Abortion and the Church

I was pleasantly surprised to discover . . . two articles dealing with abortion and a front page picture of a developing baby in the latest issue of your magazine (AT Jan/Feb 2002). . . .Your cover story, "A Death in the Family," by Gregory Hoenes,. . . is quite thought provoking, but unfortunately draws the wrong moral conclusion. The fact that spontaneous abortion occurs naturally, is a non-sequitur for concluding that the intentional destruction of prenatal life is morally acceptable. Hoenes would not argue, I believe, that because some children naturally die in their sleep, that therefore a parent would be justified in intentionally suffocating a child with a pillow, thus imitating nature.

Your "Abortion and the Bible" article, written by Jim Miller, is well written and it reveals great erudition and scholarship, but it misses a fundamental point. Regardless of which interpretation of the Exodus 21:22-25 text you opt for, there is no valid conclusion we can draw regarding the issue of abortion in the 21st century. If the unborn were treated as property in the Old Testament, so were slaves and women. Are we to conclude that slaves and women are devoid of personhood today? Going to the Old Testament to solve the moral issue raised by abortion is reminiscent of the theologians who justified slavery in the South a century and a half ago with the Bible in their hands.

I wish my church would . . . make a strong stand in defense of the unborn. In our official "Guidelines on Abortion," we describe prenatal life as a "magnificent gift of God," and then proceed to state that "God gives humanity the freedom of choice." . . . In our official SDA website we affirm that "prenatal life ... should be protected," and then go on to announce that "the church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins." . . . It is time, I believe, that we stop straddling over the life fence, and throw the weight of our influence on behalf of those destined to perish before they have a chance to take their first breath.

Nic Samojluk Loma Linda, California

Taxonomy of Doctrines

Kudos for printing Johnston's "Taxonomy of Doctrines" (AT Jan/Feb 2002). How gently and seriously he probes some of our hoariest traditions! . . . . Perhaps most thought-provoking is his ninth way of classifying doctrines, viz. as being either living or dead. He suggests that . . . "an embarrassing doctrine need not be violently killed. It can fade away incrementally by successive redefinitions, reformulations, qualifications and general whittling down." He observes that such whittling down can also help keep a doctrine alive-if this be desired-by "preserving or restoring a relevance or acceptability that had been lost, or by relieving cognitive dissonance."

There ineluctably comes to mind our one fundamentally unique doctrine, that derived from study of Daniel 8. Measures that have been taken to preserve or restore its relevance and acceptability, or to reduce its cognitive dissonance, include: (1) In place of improbable transfers from one apartment to another, we now speak of the beginning of a new phase of heavenly ministry. Just why a new phase was needed a century and a half ago is unclear, except that that is when the time period is believed to have ended. (2) In place of speaking of the "investigative judgment," we now prefer to call it a "pre-advent judgment," which, according to the meaning of the word, could mean any time before the Second Advent. (3) Lest the doctrine seem too personally close and fear engendering, we now modestly suggest that its real purpose is to vindicate God before the watching universe! (How would He fare without us?) And so proceeds the redefinition, reformulation and qualification. Hopefully some reduction of cognitive dissonance is thereby achieved. On the opposite hand have been those who, impatient with benign neglect, and mercifully questioning the wisdom of continuing life-support, have anticipated an honorable burial. It troubles me that even the few long-time Adventist workers who have felt constrained publicly to question our traditional interpretation of Daniel 8 (e.g, Ballenger, Fletcher and Ford) seem to have had so little prophetically to offer in its place. Instead of virtually doing away with the day-for-a-year principle, and with it, much of the "historicist" understanding of prophecy, it seems to me that what is needed is a fresh interpretation of the time-prophecies of Daniel 8, 9 and 12, one that enhances rather than diminishes the day-for-a-year principle, one that contains not an iota of future date-setting nor any concession to dispensational futurism, yet which restores continuity with pre-Millerite historicist interpreters of past centuries. A large majority of the latter group understood Islam to represent the little horn of Daniel 8, whom they termed "the Eastern Antichrist."

David Duffie Alpena, Michigan

What Should Be Central

1 Corinthians 15:3,4 informs us that St. Paul had as his main theme . . . the death and resurrection of our Lord. . . . We must be true to our distinctives but let's make the death and resurrection central. This is what saves a lost sinner; not diet, healthy life style, the Sabbath. . . . AT is needed and I read it from cover to cover, but I have noticed this deficiency.

Paul W. Jackson, MD. Wallingford, Pennsylvania

Editor's note: We agree. Richard Choi pointed out in AT May/June 2002 that a valid argument could be made for any one of our doctrines to be at the "core."

The Sanctuary and the Sacrifices

I just read the article on "The Sanctuary Doctrine--Asset or Liability?" (AT May/June 2002). I have been concerned about who wanted/needed the Sanctuary/sacrificial system. Jeremiah 7:21, 22 says, "I spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them on the day I brought them out of Egypt concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice." And in the new Peterson "The Message":

"When I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I never said anything to them about wanting burnt offerings and sacrifices as such." Is this is one of those "very hard to be understood verses"? I have come to believe that it was not God who needed or wanted the "systems" but the people, and as in the case of their wanting a king, God allowed them to have this and tried to use it to shed some light on sin and the concept of salvation.

Jay Rasco Via the Internet

Restoring Fallen Pastors

Errol Lawrence raised an interesting question when he asked if fallen SDA pastors either can or should be restored (AT Winter, Jan/Feb 2002). In my response I will write in the male gender, as most fallen SDA pastors are men.

In a sense, our church already attempts to restore such pastors. It does it by an accomplished practice of denial, which results in statements such as; penetration was incomplete, so intercourse did not take place; rubbing her breasts is not immorality; vaginal ejaculation did not take place, so there was no violation of the seventh commandment. The outside world knows better than this. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, as just about every military person knows, states that in rape cases penetration is not required. Penile contact with labia is all that is needed.

Our denial allows us to attempt to restore the person who is considered to have made a mistake in judgment. All too often this restoration has included such measures as: advice not to do it again, redemptive transfers, and attendance at a field school of evangelism. Advice not to do it again will most likely communicate that he should not get caught. Redemptive transfers are usually done without the knowledge of the gaining congregation. No one can hold the pastor accountable. Participation in evangelistic efforts neither deals with the root cause in the individual, nor really gives him time to devote to his spiritual life.

On a personal basis, I agree that sexual impropriety should not be an automatic, permanent disbarment from spiritual leadership functions. But I believe that while there should be exceptions, in the majority of cases there should be a permanent withdrawing from pastoral care.

One example of an exception would be a single pastor who has stepped outside of bounds in a dating relationship. Another would be a pastor who patronizes a prostitute. These can both result from a "falling into sin" and not a commitment to sin. In addition, they may involve the individual's sexual maturation. It is common in the Adventist church to repress our sexuality. Some of the most vulnerable people are those who do so. It is very unhealthy for a pastor to be unable to acknowledge that he finds a certain female sexually attractive. It is a normal part of life to be sexually attracted to a person not your wife. The pastor, in establishing boundaries and standards for appropriate relationships, should acknowledge his sexual attraction to another and thus make decisions as to his future relationship with that person. One who can not acknowledge this places the relationship on an unconstrained basis where whatever happens, just happens. This is a failure to accept responsibility, and a foundation for real problems. These two exceptions, for me, represent cases where there can be a high likelihood of restoration, both spiritually and behaviorally.

The majority of situations of pastoral sexual misconduct will typically not allow for restoration to pastoral care. These will generally involve sexual misconduct with either a parishioner or with a minor. . . .

Secular ethics in the helping professions deal with the establishment of boundaries, transference and counter transference. All of these come into consideration when the sexual misconduct involves a parishioner. The violation of professional ethics is so great that serious consideration should be given to whether or not the pastor should ever again provide pastoral care. In the secular world there are standards that may provide for permanent loss of license or credentials. A certified public accountant who embezzles from a client may be permanently barred from accounting. A police officer who uses excessive force once, may never again work in law enforcement. The standards are tough. But they are reasonable, and we need to hold pastors to tough standards. Sexual involvement with a congregational member is much more than an individual sin. It is a sin against the congregation, the denomination, and the profession of ministry. A reasonable consequence of such may be that the person never again is involved in pastoral care.

This also is true for one who has become sexually involved with a child. Pastoral care always has the potential for care to children. One who has been so involved can never be deemed to be safe to provide care to children. This involvement is not about sex. It may be about power, control, and violence. The sexual and emotional feelings that participated in the sexual assault on the child often remain in the criminal for years and even decades.

The criminal may talk a good story about repentance, and make behavioral changes. But, he may still see the twelve-year-old as a small woman. He may refer to her as a Lolita, which indicates he still sexually fantasizes about her in his mind. Often he will have no idea of the emotional impact on the family and on the victim. Such children may develop significant behavioral problems and become spiritually estranged from God and church. Yet the criminal will see the victim as getting on with her life, and have no sense of the destructiveness of the sexual assault. Some will attempt to sublimate their unresolved sexual issues in a socially acceptable manner. Pastoral care provides a good means to do this. But, all the time the basic underlying issues remain in the criminal. Such people have justly earned a permanent disbarment from pastoral care.

Grace is required of Christians, but grace does not require restoration to a pastoral position. While there are exceptions, the majority of cases of pastoral sexual misconduct should not be followed by restoration to a pastoral position.

Gregory Matthews Brighton, Colorado

(Gregory Matthews is an ordained SDA minister and a retired U. S. Army Chaplain, and currently is a chaplain in a Veterans Affairs hospital in Denver, Colorado. He also participates in an Internet ministry to sexually abused women at: www.s-n-t.org)