The article below comes from Rugare Rukini, head of the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department at Willowdale. As talks of snap elections are growing in Canada, he offers insightful guidelines.
We also encourage you to fill out the PARL survey and help him tailor this ministry to your needs.
With elections currently being a key subject of discussion around many parts of the world -areas in which our brothers and sisters are and where the church’s world mission is taking place even here at home, one is looming; and substantive reflections of the past election in the US are casting their shadow on Canadian domestic and foreign policy. I thought to highlight the church’s position on the believer’s role with regards to political conversation and involvement. As per the
a. Religious liberty manual;
Depending on the governmental system under which they live, Christians may enjoy varying degrees of religious freedom. Generally, their personal interests, and those of the church, are enhanced by following the counsel to “seek the peace” and to pray for governmental leaders. Given the variety of political structures, however, there cannot be only one way to promote “peace.” The church should use all lawful means to maintain religious freedom to the fullest possible degree. Individually and collectively, church members will exert their civic influence to improve the quality of freedom available under their form of government. In the United States, for example, the use of civic influence includes seeking to maintain the institutional separation of church and government that has brought its citizens a high level of freedom in a very diverse society. In other nations, use of civic influence may entail the defense of other important governmental frameworks for the protection of religious freedom. Throughout the world, the church recognizes a variety of valid political mechanisms for the protection of religious liberty.
b. Ellen G White;
The Responsibility of the Citizen
While we are in no wise to become involved in political questions, yet it is our privilege to take our stand decidedly on all questions relating to temperance reform. Concerning this I have often borne a plain testimony. In an article published in the Review of Nov. 8, 1881, I wrote:… {SPCCSR 115.4} “There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. {SPCCSR 116.1} “In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?…. {SPCCSR 116.2} “We may call upon the friends of the temperance cause to rally to the conflict and seek to press back the tide of evil that is demoralizing the world; but of what avail are all our efforts while liquor selling is sustained by law? Must the curse of intemperance forever rest like a blight upon our land? Must it every year sweep like a devouring fire over thousands of happy homes? {SPCCSR 116.3} “We talk of the results, tremble at the results, and wonder what we can do with the terrible results, while too often we tolerate and even sanction the cause. The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example—by voice and pen and vote—in favor of prohibition and total abstinence. We need not expect that God will work a miracle to bring about this reform, and thus remove the necessity for our exertion. We ourselves must grapple with this giant foe, our motto, No compromise and no cessation of our efforts till the victory is gained.”—The Review and Herald, October 15, 1914. (See Gospel Workers, 387, 388.) {SPCCSR 116.4}