In April 1999 Lincoln Steed became just the third editor of Liberty magazine in the past 35 years. After nearly a year in his new role, Steed recently shared his plans for the magazine with Adventist Review associate editor Bill Knott.--Editors.

Knott: Liberty has developed a unique profile among Adventist periodicals during the past 30 years, and many members have applauded the award-winning articles and the assertive editorial perspective of the magazine. But some Adventists find themselves troubled by what they think of as a "political" perspective in its pages. After most of a year as editor, how would you respond to those concerns?

Steed: Liberty, by necessity, speaks to political issues. The primary audience for the 200,000 copies of each issue that go out are elected state and federal officials, including, of course, judges, a number of lawyers, and a few trade union leaders and people like that. Of course we need to speak their language. While some of the content may at times seem like legalese, I want to guard against the magazine becoming just a policy paper or an inside talk magazine for lawyers. And yes, I do think that concern is at the root of what some of our members have expressed--that Liberty is for someone else, not for them.

Knott: Church members shouldn't be too concerned, then, if the content doesn't seem geared for a general church audience?

Steed: We have a mission to reach an important target group, and we believe we're doing that effectively. At the same time, we need to be accessible to our own membership. I think every concerned Adventist would want to read Liberty and be aware of these issues--how they relate sometimes to their own employment, their own understanding of some rather complex political issues, and as a way to be informed on last-day events.

Knott: Some have even suggested that Liberty has been unnecessarily hard on the social movement that the media terms the Religious Right.

Steed: Individual Adventists are, of course, free to believe and endorse any political point of view, but I think it would be, and has been, wrong for our church to be seen as a bloc tilting toward one party or the other. While Seventh-day Adventists as a group might have a special worldview, the principle of the separation of church and state really should guarantee that as an organization we don't favor one party or one social agenda above another. Maybe that's the best I can say on that.

Knott: Do we need to reassess our approach to movements like the Religious Right?

Steed: Of course, they're not a political party per se. But there's no question that Seventh-day Adventists' whole perspective on the Christian Right and even a lot of what goes on in U.S. politics is colored by what Ellen White has said in The Great Controversy as well as our general interpretations of end-time events. I think a lot of what the Christian Right has done in recent years fits into that category. Already we can see where some of their political pressure tactics will lead them. But that said, almost every social concern they've brought up should also be our concern as Christians. They're troubled by worldliness, immorality, abortion, lowering standards, breakdown of the family, with the state perhaps aiding and abetting that by different welfare policies--you know, the whole slew of things that I would think Adventists would share with them. And we don't really do ourselves a favor in their eyes just to condemn them out of hand.

Knott: When the magazine decides to address a particular issue, say, for example, the issue of vouchers in education and the complications that raises to church-state relationships, is there a process of consultation with church leaders and others to help formulate the magazine's point of view, or is that primarily developed in the editorial offices?

Steed: Like all church magazines, Liberty has both autonomy and accountability. And in this case, the primary constituency of Liberty is the union conference public affairs and religious liberty directors. We regularly confer, and we get feedback from them, and it would be hazardous to ignore their concerns.

Knott: The views expressed in Liberty, then, aren't necessarily those endorsed by the whole range of the church's membership.

Steed: Certainly our church has some very clear historical positions on religious liberty. These are Bible-based and informed by specific counsel from Ellen White. I'm concerned that we've entered a kind of "freelance" environment in the church in recent years with religious liberty, as with a whole number of much more doctrinal issues, in which our church is in great danger of fragmenting and not speaking with one voice, not having one common view, even on seriously central issues. And on religious liberty, I don't think there's always a clear under- standing.

You mentioned vouchers. Some Adventist entities seem to be heading to partake of what-ever funding might be given by the government, and even demand it. Though it's not a voucher issue, one of our colleges, through a court of appeals, is demanding that the government give it some moneys that have been allocated historically to Catholic schools willing to be seen as not essentially religious schools. Now we have one of our church colleges wanting the funding so badly that it's prepared to sue. That seems to me to fly in the face of longstanding policies that we've had in the United States of not accepting state aid. What we do need is a clear understanding across the board of what our principles are.

Knott: Give a quick summary of the dangers you see in the voucher movement that seems to be sweeping across America just now. Adventist members are hearing all kinds of things in the public press.

Steed: Well, the danger is the same for any state aid. When public moneys are given to the support of church schools, you're asking for the state to have a sense of ownership, to become involved in perhaps specifying things such as what teachers you employ. The state may even, and it has in other countries, say that you're forced to hire other than Seventh-day Adventist teachers in your own school. Inevitably it will take much more control of curriculum. And then, perversely, the state will start to specify what level of physical plant and services you need to supply. So even though you're getting money to support the school, you may be forced to get even more to meet their new standards. It's definitely a slippery slope. And of course, the real end result may be state support for only its "official" church or those it chooses to acknowledge.

Knott: In every U.S. election year certain issues come to the fore because of candidates' needs to distinguish themselves from others. And as a result, their views become part of the conversation of the public and of the Adventist Church. What do you see as the big issues in this U.S. election year?

Steed: I think the whole issue of education very much relates to a sense many Americans have of impending societal collapse. It's definitely preoccupying voters. So whether it's vouchers, whether it's school prayer, having the Ten Commandments posted in courtrooms or classrooms, each is a very clear-cut attempt to reinsert religion into public life and into school life in particular. On one level, I think Seventh-day Adventists should welcome the intention to do something positive about society's problems. There's nothing wrong with the intention.

The danger lies in how it's accomplished. If reforms are sought through legislative power, government force is applied to produce those changes, and I think we need to speak out against it. But again, as Ellen White said, we need to be careful, particularly through Liberty, since we're dealing with people who can affect our church standing positively or negatively in times of trouble. We can't afford to be so "catty" that we alienate them and give them the sense that we're rabble-rousers or disloyal to the principles of the republic.

Knott: Because of the Great Controversy perspective that emerges from Scripture and has been affirmed by Ellen White, Adventists have historically been very concerned about any attempts by the Roman Catholic Church, and specifically the Papacy, to restrict religious liberties. But several Adventist thought leaders are now beginning to suggest that our historic cautions about the influence of Rome are unwarranted. They say those views arise from nineteenth-century religious prejudice in America in which Adventists, apparently including Ellen White, participated. How would you respond to these ideas?

Steed: Two comments. First of all, I would refer people to a recent article in the Review by my predecessor [Clifford Goldstein, "Solely, Totally, and Only Rome," Dec. 23, 1999]. He points out very clearly that our concerns about Rome grow out of prophecy, not out of prejudice.

Knott: You would be in agreement with Goldstein on that?

Steed: Certainly. In fact, he even credits me for setting him up to write that. When I showed him an article from an erstwhile Adventist publication, he wrote that in response. Then let me quote you a very brief statement that appeared in the January 1 issue of World magazine. It's from Michael Houghton, associate professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, and editor in chief of Modern Reformation. Commenting on the Catholic-Lutheran accord, he says, "Rome has not changed an inch on the things that really matter." That might as well have come out of The Great Controversy.

Knott: What areas do you expect to focus on in Liberty in the coming months?

Steed: Two things I'd like to do on a regular basis, if not in every issue: I want to raise the horizons of our Adventist and non-Adventist readership that religious liberty is an important concern outside the U.S. as well. While things may seem wonderful within this country, if you track some of the weather fronts that are just forming overseas, there's gross religious intolerance. Almost every major international conflict in the past years has had a distinctly religious flavor to it. Intolerance is on the rise around the world, and so I think we need to keep referring to the world scene.

Then also, Liberty has to be sensitive to Canadian religious liberty concerns, because Canada is included in our division territory, and a number of important church-state cases have been litigated there i recent years.

Knott: What's the most urgent thing for Adventist members to focus on in religious liberty issues just now?

Steed: We intend to keep before our readers our involvement as part of a large, broad-based coalition that's even beyond church groups pushing for a Religious Liberty Protection Act that's working its way through the U.S. Congress. At the moment it's stalled, and they're hoping to get it through this year. The real point is that many Christians, not just Seventh-day Adventists, feel that religious liberties are gravely threatened. In this case we're shouldering the burden alongside of other Christians. We're not standing out alone on this, and I think that's good.

As important as this legislation is, I also think that it's an illusion to think that we can ultimately solve something like this legislatively. The real battle is always the battle for the hearts and minds of people legislators, judges, and most important, ordinary citizens. And that's what Liberty has to be about in every issue.