BY BONITA JOYNER SHIELDS

I don't claim to be an expert in American politics. Actually, I feel a need to better understand our government and its leaders.

Several months ago I decided it was time to read through the U.S. Constitution again—it had been almost 20 years since I had done so. It was interesting to review the Constitution and its amendments, and to see how their enactments coincided with some of Ellen White's counsels.

One example is in regards to temperance. In Gospel Workers, published in 1915, Ellen White admonished Adventists with these words: "The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example—by voice and pen and vote—in favor of prohibition and total abstinence."¹ Interestingly, the U.S. Congress ratified the Eighteenth Amendment prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within the United States on January 16, 1919.² Even though on December 5, 1933, the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed, making the manufacture, sale, and transportation of liquor legal within the country, the Twenty-first Amendment gave the states the power to prohibit liquor in their particular jurisdictions.

This illustrated to me the positive influence that Adventist Christians can have on government when we participate. It also illustrates the positive influence of government when it is working on behalf of its people.

I often hear church members lament about government, "If only we could get rid of politics!" Or, "The church is just too political." I think I know what they mean, but I also think there's something deeper going on here than mere "politics."

By definition, politics is "the art or science of government." Or, another definition on Webster's list is "the total complex of relations between people living in society."

I don't think "politics" per se is the problem—in our country's government or in church government. For where a group of people are present, a need for governing is usually present. The apostle Paul states that secular government is God-ordained (Rom. 13:1-6). And I believe the Lord led our founders in establishing the governance of our church. Sure, I think we could change some things, and put into practice the "priesthood of all believers" more intentionally,³ but governing is ordained by God. The above example shows that when operating justly, and when godly people raise their voices by pen or vote, government/politics can be a blessing to the people.

So, what makes government—particularly within the church—"political" in the negative sense of the word? I believe Paul gives us the answer: "I'm not trying to be a people pleaser! No, I am trying to please God. If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ's servant" (Gal. 1:10, NLT).

When leaders attempt to fulfill their own selfish agenda, or attempt to merely please those whom they work for (superiors or constituents), instead of trying to please Christ in their dealings in the church, I believe that is when they become "politicians" in the negative sense of the word.

We please Christ when we use our power to empower the powerless (Job 26:1). Do we as church leaders help the voices of the powerless among us be heard—those members without titles, popularity, or wealth?

We please Christ when we use our influence to offer justice to the oppressed (Isa. 10:1, 2). Do we risk offending someone with authority over our jobs or paychecks on behalf of the abused or mistreated?

We please Christ when we use our time and talents to serve rather than merely be seen (Matt. 25:44, 45). Do we make difficult decisions that are just and fair, even when no one will ever find out about them?

When we cease trying to please Christ and, instead, attempt to please other people, we cease to be Christ's servants and thus become slaves to others' opinions.

"The church is just too political?" Yes—but not because of politics.

But I don't claim to be an expert in church politics.

_________________________
¹ Gospel Workers, pp. 387, 388.
² U. S. Constitution, Amendment XVIII, Section 1.
³ That discussion is for another editorial!