Speaking of Politics...
It is often considered rude or at least somewhat ill-mannered to discuss politics or religion in polite society. I wonder if it is considered equally ill mannered to discuss politics within the context of [a] religion; or for that matter, if indeed this particular blog space should or should not be considered as part of polite society? I suppose we'll soon find out on both scores, because discussing American politics and Adventism is exactly what we're going to do, here and now.
The American political landscape in the early 21stcentury is really not that difficult to understand. It is generally composed of three primary ideological groupings of citizens: we have conservatives, commonly referred to as (on) the political "right;" we have liberals, commonly referred to as (on) the political "left;" and we have libertarians who can be considered to be either right leaning or left leaning depending upon the issue at hand and its potential relationship to government or the role of government.
Conservatives are generally perceived, and to a large extent define themselves, as traditionalists in the sense that they tend to emphasize and seek to promote certain time-honored values and approaches to issues relating to the society at large. They also generally tend to favor conserving the status quo as it relates to the basic structure of society. They generally favor strong governmental roles to enforce and defend certain traditional values and to advance economic policies that promote, or favor, entrepreneurial endeavor and business investment; and to carry out certain military and/or national security objectives. They generally favor increased expenditures on the military in provision for the "common defense" as opposed to that for domestic concerns. In matters concerning "domestic tranquility," they tend to favor strong governmental authority and police powers; and generally emphasize the rights of victims, law enforcers, and prosecutors. Conservatives generally favor and defend what they view as a constitutionally guaranteed right to individual gun ownership and generally oppose restrictions and regulations controlling individual ownership of firearms. In what are referred to as capital crimes and cases, conservatives generally favor the use of the death penalty. With regard to abortion, most conservatives would like to have abortion made illegal.
Liberals are generally perceived, and to a large extent define themselves, as progressives in the sense that they tend to emphasize and seek to promote societal evolution or progress, and favor approaches to issues and to the larger society that foster egalitarian opportunities, if not results. They generally favor an activist role of government in pursuit of these objectives and generally prefer economic policies that promote or favor the labor and consuming class (as opposed to management/ownership and the investing class); and they prefer that the government focus an increasing share of its assets on domestic concerns, in promotion of "the general welfare" as opposed to increasing expenditures for the military and national defense. In matters of domestic tranquility, they tend to oppose strong governmental authority and police powers, and generally emphasize the rights of the accused, including limiting the scope and powers of law enforcement agencies and the prosecution. Liberals generally view gun ownership as the constitutionally protected freedom of a well-regulated militia and favor strong individual gun ownership restrictions and regulations. In capital crimes and cases, liberals generally oppose the use of the death penalty. With regard to abortion, most liberals would not like to have abortion made illegal.
Libertarians are generally abstainers from the societal tradition vs. societal evolution debate and are more concerned with limiting the scope of governmental authority in all areas, domestically as well as internationally. Again, this stance will appear to be somewhat conservative on some issues and somewhat liberal on others. For instance, libertarians will appear to be conservative if the subject or issue concerns tax policy. Since libertarians favor a very limited role for all of government, social welfare and military alike, they are logically not proponents of the funding ofgovernment; which is, of course, accomplished via taxes. On the other hand, libertarians will appear to be liberal if the issue at hand has to do with individual freedoms and choices. For instance, if the issue is abortion, or if you prefer, reproductive freedom, libertarians generally prefer that the government not have any say in the matter; or if the topic is military or foreign affairs, libertarians generally favor a more isolationist stance wherein we only use our military in our direct and immediate national defense, and that, diplomatically, we generally stay out of other nation's affairs.
Here's the question, or more precisely, here are the questions: which ideological grouping describes or defines Seventh-day Adventists in the United States; or to which grouping do Adventists primarily belong? Are Adventists nearly or practically monolithic in their political beliefs as are Mormons for example; or are we virtually to be found all over the proverbial political map, as are Roman Catholics and (to an increasing extent) Jewish Americans? Which is it, and which should it be? Who are we politically; and who should we be–if anyone–from an ideological perspective?
In my opinion, given our corporate eschatological view concerning the role that America will play in events immediately preceding the Second Coming, or more specifically, given the consensus Seventh-day Adventist "take" on Revelation 13 as delineated in The Great Controversy; and given that, in such instance, the relationship between church and state in the United States will be pivotal in any event; we should as individuals... (To Be Continued)
- Stephen Foster's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
 | Stephen Foster | Stephen Foster is a free lance writer and recently retired advertising executive from AT&T for whom he worked in the Midwest for over 21 years. He has a degree in History from Oakwood University in Huntsville, AL, with graduate work in communications, journalism and religion at Andrews University. Stephen has written on current and public affairs and has served the local church for many years as a Public Affairs and Religious Liberty leader. He is currently a lay member of the North American Division Committee. Stephen has been married for 30 years. He and his wife have two adult daughters and four grandchildren. He writes from Huntsville, AL. He is also a fourth-generation Seventh-day Adventist, and a native New Yorker (Yaw-ka). |
User login
Search
Connect
Translate Page
Subscribe
Comments
Re: Speaking of Politics...
Are Adventists unique in their interpretation of the book of Revelation? Or, have others (Tim LeHaye) also developed an end-time scenario?
In the SS class I attend we are presently studying John MacArthur's "Revelation" as a refreshing take on that book, hoping to at least consider other possibilities than the SDA "one-note" interpretation.
What would Adventists do without Revelation to "prove" their remnant status?
Re: Speaking of Politics...
Elaine,
Adventists are not unique in that others also have end-time interpretations of the book of Revelation, as you have pointed out. Adventists however are unique, as far as I know, as to their (our?) particular interpretation of the end-time prophecies of Revelation.
I must confess that I am actually shocked that you are studying another (non-Seventh-day Adventist) take on Revelation in Sabbath School class. How did that get started?
As to your last question, without the books of Daniel and Revelation, there would be no Seventh-day Adventists, just Sabbatarian (or Seventh-day) Christians; as may be the objective of some.
Re: Speaking of Politics...
Stephen, the SDA church I attend IS unusual. Several years ago I was asked to write an article for Adventist Today describing its origin as a three-way split of a much larger church. (My suggestion for a title: "An Ecclesiastical Abortion" was changed. Wonder why?)
One split was the one I attend and it was originated by a group of SDAs who were unhappy with the very traditional manner from their former church home. The charter members decided to focus on reclaiming former SDAs, and has been very successful in that program.
The church selects its own pastor (he did not attend Andrews but is a Fuller graduate) and while the church is under the conference, because it has been so successful, the conference leaves us alone (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). All our pastors have been hand-picked by the congregation and the very successive SS class mentioned, chooses its subject for several months at a time. There is (or was) a class using the quarterly, but the attendance is very small while ours is growing and wishes to explore other Christian views not limited to the traditional Adventist one with numerous commentaries by you know who. If her name is ever mentioned in the class, I have yet to hear it in 7+ years.
Former members who would never attend a traditional SDA church are regular attendess and contribute to its growth, and the church giving increased 60+% this past year!
It must be doing something good. Other churches might follow such a program and be surprised at the success as we have.
Re: Speaking of Politics...
I've been a little sheltered and am really trying to get a handle on what's been going on elsewhere; so forgive my intrigue and apparent confusion (besides, we digress from my blog on politics somewhat here), but let me get this straight, we have a Sabbath School class wherein there is never either a reference or mention of EGW--ever, while this class is simultaneously studying John MacArthur's take on Revelation for possible enlightenment on the subject; AND the church in which this class takes place is in an SDA conference (in North America, I presume)? ...and I thought I was just out of touch when it comes to 21st century popular music!
Re: Speaking of Politics...
Yes, possibly too sheltered?
We frequently have used other authors in our SS class: Philip Yancey and now MacArthur. While he has no ax to grind in interpreting as does the traditional quarterly which uses EGW almost exclusively, our classes does not consider that she is the last word and we benefit from reading other writers.
Is it an illusion that theology graduates at Andrews limit all their studies exclusively to SDA writers? If so, what limits on one's intellect!
We have not used the official lesson quarterly for a decade. What is there to recommend it, other than supporting the ABC?
Re: Speaking of Politics...
Elaine,
You are likely correct about me perhaps being a little too sheltered. That said however, I remain unclear as to what the apparent absolute exclusion of all EGW references is all about in a class that purports to be open to varying views. If the class and the church is successful in "reclaiming former SDA's," but there is no use of SDA Sabbath School lesson guides and no consideration of any EGW takes on anything; to what extent can those "former" "reclaimed" SDA's be considered "former" or "reclaimed" SDA's?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's much more important to "reclaim" former Christians to Christianity than it is to reclaim former SDA's to Adventism, so I applaud your church and class on that front; but I am sincerely interested and intrigued by what specifically it is about Adventism that those in your class and congregation consider or believe to be definitely theologically correct. Is it the Sabbath? If so, why?
I have tried to outline or delineate in this particular blog what those things are for me (and why). Blessings.
Stephen Foster
Re: Speaking of Politics...
Stephen,
You ask why a SS class would NOT use EGW? I ask you is there a Baptist class that would use her, a Methodist? There is nothing in an SDA SS classs that demands the use of EGW, nor should it. Expected? Perhaps, but every class makes a decision about its character.
Yes, many are former SDAs and some are no longer SDA members. Many have rejected traditional Adventism because of the hagiography of EGW. Any SDA church should be happy to have regular attendees without membership qualifications. We make no definitions about what should be "SDA correct doctrine" but study the Bible as try to subject it to the relevance of our lives today--which isn't always so easily accomplished. Never mind such an attempt with most of the OT. After all, the Bible is not a book limited to SDAs.
If the Bible clearly cannot be appealed to for answers to today's problems, we try to determine what teachings from the NT might be appropriately applied.
There are many modern questions and dilemmas for which the Bible is inappropriate. You and I can possibly find some: in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, therapeutic abortions for unsustainable life, Christians marrying other Christians (nothing about SDAs limited to other SDAs). We each of such questions that we can try to find biblical guides, what are the sources you find for such answers and how?
Re: Speaking of Politics...
Elaine,
I should correct the last comment from my previous reply in that I actually tried to delineate the things that I think Adventists have theologically correct in the blog "To Be (Sure) Or Not to Be...Is That the Question?"
My question and intrigue has to do with the fact that although your congregation is an SDA congregation, it doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that the Bible actually does, either directly or indirectly, provide the "answers" for all of life's issues, for all time. The direct answers, of course, are self-evident and for all intents and purposes, speak for themselves. The way I have processed it, the indirect answers relate to how for instance the OT contains specific wisdom not to "lean on [your] own understanding"...but to acknowledge God in all decisions (i.e., "your ways") and He will direct the way to go; or how for instance in the NT there is specific information suggesting that the "wisdom from above is"...among other things "open to reason." James 3:17 RSV
My thinking starts with the baseline that the OT and NT are sacrosanct. EGW provides enlightening and/or provocative commentary, some of it perhaps even useful. When you are in an SDA SS class that excludes it (EGW) entirely, while simultaneously looking to (and for) other Christian writers for enlightenment, some of whom (MacArthur for sure) have a completely different doctrinal take on eschatology than do Adventists (for whom eschatology is so central that it is embedded in their very name), it begs the question of which SDA doctrine(s) the class and the congregation considers inviolable, or at least accurate. If it is indeed only the Sabbath, then so be it. I'd simply be interested in knowing; whatever it is. Thanks.
Stephen Foster
Re: Speaking of Politics...
Stephen,
First and foremost: SS should mean "Bible Study" and as such there should be no absolute answers, but everyone should feel free to have his opinion heard and the study should examine various ways of arriving at consensus, when possible, and if not, that each person must personally have been exposed to other possible interpretations of the same texts.
The unspoken consensus of the class seems to have emerged that EGW is not quoted or referred to. No one has spoken outwardly on this, but it appears to be the situation. If someone has mentioned her writings, I have not heard it.
In my previous comments I suggested several topics for which the Bible has no direct answers and many views have been provided by those who elect to interpret them in their subjective manner. Isn't that exactly how we all derive answers from the Bible and why there is such differences in all Christian denominations--churches who all proclaim to be based solely on the Bible?
As for the OT, no one, not SDAs or any Christian church, obey all the laws given in the OT, but only selectively choose which ones they deem to be relevant. Christians should base their belief on the NT, IMO, as it was an entirely new religion which began after Jesus' ascension, not on Judaism which rejected Christ.
Why shouldn't an SDA church inform itself on the thinking of other Christian writers? Limiting itself to only one Bible commentator: EGW, is deficient in one's Bible knowledge. All SDA theologians spend time studying dead and living non-SDA theologians and writers. Surely, that knowledge should not be limited to professional theologians.
Eschatology is not all "cut and dried" by SDAs, as anyone who has studied the major errors in their predicted soon-coming of the Second Advent from its origin in 1843, so why should it be the last word today?
Actually, in studying Revelation, it is directed (as it should be IMO) to the encouragement to the new church under Roman persecution that eventually God and His people would triumph. The exact interpretations of the various beasts have changed numerous times in Christian history, as well as in SDA beliefs. There are no definitive figures that can withstand the past errors of prophetic interpretation. Throughout the ages, many and various individuals and nations have been "identified" only to prove erroneous. Certainty on such a book should have a warning: "Let the interpreter who has such certitude, beware; hundreds have been found mistaken." Who knows who will be next?
Tim LeHaye has made millions on his "interpretation." If one seeks financial success, Dan Brown and similar books are always best sellers.