To perform a search, click on ==> Search

No Abortions in European Adventist

Medical Institutions!

by Nic Samojluk

I received the following E-mail communication from Dr. Ronald K. Noltze, a Seventh-day Adventist physician residing in Germany with several decades of medical experience who assured me that in our European medical institutions our physicians do not offer abortion services to their patients. This is in sharp contrast with our American SDA institutions where even elective abortions are performed in several hospitals in addition to the so called "therapeutical abortions." No doubt, such abortions are no therapy for the unborn baby, and no doctor would accept such therapy for himself. No wonder, since abortion in most cases involves dismemberment or poisoning! Here is my friend's E-mail: [The original was written in Spanish. Dr. Noltze is fluent in German, English, and Spanish. I am glad he did not choose to write in German, which is Greek to me!]

An E-mail From Germany

Dear Nic,

No doubt, your argument is a valid one. There is nothing in it I would counter. There is though a fact and it is your intimate knowledge about the issue and it would require a great deal of time for me to get up to date again on a topic I did once participate in the discussions. Then I was well informed and well documented. Nevertheless I did observe the determined resistance by Americans. This attitude was the reason my document was not published, and the European representatives were not invited to participate in the discussions that followed on this issue.

Since my priorities were not directly connected with this subject, but rather had to do with other responsibilities, I ceased to fight for a change in situations which were outside my line of influence and responsibility. But, for your information, there have not been nor there are any abortions in the institutions of the European Division of Seventh-day Adventists.

It is true that the official documents are valid when they are issued by the GC. It is also true that the GC acts as the world voice of the church. Nevertheless, it is also a fact that regarding this issue, as well as in many others, there are significant differences. The mechanism for the annullment of a document issued by a department of the GC is so complex that other procedures and divergent ways of acting are more feasible.

So go ahead with your efforts regarding this issue. More so, since this is the result of a doctoral dissertation.

Sincerely,

Ronald K. Noltze

The Reason Behind the E-mail

The letter listed above was the result of an number of E-mails he exchanged with me recently in response to my mass mailing connected with my doctoral dissertation entitled "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventist Attitude Towards Abortion," which I posted on the Internet [ www.sdaforum.com/page100.html ], and the slide presentation entitled "The Broken Blueprint" I had the privilege of showing at the request of Dr. Paul Giem in Loma Linda on October 13, 2007, which I also posted on the Internet [ www.sdaforum.com/page14.html ]. A few days prior to my slide presentation, I sent an advertisement by E-mail to all my friends and acquaintances on my mailing list, and Dr. Noltze was one of those that responded with some interesting comments. This prompted this exchange of E-mail communications between us.

Dr. Noltze's Initial Comment

Dear Nic:

I am interested in EGW statement regarding medical evangelism. I am interested mainly because, considering the real priority contained in her Otsego message, it is difficult to find the focus on health which Loma Linda has implemented out of her 1863 suggestions.

Greetings

Ron [Noltze]

My Initial Response

Dear friend:

I am enclosing for you several Internet links related to: my investigation dealing with the role the Adventist church played in the legalization of abortion in the United States, and also the two events on behalf of the sactity of human life which I had the privilege of presenting in visual form here in Loma Linda. One of them is still unfinished, and the one I presented last Sabbath I have been unable to upload it on the Internet yet.

The two Adventist leaders who prevented Ellen White's vision from becoming a reality were Percy Magan and Arthur Daniells. Before their death, both of them did regret a great deal what they had done. Following the great loss of two institutions belonging to the Adventist Church due to Dr. Kelloggs fault, Ellen White admonished that we should not plan to consolidate the Adventist medical work into a giant terciary care medical facility, but rather invest the financial means for the building of a large number of smal sanitariums around the world, designed not for competing with the world, but rather in order to teach people a healthful lifestyle without the use of drugs. She also adviced not to seek accreditation for our schools.

These two leaders repeated Dr. Kellogg's mistake. They made an effort to seek the accreditation of the College of Medical Evangelists; they embarked into the construction of two gigantic institutions, one on Loma Linda and the other in Los Angeles; they incurred into indebtedness amounting millions of dollars; they were forced by the accrediting agency to hire non-Adventist physicians and teachers, which resulted in the introduction of the theory of evolution as well as the loss of the missionary spirit. The majority of the graduates dedicated themselves to making money instead of spreading themselves around the world, and the leaders found themselves forced by the accrediting agency, AMA, to abandon the teachding of healthful living and to resort to the use of treatments based on drugs. All this and more for fear of being denied the much coveted accreditation.

Eventually, when the State of Hawaii legalized elective abortion, half of the physicians [non-Adventist doctors at our hospital] demanded their right to offer elective abortion services. This request reached the Pacific Union, and later the North American Division. Due to the fear of financial loss, our Castle Memorial Hospital began to offer said abortion services. The then president of said Division declared that due to the hunger and overpopulation of the world the Adventist Church was leaning towards abortion. The result was that five Adventist hospitals eventually decided to offer elective abortion services.

All this, and much more, I have documented in my dissertation. There is no doubt that Loma Linda has done a great deal for the Adventist work, and has sent many missionary physicians to different places of the world, but this is not even a small sample of the work the Lord had planned to carry out through the Adventist medical missionary work.

The result is that the Adventist work in the United States is not growing. Half of the Adventist teachers are teaching and supporting the theory of evolution. Several of our hospitals are doing what Hitler did in Germany: they engage in the systematic destruction of a large number of powerless human beings, but we continue to label ourselves as the "Remnant church" which "keeps God's Commandments." We adamantly defend the sanctity of the Sabbath with one hand, while with the other we are exterminating the most innocent members of the human race.

I have gone overboard. Here are the Internet links:

  The Broken Blueprint: http://sdaforum.com/page187.html

        Doctoral Dissertation: http://www.sdaforum.com/page100.html

        Dramatic & Alarming Discoveries: http://sdaforum.com/page186.html

        Slide Shows: http://sdaforum.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewforum.php?f=23&sid=8ec34eb0f773f7267173185107b8520f

May the Lord continue to bless you and your wife!

Nic [AKA Nicolas] Samojluk

The Internet Link to the Power Point

Slide Presentation

Hi!

I am sending to you the Internet link for my last Sabbath's slide presentation. I have just finished uploading it onto the Internet.

The Broken Blueprint

http://sdaforum.com/The%20Broken%20Blueprint%20Revised.ppt

Chau!

Nic Samojluk

Dr. Noltze's Follow Up

Thanks for the material. Excellent, and very conprehensive.

Does your thesis' premise and its title represent an exclusive evaluation of the SDA situation in the United States?

In the event it is not limited to said specific geographic location, it would be recommended that no generalization is made regarding the Adventist position. The stratey followed regarding this issue by SDA institutions in a number of other countries is profundly different, and setting a common denominator regarding the General Conference and the Loma Linda position to include other Divisions is not warranted.

This fact has been discussed on repeated occasions at meetings and professional gatherings. I do not see so far in the material I have reviewed any evicence of this internal church controversy.

My greeting to you

Ronald Noltze

Former Berlin Adventist Hospital Director, Germany

Former Euro-Africa Division Health Associate Director

My Long Response to Dr. Noltze

Dear friend:

Thank you for your timely comments. I wil attempt to explain and clarify what might lend itself to confusion. First I want to state that the topic I presented on October 13 in Loma Linda represents Part II of my dissertation. Part I took place on August 4. In the event Dr. Paul Giem were to invite me to continue with this topic in the future there would possibly be three additional presentations. This means that there is much more to say and to clarify in relation to the Adventist position regarding abortion and what I am planning to do if the Lord grants me the opportunity.

Second, it is a fact that the study I conducted was done in the United States; nevertheless, I believe that it represents the official position of the Adventist Church for the following reasons: The General Conference does not speak for the United States only, but rather the Adventist Church in all the world. The paper known as the "Guidelines on Abortion" is not a North American Division document, but it was rather voted by the General Conference. When Jan Paulson issues a statement, he speaks on behalf of all the Adventists in the world, and when other individuals who occupy high positions of responsibility at the GC speak about this issue, they do so in the name of the Adventist Church.

Third, my investigation was done on the basis of what Adventist authors published in books and Adventist magazines of wide circulation. I devoted two of the most important chapters to everything that was published regarding abortion in "Ministry" between 1970 and 2006. This publication is recognized as an official periodical of the church.

It is true that the issue of abortion has been discussed in different parts of the world, nevertheless when it was voted to approve the only official document dealing with this subject, the opinion of other Divisions did not prevail. This means that what was approved represents the official position of the church.

If any of the other Divisions of the church have any documents dealing with abortion in opposition to the official position reflected in the above mentioned abortion guidelines, I would like to know, and I would be happy to include it in my future presentations. In the event such document does not exist, then I would venture to say that the silence represents approval, or else a fear of offending those who defend abortion, or perhaps a fear of loosing one's influence or position. In that case my suggestion would be that a private personal opinion is not of much moral value.

By the way, I wonder if you noticed that on my Internet page [ www.sdaforum.com ] I have a section labelled as "Readers' Corner." I would like to include your comments about this topic there. Usually I take the liberty of doing this without asking because I have a statement there saying that I reserve the right to publish any comments I receive by electronic communication. Nevertheless, since I do not know whether you have seen said statement, I am asking you whether I can do this.

Next, I am including some paragraphs from my dissertation in order that they might clarify what I have stated above:

From Appendix B:

"A: The official pro-choice position of the church accurately reflects the current general attitude of Adventists toward the issue of abortion.

C: Wrong! The final result of this investigation (see Chapter XIII of this study) indicates the opposite. Two thirds of those who have expressed their opinions in the leading SDA publications between 1970 and 2006 seem to belong in the pro-life group, and only one third to the pro-choice category."

From Chapter I

"According to Jan Paulsen, the current president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, this is not the case. On the occasion of the centennial celebration of the SDA work in the Philippines in 2005, he publicly declared that the Adventist church is definitely pro-life, [12] but all this reference to freedom of choice in the official Guidelines on Abortion seem to indicate otherwise.

Besides, in response to a telephone call to Jan Paulsen's office by Teresa Beem, who participated in the adoption of said guidelines, the president's secretary confirmed that the official position of the church is pro-choice, which statement was confirmed by George Reid, also from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist."

From Chapter XII

"Dr. Paulsen made another statement regarding this topic in connection with his visit to the Philippines for the celebration of the centennial of the church in the 7,100-island republic on March 2 to 5, 2005. He is reported to have met with Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, lauded Pope John Paul II for pursuing a sustained advocacy for peace, and stated that Adventists are pro- life and definitely against abortion. However, they favor planned parenthood. [5]Couples should determine the resources at their disposal for a responsible parenthood. Now compare this statement by Paulsen with the following report by Teresa Beem, who participated in the committee that voted on the church's Guidelines on Abortion:"

Quote:

Several weeks ago, I called Jan Paulsen's office to see if there was any update on the church's position. Though President Paulsen was not there, his secretary assured me that the pro-choice position had not changed. She then advised me to get the "official" word from Dr. George Reid, head of the Biblical Research Institute. I was shocked at his admission that the church was indeed pro-choice. I told him that I was speaking at an ethics class, taught by Pastor Bill Kilgore at Southwestern Adventist University and needed a quote.

He said "Adventist are pro-choice but under strict guidelines." He then went on to say that each Adventist hospital could choose to accept or reject the church's guidelines. Some Adventist hospital performed many abortions. He even said, "Washington Adventist Hospital in Tacoma Park has become an abortion mill." [6] That he would openly state this knowing that I was going to quote him stunned me. Up until this point, the officials in the church had always denied being pro-choice. It dawned on me that even my conscience had been insulated by the ambiguity of the church. Now the church was openly admitting its support of abortions-on-demand directly and indirectly. [7]

If we add to this what we find in the official Guidelines on Abortion, [8] then the dissonance between Paulsen's claim and the evidence we find elsewhere become apparent. It is true that said guidelines include impressive pro-life assertions:

Quote:

Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God's ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God's image, and requires respect for prenatal life; Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons; Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness; Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the church; Human life has unique value because human beings, though fallen, are created in the image of God; God values human life not on the basis of human accomplishments or contributions but because we are God's creation and the object of His redeeming love; God calls for the protection of human life and holds humanity accountable for its destruction; And, God is especially concerned for the protection of the weak, the defenseless, and the oppressed. [9]

Nevertheless, the force of these pro-life statements is neutralized by many other statements in the same official church document that clearly emphasize personal freedom, individual conscience, exceptional circumstances, and freedom of choice. They also include the argument that Jesus died to make us free: God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. If Jesus died in order to grant women the freedom to take the life of their children, then all the lofty pro-life statements preceding this incredible declaration are not worth a dime.

I would like to add a comment to what I have cited above: How can we accept George Reid's statement quoted above ["Adventist are pro-choice but under strict guidelines."] at face value if the exceptions justifying abortion include not only elective abortions under special circumstances labelled as "therapeutics," but also the mental condition of the pregnant woman? Every woman or girl who is faced with an unplanned pregnancy, without being ready for this, especially if she is a minor, single, or without the financial resources for raising a baby, will more likely be mentally affected. If all the exceptions are taken into account, then what is left to protect the life of the innocents? How can we accept the idea that the guidelines of abortion are "strict"?

And, by the way, since when can we label taking the life of an unborn baby as a therapy? What a therapy! No doubt that it is not therapy for the baby! My question for those who defend this therapy [the Adventist Church] is: Would they accept such therapy for themselves? If the answer if no, then how can we impose such therapy on the most innocent members of the human family?

I have more ink inside the inkpot, but I must get ready for church! May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry!

Nic

The preceding E-mail prompted Dr. Noltze's response listed at the top of this page declaring that our Seventh-day Adventist medical institutions in Europe do not offer abortion services to their patienst.

Someone may wonder how can Adventist institutions survive without performing abortions. The answer is very simple: the same way all Catholic hospitals which do not do abortions and are not going under. Actually, there are still many countries in the world where abortion is illegal, and when a woman or girl is not ready to raise a child, the baby is given up for adoption.

This is a much better option than taking the life of the most innocent and vulnerable members of humanity. If we let the rapist live, more so we should let the innocent baby live. Jesus said: "Let the children come to me." How can they come if we snuff their lives before they have a chance to take their first breath?

Jesus also stated that our eternal destiny will be determined by the way we treat "the least of these." There is hardly any other group of human beings more entitled to be labelled as "the least of these" than the unborn.

Jesus said on another occasion: "I have come that you may have life, and have it abundantly." Did the Lord exclude the unborn from this noble purpose for his coming? How can the unborn have life, and have it more abundantly if we deprive them of life at its inception?

Finally, God commanded the Israelites: "Choose life!" This is the only choice which is accompanied with the Lord's blessing. Remember that on those Israelites God pronounced both blessings and curses. Whenever we choose life, we are also choosing God's blessings. May the Lord give us the courage to do what is right!

Nic Samojluk

SDA Forum Editor

No Abortions in African or Austral Union

SDA Hospitals Either

I received from Dr. Ronald Noltze another E-mail clarifying certain details about the attitude of Seventh-day Adventists toward the practice of abortion in Europe, Africa, and South America. Here are some of the salient points taken from said communication which I have translated for the readers of this forum:

*********

"Since I observed that the arguments dealing with this issue were limited to the SDA situation in the United States of America, I felt motivated to suggest to you the idea of extending the vision of your presentation beyond the immediate horizon, to beyond the seas, to other divisions and to other Adventist cultures. ...

With God's assistance, your scientific promotional efforts may greatly enrich and stimulate the conscience of Adventist members. There exists a higher moral and ethical attitude regarding this topic among some of the great Christian churches than what is manifest in the thinking of some of our own leaders. Since I am working on the basis of their Christian sincerity, I do greatly support this dialogue of yours intended to deepen our concern connected with a great problem.

I repeat, in order to strengthen your argument, that in the area of my personal influence and responsibility, there has been no abortion services in the medical institutions under my care. This refers to 25 years ago, in South America, [while I was] the academic director of the IMAA, that is to say in all the medical institutions of the Austral Union (South American division), which includes the countries of Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

After this, from 1983 to the present (25 years) in all the area of the Euro-african Division. Besides, there is a 1983 official EUD document establishing and ordering all the Adventist medical institutions not to participate in abortion procedures. As the director of the largest institution in Europe, the Waldfriede Berlin Adventist Hospital, Germany, and Associate Director of the Health Department of the Division I have monitored the implementation of said policy till the year 2001 when I retired. I understand that the same policy is still in effect. ...