By The Special Ministries Association A revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs. To seek this should be our first work. . . . A revival and a reformation must take place, under the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Revival and reformation are two different things. Revival signifies a renewal of spiritual life, a quickening of the powers of mind and heart, a resurrection from spiritual death. Reformation signifies a reorganization, a change in ideas and theories, habits and practices. . . . Revival and reformation are to do their appointed work, and in doing this work they must blend.” Selected Messages, book 1,121,128.

The Cost of Revival and Reformation

The Special Ministries Association represents various Seventh- day Adventist special ministries. These special ministries desire to work in harmony with the conferences, as fellow laborers, toward hastening the soon coming of Jesus. However, to our disappointment, we have been experiencing increasing resistance from some whom we would expect to be cooperating with us in this endeavor. This resistance has increased to the spreading of rumors and accusations. Generally these charges have not been answered. The ministries have merely kept on with their work. But the counsel of the Lord indicates that there comes a time to answer:

When man assails his fellow men, and presents in a ridiculous light those whom God has appointed to do work for Him, we would not he doing justice to the accusers, or to those who are misled by their accusations should we keep silent, leaving the people to think that their brethren and sisters, in whom they have had confidence, are no longer worthy of their love and fellowship. This work, arising in our very midst, and resembling the work of Korab, Dathan, and Abinam, is an offence to God, and should he met. Selected Messages, book 3, 348

Recently one of the conferences issued a twelve- page document concerning Marshall Grosboll, Director of Steps to Life, Inc., one of the special ministries. This document, entitled Concerns and Objections, lists a number of accusations. This paper The Cost of Revival and Reformation, is a response to the conference’s concerns and objections, and in so doing, details the principles that should prevail between workers in God’s cause.

Concerns and Objections was put together by an anonymous committee. It was read by Elder R, 1 Seventh- day Adventist conference president, to Elder Grosboll and others who were present, at a meeting on January 25, 1989. Those present at the meeting included representatives of the Union Conference, Hope International, Hartland, Steps to Life, some other ministries, and two conference presidents.

Marshall Grosboll is an ordained minister of the Seventh- day Adventist Church who took a leave of absence from the Kansas- Nebraska Conference in 1987 in order to devote full- time to the Steps to Life television ministry and its affiliate Bible worker training school (the Institute of Ministry). The leave of absence was prompted by the conference’s request for Pastor Grosboll to transfer to another district when, after considerable counsel and prayer, he felt convicted to continue the Steps to Life outreach and training ministries that were just getting started and established in Wichita.

The conference’s concerns and objections in this document involve methodology, procedure, and emphasis, not doctrine. Elder Grosboll believes and teaches all of the historical and fundamental teachings of the Seventh- day Adventist Church, and has never been charged with teaching false principles contrary to the church. The document ends with this statement:

Because of these and many other reasons we believe that Marshall Grosboll has demonstrated that he is not a true shepherd of the flock and therefore should not represent the Seventh- day Adventist Church as an ordained minister. Concerns and Objections, 12

Since Elder Grosboll has never yet been tried and is still a recognized, ordained minister of the Seventh- day Adventist Church, the Special Ministries Association has serious concerns about the conclusion of this document which calls for a change in this regard, and the reasons for arriving at said conclusion. The charges in the Concerns and Objections document involve the ministry and decisions of many people who are involved and benefitted by the Steps to Life ministry. Moreover, the charges brought against Elder Grosboll and the Steps to Life ministry can likewise be brought against many others who are conscientiously seeking to fulfill ministries for the Lord. Thus, many people have been prayerfully studying the issues raised in this document.

Pastor Grosboll’s Ministry

Elder Marshall Grosboll has served for 12 years as a pastor of the Seventh- day Adventist Church. Following is a short statement by Elder Grosboll concerning his ministry.

I have served as pastor to the best of my ability. Thanks only to the grace of God, the churches I have served have grown in attendance, tithe, and membership during my pastorates there. But I freely admit that I am not free from fault in my ministry. Realizing the high calling and sacred responsibilities of the ministry, I have always viewed myself as unworthy. Thus I have prayed for just a humble field of service in which I might serve Him.

As I view the lovely Majesty of heaven, lacerated and bleeding upon the cross, lam constantly reminded that for my sins He died. My only rightful reward is what Jesus suffered on the cross. He took my place. Knowing that, I have pledged myself to be true to Him, unworthy though I may be, to whatever calling and position He may ask me to fulfill. I fully believe that the Lord has called me and ordained me to the gospel ministry, and by His grace I am as true to that calling today as I have ever been.

Yet if I alone were being accused, I would not feel it prudent to answer. For the least of my sins is deserving of more than the goals this document is striving for. Whether I remain or not, or whether I am despised and condemned, accepted or unaccepted, is of little consequence. Jesus endured far more for me. But it is not I alone on trial, but rather it is the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

Let me also reaffirm that I believe, and have always believed, in the movement, message, and organizational principles upon which the Seventh- day Adventist Church was established. Moreover, I have always tried to cooperate with its leadership in a spirit of love. I have served under seven conference presidents and have had a wonderful relationship with most of them. And though, regretfully, that is not the situation here, I have sought to bring about reconciliation and cooperation with this conference. I am determined to continue to work for unity within the guidelines of biblical principle. I also, with the Protestant reformers and a multitude of others within the Seventh day Adventist Church, believe that the Word of God and the Holy Spirit must become and remain central in all that we do. All decisions of principle must be based upon this standard and this standard alone.”

Pastor Grosboll, as do most people in special ministries, desires to cooperate with the conference. Yet our perception is that the only cooperation wanted in this instance is unquestioning obedience to conference control. Ellen White said that Battle Creek operated on the “rule or ruin” principle (Testimonies to Ministers, 360). God designs that we should all work together, for His honor and glory, as brothers and sisters, willing to counsel and be counseled, and loving one another as Christ has loved us. Yet above and beyond our relationship with one another and the conference, must be our loyalty to truth and righteousness and obedience to the call and ordination of the Lord. May this become our experience. Our greatest desire is to see the conference filled with the spirit and power of the Holy Spirit. Elder Grosboll, and each of us in Special Ministries, are more than willing to work with the conference. We believe this is what God wants.

We find it unfortunate that the Concerns and Objection’s document, which was presented at the January 25 meeting, either did not seek to verify the facts, and/ or overlooked certain facts, before it was presented. Much work obviously went into this document, yet no one ever got in touch with Elder Grosboll. We also find it unfortunate that the document judges motives throughout, and does so in the most unfavorable light.

The January 25 Meeting

It should be noted that when Elder R came to speak with Pastor Grosboll, he said he was “following Matthew 18" in coming to his brother with some concerns. Upon further investigation, it was found that this whole document had been presented, as fact, to the Executive Committee nearly two months before their meeting, without any defense or even knowledge on the part of the one being accused. The accuser and the judge were one and the same, with the Executive Committee acting as jury, but the accused was not only absent, but totally unaware of the accusations. Not only did the Executive Committee go along with the proceedings, but also not a word of these secret activities ever leaked out to any of those in question until the January 25 meeting nearly two months later.

Moreover, it should be noted that the ultimatums the president gave to Pastor Grosboll after the January 25 meeting, which he said would help to clear up the conference’s concerns; had little to do with the accusations of the document itself. This fact has caused some to question whether the accusations of the Concerns and Objections document, many of which are unfounded, were merely a means to an end, to try to gain control.

At the January 25 meeting the conference president told Elder Grosboll and the others present that a response was not wanted and would not be accepted at that time. The meeting was merely for the purpose of reading the concerns, with no chance of reconciliation or time to discuss the issues. This decision was in spite of the fact that, as soon as Pastor Grosboll found out that the president was coming, he wrote a response to him asking for an agenda. This request was

Second, the president was asked to allow enough time in order to discuss, pray about, and study whatever concerns he had. With people coming from great distances for the meeting, Pastor Grosboll desired an all- day meeting in order that there might be time to pray and discuss the issues together in brotherly love, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to guide them into true unity. Sadly, this request too was denied. Elder R, in addition to bringing friends with him from the Union Committee, invited Pastor Grosboll to bring anyone he wanted to the meeting with him, but when his group arrived, they were told there would not be time for them to make comments.

Our greatest disappointment is the lack of interest the conference seems to manifest for the soul- winning work of Steps to Life. No one has faulted the theology or content of their evangelism, preaching, or television programs. Converts from the Steps to Life ministry throughout North America are being baptized into their local Seventh- day Adventist Churches. Yet there almost seems to be a hope that this ministry will not succeed in bringing anyone into the church. Why? Could the following be part of the reason?

The word of the Lord came to Elijah; he did not seek to be the Lord’s messenger, but the word came to him. God always has men to whom He entrusts His message. His Spirit moves upon their hearts and constrains them to speak. Stimulated by holy zeal, and with the divine impulse strong upon them, they enter upon the performance of their duty without coldly calculating the consequences of speaking to the people the word which the Lord has given them. But the servant of God is soon made aware that he has risked something. He finds himself and his message made the subject of criticism. His manners, his life, his property, are all inspected and commented upon. His message is picked to pieces and rejected in the most illiberal and unsanctified spirit, as men in their finite judgment see fit. Testimonies, vol. 5, 299

The allegations and conclusions of the Concerns and Objections document must be addressed. Yet it is with great reluctance that we do so, for Pastor Grosboll and each one of us love the brethren who have formulated these concerns. We love every facet of our church, which we believe to be the remnant church of prophecy. We wish this response could have simply been shared at the meeting itself, and that understanding and peace could have ensued, without the necessity of a written response. May the Lord mold and shape each of us into a holy, united family for the infilling of the Holy Spirit and the finishing of the work of God on earth. This desired result, however, can never happen without a genuine revival and reformation. May this response paper be used by the Lord to help conferences understand the burden of special ministries and the opposition that some are encountering. May it also be used to help bring the Lord’s work together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for a finished work.

Mutual Concerns

The first paragraph of the Concerns and Objections document states that two of Pastor Grosboll’s goals are to bring, “revival and reformation to the membership of the church,” as well as the “evangelization of the world with the Three Angels’ messages.”

Conference leadership, in the next paragraph, elucidates how they also “deplore the sins in ourselves and in God’s true church.” They state: “We weep at the backsliding of God’s people. We pray and work for reformation and revival in our lives and the lives of our people.” We commend the conference on this stance. Yet we have never been able to engage the conference leaders into joining us in prayer and study for the guidance of the Lord. If Steps to Life, or any of us in special ministries, are doing something wrong, we want to know what it is. We do not suppose we have all the light or all the answers. In fact, we claim no new light. We are simply trying to do missionary work. We desire to sit down with our conference brethren and to work for revival and reformation. Where we are falling short of the purposes of God, we want to change.

How Concerned Is the Conference in Revival and Reformation?

In Wichita, as in each of the districts Marshall Grosboll has pastored, he concentrated his ministry on helping each member to develop a personal relationship with Christ through a daily study of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, earnest prayer, and following the Lord all the way in their personal lives. Pastor Grosboll stressed that, in both our personal lives and as a church body, we must put away self and sin and allow the Holy Spirit to have full control. We must follow every counsel of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, not from a legalistic standpoint, but from a heart of love and with faith in His Word. An analysis of the first year’s sermons reveals that sixty- six percent of the sermons were drawn from the gospels, with the rest from other portions of the Bible. Examples of these were a series that brought revival to many people, entitled, “Footsteps to Calvary,” and the sermon,” Extra Oil,” from Matthew 25.

Pastor Grosboll does not believe in concentrating on sin, for he believes that Jesus is the focus of our faith. Yet open sin cannot be overlooked by the faithful pastor, for it will prevent the blessing of the Lord. After Pastor Grosboll arrived in Wichita, he was informed by some of the elders and associate pastors that some of the leaders of the church were heavy coffee drinkers, others watched videos that were well beyond the questionable stage, and some had other such inconsistencies. Their concern was that these sins were preventing the Lord’s blessings. In an elders’ meeting which Pastor Grosboll called soon after he arrived, he asked one of his associate pastors to have the opening devotional. Before his devotional, the associate shared with Pastor Grosboll that he had spent nearly the whole previous night in prayer. He felt impressed to give a message, but felt apprehensive about the results. Marshall, as his associates called him, did not ask what the subject was, but encouraged him to share whatever the Lord had impressed him to give.

His message was on the importance of the elders being examples to the flock. He gave several illustrations, one of which caused many of the elders to be very upset: He suggested that the elders should strive toward becoming “vegetarians.”

Though this was not Pastor Grosboll’s timing, he felt that the Holy Spirit had impressed his associate to give the message he did, and he supported him. One of the elders later shared how he was convicted to change his diet following this meeting. Truly, the Holy Spirit had led in the remarks this associate had given at the elders’ meeting. But the fact that Pastor Grosboll supported his associate in the remarks given caused such a furor among the elders that Pastor Grosboll was soon called into the conference office to give an account of the meeting. Sadly, instead of supporting truth and righteousness, their sympathy was with those who had been offended. Their support seemed to be with those who could help or hurt them the most with their influence.

The associate who made the comments later told the pastor, with tears in his eyes, how much he appreciated his support. He said that before Pastor Grosboll arrived, that would not have happened.

The conference officers had called Pastor Grosboll to Wichita. The president shared that he believed the Holy Spirit had led them in this call. If the conference officers, after this elders’ meeting at the very beginning of Pastor Grosboll’s ministry, had supported the truths he preached and stood for, in spite of op position, what would have been the results? It is very probable, judging by the events which followed, that a great revival would have taken place in Wichita, and maybe even in the conference. Only eternity will show the full results of what appeared to be self- serving at this time.

Many are the souls that have been destroyed by the unwise sympathy of their brethren; for, because the brethren sympathized with them, they thought they must indeed have been abused, and that the reprover was all wrong and had a bad spirit. Testimonies, vol. 3, 329

Sometimes It Is Dangerous to Question

At about this same time, Marshall Grosboll presented in the Conference Administrative Committee, of which he was a member, his concerns about the new conference plan to “save” their academies. The conference was initiating a one- plus million dollar endowment program for Enterprise Academy, which the union president said would make it permanently secure.

Pastor Grosboll produced figures in the Administrative Committee to show that with a constant rate of investment, which is the only realistic way of figuring for offerings and gifts, and with currently normal inflation and interest rates, it would take 30 years just to recoup the investments made (in real buying power) without any return in the investment at all! The reason for this is that the investment is never touched, but will still be in the bank (if the bank is still solvent) when Jesus comes. The endowment plan is set up to put money in the bank forever, and just draw on the interest. To plan thirty years for a return on an investment was, in Elder Grosboll’s opinion, putting off the day of the Lord, and was being a poor steward of His goods. Does God want us to invest our money in the banks, when His work is in need? These statements were quoted: "[God] calls upon those who have money in the banks to put it into circulation." Testimonies, vol. 7, 56

The very means that is now so sparingly invested in the cause of God, and that is selfishly retained, will in a little while be cast with all idols to the moles and to the bats. Money will soon depreciate in value very suddenly. Evangelism, 63 Satan is much more vigilant, keen- sighted, and skillful in devising ways to secure means to himself than our brethren are to secure the Lord’s own to His cause. Testimonies, vol. 4, 478

The Lord desires us to let our light so shine before men that His Holy Spirit may communicate the truth to the honest in heart who are seeking after truth. As we do this work, we shall find that means will flow into our treasuries, and we shall have means with which to carry on a still broader and more far- reaching work. Evangelism, 61- 62

Once we make a commitment never to touch the principal of an investment, we have left God clear out of the picture. Someday these investments that we legally cannot dispose of, because of binding agreements, will be a curse:

I saw that if any held on to their property, and did not inquire of the Lord as to their duty, He would not make duty known, and they would be permitted to keep their property, and in the time of trouble it would come up before them like a mountain to crush them. . . . I heard some mourn like this: “The cause was languishing, God’s people were starving for the truth, and we made no effort to supply the lack; now our property is useless. Oh, that we had let it go, and laid up treasure in heaven!” Counsels on Stewardship, 60

Why not, Elder Grosboll asked, put this money into soul winning rather than the banks? Will earning interest in the bank really bring more returns than using that same money to win souls? Moreover, soul winning will bring in new students, which our schools are really needing. If the conference really pushed the endowment program, Pastor Grosboll felt it would drain the other programs, and eventually the school could go down anyway- maybe even sooner. The real need of our academies, Pastor Grosboll felt, was the blessing of God that comes from doing His will. This is what they needed to be working toward.

Though the pastor was not adamant in his opinions, and only made one speech outlining his concerns, when called into the president’s office about the elders’ meeting, he was also criticized about his comments in the Administrative Committee about the endowment program. He was informed by the president that this endowment program was a program that he cherished and had helped to devise. The president said he could not argue with the figures but that even though the money would not bring any real increase on the investment for many years, it was an effective way to get money from the people because it was popular. Pastor Grosboll suggested that it took a great amount of promotion to make it popular.

Though Marshall Grosboll did not bring up the subject of endowments again, from that point on the program never achieved what had been hoped. Soon after, whether for this reason or for some other, Pastor Grosboll was informed that he was no longer on the Administrative Committee. A conference official told him months later, that his speech on the endowment funds was one of the main reasons the conference had withdrawn their support of him; but that many were wishing they had followed his advice, for the academy was at that point so low on money that they were having to ask some people who were putting their money into the endowment fund to reverse these pledges and give them for operating costs. This experience taught Pastor Grosboll the result of questioning a cherished project of some administrators. Was this the reason that such situations as the Davenport investments, that cost the church millions of dollars, were allowed to go on and on, even though many people clearly saw the dangers and inequities in the program?

“We Are God’s Favored People”

Pastor Grosboll developed a Preaching and Revival service for Sabbath vespers that dealt with revival and reformation. Over a hundred people attended regularly. His sermons also were calls for personal holiness and revival, for every person, from the conference worker to the lowliest member. The tapes of these sermons went far and wide. But while there was an increase in church attendance, and at all the services of the church, some did not appreciate these messages.

Those whom God has chosen for an important work have ever been received with distrust and suspicion. Anciently, when Elijah was sent with a message from God to the people, they did not heed the warning. They thought him unnecessarily severe. They even thought that he must have lost his senses because he denounced them, the favored people of God, as sinners and their crimes as so aggravated that the judgments of God would awaken against them. Testimonies, vol. 3, 261

The same attitude as the ancient people of God expressed, that we are “the favored people of God,” and thus we are safe from “the judgments of God,” seems to be echoed in the Concerns and Objections document. After affirming how the leadership laments the backsliding of God’s people, the document then says, in the same paragraph: “We believe that the Seventh- day Adventist Church, as presently organized, is God’s true church. We believe, despite the faults and imperfections of its leaders and members, this church is the only object of our Lord’s supreme regard” (Concerns and Objections, 1). Thus, in the context in which it is given, the thought is expressed, as in Elijah’s day, “Yes, we may have some imperfections, but we are the beloved of the Lord, rich and increased with goods. Whatever we decide to do or not do, we will yet remain God’s favored people, even “as presently organized” and functioning. Nothing evil can come to us.” But Jeremiah warns:

Do not trust in these lying words, saying, “The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are these.” For if you thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, . . . then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.” 2 2 Jeremiah 7: 4- 7 3

Ellen White has a most solemn warning to those in responsible positions: [God] shows us that when His people are found in sin they should at once take decided measures to put that sin from them, that His frown may not rest upon them all. But if the sins of the people are passed over by those in responsible positions, His frown will be upon them, and the people of God, as a body, will be held responsible for those sins. . . . The prejudice which has arisen against us because we have reproved the wrongs that God has shown me existed, and the cry that has been raised of harshness and severity, are unjust. God bids us speak, and we will not be silent. If wrongs are apparent among His people, and if the servants of God pass on indifferent to them, they virtually sustain and justify the sinner, and are alike guilty and will just as surely receive the displeasure of God; for they will be made responsible for the sins of the guilty. Testimonies, vol. 3, 265- 266

Of those who boast of their light, and yet fail to walk in it, Christ says, “But I Say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum [Seventh- day Adventists, who have had great light], which art exalted unto heaven [in point of privilege], shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.”. . .

Shall the Lord be compelled to say, “Pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee”? . . . The little sins that men think are of so trivial a character that on their account they will not be brought into condemnation, are very offensive in the sight of God. Says one, “You are too severe, a man must be allowed these little defects of character.”

. . . But this is simply soothing the conscience, and crying, “Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” Sin is sin, and it is the delusion of Satan to look upon it in any other light than that it is grievous. E. G. White, Review and Herald, August 1, 1893. (The brackets, along with the comments within them, are by Ellen White and are in the original.) vol. 3, 69- 70

Extraordinary power from God must take hold of Seventh- day Adventist Churches. Reconversion must take place among the mem. . . . Renewed, purified, sanctified, the church must be, else the wrath of God will fall upon them with much greater power than upon those who have never professed to be saints. Lift Him Up, 301

The righteousness that is taught, from the conference office, from the pulpit, and beside the hearth, must include the call for reformation. It must at times include the reproof of sin and the call for repentance. But it is this very duty to call sin by its right name that is often the cause of opposition, and for this reason is often omitted. (See Testimonies, vol. 5, 676)

“Don’t Rock the Boat”

The third event that brought Pastor Grosboll into conflict with the conference was the directive given to him by the conference president not to do anything in the nominating committee to “rock the boat.” Suggestions were made by conference administration as to who should hold one of the important offices. Though he would like to have been able to see the conference’s suggestions followed, the nominating committee pointed out serious spiritual concerns with the ones suggested. The committee tried to follow the counsels of the Church Manual in this regard:

The decisions and votes of the [nominating] committee are not to be controlled or influenced by any church, group, or individual. Decisions are reached after prayerful and careful study of all aspects of the matters that come before them pertaining to the administration of the work.

Seventh- day Adventist Church Manual, 131 For years keeping a “smooth running ship” seems to have been more important than revival and reformation. There is a cost to revival and reformation- it brings the wrath of Satan. So the unwritten policy appears to have been to give lip service to revival and reformation in order to appease those concerned while shunning the consequences. Thus evil has often appeared to have been tolerated, and even encouraged.

Is it possible that, maybe unintentionally, evil has often been called good? Are there people who, according to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, should not be in office, who have not only been kept in office, but praised and entrusted with even greater sacred responsibilities in order to elicit their good- will? The Bible warns against calling evil good. Those who condone the evil, soon condemn the good.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5: 20

The nominating committee that year was both the result and the continuation of the revival taking place in the church. This revival led the nominating committee to seek to please God first, in their selection of people for office, rather than to conciliate people, though they tried to take people’s feelings into account. In the nominating committee that year it was mentioned that there were some people whom the nominating committee of the year before had not put back into office at first, but whom the pastor later insisted that they reinstate. One of the associate pastors confided that the pastor had said these people could cost him his job [locally) if they were not put back. Pastor Grosboll told the nominating committee not to make him or his job a consideration, but one thing and one thing only- the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Several of those on the nominating committee that year recall how they spent an hour to an hour and a half at every session in the study of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy and in prayer, and how they felt the presence of the Lord.

The nominating committee sought to put away political concerns and to allow the Lord to lead them in every selection. No one had a controlling voice, and all voting was done by secret ballot. Most felt that the Lord was definitely leading. Yet, of nearly thirty members who had made up the board, only three were not asked to return, other than a couple who had asked not to be considered for office. Nevertheless, the changes that were made were ones that the nominating committee saw as vital for revival and reformation. These changes caused a storm of opposition.

But, as with most true revivals, some rose up against revival. Private committees were formed to develop plans to resist it. People were called in an organized manner and asked to quit paying their tithe into the conference until Pastor Grosboll was removed. Various and untrue rumors were started and circulated all the way to the General Conference. There was seen the fulfillment of the prophecy:

As the work of God’s people moves forward with sanctified, resistless energy, planting the standard of Christ’s righteousness in the church, moved by a power from the throne of God, the great controversy will wax stronger and stronger, and will become more and more determined. Mind will be arrayed against mind, plans against plans, principles of heavenly origin against principles of Satan. Truth in its varied phases will be in conflict with error in its ever- varying, increasing forms, and which, if possible, will deceive the very elect. . . .

The ministry, the pulpit, and the press demand men like Caleb, who will do and dare, men whose eyes are single to detect the truth from error. . . .

The man who rejects the word of the Lord, who endeavors to establish his own way and will, tears to pieces the messenger and message which God sends in order to discover to him his sin. . . . He begins to quibble at technicalities and manners. The spirit of Satan links him up with the enemy to bear a word of criticism on less important themes. The truth becomes of less and still less value to him. He becomes an accuser of his brethren, etc., and changes leaders. Testimonies to Ministers, 407- 409

The conference seemed to support this resistance movement to revival and the nominating committee, even to their withholding of tithe. A conference official was asked, within the hearing of a number of people, if the withholding of tithe would cause the conference to act upon their wishes. He admitted that it would have an effect. As far as could be observed, there was never one word of reproof or disapproval expressed for these manipulative tactics. In fact, a conference treasurer was quoted in an ensuing board meeting, by a discontented member who said he had gotten in touch with several treasurers for guidance, as suggesting that they collectively save their tithe in a commercial account. He later confessed that this advice came from the local conference

“Preach Only Love”

Soon after serving on the nominating committee of the Wichita church, Elder R became president of the conference. Within approximately two months of his arrival he asked Pastor Grosboll to take a call outside the conference. Pastor Grosboll had been in Wichita, at the time, for only six months. He was impressed, and still is impressed, that the Lord did not want him to leave his post of duty at that time. Most of the elders felt that if Pastor Grosboll left at that time, much of the reformation that had been accomplished would be lost.

As there had been little communication between Pastor Grosboll and the new president, he wondered why the new president seemed so anxious to have him moved before he had even gotten acquainted. He asked the president if he had received some direction from the previous president. He admitted that he had. He said that the only directive he had received from the departing president was to “do something about Wichita.” Elder R shared that he had probably made a mistake by making a decision about what to do about the Wichita situation before he had even talked to the pastor. But his attitude seemed unchanged.

Pastor Grosboll was warned by the new president not to preach any sermons that would cause anyone to be offended. “Preach only love,” he was told. Many of the members believed that this theme was what they were hearing from the pulpit. Many were being edified and reconverted. But in regard to the content and presentation of his sermons, Pastor Grosboll believed that he must submit that to prayer and allow the Holy Spirit to guide and direct in the presentation of the Word. If there were theological disputes or questions of doctrine, or if the elders, as guardians of the flock and in a spirit of prayer, were impressed that the direction of his preaching ministry was not in accordance with the direction of the Holy Spirit, Pastor Grosboll would have been happy to change. But as there were no questions of theology or doctrine, and as most of the elders believed that the Holy Spirit was leading, and as Pastor Grosboll believed that the Holy Spirit was working and directing, he could not go against his convictions to preach what was given him to preach Sabbath by Sabbath.

The smooth sermons so often preached make no lasting impressions. . . . It is not from love for their neighbor that they smooth down the message entrusted to them. . . . True love seeks first the honor of God and the salvation of souls. Those who have this love will not evade the truth to save themselves from the unpleasant results of plain speaking. Prophets and Kings, 140- 141

Conviction and Opposition

Paul’s worst enemies were among the Jews, who made the highest claims to godliness. . . . The truth always involves a cross. Those who will not believe, oppose and deride those who do believe. The fact that its presentation creates a storm of opposition, is no evidence against the truth. Sketches from the Life of Paul, 279

The Concerns and Objections document accuses Pastor Grosboll of refusing to accept counsel. This accusation seems to have stemmed originally from the two convictions against which the conference had advised him, namely, (1) that the church nominating committee must act upon its own convictions, in a spirit of prayer, independent of outside pressure, and (2) that the pastor is personally responsible to God for the message he gives. But what does it mean to accept counsel? For some, to accept counsel means to yield one’s entire will. For others it means to carefully weigh all the counsel received and then seek the Lord for final guidance. The latter is Pastor Grosboll’s understanding.

We cannot depend for counsel upon humanity. The Lord will teach us our duty just as willingly as He will teach somebody else. The Desire of Ages, 668

We are to counsel together, and to be subject one to another; but at the same time we are to exercise the ability God has given us, in order to learn what is truth. Each one of us must look to God for divine enlightenment. We must individually develop a character that will stand the test in the day of God. We must not become set in our ideas, and think that no one should interfere with our opinions. Testimonies to Ministers, 110

Page two of Concerns and Objections begins with the following quotation: The church of Christ, enfeebled and defective as it may be, is the only object on earth on which He bestows His supreme regard. While He extends to all the world His invitation to come to Him and be saved, He commissions His angels to render divine help to every soul that cometh to Him in repentance and contrition, and He comes personally by His Holy Spirit into the midst of His church. [Testimonies to Ministers, 15]. Concerns and Objections, 2

But the rest of the statement from Testimonies to Ministers is omitted. The rest of the statement clarifies the first part of the quotation so that people will not misuse this statement to justify a spirit of control that exalts human leadership above God or His word. The rest of the statement identifies what the church is and sets the parameters of its authority:

Consider, my brethren and sisters, that the Lord has a people, a chosen people, His church, to be His own, His own fortress, which He holds in a sin- stricken, revolted world; and He intended that no authority should be known in it, no laws be acknowledged by it, but His own.” Testimonies to Ministers, 16

Thus the church is not some intangible structure or legal order, but it is the people of God, and these people are not to acknowledge any authority or laws but those of God. Leadership has no other authority except as invested and outlined in the Word of God. Nor have they authority to enforce any other laws than those supported by clear biblical principles. This principle is the basis of Protestantism.

With the first part of the quotation as a backdrop (Testimonies to Ministers, 15), without its qualifying parameters, the Concerns and Objections document then lists, “The specific problems we see in Elder Marshall Grosboll’s ministry ht Wichita, Kansas.” We will list them numerically: “[ 1] divisive tactics he uses to achieve his goals, [2] his refusal to counsel and plan with his ministering brethren, [3] the appearance he gives of building an institution that supports only his goals, [4] the separation of his teaching and preaching ministry from the organized church and the alienation of his supporters from the local Wichita churches and the local conference.”

We have come to a new day and age in the church when a conference leader will seek, not just to remove credentials, but to actually annul one’s ordination, as this paper calls for, over such subjective charges as these. [Pastor Grosboll did not have his credentials removed when he chose to take a leave of absence, though they subsequently expired.] To seek to take one’s ordination away is a very unusual and extreme action. That is declaring that the person was either ordained by mistake, or that he has turned away from God. Yet, to our knowledge, no charge of commandment breaking, false theology, or apostasy has ever been raised against Pastor Grosboll, nor is such found in Concerns and Objections. Nor is there anything charged against him relative to Paul’s counsels to either Titus or Timothy as to what are the conditions of eldership- simply these subjective charges, all of which have been leveled against God’s messengers in all ages.

Aleander’s attack on Luther included charges of’ “sedition, rebellion, impiety, and blasphemy” (The Great Controversy, 147). Luther’s response was: “I rejoice to see that the gospel is now, as in former times, a cause of trouble and dissension. This is the character; this is the destiny, of the word of God. ‘I came not to send peace on earth, but a sword, said Jesus Christ. God is wonderful and terrible in His counsels; beware lest, by presuming to quench dissensions; you should persecute the holy word of God, and draw down upon yourselves a frightful deluge of insurmountable dangers; of present disasters, and eternal desolation” (ibid., 159). Such boldness as Luther’s was not to be tolerated, and his enemies determined to put down this “daring obstinacy.” Ibid., 201

In this context, it should be noted that it was also a belief of Protestantism, and has been taught throughout the history of the Adventist Church, in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, that ordination is from the Lord. The laying on of hands is to be in recognition of the call and ordination of the Lord. Inspiration makes it abundantly clear that not all who are called ministers by man are recognized as such by the Lord, and many whom the church condemns are still ordained by the Lord. Let us be careful that we not be found to be fighting against the Lord, as the Jewish church did in their contrivances against Jesus and the apostles, and as Ellen White said we also have already done, as for example, in 1888.

The initial charge given for the removal of ordination is that Pastor Grosboll is divisive. Is that true? Or has he stood for principle in the face of opposition? The smooth preaching that creates no trouble is condemned by God. Isn’t it time for something to stir the people of God? Isn’t it time to get ready for Jesus to come? And isn’t it time to ask why He hasn’t come?

Sins exist in the church that God hates, but they are scarcely touched for fear of making enemies. Opposition has risen in the church to the plain testimony. Some will not bear it. They wish smooth things spoken unto them. And if the wrongs of individuals are touched, they complain of severity, and sympathize with those in the wrong. As Ahab inquired of Elijah, “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” they are ready to look with suspicion and doubt upon those who bear the plain testimony, and like Ahab overlook the wrong which made it necessary for reproof and rebuke. When the church depart from God they despise the plain testimony, and complain of severity and harshness. It is a sad evidence of the lukewarm state of the church.

Just as long as God has a church, He will have those who will cry aloud and spare not, who will be His instruments to reprove selfishness and sins, and will not shun to declare the whole counsel of God, whether men will hear or forbear. I saw that individuals would rise up against the plain testimonies. It does not suit their natural feelings. They would choose to have smooth things spoken unto them, and have peace cried in their ears. I view the church in a more dangerous condition than they ever have been. Experimental religion is known but by a few. The shaking must soon lake place to purify the church. Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, 283- 284

I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen, and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God’s people.

I saw that the testimony of the True Witness has not been half heeded. The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded. This testimony must work deep repentance; all who truly receive it will obey it and be purified. Early Writings, 270

Preachers should have no scruples to preach the truth as it is found in God’s Word. Let the truth cut. I have been shown that why ministers have not more success is, they are afraid of hurting feelings, fearful of not being courteous, and they lower the standard of truth. Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, 284- 285

The people are asleep in their sins and need to be alarmed before they can shake off this lethargy. Their ministers have preached smooth things; but God’s servants, who bear sacred, vital truths, should cry aloud and spare not, that the truth may tear off the garment of security and find its way to the heart. Testimonies, vol. 1, 249

In this fearful time, just before Christ is to come the second time, God’s faithful preachers will have to bear a still more pointed testimony than was borne by John the Baptist. A responsible, important work is before them; and those who speak smooth things, God will not acknowledge as His shepherds. A fearful woe is upon them. Ibid., 321

Man may acknowledge these preachers, but “God will not acknowledge them as His shepherds.”

Are we putting our sincere preachers into a position where they must choose between pleasing God or the conference? Must they choose between receiving the woe of man versus the woe of God?

The reason for the conference’s charge of divisiveness appears to be Pastor Grosboll’s straight preaching and emphasis on revival and reformation. The evidence put forth to prove their charge is the accusation that he split up the Wichita South Church. Is that accusation true?

The Conference, the Church, and the Pastor

The Wichita South Church has a history of dissension and trouble. Often it seems that this trouble has been due to certain people holding the lines of power, often against majority wishes. A former elder of the South Church confided recently that for many years he drove 100 miles round trip every Sabbath in order to find another church so as to escape the politics of the South Church. In 1966 the church first divided, only to come back together again a few years later in order to build a new church. It was decided at that time that the union would be only temporary, for the building of the new church building, and that when it was completed they would start planning another new church in town.

There was a time when Wichita had a thriving sanitarium with a nurses’ training school. In 1986 the church celebrated its 100- year anniversary. And yet, after 100 years, the KansasNebraska Conference still had only one church in Wichita, 4 the largest city of Kansas. The medical missionary facility had long since ceased to exist.

When Pastor Grosboll came, the majority of the elders and those on the board, as well as many other members in the church, soon joined solidly behind him in order to bring about revival and reformation. But nine months later the conference president announced to the board of elders his decision to transfer Pastor Grosboll to an undecided location. The elders wanted to express their feelings on the issue, but he told them that this was, “and employeeemployer situation and did not involve them.” The church board promptly met, and in the absence of Pastor Grosboll, voted the following and sent a copy of the action to the president:

November 30, 1986 During a November church board meeting we voted by overwhelming majority to officially and corporately express our support of Pastor Marshall Grosboll’s ministry in Wichita and our desire to not see him removed or transferred from his current office as pastor.

We humbly ask your respect of the Church Board’s opinion in this matter and look forward to greater evidences of mutual unity and support between our church and conference leadership so that our Seventh- day Adventist message may strongly advance. Respectfully, the Wichita Seventh- day Adventist South Church Board. David Jakstis, Head Elder, Chairman by absentia of Elder Grosboll.”

There were two apparent reasons preventing Pastor Grosboll from being able to move at this time. One was the nine- month Bible worker training program (the Institute of Ministry) begun in the fall of that year. Two of the six students in that initial year had moved, with their families, over a thousand miles to attend. Pastor Grosboll did not feel he could leave until this program, which was started with conference approval, was completed in June of the following year.

The second was that an evangelistic series, which Pastor Grosboll was to hold in Wichita the next month, had been voted by the board. The brochures had been ordered, and the Century II Convention Center of Wichita had been reserved for many months. The reservation of the theater room of the convention center was itself a blessing. Pastor Grosboll and the majority of the elders felt under deep conviction to hold this series.

Moreover, there did not appear to be any pressing reason for an immediate leave. The local offerings, tithe, church school enrollment, and church attendance were all up, in spite of those who were withholding tithe and causing dissension. And, as already mentioned, the elders and the board were very anxious that the pastor should stay. In fact, many felt it would do irreparable harm for the pastor to leave at that time under pressure from those opposed to reform.

Pastor Grosboll assured the president, however, that although, after earnest prayer, he felt convicted that he should complete these two tasks that were already under way, he would be very willing to accomplish them on a self- supporting basis if the Executive Committee requested him to step down as pastor.

The president said, however, that the evangelistic meetings, with Pastor Grosboll speaking, should go on as planned. A month and a half before the meetings were to begin, however, he presented the situation to the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee is a small committee within the Executive Committee that sends recommendations and actions to the official Executive Committee for final approval. They took this action:

Marshall Grosboll, for various reasons, some of which are not of his own making, has become the focal point of controversy in the Wichita Church, and out of concern for both the pastor and the church members, it was voted: That Marshall Grosboll and the conference officers aggressively work together toward Marshall Grosboll’s transfer from the Wichita Church which will take place shortly after the completion of the evangelistic meetings which conclude about March 1, 1987.- Administrative Committee Minutes

At this time Elder R told the elders that they should concentrate on the meetings and that nothing else would be done about the pastoral situation until after the meetings, which was confirmed by letter as follows: “We are committed to working in harmony with the December 1986 agreement with Pastor Grosboll that we would not pursue the Wichita matter until after the evangelistic meetings. “( Letter from Elder R, February 26, 1987). He also promised the elders that when the situation was presented to the Executive Committee they would have a chance to present their feelings. Unfortunately, neither of these promises made in December of 1986 were kept. In fact they had both been broken a month before this letter was written.

The first Executive Committee of the new year met on January 26, 1987. Since the evangelistic meetings were being set up at the time, Pastor Grosboll was unable to attend. At this meeting of the Executive Committee the minutes of the December 1986 Administrative Committee were voted upon. Within the Executive Committee minutes it was made clear that by voting on the Administrative Committee minutes, the action became official. Many of the church members felt betrayed and some wrote letters of concern to the president and members of the Executive Committee. The president responded to this effect:

The matter of the Wichita Church and Marshall Grosboll, the pastor, was not on the agenda for the Executive Committee. . . . The Executive Committee action to accept previous minutes in no way alters the opportunity for church members to appeal tile decision of die Administrative Committee or any decision of the Executive Committee. This particular January 26 meeting of the Executive Committee did not address the pros and cons of the decision made by the Administrative Committee. Letter to WHK by Elder R, February 23, 1987

Many felt that this response was double talk. First they were promised that nothing would be done until after the evangelistic meetings. Then they were also promised that they would be heard before any Executive Committee action was taken. But both of these promises were broken, and then justified. But they were told that nothing wrong had taken place because the church could “appeal” the action. Yet all know that an appeal is far different from being heard before an action is taken. There were weighty spiritual interests at stake, yet the church members who were concerned were made to feel that they were rebels and troublemakers.

Because of these, and other similar actions of the conference, confusion, uncertainty as to what the conference might do next, and disappointment began to grow within the church members. It seemed that those who were giving Bible studies, working on the evangelistic meetings, supporting the church, attending prayer meetings, and who loved this message were being overlooked. It also appeared that while the conference had chosen to overlook the wishes of the elders and the board, some people seemed to have special favor and influence with the conference. If these happenings just involved some secular interest, or was indeed merely an employee- employer situation, it would not make much difference, but the results of these decisions were bound to affect the health and well- being of God’s church and the conversion of souls. The effects are eternal. Concerned members began to pray as never before. They wondered what they should do. Some read this statement and knew they must do something:

If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God. Testimonies, vol. 3, 281

But it seemed that whatever the church members who wanted the pastor to stay tried to do, it was colored in the darkest hues. The worst construction was placed upon their motives. These members were viewed as a problem to be dealt with, and the conference blamed the pastor for the problem. The problem, in these members’ eyes, was the conference.

This response paper is not for the purpose of making a complaint against the conference’s actions or attitudes. We are answering the concerns and objections of the conference. We are not here to judge motives. Nevertheless, these feelings expressed in the preceding paragraph were the feelings of many of the members at the time.

Moreover, even if individuals were wronged, it is not they who were really wronged. We are all but mere stewards. The question is: Has the Lord been wronged? The Holy Spirit most definitely worked in the evangelistic meetings, with hundreds of non- Adventists attending, and many who are still making decisions for Christ over two years later. Many believe that the Lord definitely worked in the previous year’s nominating committee. Many felt the Holy Spirit bringing revival to their hearts from the sermons and other services of the church and were enjoying new conversion experiences. But when those in authority sympathize with those whom the Lord is convicting of sin, hearts are hardened instead of softened, and souls are lost.

Many are the souls that have been destroyed by the unwise sympathy of their brethren. Testimonies, vol. 3, 329 In nine cases out of ten if the one reproved [often by the Holy Spirit] had been left under a sense of his wrongs, he might have been helped to see them and thereby have been reformed. Ibid., 359

This unsanctified sympathy places the sympathizers where they are sharers in the guilt of the one reproved. Ibid., 359 These false sympathizers will have an account to settle with the Master by- and- by for their work of death. Ibid., 329

Let us not repeat the rebellion of 1888: I can never forget the experience which we had in Minneapolis, or the things which were then revealed to me in regard to the spirit that controlled men, the words spoken, the actions done in obedience to the powers of evil. . . . They were moved at the meeting by another spirit, and they knew not that God had sent these young men to bear a special message to them which they treated with ridicule and contempt, not realizing that the heavenly intelligences were looking upon them. I know that at that time the Spirit of God was insulted. Manuscript 24, 1892

Minneapolis was a type of a greater apostasy that Ellen White predicted would take place in the last days.

If we are to bear a part in this work to its close, we must recognize the fact that there are good things to come to the people of God in a way that we had not discerned; and that there will be resistance from the very ones we expected to engage in such a work. Letter from EGW to 0. A. Olsen, Letter 19d, 1892; The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 1024

The light which will lighten the earth with its glory will be called a false light. EGW, Review & Herald, May 27, 1890, vol. 2, 397 Because of the disappointment by such a large number of church members, the conference set another Executive Committee date to discuss the situation with Pastor Grosboll present. They set the meeting for the day the evangelistic meetings were over, on March 10. On that day, forty members of the church took off work, met at the church, and fasted and prayed throughout the day for the Lord to intervene for the welfare of His work in Wichita.

The president gave the Executive Committee five options. But the motion the committee passed was quite different from any of the options presented. The motion that was voted upon was as follows:

In appreciation and support of the present soul- winning outreach among a significant proportion of the membership in Wichita and in recognition of a very real need for healing among the members, the Conference Executive Committee urges Dr. Grosboll to devote his untiring efforts to both the soul- winning and healing ministries of the church while also carefully and prayerfully, and in close counsel with conference leadership, formulating a plan for maximizing SDA ministry in Wichita and that the plan he presented for Conference Executive Committee action in June, 1987.

The plan should address: 1. The possibility of a new church in the area 2. The possibility of a mutually agreeable transfer for the pastor. 3. Any other considerations for change that could affect healing and church growth.

Surely the Lord led in this decision to support Pastor Grosboll rather than to transfer him at this time. Over the next six weeks, approximately 40 people were baptized. There were yet four months to go before the Institute of Ministry concluded, and there were many people from the evangelistic meetings to follow up.

But though some were pleased with the action, those opposed to the pastor, whose favor the conference had been courting, were now greatly offended, and decided to take things into their own hands. The next nominating committee was coming up. Plans were laid and secret activities took place by certain individuals opposed to the pastor in an endeavor to gain control of the nominating committee.

Except that there were many people in church who had not been in church for years, and that they left as soon as the secret- ballot voting was over, the election appeared normal and the process proceeded smoothly. But when the results came in, it was immediately apparent that it was very untypical. Some who had not received more than one vote the year before now had enough votes, in a 700- member church, to be on the committee. There seemed to be a core of people on the “Committee to Select the Nominating Committee” who were bitterly opposed to the pastor, and anyone who supported him.

The head elder and head deacon were dumbfounded. As the head deacon began to look through the voting ballots, he began to see something very unusual. Many of the ballots appeared to be nearly the same. He quickly went through and pulled out 64 ballots that were nearly identical in the first nine out of the eleven names. It was apparent that these 64 votes had been influenced to all vote the same. Upon investigation, several people confessed to having had a secret “pre- nominating election.” There were 222 votes cast— 64 by the “opposition party” and 158 by the rest of the church. But the 158 were voting individually, while the 64 pooled their votes. Thus those 64 who pooled their votes outweighed the rest of the church. As was pointed out in the ensuing board, this tactic is contrary to the church manual:

The effort of one individual or a small group to dictate to the entire membership of the church is disapproved. Everything of a political nature should be avoided. Seventh- day Adventist Church Manual, 1986, 126

Pastor Grosboll, in counsel with some of the elders, immediately called for an emergency church board meeting for the following afternoon in order to discuss the situation. The conference president, however, supported the results, possibly because some of those who were on the committee were opposed to the pastor, as he was. On Sunday morning, before the board meeting, he called the pastor and demanded that he call off the board meeting. By coincidence, another elder was visiting in the pastor’s office at the time of the phone call and was shocked at the president’s responses.

When told about the secret pre- nominating committee, the president said, “Just wink at those activities. Let things stand as they are. Do not involve the board.” Pastor Grosboll responded, “I have never been put in a situation where I have had to go against the direct command of a president, but in this case, I must be faithful to my charge as shepherd of the flock. You may fire me, but as long as I am the pastor here, I feel responsible to let the board know of the situation. The Lord cannot bless this church if we knowingly allow a small faction of discontented people to take it over through a dishonest election.”

The president then claimed that nothing could be proved. When informed that some had confessed, he then claimed that even so, nothing had been done that was wrong. But the board met, with nearly complete attendance. A conference official also met with them.

After seeing the evidence, the board voted 25- 4, by secret ballot, to hold another election, and to let the church vote on 11 of the top 22 votes from the previous election. That week the president, who was on vacation, made numerous calls to the pastor to try to get him to override the board’s decision. The president then informed the pastor that he had been in frequent contact with the General Conference about this issue and that the board had no such authority, but that their decision would have to be ratified by the church as a body.

On the next Sabbath morning, when the church was to vote again, the conference secretary called and asked to speak to the board before Sabbath school in order to get them to change their decision. The pastor informed the secretary that if he used undue pressure to get the board to go against their convictions, he would have to oppose his efforts, which he had never done in public before.

Many administrators and pastors understand that a committee can often be overpowered into doing what they do not really want to do simply by being told by one of authority that they “can’t” do something, or that they “must” do something.

The truth of this statement was born out just a few weeks after this date, when the South Church board elected their representatives to the upcoming Triennial Constituency meeting. The meeting was chaired by a conference official. The constituent representatives chosen by the board were primarily supportive of the pastor. The conference official said that he would not accept those representatives and had the church board re- vote. Again he refused to accept the vote. The board meeting lasted until late- until the board chose a group of representatives that he could agree with. Whether the list of names eventually chosen was more representative of the church, as the conference official claimed, or not, is not the point. The fact that a determined official can often override a committee was once again proved.

The conference secretary withdrew his request to meet with the board, but he came to church and made a motion on the floor to “table this vote and refer the whole situation to the conference Executive Committee,” and then proceeded to vote. He was voted down, and another election was held.

The going against a president’s command, though for conscientious reasons, and the voting down of a conference officer by the church body, resulted in another special Executive Committee being called the next day. The meeting was scheduled for ten days hence, and it appeared to be with intent to have the pastor fired.

By this time the Executive Committee had been more fully influenced against the pastor. As one committee member said at the meeting: “This is the second special executive meeting on this situation I have been called to, and my time is important. I do not intend to be called again!” Yet personal convenience or irritability is no reason to make a decision of so important a matter.

For about two hours, Pastor Grosboll quietly listened to the accusations against him by the conference leadership. When at last he arose to speak, he had only spoken for a few minutes when the union president arose and interrupted him, almost with vehemence, contradicting what he had said. Pastor Grosboll sat down, and did not speak again except to answer questions. There was no willingness to hear and no reason to speak. Minds were set. Reasoning only exasperated.

When One Door Closed, Another Opened

In the meantime there were other developments that appeared to be direct leadings of the Lord. First, during the evangelistic meetings that had just concluded one month previously, one of the largest television stations in town, an ABC affiliate, had asked Pastor Grosboll if he would consider producing a weekly television program for them. At first the pastor declined, not feeling qualified for such an endeavor. But as the pastor and others prayed about it, they felt maybe it was a providential leading of the Lord and not just coincidence. After the series concluded, Pastor Grosboll called the television station to ask if they were still interested.

They assured him they were and asked him to meet with them to discuss the matter. When they met, he told them he knew nothing about television and that if he was going to produce a program for their station, they would need to do all the technical work. They said they would, and the price they quoted was reasonable.

Pastor Grosboll then inquired about airing times. Sunday morning was the time when all their other religious programs aired, but the ratings for the best times on Sunday morning showed only 5,000 local viewers. He asked them if they would allow him to go on an evening time slot. They said they would make an evening slot available for him. They had a nightly program called “The Judge” on right after Nightline at 11: 30 P. M., which they offered to replace with a program that Marshall Grosboll might produce. They said he could choose any night of the week he wished. When they checked the ratings, they found that three times more people were viewing at 11: 30 P. M. than on Sunday mornings. They also found that more people viewed on Thursday evenings than on any other evening. When they asked about the price for the Thursday evening time slot, they were told they could have it for the same price as Sunday mornings. Thus the Steps to Life television program was born and became the only evening religious program aired in Wichita at that time.

Why was the television station so generous? Surely the Lord was opening up the way to reach Wichita as well as all of central and western Kansas.

A second development took place on the morning of the second voting of the Committee to Select the Nominating Committee. Several church members, independently, came to the conviction that the South Church should start a new church, in accordance with the suggestion of the Conference Executive Committee. One elder, just the day before, had been impressed to take a different route to work than he normally took, and on the way he came across a fairly new Mennonite church that had just come on the market that week. It appeared to be just the right size.

The Lord seemed to impress this conviction to start a new church on many hearts. A church board meeting, followed by a general church business meeting, had already been called for Sunday, the following day. The starting of a new church was not what the board was called for, but it was the only item discussed. That Sunday morning, before the board, a delegation of many church members went to look at the Mennonite church. The church board, with hardly a member missing, voted unanimously to start another church at this site. They then voted unanimously, minus one, to ask the conference for Pastor Grosboll to be the pastor of this new congregation. They also formed a steering committee, by another unanimous vote.

The actions of the board were then presented to the evening business meeting, with 181 voting members present. Again it was a unanimous vote to start the new church and a unanimous vote, minus one, to ask Pastor Grosboll to be the pastor. The steering committee was also approved by a unanimous vote. It was as if an angel had poured oil over troubled waters and brought everyone together into unity for a short period of time.

Within three weeks, the new church was meeting with 220 in attendance. The average attendance from that date to the end of the year was in excess of 190. This fact also created a problem. It seems that some people envisioned that when a new church started, a few of the leaders interested in revival and reformation would leave the parent church to start the new. This development would have left the power in the hands of those who had previously held it for decades. But it wasn’t perceived how big a dent would be made in the attendance and offerings of the South Church. Few dreamed that half of the attending members would pull up roots and go out to start this new church. Nearly all of those who were involved in giving Bible studies went with the new congregation.

Many of those who attended the new church testify that over the next seven months they experienced more peace and joy and the evident presence of the Lord in that congregation than they had ever experienced elsewhere. Thus began the “Three Angels Seventh- day Adventist Church.”

The charge has gone out from both the local conference and the Union to places throughout North America, and even the world field, that Pastor Grosboll wrecked the South Church by dividing it in two. Is this true? It was with the highest of motives that the new church was started. And the South Church continues to survive quite adequately.

But if the truth were really known, the conference refused to consider the wishes of the overwhelming majority on the church board, or the board of elders. Rather, the conference united with those who were determined to maintain the church under their control, by trying to bring someone in to pastor who would suit their purposes.

Under the prevailing circumstances, it would appear that the Lord did the best He could for His work in Wichita. Circumstances indicate that the Lord directed in the establishing of the new church. He guided the surprise recommendation through the Executive Committee, impressed various spiritual leaders in the church, opened up a church, and guided the process through the church board and the business meeting.

Pastor Grosboll Faces a Decision

While the new church was being formed, ten days before to the first worship service, Pastor Grosboll was terminated from pastoring in Wichita by the specially called Executive Committee. The pastor was given several alternatives, such as going back to Andrews University or joining the pastoral staff of the College View Church in Nebraska. Later he was offered another district in Kansas. After much prayer, Pastor Grosboll still did not feel free to leave the Institute of Ministry until it was finished nor to stop the television ministry that was just beginning. The president then suggested to him that he should take a leave of absence. Pastor Grosboll accepted this advice. The president also had suggested at an earlier date, shortly after he became president, that Pastor Grosboll might consider establishing a selfsupporting ministry. He indicated that he would cooperate with such an endeavor if he would. This counsel was also considered.

Pastor Grosboll accepted the decision of the Executive Committee, without question, and cooperated with them. Though asked to give a farewell speech to the church by the ensuing board meeting, at which Pastor Grosboll was not present, never again did he take the pulpit in the South Church, except to make a plea from the front to support the conference and to stay with the church, no matter what happened, because it is God’s church. Neither did Pastor Grosboll, for a time after his dismissal, take an active part in the organization of the new church. When asked by the elders of the new church to preach, he at first declined. But he then came under the conviction that, as he was called and commissioned by the Lord to preach, he should accept. This he did.

The president had promised to make the Three Angels congregation a conference church. But the conference soon set some conditions to making them a church, which conditions included total conference control of the pulpit and the board chairmanship. Pastor Grosboll was not the chairman of the board, nor the head of any department.) As the Three Angels congregation did not feel it could acquiesce to these conditions, the conference for several months ignored them. They did, however, accept their tithes and offerings. The Three Angels church was in the top 10% of the churches in the conference in both attendance and in the amount of tithe returned to the conference.

Eventually the president met with the head elder and Pastor Grosboll. His great concern was that the elders of the church were assigning who was to preach on Sabbath morning, which included Pastor Grosboll a large percentage of the time. These two elders shared that this was their understanding of the functions and duties of the elders, but that if they were wrong, and could be shown so from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, they would be happy to change.

They asked the president to study with them, but he declined, stating that, “Only the Biblical Research Department has the authority to study this. We must follow the Church Manual” But the Manual does not specify what the president was insisting on. Moreover, the two elders shared that they believed that the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy must be the guide which we follow and that God would help us to understand it, if we approach it in humility, prayer, and sincerity. The Manual may be a useful guide on procedure, but it is not inspired and must not take the place of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. But the president still declined to study the subject, stating that unless the congregation would agree to this condition without question, they could not be a church. Because the elders could not conscientiously agree to this, Pastor Grosboll was again accused of insubordination.

You should give your authority to the people from God’s Word. You should not believe any doctrine simply because another says it is truth. The Ellen G. White 1888 material, 170

Lines of Control

The Bible has ample counsel on the duties of an elder. To the elders (plural) of the church of Ephesus, Paul said, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20: 28- 29). It was the local elders who were called to shepherd the flock and protect them from wolves. This was the New Testament model. It was the Roman apostasy that developed a central power to control the local congregation.

It was one of the leading doctrines of Romanism that the pope is... invested with supreme authority over bishops and pastors in all parts of the world. The Great Controversy’, 50

God wants all local congregations to work together in unity. God helped us to develop a system of government within the church in ,order to enhance unity and to preserve doctrinal purity. God did not design that anyone or any entity should work independently of His Spirit, or of the people and systems His Spirit was directing. (This statement means that the organized church is just as responsible for cooperating with God’s various ministries that are not under their direct control as the ministries are responsible for cooperating with the organized church. The same responsibility of cooperation was required of the Jewish leadership when John the Baptist and his disciples, and Jesus and His disciples, came preaching the gospel.) God intends that the church should be structured and organized. But this system was never designed for the purpose of dictating and controlling the consciences of men and congregations as was done during the Middle Ages. It is the love of God, and the Holy Spirit, that must unite us together in bonds of brotherhood. There is a place for disfellowshipping and discipline of members and churches based upon biblical principles, but never upon man- made rules. There is a place for leadership, but never arbitrary control and vindictiveness. Arbitrary human control and kingly power has been one of the great shortcomings of this church that has led us into Leodiceanism. This was one of our primary problems in 1888. Whenever human leadership supersedes the leadership of the Holy Spirit, Christ is denied. In 1888, Ellen White called for us to make “Christ our righteousness;” not man.

God designs that men shall use their minds and consciences for themselves. He never designed that one man should become the shadow of another, and utter only another’s sentiments. But this error has been coming in among us, that a very few are to be mind, conscience, and judgment for all God’s workers. The foundation of Christianity is “Christ our Righteousness.” Men are individually responsible to God and must act as God acts upon them, not as another human mind acts upon their mind; for if this method of indirect influence is kept up, souls cannot be impressed and directed by the great I AND. They wilt, on the other hand, have their experience blended with another, and will be kept under a moral restraint, which allows no freedom of action or of choice. . . .

If we would be wise, and use diligently, prayerfully and thankfully the means whereby light and blessings are to come to his people, then no voice nor power upon earth would have authority over us to say, “This shall not be.” The Lord has presented before me that men in responsible positions are standing directly in the way of the workings of God upon His people. The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 112, 113

It is not for the Lord’s delegated ministers to look to other minds to plan and devise for them. They must use the ability God has given them, and make God the center and source of all their wisdom. Ibid., 90

The feeling of Elder Butler [was that] position gave unlimited authority. Ibid., 110 When finite men shall cease to put themselves in the way, to hinder, then God will work in our midst as never before. Ibid., 114

Let no human hand place a yoke upon your neck. Take the yoke Christ gives. Learn of Him. Ibid., 141

No one must be permitted to close the avenues whereby the light of truth shall come to tile people. As soon as this shall be attempted, God’s Spirit will be quenched. Ibid., 171

These are but a small sampling of the hundreds of statements Ellen White gave on this subject during and after the 1888 experience. Let us not just try to find other statements, wrested out of their context, to “counter” and “balance” these plain statements, but let us permit them to have their full weight. Let us obey the word of the Lord, not argue it away as those do who try to avoid the responsibilities of the Sabbath. These statements are not advising against receiving proper and due counsel, which we all need. Nor are they mitigating against organization, which the Lord has ordained. But rather, they are strictly condemning “kingly power” within organization, such as we had in Ellen White’s day, and which some people believe we have even more so today. She said this spirit of over- control would quench the Spirit of the Lord. Is that happening?

Is it possible that if a president becomes conscience for a pastor, that he in turn expects the pastor to be conscience for the people? According to the above statements, this practice will quench God’s Spirit. In a meeting between Pastor Grosboll and the president during a worker’s meeting right after the first nominating committee, the president encouraged him to reinstate into office some of those who were the most bitter. Pastor Grosboll said that, though some pastors may do so, he did not feel it was right for a pastor to override a nominating committee or to impose his own will upon them. The nominating committee had seriously prayed about their decisions and felt the Lord had guided them. Moreover, he shared that he did not feel it was right, even for a nominating committee, to put people into office just to appease them. He, as a shepherd, tried to minister to all, but to allow any segment of the congregation to run the church just to avoid trouble, he believed was wrong. Then he asked the president where that policy of appeasement was working for the advancement of God’s work. Will that policy bring about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit?

It should be noted that in 1896, according to the SDA Encyclopedia (1966), Kansas had 3,000 Seventh- day Adventist members. Today it has 4,756 members, or 8% fewer per capita of the Kansas population than before the turn of the century. In 1902 Kansas had 100 churches. Today it has 58 churches. In the last 7 years, Kansas membership has grown by 1, while the population has grown by over 100,000 people. Is God’s Spirit already being quenched?

If we want the Spirit’s power to return to our work, we must have less confidence and dependence in man, and far more in God. Jesus is to have pre- eminence in the church and over the church (Col. 1: 18). “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually’ as H e wills” (1 Cor. 12: 11). The Galatian church was severely reprimanded by Paul for yielding to the authority and influence of James and Peter from Jerusalem in going against the will of God. Is the church today any less responsible to God than was the church in Galatia?

The New Congregation Faces Change

Although the leaders of the new congregation would not yield their convictions about the duties of the elders and the limits of a conference’s rightful influence, the conference seemed to work long and hard to find a way to break down these convictions. One guest speaker who was invited in, by the elders, to speak to the congregation, reported how he was repeatedly called by the president and influenced as to what he should say to the congregation.

The conference eventually appointed a pastor for this group, although they were not yet accepted as an entity of the conference. The board of elders and the church board were both assured that this retired pastor was coming in to work with the Three Angels congregation as they were so functioning, and that he would not seek to change them. Having received this assurance, both the board of elders and the church board gladly voted unanimously to accept this new pastor. Elder Grosboll, as well as the members of the Three Angels church, wanted very much to work with the conference.

Elder Grosboll spoke only one time after the new pastor arrived, and that was a Sabbath that had been scheduled by the elders before the new pastor arrived. He was asked to speak twice more. The first time he declined, as he did not feel that the new pastor was yet comfortable with him. However, it soon appeared that the new pastor had come with an assigned purpose. The next time the elders asked Elder Grosboll to speak, the new pastor vigorously opposed it.

Person after person in the church began to experience what they felt was a concerted undermining of Pastor Grosboll’s ministry and the Institute of Ministry (now called Steps to Life, Inc.) by the new pastor. Some have shared how, in private conversations, various unflattering titles and characterizations were used to discredit Elder Grosboll and the Institute. When another minister visited the church one month after the arrival of the new pastor, he was told by the new pastor that he had come to Wichita “to straighten things out,” because “they were not what they should be.” But that was not what the board had been told as to the purpose of his coming.

Two months after the arrival of the new pastor, Elder Grosboll left on a one- month preaching tour overseas. During Elder Grosboll’s absence, the pastor began to advocate two things: 1) He wanted the elders to turn the pulpit over to him and 2) he wanted the congregation to a