A Two-Way Street: Cults & Religions Liberty
|
SUMMARY
In summary, concerning RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
- Religious liberty is something that
should extend to both Adventists and ex-Adventists alike – both groups should
respect each other’s rights to freedom of religion.
- Religious liberty is a qualified and
not an absolute right – the freedom only extends so far as it doesn’t
infringe the freedom of others.
- Religious liberty should not extend to
protect persons or groups that take away the freedoms of others, such as
perpetrating sexual abuse or theft.
- The problem with many ex-Adventist
cults is that they arguably engage in unethical practices that intimidate and
pressure (brainwash) people to join and prohibit leaving – thereby infringing
true freedom of choice.
- Freedom of religion has to be seen as a
two-way street. If ex-Adventist cults
have the religious freedom to call the official SDA Church apostate Babylon,
then ‘mainstream’ Adventists should have the right to defend those views and
challenge ex-Adventists back.
- If ex-Adventists should have the freedom
to proselytize (convert) ‘mainstream’ Adventists (so-called ‘sheep stealing’),
that is fine; however, ‘mainstream’ Adventists should in turn be free to
proselytize ex-Adventists and ‘steal’ our sheep back!
|
Introduction
Freedom of religion is a hallmark
of the tradition Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA). Furthermore, with much
irony, many ex-Adventist cults and cult leaders claim religious liberty as the
primary defence for their actions.
Sometimes, ex-Adventists even
suggest their beliefs and practices should go unchallenged by ‘mainstream’
Adventists because it supposedly infringes their freedoms. However, is religious liberty such a one-way
street? Does freedom of religion mean ex-Adventists can challenge us, and call
the SDA Church apostate Babylon, but we can’t challenge them?
Similarly, is freedom of
religious an absolute or qualified right?
What limits should exist on that freedom? When should the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church use
its own considerable?
What is
the ‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church’s position on religious freedom?
The Seventh-day Adventist Church
has long been committed to religious liberty.
The ‘mainstream’ SDA Church’s
position on religious freedom is found in its official statement “Religious Freedom”, endorsed by General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Administrative Committee (ADCOM) in 1995:
‘For more than a
century Seventh-day Adventists have been active promoters of religious freedom.
We recognize the need to champion freedom of conscience and religion as a
fundamental human right, in harmony with the instruments of the United Nations.
The Seventh-day
Adventist Church has a presence in 209 countries. With some exceptions,
however, Adventists constitute a religious minority, and have at times been
subject to restrictions and discrimination. Consequently, they have felt it
necessary to stand up for human rights.
As loyal citizens,
Adventists believe they have the right to freedom of religion, subject to the
equal rights of others. This implies the freedom to meet for instruction and
worship, to worship on the seventh day of the week (Saturday), and to
disseminate religious views by public preaching, or through the media. This
freedom further includes the right to change one's religion, as well as to
respectfully invite others to do so. Every person has a right to demand
consideration whenever conscience does not allow the performance of certain
public duties, such as requiring the bearing of arms. Whenever churches are
given access to public media, Adventists should in all fairness be included.
We will continue to
cooperate and network with others to defend the religious liberty of all
people, including those with whom we may disagree.’
Should freedom of religion be
an absolute or qualified right?
Qualified only.
As far as the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church goes, it
believes freedom of religions is not an absolute but rather a qualified right.
As made clear in official statement “Church-State Relations”, adopted by the
Council of Interchurch/Interfaith Faith Relations of the General Conference in
Mar 2002:
‘The Adventist
dedication to freedom of conscience recognizes that there are limits on this
freedom. Freedom of religion can only exist in the context of the protection of
the legitimate and equal rights of others in society. When society has a
compelling interest, such as the protection of its citizens from imminent harm,
it can therefore legitimately curtail religious practices. Such curtailments
should be undertaken in a manner that limits the religious practice as little
as possible and still protects those endangered by it…’
In countries with religious freedom on its books, this
freedom is also usually seen as a qualified right and not an absolute right.
Thus, freedom of religion is not a sufficient excuse
to cause harm to others, or engage in clear criminal activities. For example, religious freedom is not a
sufficient rationale permitting sexual abuse (such as in the case of David
Koresh and Wayne Bent) or theft (in the case of Chick McGill), for the obvious
reason that such actions infringe the rights of freedom of others.
Are there
any clear examples where freedom of religion should be curtailed?
Yes.
A very good example of where religious liberty should
be curtailed is the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. As far as the official SDA Church is
concerned, as outlined in its statement “Female Genital Mutilation,” adopted by
the General Conference Christian View of Human Life Committee in April, 2000:
‘In some cultures,
female genital mutilation is defended as a form of religious practice. While
Seventh-day Adventists strongly advocate protection of religious liberty,
Adventists believe that the right to practice one's religion does not vindicate
harming another person. Thus, appeals to religious liberty do not justify
female genital mutilation.’
Should ex-Adventist cults be
free to proselytize, as long as they don’t harm anyone?
Yes.
Ex-Adventist cults should be free to proselytize,
which is to say free to convert people from other religions or no religion. As made clear in the official SDA statement,
“Religious Liberty, Evangelism and Prosleytism”, voted by the General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Administrative Committee in June 2000:
‘Seventh-day
Adventists believe that freedom of religion is a basic human right. As
Christians, they are persuaded that the dissemination of religion is not only a
right, but a joyful responsibility based on a divine mandate to witness.’
As far as this author is concerned, this right should
extend even to allow ex-Adventist cults to proselytize Adventist members –
so-called ‘sheep stealing’.
Are there circumstances where
proselytism should be curtailed?
Yes.
As outlined above, as far as the ‘mainstream’ and
official SDA Church is concerned, the right to freedom of religion should only
be curtailed to the extent that it harms others, or infringes their own rights,
including another’s rights to religious liberty. As further explained in
“Religious Liberty, Evangelism and Prosleytism”, voted by the General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Administrative Committee in June 2000:
‘In the context of the dissemination of
religion, the issue of "proselytism" has arisen because the term
"proselytism" is defined in a number of ways and increasingly is
being given a pejorative connotation, associated with unethical means of
persuasion, including force. Seventh-day Adventists unequivocally condemn the
use of such methods. They believe that faith and religion are best disseminated
when convictions are manifested and taught with humility and respect, and the
witness of one's life is in harmony with the message announced, evoking a free
and joyous acceptance by those being evangelized.’
One major concern with
ex-Adventist cults is that they are sometimes accused of unethical methods of
proselytizing. This can include the use
of ‘brain washing’ techniques (such as authoritarian controls, sleep and
sensory deprivation), as well as misrepresentation (such as pretending to be
the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church or some other group). These methods are problematic as they
infringe the religious freedom of others to decide – and more importantly leave
if desired – the particular cult.
Doesn’t
Jesus command about the unofficial disciple mean we should leave ex-Adventist
cults alone to carry out their activities without challenge?
No.
Ex-Adventists often suggest they
should operate without challenge because of Jesus’ teachings in Mark 9:38-40:
‘John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in
your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us. But Jesus
said, “Do not stop him; for no one does a deed of power in my name will be able
soon afterwards to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.’
There are a number of problems
with ex-Adventists seeking to rely on this text. Most obviously, ex-Adventists
are not ‘for us’ but are obviously against us.
In particular, it is difficult to say they are ‘for’ the ‘mainstream’
SDA Church when ex-Adventists claim the SDA Church is apostate and
Babylon. Thus, there is a vast
difference between non-official ‘independent ministries’ that are ‘for’ the
‘mainstream’ SDA Church, who are
supportive of the mission of the official Church, compared with ex-Adventist
cults, who are clearly hostile to the mission of the official Church.
Would
Jesus let ex-Adventist cult leaders alone?
Unlikely no – they’d probably be
His number one targets.
Jesus was extremely merciful and
forgiving to ordinary people. However,
to religious leaders, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus had some very
harsh things to say.
He certainly didn’t say, ‘They’re
another group, I’ll best leave them alone.’
No, he called them vipers, and dirty cups and washed tombs! It was precisely because Jesus challenged the
false religious leaders of His day that the Pharisees and Temple elite sought
to have Him executed. Thus, no doubt if
Jesus was here today, He would not simply stand idly by whilst His people left
the Church by falling prayer to dangerous cult leaders.
Doesn’t
Gamaliel’s advice suggest we should leave ex-Adventist cults alone?
Yes and no.
Ex-Adventist cults also often
point to Gamaliel 5:34,38, in that they should always be left alone by the
‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church:
‘But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law,
respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for
a short time… So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and
let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it
will fail.’
There are a number points to be
taken from this story. First and most
importantly, in terms of ‘let them alone’, what Gamaliel was primarily talking
about was the exercise of the sword, lash or cell to control the activities of
the Christians. For example, verse 40
says that after this council the disciples were flogged.
Within this context, the
‘mainstream’ SDA Church wholly agrees with Gamaliel’s advice. It agrees in the qualified freedom of ex-Adventists
to practice their religion without such threat of violence – as outlined in the
various statements above.
However, to ‘let them alone’ did
not mean to let their theology go unchallenged.
The Pharisees continued to challenge the theology of the Christians –
and the Christians that of the Pharisees.
Likewise, as seen in 2 Cor 11:4,12-13,
Paul certainly challenged the theology of the Pharisees, fellow ‘Judaizing’
Christians, fellow ‘Gnostic’ Christians, and almost anyone who threatened to
lead his flock astray.
Doesn’t
Paul’s command against suing brethren prohibit the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church from
taking legal action against ex-Adventist cults?
No.
A final argument often raised by
ex-Adventists is 1 Cor 6:1:
‘When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to
take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the
saints?’
The major problem with using this
text is precisely that the ex-Adventists don’t treat Adventists as brethren –
they say the SDA Church is apostate and Babylon. As such, there is no agreed
recognised authority to take it before the saints.
In fact, as Jesus’ teaching in
Matt 18:17 demonstrates, persons who are appropriately expelled from the Church
are not treated as brethren but rather as Gentiles and tax-collectors:
‘If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and
if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you
as a Gentile and a tax-collector.’
So are
there times when it might be appropriate for the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church to
take legal action against ex-Adventist cults?
Yes.
There might be circumstances
where it is appropriate and unavoidable for the ‘mainstream’ SDA Church to take
legal action against ex-Adventist groups.
As outlined in Acts 24 and 25, Paul certainly was not afraid to seek the
protection of the Roman authorities, including appeal to Caesar, when his own
liberty was being threatened by the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Again, the official SDA Church
should be guided by principles of religious liberty, which is to give as much
freedom to other groups as possible.
However, in circumstances where the SDA Church’s own religious freedom
is being infringed, such as the use of its property (including its name), then
legal action might be appropriate and biblically justified.
The irony of course is that most
of the ex-Adventist cults listed on this site have already taken legal action
in one way or another.
Does
freedom to proselytize work both ways – can the ‘mainstream’ SDA
Church ‘steal’ its own sheep back from ex-Adventist cults?
Yes.
Probably the most important point
in this whole article is that freedom of religion is something both
ex-Adventists and Adventists should enjoy.
Thus, there should be a free battle of ideas.
By contrast, ex-Adventists often
complain when Adventists challenge their beliefs. With some irony, these ex-Adventists suggest
that their religious freedom is somehow being infringed. However, freedom to
proselytize shouldn’t just allow ex-Adventist cults to ‘sheep steal’ Adventists
– it should allow Adventists to ‘steal’ their sheep back!
The best biblical example of this
is the behaviour of Paul, who simply didn’t stay silent when different
preachers came along to lead his flock astray.
In 2 Cor 11:4 Paul notes:
‘For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we
proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or
a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.’
And then in verse 12-13 Paul explains
that he will continue to oppose those false apostles that lead his flock
astray:
‘And what I do I will also continue to do, in order to deny an
opportunity to those who want an opportunity to those who want an opportunity
to be recognized as our equals in what they boast about. For such boasters are false apostles,
deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.’
Similarly, in Gal 1:8 Paul warns:
‘But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a
gospel contrary to what we proclaim to you, let that one be accursed!’
One could equally point to Jesus’
parables of the lost sheep. It is
arguably the duty of every Adventist to seek the recovery of our lost
brethren. Spreading the Gospel doesn’t
mean just recruiting that extra person in the front door – it also involves
helping dissuading the two about leaving out the back door.
Conclusion
Thus, freedom of religion should
be a two-way street. If it empowers
ex-Adventists to challenge Adventists of their beliefs and practices, then it
equally empowers Adventists to challenge ex-Adventists as to their beliefs and
practices. If ex-Adventists say the
‘mainstream’ and official SDA Church is apostate and Babylon, then Adventists
have the right to defend that accusation.
Moreover, Adventists have the right to suggest the same – to put
ex-Adventists themselves under a microscope.
No doubt, many ex-Adventist cults
and their cult leaders do not like such scrutiny placed upon them for a
change. However, as the cliché goes,
people who live in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones.
No comments:
Post a Comment