Advocacy or Alliance? Rebutting the Case Against Church Participation at the UN

[Stan]

The debate over church-state separation at the United Nations hinges on whether presence equals partnership or a defensive legal necessity. TLDR The movement at FaithfulAdventist.org argues that the Seventh-day Adventist […]

The post Advocacy or Alliance? Rebutting the Case Against Church Participation at the UN appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV.

View the full article

[Asia Joe]

Quote

Without this presence, the church would lose its ability to intervene in cases of international persecution, effectively abandoning the millions of believers whom the petitioners claim to protect.

I have not seen any intervention on behalf of Adventist members. 

Quote

The claim that UN participation constitutes a "union of church and state" is legally inaccurate because consultative status does not grant the church governing power or political authority.

Many Adventists view the UN as the enemy.  As such, they want nothing to do with it. 

Quote

Ultimately, the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s mission is to reach "every nation, kindred, tongue, and people." You cannot reach them if you are legally barred from the places where their laws are shaped.

Is there any evidence that the UN has helped (in any way) the church reach places where it is barred? 

 

One of the major problems with the Adventist - UN connection is it was done without transparency. Or consultation of the membership. People found out about it on YouTube when troublemakers raised the issue. 

This breads mistrust, conspiracy issues, and at the least, concern.  It was/is handled wrong.