Church’s Response to Vaccine Mandates: A Precursor to the Sunday Law Crisis

By The Remnant Herald

Ever since COVID-19 became a global issue, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has often times taken the lead in encouraging its members and the wider community to take the coronavirus vaccine (for example, by opening its churches on the Sabbath for such a purpose). In every country where the COVID-19 vaccine is mandated as a condition for employment, entertainment, recreation, travel, and church attendance, the denomination has released official statements in support of the public health orders. For those members who decline to be injected, church leaders refuse to offer any endorsement for their deeply-held positions, fearing a hostile reaction from the government and society.

Many thousands of members around the world who conscientiously maintain their right to informed consent and exercise their freedom of choice have been deeply disappointed by the denomination’s refusal to stand with them on the issue of liberty of conscience. A group of Adventist doctors, lawyers, and preachers — the Liberty and Health Alliance (USA) — released a public appeal to church leaders which has, as of December 22, 2021, garnered 23,110 signatures (including 1,740 pastors and 3,842 medical professionals). It can be read in total on the website of the Liberty and Health Alliance (USA) — The Liberty of Conscience Document. Thirteen points from this appeal are re-produced below (salient points that merit careful attention are highlighted in bold print by the Editor):

“Duty Minister to the Whole Body of Believers:

(1): To recognize that there is rapidly growing medical, ethical, and philosophical concern among tens of thousands in our faith community and the wider medical and scientific community regarding the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccinations.

(2): To encourage, by action and influence, our members’ full understanding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Fundamental Belief #22, which states ‘that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently’ (Romans 12:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; 10:31). Thus, the Church must recognize that members of goodwill and good sense everywhere may have widely differing convictions about the specifics of what it means to care for our bodies intelligently (Romans 14:1-4, 22, 23) in relation to the current crisis, and that many well-informed members understand the following to be true:

— (a): It is possible for those who have been vaccinated to still contract COVID. This goes against what is often understood to be the purpose of a vaccination.

— (b): It is possible for those who have been vaccinated to still spread COVID. This disputes the idea that the unvaccinated are a health threat to their colleagues and friends, while the vaccinated are not.

— (c): It is possible for those who have been vaccinated to become seriously ill and die from COVID. In fact, according to the official health reports from the relevant government health agencies, in some countries, many of the deaths from COVID are occurring among those who are fully vaccinated.

— (d): Some individuals have suffered serious and even fatal adverse effects from receiving the COVID vaccination. While there is dispute as to how rare such adverse events are, if such an event happens to you or your loved one, the rarity of the event is irrelevant.

— (e): The long-term effects of the COVID vaccinations are unknown and unknowable at this point. This is due to the truncated timeline for the safety trials that took place prior to the vaccines being made publicly available.

— (f): The COVID vaccinations present a greater threat to certain segments of the population than the virus itself, including, among others, children; those who already have natural immunity; and those with certain medical conditions. Thus, some segments of the population may be better off to forgo the vaccination and to focus on being as healthy as possible, in keeping with the Adventist understanding of health.

(3): To recognize that leadership has a responsibility to minister to the whole church and thus is obligated to do the following:

— (a): Avoid any public posture or stance on COVID vaccinations that is likely to cause deep polarization among members, as is already happening (1 Corinthians 12:25-27).

— (b): Encourage, foster, and support respectful loving dialogue regarding differing views (Acts 15:1-12; Daniel 1:9, 10).

— (c): Allow more time and consideration for positive or negative outcomes instead of taking punitive action against people who could be Spirit-led (Acts 5:34-39).

— (d): Avoid extremes by supporting/adopting a balanced inclusive policy (Acts 15:13-29; Isaiah 30:21).

(4): To place far more emphasis — indeed, primary emphasis — on promoting confidence among our members in the principles of God’s health message in order to help avoid sickness and disease, and to position our Church in the public eye as the head and not the tail in advocating for natural forms of prevention against this disease (Daniel 1:11-16; 3 John 1:2; Exodus 15:26).

(5): To recognize that the Church’s current stance on vaccinations was adopted at a time when it was unforeseeable that new vaccines would be rapidly deployed worldwide without the customary safety and ethical protections common to the development protocols of regular vaccines, and, therefore, that the Church’s prior stance on immunization/vaccination should not be applied to COVID vaccines or any future vaccines that do not go through the usual testing period of 5 to 10 years with open analysis of data regarding safety and efficacy.

Duty to Protect Religious Liberties:

(6): To recognize that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has a duty to vigorously protect religious and civil liberties for its members and others in light of its long-held understanding of Bible prophecy that certain freedoms would be restricted in the last days before Jesus comes (Jude 1:3; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Joshua 24:15; Revelation 13:11; 1 Timothy 4:1).

(7): To recognize that world conditions and governmental actions are threatening those liberties in the most vital area of spiritual conviction about our bodies as the temple of God (Matthew 24:7-9; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20; 2 Corinthians 3:17).

(8): To recognize that the Church and its members should maintain independence of judgment from the wise ones of the world. Christ warned us that in the end times, we should be careful lest anyone deceive us (Matthew 24:4, 5, 11, 24). Specifically in matters regarding the requirement to protect our bodies as the temple of God, the Apostle Paul warns, ‘Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness,’ and again, ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.’ So let no one boast of men…’ (1 Corinthians 3:18-21). In times of social upheaval and uncertainty, restraint in choosing a particular side on a contentious issue before all the facts are known is a virtue (Matthew 7:15-20). In such times, silence is not only eloquence; it is also prudence (James 1:5, 19).

Specifically in matters regarding the requirement to protect our bodies as the temple of God, the Apostle Paul warns, ‘Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.  For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness,’ and again, ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile’. So let no one boast of men…’ (1 Corinthians 3:18-21 [English Standard Version — Editor]). In times of social upheaval and uncertainty, restraint in choosing a particular side on a contentious issue before all the facts are known is a virtue (Matthew 7:15-20). In such times, silence is not only eloquence; it is also prudence (James 1:5, 19).

(9): To fully embrace the Working Policy of the General Conference for Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (Departmental Policies), Section FL 05 Philosophy, which states, among other things, that:

— (a): ‘The use of force and coercion is inimical to life, to dignity, and to authentic religion.’

— (b): ‘The union of church and state is a sure formula for discrimination and intolerance and offers  fertile soil for the spread of persecution.’

— (c): ‘Religious liberty includes the fundamental human right to … manifest and practice one’s religion individually or in fellowship with other believers … subject to respect for the equivalent rights of others.’

(10): To publicly oppose any course of governmental action that will condition us to accept new principles and techniques of societal control that at a yet future time will be used, as we believe, to bring economic and physical harm to the lives of those who hold differing views regarding worship; and to resist the formation now of a de-facto and unwitting union of church and state by supportively anticipating or embracing state mandates that will trample on the conscience of individual employees and members (Revelation 13:11-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, 13-15).

Action:

(11): To eliminate policies and actions in our church organizations and institutions that negatively impact individuals for exercising their freedom of conscience by forcing, coercing, or rewarding employees to take a certain action, or discriminating among employees in job opportunities, functions, activities, travel, or association based solely on an honorable, informed personal health choice to accept or decline the vaccination (Romans 14:5; Acts 23:1-5; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Luke 10:40-42).

(12): To insist and ensure that those who are entrusted to protect our religious liberties are fully engaged in this crisis and do so with the full force of all means available to them, without regard to secular political considerations or partisan preferences, and that they will champion the cause of religious liberty in the halls of governments, in the press, before scientific agencies, and in the courts, by specifically opposing COVID vaccination mandates which infringe upon the members’ bodily integrity and the Church’s ability to meet and minister to its members and the community (Ephesians 6:9-20; Romans 2:11; James 2:1).

(13): To counsel pastors and other church leaders that they are free, when asked, to write letters in the name of the Church to support members seeking a religious exemption from COVID vaccinations, and that they should use careful language such as: ‘In accordance with the Church’s teaching on health, Seventh-day Adventists believe that religious, faith-based reasons may exist for avoiding some immunization programs, and that it is the counsel of the Church to urge their members to follow their conscience in these matters,’ or words to that effect. Any current church policy and/or online materials referencing pastors’ participation in such activities should be adjusted accordingly.”

Concerns regarding the serious implications of the vaccine mandates were expressed in April 2021, in a minority report released by the Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission of Australia, Ms. Lyndall Dean. It is a pity that the Adventist Church does not share the sentiments so ably articulated by Ms. Dean:

(103): It has been widely accepted that for the overwhelming majority of Australians, vaccination should be voluntary…

(116): All COVID vaccines in Australia are only provisionally approved, and as such, remain part of a clinical trial. This is not part of a conspiracy theory…

(180): The statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health and should be ‘locked out of society’ and denied the ability to work are not measures to protect public health. They are not about public health and are not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID. These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not to be vaccinated…

(181): Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole profession or industry regardless of the actual risk, fail the tests of proportionality…

(182): All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia. It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and is the antithesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.

(183): Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing censorship of any views that question the current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if a person is not allowed to question it.

(184): Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or are suspected of holding “anti-vaccination sentiments,” are entitled to the protection of our laws, including the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act. In this regard, one can only hope that the Majority Decision is recognized as an anomaly and not followed by others.” Website of Fair Work Commission (Australia): Jennifer Kimber vs Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Limited. C2021/2676. April 29, 2021. Minority Report.

Ms. Dean referred to two very pertinent documents in her ruling: — the first was the 1947 Nuremburg Code. The language of its first principle was very clear:

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” The British Medical Journal, December 7, 1996. London, United Kingdom.

The second document was the Siracusa Principles, assembled by the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists. Ms. Dean gave particular emphasis to Paragraph 58, in which reference was made to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (her emphasis appeared in bold print):

“No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not to be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.” Website of The International Commission of Jurists: PDF Attachment: Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. April 1985.

In the current environment, we are already seeing a fulfillment of what the servant of the Lord said would transpire at the end of time:

“Liberty of conscience, which has cost this nation so great a sacrifice, will no longer be respected.” (The Great Controversy, p. 410. 1884 edition).

But the Seventh-day Adventist Church has stated that concerns regarding threats to religious liberty do not apply to COVID-19:

“The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not opposed to public safety and government health mandate…In many cases, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has supported government mandates in support of health and safety issues…Therefore, claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.” Website of the Adventist Review: Reaffirming the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s response to COVID-19. October 25, 2021.

The denomination is mirroring the views of governments, the World Health Organization, and the Vatican in its assessment of the pandemic without voicing any misgivings over public health orders that, in too many cases, have been punitive and disproportionate to the actual situation. No admonitions have been expressed by denominational leaders regarding the exploitation of the ongoing COVID crisis in the pursuit of global agendas that do threaten our liberties and freedoms (e.g.: “The Great Reset”). No statement has been released from Church headquarters objecting to the weaponization of fear, subtle crisis engineering, manipulation of facts, or the misuse of enforcement procedures that have been perpetuated globally by various government/medical circles since last year.

Even high-ranking Catholic cardinals are openly addressing these matters, which Adventist church leaders shrink from. For example, on December 12, 2020, Cardinal Raymond Burke (formerly archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, and now a member of the highest judicial authority in the Roman Catholic Church), said:

“Then there is the mysterious Wuhan virus about whose nature and prevention the mass media daily give us conflicting information. What is clear, however, is that it has been used by certain forces, inimical to families and to the freedom of nations, to advance their evil agenda. These forces tell us that we are now the subjects of the so-called ‘Great Reset,’ the ‘New Normal,’ which is dictated to us by their manipulation of citizens and nations through ignorance and fear.” Website of Catholic Citizens of Illinois (USA): Forces of the “Great Reset” Have Used COVID to Advance “Evil Agenda.” December 14, 2020.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s refusal to publicly speak out on such matters can be traced to its overwhelming desire, cherished for many decades, to be recognized and honored by popular society. This conclusion is not a fantasy nor a myth. A researcher into Adventist history from the viewpoint of the New Theology had this to say in favor of the changes that have occurred within the Church during our lifetimes:

“Since about World War II, [the Church] moved towards becoming a denomination with growing comfort in its environment and wanting a positive, widely admired image.” Website of Adventist Today: Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism: Seventh-day Adventism. November 6, 2018. Ronald Lawson.

This craving for the world’s approbation goes back a lot further than the 1940s. General Conference President A.G. Daniells’ ambition from 1907 for the College of Medical Evangelists in Loma Linda to be endorsed by the American Medical Association (“it must have such recognition to be worth a nickel” — Unabridged Loma Linda Messages, p. 307) became a catalyst for the Seventh-day Adventist Church to follow the line set forth by secular fraternities. The then editor of the Review and Herald, Pastor Kenneth H. Wood, wrote:

“[The Church] has failed to live by the principles and counsels given to it through Inspiration. It has been a mere imitator. It has, for instance, conformed to influences from false science, worldly education, and secular medicine…the church has muffled its marvelous health message; it has largely substituted drug therapy for natural remedies …” Review and Herald, June 17, 1971.

The dramatic gesture of Pastor John B. Keith (then President of the Trans-Commonwealth Union Conference) in placing an Australian $2 note in front of his eyes at an executive meeting of the Australasian Division in December 1968, in which he said (at a critical moment in the discussions on State Aid [government money to help church schools]) —

“The problem with you men is that you have too much of this in front of your eyes.” One Disastrous Decision, p. 183. Colin D. Standish. Hartland Publications. Rapidan, Virginia. 2010.

— underscores the dilemma which the denomination has placed itself by having its prophetic voice muzzled when it sought government recognition and state funding. In Selected Messages, volume 2, p. 385, Sister White referred to leading men of the Church advising that the denomination’s banner or sign should not be held out so strikingly, as it would not be the “best policy” in securing success for the Church’s institutions. It has become part of the denomination’s mindset to be so accommodating to the ways of the world that it refuses to speak out on certain issues that ought to be addressed. The COVID era is forging “The Great Reset,” which is preparing the way for a “Green Sunday.” The Review and Herald, March 18, 1884, tells us that Seventh-day Adventist pastors will urge their members to keep Sunday in the future. Let us not expect help from the Church or its leaders and pastors, but only in Christ, “The Way, The Truth, and The Life.”

About The Remnant Herald: The Remnant Herald is an Australian publication produced by Remnant Ministries. The current editor and author is Elvis Placer, and we have reproduced this article with his permission. You can contact Elvis Placer through email at rh1844@pm.me or call the office clerk at +61 3 9706 2173 to request a FREE subscription to the Remnant Herald.