A Response to the Claim: “Why Adventism's Presence at the UN Is Actually a Good Thing” By ReligiousLiberty.TV
By: SDA Pearl
TLDR Summary: The General Conference (GC) maintaining ‘consultative status’ with the United Nations is not only discrediting and besmirching the Church, but also contradictory to Adventist eschatology. It is impossible to summarize all the precise details of the rebuttals to the superficial and false reassurances from conflicted mouthpieces. So, for those who desire to engage with the substance of the concern, please prayerfully consider the full article.
Questionable Headline: ReligiousLiberty.TV recently published an attempted reassurance on “Why Adventism's Presence at the UN Is Actually a Good Thing”. The title both exaggerates and diminishes simultaneously.
The exaggeration is by use of ‘Adventism’. The only 2 ‘Adventist’-named entities with active status in the UN NGO database are ADRA and the GC, both headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland.
The worldwide membership did not vote for this status by a GC Session. Thus, it is an exaggeration to claim ‘Adventism’, when it is more accurate to say that the GC has a presence at the UN[1].
The diminishing is by describing the engagement as ‘presence’, but further into the article comes a more careful admission: … “First, let us clear up what consultative status really is.” So is it ‘presence’ or ‘status’? The UN’s NGO Branch, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), database confirms that it is indeed ‘status’. Consultative status comes with binding ‘principles to be applied in the establishment of consultative relations’. There are 17, but 2 and 3 are particularly noteworthy …
2.- The aims and purposes of the organization shall be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
3.- The organization shall undertake to support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities, in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and scope of its competence and activities.
Thus, the headline should read as follows: “Why Adventism [the General Conference]'s Presence at [Consultative Status with, … and in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles … to support the work of] the UN Is Actually a Good Thing.”
Questionable Framing: The article’s opening sentence sets the tone: “If you spend much time in Adventist circles, you have probably heard the whispers or seen the alarming blog posts: ‘Why is the General Conference involved with the United Nations?’” These aren’t whispers but foghorns, proclaiming the theological and practical dangers of union with the UN, appealing for a course correction. Correctly it states: “For many sincere believers, any mention of the UN sets off alarm bells about the end times, globalism, and compromising our distinctive faith. It is easy to see where that knee-jerk reaction comes from.” Calling it a ‘knee-jerk reaction’ implies the concern is instinctive and uninformed, as opposed to well-reasoned and valid.
“We take Bible prophecy seriously, and passages like 2 Corinthians 6:14 warn us not to be unequally yoked with the world.” Those raising this concern are, in fact, sincere and taking Bible prophecy seriously. Yet the article dismisses this with a simple ‘but’:
“But when you look past the sensational headlines and see what this relationship actually involves, a very different picture emerges. Far from being a dangerous compromise, having a seat at the table is a vital, biblically grounded tool for advancing our mission.”
The reference to ‘sensational headlines’ is ironic, given the misleading framing of the headline. The article’s central claim is that this ‘seat at the table’ is without GC compromise, but does GC ‘support the work of the UN’?
Questionable Voice: An additional important point from the ‘principles to be applied in the establishment of consultative relations’ with the UN is: “11. The organization shall have authority to speak for its members through its authorized representatives.” The GC is misleading the UN in this regard, because according to the 2025 Church Manual (unchanged since inception in 2010) on p 30 states: “Thus, Church organizations around the world recognize the General Conference in Session as the voice of the Church.” So, the GC administration should not even qualify for UN status, because GC does not have the authority to speak for the members; the GC Session is “the voice of the Church”.
The GC has held UN status since 1985, before this sentence entered the Church Manual in 2010; it is also worth noting that the practice of issuing Official Statements is a recent phenomenon, only beginning around 1980 after more than a century without them, please refer to this article for a review of the concerns.
Questionable Statements: Of the eleven Official Statements referencing the UN or the World Health Organization (WHO), two are especially revealing.
1. The Dangers of Climate Change: “The world membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church requests that the governments concerned take steps necessary to avert the danger: 1. By fulfilling the agreement reached in Rio de Janeiro (1992 Convention on Climate Change) to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 at 1990 levels,” This is the GC claiming that SDAs around the world are requesting governments to implement UN Agenda21, produced by the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, with Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, set at the 2002 Summit hosted in Johannesburg; and subsequently relaunched as Agenda2030 with Sustainable Development Goals, or SGDs, replacing the MDGs.
2. Immunization: This statement is in support of the WHO (and therefore UN) Immunization Agenda which is a recurring theme throughout the UN agendas, for example. This statement remains published despite being a source of embarrassment to the GC, and when the affirmation statement admits “We are aware that vaccines may have side effects, and these can be severe in a small percentage of cases, including death in rare situations[2].” and while there is no biblical or EGW basis for the statement to exist as explained here.
Other articles regarding the statement to note: Three Conferences and Almost 100 Churches Vote to Reject the GC Vaccine Statements and Australian Union Conference Asks The Church to Review the 2015 and 2021 Vaccine Statements.
Given this evidence, the article’s author must address these before claiming the GC’s UN status is without compromise.
Questionable Company: So why is GC at the UN? Because GC believes … “having a seat at the table is a vital, biblically grounded tool for advancing our mission.” But a seat at the table is not a moral imperative! GC is not transparent and honest about the cost of that seat at the table.
Businessmen strike deals in gentlemen’s clubs over gambling and liquor; granting a pastor admittance to such a club might well be effective for closing deals which may even be beneficial to the church, but at what cost to a pastor’s witness? The article attempts to explain the benefit, without due consideration of the cost, in this way:
“First, let us clear up what consultative status really is. Through agencies like ADRA (which has held consultative status with the UN's Economic and Social Council since 1997) and our Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department (PARL), the church is not taking orders from world leaders.” But how then did GC promote UN Agenda21, did the Bible compel them to do so?
“Instead, consultative status gives the church practical diplomatic standing. When a natural disaster strikes a closed country, ADRA can get cargo planes of food, clean water, and medicine through customs because of that recognized status. When a Seventh-day Adventist in a hostile nation is imprisoned for keeping the Sabbath, PARL representatives can walk into international human rights meetings and advocate directly for their release.”
Notice:
1. How the supplied explanation of consultative status omits … “in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles … to support the work of” … the UN. If the author does not know this then the author should refrain from attempting to clarify “consultative status” when they know nothing thereof. If the author knows this, then this is a telling omission.
2. The pivot to ADRA. We’ll deal with ADRA next, but ADRA has its own status at the UN. The GC does not need UN status for ADRA’s benefit. There should be no attempted justification of GCs “seat at the table” by referring to ADRA, because ADRA has their own seat at the table.
Questionable Charity: ADRA, comes with a soft ‘A’ for ‘Adventist’. Why? The mission of Adventism, as supplied by the GC to the UN is: “The mission statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to call all people to become disciples of Jesus Christ, to proclaim the everlasting gospel [i.e., proselytize] embraced by the three angels' messages (Rev. 14:6-12), and to prepare the world for Christ's soon return.” … ADRA does not share in this mission as per its own website, “ADRA does not proselytize. God’s love in ADRA’s programs is expressed when it reaches out to those in need regardless of race, gender, and political, or religious affiliation. We work in harmony with a broad array of cultures, traditions, and people of non-Christian faith, respecting the human dignity of all.” Thus they should reconsider the ‘A’ and perhaps be renamed as ‘DRA’? But there would be far less outcry from the church members if ADRA alone had the status …
Questionable Business Case: The issue is GC’s status, and this is the supposed reason: “When a Seventh-day Adventist in a hostile nation is imprisoned for keeping the Sabbath, PARL representatives can walk into international human rights meetings and advocate directly for their release.” So, for the sake of this infrequent scenario, and without guarantee of favorable outcome, the GC needs to promote the UN agenda in its Official Statements? In this deal the UN agenda enjoys continuous support, ‘Adventism’ at best a ‘maybe’?
Questionable Premise: A common argument holds that ADRA’s relief work, or the GC’s religious liberty work, would not be possible without UN status. But this framing treats status as the exclusive means of doing this work. However, many charitable organizations operate effectively without it.
Example: Samaritan’s Purse International Disaster Relief (SP), with a budget in excess of $1b (as per 2024 IRS return) does not have UN status. Note that SP declined USAID funding, specifically president Franklin Graham said: “… after prayer and discussion, we have withdrawn from being a recipient of these funds,” … “Throughout my history leading Samaritan’s Purse, we have always relied on God, not government, for funding. …” and finally “As we have done for decades, we will continue sharing the hope of the Gospel of Jesus Christ—His death, burial, resurrection, and coming return—always responding to crises in Jesus’ Name.”
How is it that ADRA lacks the faith of SP? Why can ADRA not also “continue sharing the hope of the Gospel” and “responding to crises in Jesus’ Name”? Is it because ADRA needs to maintain its UN status; is it because 70%+ of ADRA’s annual budget is reliant upon USAID/Government funding (as per 2024 IRS return), funding which SP chooses to forego to remain free of influence?
Questionable Policy Adherence: GC’s own Church-State Relations (CSR) policy states: “Thus when laws of a nation permit government assistance to churches or their institutions our principles permit receipt of funding that is not accompanied by conditions that inhibit our ability to freely practice and promulgate our faith, … and to observe without compromise principles expressed in the Bible and the writings of Ellen G White.” Is ADRA, as an institution of the church in violation of this policy? If not, why does it not proselytize in harmony with the Church’s mission, and decline any funding from sources that prevents this?
Questionable Hermeneutic: The article claims “Being present in secular spaces is not a modern compromise; it is deeply biblical. Scripture is full of faithful believers who operated directly inside secular and pagan power structures to protect God's people and do good:”
The article offers several biblical examples to argue that being present is not compromise; but biblical. This framing requires cautious reconsideration for no qualifier is offered for when presence in a secular space becomes conducive to compromise. The Bible calls for avoiding, even the appearance of, evil; and it is difficult to see adherence to this counsel with GC’s presence at, and promotion of, an institution and its agenda influenced by figures like Robert Muller, Alice Bailey, and Helena Blavatsky.
Also missing is recognition of the distinction between the holy and the profane, and specifically between Church leadership and Church membership. Members of the Church work in secular employment every day, often with great impact. That does not grant license to Church leaders to promote a secular entity’s agenda in the Church’s name.
But let us deal with the cited examples:
Joseph: Joseph managed national logistics in Egypt to save lives during a famine. Joseph was not a priest; he functioned much like a Church member in secular employment does today, doing important work in a government role. But Pharaoh’s government was not the source of salvation — it was merely the mechanism God used. That distinction becomes clearer at the Exodus: God and Israel did not need Pharaoh’s permission to leave. Moses and Aaron could engage in diplomacy without requiring formal status with Pharaoh’s court. This is a crucial oversight in the UN apologists’ posture, in their view “presence” at the UN is the only, and therefore the holy, way for religious liberty matters to be addressed, but that is not the case, God alone is enough.
Daniel: Daniel served at the highest levels of the Babylonian and Persian courts without ever compromising his faith. Daniel was a eunuch in exile, serving in Babylon by force of circumstance, not by choice. Daniel was of the royal line (Dan1:3), not the priestly, but let’s assume for a minute he was a priest, then serving as a eunuch in Babylon’s court would have disqualified Daniel from being a priest! No one forced the GC as exiles to support the UN agenda. This is a poor example by which to attempt to justify the UN status.
Paul: Paul regularly invoked his Roman citizenship and legal rights before secular rulers to keep preaching the gospel (Acts 25:11). Paul used every tool available — including his citizenship and even pagan cultural touchpoints — in the service of proclaiming the gospel. This stands in contrast to ADRA, which by its own description does not proselytize. Paul leveraged his standing with secular authorities for the gospel; he did not allow secular forces to redirect his voice toward promoting their own agenda. The GC’s quadrennial submissions to the UN reportedly show a trajectory of downplaying the Church’s actual mission rather than proclaiming it, as researched and presented here.
Jesus: Jesus told us to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-14). Salt is completely useless if it stays inside the shaker, and light does no good hidden in a corner. No one expressing concern is arguing that Adventists should stop proclaiming the gospel. The concern is narrower, that GC engagement with the UN is not a warranted vehicle for that proclamation, because it has bound the Church to support the UN agenda, GC has become unequally yoked to the UN.
Nehemiah: “Nehemiah leveraged his position as cupbearer to petition King Artaxerxes for resources and protection to rebuild Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8). …
Ellen White and the Nehemiah Principle … Our own history backs this up. Back in the 1890s, when church leaders were terrified of compromising church-state separation by accepting a massive 12,000-acre land grant in South Africa for Solusi Mission, Ellen White pushed back hard against their isolationism. She pointed straight to Nehemiah and reminded leadership that God places resources and influence in the hands of the world specifically so they can be used for good. In Testimonies to Ministers (pp. 202-203), she wrote: ‘Why should we not ask the Gentiles for assistance? I have received instruction that there are men and women in the world who have sympathetic hearts... We are to become acquainted with people in high places.’”
I have deliberately left the Nehemiah mention for last. Nehemiah, like Joseph and Daniel, was not a priest, and he never subjugated the voice of the priesthood to the king. Notice that a believer in secular employment may be able to secure support for the Church’s goals, if that is the will of the Lord. But that should never result in a contra-flow where the Church starts to promote the secular agenda in return for status.
Nehemiah drew a sharp distinction between the holy and the profane in Neh 13:7-12: “And I came to Jerusalem, and understood of the evil that Eliashib [v4 the priest] did for Tobiah [Neh 2:10 the Ammonite], in preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber. … Then brought all Judah the tithe of the corn and the new wine and the oil unto the treasuries.”
Nehemiah made use of the king’s support to restore the Church, but he did not allow the profane (Tobiah, the Ammonite) to take up residence within the house of God. Notably, it was only after the profane was cast out of that position of influence that the tithes began flowing into the treasuries again. The GC-UN connection gave Robert Muller [a modern Tobiah] the opportunity to address the Church as per Adventist Review (AR) March 5, 1981, p3.
Neal Wilson’s reference in the AR article to ‘restoring the walls of Jerusalem’ is in fact an argument against the status with the UN, for Zerubbabel rejected the assistance of the non-Jews, when rebuilding Jerusalem as per Ezr 4:2-3 “Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither. But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.”
We need a Zerubbabel at the GC, God is all-sufficient to supply for his Church. We don’t need the UN. The Great Commission is completed by the power of Christ, Mat 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. The Great Commission does not need the UN to open the doors.
Questionable Conclusion: The article closes with this false reassurance: “Having consultative status at international forums does not mean our church is bowing to global directives or watering down our faith. It simply means we are showing up where decisions are made so we can feed the hungry, heal the sick, and protect freedom of conscience for believers everywhere. Engaging the world on principled terms is not just good diplomacy; it is practical, Christ-centered ministry at work.” … such sugarcoating of diplomacy fails to acknowledge that UN agendas are being promoted by the GC and that unbiblical therapies are being promoted. This humanistic altruistic pursuit disguises the fact that the GC is entering into the enemy’s territory and the voice and mission of the Church is being hijacked and muted. Returning again to GC’s CSR policy we note wise counsel that is somehow overlooked by the ardent UN apologists: “The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world.” Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p 297. After 40 years in status with the UN, the members can only see evidence of the Church being brought nearer to the world.
The false UN-reassurances hinges on two misrepresentations:
Not acknowledging the demonstrable compromise to maintain the UN status.
Implying that the Church could not engage in effective charity or religious liberty effort without UN status.
Solid Faith: What is missing throughout is a statement of faith in God’s sufficiency. If God chooses to work through the UN for His people’s benefit, then that is God’s prerogative. But God’s people do not have the corresponding freedom to bypass reliance on God to secure favor and alliance with human institutions, however strategic it may appear.
“Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him” (2Ki 18:21).
We do not need the UN, we only need God and we certainly need to rely on God at the highest levels of GC and ADRA. Adventism needs reformation: Sola scriptura (not UN agendas and peer-reviewed scientific health literature), solus Christus (not UN status), sola fide (not USAID), sola gratia (Not charity alone), and soli Deo gloria (to proclaim in Jesus’ name).
****
[1] GCB1985-01.pdf Condensation of the keynote address presented Thursday, June 27, 1985. By NEAL C. WILSON President General Conference: “On May 10 [1985] the United Nations recognized the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists as a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. As the United Nations Security Council looks after matters of war and peace, ECOSOC deals with worldwide social, economic, humanitarian, and cultural questions, including human rights and religious liberty. The General Conference […not Adventism…] now has the right to be represented at all ECOSOC meetings in New York and those of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland. This new NGO status includes the right to speak and submit written statements regarding issues of importance to the church. We [those at the GC] believe that the new status will provide the Seventh-day Adventist Church with another opportunity to establish a presence and exert a positive Christian outreach among civic, religious, and government leaders of all the nations of the world.”
[2] Victim family testimonies on the harm this statement has contributed to: Exclusive Interview: The untold story they don't want you to know. and The Real Story Behind the Vaccine Issue that Split the Seventh-day Adventist Church).
