general conference

Editorial – A Special Testimony, Part II

by

This is a continuation of the letter we started publishing excerpts from in last month’s editorial—a letter from Ellen White to two large Seventh-day Adventist churches.

“Those who have used the tithe money to supply the common necessities of the house of God, have taken the money that should go to sustain ministers in doing his work, in preparing the way for Christ’s second appearing. Just as surely as you do this work, you misapply the resources which God has told you to retain in his treasure-house, that it may be full, to be used in his service. This work is something of which all who have taken a part in should be ashamed. They have used their influence to withdraw from God’s treasury a fund that is consecrated to a sacred purpose. From those who do this, the blessing of the Lord will be removed.

“If the brethren in responsible positions would talk faith and courage to all the workers in the office, if you would talk self-denial in the church, if you would practice it in your own families, if you would bear a clean-cut testimony, which you have not yet borne, if you would all be mouthpieces for God, and present to the church the necessity for self-denial, the humiliation of the soul, praying for the Lord to forgive your pride, your foolish, senseless vanity, the Lord may pass by and leave you a blessing.

“Let your works show that you do believe your words of murmuring in the past to be wrong, that it is time now for you to cast your net on the right side of the ship, the side of faith. For the rest of your days, while probation lasts, show what can be done by a self-denying, self-sacrificing, consecrated, living church.

“A different testimony must go forth from lips touched with the live coal from off the altar. When you are in Christ, you can bear a living testimony. But throughout the churches there is selfishness and sin, dishonesty, unbelief, criticism, and faultfinding. It is high time now for you have to awake out of sleep. We read that in olden times holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

“This is what we need. This is what we must have. We need money here to carry forward the work. But we have no such resources to draw upon as you have in Oakland and Battle Creek. We can not sustain ministers in the field; for there is no money in the treasury. I know from the light given me of God that there should be many workers in California. There should be workers in Michigan, and yet men are questioning in regard to using the tithe for other purposes than that which the Lord has specified. In California, in all our cities in America, in the highways and byways, men and women should go forth as consecrated workers, who will proclaim the message of warning. Why should it [the General Conference] permit its ministers to be half paid, and at the same time talk so begrudgingly of that which they do receive? When this work shall cease in our churches, a living testimony will go forth from human lips, under the operation of the Holy Ghost.

“Satan has stolen a march on us. God desires that we shall put on the whole armor of righteousness. There are exceptional cases, where poverty is so deep that, in order to secure the humblest place of worship, it may be necessary to appropriate the tithes. But that place is not Battle Creek or Oakland. Let those who assemble to worship God consider the self-denial and self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Let those brethren who profess to be children of God study how they can deny themselves, how they can part with some of their idols, and carefully economize in every line. In each house there should be a box for the church fund, to be used for the needs of the church.

“I have been shown case after case where men are working in the ministry, who are just as deserving of their wages as those who are employed in the publishing houses, are left without sufficient means to support their families. If they work at all for the Master, they have to depend on charity. The censure and frown of God is upon the church that will permit these things to exist. Let not those to whom are entrusted responsibilities, allow the treasury that God has appointed to sustain the ministers in the field, to be robbed to supply the expenses incurred in keeping in order and making comfortable the house of God.

“A separate fund for the purpose of defraying the expenses, which every church member should share according to his ability, should be instituted in every place where there is a church.”

Taken from Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, 183–191.

Why Home Churches – Part III

by

Ellen White tells us that prior to 1888 the church had been looking to man. (Testimonies to Ministers, 91–93.) The message of 1888 was sent to direct the eyes of the church back on Jesus and away from men.

In 1901, Ellen White and other leaders attempted to change the situation in Adventism, and a change was made. In fact the constitution of the General Conference (GC) was re-written at the GC session that year. Under the new constitution there was not to be a president, but instead a committee was to oversee the affairs of the GC, and this committee was to elect a new chairman each year. At the end of that conference, Ellen White said, “The angels of God have been walking up and down here.” God approved of what had been done.

Within a matter of days, Ellen White wrote some strong words about what had happened However, as we have studied before, the new constitution was never put into effect. Two years later, at the 1903 General Conference, the reorganization of the 1901 General Conference was reversed.

From Saint Helena, California, April 21, 1903: “Our position in the world is not what it should be. We are far from where we should have been had our Christian experience been in harmony with the light and the opportunities given us.…In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence, ‘Found wanting.’” Testimonies, vol. 8, 247.

“One who sees beneath the surface, who reads the hearts of all men, says of those who have had great light: ‘They are not afflicted and astonished because of their moral and spiritual condition.’…The heavenly teacher inquired: ‘What stronger delusion can beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right foundation and that God accepts your works, when in reality you are working out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah?’ Oh, it is a great deception, a fascinating delusion, that takes possession of minds when men who have once known the truth, mistake the form of godliness for the spirit and power thereof.” Ibid., 249.

“Unless there is thorough repentance, unless men humble their hearts by confession and receive the truth as it is in Jesus, they will never enter heaven.…Who can truthfully say: ‘Our gold is tried in the fire; our garments are unspotted by the world.’ I saw our Instructor pointing to the garments of so-called righteousness. Stripping them off, He laid bare the defilement beneath. Then He said to me: ‘Can you not see how they have pretentiously covered up their defilement and rottenness of character? How is the faithful city become an harlot!’” Ibid., 250.

“For this cause there is weakness, and strength is lacking. Unless the church, which is now being leavened with her own backsliding, shall repent and be converted, she will eat the fruit of her own doing until she shall abhor herself.” Ibid.

The Self-Supporting Work

The very next year, 1904, with the approval of the Lord’s Prophet, there was a new development in Adventism—the self-supporting work. I believe, that if we had accepted the 1888 message, and not reversed the 1901 re-organization, we would never have needed the self-supporting work. We would have all been working together in unity and harmony as God intended.

Last month we studied several points about the self-supporting work in the Spirit of Prophecy:

  1. It was authorized by God.
  2. It was not to be owned or controlled by the Conference.
  3. It was not to be broken up or stopped.
  4. It was fully authorized by God, not only for its existence but also to solicit funds from God’s people.
  5. It would be involved in the closing of God’s work. The self-supporting work came into existence because it was impossible for Sutherland and Magan to introduce the needed educational reforms into the schools under the control of the “regular lines.” The home-church movement came into existence for similar reasons.

Apostasy Follows the Rejection of the Message in 1888

There were other consequences to our rejection of the message in 1888. Because the church trusted in man, instead of looking to Jesus, moral confusion resulted and the devil brought in heresies to mislead minds. Ellen White called this the “alpha of apostasy” or the “alpha of deadly heresies,” and it was sweeping through Adventism by 1902. It gained control of most of our leading men, not just physicians but many of our leading ministers, and it is another of the great reasons for the home-church movement.

Ellen White predicted that the alpha of apostasy would soon be followed by the omega, and she said, “I tremble for our people.” (Sermons and Talks, vol. 1, 341.) The alpha was just the beginning of a series of heresies that would end in the omega. They are directly connected and the omega is simply the final outcome of the same apostasy that was at work in the alpha.

In order then, to understand how and what is going to happen with the omega, we must understand what happened during the alpha. Notice carefully the following quotations about the alpha apostasy:

“The experience that was given us at the General Conference held in Battle Creek early in 1901 was of God. Had Doctor Kellogg at that time done thorough work, the terrible experience through which we are now passing would never have been.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 6, 217.

“God has permitted the presentation of this combination of good and evil in ‘Living Temple’ to be made to reveal the danger threatening us. The working that has been so ingeniously carried on, He has permitted in order that certain developments might be made, and that it might be seen what a man can do with human minds when he has obtained their confidence as a physician.” Series B, 242. In other words, if they had accepted what God was trying to do in 1901 they would not have been attacked by the alpha of apostasy.

Characteristics of the Alpha

Let us look now at several points that were involved in the alpha.

  1. It came into existence within the church, not outside the church. It arose among Seventh-day Adventist leaders.
  2. It almost gained control of the church.
  3. It was both atheistic and spiritualistic. “I was instructed to call upon our physicians and ministers to take a firm stand for the truth. We are not to allow atheistic, spiritualistic sentiments to be brought before our youth.” Special Testimonies, No. 7, 38.
  4. It involved a controversy over the nature of God and the nature of the Godhead. “It is something that cannot be treated as a small matter that men who have had so much light, and such clear evidence as to the genuineness of the truth we hold, should become unsettled, and led to accept spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God.” Ibid., 37.
  5. Ellen White said that if these doctrines were followed to their logical conclusion it would sweep away the whole Christian economy. (Evangelism, 601.)
  6. It involved a removal of the foundation pillars of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. “The heavenly messenger turned to those professing to be medical missionaries, and said, ‘How could you allow yourselves to be led blindfold? How could you so misrepresent the name you bear? You have your Bibles. Why have you not reasoned from cause to effect? You have accepted theories that have led you away from the truths that are to stamp their impress upon the characters of all Seventh-day Adventists. Your leader has been moving the foundation timbers one by one and his reasoning would soon leave us with no certain foundation for our faith.’” Special Testimonies, No. 7, 39.
  7. This alpha of apostasy involved a rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy.
  8. Ellen White said that we are not to enter into discussion on these theories. “The more fanciful theories are discussed, the less men will know of God and of the truth that sanctifies the soul.” Ibid., 51. “I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God.” Ibid., 53.
    • That is how Lucifer himself began his downward track. There were some things he wanted to know that he could not know. In the chapter in The Great Controversy, “The Snares of Satan,” Ellen White says that the devil tries to get men to ask questions that God will never answer through all eternity. There are some things that you and I will never know. Are you willing to let God be God? Hasn’t He given us sufficient revelation of Himself so that we can know that He has infinite love and mercy for us and that we can trust Him? But that does not mean that we are going to be able to explain and know everything.
  9. This apostasy led men to “sanctify” sin and make it appear less serious. “The difficulties that have arisen have been very hard to meet, and they are far from being settled yet. One, and another, and still another are presented to me as having been led to accept the pleasing fables that mean the sanctification of sin. Living Temple contains the alpha of a train of heresies.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 11, 247.

A Time for Silence?

We are living in a day of political correctness, and many are afraid to even preach or teach the Three Angels’ Messages because they fear that they will hurt someone’s feelings. However, compare this common attitude to how God’s prophet told us we are to deal with sin. “…When men standing in the position of leaders and teachers work under the power of spiritualistic ideas and sophistries, shall we keep silent, for fear of injuring their influence while souls are being beguiled? Satan will use every advantage that he can obtain to cause souls to become beclouded and perplexed in regard to the work of the church.” Ibid.

“When men stand out in defiance against the counsel of God, they are warring against God. Is it right for those connected with such ones to treat them as if they were in perfect harmony with them, making no difference between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not? Though they be ministers or medical missionaries, they have dishonored Christ before the forces of the loyal and the disloyal. Open rebuke is necessary, to prevent others from being ensnared. To believe that evil must not be condemned because this would condemn those who practice the evil is to act in favor of falsehood…The enmity that God has put in our hearts against deceptive practices, must be kept alive, because these practices endanger the souls of those who do not hate them.” Ibid.

“All deceptive dealings, all untruthfulness regarding the Father and the Son, by which their characters are presented in a false light, are to be recognized as grievous sins…It should now be clearly understood that we are not really helping those who are determined to do evil, when we show them respect, and keep our words of reproof for those with whom the disaffected one is at enmity. A grave mistake has been and is being made in this matter. Shall the servants of Jehovah, into whose heart He puts enmity against every evil work, be assailed as not being right when they call evil evil, and good good? Those who feel so very peaceable in regard to the works of the men who are spoiling the faith of the people of God, are guided by delusive sentiment. There is to be a constant conflict between good and evil.” Ibid., 26, 27.

“Those who are enlightened by the Holy Spirit’s power are to strive with every power of their being to snatch the prey from the seductive influences of men who refuse to obey the word of God.” Ibid. And this is happening through the home-church movement today.

In the context of the alpha of apostasy Ellen White wrote, “We are to unify but not on the platform of error.” There is to be no union with the alpha or any part of this apostasy. “It will be said that Living Temple has been revised. But the Lord has shown me that the writer has not changed, and that there can be no unity between him and the ministers of the gospel while he continues to cherish his present sentiments. I am bidden to lift my voice in warning to our people, saying, ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked.’” Selected Messages, Book 1, 199. “I am instructed to say that those who would tear away the foundation that God has laid are not to be accepted as the teachers and leaders of His people.” Battle Creek Letters, 82.

If there was to be no union with the alpha, should there be union with the omega? We have a home-church movement today, because people cannot unify on a platform of error (apostasy). They know that they cannot allow these apostate leaders to teach their children nor is it safe to listen to their preaching.

Another Shaking?

When the apostasy gets bad enough, there comes a separation, or shaking. During the shaking, God’s faithful children will be forced to separate from the apostasy, from the omega, just as they had to separate from the alpha. The alpha began when there was an attempt to unite Adventism with other churches who did not accept the Spirit of Prophecy or keep all the commandments, and there is every indication that the omega will involve the same thing.

In Manuscript 30, 1889, God’s prophet wrote: “I told them a little of how matters had been carried [on] at Minneapolis, and stated the position I had taken, that Pharisaism had been at work leavening the camp here at Battle Creek, and the Seventh-day Adventist Churches were affected; but the Lord had given me a message, and with pen and voice I would work until this leaven was expelled and a new leaven was introduced, which was the grace of Christ. I was confirmed in all I had stated in Minneapolis, that a reformation must go through the churches.” (This reformation involves men taking their eyes off other men and placing them on Jesus, as their example and guide.)

“Reforms must be made, for spiritual weakness and blindness were upon the people who had been blessed with great light and precious opportunities and privileges. As reformers they had come out of the denominational churches, but they now act a part similar to that which the churches acted. We hoped that there would not be the necessity for another coming out. While we will endeavor to keep the ‘unity of the Spirit’ in the bonds of peace, we will not with pen or voice cease to protest against bigotry.” 1888 Materials, 356.

Is there a possibility that there might have to be another coming out? “The Lord is soon to come, and the end of all things is at hand.…I see perplexities on every side. As character develops, men and women will take their position, for varied circumstances brought to bear upon them will cause them to reveal the spirit which prompts them to action. Everyone will reveal the character of the bundle with which he is binding himself. The wheat is being bound up for the heavenly garner. The true people of God are now bound up for the heavenly garner.” 1888 Materials, 995.

During the shaking, we all reveal what is inside. “The true people of God are now pulling apart, and the tares are being bound in bundles ready to burn. Decided positions will be taken. Satan will move upon minds that have been indulged, upon men who have always had their own way, and anything presented to them, in counsel or reproof, to change their objectionable traits of character is considered fault finding, binding them, restraining them, that they cannot have liberty to act themselves. The Lord in great mercy has sent messages of warning to them, but they would not listen to reproof. Like the enemy who rebelled in heaven, they do not like to hear, do not correct the wrong they have done but become accusers, declaring themselves misused and unappreciated. Now is the time of trial, of test, of proving. Those who, like Saul, will persist in having their own way will suffer, as he did, loss of honor and finally the loss of the soul. God has a people, and they will be a tried people, but the people will be humble. They are under the guidance of the Holy One in thought, in word, in deed. Can any of us find a path more pleasant than that in which the Eternal One leads the way? Self must die.”

“Satan will work with his masterly power to separate the soul from God. We hear the different voices sounding from every quarter that our attention shall be taken from the true issue in this time. The end is near and let there not be a confusion of voices to misguide and mislead some astray. To say, ‘Peace, Peace,’ to these souls who have long resisted the voice of the true Shepherd, who have contended long against Omnipotence, is to quiet his conscience to the sleep of death.…Dark hours of trial are before the church because they have not obeyed the warnings and reproofs and counsel of God. What a bewitching power comes upon human minds to do contrary to the oft-repeated will of God, and close the eyes and stop the ears, when Jesus is calling to them to hear His voice. He says, ‘My sheep hear my voice.’…Before the great trouble shall come upon the world such as has never been since there was a nation, those who have faltered and who would ignorantly lead in unsafe paths will reveal this before the real vital test, the last proving comes so that whatsoever they may say will not be regarded as voicing the true Shepherd. The time of our educating will soon be over. We have no time to lose in walking through clouds of doubt and uncertainty because of uncertain voices.” Ibid.

Who are we following? The one and only Guide? Or are we listening to uncertain voices? If we are, they will lead us to the sleep of death. And what is the sleep of death that she refers to? It is when a person, who is living in sin, thinks that he can keep on living in sin because sin has been “sanctified” in his eyes. How very dangerous it is to think that you are saved, when you are really lost. Many will finally realize that they are in this condition, but only when it is too late! It is dangerous to go to a church or to attempt to have any unity or harmony with people who are teaching “uncertain words.”

The home-church movement became necessary because God is getting ready a group of people to be translated, and there must be churches where this is the focus. Every time you go to church you should be learning more about what it takes to be ready for Jesus to come; and what we can do to get the Three Angels’ Messages to the whole world! If your church loses sight of either one of those goals, you are in the wrong church—no matter what name it claims. Do you want to be ready to meet Jesus when He comes? And is it the focus of your life to help others prepare to meet Him also? May God help us to never lose sight of the reasons for our existence.

Conviction vs. Preference

by

In early October, I received a phone call from one of our attorneys. He asked me to set aside a full day on my calendar the following week so he and I could deal with some very important issues in my case. He instructed me to tell my secretary not to allow any calls or any interruptions, as we would be working from nine o’clock until five o’clock. He informed me that he wanted no excuses, and since I have to follow his directions in everything concerning the lawsuit and the court, unless it goes against God, I agreed.

When I asked why he needed the whole day, he requested that I come to his office and pick up some tapes. “After you have listened to them, then you will know what this is about,” he told me.

He gave me five tapes. He said it was my homework. Beside my studies, my work and my visiting, I was to listen to these five tapes. We made an appointment for the following week, which would be a week before the trial, and I left with the tapes.

On the day of our meeting he arrived promptly and instructed me to help him bring in several boxes that he had in his truck. We carried seven boxes of documents into the office that he had been preparing for my trial.

“This is what I have been doing for six months,” he stated. “I want you to see that we have been doing our homework. However, if we are going to nail this case in our favor, the rest will depend on you.”

You know, I want the Lord’s will to be done. That is how simple it is. I feel this is the Lord’s cause, not my own, even though it has caused me a great deal of stress. I know if I am not depending wholly on the Lord, we will be nothing. We will be destroyed. But now, my attorney tells me that the outcome of the case will also depend on how I present myself in this trial.

We went into my office where we were to spend the whole day, and he sat down facing me across the table, looked me in the eye, and said, “Now, I want you to answer several questions for me.

  1. Is the Seventh-day Adventist faith, to you, a preference or a conviction?
  2. As a minister, is the name Seventh-day Adventist a preference or a conviction?
  3. Is the preaching, that you have been doing all this time since you have been in the Adventist Church, a preference or a conviction?”

I did not know where these questions were going, so right there in my office he gave me a little workshop on how the American Constitution works, or how the Supreme Court sees religious matters here in this country today.

“So far, he said, “I know what you have been preaching and what you believe and what the prophet says.” [When he says “What the prophet says” you know who he was talking about? Ellen G. White]. He said, “I know that the Prophet has been saying that every principle of the constitution is going to be destroyed in this country, and we might be seeing that happen very soon, but so far, the Supreme Court of the United States respects an individual’s religious convictions. So far, in this land of North America, the Supreme Court still holds respect for religious convictions.”

I believe this man is going to be a converted Seventh-day Adventist, sooner, maybe than we think. He has already read The Great Controversy. He asked for the Spirit of Prophecy books. He is reading Testimonies for the Church. And he has told me on more than one occasion that he can identify so well with my case because he belongs to, what the mother Jewish Church would call, an offshoot group. He preaches to that offshoot Jewish group every week.

He went on to explain to me the difference between a preference and a conviction. Every true man of God, every faithful man or woman of God since Abel, [the first man to die because he stood for the truth], took their religion as a conviction. Every one of them!

Look at Noah. It took a man of conviction to preach the message that he was preaching in his day. Especially when the whole world was against him. It took a man of religious convictions, not a man who took his religious experience as a preference.

You see, even the Supreme Court of this nation knows that a preference can be changed. If you have been taking your religion as a preference, or religious belief as a preference, that means that, in some given circumstances, you can change, you can compromise. But when you have a conviction, there is no compromise. There is no change. There is no giving up. When you have a conviction, you are willing to die. That is conviction! A conviction, according to the law of this land, is respected because you are willing to put your life into that conviction. If you are not willing to go that far, then you are taking your religious belief as a preference, not a conviction.

While my attorney was telling me all of this, I began to understand just a little, why Sister White said the majority will forsake us, and forsake the faith. Because Satan has already been trapping many of our brethren into compromising, or preaching a smooth message in place of the message that God has given us, just for the sake of peace, love and comfort.

In Daniel 3:1 it says, “Nebuchadnezzar, the king, made an image of gold.” Every Seventh-day Adventist is familiar with that image of gold. And every time we talk about it, or read about it, or hear about that image, what comes to our minds? The image of the beast that is to be formed in the last days.

We, as historic Seventh-day Adventists, believe that we are living precisely in that time. The Lord has been raising up men and women who are going to finish this work in righteousness in a short time! So we believe we are living in that time when the image of the beast is being formed. The only thing missing is to make the enforcement, to see the oven, the fire there in front of us.

When I read this story, I become more convinced that if we do not have a true conviction of our religious belief, then we are going to give up. We are going to give up because Satan knows our weak point, and he is going to work hard on that point; whether it be appetite, worldliness, or sins that have been cherished in our lives. We have to pray to the Lord to show us what our weak point is, because Satan knows it and he is going to work hard on that.

We see in the Story in Daniel 3:6 that the order went out, “and whoso fall not down and worshipeth shall in the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” Even the enemies of these three faithful Hebrews, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, knew their religious beliefs and principles. That tells me that they were not afraid to expose their religious belief. They were not hiding. They did not say, “Well, we can bow down here, because God knows what is really in our hearts, and He knows we really only worship Him.”

My Jewish attorney revealed to me something of the Jewish mentality. Back in the days of the Inquisition when the Roman Catholic came to the Jew and said, “Are you a Roman Catholic?” The Jews reasoned in their minds this way; “If I say no, they are going to kill me. They are going to burn me. But if I say, yes, the Lord God will forgive me on the Day of Atonement.” That is their mentality. Once every year they can ask God for forgiveness for all of their sins and be forgiven, even if they have renounced Him. That means that they have no convictions.

But these three faithful, godly men, they were not afraid. They lived their faith openly before their enemies, and they did not try to conceal their faith. I can identify with that.

The day came, and when it did, these three men did not know that God was going to deliver them. Perhaps the king thought he could scare them a little bit so maybe they would start shaking and come back and say, “You know what? We have changed; we are going to make a reformation in our beliefs. We are going to see if we can give up a little for the sake of unity. It looks like we are the only ones in the whole Kingdom that are causing trouble. So since we know the Lord loves us, we will kneel down.” But they did not say that, did they? “Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.’” [Daniel 3:16, 17]. What an example of conviction we find here. “We don’t need time to think it over, O King! We can answer you right now!” They would say the same thing to the Pope if they were living today!

That is the kind of conviction that is needed in the ranks of God’s people today. A true conviction of our religious beliefs, a conviction that can only come through the Holy Spirit. So far, I am tempted to think that we have been taking our religious experience as a preference. I have heard brethren of mine say, “Look, I like to go to this big church. To me I feel so good with my family there. You should see how we clap and rejoice. We do not have to worry about this persecution thing that you have been preaching about. We feel so happy!” This is preference, not conviction.

I have been in several countries where this same kind of thing is taking place. Many Adventist churches in North America are starting to have Sunday worship. “It is a good way to witness to our Catholic brethren,” they say. They use a little quote from Sister White that says we have to be careful, not to defile the Sunday law when it comes. But she also said that we should not give the slightest appearance that we are worshipping that day [Sunday]. You see how Satan is already working in our people’s minds?

But in Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego we do not see this kind of a wavering. Instead of waiting, trying to deceive the king into thinking that they might need some time to think about it, they said, “Do you know what, king? We are not careful to answer you. Right now we can answer to you. “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace.” Daniel 3:17.

King, you go ahead and do it! But our God can deliver us. “But even if our God does not deliver us, we are not going to worship the image.” [Daniel 3:18]. That is true conviction. That is a million dollar verse! They were not sure God would deliver them, but even if He did not, they were so convicted of their beliefs that they were not going to serve the king or his gods in any way!

Are we ready for these things? If we are not ready to say, “O King, we will not serve thy gods,” very soon it might be too late. We need to search our souls to discover what Babylonian gods we are still serving today.

In these last days we also have seen a king in the earth being raised up for many years, like every other king of this earth. We see the image, but we also see a faithful group of men and women, similar to these three Hebrew men, who are going to be standing up for the truth, whether God delivers them or not.

“Christ is coming the second time, with power unto salvation. To prepare human beings for this event, He has sent the First, Second, and Third Angels’ Messages. These angels represent those who receive the truth, and with power open the gospel to the world.” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 7, 978, 979. They do not just receive the truth, they are not going to hide this truth among themselves, but they are going to make the truth a part of them. So much a part of them that nobody is ever going to hide it under any circumstances, even up to death if it is possible.

Revelation 14:6 says, “I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven.” Now we read that the angel represents those who receive and proclaim those three angels’ messages. Is that not true? So this angel was flying in the midst of heaven. Why flying? Because one of the things that we see here is the speed with which the work was going to be carried on.

This angel is flying in the midst of heaven. Why in the “midst” of heaven. I see, brothers and sisters, the Bible telling us not only the speed with which the work will go forward, but also the experience of those men and women who are going to be involved in that work. Their experience is not going to be an earthly, or worldly experience, it is going to be a heavenly experience.

In vision, Sister White was looking for God’s people all over the earth. She could not see them. But the angel said, “No, look above.” This will be the experience of the people who have a true conviction of their religious beliefs in their hearts, an experience that God has for us today.

I see one thing in prophecy; I see that when these nations will unite and establish the Sunday law, trouble is going to come. That is what we see in prophecy. We are seeing strange things going on.

In The Great Controversy, there is a chapter called “The Final Warning,” Please allow me to review a few things from this chapter with you.

“Heretofore those who presented the truths of the Third Angel’s Message have often been regarded as mere alarmists. Their predictions that religious intolerance would gain control of the United States, that church and state would unite to persecute those who keep the commandments of God, have been pronounced groundless and absurd. It has been confidently declared that this land could never become other than what it has been—the defender of religious freedom. But as the question of enforcing Sunday observance is widely agitated, the event so long doubted and disbelieved is seen to be approaching, and the Third Angel’s Message will produce an influence which it could not have had before.” The Great Controversy, 605, 606.

When the Sunday law is widely agitated, then we are going to see how a wise God has raised up the Seventh-day Adventist people, and why it is so important to keep in the mind of the people of every generation, this issue of Sunday observance being enforced.

“God has sent His servants to rebuke sin, both in the world and in the church. But the people desire smooth things spoken to them.…As the controversy extends into new fields, and the minds of the people are called to God’s downtrodden law, Satan is astir. The power attending the message will only madden those who oppose it.” Ibid. 608

Oh yes, every time we put one of our ads in the paper, we get many, many letters, mad, even cursing us. But brothers and sisters, just because we do not want those people to get mad, are we are going to hide the message, the truth? No!

God gives a special truth for the people in an emergency. Who dare refuse to publish it? God has been giving this message, the last message that mankind is going to have before His coming. The Three Angels’ Message, while Satan has been making us believe that, instead of asking for the power of the Holy Spirit to finish this work, we can just entertain ourselves in the ecumenical movement, in Celebration and so on. I sometimes think we are more willing to identify ourselves with the Roman Catholic Church than God’s people.

“The Lord gives a special truth for the people in an emergency. Who dare refuse to publish it? He commands His servants to present the last invitation of mercy to the world. They cannot remain silent, except at the peril of their souls” Ibid, 609.

Yet Satan has made us believe that if we preach this message we do not have love, instead we have hate. He twists everything around. But we must speak the truth, not fearing the consequences. Mrs. White writes, “Christ’s ambassadors have nothing to do with consequences. They must perform their duty and leave results with God. Ibid., 609, 610.

One of the dear men from the General Conference told me, “Oh, but you do not understand. That book, The Great Controversy, was written for the last century, not for now.”

You mean those truths were relevant for the 1800s, but not now? So now God has changed? He will create a new book, The Great Controversy for Today? No!

The Papacy, the beast, and Satan’s agents are all getting angry, but God is able to deliver us. Recently I went to a Seventh-day Adventist Church, and I noticed that the board outside was blank. When I asked why they did not have the name of the church on the board, the brother bowed his head. He said, “We had a sign there identifying our church as a Seventh-day Adventist Church, but since we heard about your lawsuit, we had to take it down.” I felt like I was living in the dark ages when people were hiding from the Roman Catholics! When people who revealed the conviction of their faith would be burned at the stake. That is how far our institution has gone in playing God. People are afraid, just like the Protestants were afraid of the Roman Catholic Church. I tell you this so you can see how far we have gone in this business of suing and threatening.

The Papacy is no longer hiding their plans. In the October 28 Florida Catholic, it says that they are going to meet with about twenty religious leaders at the Vatican at the end of the year. They are making plans! They are uniting. If Satan’s people are getting together, uniting, should not God’s people be united? This is of great importance! God’s people must press together, as Sister White says. The messages of Revelation 14 were given because the principles of the churches have become corrupted. Revelation 18 explains the condition that they are in. The whole world is guilty of receiving the mark of the beast. But— the prophet sees a company who are not worshipping the beast and who are not receiving the mark in their foreheads or in their hands. “Here is the patience of the saints,” he declares, “here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17.

May the Lord give us the faith of Jesus. Then this whole problem of unity among ministries and God’s people is going to be a problem of the past. Satan has been uniting his army already. It is going to be only a small company that will be willing, with conviction in their heart, to follow the Light wherever it takes them.

An Open Letter to our Constituents

by

We recently received some startling information which shows, despite denials, how the General Conference is connected with the ecumenical movement today. This information came to us from one of our constituents who found it on the Internet. The General Conference may not be publishing it, but others certainly are. We are reprinting it for you, because we feel that every Seventh-day Adventist needs to be informed on the end-time issues involving their church.

Before disclosing this information, we would like to share some quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy. These are taken from Testimonies, vol. 5, 211, 212 and 214.

“The abominations for which the faithful ones were sighing and crying were all that could be discerned by finite eyes, but by far the worst sins, those which provoked the jealousy of the pure and holy God, were unrevealed.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 211.

“No superiority of rank, dignity, or worldly wisdom, no position in sacred office, will preserve men from sacrificing principle when left to their own deceitful hearts. Those who have been regarded as worthy and righteous prove to be ring-leaders in apostasy and examples in indifference and in the abuse of God’s mercies. Their wicked course He will tolerate no longer, and in His wrath He deals with them without mercy. It is with reluctance that the Lord withdraws His presence from those who have been blessed with great light and who have felt the power of the word in ministering to others. They were once His faithful servants, favored with His presence and guidance; but they departed from Him and led others into error, and therefore are brought under the divine displeasure.” Ibid., 212.

“However high any minister may have stood in the favor of God, if he neglects to follow out the light given him of God, if he refuses to be taught as a little child, he will go into darkness and satanic delusions and will lead others in the same path.” Ibid., 214.

We have, in our possession, documentation for all of these statements.

Brothers and Sisters, surely our Lord must weep as He sees this wonderful movement that He called forth, clasping hands across the abyss. Pray, as you have never prayed before, that the Lord will grant spiritual eyesight to the blind. The end of all things is at hand, are we preparing to meet our Lord? Only those who are ‘sighing and crying’ over the apostasy will be saved. We need men of God who will stand in the breach and defend the honor of the Lord. Will you be one of them?

May God help us, is my prayer.

Barbara Bender, Managing Editor

The first document is entitled “Ecumenical Links, Church and Ecumenical Organizations.” It lists those churches that are affiliated with the World Council of Churches. We quote, “Christian World Communions. International organizations of churches of the same tradition or confession have been formed since the middle of the 19th century. Since 1957 there have been annual informal gatherings of the secretaries of such organizations; and it is from among the bodies represented at these meetings that this list is taken, although not all of them would define themselves as ‘Christian World Communions.’” [Emphasis supplied]. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is listed here, as part of the “Christian World Communions!” This group works closely with the WCC.

The second document is entitled “World Council of Churches, Faith and Order, Towards a Common Date for Easter.” This document was compiled through the WCC which comprise approximately ten “participants,” including B. B. Beach and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. This document promotes Sunday worship! Item 3 says, “Besides the work already done on baptism, eucharist and ministry, the churches need to address the renewal of preaching, the recovery of the meaning of Sunday and the search for a common celebration of Pascha as ecumenical theological concerns. This last is especially urgent, since an agreement on a common date for Easter—even an interim agreement—awaits further ecumenical developments.” [Emphasis supplied]. Item 16, “This consultation also recommends that the churches now undertake a period of study and reflection towards the goal of establishing as soon as possible a common date for Easter/Pascha along the lines set forth above. In the year 2001 the paschal calculations now in use by our churches will coincide. Together, Christians will begin a new century, a new millennium, with new opportunities to witness to the resurrection of Christ and to proclaim their joy in his victory over sin, suffering and death. The unity that will be reflected as Christians celebrate Easter/Pascha on the same date will be for many a sign of hope and of witness to the world. This celebration of Easter/Pascha on the same date should not be the exception but the rule.” [Emphasis supplied]. Every Historic Seventh-day Adventist should be aware of this paper so they can share it with conference supporters.

The third document is entitled “Seventh-day Adventists Should Not be Treated as a Sect,” and is dated Geneva, 4 June 1998. This is a final report on four years worth of conversations between the Lutheran World Federation and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This report says, in part, “…both partners recommend the mutual recognition of ‘the basic Christian commitment’ of each other’s faith communions. Both sides are urged in their public teaching and theological education to present the other faith communion’s view of church authority ‘truthfully and unpolemically’ and in a manner which corresponds to their self-understanding. …Although the four-year series of conversations is concluded, Lutherans and Adventists should ‘meet in occasional bilateral consultations.’ The theological foundations and the spiritual dimension of our observance of the day of rest ‘with particular reference to modern society,’ is a possible topic for next year.” [Emphasis supplied]. “The Lutheran/Seventh-day Adventist series of conversations began four years ago in November 1994 in Darmstadt, Germany….The fourth concluding meeting in Cartigny was co-chaired by the Adventist representative, Dr. Bert B. Beach (USA), and the Lutheran representative, the Oslo dean, Ole Chr. Kvarme. One of the highlights of this year’s consultation was the visit of President Robert S. Folkenberg of the Adventist General Conference headquartered in Maryland, USA, and of LWF General Secretary Ishmael Noko.”

The fourth and final document is called “Syrian Orthodox Leader for Cooperation with Adventists,” and is dated August 4, 1998. This document promotes unity between the Seventh-day Adventist and the Syrian Orthodox Churches. It reads, “Silver Spring, Maryland, USA (ANN/APD) Metropolitan Gregorios Youhanna Ibrahim (Aleppo) of the Syrian Orthodox Church welcomed the opportunity for greater cooperation with the Seventh-day Adventist Church during a visit to the Adventist World Church Headquarters on July 2. …Responding for the Adventist Church, Gerry Karst, assistant to the president, welcomed the group from Syria, which also included Reverend Fayiz Hunain of the Presbyterian Church in Syria, as well as Razic Syriani, youth director for the Middle East Council of Churches, and Dr. Mekhael Asaad, head of the Ephraim dispensary in Aleppo. ‘We have looked forward to this meeting for a long time,’ said Karst, who previously worked in the Middle East. ‘We hope this friendship will grow as we are brothers in Christ.’ The group has visited Adventist institutions in California, Michigan, and Florida.”

Ironically, we have also received a document written by Nicolaus Gomes da Silva, bishop of the vicariate, rector of the holy Syrian Orthodox Churches [Does that name sound familiar? It is the same church the General Conference has just been hosting in Maryland, California, Michigan, and Florida.] of Antioquia in Brazil, who has the authority as a member of the association of the Catholic-Apostolic-Orthodox Churches of the West, inviting delegates to an extraordinary Synod and Council to study the “Dies Domini” letter recently written by the Pope. Just to highlight a few items in this document, Bishop da Silva states:

Item 1. “The keeping of any other day, by any other religion, without the full knowledge of the Holy Father, the Pope, cannot be tolerated…

Item 3. “We cannot tolerate Jews, Sabbathkeepers, Adventists, or any other sects which do not keep the Day of the Lord, Sunday…

Item 4. “We cannot tolerate those who do not seek to understand or accept the precepts as ordained by the Holy Father, the Pope, in regards to the day of the Lord’s resurrection, Sunday…

Item 6. “We cannot tolerate any observer of another day except the holy Sunday…

Item 7. “We cannot tolerate the transgressors of the day of the Lord, Sunday, who will receive judicial penalties through the Justice of the Court, to stop and restrain the liberty of conscience of those who are disobedient and who are agitators against the law imposed by Rome…

Item 8. “Because we do not tolerate these transgressors, we will request the United States (UN), to severely punish the disobedient, who have since 1844 converted to their fold our Catholic People.…They have also attempted throughout the whole world to contradict the Holy Father, the Pope, with their spurious doctrines, like the observance of the Sabbath day and non-Immortality of the soul, the two principle pillars of their heresies.

Item 9. “Because we will not tolerate these transgressors, we will beg the authorities in the USA, to systematically dispossess these transgressors of their publishing houses, their orphanages, their hospitals, their schools, and this with the utmost expediency.” [all emphasis supplied].

Editorial – What is Behind Religious Lawsuits?

by

We live in an age when lawsuits are common in all areas of society.  Some years ago it was church policy (as well as a Biblical prohibition, see I Corinthians 6) that Adventists did not sue one another. If you read the report about the Mary Kay Silver case you will see that as late as the seventies this was considered sufficient reason to disfellowship a member. If it was wrong to disfellowship those that sue another, then a formal apology needs to be made to those who were disfellowshipped at that time for those reasons. But if it was not wrong to disfellowship members who were doing it then, the only consistent course to follow today would be to disfellowship those who are doing it today—which would include those in the highest positions of leadership in the General Conference in Silver Springs Maryland.

Of course there is a way to get around all of this. If I am a person of influence I can go to the church where my opponent is a member and persuade a majority in a church business meeting to disfellowship him first. Then I can claim that he is no longer a Seventh-day Adventist (because he is not a member of the “church,”) therefore he is no longer a brother, and the injunction in I Corinthians 6 no longer applies. I am free to seek any sort or redress I desire.

This controversy over who can call themselves by  what name has been around for a long time, most of 2,000 years. It is the same controversy that produced the dark ages—those dismal times when over 50 million Bible-believing Christians lost their lives over the very same issue. That issue is, are we going to have a religion based on the New Testament idea of religion or not.

Although there were many attempts to teach this idea in the Old Testament, Jesus taught it so strongly and forcefully that the New Testament ushered in a new concept for the society of that time. The New Testament envisions human society in this world, not as united or living in unity, or one accord, but rather  as composed of opposing factions which will continue until the end of the millenium. The New Testament teaches that some men will glory in the very same cross that other men will despise. It teaches that the same person who is precious to some will be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to others. But the New Testament also teaches that such diversity of religious beliefs do not make it impossible for a man to be a faithful and loyal citizen of the state. Although Christians of that time were of a different religious persuasion than the magistrates and all worldly rulers, they were to be obedient to all laws of the state (Romans 13 and I Peter 2), as long as these laws did not conflict with the law of God. When there was a conflict, Peter and the other apostles said,”We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29. The apostles would not consent for the state to tell them whether they could preach or what they could preach—not because they were not obedient citizens, but because that jurisdiction did not belong to the state.  Jesus had taught them that they were to render to the state all that belonged to the state (taxes, honor of state authority, customs, and all other civil laws) but then, in the same sentence, Jesus said that they were to render to God those things that were God’s.  What things belong to God and not to the state are spelled out in the first four precepts of the decalogue. These precepts spell out what a man’s relation to God is to be, and the state does not have a right to command a man or to enforce a man to keep these precepts. This fact was most emphatically taught to the world in Daniel 3 and again in Daniel 6.

The New Testament envisions human society made up, not of one, but of two parts—the secular, that is the civil, the state, or the human government, or “that which is Caesar’s.” And in contrast to this the religious, that which is not of the state but is of the church. That which belongs to God and not to Caesar (the church belongs to God and does not, in any sense, belong to the state) that which involves a man’s relation to his God, his maker is not a matter to be decided by the state, but by that man’s will. God does not want the worship or service of any man that is forced upon that man by the state. God only accepts that worship that is freely rendered from that man’s will. The New Testament repeats the message over and over “Whoever will let him …”Revelation 22:17.

It was confusion over this issue—the idea that a human ruler could take the place of God and direct and order the way that a human being should practice his religion—that led to persecution both before and after the time of Christ.  This is what lay at the foundation of the persecutions of Christians by the pagan Roman government.  This is what lay at the foundation of the persecutions of Bible-believing Christians by the papacy during the dark ages.  And this is what will lay at the foundation of the persecutions coming during the great tribulation yet in the future. It matters not whether the human ruler be a king, a senate, a legislature, a judge, a court, a general, a Protestant church, or any other church or religion, or any other human group; the result is the same.

Jesus did not teach His followers to leave the world for caves or isolation, (see John 17) rather He taught them that they were to be in the world and deeply involved in the affairs of society, just as salt permeates the entire dish, “in the world but not of the world.” (see Matthew 5-7.) Jesus taught then that society was not mono-lithic but composite—composed of completely different factions of religious belief and His followers were to live peaceably with those of all other religions, and even conform to the rules and laws of society as long as these did not conflict with the laws of God. As one early writer described it (the Christians), “dwelling as they do in Hellenic and in barbaric cities, as each man’s lot is, and following the customs of the country in dress and food and the rest of life, the manner of conduct which they display is wonderful and confessedly beyond belief. They inhabit their own fatherland, but as sojourners; they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign country is to them a fatherland and every fatherland a foreign country… They live on the earth but their citizenship is in heaven.”

So the New Testament church was always a fellowship of believers, it was never, never all those who lived in a certain locality. The early Christians knew that the church and the state existed on difference planes.

But the very essence of New Testament religion and teaching was lost when Constantine made “Christianity” the religion of the Roman State. “Christianity” was made into law for those who have only been born, instead of reborn. The result was that religion was now to be enforced by law.  The state would force men to be good, and all of society would become law-abiding Christians. (This idea, remember is what brought on 1400 years called the dark ages.) Indoctrination in tenets of the ancient pagan beliefs became outlawed and strictly proscribed. Unbaptized persons were required to attend catechism classes in preparation for baptism; all who, after attending such classes, refused to present themselves for baptism were subject to punishment by the state.

True Christians who understood the teachings of the New Testament saw that, what was thought to be the “church” had fallen (had apostatized), that the great apostasy predicted by Paul in II Thessalonians was manifested.  It was during this time, during the bishopric of Sylvester, that the Waldenses and others separated from those calling themselves “Catholic” and declared that this  “church” had fallen.

The Donatist controversy was one of the reactions to this departure from New Testament teaching. The controversy was not about doctrine but it was a question of the nature of the church as a society and its relationship to the world. Was the church all in a given locality (a state church) or was it a body of those being saved, surrounded by an unregenerate mass of people, as the New Testament taught?

Augustine, who opposed the Donatists said, “The issue between us and the Donatists is about the question where this body is to be located, that is, what and where is the Church?”

The idea of a “Catholic church” is totally foreign to the New Testament and even to the word church itself. The world “catholic” comes from two Greek words that mean together, “according to the entirety.” But the New Testament word translated “church” means “those who are called out” in other words not according to the entirety. The Apostle Peter described the church in the following language, first describing those that are not part of the church he says, “they stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed, but you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession that you may proclaim the moral excellence of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvellous light.” I Peter 2:8, 9. The apostles never speak of the church militant, according to the entirety of society, but as those called out from the world, “be blameless and harmless children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation among whom you shine as lights in the world.” Philippines 2:15.

For ‘twelve centuries that went before the Reformation it has never lacked for attempts to get away from the State-Church Priests’ Church and to reinstitute the apostolic congregational structurization.’ “Throughout Medieval times there never was a moment in which Constantinianism stood unchallenged. . . .Wherever the New Testament is held in honor there its concept of the Church of Christ will continue to challenge. There a Church based on personal faith will challenge the concept of a Church embracing all.”

The frantic efforts by the church of the dark ages to keep in power by destroying opponents at the stake, the scaffold, on the rack, or by the headsman’s ax is proof enough that the New Testament concept of the church was an ever-present threat. The effort to destroy all their writings shows what men were afraid of—the New Testament concept of the church would destroy the concept of a state church and the earthly power of those who, through this concept, had become the spiritual lords of their fellow-men.

The Donatists taught that a true Church cannot exist where the secular rule and the Christian Church are blended. The battle for separation of church and state was finally won in the American colonies after centuries of the most bloodly conflict recorded in all religious history. It is this concept of separation of church and state that brought freedom to the persecuted who fled to America, and freedom brought prosperity such as no nation has enjoyed in recent times. In America a person could not be prosecuted by the state for his religious beliefs or practices as long as he did not injure his neighbor. (The state has the right to enforce the outward compliance with the second table of the 10 commandments, see Romans 13.)

Today, this freedom is being rapidly lost. Society is rapidly making the state the tool for enforcing the wishes of the church. Since we are still in name under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a way has to be figured out to show that a person has injured somebody else in the practice of his religion, or in making known his personal beliefs. So a person is sued for talking about problems with meat on television. If a person cannot express what they think anymore without somebody else deciding they have been injured, we soon will have no freedom of speech, and what is worse (which you can know if you have traveled to totalitarian countries), when freedom of speech is lost, freedom to think is eventually lost. The loss to society is beyond computation.

Jesus said about His church “My kingdom is not of this world, if My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight so that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now My kingdom is not from here.” John 18:36. In the dark ages the professed church lost sight of this, they made the “church” a kingdom of this world, but any church which is also a kingdom of this world is not the true church of Christ according to Jesus statement. The “church” in the dark ages put Peter in the right for drawing the sword to promote the cause of Christ, and it put Jesus in the wrong for rebuking Peter for it. They conveniently forgot that Jesus had been deeply displeased at the first suggestion of a second sword; it forgot that Jesus had been so disappointed by Peter’s rash act of using the secular sword for promoting the cause of Christ, that He had stooped down to repair the damage Peter’s sword had inflicted.

The “bride of Christ” had so changed in appearance as to become unrecognizable. She, who had been sent on a mission of healing, had taken on the features of a modern police State.

The Anabaptists, one of the most persecuted groups, taught that the civil magistrate ‘must leave every man to his own devices in regard to religion no matter what he believes or teaches, so long as he does not disturb the outward civil quiet.’

The Donatists were proscribed, it was not allowed to call them Christians, they were to be called heretics and punished by the state for their heresy.  (Notice how their situation was identical to that of persecuted Christians today. They were forbidden to take the name of Christ because other Christians declared that the name belonged only to them and those of their religious beliefs, or of their church organization.) Their pastors told their flocks that nothing had changed now that the Roman empire had accepted Christianity. The only difference they said, was that before the devil had used force, he was now working in and with allies on the inside. For the true follower of Christ the result was the same, namely, persecution. There was no difference between the persecutions once staged by a pagan government and the persecutions of the flock from a supposedly Christian regime.

In commenting on this state of affairs a reformation writer says, ‘Who would not mistake the Christ for a moloch or some such god if indeed He delights in human sacrifice. . .? Imagine Him to be present, in the capacity of constable, to announce the sentence and light the fire. . .! Oh Christ, thou creator and king of all the earth, dost thou not see these things? Art thou so changed completely, become thus cruel and contrary to Thine own proper self . . .? Dost thou command that those who do not understand Thy commandments and institutions as yet, are to be choked in water, struck until the bowels gush forth, these then strewn with salt, to be struck with the sword or made to roast over small fire, with every torment martyred in as drawn out a manner as possible? Ah Christ, dost thou indeed command such things and dost thou approve of them when they are done? Are they indeed Thy lieutenants who officiate at such burned sacrifice? Dost thou allow Thyself to be seen at the scene of such butchery? Dost thou then verily eat human flesh, Oh Christ? If thou dost such things forsooth, or orderest them done, then what, pray what, hast thou left for the devil to do?

Quotations and many paraphrased statements in this editorial are from the first chapter of the excellent book “The Reformers and their Stepchildren” by Leonard Verduin, copyright 1964, published by Eerdmans Publishing Company, 255 Jefferson Ave., SE, Grand Rapids Michigan 49503

Contending For the Faith

by

The trial of Raphael Perez vs. the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists began March 13, 2000, and involves a lawsuit against Pastor Perez for illegally using the trademarked name, Seventh-day Adventist. This court case has attracted worldwide attention and is of vital interest to all who cherish their religious freedom!

Opening Statements

Both sides presented opening statements on Tuesday, March 14, 2000.

The prosecution (or the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists) contends that Pastor Perez and his organization are an offshoot church. They labeled him a “hate group” and claimed he was a breakaway church trying to use the mother church’s name.

Robert Pershes, attorney for the defense, claimed that the name “Seventh-day Adventist” is a generic term describing a belief system, a religion. He stated that the trademark law was being used in a religious context here, when it was intended to be used commercially. He stated if you are a believer in Seventh-day Adventism, and you believe in the writings of Ellen G. White as a prophet, and if that prophet said that the name Seventh-day Adventist was given to us by God, you believe it. At this point there were several “Amens” from the spectators. The judge admonished the spectators that this was a courtroom, not a church, and further comments would cause him to clear the courtroom of spectators.

The Prosecution

Witnesses for the Prosecution were then called.

George Reid, current director of Biblical research for the General Conference, was first. He stated his educational background as such: He received his BA from Lincoln Ministerial School, and his Masters of Divinity from Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary.

Mr. Reid, who, at one time, served as head of the Religion Department at Southwest Adventist University in Keene, Texas was questioned as an expert witness on the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1860. It was his testimony that one must be a member of the General Conference to be a Seventh-day Adventist, “based on the understanding of unity.”

Attorney, Robert Nixon, stated Seventh-day Adventist does not refer to someone who believes in Seventh-day Adventism, but consists of Seventh-day Adventists in good and regular standing. They need to have membership in the Seventh-day Adventist organization.

The Survey

Harry O’Neill, researcher with Roper Worldwide, was paid $29,000 to conduct a telephone survey which took place between June 24 and July 2, 1999. The survey included a random selection of 1200 telephone numbers, (2% were Adventists) and asked the following questions:

  1. Have you ever heard or seen the term Seventh-day Adventist?
  2. What type or organization, if any, comes to mind when you hear Seventh-day Adventist?
  3. Do you associate the term Seventh-day Adventist with anything else? If so, what?

Responses to questions 2 and 3 were combined when presenting the final outcome.

70% of the 1200 respondents (or 840) had heard of Seventh-day Adventists.

44% of the 1200 respondents (or 528) responded that they thought of a church, a group, or a church organization.

56% of the 1200 respondents (or 672) responded that they thought of a religious group.

The Defense attorney objected to question number two of this survey as being leading. The fact that they used the word, “organization,” in their question, tainted the respondent’s answers, he claimed.

Dr. Standish for the Defense

The defense began their presentation by calling Dr. Colin Standish to the stand. Dr. Standish did a good job of defending our faith, and the judge, James Lawrence King, soon developed a good rapport with him. About fifteen minutes into Dr. Standish’s testimony, the judge asked the defense attorney to stand aside. The judge then began to question Colin directly about self-supporting work, the history of it, the name Seventh-day Adventist, and other things. The judge basically did all of the questioning for the defense with this witness.

After questioning Dr. Standish, the judge chastised the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for bringing this issue to trial, and quoted 1 Corinthians 6, about bringing your brethren to trial. The judge quickly recognized this to be a religious liberty issue and stated that it should never have been brought into his courtroom. He instructed both sides to get together and see if they could work out an agreement and let him know the following day. When the prosecution tried to present and label Pastor Perez and his group as a “hate group,” Judge King threw that out as not being relevant to this trial. He stated that he was only concerned with the trademark issue.

No Agreement

The prosecution and the defense attorneys, along with the General Conference men and Pastor Perez, sat down together and attempted to come to an agreement as they had been instructed by the Judge. Pastor Perez stated that he would be happy to put a disclaimer under the name Seventh-day Adventist, stating that he was not affiliated with the General Conference. This was not good enough for them. They wanted the work stopped, and Pastor Perez could not agree to that.

The trial was to continue as scheduled.

The courtroom was filled to capacity, with the court personnel having to bring in additional chairs to accommodate the crowd. In spite of the fact that there are dozens of “Conference Churches” in the area, there were no attendants from the “conference church” other than those who were there to give testimony.

The Defense Argues

Two of the main points that were drilled home by the witnesses for the defense were these:

  1. The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists has consistently removed the name “Seventh-day Adventist” from its magazines, buildings, schools, and hospitals.
  2. Since we believe that Ellen G. White was a prophet, and the prophet states that this name was a God-given name denoting a people and their belief, we cannot give it up.

Witnesses for the Defense:

David Zic, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement testified to the necessity of using the name as it identifies them. He stated that a church consists of faithful believers, not the buildings.

Also testifying for the defense were John Nicolici, Dr. Russell Standish, Pastor John Grosboll, and one or two others.

Pastor Grosboll testified that, in order to keep peace, we would be happy to change our name if we could. But, since this name was given to us by God, Himself we cannot, dare not change it to appease man.

In a small anteroom off to the side of the courtroom, the pastors gathered to intercede in prayer as each and every defense witness was called. It was not unusual for the judge to gain admittance to the courtroom using this route, and he would walk through the room while the pastors were gathered in prayer. Especially was Raphael Perez’ name lifted before the Father’s throne.

Obey God Rather than Man

Raphael Perez was extensively examined and cross-examined for over an hour. When asked if his newspaper ads started after the Southeastern Conference had told him he could not use the name, Seventh-day Adventist, Raphael stated that he did not need authorization from human beings to use a name given by God. It is not a matter of waiting for permission—permission has already been established by God, and we are to obey God rather than man. (Acts 5:29.)

Many attempts were made to trip Pastor Perez up in his testimony, but God worked with him in a mighty way to keep him focused and to give him understanding of the English language, that he might not only understand, but that his reply might be clearly understood. He firmly defended the faith.

The Prophet Speaks

Please note the following quotations. Two from the Spirit of Prophecy and one from Scripture:

“We have far more to fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world. Unbelievers have a right to expect that those who profess to be keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, will do more than any other class to promote and honor, by their consistent lives, by their godly example and their active influence, the cause which they represent. But how often have the professed advocates of the truth proved the greatest obstacle to its advancement! The unbelief indulged, the doubts expressed, the darkness cherished, encourage the presence of evil angels, and open the way for the accomplishment of Satan’s devices.”Selected Messages, Book 1, 122. (1887.)

“This action, of appealing to human courts, never before entered into by Seventh-day Adventists, has now been done. God has permitted this that you who have been deceived may understand what power is controlling those who have had entrusted to them great responsibilities.” Selected Messages, Book 3, 302.

“Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, ‘That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, ‘My lord delayeth his coming’ and shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 24:46-50.

Heartbreaking Verdict

Sadly, despite the promising outlook, Judge James Lawrence King rendered a verdict in favor of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. We must pray that the Lord might strengthen and sustain Raphael and his little church, as they plan their appeal to a higher court. We know that God is still in control, and that in the end His name will be uplifted, honored, and vindicated. We must also pray for each other. There are others out there who are also targeted by the General Conference. The following is a list of groups who have already had suits started against them by the General Conference:

  • Word of Faith Congregational Seventh-day Church

3505 Pulaski Pike
Huntsville, AL 35810

  • United Seventh-day Adventist Church

128 9th Street, N.W.
Mason City, IA 50401

  • The Ten Commandments Universal Saturday Seventh-day Adventist Temple

1509 Ray Road, Apt. #301
Hyattsville, MD 20782

  • Seventh-day Adventist

Congregational Church
Kona Hawaii

  • Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International, Inc.

PO Box 3840
Los Angeles, CA 90078

  • Trinidad Church of Seventh-day Adventist

1201 Staples Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002

  • Tabernacle Seventh-day Adventist Church

3600 Martin Luther King Blvd., S.E.
Mason City, IA 50401

  • Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventist

5419 Southern Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33415

The Inquisition has begun!

(Emphasis the author’s.)

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

Are You a Seventh-day Adventist? Can anybody Tell that you are?

by

Hundreds of years ago, with unerring accuracy, the Apostle Paul described the end times, which would surround society in general, and God’s professed people in particular. “Perilous times shall come,” he wrote in 2 Timothy 3:1. Various versions of Scripture render this warning sign posted by Paul as “difficult times will come,” “Times of great stress and trouble, hard to deal with and hard to bear.” One version says, “I want you to realize that as bad as times are now [in a.d. 66], this is nothing compared to the perilous times of the last days.”

Choose Ye This Day

Whichever rendering you prefer, the textual context of this warning describes the conditions of the end times that will affect and test the character and spirituality of all people. While 2 Timothy 3 and 4 could be given a wider application, nothing could be more tragic than to miss the application of these Scriptures to Adventism as today constituted. Furthermore, nothing would please Satan more than for God’s professed people to keep reading this biblical warning only “historically” as in the past, or “prophetically” as in the future. If we are ever going to benefit from this warning, then at some point in our experience and growth in character development, we must read and teach this warning as applying to us today! Therefore, 2 Timothy 3:1 would be read, not perilous times “shall come,” “could come,” or “may come,” but “have come.”

Far too many within the Adventist community believe that some time in the future the world conditions will be of such a nature that they will be led to take a bold stand for the truth, and pattern their lifestyle accordingly. But nothing could be more difficult and most unlikely. Generally, the end of such thinking in spiritual matters is disastrous. Without a doubt, such a mentality avoids and postpones the present preparation desperately needed for it delays dealing with the issues confronting us all today. It produces a quality of Adventists who oppose and resist correction. The duties imposed by present truth anger them, and unwittingly, but nevertheless by a choice, they become persecutors of their own brethren. This pattern of living and thinking confirms people deeper in Laodiceanism, and allies them with the popular churches of the world.

“Many are quieting a troubled conscience with the thought that they can change a course of evil when they choose; that they can trifle with the invitations of mercy, and yet be again and again impressed. They think that after doing despite to the spirit of grace, after casting their influence on the side of Satan, in a moment of terrible extremity they can change their course. But this is not so easily done. The experience, the education of a lifetime, has so thoroughly molded the character that few then desire to receive the image of Jesus.” Love Unlimited, 33.

Popular Deception—Do Nothing

And then there is another deception just as popular as the one described above, and just as perilous and fatal to Adventism. It is apparent everywhere. Clerics like it, teach it, and encourage it. It makes the membership “spectators” instead of “participants.” It has defrauded the membership from carrying out the divine assignment of the priesthood of all believers. It is doing nothing in a religious crisis; it is leaving for God to do that which He has mandated for us to do! This idea has so affected our belief that the teachings of the fallen churches have, in part, become ours. “You cannot stop sinning,” is heard in many of the Adventist churches, and it has become so bold that without hesitation, the teaching that you will continue to sin until Jesus returns, is widely spread.

This do-nothing concept Ellen White was inspired to label as an “astonishing deception,” and “apostasy,” and though rehearsing the history of Israel in this context, the Lord’s messenger makes it applicable to us in this day. The do-nothing, wait-and-see deception, she calls a “crime.”

“If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in time 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 to the Church, vol. 3, 281.

The apostles’ warning and Ellen White’s testimony come painfully close to home to the Adventist community! Characteristics visible among the professed people of God are accurately described in the chapters of Timothy referred to above. The “perilous times” here mentioned are to prevail “in the last days.” To what time shall we apply this expression, “in the last days?” We have been so spiritually sedated by the ways of this world, accepting their praises, preoccupied with maintaining an acceptable image, lavishing in the fellowship of other churches, that Apostle Paul’s prophetic warning has been relegated to the times and events that mark the final test. But what a shocking revelation it must be to many to realize that we have been living in the last days, the perilous times that precede the “final test.” Expressions such as “the last days,” “perilous times,” “time of trouble,” “little time of trouble,” need to be applied to the present times. Ellen White places these perilous times of trouble while “Christ is still in the heavenly sanctuary,” and “while the work of salvation is closing.” Early Writings, 85. Lest anyone conclude that these scriptural warnings applied to our present time is unwarranted, consider the following from the Inspired writings:

“A storm is coming, relentless in its fury. Are we prepared to meet it? We need not say the perils of the last days are soon to come upon us. Already they have come.” Testimonies to the Church, vol. 8, 315. (Italics supplied.)

And this is not the only statement making this application. Two more should suffice:

“We are living in the perils of the last days.” Manuscript 148, Notebook Leaflets, 53.

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.’ (1 Timothy 4:1.) The time of this apostasy is here. Every conceivable effort will be made to throw doubt upon the positions that we have occupied for over half a century.” Letter 410, August 26, 1907.

Please Stand Up

If the above statements are correct, then the Scriptures, the Testimonies and these perilous times call for the real Seventh-day Adventist to stand up! Would you please stand up and identify yourself by the message you are proclaiming, the work you are doing, and by the lifestyle you are living? Was it not Jesus who said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”? Just think of it, we have been living in the end time, surrounded by the perils of the last days prophesied almost 2,000 years ago, and did not even know it!

“We must learn to stand alone and depend wholly upon God. The sooner we learn this the better.” Early Writings, 105.

The list of characteristics mentioned in 2 Timothy 3 and 4 is quite indicting. They are applicable to all Adventists in general, and to some in particular. The truth is that the entire list applies to Adventism. We have just arbitrarily selected several of the characteristics for the purpose of this presentation:

  1. Boasters
  2. Blasphemers
  3. Unholy
  4. Traitors
  5. Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof
  6. Ever-learning, never coming to the knowledge of the truth
  7. Will not endure sound doctrine
  8. Turn away their ears from the truth

Heavy charges, would you not say? Very much so, and these characteristics must be so damaging to character development, that Apostle Paul, under inspiration, called the real Adventist, the truthful Adventist, to action—”from such turn away.” Why such a drastic move? The experience of the first Christian Church is used by Ellen White to give us the reasons and to teach us our duty, as unpleasant as it may be, when such conditions continue to exist.

“But there is no union between the Prince of Light and the prince of darkness, and there can be no union between their followers. When Christians consented to unite with those who were but half converted from paganism, they entered upon a path which led farther and farther from the truth. Satan exulted that he had succeeded in deceiving so large a number of the followers of Christ. He then brought his power to bear more fully upon them, and inspired them to persecute those who remained true to God. None understood so well how to oppose the true Christian faith as did those who had once been its defenders, and these apostate Christians, uniting with their half-pagan companions, directed their warfare against the most essential features of the doctrines of Christ.

“It required a desperate struggle for those who would be faithful to stand firm against the deceptions and abominations which were disguised in sacerdotal garments and introduced into the church. The Bible was not accepted as the standard of faith. The doctrine of religious freedom was termed heresy, and its upholders were hated and proscribed.

“After a long and severe conflict, the faithful few decided to dissolve all union with the apostate church if she still refused to free herself from falsehood and idolatry. They saw that separation was an absolute necessity if they would obey the word of God. They dared not tolerate errors fatal to their own souls, and set an example which would imperil the faith of their children and children’s children. To secure peace and unity they were ready to make any concession consistent with fidelity to God; but they felt that even peace would be too dearly purchased at the sacrifice of principle. If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war.” The Great Controversy, 45.

They Will Put You Out of the Synagogue

By now, many of you who are reading this article may be stirred with displeasure and even anger; and that is good! But remember the Scripture admonition, “sin not, and give no place to the devil.” Ephesians 4:26, 27. But wait, have you thought it through? That which may unsettle and disturb most is the truthfulness of the condition within the professed Adventist family. The issue is that the message is either true or false. We either live in “the perilous times” or we do not. We are either in the end of time or we are not. Either the Three Angels’ Messages have done their work in our lives or they have not. We are either ready to enter the judgment session to be judged, or not!

Some of the members have been terrorized with the threat of being put out of the “synagogue,” if they become vocal; others, not having done their homework by studying for themselves, have been intimidated with “Remnant Church not Babylon” sermons—a technique that the ministry has used for decades hoping to keep the world-wide membership docile. But who said the Seventh-day Adventist church as constituted and functioning today, is the remnant church? Where is the evidence for that notion? Neither secular nor biblical history supports the infallibility idea that has been projected by misapplying this statement through the years. Adventism never taught the infallibility of any church in the past! That is not Protestant theology. Only those who are not the remnant church, but want to appear they are, make this claim! No Seventh-day Adventist group can claim the distinction of being the remnant church before the judgment has done its work—investigated the records and rendered its verdict in keeping with the unerring record of righteousness! And by the way, nowhere in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy writings does it say that “a backsliding church” (Signs of the Times, February 19, 1894) “drifting to sea without chart or compass” (Christ Our Righteousness 50, 51. 1937 edition,) charged as having “become a harlot” (Testimonies, vol. 8, 250,) can “never” become a part of Babylon or receive the same condemnation! To the surprise of many, the truth of the matter is, in fact, quite the opposite. Ellen White did sound the warning; “we are in danger of becoming a sister of fallen Babylon.” Letter 57, 1886. Why were you not told this before?

Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are living in these perilous end times; we have acted a part in the fulfillment of Bible prophecy; we have been given the opportunity by God to act and react to the perils of the last days. What testimony have we borne? Every choice we have made in issues that have arisen in the family, the church or society at large has served to shape our character for the final pronouncement, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” Revelation 22:11. The final test does not fit us for salvation, it only reveals whether the preparation was made.

Given the nature of this public presentation, we cannot dwell in detail upon the individual application of the issues as they affect us personally. It is hoped that each will draw out the lesson for himself, “for God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14. However, let it be clearly understood that we have reached a sad chapter in the history of Adventism. There must be no uncertainty about the spiritual condition that exists within the broad spectrum of the professed people of God. Whether we care to admit it or not, the fact is that Adventism which started in 1844 is not what we have today. And when we lose the power of the truth, the loss is made up by coercion and man-made laws bringing us to one of the main issues of the Third Angel’s Message.

Whatever Happened to Religious Liberty?

Whatever happened to the religious liberty principles and doctrines that our Adventist forefathers contended for and taught as being part of the Three Angels’ Messages? Has that divine plant gone to seed? Do we now believe in religious liberty and freedom of conscience only for ourselves, while we deny it to others? Such perversion breeds persecution and invites tyranny. It does that which even God does not do. It violates the God-given freedom of choice and coerces the conscience of anyone and everyone that displeases. This divine principle of liberty of conscience and freedom of choice, given and bequeathed by God to mankind, offered in the Garden of Eden to our first parents, exemplified by the Lord Jesus Christ through His death on the cross, contended for by the first disciples of Christ, restored by the great Reformation of the 16th century, and again recognized and legislatively provided for by that divinely Inspired document, the Constitution of the United States of America, then embedded in the end-time message of Revelation 14:6–12, to be presented to the world by God’s people has been the basis and reason for heaven’s blessing that has followed all those who have recognized this principle, defended it, and regarded it as sacred.

Yet, sinister forces, working under satanic direction, have always tried to eliminate this freedom under one pretext or another. By divine revelation prophecy has indicated that when our nation, combined with apostate religious powers, shall mandate, by use and force of law, to deny the “free exercise” of this divine right to choose to follow the dictates of conscience, this should be a signal that God’s special favor and recognition are being removed. The result can only be devastating. But what if this divine principle is denied to believers within the family of Adventism? The words of Christ uttered to Jerusalem (the church), “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate,” Matthew 23:38, can only mean one thing—rejection! “Any house becomes a house of desolation when God leaves it.” Church Membership, 8.

It is right here at this point many become confused in their understanding. They conclude that the prediction of Christ, “your house is left unto you desolate,” means that the house (religious denomination, church) ceases to exist. But not so. Its existence continues. It functions. It progresses. It is vocal and still claims the former promises of God. It remains a recognizable entity in the world and by the world, but it operates without the divine approval or presence of God in its midst. Its so-called success, as the world sees it, is due to its having become, as Jesus said, “a house of merchandise.” John 2:16, Testimonies, vol. 8, 250. And how only can a “house of merchandise” function when the divine presence is lacking? The only way that a “house of merchandise” in a worldly environment can protect itself is by trademark laws enforced against others through state laws! Has this scenario, generally referred to by Christ almost 2,000 years ago and applied by Ellen White 97 years ago, found, at least in part if not in totality, fulfillment in our time? The use of a name, that at one time identified the faith and belief of God’s people, has now been applied to a house of merchandise to protect “goods and services.” Yet, just such an experience made headlines that not only received attention from Christians in particular, but the world in general. Every Seventh-day Adventist should make it their business to be acquainted with this issue, and prayerfully see the larger picture at stake here. On March 13, 2000, the Federal Court for the Southern District of Florida, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists petitioned the Court for an injunction (a judicial order) that would compel and require, under the threat of punishment, that none but those whose names are on the records of the merchandising Seventh-day Adventist church, with headquarters in Maryland, may use the name “Seventh-day Adventist” as an expression of this historic faith.

Our Disgraceful Witness

What a disgraceful witness to the universe and the world—Adventists suing Adventists! Those who, because of their employment or vested interests, try to excuse or defend, or simply do nothing to condemn such abomination, and also those who continue to support with their tithes and offerings have become a persecuting party against their brethren. By this action every rule of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy counsel has been violated, and also by this action the leadership has, by their office representing the entire membership, made every individual member throughout the world a party to this unrighteousness.

“Church members [through their leadership] 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.” Manuscript 64, 1898.

So what then is a true Adventist to do under such circumstance? The answer is simple and straightforward. “Duties change in character with the increase of light.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 435. Just stand up and be counted! Disassociate yourself from its fellowship. Stop financing this persecution with your tithes and offerings, lest you be partakers of the sins of those who are promoting this work.

“Today, men are choosing Barabbas and saying, ‘Crucify Christ.’ They will do this in the person of His saints.” Testimonies to the Battle Creek Church, 27.

“When brethren manifest the spirit of the dragon, it is time to exert your liberty….” Testimonies, vol. 4, 245.

Adventism has fragmented into many groups for various reasons, from the most conservative to the most liberal. And make no mistake; the issues that have brought about this fracturing have not yet been solved as some hoped—within the structured church. Therefore, the fragmentation continues. Perilous times have come. They are here! And the results have been hazardous. Leadership has been frantically trying to keep intact the membership that supplied the gross revenue. They resent being questioned. The pleas from membership to change the direction of policies, mergers with non-Adventists and fraternization with Babylon and her daughters go unheeded. They have become a law unto themselves. Fundamental truths that made Seventh-day Adventists a unique and peculiar people at the outset are gradually but consistently attacked and undermined. Flagrant disbelief in the directives found in the Spirit of Prophecy writings is common and frequent.

To Excuse the Existing Situation is to Defend It!

This presentation should not be construed as a tirade against every Seventh-day Adventist. To the contrary, it is to show that the enemy of all righteousness, through men, has succeeded to introduce a worldly system within Adventism that is diluting the precious message that is designed to prepare people for eternity. To excuse the situation existing is to defend it. Do not do it! Let the authoritative word of God do its work, and may we each benefit from its warnings.

The divine messages that carved out the Advent believers from the other communions and set them aside as a distinct people have well nigh lost their sanctifying power, its preserving property. We are brain-damaged by the forces of the world. The secular tide is proving too strong, and we are voluntarily giving up our distinctiveness. We’ve been mesmerized by the educational norms of the world to the point that what started in 1844 is not what we have today. It is immoral to claim that we have a message that is designed to convert the world, when that work has not been accomplished in us.

But let it be heard loud and clear, that there are some, a very small number, who still believe that those historic messages of Revelation 14 still mean what they meant when first given. The application of these truths today carries the same divine mandate that stirred the world when the message was first given. “We have no new message,” wrote the Lord’s Messenger in the Review and Herald, January 19, 1905. “We are to proclaim the message that in 1843 and 1844 brought us out of the other churches.”

That being so, the message, “Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come,” must go out as the final warning to professed Adventists and to the world! “Worship Him,” not “our church,” “our educational accomplishments and institutions, not even our name” but “Him that made heaven and earth.” “It was to separate the church of Christ from the corrupting influence of the world that the First Angel’s Message was given.” Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 231.

The Second Message cannot and must not be separated or divorced from the first. Make no mistake; this message applies to all the churches that have rejected present truth. The message was designed to separate and keep distinct God’s people from all others. “This message announced the moral fall of the churches in consequence of their rejection of the First Message….Thus are represented those churches that cling to the doctrines and traditions of Rome and follow her worldly practices.” Their fall “is announced in the Second Angel’s Message.” Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 232, 233.

The Third Message draws a sharp distinction between the Sabbath observer and the entire rest of the world. It is a separating wall. There is no partnership or fellowship with any who do not acknowledge the binding claims of all the law of God.

“I saw that the holy Sabbath is and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers; and that the Sabbath is the great question, to unite the hearts of God’s dear, waiting saints.” Early Writings, 33.

“Satan rejoices when he can lead souls to follow mistaken ideas, until their names are blotted out of the Book of Life and recorded among the names of the unjust.” This Day With God, 322.

The heavenly diagnostician has clearly spelled out our sickness. Do not argue with the True Witness.

Is there a remedy, and is there hope? The majority will reject the remedy, that has been predicted, but you, dear reader, can be made willing to accept the counsel of the True Witness and inherit, not only the following promise, but life eternal:

“Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” Revelation 3:10.

“…In this Scripture is brought to view the hour of temptation that is to try them that dwell upon the earth. We are now living in this trying hour. There is no escape for any from this conflict.” Review and Herald, July 9, 1908.

Please, for Christ’s sake, stand up and be counted!

———————————————

John Nicolici is an ordained minister, living in Sacramento, California, providing a teaching and support ministry within the Adventist community of self-supporting ministries and home churches.

The General Conference Inquisition

by

Inasmuch as we believe the General Conference has launched an Inquisition, which may result in the separation from the church of several thousand believers, it will be necessary for our response to be couched in unvarnished terms and expressed with unmistakable clarity. We would prefer to not do this, but the circumstances make it necessary.

The Apostasy Begins

Let us take a moment to explain the background and to establish the context of the present situation. Several years ago certain of us, who were Seventh-day Adventist ministers with many years of experience in the work of the church and in proclaiming the truths of the Bible, became aware that some utterly false Calvinistic doctrines were being brought into our church’s theology. We endeavored to alert our church leaders regarding the problem, in full confidence that appropriate corrective measures would promptly be taken. To our surprise and dismay, our warnings were ignored, and we were dealt with as “troublemakers” who were disturbing the peace of the church.

We eventually began to warn church members ourselves, by whatever means we could. This gave rise to a number of ministries, programs, publications (both books and magazines), schools, etc. But administrative resistance to our work increased and hardened into bitter hostility. A book called Issues was published by the leaders of the North American Division, which, along with other absurdities, alleged that we were trying to “force” our own peculiar ideas on the church. It described us as a “cancer” on the body of Christ, which needed to be cut out. This, remember, was because we were warning church members about the invasion of false doctrines into our church and were defending the historic Seventh-day Adventist faith in its purity.

Now the General Conference leadership has decided that the time for that surgery has come. Hence the Inquisition. An Inquisitorial Committee was set up, which did its work and published a report in the Adventist Review and in Ministry magazine. It is this report that is the subject of this response.

The Inquisitorial Committee

This group is represented as being most august, qualified and competent, but this cannot be taken seriously. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” (See Matthew 7:20.) The committee has testified to its own incompetence and unfairness by the report that it has produced and is now spreading around the world by every possible means. The report is filled with accusations against historic Adventists, which range from the utterly false to the outrageously false. There is absolutely no way that a competent, fair and factual investigation could have produced such a report as this.

The Inquisitorial Procedure

The procedure consists of three parts: an “investigation” (see above), some meetings, and the issuance of an ultimatum. According to the ultimatum, the accused historic Adventist leaders are being given twelve months in which to “repent” and bow to the authority of the Inquisitors or suffer the consequences. There is no hint that there will be any fair trial in which the accused might be given an opportunity to defend themselves. They must simply accept the judgment of the Inquisitors as infallible—all of which reminds us of the Catholic Inquisition in Spain.

A word about the “meetings” referred to above. They may be represented as “fair hearings,” but they were nothing of the kind. They were only occasions in which the historic Adventist leaders had to spend time responding to barrages of false accusations. Their concerns about apostasy in the church were never considered. Nothing remotely resembling a fair and factual hearing has ever occurred.

The Inquisitorial Falsehoods

Inquisitions work with falsehoods and misrepresentations. This is their stock in trade. Unfortunately, the General Conference Inquisition is no exception to this rule. The process begins with a seemingly innocuous statement in the introduction:

…they affirmed agreement on many of the major elements of the

Seventh-day Adventist faith. Adventist Review, August 2000 (Emphasis supplied.)

A totally truthful statement would have said all, not many. Using the word many prepares the reader’s mind for the assertion to come later, that the historic Adventists are holding and promoting some theological ideas that are simply their own private and peculiar opinions. This is absolutely and unconditionally false. We have originated no part of our teachings. We are not promoting our own opinions. We are defending the faith that we were taught when we joined the church, that we were taught again in Adventist schools, that we read in Adventist publications until the 1950s, and that are now set forth in the official statement of faith, Seventh-day Adventists Believe. And the accusations get worse.

The Inquisitorial Ultimatum

In the Inquisitorial Ultimatum it is alleged that we have added a “new fundamental belief” to the doctrines of the church that:

“Such change illustrates an independence from the church in doctrinal matters, as they constitute their own particular views into tests of faith, independent from the remainder of the church. Adventist Review, August 2000.

The alleged new doctrine is that Christ “took upon Himself our fallen nature.” The claim is set forth that this is only our own particular view and that such a statement has never been part of the Seventh-day Adventist Baptismal Vow or of official statements of fundamental beliefs.

Note that the allegation has two parts. First, the idea that Christ took upon Himself our fallen nature is simply our own particular view. This is not only false; it is outrageously false. It is an insult to the reader’s intelligence.

Research Proves Us Right

While serving as chairman of a department in the Far Eastern Theological Seminary, I engaged in research on this subject. I found in the historical literature of the church a total of 1200 written statements that Christ took upon His divine nature our fallen nature, yet without sin. These statements were published between the years 1852 and 1952 in the church’s journals and books. The testimony of the church to the world was clear, consistent and wholly uniform during this time. But in 1957 the infamous book Questions on Doctrine was published. This book totally repudiated the long standing position of the church concerning the nature of Christ and used utterly disgraceful methods to introduce a new view, that Christ took upon Himself the unfallen nature of Adam. A recent volume, Touched With Our Feelings, by Dr. J. R. Zurcher, a noted Adventist scholar of Switzerland, details how and by whom this was done.

Who were the authors of these 1200 published statements that Christ took upon His divine nature our fallen nature? Eight hundred of them were written by Adventism’s first line of leadership. The list includes General Conference presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries; union and local conference presidents; college presidents and professors; Signs of the Times, Review and Herald and other magazine editors; and other ministers and writers. See my book, The Word Was Made Flesh, for a chronological listing of them all.

What of the other 400 of the 1200 statements? They were written and published by Ellen White, God’s chosen messenger to the remnant church.

False Reasoning and Misrepresentations

So what of the allegation that this is only our own particular view? Do you see now why I wrote (above) that this allegation is not only false, but it is outrageously false? It ignores the testimony of Adventism’s first line of leadership in 1200 published statements, of which a full 400 were from the inspired pen of Ellen White, and it advances the ludicrously false accusation that the idea that Christ took upon His divine nature our fallen nature is only our own particular view. Can misrepresentation be greater than this?

I pause here to point out that this kind of misrepresentation has been a consistent characteristic of the Calvinistic apostasy from its very beginning. When the book Questions on Doctrine was published in 1957 it led the way with a grossly false statement about the nature of Christ. From then until now that example has been unscrupulously followed by the teachers of false Calvinistic doctrines among us. Their writings abound in self-contradiction, false reasoning, and outright misrepresentations. I have written elsewhere about these matters, and so will not restate them here.

This leads us to the other Inquisitorial allegation, that the statement that Christ took upon His divine nature the fallen nature of man has never appeared in any official statement of our faith.

Continuing and Authoritative Source of Truth

If you will secure a copy of the 1980 statement of our faith, which is called “Seventh-day Adventists Believe—27 Doctrines,” (SDAs Believe), and which was made official at the General Conference of that year, and turn to page 216, this is what you will find:

Seventh-day Adventists Believe…One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Emphasis supplied.)

If Ellen White’s writings are thus officially described in our statement of faith as a continuing and authoritative source of truth, and she wrote 400 times that Christ came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man, how can it be said that this has never been a part of any statement of faith?

And the more meaningful question is this: In view of the fact that our doctrine of the nature of Christ had been testified to in our publications 1200 times by Adventism’s first line of leadership, including 400 statements by Ellen White, why was this not included in the statement of faith? It certainly should have been.

A statement of faith is a report. It is supposed to tell us what a group believes. The only certain way of getting this information is to examine what the group members have written. This provides evidence that cannot be challenged. To add to it something that the church has not believed would be most improper. To leave out of it something that the church has believed would be equally improper. That would make it a false report. In view of the enormous body of written evidence that our church believed that Christ took upon His divine nature the human nature of fallen man, to leave that out of the statement of faith was in itself a misrepresentation. And we continue.

(Do not misunderstand or misapply the reference to the Bible as “the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” Ellen White’s writings pass this test with flying colors.)

Turning the Accusation back on the Inquisitors

One of the more significant of the Inquisitorial accusations against the historic Adventists is that we use the writings of Ellen White “selectively,” quoting passages that seem to support our views and ignoring other passages. We are going to have to turn this false accusation very firmly and very forcefully back on the Inquisitors. There is an abundance of evidence.

What did the church leaders do with the 400 Ellen White statements that Christ took upon Himself the human nature of fallen man, that I researched out and sent to them? They simply ignored them.

What did they do with her more than 2000 statements that, by the power of God, man can stop sinning (which Calvinism denies), that I researched out and sent to them? They simply ignored them.

What are they doing right now with her clear and Scriptural testimony against law suits between church members? They are simply ignoring them, while they continue to launch more and more lawsuits against members. (They try to cover up by having the members expelled from the church before the suits, so that they can claim that they are not suing members.) This technical charge may serve to mislead church members, but will it mislead the God of truth and righteousness? What do you think?

What are they doing right now with her writings against a false unity that is based on false doctrines? They are simply ignoring them, while they continue to publish her appeals for unity. Look carefully at these quotations:

Christ Calls for Unity Based upon Truth

I urge our brethren to unify upon a true, Scriptural basis. 17 Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, 306.

“We have a testing message to give, and I am instructed to say to our people, ‘Unify, unify.’ But we are not to unify with those who are departing from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.” Selected Messages, Book 3, 412.

“Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating, ennobling truth and false, misleading doctrines. He calls sin and impenitence by the right name. He does not gloss over wrongdoing with a coat of untempered mortar. I urge our brethren to unify upon a true, Scriptural basis.” Notebook Leaflets, vol. 2, 164.

“We are all to unify on the proper basis of unity.” Testimonies for the Church Containing Messages and Warning and Instruction to Seventh-day Adventists, 55.

“…harmony and co-operation must be maintained without compromising one principle of truth.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, 79.

The Ostrich with its Head in the Sand

Thus there can be no unity between Adventism and Calvinism. Several vitally important principles of truth are being grievously compromised at many levels of the Seventh-day Adventist Church today, and we who have pointed this out have been called troublemakers. We are now being told that if we do not stop sounding the alarm, we will suffer the consequences. Consider this comparison: A ship is traveling through the ocean, and a crewman discovers a dangerous leak in the hold. He rushes to notify the captain and is met with a stern rebuke. “Keep quiet,” the captain says, “you are disturbing the peace of the passengers.” The crewman persists, and so the captain orders him thrown overboard. Will this save the ship? What do you think?

“Duly Constituted Church Authority”

Another Inquisitorial accusation against us is that the historic Adventists refuse to submit to “duly constituted church authority,” unless it agrees with “their own particular views.” This is wholly false. We believe in “duly constituted church authority” as firmly as anyone does. But we do not put church authority over Bible authority. No true Seventh-day Adventist does. And we emphatically do not advance our own particular views as to the meaning of the Scriptures. We accept the statement of faith in SDAs Believe. But if we are forced to choose between Scripture and the authority of men unsupported by Scripture, we will without hesitation take our stand upon the Scripture. No true Seventh-day Adventist would do otherwise. We reject as unconditionally false the following Inquisitorial accusation:

Hope International and associates appear to have taken the position that their interpretation of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy is the final arbiter over the Church… Adventist Review, August 2000 (Emphasis supplied.)

We say again, in response to this recurring allegation, that we are doing no such thing. We are defending the faith of our fathers, not our own interpretations. Every point of our faith is on record in the book SDAs Believe. To call this our own interpretation is emphatically to bear false witness against us. We protest against this misrepresentation and call upon all fair-minded persons to protest with us.

You Be the Judge

There is only one of the main Inquisitorial accusations against us that is partially true. Most of us have testified that there is apostasy in the church. Some others have become so appalled and disheartened by the kind of thing that we are examining here, and other similar things, that they have gone further and said the church is in apostasy. Who has it right? I submit that there is room for honest and reasonable men to disagree on this point. When we look at the false Calvinistic doctrines being preached in so many of our churches, being taught by so many teachers in our colleges and seminaries, being published in so many of the magazines and books coming from our presses, it is hard to avoid a sense of profound discouragement about the church. Yet we are warned by God’s messenger that there will be a great apostasy in the church in the last days. In Testimonies, vol. 8, 41, we read of a great last day interchange, when “companies” will leave us and “tribes” will take their place.

How does it all fit together? When our concerns seem to overwhelm us, we may benefit by looking at this statement:

“God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment, neither is it the various denominations; it is the people who love God and keep His commandments. ‘Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.’ (Matthew 18:20). Where Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ’s church, for the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church.” The Upward Look, 315.

We Can’t Do it with Theology

By this time there must surely be some large questions forming in your mind. Why all of this shadow boxing? Why are the historic Adventists continually being accused of doing so many things that they are not doing? In order to help you understand, let me tell you about a personal experience of mine.

I was standing at the door of a room where all of the Union presidents of the North American Division were in council. I had an appointment with them, and I was waiting for my proper time to step into the room. As I stood and waited, I heard one of the presidents say to the others:

“We have to find some way to stop Ron Spear, but we can’t do it with theology, because there is nothing wrong with his theology.“

Please read those words again, slowly and thoughtfully. Say them out loud. Do it several times. When you have these words firmly fixed in your mind, you are prepared to understand the strange things that are happening in the increasing tension between the church organization and the historic Adventist people and their ministries. Let us ask some questions:

Why are the historic ministry leaders being accused of being rebels?

We have to stop them, but we can’t do it with theology.

Why are they being accused of refusing to submit to church authority?

We have to stop them, but we can’t do it with theology.

Why are they being called troublemakers?

We have to stop them, but we can’t do it with theology.

Why are they being accused of being critical?

We have to stop them, but we can’t do it with theology.

Why are they being accused of starting another church?

We have to stop them, but we can’t do it with theology.

Why are they being faulted for doing things that other groups are not faulted for, such as

printing, publishing, meeting separately, etc.?

We have to stop them, but we can’t do it with theology.

Why can’t you stop them with theology?

Because there is nothing wrong with their theology.

If there is nothing wrong with their theology, why do they need to be stopped?

Because they are rebels, critics, and troublemakers, who refuse to submit to our authority.

So the dog chases its tail, around and around and around. More could be added, but perhaps this is enough to give you the picture. Obviously there is something strangely wrong here. What is it? Bear in mind, dear reader, that it is all about theology. The questions that the historic Adventist people and their ministries are raising are theological questions. Their concerns about the false doctrines being preached in our churches and taught in our schools are theological concerns. Many of the historic Adventists recognize these false doctrines as the very ones they left behind when they came out of Babylonish churches to join the Adventist church.

Dust in the Air

Theological questions require theological answers. Exercises of church authority will not do. Evasive answers will not do. They are simply throwing dust in the air. They are applications of the ancient principle that “those who have evidence will present their evidence, while those who do not have evidence will attack the man.” The historic Adventist ministry leaders are not evil men. They are not rebels, critics, and troublemakers. They are dedicated and sincere men who have given their lives to the service of the church. They have brought thousands of people into the church, and they have a right to be concerned when they see those people being fed the soul destroying poison of false doctrines.

And they are entirely correct in their position that teachers of false doctrines have no authority. They believe in “duly constituted church authority” as firmly as anyone else does. But God has never authorized and will never authorize anyone to teach false doctrines. No teacher of false doctrines could possibly have “duly constituted church authority.” And neither could any church administrator, who supports and protects a teacher of false doctrines, have “duly constituted church authority.” How much authority did the high priest Caiaphas have over Christ? Absolutely none. How much authority did the Sanhedrin have over Stephen and Paul? Absolutely none. How much authority do teachers of false doctrine have over us today? Absolutely none. Consider this quotation: “We see here that the men in authority are not always to be obeyed, even though they may profess to be teachers of Bible doctrine.” Testimonies to Ministers, 69.

You Cannot “Balance” Truth with Error

A General Conference vice-president wrote to me that my messages should be more “balanced.” I answered that I could understand how two truths, such as law and grace, can be kept in balance, but I saw no way that truth could be balanced with falsehood. I do not think we would like to hear a man say, “I have been telling the truth all morning. This afternoon I must tell some lies in order to stay in balance.” In similar vein, another high ranking church official alleged that when a church member stops giving his financial support to the church, he is violating his baptismal vow. This overlooks the fact that the baptismal vow, like the marriage vow, is a reciprocal vow, not an individual vow. The church vows to tell the truth about God. The member vows to give financial support to that truth-telling. If the church breaks its vow, and starts telling untruths about God, it no longer has any right to claim the member’s financial support.

Several references have been made in this article to the false doctrines of Calvinism that have invaded our church. How has this been done? By skullduggery.

When the book Questions on Doctrine was published in 1957 its secret authors put in it a statement of the false Calvinistic doctrine that Christ came to this earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, rather than in fallen human nature, as believed and taught by Seventh-day Adventists. A ludicrous attempt was made to show that even Ellen White believed the false Calvinistic doctrine, in spite of her 400 published statements to the contrary. This is how they misused one of her statements in order to accomplish their purpose:

On pages 650-651 of Questions on Doctrine the secret authors presented a passage on the nature of Christ over which they placed this heading:

“TOOK SINLESS HUMAN NATURE”

On pages 497-499 of the book Movement of Destiny, which was published four years later as a follow-up to Questions on Doctrine, L. E. Froom presents a similar statement over which he places this heading:

“TOOK SINLESS NATURE OF ADAM BEFORE FALL”

Both headings are followed by a series of brief quotations from Ellen White, including this line: “He did not in the least participate in sin.”

If you look at those three lines for a moment, you will surely have some questions. What sin was there in the sinless nature of Adam before his fall in which Christ might have participated? None whatever. There was no sin of any kind in Adam before his fall. Why, then, did Ellen White write such a senseless statement? What was the matter with Ellen White? Deeply perplexed, we go to the source, and discover that as Ellen White wrote it, the statement actually looked like this: “In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.” Selected Messages, vol.1, 256. (Emphasis supplied.)

Secret Writers Violate Context

The secret writers of Questions on Doctrine cut her sentence in half, laid the first half aside and put in the last half beneath their own contrary headings. We gaze at this in disbelief. This is the ultimate violation of context. The writer has been represented as having said the exact opposite of what she actually did say. This was done by a scholar with a Doctor of Philosophy degree, a seminary professor. And this is not an isolated example. It is typical. In my book, The Word Was Made Flesh, I devote 33 pages to exposing, point by point, the wrongful manipulations of evidence in the paragraph presented by Dr. Froom. I also present conclusive evidence that the statement given to Walter Martin that our church had never believed that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man was a methodological monstrosity and a historical fraud. How could it happen? In common parlance this is called skullduggery (underhanded or unscrupulous behavior.) That is how the false doctrines of Calvinism were brought into our church, and that is how they have been maintained and promoted ever since.

What has been the result of this gigantic fraud being perpetrated upon the Adventist people? Confusion, dissension, strife, and plummeting church standards. Our colleges and university Bible departments are in a free fall. The falsities of higher criticism are being taught, and the teaching of evolution is being urged. A videotape has been sent out from the headquarters of the North American Division of the General Conference, giving ministers detailed instructions as to how to convert all of their churches into centers for celebration worship (read Satan worship).

The teaching of a false doctrine about the nature of Christ has made an enormous difference. If Christ came to earth in the unfallen human nature of Adam, He could not have been tempted as we are tempted, and it would be altogether unfair for us to be called upon to live like He lived. That would be impossible. He could not be our example, but only our substitute. Thus this false doctrine of Calvinism leads directly to the second false doctrine of Calvinism, that Christians can never stop sinning, even through the power of God.

Amazing New “Doctrine” Appears

The two false doctrines are inseparably linked together. Where one goes, the other goes. Within a remarkably short time, as theological trends go, Adventist congregations all over the country were listening in astonishment to sermons affirming as truth the false Calvinistic doctrine that Christians cannot stop sinning, even through the power of God. A very highly placed theologian at the theological seminary at Andrews University became so enamored with this false doctrine that he actually began to teach that Christians sin because God wants them to sin. Here are his exact words: “It is by the wisdom, not by the impotence of God that no believer is ever perfect here below. The Lord so conducts the saints in this life that there should always remain something to give them freely when they ask, or to pardon them mercifully when they confess to Him.—From notes that he wrote and passed out to a class of ministers. (Emphasis supplied.)

The Inquisitors allege that the historic ministries are supporting “dissidents” in other countries of the world. We have no way of investigating this claim, and we are hindered by a credibility problem. If we cannot believe what the Inquisitors write about this country, why should we believe what they write about other countries?

Love for the Pure, Unvarnished Truth

The lowest point in the list of Inquisitorial false accusations is reached in the statement that it is criticism of the church that keeps the historic ministries going. This unchristian slur is entirely unjustifiable. It is grossly false. Nothing could be further from the truth. What keeps the historic ministries going is the love and devotion of the historic Adventist people to the pristine purity of the true Seventh-day Adventist faith and their desire to preserve that faith undefiled by the false doctrines of Calvinism and Liberalism. It is the steadfast and stubborn refusal of church leaders to recognize this that is a large part of the problem.

This is why we are confronted today with the appalling spectacle of a large group of high ranking church leaders sitting down together to concoct a list of totally false accusations against church members, whose only crime is that they will not accept the apostasy that is sweeping through the church. Thus the leaders align themselves with the apostasy. The grossly false accusations that the Inquisitors have prepared and published would compare favorably with the work of the Catholic Inquisitors in Spain.

Do I expect that this rebuttal will cause the Inquisitors to turn back from their folly? Not really. Once men have rebelled against truth in its purity and embarked on a course that can only be maintained by monstrous misrepresentations, it is unlikely that evidence of any kind will dissuade them. Ellen White wrote in Selected Messages, Book 2, 393: “I question whether genuine rebellion is ever curable.”

I have written this rebuttal for the church members. Many of them have been so deceived by the false accusations, along with the firm refusal to recognize that the present problem is a theological problem, that they are bewildered and confused. I trust that this article will help clarify the situation in their minds.

“Reform,” is Our Cry

One of the most frequently repeated false accusations against us is that we are wanting to start a separate church. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are trying to reform the church that we have loved and served all of our adult lives. But it is sobering to compare our situation with that of the Reformers. Neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Wesley wanted to start a separate church. They all wanted to reform their own churches. But the stubborn resistance and opposition of authoritarian church leaders made reformation within the churches utterly impossible.

“When the Reformers preached the Word of God, they had no thought of separating themselves from the established church; but the religious leaders would not tolerate the light, and those that bore it were forced to seek another class, who were longing for the truth.” The Desire of Ages, 232. (Emphasis supplied.)

It has been said that those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat history. We had hoped and we had prayed that this would not prove to be true in our church. We had shared the hope expressed by Ellen White in these words: “We hoped that there would not be the necessity for another coming out.” The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 357. (Emphasis supplied.)

Spiritual Suicide

But with the General Conference Inquisition moving in on us, what shall we do? Should we tremble in fear and agree to accept the false authority and the false doctrines if they will just let us stay in the church?

God forbid! That would be spiritual suicide. We will stand firmly on this truth:

“God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment, neither is it the various denominations; it is the people who love God and keep His commandments. ‘Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them’ (Matthew 18:20). Where Christ is even among the humble few, that is Christ’s church, for the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church.” The Upward Look, 315.

The Lord who inspired those words is watching over us and saying: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake: Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven. …” Matthew 5:11, 12.

The General Conference Inquisition? Part II

by

If I were to ask you, What is the similarity, the likeness, between a bank president and a town drunkard, what would you say?

If I were to ask you, What is the similarity between a bartender and a college professor, what would you say?

And, if I were to ask you, What is the similarity between a thief and a scientist, what would you say?

What about a gambler and a college president? What is the similarity between them?

I think I know what you would say, and I think I know what you are thinking right now. I believe you are thinking, “Ralph, those are dumb questions. There is no similarity at all between those people.”

But I would respectfully have to disagree with you. I believe that there is a point on which these people are not only similar, they are practically identical. It is on the point of self-idolatry, which Ellen White describes as “the foundation of all sin.” Testimonies, vol. 9, 27.

Self-idolatry lies at the foundation of all sins.

When we hear the word “idolatry” we think of idols and images, things carved out of wood or stone, before which people bow and pray, and even offer sacrifices. In Honolulu I lived for awhile across a narrow street from a Bhuddist temple where the people bowed and prayed before an image of Bhudda. In Japan, I visited a temple of a thousand Bhuddas. There were actually a thousand idols there, standing on their feet in order to use less room than the more familiar seated Bhuddas. Sri Lanka, the island kingdom to the south of India, is a land of many idols and images. Idolatry is not always practiced with images of wood or stone. In Manila I watched a man and a woman walk with bare feet across a bed of hot coal, and afterward bow before the fire and pray to it.

I have seen idols and images of many gods, but I have never seen an image or idol of the god “self,” have you? Yet self-idolatry must be very common, if it lies at the foundation of all sin. We may remember that Lucifer laid the original foundation, as we read in Isaiah 14:12–14: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

When we read these words, we think that surely this was the ultimate insanity, for a created being to think that he could put himself above his own Creator. Such craziness could happen only once in the history of the universe, we feel sure. But actually, this self-idolatry is happening every day, all around us. People on every side of us are daily saying, “I will be like the most High; I will make my own rules; I will be my own god.” Why do they do this? Because of a grim reality that we do not often think about but should. We remember that in Genesis 3:15 the Lord said to Satan, “…I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” Let us look carefully at some Spirit of Prophecy comments on this verse:

The Lord says, ‘I will put enmity between thee and the woman.’ The enmity does not exist as a natural fact. As soon as Adam sinned, he was in harmony with the first great apostate and at war with God; and if God had not interfered in man’s behalf, Satan and man would have formed a confederacy against heaven, and carried on united opposition against the God of hosts. Signs of the Times, July 11, 1895.

“There is no natural enmity between evil angels and evil men; both are evil through transgression of the law of God, and evil will always league against good. Fallen men and fallen angels enter into a desperate companionship.” Youth’s Instructor, October 11, 1894.

Note carefully—the evil in both men and angels is defined as transgression of the law of God. That would include everyone in the world, except sincere Christians, for they are all transgressing the law of God. This is the basic point in their similarity. Do you see now why I said there is a point in which the people I mentioned are not different at all? We may divide them into two separate groups. We would put the bank president, the college professor, and the scientist in one group and the drunkard, the bartender, the thief and the gambler in another group and say that the two groups are completely different, but we would be wrong. Except for the few Christians who might be found in the first group, they are all alike in their transgression of the law of God. On this point there is no difference between the drunkard and the bank president or the thief and the scientist, or any of the others who were mentioned. They are all practicing self-idolatry. They are all saying, “I will be like the most High.” In their rejection of God’s Law they are rejecting God, and putting self on the throne, just like Lucifer did.

They are also alike in their association with fallen angels. There is no enmity between them, and they are in a “desperate” companionship, although they may not realize it. And what of their relationship with Christians?

Evil will always league against good.

If you question that statement, just read the newspapers for awhile. They will convince you. I used to read the well-known statement by Ellen White, which calls for men who, among other things, are not afraid “to call sin by its right name.” (See Education, 57.) I would wonder then why calling sin by its right name should require courage, but I do not wonder any more. People are being criticized, denounced, and even sued for calling sin by its right name in our time. The “bad guys” are declaring war on the “good guys” all over the country. Even the Bible is being attacked because it clearly states that certain practices are an abomination to God.

Add it up. There is no enmity between fallen angels and fallen men. Fallen angels and fallen men are in a “desperate companionship.” Fallen angels and fallen men are alike in their transgression of God’s Law. Fallen angels and fallen men are united in a league against good, for evil will always league against good.

Once we get this picture clearly in our minds, we are better able to understand some of the peculiar things that are being done around us by highly trained and highly educated persons. I once hired a university student to help me do some work on my evangelistic equipment. As we worked, he told me about some of his classes. One of his professors, he said, made a point of telling the students, every few days, that Christianity is dead. “He must be a frightened man,” I said.

“Why? What do you mean?” the student asked.

“If you really believed that a man was dead,” I answered, “would you go back and stick your knife into him every few days? It looks to me like your professor is afraid that Christianity is not dead.”

I digress to make a point of which you might not be aware. You have probably understood that Christianity must not be discussed in public school classrooms. This is only partially true. You may freely discuss Christianity in the public school classrooms as long as you are putting it down, discrediting it. If the professor mentioned above had taken time, every few days, to tell his students something favorable about Christianity, he would soon have been in trouble. Evil will always league against good. We must not draw the conclusion that highly educated men are exceptions to this rule. They are not. On this point they are not different from the drunkard, the gambler, or the thief.

Getting Away with Murder

I read with astonishment how a highly respected judge, on the Raphael Perez case, (The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists of Silver Spring, Maryland vs Raphael Perez and the Eternal Gospel Church of Miami, Florida, Case #98-2940-CIV-KING) let the lawyers for the General Conference “get away with murder,” to use a familiar expression, in the first few minutes of the trial. The first witness that they called to the stand was a Seventh-day Adventist lawyer named Clark Floyd. The questioning went approximately like this:

“Do you have any degrees in theology?

“No.”

“Are you a member of any theological society?”

“No.”

“Do you subscribe to any theological journals?”

“No.”

“Your honor, I move that this witness be dismissed because he is not qualified to testify in this case.” Ibid., Court Transcript

And the judge dismissed him! And he dismissed the second witness in the same manner. What a mockery of judicial procedure!

What should the judge have done? He should have addressed the lawyer and said to him very firmly, “Counsel, this is not a theological court, it is a court of civil law. We are not dealing with questions of theology; we are dealing with a matter of civil law. You will please confine your questions to matter of civil law, and say no more about theology.” But the judge permitted theological questions all the way through the trial. How are we to understand this? Evil will always league against good. Was the judge consciously trying to do evil against Raphael Perez? Possibly not. He may not have even been aware of what he was doing, but the wrongful trial and the wrongful decision make us keenly aware that Bible Christians cannot expect justice from worldly courts.

This is underscored by the results of the appeal to a higher court. The last report that reached me was that this court was trying to settle the matter through arbitration, whereas they should have declared it a mistrial because of the mixture of theological matters with matters of civil law. This is contrary to the constitution, which guarantees our freedom of religion. But we should not be surprised. Evil will always league against good.

Most Americans are familiar with the tragic story of Aaron Burr, who challenged Alexander Hamilton to a duel because of some small matter, and shot and killed Hamilton, while Hamilton, who did not believe in duels, fired his shot into the air. But public opinion turned strongly against Burr, and his life went downward and downward until he finally committed suicide. Most Americans know that story, but few people know of the experience that lies behind it. While Burr was a student at Princeton University, an evangelist came to town and preached the gospel. Burr attended several of the meetings, and felt a strong conviction that he should become a Christian. Feeling the need of some advice, he asked the President of the University what to do. The President said: “I cannot tell you whether you should be a Christian. You will have to decide that for yourself. But I would advise you to wait until the meetings are all over, and the evangelist has gone on to his next appointment, then think it over and make your decision, by yourself, as to what you want to do.”

Burr accepted this advice. He ignored all of the evangelist’s appeals, and waited until the meetings were over. Then one night, while Burr’s fellow students were studying in their dormitory rooms, they heard a sudden noise. Looking out, they saw that Burr had thrown open his dormitory window, and was leaning out and looking up at the sky. He looked for a long moment, and then the other students heard him say:

“Goodbye, God. I have made my decision.”

That is the experience that lies behind the tragic story of Aaron Burr. We know that the president was not a Christian, because no Christian would ever give that kind of advice to anybody. The president may have thought that he was giving Burr good advice, but he was a fallen man in league with fallen angels, whether he realized it or not. Evil will always league against good.

Put not your trust in princes.

We have to face it, folks. We cannot put our trust in princes of science, or in princes of education, or in princes of industry, or in princes of politics. And we cannot put our trust (are you ready for this?) in princes of the church. Let us go without further delay to the very heart of the problem.

The August 2000 issues of the Adventist Review and Ministry magazines present a report to the church regarding the activities of such independent ministries as Hope International, led by Ron Spear; Hartland Institute, led by Colin Standish; and Remnant Ministries, led by Russell Standish. It proposes that 12 months will be given to them in which they may either submit to the authority of the church or suffer the consequences. The report is filled with grossly false allegations. I have written a firm rebuttal of the false allegations, which is in the November issue of LandMarks magazine, and so I will not repeat them here. But it is my painful duty to point out that these false allegations were concocted and published by princes of the church. It is an appalling, unbelievable, spectacle, but we must face it. As in all times of trial, we go to the inspired writings for guidance. Here is a sampling of what we find there:

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. They become themost bitter enemies of their former brethren. The Great Controversy, 608. [Emphasis supplied.]

The “men of talent and pleasing address” may well be princes of the church. And carefully consider this:

Through his evil angels, Satan contrives to form an alliance with professedly pious men,…He knows that if he can induce men, as he induced the angels, to join in rebellion, under the guise of servants of God, he will have in them his most successful allies in his enterprise against heaven. Under the name of godliness,he can inspire them with his own accusing spirit, and lead them to charge God’s servants with evil and guile. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4, 1142. [Emphasis supplied.]

Words of Hate

Would you like to sample a foretaste of what she was writing about? Roy Adams, associate editor of the Adventist Review, provides us with a sample. In a book that he wrote called The Nature of Christ he uses the following words to describe historic Adventists and their leaders:

Sour, festering, self-appointed, infected with the virus of judgmentalism and suspicion, disease, martyr complex, seasoned controversialists, spirit of accusation, outraged, aghast, scandalized, pathetic, self-confessed expert, misguided, wrong-headed, steeped in their cherished position, impenetrable to any theological logic, irresponsible, almost dishonest, deluded self-appointed gurus, disgruntled, pious self-appointed prophets, turncoats, charlatans, and scoundrels, like Jim Jones and David Koresh. The Nature of Christ,

He then describes our reasoning and our writings in these terms:

Mumblings, innuendos, broken faith with the church, specious theology, perfectionistic agitation, picayune, disgusting, speciousness, repetitive, exasperating, subtle spin, overblown, vacuousness, subtle legalism, anger, irritation, anger to new heights, radical articulation, fuss, ingenious theological gymnastics, willfulness, mischief, dishonesty, far-fetched explanations, artificial and contrived, totally fabricated, thoughtlessly, narrow, shallow, facile admonitions, simplistic pietism, shrill, provincial, manipulate, dogmatism, trap of perfectionistic legalism, heated, quoted piously, specious reasoning, vehement, inordinate insistence, maliciously accusing, sharpened tongues, navel-gazing, and self-flagellation. Ibid.

An Accusing Spirit

Look again at what Ellen White predicted. The devil will inspire professedly pious men with his own accusing spirit, and they will charge God’s servants with evil and guile. Did she know what she was writing about? Need we wonder what part Adams will take in the court procedures against true Adventists who are on trial for their faith? And how can we doubt that Ellen White was inspired? You would think that she had been shown a copy of Adams’ book. And the book carries on its back cover recommendations from Adventist scholars and from then General Conference President, Robert Folkenberg. Make no mistake about it, dear friend. The report and the ultimatum to historic Adventists that were prepared by princes of the church and published in the Adventist Review and in Ministry magazine, with all of their grossly false accusations, are not to be taken lightly. They are obviously inspired by the same spirit that inspired Adams.

As for the theology that Adams recommends to his readers, here is a sample. In his argument against the idea of character perfection, Adams says that some sins, called chata’ah in Hebrew, cannot be overcome, that they are not counted against us, and that they have nothing to do with our fitness or unfitness for heaven (See Ibid., 97). Let us therefore go to the Old Testament to see what kind of sins are there defined as chata’ah. The list includes:

  • The sin of adultery into which Potiphar’s wife tried to lure Joseph. Genesis 39:9.
  • The selling of Joseph into slavery by his brothers. Genesis 50:17.
  • The sin of idolatry. Exodus 23:33.
  • The rebellion of Korah against Moses, for which he died. Numbers 16:22.
  • Eli’s sons’ rebellion against the Lord, for which they died. I Samuel 2:25.
  • The planned murder of David by Saul. I Samuel 19:5.
  • The multiple sins into which Jereboam led Israel, which caused God to reject Israel. I Kings 14:16.
  • The sins of Manasseh, who filled Jerusalem with blood and caused Israel to do worse than the heathen. II Kings 21:9, 16.

These sins, according to Adams, cannot be overcome, are not counted, and have nothing to do with out fitness or unfitness for heaven. Need we wonder what spirit is inspiring all of this? Put not your trust in princes, not even the princes of the church.

So How Shall We Relate to These Horrifying Circumstances?

Rejoice. The evidence shows that the end is near; thank God that we have been given ample warning in advance through the precious writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Marvel again at the uncanny accuracy of Ellen White’s words: Professedly pious men will charge God’s servants with evil and guile.

Do not Panic. The God who was able to tell us in advance about the great apostasy in Adventism is well able to bring us safely through that apostasy and the great time of trouble that will follow it.

Do not Retaliate. Bitter as it is to be betrayed by church leaders, and to see our beautiful truth trashed by persons in high church office, we must not return evil for evil. Jesus was calm and undisturbed while being falsely accused, and by His grace we may do the same. It may be that some of the false accusers and truth trashers will yet repent and be saved.

Stay Close to the Lord. Read, read and reread the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. Guard carefully your prayer program, and cultivate the habit of talking to God while about your daily affairs.

Keep Your Guard Up. Put no blind confidence in anyone. We can no longer take it for granted that persons in high church office will be truthful with us, either in their words or in their writings. The situation is grave now, and it will certainly get worse as the end draws near. But we have read “the last pages in the book,” and we know how it is going to end!

Courage in the Lord!