When A.T. Jones stood before the U.S. Congress in the 1880s to argue against Sunday laws, he wasn’t trying to win political favor — he was standing up for religious freedom. He spoke not on behalf of a party or platform, but as a Seventh-day Adventist defending conscience. Fast forward to today, and the church is still showing up in the public square — not only in Washington and other cities around the world, but at the United Nations. That presence has stirred some concern among Adventists who wonder whether global engagement is a step too far.
This critique is not new. A segment of the Adventist community has long cautioned against cooperating with the United Nations, arguing it compromises the church’s prophetic identity and separation from worldly powers. But the Adventist Church’s official engagement with international organizations — including the UN — has been carefully defined and limited in scope, focused primarily on religious liberty, humanitarian work, and public health.
The church’s involvement with the UN is not about policy-making or endorsing global governance structures, but rather about advocating for human rights, religious freedom, and development projects through entities like the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA). ADRA has held consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) since 1997, allowing it to participate in discussions on humanitarian issues alongside other faith-based and non-governmental organizations.
This status does not involve political alliance or theological compromise – namely ADRA’s role is strictly humanitarian. It does not engage in political or religious debate but operates to serve the needs of the vulnerable.
Furthermore, the Adventist Church’s stance on political non-involvement — as reaffirmed in General Conference sessions — still allows for cooperation on shared values. When religious freedom is under threat globally, the UN provides one of the few forums where the church can raise concerns on behalf of persecuted believers, especially in countries where Adventists are a minority.
Unlike many denominations that are based in or primarily oriented toward one country, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is global in scope, with more members outside North America than within it. This means the church must engage with a wide variety of governments, institutions, and political systems. Navigating that complexity requires participation in international conversations, not retreat from them.
Recently, this issue has resurfaced independently in some Adventist circles, raising concerns about whether such engagement is in line with the church’s prophetic calling. Analysts suggest that part of the controversy stems from a misunderstanding of what UN participation entails. It is not about aligning with secular ideologies or becoming enmeshed in political agendas. Rather, it reflects a strategic approach to mission — delivering a moral and humanitarian witness in the few venues where global conscience is discussed.
The concern that the church should remain separate from such institutions is rooted in a valid desire to protect its distinct identity. But as some have pointed out, engagement at the United Nations does not mean endorsement. It mirrors the historic practice of speaking truth in public forums. A.T. Jones’s testimony before the U.S. Congress in the 19th century against Sunday legislation was not compromise, but conviction. Today’s participation in UN discussions follows that model — representing conscience, defending freedom, and offering aid.
Moreover, avoiding international platforms altogether would be both dangerous and ill-advised. In a world where religious liberty is regularly threatened and policy decisions are made without faith-based input, the absence of an Adventist voice risks allowing others to shape the conversation unchallenged. Presence at the table enables advocacy; absence ensures marginalization.
The idea that a global church should avoid global forums also runs counter to its mission. The Great Commission is global. So are threats to freedom and human dignity. The church’s participation does not dilute its message but rather amplifies it in places where suffering and injustice are addressed.
Critics often cite Ellen G. White’s warnings about alliances with secular powers. But White also emphasized the importance of using every opportunity to do good, especially where suffering exists. In Ministry of Healing, she wrote, “The world needs today what it needed nineteen hundred years ago — a revelation of Christ.” For ADRA and the church’s public affairs team, that revelation includes feeding the hungry, aiding disaster victims, and defending conscience.
It is also important to distinguish between church doctrine and official statements. Doctrines are fixed, biblically grounded beliefs. In contrast, official statements on social, ethical, and humanitarian issues are applications of those doctrines to specific circumstances. They are designed to offer guidance as real-world challenges arise, not to redefine theological fundamentals.
As a global faith with a presence in more than 200 countries, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has historically engaged with international bodies to protect religious liberty and serve humanitarian needs — even before the UN’s founding in 1945. Its participation in these forums reflects a longstanding strategy to operate in global arenas where decisions affecting conscience and relief are shaped.
Matthew 5:14-16 (NIV):
“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”