Adventist response to today’s world should arise from what is truly happening, not from what “could” or “will” happen.
Michael F. Younker
It is commonly understood that
Seventh-day Adventist theology expects the enactment of a Sunday law in homage
to Papal authority in the United States and other nations preceding the second
coming of Christ. Furthermore, despite its inevitability according to prophecy,
prior to such enactment, we are obligated to do what is reasonably possible to
delay it by uplifting the importance of religious liberty.
Contemporary
Adventist Perspectives on Religious Liberty and Sunday Laws
Numerous Adventists, and others, have
commented upon Sunday laws and the groups that have promoted them over the past
centuries both in the United States and elsewhere. These vary from more
polemical arguments to detailed and well-reasoned historical treatises tracing
the history of Sunday laws back to pagan Rome.
Responses by outsiders have been,
overall, decidedly mixed in comparison with the Adventist perspective. The
issues have become far more complicated since Ellen White’s death in 1915 than
they were during the early period of American and Adventist history. Though
Sunday laws in earlier periods of history were typically both motivated and
sustained exclusively on religious grounds, this is no longer necessarily the
case. A variety of complex socio-economic factors are now at play, affecting
both the positive and negative sides of the debate concerning the usefulness
and validity of any Sunday legislation. Additionally, during the past, there
were several times when actual Sunday legislation was being actively discussed
at various national or local governments in the United States. Since World War
II, however, such discussions have been absent altogether or effecting
insignificant attention among government officials in the United States. This
makes the traditional Adventist presentation of the future in the United States
more challenging for outsiders to accept in the 21st century.
This article, however, will focus on
attitudes of prominent conservative Adventist perspectives from the past 15 to
20 years in relation to their non-Adventist peers. Some have been employed by
official or influential Adventist institutions of ministry or education. This
by no means is meant to imply that their views—or anyone else’s—are to be
understood as “official” positions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Rather,
the intention is to sample the perspectives of prominent and respected
contributors to contemporary mainstream Adventist thinking that are or have
been connected with various official branches of the church at one level or
another, and who have contributed noteworthy scholarly contributions to the
issues of religious liberty and Sunday law legislation in the United States in
light of 21st-century events.
Several Adventists have written
articles or books that address the possibilities of Sunday legislation in a
late 20th- and early 21st-century context. Norman Gulley,1 Marvin Moore,2 and
John V. Stevens,3 adequately represent professional scholars, pastors, and
popular authors who have dedicated significant study to religious liberty in
America and in particular Sunday legislation. Collectively and individually,
their credentials are solid. Each of them has written a book-length treatment
on end-times, noting both the biblical and historical evidence, which includes
an examination of the identification of groups that would encourage Sunday
legislation in the U.S.
Norman Gulley on
the End Game in the End-Time
Gulley’s views on end-times are
extensive, covering both the relevant biblical passages and writings from Ellen
G. White. His perspectives in these areas are in overall harmony with
traditional understandings from Adventist leaders, including hers. Gulley as
such saw, in the 1990s, the Sunday/Sabbath crisis as the final religious
question confronting the world at the end of time.4 Concerning the origin of
Sunday veneration in the Christian Church, he viewed it as a Catholic
invention, evidencing the Catholic view concerning the authority of the early
church apart from scriptural teachings. Gulley described the purpose for Sunday
veneration as simply Satan’s hatred for Christ and God’s Law: Satan “hates the
law, because he hates Christ.”5
These positions match the historic
positions of Adventist teachings that have been held since near the beginning
of the sabbatarian movement that developed into Seventh-day Adventism. Gulley’s
studies on end-times include an extensive overview of the issues that are
confronting our postmodern age. These issues include the state of the dead, New
Age spiritualism, relativism, evolution, and many others, including different
understandings of millennialism.
“In America,” Gulley wrote, “bastion of
religious liberty, forces are at work to tear down the wall of separation
between church and state.” He continued, “There is a relentless attack against
the first amendment of the Constitution, and leading the fight is the Christian
Coalition.”6
This leads to a question: What were the
policies of the Christian Coalition at that time? Founded in 1989 following
religious broadcaster and political commentator Pat Robertson’s failed
Presidential bid in 1988 in the Republican Party, the Christian Coalition
sought to “Christianize America” through political activism. This much is
certain: Robertson provided some of the sharpest statements in recent decades
advocating a closer relationship between religion and government. Gulley noted
several books and articles by Robertson and his allies that expressed their desire to tear down the wall of
separation between church and state that Gulley saw in the First Amendment of
the Constitution. The evidence is clear enough that the Christian Coalition of
that time was not an ally in Adventist efforts to preserve religious liberty.
“The New Christian Right is out to Christianize America,”7 wrote Gulley.
Gulley was direct in addressing the
political alliances that the Christian Coalition sought to create. He noted
that the organization had “considerable influence in the Republican party and
hope[d] to get the Republican President of their choice elected in the year
2000.”8 He also sided with the liberal or progressive Supreme Court justices
against conservatives like the late William Rehnquist and still-active Antonin
Scalia. He asserted that the Christian Coalition was misguided in its
perception of persecution against Christians in America, leading them to
greatly exaggerate the difficulties Christians face. In other words, he said
that they were deceptively playing a “victim card” to attract attention and
strengthen their base supporters.
The goal of the Christian Coalition was
clear to Gulley: They wanted to legislate morality. And this sounds like events
described in Revelation 13. He noted that Robertson helped organize a meeting
in which he tried to rally his coalition behind a single individual in the
Republican Party to run for president in 2000, all the while trying to keep his
organization tax exempt, a violation of U.S. law.9
He noted with irony the enigma that the
Christian Coalition’s effort to “take-over. . .the Republican party” defied the
party’s traditional stance “against big government” and its concern “with
individual freedom.”10 Nevertheless, Gulley observed Robertson’s call for “his
Coalition to get behind one Republican candidate for President,” revealing “the
partisan nature of their scheme,”11 which they no doubt recognized as necessary
to obtain power; they knew they needed to control a prominent political party
first.
Gulley did note that there were
Christian dissenters against Robertson’s Christian Coalition, like the
Presbyterian minister Robert H. Meneilly, who dubbed the New Right as “a
present danger greater than ‘the old threat of Communism’”12 and Edward G.
Dobson, who wrote an article in Christianity Today entitled “Taking Politics
Out of the Sanctuary.”
In his personal account after attending
the 1995 “Road to Victory” Convention organized by the Christian Coalition,
Gulley observed that in 1990, the convention had 250 delegates, but in 1995,
that number had swollen to 4,260, with 143 speakers and seven of nine
Republican Presidential candidates speaking. Gulley reported “thunderous
applause” after shouts of “Take the nation back for God!” and “Out with the
liberals.”13 It was clear to him that the Christian Coalition wanted to join
the state and religion. He also noted that of the 1.7 million Coalition members
in 1995, 250,000 of them were Catholics.
Gulley acknowledged his agreement that
the moral condition of America is wanting. However, although “the Christian
Coalition was appalled at the moral disarray in the country,” they winked at
the “doctrinal disarray in the church.” Thus “they shout out against moral
degradation, but don’t even whimper about doctrines on the trash heap. This
uniting for a moral cause is a moral disaster,”14 he asserted. He recognized
that the real issue was “the danger of moralists attempting to legislate their
moral values on minorities. This,” he said, was “the danger of the Christian
Coalition agenda, and that of Dominion theology.”15
Gulley concluded his analysis of the
Christian Coalition by citing how their efforts were compatible with Ellen G.
White’s picture of the end-times presented in The Great Controversy and
elsewhere: “As we watch the Christian Coalition out to force through its social
revolution, we remember that ‘Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the
civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas.’”16 Indeed, he noted that
“during the 1990s there have been unprecedented natural disasters, including
earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes.”17 He continued, “The Christian
Coalition and the New Right consider these natural disasters as judgment acts
of God for moral degradation. And this fires them up in their push to place
secular leaders in power to push their religious agenda.”18
Gulley framed several quotations from
Ellen G. White that would have seemingly fit the Christian Coalition perfectly.
He cited her by sharing, “‘This very class put forth the claim that the
fast-spreading corruption is largely attributable to the desecration of the
so-called ‘Christian sabbath,’ and that the enforcement of Sunday observance
would greatly improve the morals of society.’”19 It is this breaking down of
the separation of church and state that Gulley described as the “end-game.”20
To summarize his analysis of Sunday movements of that time, it is clear that
Gulley anticipated them as most likely to come from the people like those
behind the Christian Coalition, which is similarly part of the New Christian
Right, the Religious Right, and perhaps recognized more publically as the
Republican worldview.
The central lynchpin of Gulley’s
broader critique, however, was not leveled against the Christian Coalition per
se. His perspective centered on the idea that there is a definable wall of
separation between church and state in the U.S. Constitution, which
philosophically presumes such a separation is in fact possible. This is a
decidedly complex subject, as differing opinions abound on the nature and
intent of the founding fathers in their creation of the Constitution and the
philosophical possibility of truly separating religion from the state.
Gulley, however, concluded that the
Founders intended, through the first amendment, to preserve a wall of
separation. This means that “the government must stay out of the sphere of
religion, which also means that religion should not force government to
legislate in matters of faith and conscience.”21 And it decidedly enters Gulley
into the debate over the intent of the founders and the philosophical issues
related to any true separation of church and state. He sided with the liberals,
who view the United States as a secular nation. He insisted that the founders
never wanted an openly Christian nation and that the Constitution is a
“secular” document.
Though Gulley’s theology and view of
end-times are in harmony with those described by Ellen G. White, it is
necessary here to point out that the Christian Coalition is, for all practical
intents and purposes, defunct. From a highpoint of $26.5 million revenue in
1996, their financial wherewithal had dropped to a scant $1.3 million by 2004,
by which time they had also lost their battle with the IRS over their
tax-exempt status, setting a precedent for other similar religious
organizations intent on engaging in politics. And Pat Robertson, who left the
Christian Coalition 13 years ago has been discredited by other faith leaders
and the media for a range of ill-conceived public pronouncements.
Marvin Moore: Could
It Really Happen?
Moore took a similar approach to
Gulley. Outlining Adventism’s traditional perspectives on the historical
significance of the Papacy and the United States in prophecy, particularly its
understanding of Revelation 13, Moore guided his readers through the historical
context that set up the contemporary picture. Moore set up his 2007 book, Could
It Really Happen? Revelation 13 in the Light of History and Current Events,22
by referring to a union of church and state in the United States, followed by a
Sunday law, thus making an image to the beast of Papal Rome.
Clearly it could happen. The question
is: Who does Moore identify as most likely to make such a union of church and
state? And in what manner does he see it developing historically?
Moore notes that the land-beast of
Revelation 13:11-18 is lamb-like. As the symbol of the lamb usually represents
Christ, this means the United States will become a “professedly Christian
nation.”23 However strong secularism, atheism, or other religions may become in
America, Moore asserts that they will never obtain a dominance. America, while
founded on the separation of church and state, is nevertheless and will remain
predominantly a Protestant Christian nation. This Protestant nation will, however,
eventually pay homage to the Papacy through the enactment of Sunday
legislation. So far, again, these interpretations and predictions in and of
themselves are in harmony with longstanding Adventist interpretations.
When Moore traces the rise of religious
influences and powers in America, however, things become more interesting. Like
Gulley, Moore rests his case largely on the assumed true separation of church
and state established in the Constitution, all the while acknowledging that the
founders of America recognized the importance of religion. From this point
onward, however, Moore foresees only one path as bringing a union of church and
state, and it is the rise of the conservative movement in America and its
associated religious arm, the Religious Right, which includes the former
Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority. He has have given little attention
to liberal theology or mainline Protestantism.
Conversely, the “Religious Right” as a
phrase occurs 58 times in Moore’s book. The dichotomy of emphasis is
noteworthy. Moore’s work clearly reveals his thoughts here; in that, although
the intellectual elites, including those more involved with politics, were more
likely to be liberal theologically, their influence and numbers amongst the
population declined during the mid- and late 20th century.
Moore details the work of Jerry
Falwell, Ronald Reagan, and Pat Robertson as key players in the rise of
conservatism. Falwell and Robertson undeniably desired to create a Christian
political powerhouse to govern society. Moore also traces with special interest
the rise of the Christian Coalition in the early 1990s following the relative
demise of the Moral Majority. And, although the conservative presidencies of
Ronald Reagan and George Bush represented successes for the Religious Right,
Moore acknowledges that they weren’t as conservative as many Religious Right
leaders hoped.
He then makes a particularly revealing
statement and analysis about the presidency of Bill Clinton, a noted Democrat
liberal. Moore observes that religious conservatives were able to see a silver
lining, in that they had a “face” to war against in Bill Clinton.24 This paid
off to some degree in Moore’s thinking as following Clinton, Republican
President George W. Bush was elected, whom Moore considers a genuine religious
conservative who catered to the Religious Right. This commitment to
conservatism was seen through his appointment of John Roberts and Samuel
Alito—both Catholics—to the Supreme Court, granting decided victories, in
Moore’s view, for the Religious Right.
Moore essentially sees the avenue
toward the Sunday law to be along the lines of the conservative, Republican,
religious push of the 1980s and 1990s. He also cites R. J. Rushdoony (1916-2001),
an influential force in Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism, who
emphasized creating a kingdom of heaven here on earth. Without question,
Adventists are opposed to these views as antithetical to religious liberty.
Moore sees these ideas as the influential drive of the Religious Right and the
path that the Sunday law will likely follow. In other words, it is a
conservative version of Christianity that has its roots in the Religious Right
and its political connections that will create the Sunday law.
Individuals like Pat Robertson and the
now-deceased Jerry Falwell, however, are not influential figures today. And
though it is true that President George W. Bush had two influential and
historically significant terms of office, he also left the presidency with the
highest disapproval rating in U.S. history—71 percent.25 The chances of seeing
another Bush-like figure win the Presidency are low for the foreseeable future.
As the 21st century gets well underway, America isn’t interested in following
the ultra-conservative path. This is seen clearly in the election of Barack
Obama in 2008, and again in 2012, to the Presidency, one of the most liberal
politicians in history, who has a very progressive agenda.
Even more important than either of the
above observations, however, is one of the most amazing trends in American
Christianity during the late 1990s and 2000s: the rise of the Religious Left.
According to a poll in 2009, American Christians are split almost 54/46, Right
versus Left, and the trend is moving toward a 50/50 split.26 There is little
difference between the Catholic and Protestant numbers; these two branches of
Christendom are split in their overall socio-political identification.
Pollsters noted that their report “puts to rest the question of whether there
is a ‘God gap’ between Republicans and Democrats: ‘Clearly, from this data,
it’s not only closing. It’s closed.’”27
Moore also fails to mention the
significance of the cultural/geographical gap, or the “Red/Blue” divide in
America, separating the liberal coastal cities from the conservative heartland,
and the impact this could have on the implementation of Sunday laws. This
cultural divide became prominent only after 1992. The population centers in
America, where much power exists, are overwhelmingly liberal. Interestingly,
Ellen G. White seemed to indicate that persecution of Sabbath-keepers will be
most severe in cities. If this is so, it would be ironic, as cities are not
conservative or Republican. Having conservative, rural Christians invade the
cities to enforce a Sunday law on secular people and liberal Christians seems
unlikely.
John V. Stevens:
Abortion and the Sunday Law
Stevens, a longtime specialist and
activist on matters of religious liberty, follows a similar line of thinking to
that of Gulley and Moore, and outlined clearly the Adventist position on
Revelation 13 that places the United States squarely into the center of
prophecy.
Stevens sees the United States as a
nation founded on secular principles respecting the freedom of religion. In
this, he echoes the views of Gulley and Moore that it was the separation of
church and state that granted the U.S. its lamblike characteristics.
Stevens specifies in his 2008 book how
the U.S. was able to achieve this, and how such a system must look graphically.
He describes a specific separation of the two tables of the Ten Commandments
into vertical and horizontal planes, wherein a secular government can legislate
only the horizontal plane. This led him, however, to articulate yet another
reason for criticizing the Religious Right, and that is the issue of abortion.
Stevens believes fervently that
conservative religious powers are trying to restrict or oppose abortion in
violation of the separation of church and state principle upon which the United
States is founded. Stevens sees abortion as acceptable because he believes
human life begins only at birth, not at conception, claiming that “God’s Word
defines the time of the beginning of life for a person as birth and the end of
life as death.”28 And for Stevens, interpreting the commandment proscribing
murder to include abortion is not biblical. Therefore, legislating the issue in
favor of a pro-life commitment violates the separation of church and state.
For Stevens, “the most powerful
religio-political coalition in the nation is seeking control of the presidency,
the Congress, and the judiciary, and for all practical purposes has achieved
it, and the same is true on the state level.” He continues, “The Fundamentalist
New Right, including Protestants, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others, is
effectively using the abortion issue in recent years in order to become our
moral and legal guardians.”29
The powers he referred to reside, in
his mind, in the conservative political party of the Republicans, the party
well known for its support of anti-abortion (or pro-life) positions. Stevens
has been highly critical of both President George W. Bush and James Dobson, of
Focus on the Family, a conservative organization dedicated in part to opposing
abortion and gay marriage. It should be noted here that Stevens’ book, written
in 2008, went to press prior to President Obama’s election, which casts a
distinctly different light on current events.
Nevertheless, Stevens believes that it
is through the issue of abortion as the catalyst, that “the
Catholic-Evangelical alliance wants to unite religion with government” and that
“it is this change on the part of some American Protestants that is changing
them into the likeness of the beast, like the papacy.”30 This, Stevens asserts,
will eventually lead to a resurgence of focus on Sunday observance. Abortion
and Sunday legislation are thus inseparably connected for Stevens, with their
common origin in the conservative Religious Right, which dominates the
Republican Party in America.
Two major issues affect the acceptance
of Stevens’ assessment:
First, abortion must be interpreted in
harmony with his view that life begins only at birth, which dismisses the
personhood of the fetus. Many Adventists are not comfortable with this
interpretation. In fact, were one to take the opposite view from Stevens, that
voluntary abortion is murder, one could argue that it is precisely society’s
willingness to violate one of the horizontal commandments that will prepare
them to violate a vertical commandment.
Second, some of Stevens’ facts have
dissipated since the writing of his book. Influential figures that he cited,
such as Dobson, are fading off the scene without obvious replacements. There
has been a strong rise of liberal Christianity in recent times. Even when Obama
provoked American Catholic leaders over the issue of contraceptives in February
2012, drawing pointed criticism, the average Catholic seemed unconcerned, and
this had little impact on Obama’s approval ratings, right in line with the rest
of the country at the time, including many other Christians. Overall, Obama
maintained a near 50-percent approval rating during the public dialogue on this
issue, consistent with the very split nature of the U.S. overall, a split that
has deepened of late as part of a broad “culture war.”
Summarizing These
Three Views
Among these three prominent mainstream
Seventh-day Adventists, a theologian, a well-published pastor, and a
religious-liberty expert, concerning the issue of potential Sunday legislation,
a clear pattern emerges. These and many others among the disciplines that they
represent have advanced the idea that Sunday legislation is most likely to come
from conservative religious Protestant groups uniting with fellow conservative
Catholic groups to “moralize” society. In the everyday world, this amounts to a
criticism of the Republican Party in American politics during the 1980s through
the early 2000s.
Instead, America has become evenly divided between
conservative and liberal Christians, and the fragmentation appears to be
growing. It is uncertain who will win—conservatives or liberals. And,
interestingly, Adventist interpretation of prophecy is compatible with either
side winning in a general sense, as both have strong motives compatible with
Catholic teachings that could combine the church and the state, and the various
understandings of the old and new covenants advanced by Protestant believers.
As noted earlier, Ellen G. White
encouraged effort to delay Sunday legislation. Assuming this, and the party
identification that the Religious Right has obtained, it would appear that
every good Adventist should always vote for the Democrat or liberal politician.
The unfortunate implication is that the Adventist is encouraged to embrace
every liberal cause, idea, or practice. This greatly damages our reputation
with many non-militant conservatives, both religious and secular, who are not
seeking union of church and state.
Are Most Christians
Politically Conservative?
As the liberal Democrat-leaning
Catholic Steven H. Shiffrin observed in 2009, “Although the mass media tend to
ignore it, there is a strong religious Left in the United States.”31 His
observation is merely the echo of one made by Michael Cromartie in 2000, when
he shared that a visiting liberal theologian, Harvey Cox, was surprised to find
that the students at Pat Robertson’s Regent University were “not monolithic in
their political views.”32 Indeed, Cromartie notes that evangelicalism “includes
not only a diversity of denominations but also Christians from the political
right, left, and center.”33 Even more importantly, from his vista in 2000, he
already had noted that “although they have largely maintained an alliance with
political conservatism, they do have a moderate, liberal, and left-wing
contingent that has had an important influence.”34 When this fact is combined
with the knowledge that even decades ago, “many evangelical college students
were turned off by the confrontational tactics of Jerry Falwell’s followers”35
and were not fans of Robertson either during the peak of the Moral Majority and
Christian Coalition, the evangelical world was and remains ripe for
unpredictable changes.
The question is, What kind of changes,
and have they already begun to happen? The answer is a resounding Yes. “The
Religious Right and the Religious Left are almost exactly the same size. The
former has had a much greater impact for the past 25 years largely because of
superior organization and drive.”36 Yet that dominance might change, as the
latest data from 2013 suggest.37 It seems that “if current trends persist,
religious progressives will soon outnumber religious conservatives, a group
that is shrinking with each successive generation.”38 As such, the “forgotten”
Evangelical Left may yet rise again in unforeseeable forms. And the
socio-political groundwork for such a major movement has already been laid for
some years in what is called liberation theology, which depends on a union of
church and state.
The Origin and
Development of the Religious Left
A history of the origin of the
contemporary Religious Left in America necessarily begins with liberation
theology, a movement popular in South American Catholicism in the 1960s and
1970s, though its social and political visions come from even earlier times. In
its essence, “liberation theology grew out of the faith, struggles, sufferings
and hopes of the poor.” As such, “it is . . . a theology that starts out in a
particular political context and set of social conditions.”39
This political dimension is crucial.
Indeed, “because liberation theology originated—and remains—at the intersection
of contested political and religious goals, ”no matter how one wishes to define
its theological” dimension, at heart it remains interested in “socio-economic
systems”40 that have a decidedly Marxist and redistributive flavor taking,
forcibly if necessary, from the rich and gives to the poor to advance equality.
“Liberation theology” has “its focus on the poor, the construction of God’s
reign and liberation.”41 It seeks the “radical political transformation of the
present order” as “a central component of the living out of Christian faith.”42
For most Adventists, it is noteworthy that Ellen G. White took a decidedly
neutral position on socio-economic activism.43
There is a direct connection between
liberation theology and the popular concept of “cheap grace,” a problem
infecting the Religious Right, whose vision has become obsessed with political
goals at the cost of personal piety. To define it, as Eldin Villafañe puts it,
“‘cheap grace’ is a phrase, and a concept, that has great theological meaning.
In its practical sense, which I want to underline, it speaks to us of an ‘easy’
Christianity.” He continues, “An easy Christianity is a Christianity that
doesn’t cost much, that pays no price. It thinks and says, in fact, ‘Please
don’t ask too much of me’; ‘Don’t place any demands on me.’ ‘Cheap grace’
portrays those persons who want to live in a secured comfort zone, those who
think and say, ‘Do not disturb!’ Ultimately, ‘cheap grace’ characterizes that
mode of thinking or mind-set that rejects obedience, commitment, and
discipleship, and the cross!”44
Although the criticism of cheap grace
can be fully given and accepted as a personal critique and call to
discipleship, and thus an internal criticism of conservatives to themselves, it
can also become a corporate and external one, as it is used by liberal
theologians against conservatives. The prominent liberal-leaning Christian,
Ronald Sider, connects the Religious Right’s apparent cheap grace message to a
lack of emphasis by Christians on social justice. He aims his critique of cheap
grace at traditional evangelical conservatives, the Religious Right. He credits
liberal “Mainline Protestants [and] Roman Catholics” for an understanding of
“distributive justice,” which includes universal access to healthcare45 and a
rejection of cheap grace.
The liberation movement, a call to
abandon cheap grace, took on an American face in the 1970s through the work of
Jim Wallis (particularly when he rebranded his earlier magazine into Sojourners
in 1976), Ron Sider, and Tony Campolo.
In the words of Wallis himself, who was
not even here advocating Marxism, though his pragmatic ideas would lean more
and more that way: “As more Christians become influenced by liberation
theology, finding themselves increasingly rejecting the values and institutions
of capitalism, they will also be drawn to the Marxist analysis and praxis that
is so central to the movement. That more Christians will come to view the world
through Marxist eyes is therefore predictable. It will even be predictable
among the so-called ‘young evangelicals’ who, for the most part, have a zeal
for social change that is not yet matched by a developed socio-economic
analysis that will cause them to see the impossibility of making capitalism
work for justice and peace.”46
Wallis’ words were prophetic. Note his
reference to young evangelicals, also sometimes called elsewhere the “new
evangelicals.” Such individuals would later contribute to the rise of the
Emergent and/or Emerging Church, which is essentially a postmodernized Christianity,
an amorphous liberal Christianity that “speaks hip” fluently and constitutes a
group of millions throughout the Western and South American world. Although
their exact numbers are difficult to ascertain in part because they avoid
traditional churches but still identify with Christianity, it is clear that
they have split American Evangelicalism in two. They are an “ideology” that
runs house-to-house, college campus-to-campus. Though often relegated by some
as merely a youth movement, many aspects of the Emerging ideology have made
their way into the mainstream. The Occupy Wall Street movement in America
represents this liberation of the poor from the rich in a secular context, and
has been specifically embraced by the Religious Left’s Wallis. It’s no accident
that Wallis is a special advisor on religious matters to President Obama. It is
similarly no surprise that Obama’s longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has
connections with liberation theology.
All these movements and individuals are
religious, political, and lean to the far left politically. Furthermore, Wallis
is also a close ally with Brian McLaren, a prominent leader of the Emerging
church movement. And those with sympathies to these movements represent a
significant number of the American populace. And they don’t like the Religious
Right or Republicans. Emergent or Emerging Christians are overwhelmingly
Democrats.
Emerging Christians frequently espouse
a “kingdom on earth” mentality, often considered a revealing sign of the
Religious Right. Scot McKnight, an Emerging Church leader, once said, “I tell
my friends that I have voted Democrat for years for all the wrong reasons. I
don’t think the Democratic Party is worth a hoot, but its historic commitment
to the poor and to centralizing government for social justice is what I think
government should do.”47 Combined with what Brian McLaren believes, namely that
“Jesus came ‘to proclaim the Kingdom of God, which is God’s will being done on
Earth,’”48 whether one likes this or not, this kind of thinking leads to the
explicit ideological union of church and state that the liberal social gospel
seeks to temporally fulfill here on earth. Some may see support of this in the
saying of Jesus: “‘Seek first the kingdom of God’” includes “social salvation
and the salvation of the earth.”49 It was surely not accidental that President
Obama, a Democrat, echoed their sentiments that he wanted to create “a kingdom
right here on earth”50 in his desire to reach out to what he perceived to be
his liberal Christian base.
Little has been said by Seventh-day
Adventists about the Emerging Church.51 This suggests an unawareness of what is
happening religiously in America. And, although it may seem inconceivable that
such liberal Christians would want to create a Sunday law, this is not so
farfetched as one might think, because of the close relationship that liberal
Catholics have with the Religious Left, and the relationship that the Religious
Left’s interests have in the government to advance their causes.
The Ground Motive
of the Secular and Religious Left
Although arguments rage on regarding
the Republican and Democratic visions of society and the amount of power or
control the federal government should have over its citizens, it does appear to
be a basic reality that, at least in theory, the Republicans favor big business
“trickle down” economics and the Democrats prefer helping the poor through
social programs as the best way to improve society and the economy. Although it
is a highly divisive topic, the basic fact is that the
liberal/socialist/progressivist/Marxist philosophies admittedly require larger,
more comprehensive governmental oversight, whereas a conservative capitalism
emphasizes less government and more localized control.
It is important to emphasize, however,
that societal change oriented toward emphasizing equality and fairness is the
ground motive of the Religious Left, and is something it shares with the
secular Left. They want things to be fair, even if it means forcefully. (In
South America, sometimes violence was used; in the U.S., usually just higher
taxation of the rich.) Both are willing to use the government to achieve their
socio-economic-religious aims.
What truly separates the Left from the
Religious Right, which seeks to reform society morally (e.g., taking a stance
against abortion and same-sex marriage), is simply a shift in focus. The Left
is willing to work through the government just as much as the extreme Right
leaders were. In the Left, however, the idea that everyone should have an equal
or “fair” amount of wealth and prosperity is the primary concern, and even
becomes the moral justification for their actions. The issue is this: Does
reforming society through the government, even without purportedly traditional
moral concerns, truly leave the state out of the church or individual’s life in
an excessive way? The answer appears to be No.
Any law, such as the universal
healthcare plan that the Obama administration has championed, which requires an
“individual mandate,” represents this reality, and is almost unanimously
supported by Leftist religious leaders, though not by most on the Right. Even
more apropos would be the debate concerning the Obama administration on the
issue of government-mandated contraception availability in church-controlled
hospitals. Although most Catholic leaders denounced Obama’s plan to provide
contraception through religious organizations, including Catholic hospitals
that oppose the practice, the vast majority of Catholics do in fact accept or
approve of contraception.
Were Adventists to focus solely on the
vigorous voice of the conservative Catholic leadership’s opposition, they would
be preaching from a denial of reality of what most religious people actually
believe. Religious people are as likely to be “progressive” as they are to be
“conservative” on different issues. In this instance, the liberals are rather
stoking the fire by provoking conservatives over an irrelevant issue through a
desire for greater forced secularism, as free or inexpensive contraceptives
were already available at many health clinics for people from lower economic
brackets. Liberals were here inserting themselves into socio-religious issues
unnecessarily, even when it interfered with the operation of churches.
Interestingly, the disagreement between
conservative Catholics and the Secular Left over contraception ignores the fact
that Catholics strongly favored the universal healthcare plan in the first
place, setting up the future disagreement. One cannot deny the Religious Left’s
desire to gain a public and political influence that rivals that of the
Religious Right, and it’s hard to argue they aren’t beginning to achieve some
success.
The Religious
Left’s Catholic Roots and Desire for Political Control
It is no accident that a number of
individuals in the Emerging Church and Religious Left see the close
relationship between the Religious Left and liberal Catholicism. Noteworthy is
that those in the new Evangelical “Center” (which is really more Left than
Right, given which issues they emphasize, like global warming) are far more
open to Catholic teachings, especially concerning mystical spirituality.
The Evangelical Left’s ethicist David
Gushee remarks, “We believe that while the Catholic tradition’s emphasis on
learning from tradition and other sources of insight can be embraced, the
equating of the authority of Scripture and of tradition must be rejected on the
basis of Jesus’ example.”52 Gushee favors more nuanced positions, like the
Wesleyan Quadrilateral, in which Scripture is combined with tradition, reason,
and experience. “All have a role to play in the formation of Christian faith
and ethics, though Scripture occupies the central place,”53 he claims. His
discussion needs to be taken seriously by Adventist thought leaders to detect
the slide into Catholicism that Religious Left leaders are encouraging. There
is surely a reason that Emergent, liberal, Leftist ideas are so friendly to
Catholic understandings of spirituality and social concern, even when the
political scene is brought into the picture.
Many of today’s liberal or progressive
ideas, religious or otherwise, have intellectual roots or parallels in
totalitarian fascism. The evidence is overwhelming.54 Those on the Left are
often as totalitarian in their thinking as those on the Right. It seems, then,
that many prominent Adventist thinkers have clearly neglected studies of recent
history as they paint possible eschatological pictures, which are always
filtered through classical or contemporary conservatism and the Religious Right
of the 1980s to 1990s. Such critiques, however, are not absent from the rest of
the Christian world.
In his Freedom and Capitalism: Essays
on Christian Politics and Economics,55 alongside his earlier work,
Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman
Catholic Church,56 the libertarian conservative John W. Robbins sharply rebukes
the liberal-progressive tendencies of Catholic social teachings as an integral
part of the Catholic Church’s plan to regain complete authority over society.
Robbins states plainly that “the Roman church-state devised much of the theory
on which secular twentieth-century totalitarian regimes have been based, as
well as acting as a model for them.”57 Robbins argues that “for centuries the
Roman church-state had resisted the advance of the Reformation and its economic
system, capitalism.”58 As capitalism began to win the day, new approaches were
needed to combat capitalism. That new ally was socialism and all its variants.
Robbins demonstrates what to him seems
clear. “In the United States, the influence of Roman Catholic economic thought
has resulted in the creation of a redistributive state, in which the government
intervenes in the economy and society in order to protect the ‘common good’ and
establish ‘social justice.’”59 Robbins believes that “Mainline Protestant
churches, which like the Roman Catholic Church . . . were promoting what came to
be called the Social Gospel, whose political expressions were the Progressive
movement and later the New Deal,”60 represent the heart of the Catholic
church-state’s vision.
Presently, in 2014, this can be seen in
the progressive vision of a variety of programs and ideas, including universal
healthcare. As Robbins explains, “what the papacy has realized is that by
constantly enlarging the Rights of Man, to use the Vatican’s own phrase, it can
offer ever new moral arguments for enlarging the size, scope, and power of
government.”61 With healthcare, the principle at stake is the universal
destination of goods. “The rights advocated by the Roman church-state require
the enslavement of some people for the benefit of others.” It appears “the
church-state seems to realize that this is the case, and advocates these rights
for that reason.”62
Just imagine a time when a “day of
rest” could become a “right” before it becomes a “requirement,” like a required
participation in universal healthcare. A time when we are no longer requested
to aid our brothers and sisters willingly, but our wellbeing is bound up with
theirs, in every way, forcibly. The parallels are closer than one might wish.
The precedent has been set—and supported by Catholic U.S. Supreme Court
Justices from both ideological perspectives.
The most important point to draw from
Robbins is the fact that the re-empowerment of the Roman church-state is most
likely to come from their socio-economic teachings, which authorize greater
governmental oversight over all of society for the “greater good.” Robbins
notes that “the Vatican itself traces the origin of liberation theology to the
Roman church-state, specifically to Vatican II (1962-1965) and the 1968
conference of Roman Bishops in Medellín, Colombia.”63 Indeed, “the only
disagreements the Vatican has had with some aspects of liberation theology are
its secular elements, the insufficient obsequiousness of some liberation
theologians to the pope, and their sometime advocacy of a systematic use of
violence to achieve goals that the Roman church-state has always approved: social
justice, the common good, and the universal destination of goods.”64 Robbins
again plainly states that the Roman “church-state has never criticized the
economic views of the liberation theologians.”65
If it were true that the Roman
church-state were using Leftist liberal social concerns to prepare the
groundwork for a total takeover of American society, then where are the
critiques of the relationship of Leftist economic thought and church-state
relations by Adventists focusing on end-times? Just as in healthcare, could a
day of rest on Sunday also become, first a right, before a requirement? Why is
there no engagement with conservative but moderate theologians like Ronald
Nash, who has written extensive criticisms of liberation theology and its attendant
economic theory in relation to church-state issues? Why is there no closer
attention to Max Weber’s thesis in 1905, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism,” that capitalism, however imperfect in a sinful world, leads to
greater freedom and better economic outcomes than alternative systems?
Considering that Robbins agrees with
the writings in the 1990s of Adventist representatives Moore, Stevens, and
Gulley on significant issues, and shares with Adventists an opposition to
Christian Reconstructionism, it is unfortunate that there is no genuine
dialogue with his and similar thinkers who are concerned about the growing
power of both the secular and Religious Left alongside their strong
disagreements with aspects of the Religious Right. Robbins expresses a robust
independence from any history of eschatological predictions and guesswork,
letting his epistemology speak for itself as it analyzes the present, and he
sees the church and state uniting on both the Left and the Right with equal
force.
Ellen G. White’s
Views on the Sabbath/Sunday Crisis
In The Desire of Ages, Ellen White
reiterates the importance of understanding the historical origin of the Sabbath
and how this establishes its true meaning. “Because He had rested upon the
Sabbath, ‘God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it,’—set it apart to a
holy use. He gave it to Adam as a day of rest. It was a memorial of the work of
creation, and thus a sign of God’s power and His love.”66
Again, she describes in detail the true
purpose of the Sabbath: “The Sabbath calls our thoughts to nature, and brings
us into communion with the Creator. In the song of the bird, the sighing of the
trees, and the music of the sea, we still may hear His voice who talked with
Adam in Eden in the cool of the day.”67
The Sabbath, as a time set apart, is a
sign of the nature of the God who created us, one who is personal and
relational. It was made for us, but can, as originating with Him, only be
chosen by Him. Some other day won’t do. Although it was made for us, it is not
of our choosing, but God’s; in this respect, it is no different from any
relationship. It has two parties. And in this instance, one is the Creator, the
other the created. We can’t choose a Sabbath for God, but rest in our
acknowledgment of God’s choice of a Sabbath with and for us. God wants to rest
with us. He wants to spend His quality time, so to speak, with us.
An important point to note is also that
Sabbath observance is not merely an external form that we can meet through some
series of actions, as a mere ritual. “in order to keep the Sabbath holy, men
must themselves be holy. Through faith they must become partakers of the
righteousness of Christ.”68 Our hearts must be in conformity to God’s work and
designs for us actually to rest in Him, fulfilling a true rest. Furthermore,
and highlighting the universal scope of the Sabbath, Ellen G. White states that
“The Sabbath was embodied in the law given from Sinai; but it was not then
first made known as a day of rest. The people of Israel had a knowledge of it
before they came to Sinai. On the way thither the Sabbath was kept.”69 And,
“The Sabbath was not for Israel merely, but for the world. It had been made
known to man in Eden, and, like the other precepts of the Decalogue, it is of
imperishable obligation.”70
In many ways, and in complete contrast
to many other religions, God’s “idol” is His time, the Sabbath. Other religions
worship shapes and forms, but the biblical God commanded us to do no such
thing. Rather, instead of a concrete idol, He hallowed the Sabbath time. We are
both commanded and invited to join Him during this time.
Ellen White also beautifully describes
that the Sabbath is not intended to be a yoke upon us, but that it is designed
to be a joy. The Jews had turned the Sabbath into a rule book, rather than
allowing it to be a positive focus of their week. It is perfectly within the
purpose and intent of the Sabbath to bring joy and help to our friends and
neighbors. The Sabbath itself serves as a sign of God’s redemptive power for
us. We are invited to rest in His work for us, both in creation and in
salvation. As explains, “the Sabbath is a sign of Christ’s power to make us
holy. And it is given to all whom Christ makes holy. As a sign of His
sanctifying power, the Sabbath is given to all who through Christ become a part
of the Israel of God.”71 As such, we are to “‘Serve the Lord with gladness:
come before His presence with singing. Know ye that the Lord He is God: it is He
that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of
His pasture. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with
praise,’ Psalm 100:2‑4.”72 It is not a
burden imposed for the sake of earning our salvation.
Two of the most important chapters of Ellen
White’s writings are surely found in “God’s Law Immutable” and “A Work of
Reform” in The Great Controversy. These present the difficulties that Sabbath
keepers have had and will have in explaining the Sabbath and its original
purpose, not because of any intrinsic fault with the Sabbath, but because of
the insidious nature of the arch-deceiver’s work. As White wrote, “In the
absence of Bible testimony in their favor, many with unwearying persistence
urged—forgetting how the same reasoning had been employed against Christ and
His apostles: ‘Why do not our great men understand this Sabbath question? But
few believe as you do. It cannot be that you are right and that all the men of
learning in the world are wrong.’”73
It is not so much that it will come
down, in the final period of earth’s history, to two groups of people
“properly” living the Christian life, with one group worshiping on Sunday and
the other on the seventh-day Sabbath. The final crisis will come when one group
attempts coerce all to worship on Sunday. In this critical sense, it will be
rejecting the entire plan of salvation that Christ has offered, attempting to
save themselves, and others, by their own works—an old covenant experience of
law, not grace! This is why grasping this truth, in its wholistic
socio-political context, is important as events unfold. One cannot properly
keep Sunday as the Sabbath at the appointed time. This is the sign that true
Sabbath keepers may rest in as they attempt to share the ultimate cost of their
choice to rest in God’s salvation, rather than to present to God their own
means of salvation.
As such, despite the fact that “the
great obstacle both to the acceptance and to the promulgation of truth is the
fact that it involves inconvenience and reproach,”74 we may share that it is
not merely an inconvenience, but a choice to truly accept salvation by faith
that empowers rather than empty works. No true Sabbath keeper would wish to go
out and persecute his or her Sunday-worshiping friends. But that the Sabbath
message is sometimes (and by and large will be) rejected is a sign of its
truth. God’s law cannot be changed to save humanity, and this is a good thing.
That the Sabbath also functions as the
ultimate sign at the end, separating those who choose God’s authority rather
than human authority, makes it ironic that Sabbath keepers are accused of
salvation by works, when the very opposite is true. All of the “requirements”
that Adventists accept—the health message, the Sabbath, etc.—are really
preparatory, as with Daniel in Babylon, to make them ready to choose to accept
God’s salvation and to rest their repentant hearts in Him, as the completion of
character development here on earth. (Ellen White compares the final Sabbath
test to Eden’s Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—a simple yet profound
test.75)
This is a beautiful reality, not a
legalistic one. Obedience to God is not salvation by works, but acceptance of
His work on our behalf. And the hatred of Satan will cement that this seeming
paradox (obedience to accept grace and redemptive growth in God) is the true
reality, as Sunday keepers will ultimately persecute Sabbath keepers for their
rest in God’s work. Seventh-day Sabbath keepers, the ones accused of legalism
over the Sabbath, will finally be the only ones who are proven not to be
legalists, the only ones living a new covenant experience of grace and faith
that works.
Adventism in
Today’s World
Many sincere Christians in the “conservative
heartland” of America are, for a variety of reasons, more sympathetic to the
Religious Right. This is not necessarily because they wish to see Christians
take over and enact religious laws, but rather because they believe a biblical
view of economics and individual liberty aligns with more conservative or
libertarian positions.
These Evangelicals have sufficient
facts and evidence to sustain their differing worldview, whether it is
ultimately closer to the truth or not. Many have no desire to create Sunday
legislation that would harm dissenters. They are baffled by our insistence that
they will.
Conversely, however, when reaching out
to people who share Ronald Nash’s and John Robbin’s views, it makes perfect
sense to them that Catholics are trying to assert political power through
Leftist liberal social ideas that will ultimately impinge upon their
understanding of the separation of church and state. Allowing the possibility
of this perspective in Adventist circles may open more doors to such people
concerning the nature of the final eschatological conflict, including the role
of the Sabbath as a social, as well as a moral, commandment. Both views, those
of Robbin’s and of such Adventist authors as Gulley, Moore, and Stevens, remain
possible. What should remain speculative are the views that Adventists advocate
with any air of certitude.
Second, there is an internal
ideological barrier among Adventists, including some of our young people. It is
confusing to them that Adventists spend most the most effort engaging, in a
positive way, with liberal, mainline churches and secular intellectuals who are
often theistic evolutionists or atheists, simply because they purportedly agree
with Adventist thinking on religious liberty issues. How privileged is one set
of issues over another?
Why do Adventists not also engage more
positively with the Religious Right on issues we have in common, such as recent
creationism? Should we be so selective with whom we engage in scholarly dialogue?
Spending time positively dialoging with people such as Robbins and Nash—and
winsomely critiquing any weaknesses we think they may have—while also enlisting
their sympathies in ideas that we may share, seems the more productive route.
Simply dismissing their eschatological views on the particulars of the Roman
church-state because they differ from our traditional emphasis on the Religious
Right, while they are more wary of the Religious Left, is inadequate.
Third, in their efforts to fully secularize
the country with a supposed complete separation of church and state, it must be
recognized that some believe the secular and religious Left literally create
the Religious Right. Do Adventists even know what a truly secularized nation—in
which church and state are totally separated—would look like? Could it not be a
totalitarian state just as easily? If secular liberals would not interfere in
conservative Christianity, then things would remain more status quo; there
would be no flag around which to rally the Religious Right. Thus, it would be
wiser to support moderate political positions to delay any awakening of the
“beast” of Revelation. So if Adventists wish to delay a Sunday Law, they should
not appear to so openly support the political philosophy of progressivist
secular liberals in their opposition to the Religious Right.
Supporting humanistic morality is a
growing trend among the general populace, and is surprisingly compatible with
the Left and Catholic social teachings. It is no accident that Pope Francis
recently shared that atheists and agnostics can be saved, when he wrote that
“the issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”76
The point is not whether or not
Scripture supports the salvation of the unevangelized or those who have
received an incorrect view of God and thus doubted His existence, but that the
Pope, of all people, would contextualize this so openly and point toward the
conscience as guide. God does not offer a “pass” for those who merely follow
their own conscience.
Yet, this example, as well as many
others—including the possible reconsideration of priests and marriage and
de-emphasis on abortion and homosexuality—shows that the Catholic Church is now
willing to connect with liberal progressive humanists and their views of
morality. If the Left continues to redefine morality’s relationship to
socio-political realities alongside an Emergent vision, it is impossible to
predict how things may play out. What is clear is that a government that is
proactive in social agendas is needed in such a worldview, which plays as much
into predictions for the Roman church-state as a creation of Leftist ideas, as
to one that is created by the Religious Right
A more neutral approach would be to
ally more closely with those who truly do share general Christian beliefs,
allowing opportunity to reach out to them the message of “justification by
faith,” a message that Martin Luther accepted and for which Ellen White
specifically endorsed Luther.78 We would then be better positioned to be
received as true heirs of the Reformation. Then we will be in more influential
positions to introduce the Sabbath and sanctuary doctrines as the true new
covenant experience, outside the restrictive stereotypes of any
political-ideological identification.
It would serve Adventism well to
articulate a less partisan and narrow vision of how end-time events will play
out, and focus more on the philosophical aspects of the debate as they
interrelate with theological issues. It serves our evangelistic purposes more
effectively to explore different possibilities with a more open mind, keeping
our distinctive issues at the forefront, but not letting our view of end-times
replace a solid epistemology that analyzes the present honestly and without
bias. This will allow us to form our response from what is really happening in
an ever evolving world, not on what “could” or “will” happen—outside of what
prophecy specifically makes clear. In this way, Adventists will be better
prepared when things don’t turn out precisely the way we have predicted, and
our message will be more open to acceptance by individuals of varying religious
and political backgrounds and perspectives, which may open scholarly and
evangelistic doors of opportunity never before anticipated.
Michael
F. Younker is a Ph.D. student at Andrews University in Berrien Springs,
Michigan.
Fuente
original: http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/132/archives/19-2/the-religious-left-and-the-religious-right-at-end-times
Publicación:
Perspective Digest 19, no. 2
NOTES AND
REFERENCES
1. Norman Gulley, longtime professor at
Southern Adventist University and past president of the Adventist Theological
Society, well represents a centrist Adventist perspective. He has written
numerous articles and books that have been well-received during his academic
career on a wide variety of theological and historical issues.
2. Marvin Moore, for many years the
editor of the Signs of the Times, a mainstream magazine originally founded by
James White, a cofounder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is well
acquainted with the contemporary issues Adventism is facing. He has also
written numerous articles and books on a wide variety of religious and biblical
topics, and has also served in pastoral ministry.
3. John V. Stevens has more than 40
years of experience working directly as an advisor with government officials
from several countries on matters of religious liberty. Stevens served for 20
years at the Pacific Union Conference as the public affairs and religious
liberty director. He has also authored several articles, including a number for
Liberty, that promote religious freedom, and written a book focusing on prophecy
and religious liberty in the United States.
4. Norman Gulley, “The Battle Against
the Sabbath and its End-time Importance,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 5:2 (Autumn 1994):79-115.
5. Ibid., p. 81.
6. Norman Gulley, “The Christian
Coalition and the End-Game,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 8:1-2
(1997), p. 120.
7. Ibid., p. 122.
8. Ibid., p. 121.
9. Ibid., p. 127.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., p. 128.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., p. 129.
14. Ibid., p. 132.
15. Ibid., p. 133.
16. Ibid., p. 134, citing Last Day
Events, p. 228.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid. (italics supplied.)
20. __________, “The Christian
Coalition and the End-Game,” op. cit., p. 135.
21. Ibid., p. 121.
22. Marvin Moore, Could It Really
Happen? Revelation 13 in the Light of History and Current Events (Nampa, Ida.:
Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2007).
23. Ibid., p. 98.
24. Ibid., p. 134.
25.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.svg. Websites
in the endnotes were accessed February 25-28, 2014.
26. Http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f‑religion/2343313/posts.
27. Ibid.
28. John V. Stevens, The Abortion
Controversy: Will a Free America Survive? Will You? (Sun City, Ariz.: Founders
Freedom Press, 2008), p. 197.
29. Ibid., p. 505.
30. Ibid., p. 456.
31. Steven H. Shiffrin, The Religious
Left and Church-State Relations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
2009), p. 1.
32. Michael Cromartie, “The Evangelical
Kaleidoscope: A Survey of Recent Evangelical Political Engagement,” in Timothy
J. Demy and Gary P. Steward, eds., Politics and Public Policy: A Christian
Response (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 123.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Carl F. H. Henry, “Linking the
Bible to Public Policy,” in Demy and Steward, eds., Politics and Public Policy:
A Christian Response (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic & Professional,
2000), p. 58.
36.
Http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2004/10/The-Twelve-Tribes-Of-American-Politics.aspx?p=1.
37. Http://www.salon.com/2013/ 07/19/the_rise_of_the_religious_left.
38.
Http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/the-rise-of-the-christian-left-in-america/278086.
39. Ian Linden, Liberation Theology:
Coming of Age? (London: Catholic Institute for International Relations, 1997),
p. 5.
40. Ibid.
41. Ivan Petrella, The Future of
Liberation Theology: An Argument and Manifesto (Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate
Publishing, 2004), p. 4.
42. Humberto Belli, “Nicaragua: Field
Test for Liberation Theology,” Pastoral Renewal (September 1984), p. 18.
43. Manuscript Releases (1990), vol. 4,
pp. 160, 161; Mind, Character, and Personality (1977), vol. 2, pp. 625-627.
44. Eldin Villafañe, Beyond Cheap
Grace: A Call to Radical Discipleship, Incarnation, and Justice (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 2.
45. Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of
Evangelical Politics: Why Are Christians Missing the Chance to Really Change
the World? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2008), pp. 104, 105, 136.
46. Jim Wallis, “Liberating and
Conformity,” Sojourners (September 1976):3, 4.
47.
Http://www.cstnews.com/bm/issues-facing-christians-today-common-sense-for-today/falling-standards-and-seeker-sensitive-churches/top-agenda-of-the-emergent-church-social-gospel.shtml.
48.
Http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=3069.
49. Jürgen Moltmann, Sun of
Righteousness, ARISE!: God’s Future for Humanity and the Earth (Minneapolis:
First Fortress Press, 2010), p. 80.
50.
Http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1996176.
51. Fernando Canale has authored an
ongoing series of articles in Perspective Digest, of which the following
article is an introduction: http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/121/archives/19-1/a-closer-look-at-the-emerging-church.
52. David P. Gushee and Glen Harold
Stassen, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), p. 88.
53. Ibid., p. 87.
54. Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism:
The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of
Meaning (New York: Doubleday, 2008).
55. John W. Robbins, Freedom and
Capitalism: Essays on Christian Politics and Economics (Unicoi, Tenn.: The
Trinity Foundation, 2006).
56. John W. Robbins, Ecclesiastical
Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church
(Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 1999; 2006).
57. John W. Robbins, Freedom and
Capitalism, op. cit., pp. 217, 218.
58. Ibid., p. 459.
59. Ibid., p. 480.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid., p. 486.
62. Ibid., pp. 497, 498.
63. John W. Robbins, Ecclesiastical
Megalomania, op. cit., p. 78.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. The Desire of Ages, p. 281.
67. Ibid., pp. 281, 282.
68. Ibid., p. 283.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid., p. 288.
72. Ibid.
73. The Great Controversy, p. 455.
74. Ibid., p. 460.
75. “The Test of Loyalty,” The Signs of
the Times 22:6 (February 13, 1896); “The Sabbath Test,” in Review and Herald
75:33 (August 30, 1898).
76.
Http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-dont-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html.
77. “Martin Luther—His Character and
Early Life,” The Signs of the Times 9:21 (May 31, 1883).
0 comentarios:
Publicar un comentario