Adventist Political Thought: On Republican Government

As we grapple with increasing political unrest, polarization and dissatisfaction with our political processes, I think that Seventh-day Adventists in particular can offer a reminder to the broader nation about the ways in which the foundation of the United States of America offers profound solutions to our present situation. As we celebrate this 250th year of the American republic, it is good to reflect on just what type of government the American founders set up, and why it has outlasted their contemporaries’ expectations. It is also good to look into the Adventist perspective: why Ellen G. White, Alonzo T. Jones, and other Adventist pioneers favored the American founding principles. 

Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention of Sept. 17, 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” and Franklin bluntly retorted, “A republic if you can keep it.” In 1787, it was not at all clear that this fledgling nation would survive long past its infancy. They had, against all odds, prevailed in their war of Independence against the greatest empire the world had ever known, and yet the challenges of forming and maintaining a new government were immense. Just the year before, a group of veterans of the war had attempted the Shays’ Rebellion, and the former governing charter—the Articles of Confederation—was proving too weak to sustain the national government. It was against this backdrop of uncertainty that the founding fathers entered into the Constitutional Convention. 

There is often a lot of confusion over just what a republic is, with the popular vernacular preferring to refer to America as “our democracy,” and some critics of democracy will reflexively declare that “we are a republic, not a democracy.” But I think both retorts reflect a misunderstanding about the nature of republican government. Republicanism and democracy are not opposing constructs, but rather a republic is a particular kind of democracy. Democracy is a form of government where power ultimately rests with the people, but the means of ascertaining the people's will and translating it into public policy differ within democratic systems. In a direct democracy, the people have the power to amend the constitution and pass laws. The most famous example of a direct democracy was ancient Athens (circa 600 BC), and there are some democracies in the world today, like Switzerland and Taiwan, that rely heavily on citizen-led referendums and initiatives, and often on the state level in the United States, this is true as well. But in a republic, while ultimate power is still vested in the people, the people delegate that power to be stewarded by elected representatives who govern on behalf of the people.

While direct democracy may sound appealing to some people, ultimately, the rights of the minority are subject to the favor and passions of the majority. Also, policy can vary widely based on the particular cultural moment, and stability and policy coherence can suffer as a result. By placing a check between the momentary passions of the people and the legislative process, a republican government avoids this pitfall while still maintaining the people’s control over their government. This form of government requires an informed, engaged, and morally conscious citizenry to select political representatives seriously. As the second president, John Adams, said, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” 

But if this is true, how can morality and religious sentiment be maintained without infringing on religious freedom and enforcing religion and morality? This is the paradox of a free society: it needs virtue, but virtue by its very nature cannot be forced and remain virtue. The earliest colonists who fled to America were often refugees fleeing religious persecution in the name of Christianity. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reflects both the necessity of freely chosen religious faith to the republic’s survival and also the danger of enforced religious faith. Congress was both forbidden from establishing a religion and from infringing on citizens' exercise of religion (including on their lack of religion). After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment incorporated both of these aspects to state legislatures as well. So America established both churches free from governmental control and a state free from ecclesiastical control. Churches are free to proselytize and inculcate virtue, but they do not control the state’s sword to aid them in their proselytization.

Ellen G. White, prophet and cofounder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, explicitly promoted and defended America’s Constitution and governmental form in “The Great Controversy” in 1888:

“And the Constitution guarantees to the people the right of self-government, providing that representatives elected by the popular vote shall enact and administer the laws. Freedom of religious faith was also granted, every man being permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. Republicanism and Protestantism became the fundamental principles of the nation. These principles are the secret of its power and prosperity. The oppressed and down-trodden throughout Christendom have turned to this land with interest and hope. Millions have sought its shores, and the United States has risen to a place among the most powerful nations of the earth.” (GC88 441.1)

The Protestantism to which White refers is not (as some contemporary Christian nationalists might say) a license for Protestant churches to seize control of the government, but rather the principle of the separation of church and state, which developed over the course of the Protestant Reformation and culminated in the founding of America. Religious principles can only influence the American government to the extent that they motivate the freely chosen sentiments of the people.

In this 250th year of the American republic, as the nation faces momentous challenges and radical ideologies from all sides of the political spectrum, Seventh-day Adventists can offer patriotic encouragement to our fellow citizens to hold fast to our republican heritage. Reminding the people that a free society requires both private virtue and that the churches have an obligation to instill virtue, but a moral obligation to eschew political force. If time should last, and we remain faithful to that creed, perhaps we can help ensure that in America’s 251st year we can still say to Benjamin Franklin, “We have kept it, sir.”