I have only been a Seventh-day Adventist for 13 years. A few days ago brought what I can only describe as one of the most intense feelings of disappointment in all these years of being a part of the remnant church of Bible prophecy.
Before explaining the cause of that disappointment, it would be appropriate to share a brief testimony and background to show why this piece is written in the first-person voice, with the personal feel to it.
Before I became a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I was an evangelical with good liberal, Christian ideals. I was uncomfortable with the idea of a God who tortures people in hell for eternity. I believed in non-combatantcy. And I believed that the kingdoms of this world, which are coming to nought (1 Cor. 2:6), are governed by different principles than those principles to which we are called as Christians (Matt. 20:25 – the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… but not so with you).
These, of course, are key elements of what I later learned to know and love as a broader meta-narrative – something these Seventh-day Adventists call ‘the great controversy theme,’ which I was thrilled to explore, seeing God’s true character in the context of rebellion and accusations against His goodness and His law of love.
Religious liberty was a Christian doctrine very close to my heart before I knew it was an Adventist teaching, and I became all the more committed to it as I came into the Adventist faith.
In fact, before my conversion to Adventism, the truth about the government of God versus the empires of men was so important to me that I wrote a book in 2008 on the historic and current Constantinian worldview within the Christian churches – a theology that can have both right-wing (dominion theology) and left-wing (liberation theology) expressions. While I came against both sides in the book, I was generally known, among evangelicals, as a liberal; however the last few years, most on the left abandoned the philosophy of personal, civil, and religious liberty, and almost entirely enjoined themselves to a corporatist/statist authoritarianism to the point where classically liberal ideas are almost entirely banished from that side of the spectrum.
(As an important aside, this type of occasional philosophical evolution and shifting around current issues and political figures, combined with the messy landscape of politics is a big reason why we ought never align with parties or yoke up with the ideologies of the world; the principles of liberty and conscience as revealed in God’s character, rather than politics, should be our guide.)
These ideals became even more magnified in my mind at the time of my conversion to the Seventh-day Adventist faith in 2008-2011. This period in my life also involved a radical break from both worldly entertainment and emerging church theology (hence why I do not promote that pre-Adventist book, which is, by God’s grace, out of print).
In that conversion, the Bible standard for holy living convicted me of the joy of living life with Christ separate from the world, and prophecy convinced me of the validity of a fundamental interpretation of God’s word. The errors of being ‘liberal’ in lifestyle standards and in a loose interpretation of the Bible became a thing of the past; yet the principles in the great controversy theme involving free choice, personal liberty and self-government, a generous view of God’s character, and the nature of the kingdom of God versus the coercive powers of this world – all of these good enlightening ideals – remain foundational themes for me to this day.
Long story short, the method that the Lord used to get a hold of my heart and mind and bring me into His last-days movement was by revealing His character through Adventist doctrines, not least of all was the doctrine of freedom of conscience.
So, with that background of coming into the truth on the heels of writing a book against Christians endorsing coercion, one can understand the brief indulgence here in sharing some personal shock and disappointment at one of our core doctrines being opposed in one of our denominational publications.
Freedom to Work and to Travel Restricted… But it’s Not a Mandate!
I’m, of course, not alone. Millions of us also hold deeply and firmly to these understandings of the nature of the government of God in the great controversy. We know that to compel the conscience and coerce the conduct on matters of sincerely held personal belief is, in a word, Satanic.
So, many of us are still pinching ourselves that the following statement was printed in the Lake Union Herald this past week, stating that it is “appropriate” for those conscientious individuals who remain unvaccinated to have their travel, employment, and participation in society restricted. (But that’s not a “mandate,” so it’s all good…). Nick Miller writes:
“I'm not arguing for mandatory vaccination. But I am saying that your choice not to be vaccinated will appropriately come with limitations on community participation, work and travel.” (Emphasis supplied)
I don’t take it personally that this brother in Christ advocated for my family to have their freedoms taken away. I believe in the admonition, ‘pray for those who persecute you,’ even if they are the very ones on the earth that should know better. We should continue to bless those who curse us. By God’s grace, we can reject all negative thoughts or feelings toward people, embracing only thoughts of and prayers for their best good, as well as speculation on their best motives.
And, frankly, I’d much prefer not to spend time arguing about the content of our church publications. I do really hate hearing about church politics and attacks on leadership. I believe in and support church organization; I hope nobody will ever budge on the clear counsel we have on that.
But it’s exactly that desire for a unified and cohesive church with a faithful message that has many, many people concerned about the direction that the publication of this statement seems to be taking us.
I don’t believe it is over-stating it to say that when a religious liberty editorial assents to the call for fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (not to mention souls we are trying to reach with the gospel!) to be segregated and persecuted based upon their medical choices, this must be identified as the doctrinal error that it is. This, frankly, is speaking like a dragon, not like the Lamb.
But Scott, You Don’t Have a Right to Hurt Others…
The only possible justification to even begin a debate about whether we should publicly advocate restricting the freedoms of the unvaccinated (I know; it’s a non-starter for Adventists, to begin with, but for the sake of argument) is that the vaccine prevents you from transmitting the virus – if you don’t take the shot you might unknowingly put others in harm’s way; but the vaccine prevents transmission, so you must take it or be punished.
So, the pivotal question (the only question, really) is, does the vaccine prevent the vaccinated from transmitting the virus?
Here’s the latest from CDC Director, Rochelle Walenski:
"Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well with delta with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission."
Our vaccines can’t prevent transmission. (Not sure the vaccines were ever proven to prevent asymptomatic infection / transmission in their initial roll-out; but that’s for another day.)
She explains that the vaccines can reduce symptoms and save lives. No mention of the risks of the vaccines, but for the sake of argument – awesome; praise God; saving lives. But that’s not enough to force them on people. As a personal choice, people weigh their risk factors and choose to vaccinate or not vaccinate. If they are persuaded that the vaccine has a better chance of saving their life than hurting them, they take it.
But the discussion about mandates isn’t about the vaccine saving your life or not, which is merely a personal decision. The argument for mandates rests upon an entirely different premise, a totally different discussion – that the vaccine protects others from you. You must take the vaccine so you don’t spread the virus.
But we’ve learned that the vaccines cannot prevent transmission. “Our vaccines… can’t… prevent transmission.” So that ends the mandate discussion before it begins.
It is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is mere brute force, a fearful, arbitrary master, that will say to you, I’m going to force you to take something that can’t prevent transmission… to prevent you from transmitting.
So, mandates (or things that take away your freedoms that we’re not calling mandates) are officially dead-on-arrival. When the vaccine can’t prevent transmission, there’s no justification (as if there ever could be, for the Christian) to manipulate, coerce, guilt-trip, force, threaten, or mandate anybody to take these shots ‘for the benefit of others.’
It is correct that there is no such “freedom” to hurt another. You don’t have a right to pass second-hand smoke into somebody else’s lungs. You don’t have a right to terminate a baby’s life. And likewise, you’re not allowed, while sick with symptoms, to be at work or school or on an airplane coughing SARS CoV2 onto people.
But, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, the sick person stays at home. We all accept that. A person with symptoms is not asking to be able to participate in society as normal while sick.
We’re asking for conscientious objectors (the ‘vaccine hesitant’), healthy people, people who are not sick – for whom the vaccine would not be capable of preventing transmission – to have the same freedoms as those who did get vaccinated – for whom the vaccine “can’t… prevent transmission.”
Breakthrough infections are exploding, and according to Tony Fauci, there’s no difference between a sick unvaccinated person and a sick vaccinated person when it comes to their danger to others:
“When you look at the level of virus in the nasal pharynx of people who are vaccinated who get breakthrough infections, it’s really quite high and equivalent to the level of virus in the nasal pharynx of unvaccinated people who get infected.”
The Mayo Clinic is telling us that these vaccines are nowhere close to the 90-95% protection they were supposed to provide – just 42% and 78% for Pfizer and Moderna, respectively. By comparison, a plant-based diet, alone, is providing protection at 73%, not to mention other lifestyle factors that can offer added layers of protection. So, if we believe in mandating vaccines, wouldn’t we also mandate other, even more effective forms of protection? After all, the argument goes, by remaining overweight, you increase the likelihood of a more severe infection that could overload hospitals and spread the virus! By the new logic of vaccine mandates circulating in our church, we would now advocate segregating and persecuting those who don’t adhere to our diet and lifestyle recommendations.
Or maybe we just go back to the basics and simply let people decide for themselves their preferred route to prevent and treat disease – like you do in a free society. Using persuasion but not coercion, like Christ, not Satan.
The People and the Leadership…
When this all started, most of us were hoping to see our church simply be 1) neutral on vaccines; but 2) active in defense of those of all faiths and races undergoing persecution for their vaccine choices. This would’ve been the most prudent approach for unity (since this is where the people are at), as well as being the most principled approach on liberty of conscience, one of our cherished doctrines.
Then, as time progressed, we heard those who speak on our behalf shift to 1) line up aggressively in favor of the COVID vaccine campaign, even suggesting it’s selfish to not get the vaccine ‘to protect others,’ and 2) remain, with very few exceptions, silent and neutral on liberty of conscience.
That was a tough enough pill, already, for many to swallow.
Due to that position taken, many became vocal on liberty, on their own, to fill the void. And since the vaccine debate had been started, they wanted to see the other side be given a platform also.
But those who have sacrificed greatly to help the church carve out a more balanced position on this difficult issue were accused of being divisive – and that, simply for opposing mandates. Just accept coercion and if you don’t, that’s divisive. Wait, isn’t the coercion what’s divisive?
Is this statement in the Lake Union Herald actually heralding that we’re not only abandoning neutrality on vaccination, we’re not only shamefully neutral in a religious crisis, an unprecedented crisis of conscience, but we’re actually becoming vocally anti-liberty? God forbid.
Really, ‘we’ is the wrong word there. The Herald editorial is 180 degrees opposite from where the people are at on this. The Adventist church body is NOT for vaccine coercion.
ASI attendees earlier this month, in an informal poll of 100 individuals I personally conducted, were 99% against vaccine mandates. (I had to shout down, wave over, and recruit to take the survey, the one person who was for mandates; I knew him and guessed the guy was almost certainly for mandates, so I wanted him in the mix to make the survey beyond fair, biased against my perspective.)
I know. ASI attendees aren’t a representative sample. But if it’s pretty much unanimous among this important and influential sector of the church, that should get our attention.
Fulcrum7’s survey was circulated widely and found that 92% oppose mandates. (Also, almost 0% believe the vaccine is the mark of the beast, so we can put that straw man attack to bed.) I am surprised it’s even as high as 8% favoring mandates, as even the most vocal proponents of the vaccine will not state that they favor mandates.
No matter what the number, the vast majority of Seventh-day Adventists definitely oppose vaccine mandates.
Ron Knott, the president of the Andrews University Press, in his evening message at the Village Church (the closing session of the Coercion and Conscience weekend in Berrien Springs, MI) courageously gave voice to countless faithful Adventists. In the portion of his message that addressed the Herald editorial, he perfectly, tactfully, and powerfully addresses the frightening idea that restricting the freedoms of the unvaccinated is “appropriate.” I think a lot of disillusioned people are very encouraged, and many persons of influence emboldened, by Knott’s message.
[UPDATE: Speaking of Knott, this just in. The Lake Union Herald editorial was just picked up by the Adventist Review, so it does appear that this is the direction they are going, as now our flagship denominational publication is promoting taking away peoples’ freedom to participate in society, to work and to travel… but it’s not a mandate or coercion. If you look carefully, the new version has some added language in the ‘I’m not calling for mandates’ part, making the double-speak even more pronounced.]
(Stay tuned for part 2)
Scott Ritsema is the founder and director of Belt of Truth Ministries and Media on the Brain. He lives in Lakeview Michigan with his wife Cami and three amazing children!
Liberty & Health Alliance
www.BeltofTruth.tv
www.11thHourDispatch.com
www.BeltofTruthMinistries.org