Pastor Conrad Vine, who previously came out strongly against the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for statements supportive of vaccines (even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic: Link), continues his attack.

Pastor Vine recently spoke at the Northern Maine Campmeeting, giving a series of talks.

Here is the video of his “Broken Bride 3 – The Regime Church” Presentation:

 

Here are a few key arguments forwarded by Vine that I would like to address:

Vaccines against COVID-19 had catastrophic side effects:

“The COVID-19 vaccines use dangerous and untested technology and have had catastrophic side-effects worldwide, including surging cancer rates, turbo cancers, strokes, heart attacks, sudden-death syndrome, increasing excess death rates among working-age adults. One by one, they are being banned in country after country due to their catastrophic side-effects.”

The vaccines saved millions of lives:

Pastor Vine’s claims regarding the dangers of the mRNA vaccines are false. The truth is that the vaccines against COVID-19, particularly the mRNA vaccines, were truly miraculous in their development and efficacy, saving millions of lives and preventing a great many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries worldwide. It is estimated that vaccines against COVID-19 saved almost 20 million lives within just the first year of their use, equating to a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (Link). And yes, they were successfully tested in appropriate animal and human trials before being released for use by the general public. The mRNA vaccines were tested in double-blinded placebo-controlled animal studies as well as with human volunteers (70,000 of them). During these double-blinded trials, six people died. Four of these six who died were given the placebo (normal saline injection), not the actual vaccine. This death rate was well within the background death rate for the population at large.  And, since the mRNA vaccines have been given to millions of people there hasn’t been an increased death rate in any population or demographic over the usual or expected death rates. In fact, of those who experienced serious COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and death during the pandemic, more than 95% were unvaccinated, prompting some to refer to this pandemic as a “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” (Link).

There has also been no surge in cancer rates or the scarier sounding “turbo cancers“, strokes, sudden death syndrome, or an increase in death rates among working-age adults (Link). None of that is true regarding the mRNA vaccines.

More on “Turbo Cancer”:

As a relevant aside, Dr. David Gorski (surgical oncologist, molecular biologist, cancer biologist, and professor of surgery at Wayne State University) has written several interesting articles on the sensational claims for “Turbo Cancer” being caused by the mRNA vaccines: Link, Link, Link

“In the case of the antivax claim that vaccines cause cancer, the new COVID vaccine-related twist is that the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines don’t just cause something as mundane as your run-of-the-mill cancers of the sort that, taken together, are the second leading cause of death after cardiovascular disease. Oh, no. They’re too awful to cause just run-of-the-mill average cancers. They’re such super-powerful magical carcinogens that they cause “turbo cancers” described by antivaxxers as cancers that develop and grow so rapidly as to be essentially untreatable or cancers….

The forms of evidence used generally consist of anecdotes and a claim that there has been a huge increase in excess mortality from cancer since the vaccines rolled out. First, let’s look at typical anecdotes, which started with pathologists like Ryan Cole and Ute Kruege claiming that they were observing a huge increase in the number of cancers they’ve been seeing, an increase that neither has apparently seen fit to publish in the scientific literature and that other pathologists do not appear to be reporting, other than on Rumble or on antivax conspiracy sites…

Unsurprisingly, “turbo cancer” isn’t a thing. Oncologists don’t recognize it as a phenomenon, nor do cancer biologists, and if you search for it on PubMed, you won’t find a reference to it. Basically, it’s a clever term coined by antivaxxers to scare you into thinking that COVID-19 vaccines will give you cancer, or at least greatly increase your risk of developing cancer. The “evidence” marshaled to support the concept consists of the usual misinformation techniques used by antivaxxers: citing anecdotes, wild speculation about biological mechanisms without a firm basis in biology, and conflating correlation with causation, no matter how much one must squint to see it…

My own review of the “Turbo Cancer” claim can be found here: Link

See also this excellent review:  Link

Ironically, the mRNA vaccine technology, rather than causing cancer, is now being used to combat cancer. “Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.” (Link)

Post-vaccine myocarditis – A real but lesser risk:

Note, however, that there is an increased risk of clinical and subclinical myocarditis in young men who were vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines (Link), which suggests caution regarding the use of mRNA boosters in healthy young men (ages 12-24). In context, consider also that getting infected by COVID-19 also increases one’s risk of clinical myocarditis to a much greater degree.  One study showed that those infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus, while this risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (Link). Similarly, another study showed that the risk of myocarditis was more than seven-fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine (Link). A large Israeli study showed a risk of myocarditis following a COVID-19 infection at 11.0 events per 100,000 persons while the risk of myocarditis following mRNA vaccination was 2.7 events per 100,000 persons. It is also relevant to note that the relative severity of myocarditis was much less following mRNA vaccination compared to myocarditis that followed COVID-19 infection. “Adjusted analysis showed that the postvaccination myocarditis group had a 92% lower mortality risk” (Link).

It is also interesting to note that mRNA vaccination “was substantially protective against adverse events such as anemia, acute kidney injury, intracranial hemorrhage, and lymphopenia” (Link). Clearly, overall, the serious risks of COVID-19 infection far outweighed the risks of vaccination. Here is a list of the relative risks of mRNA vaccination vs. COVID-19 infection:

Now, there is a different risk profile for young men between the ages of 12 – 24, in particular.  That is, myocarditis was more common for this particular demographic following mRNA vaccination compared to following a natural COVID-19 infection. One study found that, for men under the age of 40, there were 16 excess cases of myocarditis per million individuals after infection compared with 97 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine (less so for Pfizer since the dosage was 1/3 of that of the Moderna vaccine). However, the severity of the myocarditis was much less following vaccination vs. a COVID-19 infection (see diagram below). The pattern is fairly clear. Post-vaccine myocarditis has better outcomes than conventional myocarditis, and post-infection myocarditis has similar outcomes to conventional myocarditis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s going on here?

“So, what’s going on here? It’s not entirely clear. Logic would say that because both the vaccine and the virus cause myocarditis, there must be something common to both that is responsible. And the two things common to both are the mRNA code and the spike protein that results from it. Given what we see in this study, with post-infection myocarditis being worse, it lends credence to the hypothesis that the spike protein, perhaps via molecular mimicry, is instigating an inflammatory response against heart muscle cells. It’s just that, with the vaccine, the spike protein dose is self-limited. The COVID virus itself, though, comes with an entire package of proteins to produce more spike protein than what you would get inoculated with.” – Perry Wilson, With COVID, Not All Myocarditis Is Created Equal, Medscape, August 26, 2024 (Link)

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator.

Vaccinated had reduced transmission rates:

It was originally 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). And, there were many more supporting scientific studies like this, saying basically the same thing (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. 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 (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).

Conspiracy theorists like Dr. Peter McCullough:

So, where did Vine get all of his mistaken ideas regarding the mRNA vaccines and COVID-19?  Well, almost certainly from well-known and very vocal and charismatic conspiracy theorists, like Dr. Peter McCullough for example, who has consistently promoted all of the very same falsified claims that Pastor Vine has been preaching all over the place (Link).  After all, during the height of the pandemic, McCullough was invited to speak at one of our own churches, the Village Church in Michigan, by Pastor Ron Kelly (Link).

Such invitations gave McCullough a wide audience and increased credibility within our own congregations, scaring many at-risk people to the point of refusing to get vaccinated during the height of the pandemic, resulting in needless hospitalizations, long-term injuries, and even the deaths of many who would otherwise still be with us today. Yet, Pastor Kelly is himself still parroting the false and misleading claims of Dr. McCullough about the mRNA vaccines from the pulpit (8/31/24; Link). Dr. McCullough has simply had an oversized influence among many in the SDA Church and has caused serious harm.

AstraZeneca, J&J, and Blood Clots:

So, while the mRNA vaccines do have side effects, as do all medical treatments, their risks were minimal overall compared to their benefits during the pandemic. One vaccine that has been “banned” from use in various countries is the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is known to cause a rare but serious increase in blood clots and strokes (2 to 3 cases per 100,000). The risks for blood clots and strokes from the actual COVID-19 infection was much higher. “Research shows that blood clot risk can remain elevated for nearly a year after getting COVID-19. The risk is highest within the first week after a COVID-19 diagnosis and for those hospitalized with the illness” (Link). Still, the AstraZeneca vaccine was banned in various countries, not because the risks outweighed the benefits, but because better vaccine options were available – such as the mRNA vaccines which had/have even less risk. The same could be said for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine – which was also found to be associated with thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (reduced platelets and increase blood clotting). On April 15th, 2021, Dr. Vinay Prasad argued that, given the presence of alternatives (Pfizer and Moderna), that it was “game-over” for J&J in women less than 50 years old and that the US should halt its use (Link).

Unvaccinated had higher rates of long-term injury, hospitalization, and death:

The fact is that those who were not vaccinated during the pandemic suffered far greater adverse outcomes compared to those who were vaccinated, to include higher death rates, hospitalization rates, and long-term injuries and adverse outcomes (Link). Pastor Vine is completely misinformed here and is using these false claims to attack the leadership of the SDA Church in very unfair and hurtful ways.

Diverting Financial Support from the Church:

After this, Pastor Vine goes so far as to suggest that SDA members divert their financial support of the church. Vine says that, “Adventism today faces a potential split along two lines:

• “Adventists who reject the GC ADCOM’s assumed authority over their consciences, who hold true to Scripture and our Fundamental Beliefs and thus reject the onrush of cultural Marxism in SDA institutions, and among SDA leaders, professors and pastors.
• “Adventists who accept the GC ADCOM’s assumed authority over their individual consciences, and are either afraid to contend for the faith passed on to us, or actually support the abandonment of Scripture in favor of cultural Marxism.”

He added that,

“It appears to many members today that our hierarchy exists primarily for the financial benefit of the hierarchy and its functionaries through the preservation of federal income streams to our institutions—and the concerns and consciences of members are no longer of concern to our senior administrators.”

Options for Faithful Adventists:

So, according to Pastor Vine, there are a number of options for Bible-faithful Adventists:

• • Do nothing, and have our livelihoods, careers, jobs, homes, businesses and bodies sacrificed by our leaders once again to preserve their institutions, incomes and status.
  • “If the GC supports future mandates over the consciences of members, establish a para-church movement within Adventism.” Establishing a “para-church movement”, could be performed by the laity who would organize their tithes so that they are returned to a new lay-led non-profit, which then channels those tithes and offerings each year to Bible-faithful SDA Missions, Conferences and Unions that avoid “cultural Marxism”. This option is easy to accomplish in the modern era, and allows faithful SDAs to direct their tithes to the 10-40 mission window while simultaneously cutting off funding to woke, post-biblical NAD Conferences, Unions and leaders…
  • Form an underground SDA movement, a loose coalition of faithful house-groups, with bi-vocational elders leading each group, which is where we will be anyway after the MOB is imposed.
  • Pastor Vine specifically noted that the conferences “that go woke will go broke, very simple.”

Establish a Para-Church Movement:

The suggestion that SDA members “establish a para-church movement” where tithes and offerings are directed according to personal preferences is basically a suggestion to destroy and recreate the SDA Church according to those who happen to agree with Vine on his particular pet topics.  He’s basically telling the church leadership that if they don’t do what he says, or what the group that he represents says, he’s perfectly fine with the destruction of the current church government and the setting up a new organization. Clearly, this advice to his followers is not God-directed or biblically based. It sounds more like the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16:1–40).  As Mrs. White points out:

Advice of Ellen White:

Tithes and Offerings:

“Some have been dissatisfied and have said, ‘I will no longer pay my tithe for I have no confidence in the way things are managed at the heart of the work.’ But will you rob God because you think the management of the work is not right? Make your complaint. . . Send in your petitions for things to be adjusted and set in order; but do not withdraw from the work of God, and prove unfaithful, because others are not doing right.” (Ellen White, Testimonies, Vol.9, pp.249)

“If the Conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord, that is the sin of the erring ones. The Lord will not hold you responsible for it, if you do what you can to correct the evil. But do not commit sin yourselves by withholding from God His own property.” (Ellen White: The Early Elmshaven Years, 1900-1905, pp. 395, 396)

“You ask if I will accept tithe from you and use it in the cause of God where most needed. In reply, I will say that I shall not refuse to do this, but at the same time, I will tell you that there is a better way. It is better to put confidence in the ministers of the conference where you live and in the officers of the church where you worship. Draw nigh to your brethren. Love them with a true heart fervently, and encourage them to bear their responsibilities faithfully in the fear of God. ‘Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity’” [1 Timothy 4:12]. (Ellen White, Letter 96, 1911, Published in The Early Elmshaven Years, p. 397)

But what about the fact that Mrs. White herself redirected her own tithe on occasion?  Does this not set a precedent for others to do the same when they see fit?

Mrs. White made these points about her practice:

1. She was directly instructed by God to help certain destitute black and white Adventist ministers.

2. She was instructed by God that she should first notify the conference officials of the need, and urge them to help. If and when they defaulted, she was to move in directly with immediate aid.

3. The situation was unique, and she emphasized this by such expressions as “my special work” and “special cases.”

4. Mrs. White did not want this special project to be taken as an example or precedent, since God had specifically instructed her alone to do it.

5. The money was “not withheld from the Lord’s treasury” in that these tithes were given to Adventist Church ministers—either currently employed by the Southern Missionary Society (and thus bearers of General Conference ministerial credentials or retired and holding the “honorary” credentials that retired SDA ministers on the retirement plan today hold.

6. She pointedly remarked, “I would not advise that any one should make a practice of gathering up tithe money.”

Of those who today justify their acceptance and/or solicitation of tithe from fellow SDA church members, we might well inquire:

1. Did God directly appoint them to the work of gathering up, or accepting these tithes?

2. Does the situation that prompted her emergency program at the turn of the century exist today (or is it nullified by church and state pensions for retired workers)?

3. If the situation is the same today as in 1905, did they first contact the conference officials (as was Mrs. White’s consistent practice), before going ahead on their own to rectify the situation?

4. Are they spending the tithe monies they collect for the same purpose as did Ellen White—primarily retired Adventist ministers on the doorstep of poverty?

5. Are the funds they collect going to a recognized agency of the SDA Church organization and/or to needy retired workers who were in the employ of the church prior to retirement?

Ellen G. White Estate (Link)

Deluded efforts to break up the church will come to nought:

“God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing this thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angel is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading this people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead.” – Ellen White, 1T, p. 207

“I know that the Lord loves His church. It is not to be disorganized or broken up into independent atoms. There is not the least consistency in this; there is not the least evidence that such a thing will be. Those who shall heed this false message and try to leaven others will be deceived and prepared to receive advanced delusions, and they will come to nought.” – Ellen White, SM, p. 268

“The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out—the chaff separated from the precious wheat.” – Ellen White, BC, 7:911

Vine’s solution to avoid the destruction of the church is as follows:

Vine’s Demands of the Church:

However, we are stronger as a SDA movement and more effective in reaching the unreached when we work together. Therefore, I am appealing to the GC leadership once again to do the right thing, to take responsibility for your profound mistakes during the pandemic, to start the process of reconciliation, trust-building and healing that we as a worldwide Body desperately need, and to do the following:

1. 1. At the 2024 Annual Council, rescind and apologize for the 2021 Reaffirmation Statement immediately, allowing the healing process to begin across the Adventist world.
   2. Establish a Fund to compensate those Adventists who have lost their livelihoods as a result of such illegitimate Statements or who have suffered physical harm from the side-effects of the vaccines they were forced to take because of the 2021 Reaffirmation Statement.
   3. Publicly affirm that because members and employees may be vaccinated or not as the Holy Spirit impresses them through their conscience, the GC will henceforth defend the good conscience decisions of all Adventists vis a vis any and all vaccination mandates.
   4. Rehire wherever possible on previous terms and conditions those denominational employees who were fired for living in accordance with the convictions of the Holy Spirit.
   5. Add to the agenda of the GC 2025 Session the question of divesting all institutions that receive US Federal funding from the SDA Church since the Federal government will end up enforcing the Mark of the Beast mentioned in Revelation 13. In this connection, Vine mentions Medicare and Medicaid payments to Adventist healthcare institutions as funds that should no longer be accepted.

How modern medicine works:

Clearly, Pastor Vine doesn’t seem to understand a number of issues here, particularly how medical care works in this country.  If SDA hospitals were to refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid, for example, their ability to provide the highest level cutting-edge medical care to the most vulnerable in this country would effectively end. How is that remotely reasonable from a basic Christian perspective?  Also, if the SDA Church were to officially deny the effectiveness of vaccines worldwide, that would remove the church and its hospitals from supporting and providing one of the greatest and most miraculous gifts of modern medicine.  Would Pastor Vine also wish to do away with the use of antibiotics as well?  What kind of medical expertise does he think he has?  Or is this all somehow based on his misunderstanding of Divine Revelation?

As a relevant note, consider that Pastor Vine’s own organization, AFM, accepted $250,000 during the pandemic in government PPP funds. Is it not hypocritical then to complain about LLU and other SDA institutions that did similar things and hang them on the Revelation 13 church/state issue?

Retract the “Reaffirmation Statement”:

The “Reaffirmation Statement” of the SDA Church that Vine wants to be rescinded basically reaffirms a statement in support of immunizations that was voted back in April of 2015 – well before the COVID-19 pandemic. The Reaffirmation 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)  Before the pandemic, the 2015 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. Yet, there really isn’t anything new in the reaffirmation statement as compared to the original 2015 statement regarding the Church’s position on vaccines or modern medicine as part of the Church’s efforts to effectively spread the Gospel Message to the world.  It is supportive of both modern medical science as well as personal religious liberties.

Religious Liberty Support:

Beyond this, neither one of these statements forced anyone to take a vaccine beyond what the civil government requires for various forms of employment within a given state. The General Conference religious liberty lawyers always were and 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.  Sure, vaccines may have side effects, but those who’ve experienced such side effects, and who would like to seek compensation, can do so through government agencies that have already been established for such a purpose – i.e., The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Link). Beyond this, numerous vaccines are required by various state civil government laws in order for one to attend various schools or to hold various occupations within that state. None of these state laws have anything to do with the position of the Church on vaccines.  Yet, Pastor Vine fails to address any of these state-sponsored vaccine mandates beyond the COVID-19 vaccines – which seems more than just a bit inconsistent.

Religious Liberty Based on Individual, not Corporate, Convictions:

Consider also that religious liberty is not based on corporate, but individual convictions – at least in the United States. It really doesn’t matter, in the USA anyway, what the Church’s position on vaccines or any other topic might be. That’s irrelevant. All that matters are the religious convictions of the individual.

The SDA Church is only giving recommendations to its members regarding vaccines and what it feels are the best use of religious liberty claims. The SDA Church is not dictating what church members may or may not believe or do regarding this topic. Again, one may or may not agree with the advice of the SDA Church here. That’s entirely up to the individual. Legally, it makes absolutely no difference since employers have no legal basis against the religious liberty claims of an employee based on what the Church says or doesn’t say.

No one has lost his/her job in the USA, because of the GC statement who wouldn’t have lost his/her job anyway – regardless of what the had said or didn’t say regarding vaccines and vaccine mandates. That’s just not how the legal system works with regard to religious liberty issues in the United States.  Consider this Memorandum from the US Attorney General:

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)

See also this commentary on Vine’s misunderstanding of this particular point by Tom de Bruin in his 2022 article:

He 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. How else would thousands of Catholics be getting religious exemptions when the official stance of both the Vatican and the American bishops is that vaccines are morally acceptable? 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.

Tom De Bruin, Responding to Conrad Vine’s “Appeal to Adventist Nobility”, Spectrum, February 1, 2022. (Link)

Again, note the statement here that religious liberty rights are supported and protected on an individual basis regardless of if one is or is not a member of a church or part of a particular religious faith.

Also true in Canada:

The same appears to be true in Canada as well (at least on paper):

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Sincerity of belief is a question of fact. To establish sincerity, an individual must show that they sincerely believe that a certain belief or practice is required by their religion. The religious belief must be asserted in good faith and must not be fictitious, capricious or an artifice. In assessing the sincerity of the belief, a court will take into account, inter alia, the credibility of the testimony of the person asserting the particular belief and the consistency of the belief with that person’s other current religious practices (Multani, supra at paragraph 35; Amselem, supra at paragraphs 52-53). It is the sincerity of the belief at the time of the interference, not its strength or absolute consistency over time, that is relevant at this stage of the analysis (R. v. N.S., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726 at paragraph 13).

The Court does not want to engage in theological debates when examining the practice or belief in question. The practice or belief in question need not be required by official religious dogma nor need it be in conformity with the position of religious officials. Freedom of religion extends beyond obligatory doctrine to voluntary expressions of faith and is not restricted to major and recognizable religions (Amselem, supra at paragraphs 46-50, 53, and 56). A protected religious practice need not be part of an established belief system or even a belief shared by others. An individual need only demonstrate a sincere belief that the practice is of religious significance to the individual (Little v. R., 2009 NBCA 53, leave to appeal dismissed, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 417 at paragraph 7). It is not appropriate to adduce expert evidence showing sincerity or lack thereof (Amselem, supra at paragraph 54).

https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html

Regarding Government Vaccine Mandates:

I was never personally a fan of the vaccine mandates put out by the US government (or other governments around the world) since they seemed to me to be largely counterproductive and provide little benefit regarding limiting the spread of the virus after the Omicron variant came out. As Dr. Prasad points out here (Link), the mRNA vaccines were so good as far as personal protection was concerned, that limiting the spread of COVID-19, once the vaccines became available, was kind of a moot point.

That being said, once the government mandates were in place, I also didn’t see it as appropriate to claim religious liberty as a reason for refusing to get vaccinated – since there is nothing in the Bible that would prevent one from obeying a government mandate along these lines (Link). People often cite the case of Daniel and his three friends refusing the king’s meat as a Biblical basis for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. The problem here is that the vaccines themselves were not unhealthy or unreasonable during a pandemic and their use was not recognized as a form of idol worship. Also, Daniel’s proposed 10-day test would not have had the same results with respect to the mRNA vaccines, but would have shown benefits for the significant majority of people.

As Ellen White put it:

“In cases where we are brought before the courts, we are to give up our rights, unless it brings us in collision with God. It is not our rights we are pleading for, but God’s right to our service.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases 5:69 – 1895)

Pastor Vine Banned by the Michigan Conference:

It seems as though the Michigan Conference sees this latest attack of Pastor Vine against the leadership of the SDA Church as a step too far, and has now banned Pastor Vine from speaking at any of its churches. In a 3 September letter, conference president, Jim Micheff, wrote:

During a camp meeting in Maine from August 13-17, Conrad Vine, president of Adventist Frontier Missions, delivered messages that raise significant concerns and undermine the unity and integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We strongly disagree with the views expressed by Conrad Vine, including, but not limited to, his statements regarding the remnant church and leadership, the establishment of a parachurch organization, and the redirection of tithe. We find his assertions to be inconsistent with the clear teachings found in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy… Although we have been addressing this ongoing concern with him, his sentiments have evolved further in a public manner. As we continue to work through these issues, he will not be permitted access to the pulpits of our Michigan Conference churches. (Full Letter)

The need for such a step by the Michigan Conference is very unfortunate.  Certainly, it will be used by those who support the work of Pastor Vine to paint him as a martyr. At this point, however, Pastor Vine has already promoted deep divisions within the SDA Church in a very public manner. So, I personally remain very conflicted here.  It just seems as though the Devil has such an easy time of it when it comes to causing deep divisions among us, to the point of calls for undermining or even splitting the church and creating a “para-church”.  Yet, we all know, based on the Divine prophecies that have been given to us, that this is all just the tip of the iceberg. Now is the time to focus only on Jesus and the promotion of His Gospel Message and the Kingdom of God.

_________________

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