Pastor Conrad Vine is an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister. He serves as the President of Adventist Frontier Missions, Inc. (AFM), based in Michigan (www.afmonline.org). However, since the vaccines against COVID-19 became available, Pastor Vine has become particularly well-known for his strong advocacy for those citing religious freedom as the basis for not wanting to be vaccinated.

Now, while I personally applaud Vine’s concern and strong advocacy for religious freedom, I find myself at odds with Vine’s views as to how the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as an organization, should have responded to the various state and federal vaccine mandates that followed the release of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 (late in 2020).  The SDA church had had an official statement in support of vaccines, in general, since 2015 (Link). Since this time, this particular statement hadn’t created very many waves, not even with Pastor Vine.  Then in early 2022, Vine suddenly had a serious problem with this 2015 statement, arguing that it, along with the GC’s Reaffirmation of this original statement (October of 2021), should be retracted. Why?

An Appeal to the Adventist Nobility:

Well, according to Vine, he took issue with the Church’s 2015 statement in support of vaccines because it was released by a small circle of church bureaucrats that exceeded the mandate given to them by ordinary church members  (i.e., the General Conference “in session”). Beyond this, Pastor Vine also called on the Adventist Church to compensate members who lost their jobs on account of the denomination’s refusal to grant them religious vaccine exemption letters based on the immunization statement. Vine’s initial talk, “An Appeal to the Adventist Nobility” can be seen here:

 

Review by Pastor David Hamstra:

In response to this particular talk, I would recommend the interesting review by Pastor David Hamstra – the Lead Pastor of the Edmonton Central Seventh-day Adventist Church and a ThD Student at Andrews University. Hamstra’s review (1/24/22) can be found here: Link

Response of the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

See also the response of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to the charges of Conrad Vine: Link

Reaffirmation Statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

This statement “builds on the immunization statement voted in April 2015 and affirms both this latter statement and the information on the COVID-19 vaccines shared on December 22, 2020.” (Link)

The Naked Emperor:

Since this time, of course, Pastor Conrad Vine has given many more talks on this topic.  I would like to personally go into some detail reviewing Vine’s latest presentation, “The Naked Emperor”, given at the Naples SDA Church, in Florida, on January 28, 2023:

Matthew 18:

This sermon was “sent to the GC leadership on Monday 30th January, with a request to meet and negotiate a way forward that sets aside the October 21 Reaffirmation Statement without incurring liability for the GC, thus following the teachings of Jesus Christ in Matthew 18:15-20.”

Of course, given that the leadership of the SDA Church has already responded to Pastor Vine regarding this particular topic, and given that the General Conference In Session had voted down adding this topic to its own agenda (Link), no additional meeting was deemed necessary.

GC Leadership Overriding Consciences of Adventists Worldwide:

“Since January 2022, Dr. Conrad Vine has been appealing to the GC leadership to honor and not trample upon and assume the right to override the consciences of Adventists Worldwide.”

This is a rather strong accusation against the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church – accusing the SDA leadership of actually opposing the religious liberties and consciences of its own members. That’s quite the claim if true.  But, upon what is this claim actually based?  Where has the leadership of the SDA Church actually attempted to do such a thing?  Well, according to Vine, the lack of official condemnation of government vaccine mandates constitutes an attack on personal religious liberty and conscience.

Yet, the official response of the Church seems to strongly support personal liberties and conscience regarding the choice to vaccinate or not:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church respects the right of each member to make the best possible decision for their health in the light of their personal convictions, health challenges, and medical counsel…

We recognize that some of our members have serious concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccines and are willing to lose their job, if necessary, rather than take the vaccine. Although the Seventh-day Adventist Church sees this as a public health issue, we will provide support to those of our members who see this differently. We respect their conscientious convictions and can support them in the following ways: 1) By praying with them that God will work out a solution to the challenge they face; 2) Assisting them in writing a personal letter to their employer.

The 2021 Reaffirmation 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, not a church basis, even at times assisting members in writing their own personal accommodation requests to employers and others.”

GENERAL CONFERENCE (January 26, 2022)
Concerns Regarding COVID-19, Church Governance, and Liberty of Conscience

Personally, I don’t see how the SDA Church, as an organization, could really do otherwise? – and continue to support the advancement of the medical sciences and its own medical schools and numerous hospitals? Is it not possible to support the personal liberties and freedoms of individual members while, at the same time, holding a different opinion regarding the validity of the medical science behind vaccines and other medical treatments that an individual might refuse for reasons of personal conscience?

Note also that the law does not base religious exemptions on corporate belief, but on personal belief. 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

SDA Church Exited the Pandemic as a “Papal System”:

We entered the pandemic as protestants, and we exited as a Papal system.” – Conrad Vine (8:32)

Here, again, Vine accuses the leadership of the SDA Church of operating with “Kingly Authority”, removing the real governing power of the Church from the actual common church members. Is that what actually happened?  Not as far as I can tell.  After all, the concerns of Vine and others were actually brought to a vote at the General Conference in Session.  It’s just that their motion was soundly outvoted (Link).

The Demonization of AntiVaxxers:

At around the 13:00 mark in his talk, Vine quotes Dr. Nicholas Miller, an attorney and Professor of Church History and Director of the International Religious Liberty Institute at Andrews University.

“The anti-covid vaccine movement has contributed to the needless deaths of more Adventists than David Koresh ever did.” (Link)

Vine responded by saying:

“Therefore, if you stand for conscience, you, therefore, have the blood of innocent Adventists on your hands. This was a charge that was repeatedly leveled at me on social media – that I am responsible for the deaths of multitudes; that I have the blood of multitudes on my hands, personally, because I stand of for the principles of liberty of conscience and informed consent.”

My problem with Vine’s response here is not with his support of liberty of conscience or informed consent.  My problem here is with the fact that Vine wasn’t simply arguing for liberty of conscience and informed consent. He was supporting and promoting the agenda of an organization known as The Liberty and Heath Alliance, which was, and still is, spreading false, misleading, and downright conspiratorial claims about COVID-19, the mRNA vaccines, and even the government itself through the promotion and sponsorship of conspiracy theorists like Dr. Peter McCullough and others like him – even giving him a platform to speak in our own churches. It is Vine’s support of those spreading such false information and conspiracy theories that most certainly influenced many to avoid taking the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. There is no doubt that this led to hospitalizations, permanent injuries, and even deaths of many who would otherwise still be here today.

Misinformation:

The core rational for mandates was the belief that the higher the rates of vaccination the less the virus would spread. The essential belief was that treatment prevents transmission.  That was the essential belief… If the treatment only protects you, but nobody else, there is no rational for a community-wide mandate…

When the first emergency use authorization was issued [for the Pfizer vaccine] the federal government knew that these vaccines do not prevent transmission. It was known from day one. Therefore, every time Dr. Fauci or any polititician or any member of the CDC or any member of the mainstream media told you that you need to get vaccinated because these vaccines prevent transmission, they were not telling the truth…

Our [Church’s] support for the mandates was based on a known lie – and that’s the truth.

Vine at 18:00 – 27:00

The problem with Vine’s claim here, and it is a key argument of his, is that there was good scientific evidence, early on, that the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 were indeed able to reduce the transmission rates of the virus.

It was quickly established that those vaccinated against the first main COVID-19 variant, the Alpha variant (December 2020), were, in fact, less likely to spread the virus to others. This was thought to be due to a reduced viral load within the respiratory tract of vaccinated people who were subsequently infected. In fact, even before the vaccines became generally available to humans, animal testing on rhesus macaques (published July & October of 2020) showed that, “COVID-19 vaccination prevented or limited viral replication in the upper and lower respiratory tracts”, giving very promising early scientific data that the vaccines against COVID-19 would result in reduced viral transmissibility in humans as well, once released to the general public (Link). And, this did, in fact, turn out to be the case.

Consider, for example, a paper published by Martinez et al., (September 2, 2021), which showed a much lower risk of viral transmission (Alpha Variant) for vaccinated people as compared to unvaccinated people (Link).

Five out of six fully vaccinated individuals remained viral culture-negative throughout their enrollment period, suggesting minimal shedding of infectious virus and little to no transmission risk. They also had either undetectable or sporadic viral genome loads in the nasal swabs. These data suggest that in 2 of the 4 fully vaccinated individuals for which both saliva and nasal swabs were collected, infection was initially established within the oral cavity or other saliva-exposed tissue site and was restricted from disseminating to the nasal passages. The total number of days that vaccinated individuals tested viral culture positive was significantly fewer than both newly vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, indicating that vaccination significantly reduces infectious virus shedding.

(Martinez et al., September 2, 2021)

 

And, there were many more supporting scientific studies like this, saying basically the same thing:

Forty-five studies, including six RCTs and 39 observational studies were included in this review.

COVID-19 vaccination have been demonstrated to be associated with varied degrees of reduced household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, reduced incidence of asymptomatic infection, and a reduction in viral load…

Evidence from four large household surveillance studies from the Netherlands, Finland, and Israel suggests that full-dose of AZ, PfBnT, Moderna, or J&J vaccines significantly reduced household transmission of wild-type or the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) COVID-19 strain after 14 days of vaccination by at least 63%….

An Israeli study by Layan et al. conducted a case-control study of the PfBNT vaccine’s effectiveness on reduction of infection transmission of the wild-type and B.1.1.7 (Alpha) strains in healthcare workers and their households. The risk of transmission from vaccinated cases was 0.22 times the risk of infection transmission compared to unvaccinated cases… and 0.07 among household contacts who were both isolated and vaccinated (Link).

Salmon C, et. al., Clement FM on behalf of the University of Calgary Health Technology Assessment Unit. Transmissibility of COVID19 among Vaccinated Individuals: A Rapid Literature Review, Update #2. September 24, 2021 (Link)

Of course, next came the Delta Variant, which had higher viral loads within the vaccinated (as well as the unvaccinated), but showed less transmissibility compared to those who were not vaccinated (Link). Still, this reduction in transmissibility was fairly significant, despite up to 1000x the viral load compared to the earlier Alpha Variant.

During an initial infection with the Delta Variant, when people were most likely to be contagious, the Delta Variant seemed to replicate in amounts that were perhaps 1,000 times as much as those seen in people infected with other variants, defeating immune defenses in the nose and throat for many people.  However, this increase in viral load wasn’t just present in those who were vaccinated, but in the unvaccinated as well.  And, this is exactly what studies showed at the time (Riemersma, et. al., July 31, 2021).  In fact, studies showed that those who were not vaccinated carried a higher viral load compared to those who were vaccinated.

The SARS-CoV-2 culture of nasopharyngeal swabs was positive in 68.6% of vaccinated HCWs versus 84.9% of unvaccinated HCWs with primary infections (p = 0.005, t-test). As the probability of culture positivity depends on viral load19, this was corrected for using a probit regression model with both viral load and vaccination status as predictors. Figure 1C shows the probability of a positive culture for a given viral load in vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. A positive vaccination status significantly decreased the probability of culture positivity (p = 0.002, Wald test).

(Shamier, et. al., August 21, 2021)

 

Does this, then, mean that vaccinated people were able to transmit the Delta Variant to other people?  Yes, but less often and for a lesser amount of time compared to those who are unvaccinated – since the vaccine still resulted in a reduced number of infections – as well as the amount of time that an infected person was infectious.

This was backed up by another paper that showed that vaccines not only produced fairly good protection from getting sick with the Delta Variant, but also helped an infected person clear the viral load much faster.

Serial Ct values of individuals were analyzed as a surrogate marker for the viral load. The initial median initial Ct value did not differ between unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients (unvaccinated median Ct 18.8 (14.9-22.7), vaccinated 19.2 (15.2-22.2), p=0.929). However, fully vaccinated patients had a faster rate of increase in Ct value over time compared with unvaccinated individuals, suggesting faster viral load decline:

(Cia, et. al., July 31, 2021)

Consider the results of the “REACT-1 Study” (August 2021) where the researchers found that “fully vaccinated people in this testing round had between around 50% to 60% reduced risk of infection [Delta Variant], including asymptomatic infection, compared to unvaccinated people. In addition, double vaccinated people were less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive after coming into contact with someone who had COVID-19 (3.84% vs 7.23%)” (Link). “Fully vaccinated people who were infected with the virus tended to have less severe illness than unvaccinated people and seemed to have smaller amounts of virus in samples, the researchers added, meaning they may be less likely to pass it on if they are infected” (Link).

Even for populations where people live together in very close spaces, such as in a prison, for example, being vaccinated was shown to be associated with lower rates of transmission. Prisoners infected with the much more infectious Omicron variant (as compared to the prior Alpha and Delta variants) were shown to be less likely to spread the virus to others if they have been vaccinated or if they had had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection – according to a study in US prisons (Link).

In adjusted analyses, we estimated that any vaccination, prior infection alone, and both vaccination and prior infection reduced an index case’s risk of transmitting infection by 22% (6-36%), 23% (3-39%) and 40% (20-55%), respectively. Receipt of booster doses and more recent vaccination further reduced infectiousness among vaccinated cases. These findings suggest that although vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals remain highly infectious upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in this prison setting, their infectiousness is reduced compared to individuals without any history of vaccination or infection, underscoring some benefit of vaccination to reduce but not eliminate transmission. (Link)

Now, while not being 100% effective (since almost nothing is perfect), a 22% reduction in transmission rates based on a single vaccine dose, is significant.  Consider also that this study was dealing with the Omicron variant of COVID-19, which was much more infectious compared to the earlier Alpha and Delta variants that were around when the mRNA vaccines first became available.

And, the list of good scientific studies that show reduced transmission rates for the vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated goes on and on…

In short, Vine’s claim here that the mRNA vaccines had no effect on reducing viral transmission to others, isn’t true. While not being perfect, being vaccinated did have a significant effect on reduced transmission rates on top of being highly protective against hospitalization and death.

As a relevant aside, a very recently published nationwide NIH Study (Jiang et. al., February 2023) showed that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of heart attacks and strokes during follow-up. So, getting vaccinated is associated with long-term as well as short-term health benefits.

Experimental Treatments:

Several times during his talk, Pastor Vine argues that the mRNA vaccines were “experimental treatments”.  Well, that’s not exactly true either – despite this claim coming from some fringe scientists and medical doctors (like Peter McCullough).

What Dr. McCullough does not clearly explain is that the mRNA technology and other technologies behind the modern vaccines against the COVID-19 virus (to include the DNA-based vaccines) aren’t exactly “new” or “experimental”.  They’ve been around and have been carefully studied now for over 30 years! – based largely on the work of Katalin Karikó, Ph.D.

Moderna was founded in 2010 to produce vaccines based on the new mRNA technology, and the company had been growing as a vaccine manufacturer when the COVID-19 virus became a pandemic early in 2020. BioNTech is a German company established to work on immunotherapies in 2008 by a Turkish couple, who immigrated to Germany. Like Moderna, BioNTech recognized the value of the mRNA technology for vaccine design years ago and licensed the technology. In 2013, BioNTech hired Karikó as a vice president and began to develop mRNA technologies for use against many diseases. BioNTech’s efforts in vaccine development greatly increased in 2018, when Pfizer joined BioNTech’s effort with a research and development agreement to develop mRNA-based vaccines against influenza. It was a natural collaboration because Pfizer, a U.S. company in New York, has been a major vaccine producer for a long time. When the pandemic began, Pfizer/BioNTech immediately turned their attention to developing vaccines against COVID-19. (Link, Link)

It’s not like there’s some deep mystery here as to how they fundamentally work. We know very well how they work (Link).  And, Dr. McCullough is not against vaccines in general.  He has taken dozens of vaccines himself – as he freely admits.  So, what’s his real problem with the vaccines against COVID-19?  Well, it’s his fear of the “spike protein”.  He also throws in some possibilities of some future “cancer risk” or “birth defects”, but doesn’t explain why such risks wouldn’t have been detected well before now – given the 70,000 people involved in the original double-blinded placebo-controlled trials (not to mention the animal trials, or the hundreds of millions of people who have since been vaccinated). He does say that such risks usually require “two years” before they can be effectively ruled out for a new vaccine. Well, it’s been over two years now since the mRNA vaccines went through human trials and were released to the general public, with millions around the world having since been vaccinated – saving a great many lives and preventing untold hospitalizations and long-term injuries without the doomsday consequences predicted by McCullough. Sure, while there certainly are risks to taking the mRNA vaccines (as with any other vaccine or medication), these risks were shown to be very few compared with the much greater risks associated with an actual COVID-19 infection (Link).

General Conference Working Policy Manuel:

Regarding the General Conference Working Policy Manual, for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Pastor Vine said:

It’s actually very hard to get your hands on this. I have it locked away in my safe at home.

This is a very important document. Members are not supposed to ever get their hands on this. You cannot buy it. You cannot download it. It’s designed for those who are senior administrators who are in the know you might say. That’s the black book.

I’m not messing with you here. If you ask your conference president for a copy of the black book, you’re not going to get it. Ok? And I think that in the modern era of transperency, it’s about time we start sharing our core governing documents with every member around the world.

(Vine at 45:00)

Well, that’s not true either. It’s not like this is a nefarious or hidden society or organizational structure like the Illuminati or Freemasonry going on here. It’s very easy to get a personal copy of the GC’s Working Policy Manuel. I quickly found copies myself and have uploaded them for those who might like to read through the 800+ pages (For the 2021-2022 Version or for the 2019-2020 Version).

Quoting this General Conference Working Policy Manuel regarding the Adventist Health Care Ministries, Pastor Vine cites this passage:

Adventist health care and ministries are to promote only those practices based upon the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy, or evidence-based methods of disease prevention, treatment, and health maintenance. “Evidence-based” means there is an accepted body of peer reviewed, statistically significant evidence that raises probability of effectiveness to a scientifically convincing level. (Link)

Pastor Vine then goes on comment on this statement as follows:

Now, that’s the requirement. So we must ask ourselves, when the health ministries department supports the Reaffirmation Statement that we support mandates, were they in compliance with the General Conference Working Policy Manuel? The answer to that is no. Why is the answer to that no? Because the GC supported the mandates in the October 21 Statement over your conscience is not supported by any peer-reviewed statistically-significant evidence that supports the underlying assumptions for mandates (that is that the vaccinations prevent transmission) precisely because there never was any such scientific evidence…

Now, the General Conference may argue that they were supporting individual treatment, that they believe the treatments are good for the individual.  In that case, the Statement from the General Conference, the Reaffirmation Statement, should have said, “We would recommend these treatments to our members but it’s up to your conscience. But what they actually did was that they supported the mandates, not necessarily the treatments. And, if you’re going to support the mandates, you need a statistically significant body of evidence that shows that the underlying rational for mandates (which is that the vaccines prevent transmission), that that evidence is there – and it’s not. So, therefore, we overstepped our boundaries and the General Conference Working Policy Manuel was breached, was broken. We are out of compliance.

It’s kind of ironic, isn’t it, that the GC Administration is out of compliance with their own Working Policy Manuel by issuing the October 2021 Reaffirmation Statement.

Vine at 28:48

Well, again, as noted above, not only was there good peer-reviewed statistically-significant scientific evidence to support the conclusion that the mRNA vaccines are not only effective at significantly reducing hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 infections, but they also showed significant effectiveness when it came to reducing transmission rates as well. Pastor Vine is simply mistaken here – on THE key point behind his entire argument.  The GC stands vindicated, not only on its original 2015 statement in support of vaccines in general, but on its 2021 Reaffirmation Statement dealing with the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 as well.

Beyond this, the GC’s Reaffirmation Statement did not limit individual choice, freedom, or religious liberty in this matter. It specifically noted that the decision to personally take the vaccine, or not, is a personal decision that is fully supported by the GC.

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.[2] We firmly believe that in matters of personal conviction we must be guided by the Word of God, our conscience, and informed judgment.

As the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists’ information on COVID-19 vaccines released on December 18, 2020, and predicated on the 2015 Immunization statement confirms:

“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.  [Emphasis in original]

(Link)

It seems, then, that Pastor Vine has fallen victim to simply listening to the wrong voices. He has chosen, as his advisors, those who are known for being conspiratorial and sensational in their claims on this topic.  And, he, being a pastor without significant medical education or training, has few personal resources, evidently, to correctly judge all that he’s hearing and reading regarding COVID-19 and the history and nature of the mRNA vaccines, how they work, their risks, and their benefits.

Beyond this, where he should actually know better, he makes misleading claims about the statements and positions of the GC, paints the most bland and innocent things (such as the GC Working Policy Manual) as being somehow intentionally shrouded in secrecy for dark and sinister purposes, and publicly forwards very harsh accusations against those in church leadership positions that simply aren’t charitable or accurate – all of which are harmful to the church.

Ironically, Vine also accuses the church leadership of being motivated by federal funds that go to some of our schools and healthcare systems – as the likely reason for their non-opposition to the government regarding vaccines and vaccine mandates.

“When the financial needs of the institutional church for funding from the second beast of Revelation 13 cause the institutional church to effectively deny the consciences of individual members, we are crossing a red line. We are in uncharted territory.”

Conrad Vine, An Appeal to the Adventist Nobility, January 15, 2020

Yet, Vine’s own organization, Adventist Frontier Missions, where Vine serves as president, received $250,000 from the US Government in 2020 as part of the Paycheck Protection Program that provided COVID-19 relief. When contacted about the payment, Adventist Frontier Missions confirmed that the organization had received the money and kept the full amount (Link).

Now, I’m sure that Pastor Vine views himself as a Martin Luther-type figure, nailing his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door at Wittenberg. The only difference, of course, is that Luther’s Theses dealt with factually correct and very significant theological errors within the Church of his day. Pastor Vine’s Theses, in comparison, fall well short of this. What he does have appears to me to be built upon a stack of cards – with most of them missing. I mean, at first approximation, Pastor Vine comes across as intelligent and very well-spoken. However, when one carefully investigates his key arguments on this particular topic, they just crumble and fall apart.

Of course, I do sympathize with Pastor Vine regarding those who have suffered due to vaccine mandates.  I’m also very sorry for such suffering and personal loss – even if it happened to be due to personal ignorance or misinformation on this topic. Regardless, however, it wasn’t the GC, EXCOM, ADCOM, or those in church leadership positions who caused such suffering and/or loss because of their public support for peer-reviewed science regarding vaccines and other medical practices.

SDA Church’s 2015 Vaccination Statement:

As previously noted, Pastor Vine points out that in 2015 the General Conference issued a Vaccination Statement (Link), voted by “ADCOM” – or the General Conference (GC) Administrative Committee (ADCOM).  Then, in October 2021 the GC issued the “Reaffirmation Statement” (Link). Vine commented on this as follows:

It’s kind of a misnomer because the original vaccination statement said that the Adventist Church has no theological objection to mandates, but we leave it up to the conscience of the individual as to weather they take it.  That was the original statement.  So, when they issued a Reaffirmation Statement, the word “reaffirmation” implies that they’re saying the same thing – does it not? But, in fact, it says quite the opposite. The new Statement doesn’t even say that we have no theological objection to it [the mandates]. It says, “We support the mandate over your conscience”.  So, they stripped us of our liberty of conscience during the pandemic.

Vine at 33:00

To support this argument, Pastor Vine cites a section of the Reaffirmation Statement that reads:

“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.”

Pastor Vine went on to argue:

That one sentence changed the Adventist Church forever.  It changed us from being a Protestant Church into one that looks suspiciously like a Papal System where a small group of remote echesiastical leaders have the right at any moment and at any time to say that you have no right to conscience in this issue or that issue or the other issue over there. Once the precident has been established, it will haunt us forever – – unless we push back as members.

Vine at 34:00

Note that this has long been the position of the SDA Church – well before the COVID-19 pandemic came along. The Church itself, as an organization, never recognized opposition to government vaccine mandates as an appropriate use of religious liberty arguments – and the original language of the 2015 statement did not say otherwise.  Despite this, however, the SDA Church does recognize individual conscience, responsibility, and choice before God in this matter. To quote the Reaffirmation Statement here:

“We understand that some of our members view things differently, and we respect those convictions. They may at times have rights that can be pursued under the law, and we will point them towards materials and resources for doing so but cannot directly undertake this personal effort for them.” (Link)

As the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists’ information on COVID-19 vaccines released on December 18, 2020, and predicated on the 2015 Immunization statement confirms:

“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. (Link)

I’m just not sure how the GC could have done any better here?  Just because the SDA Church supports individual rights, choice, and conscience, does not mean that the SDA Church, as an organization, must therefore also agree with all such individual choices regarding their use of religious liberty arguments as being ideal. That’s just not the case since the SDA Church has long been in agreement with numerous government regulations, civil laws, and mandates regarding many varied issues – to include such things as mandated speed limits or the wearing of seatbelts.

What is Religious Liberty?

Pastor Vine asks the question, what is religious liberty? He then cites the Working Policy Manual where it gives the following definition:

The use of force and coercion is inimical to life, to dignity, and to authentic religion… Religious liberty… deals… with deals with a person’s relationship with God, the Creator. Seventh-day Adventists therefore view religious liberty as the primordial human right that undergirds all human rights… Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, one of the original core departments of the Church, was initially established to promote and maintain religious liberty, with particular emphasis upon the most intimate freedom, individual liberty of conscience… the department… works for the religious liberties of individual church members. (Link)

Vine at 35:00

Pastor Vine then goes on to add:

We support you as the Holy Spirit moves upon your heart. Now, you could say that I feel moved by the Holy Spirit do commit adultery. And we would say that we’re not going to support that particular liberty of conscience because it goes against Scripture. So, we must always test the spirits against Scripture. But, as long as it is consistent with Scripture, then we honor and respec the conscience of every member…

But in the General Conference Reaffirmation Statement of October 2021, our administration unilaterally assumed the right to determine denominational beliefs and to vote to determine and override the convictions of the Holy Spirit on every Adventist worldwide, causing emense pain and suffering to Adventists throughout the pandemic.

And, just as a reminder, the definition of denominational beliefs is entrusted the the General Conference in session. It is not entrusted to the executive committee nor to the ADCOM. When we say that we have no religious liberty objection to mandates, we are defining theology for all of the Adventists in the world. That is reserved exclusively for the General Conference in session. The ADCOM does not have the right to make this kind of statement.

Pastor Vine presents a number of interesting arguments here.  What is most interesting, at least to me, is that Pastor Vine said absolutely nothing about ADCOMs voted 2015 statement in support of vaccines at the time. He said nothing at all until the COVID-19 pandemic hit us and the mRNA vaccines, in particular, became available.  Up until this time, Pastor Vine was, evidently, perfectly fine with government-issued vaccine mandates for those such as hospital workers, military personnel, school children, and the like.  What changed?

Beyond this, is ADCOM really as limited as Pastor Vine argues? Consider the comments of Pastor David Hamstra dealing with this particular argument:

I searched an electronic copy of Working Policy, and I can’t find a place where it delimits the scope and sets the terms of reference for ADCOM in the way Dr. Vine described. Unlike EXCOM, whose role is clearly defined in Working Policy, the tasks and functions Dr. Vine presented as a list are scattered through the document. In Working Policy the existence and nature of the ADCOM are assumed, not defined.

According to this webpage, ADCOM was formed by EXCOM to look after matters that EXCOM didn’t have time for after EXCOM got too large to meet every week. In its terms of reference, EXCOM has given ADCOM “Power to act” with respect to a mandate to “consider other routine administrative issues as they arise and give general counsel to World Church entities as requested,” and thus ADCOM does not need to refer such items to EXCOM. (I suspect that the 2015 statement on immunization resulted from a request for counsel.) Dr. Vine is not correct to assume that ADCOM’s scope is limited to only those functions assigned to it in Working Policy, although Working Policy does specify certain matters to be attended to by EXCOM, ADCOM, or both.

I also cannot find a place where the question of who gets to release position statements is addressed in Working Policy. Yes, EXCOM “speaks for the world Church” (Bylaw 13.1.a), but it can be considered to have delegated some of that authority to ADCOM in the miscellaneous domain of “General Administrative Items” so as not to occupy the limited time available at its meetings.

Thus, church policy is vaguer and ADCOM’s scope appears to be broader than Dr. Vine made it out to be. One can argue that this should be clarified and delimited, as statements on issues like vaccination/immunization that seemed of less consequence seven years ago now have great importance for people’s lives and livelihoods. But based on what I have read, I don’t think Dr. Vine has made a sound case that the denominational elites violated the rules set for them by the people in the pews when ADCOM released the 2015 immunization statement.

This adds to my doubts about Dr. Vine’s claim that there is some kind of money-motivated conspiracy behind the immunization statement. (Perhaps it’s time to update the SDA Conspiracy Chart.)

David Hamstra, Assessing Conrad Vine’s Vaccination Arguments, January 24, 2022

So, it seems as though the General Conference can, according to its own bylaws, delegate authority to EXCOM and ADCOM to make various decisions and generate statements for the SDA Church.  Now, of course, if something goes haywire here, it is always the prerogative of the General Conference, in session, to overturn such decisions. However, to argue that only the General Conference, in session, has the ability to make non-doctrinal decisions for the Church is simply impractical.  The fact of the matter is that the latest General Conference, in Session, did entertain a motion to add the vaccine issue to its agenda.  The only problem, for Pastor Vine’s position, is that this motion was overwhelmingly voted down. The vote wasn’t even close. It seems clear, then, that the General Conference, in Session, was actually fine with the position of the SDA Church on the topic of vaccinations as originally stated in 2015 and in the Reaffirmation Statement – that the General Conference, in Session, saw no compelling reason to change anything here, effectively giving an endorsement rather than a recall.

Of course, Pastor Vine recognizes this problem for his position here, but claims that the motion was only voted down because of the undue influence of the leadership of the church over the Conference Delegates – that the leaders of the SDA Church actually mislead and lied to the delegates in order to get their own way.

The Vaccine Motion Rejected by the General Conference In Session:

Pastor Vine discusses what happened at the last General Conference Session as follows:

I was sitting in the bleachers there and the most significant moment of the Session happened Monday morning. One of the first things that they do is that they vote to approve the agenda. And, if you want to get something onto the agenda, you need to stand up as a delegate and make a motion that says, “I make a motion that we add this item to the agenda.” That’s your only chance of getting it added. And, if somebody seconds that motion, then there has to be a discussion and then a vote. And the whole session decides weather its added to the agenda or weather its not added to the agenda.  Well, on that Monday morning in June 22, the chair, Dr. Artur Stele (Vice-President of the General Conference), moved that the session adopt the agenda as presented, and a very brave religious liberty lawyer Johnathan Zirkle from Loma Linda, a delegate at large with significant experience in religious liberty matters in federal employment law, he moved an amendment to the agenda to include a discussion of the 2015 Vaccination Statement and the October 2021 Reaffirmation Statement. Many of you saw that on YouTube, and you can still see it on YouTube.

The response from Dr. Stele said:

“We appreciate your consern. But really, the GC in session deals with items of Constitution and Bylaws, items that concern our Church Manual, and our Fundamental Beliefs – such items that are coming to this level. But the issue of vaccination, we know it is a devisive issue, and actually the document that was proposed by the Administration Committee, has given a full right for everyone to follow their own conscience, so there was no push in one or the other direction. And so we would really plead with you, because we have a shortened session, that we don’t load our agenda with items that really don’t belong there, but we really appreciate your concern.”

Now, according to Dr. Stele, with extensive administrative experience, there are four items that a GC Session normally deals with. These items relate to the Constitutuion, the Bylaws, the Church Manuel, and the Fundamental Beliefs – those four things. Now, is what he said true?

Well, if what he said is true, then somewhere in the Black Book here there must be a rule somewhere that says that we can only discuss matters relating to amendments to the Constitutuion, the Bylaws, the Fundamental Beliefs and the Church Manuel – those four things. There must be a rule somewhere that says that’s the only thing that you can discuss in the GC Session. But, you can read from A through Z in this book and there’s nothing of the sort in there…

Now, if what he said was true, then he should not have simply been disallowed by the chair as being unconstitutional. He shouldn’t have allowed it to be seconded and have a vote on it. If it is not true what Dr. Stele was saying, then he was misleading the session in order to steer the vote – actually to prevent the vote.

Vine at 38:00

At this point, I would like to point out that it doesn’t seem to me as though Artur Stele was claiming that the General Conference in Session could only deal with items of Constitution and Bylaws, Church Manual, and Fundamental Beliefs.  Rather, I think he was saying that these are primarily what concerns the General Conference while in Session, and that, given the shortened nature of that particular Session, that these particular issues should, in his opinion, take precedence.  It just doesn’t seem to me that Stele was arguing, as Pastor Vine claims, that only such items could be brought forward as agenda items or that any such limitations were listed in the Church Manuel.

Also, I think it is a serious mistake, on the part of Pastor Vine, to attribute nefarious motives to Artur Stele here – as if he were deliberately trying to mislead the delegates or block or influence the vote via the use of misleading statements regarding church governance. Now, I understand that Pastor Vine views the vaccination issue as a “Constitutional Issue”, but I don’t think that Dr. Stele honestly viewed it as such. And, if he does, he likely honestly viewed it as having already been settled prior to the GC Session.

Legal Analysis:

Pastor Vine continues with his section on the “legal analysis” of the last GC Session dealing specifically with the motion to add vaccines to the GC Agenda:

When I frist approached the General Conference in October of 2021, when they issued their Reaffirmation Statement, my first question was, “I don’t think you have the right in your terms of reference for the ADCOM to issue a statement like that. Could I see the ADCOM terms of reference?

There answer was, “No. We don’t share that.”

I said, “I’m a delagate the the General Conference Session. Surely I can see the terms of reference for a subcommittee of the General Conference Session. The answer was “No. You can’t have that.”

It was thankfully some bright pastor who was attacking me who posted it as a reference on the Alberta Conference website. It was taken down shortly thereafter. However, in that half an hour or so that it was up, eagle-eyed Adventists downloaded it and it circulated around the world. That came out by chance. But in the modern era, when we expect transperancy, we need to move to that era of transparancy in our church where every member should have access to see what the rules of the church are and how we function. It’s not right that these things be locked away so that only the insiders can ever see what these things really mean – because knowledge is power. And, if those who do not have knowledge do not know that the whool has been pulled over their eyes, how do we know when we’re being mistreated?

Vine at 45:37

Ok, if this is really what happened, and I have my doubts, given that the 2018 Terms of Reference for Compliance Committees were published by the Adventist Review back in 2018 for all to see, I’d have to agree with Pastor Vine here.  Certainly, a delegate to the General Conference should be able to have access to all of the relevant governing documents and the basis for decision-making behind all official Church statements. Transparency certainly is important here.

Also, note that the posting of the 2015 Terms of Reference for GC ADCOM, in particular, by “some bright pastor” was done by, you guessed it, Pastor David Hamstra (on January 24, 2022). And, contrary to the claims of Pastor Vine, this posting was never “taken down shortly thereafter” (46:04), but is still up for all to see. I’ve also uploaded a copy (Link). Recently, Hamstra very gently corrected Vine’s account here as follows:

I am the “bright pastor” in the Alberta Conference that Pastor Vine mentions at 46:04. I would like to clarify two points.

1. I hold Pastor Vine’s work with AFM in high regard, and do not intend any criticisms of his views as an attack. I offer them in the spirit of iron sharpening iron.

2. To the best of my knowledge, my conference has not removed the GC ADCOM Terms of Reference document from my OneDrive or disabled sharing it, nor have they contacted me about taking it down. When last I checked, that link still works, and anybody can access the document. (2/20/23)

Regarding Plenary Authority of the General Conference in Session:

Now, Pastor Vine reverts back to his argument that the General Conference in Session shall have absolute or “plenary” authority to make decisions on pretty much any matter involving the SDA Church – that there is no limit as to what it can discuss (49:00).  As already noted above, I don’t think anyone would disagree with this – not even Dr. Artur Stele despite the accusations of Pastor Vine against Artur Stele here. Again, I don’t see that Artur Stele ever claimed that the General Conference in Session could only discuss items of Constitution and Bylaws, Church Manual, and Fundamental Beliefs. Clearly, that was his own preference, and the preference of Elder Ted Wilson and other church leaders, during a shortened session, but he never said that this was an absolute limitation.

Yet, Pastor Vine feels free to claim that Artur Stele deliberately lied to the delegates.

Was pastor Stele telling the truth to the world church? No. Was he misleading the session? Yes, he was.

And I recognize that this is going out online. And I recognized that there may be some pushback for me saying this, but this is the truth. The truth is that the GC leadership didn’t want it to be discussed at the GC Session. The truth is not that you cannot bring this to the Session. It’s that they didn’t want it to be discussed. Hense they threw up this smokescreen of legalease. And, most members have never seen this [The Church Manual]. Most delegates at the GC Session don’t even know that this exists [holding up the Church Manual]. They go on trust. They assume, Ok, if this is what they’re saying therefore we can’t discuss it here for some mysterious reason. And it’s simply not true. The truth of the matter is that they didn’t want it discussed.

Vine at 58:00

Again, I don’t think that the GC delegates are so misinformed or so limited in their understanding as to the purpose and powers of the General Conference in Session.  Sure, it seems quite clear that Elder Stele and President Wilson, and others in the Church Leadership, would have much preferred not to have to discuss the vaccines or the very contentious vaccine mandate issue at a shortened GC session.  I think that’s quite clear.  However, in order to achieve this end, did they deliberately lie to the delegates or try to misdirect their thinking in a deliberately underhanded manner?  I just don’t think that such an accusation is fair nor is it in the Spirit of Jesus to make such accusations – accusations that assume actual knowledge of the motives of the leaders of the SDA Church.

Yet, at this point, Pastor Vine moves on to challenge President Ted Wilson. He plays a video clip of Elder Wilson urging the delegates to vote “no” on the motion to add the vaccine issue to the GC Session agenda (59:15).

In this clip, Elder Wilson starts off by noting the motion to add the issue of vaccinations to the GC Session agenda… and that this motion was seconded, meaning that a vote on this motion is in order.  Then, of course, Elder Wilson presented his own personal opinion, together with the personal opinions of other church leaders, strongly urging the delegates to vote “No” on this motion. The reasons he gave for this were the same reasons that had already been given by Elder Stele – that “It is not a Constitution or Bylaws item, a Church Manual item, or a Fundamental Belief item.”

Elder Wilson then went on to explain:

Now there may be individuals who will disagree with me and others saying, “It is my fundamental right to be able to make a choice as to whether or not I wish to receive the vaccination, a vaccination, some vaccination, or not.” And the General Conference has very much stood on the position that everyone should make their own decision.  The General Conference has made a statement in regard to vaccinations. In fact, I have to tell you that [regarding] the country that I served in for almost nine years in West Africa, I would not have been able to serve there had I not had a particular vaccination. In fact, there are probably about fifteen countries in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere, where without that single vaccination you would not be able to enter.

So, the debate may contain all kinds of ramifications. It has become particularly acute with the recent COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting vaccinations that were developed, which are not exactly like other vaccinations, but are vaccinations. So, it depends upon what vaccinations you’re talking about as to what responses people give. But, the General Conference has not mandated that people take the vaccination. It has given people a choice.

So, rather than for us to become embroiled in something that is not an agenda item for a General Conference… It is an administrative item, it has been delt with, some people don’t like the way that it has been delt with. And, that is their right. But rather than for us to become embroiled in something that is not an item for a General Conference Session discussion, we respectfully, kindly, and very much in a determined manner, ask that you, the delegates, vote “No” on placing this item as an agenda item.

Thank you. It is in your hands.

After watching this clip, Pastor Vine reflects on Elder Wilson’s comments as follows:

The vaccination he’s talking about in Africa is the Yellow Fever vaccination. Now, he’s comparing apples with elephants, not just apples with oranges here.  Because, if you live in America, you’re not forced to go live in [Africa]. But the mandates are saying that just to live and breath in your own home you have to take these things. So, we’re not comparing like with like.

Secondly, when he says that this is an administrative item, and it has been delt with, we must ask ourselves, “How can you possibly interpret that?” When you say that it’s an administrative item for General Conference, was it delt with by the administrators?  Yes, they did issue a statement. But, the question is, did we as Adventists, when we were baptized, agree or know or have any possibility of the idea that at some time in the future administrators would pass a statement that says, to every employer in the world, that this Adventist has no liberty of conscience or religious liberty objection to a mandated treatment? The answer to that is, “No”.  We have never given that authority to the General Conference. Ever!  Nobody has ever said, “The Church leaders can determine what the government can or cannot do to my body. Ever!”

So, yes they delt with it administratively, but administration in the General Conference relates to the assets of the General Conference, not to your body. Not to your body! And, their issuing a statement that says Adventists have no religious liberty objection to employer mandates, fully aware of the fact that if you do take the medication and you suffer life-changing consequences there is no responsibility to the General Conference for issuing that statement – just as if your doctor says you must take it and you die, tough luck. And, if your employer mandates it and you die, you’re the primary bread-winner in your family, tough luck. There’s nothing that you can do about it.

So, it is not an adminstrative issue. It does not fall within the administrative remix of the General Conference ADCOM to make a decision about whether the Holy Spirit convicts every Adventist worldwide on what they put into their bodies.

Vine at 103:31

Forgive me here, but I fail to see how Pastor Vine is, himself, “comparing apples to apples”.  As previously noted, there have long been many vaccine mandates in this country – not just in African or other foreign countries.  If you want to work in certain professions, go to certain schools, or travel to certain places, you must accept various vaccinations in this country.

Now, one is free to simply stay at home where, contrary to the claims of Pastor Vine, there are no vaccine mandates in this country. Vaccine mandates, as with most other government laws and mandates, deal with social situations where personal freedoms affect the freedoms and liberties of others.  And, when that happens, personal liberties can no longer be exercised with complete freedom of will in any orderly civil society. In other words, the real question is, where to draw the line between allowing personal liberties and protecting the noses of others from those liberties? (Link)

This is a very Christian concept actually.  So, I’m not sure why Pastor Vine is so adamant that all such government mandates must be opposed by the SDA Church as an organization?  Really?  Based on what Christian or Biblical principle? Even the Bible speaks of God-ordained mandated quarantine laws for the Israelite nation that limited the personal freedoms of those who might infect others. Is the current situation with modern vaccines really all that different?  Not from the understanding of the Church as an organization – not since its inception.

Beyond this, what’s wrong with Elder Wilson presenting his own personal opinion as the President of the SDA Church?  I mean, as long as a valid seconded motion was, in fact, voted upon by the GC delegates, where’s the real problem here? – beyond the fact that the motion was soundly defeated by the vote of the GC delegates? The motion to add the issue of vaccination to the agenda was defeated, as only 203 (11.4%) voted in favor of the motion, while 1,579 (88.6%) voted against (Link).

Oh, but what about Pastor Vine’s accusation that Elder Wilson lied to the delegates?  That, according to Pastor Vine, “He wasn’t telling the truth” (1:06:44)?

Now, Pastor Vine does ask, “Could he [Elder Wilson] have been mistaken?

After 30-odd years of senior church leadership administrative experience, could Elder Wilson have simply been overworked, overburdended, and mistaken? Could he have misspoken in that moment?  We need to allow for this as he has an increadibly stressful job.

Well, clearly not because, later on in the General Conference Session agenda, there were two items. One was called “The Resolution on the Holy Bible” and one was there at the personal initiative of Elder Wilson called “A Statement of Confidence in the Writings of Ellen G. White”. We voted those at the Session. Not one of those is an amendment to the Constitution, the Bylaws, the Fundamental Beliefs, or the Church Manuel. So, clearly, he was pushing items onto the agenda that he knew were not one of those three or four items.

So, he knows that you can discuss other things at the Session than just those four items. Are you following the logic?

Vine at 1:07:00

So, this makes Elder Wilson a liar? Come on now…  What about the possibility that Elder Wilson really did believe that the vaccine issue had already been settled? by the delegated authority of the General Conference? Again, I see it as more than a stretch, on the part of Pastor Vine, to accuse Elder Wilson of obviously lying, deliberately, to the delegates – to get his own way. Beyond this, I hardly think that such personal opinion statements by Elder Wilson would have unfairly biased the subsequent vote by the GC delegates. It seems to me that Pastor Vine has a rather low opinion of the GC delegates – that they are much more easily coercible and uninformed than they really are. I would argue that the delegates were generally well-informed, ahead of time, regarding the vaccine mandate issue, but were clearly quite strongly in line with the GC’s statements on this issue thus far. If they weren’t in line with these statements, they wouldn’t have voted down the motion to review these statements in such an overwhelming manner. And, given that there was a motion brought before the GC, in Session, regarding the ADCOM vaccines statements, the GC, in Session, effectively endorsed these statements by strongly voting down this motion.

Really, then, it’s only a minority of SDAs who have a problem with the GC’s statements on this issue. It’s just not this huge problem in the minds of most SDAs as Vine suggests… it just isn’t. That’s why the delegates voted down the motion. They simply agreed with the GC’s stated position.

Also, claiming that Elder Wilson and the other Church leaders who support him and the GC’s position and statements on vaccines are nothing but power-hungry authoritarian oligarchs who are on a similar path to that of Stalin, Hitler, and the Spanish Inquisition (1:16:22) is just too much. Even those who strongly oppose the Church’s longstanding support of vaccinations should not stoop to such malignant comparisons regarding the leadership of their own SDA Church.

Authority of the General Conference Executive Committee (EXCOM):

It can be determined from the black book here that the Session has the same powers or greater than the Executive Committee [EXCOM]. So, the General Conference meets every five years.  And, in the intervening years, every Spring and Fall, there is a Spring meeting and an Annual Counsil.  And note that that is the Executive Committee.  And, on the Executive Committe, the people who sit on that are the Union Presidents from around the world, plus the departmental directors from the GC, and the leaders of different agencies like ADRA and Adventist World Radio, and Hope TV – alright? So, these are the Union Presidents who sit on the Executive Committee, and the General Conference delegates certain authorities to the Executive Committee.

Now, I ask you the question, if you have the authority to delegate something, does that mean that you have the authority to do it yourself? Yes. Can you delegate the authority to do something if you can’t do it yourself? No.

So, what does the GC in Session normally delegate to the Executive Committee? From that you can work backwards and deduce that the GC that delegates the power for XY and Z to the Executive Committe, it means that the GC has such power inherent for itself anyway.

You follow the logic? You cannot delegate power which you do not have.

Vine at 50:00

Pastor Vine then goes on to quote from Article XIII regarding the General Conference Executive Committee as found in the Church Manuel (51:40):

During the intervals between sessions of the General Conference, the General Conference Executive Committee is delegated the authority to act on behalf of the General Conference in session… Major items affecting the world Church are considered at the Annual Council meetings of the General Conference Executive Committee, when all the members of the Committee are invited to be present. The authority, therefore, of the General Conference Executive Committee is the authority of the world Church.

Pastor Vine then asks:

Now, would you consider the largest health crisis to hit planet Earth to be a major item affecting the world church? Yes. Churches were closed.  We fired over 80 Adventist school teachers in Australia because of these mandates. We fired pastors in some parts of the world. You could go to a casino in Nevada, but you could not go to a church.  This was clearly a religious liberty crisis around the world. Churches were targetted, while place of ill-repute, like gambling dens and casinos were left open in different states in the US.

While the mandates don’t seem to have been equally enforced by our own US government, it seems hard to argue that it was a good idea for churches to remain in defiance of government mandates during the height of the pandemic.  At the very least, it seems wise to pick one’s battles regarding religious liberty… especially early on in the pandemic when the hospitals and medical resources in many areas around the country were being overwhelmed with the sick and even the dead and the dying.

The Key Statement of Contention (and Conclusion):

Pastor Conrad Vine took particular issue with one particular statement within the General Conference’s Reaffirmation Statement of its 2015 Vaccine Statement:

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. (Link)

This one particular statement, according to Pastor Vine, completely undermines religious liberty for all Adventist Worldwide – permanently.

In that moment, they permanently eliminated religious liberty for all Adventists…

The General Conference ADCOM never has the right to limit where, when or what the Holy Spirit convicts you of.

Vine at 1:17:35

Again, I would respond with the words of Pastor David Hamstra:

As far as I can tell, Dr. Vine’s line of reasoning that makes every health choice a matter for claims of conscience makes every potential choice into a matter for a claim of conscience, for which domain of human activity does the Holy Spirit not want to guide? And if every choice deserves protection for conscience’s sake, then no choices can be given protection for conscience’s sake because sinful human beings would become ungovernable.

In the Adventist circles I came up in, one’s private sense of the promptings of the Spirit was to be subordinated first to revelation and then to reason because we often conflate the voice of the Spirit with our own opinions. The role of the Spirit was to motivate us to follow the teachings of Scripture and to guide us in important matters that are indifferent with respect to Scripture and reason.

In my view, Adventists should not claim conscience protections for matters that we cannot ground in revelation and that we change our minds about depending on circumstances and the promptings of the Spirit, so as not to make liberty of conscience unworkable. The majority of Adventists take vaccines or not depending on their prudential judgments about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine in question. Therefore, vaccination is not a religious liberty issue for the majority of our community.

This does not mean that Adventists cannot oppose vaccine mandates because of our commitment to other civil liberties that support religious liberty, like bodily autonomy. But we should not conflate them with religious liberty itself lest religious liberty be construed as everything and become nothing…

Instead, I believe we should direct such Adventists to seek exemptions by demonstrating the good faith of their conscientious claim in ways that don’t require their religious community to misrepresent its big-tent position on the issue.

Therefore, Dr. Vine’s assertion that Adventists who lose their jobs because their church won’t write them exemption letters should be compensated fails to reckon with the need to be honest about our position as a whole community and to respect the bounds within which religious liberty must operate.

I would add to this that the General Conference religious liberty lawyers are, in fact, willing to help individuals write their own letters in support of their own personal convictions regarding vaccines and other issues where the SDA Church, as an organization, may not agree with the convictions of various members within the Church.  Pastor Vine’s position, on the other hand, seems completely unworkable when it comes to real-world applications – being more akin to arguments for total anarchy rather than those consistent with living within a workable civil or even church governmental system. After all, many who claim to be moved by the Holy Spirit certainly appear to be moved, instead, by what they just ate at Taco Bell. In other words, it simply isn’t remotely practical for the Church to take on every case where an individual claims Divine guidance for not wanting to follow this or that government law or mandate.  That is a recipe for anarchy, not an orderly government.

For me, personally, it seems that religious liberty arguments should be reserved for those situations where government mandates clearly violate a direct command of God as written in Scripture – not simply as I feel that I’m being led by the Holy Spirit on this or that issue.  We, as Christians, are not called to challenge church or civil governments over just any issue that we might not like or think to be mistaken, citing our religious liberty as a reason for our rebellion against their leadership.  After all, we are told that it is God Himself who ordained both Church and Civil governments.  Therefore, like Daniel and his three friends, we are called to go as far as we can in obedience to the laws of the land, even to the very plains of Dura, to the very feet of the Golden Statue – stopping only where a clear “Thus saith the LORD” tells us not to bow down and worship any other God. As Ellen White pointed out:

It is our duty in every case to obey the laws of our land, unless they conflict with the higher law which God spoke with an audible voice from Sinai and afterward engraved on stone with His own finger.  – EGW, 7 Testimonies for the Church, p 361-362

Our work is not to make a raid on the Government but to prepare a people to stand in the great day of the Lord. The fewer attacks we make on authorities and powers, the more work will we do for God…. Do all in your power to reflect the light, but do not speak words that will irritate or provoke” (EV, 173)… Let Seventh-day Adventists do nothing that will mark them as lawless and disobedient. Let them keep all inconsistency out of their lives. Our work is to proclaim the truth, leaving the issues with the Lord. Do all in your power to reflect the light, but do not speak words that will irritate or provoke. – EGW, MS 117a, 1901

The apostle plainly outlined the attitude that believers should sustain toward the civil authorities: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” [1 Peter 2:13-17 – EGW, Acts of the Apostles, p. 522

But what about those who are convicted that vaccines will harm their bodies? – the very “temple of God”? Like Daniel and his three friends who remained true to God’s health principles at the risk of their own lives, is this not a clear religious liberty issue?  For the individual, it might be, while not being such an issue for the Church as an organization or for most members of the Church.  I would remind such people, however, that Daniel and his three friends asked to be put to the test regarding their convictions, for short time, to see if they were right or wrong. Also, I would question these individuals with regard to the consistency of their reasoning and actions – with further discussion along these lines noted here: Link

The Condensed Version of this Review:

The SDA Church, as an organization, recommends useful modern medical therapies, to include vaccines, while, at the same time, recognizing and supporting personal convictions that might be opposed to vaccines – if these reasonably allow for the liberties of others.

 

________________________________________

Bio of Dr. Sean Pitman:

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