, 42, represents the various political or statecraft kingdoms that rule during the fourth kingdom. Nb. The Roman Empire is not synonymous with the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire finally fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. A.D. whereas the fourth kingdom continues to the Second coming, cf. Dan 2:44.
The clay of vs. 33 represents religious or churchcraft kingdom powers that arise and rule during the time of the feet and the toes, e.g. The Papacy the king of the north, and the Muslims the king of the south, cf. 11:40.
The potter's clay, vs. 41, represents God's people depicted as being in the hand of the Potter. (of course this application is missed in translations that substitute "baked," or "ceramic," for "potter's" clay.)
The miry clay, vs. 41, represents people who are not in the hand of the Potter.
The iron mixed with miry clay, vs. 41, represents political and religious alliances that oppose God's people represented by potter's clay.
Daniel said, and history confirms, the alliances represented by the iron mixed with miry clay, will not last, i.e. Rome and the Papacy united in 538 A.D. and fell apart around 800 A.D. The Holy Roman Empire, the Germanic kingdoms and the Papacy united around 800 A.D. and fell apart in 1798 with the overthrow of the Papacy. The Ottoman Turks and the Muslims united and overthrew Eastern Rome in 1453 A.D. and their power was broken when the Ottoman Empire fell in 1840, cf. Rev. 9.
In Dan 11:40, the time represented by the toes, two iron mixed with miry clay kingdoms, the kings of the North and South fight for political and religious supremacy.
In Dan. 2:44 the God of heaven sets up a kingdom with His potter's clay people, and it shall stand forever.
In Daniel 7, 8, and Revelation 13, the political and religious kingdoms are never represented by a single symbol. Only in Daniel 2 when a marriage or union of political and religious kingdoms is concerned is the union represented by a single symbol, i.e. iron mixed with miry clay. Consequently, as it is generally believed by Adventist scholars the Roman Empire set up the Papacy as head of all the churches in 538 A.D, the Roman Empire had not fallen in 476 A.D. as most Adventists continue to teach and believe.
Key points
• In Daniel 2 the metal symbols represent political kingdoms, the clay symbols represent religious kingdoms, and the iron mixed with miry clay represents the joining together of political and religious kingdoms.
• In Daniel 7 the little horn represents the Papacy only.
• In Daniel 8 the little horn represents the Roman Empire only, cf. 7:17 the fourth beast king represents the first king and kingdom that rules the fourth kingdom, cf. Dan. 2: 37, 39, and 40. The Roman Empire is one of 12 kingdoms represented by horns that belong to the fourth beast. The LH of 8:9 is the first, followed by the 10 horns of 7:7, and the LH of 7:8 is the 12 twelfth horn that arises on the head of the fourth beast.
• Daniel is very clear the fourth kingdom would be divided in a manner represented by the iron mixed with miry clay. History confirms the Western Roman empire was overthrown by Germanic kingdoms who supported the Papacy in the West around 800 A.D., and the Eastern Roman Empire was overthrown by the Ottoman Turks and Islam in 1453 A.D. Both of these powers were iron mixed with miry clay, or political/religious powers who overthrew and divided the Roman empire in accordance with the conditions of Daniel 2:41.
• In Rev. 13 we have two beasts that represent the last marriage between political and religious powers, represented by the iron mixed with miry clay of Daniel 2, that opposes God's people in the last days.
Trusting this provides an overview that answers in a very general way your question regarding the iron, clay, and iron mixed with miry clay and that the basis for the separation of church and state is established in Daniel 2.
Thank you for that extended answer. I know that this is a topic with which you are very interested.
A few simple questions: Do you believe that whoever wrote Daniel (It doesn't matter here if that was when traditional Adventists think it was written or much latter) had any ability to conceive of the next (give or take a few hundred) few thousand years of human history? Your interpreation, or the current traditional Adventist one, assumes the reality of predictive prophecy. Correct? If that assumption is incorrect, then is it not correct that the traditional Adventist interpretation and your interepretation of Daniel are, by definition, misplaced?
Hi Ervin,
Thank you for your response, and the question.
Yes, I believes through divine inspiration Daniel was a prophet, and his book is largely devoted to predictive prophecy.
Regarding your two statements
Yes , I believe my interpretation, and the current church interpretations, regarding prophecy are based on the reality of predictive prophecy.
And yes, I agree my interpretation, and the Church's interpretations, are not misplaced by definition.
Thank you. No beating around the bush. Straight-forward answers. No if, ands, or buts . . . One knows where this gentleman stands. It really doesn't matter if you agree with him (I don't), but there you are. Well done!
Hi Ervin,
Thankyou for your gracious response.
May I leave you with a thought?
Perhaps it is time to stop attempting to put new wine into old wineskins.
Good idea, except we might have very different ideas about what the "new wine" should be.
This is nothing really new is it? Wasn't there a group back in 2008 that called itself "Adventists against Proposition 8?" It was composed, as I recall, of quite a large number of Adventist university professors and clergy. I felt that identifying themselves as church employees was a misuse of the church label and it reflected an egregious double-standard. If I ran a church institution, I would not allow employees to use their academic and church affiliations to gain political credibility and clout.
I have a problem with the church, qua church, carrying the banner of Christ onto the political battlefield. It was wrong in the case of prohibition, and I believe it is only appropriate for the church to raise its political voice to protect the prerogatives and freedoms – church/state separation and freedom of expression -necessary to the conduct its mission. Christ's life and words offer no encouragement to those who would use Caesar's coercive authority to reveal to the world what the Kingdom of God looks like.
Totally agree. The SDA Church in Australia (where I am from) was influential in the 19th-Century in having section 116 inserted into our Commonwealth Constitution, which is a provision governing the separation of Church and State. I feel very uncomfortable when I see the Official Church now undermining that history – regardless of my political views.
We don't want to be like the JWs and be totally cut off from politics and the world. We can be like Joseph and Daniel, and hold high offices within a 'pagan' system.
However, we don't want to be like the Anglicans or Catholics who traditionally had bishops and synods support specific political parties. Many modern Evangelical Churches do that now.
I am happy with Adventists to be involved in politics and be political leaders. However, I don't want official Church officials, in their official Church capacity, preaching politics from the pulpit.
Church officials are ambassadors of a foreign country 'up there'. No country likes foreign ambassadors openly sticking their noses in to another country's business. Foreign ambassadors do their role best when utilising 'soft power' of diplomacy.
Steve,
While we may not want to bring the church directly into the public eye by advocating for a specific view on an issue, it often is not possible to avoid the intersection of the principles of our faith with an issue. The acrimony often accompanying modern political discourse makes us naturally fear facing such a challenge. Yet there are moral issues where our desire to avoid conflict shames us into a silence that quickly becomes surrender to Satan. I do not believe we should avoid such public debates. Rather, our challenge is to frame the discussion in such a way that we remain focused on the particular moral issue and uphold the principles of God so it can naturally contrast with other views on the topic. Our fears of such engagement have left us with many lessons to learn about how to artfully engage the public in such discussion that upholds the principles of God.
Could you be more specific, William? It seems to me that when the church invokes the police power of the state to advance a cause, compliance with that policy, once it becomes law, no longer reflects moral virtue, except insofar as being law abiding can be considered a moral virtue.
I fully understand and agree that certain civic environments are more conducive to moral behavior than others. And that is where individual church member should publicly engage the world. But I like Stephen's analogy to foreign ambassadors. I think the church demonstrates insensitivity to the importance of church-state separation and the example of Christ when it raises its voice to legislate moral values unrelated to religious freedom.
I do believe there are gray areas where we are seeing the state enact anti discrimination laws, without conscience carve-outs, that threaten religious freedom. In those cases the church can certainly take a political position, but should only do so to protect its ability to advance its moral agenda, not to politically impose its moral agenda on the state.
Nathan,
I fully agree. The challenge I have observed in several situations has been where there are two competing views that seem mutually exclusive, yet where the application of some creativity may reveal a mutually-beneficial alternative. Probably the best example of this comes from my experience starting back in 1998 in helping to establish and run a community anti-drug coalition that in only its third year was cited by the Presidents Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as a national model for effectivness. On one end of the spectrum were the staunch advocates of new laws with increased penalties and enforcement. On the other end of the spectrum were the advocates of full legalization. Rather than reach to either end we focused on teaching students critical thinking skills and giving them information enabling them to make their own decisions. We worked with the school system to institute a first-in-the-nation K-12 drug prevention education program that was incorporated into the Health and Physical Education curriculum. (I've been away from that work for over ten years now so I don't know the current status of the program.)
My involvement was primarily in my role as a citizen and News Editor of the local weekly newspaper. It was supported by the Adventist church, the Baptists, the Methodists and a lot of other churches. While some saw it as a religious issue (and I saw it as a way to teach Temperance principles) we did not seek to impose any dogma or law. The results were quite positive and the school system has continued to modify the program where they find ways to improve it.
While some members of our group were quite active in partisan politics, as a group we remained focused on our purpose and deliberately did not endorse any candidate.
It appears the AT news team may have got their wires crossed on this one as I have been advised by a reliable source in New Zealand that there is no "Pastor by that name (Puni) on our current directory. It happens from time to time that church elders are mistaken for Pastors or that the SDA name gets connected with another church."
Yes that does change it somewhat in my view. It is not the official Church or its officers then who are being political – just laymen. And laymen have every right to do that.
Steve, Re: your mention of Section 116 in the Australian Constitution.
It is a little known fact, even among SDA's, that they were largely responsible for the Religious Liberty section 116 being included in Australia's new Constitution 1898. This was in spite of the fierce opposition from all the major Religions. I recommend the book “Unto God and Caesar” by Dr Richard Ely. (a non SDA) Melbourne University Press, and the “Bible Echo” of that era (SDA)
Even less known now is the reason behind their doggered persistence and brilliant campaigning that helped them succeed against all odds.
Back then SDA's believed that it was just as important to work on Sunday as to rest on Saturday. Exodus 20:9 “Six days shalt thou labour."
This lead to great persecutions for 100's of SDA's, including the Chain Gang in the USA and being put in the Stocks in Australia for working on Sunday in disobedience to Sunday Rest Laws!
Sadly this important belief, so strongly practised for over 50 years has now been forgotten, while they debate about Righteousness by Faith, Politics, Trinity, Woman's Ordination, etc. and other issues unrelated to the real Test in the Three Angels Messages of Revelation 14:6-12