The Reaffirmation Statement issued by the General Conference does not infringe upon liberty of conscience or personal religious freedom. Rather, it underscores the importance of respecting individual choice, even in the context of government public health mandates. The relevant section addressing personal freedom of choice:
The Seventh-day Adventist Church respects each individual’s freedom of choice to make responsible decisions regarding their own health.
It explicitly supports personal decision-making based on conscience.
The decision whether to take the vaccine or not is not a matter of salvation... It is a matter of personal choice.
The statement also clarifies that while the Church encourages vaccination, it respects personal convictions and individual decisions, ensuring that these health-related choices are not imposed as religious dogma.
When it comes to COVID-19 vaccinations, we believe individuals have the right to state and defend their conviction whether to be vaccinated or not.
Thus, the reaffirmation statement upholds both personal liberty and religious freedom without imposing a specific health mandate as a matter of religious belief.
It appears liberty of conscience refers to an individual's right to make decisions based on their moral and ethical beliefs, especially personal health choices. The reaffirmation statement emphasizes that the decision to be vaccinated is a personal choice, guided by individual conscience, prayer, and consultation with healthcare providers:
The decision whether to take the vaccine or not is not a matter of salvation... It is a matter of personal choice.
"We firmly believe that in matters of personal conviction we must be guided by the Word of God, our conscience, and informed judgment.
Liberty of conscience allows members to exercise autonomy, particularly when religious doctrine does not prescribe a specific stance, such as in the case of vaccination. The statement encourages respect for individual choices and discourages divisions over differing health decisions.
Religious liberty, as suggested in the document, focuses more narrowly on protecting the collective religious rights and core beliefs of the Church, such as worship and fundamental doctrines. The statement clarifies that vaccination is not considered a matter of religious doctrine, so it does not fall under typical religious liberty protections:
Claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities.
We understand that some of our members view things differently, and we respect those convictions. They may at times have rights that can be pursued under the law, and we will point them towards materials and resources for doing so but cannot directly undertake this personal effort for them.
While individual members may have personal convictions about vaccination, the Church distinguishes these from institutional religious liberty issues, prioritizing its advocacy on more central matters of faith.
Liberty of conscience might be viewed as involving personal decision-making based on individual beliefs, applicable to matters like vaccination that are not dictated by religious doctrine. Religious liberty, however, pertains to the protection of the Church's core religious practices. The statement differentiates between individual autonomy and the Church’s official positions, emphasizing that it will not use its religious liberty advocacy to defend personal health choices that are not rooted in central religious beliefs.
The decision to be immunized or not is the choice of each individual, and should be taken in consultation with one's health-care provider.
Religious Liberty Advocacy: The document explains that the Church does not oppose supporting individuals who have personal convictions beyond its official stance, even offering assistance in writing accommodation requests: "The Church’s religious liberty leaders will do what they can to provide support and counsel on a personal basis..." This suggests that personal liberty of conscience is respected, even when it differs from the Church's position.
Focus on Broader Religious Liberty: The statement is about the Church's strategic use of religious liberty resources. It argues that using religious liberty claims against health mandates could weaken the Church’s position on more central issues of faith, like worship.
If we use our religious liberty resources in such personal decision advocacy efforts, we believe that we will weaken our religious liberty stance...
In essence, the sentence is not a denial of liberty of conscience, but a clarification that the Church sees public health mandates differently than issues of core religious belief, and wishes to preserve its religious liberty advocacy for core doctrinal or eschatological concerns.
Church statements serve various purposes, but a key one is public relations (PR). During COVID, when some Adventists spread conspiracy theories and misinformation to defend their religious liberty claims, the global Church may have felt a responsibility to protect its organizational credibility. By making it clear that it does not endorse such views, the Church can safeguard its mission and prevent misleading narratives from affecting its integrity or diminishing its ability to reach others. Addressing these issues is important for preserving the Church’s potential to share the three angels' messages and foster a more positive reception worldwide.
With that said, the reaffirmation document has some weaknesses, especially in its statement:
Claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs.
While the statement is appropriate for the Church institution, individual religious liberty claims remain valid, particularly in the United States, where the Constitution protects personal religious beliefs. Although the document touches on this point, it lacks a clear definition of "religious liberty" and broadly asserts that vaccination is not a religious liberty issue.
Another limitation is the document’s localized nature. Statements from the global Church should be broad and adaptable, allowing regional entities—such as divisions, unions, and conferences—to tailor them to their specific cultural and legal contexts. This flexibility is important for effectively addressing similar global events in the future.
In the end, the focus on a single sentence within the document has received disproportionate attention. It is a human-made statement, crafted with good intentions but not without flaws. It’s time for the Church community, and Seventh-day Adventists as a whole, to move forward.