February 2, 2022
A RESPONSE TO THE JANUARY 26, 2022 INFORMATION RELEASE OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE
This article is a response to the January 26, 2022 Information Release issued on behalf of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists entitled: Concerns Regarding COVID-19, Church Governance, and Liberty of Conscience - An informational release through the Communication Department of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (the “GC Release”).
A note on the attached ADCOM 2015 Terms of Reference (the “Terms of Reference”). This article contains the complete 2015 Terms of Reference approved by the General Conference Executive Committee in Session (“EXCOM”), quoted in part in the GC Release, and erroneously relied on by the General Conference Administrative Committee (“ADCOM”) as granting itself power to issue the October 25, 2021 Reaffirming the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Response to COVID-19 on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Terms of Reference were publicly released in full online by Pastor David Hamstra, of Edmonton, Alberta, on January 24, 2022.
This article also makes reference to the GC statement on Immunization published in April of 2015.
[From the editors at Fulcrum7: A note on authorship: This article is written by a multinational group of concerned Seventh-day Adventists professionals in response to the anonymously authored GC Release. It was sent to Fulcrum7 yesterday. While lengthy, we believe it presents numerous valid points.]
Introduction
Charles Baron de Montesquieu in his 1748 classic, the Spirit of Laws, gave voice to an important truth learned from the history of the long centuries of papal supremacy when he said:
“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.” - (Montesquieu, Charles De Secondat. The Spirit of the Laws. 1748.)
The quote expresses the necessity of checks and balances in all governance models.
In a constitutional republic, such as the United States of America, the principle of checks and balances is constitutionally codified in the separation of powers between the branches of government: the legislative branch (Congress, comprised of the peoples’ elected representatives) makes laws, the executive (The President, vice president, Cabinet, executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees) carries out and enforces laws, and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court and federal courts) review laws and determines whether they comply with the Constitution.
Similar safeguards exist in the foundational documents of the Seventh-day Adventist Church such as its constating documents, constitution, and bylaws. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant denomination that affirms the “protest” of the Reformers against the unilateral authoritarianism of the Papacy and its resultant persecutions. Instead of the authority of Rome, Seventh-day Adventists believe in the headship of Jesus Christ, the Bible as their Constitution, and the individual’s God-given right to read the Bible and follow God in accordance with that first foundation of the Christian religion, namely, the right of individual conscience.
Without freedom of conscience there would be no Seventh-day Adventist Church, as it was the practice of this freedom in the pursuit of biblical truth which resulted in the founding of the denomination.
For these reasons, the Working Policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church exclusively reserves the right to define denominational beliefs to the General Conference in Session – Working Policy, p. 67. The Church is to operate on a representative model to safeguard against unilateral rule – Working Policy p. 163. The meetings of representative delegates in a General Conference Session is such a model.
Tyranny and persecution always result when the safeguard of checks and balances is eroded such that the executive can also make laws. The Papacy both makes religious laws and seeks to enforce them on all mankind. This authoritarianism resulted in the Dark Ages, when millions perished at the hands of arrogant ecclesiastical administrators and resulted in the backlash of the Reformation.
As discussed below, the ADCOM’s April 2015 statement purporting to define Church belief on vaccination generally, and its October 25, 2021 statement purporting to define Church belief regarding COVID-19 vaccines with respect to government and employment mandates (collectively, the “Statements”), are illegitimate because they stem from an improper use of power – the founding documents of the Church do not authorize ADCOM to declare new religious positions for the denomination.
ADCOM’s Statements are a public declaration that the Church does not consider COVID-19 vaccine mandates to be a religious matter and are a clear signal that the Seventh-day Adventist Church agrees with and supports government compelled and coerced COVID-19 vaccination, and the resultant persecution which result from such mandates. Additionally, these Statements were issued in the absence of any consultation with Church delegates at a General Conference in Session, and without reference or input from Union, Conference, Church leadership, or laity. The Statements contain an inherently theological declaration that impacts Adventists worldwide, and were implemented recklessly without any heed to the safeguards provided and required by the Church’s representative governance model.
Finally, as discussed in the below analysis of the Terms of Reference relied on by ADCOM in its passage of the October 25, 2021 statement, Seventh-day Adventists should understand that it appears that both ADCOM and the ADCOM Chair have been vested with additional powers which go beyond those contemplated in the General Conference Working Policy (“Working Policy”). These additional powers were not intended by the 1901 reorganization nor in the current environment of operating the world Church.
Specifically, the 2015 ADCOM Terms of Reference state:
*Invitees will be determined by the Administrative Committee and will function as members of the committee with voice and vote at the discretion of the Chair. Membership on this committee does not imply attendance at Annual Councils held outside North America.”
The Terms of Reference set out details of entitlements and powers and list members and invitees who are predetermined by the General Conference Executive Committee. However, the Terms of Reference “invitee statement” at the end of the document, as set out above for ease of reference, indicates that ADCOM has authority to improvisatorially invite other outside persons who may function as members with both “voice and vote” at the sole discretion of the ADCOM Chair. This raises the possibility of vote manipulation on any given issue. With the power to determine which invitee speaks and/or votes determined solely by the ADCOM Chair, the ADCOM Chair appears to have been empowered on an issue-by-issue basis, to influence voting on decisions which impact 21.7 million Adventists world-wide.
It is the position of the authors that these additional powers bestowed on the ADCOM Chair through the Terms of Reference are unauthorized, and that ADCOM is engaged in a usurpation of denominational authority reserved solely for the General Conference in Session.
For ease of reference, the Terms of Reference are contained in full at the end of this article, as well as in the above link to the article of Pastor David Hamstra.
Analysis of GC Information Release of January 26, 2022
Key Takeaway from GC Release POINT 1 – The GC claims that criticism of ADCOM’s Statements undermines the authority of the Church. GC Release Quote - “Recently some have challenged the right of the General Conference Administrative Committee (ADCOM) to speak on behalf of the Church. These critical statements have the potential to undermine Church authority, create confusion, and lead to fragmentation.”
Analysis: ADCOM imposed its 2015 and 2021 Statements on the Church membership unilaterally, avoiding consultation with Union and Conference leadership and laity, and bypassing consultation with the delegates serving at a General Conference in Session. The Statements have been utilized by governments and employers around the world to terminate the employment of Seventh-day Adventists, with tremendous resultant suffering. It is entirely legitimate to question, on behalf of millions of concerned and directly impacted Adventists worldwide, whether ADCOM has the authority to pass these Statements and any others like them. Either the answer is yes, or it is no, but any implication by the GC that there is no right, in a Protestant church, to question the authority of a subcommittee like ADCOM to create what amounts to a theological statement for approximately 21.7 million members, is profoundly troubling.
It is also a red flag.
The right to dissent is a sacred principle which has been sealed with the blood of many martyrs. If there is any principle we ought to all agree on, it should be that ADCOM’s Statements and its exercise of authority are not above scrutiny, questioning and debate.
In the priesthood of all believers that is the Christian faith, any person has the right to ask questions about the legitimacy and biblical authority for new doctrinal or theological statements, especially when those statements are created absent the input of the world Church in a General Conference Session, as required by the Church constitution. The Working Policy reserves theological decisions for the General Conference in full session, with full representation from around the worldwide Church. The [ADCOM] Statements contain sweeping implications for personal physical autonomy, the loss of civil liberties, and citizens’ relationship with increasingly authoritarian states.
The Working Policy states:
Different elements of organizational authority and responsibility are distributed among the various levels of denominational organization….and the definition of denominational beliefs is entrusted to the General Conference in Session. Working Policy, B.05.06 [emphasis added]
The GC Working Policy, voted by the worldwide membership of the SDA Church in Session, overrides any claims made by ADCOM to have the ability to determine or define denominational beliefs.
Key Takeaway from GC Release POINT 2: The GC claims to recognize individual conscience, but then confusingly claims that the violation of individual conscience and the physical autonomy of Seventh-day Adventists does not constitute a religious liberty issue. Key Quote: “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.”
Analysis
The statement that the “Seventh-day Adventist Church sees this (ie vaccine mandates) as a public health issue [not a religious liberty issue]” is without foundation, and serves to underscore ADCOM’s apparently ongoing identity crisis. ADCOM is not the Church. The approximately 58 people who are members and invitees that make up ADCOM are not the Church. This assertion, like the rest of ADCOM’s assertions on this issue, are nothing more than bureaucratic opinion.
Apart from this, it is apparent from point 2 of the GC Release that ADCOM refuses to rescind the Statements, and that no actual practical help from the Church can be expected for those who are losing their jobs and civil and religious liberties as a result of COVID vaccine mandates.
It is important to understand that Church members around the world are not only losing their jobs for conscience’ sake, but they are losing their jobs because ADCOM’s Statements are being relied on by employers to justify the violation of their conscience rights. Given this, the General Conference’s offer to pray for members who have lost their jobs, when ADCOM’s statement is facilitating and encouraging the loss of those jobs, is like Saul offering to pray for the victims being stoned while he holds the jackets of the people who are throwing the rocks.
Many Seventh-day Adventists do not realize that the Church has a department, the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (PARL) Department, which is supposed to be gainfully occupied promoting and maintaining religious liberty around the world, “with particular emphasis upon individual liberty of conscience” – See Working Policy FL10, Purpose. PARL is listed as a contributor to the October 25, 2021 GC Reaffirmation. Clearly, the PARL department has failed to stand for conscience and religious liberty during the current crisis, and ought to be internally reconstituted.
Key Takeaway from GC Release POINT 3: The GC claims, or at least strongly implies, that criticism of ADCOM or the GC is condemned by the Spirit of Prophecy. Key Quote: “To reduce the GC ADCOM’s authority to merely minor items is to undermine the authority of every ADCOM on the local conference, union, and division level. To erode confidence in the organizational structure of the church is an extremely serious matter. Ellen White’s comment on the importance of the organized work is significant: “I tell you my brethren, the Lord has an organized body through whom He will work. . . . When anyone is drawing apart from the organized body of God’s commandment-keeping people, when he begins to weigh the church in his human scales and begins to pronounce judgment against them, then you may know that God is not leading him. He is on the wrong track” (Selected Messages, Book 3, pp. 17, 18).”
Analysis: The strongly implied contention in GC Release Point 3 is that ADCOM is the “organized body through whom” God will work, and that criticism of ADCOM is virtually evidence of apostasy. This bit of strong-arming and intimidation is aimed primarily at Dr. Conrad Vine, who has publicly questioned ADCOM’s authority to declare COVID-19 vaccination mandates do not constitute a religious liberty issue.
However, Ellen White is not referring to ADCOM when she makes the referenced statement. It is apparent from her writings that her reference to the “organized body” is first and foremost referring to the meeting of delegates at a General Conference in Session, where the delegates can assemble to pray and seek the counsel of the Lord prior to voting, and thereafter, to the Unions, Conferences and laity in the local churches, none of whom were consulted in the creation of the Statements.
The Bible is rife with stories of religious leaders and civil rulers who refused to be chastened, and punished the bearer of solemn warnings and rebukes. But Christ Himself says, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten” – Revelation 3:19.
The most solemn criticism of the Christian churches in Revelation is reserved for the Laodicean church: it is lukewarm, and in danger of being spewed out of the mouth of Christ – Revelation 3:16. It is fair to say this version, or stage, of the Christian Church lacks the courage and integrity to take a firm stand for principle.
But even though it is “neither cold nor hot”, the Laodicean Church has plenty of money, and is increased with goods – Revelation 3:17. In other words, the Laodicean Church has a conflict of interest.
The Bible doesn’t specify how much money the Laodicean church is sitting on, but it’s clear there has never been a point in time where the Church has been as “rich and as increased with goods” as it is today, as discussed in the recent sermon, “An Appeal to the Adventist Nobility”.
Every Christian would do well to consider the words of Christ in His declaration that the leaders of His Church would not function as authoritarians: “But Jesus called them to Himself and said,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:25-28, NKJV
[emphasis added]
Ellen White also warned against centralized human authority in our own denomination, as well as improper deference to it, even in her day. The below quotes are worth considering in the context of the deference demanded by the GC Release.
“The voice from Battle Creek, which has been regarded as authority in counselling how the work should be done, is no longer the voice of God.” – Manuscript Releases 17:185
“It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God.” – Manuscript Releases 17:216
“That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be – that is past.” – The General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901, p. 25.
“I have had conversation with W. C. White. He was presenting before me the necessity of our people heeding the voice of the General Conference. Then I said, ‘WCW, it is time you should understand that, [notwithstanding] the opinion that has prevailed, the General Conference so-called is no longer the voice of God. It has become a strange voice, and they are building strange fire. God does not speak through them. The work that is being done in the General Conference is a strange work.” Letters and Manuscripts Vol 9 MS 114. 1894 par. 1.
There will remain to all humanity to the end of time a God-given right to choose each day who they will serve, and to weigh their choice with the scales of the Bible and personal conviction.
Key Takeaways from GC Release POINT 4: The GC contends that ADCOM has the authority to create the Statements under “E” of the Terms of Reference: “Consider other routine administrative issues as they arise and give general counsel to World Church entities as requested.”
Analysis: While it is true that EXCOM is empowered by the Working Policy to create subcommittees, this does not mean that EXCOM can empower ADCOM to carry out any function it wishes. As discussed, the Working Policy reserves the power to define denominational beliefs to the General Conference in Session. The GC admits and acknowledges that neither EXCOM nor ADCOM can do so.
This admission requires the GC to attempt to find some other legal authorization for the Statements. It has seized on section E of the Terms of Reference:
E. Consider other routine administrative issues as they arise and give general counsel to World Church entities as requested.
Does section E of the Terms of Reference grant power to ADCOM to declare that the coerced or compelled injection of human beings against their will and conscience is an acceptable and endorsed practice of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
The short answer is “no”.
ADCOM was created in 1991 to deal with routine administrative issues that EXCOM is now too busy to deal with. ADCOM deals with specific financial matters and operations, ingoing and outgoing protocols for Church officers, immigration issues for new workers, arbitrating disputes between denominational publishing houses, etc.
By contrast, there is absolutely nothing “routine” about state entities compelling millions of people, including Seventh-day Adventists, to receive a new COVID injection against their will, and using threats, coercion, compulsion, or force to do so. State compulsion of this magnitude is the opposite of routine; it is a crisis that ADCOM is wholly unauthorized, not to mention wholly unequipped, to address.
The fact that ADCOM felt itself authorized in this matter to publicly and unilaterally surrender one of the sacred principles which define our Church, namely freedom of conscience and civil and religious liberty, should be cause for the greatest concern for all Seventh-day Adventists.
Nor do ADCOM’s Statements fall into the category of giving “general counsel to World Church entities as requested”. ADCOM is authorized to give general counsel on administrative matters as requested, or in other words, the internal and business operations of the Church. That’s what the word “administration” means. ADCOM is not authorized to create spiritual or religious statements, doctrine or theology for millions of Seventh-day Adventists. The Statements represent a denominational acquiescence to totalitarianism and the overthrowing of civil liberties by governments and employers. Beyond this, by virtue of being posted online on denominational websites, the Statements are also providing guidance to employers and universities worldwide, affirming them in their decision to deny religious exemption requests for Adventist employees and students.
Lastly, but relatedly, a review of the Working Policy leads to the conclusion that EXCOM lacks authority to give the ADCOM Chair absolutist powers via the Terms of Reference.
Terms of Reference
In 2015, the Terms of Reference were updated and voted by ADCOM and then on October 12, 2015, they were approved by EXCOM, which is also known as Annual Council, by consent agenda. The fact that a consent agenda item was used may be significant because if there was a material change to the 2015 version of the Terms of Reference it is possible, and perhaps even probable, that very few on EXCOM actually opened the document to examine the updated Terms of Reference prior to approval.
For the information of the reader, in every board meeting, at least a few items come to the agenda that do not need any discussion or debate either because they are routine procedures or are already unanimous consent. A consent agenda (Roberts Rules of Order calls it a consent calendar) allows the board to approve all these items together without discussion or individual motions. Typical consent agenda items are routine, procedural decisions, and decisions that are likely to be noncontroversial. Examples include approval of the minutes and final approval of proposals or reports that the board has been dealing with for some time and all members are familiar with the implications.
As set out above, the last clause found on the final page of the Terms of Reference reads as follows: “*Invitees will be determined by the Administrative Committee and will function as members of the committee with voice and vote at the discretion of the Chair. Membership on this committee does not imply attendance at Annual Councils held outside North America.”
This provision indicates that ADCOM not only has the power to invite extra persons who are not listed in the Terms of Reference to ADCOM meetings, but the ADCOM Chair in the exercise of his sole discretion can grant these invitees both voice and vote.
Such a power opens the door to potential vote manipulation on an issue-by-issue basis.
A review of the Terms of Reference in place in 1991, when EXCOM created ADCOM, reveals that there was no power of voice or vote for invitees to ADCOM. The 1991 Terms of Reference allowed ADCOM to invite persons to committee meetings, but no power to speak or vote was given to these invitees.
Between 1991 and 2015, the Terms of Reference for ADCOM were changed to grant these additional powers to the ADCOM Chair.
In summary, ADCOM has become a creature that was never envisioned by the Annual Council in 1991.
Key Takeaway from GC Release POINT 5: Federal government money did not influence ADCOM’s creation of the Statements
Analysis: The federal government has decreed that any hospital that is the recipient of Medicare or Medicaid funds must impose a COVID-19 vaccination mandate on hospital staff as a condition of employment. Hospitals which refuse risk losing Medicare and Medicaid funding.
The annual amount in 2019 received by the North American Division (the “NAD”) from the Federal government through Medicare / Medicaid payments was approx. $9.5 billion, which generated another $11 billion in private payments. Thus, the foundational Federal funding resulted in annual healthcare revenues across NAD entities in the amount of approx. $21 billion in 2019. This number will have been substantially increased in 2020-2021 due to additional Federal COVID payments. Further, Loma Linda generates user fees with respect to the Medicare/Medicaid payments received and the effect of those payments and user fees amounts to billions. Loma Linda is listed as a collaborator in the release of the October 25, 2021 Statement, again, raising the specter of a direct financial conflict of interest.
Loma Linda has been aggressive in imposing COVID vaccination mandates on staff and students, generating significant controversy and threatened litigation from staff whose religious exemption requests were not being responded to appropriately.
Succinctly, the Church employees who constitute ADCOM all benefit from Federal funds. The programming and projects of the Church across the NAD are reliant on Federal funds. The retirement, pensions, debt servicing capacity, and salaries of Church workers to a greater or lesser extent have become reliant on Federal funds.
Is there pressure, therefore, to comply with the federal vaccination mandates? Yes. Is there an enormous amount of money at stake? Yes. Do these factors at least raise the possible appearance of undue influence? Yes.
Therefore, ought not any proposed denominational statement on vaccination or vaccination mandates be considered by the fully represented World Church in General Conference Session, the delegates of whom are private persons not on the Church payroll? Yes.
Ought any consideration of such a statement take into account the loss of employment and civil and religious liberties of not only Church members, but humanity generally, along with the resultant implications for Christian ministry in a worldwide church? Yes.
Ought not there to be denominational consideration for the profound and incredible suffering of those who have experienced deep loss as a direct result of a conflict between their consciences and government COVID-19 vaccination mandates? Yes.
The Apostle Peter declared, “Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” Acts 3:6.
Is this the model currently in operation? Every member will have to honestly reflect on whether he or she believes that $21 billion in healthcare funding within the NAD each year has no impact on the decision-making of senior denominational administrators.
Key Takeaway from GC Release POINT 6: The General Conference’s support for COVID-19 vaccination is consistent with the health message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Analysis: Respectfully, the GC Information Release is disingenuous on this point. It must be remembered that the October 25, 2021 Statement not only encourages members to take a new COVID-19 vaccination, the Statement also gives consent to government mandates which impose COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment or the exercise of civil liberties such as mobility and other civil rights. The Statement declares that such mandates do not constitute a religious liberty issue. The October 25, 2021 Reaffirmation Statement begins with soothing words about searching the Scriptures and being led by your conscience, but then affirms the GC’s support for mandates that cut across and deny the consciences of the members.
Yet, the GC PARL purpose is to defend the individual consciences of members. If millions of members worldwide declare this is a matter of conscience, the GC is bound by its own Working Policy to recognize this as a religious liberty issue and act accordingly.
The declaration that government forced or mandated COVID vaccination does not constitute a religious liberty issue allows the General Conference leadership to assuage their consciences while they sit on the sidelines and ignore the persecution of people around the world.
Declaring that government COVID-19 vaccine mandates do not constitute a religious liberty issue also promulgates that the resultant lost jobs, closed churches, closed borders, and pastors and parishioners in jail for attending church services, are not religious liberty issues.
Through their consent to COVID-19 vaccination mandates, the General Conference asserts that the globalist infrastructure being implemented to control buying and selling through the use of QR Codes and so-called COVID-Passports, and the exclusion of those from society who do not cooperate, is not a religious liberty issue. This last point is especially concerning given the Church’s understanding of Revelation 13 and the prophesied world-wide restriction on buying and selling.
It would be a profound understatement to say that many Seventh-day Adventists are greatly troubled and opposed to the unprincipled stance that the General Conference has taken on these issues.
On the question of personal choice and the contention that ADCOM supports responsible vaccination, it ought to go without saying that one’s personal consent for a given treatment option is inherent in the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s health message.
Data increasingly shows that natural immunity to COVID-19 is superior to “vaccine” induced immunity to COVID-19, that the existing injectable medications are largely ineffective against Omicron, and that there is a mounting list of adverse reactions, including death, as a result of taking one of the new COVID experimental medications.
Finally, the question must be answered: is support for Big Pharma’s new mRNA COVID injections, which have now been shown not to prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, consistent with the Adventist Health Message?
The pen of Inspiration is clear.
"Those who make a practice of taking drugs sin against their intelligence and endanger their whole afterlife. There are herbs that are harmless, the use of which will tide over many apparently serious difficulties. But if all would seek to become intelligent in regard to their bodily necessities, sickness would be rare instead of common. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.“ Manuscript 86, 1897
"Drugs never cure disease. They only change the form and location. Nature alone is the effectual restorer, and how much better could she perform her task if left to herself. But this privilege is seldom allowed her. If crippled nature bears up under the load, and finally accomplishes in a great measure her double task, and the patient lives, the credit is given to the physician. But if nature fails in her effort to expel the poison from the system, and the patient dies, it is called a wonderful dispensation of Providence. If the patient had taken a course to relieve overburdened nature in season, and understandingly used pure soft water, this dispensation of drug-mortality might have been wholly averted. The use of water can accomplish but little, if the patient does not feel the necessity of also strictly attending to his diet." 2SM 451.1
"I was shown that more deaths have been caused by drug-taking than from all other causes combined. If there was in the land one physician in the place of thousands, a vast amount of premature mortality would be prevented. Multitudes of physicians, and multitudes of drugs, have cursed the inhabitants of the earth, and have carried thousands and tens of thousands to untimely graves." 4aSG 133.1
"Drug medication must be left out of the question if the human physician would receive the diploma written and issued in heaven. There are many physicians who will never receive this diploma unless they learn in the school of the great Physician. This means that they must unlearn and cast away the supposed wonderful knowledge of how to treat disease with poisonous drugs. They must go to God's great laboratory of nature, and there learn the simplest methods of using the remedies which the Lord has furnished. When drugs are thrown aside, when fermented liquor of all kinds is discarded, when God's remedies—sunshine, pure air, water, and good food—are used, there will be far fewer deaths and a far greater number of cures." 16mr 247.1
Key Takeaway from GC Release POINT 7: – The Church has a long history of supporting responsible vaccination.
Analysis: Support for this statement is thin.
The Church in a General Conference Session has never considered, debated or voted on the issue of vaccination, for COVID or any other illness.
The Statements do not constitute legitimate statements on behalf of the Church. Again, ADCOM is not the Church and is not authorized under the Working Policy to approve and publish doctrinal statements on behalf of the word Church.
The GC Release’s comparison of typhoid and smallpox with COVID-19, the latter of which most people recover from absent comorbidities such as obesity, smoking or diabetes, is not compelling.
Further, any vaccines present in the early days of the Adventist Church were relatively simple, and typically consisted of the use of such things as the pus from cows infected with smallpox, not the highly bio-engineered mRNA technology for COVID assembled by large pharmaceutical companies.
When the GC claims it supports “responsible” vaccination, how does the GC define “responsible”?
Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and many other pharmaceutical companies have each repeatedly lost massive lawsuits for flawed or misleading pharmaceutical products. Long term clinical data on the COVID shots is not available. Pfizer and the FDA argued in US court recently that it will take 75 years for them to release the safety data for their COVID vaccinations. In a crisis requiring global transparency, this is completely unacceptable.
It was years before the problems with drugs like fenfen, thalidomide, Zantac, and Pfizer’s recently-recalled Chantix due to the presence of a carcinogen in the medication, were publicly apparent, or acknowledged by the FDA.
Pfizer also has the distinction of making, what at the time, was the largest criminal payout in history for the fraudulent promotion of pharmaceuticals. The Astra Zeneca COVID-19 shot was banned in 18 countries over concerns about blood clots. Both Astra Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson have had documented contamination or mixups in their ingredients in the COVID shots. Moderna has been forced to recall 1.6 million doses of its mRNA COVID shots due to the presence of metal contaminants and other allergens.
Prior to production of the COVID shots, neither Moderna nor Johnson & Johnson had ever produced a vaccine. Ever.
None of these companies have any liability in the event of the death or injury of patients from Covid-19 shots, and all to combat a disease that 99.5% of people recover from, most without any medical intervention whatsoever.
In short, ADCOM isn’t supporting responsible vaccination. Their Statements strip people of the civil and religious liberty protections to say “no”. Hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs as a direct result of the Statements. The Statements do not stand in defense of religious liberty: they undermine religious liberty and do so with the supposed power and authority of the Church.
Key Takeaway from GC Release POINT 8: COVID-19 vaccination mandates are not the mark of the beast
Analysis: The current GC administration has made repeated statements that forced vaccines aren’t the mark of the beast, as though this should make people who have lost their jobs and civil and religious liberties feel better.
We hazard to guess that, for those people who are being discriminated against and vilified for not being vaccinated, it is small consolation to be told by church officials, “don’t worry, this is not the mark of the beast.” The repetition of this talking point is, at best, theologically condescending and entitled.
The individuals on ADCOM still have their jobs, or at least they do until the June 2022 General Conference Session.
Conclusion
There has never been a point in this earth’s history where the national and global infrastructure was set up to control travel, buying and selling, and to override civil and religious liberties. Dr. Conrad Vine has convincingly argued elsewhere that the social controls imposed during the COVID pandemic give a foretaste for what will happen to God’s faithful remnant in the final crisis of conscience to come upon our world (https://www.audioverse.org/en/teachings/22633/covid19-and-the-final-persecution.html).
The unification of church and state on the COVID-19 vaccine issue looks like an image to the beast because it is the cooperation of church and state. ADCOM and the members on it should consider somberly whether their support for compulsory COVID vaccination over the conscientious objections of millions of their brethren moves them perilously close to the “Church” part of that equation.
“Any man, be he minister or layman, who seeks to compel or control the reason of any other man, becomes an agent of Satan, to do his work, and in the sight of the heavenly universe he bears the mark of Cain.” PC 30.5
“…compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. He would not work on this line. He would not give the slightest encouragement for any human being to set himself up as God over another human being, feeling at liberty to cause him physical or mental suffering. This principle is wholly of Satan's creation.” Review & Herald, September 7, 1897
Government COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which utilize threats of force, compulsion and fear to override conscientious objection, and punish non-compliance, constitute a clear religious liberty issue.
We hereby call on the GC Administration to recognize that the Statements were issued utilizing illegitimate, delegated authority to ADCOM as well as the October 25, 2021 Reaffirmation ad-hoc group, and to set the Statements aside immediately, providing expeditious relief to the millions of Adventists worldwide whose religious conscientious response to the COVID regimes in their respective countries are being undermined by the Statements. It is the pastoral responsibility of those who call themselves shepherds to watch over the whole flock.
We hereby call on Seventh-day Adventists around the world, to protest by pen and voice to their Conference and Union leadership against the usurpation of authority by the leadership of the General Conference, their shameful betrayal of the rights of conscience and silence in the face of persecution of millions, and we further call on all delegates to ensure that there is a day of accountability for the current administration at the June 2022 General Conference Session.
End.