The last couple of years have been rough in our nation, and also in our church.
Rights of conscience that we have taken for granted in this country have been trampled, and within Adventism experts who are supposedly our foremost defenders of religious liberty have excused and defended these abuses.
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not opposed to public safety and government health mandates. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, is convinced that the vaccination programs that are generally being carried out are important for the safety and health of our members and the larger community. Therefore, claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.”
We have been assured that there is no religious liberty exception for conscience objections to vaccination mandates. We were told that wearing masks and social distancing were essential aspects of loving one’s neighbor, and that church closures by government decree were not violations of the First Amendment.
In the broader American society we have increasingly been balkanizing into two theoretical nations, Red and Blue, as many political commentators have noted. California and New York and the like are getting bluer, and Texas and Florida and the like are getting redder. Sadly, Adventism is balkanizing as well.
Liberal churches, conferences and institutions are getting more liberal and conservative conferences, churches, and ministries are getting more conservative. While ostensibly we still have the same prophetic message, how we are applying it is rapidly becoming like two different languages.
It was within this context that I became somewhat flustered listening to recent religious liberty panels and breakouts from GYC and the Michigan Conference respectively.
Clarity on a key issue regarding religious liberty was absent. To quote the social commentator Dennis Prager, “I prefer clarity to agreement.” Clarity lets us see the issues for how they really are. Our religious liberty departments, various panels, and events are right to highlight current threats to religious liberty in America posed by a Christian Nationalist movement and comments by certain congresswomen in opposition to the wall of separation between Church and State. But what is missing is a firm definition of what the separation of Church and State even is.
In my years within Adventistism I have heard it said that everything from opposition to gay marriage/adoption to abortion restriction to public funding for religious adoption networks are violations of the First Amendment. Basically anything that can in anyway be painted as “religious right” is painted as outside of the bounds of just governmental action. The impression is given that any civic involvement by Seventh-Day Adventists should be social justice related, as defined by the American left.
There are exceptions to this rule obviously, but by and large this is the message from our institutions. Too often the only conservative response to this in our institutions is to just remain neutral between the two sides. But what is the principle here? How do we arrive at this definition of separation of church and state, and is it accurate?
What I think is missing from the above picture is clearly defined pictures of both the role of the Church and the role of the State. The Bible is clear that there are two kingdoms: God’s and Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22), and that we owe something to both kingdoms (though our primary obligation is to God’s kingdom). Romans 13 makes clear that a secular government has a legitimate right to rule within just means, but what are just means?
C.S. Lewis laid out a helpful concept in his view on the Tao. He chose to use the term Tao to describe the theory that the Apostle Paul outlines in the opening chapters of the book of Romans—the law God has been placed on our hearts, leaving us without excuse (Romans 1:20).
So what is the law written on the human heart leaving men without excuse? Well if we look at the Ten Commandments we can see that they are split between the 1st four commandments (God’s relationship to man) and the last six commandments (man’s relationship with his fellow man).
I think this Two Tablet theory should be at the core of Adventist political theology, because it establishes much more clear lines of the borders of civic engagement and respect for religious difference. The secular government has not only the right, but the mandate to make just laws relating to man’s relationship with man (we aren’t anarchists) which fall under second tablet issues.
But no King, President, Prime Minister, Congressman, or Judicial appointment has the right or the moral authority to compel any individual conscience in matters of worship and religious conviction.
Now this is just the starting point of the discussion of Adventist political theology, but it’s an essential starting point. Let the conversation continue.
Maranatha!
Joey Carrion lives in southwest Michigan and studies psychology at Andrews University. He enjoys outdoor activity and co-hosting the Gio and Joey show where political and social issues are taken apart from a uniquely Protestant perspective.
****
“The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental” E.G. White (The Great Controversy).