Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action

On January 22nd, the Liberty & Health Alliance opened a website asking for signatures to support their “Appeal for Action, Unity and Healing Among Seventh-day Adventists“.  So far, almost 6,000 have signed.

The Liberty and Health Alliance was started by Scott Ritsema and Dr. Lela Lewis (and others) during the COVID-19 pandemic in response to vaccine mandates.  Basically, they blame the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership for not effectively supporting individual religious liberty, citing the two Vaccine Statements put out by the General Conference as effectively blocking the religious liberty of those opposed to vaccine mandates (April 15, 2015 & October 25, 2021).  In order to rectify this situation, they wish these statements to be revoked.  The language of their petition reads as follows:

The appeal:

We, The Undersigned, Request That:

1. The church remove all statements about vaccines, including the 2015 and the October 2021 statements, whether by administrative committee or through a vote by the General Conference in session, showing pastoral care and compassion to those who have been harmed by these statements.

2. In place of those statements a clarifying statement should be made that the church does not support any mandates which infringe on liberty of conscience, contrary to religious liberty principles found in Scripture.

3. In a church body with diverse convictions, any official statement on any topic, including but not limited to public health issues, should be carefully considered as to its potential impact on church members worldwide. Since such statements publicly represent all members, they should be subjected to the same process required for the adoption of a fundamental belief, including a vote by the General Conference in session. Most importantly, they must rely solely upon the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Are the Vaccine Statements Opposed to Religious Liberty?

My problem with this initiative is not that I’m opposed to individual religious liberty since it is precisely such liberty that forms the very basis of God’s government and Law of Love.  It is also enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  So, yes, personal religious liberty is a big deal.  My problem then isn’t with the effort to support personal religious liberty, but with the idea this liberty is somehow being suppressed by the Vaccine Statements of the SDA Church. After all, consider that both the 2015 as well as the 2021 Vaccine Statements clearly support the personal liberties of the individual with regard to the choice to vaccinate – or not.

The Vaccine Statements Support Individual Choice:

“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.” – 2015 Statement

“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.” – 2021 Statement [emphasis in original]

A Misuse of Religious Liberty Claims:

Both of these statements seem to be very clear in their support that the choice to vaccinate should be a strictly personal choice.  However, some have pointed out to me that the 2021 statement adds the following:

“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.”

Does this not then negate the whole idea that the decision to vaccinate is a strictly personal decision? – and give support to government or employer vaccine mandates that may violate personal religious liberties along these lines?  After all, there are those who consider a vaccine to be a violation of their bodies, the very Temple of God. This concept was also addressed in the 2021 Statement as follows:

“The Seventh-day Adventist Church respects each individual’s freedom of choice to make responsible decisions regarding their own health. Since our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and we are Christ’s both by creation and redemption, we should personally seek God’s will about COVID-19 vaccinations. The decision whether to take the vaccine or not is not a matter of salvation, nor is it related, as some may suggest, to the mark of the beast. It is a matter of personal choice. We firmly believe that in matters of personal conviction we must be guided by the Word of God, our conscience, and informed judgment.”

Recommendations Are Not Church Dogma, Decrees, or Doctrine:

So, again, it was understood and clearly spelled out that the recommendations of the Church do not supersede the freedoms and liberties of the individual to choose for him or herself as he or she is personally convicted. It’s not as if the Church thought to issue some kind of Royal Decree or even a Fundamental Belief. It’s not that at all. All that the leadership of the SDA Church has been offering on this topic is advice – general advice and recommendations with regard to vaccination and the use of religious liberty claims (Link).  At the same time, it is also recognized that individual conscience may or may not follow this advice and that, ultimately, it is up to the individual and one’s own conscience as to what decisions to make on this topic.

Innumerable Harms from Vaccine Statements:

Yet, the leaders of the Liberty & Healthy Alliance maintain that these Vaccine Statements resulted in innumerable harms to church members around the world who were forced in various ways, against their will, to be vaccinated – or face losing their jobs and means of livelihood.  They claim that these Vaccine Statements were cited by governments, employers, and even local and regional church leadership as the basis for requiring vaccination.

Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that the Vaccine Statements were cited by some as their primary reason for the enforcement of vaccine mandates.  Clearly, such arguments would be in violation of the Vaccine Statements themselves that strongly support personal choice and liberty in this matter.  So, if there were those who thought to misuse these Statements, is this therefore a fault of these Vaccine Statements themselves? – or the fault of those who misused these Statements?

Religious Liberty Based On Personal Conviction Alone:

Beyond this, religious liberty isn’t based on what the SDA Church, or any religious organization for that matter, says or doesn’t say.  Personal religious liberty is based on personal conviction alone.

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 in the United States (and in other countries such as Canada, England, and Australia) 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

Canada Rejects Personal Conviction as a Basis for Exemption:

But what if certain governments reversed their position on this topic during the pandemic (like Canada for example)?

There were people in Canada who lost their jobs when the human rights commissions reversed the Supreme Court’s view on individual religious liberty and instead required individuals to show that their religious convictions were backed by their religious community when it came to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In this regard, the “Claims of religious liberty are not appropriately used …” part of the 2021 Statement was used against Adventists here.

But does the church owe such members an apology for that misinterpretation of the Statement’s intent?

I think that the Bible has something to say about this problem of misinterpretation in 2 Peter 3:15–16. Although Paul has written things that are hard to understand, the failure to understand what he has written rests on those who twist his Scriptures to their own destruction because they do this out of their own lawless characters.

I think the same applies to the HRCs and employers in Canada who twisted the meaning of the church’s vaccine statements in order to discount individual religious liberty.

– David Hamstra, Lead Pastor at Edmonton Central Seventh-day Adventist Church

Certainly, this would have to be the case because the Vaccine Statements themselves are very clearly supportive of individual human choice in the matter. After all, even if the Vaccine Statements of the SDA Church had not been written, would this have been enough to satisfy Canada’s Human Rights Commission? I don’t think so since it seems as though only a stated Church doctrinal position or “creed” that is clearly and emphatically opposed to all vaccines would have satisfied the Commission’s policy (as follows):

“A person who chooses not to wear a mask or be vaccinated because of a personal choice or belief without a connection to religion is not protected under the Human Rights Act and does not have the right to be accommodated.” (Link)

“The Commission also notes that it is not ‘aware of any tribunal or court decision that found a singular belief against vaccinations or masks amounted to a creed within the meaning of the Code.’ Further, it stresses, ‘personal preferences or singular beliefs do not amount to a creed for the purposes of the Code.’ Human rights commissions in New Brunswick, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Yukon Territory have issued similar statements.” (Link)

“The primary religious exemption request currently circulating in Alberta is being made by Christians claiming that it is part of Christianity that individuals must have ‘Liberty of Conscience’; with references made to Romans 14 and First Corinthians 16:19-20.  The argument can be summarized as: My religion says that I should be free to follow my conscience, my conscience tells me that taking the COVID-19 vaccine is a bad idea, therefore it is part of my religion that I should not take the COVID-19 vaccine. Alternatively, the argument could be framed as: My religion states that my body is a temple, therefore I should not put anything damaging into my body, I think the COVID-19 vaccine will damage my body, therefore my religion forbids my use of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Although interpretations of religious texts can vary, there is virtually no chance that a court or human rights tribunal would support a conclusion that these sections of the Christian Bible sufficiently link a personal preference not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination to a deeply held religious belief within the meaning of religion as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Alberta Human Rights Commission specifically states that personal preference is not a protected ground under the Alberta Human Rights Act.” (Link)

Church Supported Personal Convictions Against Vaccination:

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).

“A Vote by the General Conference in Session”

Note that the 3rd request from the Liberty & Health Alliance – that statements such as the Vaccine Statements should never be approved without a “vote by the General Conference in session.”  What they fail to mention is that such a vote was previously requested and given (during the 61st General Conference Session held from June 6–11, 2022 in St. Louis, Missouri). The only problem, of course, is that this in-session GC vote came down strongly against the motion of Johnathan Zirkle to amend the GC Session to include a discussion of the 2015 Vaccination Statement and the October 2021 Reaffirmation Statement – effectively endorsing these Statements (Link). Zirkle’s motion was actually seconded and brought to a vote. It’s just that his motion was definitively voted down. There were 203 (11.4%) delegates who voted in favor of the motion, while 1,579 (88.6%) voted against it. The total number of votes cast here was 1782 – out of 2,671 voting delegates at the 2022 Session.

So, again, if the GC, in Session, had wanted to revise or remove these statements it could have done so during the 2022 Session. The fact that the GC voted down the motion to add these Vaccine Statements to the agenda means that the GC, in Session, effectively endorsed these Vaccine Statements. That’s the reality of the situation for the SDA Church as an organization. It’s not that the GC leadership has stopped their ears to the concerns of the Liberty & Health Alliance or those who hold similar views. This was the vote of the GC delegates themselves – not Ted Wilson or the church’s hierarchical leadership. It simply indicates that the GC delegates, representing a broad spectrum of church members, didn’t agree with the position held by the Liberty & Health Alliance.

In short, what the Liberty & Health Alliance is currently asking for has already been provided by the GC in Session.  It’s just that they didn’t like the result.

What Benefits Do the Vaccine Statements Offer?

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has recognized, since its inception, the value of ministering to the basic health needs of people as the “Right Arm” of the Gospel.  It is for this reason that the SDA Church has stressed the importance of providing excellent cutting-edge health care and has become a world leader in this effort.  The Seventh-day Adventist Church is the largest Protestant healthcare provider in the world. And, because of our emphasis on physical, mental, and religious health, as inspired by the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, SDAs are among the longest-lived people groups in the world. For example, on average, “Adventist men live 7.3 years longer and Adventist women live 4.4 years longer than other Californians” (Link). On top of this, Seventh-day Adventists are the longest-lived ethnically diverse people in the world.  There are other “Blue Zones” of long-lived peoples, of course, but these groups are all genetically related.  SDAs are ethnically diverse and yet are still part of the longest-lived Blue Zone people of the world. Therefore, as a healthcare leader, it is the duty of the medical arm of the Church to provide and promote the best health and medical options and information available at all times. This is particularly important during a pandemic when people are desperately searching for answers.

While healthful living is always the best place to start, there are times when the human body needs something extra, something beyond even healthful living, in this fallen world. The human immune system is not what it was when Adam and Eve were new from the Creator’s hand.

Ellen White lost two sons to infections that would have been easily curable by modern antibiotics. Henry died of pneumonia at the age of 16. John Herbert died at the age of just three months from erysipelas (a bacterial skin infection). She would not have opposed the use of life-saving antibiotics if they had been available in her day. After all, when she was told that missionaries were suffering and dying from malaria because they were refusing to use quinine (because she had written against the general use of quinine), she wrote to them, “If quinine will save a life, use quinine” (Link).

Smallpox was also a scourge in her day, so much so that she did not oppose the use of vaccines as an aid to help the human immune system better fight against smallpox infections.  Even though she did have a bad experience when vaccinating her children when they were young, she did not oppose her adult son, William, when he and his associates were vaccinated for smallpox – and was likely vaccinated against smallpox herself (Link).

So, is it not then the duty of the SDA Church to do what Ellen White did? – to broadcast to all that, “If vaccines will save a life, use vaccines”?  After all, the scientific evidence that vaccines can and do save lives is overwhelming. They help to educate the human immune system without one having to first experience the risk of a serious infection. Sure, as with quinine and all other medical therapies, there are always risks.  However, the risks of not taking vaccines, particularly during a pandemic, are much higher.  It’s all a matter of how one balances risks versus benefits – which Ellen White understood very well in her own day.  It is not a lack of faith or confidence in God to take advantage of all of the gifts of scientific knowledge, advancement, and light that He has given to humanity.

Yes, the promotion of healthful living and natural remedies is also important and very helpful.  The well-known SDA pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult, for example, put out a large number of videos on YouTube and on his MedCram website (viewed by millions around the world) promoting a large number of helpful natural remedies during the pandemic, to include the use of hot/cold fomentations, sunlight and infrared light, forest bathing, diet and exercise, sleep, vitamin D, zinc, etc. Here are a few talks that he gave on the beneficial effects of sunlight alone: Link, Link, Link, Link, Link.  It’s just that he also promoted the benefits of the mRNA vaccines in the fight against COVID-19 infections – particularly for the elderly and immunocompromised (Link). He simply promoted everything that would reduce risk and provide the greatest chance, for most people, of avoiding hospitalization, long-term injury, and death.

Note again, however, that even though it is the duty of a medical provider to share the best of the medical knowledge that is available, it is not his or her duty to compel or otherwise force compliance with such medical advice.  Personal liberties should be maintained so long as they do not interfere with the health and safety of others in society.  Such, then, were the essential duties of the Church – particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s just that removing the Church’s Vaccine Statements would also undermine the duty that the Church has been given as a source of the best and most balanced health and medical advice in the world.

 

_________________

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

6 thoughts on “Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action

  1. Pastor Wyatt Allen (one of the founders of the Liberty & Health Alliance) wrote in a FB Comment:

    Two things your article lacks are compassion and understanding. The first would lead to the second. Should I have more time tomorrow, I’ll try to be more specific and why I make this claim. Though anybody reading it would see the lack of compassion. I think the lack of understanding essentially boils down to misrepresenting what we’re saying. COVID and the mandates might be passed. But unless we learn from our mistakes during this time (do you say the church made no mistakes?) we will be unprepared to help in the next crisis. And when we are unprepared to help in a meaningful way, it really does hurt people. Actual people. As a minister of the gospel, I have seen the tears, I have heard the pleas, I have witnessed the freedom being ripped away. We can theorize and write articles all day long about Liberty. But until we actually stand up for it, all that comes across is coldness.

    My response:

    You seem to suggest that I’m opposed to religious liberty and that I don’t care for those who suffered. How can you know this? I mean, I am a strong supporter of religious liberty and have experienced personal serious attacks on my own religious convictions. While in the army I was brought up for court martial twice for refusing orders to work on Sabbath in ways that I thought were opposed to God’s commands regarding the Sabbath. I was threatened with jail time, the loss of my career, and financial damages. So, you see, I’m very much aware of how it feels to be personally threated for my own religious convictions. I also understand why someone who is opposed to vaccines would blame the Church for a lack of support during the vaccine mandates.

    It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that I think that such efforts to blame the Church and the Vaccine Statements are misdirected since these Vaccine Statements repeatedly and specifically support individual choice in this matter. Recommendations regarding medical interventions, like vaccines, do not undermine personal religious liberties or the Church’s support for such liberties. The claims of the Liberty & Health Alliance to the contrary simply do not make sense to me. Even if the Church had no vaccine statements at all, I fail to see how this would have helped anyone during the vaccine mandates.

    ________

    Additional responses to other comments from Wyatt on FB:

    Wyatt Allen: You’re also asking Charles Downing (not sure of his medical background) to explain to me that the “so-called vaccines” have too many adverse reactions. You see, right there you’re showing your hand. The reason why you’re so passionate against the Vaccine Statements of the Church is because you truly believe them to be harmful and evil. While I sympathize with why you feel this way, consider that I feel the very same way for the opposite reasons. I saw ICUs filled with the very sick and the dying during the pandemic, the significant majority of whom were the unvaccinated. Several of my own workers who refused to get vaccinated ended up in the ICU and two suffered permanent injuries so severe that they can no longer work full time. Many more from my own church and community ended up in the ICU for the same reason. More than a dozen of my own family friends died because they didn’t get vaccinated. My brother-in-law, the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult saw many many more die while holding their hands in his ICU in S. Cal – even some who were young and vegan and otherwise healthy. So, yes, we are both very passionate about this topic. It’s one of the reasons why I try to force myself to be as objective as possible when I talk about this topic.

    The reason why I disagree with you and Charles here is because I think you have a misunderstanding of the risk/benefit ratio for the mRNA vaccines and vaccines in general. You don’t understand the nature of VAERS (which is maintained by the NIH and the CDC by the way) since you don’t seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. The VAERS database is used to sort out this difference. The claim of Charles that the spike protein produced in response to the mRNA vaccines sends the human immune system into “overdrive” and “taxes” and “weakens” it is false. This isn’t how the human immune system works. The spike proteins are broken down into small pieces called “antigens”, which are then presented to T- and B-cells so as to educate them to know what to attack in the future. This process happens every day and does not tax or weaken the immune system in the least. I mean, consider that a C19 infection would produce far far more spike proteins throughout the entire body for a much longer period of time. The mRNA vaccines, in comparison, are self-limited and are largely localized. Charles’ claim that the vaccines have produced a 40% spike in cancer rates and “turbo cancers” is also a false claim based on the claims of conspiracy theorists. I’m an anatomic and clinical pathologist with a subspecialty in blood disorders. I diagnose cancers every day. That’s what I do. I can tell you that there has been no increase in cancers associated with the mRNA vaccines. Beyond this, there is no mechanism by which the mRNA vaccines could produce such a spike in cancer rates. As far as Charles’ claim that the vaccines were not “thoroughly studied”, this is also a false statement. The mRNA vaccines went through all of the standard steps for vaccine testing and approval – to include double-blinded placebo-controlled animal and human trials with great success. There were no increased deaths, much less “25 deaths”, and the “adverse reactions” were minor and not beyond the expected rate in the 70,000 human volunteers. Also, the mRNA technology itself is not new, but has been studied now for over 30 years. It’s just that all of the necessary technological information came together at just the right time for the mRNA vaccines to make it to the general public soon after the pandemic hit. That’s just the nature and usefulness of the mRNA technology which Charles doesn’t seem to understand.

    https://www.educatetruth.com/featured/conrad-vine-continues-to-attack-church-leadership/#More-on-8220Turbo-Cancer8221

    https://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-mccullough-at-the-village-seventh-day-adventist-church/#The-Origin-of-mRNA-and-DNA-Vaccine-Technology

    _____________

    Wyatt Allen: I’m not sure what important question(s) of yours I failed to answer? Please do point these out to me again so that I won’t inadvertently skip over something that is important to you.

    Regarding your current question, of course I make mistakes all the time. In my job as a pathologist I try to be extremely careful to limit my mistakes, but mistakes do happen since we are all human and subject to error. I often wish I had a “redo” button available to me so that I could go back in time and fix some of my mistakes.

    I know that you believe that your argument (regarding all vaccines I think) is based on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy – and I respect that even though I don’t agree with you here. However, you are promoting your anti-vaccine position since you have presented numerous arguments against vaccines. I think these arguments are based on mistaken concepts and ideas, but, again, this is the reason for personal and religious liberty as long as these liberties don’t interfere with those of another.

    I also understand that you want to plead for those who cannot effectively plead for themselves. I’m trying to do the same thing. I think that the misinformation presented by you and many others (particularly those like Dr. Peter McCulough) have caused untold injuries and deaths to many who would have been saved by being vaccinated. I also have no doubt there were those who misused the Vaccine Statements of the Church regarding mandates. While this shouldn’t have happened, again, I fail to understand how this is the fault of the Church? The Church has published many statements that have been misused. The same is true of many of the statements and claims found in the Bible itself. Is this the fault of the Bible? Should the Bible be rewritten because some of its language is confusing and difficult to properly understand by the many who have misinterpreted and misused it?

    You keep repeating that the Vaccine Statements “exalt peer-reviewed scientific literature to the level of the Bible” – and that if I don’t see it this way that I should read them again. I’ve read them dozens of times and I still don’t see how you could possibly make this amazing, even shocking, claim. None of the leaders of the SDA Church would ever think to suggest such an idea – verbally or in writing. Certainly, no Christian physician or scientist would promote such a concept either. So, where are you getting this idea? The Vaccine Statements themselves make no such claim – not even close.

    _______________

    Wyatt Allen: The claim that the Vaccine Statements elevate peer-review literature equal to the Bible simply isn’t true. This claim is particularly shocking to me. I’m not sure how anyone could interpret these statements in this way? These statements are not statements of Fundamental Beliefs or doctrinal statements at all. They are simply general *recommendations*, not decrees or anything like that, regarding advances in medical science. That’s it. They specifically note that they are not to be considered doctrinal or in any way binding regarding the conscience of the individual – that the final decision is and should be with the individual regarding such issues.
    Yes, words do matter, but in this case, I fail to see how your claims regarding the Church’s Vaccine Statements are valid or helpful moving forward since I fail to see how these Statements undermine individual religious liberty.

    ________________

    Weston Greenwood: One can do both you know. I also advocate for both. I strongly believe the mRNA vaccines were a miraculous gift from God that saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries. At the same time, I’m also a strong supporter of personal and religious liberty – particularly for those who disagree with me. In the same way, the Vaccine Statements promote the benefits of vaccination while, at the same time, noting that one is perfectly free to disagree – and that this decision should take precedence.

    ________________

    Weston Greenwood: The Church did bring this to a vote via the delegates at the last GC Session. It’s just that this vote went against you.

    https://www.educatetruth.com/featured/liberty-health-alliance-an-appeal-for-action/#8220A-Vote-by-the-General-Conference-in-Session8221

    Again, if an employer bases his/her decision to mandate vaccination on the Church’s Vaccine Statements, then that employer is misusing these statements – which isn’t the fault of the Church.

    And yes, just because the Church does not stand in the way of someone who wants to get vaccinated, and even encourages this, doesn’t mean that it, therefore, stands in the way of someone who doesn’t want to get vaccinated. Claiming otherwise makes no sense to me.

    ________________

    Wyatt Allen: You’re essentially saying that, “Any outsider who reads the ADCOM statement will see it as binding”.

    If someone does read it that way, they aren’t reading it correctly because that’s not what it says. It says that while the SDA Church, as an organization, is not inherently opposed to vaccines and recognizes their usefulness, it remains with the individual and individual conscience as to the final decision to get or not to get vaccinated – that it is not an issue of morality, is not a matter of salvation, and is therefore not doctrinal. That’s what it says. Those who read it otherwise for the purposes of enforcing mandates based on such Statements are clearly misusing them. And, obviously, such misuses are not the fault of the Church.

    Also, contrary to your claim, the Church has not elevated peer-reviewed literature published in scientific journals to the level of Scripture. That’s a completely false and completely unfair claim – particularly directed at medical professionals like me who recognize the usefulness of vaccines while, at the same time, recognizing the final authority of the Bible in all questions of faith. It’s just that I don’t see where the Bible speaks against vaccines anywhere in its pages. The same is true for the Spirit of Prophecy.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    3
    • Pastor E.L. has also written (FB Post) an excellent explanation in defense of the affirmation statement and our denomination’s position on vaccines.

      “The assumedly troublesome wording commonly highlighted concerning this issue is a misreading of intent in context, without trying to understand the sense in which it can be understood as harmonious with the rest of the statement which strongly affirms individual conscience. A charitable reading first attempts to understand what someone says in a sense that is harmonious, rather than immediately assuming they intend to contradict themselves.

      The trajectory of the context in the Reaffirmation Statement suggests that when it asserts, “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,” this is likely because the church has not established a doctrinal position on vaccines that would require uniform adherence among its members. If it had, such a stance would then necessitate the church to defend it as a matter of religious liberty.

      The issue of vaccination is multifaceted, and adopting a definitive for or against position within church doctrine would infringe on the rights of those who hold opposing views. Instead, the document consistently emphasizes that this is a matter of individual conscience and underscores the church’s support for such personal discernment. Accordingly, it states: “We recognize that at times our members will have personal concerns and even conscientious convictions that go beyond the teachings and positions of the Church. In these cases, the Church’s religious liberty leaders will do what they can to provide support and counsel on a personal basis, not as a Church position, even at times assisting members in writing their own personal accommodation requests to employers and others.”

      In essence, while the church has not elevated this issue to a doctrinal level requiring institutional defense, it remains committed to supporting individual religious convictions to the greatest extent possible. Personal convictions are respected and defended, even though the church as a whole has not taken—and could not reasonably be expected to take—a uniform doctrinal position on the matter.

      To draw an analogy, Seventh-day Adventists could not argue that wearing head coverings in the workplace is a religious liberty issue because it is not a doctrinal requirement within the SDA faith, even though it is mentioned in the Bible. Instead, they could only frame it as a matter of personal conviction if they interpret the biblical instruction as still applicable today. While individual SDAs who support head coverings may personally view it as a religious liberty concern, the distinction lies in the fact that religious liberty claims are typically based on doctrines that a religion universally requires of all its adherents.

      In contrast, Muslims can assert that head coverings are a doctrinal religious liberty matter because it is a doctrinally mandated practice within Islam. This highlights the difference between personal convictions and doctrines that are formally upheld by a religious institution when speaking of “religious liberty.”

        (Quote)

      View Comment
      3
  2. The elephant in the room that never gets mentioned as a reason for the GC vax statement is the 20 billion of Medicare money at stake if our SDA medical community didn’t support the government mandate.
    BTW belt of truth ministry hosted a symposium of medical minds February 1 that contains lots of data on the pandemic and its aftermath.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.

        (Quote)

      View Comment
      2
  3. Recently Barbara O’Neill was cancelled by the SDA medical community for her views on natural remedies. It tells me the SDA leadership is all in on the medical “science”. And I think you’re incorrect in asserting it’s not about the money. The scholars in Noah’s day debunked his teachings as conspiracy theories as well. We’re repeating the mistakes of the Jewish nation when they sacrificed the Son of God (and His servants) in order to hold on to their power, wealth and way of life. I respect your stand on the evolution debate in the church and your stand for liberty of conscience in your military service. I hope you will keep your eyes open regarding this and other issues coming to a head in God’s SDA movement.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.

      Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.

      In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. Her estimated net worth today is ~$51 Million (Link). Clearly, she’s done very well for herself…

      It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.

        (Quote)

      View Comment
      1

Leave a Reply