SOME SDA Leaders are for Abortion on Demand

[By Grace]

I post this here because I am not sure if it should be posted in Ye Olde Theology section
Posted by: adventlife | October 14, 2013

Adventist Leaders Defend Abortion,
by Nic Samojluk

This may be a shocker, but there are some Adventist leaders that even today defend the killing of innocent human beings prior to birth. One of them is John V. Stevens, and the other one is a well-known evangelist named Kevin Paulson. There are others who have shared their extreme views, but these two have been the most vocal in defense of the practice of abortion. It is hard to understand how can men of God promote and justify the violation of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, and the direct violation of one of the tenets of our own Guidelines on Abortion which declares that our church does not condone abortions on demand.

Perhaps the strongest defense of the practice of abortion by a SDA leader was written by John V. Stevens, Sr., who was occupying the position of Pacific Union Conference Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director at the time of publication of his article entitled “Abortion Answers and Attitudes” by the Pacific Union Recorder in 1990. Here is one of the arguments he advanced to justify the killing of the unborn:

“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 17) This takes place after birth, when the developing baby becomes a person. . . .
from John V, Stevens, Sr. “Abortion Answers and Attitudes,” Pacific Union Recorder (20 Aug. 1990): 12-13.​

Personally, I am glad that the quoted writer above opposes abortion, but I am wondering if there are others in that church who oppose abortion also

And just so that others kow, I am not making an anti-SDA rant here

 

[AirDancer]

I'm confident that there are members of SDA who oppose abortion, the same as there are members of other churches/religions/faiths who oppose abortion.

 

[Rick W]

And just so that others kow, I am not making an anti-SDA rant here

You piqued my curiosity.
Soooo... why did you post it?

 

[By Grace]

You piqued my curiosity.
Soooo... why did you post it?

I am not making an anti-SDA rant here
It came up as a current event when I did a websearch

 

[Rick W]

I am not making an anti-SDA rant here
It came up as a current event when I did a websearch

I'm still wondering why you posted it if "I am not making an anti-SDA rant here "?
Web searches don't automatically come here.

 

[By Grace]

I'm still wondering why you posted it if "I am not making an anti-SDA rant here "?
Web searches don't automatically come here.

I told you, Rick. I did a websearch on something-- I forget what now, and that came up. I thought that it would be a good discussion thread, if I cut-and-pasted some stuff from that article. I wanted to make sure that you guys knew that I was not bashing the SDA church. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you perhaps stating that posting data from the official magazine of the SDA church that details an internal struggle is somehow against the tos here?

As to what I placed in blue above, I have no idea why you posted that.

 

[Rick W]

"I wanted to make sure that you guys knew that I was not bashing the SDA church. Nothing more, nothing less."

Oh, ok.
I see that all the time on this board and in real life. Disclaimers. Goes something like...

"Hey, I don't mean to be offensive ok, but you're a jerk."
"I don't mean to butt into your business but you're doing it wrong."
"I'm not trying to be your boss but you really need to get that done, right now."

No, it's not against the ToS. But all too often when one who opposes the OP and an argument ensues the one posting the OP dodges the offense by citing the disclaimer attempting to make the one who opposed the OP look the the bad guy wanting the "moral high ground".

This is a hot button issue. This thread is your responsibility. Safety net or no.

I'm moving this to Christianity and other Religions but let it be known I'll be watching this thread very closely ignoring that disclaimer.

 

[By Grace]

"I wanted to make sure that you guys knew that I was not bashing the SDA church. Nothing more, nothing less."

Oh, ok.
I see that all the time on this board and in real life. Disclaimers. Goes something like...

"Hey, I don't mean to be offensive ok, but you're a jerk."
"I don't mean to butt into your business but you're doing it wrong."
"I'm not trying to be your boss but you really need to get that done, right now."

No, it's not against the ToS. But all too often when one who opposes the OP and an argument ensues the one posting the OP dodges the offense by citing the disclaimer attempting to make the one who opposed the OP look the the bad guy wanting the "moral high ground".

This is a hot button issue. This thread is your responsibility. Safety net or no.

I'm moving this to Christianity and other Religions but let it be known I'll be watching this thread very closely ignoring that disclaimer.

THREE TIMES I TOLD THE TRUTH

If you choose not to believe me then remove this thread.

Is it your belief that abortion should not be discussed?
Is your belief that one can discuss the split over the issue in one church as a metaphor for what is happening in all churches?

In all honesty, and in an effort to explain myself, I believe that this conversation has crossed into the personal level

I'll be watching this thread very closely ignoring that disclaimer

. That disappoints me greatly.

 

[Rick W]

This is a hot button issue therefore no disclaimer will be used to protect the OP from rebuttal.
If an argument ensues the disclaimer will not be taken into consideration.

 

[Ryan]

I am seeing evolutionary evangelists and homosexual ministers across all spectrums of denominations. SDA or not, wrong is wrong. Come Jesus, come.

 

[Matthew G]

I won't go off on a big rant here, but doesn't Mr. John V. Stevens realize that Christ made the choice to die because He valued life (i.e. ours) so much? I could be completely wrong, but it just seems to me that anyone who even glances through the Gospels would understand that.

 

[By Grace]

I won't go off on a big rant here, but doesn't Mr. John V. Stevens realize that Christ made the choice to die because He valued life (i.e. ours) so much? I could be completely wrong, but it just seems to me that anyone who even glances through the Gospels would understand that.

Nor am I ranting, but I think that this schism in one church is a microcosm of what is happening in the church as a whole.

 

[Matthew G]

Nor am I ranting, but I think that this schism in one church is a microcosm of what is happening in the church as a whole.

And I think you are 100% correct. It's sad to sit back and look at the direction we're heading.

 

[Pizzaguy]

“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. . . .​

​

I must be missing something, because this is the most foolish thing I've read by a "Christian" in some time. How does Christ's sacrificial act on the cross justify aborting a baby?

 

[By Grace]

I must be missing something, because this is the most foolish thing I've read by a "Christian" in some time. How does Christ's sacrificial act on the cross justify aborting a baby?

No, Pizzaguy, you are NOT missing something because there is no logical connection between Christ's Atonement and abortion.

However, what I posted was to generate the discussion that centers on the disparity between "God so loved the world"... and abortion on demand which is prevalent not only in the SDA church, as evidenced by this article in the OP, and which I believe is also prevalent in Evangelical churches.

A few years ago, when Dr. James Dobson hosted "Focus on the Family", he had a public spat with the Church of the Nazarene (his church) colleges who were supposed to uphold the standards of the denomination regarding abortion, that is be against it.

However, in practice they were actually very pro abortion. If a young woman became pregnant, she faced a Hobson's Choice. Either she abort the child she was carrying, and continue her education as if nothing happened, or else have the child, and be expelled from the college.

Using his radio program as a pulpit, he really turned up the heat against those practices in his church. That is why I am using the SDA church as one example among others, and not just singling it out.

 

[JCitoL]

the abortion is better than the affliction(s) during the life under the sin, but in case the salvation from the afflictions can be guaranteed then it would be better than the abortion

Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 "If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial(i.e. better assured future); I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other."

but this doesn't mean that it should not be worked for the salvation of the life

Blessings

 

[Nathanael Chong]

John V. Stevens, Sr. has completely misunderstood and twisted the message of the Gospel! The freedom that Christ died for was so that we sinners can come to God and be forgiven. And we are not to be the ones who lead our own lives; as God is our LORD and the One who created us, it is only right that He is the One who guide our lives.