On July 3rd, the North American Division Conference of Seventh – day Adventists, hosted a panel discussion/webinar which was to include topics such as social media and free speech, COVID-19 vaccination requirements and exemptions, and LGBTQ rights at Christian colleges and universities.
Given the subject matter and my concern about the lack of Biblical and denominational outreach toward LGBT+ identified students on our academy and university campuses, I dropped everything. Finally! Religious liberty was going to take on the contrasting atmosphere on our campuses where LGBT+ rights are strongly advocated. At least, so I thought.
Representing the General Conference were, Jennifer Woods, Associate General Counsel, Todd McFarland, Associate General Counsel, Andre Wang, Legal Counsel – North Pacific Union Conference, and Orlan Johnson, Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, North American Division.
It is human nature to make quick judgments when seeing a name of notoriety. Having spoken on the LGBT+ topic for twelve years, many might be prone to make assumptions, simply by seeing my name in print. It is not my objective to make a critical analysis of the webinar, but to create an awareness how we may have lost our primary focus as not only Adventists, but students of Scripture.
I’m no saint. I will be the first to convey failure, even after conversion. We have all failed Jesus. Yet, shouldn’t our goal be to live and promote a life progressing toward all that Christ offers and advises? It is the hope of Jesus, His love in truth, that I watch for within ANY administrative representation of Him.
Often, religious liberty voices have been wrapped around legalese, instead of being relevant to the advancement of the Advent message commissioned to Seventh-day Adventists.
In layman’s terms: Politics.
The webinar ad for this session, stated the need to register, in order to participate in the Q&A and have your questions addressed. Having sought the opportunity to bring a redemptive voice to most of our university campuses, I had a lot of questions. So I registered and sent them in.
The webinar began without prayer or an invitation of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Todd McFarland spoke to what is referred to as “religious exception.” This exception is applied in private, religious groups who lay claim to Scripture and denominational beliefs, providing them a safeguard holding to their truths and principles. Todd gave examples of some current cases in front of our court system, that could influence the privilege of “religious exception.”
My experience with attorneys in our faith, is that they are more concerned with facts and outcomes, rather than active protection of the biblical principles we would want to uphold and protect, under our blessed “ministerial exception.”
When our denomination fails to use “ministerial exception” or “religious exception” to uphold God’s sovereign authority, these discussions boil down to one word. Useless.
Todd McFarland
Mr. McFarland opens by speaking to the issue of the Title 9 law that is applied to institutions of higher education that accept federal funding, as it relates to not discriminating under the basis of gender or sex.
Well… Bingo!
We are off and running, because I do not believe there is a university of ours that does not accept federal funding, at a minimum, for their social work programs. So, we have already set ourselves up for disaster. However, it’s not likely that we are going to try and use our “religious exception” privilege.
No current case that we are dealing with surfaces. It is more of a generic “what if” scenario. Pretty much informing us that sooner or later, “religious exception” is going to disappear. Thanks for that. I’m not aware of us using it.
A couple of years ago, I attended Andre Wang’s presentation at the Oregon Camp Meeting. He said he would not take a position as to how he felt about right or wrong applications. He was just informing us of what is in place. He then stated that if you are going to use “ministerial exception” toward LGBT+ people, you must equally apply the same principles toward heterosexuals. In other words, you cannot reprimand gays for acting out sexually in violation of college protocols, if you are not applying the same to heterosexuals.
Listening to Mr. McFarland became quite boring, since basically none of what he was referring to is an active issue of counsel toward activities currently taking place on our campuses. No one appears to be exercising “religious exemption.” By contrast, many in administrative roles are turning their heads from Scripture and God’s authority and celebrating that which God’s Word says He cannot condone. We are on a fast track toward the acceptance of LGBT+ social and cultural constructs. IE: The NAD Human Sexuality Committee’s publication, “Guiding Families of LGBT+ Loved Ones.”
Without diving deeply into the topic, one quickly recognizes that when we accept federal funds in our academic environments, there’s a price to pay as it relates to Christian education and the mandates of government.
The Three Angels Message, the commission of advancing the gospel of Jesus, the counsel to stay true to God’s Word irrespective of government, as it relates to God’s remnant, never surfaced. Ever.
Upon reentry in the church after my conversion in 2009, I made a distinct comparison between life in the church forty years earlier. Today, politics and social justice supersede Scripture and God’s justice. Religion and Christianity are not the same. Religion is a doctrinal format. Christianity is a commitment to live in agreement with the divine ways of Jesus Christ.
Jennifer Woods
Jennifer Woods began speaking about Covid19 concerns and the vaccine. It was not immediately clear where she was headed, as it relates to position. However, with each opportunity she was given to elaborate, her opinion would lend toward a certain coercion, if not mandate about vaccines.
This had a nasty ring to it. Is persecution from within being established? There was a slight caution to try and make it sound that a broad mandate is not imminent. However, it became noticeably clear, there could be consequences for those exercising free will in this very personal decision-making process.
It is concerning, that although there were few comments being made in the chat section of the webinar, visible to the presenters, they would hen peck, as to that which they would respond.
We have a “flu” if you will, in which there is limited research. Only ten percent of the mortality rate accounts for those who were not immune compromised. In other words, most healthy people who contract Covid19, experience it much like a type of flu, and recover. Additionally, recent attention has been given to the number of fatalities and the actual cause of death.
We have a “vaccine” where extremely little is known. It is not even FDA approved. Moreover, upwards of 5000 deaths have been reported as a result of receiving the vaccine. In other vaccine “trials,” when there have been as many as 15 deaths, the administration of the vaccine has been halted and more research ensued, prior to wide distribution. The vaccines were a “rush to market” approach. You and I are experimental.
Most vaccine ingredients have not been made public. So, it’s a huge decision to simply take the word of money-making pharmaceutical companies, combined with the media, convincing you that you must succumb to the increasing social and government mandate. It would seem peculiar that where many might cite religious exemption, a religious organization would seek impose guilt, or more strict consequences toward those choosing not to vaccinate. What is happening to America’s claim to freedom?
After eighty minutes, of the webinar, and my comment in chat about the lack of the mention of Christ in this presentation, Orlan Johnson referenced God and our need to trust these various concerns to His care.
I had submitted numerous questions, including why a biblical position of hope and restoration in Jesus is not allowed on our university campuses today regarding LGBT+ concerns. Michael Nixon, VP of Diversity and Inclusion recently reprimanded the Architecture Chair at Andrews University for allowing me and some members of ‘Coming Out’ Ministries on campus, stating that we are not Biblical, and that inquiries regarding LGBT+ culture and the Bible, must be referred to the “experts” in the Seminary, and the twenty-one-page statement on homosexuality by Andrews.
One of the authors of the statement told me that we must use the “language of culture,” not Scripture. So, I would be inclined to observe that it is not ‘Coming Out’ Ministries and myself who are not Biblical.
The only remotely related response to my emailed questions was that both the GC and the NAD have statements on homosexuality. And that all are welcome in our churches. However, those who practice LGBT+ behaviors, should not hold church office.
Looking across our academic institutions and churches, it is immediately clear that we have a duplicitous projection. Not many denominational members know what takes place on our university campuses. Some would be stunned by the recent Walla Walla University celebration on campus of “gay pride.” Or perhaps another university church where the pastor proclaimed that it’s fine to be gay, as long as you don’t practice it. I guess that would also mean that it’s okay to be an adulterer, as long as you don’t practice it? How sound is that theology? Or is my identity more accurately to be found in Jesus?
I came away from the webinar, not surprised, but deeply saddened by no effort to uplift Christ and His ways, but more of a monitor of whether there is any immediate legal threat toward our church’s written statutes, whether or not they are actively engaged. Risk management is a poor substitute for the righteousness of Christ.
May I plead with you to lift our denominations corporate and educational leaders in prayer, for a Holy Spirit inspired conviction to live for Christ above all that the world offers or insists.
God bless and be with you.
Wayne Blakely