Advocacy or Alliance? Rebutting the Case Against Church Participation at the UN

The debate over church-state separation at the United Nations hinges on whether presence equals partnership or a defensive legal necessity.

TLDR

The movement at FaithfulAdventist.org argues that the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s association with the United Nations (UN) is a dangerous “church-state alliance” that threatens both national sovereignty and individual conscience. Their January 2026 letter to UN ambassadors claims the UN is a Western-born tool for “global empire” that facilitates ecumenical projects and paves the way for a universal Sunday Law. However, this argument overlooks the legal distinction between “consultative status” and a political union. Church leadership contends that participation is not an alliance but a vital defense of the “Westphalian” principles of sovereignty and the Roger Williams model of separation. By engaging with the UN, the church ensures that Article 18—the right to religious freedom—is not interpreted in a way that allows states to suppress minorities. Without this presence, the church would lose its ability to intervene in cases of international persecution, effectively abandoning the millions of believers whom the petitioners claim to protect.