Who should we trust, Jesus or these Adventist leaders? “Abortion is a profitable business, and some Adventist physicians have become millionaires thanks to the current open season for the extermination of innocent unborn babies.

A few years ago it was reported in our official “Ministry” magazine that five of our Adventist hospitals were offering ELECTIVE abortions to their patients. Of course, “elective” means that there no evidence of any abnormality in the unborn baby. The only reason for the killing is that the woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and is not willing to carry it to term. What do you think? Should the killing of innocent babies continue in some of our Adventist hospitals? Jesus said:

“The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” [John 10:10]

When we engage in the destruction of human life, aren’t we doing the work of the one described in the Bible as the one who has been “a murderer from the beginning?

Now let us contrast what Jesus said with what some of our Adventist experts are now saying. I will start with a well known former Adventist leader:

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:

“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.”

Sixteen Years Later, John Stevens was 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: “Abortion Commandment?”

“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.”

Now let’s listen to what another renowned Adventist leader stated in connection with the legalization of abortion by the State of Hawaii four centuries ago:

“On March 17, 1970, Neal C. Wilson, the President of the North American Division made a public statement announcing that the church would neither promote nor support the legalization of abortion, with the following clarification: Though we walk the fence, SDAs lean towards abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted with big problems of hunger and over-population, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population. [35] On May of the same year the General Conference officers approved the Suggestive Guidelines for Therapeutic Abortions, but the plan to submit this to a vote by the 1970 General Conference session was dropped. [George Gainer, The Wisdom of Solomon? Spectrum 19/4 (May 1989): 38-46.]

And here is the opinion of a well known Adventist evangelist named Kevin D. Paulson. Here is a paragraph from an article he sent to me in which he defends the practice of killing unborn babies.

“Some Adventists seem to be forgetting this. Many are forming opinions about abortion, not from the study of Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy writings, but from listening to popular Christian leaders like James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Franky Schaeffer, and Bill Gothard. Sincere though they may be, these men espouse many theological errors and have no understanding of God’s truth for this time.” [http://sdaforum.com/page247.html

You can read his elaborate arguments in defense of the practice of abortion by clicking on the Internet link I provided above.

Let’s take a closer look at the text we cited at the beginning. Who is included in this reference by the Lord? The context indicates that Jesus was talking about human beings.

“The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” [John 10:10]

So my question is: Are the babies who have not been born yet entitled to this abundant life which the Lord promised to his followers? Do they belong within the category of human beings? If they do, how can they enjoy this abundant life if we deprive them of life before they have had the chance to see the light of day?

The answer to the question I stated depends on who we go to in search for an answer. Some experts argue that the size of a human being is an important factor in deciding who is entitled to this abundant life. They tell us that the unborn is too little to have a right to life, and much less a right to an abundant life. So let us consider whether the little ones have an entitlement to the abundant life promised by the Lord:

“In the same way, it is not my heavenly Father’s will that even one of these little ones should perish.” [Matthew 18:14]

“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” [Matthew 18:10]

Evidently Jesus was greatly concerned about the rights of the little ones, and in fact he told us that in the final judgment our eternal destiny will hinge on the way we have treated the “little ones” or the “least of these.”

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’” [Matthew 25:37-40]

The question is: Do the unborn babies qualify to be described as the “least of these”? The above text indicates that Jesus identified with the least. Could it be that when we dismember the tiny body of an unborn baby by pulling their arms and legs from the baby’s torso and when we crush its tiny head we are actually mistreating the Lord?

This is to inform readers that the first Pro-life events are history now and other similar events are in the planning stages. The Redlands Daily Facts newspaper did publish my submission not only for the first slide presentation, but for the second one as well. I did request a face-to-face meeting with Elder Randy Roberts, the senior pastor of the Loma Linda University Church. The meeting was held in the private office of Elder Darold Retzer, the Executive Pastor of the church. I made my appeal for a special announcement for my second Pro-life event at Dr. Paul Giem’s Sabbath School.

My request was denied with the explanation that if the church would grant a special treatment for one Sabbath School, many of the other Sabbath Schools would demand similar pririleges. Of course, I can understand the logic of such denial; nevertheless, when the life of our children are at risk, such refusals to depart from the established policy becomes an evidence that the Adventist church has departed from the strong Pro-life attitude of the early SDA pioneers. On an average weekend three thousand innocent babies are sacrificed to this modern Moloch called abortion, and we, the “Remnant Church” that “Keeps God’s Commandments” considers that abortion is no more than the removal of an appendix.

I just received an E-mail from Dr. Ronald Noltze who assures me that our SDA hospitals that have been under his supervision in Europe, South America, and Africa have not been offering abortion services to their patiens. This represents a clear contrast with what is happening with our medical institutions in the U.S. Thanks to my investigation into this issue, I have discovered that two of our hospitals whose identity I can verify have been offering not only therapeutic abortion, but elective abortions as well. And let us not forget that abortion is no therapy for the unborn baby, nor to its mother. I also discovered that one survey revealed that five of our hospitals a few years ago were offering abortion services to their patients. For more information, go to the following pages:

http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html
http://www.sdaforum.com/page193.html

God bless!
Nic Samojluk, Ph.D.

Teresa,

Thanks for asking! There is a partial answer to your questions in the introduction to those lists. Let me quote a couple of paragraphs:
“It should be understood that the attitude of many Adventists is rather fluid, and that what they have expressed in the past, does not necessarily reflect their current position on abortion today.
This is illustrated by the fact that some individuals who were labeled as pro-choice on the basis of some of their writings were re-labeled as pro-life later on based on additional writings they published on a different date or venue. If anyone’s position on the issue was misinterpreted, please write to the investigator of this study for a more correct placement in any follow-up studies.”

In the case of Bacchiocchi, I was tempted to count him as neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I decided to count him on both lists in order to highlight the fact that either people do alter their position with time, or else are not careful to state their position with clarity. Originally my intention was to include a survey, but I gave up on the idea after reading the result of a survey reported by Gerald Winslow showing how low the response was and how inconclusive the results were. In a fews instances, I did succeed in contacting some of the individuals whose position on abortion seemed enigmatic, and their response was helpful. In the case of others, I failed to secure a response from them.

Regarding Goldstein, I had a hard time listing him as pro-choice, but decided to do it for the sake of consistency, given the definitions I had assigned for each category at the beginning of the study. I could state the same about other individuals as well, including Gerald Winslow, whom I highly respect and admire, yet based on his statements about this issue, I had to label him the way I did for the sake of consistency. I made an honest attempt to avoid playing favoritism with the individuals included in the study.

God bless!

Nic Samojluk

Nic,
I was looking over your pro-choice and pro-life lists. Why is Samuele Bacchiocchi on both? Also, from personal questions— Doug Batchelor is pro-life but won’t talk about it publicly. Cliff Goldstein is pro-choice. Just for your information.

Teresa

Hi!

Thanks for your comments. Nevertheless, I would suggest that you do not pin your hopes too high. The LLUC did accept to publish a very short announcement about my Sabbath School slide presentation, but I had to search the church bulletin six times before I succeeded in locating it. My submission was shortened and a significant portion of the title of my dissertation was omitted: the “the Dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes Towards Abortion” was dropped, and what was left was only the first part of the title: “From Pro-life to Pro-choice,” which is rather innocuous.

I prepared a flyer and asked the church for the privilege of having it posted on the church bulletin board. This was denied. I asked the Student Services manager for the privilege of having my flyer posted on the bulletin board by the university market. This was denied as well. I will try to appeal to Dr. Gerald Winslow regarding this, and I did prepare a news item release and will try to have it published in the Redlands “Daily Facts.” Only God knows whether I have a chance to have it published. The indifference towards the plight of the unborn among SDA’s in Loma Linda is appalling!

Last evening I watched the documentary about an American downed pilot who was rescued at great cost and incredible risk by the military in Bosnia during the Clinton presidency. The most expensive military assets were made available to the rescuers determined to save one human being. Here the lives of 3,000 innocent human beings are sacrificed every weekend in the U.S., but the leaders of the “Remnant” church who have the “last message for a perishing world” wont allow a flyer to be displayed for the sake of the unborn. The church that invested 11 million dollars to renovate its church building, refuses to make an 8.5×11 inch space available for the saving of the unborn.

Nic Samojluk

Nic,

Please don’t be upset by my comments, because I love you and wish the very best for you….. we are ALL called to different missions….and I think God may very well be calling you to reform the SDA church…. so do NOT think that I am trying to convince you of anything… just simply letting you know how much I feel your pain on this one and what that pain led me to…

So, without further ado, what you just stated represents my experience from 1984 through 2001. I truly believed that if we (as Adventists For Life) could just open the eyes of the Adventists then they would rise up and take a stand for Christ and against the slaughter of the unborn. And AFL was not political–we just wanted the slaughter to stop in the Adventist hospitals and not promoted in our schools.

I cannot tell you how many young SDA women I have spoken to over the years became pregnant out of wedlock during academy or college years and were counseled by their SDA teachers (even BIBLE teachers) to have abortions.

I was told by one girl–and I have not spoken about this because I cannot verify it–but that the abortion provider PICKED UP the pregnant girls at La Sierra University in very nice cars to take them to have an abortion. She was one of the girls, so she told me first hand! (She also told me that the abortion was provided FREE of charge to Adventists because the clinic was run by and Adventist!)

The more I was involved, the more I saw complete corruption at the very top levels of leadership. And I don’t mean slightly corrupt–downright depraved corruption! (But that happens in most churches, sadly). The Adventist leaders, unbelievable to me at the time, seemed to have no moral inclination against deception of the church. I witnessed outright lie and purposeful misinformation being disseminated as truth. It completely broke my heart. I loved the SDA church and had been a very active member all my life.

Witnessing year after year of cover ups and misrepresentations, I began to study the early SDA pioneers in order to try and figure out a way of bringing “reformation” to the church.

What I found was that much of what we were told as to the “pioneers” of Adventism was very skewed. They, although not corrupt, were extremely bizarre and were not quite how they had been represented by the church. I read some of their writings such as James White’s “Life Incidents” and was disappointed at his writing skills and logic. I read some of Ellen’s undoctored works to find out that even she was heavily edited and her original works were very poorly worded indeed. I studied Dr. Kellogg and many SDA leaders from non-SDA sources. I studied the Millerite movement at the Library of Congress Archives/Research Center and was absolutely floored and how the SDA history books present the facts in their best light. (The Millerite movement was deplorable!)

Anyway…long story—sorry, I finally realized that any church who would lie on the big stuff—abortion, might also lie on the little stuff–history. For me the abortion issue was just the tip of the iceberg. I honestly do not believe that Adventist know they are passing down misinformation. Decade after decade and generation after generation, people just simply accept stuff as fact without really doing the research.

That was the impetus for me to leave Adventism. But I still love the Adventist people–90% of all my friends and family are Adventist! I still pray for them all the time and stand with them in love as Christians!

Since leaving, I have been very shocked at how many other Christians believe Adventists are a cult and do not think they are saved. I have lately had to vigorously defend them! My Baptist pastor will not even let me join their church until I am rebaptized because he does not think my SDA baptism valid.

So, don’t think I am going around bashing Adventists. (Not that you said anything like that–I just know what many SDAs think about those who leave.)

I dearly hope that you make more of an impression than Adventists For Life did. Perhaps the soil is more fertile now!! It would bring me the greatest pleasure to know that the church I grew up in and loved was blossoming in a new life of faith and grace–and truth. Perhaps your generation……

God bless,
Teresa

Hi!

I agree! The mission is difficult, but not for the Lord. Nevertheless, I must clarify that my mission is not to alter the course my church has chosen to follow regarding abortion. It is rather to save, if possible at least one unborn baby from the slaughterhouse.

Stopping abortions in our SDA hospitals is a tall order, and it may never happen, but the Lord has not given me the task to be successful, but rather to be faithful.

Thanks for your prayers. I certainly need those. Who doesn’t? You compare my mission to a “sort of a modern prophet.” I accept this only in a very general sense. Did not prophet Joel say that God would grant his spirit to all flesh? All means you and me and all those seeking to do the Lord’s bidding.

Is my mission the result of a visionary experience? Yes and No. No in the sense that I have never had anything similar to what Ellen White experienced at the beginning of her career, when she was transported to heaven in spirit, and remained in an exctatic position without breathing.

Yes, in the sense that later in life her revelations were the result of her extensive reading what other men of God had written, which she took the liberty of quoting extensively.

I was inspired after reading what you and other servants of the Lord had written about our church’s decision to justify the killing of the unborn in our own hospitals. In that sense, you could say that I did have a vision of what could be done to alleviate the plight of the unborn.

Regarding Andrews University, the answer is No. My doctoral program is through a distant learning plan provided by Andrew Jackson University in Alabama for people like me who are unable to take time from work to do this, and who use their spare time to accomplish said objective. It took me ten years to complete the course work and to write the dissertation in my spare time.

It was hard work, but hopefully I will soon graduate. The only thing missing is my grade for the dissertation, which has been approved already. The title of my dissertation is: “From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The dramatic Shift in the Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitude Towards Abortion.” I will be posting the dissertation on my http://www.sdaforum.com website soon.

God bless!

Nic

[Note: This exchange of emails took place several years ago. I did gradudte back in June, 2007.

Hi!

God has given you a very privileged and difficult mission–a sort of modern prophet. I will keep your mission and you covered in intense prayer. I would be the happiest and most thrilled person on earth if you were successful in stopping the abortions in sda hospitals.

You are awesome!!

Did you say you were in seminary at andrews? (If you are, how are they taking to your outspokenness?)

In Christ,

Teresa

hi!

It all depends on how you define a true adventist. If we label as adventists those who believe that killing the unborn is acceptable to the Lord, then James White and the early pioneers were not adventists but rather good catholics.

Most SDA’s I know do not have in high esteem the work I do, but my main mission is not to please them, but rather to please the Lord the best way I know how.

I have in my e-mail system more than 1,000 names, but most of them do not care to open or read what I send to them. I believe that my sacred duty is in fact to disturb those who have developed a blind spot regarding the sanctity of human life.

Nic

Nic,

Oh, I was under the impression that the sda forum was for adventists. I didn’t think they would appreciate my comments!!

But thanks–I might comment once in a while if they will let me and are not going to be disturbed….

In christ,
Teresa

Hi!

Thanks for your comments. I hold your opinion in great esteem, and I appreciate your input regarding the role you played in the development of the church’s Guidelines on Abortion a couple of decades ago, and the valuable information you provided me for my doctoral dissertation; which, as you know, has been approved by the dissertation committee. I do admire your stand against those guidelines which brought us to where we are now. I do commend you for your unwillingness to have your hands stained with the blood of the unborn.

I felt the same way when I realized the great significance of said document and the impact it had on the church. This led me at the time to write an allegory that revealed my own pilgrimage and my decision to do something for the protection of the unborn. Said allegory was meant to be published by a leading SDA independent magazine. It never happened.

This is the reason I started my own independent ministry website: the http://www.sdaforum.com and published it there and later ttransferred it to this new forum. The Internet link to it is:

“A stigmata Case in Loma Linda”
http://letsfocusonlife.com/?s=A+case+of+stigmata+in+Loma+Linda&x=35&y=12

May the good Lord continue to bless you in your present ministry to the body of Christ.

Nic

Absolutely Nic,

What I meant by using “gray” areas as a red herring is not that the topics don’t need to be discussed. What people do, as I have witnessed hundreds of times, is use these few cases of abortions for rape and incest to take the focus off the other 99% of cases that are for convenience sake. It is a purposeful rabbit trail to keep the more controversial aspect of abortion always stirring up debate rather than use what every Christian should be united on to stop the vast majority of abortions from happening.

Nic, on many occasions, BECAUSE of my vehement stance against abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, I have been labeled a “radical” and they use that to brush me off.

So, now–I try to watch out for that trap. Though the “gray” areas DO, absolutely, deserve an intelligent debate–just don’t let them use it against you in your fight.

What I have found is that we fight NOT against man–but demonic spiritual agencies determined to use naive men to destroy God’s most innocent and helpless humans.

I am certainly NOT arguing with you Nic, just wanted my comments to be understood! I am SO SO proud of you. YOU GO GUY!!

In Christ,
Teresa

Hi!

Thanks for the kind words. It is encouraging to receive positive comments about what I am trying to acomplish and to learn that someone else is concerned about the current SDA attitude towards the sanctity of human life.

You seem to prefer to deal with what is black and white. I agree. Our hospitals should have never accepted to deal with abortion on demand. Unfortunately our president at the time caved in to the financial and social pressure back in 1970 and justified the horrendous idea that abortion was a morally acceptable response to hunger and overpopulation in the world. This opened the door for our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii to offer elective abortions to pregnant women.

Nevertheless, I believe that we should not ignore those areas that you label as grey. Anybody who thinks that abortion is morally justified in cases of rape, incest, congenital malformation, or where the unwanted pregnancy may affect the health of the pregnant woman, should consider that in cases of doubt, we are required to err on the side of caution. If you are driving on a foggy day and see on the road what might be a child, your duty is to stop and investigate.

This is why we need a clear idea of when human life begins. Southern Baptists and Catholics do have a clear idea about this. Human life begins at the moment of conception for them. This is why Catholic hospitals do not offer abortion services. Our first mistake was to offer therapeutic abortions. Tese exceptions grew to include the health of the pregnant woman. This was the slippery slope which led us to the bottom of the moral hill! Consider this: Can you think of any woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy whose mental health will be unaffected by her predicament? The temptation to consult an abortionists will be too great, and Bingo! Another baby will be sacrificed on the altar of convenience!

As I stated above, our official Guidelines on Abortion call for the protection of human life:

5) God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction.

This means that we need to know when human life begins. If we don’t, there is no way we can protect it. It would be foolish for our U.S. president to ask the patrol agents to protect our borders if they do not have any idea where those borders lie! Fortunately, as I cited above, Dr. Gerald Winslow, the alleged architect of our Guidelines on Abortion did state what said limit of human life are:

“What we have said is that we take every stage of prenatal life very seriously. It should be protected,” explains Winslow. “But the prenatal life we’re protecting exists once an ‘established pregnancy’ can be ascertained.”

This in turn means that we do know when human life begins. Our problem is that we allow for all the above exceptions, including the health of the pregnant woman, which renders the call for the protection of human life meaningless! This is the reason for which two of our Adventist hospitals have been offering abortion on demand and one of them was described by a leading General Conference official as an “abortion mill” to you in a telephone conversation.

Personally, I do not believe that the alleged “grey” areas are that grey. A rapist breaks the law, takes his victim to an abortion clinic, the crime is not reported, an abortion is performed, and the rapist is free to rape again. Can you call this justice? Executing the innocent baby in order to protect the criminal is a miscarriage of justice in my book. The pregnant woman is victimized two times, first by the rape, and then by the execution of her own flesh and blood!

Is there a better alternative? Of course there is: It is called adoption. A few months of inconvenience, and the woman will not have to strugle with guilt for the rest of her life. Such a policy will increase the likelihood that the rapist will be placed where he belongs: in jail. The root of this problem is adultery and fornication. Unless we deal with the cause of this sorry state of affairs, we will never even begin to solve the problem!

Have you heard any sermons lately about adultery, fornication, and abortion by our SDA pastors? A friend of mine asked our pastor a few years ago why he never preached against abortion. His answer was: If I do that, some of my members might be offended! If we as a church are silent about sin, is there any hope that our members will feel a need to repent of their mistakes? By our silence on these issues, we are depriving our members of repentance, forgiveness, and healing!

Regarding the congenital malformations I have said enough already. I will limit myself to repeating that I don’t think that removing the vital organs of an anencephalic baby while he/she is still alive is justified no matter how many human lives the transplantation of those organs can save. Removing the beating heart or liver of an alive and kicking baby is abhorrent to me.

The excuse that the baby will soon die is unacceptable, I believe. We have no right to kill one human being in order to save another. This is my humble opinion!

Nic