Adventists and Politics (Part II)

Adventists should not be guided by prejudice in public affairs: "Those who teach the Bible in our churches and our schools are not at liberty to unite in making apparent their prejudices for or against political men or measures."—Gospel Workers, p. 391.

Adventists, if voting, must vote intelligently: "We cannot with safety vote for political parties; for we do not know whom we are voting for." "It is a mis­take for you to link your interests with any political party, to cast your vote with them or for them." —Ibid., pp. 391, 393.

The Adventist, if voting, must remain free and independent. He should not vote the "party ticket" without analyzing the individual candidates and issues. The atti­tude "right or wrong, my party" is foreign to the intelligent Adventist.

Adventists, if voting, cannot participate in under­handed political practices: "We cannot with safety take part in any political scheme."—Ibid., p. 391.

Adventists, if voting, must not link their church with any political party: "God employs the strongest figures to show that there should be no union between worldly parties and those who are seeking the righteousness of Christ."—Ibid., p. 392.

Adventists, if voting, must not be emotionally or violently engaged in partisan strife: "Those who stand as educators, as ministers, as laborers together with God in any line, have no battles to fight in the political world."—Ibid., p. 393.

Strong warnings against becoming involved in "political issues" or activities: "Let political ques­tions alone. . . . Every teacher, minister, or leader in our ranks who is stirred with a desire to ventilate his opinions on political questions, should be con­verted by a belief in the truth, or give up his work." —Ibid., pp. 392, 393. "God calls upon the teachers in our schools not to become interested in the study of political questions."—Fundamentals of Educa­tion, p. 484. (Written 1899.)

The correct application of these and similar statements hinges on the accurate meaning of the terms political and politics. Webster's New International Dictionary (Second ed.) defines politics and political in the following two ways: Politics: "The science and art of government." Political: "Of or pertaining to polity, or politics, or the conduct of government. . . . Of or per­taining to those who make a business . . . of politics, or politicians in their partisan activities; as, he is actuated by merely po­litical motives." The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (vol. 6, p. 225) states concerning the import of "politics" and political goals, "Politics frequently has unpleasant connota­tions. . . . The use of the term in the bad sense . . . implies a milieu hospitable to scheming and manipulations."

In which of the two senses did Ellen G. White use the terms politics and political? Did she intend to condemn only partisan strife and scheming, dishonest manipula­tions? Did she intend to discourage orderly exercise of the vote and serious study of political science?

Historical Background: Since the ex­pressions politics and political were penned by Ellen G. White during the lat­ter half of the nineteenth century, an un­derstanding of the character of political affairs in the United States at that time may aid the reader in ascertaining the ac­curate meaning of these terms as Ellen G. White intended them to be understood, and as they, no doubt, were understood by the readers at the time of publication. A leading authority in the field of Ameri­can religious history observed:

"Lowering of the standards of conduct in both public and private life was one of the unfortunate consequences of the Civil War. The country's wealth was increasing with an alarming rapidity in the midst of political and social confusion while the war brought to prominence a class of rough, un­scrupulous men, with low standards of personal conduct, who too frequently were permitted to gain leadership in both business and politics. Out of such a general background came an era of wholesale corruption in politics which affected every section of the nation and every department of government. The use of money in buying elections was but one of the many forms of political corruption. Votes were bought and sold in more than one state capital as commonly as meat in the market; governors' sig­natures to bills intended to create private fortunes were purchased with sums which reached into the tens of thousands. . . . Corruption in business was even more common, if possible, than in govern­ment."'

"There is no drearier chapter in American politi­cal history than that which records the period from the end of reconstruction to the Populist revolt of the early nineties. . . . During the whole of this period the electorate played a game of blind man's buff. Never before had American politics been so intellectually bankrupt. . . . The result was to make national politics unreal, and, except for electoral clowning and Congressional buncombe, very dull. . . . Candidates . . . fought political campaigns on the basis of personality or inherited prejudice.. . . Politics was largely a Punch and Judy show, but though the puppets and even the voices changed, the hands that held the strings were the same. Busi­ness ran politics, and politics was a branch of busi­ness. The country, said John Sherman after the election of 1888, had 'reached the last stages in the history of the Roman Empire when offices were sold at public auction to the highest bidder.' "²

"In the first half of the nineteenth century, poli­tics had been an honored calling, and those in pub­lic life had been the objects of admiration. This changed after the 1850's, and many persons came to feel that politics was a field to be avoided at all cost. . . . Politics seemed to be increasingly corrupt; and run by sordid professionals."

"It began to look as though the national govern­ment had only one reason for existence, to promote the interests of the dominant party through proper distribution of the spoils." ⁴

A practicing politican said about the most popular political figure of the 1870's: " 'What I liked about him was his frank and persistent contention that the citizen who best loved his party and was loyal to it, was loyal to and best loved his country.'

Comments by early Adventists: During the formative years of the Advent Move­ment the United States was involved in turbulent political currents. The issues that resulted in the outbreak of the War Between the States were much agitated before the 1860 national election. James White wrote in the Review, August 21, 1860:

"The political excitement of 1860 will probably run as high as it has for many years, and we would warn our brethren not to be drawn into it. We are not prepared to prove from the Bible that it would be wrong for a believer in the third message to go in a manner becoming his profession, and cast his vote. We do not recommend this, neither do we oppose. If a brother chooses to vote, we cannot condemn him, and we want the same liberty if we do not."

Two years later (Review, August 12, 1862), James White indicated that some Adventists had voted:

"Those of our people who voted at all at the last Presidential election, to a man voted for Abraham Lincoln."

At the General Conference in 1865 the following resolution was adopted under the heading "Voting":

"Resolved, That in our judgment, the act of vot­ing when exercised in behalf of justice, humanity, and right, is in itself blameless, and may be at some times highly proper; but that the casting of any vote that shall strengthen the cause of such crimes as intemperance, insurrection, and slavery, we re­gard as highly criminal in the sight of Heaven. But we would depreciate any participation in the spirit of party strife." (Reported in the Review, May 23, 1865.)

Comments by leading Adventists: While neither our pioneers nor our recent or current leading preachers or writers pro­fess to be infallible or even pontifical, their statements may be taken as sound expres­sions of current Adventist thinking. In 1936 Pastor Francis McLellan Wilcox, for 33 years editor of our major denomina­tional journal, wrote in the Review, March 26, 1936, an article on "Seventh-day Adventists and Politics" and another article "The Preacher and Politics," in the April 2, 1936 issue. We recommend these articles:

"What relation should Seventh-day Adventists sustain to the question of politics? Is it proper for them to exercise the right of franchise, to go to the polls and cast their votes . . . ? We believe that this is their God-given and undeniable right. And this right they have chosen to exercise through all the years. . . . Is it right for a Seventh-day Adventist to hold political office? . . Based upon the history of the children of God through the centuries, . . . I must believe that this is consistent with Christian faith and practice. . . It is not for the church to advise any man to accept political position, nor . . has the church the right to deny any of its members this privilege and right."—March 26, 1936.

"It is natural that every man, whether preacher or lay member, should have an interest in national and international questions. . . . There can be no question as to the wisdom and propriety of workers' considering these great world problems in the light of divine prediction. Indeed, this is necessary to pro­phetic exposition. . . . Is it proper for the minister of the gospel to exercise the right of franchise? I be­lieve that he may properly do this. The apostle Paul, in seeking protection from his enemies, ap­pealed to the fact that he was a Roman citizen and was entitled to the protection which this citizenship guaranteed. . . . This is quite different . . . from acting as a partisan in a political field, electioneer­ing, arguing, and contending for political measures, and decrying the policies and the candidates of op­posing political parties. . .. Very definite instruction has been given that our ministers and the teachers and managers in our schools should keep entirely out of the general field of politics, so far as carrying forward any agitation is concerned."—April 2, 1936.

Dealing specifically with the warning statements by Ellen G. White concerning Adventist attitudes to "political" affairs, Wilcox expressed this opinion (in the Re­view, October 10, 1940):

"Is it possible to heed this counsel and at the same time exercise our right of franchise in national and State elections? We believe it is. One can vote for certain men and measures, he can give his support by ballot to ways and means which make for the good of the state and society, and at the same time keep free from the control or domina­tion or spirit of some political party which advocates the measures which he approves. We know of many brethren who have done this for years. They engage in no political agitation or discussion, privately or in public. They do not pose as the abettors or sup­porters of any particular political party. They seek always to recognize principles apart from and above men. If they vote, they do not link their interests with such parties. They cast their votes for the can­didates who in their judgment are best qualified for particular offices, without reference to party affilia­tion. We cannot believe that in so doing they violate the spirit of the instruction which we have received. . . . When one becomes partisan, when he dabbles in politics, seeks to unduly influence votes, links himself with some political party, to work for its measures and its candidates regardless of the prin­ciples involved, it is this spirit against which we are warned."

Pastor J. Lamar McElhany, for 16 years president of the General Conference, ex­pressed himself (in the Review, October 23, 1952) in this way:

"The church has never attempted to instruct its members as to how they should vote, or for whom they should vote. These are matters that must be left to the members' individual conscience. Nor has the church placed any ban or censure on its mem­bers if they as qualified citizens choose to exercise their right to vote, or on any who may choose not to vote."