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.