Is Pork Eating a Test of Fellowship?
15. Is pork eating made a test of fellowship, or may church members use it and still be counted good Seventh-day Adventists? Anciently God prohibited the use of swine's flesh. See Lev. 11:7 and other scriptures. The reason for this prohibition was the unfitness of this animal for food. The swine has by no means changed his nature. If he was unfit for food two thousand years ago, he is even more unfit today on account of the increase of disease affecting the animal kingdom. What God prohibited in the old dispensation he has never blessed in the new. The church prohibits its members from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and these grosser forms of intemperance, but it can hardly do more than this. It cannot regulate their dietary. These matters must largely be left with the individual conscience. The church may set forth principles bearing on health subjects, and this it has ever sought to do; but it has not sought in questions of detail to apply these principles. We marvel, however, that Seventh-day Adventists can make use of food of this character. Indeed we do not believe that “good,” well-instructed Seventh-day Adventists will do so. If any brother in the church is using swine's flesh, he should be made a subject of kindly Christian instruction. Plainly set before him what the Word of the Lord says with reference to this, and lead him to see that the same reasons which led the Lord to prohibit the use of this food anciently exist today. 16. Where is paradise? Is it a place or a condition? The word paradise is of Persian origin. From this language “the word has been adopted into all other languages in which the Bible has appeared.” It means “a walled garden or park.” In the Scriptures it is used in a twofold sense, referring to the garden of Eden, also to the dwelling-place of God.
In our English Bible the word paradise occurs three times. Its first use is by our Saviour in his promise to the thief on the cross that he should be with him in paradise. Luke 23: 39-43. This promise indicates a place rather than a condition, but gives no intimation as to its location. The second use of the term is by the apostle Paul. Referring evidently to his own experience, he declares that he “knew a man in Christ,” whether in the body or out of the body he could not tell, “caught up to the third heaven.” “He was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” 2 Cor. 12: 2-4. The apostle indicates plainly that paradise is a location identical with the third heaven, evidently God's dwelling place. And this definition of the term is made very clear by comparing Rev. 2:7 with chap. 22: 1, 2. In the first scripture the overcomer is promised that he may “eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” In the second scripture it is plainly stated that the tree of life grows on the banks of the river of life, and that this river has its source in the throne of God. The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that paradise, in the meaning of the Scriptures, is the dwelling place of the Most High. 17. Should Seventh-day Adventists ally themselves with one of the great political parties now in the field? Seventh-day Adventists, even according to the testimony of their enemies, have been law-abiding citizens throughout their history. In harmony with the divine command, they have sought as far as possible the peace of the cities and countries in which they have dwelt. See Jer. 29:7. They have felt, however, that in view of the character of the work in which they were engaged, they could not become partisans in the great political controversies which have been carried on, unless there was involved in those controversies a great moral question, like that of slavery or temperance. To engage in political controversy, in acrimonious debate, to take part in party alignment, would mean to cut them off from doing for all men the work which God gave them to do. Their mission has been to carry to the world the everlasting gospel of our blessed Lord. That gospel is the gospel of peace and good will to all men. As ambassadors of the heavenly King, they could not afford to take part in the party strifes and bickerings in which the world is engaged. In this they have sought to follow the example of the blessed Lord.
However, when there have been great moral issues at stake, when questions involving the salvation of men and women, the integrity of the home, the moral status of the community, were up for public consideration, they have felt that it was their duty to cast their influence strongly on the side of truth and purity and righteousness. For that reason they have uniformly taken part in the cause of temperance reform. In communities where the question of local option was at stake, the members of this church have uniformly cast their votes on the side of the closed saloon, or of prohibition. The splendid work done by members of this church in Maine in recent years no doubt defeated the proposed amendment to the constitution, which, if carried, would have placed Maine in the list of States legalizing the liquor traffic. And we believe that in the campaigns which are being waged in different sections of the country our brethren and sisters, to the extent of their influence, should, by voice and pen and vote, let it be known unmistakably where they stand with reference to this great issue. The following words from Mrs. E. G. White, in “Ministry of Healing,” concisely express the attitude of Seventh-day Adventists toward questions of this character:— “The honor of God, the stability of the nation, the well-being of the community, of the home, and of the individual, demand that every possible effort be made in arousing the people to the evil of intemperance. Soon we shall see the result of this terrible evil as we do not see it now. Who will put forth a determined effort to stay the work of destruction? As yet the contest has hardly begun. Let an army be formed to stop the sale of the drugged liquors that are making men mad. Let the danger from the liquor traffic be made plain, and a public sentiment be created that shall demand its prohibition. Let the drink-maddened men be given an opportunity to escape from their thralldom. Let the voice of the nation demand of its lawmakers that a stop be put to this infamous traffic.”—“Ministry of Healing,” page 346. 18. Should one be chosen as an elder or deacon in the church who does not pay a tithe of his income? Decidedly no. The officers of the church are supposed to be examples of the flock. For one to occupy a position of this kind when his influence stands directly in the way of the principles he necessarily should uphold and advocate, would be to nullify his work and make light of his sacred office. We believe that those who are chosen to occupy positions of responsibility in the church should be men and women who are in full accord with the principles of this message, and who are endeavoring to represent those principles in their lives. That this is the true standard as applied to the choice of elders and deacons is made clear by the apostle Paul in his instruction to Titus and to Timothy. See Titus 1:4-9; 1 Tim. 3:1-16. 19. If the local elder of a church moves to a neighboring church and is there chosen elder, should he be ordained a second time? We believe that he should; and that is the general practice of the denomination. Paul tells Titus that he left him in Crete that he should “ordain elders in every city.” This would suggest the ordination of local elders for specific, local work. It is considered entirely appropriate for one visiting church elder to assist another elder in the discharge of his duties; but we believe that it will save confusion and much misunderstanding if the election of a new church elder each time is attended by ordination, even though the brother had previously been ordained in another church.