Former SDA Religious Liberty

Leader Still Defends Abortion

                   by Nic Samojluk 

The Background. On August 20, 1990, The Pacific Union Recorder published an article written by John V. Stevens Sr., the Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director, titled Abortion Answers and Attitudes, in which he adamantly defended the women's right to abortion. His arguments were mainly based on human freedom. I will insert here a few quotes to illustrate his position:

Quote:

The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ valued choice over life ... Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do. (Education, page 170) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person ... Pregnancy, abortion, birth, life and death, can all be traumatic. Others have no authority over our consciences in regard to our response to life crucial events. The Holy Spirit is the only True Guardian of the conscience. To allow society--or the state--or the church--or even the family-- to replace the Holy spirit is to be guided by the spirit of the anti-Christ ... From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position.

Sixteen Years Later. Sixteen years later, John Stevens is still defending the practice of abortion with the same arguments; and in doing this, he reflects the thinking of many leaders, as well as lay people, in the SDA Church, as evidenced by the official document titled, Guidelines on Abortion. Recently, in the March 1, 2006 of the same SDA publication, he stated the following under the Title:

Quote:

Abortion Commandment? Having served the Pacific Union Conference for 20 years as PARL director, I naturally was interested in the Ten Commandments being written in the heart. Ten Commandments issues mentioned were “abortion, marriage, divorce and homosexuality.” 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. The other passage is the trial of jealousy in Numbers chapter 5. In that passage, the husband suspects his wife is pregnant by infidelity and God gave a law requiring the suspected wife to go through a procedure that causes an abortion if she is guilty and pregnant. If she is innocent, nothing happens to her. E.G. White never touched the subject in spite of the raging controversy on abortion in the latter 19th century. 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. John V. Stevens, Sr.

A Strong Reader's Response Such a statement by a renowned and widely respected former leader of the SDA church generated the following response by a church member who had a hard time believing what she was reading, plus the reaction of another SDA member who left the church as a result of Steven's comments:

Quote:

I left the Seventh-day Adventist Church almost 20 years ago and one of the troubling issues, then, was the position of the church on abortion ... The fact that the Recorder published John Steven's letter in 2006 is an indication that the church still hasn't taken a position to defend life in the womb. Jim Sconza

My Own Reaction. I was not shocked for the simple reason that I had read what Stevens had written back in 1990. His arguments defending the killing of the unborn were still fresh in my mind. My shock had taken place 16 years before his recent comments. His reasoning is based on the fact that there is no specific condemnation of the practice of abortion in the Bible, and the additional fact that we have no record of Ellen G. White ever condemning the barbaric practice either.

I have some bad news for brother Stevens: The argument from silence never worked in the past, and it will never work in the future either. Theologians tried to use it when the slavery issue was hotly debated prior and during the American Civil War. Slavery was outlawed in spite of the fact that we find no condemnation of this inhuman practice of enslaving fellow human beings. We could assert the same about the practice of polygamy.

Would Stevens dare to justify both slavery and polygamy for the mere reason that the Bible is silent on those issues? Besides, it is true that Ellen G. White never discussed the killing of the unborn, but her husband, James White, did; and he condemned the barbaric practice in the strongest possible terms, and Ellen never dared to correct him. Why? Because she was in agreement on the issue. Here is a sample of James White's position regarding abortion:

Quote:

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 subject 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 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, 1870]

Are We SDA's Doomed to Repeat History? Recently the German and Austrian leaders of the SDA Church issued a declaration apologizing for the SDA cooperation with the Nazi regime when six million Jews were being exterminated in Germany. Now another human genocide is taking place in America and around the world. Since 1973, when nine liberal and unelected Justices of the court decided to grant an open season for the unmerciful slaughter of the unborn, an estimated 45 million babies were denied the right to be born, and the SDA church is repeating the mistake of those German and Austrian SDA leaders six decades ago.

I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I will dare to predict that, unless my church wakes up to what is taking place, we will be doomed to issue in the future an apology for our indifference while the slaughter of the innocents was taking place.

Am I Misjudging My Church's Position on this Issue? You may think that I am misjudging the SDA position on this issue. If that reflects what you are thinking, then let me insert here a quotation from a well-known official church document:

Quote:

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. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse. [Guidelines on Abortion].

Does this statement sound familiar to you? I would almost bet that it was inserted at the suggestion of John Stevens, since it rephrases his argument in defense of abortion.

Freedom of Choice? Yes, with Serious Consequences! How do we answer this seemingly reasonable argument? Have we been granted freedom of choice? Of course, but there are serious consequences if we make the wrong choices. I am free to commit adultery, to rape women, to sexually abuse minors, and even to attempt an assassination of the president; nevertheless, there are serious consequences if I choose to engage in these immoral actions. I may end in jail, and even land on the electric chair. This John Stevens forgot to include in his defense of the inhuman practice of abortion. And I can say the same about the official position of my church. The leaders of my church may also have overlooked the following biblical statement:

Quote:

Rescue those who are being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? . [Proverbs 24:11,12]

John Stevens will probably respond that the unborn are deprived of personhood! Yes, slaves and women were also deprived of personhood centuries ago. Was that a good excuse for considering slaves and women mere property of their masters? If the unborn are not members of the human race, then perhaps Mary, who was single and already pregnant, should have aborted baby Jesus, since at that moment Jesus had not acquired the status of personhood and was thus subject to execution at the whim of her mother. Would she had been blameles if she had opted for abortion?

German and Austrian SDA churches apologize for Holocaust
http://sdaforum.com/page47.html

SDA Position on Abortion
http://sdaforum.com/page179.html

Guidelines on Abortion
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html?&template=printer.html

When does human life begin?
http://sdaforum.com/page53.html

I was alerted about John Stevens Comment by Hugo Schmidt.

Free Mailing List Club!

 

If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.