My View on Unity and Uniformity
by Nic Samojluk
For several decades now the Adventist Church has been involved in a never ending debate over the issue of gender discrimination regarding women’s ordination. The main bone of contention has been over whether uniformity is a requisite for church unity. Can we have true unity without doctrinal uniformity? Can the church function with unity on essentials and diversity on peripheral issues.
The Case for Unity and Uniformity
The leadership of the church has been striving for unity and uniformity over the controversial issue of women’s ordination. The best scholars of the church have invested enormous amounts of time and effort in an attempt to discover what the biblical teaching is regarding this highly contested topic without reaching a consensus.
Given this lack of agreement among the experts in biblical studies, the Adventist leaders kept urging fellow Adventists to be patient and avoid making a move that might threaten to split the Adventist community over this seemingly crucial issue.
When the Pacific Union Conference [PUC] decided to schedule a constituency meeting for August 19, 2012 to decide this controversy, Ted Wilson, the president of the General Conference, made desperate efforts to convince the delegates to vote for unity and uniformity.
The Case for Unity and Diversity
The view of the majority opinion in the PUC was summarized with unusual clarity by Randy Robert, the Senior Pastor of the Loma Linda University Church; who argued for unity on essentials with diversity on peripheral issues. He reminded his hearers of the fact that when dealing with similar controversies in the Christian Church, Paul did not insist on uniformity over non essential doctrinal issues like food which had been offered to idols and even the Jewish circumcision ritual.
He added Paul’s practice of forbidding women from speaking in the church, which is universally ignored by Christians and Adventists today. We do allow women to teach, preach, baptize, and teach both other women and even men, which Paul considered to be unacceptable. The classic example of the wide acceptance of this practice is the case of Ellen White, who was allowed to preach and teach the entire Adventist community both with verbal and written instructions for over a century now.
Needless to say, the opinion of Randy Roberts prevailed to the dismay of Ted Wilson, who reacted by announcing that the General Conference will study in the month of October on how to properly respond to this undesirable event which, according to him, seriously threatens to break the unity of the Adventist community of faith. Of course, for him, unity without uniformity makes no logical sense.
Unity on Peripherals and Diversity on Essentials
My personal view on what is taking place in the Adventist Church is that we have been fighting for unity on peripherals while practicing diversity on essentials. We have been majoring in minors and minoring on majors. The church’s insistence on depriving women; who are allowed to study for the ministry, and who after graduation are permitted to teach, preach, baptize, and to officiate at wedding ceremonies; of the privilege of prayer, laying of hands, and a piece of paper which recognizes their spiritual calling for the ministry; represents to me a good example of our stress on unity on peripherals or majoring in minors.
Contrast this with the church position on abortion, which represents in my view a violation of one of God’s Commandments enshrined in the Decalogue, which the Lord wrote with his own finger on two tablets of stone. On this life and death issue, which has deprived millions of innocent human beings of what is the most sacred asset God bestowed on humanity, we as a church have so far allowed for diversity in spite of the fact that our Adventist pioneers considered the practice of abortion as plain murder.
When our Castle Memorial Hospital was faced with a demand for abortion back in 1970 by their non-Adventist physician staff, the church did not say: We must have unity and uniformity over this controversial issue. Neal Wilson, the then president of the North American Division, did not say: “Let’s wait for the entire worldwide community to be united on this issue before we allow our North American hospitals to offer elective abortions in our medical institutions.” Profit from abortion prevailed over unity and uniformity, and moral duty took a back seat.
Eventually the church approved the policy contained in the document known as “Guidelines on Abortion,” a non prescriptive set of suggestions which pretended to speak on behalf of the unborn, but which provided a long list of exceptions that opened the door wide for abortions on demand, and which eventually led 12 of our Adventist hospitals to offer abortion services to their patients with impunity. One of these institutions was described by a General Conference representative as an “abortion mill.”
So much for unity and uniformity on a major life and death issue! Said Guidelines on Abortion document was never submitted to the worldwide Adventist Community in a general session of the General Conference where delegates from the entire world are present. Thus, diversity on a crucial doctrinal issue affecting one of God’s Commandments prevailed without an insistence on unity and uniformity.
Concluding Remarks
My question to my fellow believers is: Do we have a moral and logical right to insist on unity and uniformity on women’s ordination if we have neglected to require such unity and uniformity on a life and death issue like abortion? Is a piece of paper entitled Ministerial Ordination more important than the life of millions of unborn human beings? Why do we insist on uniformity on a minor issue like ordination but allow diversity on what is clearly condemned in the Decalogue? Wasn’t this the problem of those who crucified the Son of God?
More:
Randy Roberts: https://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/loma-linda-university-church-senior-pastor-randy-roberts-defends-womens-ordination/
Ted Wilson: https://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/ted-wilsons-response-to-the-action-by-the-pacific-union-conference-to-ordain-women/
Ted Wilson: https://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/elder-ted-wilsons-appeal-for-unity/
Nic Samoujluk is the author of a doctoral dissertation entitled "From Pro-Life to Pro-Choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventists Attitude Towards Abortion. He is the editor and manager of the SDA Forum, an independent Web site.
Nic,
Issues rise and fall in priority depending on a variety of factors. It is obvious from your biography line that abortion is a major issue for you. That it is not a major issue for the church at this time does not subtract from the potential significance. However, it is what it is (or isn't what it isn't) in terms of priority for the larger church. Maybe you will be the "voice in the wilderness" bringing it back into discussion, and maybe not. We'll just have to wait and see.
I have two concerns here. First is wondering what top church leadership may do with regard to women's ordination that will have the effect of stirring the pot and creating division that could be avoided by letting the issue rest. Second is that both issues are symptoms of a generalized lack of focus and urgency in the church on spreading the Gospel. That needs to be restored as our exclusive and Number One priority.
Those of us who place high value on encouraging responsible, wide-ranging points of view to be expressed in the pages of Adventist Today and on the Adventist Today website will welcome the posting of the views of Nic Samoujluk on the subject of abortion. However, as I’m sure that Nic will appreciate, that does not mean that by welcoming his freedom to express his opinion, we would then agree with his conclusions.
I have always been amazed by the creativity of Nic to inject the topic of abortion into a discussion no matter what the topic might be. And here again, we have yet another excellent example in which he brings his favorite topic into a discussion of unity and uniformity in the Adventist Church.
I’m sure we would all agree that abortion is a topic which is very difficult to address in dispassionate terms. There are many, many complex emotional, ethical, legal, and even political elements involved. Let me only comment on one element of Nic’s position that he brings up here. It is that abortion is murder as defined in the Ten Commandments. This seems to me to be the theological heart of Nic’s argument.
The problem is that there is no clear Biblical support for such an idea. If Nic can produce a reference to any Biblical text where abortion is clearly stated to be murder, he might wish to produce it. Meanwhile, I know that he is passionate about the issue, but having passion and producing reasonable evidence are two different things.
I do very much agree with Nic's wider principle that we always seem to be debating non-essential issues (and I would put WO in that category), whilst forgetting about essential issues. I believe Christ said as much in Matt 23:23.
Re abortion specifically, I don't really think abortion is moral as a form of contraception; however, the moral situation is a little hazy where there is something seriously wrong with the fetus or the mother's own life is in danger. Moreover, it should be remembered that miscarriages are natures own abortion, and sometimes it is the failure of nature in not terminating a pregnacy that should natrually be aborted.
In nature, many children with severe physical or mental problems would not last more than an hour or a day. Thus, when we talk about applying modern medicines to artificially extend life, and often extend suffering with it, beyond what would occur in nature, the ethics get much more difficult to see.
The same goes for arguments about letting people die through euthenasia, when they are only being kept alive, and in suffering, by modern medicine.
Finally, I true Christian approach (by Churches and Christian countries) would involve more carrot and not so much stick. That is what I would imagine a compassionate Christ to do, when you consider how he dealt with prostitutes and adulterers.
If we truly wanted to end or lower the numbers of abortion, we would give so much support to single mothers that keeping the baby would be by far the easiest option. Yet currently the States and countries with the strongest anti-abortion laws also often give the least in welfare to single mothers! Thus, for desperate women, keeping the baby often becomes by far the hardest option.
I get the feeling this whole debate has a James 2 feel to it. We want babies to be born, we just do care if they live in the years afterwards!
We can always re-institute the chastity belt. It would prevent abortions. Short of that, abortions are as old as recorded history (even the Bible offers reasonableness). However, we should rejoice that each year they are decreasing, and much of the credit is given to early COMPLETE sex education including contraceptive advice.
It is ironic that the state of Texas which, until very recently, promoted "abstinence only" education, had the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the nation!
Totally agree, especially about 'absitence' education actually leading to higher rates of pregnancy. Therefore, to what extent have Christian Churches contributed, rather than reduced, the incidents of abortion?
I am all for reducing the abortion rate, but the question is how? Simply banning it as a matter of law doesn't do it, because you just end up with more dead girls through backyard abortions. You don't do it through abstinence only education, because that only results in more, not less, teenage pregnancies.
Short of introducing the total separation of the sexes, like Saudi Arabia whic is building a complete female-only city, I don't see how. And then, you end up with more homosexual behaviour, as is common in pre-married Arab men, which I assume is not the sort of solution most anti-abortion Christians want!
It is fine to complain and lament the rates of abortion – I do too. But there isn't much point complaining if viable and workable alternatives are not offered.
It's as ridiculous as asking how we can eliminate all the evils in the world. It is by love and the consent of those who understand the dangers of all evils. But since evil is within the heart, that will never be eliminated here on this earth. Which raises the question: Is all sex outside of marriage evil? Should we teach our young people that it is? I don't think so.
Teens are immature mentally and emotionally, but biologically they are adults in their ability to procreate. We should ask: Did God make a mistake in creating humans with procreaative abilities long before they were ready to asume parental responsibilities?
Or, is our modern civilization geared to delayed adulthood with the need to prolong marriage by longer education and employment ability? If we believed as do the Mormons, we would marry young and immediately start raising large families so they can populate the planets. But since that is not our belief system'
we should encourage teens to respect themselves and others and if they have plans in the future, they will be more likely to delay unprotected sex. But because we have contraception easily available, something no other generation has had, there will be less fear of pregnancy and more sexual intimacies. But we should never tell them that virginity (for females) is the greatest gift she can give to her husband, but that she should not give away what should be extremely valued and by someone who will take responsibility.
(I'm from the generation of virginity before marriage, but that is not the norm today so we must live with it.)
Historically, it was perhaps more evil given there was the prospect of pregnancy, but not so much so with the advent of contraception (if people use it).
Re procreative abilities, I once attended an athropology PhD student who raised this very point. He said that 100 years ago, most girls first got their periods at 16-17 and got married at 18. Today, most girls get their periods at 14-15 but get married at 24-25. He was exploring: i) the biological reasons for this change and ii) the sociological impacts.
Thus, I think it is perhaps a little unrealistic to expect girls who become biologically sexually ready at 14-15 to wait until 25-26, and the statistics of those who don't wait for marriage seems to reflect that. Moreover, we have the Church and parents telling people to wait at the same time as they are saying don't rush into marry too early. Again, I think it quite unrealistic to expect teenagers to date for 6 or 7 years (or even more!) and not have sex. It just ain't going to happen.
I can't remember where, but somewhere I read that the late advent of menarche in the C18/19th was what is unusual in a broader historical view. Married women having children at 13, 14, 15, is certainly not unusual in the historical record, nor in many societies today world-wide. I think you will find the average age of menarche today is less than 14, and often occurs before a girl finishes primary school.
Someone did a count of Roman tombstones – which often give the age of death in years, months and days, as well as the cause of death and often much information we would not include on ours – and extrapolating from the ages of women who died in childbirth it seems that a large minority – perhaps even a majority – of Roman girls were married by about 16yo. Marriage at 13 or earlier was not unknown, and while consummation was meant to follow menarche, there was no legal impediment to not waiting once married.
The delay of emotional and intellectual maturity ínto the 20s and beyond is a product of our culture. In other times and other places, children were expected to assume adult responsibilities much earlier, and usually did so quite well. There has also rarely been as great an emphasis on self-sufficiency as a marker od adult status as there is today. When you are expected to remain dependent on others well into adulthood – if not permanently – adulthood need not be the burden we make it.
Talk about mixed messages! Even the Review not so long ago had an article about premarital sex (no!), at the same time we tell our children to get all the education to succeed, and more years are required every decade. It used to be that a B.S. was considered to be sufficient; now it's the M.S., and even preferable, the PhD. It is whistling in the dark to preach premarital virginity while gaining an education that takes at least until the mid-twenties, and often, until 30.
Such changes are more difficult in conservative and religious cultures who wish to maintain the status quo, but the children aren't listening.
Totally agree re mixed messages. The Church and parents can't have it both ways.
I have often thought about this problem, given the rise of de facto couples in my own younger generation. I have seen the Church come down quite hard on young couples and have often thought their reaction a little hypocritical (given they now turn a blind eye to divorce) and unrealistic (given the delayed marriage age as discussed).
The whole issue almost deserves a proper look by the Church beyond the usual 'pre-marital sex is bad'.
William Noel,
You wrote: “It is obvious from your biography line that abortion is a major issue for you.”
Yes, it certainly is a major issue for me, and it should be a major issue for my church as well. The reason is quite simple. We have described our movement as having the last message of warning and hope for humanity. We identified ourselves as those who keep God’s Commandments.
One of those Commandments forbids the shedding of human blood—the blood of innocent human beings. It would be hard to find another group of human beings more deserving of the “innocent” label. It is also a fact that abortion is a bloody business.
The worst part is that we decided to participate in this shameful business for the sake of profit. This is well documented in Adventist literature. It started back in 1970 at our Castle Memorial Hospital [CMH]—three years before the practice of killing the unborn was legalized in the U.S. mainland. This means that we, the alleged Commandment people, led in the legalization of abortion.
And we did so in a direct violation not only of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, but also in violation of our own guidelines which state that our church does not condone abortions on demand.
Can someone explain this to me? We officially state in our “Guidelines on Abortion” that the church does not approve elective abortions, but we did allow not only our CMH but also other Adventist hospitals to profit from this business with impunity.
Isn’t this reminiscent of what Pilate did? He declared Jesus to be innocent, yet he ordered his execution. Like Pilate, we washed our hands by declaring that our church does not condone elective abortions, but by allowing our hospitals to offer abortions on demand we did attempt to wash our hands from the violation of our own precept.
You also wrote: “Maybe you will be the "voice in the wilderness" bringing it back into discussion, and maybe not. We'll just have to wait and see.”
I have been crying in the wilderness for the last couple of decades. It is high time that others join me in this noble endeavor!
You said: “Second is that both issues are symptoms of a generalized lack of focus and urgency in the church on spreading the Gospel.”
The Gospel is Good News! How can killing the innocent be an integral part of good news? It is definitely bad news to the unborn, and it is also bad news for the pregnant female who will have to bear the guilt of having permitted the intentional killing of her own baby.
May I suggest to Nic that in 95% of the cases of abortion no one is "killing the innocent." That is an emotionally strong word that he uses on purpose, but the objective facts are not on his side. There are many abortions that we do not call "abortions" because they naturally occur due to some serious genetic defect in the original embryo. Unless you believe that a "person" exists at the moment of conception or that removing a few hundreds cells consistutes "killing of an innocent person," I assume that even Nic would not call such actions "killing." If my assumption is incorrect, perhaps Nic will want to correct me.
I also notice that Nic has not responded to my question about some Biblical texts that address abortion. Perhaps the reason is that there are none.
Yes, I have discussed this problem with several Adventist doctor friends of mine who note that miscarriages are 'natural abortions'. They observe that in some cases, where the fetus is subject to a serious genetic defect, the mother's body has actually 'failed its natural process' by not having a miscarriage. In such situations, should we accept this 'failed natural process' or intervene with modern medicine?
My sister on the other hand used to work with people with really severe intellectual and physical problems, who were institutionalised. It is interesting to know for someone who has to be with these people day-in-day-out she very much does believe in abortion. Many of these people are living in hell, and suffering every day. Again, a big part of the problem is that 'in nature' these severely disabled people would simply die, but we keep them alive with modern medicine.
I am not advocating abortion and I am horrified with statistics from countries like Russia, who have almost 1 live baby for every abortion every year, and where the average woman has 6 abortions in her lifetime! But I think the problem is a little more complicated that simply saying 'thou shalt not murder' contrary to the Decalogue, in the same war military action is a little more complicated than 'thou shalt not murder.'
Nic,
Confronting a problem directly is one potential path toward a solution, but if history is any example it will only continue an emotional fight with no hope of conclusion. However, there is a far more effective way to resolve the issue: Introducing people to God's power to transform them. The changes God makes in a person's life turns abortion into a non-issue. It is only when a sufficient number of people in the church become transformed by God's power that there will be any hope of having abortions banned in Adventist hospitals.
It is excellent advice to tell all young people about the dangers of unprotected sex; something they only discover until too late. What would you advise your daughter, your granddaughter to do if their physician advises:
their health will not endure a delivery; the fetus is grossly deformed; she was impregnated by a violent rapist?
Where are your tears and concern for such women? I never hear any concern for them. The fetus' life is maintained by a human being who should be given a choice for her future. Are you willing to play God and make choices for her? Who delegated you to do so?
The zygote is no different than the thousands in cold storage in clinics here in the U.S. and around the world. What is the difference between a very early abortion and destroying all these future embryos?
Please answer so we know your position on all these very relevant concerns.
I am not sure arguing that one wrong is as good/bad as another is the best way to proceed. I also have a philosophical objection to seeing the decision of whether or not to abort as solely one to be left to the woman. It may just be the somewhat large number of 'primitive' ancestors I have, but this decision does not affect only the woman and should not be one she alone should make. Except in the case of rape, the point to make the decision is before engaging in sex. We teach our sons that if they get a girl pregnant they have to accept the results and take responsibility for the child – a life-long and life altering responsibility. I would suggest that a belief in equality would lead us to do the same with our daughters. Perhaps we should return to the primitive idea that children are a gift of God to the community, not a burden for the woman.
I tend to agree with Elaine on this one. The IVF correlation is also important.
As to whose decision is it, yes other people should have the right to be consulted and have input, but ultimately it has to be the women's choice. I also think the amount of input should be somewhat correlated to the likely care they will give. In many cases, a young teenage girl's parents are likely to have to give a lot more resources into caring for a newborn baby than a teenage father, many of whom are deadbeats who often skip on the child support payments. On that basis, there can't be equality in the decision for the simple fact that a young teenage mother gives so much more care to a child, and has no choice to, compared with a young teenage father who may or may not stick around.
Moreover, as to the State, again, the States and countries that often have the harshest anti-abortion laws also with some irony given the least support to young single mothers. On that basis the State should have little right to input.
As to the idea that children are a gift from God, not a burden for women – sure. But that is a cliche as much as saying abortion is always against 'thou shalt not murder'. The problem is life is often a little more complicated than that. Elaine is drawing attention to that complexity, as did Ervin, in noting issues about delivery, genetic deformity or rape.
Thus, I actually agree with the SDA Church current stance actually. I think the Church should be articulating principles against seeing abortion as a valid form of contraception. However, the Church shouldn't be saying never, because there are very complicated situations where abortion might be appropriate on medical and moral grounds.
I agree with Ervin and Elaine – spot on!! Nic, where are you at with the morning after pill?
Ervin,
You wrote: “Let me only comment on one element of Nic’s position that he brings up here. It is that abortion is murder as defined in the Ten Commandments. This seems to me to be the theological heart of Nic’s argument.The problem is that there is no clear Biblical support for such an idea. If Nic can produce a reference to any Biblical text where abortion is clearly stated to be murder, he might wish to produce it.”
I have to make a few fake confessions to you:
A. I have been smoking both tobacco and marihuana for a number of years now. If you can show me a text from the Bible that this is a sin, I will get rid of my addiction.
B. I have been using the services of a couple of slaves lately in my farm. If you can show me some biblical texts that slavery is sinful, I will grant them their freedom.
C. You may not know this, but I have joined a polygamous group. My harem includes three women. If you can show me a text from the Bible that polygamy is prohibited, I will divorce two of them.
Now seriously: You are a sophisticated scientist. You know quite well that before an abortion, is performed, in most cases, the pregnant woman can see the unborn baby sucking its thumb, moving around, kicking, yawning, or sleeping. It has all the organs present in those who are born and a heart which is pumping blood. Would you agree with me that what we have is a human being?
When the abortion has been completed, what the attending nurse has is a dismembered body with a hand here, a leg there, and a lifeless head and torso. Would you grant that a killing has taken place?
My dictionary defines murder as the killing of an innocent human being. Would you deny that the facts fit the definition of murder? If you do, then tell me on what basis Scott Petersen was declared guilty of a double murder when he killed his pregnant wife, Lucy, a few years ago?
"You know quite well that before an abortion, is performed, in most cases, the pregnant woman can see the unborn baby sucking its thumb, moving around, kicking, yawning, or sleeping. It has all the organs present in those who are born and a heart which is pumping blood. Would you agree with me that what we have is a human being?"
Not if one say takes the morning after pill and terminates a single-celled embryo. I don't think anyone is entirely comfortable with the notion of a late trimesta pregnancy, whci is what you seem to be talking about. In many countries, late term abortions are indeed illegal, and I tend to agree, except in exceptional cases.
But as Elaine did raise, what about say the destruction of excess embryos used in IVF – is that murder? Is the use of a morning-after pill murder?
Again, I think you will find a lot of people do agree with your general sentiments that we need to try and prevent the numbers of abortion, especially as a form of contraception. However, I think what I get out of Elaine's and Ervin's comments is that often the situation is a little more complicated than that.
Elaine,
You wrote: “We can always re-institute the chastity belt. It would prevent abortions. Short of that, abortions are as old as recorded history.”
True! Burglary, theft, and the sexual abuse of children are also as old as recorded history! Would you feel safe if we legalized such criminal activity?
You wrote: “It is ironic that the state of Texas which, until very recently, promoted "abstinence only" education, had the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the nation!”
The reason is quite simple. Abstinence is the only 100 percent safe method of preventing pregnancies. Nevertheless, if most teenagers reject abstinence and there is no moral guidance in the home and school, abstinence should be taught as the best option and contraception as the second best. Abstinence "only" is the reason for the failure of the abstinence only program in Texas.
"Abstinence is the only 100 percent safe method of preventing pregnancies. Nevertheless, if most teenagers reject abstinence and there is no moral guidance in the home and school, abstinence should be taught as the best option and contraception as the second best. Abstinence "only" is the reason for the failure of the abstinence only program in Texas."
Do you teach your kids not to go near the pool, because they might drown, or do you also build a fence and give them swimming lessons, in case they disobey you? The history of God's people is God continually meeting them where they are and offering 'plan Bs'.
We should teach our kids absitence for sure, as that reflects God's perfect will for mankind. But, we should realise many (if not most) of them are going to have sex before they marriage, especially in a modern society that sends mixed messages expecting absitence on the one hand by no marriage before say 25-30 on the other.
Cute! You completely ignored Ervin's question. You prefer to make statements are ask you own questions. Why should anyone answer questions when you ignore other's questions?
Before moving to evaluate Nic’s “interesting” response, it might be helpful to be clear about several issues.
First, my understanding is that the overwhelming majority of those who support the right of a woman to make an informed and free choice concerning whether she will have an abortion have major reservations about late trimester abortions. Fortunately, my understanding is that the election to have this type of abortion is extremely rare and only done under the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, this discussion is not talking about late trimester abortions. That eliminates a lot of the kind of the emotional inflammatory talk that Nic brings up about aborting essentially fully-developed infants. That is not what is being discussed here. If that is what Nic means by his use of the word “abortion,” then he needs to say that.
Second, I am reasonably sure that everyone of good will who, I am sure, includes Nic. would agree with the proposition that “In an ideal world, there should be no induced abortions.” However, we do not live an ideal world. In most cases, the question is what is the best course of action within the context of a less than ideal situation? I also assume that even Nic would agree that in the case of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake, an abortion is warranted. I’m sure that he will tell us if he is not.
Thirdly, in our ideal world, all infants would be born into a warm, loving, nurturing, and stable environment where all of their physical and emotional needs would be met in an optimal manner. In that ideal world, elective abortions would not need to happen. There would always be a warm, loving, nurturing and stable family with sufficient resources ready and willing to take care of and raise a baby in every case where, for some reason, the birth mother is unable to do that. But, to make the point for the second time, we do not live in such a world. We have to address the real world not some ideal fantasy world.
Now to my good friend Nic’s very amusing response: I interpret it to mean that he has no Biblical texts to support his views concerning abortion. If he did, he would have cited them. Now that this is settled, we can safely conclude that the principal theological support for his position does not exist.
With no Biblical text, Nic then moves on to what some may regard as a rather bizarre line of reasoning. It seems to go something like this: Abortion is not prohibited in the Bible but neither is smoking tobacco and marihuana, slavery, and polygamy. But since we are against smoking, slavery, and polygamy, we should also be against abortion. It would seem to me that it should be obvious to even Nic that such an argument does not make much sense. If Nic thinks it does, then I guess it is impossible to have a rational discussion about this topic with him.
This is the conclusion to which many have come because of the bizarre kinds of arguments that extreme, radical anti-abortion opponents seem to want to use. I had thought that Nic was not one of these individuals. Perhaps I am wrong.
At the risk of being jeered by those who believe that the morning after pill is a form of abortion, I'd like to share a couple of memories from my obstetric days. 1. The wrenching emotion of taking an infant from it's mother's arms for the last time as she gives her baby up for adoption. 2. Placing a premature infant (birth weight 2.2 – after bowel surgery 1.8 – spent weeks in the hospital) in the arms of a 16 year old unwed mother. And what about the concern of the fate of this fragile infant or how this new being will change the life of it's child-mother? 3. Caring for patients who had miscarried in first trimester. The bloody discharge looked nothing like the perfectly-formed full-term fetus described above.
Which of these incidents is the easiest to deal with, which is most painful, the most tragic? We really are messed up when it comes to dealing with how to be parents in mentoring our children regarding sex education. We are like deer in the headlights and instead of being helpful, our church is completely out of touch – (Pre-marital sex is wrong, abstinence is the only way and to take contraceptives is premeditated and sinful.) And then there is Shame…. And where do we want to insert the word Murder in this conversation?
The moral of the story is – be perfect (abstinence) because other choices are filled with pain, pain, pain.
And as Churches are hospitals for sinners and not podiums for moral olympians, what will the Church do when people don't live up to the ideal of absitence? If past experience is to go by – not much. They'll probably say a few unkind words, have lots of gossip, and the offending people will simply slip away from our holy sight – problem solved.
Bea,
You wrote: “Nic, where are you at with the morning after pill?”
Good question. I’ll make a deal with you: You answer my question and I will answer yours. Where are you on the elective abortions question which is condemned by the church but many of our hospitals profited from it with impunity. Do you believe that the Remnant Church should participate in the intentional destruction of human life?
Elaine,
You wrote: “It's as ridiculous as asking how we can eliminate all the evils in the world. It is by love and the consent of those who understand the dangers of all evils. But since evil is within the heart, that will never be eliminated here on this earth. Which raises the question: Is all sex outside of marriage evil? Should we teach our young people that it is? I don't think so.”
Do you think that the Lord made a mistake when he gave us the Seventh Commandment which forbids adultery and fornication? What spiritual value is there in worshipping God on the Sabbath if during the week we intentionally ignore the other Rules of behavior which were given for our good?
Stephen,
You wrote: “I am not advocating abortion and I am horrified with statistics from countries like Russia, who have almost 1 live baby for every abortion every year, and where the average woman has 6 abortions in her lifetime! But I think the problem is a little more complicated that simply saying 'thou shalt not murder' contrary to the Decalogue, in the same war military action is a little more complicated than 'thou shalt not murder.'”
Suppose the Lord asked you to rewrite the Seventh Commandment of the Decalogue. How would you do it? Can you suggest a better version of what the Lord wrote with his own finger on tablets of stone?
We have traditionally criticized Rome for altering the Sabbath Commandment. With our Guidelines on Abortion we Adventists have redefined the Sixth one which condemns the destruction of innocent human life. Now it seems that we are unhappy with the Seventh one which forbids adultery and fornication.
Given this scenario, should we drop perhaps our claim to be the Remnant of God who keeps God’s Commandments? If we justify what the Lord has forbidden, what value is there in insisting on the permanence and validity of the Sabbath Commandment.
Nic, I think you are mixing the aphoritic 10 Commandments, which are eternal and deliberately generic, compared with the causatic commands. For example, the same God who says 'Thous shalt not murder' in Ex 20:13 also commanded the children of Israel to go to war and kill their enemies, or demands capital punishment for certain crimes.
No one is suggesting a re-writing of the Commandment 'Thous shalt not murder'. What we are debating is whether 'abortion', which can mean the destruction of a single-celled embryo, is or is not 'murder'.
You are mixing the issues.
Similarly, when Jesus' disciple took grain from the field on the Sabbath, the Pharisees condemned them as Sabbath-breakers. Jesus wasn't saying the Sabbath was some now abrogated. He was saying that it is ok to do some work on the Sabbath, whether it involves baking sacred bread as the Levites did, or pulling a sheep out of a hole.
Elaine,
You wrote: “What would you advise your daughter, your granddaughter to do if their physician advises: their health will not endure a delivery;”
I would get a second opinion who would tell her the truth and inform her about the availability of the C section.
You said: “ … the fetus is grossly deformed;”
What deformity do you have in mind? Is it a cleft palate perhaps or some other malformation which is correctable by modern medicine?
You said: “ … she was impregnated by a violent rapist?”
You really believe that we need to kill the innocent and let the rapist go free? Is this the kind of justice you advocate?
You wrote: “Where are your tears and concern for such women? I never hear any concern for them.”
and where are your tears for the destruction of innocent life? Where are your tears for the injustice of a society which executes the innocent and allows the predator to continue impregnating innocent victims?
You said: “Are you willing to play God and make choices for her? Who delegated you to do so?”
The answer is “No.” The pregnant woman has the legal right to kill her own baby if she wishes. I do not have the right to impede her making such a mistake. Nevertheless, if my advice is sought, I have the duty to tell her what is God’s will for her and her baby.
You also said: “The zygote is no different than the thousands in cold storage in clinics here in the U.S. and around the world. What is the difference between a very early abortion and destroying all these future embryos?”
You seem to imply that there is no difference, forgetting that an abortion is accompanied with trauma for the girl. The emotional impact of said experience will stay with her for the rest of her life. I know because I have witnessed this in the lives of some women. An abortion is similar to a rape—a rape with instruments. And you can add to this the guilt of having authorized the killing of her own baby.
You said: “ … the fetus is grossly deformed;” What deformity do you have in mind? Is it a cleft palate perhaps or some other malformation which is correctable by modern medicine?
Nic, obviously Elaine isn't talking about something as mild as a cleft pallet.
I know someone whose fetus was effectively developing without a brain. That is the sort of extreme example that does happen (more often than people realise), and the type Elaine is asking you consider when faced with the extreme examples of when abortion might be necessary.
You wrote: “What would you advise your daughter, your granddaughter to do if their physician advises: their health will not endure a delivery;” I would get a second opinion who would tell her the truth and inform her about the availability of the C section.
Again, Elaine obviously isn't taling about something simple that can be solved with a C section.
Elaine is obviously talking about extreme examples, such as cases whether a mother has cancer and then suddenly gets pregnant, and is told that if she carries through with the pregancy she will die. Often the fetus is bound to die also, so its a choice between abortion, where the mother lives, or no abortion, where the mother and fetus both die.
Again, these extreme examples do occur more often than people think.
You also said: “The zygote is no different than the thousands in cold storage in clinics here in the U.S. and around the world. What is the difference between a very early abortion and destroying all these future embryos?”
You seem to imply that there is no difference, forgetting that an abortion is accompanied with trauma for the girl. The emotional impact of said experience will stay with her for the rest of her life.
And what about the morning-after pill? By your definition that would amount to abortion. However, it would hardly result in any trauma, as the girl will never know whether she is pregnant or not. There is a very big difference between attending a scary abortion clinic versus simply taking a pill prescribed by a doctor.
Your answer also never quite embraces the moral question about terminating single-celled embryos, where you seem to avoid the question by instead focusing on the supposedl trauma to the girl.
Sorry Elaine, I didn't mean to speak for you. Nic's answers were just so (how can I say outrageous in a nice way) that I just couldn't help myself.
Stephen,
You wrote: “Thus, I actually agree with the SDA Church current stance actually. I think the Church should be articulating principles against seeing abortion as a valid form of contraception.”
What moral value is there for our church to condemn elective abortions if it gives our own hospitals the freedom to violate the church’s policy on abortion? Adultery, fornication, and abortion in the Adventist Church seem to be as prevalent as in the rest of society.
The only difference between Adventists and non-Adventists apparently is that we go to church on the correct day of the week. Is this the mission of the Remnant? I used to give Bible studies to Catholics; I could no longer do this with a clear conscience. Is Sabbath observance more important than the respect for human life?
Stephen,
You wrote: “Not if one say takes the morning after pill and terminates a single-celled embryo.”
True! What is the percentage of abortions which are done with the morning after pill? Is it one percent? Assuming it is one percent, should we ignore the 99 percent of cases where the destruction is not of a single cell, but rather of a developing baby which have all the physical characteristics of human beings?
Aren’t we using these extreme cases in order to justify the destruction of real human beings?
Stephen,
You wrote: “We should teach our kids abstinence for sure, as that reflects God's perfect will for mankind. But, we should realize many (if not most) of them are going to have sex before they marriage, especially in a modern society that sends mixed messages expecting abstinence on the one hand by no marriage before say 25-30 on the other.”
Yes! And more so if we allow our church to send the wrong message to our young people which condemns abortions on demand but allows our own hospitals to profit from what the church condemns. What we do allow neutralizes what we teach. Our actions speak louder than our preaching.
My view is that we have lost our moral right to identify with God’s Remnant which “keeps God’s Commandments.” We have lost our moral ground to preach to non-Adventists. Unless we repent, I believe that the Lord will do what he said he might do: spit us from his mouth.
The Lord is already using non-Adventists to do the pro-life work that needs to be done. Non-Adventists are beginning to preach the permanence and validity of the Ten Commandments.
Stephen,
You answered for me better than I could have. It is impossible to discuss with such dogmatism. Yet, with such radical concepts it is difficult to remain silent. Each time I try to restrain myself from commenting, but then it is so rabid that I fail.
I know what you mean. I find it really difficult to resist responding.
It seems to me that we have enough evidence that Nic is an extremist (I will not say fanatic, but it comes close) when it comes to this particular topic. That's a shame because in other ways he seems to be such as nice fellow. Oh well . . .
Increasingly I find myself amazed at the gridlock we find ourselves in. I am resigned that this is a hopeless delemma. The word abortion is so horrific – just to verbalize causes toxic fumes to billow out. Rest assured/guaranteed – no matter if a woman has an abortion or gives her child up for adoption, she will always remember the tragedy, she will think with gravity till the day she dies. The SDA Church is given "poor marks" for our pious, unrealistic position we take. To fling the word Murder in the same sentence as Abortion is in itself criminal. To insinuate that the morning after pill as being the abortion/murder pill is so sad.
And there is not a congregation in which abortion has probably not been used. How do those women fell when a pastor calls it murder? How do those young girls who may later be in such a predicament feel about themselves–as a murderer? This is going to draw more people to Christ with such a condemning message?
I have to be perfectly frank here: If my daughter found herself in this situation (being pregnant and having to make grave decisions) I would NOT subject her to the atmosphere of our church – not because of shame, but to protect her from people's unwitting or deliberate comments/sanctimonious attitudes. We would surround her with nurture – elsewhere.
Ervin,
You wrote: “Before moving to evaluate Nic’s “interesting” response, it might be helpful to be clear about several issues.
Great idea!
You added: “First, my understanding is that the overwhelming majority of those who support the right of a woman to make an informed and free choice concerning whether she will have an abortion have major reservations about late trimester abortions. Fortunately, my understanding is that the election to have this type of abortion is extremely rare and only done under the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, this discussion is not talking about late trimester abortions.”
So far we are in agreement! The focus of this discussion is on the majority of abortions, and most of the abortions are performed in the first and second trimesters.
You added: “That eliminates a lot of the kind of the emotional inflammatory talk that Nic brings up about aborting essentially fully-developed infants.”
Wrong! My focus is on elective abortions, and most elective abortions are done, as I noted above, in the first and second trimesters. This is where we part company. You think that what I have in mind is late term abortions while I am talking about first and second trimester procedures.
We need to talk about the same thing! Let’s do the following. Please, take the time to look at the following pictures of unborn babies between twelve and twenty weeks and tell me whether they look human to you:
Fetal Development Pictures Slideshow: Photos Month-by-Month by WebMD
Development at 12 Weeks
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development
Fetal Development Pictures Slideshow: Photos Month-by-Month by WebMD
Development at 16 Weeks
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development
Fetal Development Pictures Slideshow: Photos Month-by-Month by WebMD
Development at 20 Weeks
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development
Then you said: “Second, I am reasonably sure that everyone of good will who, I am sure, includes Nic. would agree with the proposition that “In an ideal world, there should be no induced abortions.”
We are on the same page again. In an ideal world evil actions such as killing innocent human beings would not exist, nor lesser evils like burglary, thefts, rapes, and sexual abuse of children.
You wrote: “However, we do not live an ideal world. In most cases, the question is what is the best course of action within the context of a less than ideal situation?”
Right! In a less than ideal world we encourage the avoidance of behaviors which harm other human beings and we create laws for the protection of private property and the lives of other human beings.
You also said: “I also assume that even Nic would agree that in the case of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake, an abortion is warranted. I’m sure that he will tell us if he is not.”
When the life of the pregnant woman is in serious danger, saving one life instead of loosing two is still pro-life. But when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, I see no moral justification for punishing the innocent and letting the rapist go free. Justice demands the punishment of the evil doer—not the execution of the innocent.
When the rapist is not punished, the rapist is likely to repeat the criminal behavior. The victim of rape can, with God’s help lead an almost normal life, but an aborted baby can never recover from an abortion ordeal. Nine months of inconvenience cannot compare with the total and irreversible deprivation of life. When abortion is chosen, the rape victim is raped again—this time with the abortion tools of the abortionist.
You added: “Thirdly, in our ideal world, all infants would be born into a warm, loving, nurturing, and stable environment where all of their physical and emotional needs would be met in an optimal manner. In that ideal world, elective abortions would not need to happen. There would always be a warm, loving, nurturing and stable family with sufficient resources ready and willing to take care of and raise a baby in every case where, for some reason, the birth mother is unable to do that. But, to make the point for the second time, we do not live in such a world. We have to address the real world not some ideal fantasy world.”
In a less than ideal world, we choose the second best option, and killing is not the best option for the unborn. It is not the best option for the pregnant woman either, because she will have to live the rest of her life knowing that she was an accomplice in the killing of her own baby. T
he second best for a woman who is not ready to care for her baby is adoption. I know this, because I have close relatives who were forced to travel to the other side of the world to adopt three orphan children.
You wrote: “Now to my good friend Nic’s very amusing response: I interpret it to mean that he has no Biblical texts to support his views concerning abortion. If he did, he would have cited them. Now that this is settled, we can safely conclude that the principal theological support for his position does not exist.”
It amuses me reading this because I know that you believe that the Bible is a totally human product. The Bible condemns the shedding of innocent blood. Do you want me to give you the biblical reference? Jesus summarized God’s Law as loving our neighbor. There is no other human closer to the heart of a woman than her unborn baby. You also have the Sixth Commandment which forbids the killing of innocent human beings; unless you believe that the unborn is guilty of some crime!
Then you said: “With no Biblical text, Nic then moves on to what some may regard as a rather bizarre line of reasoning.”
No biblical text? Do you want the quotation in Hebrew or Greek? Which part of “You shall not murder” you do not understand? You want it to specify the different kinds of murder God forbids? The term murder is an all inclusive term which encompasses all kinds of killing of innocent human beings. Would you deny that the unborn is a human being, or that the unborn is guilty?
You ended with: “It seems to go something like this: Abortion is not prohibited in the Bible but neither is smoking tobacco and marihuana, slavery, and polygamy. But since we are against smoking, slavery, and polygamy, we should also be against abortion. It would seem to me that it should be obvious to even Nic that such an argument does not make much sense. If Nic thinks it does, then I guess it is impossible to have a rational discussion about this topic with him.”
“When slavery was still legal, theologians demanded a text from the Bible which prohibited the ownership of slaves. Those condemning said evil institution had no biblical text to defend their position, except the all inclusive principle which demands that we treat others the way we want to be treated. Whose argument was bizarre?
You claim that my argument makes no sense. Does yours? Which is more bizarre, to demand that the Sixth Commandment include the term abortion in it, or that we apply the all inclusiveness of the word “murder”?
Stephen,
You wrote: “Nic, I think you are mixing the aphoritic 10 Commandments, which are eternal and deliberately generic, compared with the causatic commands. For example, the same God who says 'Thous shalt not murder' in Ex 20:13 also commanded the children of Israel to go to war and kill their enemies, or demands punishment for certain crimes.”
There is a huge contrast between capital punishment and the killing of an innocent human being. The death sentence is usually applied to the most heinous criminal acts while executing the innocent represents a miscarriage of justice. I hope you do not confuse those two.
Now regarding God’s order demanding the extermination of Israel’s enemies, you will have to ask God why he gave those orders. He must have had good reasons for issuing such orders. The story of the Flood can helps us a little bit, perhaps. The Bible states that the thoughts of the pre-flood generation was continually towards evil. They had probably reached a point where they were beyond redemption.
You also said: “What we are debating is whether 'abortion', which can mean the destruction of a single-celled embryo, is or is not 'murder'.”
That is what you are debating—not me! My main argument is that the Adventist Church has no business profiting from the killing of innocent human beings. This is not the mission of those who allegedly “keep God’s Commandment.”
Can you estimate what percentage of abortions involve the killing of single-cell embryos? My bet is that the percentage would be very close to zero. At the rate the single-cell embryo divides and multiplies, you may have a hard time locating the abortion of single-cell embryos.
This has very little to do with our church decision to look the other way while some of our hospitals began offering elective abortions to their patients. You seem determined to derail this discussion into peripheral issues. By doing this, you tend to prove my theory that we Adventists have a preference for peripheral issues while ignoring the essential demands of the Gospel.
You ended with: “You are mixing the issues.”
I don’t! Scroll up and read my introduction to this discussion!
Stephen Ferguson
You wrote: “Nic, obviously Elaine isn't talking about something as mild as a cleft pallet. I know someone whose fetus was effectively developing without a brain. That is the sort of extreme example that does happen (more often than people realize), and the type Elaine is asking you consider when faced with the extreme examples of when abortion might be necessary.”
If Elaine wants me to provide her with a meaningful answer, I need her to specify what kind of malformation she has in mind and I am waiting for her response.
Nevertheless, this continuous emphasis on tangential issues tends to prove my point that we Adventist will rather talk about peripheral issues instead of dealing with what is essential to the mission of our church. This is why we are ready for war over the issue of women’s ordination while ignoring our need to repent of the role we played with the legalization of abortion.
Think of it: We, the people who claimed to be God’s Remnant with the last message of hope to a perishing world, have led the world to the killing of innocent human beings for the sake of profit. Jesus gave his life to grant us life, but we kill to protect our lifestyle. Can you imagine a worst tragedy?
It is somewhat deceptive to claim that most abortions are performed in the first and second trimesters. But below is the official figures, showing that 89% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester. Some of those in the second trimester were women who called for appointments while in their second trimester, but with fewer provides, by the time of the abortion, the woman was in her second trimester.
The vast majority of abortions in the US, nearly 89%, are performed within the first trimester or within thirteen weeks of gestation.ii While the number of abortions has declined overall and more first-trimester abortions are taking place earlier within the first trimester, the percentage of abortions performed in the second trimester has
remained notably consistent over time.
Have you answered the questions about IVF and frozen embryos that are destroyed yearly?
Have you answered the questions about IVF and frozen embryos that are destroyed yearly?
Stephen Ferguson
You wrote: “And what about the morning-after pill? By your definition that would amount to abortion. However, it would hardly result in any trauma, as the girl will never know whether she is pregnant or not. There is a very big difference between attending a scary abortion clinic versus simply taking a pill prescribed by a doctor.”
The morning after pill is a potent poison designed to kill the embryo. If you think that the morning after pill is harmless to the health and life of the girl which takes it, then read the side effects of this potent poison:
The Dangers of the Morning-After Pill
“At home and abroad, the abortion, family planning, and population control groups which seek to promote MAP ignore the scientifically-proven risks of levonorgestrel (the sole active ingredient of Plan B MAP). These well-documented adverse side effects include significant weight gain (on average 15 pounds), depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders,4 increased risk of ectopic pregnancy5 and death. In some women, these serious adverse effects of levonorgestrel-type MAP could lead to further health risks for bulimia, anorexia, or clinical depression.
The Dangers of the Morning-After Pill
http://www.pop.org/content/dangers-of-morning-after-pill-1399
*********
Is Emergency Contraception Safe?
Not only could EC kill a tiny preborn life in its earliest stages, but the 'morning-after' pill is also very dangerous to a woman's health.
If one reads the patient information package insert for regular hormonal birth control (remember, emergency contraception is a mega-dose of the regular birth control pill), one will find that the side effects of hormonal contraceptives include:
Head/Brain
Eyes
Heart/Blood
Is Emergency Contraception Safe?
http://www.morningafterpill.org/is-emergency-contraception-saf.html
You also said: “Your answer also never quite embraces the moral question about terminating single-celled embryos, where you seem to avoid the question by instead focusing on the supposed trauma to the girl.”
Do you really believe that there is such a thing as a single-cell abortion? At the rate the single cell divides and multiplies, my suspicion is that such an occurrence is probably nil.
Thank you for educating all of us on the side effects of taking the morning after pill. To expand on this: Physicians are directed to give informed consent prior to any procedure or prescription for any medication – the reasons being that "All of these procedures/medications have side effects from minor symptoms to death. Prior to my nephews organ transplant, he was informed of the grave possibilities and even every day of his life he will be taking medications that will keep his body from rejecting this new organ. All of these medications have very real side effects.
Ervin,
You wrote: “It seems to me that we have enough evidence that Nic is an extremist (I will not say fanatic, but it comes close) when it comes to this particular topic. That's a shame because in other ways he seems to be such as nice fellow. Oh well.”
Do you realize that when a debater begins to call his opponent names—“extremist” or “fanatic”—it is a sign that he is loosing the argument? I am disappointed that you would do that!
Bea
You wrote: “Rest assured/guaranteed – no matter if a woman has an abortion or gives her child up for adoption, she will always remember the tragedy, she will think with gravity till the day she dies.”
Yes, you have stated a great and undeniable truth!
You added: “The SDA Church is given "poor marks" for our pious, unrealistic position we take.”
True! Especially given the fact that we do condemn elective abortions but did allow some of our own hospitals to offer abortions on demand with impunity.
The worst part is that we did this back in 1970—three years before our Supreme Court legalized the killing of the unborn in the U.S. mainland, which means that we, Adventists, the ones who claimed to be the Remnant who keep God’s Commandments, did lead in the killing of the innocents.
You stated: “To fling the word Murder in the same sentence as Abortion is in itself criminal.”
You have just condemned the actions of the Adventist pioneers who unashamedly labeled abortion as plain murder and a violation of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue. Here is what James White published about this issue:
“Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose.
And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime.” James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.
Elaine,
You wrote: “And there is not a congregation in which abortion has probably not been used. How do those women fell when a pastor calls it murder? How do those young girls who may later be in such a predicament feel about themselves–as a murderer? This is going to draw more people to Christ with such a condemning message?”
True! This reminds me of what Peter did on the day of Pentecost. Here is what he said as recorded in the second chapter of the book of Acts:
22“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,d put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
What was the result of this terrible accusation against the crowd which came to listen to the Apostle Peter? Three thousand people repented of their sin and joined the nascent Christian Church.
When the adulterous woman was brought to Jesus, he said: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” The Lord is merciful and eager to forgive, but his warning is that we need to stop sinning.
What we as a church are saying to women is: “Neither do I condemn you. You have done nothing wrong. Go in peace and continue your lifestyle.”
Bea,
You wrote: “I have to be perfectly frank here: If my daughter found herself in this situation (being pregnant and having to make grave decisions) I would NOT subject her to the atmosphere of our church – not because of shame, but to protect her from people's unwitting or deliberate comments/sanctimonious attitudes. We would surround her with nurture – elsewhere.”
Yes, a girl in such a predicament needs to be surrounded with compassion, support, and love. But she also needs to hear the words of Jesus who said: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
She also needs to be shown that there is a better option than abortion—adoption. Adoption can be a great blessing to an infertile couple. I know this to be a fact. I have close relatives who spent a fortune in securing several orphans from a distant country.
Nic – and are you making the inaccurate assumption that my daughter wouldn't be surrounded with compassion, support and love which includes her wonderful personal relationship with Jesus?? Remember, I indicated she would be making choices!!!! You assumed her only choice would be abortion.
As to your mentioning your relatives going to the ends of the earth who spent a fortune in securing several orphans —- are you indicating it would have been so much easier and less expensive if there had been a great quantity of babies available in this country? What is your real adgenda in this?
Nic – this discussion has resurrected a memory (tucked away but greatly influencing me forever) of one of my OB/Peds rotations in college. We visited a long-term pediatric facility in DC taking care of children who had been born with the most horrific conditions they could not be taken care of outside a medical facility. Some of them lived there for years. I have come to believe there are situations worse than death. I am feeling vulnerable now because I know where you are most likely to take this conversation. We need to deal with end of life plans no matter what age we are – but then that is another appendage of this delicate discussion.
Elaine,
You wrote: “It is somewhat deceptive to claim that most abortions are performed in the first and second trimesters. But below is the official figures, showing that 89% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester.”
The statistics I recall attributed 88 percent of abortions to the first trimester and 12 percent to the second one. My comments were designed to contrast the third trimester abortion with those of the first two.
You asked: “Have you answered the questions about IVF and frozen embryos that are destroyed yearly?”
You insistence on peripheral issues confirms my theory that we Adventist major in minors as a way of avoiding the essentials of our Gospel ministry. The major issue I have been addressing is the historical and undeniable fact that we have led in the effort to legalize the killing of the unborn.
We allowed our hospitals to offer elective abortion three years before this was legalized in the U.S. main land. We need to repent of this great evil. How can we claim with a straight face that our church does not condone abortions on demand on one hand and look the other way when our own medical institutions violate our own policies?
And here is my answer to your IVF question: There is a way of avoiding the destruction of frozen embryos: Avoid the creation of embryos beyond the number you intend to allow to be implanted, developed, and born.
As much as I disagree with WO, I agree with the following statement by the author: "Do we have a moral and logical right to insist on unity and uniformity on women’s ordination if we have neglected to require such unity and uniformity on a life and death issue like abortion?"
The church has been wishy washy on this subject for far too long. There is no excuse for not taking a firm stand. How can we, with a straight face, expect people to sacrifice their lives rather than break the Sabbath, while at the same time, not be willing to take a first stand against the taking of innocent life? It certainly hurts our credibility in the eyes of evangelicals and Catholics.
I well remember a constituency meeting many years ago, in which one of our pastors was publicly humiliated by conference officials for daring to suggest that we, as a conference, take a stand against abortion. His worst critics were from the church which was in the city where our SDA hospital was located. The whole episode was shameful.
Timo,
“I suspect that the de-facto blind hatred that Nic's position fairly reeks of-calling these women murderers who have been brought to make a most-difficult decision and for reasons he neither knows nor could comprehend, nor has ever felt-is itself a form of murder.”
First, can you quote me on your claim? Can you cite within its proper context where I have stated that women who choose abortion are murderers? Are you confusing me perhaps with James White who published the following?
James White: Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten.
The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition which he knows will lead to the commission of the crime. James White. Solemn Appeal (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), 100.
I did say that when the life of the pregnant woman is in serious danger, it is still pro-life to save one life instead of loosing two. I also believe that we, the Western society, are the real murderers when a woman chooses to abort her unborn baby. This is a collective guilt and we Adventist have led the world into this shameful moral morass, and we did this for filthy lucre. If you need evidence of this, I can provide.
You also said: “If Nic would spend his time and resources on loving the unwanted children, and loving the unfortunate mothers-to-be, I am certain he would be formidable force for good in this dying world, a world where a pro-choice God gave His only son for us to "abort".”
First, God did not give his Son to be aborted. He sent his Son to be seated on David’s throne. We killed him instead. Don’t blame this on God!
Second, you have no clue about the charity work we have done for the more unfortunate human beings of this world. If you are interested in a spitting contest, you will have to look for a different candidate.
You also said: “In an imperfect world, perhaps the direct results and side effects of raising an unwanted child produces even more dire effects, particularly in the environment of hate that misplaced zeal exhibited by rabid pro-life creates, fosters, feeds on, and multiplies. Perhaps to hate to hate anything is easier than to love something.”
You probably do not realize that you are spitting more hate against pro-lifers than you can imagine as evidenced by the words you have chosen against those who are trying to save lives.
One of the signs that a person is loosing the argument is that he begins to attack the character of the opponent. Can we debate without the recourse to such cheap shots?
You ended with: “By design, the pro-life intent is to inflammatory, incendiary, and to draw debate. It is hard not to respond to their over-the-top rhetorical rubbish…but, perhaps, is the best way to deal with it.”
Do not forget what Jesus said when he stated: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world, but rather a sword.”
The controversy between good and evil is real and ugly. It took a Civil War to free the slaves from oppression. I have no idea what will God use to save the unborn from this genocide. I hope it will take place on the President Reagan model when he defeated the Communist Empire with a few words.
Bea,
You wrote: “Nic – and are you making the inaccurate assumption that my daughter wouldn't be surrounded with compassion, support and love which includes her wonderful personal relationship with Jesus?? Remember, I indicated she would be making choices!!!! You assumed her only choice would be abortion.”
Thanks for clarifying! The use of the word choice might have lead me to assume that you had abortion in mind.
You added: “As to your mentioning your relatives going to the ends of the earth who spent a fortune in securing several orphans —- are you indicating it would have been so much easier and less expensive if there had been a great quantity of babies available in this country?”
Yes! It would have been rather foolish for them to incur into such expensive and difficult scheme if babies had been available here in the U.S.
Bea
You wrote: “Nic – this discussion has resurrected a memory (tucked away but greatly influencing me forever) of one of my OB/Peds rotations in college. We visited a long-term pediatric facility in DC taking care of children who had been born with the most horrific conditions they could not be taken care of outside a medical facility. Some of them lived there for years. I have come to believe there are situations worse than death.”
If it would be legal to kill those children for whom life is worse than death, would you volunteer to either dismember or poison them? If not, tell me why not!
I had a niece who was diagnosed with spina bifida. My sister would not even think about aborting the baby. She was allowed to be born, she was loved and cared for, and when she died a month later, she was buried and mourned. I believe that this a more desirable option.
Jean,
You wrote: “As much as I disagree with WO, I agree with the following statement by the author: "Do we have a moral and logical right to insist on unity and uniformity on women’s ordination if we have neglected to require such unity and uniformity on a life and death issue like abortion?"
The church has been wishy washy on this subject for far too long. There is no excuse for not taking a firm stand. How can we, with a straight face, expect people to sacrifice their lives rather than break the Sabbath, while at the same time, not be willing to take a first stand against the taking of innocent life? It certainly hurts our credibility in the eyes of evangelicals and Catholics.
I well remember a constituency meeting many years ago, in which one of our pastors was publicly humiliated by conference officials for daring to suggest that we, as a conference, take a stand against abortion. His worst critics were from the church which was in the city where our SDA hospital was located. The whole episode was shameful.”
You may never know how much your comment means to me. The Lord must have sent you with this encouraging message. Out of the 64 postings, yours is the first one with which I can fully agree without reservation. I wish your comments would be as the first cloud prophet Elijah saw as a sign that the promised rain was in the horizon. That small cloud gave him the strength to run in front of King Ahab and guide him back to his palace.
May the good Lord recompense you for your king deed!
It should be noted here on this blog that Mr. Samojluk has held down a rather rational composure in spite of him receiving some personal attacks for holding such a position. Although I would readily disagree with his WO views, that support factional rebellious action against the world church for a minor issue like unbiblical WO, I would wholeheartedly concur that the practice of abortion is clearly in violation of the sentiments and mandate of the sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” All humans start out as living cells and whether culturally correct or not, to abort is to kill. Arguing that natural abortions are evidence that it is ok to kill the unborn; or asking one to show how many babies one has adopted are beside the point and are really baseless strawmen used in order to just create diversion in this discussion.
On another point I would however disagree with Mr. Samojluk regarding his position in blaming the Church for the actions of abortionists. There is no concrete evidence that Pastor Neal Wilson or Pastor Ted Wilson have been advocates of abortion. Our Church statement is clear on this issue. Those who choose to exercise their woman’s right by choosing to abort, do so at their own peril and do so based on a very unclear secular definition of what constitutes human life and when one is accepted as human. This would usually occur in situations where believers opt for a humanist or evolutionist approach to such questions and purposefully leave God out. Somehow the excuse of an imperfect world hardly meets sufficient credibility to warrant the callous act of abortion on demand.
Lastly, in this discussion and others also, it is quite clear that Mr. Samojluk is being ridiculed for taking an admirable stand against abortion. I would support him on this one, however, perhaps the case against Abortion should be dealt with separately from the Pro-Life position: only in the best interest on the unborn of course. This, in my opinion, will at least gain more support against abortion.
The church has consistenly advocated against sin. But since the Inquisition and burning at the stake for those who disagreed with the church's teachings, it has refused to engage in anything more than words. This is a very wise decision and all the advocates for other methods to halt what some feel is sin, is wasted as condemnation has never been the best method to change hearts and minds. But it gives the advocates such a self-righteous feeling of "standing up for right," that we shouldn't dissuade them from their chosen path.
I totally agree with the Decalogue command, 'Thou shalt not kill' – of course. However, to be technical I believe most modern scholars translate it 'Thou shalt not murder' ('murder' is how the NIV, NASB and NRSV translate it).
There is arguably a very big difference being 'murdering' and ‘killing’; otherwise, God Himself would be sinning when He next commanded those same Israelites to make war with their neighbours, or when God prescribes capital punishment – as Elaine notes. God even commanded the killing of women (presumably including pregnant women), young babies and children – yes children and babies – of the Canaanite nations (1 Sam. 15:3). This is nothing short than God-sanctioned abortion!
How do you then deal with God's command to kill Canaanite children and babies? As soon as you say 'but' (as in ‘but that was a special situation re the Canaanites) you simply prove our point – life is a little more complicated than your cookie-cut view.
We can all agree on an eternal moral principle such as 'thou shalt not murder', but how that principle is applied in specific examples is a little more complicated. It is neither moral or biblical or practical to say that abortion is ‘murder’ contrary to the Decalogue in all instances. Prove it to me otherwise with biblical texts!
I would be interested to know. Those of you who are anti-abortion in all instances, and think the State should intervene to protect unborn children from dying regardless of extreme circumstances, do you support your the US and the US military? Do you at the same time support the right of the State to launch drone attacks or wage war in situations where children and pregnant mothers die as collateral damage? Do you think that the US should have no military whatsoever?
I for one live in the real world and realise that nations do need militaries, which do need to engage in war fighting activities (and I am even an ex Army officer and continue to support the troops). Like Paul in Rom 13, I realise the State deserves my taxes for that very purpose. But isn't a little hypocritical to think the State is morally obliged to protect unborn fetuses (even single-celled embryos) of US citizens as it goes about killing the very live children of other countries?
Wouldn't that also be contrary to your views of the Decalogue, and are you as passionately anti-war as you are anti-abortion? I only raise this because the same people who tend to be fanatically anti-abortion seem to be pro-military – go figure?
Putting God on the Dock for the directive to destroy certain enemies of Israel may make good discussion for some but it isn’t salient to the premise of this blog (in my opinion) which questions why the church seems to major in the minors i.e. WO – whilst knowingly winking at abortions at a few of our hospitals. One can also ask the same in return, requesting Scriptures, as evidence for such a directive from God supporting the premeditated ‘termination’ or ‘discarding’ of human life which abortion readily qualifies as.
It is also a fact that WO has made such a hoo-hah of late in some circles yet a very relevant issue like abortion is not even given a back seat. The disdain Mr. Samojluk receives for raising this topic is ample proof of this. I think that’s majoring in minors. I would also add that women have somehow been misinformed and duped into thinking that their offspring aren’t human beings by the intentional use of terms that define the unborn as non-entities, even though they are living, growing and developing humans. Another point to consider is why abortion would be legalized even before we can actually have a proper understanding of what constitutes human life. Why the rush for abortion (and WO)?
Justifying abortion by citing warmongering on the planet is not a fair comparison. I think there is a difference.
Abortion has been legal in many countries for almost 50 years, and women's ordination in our church was first proposed over 100 years ago, and other churches have been ordaining women for longer than that. In current times, the recommendation to move to orddaining women was first made in the early 1970s. Hardly a matter of 'rushing'. It is quite possible, even probable, that we haven't given either topic as much thought – in depth or breadth – as we should have, but lack of time is hardly the explanation for that.
Good avoidance of my question – I take it as the highest compliment, because it shows you don't really have an answer. It was you who said:
"I would wholeheartedly concur that the practice of abortion is clearly in violation of the sentiments and mandate of the sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”"
I merely showed that was faulty logic, because it really is 'thou shalt not murder', and abortion is not necessarily 'murder', just as what constitutes 'murder' is quite complicated when one considers biblical injunctions to make war and support capital punishment.
As to your attempt at deflection, no one is criticising Nic for raising the topic of abortion, which I think every agrees is a serious issue worth discussing. The point is why are now discussing the issue, the very thing Nic wanted; however, we are just disagreeing with his arguments and conclusions on the issue. Just because we think Nic raises an important topic worth discussing doesn't mean we have to agree with his views on that topic!
22oct1844,
You wrote: “I would wholeheartedly concur that the practice of abortion is clearly in violation of the sentiments and mandate of the sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” All humans start out as living cells and whether culturally correct or not, to abort is to kill.”
Thank you for agreeing with me on this fundamental principle which is so evident in Scripture.
You said: “On another point I would however disagree with Mr. Samojluk regarding his position in blaming the Church for the actions of abortionists.”
The church is not to blame for the actions of others. Sinning is an individual decision, nevertheless the person who leads others into sin is not blameless. The fact that our church began offering abortions on demand back in 1970—three years prior to the legalization of abortion in the U.S. mainland–is well documented in Adventist literature. How do you justify this?
You wrote: “There is no concrete evidence that Pastor Neal Wilson or Pastor Ted Wilson have been advocates of abortion. Our Church statement is clear on this issue.”
This is partially correct. There is no evidence that Ted Wilson has advocated elective abortion. But he has done nothing to my knowledge to include abortion as something to be repented of. He did advocate the need for revival and reformation. His efforts have been in other areas like his emphasis on creation and the wide distribution of “The Great Hope” book.
I did talk to him in person regarding the issue of abortion before the publication of my book about this topic, and he offered to help me secure some abortion statistics. I have written to him since then and I ordered a copy of my book as a gift for him to no avail. A year and a half has gone by and I have received no response–not even an acknowledgment of my letters nor the receipt of the book.
Now in reference to Neal Wilson, the story is different. I have two witnesses who heard him publicly justify the church’s involvement with the abortion business as follows: “If the church does not take advantage of this opportunity to make some profit, others will.” Here is how one witness deescribed the event:
“It was almost 30 years ago, so I cannot remember exactly the wording, but we attended a forum on a Sabbath afternoon at the Collegedale SDA Church. Neal Wilson was taking questions from the audience and someone asked him why our SDA hospitals perform abortions?
He responded back that the women were going to obtain the abortions somewhere, so we may just as well make the money off them as someone else make the money. We were shocked. We didn’t even know that our SDA hospitals did abortions and then to hear this from the Presidents own mouth! We never looked at the Church the same again.
“An Open Letter to Ted Wilson” The Narrow Way Ministries.
http://www.thenarrowway.yourlivecommunity.com/an-open-letter-to-ted-wilson-gc-president_topic1465_page15&SID=3112825f-be64-3861e2ad-aaea6ab9-1c6372b5.html on 25 Oct. 2006.
In addition, when the State of Hawaii legalized the killing of the unborn, Neal Wilson publicly stated the following:
"Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean toward abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population."
George Gainer, The Wisdom of Solomon? Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 38-46.
Following his declaration, five of our hospitals took advantage of this loophole and began offering abortions on demand in direct violation of God’s command and in violation of the church’s policy against elective abortions.
My view is that the revival and reformation advocated by Ted Wilson should include a public confession of our sin and a request for God’s forgiveness. A few years ago, our German and Austrian Adventist leaders did publicly apologize for the church’s cooperation with the Nazi regime while the genocide was taking place. We need to do the same about our role in the legalization of abortion in the U.S.
Elaine,
“The church has consistenly advocated against sin. But since the Inquisition and burning at the stake for those who disagreed with the church's teachings, it has refused to engage in anything more than words. This is a very wise decision and all the advocates for other methods to halt what some feel is sin, is wasted as condemnation has never been the best method to change hearts and minds. But it gives the advocates such a self-righteous feeling of "standing up for right," that we shouldn't dissuade them from their chosen path.”
You have just condemned the activities of the biblical prophets and the testimony of John the Baptist. Did John loose his head for his silence on moral issues of the day?
Stephen,
You wrote: “There is arguably a very big difference being 'murdering' and ‘killing’; otherwise, God Himself would be sinning when He next commanded those same Israelites to make war with their neighbors, or when God prescribes capital punishment – as Elaine notes.”
Yes, the basic difference between murder and killing is as follows. Killing is a general term referring to the taking of human life; murder is a specific type of killing which involves the killing of an innocent human being. What the Decalogue forbids is murder. The death penalty is not included here.
You also said: “God even commanded the killing of women (presumably including pregnant women), young babies and children – yes children and babies – of the Canaanite nations (1 Sam. 15:3). This is nothing short than God-sanctioned abortion!”
Yes, and he totally destroyed the pre-flood generation of human beings whose thoughts were continually towards evil. God will do this again at his second coming. We have no right to argue with God. He has rights which have not been granted to us. Our wisdom is extremely limited; his is not!
You added: “It is neither moral or biblical or practical to say that abortion is ‘murder’ contrary to the Decalogue in all instances. Prove it to me otherwise with biblical texts!”
I can think of one valid exception: When the life of the pregnant woman is in serious danger. I believe that saving one life instead of loosing two is still pro-life. I remember the case of a Polish pro-life woman who was warned by two physicians that she had no chance of surviving her pregnancy. She refused to follow the advice of the experts and both she and the unborn baby perished leaving her other children orphans.
But in the case of abortions on demand, I think that our moral duty is clear. Elective abortions are condemned both by the Adventist Church and by the Bible.
This is why the behavior of our church is an enigma to me: How can we with a straight face condemn elective abortions and on the other justify profiting from what we condemn?
Stephen,
You wrote: “I would be interested to know. Those of you who are anti-abortion in all instances, and think the State should intervene to protect unborn children from dying regardless of extreme circumstances, do you support your the US and the US military?”
I am not in said category. I believe that when the life of the pregnant woman is in serious danger, saving one life instead of loosing two is still pro-life.
Now regarding killing in time of war, it all depends on what kind of war we have in mind. I believe that the U.S. intervention against Hitler was probably justified. Had not our country acted in the defense of Europe, we would probably speaking German now. Our intervention was prompted by our desire to protect those who were being unjustly attacked by Hitler.
You also asked: “Do you at the same time support the right of the State to launch drone attacks or wage war in situations where children and pregnant mothers die as collateral damage? Do you think that the US should have no military whatsoever?”
This is a tougher question. I will simply limit myself to point to the fact that killing in what is described as collateral damage should not be confused with the intentional and targeted killing of innocent human beings. In the case of abortion the aim is to kill an innocent human being. It is not equivalent to collateral damage.
You said: “But isn't a little hypocritical to think the State is morally obliged to protect unborn fetuses (even single-celled embryos) of US citizens as it goes about killing the very live children of other countries?”
Killing unborn babies to protect the lifestyle of a woman or the lifestyle of a sexual predator is wrong regardless of the collateral damage connected with a war on terror. Those two cases should be judged independently from each other. If collateral damage is wrong, this would not make abortion on demand right.
You ended with: “Wouldn't that also be contrary to your views of the Decalogue, and are you as passionately anti-war as you are anti-abortion? I only raise this because the same people who tend to be fanatically anti-abortion seem to be pro-military – go figure?”
I have no time to be passionate about every evil behavior. In medicine physicians are forced to specialize in only a small portion of the wide medical field. When a doctor chooses to specialize in cancer, he cannot at the same time be an expert in every other medical field. I had to make a choice, and I chose to do something for the unborn for the sake of the unborn and for the sake of my church.
Ask Nic about the weather and expect such a reply: "It's too bad that on a sunny day as this, thousands of babies are being aborted."
What would be wrong if one were to say that?
Did I say it would be wrong? It would only indicate a one-track somewhat disconnected from reality. If you check the TV for weather report do you expect to get a recipe for cookies? If so, then you may also have a similar delusion of reality.
You implied that it would be wrong or inappropriate to say the least. The reality is that thousands of babies are being aborted (and yes, even on sunny days too). To call this approach to fight abortion a delusion or disconnect from reality is incorrect in my opinion unwarranted; especially since he didn’t even say that in the first place. Some have suggested doing things like caring for unwanted babies and pregnant teens in distress which may have its place – but very few are saying what really needs to be said: stop abortion first – then…do whatever. That is a rather odd considering that it may very possibly be tantamount to murder from what I can see.
Common courtesy makes it inappropriate to inject one's favorite topic regardless of having no connection with the main converation without apparent relevancy to topic of the essay on Unity and Uniformity. How abortion is applicable to the article was a segue by the author into his favorite disagreement with the church.
Can you explain how abortion is connected to unity and uniformity?
The author suggests that the church wants uniformity first on certain issues like WO and raises the query: then what about taking a position on abortion as also a part of such uniformity? Whilst I don't particularly agree with the arguments and methods used in favour of WO, or accusing the church for advocating abortion (although the fact is that sadly some of our hospitals are aborting), I certainly agree that WO it is a minor issue compared with abortion. His first lines introduce his topic quite clearly and the rest explain the connection.
You may be new to this forum, but some of us who have been here for a number of years are familiar with Nic's hobby horse; which is why we are never surprised that, no matter the subject, abortion will be introduced.
No one, nor has Nic, furnished any data on abortions currently being performed in SDA hospitals, but the hospitals are there to serve the public, not act as judge or jury, and the last time I looked, abortion is still legal in every state.
To repeat: Nic is appealing to the wrong audience. If he wishes to pursue his campaign he should direct his attention to the hospitals where he believes abortions are being done. I doubt it will be effective.
22oct1844,
You wrote: “The disdain Mr. Samojluk receives for raising this topic is ample proof of this. I think that’s majoring in minors.”
Thank you for your comments. They are greatly appreciated!
Stephen,
You wrote: “I merely showed that was faulty logic, because it really is 'thou shalt not murder', and abortion is not necessarily 'murder', just as what constitutes 'murder' is quite complicated when one considers biblical injunctions to make war and support capital punishment.”
My personal view is that the meaning of murder is not really complicated. We need to differentiate killing from murder. Killing is a general term related to the taking of human life, while murder is the intentional targeting and destruction of innocent human beings.
The war ordered by God should not be confused with the intentional targeting and destruction of innocent unborn children. What God ordered should not be confused either with what God has forbidden. The sovereignty of God should not be questioned.
He did create human beings and he has the right to destroy them when they reach a certain degree of evilness. The classic example is the Flood. God will repeat this, this time with fire. We cannot use what he has done as an excuse to violate what he has forbidden. The experience of Adam and Eve is a vivid example of the results of disobedience.
You also stated: “Just because we think Nic raises an important topic worth discussing doesn't mean we have to agree with his views on that topic!”
Respectful disagreement is what these forums were created for. I actually need to thank those who have taken the time to express their views on this topic. Every time someone disagrees with a position I have taken gives me a chance to re-examine my views.
The opposition I have encountered throughout the years has forced me to dig a little bit deeper into the reason for my personal views. There are many things I have learned which I would never have discovered if everybody had decided to say “Amen” to what I have been presenting.
I take exception, though, when my character is questioned or maligned. Fortunately, such incidents are rather the exception than the rule.
Timo,
You wrote: “Nic, we have been around this block before. Citing essentially what is hearsay-and admittedly 30 years of bad memory ago-as evidence that our present president is pro-abortion is unsupportable.”
Are you perchance confusing “hearsay” with the “testimony” of credible witnesses? My dictionary defines “hearsay” as the “Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.”
What I submitted was the testimony of two individuals who were present at the meeting and who have testified to me about Neal Wilson’s statement. I do know these individuals and have never witnessed them fabricating events. For me they are credible witnesses and their testimony is credible, I believe.
I think that you are also confusing what Neal Wilson said with what was done by Ted Wilson. Did I say that Ted Wilson is pro-abortion? I said the opposite. When I asked him publicly in the city of Redlands over a year ago about elective abortions, he answered that the Adventist Church did not condone abortions on demand.
He even privately offered to assist me locate abortion statistics in Adventist hospitals. Unfortunately, he did not help me as promised. He is busy with other important issues, but he could at least have his secretary acknowledge the receipt of my letters to him and the receipt of the gift book I ordered for him.
In contrast to what Ted said and did, Neal Wilson did publicly state that our church was leaning towards abortion because there is much hunger and overpopulation in the world. Do I need to cite verbatim again what he said? This is documented in our Adventist literature.
You added: “As is your continued assertion that our churches "rushed in" and "murdered babies for purely financial gain".
Did I say that the church “rushed in” and “murdered babies”? Is this what I said, or is this rather your conclusion based on the historical facts? The facts of history is that when the State of Hawaii legalized abortion, our church did allow our Castle Memorial Hospital to offer abortions on demand. Why? For fear of loosing revenue!
We can’t deny the fact that profit was the main motivational factor in the decision to allow our hospitals to participate in the killing of unborn babies. Do you want me to document this? I have done this dozens of times, and I can do it again if you so desire. Are you proud of this? Should we not repent of this great sin against God and seek forgiveness?
Our church is not growing in North America! Why is this when our evangelists are baptizing new converts by the thousands in other countries where abortion is still illegal? Can God continue blessing our church if we fail to show signs of regret, contrition, repentance and confession?
You said: “BTW, what exactly was "our role" in the legalization of abortion in the US?”
I said this many times: We permitted our Adventist hospitals to offer abortions on demand three years before the killing of unborn babies was legalized in the U.S. mainland. This is evidence that we led the way in this profitable business.
Then you asked: “And what is "our role"-collectively as well individually-today, in caring for the unfortunate mothers to be with their tragically unwanted children?”
We need to offer as much support as needed. Some years ago a program like that was started in Loma Linda bearing the “Adventists for Life” name. The apathy and opposition to this program was so notorious that the leader of this program left the church, joined the Riverside Seventh Day Baptist Church, and relocated his ministry to the city of Hemet.
Some years later a young man took over that name and started a web site in which he stated that he supported all the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the church. His web site was taken down by the General Conference attorneys. The reason cited was that he was using the “Adventist” name without authorization.
Contrast this with what our Washington Adventist Hospital had been doing for decades: killing innocent unborn babies. The message I get from this is: If you dare to save the lives of unborn babies, you will get in trouble, but if you are engaged in profiting from abortion, the church will let you use the Adventist name without interference.
You also asked: “Should we be screaming bloody murder and marching, waving bloody placards and fueling incendiary language with more hate-or should we each be working in our neighbors lives, our co-workers lives, or through women’s health clinics to provide real love-and support for life-for these unfortunate babies and mothers?”
I like the second alternative. I have never participated in public demonstrations nor carried placards like the one you described. What I have been doing is appealing my Adventist brethren to repent of our support of the abortion industry.
Timo,
Such disdain for women seeking abortions is also vehemently expressed by Nic.
It is this knowledge: that "good" Christian girls are commiting a mortal sin by seeking abortions that led to just such a tragedy as you record above. What can you say in the face of such useless loss of life?
This is the education the church needs: not the institutional health industry that the SDA church has become (and the church really has no control over those policies), but in healing the sick and wounded, not in threatening the "sinner" with hell. Yes, the fundamentalist are still preaching hell, else why would a young girl take her life if she was unaware of the condemenation she would face with a baby out of wedlock! When death is to be preferred, the church has utterly failed.
Nic has little or no influence on the Adventist hospital network and should know that. It is SDA only in name and is not answerable to the church but to the public and the other forces outside the church. He's preaching to the choir, and the choir can't hear him. I fail to hear any love for the young girls for whom abortion appears to be the only choice. How is that different from the young girl's fundamentalist parents?
Not only is abortion a major issue with Nic, don't ever, ever give him your email address as he will continue to pummel you with his views. I know whereof I speak. In my dealing with email I discontinue sending if the receiver requests that I cease. Seldom does that happen, however.
Nic and his compatriots can talk on infinitum but many of us believe that abortion is a matter between a woman and her God. Many of us believe that abortion because of rape, incest and health of the mother are areas where there should be *no* legislation, particularly when it is in the first trimester.