The Washington Post, Adventists & Abortion

[Dr. Shane]

So why are the doors of our Washington Adventist Hospital are still open as well as the doors of the other Adventist hospitals...

Obviously they haven't wavered too far. You must understand, Nic. You are not God. Just because something the church does doesn't meet your standards, doesn't mean it doesn't meet God's standards. Nic is a sinful, erring person (like everyone else). God has set up a church structure and it isn't up to Nic to correct the church. We do that as a group. We call it the General Conference in open session. It is a "we" church, not a "me" church.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

So why are the doors of our Washington Adventist Hospital are still open as well as the doors of the other Adventist hospitals...

Obviously they haven't wavered too far. You must understand, Nic. You are not God. Just because something the church does doesn't meet your standards, doesn't mean it doesn't meet God's standards. Nic is a sinful, erring person (like everyone else). God has set up a church structure and it isn't up to Nic to correct the church. We do that as a group. We call it the General Conference in open session. It is a "we" church, not a "me" church.

Why do you keep trying to cook this tired old red herring. Do you not understand what is being advocated? This approach has already been addressed but let's try to apply it's principle equitably. The church, according to your definition(GC in open session) has not spoken so how can Nic's standards be wrong. Even the church hasn't decided that and that is the point. Nic speaks for tens of thousands,if not more, of SDA's who feel that the church(GC in open session)should address the issue and not merely be forced to abide by a series of statemets issued by the Annual Council. Let the church actually stake a position in the debate that is unequivocally clear and concise so that the world (and it's members)can see how the SDA body values the unborn human life. The fact that the "guidelines",their meaning,and their authority is so hotly contested and differently interpreted is proof that the church has failed to do it's job.Simply blaming Nic, and those who feel the same way,for not accepting the status quo as God's will for Adventism, (and your personal interpretation of the guidelines)may be an effective method of silencing debate on the issue but it is not honest.

[doug yowell]

Nic, you need to accept the fact that you are not the conscience for the Seventh-day Adventist church. God has not appointed you to such a role. You are a sinful, erring human being like the rest of us. You do not have superior wisdom or judgment.

And who is the conscience of the SDA church? Are you suggesting that the GC structure is an unerring,sinless entity? Are church leaders incapable of making wrong decisions?If not then how do you know that God will not raise up the rank and file to call out for Him? How do you know for sure that God has not called Nic to represent the sentiments of hundreds of thousands (or more)who "sigh and cry over the abominations done in Israel"? Or is the example of Cain and Able lost on you?

[doug yowell]

If a fellow Adventist member (doctor) believes that a patient's emotional health is so bad that it justifies abortion, let that doctor's local congregation deal with it. We are not held accountable for that decision. We (Seventh-day Adventists in general) have set up guidelines for abortion. Let the members seek council from God and their church leaders and make the decision they believe is best in line with God's will in a fallen environment.

So now we have sinful, fallible Dr.'s determining God's will for the emotionally distraught? And God's solution for that person may be simply be to destroy the living being within her body? In violation of the very laws that He created for the developement of the human race? Out of sight,out of mind? And now her spirit will begin to heal and her conscience at peace forever??? And we are supposed to believe that Ellen White would also be cool with that(but not with a pregnant woman having a couple of Buds a day)?

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “Nic's position is extreme not because he wants the issue to go before the General Conference in open session. His position is extreme because he believes the only justification for abortion is to save the mother's life.”

Nic Responds: I am amazed at your reasoning! Are you saying that merely speaking on behalf of those that are being killed by the thousands is “extreme” but that actually killing innocent human beings is not “extreme”? What can be more extreme than dismembering or poisoning the weakest members of humanity?

Shane said: “Furthermore, he favors not just adding something to the church manual. He favors the woman riding the beast of civil government to enforce her morality. He is all about marrying church and state together to force his personal morality on the world. That is not Adventism. That is Catholicism.”

Nic Responds: Wow! What a jump. Did I say anything to justify the distortion you created with your unauthorized statement? Did I ever suggest that the Adventist Church should be granted the power which belongs to the state? Are you saying that encouraging fellow Adventists to exercise their right to vote is also extreme? Should not Adventists speak on moral issues?

Was Ellen White wrong in playing such and active part in the temperance movement? I am merely voicing my personal opinion in Adventist forums, while Mrs. White spoke in non-Adventist rallies! She was actively participating in the politics of her time, yet you condemn my appealing to Adventist audiences, and you conclude that I am guilty of “marrying church and state together to force his personal morality on the world.” Consider what Uriah Smith wote about this:

Quote: “You show me a church that fails to take a stand on political issues that involve moral principles, and I’ll show you a church that is spineless, irrelevant, and morally bankrupt. . . . No issue is too controversial for us to address and honestly in pages of our church paper.” [uriah Smith. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Quoted by P.A. Lorenz. Adventist For Life News, Vol. III, Issue 3. ( n.d., Heritage Edition): 3.]

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “This isn't a political thread and has nothing to do with the politics of abortion. Court cases have no bearing on the religious beliefs held by Seventh-day Adventists.”

Nic responds: Read what Uriah Smith wrote about a church which relinquishes its right and duty to speak on moral issues! Did Old Testament prophets remain silent on the moral issues of their time? Was John the Baptist silent on moral issues? How about Jesus and his disciples?

Were O.T. prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus and his followers killed for being silent? Did not the Lord order Peter to defy the order of the Sanhedrin and go back and continue speaking to the people? Did not he accuse them of killing an innocent man? Isn’t abortion a moral issue? Wasn’t the temperance and slavery moral issues? Was it wrong for Ellen white to participate in them?

[Dr. Shane]

The church, according to your definition(GC in open session) has not spoken so how can Nic's standards be wrong[?]

The church has spoken however I do support the issue going before the General Conference in open session because that is the closest thing we have to the voice of God.

The problem with Nic is that he has already decided what God's will is. He has already decided that the guidelines are not good enough. He is not willing to submit the issue to the organized church unless the organized church agrees with him and his extremist position on the issue.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: "In Nic's world everything is black and white. The real world isn't like that. Our church has established guidelines for abortion that are excellent. There is no need to improve perfection. The issue should simply be if those guidelines get placed into the church manual."

Nic responds: According to a reference you yourself provided in a previous posting, the gray areas represent less that two percent of all the abortions; the rest is described as elective abortions. Here is the summary I found in the reference you cited in defense of your position:

Quote: “Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

Source: Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

What can we conclude from these statistics you made reference to? Given the fact that 98 percent of abortions fall under the elective category, that our Ministry magazine reported that five of our own hospitals were providing elective abortions, that our guidelines allow for the mental health exception--which opens the door for abortions on demand--I conclude that the church is definitely on the side of abortion.

This is why I am of the opinion that our church should get out of the abortion business. Where did I go wrong? I want to go back to what the church stood for since the time of the Adventist pioneers until 1970 when for the sake of profit our church compromised on this serious moral issue.

There is blood on our hands, and we must have them washed by repentance, contrition, and reformation. If we do this, we will have no need for guidelines on abortion. The Southern Baptist Church has no guidelines on abortion. They simply do not perform abortions. The guidelines were created specifically in order to justify the killing of innocent human beings and thus reap the financial benefits derived from this bloody business!

[Dr. Shane]

And who is the conscience of the SDA church?

[Dr. Shane]

Was Ellen White wrong in playing such and active part in the temperance movement? I am merely voicing my personal opinion in Adventist forums, while Mrs. White spoke in non-Adventist rallies!

[Dr. Shane]

According to a reference you yourself provided in a previous posting, the gray areas represent less that two percent of all the abortions; the rest is described as elective abortions.

In your extremist view, that is true. However a more balanced view will see the mothers health (3%) baby's health (3%) rape and incest (1%) as gray areas. That is 7%. Our guidelines prohibit the rest. So our guidelines prohibit 93% of abortions in the US.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Was Ellen White wrong in playing such and active part in the temperance movement? I am merely voicing my personal opinion in Adventist forums, while Mrs. White spoke in non-Adventist rallies!

Ellen White supported the temperance movement and told Adventists they should too. However she never placed the temperance issue at the forefront of our mission. Our mission is and always has been to carry the Three Angels' Message to the ends of the Earth.

Despite her own words previously posted here you seem to be content to ignore it and create your own reality.Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary you simply assert that it is all false and continue to correct the world with your own info. There is no room for discussion with someone who refuses to believe the facts. Very disappointing.

[doug yowell]

Is Nic claiming prophet status? Has he received divine visions or dreams? Have angels been sent to speak with him? If not, he needs to work the process and trust God is able to express Himself through the General Conference in open session.

So apparently God's written Word is not sufficient for one to trust in? "If they don't believe the GC neither will they believe one that rose from the dead"?

[Dr. Shane]

Everyone in this debate believes in God's Word. There is disagreement regarding what God's Word says about the subject. Thus, that disagreement is taken to the GC, a vote is held and we move forward. That is how it works.

[doug yowell]

Everyone in this debate believes in God's Word. There is disagreement regarding what God's Word says about the subject. Thus, that disagreement is taken to the GC, a vote is held and we move forward. That is how it works.

I wish it had worked that way but it hasn't. Most prolife Adventists wanted to have the issue brought up during the 1990 GC conference but the church leadership opted not to do so. Instead they referred it to a committee heavily influenced by prochoice advocates whose nebulus"guidelines" were voted on by the Annual Council. Because they have never been voted on by the Church in session they carry no moral or policy imperative. This was effective in making it look like the church was not in favor of abortion while continuing the status quo of not interfering with it's practice within the church. This allowed the church to "move forward" and no longer have to deal with the objections of those who had demanded that they should take a stand on the most volatile and important moral issue of the day.Given the story of continuing elective abortion practices of some SDA institutions by the Washington Post it appears that your support of the church's official statement is support for those practices that are carried out in the name of the church.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Instead they referred it to a committee heavily influenced by prochoice advocates whose nebulus "guidelines" were voted on by the Annual Council.

The study the guidelines are based on characterizes the pro-choice position as a minority opinion so one can hardly make the honest assertion that the committee was heavily influenced by pro-choice advocates.

The guidelines are themselves pro-life. However they do not reflect the extreme position taken by the pope, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. The guidelines condemn over 90% of the abortions in this nation.

It is never too late to get the issue before the General Conference in open session. I think if an online petition proposed that the abortion guidelines be made part of the church manual, the issue could end up in front of the General Conference in open session.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

Instead they referred it to a committee heavily influenced by prochoice advocates whose nebulus "guidelines" were voted on by the Annual Council.

The study the guidelines are based on characterizes the pro-choice position as a minority opinion so one can hardly make the honest assertion that the committee was heavily influenced by pro-choice advocates.

The guidelines are themselves pro-life. However they do not reflect the extreme position taken by the pope, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. The guidelines condemn over 90% of the abortions in this nation.

It is never too late to get the issue before the General Conference in open session. I think if an online petition proposed that the abortion guidelines be made part of the church manual, the issue could end up in front of the General Conference in open session.

Don't you ever get tired of making stuff up,Shane. What is the extreme position taken by those you've mentioned? Didn't you forget to include James White,Uriah Smith,J.N.Andrews,J.H.Kellogg,Kate Lindsay,Martin Webber, Doug Batchelor,ect...ect...in that list?Can you find the word "condemn" in the guidelines. Can you find the word "sin" there? How bout the word "prohibit"?Is the rest of the SDA world outside of the US also extreme for holding the same moral view as Dobson,Robertson,ect...? Why do you think the guidelines weren't brought before the open GC? Maybe because the rest of the world would have said "NO,that's not what we believe."

[Dr. Shane]

Can you find the word "condemn" in the guidelines.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “Not true. Here are the guidelines.”

Guidelines on Abortion

Nic responds: Did you miss the following? How do you interpret the reference to the pregnant woman’s health? Why is there a separate reference to “threats to the pregnant woman's life” and “serious jeopardy to her health”? Are you suggesting that the reference to “health” excludes mental health? Have you heard about “morning sickness” which is commonly associated with pregnancy? How about depression? Have you ever known of a woman faced with an unexpected pregnancy who is not subjected to temporary mental depression?

Quote: “Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.” [the emphasis is mine]

Source: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main-guide1.html

Did you read how the court in the Doe v. Bolton defined the meaning of health?

Quote: “The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined health as follows:

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.” [the emphasis is mine]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

After reading this, will you still argue that the mental health is excluded? Notice also that this applies even “after viability” which means that abortions are legal all the way to the moment prior to birth, which explains why we had such a big fight about the so called partial birth abortion.

Shane said: “No reference to a mental health exception is made in the guidelines.”

Nic responds: True, the guidelines do not include the term “mental,” but it is implied by the meaning assigned to the term “health” in the Doe v. Bolton ruling as I documented above.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Shane

A man steals to feed his family. Should we treat him the same as Bernard Madoff?

1) Private property is a magnificant gift of God.God's ideal for human beings affirms private stewardship and requires respect for those things accumulated.However, decisions about private property must be made in the context of a fallen world.Stealing is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus,private property must not be thoughtlessly taken. Stealing should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

2) Stealing is one of the tragic delemmas of human fallenness. The church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning a theft. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving,caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

3) In practical,tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express it's commitment to the value of privately owned property.these ways should include:(a)strengthening family relationships,(b)educating every person concerning Christian principles of property management,©emphasizing responsibility of all for family budgeting,(d)calling all to be responsible for the consequences of spending behaviors that are inconsistent with Christian pronciples,(e)creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with stealing,(f)offering support and assistance to those who chose not to steal in order to feed their famililies,and (g)encouraging and assisting both parents to participate responsibly in insuring the financial and dietary needs of their children.The church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social,economic, and psychological factors that may lead to stealing and to care for those suffering the consequences of individual decisions on this issue.

4)The church does not serve as conscience for individuals;however,it should provide moral guidance. Stealing for reasons of economic stability,product selection,or personal gain is not condoned by the church. People, at times,however, may face exceptional circumstances that present present moral dilemmas, such as significant health threats to the lives of the family providers,excessive tax liabilities,employer fraud,loss of financial investments,rejection of unemployment or disability benefits,future budgetary capability carefully diagnosed by a certified accountant,loss of total assets from actions of other's criminal behavior.The final decision whether or not to steal should be made by the individual family provider after appropriate consultation.

5)Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of indivual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and it's laws. They make their choices according to Scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempts to coerce people to steal or not to steal should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

6)Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to stealing should not be required to participate in the process or encouragement of stealing.

7) Church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing consideration of their moral responsibilities with regard to stealing in the light of Scripture.

Excellent parody which illustrates the futility of the defenders of the Adventist Guidelines on Abortion. I am planning to save this clever paraphrase you constructed. It must have taken quite a bit of work to write it!

[doug yowell]

It must have taken quite a bit of work to write it!

Anything past one sentence is a lot of work for me.I just noticed all the mistakes.

[Dr. Shane]

The guidelines are very good. They should be made part of the Church Manual. The issue of mental health is a strawman. The decision whether or not to discipline an Adventist who participates in an abortion lies with the local church just like it is regarding other issues. An alcoholic can justify drinking because of his "mental health" and if a local church is gullible enough to believe that, there is nothing we can do about it. The only thing that needs to be done regarding abortion is to have the guidelines made part of the church manual. No more fighting or expenditure of funds is needed.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “change is constant”

Nic responds: Has the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue changed? If what God wrote is subject to change, then why on earth did he write those works on tables of stone? Did you read what the Bible says about those who dare to alter what the Lord has spoken? The Bible states:

Quote: “Every gift which is good, and every perfect boon, is from above, and comes down from the Father, who is the source of all Light. In Him there is no variation nor the slightest suggestion of change.” [James 1:17]

Shane said: “The church is still pro-life”

Nic responds: Yes, the moon is made of cheese and I am Superman! Does claiming to be pro-life make it so? The blood of thousands of innocent babies killed in Adventist hospitals declare that your claim is not credible but rather laughable.

A friend of mine called the General Conference an asked whether the church was pro-life. The response she got was negative. I can cite to you a statement from James Walter’s book “What is a Person” where he asserts that the Adventist church is “pro-choice.” He is a Professor of ethics at Loma Linda University. He should know, because he participated in the drafting of the guidelines on abortion. Of course, there is hardly any difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. It is the same enchilada with a slight different name.

Shane said: The church is still pro-life, just not according to your extremist definition.

Nic responds: There you go again! Who deserves the “extremist” term, the one who sticks to what the Bible says or the one who has redefined the Word of the Lord and twisted it beyond recognition? Can men be wiser than the Almighty? Can men improve on what the Lord wrote on stone with his own hands?

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, the moon is made of cheese and I am Superman!

This type of attitude is why you are so ineffective Nic. Very few will take you seriously and those that do, have very few that will take them seriously.

Our church is pro-life, just not in the same way as Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the pope. The only issue should be getting our abortion guidelines to be part of the church manual. That task is possible. Trying to get the Adventist church to adopt the position of the Vatican is a mountain that cannot be climbed. Those that want to work toward getting the guidelines into the church manual need not to use incendiary rhetoric and give those that disagree with them the benefit of the doubt. We should not be a bull in a china shop.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane said: “Nic, you need to accept the fact that you are not the conscience for the Seventh-day Adventist church.”

Nic responds: I am not the conscience of the church, but I have the right to appeal to the conscience of Adventists and remind them of what the Lord has said about taking the lives of innocent human beings.

Shane said: “God has not appointed you to such a role.”

Nic responds: Cain said to the Lord: “Am I my brother’s keeper”? We are our brethren’s keepers; each one of us! If you see someone beating a child to death, wouldn’t you intervene, or would you wash your hands and say: “I am not a policeman.”

Shane said: “You do not have superior wisdom or judgment.”

Nic responds: True, but the Lord does have superior wisdom and he has shared said wisdom with us in his Word. I’ll rather rely on God’s word than the wisdom of those who drafted the guidelines on abortion.

Did you notice that the exceptions listed in said guidelines are almost an exact copy of what is contained in the Supreme Court rulings about abortion? All the claims contained in said document referring to the magnificent human life are simply a smokescreen hiding the true purpose of said guidelines which was to obscure the true meaning of the Sixth Commandment written by God’s finger.

Shane said: “God has created the Seventh-day Adventist church and set up the General Conference structure to handle issues just like these.”

The “noble” Bereans did not rely on Paul’s words, but went home and searched the Scriptures in order to discover whether what Paul had said was in harmony with God’s previous revelations. I am not introducing new teachings; but you and those who drafted the guidelines did introduce new interpretations of what the Lord had said in an attempt to alter what God had clearly stated in his word.

God did call the Adventist pioneers for a special mission, and they were faithful to it. I am in agreement with what they taught, but you are not. The Lord set up his Christian church, but after a while it deviated from the right path; God called Luther to reform the church, but after some time even the reform movement had to be reformed. We can say the same about every religious institution the Lord created in the past, and now we began to repeat history.

We failed in Germany; we compromised on the Sabbath, we sided with the Nazi regime, and we compromised on the Sixth Commandment. The result was that recently the Austrian and German Adventist leaders had to publicly apologize for our moral failure in times of trial and stress. We failed in Rwanda, and now we are failing again when confronted with this new genocide. Wake up, Shane, and join me and other pro-lifers who want to call the church to true repentance and reformation. Hasn’t our new president stated that we need to repent and reform?