Ellen White's Counsels On Voting and Political Associations

[John317]

Study Gospel Workers, pp. 391-396

2 Selected Messages 336-337

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/Voting.html

Consult the Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen White, under "Politics" (vol. 2) and "Voting" (vol. 3).

What are the principles in her writings on voting that you believe should guide us?

Is what she says on these subjects relevant to our own day? If not, why not?

If her counsels are relevant, in what ways are they?

If she were writing on these issues today, would she say the same things? Why or why not?

[John317]

Interesting quote:

James White wrote:

"Those of our people who voted at all at the last Presidential election, to a man voted for Abraham Lincoln. We know of not one man among Seventh-day Adventists who has the least sympathy for secession." Ibid., Aug. 12, 1862.

[John317]

Ellen White on voting:

"'Men of intemperance have been in the office today in a flattering manner expressing their approbation of the course of the Sabbathkeepers not voting and expressed hopes that they will stick to their course and like the Quakers, not cast their vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time, and he has workers upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is my prayer.'" Temperance, pp. 255, 256. (Italics supplied.)

Note that Ellen White was not just talking about voting on issues; she was talking about voting for men. It is very evident that she favored voting for "temperance men" as contrasted with "intemperance men."

[Woody]

Quote:

"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." Selected Messages, book 2, pp. 336, 337

I would suggest that many of us here are not abiding by her words. A Forum is by it's nature ... a place where we get "mixed up" in political questions and urge others to believe as we believe.

[jasd]

Brings to mind the assertion that the RC is more political than religiocal

So, that ought to create a dichotomy in some minds, eh? whether it's better to castigate - or not :-o

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I would suggest that many of us here are not abiding by her words. A Forum is by it's nature ... a place where we get "mixed up" in political questions and urge others to believe as we believe.

We discuss issues and candidates here. I think we should stop before urging others to vote as we do but I think there is nothing wrong with discussing politics and exchanging ideas among the brotheren. I think what Ellen White was really driving at was preachers urging members to vote as they (the preachers) are going to vote.

I do plan on deciding on who I will vote for and endorsing that candidate. I will even let it be known here. I would welcome others to do the same. But endorsing a candidate isn't urging other to vote for him or her. It is simply saying 'this is who I am voting for and why'.

[doctorj]

Ellen White writes:

"Whatever the opinions you may entertain in regard to casting your vote in political questions, you are not to proclaim it by pen or voice. Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel's message. If ever a people needed to draw nigh to God, it is Seventh-day Adventists. There have been wonderful devices and plans made. A burning desire has taken hold of men or women to proclaim something, or bind up with something; they do not know what. But the silence of Christ upon many subjects was true eloquence. . . ." {2SM 336.1}

What a quotation. But I think we need to put this in context. She is particularly talking about "workers", "Teachers" and "managers". Anyone employed by the church being paid by "tithes" should not voice a political opinion . . . who they would vote for or similar. But as noted elsewhere, voting on certain issues is ok, and I would presume that we in our secular lives, those of us who are not ministers and teachers could discuss politics but being careful to not get to bound up with politics. The message of God is far more important in our lives.

What do you think?

[Woody]

Quote:

Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel's message.

I guess the question remains ... WHO are OUR people?

[Woody]

Quote:

"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 schemes. We cannot labor to please men who will use their influence to repress religious liberty, and to set in operation oppressive measures to lead or compel their fellow men to keep Sunday as the Sabbath. The first day of the week is not a day to be reverenced. It is a spurious sabbath, and the members of the Lord's family cannot participate with the men who exalt this day, and violate the law of God by trampling upon His Sabbath. The people of God are not to vote to place such men in office; for when they do this, they are partakers with them of the sins which they commit while in office." {FE 475.2}

Sounds like you could lose your salvation over voting for the wrong person. So, as she says ... we should "bury" political questions and we for certain should not "vote for political parties". With this in mind ... should we as SDAs have a forum with a topic on "politics" ?

[Dr. Shane]

But I think we need to put this in context. She is particularly talking about "workers", "Teachers" and "managers". Anyone employed by the church being paid by "tithes" should not voice a political opinion . . . who they would vote for or similar. But as noted elsewhere, voting on certain issues is ok, and I would presume that we in our secular lives, those of us who are not ministers and teachers could discuss politics but being careful to not get to bound up with politics. The message of God is far more important in our lives.

What do you think?

I am in 100% agreement with you. If a person is "called" into ministry I believe that is a different and distinct calling from politics. Yet, I believe some, like Daniel and Joseph, are called to serve in civil government.

As citizens of a democracy we all participate in the process. Even not voting is a means of participating because by not voting we are allowing others to determine our leaders. A citizen in a democracy cannot be neutral. He of she either votes for one candidate or the other or neither in which case he or she is 'voting' to let others decided.

[John317]

Quote:

Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel's message.

I guess the question remains ... WHO are OUR people?

On the basis of the context, I would say that she primarily means SDA leaders but in a wider sense, she's referring to all SDAs who are committed to practicing and proclaiming the three angels' messages.

[doctorj]

From my reading of excerpts from Ellen White she is not saying that we should not vote. Rather, "silence is eloquent". We may participate in voting but we should not air our views and try to change other people's minds about how or who to vote for.

As for our discussion board on politics . . . should we be taking valuable time to discuss issues, personalities etc. A very strict reading of Ellen White could lead to saying we should close down our discussion on politics. From a more liberal interpretation I think we should maintain a "politics discussion". We are airing views and comparing and contrasting evidence we see in the news. We are by and large doing this anonymously and without coercion. I can't see why we would close down this discussion.

[fccool]

I think we should discuss it with understanding that our kingdom is not of this world, and thus the things are not the "ideal". Men created governments as a social solution apart from God. Not to say that all of these are "evil" by default, but the current political system is not fit for honest and moral men... but for those who are keeping up with the desires of majority. Maybe the leaders themselves are not the manipulative masters of propaganda... their CM are sure such. I would not consider Karl Rove for example to be the shining beacon of morality. Today's politics is based on polls and approval numbers... and person who makes the best promises and offends the least number of people wins.

The US political system was designed as a protection from such pluralism and mob rule, yet the two party system broke any restraints that existed. If you don't pass through party approval, you have no breath. That's why we don't have the best men running the country... we have the influential men running the country. And the influential man is not alway the moral one.

With that being said. Should we vote for the "lesser of two evils" when in fact we still by association would vote for evil? If someone is pro-sabbath yet is supporting abortion, and the other guy is even more evil... would you overlook the abortion issue as a "sacrifice that we are willing to make"?

Yet I sure think that it is important to at least know what is going on around you, otherwise you will be surprised with "how didn't I see this coming?" type of scenario.

[carolaa]

Interesting quote:

James White wrote:

"Those of our people who voted at all at the last Presidential election, to a man voted for Abraham Lincoln. We know of not one man among Seventh-day Adventists who has the least sympathy for secession." Ibid., Aug. 12, 1862.

Well, duh, weren't they all Northerners?

[Woody]

I think it has been well established that 'good' SDAs and Ellen White supporters follow in her footsteps and always vote Republican.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Interesting quote:

James White wrote:

"Those of our people who voted at all at the last Presidential election, to a man voted for Abraham Lincoln. We know of not one man among Seventh-day Adventists who has the least sympathy for secession." Ibid., Aug. 12, 1862.

Well, duh, weren't they all Northerners?

There were Southerners who voted for Lincoln in the 1860 elections, and quite a few Southerners voted for either John Bell and Douglass, both of whom spoke in favor recognizing the union. On the other hand, Northerners also voted for other candidates besides Lincoln. It was not uncommon for Northerners to have sympathy for the secessionist cause.

Voting for Lincoln were

1, 887 in Virginia

17, 028 in Missouri

2, 294 in Maryland

1, 364 in Kentucky

I think the important thing to remember is that Adventist beliefs themselves tended toward abolitionism and were not favorable toward slavery. That is the main point of James White's statement.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded by New England pacifists with intellectual and spiritual roots in the Radical or Anabaptist Reformation. In the first 60 years of the movement’s histor, from its organization in 1863 until the death of its prophetess, Ellen White, in 1915, Adventism may thus be seen as part of the same tradition of social and political dissent that gave rise to Quakers, Mennonites, and other religious communities committed to the ethics of nonviolence.

This commitment was both formally stated and rigorously practiced by early Adventists, many of whom believed that even touching a weapon was sinful. On May 23, 1865, the Review and Herald published a General Conference resolution as a truthful representation of the views held by us from the beginning of our existence as a people, relative to bearing arms. The document, composed in the aftermath of a war that had caused many abolitionists to abandon their earlier pacifism, affirmed a legitimate role for the civil government, but declared that Adventists, as a people, are compelled to decline all participation in acts of war and bloodshed as being inconsistent with the duties enjoined upon us by our divine Master toward our enemies and toward all mankind.

[doctorj]

I remember reading somewhere that if the Children of Israel had trusted in God more often, they would not have had to wage a single war. But it was the Children of Israel's lack of faith that they entered and wages so many wars. Maybe someone else can give me a hand here.

[John317]

Quote:

This commitment was both formally stated and rigorously practiced by early Adventists, many of whom believed that even touching a weapon was sinful. On May 23, 1865, the Review and Herald published a General Conference resolution as a truthful representation of the views held by us from the beginning of our existence as a people, relative to bearing arms. The document, composed in the aftermath of a war that had caused many abolitionists to abandon their earlier pacifism, affirmed a legitimate role for the civil government, but declared that Adventists, as a people, are compelled to decline all participation in acts of war and bloodshed as being inconsistent with the duties enjoined upon us by our divine Master toward our enemies and toward all mankind.

Since you brought it up, but still off subject, I disagree with the above statement as being inconsistent with the Word of God. When did God change his mind about evil and wars? After the Israelites had carved out a land for themselves or later? Is that statement that God is unchanging correct or not correct? The Bible gives God credit for leading the OT peoples into battle and telling them to do so. Such a statement, as above, means we should stand by and let any power that be, kill off and destroy human life for what ever reason they so choose...Germany and the Jews.

Sounds 'elitist' to me! :smilewink:

You're misreading the statement. I am simply describing how early SDAs believed. I am not saying whether they were right or not. I made the statement in order to explain why SDAs did not vote in favor of slavery and tended toward being abolitionists.

[John317]

See Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 510-520.

One statement in that chapter: "If the people should prove faithful to God, He would drive out their enemies from before them; and He promised to give them still greater possessions if they would but be true to His covenant."