There is an old song we used to sing… “I’m so glad to be part of the family of God, I’ve been washed in the fountain, cleansed by his blood.” The Church truly is a family. One of the easiest ways to judge a family’s health is to observe their communication and dispute resolution process. The events of yesterday show that we have a problem.
Monday was the first day of the GC session, and for those of you who didn’t see it, I suggest you watch it to understand the context of this article. I won’t write further about what happened. The video speaks for itself.
Ever since the vaccine mandates became imminent, I and others have attempted to discuss with Church leadership the problems caused by ADCOM’s 2015 statement (and later 2021 reaffirmation). We have constantly been rebuffed. What happened at Monday’s GC session was an example of the typical response we have received.
I would like to write about what I might have said and advocated for, had my motion to discuss the 2015 statement and 2021 reaffirmation had passed.
Impact on Members
The first point I would like to have made is the impact that the 2015 vaccine statement has had upon our members and potential members. The impact is staggering. Many people have lost their jobs, with some losing their homes as well. Many have been forced to withdraw from school, often losing scholarships making further education difficult. Most sobering, many have submitted to vaccine requirements against their conscience and now have serious vaccine injuries. Some young people have died.
Based upon ADCOM’s statements, our institutions have adopted policies that are illegal for secular institutions to adopt. For example, under American law, an Adventist college can deny religious exemptions. Public universities are subject to the First Amendment, and must allow religious exemptions for vaccinations. Let that sink in for a second. The Church, which fought for centuries and had much of its blood spilled to eventually secure religious liberty in America and elsewhere, is now quick to violate these principles. What example does this set?
Based upon ADCOM’s statements, many Adventist Review articles have been written urging our members to be vaccinated in violation of their conscience. Video conferences have been held. Church leaders have justified their arguments by denying their members religious concerns by labeling them personal concerns or “personal conscience.” Human beings do not have divided consciences. Asking anyone to violate their conscience, even in the smallest manner, risks searing their conscience, a small step towards the unpardonable sin.
Based upon ADCOM’s statements, the world wrongly believes that health decisions are not religious decisions. Many people in the world know better. People from all walks of life understand that there are religious issues at stake and they are looking for a Church that understands this. I speak to non-Adventists about this on a regular basis. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is in a unique position to minister to them, by recognizing their conscience in matters of health. We have a health message that teaches care for one’s body as the temple of God. Our message has historically been hesitant to use drugs as the primary method of healing. Legally, our Church can have a global impact. No longer could courts and legislatures say that no prominent religion or Christian denomination recognizes that there can be a religious objection to taking a vaccination or any other drug for that matter.
25,086 Adventists, 1,929 Adventist Pastors, and 4,171 health professionals from 138 countries (see LibertyandHealth.org) have signed an appeal addressed to the leadership of the Adventist Church expressing that a person may have a valid religious objection to vaccination.
ADCOM has exceeded its authority. In its statements, it has placed peer-reviewed science on the same level as Scripture. Peer reviewed science denies God and would have us believe the world is millions and millions of years old. While it seems proper for ADCOM to comment on truly settled beliefs (to the extent necessary to communicate with the outside world or execute church discipline) absent GC Session approval, it is imprudent for ADCOM to make theological statements that discriminate against beliefs that may be held by some members that do not rise to the level of a denial of a fundamental belief. It is improper to assert that the General Conference in Session cannot take action on anything other than a fundamental belief or mundane (but important) tasks such as the amending the Constitution or Church manual. The General Conference in Session is the highest voice of authority in the Church and has plenary powers. A General Conference in Session has the power and responsibility to govern every aspect of the Church, including its own agenda and its parliamentarian. If it were any other way, anyone that would usurp these powers would be the supreme authority of the Church.
“Religious liberty has shifted away from protecting Protestant ideals to protecting minority non-Christian groups, which has now shifted towards social justice concerns.”
So why did the General Conference delegates vote down adding a discussion of ADCOM’s statements from the agenda? While it is impossible to know, there are some observations that can be made. First, in order to enter the United States all foreign delegates must be vaccinated. Second, most delegates are Church leaders who have spent the last two years enforcing policies based on ADCOM’s statements, the GC health departments guidance, and government rules and recommendations. They have already wrestled with being vaccinated themselves and with the ethics of requiring the vaccine on their subordinates. At this time, this is not a moral issue for most of them.
Furthermore, there is a campaign to portray anyone who would oppose ADCOMs statement as being anti-science and anti-all vaccines. This could not be farther from the truth. True science is merely a tool to study God’s creation. However what passes for science today is often political dogma. This is particularly problematic in the area of recent vaccine research.
Religious Liberty
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, our religious liberty departments have not lived up to their responsibility to teach basic principles of liberty of conscience. It is not surprising, as liberty of conscience is perceived as being rarely challenged in most of the world. Religious liberty has shifted away from protecting Protestant ideals to protecting minority non-Christian groups, which has now shifted towards social justice concerns. Sadly, social justice concerns are largely based upon Marxist principles and so it is not surprising that traditional Protestant values are forgotten or even attacked. The average GC delegate does not recognize these influences and is ignorant of what they do not know.
Vaccine requirements are not going away anytime soon. As a lawyer, I continually receive requests for help. This could grow as it seems various government and quasi-government agencies continue to discuss new requirements. These will be much harder to fight than employment requirements.
It is my hope that church members watching from afar can view the issues more dispassionately and that they can exert local influence to ensure their local churches, conferences, and institutions act in a reasonable and moral manner. We are all part of the family, no matter how dysfunctional. Let’s fix it. The solution, in my opinion, will start with a thorough understanding of religious liberty and church governance. Don’t leave, I’m not.
****