Many years ago I visited a church in southern California that was pastored by a close friend of mine. While there I met a man “up to his eyeballs,” so to speak, in fringe conspiracy theories. But unlike many others of a similar mindset, he believed he had found a solution, at least so far as personal survival was concerned.

Among other things, this man and his family carried no government-issued licenses—no driver’s or marriage licenses, nor any others issued by government at any level. Neither he, his wife, nor his children had birth certificates. They carried no credit or debit cards, didn’t use the banks in any way, and kept all their money at home. They claimed to have no involvement in the Social Security system, had paid nothing in, and expected no benefits in return. And of course, they paid neither state nor federal income taxes.

“As far as the government is concerned,” he declared, “I don’t exist.” He thus believed himself to be excellently positioned to endure the crisis of the last days.

One was led to wonder, if in fact the government possessed the ubiquitous powers of surveillance and intrusiveness that he claimed, how they wouldn’t have his name at or near the top of their list so far as criminal non-conformists were concerned. The more I thought in retrospect about this man’s behavior, the more persuaded I became of the foolishness of his outlook and self-assurance.

The Church and the Conscience

I recount this man’s experience because we are hearing much just now from certain quarters about the church’s alleged obligation to protect liberty of conscience as exercised by its members. The recent COVID pandemic and the vaccine mandates imposed by various entities raised this issue to notable levels. Because certain ones refused (and still refuse) to receive the COVID vaccine on what they hold to be conscientious grounds, they believe the Seventh-day Adventist Church should legally defend the right of its members to refuse such mandates as a violation of their religious liberty.

Many have condemned the General Conference for continuing to uphold the following statement on immunizations, which was voted by the General Conference Administrative Committee on April 15, 2015:

We are not the conscience of the individual church member, and recognize individual choices. These are exercised by the individual. The choice not to be immunized is not and should not be seen as the dogma nor the doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church [1].

Certain ones are now calling for the official repudiation of the above statement by the upcoming 2025 General Conference session, and for the church to publicly repent for not having done more to defend the rights of church members in the recent pandemic who chose not to be vaccinated. Should a similar medical emergency arise in the future—and many believe it will—they want the church to pursue stronger measures in support of the legal rights of those who might then, as before, choose not to receive similar inoculations.

But here is where those with the above agenda get into trouble.

Is it the responsibility of the church to publicly and legally defend whatever conscientious choices its members choose to make? If we’re talking, for example, about the right to keep one’s job while refraining from work during the Sabbath hours, that is clearly a Biblical issue for which the Seventh-day Adventist Church has taken an official and collective global stance. The right of parents to legally homseschool their children is a similar issue. We could certainly think of others.

But what if a church member, like the man described at the beginning, believes it would violate his conscience to pay income taxes, whether because he holds such levies to be unconstitutional (as some do) or because he doesn’t believe in supporting certain practices or policies which he believes these taxes sustain?

I have known some who believe speed limit laws represent a wrongful governmental intrusion into the personal lives of citizens. Should the church therefore commit its legal resources and its public reputation to defend such choices, and thus demand the protection of such members from legal prosecution?

How far should the church be willing to go in standing behind the conscientious beliefs of its members? Where, and how, should the line be drawn by the denomination relative to such issues? Had the man noted at the beginning, along with members of his family perhaps, run afoul of the law for non-payment of taxes, driving without a license, etc, would the church have been obligated to stand publicly in their defense, because they were adhering to conscience in making these choices?

Conclusion: Who Decides?

I hope we’re starting to get the picture. The church is not obligated to legally or publicly defend any sort of conviction or practice on the part of its members, merely because it is claimed that such convictions or practices are based on the conscience. Only those conscientious choices, convictions, or practices sustained by the written counsel of God (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11) merit the public endorsement of the church and the commitment of church resources so far as the legal defense and protection of members’ conduct is concerned.

It isn’t enough, in other words, to speak of liberty of conscience. The question is, Who decides the parameters of such liberty? The church can only commit its reputation and resources to the defense of conscientious choices which the inspired consensus—both Scripture and/or the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy—upholds. So far as other issues go, believers may still exercise their right of conscience, but so far as legal protection and the collective defense of the body of Christ is concerned, they are on their own.

REFERENCES

1. https://gc.adventist.org/official-statements/immunization/

Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan