In today’s world, where questions of conscience and freedom are increasingly at the forefront, the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (PARL) ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church stands as a champion for the fundamental right to worship, live, and act according to one’s beliefs. PARL directors within the Atlantic Union Conference are dedicated to preserving religious liberty—not just for Adventists, but for all people, regardless of faith or creed.
In this religious liberty Gleaner issue, these leaders will address some hot-button topics affecting religious freedom today, offer insights, and highlight the ongoing work of defending the right to live one’s faith without fear. Through advocacy, education, and collaboration, PARL ensures that religious liberty remains a cornerstone of a free society.
— Editor
Adventist Pioneers: A Legacy of Civic Engagement and Activism
The Adventist perspective on the “end of the world” was first articulated by John N. Andrews, a pioneering theologian and church leader. In 1855, Andrews penned a series of articles exploring the role of the United States in biblical prophecy, offering a groundbreaking interpretation. He identified the “second beast” of Revelation 13 as the United States, a nation symbolized by a beast with “lamblike” horns but a dragon’s voice.
Andrews linked this imagery to the conflict over slavery, a defining issue of his time. He spoke out boldly against two pro-slavery laws passed by the U.S. Congress, condemning them as evidence of moral decay. To Andrews, the defense of slavery revealed that the United States had become “Babylon”—the right arm of slavery. Similarly, Uriah Smith, editor of the Review and Herald, saw the slavery controversy as evidence of the “dragon spirit” at the heart of the United States.
Revelation 13 also predicts that this two-horned beast would enforce worship of the papal beast and its image, with a death penalty for those who resisted. Andrews believed that a national Sunday law would be the means of imposing and enforcing this false worship.
STANDING AGAINST SLAVERY
During the 1850s and 1860s, Adventists were extremely vocal on political issues, often taking a public stand against government actions that supported slavery. They refused to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act, a law that mandated the return of escaped slaves to their owners. Their moral convictions led them to prioritize God’s law over human decrees.
The Civil War further tested their commitment to nonviolence. Adventists adopted a noncombatant stance, opting instead for roles such as hospital duty, taking care of former slaves or impoverished whites. Others paid a $300 fee to avoid military service.
In March 1865, the General Conference called for a period of prayer and fasting March 1-4, seeking divine intervention in the ongoing war. The following month, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered, an event Adventists saw as a direct answer to their prayers.
ADVOCACY FOR SABBATH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
As the nation shifted focus in the postwar years, Adventists turned their attention to other moral issues. In the 1860s, Protestant leaders united to promote Sabbath observance and temperance. Ellen G. White, a co-founder of the Adventist Church, and General Conference leaders urged members to vote in favor of temperance candidates, even on the Sabbath, if necessary.
In the mid-1860s, the National Reform Association proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, declaring the nation to be officially Christian. By 1879, they were advocating for a national Sunday law. Adventists opposed these efforts, joining legal battles to resist the imposition of Sunday laws.
Following the California elections of 1882, Adventists worked with newly-elected politicians to repeal the state’s Sunday law. Their success drew criticism, with opponents claiming that 26,000 Adventists achieved more through petitioning than 26 million other Christians. This activism underscored the need for a dedicated platform to address religious liberty issues, leading to the establishment of The Sabbath Sentinel in 1884.
In states like Arkansas and Tennessee, Sunday laws were harshly enforced, prompting General Conference president George Butler to advocate for civil disobedience. He urged members to refuse to pay fines and willingly face imprisonment, if necessary.
By 1888, the stakes had risen as Sunday legislation was introduced in Congress. In response, Adventist leaders organized the National Religious Liberty Association in July 1889. The association committed itself to preserving the Constitution by resisting religious legislation and offering support to persecuted individuals of any race, color, or creed.
This unwavering commitment to religious freedom and moral conviction defined the Adventist Church’s role in society during the 19th century, leaving a legacy of activism grounded in faith and the prophetic vision of Scripture.
Charles Eusey, PARL director, Atlantic Union Conference
_____________________________________________________________
Christian Nationalism: A Cosmic War on U.S. Soil?
The struggle between good and evil is a timeless narrative found in films, literature, history, and the Bible—the most widely read book in the world. This theme resonates across cultures and gains particular relevance when viewed through the current U.S. political landscape lens. It underscores stark ideological contrasts and invites reflection on personal choices in this enduring conflict, exemplified by the rise of Christian nationalism.
For Christian nationalists, the epic battle between good and evil is deeply intertwined with rapid cultural, social, and political changes that seem to threaten the values they believe were established by the Founding Fathers. Central to this perspective is the conviction that the founders envisioned America as a Christian nation. However, a closer examination of the historical context reveals a more nuanced view. The Founding Fathers emphasized three key principles regarding religion and government: the safeguarding of religious liberty as a fundamental right, the rejection of a national church while permitting states to support Christianity to promote the common good, and the recognition of religion’s vital role in shaping the society’s moral fabric. These principles highlight their commitment to balancing faith with the interests of a diverse citizenry.
Christian nationalism also often overlooks the rich historical diversity of North America’s early colonists. These settlers came from varied economic, social, and religious backgrounds, including Protestants fleeing persecution. Such complexity underscores the true foundation of the nation’s values and supports a more inclusive narrative. In 1776, the population was predominantly Protestant (98%), with Roman Catholics accounting for 1.9 percent and the Jewish population numbering approximately 2,500. Understanding this diversity is crucial to appreciating the multifaceted origins of American values and fostering a more comprehensive perspective.
Colonial America lacked a cohesive Christian identity, with early settlers primarily motivated by economic interests. Understanding the current rise of Christian nationalism requires examining the philosophical foundations of U.S. history. Many Christian nationalists believe the nation must return to its Christian roots to fulfill its identity as a “Christian nation.” However, this aspiration contradicts the intent of the Founding Fathers, who established boundaries between church and state to protect religious freedom. Advocates of Christian nationalism often overlook historical lessons from the Roman Empire, the Inquisition, and Nazi Germany.
Christian nationalists frame issues like immigration, abortion, and the southern border as a cosmic battle between good and evil. Yet Scripture provides a different perspective. John 3:16, 17 highlights God’s love for the world and His intent to save, not condemn. In contrast, Revelation 13:11-17 envisions a dangerous union of church and state, raising profound questions about power and faith.
Revelation 16:13 and 19:20 depict the false prophet, performing miracles to compel worship of the beast, symbolizing corrupted political-religious power. Some link this imagery to Christian nationalism, noting parallels in its loud proclamations.
Christian nationalism has given rise to a false prophet, one who boldly claims the mantle of national savior. This rhetoric cannot be ignored and blurs the lines between church and state, fostering unrealistic expectations and threatening religious liberty. In stark contrast is Jesus Christ, the true Lamb of God, who sacrificed Himself to free humanity from sin and offer hope for a new heaven and earth. Christ remains the true Savior, deserving our full devotion and worship.
Edgardo Herrera, executive secretary and PARL director, Southern New England Conference
_________________________________________________________________
Public Funding of Religious Education
The complex and controversial debate over public funding of religious education in the United States has been raging for over a century. Proponents of the measure argue that parents are the ones who should choose the best educational environment for their children. Opponents maintain that legislatures should tread carefully when structuring programs to publicly finance private religious schools. This article discusses the history and present status of the controversy.
The first large-scale effort to prohibit public funding of religious education came in 1875 when Rep. James G. Blaine (R–Maine), speaker of the House of Representatives, proposed a constitutional amendment to outlaw government aid to educational institutions with religious affiliations. Although the Blaine Amendment failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate and thus never became part of the U.S. Constitution, Blaine’s advocacy led many states to add similar provisions to their constitutions. Today, 37 state constitutions contain “Blaine Amendments” that prohibit taxpayer funding of religious education.
Between 2017 and 2022, advocates of the public funding cause grew buoyant when in three cases decided over that period—Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer (2017), Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and Carson v. Makin (2022)—the Supreme Court shook the foundation of these “Blaine Amendments.” In fact, in Carson, the Court ruled 6-3 that the barring of taxpayer funds for religious schools was unconstitutional because it was equivalent to religious discrimination.
Yet, the court’s decisions have not completely resolved the issues at stake. The Carson decision, for example, is unclear whether a school receiving public funds must comply with all state-level anti-discrimination laws even if the school’s “discriminatory policies” are rooted in its religious beliefs. Also unresolved is whether states with secular public charter schools can also allow religious private charter schools to operate within their borders. The answer depends on the state action doctrine, a legal concept that limits the Constitution’s “equal protection of the laws” to actions by the states, not private parties. Charter schools receive public funding yet operate as private schools. Should the court hold that all charter schools are public institutions, the schools will have to function as secular, not sectarian institutions. This would threaten the religious liberty of the religious charter schools because of the governmental scrutiny it would place on them. Such scrutiny may well hinder the religious charter schools’ desire to teach “the faith” as they understand it.
Because of these uncertainties, the status of public funding of religious education is unsure. While recent Supreme Court precedent has chipped away at the wall of separation between public education funds and faith-based schools, these precedents are unclear. The court needs to resolve the lack of clarity—the sooner, the better.
Vaughn E. James, PARL director, New York Conference
_______________________________________________________________
To Vaccinate or Not? That Is the Question
Throughout Adventist church history, significant debates have occurred over various points of doctrine. We are passionate about our beliefs. A new debate has arisen: the Church’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A small, vocal group of members feel betrayed by the Church. They trace this betrayal back to the Church’s official statement on the topic and its failure to issue accommodation letters on behalf of members seeking religious accommodations from employers to avoid taking the COVID vaccine. This article aims to assess the validity of the key claims against the Church’s position with the hopes to lower the temperature between litigants in this intensifying debate.
Health reform is integral to the Adventist message, which promotes a holistic approach to physical, mental, and spiritual health. It encourages a balanced diet, regular exercise, and adequate rest and does not exclude medicinal treatments for illness or disease. While the health message is not part of the 28 fundamental beliefs, it is reflected in the baptismal vows, which urge members to honor their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit. While Adventists reject the misuse of illegal drugs, members are free to use legally prescribed medications to treat illness or to rely on natural remedies to preserve and protect God’s temple, the human body.
The official “Immunization” statement voted by the General Conference in 2015 embraces the freedom to choose natural remedies or drugs to treat or prevent illness. (See gc.adventist.org/official-statements/immunization for the complete statement.) It states: “The Seventh-day Adventist Church places strong emphasis on health and well-being. …we encourage responsible immunization/vaccination, and have no religious or faith-based reason not to encourage our adherents to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunization programs. … We are not the conscience of the individual church member, and recognize individual choices. These are exercised by the individual. The choice not to be immunized is not and should not be seen as the dogma nor the doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” In other words, members are equally free to choose or reject vaccination.
As vaccine mandates became the focal point of addressing the spread of the virus, many Americans, including Adventists, were fearful of taking vaccines created under the pressures of a pandemic with limited testing periods. Many Americans sought vaccination exemptions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted to prevent employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, national origin, and religion.
Adventists have a long history of seeking protection under the Civil Rights Act for Sabbath accommodation against employers who refuse to hire Adventists due to Sabbath observance or fire Adventists for refusing to work on the Sabbath. Through an accommodation letter, an employee must notify their employer of their religious belief and the need for accommodation of that belief—thus providing both notice to the employer and establishing the sincerity of the religious adherent’s devotion to the belief. Based on this, many Adventists sought accommodation letters from their churches to avoid mandatory vaccination.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents religious discrimination but does not prevent discrimination based on freedom of conscience. Because the Adventist Church has no policy against vaccination, Adventist leaders could not truthfully represent to employers that Adventists teach or believe that vaccination violates the teachings or doctrines of the Church. In fact, Adventist schools comply with government vaccination requirements, and Adventist missionaries routinely comply with local immunization requirements when they enter mission fields.
Members were advised that they could draft personal accommodation letters outlining their individual beliefs on vaccination, and employers were required by law to respond to the requests and provide accommodations where the employee’s sincerely held beliefs did not present a substantial burden to the employer to accommodate.
The Civil Rights Act protects religious beliefs taught by a community of faith and individually held by an employee. Employees who could establish a history of avoiding any vaccination stood a good chance of accommodation in contrast with employees who previously accepted vaccination but now sought accommodation due to fears over the COVID vaccines.
Passions remain high on this issue. However, some facts remain clear: (1) Adventist health reform embraces preventative and prescriptive measures; (2) the Church’s official statement empowers members to choose or reject vaccination; and (3) the Church could not represent to employers that vaccination violated its teachings to assist members in avoiding vaccine mandates. Truthfulness is the one mandate that governs the church’s engagement with the world.
John Ashmeade, PARL associate director, Atlantic Union Conference
______________________________________________________________
PARL: The Bridge Between Faith and Community
The Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (PARL) department of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is often misunderstood in terms of its purpose and function. Many churches simply refer to it as the “Religious Liberty department” and overlook its broader mission. Some lack a designated leader for this vital ministry, which serves a dual purpose: the religious liberty aspect which advocates for members’ constitutional religious freedom rights, while public affairs focuses on fostering constructive relationships with the community.
Now more than ever, our voice and presence are essential in society. While pastoring and engaging with community leaders, I discovered that some viewed our church as insular. This perception, though inaccurate, underscores the need for stronger community engagement. Thankfully, efforts to change this narrative are yielding results. Many community leaders now recognize our value, seek our counsel, and turn to us for assistance.
Society faces numerous challenges, including the migrant crisis, gun violence, unemployment, and homelessness. Community leaders need our wisdom to address these issues effectively, presenting an opportunity for us to secure resources and information that enhance our mission.
The Public Affairs component of PARL strengthens the church’s overall ministry by building bridges with the community and other faith leaders. While some members worry that this work may compromise our beliefs, PARL focuses on shared concerns without sacrificing Adventist principles. For example, two years ago, I was asked to draft a community engagement agenda for an interfaith ministry in Brooklyn, New York, which continues to guide collaboration today. Social justice must also be part of our mission as we advocate for the vulnerable and marginalized.
In another instance, I participated in an interfaith summit with New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), a $20 billion organization with more than 70,000 employees. This partnership enabled us to host two successful job fairs at Adventist churches, attended by some 4,000 community members. Such outcomes demonstrate the impact of working with other leaders.
There is still much to be done. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: “Any religion that just professes to be concerned about the soul but not about what damages the soul is a dry-as-dust religion.” Our work with PARL embodies this holistic approach, ensuring our faith remains relevant and transformative in today’s world.
Allen Martin, PARL director, Northeastern Conference
____________________________________________________________
Religion in the Public Space
For generations, the place of religion in the public space has been a hotly-debated issue. This article discusses the controversy without taking sides. First, we will explore the term “public space.” Next, we will look at existing restrictions within certain countries on the display of religious symbols and clothing in the public space. Third, we will address the controversy in the American context.
The “public space” consists of those places that are open and accessible to the public—roads, pavements, public squares, parks and beaches, and to a limited extent, government buildings that are open to the public, such as public libraries and museums. As owner of the public space, the government may control what happens therein. Over the years, some governments have outlawed the presence of religion and religious symbols in public spaces. This trend began in France in March 2002 with the enactment of a statute prohibiting middle and high school students from wearing symbols or clothing indicating their religious affiliations on school property. Banned items included the Islamic headscarf, Jewish yarmulkes, large Catholic crosses, and Sikh turbans. In April 2011, the French legislature went further and prohibited the wearing of Muslim burqas in public. Belgium followed suit that same year.
Since 2011, Chad (2015), Republic of the Congo (2015), and Bulgaria (2016) have also enacted burqa bans. Currently, 15 countries have enacted burqa bans. Most recently, Switzerland has enacted a ban that takes effect in January 2025.
In the United Sates, the religion in the public space controversy centers on Ten Commandment displays in schools, courthouses, and public parks. In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a monument depicting the Ten Commandments in an Austin, Texas, public park did not violate the U.S. Constitution. That same day, the court ruled 5-4 that two Kentucky counties’ displays of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses violated the Constitution (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky). The court went on to give guidance for Ten Commandment displays—that they must have a secular purpose, should be set up in a diversified context, and should not elevate the Ten Commandments as being more than a historical document. Notwithstanding the court’s ruling, some states have enacted laws that allow the official display of the Ten Commandments in public places.
Accordingly, the “religion in the public space” controversy continues unabated. In 2024, Louisiana enacted legislation requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every Louisiana classroom. Subsequently, a federal district judge blocked the law, describing the measure as both “coercive” and “unconstitutional.” Soon thereafter, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the district court’s ruling. This case will surely end up at the Supreme Court, where the justices will issue fresh guidance on the place of religion in public spaces in the United States.
Vaughn E. James, PARL director, New York Conference