A. Breaking the Long Silence

Following the 1992 publication of the book Abortion: Ethical Issues & Options, edited by David R. Larson, the Co-Director of the Center for Christian Bioethics of Loma Linda University; the Adventist press went into a long hibernating silence on this moral issue facing America and the entire world. Believe it or not, this silence was broken by John McLarty with the publication of his recent editorial in Adventist Today, in which he issued the following challenge to the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

·         Neither the Bible nor Ellen White gives detailed guidance regarding many contemporary moral issues: drug addiction, abortion, slavery, tobacco, obesity, income inequity, pornography, reproductive technology, environmental degradation, immigration policy. If the church is silent on these matters, we will become increasingly irrelevant.

In the same issue, Mc Larty included the leading article entitled "A Death in the Family," written by Gregory L. Hoenes, senior pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of Hollywood, and another one by Jim Miller, an independent scholar who graduated from Andrews University, bearing the title "Abortion and the Bible: A Caution." The magazine cover bears the picture of a developing unborn baby.

B. My Letter to Adventist Today

I was intensely surprised by this sudden turn of events after a decade long silence by the Adventist media on the subject, and I could not resist the temptation of writing to the magazine. Here is what I said:

·         Dear Editor, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that you had the courage to include two articles dealing with abortion, and a front page picture of a developing baby, in the latest issue of your magazine. For many years now, the church has been conspicuously silent on this life and death issue, for which reason I admire you for breaking this silence. I wish we would be as ready to discuss this problem as we are to talk about the sacredness of God's Holy Time. Is human life less sacred for God?

·         Your cover story, "A Death in the Family," written by Gregory Hoenes, senior pastor of the SDA Church of Hollywood, is quite thought provoking, but unfortunately draws the wrong moral conclusion. The fact that spontaneous abortion occurs naturally, is a non-sequitur for concluding that the intentional destruction of prenatal life is morally acceptable. Hoenes would not argue, I believe, that because some children naturally die in their sleep, that therefore a parent would be justified in intentionally suffocating a child with a pillow, thus imitating nature.

·         Your "Abortion and the Bible" article, written by Jim Miller, is well written and it reveals great erudition and scholarship, but it misses a fundamental point. Regardless of which interpretation of the Exodus 21:22-25 text you opt for, there is no valid conclusion we can draw regarding the issue of abortion in the 21st century. If the unborn were treated as property in the Old Testament, so were slaves and women. Are we to conclude that slaves and women are devoid of personhood today?

·         Going to the Old Testament to solve the moral issue raised by abortion is reminiscent of the theologians who justified slavery in the South a century and a half ago with the Bible in their hands. I wish my church would muster the courage to make a strong stand in defense of the unborn. In our official "Guidelines on Abortion," we describe prenatal life as a "magnificent gift of God," and then proceed to state that "God gives humanity the freedom of choice." Yes, we are free to kill even the President, but there are consequences to our free actions!

·         In our official SDA website we affirm that "prenatal life ... should be protected," and then go on to announce that "the church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins." Would it make sense for the U.S. government to declare that we are serious about protecting our borders, and then admit that we have decided not to define where those borders are? We seem to be eager to pretend we are pro-life, when in fact we are enamored with the pro-choice position on abortion. It is time, I believe, that we stop straddling over the life fence, and throw the weight of our influence on behalf of those destined to perish before they have a chance to take their first breath.

·         We have spent a lot of ink warning smokers about the dangers of the deadly tobacco habit, because it threatens to deprive smokers of a few years of their life, yet keep strangely silent about abortion, which deprives its victims of the entire span of their lives at its inception. It is high time that we reverse this mistaken course of action! Nic Samojluk, Editor SDA Forum.Com, www.sdaforum.com . I took the trouble of sending a copy of my comments to several readers of the SDA Forum, which I have been editing for the last seven years, and I received some responses, which I want to share with you:

C. Some Adventist Leaders Respond

Then came an e-mail from Dalton Baldwin, who recently retired from his teaching position with the Loma Linda University:

·         This is a good letter, Nic. I hope Adventist Today publishes it. Dalton. After this, I received a longer comment from James Londis, the Director of Ethics and Corporate Integrity Kettering Medical Center Network at Dayton, Ohio:

·         A short response to your note since a lengthy conversation is precluded by my schedule.

·         1. No Adventist I know favors "abortion." It is always a tragedy. And, if there are no good reasons permitting it, it is immoral. The kicker is in "no good reasons." That is the moral dilemma. Now, if you argue that from the moment of conception we have a "person" with an intrinsic right to life that cannot be overruled by any circumstance, then there is no way out of the dilemma. You let nature take its course. That is why the Roman Catholic position is logically tight. On the other hand, if you take the view (which most Americans do) that the moment of conception creates a person with a right to life that should not be overruled without strong moral justification, then you are implying that the "personhood" of the fetus with an intrinsic, non-overrulable right to life, does not exist until that fetus is separated from its mother's body. This allows a moral basis for aborting (actual case) a fetus (or unborn child if you like) in an 11 year old girl from India raped by her uncle. Her gynecologist feared that the pregnancy would kill her. If this case is a morally justifiable abortion, then we must work on what other cases would be justified, and try to isolate the principles and guidelines within which we would make our decision.

·         2. There is also a legal problem. Some pro life supporters want to make abortion illegal, equivalent to murder. This goes back to point one. If you do that, there is little or no room to resolve some of these true moral dilemmas. Furthermore, in the absence of a societal consensus, it would be unenforceable. And the rich would have the money to fly away, and the poor would not. So, the law has some restrictions on it, but not many. It is deemed too personal an issue for the legislatures and the courts to decide. 3. There is also a social issue. Run out of time however. Appreciate your thoughtful response to those articles. James Londis.

D. My Answer to James Londis

After reading with great interest the carefully crafted comments quoted above, I e-mailed the following answer to James Londis:

·         Thanks for your comments. As I consider the actual consequences of the legalization of abortion and the recent silence of the SDA church on the issue, I conclude that between the two extremes you have delineated so well, I am ready to pick the first one: let nature take its course. The gynecologist you made reference to was mistaken, I believe. Pregnancy is much safer than abortion. There are thousands of documented cases of botched abortions with dreadful consequences to women who were never warned of the risks associated with the choice of either poisoning or else dismembering their unborn child. I recommend to you the book Lime 5 Exploited by Choice, written by Mark Crutcher.

·         I wish the Pro-choice Pandora box had never been opened. Healthy unborn babies are deprived of life by the thousands; physicians, who were trained to save lives, are openly advertising late abortions on the internet with impunity; baby parts are sold for research purposes on the open market with top prices being paid for the best specimens; and we, the Remnant church of God, having the last message for a perishing world, have decided to remain silent while the genocide goes on.

·         A friend of mine asked Elder Loveless sometime ago why he never preached about the abortion problem, and he answered: "If I do that, some church members might be offended." This attitude illustrates, I believe, the general position of Adventist intelligentsia. Nevertheless, we tend to be very vocal about other issues like the Sabbath, health, and doctrine. Do you believe that health, and worshipping on the correct day of the week, is of more concern to God than the merciless killing that is taking place inside American abortion clinics?

·         Fortunately, there are a few exception among SDA leaders. I will cite one example: John McLarty, who argued in his last editorial found in Adventist Today that "neither the Bible nor Ellen White gives detailed guidance regarding many contemporary moral issues: drug addiction, abortion, slavery, tobacco, obesity, income inequity, pornography, reproductive technology, environmental degradation, immigration policy. If the church is silent on these matters, we will become increasingly irrelevant." I believe that he is right.

·         Every time I participate in the distribution of Pro-life literature in nearby communities, I have the pleasure of meeting committed Christians of many denominations: Catholics, Evangelicals, Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals. I have yet to see any Adventists interested in performing this type of saving ministry. Why is this so? Because we have chosen to remain silent, while the enemy, the one who has been a murderer from the beginning, reigns supreme over the dormant conscience of God's people. May the Lord have mercy on us! Nic Samojluk, Editor SDA Forum.Net "www.sdaforum.net" [now better known as www.sdaforim.com ]

E. Comments from Johnny Ramirez

I want to add one additional response I received from Johnny Ramirez, who holds, I believe, a teaching position with the Loma Linda University Faculty of Religion.

·         Dear Editor, Why should the church answer all questions, ethical, doctrinal or otherwise for each member? Who would decide which issues to address? Why should the church "have a position" regarding abortion and so many other issues? It is obvious that some feel a need for answers to questions that are meant to be personal and local not global, but a church is not a place to think for you, it is a place to learn about principles, not rules. Give me a church that talks about principles and let people apply those principles via family and local community efforts.

·         Follow the "Guidelines on Abortion" that the GC voted some time back, they provide a good model to apply at a personal/family/community level. "The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships. " Johnny Ramirez.

F. Conclusion

I would like to conclude with my answer to Johnny Ramirez, which includes the original statement from John McLarty I quoted at the beginning:

·         Thanks for writing! I do not consider the intentional and premeditated destruction of human life as a personal, and private matter. The sacredness of human life is protected by the same Decalogue that designated the Sabbath as God's Holy Time. Jesus stated that "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," which implies, I believe, that human life is at least as sacred as the Sabbath. The church has utilized a ton of ink with the objective of warning the world about the sacredness of God's chosen day of rest. If we need to be silent about abortion, then there is more reason for us to be silent about the correct day of worship. Likewise, we should also be silent about issues like tobacco and health. Addiction to smoking deprives a person of a few years of life, while abortion deprives and innocent baby of the total span of life.

·         There is no reason to be concerned about the danger pregnancy poses to the mother, since there has never been a time when society has prevented physicians from saving the life of the pregnant woman in the extremely rare event when the pregnancy placed her life in danger. Experience has shown that pregnancy is much safer than abortion. I recommend to you a book written by Marck Crutcher entitled Lime 5: Exploited by Choice, in which the author lists thousands of cases where a botched abortion caused irreparable damage and even death to unsuspected victims of the highly lucrative abortion trade.

·         I would like to submit to you the opinion of the Editor of Adventist Today, who stated the following in his latest magazine editorial regarding the silence of the church about abortion and other highly relevant moral issues society faces today: neither the Bible nor Ellen White gives detailed guidance regarding many contemporary moral issues: drug addiction, abortion, slavery, tobacco, obesity, income inequity, pornography, reproductive technology, environmental degradation, immigration policy. If the church is silent on these matters, we will become increasingly irrelevant. May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry! Nic Samojluk, Editor SDA Forum.Com. www.sdaforum.com . 

April 10/2002