Introduction

Should Seventh-day Adventists become involved with political questions? Is it our duty to campaign for party or person? Should we take a position on the social issues of the day? Should we vote at all?RVSE 1.2

In order to find some answers to these and related questions, let us take a historical look at our position on politics and voting.RVSE 1.3

It was 19 years after the 1844 disappointment before the Seventh-day Adventist Church was formally organized. These were years of strong resistance to organization on the part of many Adventists because of the opposition to the Advent message by the established churches prior to 1844.RVSE 1.4

For the first few years of these nearly two decades, our founders were regrouping and settling on a new course. Those Adventists who were the beginning of the Seventh-day Adventist Church usually were independent people.RVSE 1.5

They had to be. In the face of ridicule at their disappointed hopes of the return of Christ, they were men and women with the courage of their convictions—for better or worse. It was a time of isolation from the rest of the world. And barriers were erected on both sides.RVSE 1.6

Related to their isolation from other churches was the isolation of Adventists from involvement with civil government. Just as other churches were considered “Babylon,” so the civil government was regarded with suspicion and distrust. And often with good reason. It was a period of political corruption perhaps unmatched by any preceding period in United States history. Adventists expressed strong opposition to politics and the spirit that usually accompanies an election campaign. These convictions are reflected in early articles and editorials that appeared in the Review and Herald. One writer, David Hewitt, a thoughtful and solid lay member in the Battle Creek congregation, asked a question in 1856, seven years before our church was officially organized:RVSE 1.7

“My brethren, shall we spend our time in political campaigns, ... when we so soon expect Christ in all the glory of His Father, and all the holy angels with Him, when He shall sit upon the throne of His glory?”—The Review and Herald, September 11, 1856.

Uriah Smith, editor of the Review, as if in answer to the question—declared in the same issue that the Adventist position was one of “neutrality in politics,” with our people refusing “to take part in a contest so exciting as the one which is now agitating this nation.” He concluded his editorial by stating:RVSE 1.8

“To the question, why we do not with our votes and influence labor against the evil tendency of the times, we reply, that our views of prophecy lead us to the conclusion that things will not be bettered.... And we feel it our duty to confine our efforts to preparing ourselves, and others as far as in us lies, for the great and final issue already pressing upon us—the revelation of the Son [of] man from heaven, the destruction of all earthly governments, the establishment of the glorious, universal and eternal kingdom of the King of kings, and the redemption and deliverance of all His subjects.”—Ibid.

Arguments continued to be heard for refusing to vote. In the same year Roswell F. Cottrell, a minister in western New York, stated that the United States was “upon the eve of a political contest” that, he believed, would “finally result in the formation of the image” prophesied in Revelation 13:11.RVSE 1.9

“Under these circumstances, if I cast my vote at all,” he said, “it will ... tell for, or against the making of the image. If I vote in favor of the formation of the image, I shall aid in creating an abomination which will persecute the saints of God.... On the other hand, if I vote against this work, I shall vote against the fulfillment of the prophecy.... Therefore, I cannot vote at all.”—The Review and Herald, October 30, 1856.RVSE 2.1

In the light of the tragically low state of American politics, his concluding remarks are interesting:RVSE 2.2

“I cannot vote for a bad man, for that is against my principles; and, under the present corrupt and corrupting state of politics, I could not wish to elevate a good man to office, for it would ruin him.”—Ibid.

The next year further objections to voting were voiced:RVSE 2.3

“If I enter the lists as a voter, I do in fact endorse this government as worthy of fellowship. If my name is entered upon the poll-book I then become a part of the body-politic, and must suffer with the body-politic in all its penalties.”—The Review and Herald, April 23, 1857.

But it was largely national issues that were at stake in the situations described in the foregoing articles. A local election in Battle Creek in 1859 challenged Adventists to reconsider their responsibilities as citizens in a community. They were pressed to make a more definite commitment on the subject of voting. What were they to do?RVSE 2.4

Ellen White, who was present as Adventist leaders discussed this question, made this entry in her diary:RVSE 2.5

“‘Attended meeting in the eve. Had quite a free, interesting meeting. After it was time to close, the subject of voting was considered and dwelt upon. James first talked, then Brother Andrews talked, and it was thought by them best to give their influence in favor of right and against wrong. They think it right to vote in favor of temperance men being in office in our city instead of by their silence running the risk of having intemperance men put in office. Brother Hewett tells his experience of a few days [since] and is settled that [it] is right to cast his vote. Brother Hart talks well. Brother Lyon opposes. No others object to voting, but Brother Kellogg begins to feel that it is right. Pleasant feelings exist among all the brethren. O that they may all act in the fear of God.

“‘Men of intemperance have been in the office today in a flattering manner expressing their approbation of the course of the Sabbathkeepers not voting and expressed hopes that they will stick to their course and like the Quakers, not cast their vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time, and he has workers upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is my prayer.’”—Temperance, 255, 256. (Italics supplied.)

Note that Ellen White was not just talking about voting on issues; she was talking about voting for men. It is very evident that she favored voting for “temperance men” as contrasted with “intemperance men.”RVSE 2.6

But there continued to be a cautious attitude toward voting in general. About a year after this experience in Battle Creek, James White, as a Review editor, wrote: “The political excitement of 1860 will probably run as high as it has for many years, and we would warn our brethren not to be drawn into it. We are not prepared to prove from the Bible that it would be wrong for a believer in the third [angel’s] message to go in a manner becoming his profession, and cast his vote. We do not recommend this, neither do we oppose. If a brother chooses to vote, we cannot condemn him, and we want the same liberty if we do not.”RVSE 2.7

He then went on to express certain strong reservations:RVSE 2.8

“But we do believe that he who enters into the spirit of the coming contest, loses the spirit of the present truth and endangers his own soul.”—The Review and Herald, August 21, 1860.

It is evident that some Adventists did vote in this election, for two years later James White wrote:RVSE 2.9

“Those of our people who voted at all at the last Presidential election, to a man voted for Abraham Lincoln. We know of not one man among Seventh-day Adventists who has the least sympathy for secession.”—The Review and Herald, August 12, 1862.

When Abraham Lincoln was elected President, 11 Southern States seceded from the Union, and America was plunged into civil war. A short time later, on May 21, 1863, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists was formally organized. This country was then halfway through the war.RVSE 2.10