Quote:

Steed: We live in a world of obvious injustice and moral challenge. Is the Seventh-day Adventist Church committed to dealing with such issues as abortion, the environment, pornography, immorality, despotic regimes, and so on? Do our orientation to heaven and the soon-coming Savior put these imperatives in a different order? Paulsen: Of course! When you read the Old Testament prophecies of Isaiah, for example, it’s very clear that God cares for things such as justice and helping the poor. God cares for these things. It’s not because we say “Well, that’s in the Old Testament.” No, it’s fundamentally the way God looks at our condition. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has a responsibility to play a role in the quality of life we should experience here and now. I believe in that. We don’t live in another world. Ours is the one in which we live here and now. And I believe we have a responsibility for morality; I believe we have a responsibility to make our voice heard in dealing with issues that governments decide will impact morality and social life. And I believe we have a responsibility for protecting the environment. This is part of our agenda as a faith community, in the interest of our common humanity. It seems to me that we should be distinguished by crying out against injustice and sin. We shouldn’t just accept the status quo because we know this world will pass away someday. We’ve clearly lost some opportunities. [4]

Based on Paulsen’s response, it is difficult to determine his position on abortion. If he had in mind the killing of the unborn when he used the phrase “crying against injustice,” then we might be tempted to think that he is pro-life; but in the event his reference to “quality of life” was connected with the same issue, then we might conclude that he is pro-choice.

Nevertheless, Dr. Paulsen made another statement regarding this topic in connection with his visit to the Philippines for the celebration of the centennial of the church in the 7,100-island republic on March 2 to 5, 2005. He is reported to have met with Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, lauded Pope John Paul II for pursuing a sustained advocacy for peace, and stated that Adventists “are pro- life and definitely against abortion. However, they favor ‘planned parenthood.’ [5]Couples should determine the resources at their disposal for a responsible parenthood.” Now compare this statement by Paulsen with the following report by Teresa Beem, who participated in the committee that voted on the church’s Guidelines on Abortion:

Quote:

Several weeks ago, I called Jan Paulsen's office to see if there was any update on the church's position. Though President Paulsen was not there, his secretary assured me that the pro-choice position had not changed. She then advised me to get the "official" word from Dr. George Reid, head of the Biblical Research Institute. I was shocked at his admission that the church was indeed pro-choice. I told him that I was speaking at an ethics class, taught by Pastor Bill Kilgore at Southwestern Adventist University and needed a quote. He said "Adventist are pro-choice but under strict guidelines." He then went on to say that each Adventist hospital could choose to accept or reject the church's guidelines. Some Adventist hospital performed many abortions. He even said, "Washington Adventist Hospital in Tacoma Park has become an abortion mill." [6] That he would openly state this knowing that I was going to quote him stunned me. Up until this point, the officials in the church had always denied being pro-choice. It dawned on me that even my conscience had been insulated by the ambiguity of the church. Now the church was openly admitting its support of abortions-on-demand directly and indirectly. [7]

If we add to this what we find in the official Guidelines on Abortion, [8] then the dissonance between Paulsen’s claim and the evidence we find elsewhere become apparent. It is true that said guidelines include impressive pro-life assertions:

Quote:

“Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life;” “Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons;” “Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness;” “abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church;” “Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God;” “God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God’s creation and the object of His redeeming love;” “God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction;” And, “God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed. [9]

Nevertheless, the force of these pro-life statements is neutralized by many other statements in the same official church document that clearly emphasize personal freedom, individual conscience, exceptional circumstances, and freedom of choice. They also include the argument that Jesus died to make us free: “God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.” If Jesus died in order to grant women the freedom to take the life of their children, then all the lofty pro-life statements preceding this incredible declaration are not worth a dime.

*Jan Paulsen’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


An Openly Pro-Life SDA Church?
by Nic Samojluk

John Brunt is the senior pastor of the Azure Hill Seventh-day Adventist Church in Grand Terrace, California. In the official web site of the church we find the statement quoted below. It is unlikely that Pastor Brunt would have such a clear statement on the sacredness of human life if he were a pro-choice individual. The question is: Did he alter his position on this issue? In chapter VII of this study John Brunt was labeled as pro-choice. The below-quoted paragraph on the web site sponsored by his church seems to indicate the opposite. The author of the present study has requested a confirmation of this apparent shift in his position regarding abortion. Hopefully, he will clarify his position before this work is published. Here is the pro-life statement on his church’s website:

Quote:

What does God say about the life and personhood of a fetus? People have worth and identity before they are born. It's in the Bible, Jeremiah 1:5, NIV. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." God is at work in a person's life while he is in the womb. It's in the Bible, Psalm 139:13-14, NIV. "For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well." God's commandment forbids the taking of life. It's in the Bible, Exodus 20:13, NIV. "You shall not murder." [10]

John Brunt did respond, but only to confirm his previous pro-choice position on abortion. Here is his answer: “I wasn't aware we had such a statement on our site. It is quite possible since we use a service that has common material for all churches that use it. I tried to find it, however, and couldn't. Could you please tell me how to get to it? I personally subscribe to the statement put out by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. John.”

This clarified the mystery. He had no idea such a pro-life statement was on his church’s web site. He also stated that he agrees with the pro-choice position found in the official “Guidelines on Abortion” adopted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. [See Chapter IX of this study.]
Here is the answer Nic Samojluk sent by E-mail to Pastor Brunt:

Quote:

Here is the Internet link to your church's pro-life statement: http://www.azurehills.org/index.php?option=com_na_bibleinfo&task=topic&bi_id=1 I had assumed that you were behind said pro-life statement. The official SDA "Guidelines on Abortion" justify abortion in the case of rape, incest, malformation, and serious threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman, which fits the pro-choice position on the issue. The moment society allows a health exception; it opens the door wide for abortion on demand. Pro-life individuals believe that human life starts at conception, and that the unborn are entitled to life regardless of size, location, physical condition, and circumstances of conception. They are of the opinion that if the guilty rapist is entitled to life, so much more the innocent victim of rape has the same right. Likewise, they are convinced that society has no right to kill the unborn baby just because the child is physically imperfect or is going to die anyhow soon after birth. The Adventist official guidelines on abortion also state that Jesus died to protect our freedom and our right to free choice. This is anathema to true pro-lifers. We are free to sin, but there are serious consequences if we choose to do so. Jesus came to free us from sin, and that we might have "abundant life." How can the unborn attain this abundant life if they are deprived of life before they have a chance to take their first breath? Jesus also said: "Let the children come to me. How can they do this if they are either poisoned or torn to pieces prior to birth?

*John Brunt’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


Is Abortion Always Wrong?
by Reinder Bruinsma

Reinder Bruinsma is the author of Matters of Life and Death [11]. He is a graduate from the University of London, and was pastoring a SDA church in the Netherlands at the time of the publication of his book. He dedicated an entire chapter of his work, “Is Abortion Always Wrong?” to the topic of abortion. Bruinsma believes that it would be improper to grant the early fetus the status of person; he rejects the notion that the sixth commandment condemns all abortions; he suggests that certain biblical passages seemingly attributing personhood to the unborn like Psalm 139, [12] Jeremiah 1:5, [13] and Psalm 51:5 [14] should not be interpreted in a literal manner; and concludes that if the Bible is silent on abortion, we should respect said silence.

Bruinsma ended his chapter with a reference to the official SDA “Guidelines on Abortion,” which he labels as “remarkable balanced and takes into account most of the issues that Christians need to consider.” His parting comment follows:

Quote:

As Christians believers we must seek to combine two fundamental values: a firm commitment to protect life, at whatever stage and whenever possible, and genuine respect and support for those who feel they have no realistic option but to seek and abortion. [15]

*Reinder Bruinsma’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


Why We Left: A Letter to Family and Others
by Teresa and Arthur D. Beem

Teresa and Arthur D. Beem [16] wrote a letter dated November 18, 2002 directed at the SDA community explaining the reasons they decided to leave the SDA Church. [17] You may remember that Teresa Beem was the author of Chapter 11, “The ‘Hard Cases’ of Abortion” in the book Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options edited by David Larson; and that out of the sixteen authors we analyzed in Chapter VIII of this study, she was one of the few Seventh-day Adventist writers who defended the pro-life position on abortion. The reasons for the Beems leaving the church are many, and the letter is rather long and exhaustive, but here are a few paragraphs where Teresa states the main reason she and her husband discontinued their membership in the SDA denomination:

Quote:

These are the reasons we left the Seventh-day Adventist Church in descending order of importance: (For your convenience, at the end of the letter there are some exhausting, yet by no means exhaustive, texts on which we base our theology.) Some Adventist hospitals perform abortions-on-demand. At least one that I have personally investigated does partial-birth abortions. In 2000, I (Tesa) called the General Conference about the abortion issue. Jan Paulsen's office directed me to Dr. George Reid to get the official church policy. Reid stated that the church is pro-choice and that he was disappointed that the "Washington Adventist Hospital had become an abortion mill." Please note that I am quoting him. Arthur and I have been involved with the Adventists for Life since 1985. We have seen deception from our leaders and deliberate cover-ups attempting to appear neutral on this issue while SDA institutions are actively pro-choice. No more will be elaborated on this subject, as it is too lengthy to get into in this venue. However, the murder of innocent children cannot be swept under the rug of our consciences as a small sin. We will continue to educate the SDA membership about this problem but in a capacity that will not implicate us in this crime. [18]

On February 7, 2001, Teresa and Arthur wrote their official letter asking their local SDA Church located at Keene, Texas to remove their names from the church membership role. It is a long and quite detailed letter, but the main reason for leaving the SDA community is expressed in the following paragraphs:

Quote:

For many years, I have worried about my church. I am a fifth generation Adventist, Arthur a third. My great-grandmother began the first SDA Sabbath School in Oklahoma. My father is a pastor. My father-in-law is a pastor. I write for several Adventist publications and have taught in our schools. We were involved in children's Sabbath School and Children's Church for many years. Again, I write this only so you will know that this decision is one of calculated determination to follow Christ because my heart is breaking. I recognize that all churches are filled with the wheat and tares and no church will ever be perfect. The Adventist church is replete with wonderful Christians and has the precious message of the Sabbath. We have been blessed by being born into her culture. However, through prayer and study of scripture we find that its beliefs are not consistently in line with the Bible. The major issue that has compelled us to separate from Adventism is its lack of a stand against the murder of the unborn child. In its infancy, the SDA church was vehemently pro-life. James and Ellen White edited an article that stated that in the eyes of the Lord it was one of the most abominable things a woman can do. J. Harvey Kellogg was a leader in the turn-of-the-century movement against abortions. Yet by the late 1960's, our church had moved so far from its original stand that Neil [sic] Wilson, General Conference President at the time, was quoted in a major newspaper as saying that, "Although we [the SDA Church] ride the fence on this issue, we come down in favor of abortion because of the problem of overpopulation." In 1985, I spent the year researching the subject and became increasingly horrified that our church waffled on this issue. Not only are we pro-choice in theory but some of our hospitals perform abortions-on-demand. Because of this, I began the first Adventist Pro-life organization. I was invited to speak at the General Conference Abortion Symposium in 1988 at Loma Linda University. Jack Provonsha, Gerald Winslow and Richard Fredricks [sic] were also among the speakers. Selected speeches were then put in book form and published under the title of, Abortion Ethical Issues & Options, which can still be purchased through the Adventist Book Center. My speech, in its entirety, is one of the chapters. Later that year, I was invited to be among the voting members of a General Conference committee (chaired by Albert Whiting) that would recommend updated guidelines for the church on the subject of abortion. The guidelines that our committee revised became the 1992 official guidelines of the Adventist Church. David Newman (former editor of Ministry Magazine) and myself were the only two out of a committee of approximately twenty-five who wanted the church to stand against abortion. The meeting shattered my faith in our leaders for many reasons, but I will not elaborate on that. The guidelines, intentionally ambiguous, are at their root still pro-choice. We have remained active in trying to change the stand of the church since that time. Knowing that most Adventist's are pro-life and unaware of the church's stand, we had hoped that it would be only a matter of educating them and they would protest. Yet, I soon learned that the ambiguity in the guidelines left most members confused, inciting little enthusiasm in this cause. Several weeks ago, I called Jan Paulsen's office to see if there was any update on the church's position. Though President Paulsen was not there, his secretary assured me that the pro-choice position had not changed. She then advised me to get the "official" word from Dr. George Reid, head of the Biblical Research Institute. I was shocked at his admission that the church was indeed pro-choice. I told him that I was speaking at an ethics class, taught by Pastor Bill Kilgore at Southwestern Adventist University and needed a quote. He said "Adventist are pro-choice but under strict guidelines." [19] He then went on to say that each Adventist hospital could choose to accept or reject the church's guidelines. Some Adventist hospital [sic] performed many abortions. He even said, "Washington Adventist Hospital in Tacoma Park has become an abortion mill." That he would openly state this knowing that I was going to quote him stunned me. Up until this point, the officials in the church had always denied being pro-choice. It dawned on me that even my conscience had been insulated by the ambiguity of the church. Now the church was openly admitting its support of abortions-on-demand directly and indirectly. Ellen White says that we will be held accountable for the light we have been given. We are intimately aquatinted with the facts surrounding the SDA abortion guidelines therefore are obligated to act upon that light. Some have advised us to stay and fight for what is right. However, in the scriptures, Christ asks us to spread the gospel message not to reform an organization. If we are truly in the last days, our efforts are needed more urgently elsewhere. Many Adventists excuse the stance claiming that the church should not take a position on political issues. Yet, prophecy predicts that the Sabbath will become a political issue. What will the church do then? When worshipping on the seventh day is legislated against, will we waffle on that "political issue? Are our church's beliefs becoming so diluted that uncomfortable truths are hid as not to make us look weak? [20]

A recent exchange of E-mails between Nic Samojluk and Teresa Beem [21] resulted in additional information that is relevant to the objective of this investigation into the current SDA attitudes towards the practice of abortion and the development of the SDA Guidelines on Abortion:

Quote:

I saw and heard things from SDA leaders that would shock even the most pro-choice people. If I were to go public with the knowledge I have about how pro-abortion many of the SDA leaders are, (well, let me take that back, I don’t know just where many of the leaders stand today--I am referring to the leadership throughout the 60’s through the late 90’s) no one would believe it. Some things are so nightmarishly evil as to be incomprehensible. The problem is that if I were to tell you, there would be no way to verify my statements. Providentially, I was late to the first meeting of an abortion conference held to give recommendations for church guidelines on abortion to the executive committee of the GC. It was at Loma Linda in 1988 or 89. When I arrived a woman told me that they all had pledged that everything said in the meeting would be secret. I would NOT have taken that pledge and would not have been able to repeat the things I heard during the three days I spent there if God hadn't allowed my babysitter to be late. Albert Whiting was chairman. There were about 25 people; the only two being openly pro-life were David Newman (then editor of Ministry Magazine) and myself. There was a female GC lawyer there, also presidents of several unions overseas. I took careful notes, wish I knew where they were so that I could quote directly, but since I was six months pregnant at the time some of the statements were so shocking to me they made indelible prints on my heart and mind. The female lawyer said something very similar to, "We as Christians need to stop worshipping at the altar of family." Later when we were discussing the potential effects of wanton abortion and fetal tissue harvesting, she said, “We should feel OBLIGATED as Christians to become pregnant and abort the fetus to harvest organs if it will help children or adults who need them." She elaborated on that but I can't remember her exact words. Sitting there pregnant ... I just about lost my lunch. One morning for worship, an older black female (the name Rose rings a bell) gave the mini-sermon, which was about how the angel Gabriel came and asked Mary if she wanted to abort Jesus. It was outrageous . . . Her whole point was that if Mary had a choice, then God was pro-choice. Never once after the morning worship was a Bible consulted--not once during the entire conference did ANYONE bring up or read what the BIBLE said about abortion and here we were making recommendations about what the entire church and its hospitals can do on the subject. Actually, they also reminded me that the recommendations were NOT really about placing restrictions on Adventist hospitals, they were free to disregard the church's position if they wanted. These were only suggested guidelines. After three days of debate (mostly by pro-choicers) the vote on the guidelines was taken and only two voted against them--David Newman and myself. We recognized how the wording was carefully structured in order to make both sides think we sided with them. But at the core, the guidelines were very pro-choice. Then after the vote and CLOSING PRAYER, Albert Whiting asked all the theologians to come to the front to find biblical passages to support what the committee had already decided. I am willing to swear in court to the above statements. My heart was broken by that conference. My beloved church was infested at its highest levels by wolves in sheep’s clothings. Later when I was president of Adventists for Life, I listened to Adventist girls tell horrific stories of how their pastors and teachers sneaked them out of school and took them to have abortions (several without their parents' consent or knowledge). In Loma Linda, a senior med student told me that one abortion clinic run by Dr. Edward Allred, [22] a former Adventist who graduated at La Sierra, ran free shuttles between his clinics and Adventist schools and gave Adventist students discount abortions. I could go on and on but those are the things that stick out most clearly.

*Teresa & Arthur Beem’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Compassionate and Christian “Quality of Life” Ethic
by Richard Fredericks

Richard Fredericks wrote one of the strongest defense of the pro-life position on abortion at the time of the 1988 SDA conference entitled “Abortion: Ethical Issues and Options,” and his article was included in the book bearing the same title edited by David Larson. An Internet search yielded a short paragraph showing that he is no longer a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but rather the pastor of a non-denominational church at Damascus, Maryland. It is interesting to notice as well that out of the four Pro-life individuals whose articles were included in said book edited by David Larson, two of them have left the SDA church: Teresa Beem and Richard Fredericks.

Quote:

Richard Fredericks, former Adventist pastor and educator, is pastor of Damascus Road Community Church, a grace-based church near the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. [23]

To see why he is labeled as pro-life, see Chapters V and VIII of the present study. Nic Samojluk is trying to contact him in order to verify whether he still holds the same pro-life views about abortion, as well as discovering the main reason for leaving the SDA community of faith.

*Richard Fredericks position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Kathleen Jones

Kathleen Jones sent the following comments to the Editor of the Pacific Union Recorder in response to John V. Stevens’, Sr. defense of abortion:

Quote:

I cannot begin to tell you how horrified I am that a man on the Adventist Church payroll for 20 years, and no doubt receiving retirement benefits, would be so bold as to endorse abortion in a church paper [“Abortion Commandment” by John V. Stevens, Sr., Letters to the Editor, March 2006] How he can make the nexus between right to life and freedom of worship based on two of the 10 Commandments? “Thou shalt not kill” being the undoing of the right to keep the seventh-day Sabbath is a stretch. [24]

*Kathleen Jones’ position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by John V. Stevens, Sr.

Kathleen Jones was reacting to the following comments made by John V. Stevens, Sr. published in the Pacific Union Recorder:

Quote:

Many people view abortion as killing, therefore a Ten Commandments issue. However, nowhere in Scripture are we told that abortion is a crime, or killing, or even a sin. We have been subtly conditioned by religious propaganda from the fundamentalists. The abortion issue is the catalyst that will establish religion in our nation and then everything else will follow. Only two passages in the Scriptures deal with an induced miscarriage. Exodus chapter 21 treats the fetus as property and one causing the accidental miscarriage is required to pay a fine. If a fetus were a person, it would be a manslaughter charge. . . . We need to guard against letting our national religious culture change us, for a day is coming when Sunday worship and Sabbath desecration will be national religious culture with heavy penalties for non-conformists. [25]

For additional arguments advanced by Stevens justifying the killing of the unborn, see Chapter VII of this study. He argues that the Bible does not say that abortion is a crime. Pro-lifers would respond that since abortion entails the shedding of innocent blood and the destruction of innocent human life, then it follows that abortion represents a violation of the biblical injunction against those actions. [26] The reason for labeling Stevens’ position on abortion as pro-abortion is probably sufficiently evident.

*John V. Stevens, Sr. position on abortion: Pro-abortion.


Resignation Letter
by Dale Ratzlaff

Pastor Dale Ratzlaff is a conservative fourth generation Seventh-day Adventist who left the church when he discovered he could no longer support the SDA doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. He founded the Life Assurance Ministries, which ministers to former members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He quoted two former SDA authors we have already cited in chapter VIII of this study: Teresa Beem and Richard Fredericks, the two most outstanding defenders of the pro-life position on abortion whose articles were included in the book Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options, Edited by David Larson. Here is what Ratzlaff stated in 2003:

Quote:

Recently we posted the resignation letter of Arthur & Teresa Beem from Keene, Texas on our web site . . . One paragraph from their letter has caused much discussion. Several weeks ago, I called Jan Paulsen’s office to see if there was any update on the church’s position [on abortion]. Though President Paulsen was not there, his secretary assured me that the pro-choice position had not changed. She then advised me to get the “official’ word from Dr. George Reid, head of the Biblical Research Institute. I was shocked at his admission that the church was indeed pro-choice. I told him that I was speaking at an ethics class, taught by Pastor Bill Kilgore at Southwestern Adventist University and needed a quote. He said “Adventists are pro-choice but under strict guidelines. Some Adventist hospitals performed many abortions.” He even said, “Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park has become an abortion mill.” [27] Many Adventists do not seem to know how involved Adventist hospitals are in performing abortions. Several have asked that LAM address the issue of abortion from a biblical standpoint. We contacted Dr. Richard Fredericks, of Damascus Road Community Church, who prepared a paper on this topic when he was an Adventist theologian. This paper was presented at a symposium when the SDA church was deciding which way it would go: pro-life or pro-choice. We feel Dr. Fredericks’ paper, while presented some years ago, is up-to-date and relevant. Biblical truth does not change. While I am not personally involved with the abortion issue, as I read their paper, I was drawn to a better understanding of the gospel, radical discipleship, the need to reach out and help those in crisis pregnancies and the need to submit my life to the Word of God regardless of consequences. [28]

*Dale Ratzlaff’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


The Sacrament of Abortion
by Regis Nicoll

Spectrum published in 2005 an article entitled “The Sacrament of Abortion,” [29] authored by Regis Nicoll, in which he makes reference to a book with the same title by feminist and New Age author Ginette Paris, who argued that it is not immoral to choose abortion, because it is a manifestation of pagan morality based on the excuse that by choosing abortion the pregnant woman spares the unborn child a painful destiny. The killing of unborn children thus becomes a religious sacrament akin to the child sacrifices prophets warned the children of Israel to avoid. Towards the end of his article Nicoll makes the following comment:

Quote:

In contrast with those pagan notions, the biblical message is that all of humanity is sacred. Regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, infirmity, or state of physical or mental development, each person is imprinted with the indelible marks of her Creator. For the Christian, then, the abortion issue boils down to that of personhood. If life in utero is not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary; if it is human, then no justification is adequate. Perhaps in foreview of this modern dilemma, the Psalmist has provided the needed clarity for a culture infused with the doublethink of Planned Parenthood and neo-paganism: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” (Ps. 139:13)

Nicoll ended his article with the following statement: “It seems that the ancients understood that the life beating in the womb is more than a zygote, embryo, or fetus; it is a person, carefully and wonderfully shaped by his Creator.” [30] Based on these statements by Nicoll, it seems reasonable to place him in the pro-life category.

*Regis Nicoll’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


The Signs of Increased Wickedness
by Samuelle Bacchiocchi

Samuele Bacchiocchi held the position of Professor of Theology at Andrews University at the time of this writing. Back on July 29, 1999, he published a newsletter with the title “The Signs of Increased Wickedness,” [31] in which he discussed the effects of the sexual revolution on the American society and the world. Two of the topics he dwelt on the most were homosexuality, and abortion. Here are his comments about abortion:

Quote:

Abortion. Perhaps the most tragic consequence of the sexual obsession and permissiveness of our society is the appalling number of unborn babies being aborted in every country of the world. The increase has been facilitated by the legalization of abortion in many countries. In Denmark and Sweden, even minors can have abortions on request-without parental approval. The number of legal abortions performed in the United States is about 1.5 million per year. These constitute one fourth of all the pregnancies. In other words, in the United States, one of every four unborn babies is deliberately eliminated. Statistics from many countries are difficult to obtain, but the ongoing abortion debate in the world press indicates that abortion is becoming a serious problem in many countries. This incredible suppression of unborn children raises a disturbing question: How can such a thing happen in Christian countries such as the United States? An important answer is to be found in the prostitution of the divine gift of sex: a gift God gave to humanity to procreate and to enable marital partners to become symbolically one by expressing and experiencing total, exclusive, and mutual commitment in self-giving of themselves to one another. The sexual revolution has attacked this divine purpose for sex, promoting it instead as a means for self-gratification. Sexual partners, whether of the same or the opposite sex, whether adult or innocent children, are viewed as disposable objects needed to achieve momentary satisfaction. This "free love" philosophy has greatly influenced especially young people, many of whom have come to regard sexual intercourse as a socially accepted way to have fun. The shocking increase in premarital and extramarital intercourse has several tragic consequences. First, there is the terrible loss of the sacred meaning of the sexual act, a beautiful symbol of the total, unreserved self-giving and commitment of husband and wife to one another. This beautiful, sacred meaning is lost in promiscuous sexual relations. Second, there is the human anguish and misery of those who experience unwanted pregnancies. Over 1.1 million American teenagers become pregnant every year, causing them either to have abortions or to interrupt their education and to become a burden to their parents and society. Third, there is the tragedy of over 1.5 million unborn American babies killed every year, one third of whom are babies of teenagers. When one adds to this figure the many more million unborn babies aborted every year around the world, it is mind-boggling to think what price potential babies are paying for the irresponsible sexual conduct of millions of persons. It is evident that not all abortions represent irresponsible sexual behavior. There are cases such as incest, rape, or health which may make abortion the only viable solution. [32] How long, one wonders, will God allow this evil to continue? The Scripture reminds us that there is a limit to God's mercy (Gen 15:16). As the Lord brought judgment upon the wicked generations of Noah's and Lot's times, the signs of increasing wickedness just surveyed in this Bible study give us reason to believe that soon He will come again to execute judgment upon the evildoers [33] and to restore order, peace, love, and justice upon this earth.

As one reads the magnificent way he describes the ethical morass society has plunged headlong into following the sexual revolution, the strong conviction arises that this man of God must be pro-life, until one stumbles upon the exception he cites as a reasonable justification for abortion: “There are cases such as incest, rape, or health which may make abortion the only viable solution.” This exception actually is the main argument of those who defend the pro-choice position. We need to recognize that most of those who defend the pro-choice option are actually against abortion, but they allow certain exceptions such as rape, incest, and the health of the pregnant woman. Once a person allows for those exceptions, he/she has joined the pro-choice group.

This is precisely why the former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, vetoed the partial-birth abortion bill: He insisted that the health of pregnant woman must be allowed as an exception to any pro-life legislation. Of course, if society condones the killing of a baby by puncturing the brain of the fetus minutes before it exits the birth canal because caring for the baby might have a detrimental effect on the mental of physical health of the mother, then we have the door wide open for elective abortions all the way until delivery. The right of the unborn is sacrificed for the sake of the physical and mental welfare of the mother. In the case of rape and incest, the life of the innocent is crushed while the life of the criminal sexual predator is preserved. For this reason, we need to place Dr. Bacchiocchi among those who defend the pro-choice position.

*Samuelle Bacchiocchi’s position on abortion: Pro-choice.


The Heart of Freedom
by Shawn Boonstra

Shawn Boonstra is the It is Written Television Series speaker sponsored by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. On a recent televised interview bearing the title “The Heart of Freedom,” [34] Boonstra interviewed a lawyer with extensive expertise in religious freedom. The lively exchange between these two men seemed to reveal Boonstra’s position on the issue we are considering in this investigation:

Quote:

Shawn: So let’s get more specific about something. Let’s talk about some real issues, and these are not easy issues to talk about. But let’s talk about abortion, for example. Now, a lot of people are approaching the whole issue of abortion from a Christian, religious perspective. Maybe not even Christian--there are other religions that have issues with this whole abortion case. Do you think abortion should be outlawed or not? Is this something that falls into the realm of natural law or is this something that is just merely a religious belief and a religious preference? What about abortion? Kevin: Well, personally, I think that abortion should be, if not outlawed, severely restricted, compared to what we have in our society today. I come at that from a religious perspective. I am a Christian. I believe in the sanctity of life. I believe what God teaches about there being a human being at the time of conception. I believe all of that. But that alone isn’t necessarily a reason to implement it as law. What you’re talking about is a human life. There are many reasons to pass laws contrary to abortion that don’t derive strictly from the Bible. Shawn: I think that is an important point, because as we said before, you can’t go into a court of law and say, “Your honor, the Bible says …” Because that’s just not an argument the world is prepared to accept. And so if we have a fundamental belief that terminating the life of an unborn child is wrong, that there is an issue there, what does a Christian do? What are the principles that say, “Hey, this is something we ought to stand up against or this at least should be restricted,” as you were explaining. Kevin: I think science is with Christianity and other religions that are opposed to abortion on this issue. Because the more we understand about life before birth, the more we know that there’s a human being in there. And protection of a human being is something that is important in our society, quite apart from religious beliefs. Religious belief feeds into it, there is no question. And a lot of people are going to be opposed to abortion because of what the Bible teaches and that’s fine. And they should be allowed to express their views. But there are many good reasons to oppose abortion without necessarily referencing the Bible.

Shawn Boonstra seemed to be in agreement with the lawyer he interviewed that human life starts at “the time of conception,” that “terminating the life of an unborn child is wrong,” that before birth “there’s a human being in there,” and that the “protection of a human being is something that is important in our society.” These statements seem to support the idea that Shawn Boonstra believes in the pro-life agenda. [35]

*Shawn Boonstra’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


Another Openly Pro-Life SDA Church?
by Nic Samojluk

Charles White is the senior pastor of the Phoenix Camelback SDA Church in Phoenix, Arizona. The web site of the church displays what looks like a pro-life statement, which prompted Nic Samojluk to write to him. Here is the apparent pro-life statement, and Pastor White’s response explaining the reason for their web site statement:

Quote:

Abortion. What does God say about the life and personhood of a fetus? People have worth and identity before they are born. It's in the Bible, Jeremiah 1:5, NIV. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." God is at work in a person's life while he is in the womb. It's in the Bible, Psalm 139:13-14, NIV. "For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well." God's commandment forbids the taking of life. It's in the Bible, Exodus 20:13, NIV. "You shall not murder." [36]

This statement makes reference to the unborn as a “person” and it ends by connecting abortion with “murder.” Samojluk concluded that Charles White, the senior pastor of the Phoenix Camelback SDA Church must be pro-life, otherwise he wouldn’t allow a pro-life statement to be displayed so openly on his church’s web site. To his surprise, he received the following response via E-mail from the pastor:

Quote:

The SDA church does not take an official position on abortion and neither does the Camelback church. [37] What is stated in our website has to do with the value the Bible places on life. To become involved in what has become a "political" issue is not the business of the church. [38] It is important that the right of each individual to make choices in all arenas of life be affirmed by the church. Charles White

This statement contradicts what Teresa Beem was told by Jan Paulsen’s secretary and George Reid at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Both of them confirmed to Beem that the official position of the church on abortion is pro-choice. This can be also confirmed by a careful reading of the official “Guidelines on Abortion,” which sounds much like a pro-life document, until the careful reader discovers that these pro-life statements are effectively neutralized by pro-choice affirmations that clearly emphasize “personal freedom,” “individual conscience,” “exceptional circumstances,” and “freedom of choice.” [39] Notice that Pastor White affirms the “right of each individual to make choices,” which places him on the pro-choice side of the controversy. Samojluk sent to Pastor White the following response by via E-mail:

Quote:

Thanks for your response. I have written to Jan Paulsen asking for help on this issue, since the topic of my doctoral dissertation is the SDA position on abortion, and I am receiving conflicting reports about this. Teresa Been, who participated in the preparation of the "Guidelines on Abortion" in the nineties, recently contacted the office of Jan Paulsen and she was informed that the official position of the church is pro-choice. She was advised to verify this with George Reid, [40] which she did and got the same response. I hope Jan Paulsen will clarify this for me! May the Lord bless your ministry!

*Charles White’s position on abortion: Pro choice.


A Woman of Letters
by Beverly Whelton

Beverly Whelton, a member of the SDA church, became dissatisfied with the pro-choice position of the church and unable to continue worshipping with SDAs since she felt that doing so would imply endorsing their beliefs. She left the SDA church, and later on joined the Catholic Church. This experience was traumatic for her, and she wrote several letters to her relatives explaining to them the reasons for her action. In those letters, she clarified that her love for Jesus had not diminished when she left the SDA church, and that she found peace of mind within the Catholic communion. [41] Here is how she explained her experience in her own words:

Quote:

As you know, over the last several years, I found myself unable to worship within the Seventh Day Adventist setting. Their anti-intellectual attitude turned me off, in addition to their pro-choice position on abortion (communicated in the church paper, Review and Harold [sic], October 1992). While I rejected the Adventist faith, I nevertheless loved Jesus very much. My heart ached to go to a church, but I wouldn’t step into a house of worship unless I could be sure they had the full truth. When you worship in a church, you’re endorsing the beliefs of that body, and I couldn’t do that if I wasn’t sure those beliefs were right. Jeanette, I’d cry and cry and beg God to let me know the truth. I’d always pray the Lord’s Prayer - sometimes that was all I could pray. In my mind, I imagined Jesus on the cross, and I called out to Him. But I couldn’t go to church, because I didn’t know how to worship this beautiful God as He deserved. (Hear the pain and tears; I’m crying.) I knew Jesus must be worshipped in truth and holiness, but I didn’t know how. On April 11, 1993, I entered the Catholic Church, becoming a part of His very Body. Since then, I’ve finally known the joy of God-given worship. My Christ has continued to guide my life, and I will always rejoice in His Presence. Where the Eucharist is, He is. And where He is, I must be. [42]

*Beverly Whelton’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


The Puzzling SDA Apathy Towards the Plight of the Unborn [43]
by Nic Samojluk

The Plight of the Unborn. Never in the history of humankind have the lives of the unborn been at risk on such a mass scale. There is no question but that the womb, the sacred chamber God provided for the protection of the unborn, is today the most dangerous place on earth. [44] According to statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned Parenthood], the number of abortions performed per year in the U.S. since 1973 averages 1,560,198. [45] The statistics for the entire world is even scarier: Approximately 46 Million. [46] This surpasses by far any other cause of death, including wars. [47]

If car accidents, smoking, or cancer, were responsible for the deaths of such a large number of human beings, I suspect that SDAs would be demanding that something be done to put a stop to such a waste of human life. Half of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at or before the eight week of pregnancy; [48] which means that approximately 800,000 developing babies are denied the right to life each year at a stage when they look very human, with recognizable arms, legs, head and feet, as revealed by ultrasound pictures. [49] This is why when an abortion is performed, the nurse must account for all the parts of the dismembered baby to avoid serious health hazards for the mother.

Evidence of Our Apathy. Considering the fact that we claim to be “God’s remnant church on earth” possessing the “last message for a perishing world,” and keeping God’s Commandments, [50] it would be natural to expect that we would be in the forefront of the pro-life movement, because one of those commandments prohibits the taking of human life, [51] and because the Bible contains many similar injunctions prohibiting the “shedding of innocent blood”. [52] Can an abortion be performed without the shedding of innocent blood? It must be done before day 21 of pregnancy when most women aren’t even aware that they are pregnant! A decade ago I sent a donation to the General Conference and designated the funds as pro-life. The check was returned to me with the following note: “We do not have a pro-life program in our church.”

Our Puzzling Inconsistency. We have invested a significant amount of time and tons of ink throughout the years in defense of the Sabbath, and we have had an impressive health program and have helped thousands of smokers quit a habit that shortens their lives by four or five years. [53] Well, Abortion deprives the unborn of their entire life. Have you heard any pro-life sermons lately? How many pro-life articles have you spotted in our SDA publications in the last decade? The message we send to the world is: The Sabbath and extending the life of smokers by four or five years are important. The untimely death of our children before birth is not. [54] A friend of mine sent an E-mail to our local pastor asking why he never preached a pro-life sermon. The answer was: “If I did, some members might get offended.” If that is the case, then why preach at all? Can you imagine John the Baptist, Elijah, Jesus, or Paul saying that?

The Role of Our Guidelines on Abortion. Our official Guidelines on Abortion [55] include many lofty pro-life statements such as A. “Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God's ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God's image, and requires respect for prenatal life;” B. “Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church;” C. “God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction;” and D. “God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed.”

This is great! The problem is that these wonderful pro-life statements are neutralized and negated by others like: A. “Seventh-day Adventists want to relate to the question of abortion in ways that . . . reflect Christian responsibility and freedom.” B. “God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son.” Does the fact that we have freedom of choice mean that we have a blank check to take the life of the unborn with impunity? I am free to shoot at the president or the pope, but there are serious consequences if I do so.

This emphasis on our freedom of choice, places us as a church on the side of the pro-choice/pro-abortion group. I see in these statements the influence of our religious liberty leaders, which reminds me of one of them named John V. Stevens. On August 20, 1990, The Pacific Union Recorder published an article written by him in which he adamantly defended women's moral right to abortion. His main argument was that Jesus died to give us the freedom of choice and, by submitting to the cross, “Christ valued choice over life.” [56]

If that is the case, then perhaps Jesus also died to give rapists, burglars, child abusers, terrorists and murderers their freedom of choice! Contrast these statements with what James White wrote about abortion: “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”. [57] Some argue that Ellen White never wrote about abortion. After reading what her husband wrote, do you think she needed to add anything else?

The defenders of abortion also argue that the Bible is rather silent on abortion. Well, I have news for them: The Bible is also silent about slavery, genocide, and polygamy. Am I morally free to enslave others or have several wives? The Guidelines on Abortion call for the “protection of human life,” but “the church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins”. [58] Science does know when human life begins, [59] and other church organizations and political groups [60] do know this as well; [61] but we, the “Remnant Church of God” have chosen to ignore this! I ask: What good can calling for the protection of human life do if we decide to ignore when said life begins? Would it make sense for the president to order the border patrol to protect our borders and then admit that we do not know where those border lie? [61]

The Question of Personhood. Back in 1973, nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court deprived the unborn of personhood, thus making the way clear for the merciless killing of the unborn; and more recently, a renowned and highly esteemed Loma Linda University professor [62] published a book with the title What is a Person, questioning the personhood of the unborn. What does the Bible say about the personhood of the unborn? In Isaiah 49:1 we find the following statement: “The Lord called me from the womb.” How can God call a non-person to be his prophet?

We have a similar statement regarding another major prophet: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations”. [63] And regarding John the Baptist, the inspired evangelist Luke said: “He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb". [64] Is this applicable to a non-person? A similar statement is made by Paul: “But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb . . . [65] Does the Lord consecrate non-persons as his representatives on earth?

History has shown that the deprivation of personhood on a selective basis has been practiced since the dawn of civilization. For many centuries women, slaves, and members of specific ethnic groups have been legally stripped of personhood and subjected to abuse, torture, and even death. [66] The first step towards the enslavement or extermination of certain groups of human beings has been to deprive them of personhood. It took a civil war to restore the personhood of the American slaves, and a world war to restore the right to life of Jews. Do we need another civil war to restore the unborn rights to life? The defenders of abortion emphasize women’s right to freedom. How about the unborn’s right to freedom from unjust execution?

Are We Repeating History? By looking the other way while millions of unborn are deprived of life we are repeating history. Recently, the German and Austrian SDA leaders issued a public apology for our cooperation with the Hitler Nazi regime while the slaughter of the Jews was taking place. Unless we alter our indifference towards the unborn, I will venture to predict that we are doomed to apologize again at some time in the future for our apathy towards the plight of the unborn.

My Response to Jim Walters. [67] In his critique of my article, Jim Walters included some new issues and a couple of non-issues. The “Flat View of Human Life” and the threat to the life of the pregnant woman are non-issues. I have never equated the value of a single-celled entity with the moral value of an adult. There is a huge moral difference between shooting at the president and attempting to assassinate a burglar. The law distinguishes between first-degree and a second-degree murder. Manslaughter is not morally equivalent to murder.

Nature does kill with spontaneous abortions, floods, tornados, and earthquakes; while humans who imitate nature quite often end in jail or the electric chair. The Bible is silent on abortion; but it fails to condemn slavery, polygamy, and genocide as well; which means that the argument from silence is inappropriate. God allows for personal freedom, but there are serious consequences for misusing it. If we allow abortion on the basis of freedom, then why not allowing rape, stealing, and child abuse as well?

The image of God is more than “the power to think and to do.” It is also the power to do God’s will, and his will is that we love our neighbor. “God is love,” and this love prompted him to grant the human race a second chance. Abortion denies the unborn even the first chance on life, and punishes the innocent for the crimes or mistakes of others, which cannot be equated with a lesser evil. Nine months of inconvenience can never compensate for the total deprivation of life.

*Nic Samojluk’s position on abortion: Pro-life.


A Reader’s Opinion
by Ariel Roth

Quote:

I have not written anything about abortion that I can recall, and I know very little about the topic. I am against any kind of convenience abortion. My main questions lie in the area of defining the very first life. It is most simple to define it at fertilization, but life exists before that in the living sperm and egg that are potential life like a zygote is also potential life. However overproduction of sperm and egg is rampant. On the other hand, is the failure to implant involuntary manslaughter? In much of nature there is tremendous overproduction. Perhaps we need some clarifying concepts and definitions. Like most all church denominations, the SDA Church is drifting away from its original tenets. The Children of Israel did this repeatedly, so did the early Christian Church, and so have most recent major Christian denominations. Fortunately our salvation comes from our good God, and not our church affiliations.

*Ariel Roth position on abortion: Unknown.