Character of Jesus is that of a counselor. We are

Comment on Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine by Sean Pitman.

Character of Jesus is that of a counselor. We are to have the character of our God. Attorney Zirkle represented 25,000+ professional SDAs. You say Zirkle was representing “minority” of the church. Jesus did not ignore “minority” family members who were hurting and requesting “let us reason together” because character of Jesus is counselor full of compassion. There are hard skills, which you show in abundance, then there are soft skills that Jesus came to earth to show in abundance.

I agree that the character of Jesus is that of a protector of the vulnerable. And, when it comes to infections and diseases that can injure the vulnerable, who do you think it was who set up the “hard” quarantine laws mentioned in the Bible? Were these laws not set up by Jesus Himself? Were these laws harsh against the minority of those who were infected with transmissible diseases? Were they lacking in compassion toward the infected minority? Were they open to the claimed personal liberties of those who didn’t agree with such harsh restrictions on their own personal liberties?

Sure, Jesus is very compassionate toward minorities, but also toward the majority at the same time. Of course, He would love to explain every detail to those who might not understand or initially agree with His commands that might limit personal freedoms in various situations. What about the Christian principle, set up by Jesus Himself, that one’s personal liberties become quite limited when they negatively impact others? At some point, any functional civil society must enforce laws for the good of that society – even if some don’t understand and continue to disagree with those laws. It is God Himself who sets up civil governments with the power to make and enforce civil laws for the good of society as a whole – despite there always being those who don’t understand and who don’t agree. And, the SDA Church has always recognized this Biblical principle – as long as civil laws don’t directly counter a direct unambiguous command of God.

Now, regarding Zirkle’s motion, in particular, it’s not that the voice of Zirkle and those he represents was ignored. His motion was, in fact, considered by the delegates of the GC in Session, but was voted down – effectively endorsing the previous statements of the SDA Church on vaccines. This wasn’t my decision or even Elder Wilson’s decision. It was the decision of the GC delegates in Session. And, it’s not like they had no compassion for Zirkle and those he represented. The Church does, in fact, support those who think differently on this topic, upholding their own personal religious convictions here.

Again, it is possible for the church to disagree with your opinions on this topic and yet still support your personal religious liberties here.

Character of Wilson displayed hard skills of tyranny towards a hurting “minority” of SDAs to keep the meeting moving by steamrolling the “minority.” Vote was taken after Wilson ordered delegates to vote “NO” with no other discussion allowed. GC2022 was an exercise in hard skills; your answers are an exercise in hard skills — both shut downs to dissent.

Elder Wilson simply gave his own personal opinion, as did many others. He didn’t have the power to “order the delegates to vote no”. He simply told them his opinion and then, as he said, “left it in their hands” to decide. Again, it was the delegates who decided how to vote on this issue, not Elder Wilson.

I am so happy that Jesus is a God of soft skills, and understands the “minority.” I was a counselor for 31 years. My job was to help the “minority.” I have a feeling that the Pandemic is being used as a test of who calls themselves God’s people. As the “minority” came to Pharaoh, the requests of the “minority” caused hardness of heart (hard skills only) — no compassion (no soft skills displayed). Moses made requests to Pharaoh for the “minority” that were refused. Zirkle made requests to Wilson for the “minority” that were refused. What if Wilson would have stood up and said, “It is best that we face this issue to discuss since there are so many in our SDA family that are upset and stressed about the Vaccine Statement. I ask you to vote “YES” so that we can set up a committee to research and discuss the world wide consequences of the Vaccine Statement.” That would have been a soft skills statement to reflect our leader Jesus.

That would have been fine too, but, again, the actual decision here was completely up to the delegates. The SDA Church is not a dictatorship. The delegates are not under Wilson’s thumb nor are they forced to follow along with his opinions on any issue. You just don’t like what they decided, so you’re blaming Elder Wilson and saying that he forced the vote – which simply isn’t true. The delegates have intelligent minds of their own and Pastor Vine is mistaken to suggest that they really aren’t well-informed and therefore they simply follow, like ignorant sheep, whatever Elder Wilson tells them to do. That’s just nonsense.

Continue with your hard skills smashes of every dissent. Families cannot smash down dissenters without consequences reflecting back on the quality of the family unit and quality of each individual within that family unit. I am newer SDA; joined a church I thought reflected God’s character; and am seeing that all that glitters (highly educated SDAs) is not gold, or even nice.

I have no problem with peaceful dissent. Why do you think I publish dissenting comments and points here in this forum? It’s just that dissenters cannot always have their own way. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean that you can dictate to the Church as an organization to do things your way. It’s not that your perspective hasn’t been carefully considered. It has been very carefully considered indeed. It’s just that, after very careful consideration, the delegates didn’t agree with those who share your opinion on this particular topic. The delegates clearly thoughht it best to support the long-held position of the Church in support of useful medical therapies and treatments, to include vaccines, while, at the same time, supporting the individual right to disagree based on personal religious convictions.

Both are possible at the same time – which is the best the Church can do since you’re never going to have perfect agreement on any topic that the Church, as an organization, votes to promote. I mean, I personally don’t agree with everything that the delegates have voted to promote either. But, I’m still here – part of the process since I believe that the SDA Church is under God’s special guidance and care and I want to be part of that.

Again, this doesn’t mean that your personal convictions aren’t taken seriously or supported by the SDA Church. Religious liberties are not determined on a corporate basis, but upon an individual basis. You really don’t need the Church, as an organization, to agree with you on any topic before you can take a personal stand based on your own personal religious convictions. And, the Church will support your right to take such a stand – even if it happens to disgree with your stand. How is this not being Christlike?

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
Thank you for this update. I really appreciate it and the courage it took to post this…

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
Again, it wasn’t Ted Wilson nor the members of ADCOM who voted down Zirkle’s motion – nor did they force or unduly coerce the vote of the delegates in Session. Also, it isn’t true that the vaccine issue hadn’t been adequately discussed for the benefit of the delegates – or that the delegates didn’t have already enough information to make an informed decision. I’d say that they were much more informed on this topic than Pastor Vine gives them credit for.

Now, I’ve very sorry you feel like you do and I can understand your honest confusion since what you’re hearing from anti-vax conspiracy theorists is truly scary stuff. However, the voices that you’re referencing truly are misleading you – telling you things that simply aren’t true. Your latest example of this, from Dr. James L. Marcum, is no better than Dr. Peter McCullough. He makes many claims that are simply false or misleading. Now, Dr. Marcum certainly comes across as very caring and kind, and I’m sure that he is. The only problem here is that he’s wrong – flat out wrong in what he’s telling you. And, this has resulted, no doubt, in a great many long-term injuries and deaths that could have been avoided. Kindness and sincerity isn’t enough here. True kindness will take the time to carefully investigate the actual weight of currently available scientific evidence and present it in an honest even-handed manner. That’s not what Drs. McCullough and Marcum have been doing – not at all.

In short, when your health and life are on the line, would you rather have a doctor with a wonderful bedside manner who isn’t giving you the best available information, or a doctor who may not be as smooth or delicate with his/her words, but who is actually giving you the best available information?

You see, I’m not trying to be mean or harsh here. I’m just truly trying to save lives and prevent long-term injuries. That’s what I’m trying to do. And, I’m sure you’re trying to do the same thing, and I appreciate that. It’s just that you don’t have good scientific evidence to back up your position…