During the second Republican presidential candidates debate in September, Ben Carson said that instead of invading Afghanistan after 9/11, President Bush should have used the “bully pulpit” and
declare[d] that within five to 10 years we will become petroleum independent. The moderate Arab states would have been so concerned about that, they would have turned over Osama bin Laden and anybody else you wanted on a silver platter within two weeks.
Frankly, I think this is a completely nutty position. I can understand why someone would have opposed the invasion of Iraq. I can understand why someone would have opposed any attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan, or even a prolonged occupation. But not even a brief punitive strike? Not even the hunting down of bin Laden and his gang? That is what justice would call for, not to mention prudence. And how exactly was Carson’s policy supposed to have worked? How is Bush supposed to have guaranteed “petroleum independence”? What exactly is the mechanism by which moderate Arab states would have gotten the Taliban to turn over bin Laden? “Half baked” is too kind, and I was amazed that this response didn’t hurt Carson with Republican voters more than it did.
But as to why Carson would take such a position, I’m no longer puzzled. It was only after the debate that I found out that Carson is a Seventh-Day Adventist. Given his conservatism on moral and religious issues, I imagine he is fairly devout. Now, Adventists are not necessarily pacifist, but there is a tendency in that direction, and historically they have opted for conscientious objection to military service. Carson has to my knowledge not publicly linked his position on matters of war to his Adventism, but it is hardly implausible to suspect that there is a connection. (Note that I am not supposing that all Adventists would necessarily agree with Carson on this issue. The point is just that his preference for an extremely mild response to 9/11 is the sort that one might expect from someone having the traditional Adventist attitude toward matters of war and military service.)
If no one has asked him about this, someone should. Nor could he reasonably object to such a question. He has famously said that he would oppose a Muslim becoming president. Hence he implicitly accepts the principle that a candidate’s religious convictions are relevant to deciding whether or not one should vote for him.
But leave aside questions about war and foreign policy, important though they are especially in light of current events. There is another aspect of traditional Adventist doctrine which should be of no less concern to Catholic voters considering whether to vote for Carson, and Protestants too.
Adventism has always put heavy emphasis on biblical prophecy concerning the last days, and ties this closely to its advocacy of observance of the seventh day rather than Sunday. Its understanding of these subjects has been shaped by the teachings of Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regard as a prophetess. White taught that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” described in chapter 17 of Revelation, that the papacy is the first “beast” described in chapter 13, and that the United States is the second beast of that chapter. According to White, in the last days the United States will ally itself with the papacy and on its behalf enforce Sunday observance, which, White claims, will constitute the “mark of the beast” of Revelation. Protestants will be part of this Catholic-led persecution of seventh-day observers.
Lest you think this all too bizarre to be a fair representation of White’s views, and that they must be susceptible of a more moderate interpretation, consider the summary of White’s teaching given by the recently publishedEllen G. White Encyclopedia, edited by Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, two professors at the Adventists’ own Andrews University. Its article “Babylon in Eschatology” says:
Ellen White agreed with many of the Reformers in declaring that the “Church of Rome” is “the apostate Babylon”… This interpretation was further expanded in 1843-1844 when Adventists left those Protestant churches that had rejected the first angel’s message and regarded them also as Babylon…
Babylon is characterized by corruption and apostasy… Babylon attempts to control the consciences of individuals and to suppress religious liberty. It seeks to form a universal confederacy of apostate powers and satanic forces… and persecutes God’s remnant…
[S]he included in Babylon both the Church of Rome… and lamblike Protestantism…
In its article on the “Mark of the Beast,” the Encyclopediasays that:
[White] held that the Sunday legislation that will bring on the mark of the beast will be initiated by the United States, whose example will then be followed by other nations of the world.
And in its article on the “Roman Catholic Church,” it reports:
[White] understood Catholicism as a static institution and further explained how, in spite of showing good will toward Protestants, it will never change… She also expressed concern that Roman Catholicism in America will ultimately attempt to control governments and people’s consciences, as it once did by deceiving Protestants into believing that it has changed. Hence both Roman Catholicism and an apostatized Protestantism will “clasp hands” “in trampling on the rights of conscience”…
She also makes a distinction between the Catholic Church as a system and individual Roman Catholic believers… Repeatedly she emphasizes that there are many conscientious Christians in the Roman Catholic Church… and that Adventists should avoid antagonizing Catholics by making harsh comments in publications and public meetings…
As these last remarks indicate, White advocated taking a soft rhetorical tone in public and with individual Catholics, but also thought that what she regarded as the essentially satanic character of the Catholic Church as an institution would never change, no matter how gently the Church packaged its own teaching. Changes to the Catholic Church could never be more than cosmetic.
White is very clear about all of this in her book TheGreat Controversy, which is worth quoting at some length:
To secure worldly gains and honors, the church was led to seek the favor and support of the great men of earth; and having thus rejected Christ, she was induced to yield allegiance to the representative of Satan -- the bishop of Rome…
[T]he pope… demands the homage of all men. The same claim urged by Satan in the wilderness of temptation, is still urged by him through the Church of Rome, and vast numbers are ready to yield him homage. (p. 50)
[A] movement to enforce Sunday observance is fast gaining ground.
Marvelous in her shrewdness and cunning is the Roman Church. She can read what is to be. She bides her time, seeing that the Protestant churches are paying her homage in their acceptance of the false sabbath, and that they are preparing to enforce it by the very means which she herself employed in bygone days…
Its millions of communicants, in every country on the globe, are instructed to hold themselves as bound in allegiance to the pope. Whatever their nationality or their government, they are to regard the authority of the church asabove all other. Though they may take the oath pledging their loyalty to the state, yet back of this lies the vow of obedience to Rome, absolving them from every pledge inimical to her interests…
And let it be remembered, it is the boast of Rome that she never changes. The principles of Gregory VII and Innocent III are still the principles of the Roman Catholic Church. And had she but the power, she would put them in practice with as much vigor now as in past centuries… Rome is aiming to re-establish her power, to recover her lost supremacy. Let the principle once be established in the United States, that the church may employ or control the power of the state; that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience, and the triumph of Rome in this country is assured.
God’s word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power… She is piling up her lofty and massive structures, in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated. Stealthily and unsuspectedly she is strengthening her forces to further her own ends when the time shall come for her to strike… (pp. 580-81)
End quote. Now, contemporary Protestants are used to regarding talk of the papacy as the Antichrist and of the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon as a throwback to the 16thcentury. Many of them don’t take it seriously, and find it hard to believe that anyone else still does. But Adventism, a sect which is historically much more recent and far from the mainstream of Protestantism, takes it very seriously. And while -- following White’s advice -- Adventists these days sometimes take a softer rhetorical tone when publicly discussing Catholicism, the substance of their view does not seem to have changed. On its official website, in a statement on its attitude toward Catholicism, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church assures the reader that it “reject[s] bigotry,” but also says:
We cannot erase or ignore the historical record of serious intolerance and even persecution on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic system of church governance, based on extra-biblical teachings such as papal primacy, resulted in severe abuses of religious freedom as the church was allied with the state.
Seventh-day Adventists are convinced of the validity of our prophetic views, according to which humanity now lives close to the end of time. Adventists believe, on the basis of biblical predictions, that just prior to the second coming of Christ this earth will experience a period of unprecedented turmoil, with the seventh-day Sabbath as a focal point. In that context, we expect that world religions -- including the major Christian bodies as key players -- will align themselves with the forces in opposition to God and to the Sabbath. Once again the union of church and state will result in widespread religious oppression.
It is not difficult to see in this merely a more gingerly formulated summary of the basic teaching of White’s The Great Controversyquoted above.
A recent article in Adventist Review, a magazine published by the church, argues that the style and substance of Pope Francis and other recent popes should not lead Adventists to give up their traditional views about Catholicism and the papacy. In fact, says the author, a kinder, gentler papal approach is exactly what we should expect of the beast of Revelation, who deceives precisely by lulling people into trusting him. He also cites Ellen G. White’s warnings about how “poverty and humility” can mask a “studied aim to secure wealth and power… and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy.” Another Adventist writer proposes that “Pope Francis represents the first beast of Revelation… whereas President Obama represents the second beast,” and insinuates that Obama might aid Francis in imposing Sunday observance (!)
Needless to say, this is crackpot stuff, and the two articles just quoted from, which seek to uphold traditional Adventist teaching on this subject, indicate that there are these days some Adventists who doubt it. But it is so deeply woven into Adventist theology that it is hard to see how a consistent Adventist coulddoubt it. Says the writer of the first article: “If we actually want to revise our interpretation on this point, we would have to dump our complete understanding of end-time events.” And as a Catholic Answers article on Adventism notes:
There is a "moderate" wing of Adventism that is more open to Catholics as individuals (though still retaining White’s views concerning the papacy). In fact, White was willing to concede that --in the here and now (before the end times) -- some Catholics are saved. She wrote that "there are now true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion…”
Unfortunately, this one tolerant statement is embedded in hundreds of hostile statements. While this aspect of her teaching can be played up by her more moderate followers, it is difficult for them to do so, because the whole Adventist milieu in which they exist is anti-Catholic. The group is an eschatology sect, and its central eschatological teaching, other than Christ’s Second Coming, is that the Second Coming will be preceded by a period in which the papacy will enforce Sunday worship on the world. Everyone who does not accept the papacy’s Sunday worship will be killed; and everyone who does accept the papacy’s Sunday worship will be destroyed by God.
End quote. Whether and how Adventists might modify their traditional position, though, what Catholic voters need to ask is whether Ben Carson believes all this stuff. Does he regard the pope as “the representative of Satan” and the first beast of Revelation? Does he believe that the “Catholic Church as a system” is the “Whore of Babylon”? Does he believe that the United States will be the second beast of Revelation and that it will at “the end of time” ally itself with the papacy to enforce Sunday observance and otherwise persecute true Christians? And does he believe that “humanity now lives close to the end of time”? Does he believe that Catholics, especially the most devout Catholics, “though they may take the oath pledging their loyalty to the state, yet back of this [follow a] vow of obedience to Rome, absolving them from every pledge inimical to her interests”?
Someone should ask Carson these questions, and demand that he answer them directly. Carson has been asked about his Adventism on at least one occasion. On the subject of Catholicism, he said: “I love Catholics. My best friend is Catholic. I have several honorary degrees from Catholic universities.” But that does not answer the relevant questions at all, since as noted above, Adventist doctrine has to do with the Catholic Church as an institution. That Carson speaks well of individual Catholics, as even White herself did, is no evidence whatsoever that he does not buy into the traditional Adventist doctrines about the “Whore of Babylon,” the beast, etc. How do we know that Carson isn’t merely following White’s advice to accentuate the positive when making public statements about Catholicism?
Carson was a bit more direct when asked about the traditional Adventist understanding of the last days. He said:
I think there’s a wide variety of interpretations of that. There’s a lot of persecution of Christians going on already in other parts of world. And some people assume that’s going to happen every place. I’m not sure that’s an appropriate assumption… If you look at what’s going on today with persecution of Christians, particularly in the Middle East, I believe that’s really more what’s being talked about.
This is a little better, but still vague and tentative. Carson was also vague when asked about his views concerning the last days in another interview, in which he answered:
You could guess that we are getting closer to that. You do have people who have a belief system that sees this apocalyptic phenomenon occurring, and that they’re a part of it, and who would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they gain them…
I think we have a chance to certainly do everything that we can to ameliorate the situation, to prevent -- I would always be shooting for peace. You know, I wouldn’t just take a fatalistic view of things.
What Carson ought to do is directly and straightforwardly to answer very specific questions like the ones I put forward above. Why does this matter?
Let me say first that the reason I think it matters is notbecause views like the ones described above are bound to be “offensive” to Catholics. There are too many people in public life as it is who whine incessantly about “insensitivity,” and in my view Catholics should not be among them. To make an issue of Carson’s views about Catholicism merely as a matter of identity politics, hurt feelings, etc. would be a waste of time.
That the views described above are simply nutty is more to the point. Good judgment is, needless to say, something you want in a president. If Carson adheres to doctrines like the ones described, that would certainly be evidence that he lacks good judgment.
But the main point for Catholics is that it is hard to see how a president of the United States who sincerely and deeply believed doctrines like the ones described above could fail to be influenced by those doctrines in a way Catholics should be very concerned about. If a president seriously believes that the United States is in danger of forming an alliance with the papacy for the purpose of oppressing true Christians (!), and that devout Catholics are bound to follow the papacy in doing so even if they claim loyalty to their country… would such a president even consider appointing a devout Catholic to the Supreme Court, or to any other high office? If the U.S. government is in tension with the bishops of the Catholic Church -- as it has been in recent years, over the issue of the HHS contraception mandate -- might a president who accepts the doctrines of Ellen G. White not think this is a good thing? For wouldn’t that make it less likely that the feared oppressive alliance of the United States and the papacy will occur any time soon? After all, the issue of the HHS contraception mandate more or less affects only the Catholic Church. Hence mightn’t such a president, when balancing the Adventist concern for religious freedom against the threat to religious freedom he thinks is posed by the Catholic Church, decide that defending the rights of the Catholic Church is not a top priority? And if such a president seriously believed that we are near the “end of time” and that the papacy will be the gravest threat to true Christians at the end of time, what sort of relations might he have with the Vatican?
Carson has said that for a Muslim to become president, he would “have to reject the tenets of Islam.” Does Carson reject the tenets of Ellen G. White? He can hardly blame Catholics for wanting to know.