The SDA Church’s statement on immunization, produced by the General Conference Administrative Committee in 2015, has attracted scrutiny in the current context of a global pandemic and the pursuit of herd immunity through vaccine mandates. It states:
“The Adventist health emphasis is based on biblical revelation, the inspired writing of E.G. White (co-founder of the Church), and on peer-reviewed scientific literature.”
Breaking this statement down into its components, we will see that the first two elements, biblical revelation and the inspired writings of Ellen White, are supported by our fundamental beliefs, but there is no support for “peer-reviewed scientific literature”:
The Adventist health emphasis is based on …
(i) biblical revelation … this is supported by Fundamental Belief 1
(ii) the inspired writing of E.G. White (co-founder of the Church) … this is supported by Fundamental Belief 18
(iii) and on peer-reviewed scientific literature … this is not supported by any of the Fundamental beliefs!
The inclusion of “peer-reviewed scientific literature” is not consistent with the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, specifically contradicting the preamble, which states that our beliefs are supported by the Bible alone, in keeping with the Protestant principle of sola scriptura.
Considering that “peer-reviewed scientific literature” is not authoritative in Seventh-day Adventist doctrine and beliefs, that part of the statement should be removed. But there is a problem with removing it: since there is nothing about immunization or inoculation in the Bible or in the Spirit of Prophecy, there would be no support for their vaccine statements without “peer-reviewed scientific literature.”
I have written to General Conference leadership requesting clarification about the inclusion of “peer-reviewed scientific literature” as a basis of the SDA health emphasis, and it took six months of patient follow-up before I received a response. I will now share this response.
Attempted justification:
The response from a relevant GC ADCOM Representative, who will remain anonymous for this article, began:
“Thank you for your patience. I have read your letter and will be responding to your question on the use of “peer reviewed health science” in our health work and ministry practice. I will be including our legal team on my response and your overall questions.
* * *
“The use by GC Health Ministries of peer-reviewed scientific literature is reflected in its long-standing practices and General Conference Working Policy, both of which are grounded in Scripture and Spirit of Prophecy. Working Policy is voted by the GC Executive Committee at Annual Council and reflects the wisdom of the body entrusted with the work of the church between General Conference Sessions. While ADCOM is part of the process in creating and modifying Working Policy, it is the Executive Committee that has the final say.
“Working Policy affirms Scripture as foundational in our Church’s health ministry and practice. It reiterates the illuminating blessing of the Spirit of Prophecy through the writings of Ellen White. Additionally, bearing in mind the counsel that “rightly understood, science and the written word agree, each sheds light on the other”, SpTEd 56.2, peer reviewed, evidence-based health science has been included as an additional guide in consonance with Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy principles.
“Harmful and untested practices have been promoted in various situations around the world, based on anecdotal evidence at best, and/or on dangerous traditional custom. Lives have been lost, and the Church has also been exposed to the risk of litigation. To ensure that the health practices we teach and follow are safe and tested, the value of peer reviewed, evidence-based health science is included in ensuring our health institutions and health initiatives have clear scientific guidelines informing safe and best practices. The Working Policy is attached from which the following paragraphs are quoted:
FH 05 Philosophy
1. The Seventh-day Adventist Church proclaims the saving grace of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believers. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, whatever we think, do, eat, or drink should bring honor to His name. Our total being, physical, mental, spiritual, social, and emotional component should glorify God.
2. The Seventh-day Adventist Church promotes a philosophy of holistic health and healing. The Church, through various organizations, operates health care institutions around the world. Additionally, a health-promoting way of life is taught to the church membership and their communities. Teachings based on broad principles found in the sacred Scriptures, and more explicitly expressed in the counsels given by Ellen G White, continue to be augmented by the findings of scientific research. These teachings provide the basis of the lifestyle promoted by the Seventh- day Adventist Church.
GC Working Policy 2016-2017 Health Ministries / 359
Adventist health care and ministries are to promote only those practices based upon the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy, or evidence-based methods of disease prevention, treatment, and health maintenance. “Evidence-based” means there is an accepted body of peer reviewed, statistically significant evidence that raises probability of effectiveness to a scientifically convincing level. Practices without a firm evidence-base and not based on the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy, including though not limited to aromatherapy, cranial sacral therapy, homeopathy, hypnotherapy, iridology, magnets, methods aligning forces of energy, pendulum diagnostics, untested herbal remedies, reflexology, repetitive colonic irrigation, “therapeutic touch,” and urine therapy, should be discouraged.
“This policy including the role of peer-reviewed evidence-based health science was voted at the Annual Council of 2008. I was present at the meeting, and there was only one dissenting voice regarding this policy which was voted with overwhelming support. This policy has been very helpful especially where fringe treatment and philosophies are masqueraded as best practices.
“Additionally, I wish to emphasize that in both the 2015 Immunization Statement, and the 2021 Affirmation Informational regarding COVID-19, the individual’s choice and conscience are clearly prioritized. The Church has never mandated vaccinations. It is the individual’s choice to be made following prayerful consideration, and in consultation with their healthcare advisors.
“My prayer is that the Lord will continue to guide His Church in these troubled times as we look forward to His soon return, and the making of all things new. Maranatha.”
Analysis of the justification
Legal Risk
The first observation that struck me was a pre-occupation with legal risk:
· “I will be including our legal team on my response and your overall questions.”
· “Harmful and untested practices have been promoted in various situations around the world, based on anecdotal evidence at best, and/or on dangerous traditional custom. Lives have been lost, and the Church has also been exposed to the risk of litigation.”
This is quite revealing as to the guiding spirit at the General Conference, which is not a spirit of maximizing biblical truth, but of minimizing legal risk, not a spirit of faith, but fear. The risk management issue could have been handled in a different manner, through the prudent use of separate legal entities and insurance, without compromising the global church by having an administrative committee issue a statement contradicting the fundamental beliefs.
Analysis of the EGW & Working Policy Quoted
In order to analyze the response and quotes provided for justification, the relevant sentence from the Immunisation statement will be presented once more: “The Adventist health emphasis is based on biblical revelation [1], the inspired writing of E.G. White (co-founder of the Church) [2], and on peer-reviewed scientific literature [3].”
As stated previously, sources [1] and [2] are supported by the 28 Fundamentals, but [3] is not. The justification provided for the addition of the uninspired source was Ellen White’s statement that rightly understood, science and the written word shed light on each other:
“Additionally, bearing in mind the counsel that ‘rightly understood, science and the written word agree, each sheds light on the other’, SpTEd 56.2, peer reviewed, evidence-based health science has been included as an additional guide in consonance with Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy principles.”
Ellen White makes the same point in the book Education:
“Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By different methods, and in different languages, they witness to the same great truths. Science is ever discovering new wonders; but she brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. [Rightly understood] the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other.” Education, 128.
These passages articulate what is known as the two books concept, or God’s two books, or the two book model. It is not original to Ellen White; the concept goes back to King David (“The heavens declare the Glory of God, the firmament shows His handiwork” Psalm 19) and to the Apostle Paul ("For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" Romans 1:19–20) and has been articulated by many Christian scholars, philosophers, and preachers, including John Chrysostom, Augustine, Francis Bacon, John Calvin, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, etc.
There are two important limitations on the two books concept. First, for nature and written revelation to shed light on one another, both must be addressing the same topic. If one source does not address a topic, it cannot shed light on that topic. The issue we’ve been grappling with is that the inspired writings do not address vaccination, neither the Bible nor Ellen White. The inspired writings thus cannot shed light on vaccination.
Second, written revelation is the corrective for wrong interpretations of the book of nature. Ellen White is clear that the Bible is not to be judged and measured by men’s ideas of science; rather the Bible is the standard by which scientific ideas are judged: “the study of the sciences is not to be neglected. Books must be used for this purpose: but they should be in harmony with the Bible, for that is the standard.” SpTEd 56.2.
Our understanding of nature may not be right if it cannot be measured to the standard, which is the Bible! We should be cognizant of the potential for an incorrect scientific understanding in situations where the science cannot be measured by the Bible standard.
Based on this sentence, with its implied conditions, the Health Ministries policy set out in “FH 05 Philosophy” was developed. I am comfortable with the content of FH 05.2, fourth sentence, because that sentence conveys the exact same conditions as the original EGW quote in SpTEd 56.2.
“Teachings based on broad principles found in the sacred Scriptures, and more explicitly expressed in the counsels given by Ellen G White, continue to be augmented by the findings of scientific research.”
Notice how FH 05, par. 2, 4th sentence adheres to the conditions:
1. Teachings based on the Bible & EGW (i.e., present in [1] and [2]) are augmented under [3]. Use of the word “augment” is a wonderful choice, since the definition of augment is: to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense; thus, again emphasising that any concept present in [1] or [2], could be increased by use of [3]
2. And that the teachings of [1] and [2] could have light shed upon it by [3]; if [3] was rightly understood by measuring it against the standard, namely teachings of [1] and [2].
I am in complete agreement with the principles here expressed. The church may refer to peer-reviewed literature where such literature supports the teaching of the church that is based on the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.
But I fear the authors of the 2015 vaccination statement failed to appreciate the limitations on the concept of God’s two books, and have elevated science into a standard of truth that it can never be. Ellen White’s “two books” principle has been stretched beyond its application. FH 05 has correctly articulated EGW’s intent and meaning, it is a pity that it did not include clarification on what it does not say.
One cannot use Ellen White’s “two books” principle to elevate peer-reviewed scientific literature into an authoritative source additional to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, to speak authoritatively where the inspired sources are silent. Yet this is what the authors of the 2015 vaccine statement have done. To accommodate ADCOM’s vaccine statements, FH 05 should be re-written as: Teachings not found in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are established solely on the findings of scientific research.
We agree with the “two books” concept when it is applied correctly. For example, the Mosaic law specifies, in Leviticus 13, detailed rules for how to deal with leprosy; peer-reviewed scientific literature also sheds light on how to treat leprosy, and the scientific literature does not contradict the Bible. The core requirement is for both “books” to address the concept. But where the Bible and SOP are silent--for example “vaccines”, “immunisation” or “herd immunity”—peer-reviewed scientific literature cannot shed light on written revelation. It is the only source of supposed light and cannot provide reassurance of a right understanding.
Conclusion
The General Conference’s Administrative Committee has unilaterally established a new foundation for the SDA health emphasis—peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is demonstrable error, further demonstrating that ADCOM is not an appropriate body for producing “official statements.” The 2015 vaccination statement and the October 21, 2021, covid vaccine statement should be withdrawn immediately, with appropriate apology.
If peer-reviewed scientific literature is removed from the 2015 statement, or restated correctly per FH 05.2, 4th sentence, as casting additional light augmenting what the Bible and SOP have already addressed, then there would be no immunization statement, since both the Bible and SOP are silent on this medical therapy. The statement is an aberration in content and in its very existence. It is based on either a negligent or wilful misunderstanding of the “two books” principle. It must be withdrawn.