Letter calling for withdrawal from UN consultative status raises important questions but needs fuller understanding of what that status actually involves
On November 19, 2025, a group of Seventh-day Adventist members submitted a letter to leaders of the General Conference (GC), ADRA, and the International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA), requesting immediate termination of the Church’s consultative NGO status with the United Nations. The letter expresses concern that this status aligns the Church with global political and religious powers in ways that conflict with Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. It also calls for a meeting by December 19 to begin the withdrawal process.
This call reflects real convictions about prophetic identity, globalism, and institutional faithfulness. Those concerns deserve thoughtful attention. However, before taking any action as far-reaching as severing ties with an international platform, it is essential to study the facts of what consultative status entails, how it has been used, and whether it presents a threat to the Church’s mission or a tool for fulfilling it.
Consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) allows accredited organizations, including religious groups, to participate in certain forums by submitting written statements, attending public sessions, and engaging with issues relevant to their mission. More than 5,000 organizations have this status. It does not imply endorsement of the UN’s values or policies. Nor does it involve any legal, financial, or theological obligation to follow UN mandates.
The letter suggests that the Church’s involvement with the UN reflects a shift from Scripture toward secular principles, particularly in the language used in official statements. For example, the letter cites the General Conference’s use of terms such as “conscience rights” and “human dignity,” which are also found in UN documents. This similarity, the writers argue, indicates alignment with a political rather than biblical framework.
This concern points to a deeper question worth studying: can the Church use widely accepted legal language to advocate for religious liberty without compromising its theological foundations? It is a fair question, and one that Church leaders should address with clarity and transparency.
Historically, Adventists have believed that rights such as freedom of conscience are rooted in creation and affirmed throughout Scripture. Using legal terms in public forums does not replace biblical doctrine. It communicates it in settings where that language is necessary for advocacy.
The Church’s current engagement at the UN, particularly through ADRA and IRLA, has focused on practical issues such as Sabbath rights, freedom of belief, humanitarian access, and protection of minorities. These activities support, rather than weaken, the Church’s commitment to religious liberty. However, if members perceive ambiguity or confusion in how this engagement is understood, it is the responsibility of Church leadership to clarify intentions and boundaries.
The letter also connects the Church’s UN involvement to end-time prophecy, suggesting that participation aligns the Church with global political and religious alliances warned of in Revelation. While the Adventist prophetic worldview includes concern about church-state entanglements and global religious coercion, it is important not to conflate presence with partnership. Historically, biblical figures such as Daniel and Esther served in foreign courts while remaining faithful to God’s law. Engagement does not equal endorsement.
Still, the underlying caution is not without merit. Any institutional relationship carries risks of misinterpretation or drift. The solution is not to assume such risks have already resulted in compromise, but to ask carefully: what are the limits of our engagement? What oversight is in place? What is the current status used for? How does it relate to mission?
Rather than rush to terminate consultative status, Church leaders should consider initiating a structured review. That review should include:
• A clear explanation of what consultative status includes and excludes
• A factual record of how the status has been used over the last 10 years
• Theological and policy guidance on how to maintain distinctiveness while participating in global forums
• Open dialogue with members to answer questions and respond to concerns
This approach does not dismiss the sincerity of those who raised the issue. It takes their questions seriously while ensuring that decisions are based on accurate information and wide consultation.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is present in over 200 countries. Many of its members live in places where religious freedom is restricted. In some cases, the Church’s voice at the international level has brought attention to those challenges. Maintaining access to such platforms may be important to protect believers in the future.
Engagement with international bodies should always be evaluated carefully. But it should also be evaluated fairly. Before cutting ties, we must first understand what those ties are and how they function.
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
