The Great Adventist Moral Detour, by Nic Samojluk

The Midterm Elections Earth-Shaking Events

The recent results of the U.S. Midterm elections did shake the moral foundation of the most powerful country in the world. The electorate repudiated the morally bankrupt policies of an administration determined to abandon the lofty principles of our Constitution firmly founded on the respect of Law and Order and the respect of the right to life of every human being regardless of size, stage of development, and place of residence.

The Pro-life Victory Obtained on November 4, 2014

In order to illustrate the incredible pro-life victory achieved on the recent Mid-term elections, let me cite some Internet news items I discovered:
1. Pro-life tsunami: Republicans sweep midterms in historic victory
2. Florida Pro-Life Gov. Rick Scott Defeats Pro-Abortion Challenger Charlie Crist
3. North Carolina: Pro-Life Thom Tillis Defeats Pro-Abortion Kay Hagan
4. Pro-Life Cory Gardner Defeats Pro-Abortion Mark Udall in Colorado
5. Pro-Life Greg Abbott Defeats Abortion Champion Wendy Davis for Governor In Texas
6. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell Defeats Pro-Abortion Alison Grimes
7. Huge Victory as Pro-Life Candidates Win Nationwide, Take Over Senate From Pro-Abortion Democrats

A Missed Opportunity

While Evangelical and Catholic voters strove with unusual energy to mobilize pro-life conservatives to exercise their civic duty, most Adventist voters used their energies to occupy their time with minor issues like women’s ordination, forgetting that the life of millions of unborn children hung on the balance. How can we explain this Adventist apathy towards the plight of the unborn? The answer lies in what took place in 1970—three years before the legalization of abortion in the U.S. mainland. That year, our Adventist leadership allowed our Adventist hospitals to profit from abortions on demand.

When faced with the potential loss of revenue, when the State of Hawaii legalized the practice of abortion, our North American Division president publicly announced that our church was leaning toward abortion because “we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation.” [1]

Can you imagine this? Our church leaders felt that since there were many people on our planet, it was morally acceptable to start killing the most vulnerable members of the human race; and he said this in the richest country of the world!

Can our Adventist church be Neutral on a Moral Issue?

At the same time our church leaders decided that the Adventist church would remain aloof from the life and death controversy between the defenders of abortion and those determined to fight for the right to life of all human beings regardless of their stage of development . How could we, the members of the “Remnant” church remain neutral on a moral issue in a direct violation of the Commandment that forbade the killing of innocent human beings?

This position of neutrality on the abortion issue was recently confirmed in the country of Kenya. Evangelicals and Catholics were struggling to keep the country free from the merciless destruction of the unborn. Did Adventists join them in this noble work? Not a chance! The Adventist leadership publicly declared the church neutrality on this life and death issue. [2]

The Three Strikes Rule

And we must bear in mind that this is not the first time we have departed from our duty to protect the right to life. Our first moral failure took place in Germany more than half a century ago when our leaders felt that killing was justified in time of war and that keeping the Sabbath sacred was also dispensable in order to preserve the church. [3]

The second time that we failed the moral test was our willingness to compromise on the issue of abortion back in 1970; and the third example is what took place in the country of Rwanda when Adventists participated in the genocide of our own Adventist members. [4] Is this the best way of preparing our people for the time of trouble when the legal protection for Sabbath keeping Adventists will be removed by the government?

When Loma Linda University Altered the Hippocratic Oath

For long centuries the Hippocratic Oath was respected by physicians around the world. This changed when abortion was legalized, and the result is that our Loma Linda University replaced the abortion prohibition contained in said oath with the following statement: “I will respect the rights and decision of my patients.” [5]

The replacement of the Hippocratic Oath with the LLU Physicians Oath allowed our
LLU medical facility and eleven other Adventist hospitals to participate in the offering of abortion services to their patients. Here is the list:

“Castle Medical Center, Hadley Memorial Hospital, Hanford Community Hospital, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Porter Memorial Hospital, Port land Adventist Medical Center, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Sierra Vista Hospital, Walla Walla General Hospital, Washington Adventist Hospital, and White Memorial Medical Center.” [6]

Adventist Therapy: Any Volunteers?

Three years ago, the president of the General Conference met with a large group of retirees in the city of Redlands, California. At the end of his presentation, he announced that he was ready for questions from the audience. Since I was on the verge of publishing my first book dealing with abortion, I took the opportunity to ask him about the number of elective abortions in our Adventist medical facilities. He responded that at the present time the number of abortions on demand in our hospitals was down to almost zero; that abortions were now performed inside abortion clinics; and that the only kind of abortions done in our own hospitals was of the therapeutic kind.

If this information could be verified, it would represent a major step forward because there is undeniable evidence that thousands of elective abortions were carried out in some of our Adventist institutions starting back in 1970 when the leadership of out church allowed our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii to perform abortions on demand with impunity in response to the non-Adventist medical staff in said institution. The fear of the Lord was replaced with the fear of loss of revenue by the management of said medical facility. Of course, soon after other Adventist hospitals began offering the same service to their patients.

Does this mean that our medical institutions no longer offer abortions on demand? Based on Ted Wilson’s response to my query, it seems to suggest that this is not the case, because he stated that now non-therapeutic abortions are done inside abortion clinics, and we have evidence that some of our hospitals do have clinics on their premises. One of them is our Shady Grove Hospital in Maryland. I was informed that in some cases office space is rented by some Adventist hospitals to physicians who perform abortions on demand.

We do know that prior to 1970 many of our Adventist hospitals were already offering the so called “therapeutic abortions” to women who were victims of rape or incest, or when there was evidence of malformations in the developing baby. My question is: Do we have the right to label the killing of innocent unborn children as a form of therapy. A well-formed unborn baby needs no therapy, and killing a baby with a cleft palate is not the right kind of therapy for this kind of malformation. If abortion is a true kind of therapy, how come no one is volunteering for such treatment?

How about rape volunteers?

Some years ago, I was teaching at a government-funded program for school dropouts who wanted to secure a high school equivalency diploma. One day the topic of rape was introduced by one of my students, and a middle-aged woman shocked us by the following comment: “I wish someone would rape me.” Of course, no one volunteered to perform such service. The fact is that rape is a violent act, and most women fear becoming a victim of such horrendous act in spite of the fact that many victims of rape have experienced healing following such terrible ordeal.

I know of no one suggesting that it would be proper to label rape as a form of therapy. How come then, we Adventists have allowed abortion to be described as a form of therapy? Who are we trying to deceive? Abortion is murder, and it should never be allowed to be considered as a form of therapy. Victims of rape can survive the terrible ordeal and eventually enjoy life; this is not true about the victims of abortion. The action is final and irreversible.

The same can be said about auto theft. If someone steals my car, I can buy another one. In the case of abortion the stolen life cannot be replaced; the victim’s loss is final and irreversible. How can we justify what we cannot replace?

A Deceptive Adventist Document

We Adventists have what seems to be a rather deceptive document known as “Guidelines on Abortion.” [7] Neither Catholics nor Southern Baptists have such a document. Why? They do not kill innocent unborn babies. We Adventists crafted said rules because we decided to compromise with evil. We thought we could please God and the Devil at the same time.

Said guidelines pretend to be on the side of life, but justify the murder of innocent unborn children under a variety of circumstances including when an unwanted pregnancy affects the mental health of the woman. Well, this is what opened the door wide to abortions on demand, because when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, she will suffer a temporary mental depression, and another innocent human being becomes the victim of murder.

Some time ago I wrote to the General Conference asking why is it that our leaders allowed some of our Adventist hospitals to profit from the killing of innocent unborn children. The response I received was: Read our “Guidelines on Abortion.” Several pro-life Adventists I know did receive a similar answer to their query. How is it that when someone asks us for the reason we worship God on the Seventh Day, our customary answer is “Read Exodus 20,” but when people ask about abortion, we tell them to read the guidelines we crafted in a direct violation of what the Lord has ordained? Should we not be consistent in our answer and say instead: “Read Exodus 20”?

Did Jesus justify the replacement of God’s Word with humanly created tradition? How can the same Jesus approve now what he condemned two thousand years ago? We created this tradition a few decades ago in order to replace what the Lord forbade. It is high time to discard said humanly created document.

Can the Sabbath Save us from this Moral Detour?

We Adventists are often deluded into thinking that since we honor the Fourth Commandment, and given the fact that fidelity to the Sabbath will be the final test of our allegiance to the Creator, that we can overlook our negligence regarding the sanctity of human life, forgetting that whoever breaks one of God’s Commandment has broken the entire Law. This kind of deception was what led the Jewish leaders to crucify the one sent to save them from the Romans. They killed the Author of life and rushed home to keep the Sabbath holy.

Can we Count up to Ten?

There are Ten rules for our human moral behavior. Traditionally, we have criticized our Catholic brethren for ignoring one of those rules. How did we dare to discard one of those rules and replace it with guidelines of our own creation? We set aside God’s prohibition against shedding the blood of innocent human beings, and replaced it with 1314 words designed to modify what the Lord had forbidden and inscribed on Tablets of Stone. Our “Guidelines on Abortion” are an insult against the Creator we claim to worship. Our honoring the Sabbath Commandment will not save us from God’s condemnation. Even Sunday worshippers can see our self deception!

A “Sister to Babylon”

We like to cite the promises found in Ellen White’s writings declaring that the Adventist church will triumph at last, forgetting that she also stated that God’s promises and threatening are contingent on our behavior.

“But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional.” Selected Messages Book 1, p. 67]

Notice how God explained a prediction which failed due to Priest Eli’s disobedience:

New International Version
“Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.’ But now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. [1 Sam 2:30]

Notice also what she said when adultery began to infiltrate God’s people:

“We must as a people arouse and cleanse the camp of Israel. Licentiousness, unlawful intimacy, and unholy practices are coming in among us in a large degree; and ministers who are handling sacred things are guilty of sin in this respect. They are coveting their neighbors’ wives, and the seventh commandment is broken. We are in danger of becoming a sister to fallen Babylon, of allowing our churches to become corrupted, and filled with every foul spirit, a cage for every unclean and hateful bird; and will we be clear unless we make decided movements to cure the existing evil?” {21MR 380.1}

If the sin of adultery among Adventists prompted Ellen White to warn us that we were in danger of becoming “a sister to fallen Babylon,” I wonder what she would say today knowing that thousands of innocent babies were killed in the medical institutions she help found. If she were alive today, would she condone the addition of killing to our healing mission? Would she allow the labeling of abortion as a form of therapy?

Are we Still the Biblical Remnant?

In the last book of the Bible the Remnant is described as those who keep God’s Commandments. If we keep only Nine of them, can we still claim to be God’s Remnant with the last message for a perishing world? The Lord is patient and willing to forgive our disobedience, but we must repent and confess our sins before it is too late. May the good and merciful Lord help us to this end!

More on this Topic

If you want to read more on this topic, I suggest you order a copy of my latest book on abortion I recently published. Here is the title of the book and the link for it:

Murder in Paradise

http://www.lulu.com/shop/nic-samojluk/murder-in-paradise/paperback/product-21623695.html

References

[1] https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1991/08/abortion-history-of-adventist-guidelines

[2] http://news.adventist.org/en/archive/articles/2010/05/07/in-kenya-adventist-leadership-distancing-itself-from-proposed-abortion-law

[3] http://archives.adventistreview.org/article/92/archives/issue-2005-1540/adventist-news

[4] http://spectrummagazine.org/node/2716

[5] http://www.susqneuro.com/publications/oaths/index.html#The%20Loma%20Linda%20University%20Physician%27s%20Oath; https://adventlife.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/has-loma-linda-university-altered-the-hippocratic-oath-by-nic-samojluk/

[6] http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1991/August/abortion-history-of-adventist-guidelines

[7] http://www.adventist.org/information/official-statements/guidelines/article/go/0/abortion/6/