court

The Alpha and the Omega of Apostasy, Part I

by

If we desire to climb the last part of the road to heaven, we must learn our lesson from history. This is not only true for the part of history recorded in the Bible (see 1 Corinthians 10:11) and the Great Controversy (see the Preface of that book), but it is especially for the history of Adventism. It was in this context that Ellen White talked about the Alpha and Omega of apostasy. She wrote, “We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature.” Selected Messages, vol.1, 197.

As we will see, in the following statement, the most startling nature of the omega apostasy consists in the extent of the crisis. While the alpha of apostasy stands for the beginning and was to be limited to a certain local area, the omega of apostasy would develop to a most startling degree until the end. “One thing it is certain is soon to be realized,—the great apostasy, which is developing and increasing and waxing stronger, and will continue to do so until the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout.” The New York Indicator, February 7, 1906.

If we want to know what course is to be followed in the days of the omega apostasy we have to heed the counsels and instructions given by Ellen White during the alpha crisis. We have to learn from history in order not to repeat the mistakes made in the past. “It is presented to me that in our experience we have been and are meeting this very condition of things.” Battle Creek Letters, 124.

In the alpha crisis we find a description of the future (or already existing) condition and experience of the Adventist people. Ellen White tells us: “Past history will be repeated; old controversies will arouse to new life, and peril will beset God’s people on every side.” Testimonies to Ministers, 116. “We have nothing to fear for the future except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us.” Testimonies to Ministers, 31.

How Did the Alpha Develop?

In the center of the alpha-crisis was one man, John Harvey Kellogg, an Adventist physician. Under his leadership, Battle Creek Sanitarium received worldwide fame at the turn of the century. But in the late 1890s, his zeal and energy were more and more mixed with a new idea—that God, not being personal, was in every living thing; in every flower, in every tree, in every morsel of bread. What Kellogg believed to be “new light” forced the prophet of God, even before 1881, to give him a warning message. “Those theories are wrong. I have met them before.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, 278, 279.

Since he was married to a Seventh Day Baptist, Kellogg came in contact with a Seventh Day Baptist minister named Lewis. This man held pantheistic views as well. In Kellogg’s mind the pantheistic ideas were brought to maturity, so that, in 1897, he talked about this topic publicly for the first time. Others like Waggoner and Kress came to the same conviction and joined him in preaching this at the General Conference, of 1899, in South Lancaster, Massachusetts.

One month before that conference, Ellen White had written and sent warning letters from Australia, which arrived just at the right time. But sadly enough, these warnings were not heeded. Pantheistic ideas continued to be spread over the land. They were taught, in Battle Creek, in both the College and Sanitarium

Ellen White had to send warning after warning. On February 18, 1902 the Battle Creek Sanitarium burned to the ground. To finance the new sanitarium, Kellogg was asked to write a book, the royalties of which were to be taken for the new sanitarium building. The book Kellogg wrote was entitled “The Living Temple.” The finished manuscript was full of his erroneous ideas that had their origin in spiritualistic, pantheistic philosophy. Many discussions followed. Ellen White wrote about this book.

“In the book ‘Living Temple’ there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 200.

Despite the reproofs from God’s prophet, Kellogg was determined to print his book in the way he wrote it. So he gave a printing order to the Review and Herald Publishing Company, which they accepted. But God Himself interfered. After the printing patterns were finished and the book was ready to be printed, the publishing house, on December 31, 1902, caught fire and burned to the ground. This did not happen unexpectedly, but was mentioned by the prophet of the Lord more than one year before. (See Testimonies, vol. 8, 91.) The sword of fire had fallen and all knew that God had spoken.

In spite of all this, Kellogg was not prepared to change his mind, and stubbornly went to another publishing house to get his book printed. He then took efforts to ensure that his book was widely circulated among Adventists and non-Adventists. So the pantheistic tares grew and became a danger for the whole work. Ellen White summed up the situation with these words: “Battle Creek has been the seat of rebellion among a people to whom the Lord has given great light and special opportunities.” Paulson Collection, 71.

What is the Omega?

  • In the context of the alpha crisis, Ellen White describes a vision about the soon coming omega apostasy among Adventists. “The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 204, 205.
    A reformation inspired by the devil was to take place, and it would consist “in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith.”

What are the pillars of our Adventist faith? They are as follows:

  • The nature of Christ
  • The sanctuary service
  • The spirit of prophecy
  • The Three Angels’ Messages (exposing the papacy, Babylon, ecumenism, explaining the Sabbath-Sunday-question, exalting the law of God, etc.)
  • The state of the dead and the exposure of spiritualism

What Happened to the Pillars of Our Faith?

In the 1950s a movement began which was to bring heavy consequences with it for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Every possible effort was taken by men in leading positions in the General Conference to keep Adventists from being called a “sect” by evangelical Christians. The issue came to a head when Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of the journal “Eternity,” and Walter R. Martin, evangelical theologian, wanted to write a book about Seventh-day Adventists proclaiming that they were a non-Christian “sect.”

For this purpose they met with Adventist leaders to discuss the doctrines of Adventism, by which Barnhouse and Martin were convinced Adventists would be unmasked as a non-Christian sect. The central topic was the final atonement service of Jesus, in the second apartment of the sanctuary, during the judgment when He would blot out the sins of the truly penitent. Another topic was the nature of Christ.

When the Adventist leaders were confronted with quotations from our books, they soon realized that their declarations would not be enough to convince Barnhouse and Martin that the SDA Church was not a sect, but a Christian church. So they decided to publish a new book on Adventist doctrines. That book was Questions on Doctrine (1957), and it marked the beginning of the effort to remove the pillars of our faith.

About the first pillar, the nature of Christ, they wrote: “He was without sin, not only in His outward conduct, but in His very nature. . . . He was sinless in His life and in His nature. . .” Questions on Doctrine, 383; [All emphasis supplied.]

As God’s end time people that are sanctifying themselves to be as pure in character as Jesus was during His life on earth (1 John 3:3), it is of saving importance to believe that Jesus could remain sinless with the same (sinful) flesh we have. Of what use is a savior that reveals that unfallen flesh could resist sin? We need a Savior who shows us that it is possible to live a perfect life (Hebrews 2:14, 17), in our sinful nature. And that is what Jesus did. He left us the example that sinful man does not sin when his will is surrendered entirely to God. Paul tells us of “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . ” Romans 8:3. He who does not testify to this, reveals the spirit of Antichrist. (1 John 4:2, 3.)

A second pillar that was removed is the Spirit of Prophecy. Barnhouse wrote in his article “Are SDAs Christians?” what he was told by Adventist leaders about the prophetic gift of Ellen White. “The Adventist leadership proclaims that the writings of Ellen G. White . . . are not a parity with Scripture. . . . They admit her writings are not infallible . . . Her writings incidentally are not a test of fellowship in the SDA church.”
Ellen White was shown: “The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 48. We see that the last crisis—the Omega—has already begun.

A third pillar that has been taken away is the sanctuary doctrine. Barnhouse wrote: “Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say, flatly, that they repudiate all such extremes [that is the teaching that Jesus went into the most holy place on October 22, 1844, to make an atonement before His Second Coming]. This they have said in no uncertain terms.”

The rejection of this important doctrine has been confirmed in the book Questions on Doctrine. On page 381 it states: “Jesus . . . entered the ‘holy places,’ and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross.” (See also 354, 355; emphasis in the original.)

If Jesus completed the atonement at the cross, the question arises, what is Jesus doing up in heaven now that could be so important? If everything was done at the cross, then there is no closing atonement, no investigative judgment and no blotting out of sin. The result of such a theology is the idea that we never can become perfect. And if no one can overcome all sin, why should keeping the commandments be so important? Wouldn’t it then be just as easy to be saved as a Sunday-keeper as a keeper of the Sabbath? Also the Three Angels’ Messages would mainly consist of the message that Jesus has done everything for you. It is easy to see that here lies the cause for many of the wrongs and sins in the Adventist Church.

Are the fallacies presented in Questions on Doctrine still believed by mainstream Adventism today? Walter Martin gives the answer to this question in his book The Kingdom of the Cults. “On April 29, 1983, W. Richard Lesher, vice-president of the General Conference, responded in a personal letter. His reply read in part: ‘You ask first if Seventh-day Adventists still stand behind the answers given to your questions in Questions on Doctrine as they did in 1957. The answer is yes.’ ” For this reason we find in later books, like 27 Fundamental Doctrines of SDA’s, the same false doctrines presented.

In Germany’s ministerial seminaries, the doctrines that make us Seventh-day Adventists are denied without shame. One instructor stated: “I believe that in 1844 nothing happened, neither in heaven nor on earth.” U. Worschech of Marienhoehe’s Ministerial Seminary, as copied during his class “Sanctuary Service.” On another occasion the same instructor said, “We have to Ford-develop our theology on the sanctuary.” U. Worschech on the occasion of Desmond Ford’s visit at the AWA meeting, October 24-26, 1986.

That is the exact fulfillment of Ellen White’s prophecies concerning the omega-crisis and truly describes the present situation: “The foundation of our faith, which was established by so much prayer, such earnest searching of the Scriptures, was being taken down, pillar by pillar. Our faith was to have nothing to rest upon—the sanctuary was gone, the atonement was gone.” The Upward Look, 152. [Emphasis supplied.]

The Omega and the Three Angels’ Messages

If the atonement being done in the most holy place is taken away, the whole foundation of the Three Angels’ Messages has to collapse, too, because these angels point directly to Jesus’ work of redemption in the most holy place. (See Early Writings, 256.) Ellen White says: “I was shown three steps—the First, Second, and Third Angels’ Messages. Said my accompanying angel, ‘Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received.’ I was again brought down through these messages, and saw how dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. God had led them along step by step, until He had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform. I saw individuals approach the platform and examine the foundation. Some with rejoicing immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the foundation. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be more perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform to examine it and declared it to be laid wrong. But I saw that nearly all stood firm upon the platform and exhorted those who had stepped off to cease their complaints; for God was the Master Builder, and they were fighting against Him.” Early Writings 258, 259. [Emphasis supplied.]

When we go out doing missionary work and distributing pamphlets that contain the Three Angels’ Messages, how often do we hear professed Seventh-day Adventists say something like this? “It is not good missionary work to be putting the beast, his mark and his image to the front. It’s just not the right method. It’s too hard.”

Even though they claim only to reject the form or the method, it is obvious that they fear our message could be made known publicly. The public unmasking of popery as the whore and the professed Protestant churches as daughters of whoredom, makes them uncomfortable, lest these churches denounce the Adventists as a sect. They fear that the result would be to raise opposition and to lower the acceptance and influence of Adventism, and they are afraid that it might finally bring about persecution.

People start finding faults with the platform, complain about it and wish to have improvements made. (See Early Writings, 258.) They claim, maybe not explicitly in their words, but by their deeds, that the foundation was built the wrong way. These are not just the feelings of a few Adventist individuals, but this is a policy which is penetrating the whole SDA-organization, as can be shown by the following example.

The former General Conference President, Neal Wilson, said in the Pacific Union Recorder: “Our work is not to denounce the Roman Catholic Church.” February 18, 1985. That sounds good, but what does he really mean? In a civil court case, Wilson said, “Although it is true that there was a period, in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, when the denomination took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term ‘hierarchy’ was used in a pejorative sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the church’s part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery attitude among conservative Protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the SDA Church is concerned.” EEOC vs PPPA and GC, Civil Case #74-2025 CBR, 1975. [All emphasis supplied.]

How can it come to pass that the leader of a denomination that was called by God to warn of the efforts of popery, could “consign” that message “to the historical trash heap”? How can he reject God’s holy trust so decidedly? Neal Wilson had to bear witness of his faith in the courtroom in times of peace, but he betrayed it. The astonishing thing is that this statement, apparently, did not cause widespread indignation. One gets much more the impression that the president just formulated an accepted point of view among Seventh-day Adventists.

Ellen White describes this attitude in the following words: “The opinion is gaining ground, that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed, and that a little concession on our part will bring us into a better understanding with Rome. The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which has been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery, and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed.” The Great Controversy, 563. [Emphasis supplied.]

If now, in times of peace, we deny our faith that openly, what will happen in the future when laws are made against God’s commandment-keeping people? “If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and [if] in the land of peace, [wherein] thou trustedst, [they wearied thee], then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?” Jeremiah 12:5.

To be continued next month . . .

Silver and Marik Betrayed

by

The Merikay McLeod Silver Case

Due to her writing capabilities, Merikay McLeod, author of the book, “Now,” was offered a position as Assistant Book Editor at Pacific Press. She was just a young woman, not yet out of college, and she was flattered that the brethren were impressed with her work. During the interview, when she inquired as to her salary, no dollar amount was mentioned, so she assumed she would be making about $600 a month, which is what the woman she was replacing had been making.

She described her feelings when starting work at Pacific Press: “I have a good ‘family’ feeling when I walk into chapel. These people are my people, my family, since their God is already my own…This is where I am supposed to be.”

Throughout the first week, various employees stopped by her office to introduce themselves, and to compliment her on her story, “Now.” She felt welcome and admired.

Confrontation

During the second week of her employment she was informed that the hiring committee was concerned over her lack of having a college degree. Although disappointed over this upset so early in her employment, Merikay stated that she “hates controversy and confrontation. I don’t want to start having to defend myself.” She still had not been told what her salary would be, and was concerned due to her living costs. When she was called in for a meeting, she assumed it would be to discuss her lack of a degree. Instead, she was questioned in regard to her beliefs.

After working at The Press for a month she received her first paycheck – $400. She was devastated. This was not enough money to even make ends meet. When she confronted her supervisor, she was told that this is how they had worked out the “hiring problem.” Since she had not finished college, the Committee had decided to give her the title “Editorial Assistant,” instead of Assistant Book Editor—justifying the lower wage.

To help make ends meet, and at her husband’s urging, Merikay submitted a collection of her own short stories to pacific press for publication. After changing the title, the book publishing committee decided to print the book.

Merikay was relieved. She enjoyed her work and was making friends, one of whom was Lorna Tobler, secretary to Lawrence Maxwell.

While still pursuing an acceptable salary, Merikay was told that Pacific Press had a wage system based on need. “The Church’s institutions take care of their workers,” she was told. “It’s a family centered concept.” So, in an effort to improve her financial position, Merikay returned to school to get her degree. Although Press workers were routinely released from work to complete degree requirements, Merikay put in a full eight-hour day and continued with her schooling. She decided she would not ask for a raise until she had her degree.

Discovery

At the copy machine one day, she saw a male worker copying his W2 form. They were both shocked to find that he made 40% more than she did, even though they were both doing the same work. Even though the “law” requires equal pay for equal work and sex discrimination is illegal, Merikay felt she should wait until she had her degree before asking for a raise. However, she then wondered if her work was acceptable, and confronted her supervisor. She told him she learned of the pay difference and wondered if it was because her work was not satisfactory. She was told, “Our system is called ‘Head of Household’…we believe a family’s main wage-earner should receive more because of his added burdens. Merikay was mollified.

A short time later, Merikay’s husband, lost his job. She was sure she now qualified for “Head of Household” pay since she was now the sole wage earner. About this time, a pamphlet came down from the General Conference basically stating, “on the basis of need determined by marital status, dependents and financial responsibility, an additional amount of money may be paid to employees without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national origin or color.” According to the General Conference, Merikay qualified! She was thrilled!

While discussing this with her supervisor, he offered to write a letter to his boss praising Merikay’s work and asking that “a liberal, conciliatory attitude” be taken in this case so Merikay would not become discouraged.

Check Your Rights

Merikay’s husband asked her to see Joan Bradford, an attorney he had heard lecture a few months earlier, just as a precaution. When Merikay told the attorney the situation at Pacific Press, Joan Bradford stated that “the system is illegal,” and asked if Merikay wanted to sue? No, Merikay only wanted to know if she was within her legal rights to ask for “Head of Household” pay. Joan assured her that she was. The Pacific Press “Head of Household” system is illegal,” Joan stated, and Merikay had the right to ask for equal pay.

As moral support, a fellow male employee agreed to go to the boss with Merikay. The boss responded that this male employee had an advanced degree and six years of editing experience. Merikay countered with the fact that she had ten years professional writing experience. “If we do something for you—then the women in the bindery will want something too,” the boss replied.

The fellow employee attempted to defend Merikay by stating that when he got married he got a big raise in pay, plus his wife was covered by company insurance. He also stated that men in the book department who have not even finished high school are making big salaries. Merikay was simply asking for the same pay and benefits that a married man in her position would get. The boss said, basically, “Merikay’s having a dependent (her out of work husband) is not our problem.”

The Light Dawns

The light began to dawn. Merikay now realized that no woman in the institution was getting “Head of Household” pay, whether divorced with children, widowed, or retired missionary women taking care of a sick spouse. Nothing was resolved, and Merikay decided to write a follow-up letter to the boss, and wait to see what happened.

She realized something was very wrong at the Press. “Head of Household” really meant “male.” A lot of women (100-150 female workers) were supporting children, invalid husbands or parents; none of which were receiving “Head of Household” status.

Merikay received a message that if she would just humble herself and agree to forget what had happened, she would get more money; but if she took a hard line, she would get nothing at all. Merikay went to Joan Bradford and expressed her fears. Joan offered to write a letter to the Press in which she would offer to help legalize their employment practices.

In 1972, Joan sent a letter to Merikay’s boss, pointing out the illegalities of Pacific Press’ practices and offering to help them out. The attorney also stated; “In view of the fact that you have so far failed to make any responsive communication to Mrs. Silver in regard to these matters—we are notifying you that all future communication to Mrs. Silver regarding her rights to equal employment benefits are to be made through this office.”

Merikay was accused of not being loyal, and Lorna Tobler informed her that she was told, “Merikay will never, never, never get equal pay.”

The Press did not respond to the attorney’s letter until July. Then it was through an attorney. They claimed they were not breaking the law, there was no sex discrimination—Now or ever! Joan Bradford wanted Merikay to file an official complaint with the EEOC. Merikay was stunned! The Press was denying the truth! Did they not want to obey the law?

Letters flew back and forth between Joan Bradford and the attorney for Pacific Press, but there was no word from the Press, themselves. Letters were sent to the chief executives of Pacific Press. There was still no response.

Lorna photocopied all pay scale records and gave them to Merikay’s attorney. The basic wage scale was the same, except men got higher promotions than the women did. However, if women would be allowed to go into those jobs, they would have received the same basic wage, but the rent allowance was sex related. All married men got $1.00 per hour rent allowance. Single men received $.75 per hour, and women earned $.30 per hour.

Lorna received a letter of reprimand for her part in counseling “younger workers to contact attorneys.”

Merikay wrote a letter to her boss showing many Spirit of Prophecy quotes to substantiate her position. (MS 47, 1898; MS 142, 1903; Gospel Workers 452-453 (1915). In response, she received an executive letter of rebuke: “I don’t think there is a single statement on that sheet which would give anyone the impression that women should have the same wages as men, although I am not opposed to the idea. We should be careful that we don’t make the Spirit of Prophecy say something that was not intended.”

The chairman of the board came to town but refused to see Merikay if her attorney was present at the meeting. He did, however, see Lorna and claimed Pacific Press would obey the law and tell the truth. Lorna met with the General Conference President and the chairman of the board. They both assured her the General Conference wanted to do what was right. However, the chairman of the board asked Lorna to go easy on the brethren. He asked for patience and understanding. He said, “If we don’t ease up, if we insist on pursuing this thing, the brethren will burn us at the stake.”

Out of the blue, Lorna Tobler’s husband received a “call” to Germany. However, they decided Lorna would not go with him immediately—she would stay and help fight Merikay’s battle.

Someone filed a complaint with the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. Everyone thought it was Merikay, but it was not. Her supervisor chastised her—”I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if you, single-handedly, kicked off the time of trouble!” he yelled.

In November 1972, Merikay and Lorna filed an official complaint with the EEOC. In December 1972, Guy Guerrero, Department of Labor investigator arrived at the Press. After completing his investigation, he told Merikay, “Yes” he had found discrimination, and that it should all be taken care of shortly after the first of the year.

When Merikay received her January pay envelope, her check was the same, but there was $1,000 shown in the total-to-date column. She was puzzled by this, and called Guy Guerrero for an explanation. He told her it was the back pay Pacific Press owed her, and that they would cut her a check in a few days. Merikay explained there was an error. Her co-worker earned $11,000 a year while she earned $6,676.41. Guy Guerrero came to Merikay’s office—solemn faced he admited he never thought they (the Press) would lie to him. “Don’t cash any checks,” he instructed her, then left her office to confront the boss with copies of the W2 forms showing the discrepancies. He was dismissed from the office, and the statement was made, “The next time the Press sees you, it will be in court!” Guerrero began the process to sue Pacific Press.

Through this incident, Merikay realized that the Press would not do what was right because it was right, would not obey the law, because it was the law, nor would they treat their employee’s right because it was the moral thing to do. If the Press would work with her to correct the inequities, the government’s suit would automatically disappear, but they would not. She felt she had but three options. Either she could stay and leave things just as they were, which was unthinkable; file suit herself, or quit her job and find other work, which would not be hard with her talent. But what about all the other women, the ones who could not quit? Those who were afraid to speak up for themselves? The ones who could not find another job so easily? She was hurt and confused. She wrote, “All the love, all the idealism, all the pride I’ve had in my church and its institutions bubbles to the surface, only to be snuffed by the reality I’ve experienced.” Her days filled with confusion over what she should do, she finally decided that she “must file suit.” Eight months after asking for “Head of Household,” she filed suit in January 1973. The Press received notice of this filing in March.

The news traveled quickly, and Merikay received flowers from three women working at the General Conference headquarters in Washington D.C.—”Right on! Fight the good fight!” the card said.

The Press offered to settle for $10,000 for Merikay, which would have to be split with her attorney. No other women were to receive anything; no money, no promise of equal pay, no opportunity to move up through the ranks to higher positions. Merikay could not accept. Twice they came close to a settlement, but the Press refused to accept monitoring of potential settlements by anyone other than the Press or General Conference appointees. They were still denying, through their attorney, any wrongdoing.

The boss called a meeting of all the women employees. Attorney Bradford wrote a letter to Don McNeil, attorney for Pacific Press, stating that she was shocked and dismayed to learn that management had, without notifying her, called a meeting of certain employees, at which time management would, without attorney’s present, discuss employment policies with female employees. This was in direct contradiction to management’s agreement with her that they would meet with her, provide her with personnel records and attempt to set up employment guidelines before meeting with the women. “I regard management’s calling of the April 17 meeting to be another demonstration of the Press’ pattern of expressing superficially its desire to conform with the law, while at the same time, preserving its own authoritarian position over its female employees—instructing them without allowing them to receive information of appropriate employment practices from anyone other than their own employer.”… “I view these tactics by the Press to be another form of intimidation and coercion of its female employees…”

Merikay continued to receive letters of support from women (and some men) in all branches of the denominational work, while at the same time she had to sit through countless morning worship services while the men of the Press tore her to pieces in veiled words. Management was flexing their muscle through the morning worship period. A well-known editor spoke for an hour about modern Judas’s who sell the Lord’s work to the goat for a few pieces of silver.

Because of the many rumors circulating around the Press, Merikay decided to call a meeting of all of the women employees to explain her side. She and Lorna rented a building less than a mile from the Press office in which to hold this meeting. The day of the meeting, the Press executives, and their Attorney, Don McNeil had a Rah! Rah! session for worship, in which the women were urged to “divorce” themselves from the Class Action Suit by signing a form. Of course, they were assured that they were not being “told” to sign; they were simply being given the opportunity. That evening 50 women showed up at Merikay’s meeting.

The Press management ignored Joan Bradford’s request for information. They post-poned meetings with her and did not cooperate. Joan finally went to the Press offices and spent the day reviewing records, books, and files.

Finally, a new manager was brought into the Press. Shortly thereafter, in October 1973, Management sent Lorna Tobler a letter stating that they had agreed that she was to be terminated with two weeks severance pay so that she could join her husband in Germany. Lorna responded, “this action would certainly be viewed by the law as a reprisal.” Five days later the Press officially “clarified” the use of the word ‘terminated’—stating that they only meant she was free to go if she chose. However, the new boss visited Lorna, and a clear threat was made. Either she moved to Germany immediately or “something terribly serious will happen.”

In December, a letter from the General Conference, was sent to all SDA publishing houses instructing them not to accept articles or manuscripts written by Merikay, “because of her tendency to ignore Christian counsel,” and Lorna received a very strong letter from the German Conference stating that she must come to Germany immediately.

In January 1974, Lorna met with the Board Chairman. She showed him the letter she had received and asked if that meant her husband would lose his job.

“Well, those are some of the hazards,” he replied.

“That sounds to me like some little game or something,” Lorna stated.

He replied, “It’s not a little game, it’s a big game!”

The stress was beginning to cause Merikay to have migraine headaches, but the barrage continued. The Adventist Review published an article on the authority of the church, and her attorney, Joan Bradford, had back surgery. The rumor went about the Press offices that Joan had been struck down with cancer by ‘the Lord.’

In February 1974, an official of the General Conference came to see Merikay. He set aside the whole day for her, he stated, and she realized that this was an impressive gesture. After general “getting to know you” chitchat, he asked Merikay what she thought of the new boss. He then stated that he had the utmost confidence in the men in leadership at the Press. He asked her how negotiations were going, and Merikay informed him there were no negotiations.

“You know, Merikay,” he stated, “you aren’t shooting blanks in this. The main thing that bothers me about all of this is that I don’t think the government has any right coming into our publishing house and telling us what to do. Well, what can we do to end this thing?”

Merikay replied; “Talk, negotiate. Do what is right and lawful. I do not know what is so all-fired difficult about doing what is right.”

He opened the letter Merikay sent him and pointed to various items, asking what he could do about each of them. As they talked he took notes. Merikay was thrilled! He was the first leader who had actually listened to her. However, in March 1974, he urged Merikay to find a compromise.

In an April 1974, Settlement conference, the new boss refused to talk. He simply sat with his arms folded. Later a fellow employee told Merikay that her supervisor was laying the groundwork to fire her. “Be sure to keep a diary so you can document the things he says.”

The new boss read a letter in chapel, which was addressed to all the women employees of the Press. If the Silver lawsuit went to court, every woman’s name and how she voted on the Class Action Suit would be revealed.” One hundred ten women withdrew from the Class Action Suit. Sixty did not respond—which was counted as a “yes” we want to withdraw vote. Seventy-seven women now remained in the Class Action Suit.

EEOC Files Suit

The EEOC filed a preliminary injunction suit against the Press for harassing Merikay and Lorna.

The Press got a new attorney. They argued that they did not discriminate. “We’re a religious organization and as such do not have to answer to the government for our activities. The First Amendment protects us.” They also came up with a new argument. “The Press is the church and all workers are, in reality, ministers of the church. Matters of church government and administration are beyond the purview of Civil Authorities.” Press attorney, Dungan, argued that “church policy forbids members to use the court system to sue a church institution for any reason, let alone to determine intra-church, intra-family disputes. By continuing her suit, Merikay has put herself at variance with the church and has become a prime candidate for early disfellowshipping.”

In December 1974, the trial hearing began. The opening brief by the Press attorney included the following statements:

“Only members of the church who are in good standing are eligible for employment in the SDA church…”

“Determination by proper church tribunals respecting ecclesiastical matters…are accepted as binding. What the church cannot tolerate is for members to bring church disputes into civil courts.”

“Those who work for the Seventh-day Adventist church respond to a religious vocation in exactly the same sense as does a cloistered nun.”

“The church claims exemption from all civil laws in all of its religious institutions.”

In February 1975, the General Conference Committee recommended that the Press terminate Merikay and that she be disfellowshiped from the church. Action was also initiated to have Lorna disfellowshipped. A friend informed Merikay that a General Conference official was trying to get her fired and disfellowshipped. Her attorney instructed her to take some days off immediately so she would not be available to receive the termination notice. Merikay took a vacation. Her attorney also instructed her to leave her home, because the Press was going to try to serve notice to her there. Joan Bradford filed for a Temporary Restraining Order and the judge upheld the Order. Both Merikay and Lorna returned to work the following Tuesday.

In March 1975, a motion was made to the Board of Mountain View Church to have Lorna disfellowshipped.

The Trial Begins:

The Pacific Press attorney stated, “The Pacific Press Publishing Association is owned and operated by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which is the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”

Many people in the courtroom gasp! But the vice president nodded in assent.

A friend of Merikay’s leaned over and told her, “The General Conference is not the church!”

The Vice President of the General Conference testified: “The General Conference is the highest authority in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” He claimed “when we join the church we agree to give up our individual rights for the good of the whole…When we are no longer in harmony with those principles…one is considered to be at variance with the church.”

Merikay was stunned by the testimony of these leaders of the church. “There is no truth or integrity in this room full of church men,” she stated.

On May 29, 1975, Merikay was fired, and in July, Judge Renfrew decertified the suit since Merikay was no longer employed by the Press.

One year later, May 1976, the 9th Court of Appeals reversed the decision, and two years later, April 1978, Merikay Silver settled out of court for $60,000; half of which went to her attorney. The very next month, the EEOC took Pacific Press to court.

Five years later, in February 1983, Lorna Tobler received $77,000, and in October 1983, the court ordered Pacific Press to deposit $600,000 to an account to be disbursed in non-traceable checks to Pacific Press women employees.

Sadly, Merikay reported, “The spirit of Christ and the spirit of the church are contradictory.”

The John Marik Case

In 1984, John Marik, a lay-pastor, received a letter from an attorney for the General Conference, regarding his use of the name Seventh-day Adventist Congregational Church. In this letter, John Marik was asked if he could furnish the General Conference with information on this offshoot group, showing the “offensive usage of Seventh-day Adventist.” Apparently this letter was sent to Pastor Marik by mistake, since John Marik was asked to report on his own church (as an offshoot group.)

Cease and Desist

A short time later John Marik received another letter in which the attorney corrected himself for having sent the previous letter. He stated the General Conference would be “moving to enforce our trademark registration…and will ask you and your congregation to agree to cease using the term Seventh-day Adventist in the name of your church.”

The President of the Hawaii Conference of Seventh-day Adventists wrote Pastor Marik asking him and his eleven member church to cease using the name Seventh-day Adventist.

In 1985, John Marik received a letter from another General Conference attorney which stated in part, “therefore, assuming that your use of ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ was done without intent to create confusion, even though such confusion is manifested by your use of Seventh-day Adventist, particularly as in your church name, we trust that upon receipt of this letter you will immediately cease and desist from utilizing the expression or any names or expressions equivalent… We consider your use of ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ to be an infringement of the SDA Church’s trademark/service mark rights, and also to constitute unfair competition and false designation of origin.”

Marik’s Reply

John Marik replied, “We are sorry that this situation has been such a cause of distress; that was certainly not our motives. We have had no intention or desire—neither do we now have—to confuse, mislead, or deceive anyone in regards to our congregational church and its reason for existing independently of the denominational church. We, just as you, are concerned about the prospect of people being confused. We do not at all want or wish that any Seventh-day Adventist visitor, who is from some other place and not knowledgeable of the difference, to be tricked or deceived into attending our church—being unaware of the fact that we are not associated with the denomination.

“We understand very well that our name and existence as an independent body of Seventh-day Adventists has been, is, and probably will continue to be an offense to the Denomination. This is not our desire, but this unfortunately, is the way it is. We also do not, in the least, feel that we are in the wrong! And this is the reason why: Our faith and beliefs are those of a Seventh-day Adventist as is described in the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White (who we also hold to be an inspired prophet of God). If we were to call ourselves by some other name, wouldn’t the general Christian community question our reason for not expressing what we really believe, wouldn’t that be concealing our true identity, and wouldn’t that give just cause for our Sunday-keeping brethren to consider our honesty in what we verily believe and who we truthfully claim to be?

“We do not apologize for our convictions in regard to the counsel that God has given us as a people who are honoring the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, and who very much long for and believe in the near advent of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Hence the name, “seventh-day” + “adventist.” We believe, and very much so, that the name “Seventh-day Adventist” is not a denomination name—it is a name or term which describes a particular Christian faith or body of beliefs. We also are convicted, even against our own judgment, that this name is especially approved and ordained by God as testified to in the inspired counsel given to Ellen G. White (Testimonies to the Church, vol. 2, page 223, 224.) And contrary to our judgment, we have yielded to what we solemnly believe to be in harmony with the revealed will of God. We have sought to obey His counsel on this matter, and by His grace we must continue to do so; and this can be our only reply to our brethren of the Denomination.”

“Please consider our faith and conviction in this matter. We ask that you please read the inspired testimony mentioned above. Do we not have the liberty and the freedom to conscientiously follow what we, just as many other Seventh-day Adventists, believe to be the truth? Just because we are not under the authority of the Denomination, does that mean we have no right to live the message as given to those who wish to honor God’s commandments and anticipate His soon second advent, does that imply that we can’t seriously take to heart the counsel given in the writings of Ellen G. White?

Plea for Understanding

“…We would ask that you please be understanding; for these convictions involve our faith, beliefs, and conscientious study of the Word of God.…We, along with others, are rather amazed at the intentions of the Denomination toward our little self-sustaining church. Not too long ago, we would never have considered that the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination could resort to such things as this—to appeal to a secular court of law to force others to conform to their wishes! Dear brothers and fellow Adventists, this is the very thing true Seventh-day Adventists have stood against for years! These are the tactics the enemy will use against every conscientious Sabbath-keeper. Where is the great principle of religious liberty? What should the SDA department of Religious Liberty say about this kind of action? Moreover, what does God say about it?

“…Another thing which we find strange, is the idea of the church and its message being a business. Since when has that come to be? Is the church of God in business with the competition such that it needs a protected trade name? …Surely God will prosper His faithful people; if they are wronged He will make it right. Why can we not let God decide what is right? If we of the congregational Adventists are in the wrong and you of the denominational Adventists are in the right, then will God not reprove us and uphold you? We have ample testimony of God’s dealings pertaining to this.

“…We would like to have a friendly relationship with the Denomination. We realize that there is a tremendous work for all of God’s people to do; each has a sphere of influence which is special; certain souls will be won to Christ by certain individuals; and likewise certain people will be reached for Christ by certain churches.

“…We want peace if it is possible to be secured without having to compromise our convictions and conscientious understanding in regards to God’s testimony. We do not know what farther course you may pursue in this matter; but we are standing on the clear counsel of God.”

The reply to this letter of appeal was that the matter was put in the hands of the General Conference law office or legal counsel.

A General Conference attorney wrote to Marik, “We would recommend and will favorably consider your using, for example, the name ‘Seventh-day Congregational Church.’”

In 1987, John Marik wrote a pastoral letter explaining their position in regard to this lawsuit, and the General Conference attorneys submitted a formal, legal complaint. A court order was given, and a Scheduling Conference was set for July 1987.

In April 1987, John Marik sent a letter to friends telling them that he had just been informed that the General Conference had filed suit against him. He then wrote a
4-page letter to the General Conference giving Bible and Spirit of Prophecy reasons why they could not do as they had been asked.

Several years ago, after the Merikay Silver case, the General Conference set down a new ruling that if anyone initiated a lawsuit against the General Conference, or any church entity; he was subject to being disfellowshipped. Since the leadership at the General Conference is involved with suing local Adventist believers, should they not then be subject to their own laws and suffer the penalty of being disfellow-shipped?

Some of the complaints against John Marik were:

  1. “Defendants’ conduct of selecting and commercially using the Seventh-day Adventist name for defendants’ services and goods in direct competition with the Plaintiff was done willfully, wantonly, and maliciously for the purpose of unjustly enriching themselves and injuring Plaintiffs good will and trade identity rights…
    Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant…from using, promoting, or in any way displaying any name or mark which includes the term Seventh-day Adventist, or any term that is confusingly similar to ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ or is a colorable imitation thereof…”
  2. That each of them deliver up to Plaintiff for destruction, all labels, signs, prints, advertising materials, and other literature…bearing the term Seventh-day Adventist and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making same.”

John Marik argued that the phrase Seventh-day Adventist described a system or set of Bible-based Christian beliefs, doctrines, and standards. One was a Seventh-day Adventist because of what he believed, not what organization he belonged to.

If each local church was not duly incorporated, then losing a lawsuit might strip every member of their property.

John Marik did not go into court with an attorney, and because of this, the General Conference submitted a paper to the court requesting no court trial be held, but that the court proceed directly to issue judgment. In July 1987, a hearing was held in the Judge’s office. Since John Marik, nor his church members had obtained legal counsel , a “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike” was submitted. Since John Marik did not object before or during the hearing, it was accepted by the judge and became official—no trial would be held, only a court judgment that would be based on the legal papers the judge received. Therefore, without realizing it, John Marik had just waived his right to trial.

In a lawsuit, whenever either party files a legal paper with the court, they are required by law to send a copy of that paper to the other party in the suit. The second party must then sign and date that they have received it. It is called a “Certificate of Service.” This certificate is then attached to the legal paper and filed with the court. In this case, John Marik claimed that he had not received this action paper, before or after the hearing. The General Conference claimed they sent it, and they filled out the “Certificate of Service” to guarantee this fact to the court. All the while, John Marik and his membership were praying for guidance and awaiting a chance to defend their faith at a trial that would never happen.

In August 1987, the group prepared a paper stating why they could not give up the name Seventh-day Adventist, and submitted it to the judge, and in September he filed a paper with the court declaring that the group would prefer not to enter into litigation with the General Conference.

An Order granting Motion on Judgment for Pleadings, given by the court, accepted the Motion that had been submitted by the General Conference attorneys, and in December 1987, the Federal Court handed down a verdict prohibiting the defendants from using the name Seventh-day Adventist and enjoined them to remove the sign from their church and hand over to Federal Agents all of their personal books, magazines, and other property with the name Seventh-day Adventist on it. The Federal Judge handed down his decision. There would be no trial.

A major position paper was submitted to the court by Max Corbett, now acting attorney for John Marik’s group. He requested that the Judgment be set aside, or dismissed, with the possibility of having a new trial. The small group submitted a paper explaining that they considered the December 8 court Order invalid “because of lack of jurisdiction” in religious matters, while the General Conference submitted a paper asking that the court decision be carried out immediately. The defendants must comply or be visited with civil penalties.

Attorneys for the General Conference requested that the court order the group to explain why they should not be considered in contempt of court for not complying with the judge’s decision, and requested that the hearing be held speedily. The court granted a date in February 1988.

In February 1988, John Marik’s attorney, Max Corbett, appeared in court and reminded the General Conference attorney about this problem of their stifling an open court hearing. This judge observed that the first judge may have made a wrong decision—but he felt duty-bound to uphold it. He counseled the General Conference to seek to come to a mutual agreement out of court to avoid the jailing of someone who believed the same thing the General Conference believed.

For the next two months papers continued to be filed by both sides of the suit, and in May 1988, the Federal District Court of Hawaii entered an Order for John Marik’s arrest, and a $500 a day penalty for every day of non-compliance. The Bench Warrant stated Mr. Marik, once jailed, was not to be released until the fine was paid and the books and related possessions bearing the name Seventh-day Adventist had been seized. This request was not for what they printed—but for what they possessed. It included:

  1. Adventist song books
  2. All Spirit of Prophecy books
  3. Back issues of denominational journals, and many more.
  4. Possible out of print books or papers dating back to 1800s.

All would be confiscated by the government agents and destroyed at the General Conference request.

The Southwestern Union Record, May 13, 1988 stated, “The church does not sue the offending organization for the purpose of obtaining damages or punitive judgments.” Yet the General Conference requested the judge “for an accounting to be determined, the damages that Plaintiff has suffered and the profits that were derived as a consequence of defendants acts as aforesaid; for an award of the damages suffered by Plaintiff and the profits derived by the defendants, as determined by the accounting, and that the award of profits be trebled (or 3 times as much) all pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1117 and other applicable Law. For costs of suit herein.”

John Marik was subsequently arrested, and lost everything. Later he was a fugitive running from place to place, kept in hiding.

There are many others that the General Conference has pursued; Raphael Perez is just the latest. It is not needful for us to be prophets to understand motives; the actions speak for themselves without further comment.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Sources:

  • Betrayal, by Merikay McLeod
  • The John Marik Case, by Vance Ferrell

Editorial – The Verdict

by

One morning some years ago a sheriff came to our front door and delivered a sheaf of papers filled with many accusations. These accusations were from a professed Seventh-day Adventist attorney. He indicated that we were being sued for three million dollars. We were not aware that we had performed any criminal action or damaged anybody financially or any other way. The Lord graciously allowed the problem to be solved without going to court, but we felt sorry for those involved in this attempted litigation. Following is what the Lord says about this:

“Brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. … Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived” (1 Corinthians 6:6, 7, 9).

“The world and unconverted church members are in sympathy. Some, when God reproves them for wanting their own way, make the world their confidence, and bring church matters before the world for decision. Then there is collision and strife, and Christ is crucified afresh and put to open shame. Those church members who appeal to the courts of the world show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and their names are registered in heaven as one with unbelievers. How eagerly the world seizes the statements of those who betray sacred trusts!” Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, 415.

“I have written largely in regard to Christians who believe the truth placing their cases in courts of law to obtain redress. In doing this, they are biting and devouring one another in every sense of the word ‘to consume one another’ (Galatians 5:15). Such men may as well stop praying to God, for He will not hear their prayers. They insult Jehovah.” Ibid., 414.

“It is a betrayal of sacred trust to open before unbelievers the working of God’s institutions. In this way false statements are made, and these statements are reported to others. Those who do this counterwork the cause of God. They are adversaries of the truth.” Ibid., 417, 418.

Bible Study Guides – Services of the Sanctuary

by

May 9, 2010 – May 15, 2010

Key Text

“Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:30.

Study Help: The Faith I Live By, 194.

Introduction

“From the creation and fall of man to the present time, there has been a continual unfolding of the plan of God for the redemption, through Christ, of the fallen race. The tabernacle and temple of God on earth were patterned after the original in heaven. Around the sanctuary and its solemn services mystically gathered the grand truths which were to be developed through succeeding generations. There has been no time when God has granted greater evidences of his grandeur and exalted majesty, than while he was the acknowledged governor of Israel. The manifestations of an invisible King were grand and unspeakably awful. A scepter was swayed, but it was held by no human hand. The sacred ark, covered by the mercy-seat, and containing the holy law of God, was symbolical of Jehovah himself. It was the power of the Israelites to conquer in battle. Before it idols were thrown down, and for rashly looking into it thousands perished. Never in our world has the Lord given such open manifestations of his supremacy as when he alone was the acknowledged king of Israel.” The Review and Herald, March 2, 1886.

(There were many offerings and many feast days but we will not go into all of them. You may study them on your own and ask questions.)

1 What was required for a sacrifice? Leviticus 14:4–8; 9:1, 2; 6:6; 5:15, 18.

Note: “Every morning and evening a lamb of a year old was burned upon the altar, with its appropriate meat offering, thus symbolizing the daily consecration of the nation to Jehovah, and their constant dependence upon the atoning blood of Christ. God expressly directed that every offering presented for the service of the sanctuary should be ‘without blemish.’ Exodus 12:5. The priests were to examine all animals brought as a sacrifice, and were to reject every one in which a defect was discovered. Only an offering ‘without blemish’ could be a symbol of His perfect purity who was to offer Himself as ‘a lamb without blemish and without spot.’ I Peter 1:19. The apostle Paul points to these sacrifices as an illustration of what the followers of Christ are to become. He says, ‘I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.’ Romans 12:1. We are to give ourselves to the service of God, and we should seek to make the offering as nearly perfect as possible. God will not be pleased with anything less than the best we can offer. Those who love Him with all the heart, will desire to give Him the best service of the life, and they will be constantly seeking to bring every power of their being into harmony with the laws that will promote their ability to do His will.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 352, 353.

2 What kinds of animals were used? Exodus 12:5; 29:1; Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:6.

Note: “The offerings presented to the Lord were to be without blemish. These offerings represented Christ, and from this it is evident that Jesus Himself was free from physical deformity. He was the ‘lamb without blemish and without spot.’ I Peter 1:19. His physical structure was not marred by any defect; His body was strong and healthy. And throughout His lifetime He lived in conformity to nature’s laws. Physically as well as spiritually, He was an example of what God designed all humanity to be through obedience to His laws.” The Desire of Ages, 50, 51.

3 What did John the Baptist say when he saw Jesus? John 1:29.

Note: “Every soul who has become the servant of God through the grace of Jesus Christ, has his own peculiar sphere of labor. He is not to be bought or sold, but he is to understand that ‘ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently’ [I Peter 1:18–22]. Who have greater need to be doers of this inspired injunction than have those who are living at the very close of this earth’s history?” Pamphlet 80, 40.

4 What was one thing accomplished in the court? Leviticus 1:10, 11; 3:1, 2.

Note: “The sacred tent was enclosed in an open space called the court, which was surrounded by hangings, or screens, of fine linen, suspended from pillars of brass. The entrance to this enclosure was at the eastern end. It was closed by curtains of costly material and beautiful workmanship, though inferior to those of the sanctuary. The hangings of the court being only about half as high as the walls of the tabernacle, the building could be plainly seen by the people without. In the court, and nearest the entrance, stood the brazen altar of burnt offering. Upon this altar were consumed all the sacrifices made by fire unto the Lord, and its horns were sprinkled with the atoning blood. Between the altar and the door of the tabernacle was the laver, which was also of brass, made from the mirrors that had been the freewill offering of the women of Israel. At the laver the priests were to wash their hands and their feet whenever they went into the sacred apartments, or approached the altar to offer a burnt offering unto the Lord.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 347, 348.

5 Beside the altar for sacrifices, what else was in the outer court and for what purpose? Exodus 30:18, 19.

Note: “Anciently the priests were required to have their garments in a particular style to do service in the holy place, and minister in the priest’s office. They were to have garments in accordance with their work, and God distinctly specified what these should be. The laver was placed between the altar and the congregation, that before they came into the presence of God, in the sight of the congregation, they might wash their hands and their feet. What impression was this to make upon the people? It was to show them that every particle of dust must be put away before they could go into the presence of God; for he was so high and holy that unless they did comply with these conditions, death would follow.” Gospel Workers (1892), 162, 163.

6 How are we to wash our characters? Revelation 7:14.

Note: “I urge you to prepare for the coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven. Day by day cast the love of the world out of your hearts. Understand by experience what it means to have fellowship with Christ. Prepare for the judgment, that when Christ shall come to be admired in all them that believe, you may be among those who will meet Him in peace. In that day the redeemed will shine forth in the glory of the Father and the Son. The angels, touching their golden harps, will welcome the King and His trophies of victory—those who have been washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb. A song of triumph shall peal forth, filling all heaven. Christ has conquered. He enters the heavenly courts, accompanied by His redeemed ones, the witnesses that His mission of suffering and sacrifice has not been in vain.” The Adventist Home, 550.

7 What went from the court into the Holy Place? Leviticus 4:5, 6.

Note: “The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals. The repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and placing his hand upon the victim’s head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. By his own hand the animal was then slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest. … Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary.” The Faith I Live By, 198.

8 What was on the north side of the Holy Place? Exodus 26:35.

Note: “In the holy place was the candlestick, on the south, with its seven lamps giving light to the sanctuary both by day and by night; on the north stood the table of shewbread; and before the veil separating the holy from the most holy was the golden altar of incense, from which the cloud of fragrance, with the prayers of Israel, was daily ascending before God.” The Great Controversy, 412.

9 What was on the table of showbread and what did it represent? Numbers 4:7; John 6:51.

Note: “In the first apartment, or holy place, were the table of showbread, the candlestick, or lampstand, and the altar of incense. The table of showbread stood on the north. With its ornamental crown, it was overlaid with pure gold. On this table the priests were each Sabbath to place twelve cakes, arranged in two piles, and sprinkled with frankincense. The loaves that were removed, being accounted holy, were to be eaten by the priests. On the south was the seven-branched candlestick, with its seven lamps. Its branches were ornamented with exquisitely wrought flowers, resembling lilies, and the whole was made from one solid piece of gold. There being no windows in the tabernacle, the lamps were never all extinguished at one time, but shed their light by day and by night. Just before the veil separating the holy place from the most holy and the immediate presence of God, stood the golden altar of incense. Upon this altar the priest was to burn incense every morning and evening; its horns were touched with the blood of the sin offering, and it was sprinkled with blood upon the great Day of Atonement. The fire upon this altar was kindled by God Himself and was sacredly cherished. Day and night the holy incense diffused its fragrance throughout the sacred apartments, and without, far around the tabernacle.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 348.

Additional Reading

“Type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb slain for the sins of the world. Our great High Priest has made the only sacrifice that is of any value in our salvation. When He offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people. We are now standing in the outer court, waiting and looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. No sacrifices are to be offered without, for the great High Priest is performing His work in the Most Holy Place. In His intercession as our advocate, Christ needs no man’s virtue, no man’s intercession. He is the only sin-bearer, the only sin-offering. Prayer and confession are to be offered only to Him who has entered once for all into the Most Holy Place. He will save to the uttermost all who come to Him in faith. He ever liveth to make intercession for us.” Lift Him Up, 319.

“The robe of your character must be washed till it is spotless, in the fountain opened for all uncleanness. Your moral worth will be weighed in the balances of the sanctuary, and if you are found wanting, you will be at an eternal loss. All the coarseness, all the roughness, must be removed from your character before Jesus comes; for when He comes, the preparation for every soul is ended.” Selected Messages, Book 3, 155.

This quarter’s lessons were prepared by Ruth Grosboll prior to her passing in January, 2010.

What is a Harlot Church?

by

When a church becomes what the Bible describes as a harlot, that church cannot go to the kingdom of heaven. The Lord gives it opportunity, but if that opportunity is not taken, it will be shut out from the kingdom of heaven unless it repents and stops its fornication.

We read the experience of the Jewish church in Jeremiah 3:2, 3. It says, “Lift up your eyes to the desolate heights and see: Where have you not lain with men? By the road you have sat for them Like an Arabian in the wilderness; And you have polluted the land With your harlotries and your wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withheld, And there has been no latter rain. You have had a harlot’s forehead; You refuse to be ashamed.”

The Jewish church had become a harlot church, but they had not committed the unpardonable sin. They could still return. In verse 14 it says, “ ‘Return, O backsliding children,’ says the Lord; ‘for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.’ ”

What were they to do? They were to return. Verses 12, 13 say, “ ‘Return, backsliding Israel,’ says the Lord; ‘I will not cause My anger to fall on you: For I am merciful,’ says the Lord; ‘I will not remain angry forever. Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the Lord your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,’ says the Lord.”

How did the Jewish church become a harlot and how does the Christian church become a harlot today? In James 4:4 it says, “Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

It is by some type of friendship with the world that the church becomes a harlot or loses her virginity. How does the church become united with the world? Ezekiel 16:15 is talking about Jerusalem which was God’s people in his day. Ezekiel said: “You trusted in your own beauty, played the harlot because of your fame, and poured out your harlotry on everyone passing by who would have it.

“Moreover you multiplied your acts of harlotry as far as the land of the traitor, Chaldea; and even then you were not satisfied. ‘How degenerate is your heart!’ says the Lord God, ‘seeing you do all of these things, the deeds of a brazen harlot.’ ” Ezekiel 16:29, 30.

It was by connecting with the Gentile nations that she lost her virginity. Look at Ezekiel 23:19–21: “She multiplied her harlotry In calling to remembrance the days of her youth, When she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she lusted for her paramours, Whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys, And whose issue is like the issue of horses. Thus you called to remembrance the lewdness of your youth, When the Egyptians pressed your bosom Because of your youthful breasts.”

By aligning herself and making alliances with the world—by connecting with the world, by using the powers of the world instead of depending on the Lord, she lost her innocence and became a harlot.

Ellen White describes it in The Great Controversy, 381, 382: “The unfaithfulness of the church to Christ in permitting her confidence and affection to be turned from Him, and allowing the love of worldly things to occupy the soul, is likened to the violation of the marriage vow. The sin of Israel in departing from the Lord is presented under this figure; and the wonderful love of God which they thus despised is touchingly portrayed: ‘I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest Mine.’ ‘And thou wast exceeding beautiful and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through My comeliness, which I had put upon thee. … But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown.’ ‘As a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel, saith the Lord;’ ‘as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!’ Ezekiel 16:8, 13–15, 32; Jeremiah 3:20.”

In summary, “It was by departure from the Lord, and alliance with the heathen, that the Jewish church became a harlot.” Ibid., 382.

It was by departure from the Lord; the affections were weaned away from the Lord and placed upon the power and things in the world. How does the church use the power of the world? In The Great Controversy, 443, Ellen White says, “When the early church [the true church] became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power.”

Notice what happened. By “accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God.” Without the Spirit and power of God, she was powerless.

Concerning Christians in the fourth century, the pagans would say, Why would you want me to be a Christian? I know Christians who have lied to me and I have never lied to anybody. I know a Christian who has stolen goods and I have never stolen from anybody. I know a Christian who has been unfaithful to his matrimonial vow and I have never been unfaithful to my matrimonial vow. Why would the pagans become Christians when they considered the Christians not as good as they were?

Because they had accepted heathen rites and customs and had lost the Spirit and power of God, the early Christian church had no power over their own members and no power to influence the world. What does a church do when it is powerless? “When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power.”

When the church has lost the Spirit and power of God, she does not have any power from within to help the people be good, and she resorts to the power of the state. “It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and this prepared the way for the development of the papacy—the beast.” Ibid.

Apostasy in the church will also prepare the way for the image to the beast. It was apostasy in the church that resulted in the church seeking power from the secular government and the result was the development of the papacy. In a similar way, the image to the beast will be formed. “When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.” Ibid, 445.

Notice it says, “shall influence the state”; the church will use the power of the state. “When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state …” The church uses the state.

It was the church using the power of the state that caused Jesus to be crucified. The Romans would have never crucified Jesus, but it was the church that used the power of the state to kill Him and it was that same church that had the apostle Paul beheaded and the apostle James martyred.

How does a church lose its virginity and become a harlot church?

The first thing that happens for a church to lose its virginity and become a harlot church is that they accept heathen rites or customs and go into apostasy because they have withdrawn their affections from the Lord and begin to love something in the world.

In the 4th century the church could not get the people to attend church so they made a law to help the people to be good. The first Sunday law was passed in 321, but it was not strong enough because it merely required that people not go to work. When the people could not work on Sunday, they went to the circus so a law was then made that would close down the circus so that the people could not go there on Sunday. The people then just stayed home on Sunday. Finally, a whole series of laws were made stating that not only must you stop working or conducting business on Sunday, but you had to go to church as well.

Why did that happen? When heathen rites and customs are accepted into the church it loses the spirit of God and the church has no power. If the church is devoid of power, why would anybody want to go? If nobody wants to go, the church will die. Then the church has to do something to keep it from dying and in order to do that she needs to get some help from the state and pass laws. In this way the Christian church used the state to enforce her teachings. These laws progressively became stricter over the following 100 years.

First the Jewish church, and then the Christian church lost its power by departing from God and relying on the world.

Any time a church begins to use civil power to enforce her laws or her institutions, her will or her teachings, that church has become a harlot church devoid of the Holy Spirit because of her apostasy and cannot go to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Remember that Christ is the High Priest and only a virgin—a pure church—can become His bride.

In this world, once a woman has become a harlot she can never again become a virgin. But Jesus is able to take a sinner, take away all of the guilt and the power of sin so that the person who was a sinner becomes as though he had never sinned. Jesus can take away the sin and recreate a pure person again. That same thing can also happen to a harlot church if she repents. A church can begin to use civil power to enforce her laws and institutions in three ways:

Appealing to the king or the president to enforce her will. This has been done thousands of times in past history.

Using the civil power to enforce her will by going to the legislature—the congress—appealing that specific laws be passed to enforce her teachings.

Ellen White states that when the churches go to the state to enforce her will, they will have made an image to the beast. See The Great Controversy, 445.

Those alive in Nebuchadnezzar’s day could have watched his image being formed, first the feet and then the legs until the whole image was completed. They may have felt very safe and secure watching it go up, but once it was completely finished, the people were commanded to worship it or be killed.

That same thing is happening today. The image to the beast is being formed right now before our eyes. We may be living in America, the land of the free, but when that image to the beast is completed, everyone will be commanded to worship it.

Appealing to the court system

Any time a church goes to the courts to enforce her will, that church has already become a harlot church and will never go to the marriage supper of the Lamb unless there is repentance and her sins are forsaken. That act is religious harlotry. The Seventh-day Adventist church has been doing this now for many decades. To make it plain, the Seventh-day Adventist church is not going to the marriage supper of the Lamb in her present condition, unless there is repentance, and she stops taking people to court.

There is a principle in Revelation 18:4. It says, “I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.’ ” For over 150 years the truth about the Bible Sabbath has been proclaimed and rejected by the Sunday keeping Protestant churches of the world. These churches are referred to in Revelation as Babylon, and the Lord says that you are going to have to get out of there because if you stay in there then you are participating in their sins.

One lady who attended our prophecy seminar said she believed everything we taught, including the Sabbath. She said she was going to keep the Sabbath, but she was also going to continue going to the Baptist church because that was where her friends were. She planned to keep the Sabbath at home without really understanding the principle involved that if you attend the church on Sunday, you are supporting that church in her sin with your presence, your influence and your money. You are participating in the sin by even going there. The Lord says that if you stay there, you are going to receive the seven last plagues. If you do not want to receive the plagues, then you cannot participate in the sin and obey the command to “come out of her My people.”

This principle must apply to any harlot church. I do not want to be misunderstood, and I did not call the Seventh-day Adventist church Babylon. I have never done that, but at the present time it is a harlot church and no harlot church is going to the marriage supper of the Lamb unless that harlotry is confessed, repented of and forsaken.

People have a difficult time getting around this. Some people say that the organization is doing this, but I am not part of it. If you are a member and you are supporting it with your influence, your time and your money, you are a part of it. In the books of heaven you are accounted as part of it. The sins that they are doing, you are part of if you are supporting it. Look at the following example.

“The trades unions and confederacies of the world are a snare. Keep out of them, and away from them, brethren. Have nothing to do with them. …

“We are not to unite with secret societies or with trades unions. …

“These unions are one of the signs of the last days. Men are binding up in bundles ready to be burned.” Notice—they are binding up into a bundle—what is the bundle? It is the trade unions and secret societies. They say, I am not part of it, but when that bundle is burned, they will burn right with it because they are bound up with it. She then says, “They may be church members, but while they belong to these unions, they cannot possibly keep the commandments of God; for to belong to these unions means to disregard the entire Decalogue.” Selected Messages, Book 2, 142, 143.

Then is quoted the following text in Luke 10:27: “So he answered and said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ” These words sum up the whole duty of man. They mean the consecration of the whole being—body, soul, and spirit—to God’s service. How can men obey these words, and at the same time pledge themselves to support that which deprives their neighbors of freedom of action? You cannot love God with all of your heart, soul and mind and your neighbor as yourself and belong to an organization which is deliberately depriving others of freedom of action. That is impossible, and in the books of heaven you are accounted as a commandment breaker, not as a commandment keeper—even if you call yourself a Seventh-day Adventist.

Somebody can say, Yes I know that I am in an organization that is in open sin, but I am not part of it, so I am all right. People use the parable of the wheat and the tares to excuse it and say they both grow together until the harvest. That is a gross distortion of the words of Jesus. Read the meaning of the wheat and tares in the book, Christ’s Object Lessons. Jesus never taught in the parable of the wheat and tares to just let all the good and the evil to go until the harvest. She explains that a tare is described as a person who appears, by human vision, to be keeping the commandments of God, but their heart is not right. However, when the tare goes to seed (meaning when open sin is involved), Christ taught that they were to be disfellowshipped from the church. You do not allow the wheat and tares to grow together when there is open sin.

I hear people say, “I know there is open sin in the organization, but I am not part of it so I am all right.” No, you are not all right. Do you want to go to the marriage supper?

Those who are serious about going to the marriage supper cannot voluntarily be a member of an organization that is in open sin without being accounted a commandment breaker in heaven.

When God asked Adam and Eve in the garden where they were, He knew exactly where they were, and He knows where you are too. Since God knew already where they were, why did He ask? He wanted Adam to think through the answer to the question just as He wants you to think through the answer to this question: Where are you? You can say, “I am not in Babylon”; then where are you?

If you support with your presence, your influence, your time, your money, a church that is involved in harlotry, you are part of it and you are not going to the marriage supper. Either you will have to persuade whatever church you are in to quit the harlotry business and repent, or you will have to get out if you want to go to the marriage supper.

Jesus is our High Priest and He is not going to unite Himself with a harlot. He will only unite Himself with a church that is pure, that has been made into a virgin.

Where are you? God wants you to figure out where you are. There are a lot of people who do not know where they are but only you can answer the question. The answer depends on where your sympathies and where your affections are. Where your heart is, that is where you are.

“As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light; and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side. Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls.” The Great Controversy, 608.

What a tragedy! These people have been in the Seventh-day Adventist church, but their sympathies and affections are in the world. When the test is brought, you will not go where your intellect tells you but you are going to go where your sympathies and affections are. That is why you need to ask yourself the question now. Where are your sympathies? Where are your affections? Wherever your sympathies and affections are right now can indicate where you are going to be in the future.

Pastor John Grosboll is Director of Steps to Life and pastors the Prairie Meadows Church in Wichita, Kansas. He may be contacted by e-mail at: historic@stepstolife.org, or by telephone at: (316) 788-5559.