TO BE OR NOT TO BE: CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS, HOW INVOLVED SHOULD WE BE? - E.T.

Moyo

Abstract
How should Christians and more specifically Adventists relate to government and civic
affairs? Should a believer for instance become involved in social causes, engage in political
activism, or practice civil disobedience? Should a Christian vote, join a political party, or
campaign for a person or party? Should he or she become an elected or appointed
government official? How should the church itself relate with the political arena?1 All these
and more are important questions that ought to engage our minds as we grow in faith, as
we seek to understand where we stand and how we may contribute as well as carve our
place in society as both citizens of this world and the world to come.

A Historical Background

For the longest of time the church has grappled with the issue of its relationship to civil
government. Jesus Himself was confronted about it, and gave His famous dictum: “Render
to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.” Matthew 22 v 20-21.
But a proper understanding of the relationship between believers and the state in biblical
history goes back even to Old Testament times.

In the Old Testament, there was fusion of political and religious polity. Although there was
no separation between the monarchical system of government and the monotheistic
religion of Israel, in the religious and political aspect of Israel’s society there were separation
of power and functions between the King and the priest and/or prophet. While the King had
the responsibility of political governance, the priest/prophet was responsible for guiding the
king with the instructions of Yahweh.

When God’s people left Egypt, God had them establish their own nation. At that time, God
placed Moses over government and civil affairs (Judge)and Aaron (the Priest) over spiritual

1
J.W. Taylor V, 2012, Faith & Politics: How should we live, The Ministry Magazine
ones, thus separating those two roles and jurisdictions. Neither excluded God from its
operation, but each was to be headed and run by a different individual and not the same
person. In the times of the Prophets and Kings, King Uzziah was struck with leprosy because
he offered incense in the temple without a priest. (2 Chron. 26:16-23). This was because
Uzziah failed to recognize the kind of church/state relationship envisioned in the law and
God struck him with leprosy. But even before his time in 1 Samuel 13, Saul offered burnt
offerings and peace offerings at Gilgal (v. 8-10). Saul offers a pragmatic argument for why he
did so (v. 11); the people were scattering and the Philistines were mustering and something
had to be done. Samuel makes clear that what Saul did was wrong (v. 13) and as a result of
this action Saul’s kingdom would not continue, because Saul disobeyed the commandments
(v. 14). … he mixed functions which in principle were and should be separate.

After the decline of the theocracy post the exile of the Israelite and Jewish nation with the
advent of world empires, there was marked divergence between where state power lay and
the religious polity. The early Christians were often persecuted by the state, until the
triumph of the cross with the conversion of Constantine who made Christianity the official
religion of the Empire. Christianity then enjoyed the status of “religio licita” – an approved
religion. No more crucifixions, Christians were given places of worship. Union with the state
gave the church political protection, preference, prestige, and wealth, but took away its
moral independence, leading to corruption and decline during the Middle Ages. 2 For about
twelve centuries since about AD 391, the State was in charge of the Church. The
government decided what the official Church doctrines would be, and it punished violators
who disagreed with those positions, not allowing them to practice their faith. In the 1500’s
during the Reformation, radical protestants who followed the Bible began to call for a return
to a Biblical separation of Church and State so that the government would no longer control
or prohibit religious activities. They were distinct in that they qualified their concept of
“reformation” by using two more specific terms: “restoration” or “restitution,” indicating
their goal of restoring both the doctrines and the practices of the church to their original
condition as described in the New Testament.

2
Costa, Marcio D., "Principles of Church-State Relationships in the Writings of Ellen G. White" (2010).
Dissertations. 27. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/27
The renaissance of Restorationist ideals in the early nineteenth century in North America
influenced the enactment of the First Amendment in the United States Constitution Bill of
Rights which prohibited the government from trying to control religious expression. It is
perhaps the earliest articulation of religious liberty as we understand it in modern times. It
reads that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof. It means that Law Should not Compel Religion and Law Should not
Exclude Religion. The First Amendment was intended to keep government out of regulating
religion, but it did not seek to keep religion out of government or the public square as no
seems to be the norm in western nations.

The movement that birthed the Seventh-Day Adventist Church founded as it was in North
America inherited its concerns at the time about church-state relationships. Costa, Marcio
D. (2010) observes that even before May 1863, when the Seventh-day Adventist church was
organized, many debates on church-state relationships were published in the Advent
Review and Sabbath Herald, the most significant periodical of the Sabbatarian Adventists.3
He further observes that early pioneers of the Sabbath-keeping movement, such as James
White, Uriah Smith, and John N. Andrews, shared a belief in complete separation between
the spiritual and temporal realms and openly rebuked any entanglement with the secular
government. However, they were forced to review the romanticised ideal of complete
separation of temporal and spiritual realms gradually as the movement grew in extent and
complexity. Civil matters, such as oath-taking, involvement in politics, voting, and owning
property presented early challenges to the original ideal of complete separation of church
and state.

With the occurrence of the American Civil War during the time about which the church was
organized in or about 1863, it demanded that consensus be achieved regarding such
matters as military service, duties to one’s nation, tax exemption, and involvement in
politics. By the end of the nineteenth century, the specific ideal of total separation between
church and state as originally envisioned by Uriah Smith and other pioneers of the Seventh-
day Adventist church had become completely impracticable. The church embarked on global

3
Corsta, Ibid
expansion and became internationally recognized, with offices on all continents. As a
consequence, foreign governmental relationships needed to be established. The growth of
the Seventh-day Adventist church also led to the addition of many new branches to its
ministry, including hospitals, universities, and food factories. In all these added activities,
the church had to work closely with national and local government authorities around the
world. The need for an integrated position on church-state relationships, which started
before the organization of the Seventh-day Adventist church, continues to this day. We
continue to see a growing number of Adventists in voluntary military duty, an increasing
engagement in political affairs, the use of governmental loans by students in Adventist
universities, and governmental funding for church-based organisations like ADRA to name
but a few examples of church-government interaction.

The Bible and Church-State Relations

The overarching paradigm that should guide the Christian and his or her relation to politics
is what Jesus says in Matthew 22 v 20-21, Luke 9 v 49 – 50, namely that we ought to render
unto Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser and to God what belongs to God. Implies in this
statement first and foremost is that there is a clear separation between God and the civil
government therein referred to as Ceaser. Secondly, we owe separate duties both to Ceaser
and to God. Christianity does not exclude civic duty but neither should it be mixed with civic
duty.

In the words of English philosopher John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration, penned in
1689, the government and the church are “perfectly distinct and infinitely different” entities
with differing interests. In other words, the state is concerned with the “civil rights and
worldly goods” but cannot in practice command conscience, and therefore cannot
command the spiritual good of society. He suggested that the civil magistrate is not to be
concerned with sin* as such; only with the public good, ‘the Rule and Measure of all
Lawmaking’. According to Locke, ‘the Care of Souls does not belong to the Magistrate’. This
is rather the sole aim of the Church. Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s founding fathers
adopted Locke’s ideas and stated thus, “Our rulers can have authority over our natural
rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted; we
could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of
government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”

God is love. His rule of this universe is based on the willing obedience of His creation evoked
by His magnificent benevolence. Only a faith that rests in the heart of man, and only actions
prompted by love, are acceptable to God. Love, however, is not subject to civil regulation. It
cannot be evoked by fiat nor sustained by statute. Therefore, efforts to legislate faith are by
their very nature in opposition to the principles of true religion, and thus in opposition to
the will of God.

As Christians, Seventh-day Adventists recognizes the legitimate role of organized

government in society. 1 Peter 2:13-15, 17 reads, ‘Submit yourselves to every ordinance of
man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto
them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that
do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing you may put to silence the ignorance
of foolish men…Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.’ God
expects citizens to respect and submit to civil authority.

The bible also makes it apparent that God establishes civil government. Put differently it
derives its authority to govern from God See Romans 13 v 1. This is not to say that God
necessarily approves of how it governs or its excesses. God speaks out against corruption in
government – See Isiah 1 v 23, 10 v 1, Micah 3 v 9. We must nevertheless not forget
especially as we at times experience misgovernance that God is ultimately in control of
earthly governments – see Psalms 22 v 29, Proverbs 21 v 1 and Jeremiah 18 v 7-10. We are
enjoined as believers to pray for secular rulers not because we love or support them but
that we may experience peace and be free to worship God. See Ezra 6 v 10; Jer. 29 v 7; 1
Tim. 2 v 1, 2.

We support the state’s right to legislate on secular matters and support compliance with
such laws. See Romans 13 v 1-4. However, when we are faced with a situation in which the
law of the land conflicts with biblical mandates, we concur with the Scriptural injunction
that we ought to obey God rather than man. See Acts 4v 19, 5 v 29. Therefore, Christians are
not to blindly obey civil authority.

Spirit of Prophecy & Church-State relationships

It is generally understood in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church that the writings of Ellen
White represent the gift of spiritual prophecy. Since the foundation of the Seventh-day
Adventist church, White’s writings have been considered to be in harmony with biblical
teachings and therefore authoritative in nature. Her counsels therefore had a major
influence on many church issues, including church-state relationships. She too had occasion
to write amidst intense debate about church-state relationships and so we turn to consider
what she had to say.

In Counsels for the Church, page 314, Ellen White had this to say concerning our relations to
civil rulers and laws;-

“We have men placed over us for rulers, and laws to govern the people. Were it not
for these laws, the condition of the world would be worse than it is now. Some of
these laws are good, others are bad. The bad have been increasing, and we are yet to
be brought into strait places. But God will sustain His people in being firm and living
up to the principles of His Word.564 CCh 314.2

I saw that it is our duty in every case to obey the laws of our land, unless they conflict
with the higher law which God spoke with an audible voice from Sinai, and afterward
engraved on stone with His own finger. “I will put My laws into their mind, and write
them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people.”
He who has God's law written in the heart will obey God rather than men, and will
sooner disobey all men than deviate in the least from the commandment of God.
God's people, taught by the inspiration of truth, and led by a good conscience to live
by every word of God, will take His law, written in their hearts, as the only authority
which they can acknowledge or consent to obey. The wisdom and authority of the
divine law are supreme.565”
Therefore, we discover that she viewed civil rulers and laws as having a legitimate place and
authority over us. She urged what may be known as conscientious subjection, namely that
when the law does not contradict a moral statute of God, it should be obeyed, but that
Christians should conscientiously refuse to obey laws that defy the law of God. Secular laws
should be conscientiously obeyed, such as direct ordinances from the civil government
demanding resources or manpower to uphold order and maintain society, such as
fundraising for a national cause.46 White said that it would not please God “for us to
obstinately refuse to obey the law of our country when this law is not against our religious
faith.” Unnecessary opposition to government would not only be “madness,” but also turn
Christians into declared enemies of the state. However, where a demand by government is
illegitimate in the sense that it transgresses upon conscience, she states in Testimonies Vol
5, p713 that “We are not doing the will of God if we sit in quietude, doing nothing to
preserve liberty of conscience.”

Adventists should not be guided by prejudices in public affairs. Ellen White warns against
excitement in politics. She states thus; -

“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, because
by so doing they stir up the minds of others, leading each to advocate his favorite
theory. There are among those professing to believe present truth, some who will
thus be stirred up to express their sentiments and political preferences, so that
division will be brought into the church. CCh 316.1

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

….What are we to do, then?—Let political questions alone.”

 See Counsels for the Church page 316

In the book Fundamentals of Education, p. 484 she remarked thus, “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.".

However, she was not altogether averse to Christians participating in a poll and voting. If
voting, Adventists must vote intelligently. In Gospel Workers, p391,393 Ellen White states,
"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." The Adventist, if voting, must remain free and independent. He
should not vote the "party ticket" without analysing 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. We 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. In
Selected Messages, book 2, pp. 336, 337 the inspired author states, "We are not as a people
to become mixed up with political questions. . . . Be ye not unequally yoked together with
unbelievers in political strife, nor bind with them in their attachments. . . . Keep your voting
to yourself. Do not feel it your duty to urge everyone to do as you do." Therefore, the church
as a corporate body is apolitical. Its members though they may vote, they should keep their
political views to themelves and should not urge them upon anyone else, understandably so
because of how divisive the subject is.

Ellen White took a different approach to voting for moral causes, such as temperance, that
directly impacted the church’s mission and its spiritual concerns. In this case, she recognized
the social and political power of the church to bring “temperance and virtue” to society.
White argued that Christians who understand the issues have a responsibility to promote
these values by voting and influencing society. However, this did not mean that White
considered Adventists wise enough “to become involved in political questions” that did not
involve moral and spiritual issues. Instead, it meant that where moral and spiritual values
were at stake, Adventists were expected to exert their influence “by precept and example—
by voice and pen and vote.” See Temperance, 253.

While Ellen White did not approve of Seventh-day Adventist involvement in partisan
political causes, she however did not deny the possibility of Adventists working in areas that
involved politics. In Fundamentals of Education, page 82 she says “

‘Dear Youth,
What is the aim and purpose of your life? Are you ambitious for education that you
may have a name and position in the world? Have you thoughts that you dare not
express, that you may one day stand upon the summit of intellectual greatness; that
you may sit in deliberative and legislative councils, and help to enact laws of the
nation? There is nothing wrong in these aspirations.’ (Emphasis is mine)

When Ellen White spoke of seeking a political career or “engaging in temporal pursuits,” she
did not suggest that a person would do it with a passion that could compromise the moral
standards of religion. Rather, she proposed the opposite: that the moral standards of
religion be taken into one’s political career. Uncompromised religious principle is the key to
reconcile the Adventist faith with a career in the political arena. White affirmed that the
upholding of this practice is the only safe way to secure salvation and a successful career.
Departure from “true religion” is the greatest danger to Adventists who endeavor to make
their career in the political field. Although losing faith can be a serious challenge in any
career, White indicated a magnified danger in the political field. According to White, there is
an attraction in politics that appeals to men’s weaknesses and is exploited by Satan.

In Counsels to the Church, p 315 Ellen White deals with such other matters as oath taking.
She comments that the judicial oath is not inconsistent with the biblical injunction not to
swear. She says that there is no danger in an Adventist testifying under oath as he should be
able to consistently tell the truth. She says even God swears by himself.
SDA Church-State guidelines

The formal position by the church as stated in its guidelines adopted by the Council of Inter-
church/Inter-faith, Faith Relations of the GC in March, 2002 can be summarized as follows;-

• Freedom of Conscience – At the heart of the Adventist message is our abiding belief
that freedom of conscience must be guaranteed to all. We support the state’s right
to legislate on secular matters and support compliance with such laws. When we
are faced with a situation in which the law of the land conflicts with biblical
mandates, however, we concur with the Scriptural injunction that we ought to obey
God rather than man. Seventh-day Adventists are called to stand for the principle of
liberty of conscience for all.

• Participation in government – The Seventh-day Adventist Church is mindful of the

long history of the involvement of the people of God in civil affairs. n our own
church history, Adventists have joined with other religious and secular organizations
to exert influence over civil authorities to cease slavery and to advance the cause of
religious freedom. Adventists may properly aspire to serve in positions of civil
leadership. Nevertheless, we must remain ever mindful of the dangers that are
associated with religious influence on civil affairs and assiduously avoid such
dangers.

• Politics and voting - Adventists should take civic responsibilities seriously. We

should participate in the voting process available to us when it is possible to do so in
good conscience and should share the responsibility of building our communities.
Adventists should not, however, become preoccupied with politics, or utilize the
pulpit or our publications to advance political theories

• Representation to Government & International Bodies – Throughout the history of

the People of God, the Lord has seen fit to delegate individuals to represent His
message to the rulers of the time. Adventists are called to be a voice for liberty of
conscience to this world. Integral to this mission is the development of relationships
 with temporal rulers. In order to do this, the Seventh day Adventist Church
appoints representatives to governments and international bodies that have
influence over the protection of religious liberty. This work must be viewed as
essential to our gospel mission and should be accorded the resources necessary to
ensure our representation is of the highest order.

• Receipt of Government funding - When laws of a nation permit government

assistance to churches or their institutions our principles permit receipt of funding
that is not accompanied by conditions that inhibit our ability to freely practice and
promulgate our faith, to hire only Seventh day Adventists, to retain governance by
only Seventh-day Adventists and to observe without compromise principles
expressed in the Bible and the writings of Ellen G White. To avoid a union of church
and state, government funds should not be accepted to pay for religious activities
such as worship services, evangelism, the publishing of religious texts, or for the
salaries of those working in church administration or in the gospel ministry, except
for the provision of spiritual services to those whose lives are so fully regulated by
the state as to make the provision of such services impracticable without state
involvement

Conclusion

The Seventh Day Adventist understanding of the church-state relations is that the church
and the state are ideologically and fundamentally separate and therefore the state has no
right to legislate on matters of religion. The eschatological view of the state is that in end
time it shall become malevolent and will persecute the church as freedom of conscience
shall be taken away as a prophetic sign of the times. Hence the church has always
endeavored to keep itself separate from the state. However temporal and pragmatic
considerations require that the Adventist deals with so many other complex realities such as
the civic duty of the Adventist Christian and how he or she may relate to temporal powers
and civic concerns like just causes. There are dangers the Adventist Christian must always be
wary of as they relate to the world and participate in civic polity. Better counsel has been to
avoid politics altogether but same is not inherently inconsistent with faith. The Seventh-Day
Adventist Church official statement on Church-State relations observes that the way in
which the Seventh Day Adventists conducts our church-state relations has a significant
impact on our worldwide efforts. We are thus implored to approach this area of our faith
with significant thought and prayer.

~The end~