Conrad Vine: Silent Men

This past Sabbath (October 5th) Pastor Conrad Vine gave a sermon at “D’Sozo Camp 2024” in Denton, North Carolina entitled “Silent Men“.  This is, evidently, the sermon that Pastor Vine originally planned to present at the Village SDA Church (Religious Liberty weekend event) until the Michigan Conference leadership banned Vine from preaching in Michigan. I have to say, the majority of the sermon was very good.  I personally appreciated and enjoyed most of it.

There were, however, a few moments where I had to take serious exception, as follows:

Video of Talk:

Supreme Authority:

“Today we say in our Adventist church that the Supreme Authority in the church is the church voting in world session. But I would say that’s kind of no longer a Protestant position. The Supreme Authority in my life has to be the Word of God – not the decrees and councils of men.”

This idea comes from Ellen White herself. In 1875 she wrote:

I have been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but surrendered. – Testimonies For The Church, Vol. III page 492 {PC 422} (1875).

Later on, in 1909, she clarified this statement as follows:

At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work. {9T 260.2}

This should also be considered in light of her 1901 statement:

The Lord declares that His church is not to be governed by human rules or precedents. Men are not capable of ruling the church. God is our Ruler. I am oppressed with the thought of the objectionable human management seen in our work. God says, Hands off. Rule yourselves before you attempt to rule others. Strange things have been done, things that God abhors. For men to claim that the voice of their councils in their past management is the voice of God seems to me to be almost blasphemy.—Manuscript 35, 1901. {17MR 250.1}

Also, she was very strong regarding the Bible as the ultimate authority – as the “only rule of faith and doctrine”:

The Bible is the only rule of faith and doctrine… We should not allow any human argument to turn us away from a thorough investigation of Bible truth. Human opinions and customs are not to be received as of divine authority. God has revealed in His word what is the whole duty of man, and we are not to be swayed from the great standard of righteousness. He sent His only begotten Son to be our example, and bade us to hear and to follow Him. We must not be influenced from the truth as it is in Jesus, because great and professedly good people urge their ideas above the plain statements of the word of God. – Fundamentals of Christian Education, 126-128.

So, taken together, it is quite clear that Ellen White, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church today, view the Bible and the Bible only as the ultimate authority when it comes to “faith and doctrine”, not the “General Conference in Session”. Sure, the decisions of the General Conference should be respected, especially when in Session, but not if these decisions undermine a clear statement of God found in the Bible.

Church Taking Place of Holy Spirit:

“The church is saying we have the right to determine what the Holy Spirit can and cannot say to you. It’s the same struggle today as we had 500 years ago in Europe.” Víne emphasizes that this kind of suppression was not only present during the Reformation but is also evident today: “In all three situations, the civil and religious authorities combine to impose their will on the people and to override the consciences of the people… The essence of the Protestant Reformation is deeper than Scripture alone, and is deeper than faith alone. It’s that you have a direct connection to God. And no ecclesiastical hierarchy can come between you and your Heavenly Father.”

Nowhere has the Seventh-day Adventist Church or its leadership made this claim. Pastor Vine is upset (Link, Link) that the church put out a 2015 Statement in support of vaccination, followed by a 2021 Reaffirmation Statement.  However, both of these statements highlighted that the choice to vaccinate, or not, is and should be an individual choice – that the church was not the conscience of the individual in this matter.

“We are not the conscience of the individual church member, and recognize individual choices. These are exercised by the individual. The choice not to be immunized is not and should not be seen as the dogma nor the doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” (Link)

“THE DECISION TO BE IMMUNIZED OR NOT IS THE CHOICE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL, AND SHOULD BE TAKEN IN CONSULTATION WITH ONE’S HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER. PERSONAL RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT IS IMPORTANT. WE ULTIMATELY RELY ON FOLLOWING BIBLICAL HEALTH PRACTICES AND THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, AND FOLLOWING GOD’S LEADING IN OUR LIVES, WHICH WILL BRING US PEACE AND ASSURANCE IN OUR DECISION-MAKING.” https://www.healthministries.com/covid-19-vaccines-addressing-concerns-offering-counsel/ [Emphsis in Original: Link)

Again, it is quite clear that the leadership of the SDA Church is not trying to be or replace the conscience of the individual member before God. That simply isn’t what has or is taking place.

 

Dissenting Voices Banned:

“Dissenting preachers are placed under a ban by the religious authorities to seek to destroy their ministry and cancel their voice… In Wycliffe’s time, they were jealous over the loss of income caused by Wycliffe’s preaching. In Luther’s time, they were jealous over the loss of income caused by his denunciation of indulgences. And today if you speak for two minutes on the topic of tithe, you will be canceled or banned in our church.”

While it is true that Pastor Vine has been banned from speaking at churches within his own Michigan Conference, it is not true that he was banned for his sensational and conspiratorial views regarding vaccines (Link) or even his views regarding the vaccine statements issued by the church.  He was banned for claiming that SDA members would be well within their rights, if the General Conference acted the same way in the future, to “establish a para-church movement” where tithes and offerings could be directed to those who are deemed, by those who agree with Vine, to still be “faithful” (Link). In this way, “The conference that go woke will go broke” (Link).

He’s basically threatening the church leadership that if they don’t do what he says, or what the group that he represents says, he’s perfectly fine with the essential destruction of the current church government and the setting up of a new organization that is in line with him and his supporters. Clearly, this advice to his followers is not God-directed or biblically-based. And, the preposterous nature of what Vine was saying here in “two minutes” quickly alarmed the least “woke” conference in the entire NAD. It was a surprise to many that the conservative Michigan Conference took such decisive action in response (Link).

I know that the Lord loves His church. It is not to be disorganized or broken up into independent atoms. There is not the least consistency in this; there is not the least evidence that such a thing will be. Those who shall heed this false message and try to leaven others will be deceived and prepared to receive advanced delusions, and they will come to nought” (2SM 68.3).

When anyone is drawing apart from the organized body of God’s commandment-keeping people, when he begins to weigh the church in his human scales and begins to pronounce judgment against them, then you may know that God is not leading him. He is on the wrong track” (3SM 17-18).

Indifference to Concerns of Common People:

Vine notes that in both historical periods and today, church leaders have shown indifference to the grievances of ordinary believers: “In all three situations the ecclesiastical authorities were indifferent to the concerns and grievances of the common folk. They’re aloof and indifferent to the pain that their policies have been causing.”

It is because of the concern of the leadership for the common people that the SDA Church made its statements on vaccination – in an effort to prevent as many injuries and to save as many lives as possible. After all, the church supports, as the “Right Arm of the Gospel Message”, the message of healthful living – which includes responsible use of modern medical advances.  The church has a very strong medical presence in the world, after all, and this is often the best opening wedge that we have to spread the Gospel to those who would otherwise not hear or receive it.

Of course, Pastor Vine accuses the SDA Church of being complicit in the vaccine mandates issued by the government during the pandemic – which undermined religious liberty according to Vine. However, what many don’t seem to realize is that the law does not base religious liberty or exemptions on corporate belief, but on personal conviction. Consider this Memorandum from the US Attorney General (May 2017):

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith. (Link)

Beyond this, it is clearly a truism that a church cannot dictate or override one’s personal conscience either. Personal conscience is only between the individual and God. And, this fact is clearly recognized, not only by civil law, but by the SDA Church as well.

[Pastor Vine] mentions quite a few people who did not get a religious exemption, attributing the failure to the Adventists Church’s official support of vaccination. This is peculiar, as official support is not an expectation in the law. Religious exemption laws take personal belief into account, not corporate belief… This is not to deny that some dodgy employers would reject an exemption for personal belief. Yet Vine’s insistence that the General Conference should “apologize to and to make restitution to every Adventist who has lost their job” simply does not make sense… Yet Vine feels that the GC’s statement overrides the individual’s right to choose according to their conscience… He selectively cites from the statements, concluding that the church is telling its members they cannot use religious liberty as a reason to refuse vaccination. This is nonsense. The statements, in a number of places, emphasize each individual’s rights… The department will stand up for core Adventist teachings that affect a large part of the church but needn’t cater to the whim of every Adventist out there. Especially when the majority of Adventists are happily vaccinated.

Tom de Bruin, February1, 2021

In other words, it really wouldn’t have made a difference, legally, if the SDA Church had no statement at all regarding vaccination.  Beyond this, the General Conference lawyers were willing and offered to help those who had personal convictions against vaccination write their own letters of conscientious objection. The NAD assured all their members that their union PARL (Public Affairs and Religious Liberty) directors would help members with exemption letters (Link). Attorney Alan Reinach, PARL director of the Pacific Union, went to court on behalf of unvaccinated people keeping their jobs (Link).

.

.

.

The mRNA Vaccines Were Evil:

What this all boils down to is that Pastor Vine strongly believes and preaches that the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 were and are evil – causing massive numbers of injuries, “Turbo Cancers“, and deaths worldwide and are part of a conspiratorial government coverup to hide the truth (Link).  That’s what all of this is based on.  If it turns out that he’s wrong here, that the mRNA vaccines were truly a gift from God to save the lives of millions and prevent millions more hospitalizations and deaths, where does that leave him? – and the church leadership regarding their efforts to save as many as possible? The short answer is that Vine was wrong regarding vaccines.  They really did save millions from hospitalization, serious permanent injuries, and death.

The reality is that the pandemic was a massive public health crisis around the world and governments were scrambling to save as many of their citizens as possible and to relieve the enormous pressure being placed upon their healthcare infrastructure and medical providers.  Vaccines were a very useful tool along these lines – particularly during the height of the pandemic and governments were well within their God-given rights to think to impose mandates given the information that they had in hand.

I say this even though I was not personally in favor of the government vaccine mandates (I considered them to be counterproductive even though the mRNA vaccines were amazingly effective at reducing hospitalizations and deaths and had a very good safety profile compared to getting a COVID-19 infection without them).

Even if Pastor Vine is Right:

Even if Pastor Vine happened to be right regarding the nature of the mRNA vaccines, this still wouldn’t be a religious liberty issue for Christians since the Bible is not inherently opposed to either vaccines or government health mandates.  As previously noted, Pastor Vine believes that the vaccines were and are very harmful and not at all helpful. He therefore cites “religious liberty” as his basis for opposing the civil government on this issue. It seems to me that this is inconsistent. It would be better to claim health concerns or “bodily autonomy” rather than religious liberty concerns here since vaccines and general health mandates are not inherently opposed to any Biblical teaching or a direct command of God found in the Bible.

After all, it was God Himself who set up the basis for the civil enforcement of general health mandates for the Israelite nation. Religious liberties simply do not apply in civil society if one’s actions put another in harm’s way. And, as it turns out, Vine is actually wrong regarding the nature of the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines. He has listened to and believed and promoted the wrong voices – voices who have spoken falsehoods, not the truth. The truth is the opposite of what he claims here – as detailed above. There was, therefore, no valid Biblical basis to paint the civil or church governments/leadership as evil or as trying to undermine valid religious liberties when they were truly just trying to save as many as possible from needless injury and death.

I mean, are we really at liberty, under God, to ignore speed limits or traffic laws? – or road signs? – or refuse to isolate or be treated if we have a transmissible disease like Tuberculosis or Typhoid?  Is it not the God-given responsibility of governments to protect their citizens, in general, from the negligent use of the freedoms of the individual which may put others in harm’s way?

Romans 13:

We, therefore, as Christians, have no Biblical basis to act contrary to Romans 13 here.

Romans 13 in the Bible is a primary passage that addresses how Christians should relate to government. Paul’s teachings in Romans 13 include: 

    • Obey the government: God raises up governments, and people should obey them. 
    • Submit to authority: Everyone should be in subjection to governing authorities. 
    • Government’s role: The government should be a “minister of God to you for good”. 
    • Civil authority: Civil authority is empowered to govern by enacting and administering law. 
    • Conscience: Christians should obey because of a higher principle, their conscience before God. 
    • Pay taxes: People should pay taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, and so on.

 

A God of Law and Order:

Remember, God is a God of Law and Order.

“God is emphatically a God of order. It is an old and true proverb that order is Heaven’s first law. It is only where sin has left its footprints, where the trail of the old serpent is seen, and where the wicked bear rule, that we find insubordination, disorder, and confusion.” – Ellen White, Signs of the Times, June 8, 1908 (Link)

The concept of civil government with the enforcement of civil laws comes from God Himself.  And, when individuals think themselves at liberty to follow their own will/consciences, outside of a direct command of God or independent of the rights and privileges of others in civil society, such individuals are not acting according to God’s will or design, but are anarchists following their own way, not God’s way.  And, when such individuals go beyond the line of a well-ordered civil society and infringe upon the God-given rights and privileges of others around them, there comes a time when such may and should be forced, against their will, to either conform again to the civil laws of the land or leave such a society.  Even God had to force Lucifer and his angels to leave heaven when they decided to act contrary to the laws of that Land.

 

_________________

Dr. Sean Pitman is a pathologist, with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology, currently working in N. California.

Leave a Reply