The Three Paths | Dr. Conrad Vine

It would seem to me we've already had a sermon today. What do you would think? I think Dr. O, that was a powerful prayer and I think uh I heard a sermon this morning in here. The preaching of the prayer and uh so um I kind of step up here.

We've been blessed by excellence today, have we not? Uh that rendition of Jerusalem. Thank you, sister. God's given you an amazing gift. and the musicians who are playing here on the piano.

Uh, sister, I watch you playing the piano. When I get to heaven, I'm going to ask God for that gift. I watch you playing and it flows out of you just incredibly. And uh, for the singers, Weren't they beautiful? Amen.

It is good to come into the house of the Lord. Amen. And so, um, I stand before you today, uh, with a sense of, um, uh, uh, holy fear and dread and trembling, actually, um, because I I I know that we're living in troubled times. And, uh, I I've I've become acquainted with the fact that whenever I stand up and speak, um, people expect me to say something that's kind of almost like prophetic or profound or or something. And, you know, I just sit at my kitchen table and say, "Lord, what would you have me say?" And then some things go viral and some things don't.

And some things receive approval and some receive something other than approval. But uh at the end of the day, we preach and we minister to please God and not men. And uh when I was set aside for the gospel ministry, I was uh commissioned, I was ordained to preach the good news in season and out of season. And sometimes you preach out of season and you just have to take uh the rough with the good. which is what goes with the calling.

Uh uh camp meeting is entitled it's time and I I wondered well it's time for what because we know from a Daniel 11:40 that we are now living in the time of the the end and we are looking forward to the end of time. So we're in that betw twixed in between when the final crisis of earth's history is going to take place. Uh thank you very much sister for doing that. And so um we're living in the betw twix in between the time of the end from 1798 until the coming of Jesus Christ. It is time we have a general conference session coming up.

And many of us, we all need to be on our knees praying that God's will be done that God give us leaders around the world to understand the time in which we live and what needs to be done in these times. The men of Vzica were blessing were a blessing to the 12 tribes of Israel because we read at the coronation of David that the men of Isa had an understanding of the times to know what to do and we need men and women like that in our leadership roles to understand the times in which we live and it's also time for me as uh uh Dr. O has mentioned it's time for me. I'm stepping aside from Adventist Frontier Missions after 14 years. My last formal duty is on Monday, have a meal with my staff, my colleagues.

And it's a it's a it's a painful moment in many ways because when I came to um AFM in 2011, um one of our missionaries died shortly there afterwards. a tree fell on him in Papu Nag Guini and it was a reminder of how uh fragile the work really is and how how um transient life is and you're here today and you're gone tomorrow and then um earlier this week on Wednesday um a beloved missionary a guy from called Fred Koker um he passed away in a road accident in Sierra Leone and so I start my ministry at AFM with a series of funerals and I end my ministry with AFM next week in Sierra Leone speaking at funerals and it's just a reminder that that um gospel work comes at personal sacrifice and these are beloved colleagues and brother Ko who passed away was a gentle giant he's from Sierra Leone and um I'm really really sad at his passing and it was a they say number one cause of of deaths for missionaries in Africa is road accidents and it's absolutely true and so um it was reminded to me this week of how precious the gospel is and how precarious life really is and that while we have life, let us shine for Jesus Christ. It's also time this morning for an honest conversation. It's time to talk honestly to cut through the froth of the world out there. It's time to beat to quarters.

In the old Navy, in the British Navy in the 1700s, 1800s, whenever an enemy ship was sight on the horizon, uh they would uh the drums would would beat to quarters as it was called and the men on this the first, second, and third gun decks, they would clear everything out of those gun decks. Everything was put in the hold. It was hoisted up into the rigging or it was simply thrown overboard. And what was left was a ship ready for battle. And beating to quarters took about 5 to six minutes.

The ship was ready for battle. And I'm speaking here today because we need to beat to quarters. It's time to beat to quarters. It's time to make sure that our ecclesiology, how we structure ourselves as a church, matches our esquetology, which is what we know is going to happen at the end of time. At the moment, our esquetology denies our ecclesiology or our ecclesiology is not in harmony with our esquetology.

Some of you know what I'm talking about here. Our ecclesiology is working against our esquetology. And the last four years, we saw that we saw that our ecclesiology worked against liberty of conscience for our members. So I'm speaking this today in love because I want every member of our church to be saved on that sea of glass. It is time to beat to quarters and to say before the final crisis comes and it is almost upon us.

I'm so grateful for the Sunday law updates that come from this congregation. We need we see the pieces being moved into peace, a place of that final jigsaw puzzle. It's time to beat to quarters so that we can be prepared as a people for what we know is coming upon this world. Does that make sense to everybody? All right.

So, I'm going to speak today about three paths. I'm going to speak about the recent path. I'm going to speak more broadly than about the wrong path. Then I'm going to speak about the right path. And then we're going to come to our conclusions.

Okay, there's our journey today. There are three paths. The recent path, the wrong path, and the right path. And I wish that wrong was spelled without a W. I'm not sure why it has a W in there, but it really messes up with the uh the writing of the sermon title here.

The recent, the wrong, and the right. And but anyway, you understand what I mean that we're going to speak first about the recent path and then we'll move on to the wrong path and then we get to the right path. Um as we begin, invite you to bow your heads with me as we will invite the presence of the Holy Spirit. Heavenly Father, we thank you for the blessings thus far during the Sabbath day. Lord, now Lord, I ask that you speak through me and for me.

Lord, may what my words be taken from your throne of grace and your heart of love. Amen. Well, may the words we hear this morning be your words. Lord, we pray for our worldwide church that every member from head to toe, from east to west, from north to south will be on that sea of glass. Lord, we do not wish for anybody to be lost, but that all be saved, for that is your perfect will.

And so, Father, as we share this morning, I ask that your spirit will go before these words, they will find a receptive audience here in Armore, Alabama, across America, and around the world. So, Father, we give these moments to you. In Jesus' holy name I ask. Amen. So I'm going to speak first about the recent path and I'm going to start out with this particular document here.

This document was voted in 2015 by our general conference. That's the headquarters of the AmIst World Church by the ADCOM that is the administrative committee. It was voted on April 15, 2015. This is taken from our website. And there's the entire statement there.

For those of you who are not familiar with this, I just want to read it. It says, "The 7th Adventist Church places a strong emphasis on health and well-being. The Adventist health emphasis is based on biblical revelation, the inspired writing of Ellen G. White, a co-founder of the church, and on peer-reviewed scientific literature. As such, we encourage responsible immunization vaccination and have no religious or faith-based reason not to encourage our adherence to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunization programs.

We value the health and safety of the population which includes the maintenance of herd immunity. 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 im immunized is not and should not be seen as the dogma nor the doctrine of the 7th day Adventist church. So there was an official statement that came out in 2015.

And you know whatever your views on on immunization and vaccination this kind this is kind of like the ground zero for the current struggles in our church. I've come to appreciate over the years that different people appreciate and understand these topics from very different perspectives. My brother married uh when when I got married to my wife who's from Russia my my brother said to me do you have any marriage advice? I said yes go east young man. And he went east and headed a bit south and married a young lady from Ethiopia.

And uh so when when they had two their two boys, I soon discovered that there were very very different perspectives on immunization particularly as it affects African and African-American boys and and what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years. And so I started to listen and say, okay, there are different stories here. People have had different experiences of what's going on with our wider medical system. But prior to 2015, the Adventist Church had no formal position or statement on vaccination per se. Vaccination was left to your choice.

It was left to your conscience. It was left to your understanding of your body, your stage in life, your physical health or lack of physical health and to your study of the scriptures and the spirit of prophecy. And then you prayed about it and you asked the Holy Spirit to lead you via the convictions of your conscience to make your final decisions. And the Adventist church upheld the right of every member to act in harmony with their conscience on this matter. And I say, praise the Lord for that.

Praise the Lord for that. Whether you take them, whether you not take them is not the point. The point is you can take them and act without coercion, criticism or condemnation for the choices that you make. In 2015, this statement was voted. I think we should import note a few points about this.

First, this statement removes any theological basis or objections to vaccinations or mandates for Adventists worldwide. You think about that. Once you've removed theological reasons for objections to mandates or vaccinations, it leaves you only with an individual conscience-based reason to object to vaccinations or mandates. So if you have two legs and one leg is chopped out from underneath you in this statement, you're left with one leg just left. You have two legs.

One is theological objections, the other is consciencebased objections. And in this statement here, the church chopped out one of those legs. That's the net effect of that statement. Secondly, the general conference executive committee has voted a terms of reference for the administrative committee. The administrative committee is is uh it takes care of the daily operations of the general conference.

Now, it's very clear in the constitution of our church that it is only the GC in full session that has the right to make theological statements for Adventists worldwide. It's very clear. Amen. The ADCOM does not have any right, any institutional authority, any delegated authority to make an theological statement affecting members worldwide. When you say that the Amish Church has no theological objection to X, Y, or Z, that is a theological statement on behalf of all members and the ADCOM does not have that right to do that.

Only the GC in full session. Does the GC have does the adcom have the right to make this kind of statement? The answer is absolutely not. Thirdly, the statement refers to the Adventist health message. I came as a shock when I read that because we have a health it says it says the Adventist health emphasis based on biblical revelation up there at the top.

We have a health message from God. God gave a vision in Oxiggo in 1863 that formed the basis of a message from a loving heavenly father to his people that says this is how you're going to live in earth's final crisis. This is I want you to live in a certain way for a variety of reasons. The firstly is God wants us to be physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy individuals. Jesus came to give us an abundance of life.

Amen. He didn't come so that we might retire into yellow years, but that we retire into golden years. Amen. The second reason God gave us a message is because when your your body is physically healthy, your mind is clearer. If your body is is is out of shape, if your body is dealing with X, Y or Z illnesses, the chances are you suffer from depression, anxiety, fear, and so forth, and you're less able to perceive heavenly truth.

And so the health message is given not just that we have physically healthy bodies, but we have spiritually healthy minds. And the third reason why God gave us the health message is because the health message is the leading arm of evangelism in many parts of the world. It is the right arm of the gospel. And when we minister to people's physical and emotional needs, uh, then they are much more open to hearing about their spiritual needs and how Jesus meets those needs. So God has given us a health message, not a health emphasis.

A message is from somebody to somebody else. But in this in this statement, we downgrade the concept of message to emphasis. And why is this? Because peer-reviewed scientific literature was never the basis of the avenist health message ever. Peer-reviewed scientific literature, PRSL or prostituted scientific literature.

PRSL is based on the fact that scientists studies have found that a 100% of scientists agree with whoever is funding their research. The inclusion of peer-reviewed scientific literature is problematic for another reason. Is this the scientific process, the scientific method by definition excludes the possibility of gods even even existing. The scientific process denies the possibility there is a living God who intervenes in human affairs. The scientific method is humanistic and atheistic.

You cannot have a health message from God that has come from a method that denies the existence of God in the first place. It makes literally no sense whatsoever. which is why the wording is no longer Adventist health message because you can't have a message from God that comes through um an atheistic means. We now have a health emphasis which is now based on peer-reviewed scientific literature. So we are in a sense abandoning what God has given us in this statement.

The scientific method at the foundation of peer-reviewed scientific literature does not allow for any revelation from God. At most, peer-reviewed scientific literature can cor can corroborate what we know to be true like the eight laws of health or the 10 laws of health as we heard this morning. But it is not the basis for our health message. It never has been and it never will be. Once we allow peer-reviewed scientific literature into our statements on health and vaccination because the Bible says not a lot nothing directly about vaccination or we find it in the writing of sister white that means that we are now essentially saying we will always agree with what the science tells us about vaccination that means we are subordinating the members consciences to people like Dr.

Anthony Fouchy. So the inclusion of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent with our fundamental beliefs. In the preamble to our fundamental beliefs, it states clearly that our beliefs are supported by the Bible and the Bible alone in keeping with the Protestant principle of soloscriptor. And the very nature of scientific research means there is never absolute truth. Science is always advancing.

Science is the story of trial and experimentation. If you if you look look at the history of say chemotherapy or radiotherapy, you will see they put patients through batches of treatment protocols to see what works and what doesn't. Then they tweak those protocols and start people on a new batch of unfortunate patients on new protocols. Science is always evolving and it's learning and it's learning from its mistakes and it does evolve and understanding does grow gradually over the years. Your cancer treatment is part of a wider experiment.

Peer-reviewed scientific literature is always changing. There used to be a time, I think in America, but certainly in Britain, when we would spray children with DDT because somehow that's good for them. That was the science. Science often peer-reviewed scientific literature contradicts itself is constantly changing and is influenced not so much as the pursuit of truth but the pursuit of profit by those who are funding the peer-reviewed scientific literature. A 100% of scientists as I said a few minutes ago agree with whoever is funding their research.

Furthermore, peer-reviewed scientific literature advocates for out andout error. Peer-reviewed scientific literature teaches us evolution instead of creation. So, should we abandon the doctrine of creation in favor of evolution? Peer-reviewed scientific literature promotes the the limited use of wine. Maybe we should all start drinking wine because that's a health food now.

A health drink, you might say. Peer-reviewed scientific literature, at least in the last four years, promoted the concept of transgenderism and gender dysphoria. That was what the science said. Peer-reviewed scientific literature advocates in some cases for the beneficial impact of abortion for the mother and also for the use of certain mind-altering substances. I would suggest that this statement here, the avenous health emphasis and peer-reviewed scientific literature, this is absolutely appalling and it came back to haunt us in the pandemic.

Then what happened was in October 21 the next statement on the the recent path was this statement here the GC issued a document called reaffirming the adventist church response to covid 19. It was prepared according to the statement there um if you look at the top the header online by the GC administration that is the three officers of the general conference the president the secretary and the treasurer the public affairs and religious liberty department by lolinda um by the health ministries department of the general conference and by the office of general counsel that is our lawyers had a hand in this matter now on page one of this statement and we're not going to show the statement here you can go and read it for yourselves The GC leaders expressed their support for vaccination in general being a matter of individual liberty of conscience. But on page two near the bottom, third paragraph from the end, there was only one paragraph that referred to COVID and the COVID context and the mandates that were spreading worldwide. President Biden signed his mandate orders in the first 10 days of September 2021. And six weeks later, we came out with this statement here in response to that.

And this paragraph here states this. The 7th Adventist Church um places strong emphasis on health and well-being. Uh where are we here? D. Okay, I've I've gone to the wrong statement here, haven't I?

Here we are. The 7th the Adventist Church in consultation with health ministries and public affairs and religious liberty departments of the general conference of 7th the Adventists is convinced that the vaccination programs that have generally been carried out are important for the safety and health of our members and the larger community and this is the key sentence that has driven a wedge across our church. Therefore, 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. Now, we could talk all day about this statement, but we're not going to. Over the last three years, I've chiseled away at this statement in public from multiple different angles, and we're not going to go through all those details today.

There are some people who would say to you that on page one, it says a vaccination is a matter of conscience. It's that is true. That is what it states. But let me ask you this question. If you buy a life insurance policy that says if you die during the term of that policy um you'll receive a million dollar payout.

That sounds good. Yes. But then on the 35th page there is a series of exclusion clauses. And one of those exclusion clauses say if you die in an act of terrorism this policy is null and void. And if you do die in an act of terrorism will you receive the million dollars or not?

No. Because the exclusion causes override the general principles. And in this statement here, the general principles are on page one. Vaccination is a matter of conscience. But on page two, where it says, "But when it comes to COVID, it's no longer a matter of conscience." And so you have to think like a lawyer when you read these documents.

This is an exclusion clause that overrides your conscience. In this statement here, the general conference leadership assumed the right to override the Holy Spirit because what is a religious liberty objection? A religious liberty objection uh in our working policy manual in the PAL section is defined religious liberty is the defense of individual liberty of conscience. Your conscience is where the Holy Spirit brings conviction into your heart and mind. So a religious liberty objection by definition is where the Holy Spirit convicts you in your conscience not to do something.

Amen. So when the Holy Spirit speaks to you and says, "Don't do this." But your employer says, "You must do this." The general conference says the Holy Spirit is wrong. Your employer is right. You need to do this. And not only did they think that, but they posted this online so that every employer and every government worldwide would get the message.

And that was the statement. This statement here was used by employers nationwide and around the world to deny Adventists their religious liberty waiver requests. In the US military in the Pentagon, they were printing out all of the statements from all of the denominations. In the state of Michigan, they did the same thing. I have friends who work there.

They printed out all the statements from all denominations. Every denomination supported these mandates pretty much. And once they knew what what denomination you were, they looked at your official statement and said, "Okay, your civil rights are no longer valid because your church has undermined you." And so in this statement here, um the the uh the general conference put out a statement that was then used against people. Everybody in this room, whether you want if you didn't want a vaccine, this statement would have been used against you by your employer. These are the facts.

There's no point crying over spilled milk. It's been done. By God's grace, the pandemic is over. But but I'm speaking as an administrator here. A precedent has been set and unless that precedent is reversed, it will happen again with the next set of mandates.

That's the problem. That's how administration works. Administration is a ratchet effect. You do it once, you get away with it. Therefore, you can point that as a precedent.

I can do it again. That's why we're speaking about it today. Even though one pandemic is over, more pandemics are coming. There will be pestilences, said Jesus, until he comes again. Now, this quote here, we shared it last night.

I'll just share a couple of quotes. says there the fact that a man has this is from letter 53 that the fact that a man has been selected to be president of a conference does not mean that he shall have authority to rule over his fellow workmen. This is after the practice of what and it cannot be tolerated for it restricts religious liberty and the man is led to place himself where God alone should be. So there's the statement there and underneath it you've got the core paragraph which says claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately. Did our general conference restrict religious liberty in this statement?

Yes. Yes or no? Is this therefore after the practice of Rome? Yes or no? Yes it is.

The shoe fits. And if the shoe fits, don't shoot the messenger but change the shoe. The doctrine that God has committed to the church, the right to control the conscience and to define and p punish heresy is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors. And once again, you have at the bottom the church statement. Claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately.

Did the general conference assume the right to control your conscience in this statement? Yes or no? Yes. Yes. This is a papal error that has list come into our general conference.

Sister Dwight goes on to say, "We are to carry out the principles of Protestantism. Popery is represented all around us, and unless every eye is single to the glory of God, this enormous system of poperry will be interwoven with our faith and practice." Just as far as any of its deluded principles and practices shall insinuate themselves into our religious managements and organizations, we are disabled and weakened. and hindered from doing our first work in personal reformation of character. For the principles of the papacy are directly opposed to religious freedom and wherever they are cherished, an effort is made to control the conscience. So wherever papal principles are cherished, an attempt is made to control a conscience.

When our GC attempted to override our consciences, it tells us there are papal principles that are cherished at the heart of our general conference leadership. That's the only conclusion we can come to. And I recognize that when I preach this kind of stuff, it doesn't always win me friends. I understand that. But this is the truth.

And we are coming to a general conference session and it is time to speak openly that we not go down this path again in the future. Now we're talking about the recent path. The most recent stage was this article here appeared in the January and February 2025 edition of the Atlantic Union Gleer. They published an article by the Atlantic Union associate PAL director John Ashme and he takes steps one matters one step further. We have a statement in 2015 that said um uh that if you have two legs, theological objections and and consciencebased objections that the general conference took away from us our theological objections and just left conscience base objections.

In the 2021 pandemic, the con in the 2021 reformation statement, the general conference assumes the right to unilaterally suspend our other leg. Chop that leg off. You can't object on the basis of conscience. You're left with no legs to stand upon. But it it gets further go than that because in this statement here and you can you can look at it online.

It's called Faith in the Balance. This is published by the Atlantic Union which since January passed a motion to ban me from preaching in all churches, actually all Adventist pulpits in the union. When I asked about it, they said, "Well, that includes people's private homes, their private farms." And I said, "I'm not sure that's really valid." I asked for a copy of the ban, but they have yet to furnish me with a copy of the vote. So, you hear about these things, but they never actually show you the paperwork, so you don't know what you're actually banned from doing. But in this document here, there's the question to vaccinate or not to vaccinate.

I just want to just pull out the second half of that statement. It's an astonishing statement. Now, this is not general conference policy, at least not yet. by the fact that it's published by the Atlantic Union which is right next to the general conference building. This is by an NAD parl associate director.

So this is the way our public affairs and religious liberty leaders are moving. This is deeply worrying. This is where we're going as a as in terms of church leadership. Firstly, in 2015 you we have no theological objections in 2021. We can override your liberty of conscience objections.

So we're moving in the wrong direction. And this most recent paper says this. It says some of it's quite correct. It says the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents religious discrimination but not but but does not prevent discrimination based on freedom of conscience. Because the Adventist Church has no policy against vaccination, Adventist leaders could not truthfully represent to employers that Adventists teach or believe that vaccination violates the teachings or doctrines of the church.

So they're kind of retroactively justifying their position in the pandemic. In fact, Adventist schools comply with vaccination requirements and Adventist missionaries routinely comply with vaccination requirements when they enter mission fields. Members were advised that is during the pandemic that they could draft personal accommodation letters outlining their personal beliefs on vaccination. And employers were required by law to respond to the requests and provide accommodations where the employees sincerely held belief that's in the civil rights act sincerely held belief did not present a substantial burden to the employer to accommodate. The civil rights act protects religious beliefs against a taught by a community of faith and individual held by an employee.

So that means you have two bases. You can object because you're a member of a church denomination or you have a personal deeply held sincerely held religious belief on something. Okay. Employees could this is this is good news with with hindsight. Listen to this wording.

Employees who could establish a history of avoiding any vaccination stood a good chance of accommodation in contrast with employees who previously accepted vaccination but now sought accommodation due to fears over the co vaccines. Of course, these are written by co um branch cavidians who still believe the vaccines are healthy for you. Passion remains high on this issue. However, some facts remain clear. Number one, Adventist health reform embraces preventative and prescriptive measures.

I didn't know that when I joined the church. Number two, the church's official statement empowers members to choose or reject vaccination. And three, the church could not represent to employers that vaccination violated its teachings to assist members in avoiding vaccine mandates. Truthfulness is the one mandate that governs the church's engagement with the world. Now, the net effect of this statement here, and this is the direction of our leaders, is that the Adventist church leadership will never oppose vaccine mandates.

That's the net effect of this text here. We embrace preventative and prescriptive measures. We will never oppose vaccinations. My wife was raised in the Soviet Union and in the Soviet Union when they wanted to to kind of take a prominent Christian leader out of circulation sometimes went to the labor camp sometimes they were diagnosed with an unknown psychiatric disorder and they were sent to psychiatric institutions where they were forcibly injected by mandate with medicines that caused their minds to go crazy. Then they were crazy.

These were government mandates to destroy the minds of Christians. Do we embrace those mandates as well? In the Nazi experimentation on Jewish children in Ashvitz with Dr. Joseph Mangala, those were mandated. Do we support that?

In 1930s Germany, Adolf Hitler, before he started killing the Jews, wiped out about third of a million German children because they had learning disabilities and they had various physical disabilities. He wiped them out. It was the doctors that killed those children and their death certificates read measles. Those were mandates by the state to kill its own citizens. Do we embrace those mandates as well?

Where do we draw the line when it comes to mandates? Now, there are certain problems with this statement. I'll list them on the screen for you there. The first is this. Exemption requests by Adventists based on your personal spiritual belief during the pandemic.

Those are theoretically protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So you had a civil rights act to a personal deeply held spiritual objection to the shots. But if you if you were known to be an Adventist by your employer, your civil rights that is to a personal deeply held spiritual objection to the vaccines were overridden because they quoted the October 21 reaffirmation statement at you. That's right. That was the problem.

So they overrode our civil rights. Secondly, talk of your civil rights by this um uh lawyer from the Atlantic Union are hollow when the general conference and church leaders knew that their reaffirmation statement was being used to override members those civil rights of the members. So they said, "Yes, you have a civil right to this, but they also issued a statement that they knew was eliminating your civil rights." and they said, "Well, you had a civil right not to take the shot, to ask for an exemption," while simultaneously telling the government, "This person has no religious liberty objection to the shots." So, they were undermining every member's ability to have a religious liberty waiver exemption request approved. Number three, it would have been better for the GC to have issued no statement, let individual Adventists within their legal jurisdictions around the world apply for their own exemptions. Number four, the North American Division Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department universally told us that vaccine mandates were not a matter of religious liberty.

Everywhere you went, even Liberty magazine, the the uh Betina Krauss wrote an article and she said, "The COVID pandemic, it's a health crisis, it's an economic crisis, it's a public health crisis, but it is not a religious liberty issue." that was the Liberty magazine editor in uh 2021 or 2022. So the the the North American Division religious liberty establishment was universally telling the world and telling the members this is not a religious liberty issue. Wow. And they're all lawyers. They're all lawyers.

I've got nothing against lawyers, but they're all lawyers. And and it um it turns out paradoxically that since 2023 there have been multiple lawsuits about unfair dismissal because religious labor labor exemption requests were denied by employers. Kaiser Health in California. There was one in Tennessee not so long ago. And the state courts and most importantly the federal courts are universally stating forced vaccination is a matter of religious liberty.

It's universal. Every lawsuit has been won by the fired individual. So the law courts, the the the secular government, the secular state courts at state level and at federal level are universally declaring every single lawsuit that gets passed that this is a matter of religious liberty. While our own lawyers didn't have the courage to stand up for that and they said to the world and they said to the members, it's not a religious liberty issue. And we pay for those men and women from our tithes.

And we don't pay for them from our tithes for them to be universally wrong. We expect them to get things right from time to time. And fifthly, the problem with this PAL position from the Atlantic Union is it denies the plain teaching of scripture. Now, when they say that we have no doctrinal reason uh uh to object to mandates, actually we do. And I'll show you in two simple slides why we do.

Firstly, um, fundamental belief number 22 is called Christian behavior. And that fundamental belief says that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. If your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, this is what the apostle Paul says about that doctrine. He says, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, that you are not your own? For you are bought with a price.

Therefore, glorify God in your body." So how you treat your body is an is is our fundamental belief in action. We glorify God with how we treat our bodies. And when our fundamental belief says your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, scripture says once you've accepted that, therefore you must glorify God with your body. So is it a matter of doctrine how you treat your body? Yes or no?

Yes, it is. It is not true. We have no theological objection to vaccinations. And so in 1 Corinthians 6 uh which we just looked at talks your body is temple of the Holy Spirit. Glorify God with your body.

Two chapters later 1 Corinthians 8 talks about uh the issue there was food being offered to idols. And the Apostle Paul talks about those whose consciences are tender who are used to seeing food off to idols. Maybe they're new converts. They don't want to eat food offered to idols because they know that those idols are demons. Then he goes on to say, "But there are others of us who know that these idols are nothing, and we have a stronger conscience, and we're happy to eat this meat because we know those idols are nothing." So you have some Christians convicted not to eat the food off its idols, and other Christians convicted to eat the food off its idols.

And Paul recognizes that they're all acting in good conscience. Some conscience have a conscience that is more tender than others. And Paul doesn't deny or denounce those with a tender conscience. And he doesn't affirm those particularly who have a strong conscience. What he says is if food is a cause for their falling that is if I have a strong conscience and I believe it's okay for me to eat this food but next to me is a brother who believes that I should not eat food offered to idols then I will never eat that meat.

Why? Because I I do not want I do so that may not cause one of them to fall. What this text says is that when it comes to what you put in your body we must respect each other's good conscience decisions. If I sit next to you in a restaurant and you take chicken drumsticks and I take fried fried French fries, okay, I'm vegetarian, okay? I'm not going to condemn you for eating chicken drumsticks.

It's clean meat, okay? It may not be the wisest of things these days. I've killed many chickens in my life. I know what food production looks like. But it may not be wise, but it's not immoral.

Right. Right. Correct. And so I'm not going to condemn you for eating a plant-based diet. Believe me, I've eaten enough broccoli so little white worms come crawling out of it.

Some of you have had that experience as well. You should soak your broccoli before you boil it because little white worms come to the surface. I didn't know that as a student. I must have consumed a lot of extra white worms in my student diet. But if if me eating French fries or if me eating chicken drumsticks, which I don't, but where I to eat chicken drumsticks, if that were to be a cause of stumbling to somebody who is seeking a plant-based diet, then I'm going to voluntarily stop eating that that food because I don't want to be a cause of stumbling for my brother or my sister.

What Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 6 is your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. You glorify your body. You glorify God with how you treat your body. And in 1 Corinthians 8 that the Holy Spirit works on your conscience to guide you as to what you put in your body. It is most definitely a doctrinal matter what you put in your body.

And for the church to deny to the world that we have no theological objection to it when our fundamental belief says your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. And in just those these two texts alone, we see that the Holy Spirit guides people as to what they put in their bodies. It is a matter of conscience. So as the COVID pandemic showed, it will be almost impossible in the future for any member to declare a personal deeply held spiritual objection, which is your civil rights uh you have that provision of civil rights. It will almost impossible for any of us to declare a personal deeply held objection to vaccine mandates in the future when they simultaneously claim the ability to strip us of our right to have religious liberty objections.

Those mandates we're on the wrong path. That was the recent path. So now we come to the the wider path which is the wrong path as well. We'll start with the spirit of prophecy. God calls upon us to move carefully.

He warns us against confederating with unbelievers. We are not to bind ourselves with them in business relations. No one is excusable who does this. We are not to confederate with unbelievers. When the Israelites entered the promised land, if you take look at your Bibles here, look at um uh Judges Judges chapter 1.

In Judges chapter 1, the Israelites were warned not to make an alliance, a covenant with the people of the land. remember that. And when they entered the promised land, things were going well. Things were going well until they were conquering wherever they went until in verse 22, their first covenant with the people of land appears. It says Judges 1 verse 22, it says, "The house of the house of Joseph also went up against Bethl, and the Lord was with them.

The house of Joseph sent out spies to Bethl. The name of the city was formerly Luz. When the spies saw a man coming out of the city, they said to him, "Show us the way into the city and we will deal kindly with you." That word kindly is based on the word. It means covenant faithful. And from that moment onwards, the Israelite conquest ran into trouble.

So in Joshua chapter Judges chapter 2, the angel of the Lord appears to the people of Israel. That's Jesus Christ and he says in verse one, I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I promised your ancestors. I said I will never break my covenant with you. That is God's people are in a covenant relationship with God. That's supposed to be an exclusive covenant by the way.

It's a marriage covenant for your part. Verse two, do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. Tear down their altars, but you have not obeyed my commands. See what you have done. And so God's people were warned as they enter the promised land, do not make covenants with the heathen.

And we are also on the verge of the promised land. And God has warned us in the spirit of prophecy, do not confederate with unbelievers. This is the not just the recent path. This is the wrong path that we're moving on. And I'm sharing these things um today.

I may touch on a few toes as we as we go through our sermon here. I'm sharing these things today because I want every Adventist to be saved. And if every Adventist is to be saved, we need to clear the decks. We need to prepare for action. We need to jettison from our lives and from our church life those things that are a snare to us as they proved in the last 5 years.

So we have a statement actually. It's called church state relations. It was voted in 2002. This document was adopted by the council of interchurch interfaith relations of the general conference of 7th Adventists in March 2002. This document is used by our public affairs and religious liberty department.

And this is you can look at look it up for yourself later today. Just look up church state relations in the search function on adventist.org. Now part of that statement says this. In instances when the acceptance of government funding does not violate the foregoing principles, we'll come to them in a minute. Careful consideration should be given as to whether government funds should be obeyed or accepted.

Ongoing government funding as opposed to single financial contributions presents a particular what danger. It is virtually impossible for institutions not to become at least partially dependent on ongoing government funding streams. Such government funding typically is accompanied by government regulation. While such regulation may not violate Christian principles when the money is first received, such regulations are subject to change. Oh yes, they are.

In the events that regulations governing the receipts of government funds change to require the abandonment of the principles for institutions described in the Bible and by LG White, ongoing government funding must be refused even if as a result the institution must be closed, sold or significantly restructured. I agree with every word of that statement. The problem is we just ignore it in practice. That's the problem. I want to take a look for a minute at our health care system in North American Division.

The NAD health care system has multiple sources of income. There's Medicaid, Medicare, there's private insurance payments and there's some contribution for the church but very little. So it's basically your foundation is Medicaid and Medicare payments. Then there's insurance payments. Then there's a there's a few marginal extras on top of that.

So um our healthare system would not live without the Medicaid and Medicare payments. It is completely dependent. That's your bread and butter. That's the foundation of your funding stream. So I didn't put this together, but I have friends in North American Division of Healthcare.

This is the data from 2019 to 2022 2023. So if [Music] um I'm going to have a pointer here. So on the left you have the parts of Adventist Healthcare in North America. There's Adventist Health based in Florida. You have Adventist Health System West based in Roseville, California.

You have Adventist Healthcare Inc. based in Maryland. You have Ketering based in Ketaring, Ohio. And you have Lom Linda based in California. And I just want you to look because 2019 is the same as 2022 2023.

Look under 2022 2023 got two columns in red. According to that, Advent Health raised about 4.9 billion from Medicare in 2022 or 2023. Now some for some of these figures I have 2022 data for some 2023 data but the figures don't change much. We receive Advent Health received 1.48 48 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and other that is patient payments, insurance payments was 8.5 billion totaling 15 billion for Advent Health. Avenous Health System West received 1.37 billion in Medicare.

In 2223 they received 2 billion in Medicaid and 1.8 billion from other a total of 5.2 billion. Aans Healthcare Inc. base in Maryland received 338 million in Medicare, 87 million in Medicaid and 557 million in other giving you just under 1 billion of income there. Ketering received 335 million of income from Medicare. They received 26 million from Medicaid and 2.05 05 billion uh from um other uh that's payments from patients and so forth giving you a total of 2.58 billion.

Then linda received 252 million from Medicare 7 almost 40 million from Medicaid 1.36 billion from other giving you a total of $2.35 billion. Now those those numbers are really vague at the bottom. The bottom line is total income in the bottom right was 26 billion of which seven I'm looking at the figures here 71 almost 12 billion of that was federal funding now just just put this into context if you take that federal funding out the hospital system cease to exist tomorrow it's completely dependent so we are completely dependent on federal funding tithe Tithe last year was 1.3 billion in the NAD. Healthcare income was 26 billion. Do the math.

That means tithe was approximately 3% of the income in the NAD. 97% of our income was healthcare income which is completely dependent on the federal government. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The numbers don't lie. We are a multi-billion dollar conglomerate.

And even though the reports from treasurers only focus on tide, they never tell you about the healthcare income in the same picture because about 96 to 97% of income in the NAD which drives our tithe base which supports the structure is entirely dependent on the federal government. Is it any wonder we took the position we did in the pandemic? We are bought and sold. We are in an alliance with an unholy federal government that does not have our spiritual interests at heart and will one day be the persecuting force that imposes the mark of the beast. And the point about this sermon today is when we beat to quarters is that that mark of the beast is coming.

And if we don't get off that federal train, we're going to write ride that federal train till Jesus comes and we're going to impose the mark of the beast on our members. We either get off that federal train and uphold liberty of conscience for our members for the final crisis of conscience or the system rides that federal train bitter end and we throw our members under the bus once again. That's the choice we have. Are you following me on this? Yes, I'm not making any of this stuff up here.

The NAD healthcare revenue streams and profits are directly tied to the assets and maybe more important to the retirement funds held by the NAD. And there's a very significant deficit in the ND retirement plan. We are partially dependent on those health care assets and the flow of profits to ensure the financial viability of our division. So during the COVID pandemic, we acquiesced to Biden's mandates of September 21 for our healthare workers. We imposed the mandates on our own Adventist healthare workers, many of whom were profoundly opposed to receiving the shots.

I was in Lom Mind in September 21 and there were protests outside the front of the university hospital there from Adventists, physicians and doctors and nurses with placards saying we're not taking the shot. We're not taking the shot. Oh yes you are. Doesn't matter whether you claim you have a consciencebased reason. Yes you are.

Not to have mandated the shots in 2021 would have probably meant we lose Medicaid Medicare funding for our hospitals which would have made them financially unsustainable. we probably had to sell them off. But it's more than that. Because within our health care system, there is simply too much at stake now to stand up for liberty of conscience. The profits from our hospital systems are routinely distributed every year to our NAD collegesmies and unions.

Every union, every Adventist university or college receives standing subsidies from the profits by healthcare systems. There are enormous salaries up to three or4 million dollars a year are paid to administrators and physicians. As one doctor told me recently, we are bought and sold. Nobody wants to give up their luxury homes in California, their boats in the Pacific and their re routine foreign holidays. There is a huge amount of tithe in North America comes from Florida and Southeast California conferences which is where Lomolinda and Advent Health are based.

It goes deeper than that. When you become a union administrator, you sit on the boards of these Adventist healthcare systems and you receive in some cases tens of thousands of dollars in honoraria just for sitting on those boards. Plus routine trips for luxury hotels, golf trips, all expenses paid for the whole family. This is how the hospitals administrators influence the church leaders. So you may have be voted a union president and suddenly discover that you're going to make tens of thousands of dollars a year just for doing your job for sitting on a board.

There's a profound financial conflict of interest. Nobody wants to rock the boat to interrupt the gravy train. Everywhere we see financial conflicts of interest among leaders who are earning significant side incomes, sometimes in excess of their regular denominational salaries simply by sitting on healthcare boards. Just recently, in the last couple of years, uh the IRS got involved at Ketering Healthcare. Some of you know that story.

And it turned out that after many years, there have been many um uh the IRS condemns private enurement or excess private benefit. That is where nonprofit money is given to an individual and it serves their benefits rather than the interests of the nonprofit. The IRS got involved as did the attorney general of the state of Ohio. This has been hushed up in the media, but it's true. As a result of that, almost 20 individuals, senior doctors and senior church leaders, we will not mention here tonight today that have been having to pay back sums in excess of $100,000 on pain of prosecution.

This money was paid to ensure they went along with the gravy train. The net result of our dependence on federal healthc care funding is that we trampled on liberty of conscience for our Adventist brothers and sisters in violation of our own statement on church government relations and of the councils from the spirit of prophecy not to enter into alliances with the with the ungodly. There's a financial conflict of interest at the heart of this system. and those in decision-making positions are making large sums of money and they're not going to jeopardize those private incomes to uphold our liberty of conscience. We have a problem.

Now, you may or may not have known this before, but this is how the system operates when it comes to ADRA. I served with ADRA for many years before it went woke. I served with ADRA for almost 10 years full-time and part-time. I served in central Asia, Azvahan, Tajakhstan, time in Afghanistan, South Sudan, Kenya, Haiti, Peru, many other countries as well. I served all around the world with ADRA.

I was humbled at the way God worked through ADRA teams to alleviate human suffering. And wherever I was long-term with my colleagues, miraculously, churches seem to spring up despite the no proletizing policy. But that statement I read to you a few minutes ago from the GC on church state relations has this statement, this clause. It says, "Thus when laws of a nation permit government assistance to churches or their institutions, our principles permit receipt of funding that is not accompanied by conditions that inhibit our ability to freely practice and promulgate our faith." Key phrase to hire only 7th Adventists. to retain government governance by only 7th Adventists and to observe without compromise principles expressed in the Bible and the writings of LG White.

Now, if you receive USAD funding, you are expressly banned from promulgating your faith. If you receive European Union funding, you are expressly banned from promulgating your faith. In fact, there is not a single institutional donor in the world. British Foreign Government, Japanese Foreign Ministry, European Union, Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Norway, all these major donors, every single one of them bans you from proletizing, but they are our primary sources of income for ADRA in violation of our own policies. What it means is we no longer stand up for what we believe, but we swing with where our donors want us to go.

which is why ADRA is an active and u participant in the climate change treaty negotiations which will lead to Sunday lockdowns to save the environment which will lead to Sunday sacredness. This is the problem. ADRA has become financially dependent on USAD funding even when USAD expressly prohibits proletizing by by employees paid from their funding and in direct violation of our own policy. Our own policy says that if if a donor says you can't promagate your faith then we have to shut off relations with that donor. But that is not what we have done.

We have ex ridden that gravy train. And if you look at the ADAR 9990s that have been out on the internet recently there are some at least five church leaders in the GC their travel and and honorary expenses range from 60 to 130,000 a year just to sit on those boards. Nobody's going to rock the boat because key leaders are getting financially enriched by their participation in the gravy train. So UN consultative status I'm talking here not just about the recent path but the the wrong path that we're on right now. If you want to uh apply to for to become an an NGO with the United Nations, you go through this process here.

on the economic and social council websites of the United Nations and in 1985 the general conference became an approved um NGO consultative NGO status with the United Nations. ADRA international also has the same NGO status. This allows you to sit in key meetings to share your voice to share your concerns etc. But the key point is that if you are if you are a if you have consultative NGO status with the UN, you must uphold the values and goals of the UN. That's what the documents legally require you to do.

And uh brother Hank Villian an attorney a banker from South Africa now in Australia if you look at his pearl campaign he did a brilliant interview and analysis last week on YouTube um on the unholy alliance between the GC and the UN. And you look at our filings with the UN and when we start in ' 85, the Amish church exists to um pro prop um promagate the three angels messages and prepare people for the coming of Jesus. And 20 years later, Gab's church acts to uphold the values and goals of the United Nations and our official filings. We we've evolved over the years to keep our good uh to keep in the good books of the United Nations. Now the United Nations has millennium these are the goals we are signed up to.

This is what we are committed to supporting at the Unite General Conference. The mill the Millennium Development Goals. Maybe you've heard of them. Close to 40% of the population of the developing world lives in extreme poverty only two years ago. Since then, the world has harved extreme poverty.

That's good news. With the UN's Millennium Development Goals, greatly contributing to this process. Now, those Millennium Development Goals are now known as the 2030 agenda. Have you heard of that? The 2030 agenda.

We are committed as a general conference to supporting the 2030 agenda legally because we have consultative status with the United Nations. This is what it says. Agenda 2030. This is taken from the UN's own websites. Recognizing the success of the Millennium Development Goals and the need to complete the job of eradicating poverty, the UN adopted the ambitious 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which includes ending poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequality, is sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, life on land, peace, justice and strong institutions and partnerships for the goals.

Now actually we could agree with a lot of those things as Christians like eliminating poverty. Absolutely. Goal 13 because there are certain a certain number of goals with the with the 2030 agenda urges the world governments to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. We know from Laatoato C and the book Great Controversy that climate change and climate emergency will be used as the excuse to enforce Sunday sacredness. So when we are committed to supporting the UN climate change agenda, we are committed to upholding Sunday sacredness.

Goal 10, reduce inequality within communities. This is what the general the United Nations website says. Even the richest countries still have communities living in abject poverty. True. The oldest democracies still wrestle with racism, homophobia, and transphobia, and religious intolerance.

Global inequality affects us all, no matter who we are or where we are from. And there are some things there that we don't want to see. And there are things there that we can't agree to. We we can't agree to we we want racism to be eliminated. It's a reality.

But we are not concerned so much about um eliminating homophobia and transphobia. What that means is if you are signing up to the 2030 agenda, you're committing yourself to promote trans ideology. That's the net effect. Goal 10, like all the other goals that is on climate change, includes very specific goals. Here's one of those goals.

This is from the UN website. The goal of the UN is to facilitate orderly, safe, regular, and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of plans and well-managed migration policies. And what's happened over the last four years across the southern border with many NOS's including ADRA facilitating the mass migration into America is part of this agenda. That was effectively one of the largest human and sex traff sex trafficking operations in human history. And we have been complicit in that.

We are complicit in that. The general conference of SDAs and ADRA both have consultative status at the UN with the ECOS. That's the he said on the screen there economic and social council is the heart of the United Nations system to advance the three dimensions of sustainable development economic, social, environmental. It is a central platform for fostering debates and innovative thinking, driving consensus, forging consensus on ways forward and coordinating efforts to achieve internationally agreed goals. It is also responsible for the follow-up of major UN conferences and summits.

So when you have consultative NGO status with the ECOS of the United Nations, it requires that entity that that NGO to support and contribute to the goals of the UN, including agenda 2030. Some of which we can support in good conscience and some of which such as coordinated climate action leading to Sunday lockdowns or trans rights, we can never support in good conscience. Mass migration regardless of the wishes of the receiving community is part of the agenda 2030. Hence, ADRA has been actively working with the Biden administration in the mass migration of migrants up through the Central Americas. If you continue about the wrong path, we look at the ecumenical movement.

The GC's PAL department is actively involved in the ecumenical movement. Dr. Ganon Dop serves as the secretary to the board of one of these ecumenical alliances. The papacy is active in all those ecumenical alliances. And what is the goal of the papacy for their involvement in the ecumenical movement?

Well, the end result of the ecumenical movement serves to further Rome's aspirations for dominance in the Christian world. It's described in Vatican 2's council. The ecumenical decree called Unitartis Red Read Integratio. There it is on the screen there. That was voted in 1964.

The purpose for the papacy to participate in the ecumenical movement is to unify the separated churches that is the Protestants and Orthodox under the authority of the bishop of Rome that is under the authority of antichrist. That is the reason for the ecumenical movement from the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. The decree on ecumenism from the second Vatican council states this. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the second Vatican council. Christ the Lord founded one church and one church only.

Goes on to say, "Nevertheless, our separated brethren, that is Adventists included, whether considered as individuals or as communities and churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wish to bestow on all those who through him were born again into one body and with him quickened to newness of life. That unity which the holy scriptures and the ancient tradition of the church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is the all embracing means of salvation, that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. And so the the purpose of the Catholic Church, the Antichrist, to participate in the ecumenical movement is very clear. It's unifying everybody under Rome.

And we are active participants in that process. The text goes on to say, "All Christians will at last in a common celebration of the Eucharist be gathered into the one and only church in that unity which Christ bestowed on his church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something that she can never lose. And we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." And so the purpose of the ecumenical movement is to lead all Christians back to Rome. And we should have no part in that ecumenical movement.

It's as simple as that. Sister White describes it thus. She says, "The church that holds the word of God is irreconcilably separated from Rome." Protestants were once thus apart from this great church apostasy, but they have approached more nearly to her and are still on the path of reconciliation to the church of Rome. Rome never changes. Despite what Ganon do said last year that Rome changed after the second Vatican council, this is a church leader openly denying the spirit of prophecy and nobody in the GC walked back his statements, which is appalling.

Rome never changes. Her principles have not altered in the least. She has not lessened the breach between herself and Protestants. They have done all the advancing. What does this argue for the Protestantism of this day?

It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the papacy. And as she goes on to say, writing from the Waldensian valleys. She says Rome never changes. She claims infallibility, it is Protestantism that will change.

The adoption of liberal ideas, go woke, go broke. the adoption of liberal ideas on its part on the part of Protestants will bring it where it can clasp the hand of Catholicism. So we have we are the recent path is one that's going to lead to more trampling on conscience. But at a broader level we're on the wrong path as a world church here. We are forming these ungodly alliances with the heathen.

And this is coming back to haunt us in terrible ways. Whether it be Adventist Healthc Care's dependence on US federal healthcare funding, ADRA's dependence on USAD funding, ADRA and the General Conference's consultative of NGO status at the United Nations or the GC's active involvement in the ecumenical movement, we are on the wrong path. Why is this? Because due to our confederating with unbelievers, we are compromising our beliefs. Our leaders are personally compromised by the sheer amounts of money involved, much of which makes it way into their private pockets via large honoraria payments.

Thus, our leaders have no financial or personal incentive to stand up for what is right. They're paid they are bought and sold by the ways of this world. Our leaders were only too ready to trample on liberty of conscience and to unilaterally suspend your right to act in harmony with your conscience during the pandemic and in future pandemics. We are on both the wrong path and on a rash path. This will hurt our members in the future unless there is immediate root and branch reform.

Now we are now between we've we finished one pandemic. We're coming up to a GC session. I'm preaching this sermon because this is a chance for our world church to take an honest look in the mirror. Amen. And to say we need leaders who understand the times in which we live and are willing to make the necessary decisions so that we can beat to quarters.

so that every Adventist member has the opportunity to live within their conscience in the next crisis of conscience which will almost certainly be the Sunday law crisis. So what is the right path? What is the right path? Well, I was chatting about this with some colleagues just over the last couple of days. It's easy for members to think that these are forces over which I have no control.

Like we have no control whether the GC has consultive status at the UN. We have no control whether applies to funding. We have no control of whether Ganondop is an active participant in the movement to bring all churches back under Roman authority. We have no control over these events. But there are some things we can do.

One is I'd encourage you all to check out the SDA Pearl campaign. The SDA Pearl campaign is put together by um concerned lay Adventists, many of whom were profoundly hurt by the pandemic. Some of them lost their jobs, some were forced to live in tents during the pandemic. And if you go to the SDA Pearl campaign, um they have documents on their website and many hundreds of churches in Australia and South Africa and increasingly in America are voting these statements in their business meetings. And these statements are a they are saying effectively that the Adventist health message is not based on peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Therefore, you need to set aside the 2015 vaccination statement. And because the 21 statement is called a reaffirmation of the 2015 statement, if you set aside the 2015 statement, then you must logically set aside the 2021 reaffirmation statement. And beyond that, there is a clause at the bottom of that statement. And churches across America and around the world are meeting in business session and rejecting these GC statements. And you can do it in your congregation.

Amen. It says there, "We the members of the hypothetically state line congregation believe that as no as no person has jurisdiction over the conscience of another and that therefore the general conference adcom of 7th Adventist Church has exceeded its authority in issuing the 2015 immunization statement and the 2021 reaffirmation statement which presumed jur GC jurisdiction over the consciences of individual members. As such, the for instance state line SDA congregation rejects outright the jurisdiction and presumed authority of these statements over any member of our congregation and both defends and affirms the rights of all members of our state line sea congregation to honor their body temple according to the convictions of the Holy Spirit without coercion, condemnation or criticism. It's a powerful statement and hundreds of churches are now voting these and sending it to their conferences and there's at least a couple of conferences have realized there is a problem. You cannot base a health message from God on atheistic science.

And so if you the more churches do this and here in state line maybe you'll do it. There are representatives of many churches here. Maybe some of you watching online you you can do this as well in your home congregation. Vote this as a church and you're not it's not antivax or provax. is saying in our church, regardless if you take the vax or you do not take the vax, you should be able to do that in good conscience without coercion, criticism, or condemnation.

We are a home for all people in how you treat your body temple. It's not pro or antivaccination. It's pro- liberty of conscience. And so this is something that we can all do in our congregations. We have a a terminology problem.

We talk about the members of the church. Yes. Well, the sentence the members of the church has two nouns, members and church. And there's a possessive in the middle. Members of the church.

And because one possesses the other, that means they're not synonymous with one another. Like this is my dog. But my dog is not me and I'm not my dog. Yes. Because there is a possessive, it means they're not synonymous with one another.

That's the how the language works. So when we say we are members of the church, this is a theologically incorrect statement. Is better to say the members are the church. The body of Christ is the membership, not the structure. The members are the church.

Sister White is very clear that God has a church. It is the commandmentkeeping faithful members. So when the church, when we say the members are the church, that means that whether you have a legal structure or not, that's immaterial. The church is the membership. But when we say the members of the church, which is terminology we all use.

When pastors talk, we we imply that the members are separate to the church. We said we come to realize the church, we think of the church is the legal hierarchy, your conference, your union, your division, general conference. And when pastors talk among themselves and say the church is doing X, Y, or Z, they are never referring to their local congregations ever. They are only and always referring to the hierarchy, the legal hierarchy. And this kind of thinking has infected many of our administrators.

So they think of themselves as the church. So when our GC issues this statement and and Ted Wilson says the the worldwide SDA church and he's speaking on behalf of himself and his two fellow officers, they literally think they are the embodiment of the church. And so what is good for the structure must be good for the church financially. And what is not good financially for the structure must be therefore bad for the church and to be avoided at all costs. You see how the thinking goes?

And so it is preferable when we issue statements like this and I would encourage your congregation to sign vote the SD pearl statement so that all members vaccinated or not who choose to get vaccinated, choose not to can say this is a church that will uphold my liberty of conscience. This is something your local congregation can do. The second thing is when it relates to the COVID statements, we want reconciliation. You know, Dr. O was right.

We're not trying to set up a separate movement here. We want the church to hang together and hold together. What holds the church together is not structural policy. It's love and trust. Amen.

And so the seven Rs, I think it's important, and this is to our GC leaders, that they recognize the trauma that their statements have caused. that they retract the 2015 and 21 statements immediately. That they repent publicly for the pain and damage they've caused to innocent Adventists. That they reassure the memberships that such statements will never be issued in the future. Amen.

That they restore the damage caused by the statements. If you're earning $26 billion a year in your healthare system, you can set aside 10 billion out of those profits to provide at least a nominal um rec recompense to those who've been hurt by your decision-making to replace every leader who voted for the October 21 reaffirmation statement. Since that statement was issued for four years, they have sat in objecturate silence. No discussion is possible over these statements and members have been crying for an honest redress of an honest grievance. And the church leaders are hard-hearted.

They will not discuss with anybody. No discussion is possible. This is wrong. We're a voluntary organization. The leaders need to listen to the members legitimate grievance.

And because for four years they've done nothing except demonize and deplatform and cancel people like me who spoken up for the members. They have assured us by their actions over the last four years they are not fit for leadership positions. Amen. And seventh, seventhly, seventhly, seventh point, seventh eye is to reconcile with the members so our worldwide sea movement can move forward in unity. We need reconciliation.

We can forgive. It takes one person to forgive, but it takes two people to reconcile. And if we're going to enter into the final crisis in the near future, we need to know that we are united spiritually as brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot be entering the final crisis looking over our shoulders waiting for the next GC statement to shoot us down visly our employees or our governments. We have to know we're on the same side.

At the moment we're not on the same side. the financial interests of the UN of the institution, the financial benefits to the leaders and their desire to acquies to the demands of the second beast of revelation and the first beast of revelation, the papacy by the UN movement and the ecumenical movement means that the interests of the members are not figuring in the calculations of our leaders. We're not important to them. What matters is keeping the system financially liquid and profitable for those at the top of the system. Now, I recognize that this kind of preaching may get me into trouble.

So be it, but it's the truth. And if we're to beat to quarters and be unified as a world church, we need to take definite measures so the past the wrong path we're on is not repeated. I believe that by our October 2025 UN meeting, the executive committee of the general conference should remove and attract all official statements other than that which is voted by GC sessions that we cannot have. Some of those statements are issued by the adcom. Some are issued by the executive committee.

Many of them are issued by just the GC president in consultation with a handful of others. And we have never given those small groups of one, two, three, four or five men the right to determine theology for the whole church. All of the statements need to be removed because they do nothing except provide mood music and align us with the politically correct priorities of the United Nations. Two, by December 25, all we should cancel all honoraria paid by SDA institutions to church leaders above a nominal sum. Church leaders should not be earning tens of thousands of dollars for sitting on boards that is their job to sit on.

because they're earning those tens of thousands of dollars, they have no interest in standing up for the conscience of the members. Therefore, we should cancel all those honoraria with immediate effect. By December 25, as it will take some time to do, the general conference in ADRA should withdraw from our NGO consultive status with the United Nations. We uphold the goals of scripture, not the goals of the United Nations. And when we say that the general conference in session is the highest authority in the church, that's no longer true because when we're committed to upholding the goals of the United Nations legally, that means that the highest authority in the church is now the United Nations um general session, not the general conference in session.

We have subcontracted the highest authority in our church away from scripture, away from the general conference in full session to the United Nations, which is a godless group of people. By January 26, we should act. We should withdraw from all active involvement in the ecumenical movement by 2030. And this is getting more controversial. If I'm not controversial yet, this is more controversial.

We should divest from all ownership of the of our NAD healthcare system. The NAD health care system does not reflect the Adventist health message. It's sold out to the biioharmaceutical industry. It has nothing what to do with the message that God has given us in this book of prophecy, ministry of healing, councils on diet and health, etc., etc. We need to go back to basics and proclaim a health message.

We cannot dance with the devil. We cannot sit in committees with the papacy, which is the antichrist of pro of prophecy, and not expect that we'll come away spiritually compromised unless willing to proclaim the second and third angel's messages. And we should also phase out all ADRA funding that that that specifically prevents ADRA staff from sharing the gospel. What that what that means is that we as members need to step up to the plate and support ADRA so that Adventist community services as we have here in America can be a real genuine Christian blessing to those in need. It's not just stepping aside from USAD funding or European Union funding.

is we're going to step up to the plate as members and we're going to bless the sick and dying and hurting in our own communities. So, we're not just going to mingle among people, but we're going to meet their needs as a body of Christ without being reliant on the federal government. And we need to become a movement with a message once again. Now, I've listed out here on that screen a series of actions. Is this going to happen with the current GC leadership?

Not a chance. Not a chance. Everybody's got their hand in the till. Snouts in the trough is an expression we use in England. It's not going to happen.

But by God's grace, it can happen. And we can be praying from this day forward that God will give us leaders at the 2025 General Conference session who understand the times in which we live and have the moral courage to do the right thing. And God will raise up men and women in all the divisions around the world. God will raise up those men and women who can take on those leadership roles and who are willing to cut down the the vested financial interests that are forcing our system to trample on liberty of conscience for the members. So let's move to our conclusions here this afternoon.

It's almost time for our 4:00 meeting. It's almost time. The last time I was here, I sat down and Dr. O sat next to me and it was 12:30 and somebody texted me and I got this buzz on my phone. It says, "Dr.

O has deliberately restricted your preaching time. He's giving you 5 minutes." I leaned across to Dr. O and he says, "Brother Vine, you said you've got till 4:00." And so my my thought on this is that like the ball games, we used to have little boys and girls with little trays walking up and down the aisle giving out sachets of orange juice and apple juice for those with blood sugar problems because these sermons are going on longer and longer. All right. So, what do we say in conclusion here today?

The recent path, what's happening over the last few years from 2015 to 2021 to this Atlantic Union, the Gleer statement, this path is going to lead to schism. It's going to lead to schism. And that's not what we want. Members, people will not join a church that says we have the right to control your conscience and your body. And members are not going to stay in a church that says we can override your conscience.

Members are not going to put up with it. In response to my sermon um appeal to nobility on the 15th of January 2022, which kind of started this ruckus in the first place, the GC issued this statement 7 days later. It was called concerns regarding COVID 19, church governance and liberty of conscience. and they say the question of whether an individual should take the COVID vaccine or not has generated significant controversy within the SDA church. In the light of Christ's prayer that they may all be one, this situation is tragic.

Churches have been divided, family members alienated, and friendship severed. The mission of the church has been hindered and its evangelistic outreach to the world has been negatively affected. At times, inaccurate statements have fostered and furthered these divisions. Recently, they're talking about me here now. Some have challenged the right of the general conference adcom to speak on behalf of the church.

These critical statements have the potential to foster false doctrine. No. Undermine church authority. That's the number one concern. It's about power.

It's about power. It's not about co. It's not even about liberty of conscience. This is about the power of leaders to exercise authority over your mind, your body, and your conscience. This is about power.

The the language as the first concern they have is to undermine church authority. When in December last year, I met with Elder Mitch and all the village church elders and Elder Mitchie had met with the elders and the board about four times and each time they wanted me to be removed because they didn't like my preaching and pastor Kelly said, "No, we have due process." Um, in that fourth meeting, somebody asked the question and Elder Mitch, this is from the transcript. It's never been published before, but we do have the transcript. Let's cut right to the chase. This is Elder Mitch.

You want to do it tonight, you can do it tonight. Let me tell you, Conrad, you can just say, "I understand. I can't. If I need to back down, I'm going to continue this. You need to stop going out and preaching all over the place and the attacks on the GC." I intervene, interrupted, and said, "You mean like regime church?" Elder Mitra says, "Whatever." Or you can say, "Okay, I'm going to step back from leadership in the village church.

I didn't say membership, just leadership, and I just won't. I'll be a member in this church and we'll say, "Okay, let's go home." So, the number one thing that he wanted me to stop doing was attacks on the GC. It's not about doctrine. It's not about theology. It's not about COVID or liberty of conscience or vaccine mandates.

The key issue is you can never question the authority of the GC. That's the key issue. Elder Mitchie was pushing for me to no longer have any leadership roles at Village Church with immediate effects due to my attacks on the GC without being willing to go through the due process required in the church manual. To enforce his demand, in December 24, Mitchie had suspended the necessary liability insurance for New Village Church Clinic until I was no longer in my leadership roles. Those are completely unrelated issues.

This kind of pressure is commonly known as blackmail and in denominational structure that is held together by goodwill and mutual trust is completely unacceptable. Due process must be upheld for all members or we lapse into tyranny. So we're on the the wrong path, the recent path that we're on. Unless we correct this path, it's going to lead to schism. The wrong path is going to lead to persecution.

Yes, is going to lead to persecution. This is the tragedy. When we are so in bed with the powers of this world, we can no longer afford to stand up for what is right anymore. When the mark of the beast is imposed, it will come from the US federal government and it will be imposed via the United Nations with all governments in the world. We are in an unholy alliance with both of those players right now.

And if we're going to clear the decks and get ready for the final crisis, we need to voluntarily while we have the time, withdraw from those unholy alliances so we can be the force and the movement that God has called us to be. But if we do not with withdraw from those alliances when the time of truth comes, when the final crisis comes, do we have any confidence that our structure will voluntarily withdraw in that moment or they just go along with what's going to happen? They're going to go along with it. Hence the appeal today is that we voluntarily while we have the freedom and the time to do so with new leadership in the 2025GC session move away from those unholy alliances in order that we can be proclaiming the three angels messages without financial compromise or inst fear of institutional failure. We have to make be proactive so we're positioned for the final crisis rather than just stumble into it and then say oh well we'll find an excuse to throw our members under the bus once again.

The wrong path will lead to persecution. I've showed this slide up in Maine between faithful and convicted Adventists and institutional and cultural Adventist. The only thing I've added to that there is the line in red. That's the institution and cultural Adventists are becoming the persecutors of the faithful Adventists. And faithful Adventists are becoming persecuted by the institutional Adventists.

It's happening. And I'm not the only one facing that kind of council culture. And unless there is a reform and a reformation, that schism is going to get wider. And I'm not here to encourage it. I'm saying we can avoid this if we seek reconciliation.

Amen. If we turn away from the wrong path and we no longer follow the recent path, but we follow the right path and we deliberately and with intent and with prayer say we need to pull back from all these un unholy alliances so we can be the people that God has called us to be. So the right path, this I think is my final slide here. Our time is up. The food is probably baked in the oven multiple times over for the pot lock.

It's quarter 2. I'm preaching the sermon flows on Hawaii time, not central time. The right path will lead to reconciliation. Amen. We need leaders with the courage to stare the vested financial interests down and say that God's kingdom does not consist of worship of mammon.

Amen. God's consist God's kingdom is a matter of the heart. And God has called us to proclaim a message to the world. And that message cannot be proclaimed while we are in bed with the first and second beasts of Revelation 13. Therefore, while we have the chance, let us not continue on the recent path, for that's going to lead to schism.

Let's turn away from the wrong path because that's leading to persecution. Let's choose the right path and choose reconciliation and choose a purity of faith that is not compromised by the financial gods of this world. Amen. My prayer is that our leaders in our general conference session will turn away from the wrong path. He'll rebuke the recent path and that we will choose the right path.

That we will have roots and branch reform and that the gospel can go to the world unencumbered by vested and financial conflicts of interests. Amen. If we don't do this, if we don't do this, then the next crisis that comes, we may not hang together as a world church. Members are waking up worldwide. We've seen what happened and we're not going to stick with it again.

So, for our world church to hang together, which is what I want more than anything else, for our church to uphold what we believe, to uphold liberty of conscience, because you cannot proclaim fear God and give glory to him if people don't have liberty of conscience to respond to that call. Amen. Therefore, we must be champions of liberty of conscience. The third angel's message makes no sense. Do not receive the mark of the beast unless you have the ability to refuse the mark of the beast.

We must be those champions of conscience. And if not, if not, God works in mysterious ways. So pray that our leaders will step back from the recent path. They will turn away from the wrong path. And together, we will pursue the right path.

Pray about it. put it in God's hands. Let's see what God can do. Amen.