Part 2
So, to briefly recap, in the space of 10 years the official statements went from 0 to 9 with each statement adding to the 1980 precedent that was set.
This was driving a trajectory of increased distance from Bible-based and GC Session-voted fundamental beliefs towards a spur-of-the-moment limited-representation body making declarations that do not fit within official church governance and has uncertain bearing and authority upon members. And from here on the number of statements blossomed, and as such they become almost too numerous to deal with. We will review specific cases to highlight worsening precedence and further departure from church governance norms.
1. During the Robert S. Folkenberg, GC President era, we find a number of social justice and climate-inspired statements
a. Specifically a series of statements on the environment: In Oct 1992 the first Caring for the Environment statement quickly leads to 3 subsequent follow-up statements namely: Environment (Jun 1995); The Dangers of Climate Change (Dec 1995) and Stewardship of the Environment (Oct 1996).
i. In regards to the climate/environment statements, these statements were conceived
not based on Scripture but with a contemporary secular focus.
ii. With the drafting of the statements there was an awareness of the preceding statement, however it was not rephrased or revoked and replaced, rather yet another statement was issued in redundancy – this fact is betrayed by the common phrase present in the last 3 statements: “a simple, wholesome lifestyle, where people do not step on the treadmill of unbridled consumerism (goods-getting) and production of waste.”
iii The term "unbridled consumerism" appears to have been coined by the Roman Pontiff in a November 14 Time Magazine article. Many Adventists are unaware of some Church leaders' deep participation in the political/ecumenical issue of environmentalism/Climate Change. [For instance, our church leaders signed on to the Washington Theological Consortium Statement on Ecology, which coincided with the Pope's LAUDATO SI’ Encyclical on the environment in June 2015.]
iv. But the most significantly concerning content is found in the statement The Dangers of Climate Change:
1. Outright usurpation of the world church membership voice in the making of demands: “The world membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church requests that the governments concerned take steps necessary to avert the danger”. How did GC ADCOM determine that the world membership requested this of governments?
2. And what did this statement request (in the usurped voice of the world church membership)? “By fulfilling the agreement reached in Rio de Janeiro (1992 Convention on Climate Change) …” It demanded the implementation of the United Nations Rio1992 conference’s Agenda 21! The endorsement of, and demand to, implement a global agenda runs counterintuitive to the SDA eschatological teaching of end-time powers uniting in a global antichrist agenda.
b. 1998 saw the issuing of the statement on Meeting the Challenges of Sexually Transmitted Diseases which is a further worrying departure of the church’s high standards and beliefs based on the Bible.
i. This was a pragmatic statement, again invoking the United Nations, containing a message of instruction crudely paraphrased as “members, when they sin sexually, should be counselled to at least do so responsibly”.
ii. The content of this statement does not refer to the church manual at all and introduces a path of action, not present in the church manual
Statement: “At times, family members, and pastors, teachers, counselors, physicians, and others in helping professions may find themselves working with individuals who, despite strong counsel, refuse to turn from sexual decadence and live by God’s high standard of morality. In such cases, those entrusted with ministry may, as a last resort, counsel specific individuals to use contraceptive and prophylactic methods such as condoms in an attempt to prevent pregnancy and reduce the risk of spreading life-decimating STDs.”
Church manual: “When grievous sins are involved, the church has two ways in which disciplinary measures must be taken: 1. By a vote of censure. 2. By a vote to remove from membership. The reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline are: … 3. Violation of the commandment of the law of God, which reads, “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14, Matt. 5:27-28), as it relates to the marriage institution and the Christian home, biblical standards of moral conduct, and any act of sexual intimacy outside of a marriage relationship and/or non-consensual acts of sexual conduct within a marriage, whether those acts are legal or illegal. Such acts include but are not limited to child sexual abuse, including abuse of the vulnerable. Marriage is defined as a public, lawfully binding, monogamous, heterosexual relationship between one man and one woman. 4. Fornication, which includes among other issues, promiscuity, homosexual activity, incest, sodomy, and bestiality.”
iii. This is a problematic statement in terms of precedent, since the church does not issue similar statements in regards to other sins, by advising how to sin responsibly based on the most recent medical and social guidance. Why not? Imagine a statement on ‘murder’, stating: “when you choose to commit murder, pastors are to counsel you to kindly do so responsibly to avoid unintended murder(s) in addition”. The STD statement further reveals the progressive creep of humanistic pragmatism into church statements.
2. The Jan Paulsen era produced a statement on Birth Control in Sep 1999.
a. This statement contained the Malthusian consideration: “Among the issues to be considered is the question of the appropriateness of human intervention in the natural biological processes of human reproduction. If any intervention is appropriate, then additional questions regarding what, when, and how must be addressed. Other related concerns include: … stewardship issues related to population growth and the use of natural resources.”
b. Population growth as a threat to finite natural resources is a primary concern of Agenda 21.
3. Finally, we reach the Ted N. C. Wilson era. What are the notable highlights of this era?
a. The statement on Immunization which states: “The Adventist health emphasis is based on [1] biblical revelation, [2] the inspired writing of E.G. White (co-founder of the Church), and on [3] peer-reviewed scientific literature.”
b. Now this statement should be tested against the 28 Fundamentals. The Fundamentals are based on the Bible as foundation. And the 28 Fundamentals also contain the Fundamental belief nr 18 regarding the Gift of Prophecy, which states “This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church.” From the 28 Fundamentals agreement on [1] and [2] has been established.
c. However [3] “peer-reviewed scientific literature” or PRSL is conspicuously absent within the 28 Fundamentals. So how did this source, which derives from the efforts of fallible humans, is subject to consensus biases and has been demonstrably faulty at times in recent history, become a foundational basis for the SDA health emphasis? This is a troubling departure from inspired-sources as authoritative.
d. In fact, the Immunization statement further violates the supposed premise of the “SDA Church Official Statements”, which has as its introduction: “Seventh-day Adventists find it important to articulate their understanding of certain important topics in light of their understanding of biblical values and teachings”, when the immunisation statement makes no attempt to clarify its stance from the Bible and its teachings. The statement acknowledges that this cannot be done, when it states that “we encourage responsible immunization/vaccination, and have no religious or faith-based reason not to encourage our adherents to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunization programs”. The Bible does not encourage nor discourage immunization, and therefore this statement is predicated on PRSL alone and thus violates the premise of “SDA Church Official Statements”!
e. The problem with this reliance on PRSL is that, unlike the Bible, the definitions of the words used changes. Since this statement was issued in 2015 both the definitions of “vaccination” and “herd immunity” (terminology not defined in the Bible) have been altered by the CDC and WHO respectively. Given the changed definitions, how is it that GC ADCOM is still convinced that this statement reflects their original intent?
4. In aggregate, there are 11 statements that invoke the United Nations or World Health Organisation. Such reference to supranational political entities may result in (unintended) deference to the UN and its affiliates.
It is unbecoming that the church should appear to be promoting political organisations. Statements should be worded in an apolitical manner to avoid explicit or tacit endorsement of political bodies. Especially considering the introductory comments that Seventh-day Adventists find it important to articulate their understanding of important topics in light of their understanding of biblical values and teachings.
The number of statements produced during the respective GC presidencies are as follows:
President: Number of Statements
Neal C. Wilson 9
Robert S. Folkenberg 24
Jan Paulsen 11
Ted N. C. Wilson 15
Total 59
Diagnosis:
Whether it is by careful design and patient strategy or borne from ineptitude and incompetence, we see the culmination of all these points of departure from regular church order:
1. The departure from the Church Manual: the presumption to prevail in this space of “church statements” that is not specifically allowed for, nor specifically condemned, in the Church Manual.
2. Statements outside of GC Session, thus not subject to scrutiny and support by delegates
3. The limited representation, unilateral and even undisclosed origin of certain statements masquerading as “official” statements of the world church membership
4. The departure from the Bible, the SOP (specifically the writings of EGW) and the 28 Fundamentals, and greater reliance on, and use of, non-biblical secular sources:
a. first as additional commentary
b. then as authoritative bodies and sources (UN, WHO and peer-reviewed scientific literature)
c. leading to humanistic, secular, amoral viewpoints informing “official” statements
5. Statements issued ad infinitum, with no maintenance, reconsideration or an appropriate time-bound context
What is the Potential and Actual Harm?
There is potential harm around the theological and doctrinal confusion stemming from these statements. Appealing to secular, amoral bodies and sources as an authority undermines the supremacy of the Bible as foundational to the 28 Fundamentals. Fallible human knowledge, wisdom, practice, consensus etc. is of no comparison to the eternal truths of the Bible and the Spirit-inspired gift of prophecy. It would be best for the church to remain silent on matters that both the Bible and the spirit of prophecy chose to remain silent on. At present these statements containing such wayward content may provide convenient excuse for those seeking reason for erroneous beliefs.
There has been actual harm as it relates to the question of vaccines mandates. While a number of secular governments recognize that vaccine mandates may intrude on matters of conscience and therefore allow for religious exemptions, the Immunization statement has resulted in three primary and related harmful outcomes:
1. First the SDA Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department has counterintuitively and paradoxically claimed that religious liberty is not to be invoked when challenged with a vaccine mandate, as stated in the Adventist Review article, Reaffirming the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Response to COVID-19:
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church, in consultation with the Health Ministries and Public Affairs and Religious Liberty departments of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, is convinced that the vaccination programs that are generally being carried out are important for the safety and health of our members and the larger community. Therefore, claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.
2. Second the likelihood of success of a religious exemption request from an SDA member has now been drastically reduced to negligible, since the membership have been left to fend for themselves trying to secure an exemption entirely on their personal (practice of their) beliefs. The PARL department will not assist, and the so-called “official” statement of the church robs the member of presenting arguments that the vaccine may contain unclean and harmful materials.
3. Third, where the religious exemptions were applied for and denied, given 1. and 2., some members may have (or may yet in future) suffered actual harm either by:
a. Loss of employment in case the religious exemption is denied and the member refuses to take the vaccine regardless,
b. Or from vaccine side-effects, in the event that the member relents and reluctantly receives the vaccination
As such the Immunization statement in particular has become a prominent display of the danger posed by these statements. It is worse once the reader of the statement realizes that the source material guiding the statement vests solely on the unbiblical and fallible source of “peer-reviewed scientific literature”.
GC Session and the Immunization statement
It is intriguing to note that the proposal for discussion of the Immunization statement, which is not present in the 28 Fundamentals, was discouraged by the current GC President at GC 2022. This statement which has proven to be consequential to the world church membership, yet never voted in any GC Session is not to be discussed. Contrast this with the Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G White , which is a belief present in the 28 Fundamentals, and thus voted by a GC session in years before and yet finds itself routinely on the Agenda (p 35) for a GC vote as reconfirmation.
Why is there tolerance for routinely questioning the GC delegate-voted fundamental, yet the product of the GC ADCOM is deemed to be above questioning?
When it comes to these statements, then the:
lack of comprehensive representation in the bodies of origin,
questionable and conflicting content and
unaccountable behaviour of those defending these statements when challenged
potentially harms the confidence of members in leadership bodies.
We humbly appeal for transparency and review of this practice of using the world church name to produce questionable statements to the detriment of the faith and freedoms of individual members.
As Paul said “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40) and “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly (1 Peter 5:2).
Henk Viljoen lives in South Africa and is happily married with four children.
Appendix A: Detailed Statement Analysis Spreadsheet
****
Commentary from Fulcrum7
Dear friends, none of us wish to belong to a church where you are not allowed to ask questions. I don’t.
Like ourselves, leaders are not above honest questions and being held accountable by the people. As Ted Wilson said on July 3, 2010 “Hold your leaders accountable.”
Educating our laymen how these things work and why they fail is important. The crux of the problem is a conflict of interest of the large number of Church employees outnumbering laymen on all the higher level decision making bodies of the Church. The recent GC Session revealed this disparity anew. Changing that, because of the conflict of interest, is highly unlikely, and without that change all of the recommendations suggested in this article are unlikely to happen.
Laymen need to continue to speak up about these issues wherever they have a voice, especially in the local church and local conference level where they have more voice and even at the Union level to a lesser degree. GC/Division levels are where the problem is the worst and most difficult to change.
To our dear brothers and sisters, how will you deal with frustration if nothing happens on this perplexing issue? We appeal to you to remain committed to the Advent Message and the One who gave it. He will not ever forsake you, even though people sometimes let us down. Don’t let this issue define you; don’t become overly critical of the Church.
Love God and love one another. There is peace and truth in Jesus Christ.