A 140-year-old "Review & Herald" article

[aldona]

I would like to commemorate the 2nd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by sharing the following article - originally published in the Review & Herald, March 7, 1865.

(quote)

Why Seventh-day Adventists Cannot Engage in War

George W. Amadon

1. They could not keep the Lord's holy Sabbath. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Ex. xx, 10. Fighting, as military men tell us, is the hardest kind of work; and the seventh day of all days would be the least regarded in the camp and field.

2. The sixth command of God's moral law reads, "Thou shalt not kill." To kill is to take life. The soldier by profession is a practical violater of this precept. But if we would enter into life we must "keep the commandments." Matt. xix,17.

3. "God has called us to peace;" and "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal." 1 Cor. vii, 15; 2 Cor. x, 4. The gospel permits us to use no weapons but "the sword of the Spirit."

4. Our kingdom is not of this world. Said Christ to Pilate, "If my kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight. John xviii, 36. This is most indisputable evidence that Christians have nothing to do with carnal instruments of war.

5. We are commanded to love even our enemies. "But I say unto you," says the Saviour, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." Matt. v, 44. Do we fulfill this command when we blow out their brains with revolvers, or sever their bodies with sabres? "If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his." Rom. viii, 9.

6. Our work is the same as our Master's, who once said, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Luke ix, 56. If God's Spirit sends us to save men, does not some other spirit send us to destroy them? Let us know what manner of spirit we are of.

7. The New Testament command is, "Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matt. vii, 59. That is, we had better turn the other cheek than to smite them back again. Could this scripture be obeyed on the battle field?

8. Christ said to Peter, as he struck the high priest's servant, "Put up again thy sword." Matt. xxvi, 52. If the Saviour commanded the apostle to "put up" the sword, certainly his followers have no right to take it. Then let those who are of the world fight, but as for us let us pray.

(end quote).

We've come a long way, haven't we?

We've managed to hold on to our traditional prohibitions against playing cards, watching movies, and wearing jewelry.

But war...the wilful taking of human life...so easy to rationalize and explain away in so many ways...

aldona

[Jeannieb43]

AMAZING, Aldona.

Not the substance of the article, or the substance of your post... but what amazes me is that the U.S. media have not picked up on the "Second Anniversary of Our Invading Iraq." I've heard nothing about it.

Here I have to get this message from "Down Under!"

Thanks for pointing it out. It's a S-A-D Anniversary, to be sure.

IMHO, the Occupant of the White House is a lost soul. He's aimless and has no direction whatsoever. [and I do not mean spiritually] He's a puppet in the hands of Big Business and the radical right.

[aldona]

Careful there, Jeannie...Comments like that can very quickly earn you the title of "America-Hater"... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tomato.gif" alt="" />

Our media has had a small sprinkling of stories about the 2 years of conflict but mostly they have gotten lost in the avalanche of stories about sporting events, reality TV, visiting overseas royal families and what's on the latest episode of Desperate Housewives. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon_smile_sick.gif" alt="" />

However, Prime Minister John Howard (in his infinite wisdom) has just decided to double the number of Australian military personnel serving in Iraq. After winning his recent election campaign partly on the strength of a "promise" to bring home the troops as soon as practical... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon_salut.gif" alt="" />

Well anyway, I figured that if that little article was good enough to print in the Review & Herald in 1865, then it's good enough for me to print in the church bulletin this Sabbath.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/DOVE.gif" alt="" />

aldona

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

the Occupant of the White House is a lost soul.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Do not speak against one another, brethern. He who speaks against a brother, or judges his brother, speaks against the law, and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge of it. ~ James 4:11

The accuser of our brethern has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony - Rev. 12:10, 11

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Comments like that can very quickly earn you the title of "America-Hater"

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Are you playing the role of a victem now? Let's not forget who insulted who.

[_david]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Well anyway, I figured that if that little article was good enough to print in the Review & Herald in 1865, then it's good enough for me to print in the church bulletin this Sabbath.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

i doubt that it would be the use of good judgement to print this out. Seems as if there is clearly political motivations for presenting it. Especially when a lot of the political events that are happening are very subjective and open to interpretation based on own experience and general attitudes toward (fill in the blank) -i got lost for words?

i don't see how it would benefit the church, but rather bring unnecessary division.

[aldona]

Thank you for that post, David, and I see what you're saying and where you're coming from.

However, here in Australia things are quite different from the way they are in the US. The overwhelming majority of church members are against the war in Iraq. I don't think I have met one yet who was in favor - and I mix with quite a variety of Adventist people, from very conservative to very liberal.

My fellow church members know my views on the war, and I have had quite a number of them speak with me (both privately and in the church setting) to say they support me or think similarly. When the war first began 2 years ago, it was common knowledge among the church membership that I planned to attend the anti-war protest marches (which I did - although did not write anything on this subject in the bulletin at the time). Only one person thought I was wasting my time and would not achieve anything, as the decision to go to war had already been made. The rest said things like "Good for you," and "I only wish I could take time off to be there." The idea that the war could in some way be justified or "good" just didn't come up in anyone's discourse at all.

I know that this sounds strange and makes it sound like we are a nation of America-haters. Shane and I have been over this ground again and again, and I am not going there once more. I am learning that it is simply an irreconcilable difference in the way our two nations think and operate, and in their general attitude to war as an instrument of foreign policy. But I would be just as opposed to the war if it was Germany, India, Japan, Israel or Outer Mongolia invading another country. Remember that Australia, too, is a member of the Coalition so my opposition includes the actions of my own government as well.

My point still stands - if our early Adventist brethren did not see it as "too political" to print that article in the Review & Herald in 1865 (during or about the time of the Civil War? please correct me if I'm wrong), then we should not be ashamed of publishing it today.

aldona

[Rosie]

Aldona, thanks for sharing this.

Truth never becomes outdated, does it?

Quote:

---

My point still stands - if our early Adventist brethren did not see it as "too political" to print that article in the Review & Herald in 1865 (during or about the time of the Civil War? please correct me if I'm wrong), then we should not be ashamed of publishing it today.

---

Amen. I'd print it.

In fact I just might reference it in my next update on Joel.

God does still have something to say to the hearts of men concerning warfare, and these points are as valid now as they ever were.

[Nan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

the Occupant of the White House is a lost soul.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Do not speak against one another, brethern. He who speaks against a brother, or judges his brother, speaks against the law, and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge of it. ~ James 4:11

The accuser of our brethern has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony - Rev. 12:10, 11

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

IMHO, the Occupant of the White House is a lost soul. He's aimless and has no direction whatsoever. [and I do not mean spiritually] He's a puppet in the hands of Big Business and the radical right.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Shane if you are going to quote, it might be wise to use the whole passage as written. Jeannie's words struck me as a comment on the man's political actions, not about his spiritual status. Do you think we do not have the right to comment on the actions of political and public figures ?

[Ron Lambert]

Calling the president a "lost soul" merely because you disagree with him politically is being inexcusably, sinfully judgmental. He is a professed Christian who gives evidence of being truly committed to his religious beliefs.

Many people in the world, even in democratic countries, do not appreciate what Americans have long recognized: that if good is to prevail in the world, even for a while to some extent, it must be fought for. Good will not come on its own, no matter how long people who desire good just sit back and wait for it hopefully. There are too many people dedicated to evil, who will wage war against good where ever they perceive a lack of will in those who desire good to fight for it.

It was not Europe, but America alone, with its "cowboy" determination to resist the evil of communist tyranny, that prevented Western Europe from being overrun by the Soviet Union imperialists. If not for America's willingness to take on the "evil empire," the Berlin Wall would never have come down, and Eastern Europe would never have been freed.

You can sit on the sidelines carping about how it is more righteous never to take up the weapons of war. But you are only free because America was willing to fight in defense of freedom, enduring all the foolish, arrogant, self-righteous criticisms of the moral cowards who refuse to fight to oppose evil.

God is good. Evil is opposed to God. Those who refuse to fight evil are traitors to God and to humanity.

[Nan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Calling the president a "lost soul" merely because you disagree with him politically is being inexcusably, sinfully judgmental. He is a professed Christian who gives evidence of being truly committed to his religious beliefs.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Ron my whole point was that I do not believe the original words were referring to anything more than your president's temporal/political behaviour. His spiritual status was not under comment.

I am not entering into the debate about his behaviour or spiritual status, just pleading for fairness when we comment on each other's posts.

[Ron Lambert]

Nan, are you saying Jennieb43 meant "lost soul" in the literary sense? I can see that; but the trouble is, I doubt there are very few people who could read "lost soul" and not interpret it as a moral judgment of spirituality, because both words are primarily religious terms. The connotation therefore is a religious one. Stylistically, I would not use that terminology unless I really did mean to cast aspersion on someone's spirituality, implying that is the reason for their general confusion. So maybe my objection is just stylistic. Or not. Depending on what Jennieb43 really meant, deep down, by her choice of words (despite her overt denial of implying a spiritual connotation).

By the way, I do not believe that behavior of any kind is seperable from spirituality, since it is the spiritual that determines everything that everyone does.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I doubt there are very few people who could read "lost soul" and not interpret it as a moral judgment of spirituality, because both words are primarily religious terms. The connotation therefore is a religious one. Stylistically, I would not use that terminology unless I really did mean to cast aspersion on someone's spirituality, implying that is the reason for their general confusion.

---

Jesus said that there were going to be people who thought they were doing God a favor by killing His followers

[ specifically, Jesus said- [:"blue"] 2They are going to throw you out of the meeting places. There will even come a time when anyone who kills you will think he's doing God a favor. 3They will do these things because they never really understood the Father. [/] ]

So does the principle that you are getting across say that we are to not call our president a "lost soul" even though he espouses the myth of christian principles? Even Jesus infered that there were "lost souls" in the house of God...Have you concidered the parables of the coin, sheep and son? In each case, they could be concidered 'lost' and yet, have the appearance of Christianity....Espcially the coin, it was lost inside the house....and by interpretation, the coin was lost in the house of God. The son in the parable shows willful disobedience where he choises his own belief system, or at least, obeys the belief system that was popular with his supposed friends...It was not the belief system of the Father.

Is the belief system of George Bush the belief system of the Adventist Church?.....Unless something has comes out today in the news, I dont think so....Is the belief system of the Adventist Church the closest system reflected in the bible? I do think so...Does George II profess that belief system ? No, bur rather a system that we feel is inferior to ours...Arrogant on our part? probably, but our belief system was prayerfully searched out and is the closest to what God desires.

So, is the president a "lost soul"? The answer is a qualified "yes" . He believes a system that is not of the Father, but more in line with the religious worlds beliefs, which are not in line with the Father. Is he sincere in his beliefs? Probably....Is he still lost? probably...If you accidentally get on the wrong bus, you can believe that you are going somewhere when in actuallity, it aint going there at tall.

I have probably explained this poorly...And I am pressed for time to do some painting of my house....So, I will move on...at least in the corner and await the tomatoes....

[Ron Lambert]

Neil, are you saying that only SDAs can be saved? Only people who have every last principle of present truth can be justified and sanctified by Christ, and have the Holy Spirit minister to them? Please remember, Babylon has not fallen yet. Jesus still has sheep in other folds.

[Neil D]

Oh, my head! My poor head!...so many things to keep track of and all of them interelated to the point where you can not talk about one without immediately falling prey to another subject entirely.....Sorry, I aint gonna address this issue as it is a straw man arguement and does not pertain to the 'lost soul' comment....

Sorry, Ron...I am only talking about the "lost soul" comment...And the concept that Jesus put out....That there are those type of religious people who think they are doing God a favor by killing his people....What is insidious is the fact that many a religious person doesn't know the Father....and that person is a lost soul........The parable of the coin represents a lost soul who was in the church.....

You are a smart man....you can make the addition come out....

[Nan]

Ron I took that post of Jeannie to mean she sees GWB as a soul or person unsure of what direction he is going here with earthly matters. Maybe she meant he cannot see the long term consequences of his policies. In my opinion a secular audience would draw the same conclusion.

Yes I agree spirituality influences the whole life - but I did not see that post as commenting on his spiritual condition.

[Jeannieb43]

Thanks, Nan, and Neil, and others....

Didn't mean to cause a firestorm. Only meant to indicate that Dubya seems to be "at sea." A "ship without a rudder," so to speak.

Sorry for using a word with multiple meanings.

[Jeannieb43]

Oops, Aldona. I'm really NOT an "America-hater." It's my country, right or wrong.

But I sure tremble at the direction this administration is taking it.

P.S. Did you print the "Review and Herald" article in your church bulletin?

[aldona]

I did...but I wasn't at church because I had to attend a conference somewhere else - so I haven't had any feedback yet.

I find it frustrating that any criticism of anything that a nation or government does is described as "hate". To me that says more about the state of mind of people who see hate everywhere they look.

It reminds me of a child throwing a tantrum because their parents disapprove of something they do or won't allow them to do something..."You're only saying that because you HATE me!" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon_smile_sick.gif" alt="" />

aldona

[Jeannieb43]

Right.

And it's also childish [iMHO] to say that 'everybody who isn't with me is my enemy.'

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Calling the president a "lost soul" merely because you disagree with him politically is being inexcusably, sinfully judgmental. He is a professed Christian who gives evidence of being truly committed to his religious beliefs.

Many people in the world, even in democratic countries, do not appreciate what Americans have long recognized: that if good is to prevail in the world, even for a while to some extent, it must be fought for. Good will not come on its own, no matter how long people who desire good just sit back and wait for it hopefully. There are too many people dedicated to evil, who will wage war against good where ever they perceive a lack of will in those who desire good to fight for it.

It was not Europe, but America alone, with its "cowboy" determination to resist the evil of communist tyranny, that prevented Western Europe from being overrun by the Soviet Union imperialists. If not for America's willingness to take on the "evil empire," the Berlin Wall would never have come down, and Eastern Europe would never have been freed.

You can sit on the sidelines carping about how it is more righteous never to take up the weapons of war. But you are only free because America was willing to fight in defense of freedom, enduring all the foolish, arrogant, self-righteous criticisms of the moral cowards who refuse to fight to oppose evil.

God is good. Evil is opposed to God. Those who refuse to fight evil are traitors to God and to humanity.

---

I truly do not see that America had so much to do with the changes in Communist Russia. I think what had a greater impact was Ronald Reagan's going to the pope to sell out America's spiritual future for a mess of pottage. It really had nothing to do with American cold war tactics in my opinion. Russia was hurting anyway and America appealed to the pope for diplomatic pressure on mother Russia. That is exactly what the pope did too. And Gorbachev was won over through religio-political Vatican pressure.

[Clio]

Amen, Aldona.

[bevin]

About a year later and there is still no obvious end in sight or a plausible solution being proposed by either Republicans or Democrats.

Our current strategy appears to be maintain just enough military presence that the violence can continue but not an all-out civil war.

The big question - will the Iraq's form an acceptable government other than some kind of dictatorship (either by an individual or by an ethnic or religious group), and, if not, will the dictatorship be acceptable to Washington.

I don't know.

/Bevin