Historic Adventism Archives

ISSUES: Part II: The Letter the NAD Officers did not Publish in their ISSUES Book

June 2, 2020May 29, 2020 by Jana Wagner

Then I was shown a company who were howling in agony. On their garments was written in large characters, “Thou art weighed in the balance, and found wanting.” I asked who this company were. The angel said, “These are they who have once kept the Sabbath, and have given it up.” I heard them cry with a loud voice, “We have believed in Thy coming, and taught it with energy.” And while they were speaking, their eyes would fall upon their garments and see the writing, and then they would wail aloud. I saw that they had drunk of the deep waters, and fouled the residue with their feet,— trodden the Sabbath underfoot,— and that was why they were weighed in the balance and found wanting. –Life Sketches 117,118

Has your character been transformed? Has darkness been exchanged for light, the love of sin for the love of purity and holiness? Have you been converted, who are engaged in teaching the truth to others? Has there been in you a thorough, radical change? Have you woven Christ into your character? You need not be in uncertainty in this matter. Has the Sun of Righteousness risen and been shining in your soul? If so, you know it; and if you do not know whether you are converted or not, never preach another discourse from the pulpit until you do. How can you lead souls to the fountain of life of which you have not drunk yourself? Are you a sham, or are you really a son of God? Are you serving God, or are you serving idols? Are you transformed by the Spirit of God, or are you yet dead in your trespasses and sins? To be sons of God means more than many dream of, because they have not been converted. Men are weighed in the balance and found wanting when they are living in the practice of any known sin. It is the privilege of every son of God to be a true Christian moment by moment; then he has all heaven enlisted on his side. He has Christ abiding in his heart by faith.

Testimonies To Ministers 440, 441 Oh, that the people of God would take this to heart! That they would consider that not one wrong will be righted after Jesus comes! Not one error of character will be removed when Christ shall come. Now is our time of preparation. Now is our time of washing our robes of character in the blood of the Lamb. If we go on excusing our errors and trying to make ourselves believe we are about right, we deceive our own souls and will find ourselves weighed in the balance and found wanting. Many profess the truth but are not sanctified through the truth. 5 Manuscript Releases 21,22

INTRODUCTION

The letter that composes the first part of this booklet was received by us on January 19, 1993. It was sent to us by a supporter of Steps to Life. In this letter we read, “in as much as this letter is to be published . . . .“, indicating that this letter was written for publication.

It appears from this letter, that the NAD (North American Division) officers and their committee, especially Robert Dale, requested letters against “certain private organizations” to be used in their ISSUES book. However, this letter is nowhere to be found in their ISSUES book. We do not concur with the author of this letter on several points. However, in the name of fair play, we believe this letter should have been published in the NAD ISSUES book along- side the others.

We did not ask permission of any person to publish this letter. The letter itself states it was prepared for publication: “in as much as this letter is to be published. . . .“ We have depersonalized it even further, as you can tell by the blank _____ lines. This booklet contains all of the letter that was sent to us. In the letter we received, certain portions were missing, you will find these in [brackets].

“This is a partial copy of a letter written by _____ of Andrews University, to Elder Robert Dale of the N. A. D. . . . . I understand the letter was sent in May 1992.” [written on the top of the letter we received]

The Letter the NAD Officers did not Publish I do not agree with everything in Our Firm Foundation. I receive a complimentary copy every month, but I do not subscribe to the magazine and have never sent a donation. Ron Spear has called me on the phone a couple of times over a period of several years, but I have never called him. I would rather the magazine didn’t exist. But I must add that I am, [ ] I among them, appreciate quite a bit of what is published in the paper. Though we deeply regret the critical spirit that appears at times and oppose that one- time instruction on tithing, we nonetheless wish that the best of Our Firm Foundation could appear in the Adventist Review. We would like to see the magazine cease publication but feel that for the time being it fills a useful place in feeding Christ’s sheep.

1. Feed the Sheep’s Four Hungers.

The Review has carried a variety of warnings, especially the Perth declaration, aimed against

Our Firm Foundation and other private publishing ventures. What I have not yet seen but would like to see is an exploration into the reasons why these private publishing ventures succeed.

Career malcontents are going to publish critical materials no matter what any committee comes up with, and neither spiritual appeals nor demagoguery will make them stop. If the Committee is trying to reach career malcontents, they might as well quote Nehemiah and refuse to waste their time.

I therefore assume that the Committee is trying to reach, not the career malcontents, but the loyal and reasonable church members who send donations to support the independent publishers. So let us ask, Why do these readers support these private publishers? I’d like to propose four reasons, four legitimate hungers.

A hunger for what appears to be solid food.

Our Firm Foundation is notable for its lengthy doctrinal articles and for its republished appeals by Ellen G. White. Evidently, then, people are supporting Our Firm Foundation because they want to read lengthy doctrinal articles and they want to read earnest appeals written by Ellen G. White.

A hunger for prophetic interpretation and application.

Several of the independent papers consist largely of prophetic interpretation and application. Evidently, then, people pay for these papers because they want to read articles on prophetic interpretation and application.

A hunger for the serious use of Ellen G. White.

The conservative publications quote the Ellen G. White writings copiously and do so as if they regarded the writings as authoritative.

A hunger for sincere repentance by church leadership.

It is easy to dismiss the Pilgrims Press as merely salacious and erroneous. I assure you that I don’t subscribe to it and only rarely even see a copy of it. But a very large number of Adventist church members in the North American Division are aware that some of their leaders are opinionated, selfish, and power hungry. Some of our church members hunger for evidence of humility and the character of Christ in their leaders.

Of course, a lot of our NAD members don’t have these four hungers, or don’t have all of them. Some of them scarcely read any of our papers, not even their Union papers or the Review.

And some are excited by Spectrum, with its criticism of Ellen G. White and the sanctuary doctrine and its campaign for social activism and a billions- of- years post- creation chronology.

But these less- hungry people aren’t sending their tithe to Our Firm Foundation, so they aren’t in the Committee’s focus. Speaking about those who, I presume, are in the Committee’s focus, my first suggestion for reclaiming the loyalty of people who read the independent publications is that as promptly as possible the North American Division acknowledge the four deep hungers I have listed as legitimate and meet them with a. solid, sound doctrinal articles, b. solid, sound prophetic interpretation and application, c. appropriate respect for the inspired authority of Ellen G. White, and d. evidence of humility and the character of Christ as needed among our leaders.

I have heard (the information may be incorrect) that one of the reasons the Committee is preparing a paper against the independent publications is that “third world” ministers are basing sermons on articles in Our Firm Foundation. Of course they are! Our Firm Foundation appears to meet at least three of the four hungers. By contrast, the Adventist Review usually offers little essays not over six typewritten pages in length, pays only sporadic attention to the fulfillment of prophecy, virtually never cites Ellen G. White for authoritative direction, and admits the failings of denominational leadership only in extraordinary areas of finance (e. g., Davenport and Harris Pine Mills). In response to intense criticism, the Review has commendably begun the Anchor Point series; but it occupies only a fraction of the available pages.

2. Avoid Discrimination.

The Quiet Hour accepts tithe. The Voice of Prophecy accepts tithe. The people at Hope International know that the Quiet Hour accepts tithe and that the Voice of Prophecy accepts tithe. Many other people either know this or assume it. If the Committee clamps down on Hope International and not on the Quiet Hour and the Voice of Prophecy, it will be guilty of discrimination. Worse, it will likely be ineffective— and will even run the risk of having Our Firm Foundation publish the facts about QH and VOP and embarrass leadership.

[Added later: I do not for a moment suggest that leadership ought to crack down on either the QH or the VOP, even though acceptance of tithe by both of them is contrary to voted NAD policy. They are both doing a noble work and should be encouraged. When Elder Tucker in the 1950’s accepted a call to Berrien Springs, the Northern California Conference refused to let him take the Quiet Hour with him from Oakland. Because the NCC had given the QH a small fraction of its operating cost, it persuaded itself that it had full rights of ownership. Tucker felt abused but stayed loyal. He waited till the QH in Oakland failed before resuming it in Michigan, and when he resumed it, he resolved he would never again accept even a penny from church leadership but would, if possible, give money to the church. An this he and his sons after him have done, with utmost loyalty and devotion. To discipline the QH for occasionally accepting tithe— like Mrs. White did— from people whose hungers are not being met by leadership, would be a peculiarly abusive demonstration of “kingly power.”]

Now let me enlarge the scope of discrimination. If our leadership is going to defrock conservatives, it absolutely must be even handed and defrock supporters of Spectrum. (Who the principals of Spectrum are can be identified by a glance inside any front cover.)

Let us grant that the General Conference has a right to define where tithe should be paid. Very well, if leadership is going to defrock conservatives for defying denominational policies on where tithe should be paid, what is leadership going to do about the college staff which, scarcely waiting for the ink to dry on the denominational vote restricting extramural competition, ran an ad on the back of Insight saying (as close as I can remember), “Meet You at Court Side.” Their ad listed both the old and the newly added opportunities at their college for extramural competition.

If leadership is going to defrock conservatives for defying “denominational policy” in regard to where tithe should be paid, what is leadership going to do about the presidents of the Carolina Conference and the Southern Union? Denominational policy requires Conference presidents and Union presidents to respond “normally within three weeks” to appeals from workers who request the Conciliation Process. A certain pastor in the Carolina Conference has appealed at least five times for the Conciliation Process over a period of nearly four years but has been given a deaf ear, in disregard of denominational policy. I have, literally, a drawer full of evidence that this pastor has probably been treated insensitively and unfairly. I have appealed to the leaders directly involved asking them to appoint an independent third party to look into the situation and see if there might be a basis for the pastor’s complaints; but all that each of these (otherwise good) brethren has done in response has been to consult together and report to me (or not report at all) that everything has been done just right. The pastor in question has been fired and is in debt, with a wife who may be developing cancer that they cannot afford to treat. Two individuals who are closer to the pastor than I am, two people who for many years have been very loyal tithe- paying Seventh- day Adventists, pastor. You can appreciate the fact, Bob, that nothing the Committee publishes on tithe paying will persuade these two people to follow “denominational policy” in regard to where to send tithe as long as the brethren I have mentioned decline to follow “denominational policy” on the Conciliation Process. I think you can see their point.

On another theme, who is speaking out officially in favor of the loyal, tithe paying Seventh-day Adventists who for decades have supported our church schools and our missionary magazines and the Voice of Prophecy, etc., who now hate to attend their own churches because of the “evangelical burlesque” (so- called Celebrationism) going on there in a misguided attempt to retain the unconverted? Who is speaking out on their behalf? If in a given conference no one is, can leadership there in good conscience blame these loyal tithe paying Seventh- day Adventists if, after paying their tithe to the conference for decades, they now send some of it to someone who does have courage to speak out? I don’t agree with them in this use of some of their tithe. I only say that if the Committee is serious about persuading such members to return to paying all their tithe to the Conference, then the Committee should persuade Conference leadership to speak up on their behalf in respect to the worship- entertainment issue.

The Committee, I say, must do all in its power to avoid discriminating against easy conservative targets while neglecting to tackle the serious problems that so deeply concern the easy conservative targets.

3. Evaluate Actual Losses.

Inasmuch as tithe is a major bone of contention, I’d like to ask the Committee to find out just how much money the NAD is actually losing to the independent publications. Is the amount worth the blood that may be shed by a frontal assault?

To determine the money being lost to the NAD, tallying up the income of the independent publications isn’t good enough. It is my current impression that many of the Adventists who are sending donations to these publications would not start sending their money to the Conferences if these publications were today shut down. So long as their four hungers persist unsatisfied, they will send their money elsewhere or bide their time till the publications are replaced with other independent publications.

What I’m trying to say in this section is that the loss of offerings to these publications is not due to the existence of the publications but to the doubtful quality of the Review and the apparent lack of humility and repentance among some of our leaders.

I would also like to urge that the amount of money these publications are receiving is relatively small, and that the proportion of tithe involved is very small.

Suppose Hope International, the largest publisher, does actually receive $1,250,000 a year as Ron Spear, when I asked him, told me that it does. Well, the total church contributions made by NAD Adventists is over $600,000,000. So Ron Spear gets only 1/ 500th (0.2%), a sizable amount to be sure, but scarcely enough to credit him with holding up the general progress of the cause.

But what about the tithe he receives, the increment of his earnings most zealously targeted by denominational leadership? Spear says (I am told) that only about 10% of his $1,250,000 represents tithe. By nature he seems to be an open man with figures, but let’s suppose that the tithe total is closer to 20%. Twenty percent of $1,250,000 is $250,000— whereas NAD Adventists give $400,000,000 tithe each year. So let’s figure it out. The tithe that creeps into Hope International represents at most 1/ 1600th (0.0625%) of total NAD Adventist tithe paying.

Against the amount of money that might be regained by opposing the independent publications, the Committee will want to weigh the value of souls who may become discouraged by a denominational outburst. What will it profit the church to gain several thousand dollars but lose hundreds of souls?

4. Remove the Offense.

You said in your letter that the Committee dealing with Hope International wants to be “balanced.” This is commendable; and I expect the objective is sincere. You ask my comments in a desire to achieve this end. Inasmuch as you asked, let me continue to oblige.

What about Spectrum and its parent organization, The Association of Adventist Forums? If you don’t read Spectrum, I don’t blame you. But you probably made an exception and read about Elder Folkenberg and the anonymous donors in the August 1991 issue. Is it all right for Spectrum to be sharply critical of leadership but not for Pilgrim’s Press to be critical? What about “Growing Up with the Beasts” and “Social Reform as Sacrament of the Second Advent” in the May 1991 issue of Spectrum? These articles reinterpret the beasts of Revelation as social ills and the “remnant” as social activists. The Committee should also savor the relish with which the magazine’s March 1992 issue, on pp. 63- 64, reported that Seventh- day Adventist Kinship International won its trademark case with the General Conference. The Committee should then read the articles about Desmond Ford and by Ford himself beginning on pp. 9 and 12 of the March issue.

Inasmuch as this letter is to be published, I am deleting the names of certain individuals whose behavior and theology are strikingly out of harmony with normal Adventism. But I have privately called them to your attention.

What about the seven papers written by honor students at Walla Walla College in the spring of 1991 that have received deserved notoriety. I understand that Elder Folkenberg has reproved the WWC religion faculty, and I’m mighty glad to hope that the report is true. But will there be any real change at WWC?

What are our people to expect of Adventist education as long as strong supporters of Spectrum serve as college presidents? As long as the president of Atlantic Union College is the man who publicly praised another of our retired educators for coming out in favor of a billions- of years post- creation chronology, can we reasonably expect our conservatives to support our schools?

As earnestly as I am capable of saying it, if the Committee is serious about reclaiming the loyalty of those people who support our independent conservative publications, I urge it first of all to set about removing the most obvious offenses.

5. Review Our History.

Our Firm Foundation, like some of our other independent publications,

(a) speaks of a “new theology” that it says arose in the 1950’s. It
(b) emphasizes that Jesus had the same human inheritance as we all have, rather than having been created as clean as Adam. And it
(c) talks about perfecting our characters in preparation for the second coming.

These emphases annoy a branch of our conservatives even more than they also annoy our liberals. These annoyed conservatives almost angrily scold Our Firm Foundation for emphasizing doctrines that are “not generally agreed on” in our denomination.

But does their distaste for Our Firm Foundation on these points prove that the magazine is wrong on these points? [ ]theology for over twenty years, requiring me to do constant research. I have [ ] with my antennae out for the same length of time, and have served as a minister since 1946. 1 can say unequivocally that in the 1950’s Adventist theology as taught in our NAD centers did undergo a change, one that can be attributed especially but not exclusively to two of the editors of Questions on Doctrine and to at least two fascinating and influential Seminary professors— a change which has been perpetuated and (we must recognize) distorted by students who rose quickly to positions of educational and administrative prominence. Yes, indeed, there is a “new theology,” and Our Firm Foundation is historically correct when it refers to it.

Perhaps, however, we should say, more precisely, that certain views which had been held for some time by a minority were, in the 1950’s, reformulated, given new emphasis, and taken up by a large group of those Adventists who enjoyed the advantage of attending our schools. I believe in our schools ______, but I observe that the theological cleavage which exists today among conservative NAD Adventists is largely between those who have studied the writings of non- SDA theologians in our colleges on the one hand and, on the other hand, those who, deprived of an SDA college education, have confined their study mostly to the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White. I am repeatedly struck with the way new converts, fresh from the study of the Bible and Ellen G. White, side with the older SDA theology, while so- called “second” and “third- generation” Adventists tend to side with the new theology.

Maybe I should add at this point that I think that some language used by the QOD editors in defense of their product set an ugly stage that leadership still needs to sweep clean. Deeply embarrassed to have the Evangelicals discover that many Adventists did not agree with QOD’s new theology, the QOD editors cruelly denounced the conservatives as a “lunatic fringe.” I knew a lot of those lunatics and respected them highly. They included the fine PUC teachers who set the tone of my ministry. Well, leaders can say things like this, but it seems hardly reasonable for them to expect people they call lunatics to enjoy paying them their tithe.

The cry is often raised by the new- theology conservatives that Our Firm Foundation and similar publications are all wrong when they insist on the view that Jesus was not given a pre- f all nature like Adam’s. These new- theology conservatives say that the publications are wrong in that they insist on a view of Christ’s nature that has never been accepted as a Fundamental Belief by the church as a whole.

But if the denomination has never taken an official stand on this subject, why is it wrong for the old- theology conservatives to publish articles on the subject but perfectly right for the new theology conservatives to do so? New- theology conservatives such as the editors of Our Firm Foundation are frequently criticized for bringing up the issue. But let’s face it; they didn’t start the argument! The argument was started publicly by the 1949 edition of Bible Readings and the 1957 publication of Questions on Doctrine, and by certain Seminary professors and others in the years that followed. And the pot has been kept boiling by the professors and others in the years that followed. And the pot has been kept boiling by the new- theology liberals and conservatives, who now control several of our magazines and colleges. One recalls the old quip:

“You started the fight when you hit me back.” The fact that new- theology people control the chief NAD publications and colleges represents choices made by entities of the NAD. Choices involve consequences. If NAD entities have chosen such editors and presidents, NAD must expect a reaction. It is in my opinion irresponsible and unsportsmanlike for NAD to choose partisans of new- theology views which have not been officially accepted by the General Conference and then cry foul when loyal church members publish evidence in favor of the old- theology views which they committed themselves to when they became Seventh- day Adventists.

6. Assess the implications of Voluntaryism.

I have just spoken about the convictions of people who adopted certain understandings when they became Seventh- day Adventists. If church leadership thinks the time has come to teach different views from the views being taught when these people became Seventh- day Adventists, that is one thing. But to treat people as rebellious, heretical, disloyal, and legalist because they choose to continue to believe what they sincerely committed themselves to years ago, seems gross and boorish.

Commitment is precious, and church membership is sacred. Church membership is also entirely voluntary. Payment of tithe and offerings in the Seventh- day Adventist movement is totally unenforceable. Loyalty is unenforceable. Ours is a voluntary movement.

Members will pay or will not pay tithe as they please. They will be loyal or disloyal as they please, and no one can force them to be any different.

How important, then, that our leaders seek consensus rather than political victories. Our previous General Conference presidency was marked by increasingly sharp politicization at the expense of consensus. You and the Committee are painfully aware of this.

If leadership wants to settle for, say, a vote of 60%, let it do so. No one can stop it. But let leadership recognize that when it settles for 60% it runs the real risk of alienating many of the other 40%. Alienation and loyalty are opposite principles.

The trouble with administrating a voluntary organization on the basis of major- fraction votes is that the volunteers who are unconvinced may simply stop being volunteers. How much better, how very much better, for the church to move slowly enough and persuasively enough to secure consensus!

One of the seething causes of the current wave of unofficial publications is frustration with disenfranchisement. Church leadership, apparently intent on retaining our educated liberals, has found ways politically and editorially to give several of the denomination’s colleges, periodicals, and key administrative positions to educated liberals. Time after time our conservatives, the ones who still read the Spirit of Prophecy, have been frustrated. Their articles have been rejected by denominational editors. And even when they have written “letters to the editor,” too often their letters haven’t been published unless a contrary letter was available for publication next to theirs, to make their letters look foolish. All of this maneuvering has left many of our thinking conservatives frustrated. But they love our church more than they love their money. They are alarmed at the way things are going because they care enough to be alarmed; and so, well, they speak up through their own publications, and they put their money where their mouths and hearts are. They are, after all, volunteers, generous, giving volunteers who support the kind of Adventism they believe in.

7. Conclusion.

It is my conviction, as I said in beginning, that Our Firm Foundation ought to close down. We ought not to need it. We ought to have an Adventist Review that feeds our people’s legitimate hungers without the accusing spirit and without the false tithe advice sometimes found in Our Firm Foundation. The Review— and our colleges, pastors, and teachers— should feed our people’s hunger for solid, sound doctrinal instruction, for solid, sound material dealing with the fulfillment of prophecy, and for solid respect for the inspired authority of Ellen G. White. And our administrators should use the columns of the Review to make earnest confession, acknowledging specific wrongs and offering specific restitution.

The Committee (it seems to me) should persuade leadership to act without discrimination, removing offenses, and counting the possible gain in money against the possible loss in souls.

In brief, in dealing with the supporters of Our Firm Foundation, the Seventh- day Adventist movement needs to display strong, clear- headed, moral leadership. God give us moral leadership, armed by faith, winged by prayer, and informed by the Spirit of Prophecy, its soul cleansed and its influence enhanced where necessary through public confession and repentance.

There is a danger that God’s commandment- keeping people will be found, as were the Jews, weighed in the balance of the heavenly sanctuary, and found wanting. YI, 10/14/97

Next Section –>

ISSUES: The Credibility Crisis, Section IV

May 26, 2020May 26, 2020 by Jana Wagner

SECTION FOUR: CREDIBILITY
by Dr. Ralph Larson

Chapter X – The Credibility Crisis

1— Anonymous Authorship. Secrecy does not create confidence. Church members know that individuals have done the writing. They will look askance at the representations that it was done by the officers of the North American Division. They know very well that it was not written by “your church.” They will be unpleasantly reminded of the carefully concealed authorship of Questions On Doctrine, with its baleful results, and will have the sensation of “Here we go again.” Full openness would have been much better, along with full responsibility. As members reflect about the secrecy, some will conclude that, given the quality of the writing, it is understandable that no one wants to assume responsibility for it, but somebody should. Otherwise the onus for the multitudinous errors will rest upon all of the North American Division officers.

2— Inaccurate Accusations. If accusations of a personal and private nature need to be accurate, how much more those accusations that are spread before the entire membership of the church, and that by church leaders. But the Issues publication is riddled with inaccuracies. We have enlarged on this point in previous chapters, but will here mention the repeated charge that the “dissidents” are saying that the church is in apostasy, whereas informed church members know that they are actually saying there is apostasy in the church. Credibility is severely damaged by this sort of thing.

3— Unwise Recommendations. Unqualified recommendations are given by the Issues writers to a series of Review articles by Norman Gulley and to a Review tract by Roger Coon, in spite of the fact that church leaders have been shown that both contain very serious errors.

4— Totally False Allegations. The Issues appendix contains an article written by D. D. Devinich, president of the Canadian Union, and published in the Canadian Union Messenger. In the article, Devinich alleged that he found two evidences of dishonesty in the writings of Ralph Larson. I promptly offered Pastor Devinich two separate rewards of $1,000.00 if he would produce from my writings the evidence to support his allegations, and made this offer known to more than a hundred of the church’s leaders. Though months have passed by, neither Devinich nor the church leaders have responded. Yet the North American Division leaders published his false allegations in the Issues book. Why?

Meanwhile, Devinich’s article was reprinted in two other Union papers and with slight modifications in Ministry, along with personal recommendations from the Union presidents and the editor of Ministry. This would seem to have established an all- time low in administrative and journalistic irresponsibility in the Seventh- day Adventist Church. Need we comment as to the effect of this upon the church’s credibility?

5— Astonishing Claims. Statements are soberly set forth in the Issues tract and book that are breath- taking in their divergence from reality. On page 7 of the tract we find a claim, italicized for emphasis, that:

Seventh- day Adventists have never “formally” adopted a position on the question of just how Jesus’ nature compared with Adam’s and with ours. Neither has the church ever “formally” adopted a position on perfection and the precise nature of human obedience.

Incredibly, we find this claim immediately following a paragraph which refers to the statement of faith that was voted at the General Conference of 1980, thus making it as “formal” as anything can be in our church. In article 17 of that “formal” document we read that:

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.

In the “authoritative” writings of Ellen White described in this “formal” document, there are more than 4,500 statements affirming the reality of victorious Christian living through the power of Christ, and more than 400 statements that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man.

Moreover, the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe, which is an explication of the statement of faith, contains 140 affirmations of victorious Christian living, and its position on the nature of Christ is stated like this on page 49:

He took the nature of man in its fallen state, bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness. He was one with the human race, except in sin. As we look back at earlier statements of faith as presented in the appendix of Issues, we find more there than the Issues writers indicate. See the quotations in Chapter IX, “The PseudoSearch for Historic Adventism.”

We submit that these statements of faith, though brief, are clear. Ellen White, who is said to be “authoritative” in Seventh- day Adventists Believe, puts her position on the doctrine of sanctification in print 4,500 times. If we yet insist that it is not possible to be sure of her intention, the problem is most emphatically with us, not with the writer.

6— The Straw- Man Technique. This is one of the most regrettable features of the entire

Issues project. The straw man technique is used in debate like this: (a) You misrepresent the opinions or positions of your opponent; (b) You vigorously attack your misrepresentations, and (c) Unwary listeners will conclude that you have demolished your opponent’s argument, when, in fact, you have only demolished your own misrepresentations. It is a very effective technique, but is it ethical?

It is the straw- man technique that is being employed when the writers of Issues allege:

That we are attacking the church, when we are actually attacking apostasy in the church.
That we are saying the church is in apostasy, when we are actually saying that there is apostasy in the church.
That we are setting ourselves up as examples when we are actually setting up Jesus as the example.
That we are defending our personal opinions when we are actually defending our historic faith as set forth in SDAs Believe, etc.
That we are defining “historic faith” by looking at the statements of 1861, 1872 and 1931, when we are actually defining it by our examination of the entire body of Adventist literature published before the appearance of Questions On Doctrine.
That we are trying to establish a church within the church, when we are actually trying to bring a reform message to the entire church and provide a means of spiritual survival for the historic Adventists.
That independent ministries should be divided into two groups. The good ones operate schools, clinics, etc., and ignore the church’s theological problems. The bad ones keep raising embarrassing questions about unauthorized changes in our church’s theology.

The list could be enlarged, but perhaps this is enough to illustrate our point. Thoughtful church members will recognize what is being attempted by the straw- man technique, and the damage to the church’s credibility will be enormous.

Seventh- day Adventists tend to be an intensely loyal people, loyal to the faith, loyal to the church, and loyal to the leaders of the church. They are extremely reluctant to believe that our leaders could make a mistake. But in view of the clear warnings in the Spirit of Prophecy that many of our leaders will go astray in the last days, church members are being forced to take a clear- eyed look at what is happening in the church today.

When they turn a clear gaze at the Issues tract and book, they are certain to suffer keen disappointment. Their confidence in the church’s leadership cannot but be severely damaged. A serious credibility crisis has been created. To avoid further loss of confidence, our leaders should publish corrections as soon as possible, and then make provision for a straightforward treatment of the real issue— unauthorized changes in our church’s theology.

It is to be devoutly hoped that church leaders will recognize the dire need to abandon the “good old boy” attitude of “Let’s close ranks and stonewall it” that has characterized their approach to the problems thus far. Devastating damage to church credibility is certain to result when church members learn that much of the material in the Issues appendix has already been shown to be grossly inaccurate and untrue, and that the church leaders have had this evidence in their hands long before Issues was printed. I refer in particular to the “Unity” article by Frank Holbrook of the BRI, the Devinich article, the “Tithe” article by Roger Coon, etc. For the leaders to set such articles as these before the people with no hint as to their serious faults is unconscionable.

But though this causes us much concern for the church, let us remember that there is no doubt how it will end.

The Majesty of Heaven has the destiny of nations, as well as the concerns of His church, in His own charge.— 5T 753.

Final Section

ISSUES: The Pseudo Issues, Section III

May 26, 2020May 26, 2020 by Jana Wagner

SECTION THREE: THE PSEUDO ISSUES
Chapter V – The Pseudo Issue Of Attacking The Church
Chapter VI – The Pseudo Issue Of Divisiveness
Chapter VII – The Pseudo Issue Of Personalities
Chapter VIII – The Pseudo Issue Of Alleged Financial Irregularities
Chapter IX – The Pseudo Search For Historic Adventism

by Dr. Ralph Larson

Chapter V – The Pseudo Issue Of Attacking The Church

The fallacy of identifying the small group of officers of the North American Division who wrote Issues as “the church” has been pointed out in Section One. We concede that they are members of the church and leaders in the church, but by no stretch of the imagination can they properly say:

We are the church! Anyone who disagrees with us is rejecting the authority of the church! Anyone who presumes to criticize anything that we do is attacking the church!

From the human standpoint we probably must recognize that if a church leader is criticized for wrong doing, his most effective defense would be to set up a cry that the church is being attacked. This would be calculated to produce an emotional response akin to that produced by the burning of the flag or an attack on motherhood. Thus we find the Issues tract and book liberally sprinkled with phrases like these:

Increasingly critical of (the church), at stake is the integrity of the church, undermine confidence in the church, threaten the viability of the church, threaten to pull the church apart, criticize and tear down the church, fighting the church, etc.

Perhaps the most astonishing of these misleading phrases is in the line that describes the purposes of Hope and Hartland as “gaining control of the church and ‘purifying’ it by purging out those who do not agree with their theology. “— Issues book, page 19. If the reader will pause a moment to reread the paragraph of descriptive phrases above and substitute the word “unauthorized theology” for every use of the word “church,” this will make it a much more accurate statement.

If the emotion arousing purpose of such language as this is successful, it can be counted upon to arouse an unreasoning fury against any persons who would so assault the church of God. But not all Seventh- day Adventists are that unreasoning or unreasonable. Many will reflect that they have not heard or read any such attacks on the church in the presentations of the independent ministries. They have, rather, heard and read many warnings against unauthorized changes in the church’s doctrines, and criticisms, by a few, of wrong doing on the part of certain individuals, but nothing remotely resembling a wholesale condemnation of the church.

Under the date of April 3, 1992, a “study paper” was circulated among the leaders of the North American Division which set forth a rationale for taking strong action against certain independent ministries. Portions of this paper were later incorporated into the Issues tract and book.

The proposed strategy is to (a) represent to the church members that certain independent ministries are “attempting to force (their) view on the church” and are planning “to purge out those who would resist them” NAD Paper, pages 9, 11, 14.

The next step in the proposed strategy is to (b) argue that since force is being used against the church, the church is justified in taking forceful actions against these ministries and those who support them.

Though the charge of “using force” is as false as it is ridiculous, this accusation is a device of deception quite commonly used by those who are trying to persuade people to do something which their consciences do not approve. While pursuing my doctoral studies in the liberal radical educational community of Boston, I attended a seminar in which the dean of a liberal theological seminary used the same technique by stating with emphasis that:

If a man overcharges you for a loaf of bread, that is violence!

The intent of this strategy is obvious. If a man is using violence against you, you are clearly justified in taking strong measures in return. So— go ahead and burn down his store, or take whatever other actions seem appropriate. You may quiet your conscience by accepting the concept that he first “used violence” against you.

But is overcharging for a loaf of bread a valid definition of violence? Not to a careful thinker. And is charging certain persons with apostasy a valid definition of “using force”? If it is, then our church has been “using force” against both Catholic and Protestant churches throughout our entire history in that we have been charging them with apostasy. Are we ready to plead guilty to “using force” against these churches, or would it be better to simply reject in its entirety this false definition of “using force”?

Chapter VI The Pseudo Issue Of Divisiveness

This is a charge that is carefully left undefined. It is apparently desired that church members simply accept the testimony of the leaders of the North American Division that the independent ministries are divisive, and not ask, “Divisive about what?” We are reminded of a passage in The Desire of Ages, page 724:

Again Pilate asked, “What accusation bring ye against this Man?” The priests did not answer his question, but in words that showed their irritation, they said, “If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.” When those composing the Sanhedrin, the first men of the nation, bring to you a man they deem worthy of death, is there need to ask for an accusation against him? They hoped to impress Pilate with a sense of their importance, and thus lead him to accede to their request without going through many preliminaries. They were eager to have their sentence ratified; for they knew that the people who had witnessed Christ’s marvelous works could tell a story very different from the fabrication they themselves were now rehearsing.

The purpose of the Issues writers seems to I be to avoid entering into theological discussions of any kind, yet the charge of divisiveness leads directly to theological realities. Repeatedly the Issues writers affirm that the independents are creating division by urging (forcing) their theological opinions upon the church.

We have already pointed out that it is not our opinions that we are defending, but rather the Bible doctrines that are expressed in the book, Seventh- day Adventists Believe. Thus, we challenge the use of the term “opinions,” but we do not challenge the use of the term “theological.” Theology is what it is all about, or more precisely, unauthorized changes in our theology.

Thus we are led directly to the question, Who is properly chargeable with divisiveness, those who are making the unauthorized changes, or those who are resisting the changes? Surely any fair- minded person would place the responsibility at the door of those who are making the unauthorized changes.

When the Review editor writes that disagreements about the nature of Christ are harmful to the unity of the church and create division, we respond that this is a valid point, but it is 35 years too late. It should have been advanced in 1956 and 1957 when the Review was printing arguments against our historic position on the nature of Christ and the secret writers of

Questions On Doctrine (QOD) were preparing that ill- fated volume for publication. They are the ones who destroyed the unity of the church on this point. We are not.

In our massive research report, The Word Was Made Flesh, we record 1,200 statements by Adventist writers, including many of our most prominent leaders, that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man. Four hundred of them were from the inspired pen of Ellen White. All were published in the one hundred year period 1852- 1952. There was total unity on the subject. In all of our research, we did not find a single dissenting opinion. This perfect unity was shattered in 1957 when the secret writers of QOD foisted upon the unsuspecting church members the Calvinistic doctrine that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. Brazenly they declared that this had always been the belief of our church. Possibly never before in the history of Christianity had so many been misled by so few, and so easily.

The perfect unity that our church had enjoyed for more than a hundred years on this point and on other points that depend on it was destroyed and division was created. And now, in defiance of all logic, fairness and justice, the similarly secret writers of Issues are proposing that the independent ministries are responsible for this division. Can judgment be more unfair than this?

Likewise, the literature of our church before the publishing of QOD abounded with statements, sometimes entire articles, affirming that victorious Christian living through the power of the indwelling Christ is possible for all Christians. This statement appears in the writings of Ellen White more than 4,500 times and it has appeared in our statements of faith as well, including 140 times in Seventh- day Adventists Believe. Yet those who are bringing the doctrines of Calvinism into our church are now teaching and preaching, without authorization, that all Christians must keep on sinning until Jesus comes, at which time He will miraculously fix us so that we will not sin any more. Ellen White has written 48 warnings that nothing of this kind will ever happen.

Nevertheless, the writers of Issues are saying that victorious Christian living is a new standard of Adventism invented by the independent ministries, and are charging us with divisiveness. Yet perhaps this should not surprise us. Ellen White wrote:

When controversy is awakened, the advocates of truth are accredited with causing a disturbance.— ST 10- 17- 95.

Elijah was declared to be a troubler in Israel, Jeremiah a traitor, Paul a polluter of the temple. From that day to this, those who would be loyal to truth have been denounced as seditious, heretical, or schismatic. Multitudes who are too unbelieving to accept the sure word of prophecy, will receive with unquestioning credulity an accusation against those who dare to reprove fashionable sins. This spirit will increase more and more.— GC 458, 459.

Should divisiveness be charged against those who are resisting unauthorized changes in our church’s theology, or upon those who are making the unauthorized changes? We submit this question to the considered judgment of every fair-minded Seventh- day Adventist, and we reaffirm that this is a pseudo issue.

Chapter VII – The Pseudo Issue Of Personalities

One of the most time tested realities about discussion and debate is that those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man. This has been recognized for so long that it has come down to us with a Latin name: the argument ad hominem (against the man.) It is very disappointing to historic church members when they ask their pastor or even their conference president why wrongful and unauthorized changes are being made in our church’s theology, and they are told in reply that certain independent ministry leaders are not good men. In support of this allegation, barrages of hear- say, innuendo and pure gossip are often presented by those who are expected to preach against such things.

But that is beside the point. Arguments about men can go on forever, but this has nothing to do with the problem of wrongful and unauthorized changes in our church’s theology. To point to an alleged fault in a man, or even to an apparent and discernible fault, does not provide anyone with authority to change a doctrine of our faith.

One of the most regrettable and indefensible of these arguments against the man is the allegation that the historic Adventists are setting themselves up as the standard for others to follow and imitate. (Issues, page 14, et al.) Surely this is the absolute nadir of discussion, the lowest level that argument can possibly reach.

I have been ministering to historic Adventists for nearly half a century and have become personally acquainted with many of the independent ministry leaders. I have never met nor heard of a single person among them who would dream of setting himself or herself up as the standard for anything. They would all with one accord declare that our standard and example is the Lord Jesus Christ, and that no human being should be regarded as our example. This is in sharp contrast to the theological position of the Calvinist, which places great emphasis upon the sacrificial substitution of Christ and minimizes as much as possible His role as our example. Arguments such as this are obviously pseudo issues, and should be recognized as confessions of the abject poverty of a cause.

Chapter VIII – The Pseudo Issue Of Alleged Financial Irregularities

Since this is a variation of the argument against the man, which was discussed in the previous chapter, we need not analyze it at length here. The same principles apply to both. To state the matter simply, if by microscopic examination of the life records of all independent ministry leaders it could be demonstrated that one or all of them had been involved in an apparent financial irregularity of some kind, would this provide authorization for anyone to make changes in the doctrines of the church? To ask the question is to answer it, because the idea is so ridiculous. This is transparently a pseudo issue.

But if the North American Division leaders insist on trying to make it appear as a real issue, then there are several more chapters that will have to be written and published. We will simply list a few of the chapters that would be needed:

A chapter dealing with financial irregularities involving NEMA and the Kettering law suit.
A chapter dealing with the suit against the Lake Union by Lloyds of London.
A chapter dealing with the Davenport scandal.
A chapter dealing with the unnecessary declaration of bankruptcy by the Harris Pine Mills.
A chapter dealing with the Rebok scam.
A chapter dealing with the solicitation of tithe from well- to- do members in certain conferences in North America and the diversion of that tithe to a mission field in Central America, along with an explanation of the means whereby that tithe was channeled through a North American Division office so that the donors could have a tax exemption.
A chapter dealing with the highly irregular arrangements that were set up whereby money could be channeled through the books of a certain Union in order to provide secret salaries to the wives of certain highly placed church leaders.

Much more might be added, but perhaps this is enough to demonstrate our point. I am proposing that it would be better to give our attention to the real issue of wrongful and unauthorized changes in our church’s theology and leave pseudo issues such as this one alone.

Chapter IX – The Pseudo Search For Historic Adventism

Those who are changing the doctrines of our church have endeavored to apply the term “traditional Adventists” to those of us who do not accept their changes. This may be a purposeful ploy. To most Seventh- day Adventists the word “tradition” carries very negative connotations. We have recognized and identified the problem of other churches as following tradition rather than Scripture. So we have preferred to call ourselves “historic Adventists.”

As our published writings have made quite clear, we understand and use the term “historic” to refer to the truths that were held by virtually all Adventists before the book Questions on Doctrine appeared in 1957.

We are not ignorant of our church’s history. We are well aware that the formation of our doctrines was a gradual process, with major principles being established in the early years and further refinements coming later. We are also well aware of the difference between “landmarks” and “pillars” of our faith and the less important items.

But these matters had been sorted out and our theology well refined before 1957, and it is to the common faith of the pre- 1957 era that we have reference when we describe ourselves as “historic Adventists.” Again, this is clearly stated in our writings.

We, therefore, look in wonder at the 18 page search for historic Adventism in the Issues book, pages 35- 53. The chapter requires us to look back to the earliest years of SDA experience for definitions of the term “historic Adventism.” Insofar as the present discussion is concerned, this has little or no relevance. We are talking about pre- 1957, not pre- 1857.

We are further mystified by the selection of material and by the treatment of material.

The Selection of Material. Throughout most of its existence, our church has printed and published to a phenomenal degree. The Archives contain untold thousands of pages of material in which our doctrines were expounded, explained and recommended to the world. The writers of this material did not neglect the two points of faith now under consideration— the nature of Christ and sanctification. As mentioned elsewhere, our leading administrators, editors and other writers went into print 1,200 times during the years 1852- 1952 with statements that our Lord came to earth in the human nature of fallen man, and not a single statement affirming the opposite. Four hundred of these statements were by Ellen White. Her statements expressing our historic view of sanctification total more than 4,500. The statements on that subject by other writers are too numerous to count.

There is no lack of source material. If you want to know what historic Adventism consisted of, especially in regard to the nature of Christ and sanctification, spend just a few months in the Archives. My wife and I have done this and have reported our findings in our two research volumes, The Word Was Made Flesh and Tell of His Power.

The Issues authors have not done this. They have chosen a different approach which we view with astonishment. They have chosen to ignore this enormous mass of historical evidence and look only at the few and unofficial statements of faith that can be found in the 1861,1872 and 1931 historical records.

The first statement to which they direct our attention (1861) was not by the general church but only by the Michigan Conference. It consisted of 30 words:

We the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name of Seventh- day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.— Issues book, page 36.

The Issues writers then lead us to 1872 and a statement composed by Uriah Smith and published in the Review, of which he was editor. Here we find the treatment of evidence no less astonishing than the selection of evidence.

The Treatment of Evidence. We present this as it appears in Issues on page 39 with emphasis supplied and quotation marks to indicate the words of Uriah Smith:

In 1872 Adventists published an anonymous, non- binding statement of beliefs. In the introduction, the unnamed author (Uriah Smith) took great pains to emphasize the unofficial and non- creedal nature of the document: ‘In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is and has been, with great unanimity, held by them. We often find it necessary to meet inquiries on this subject, and sometimes to correct false statements circulated against us, and to remove erroneous impressions which have obtained with those who have not had an opportunity to become acquainted with our faith and practice. Our only object is to meet this necessity.’

The non- binding, non-creedal status of the statement is of special interest. Even more significant, however, is the fact that the statement is distinctly non-Trinitarian. Jesus is described as Creator and Redeemer but is nowhere identified as God or as eternal. He simply is “the Son of the Eternal Father.”

For those who would wish to define “historic Adventism” in terms of specific doctrinal content, the 1872 date presents a real dilemma. To accept what Adventists considered binding at that time would exclude any reference to the nature of Christ or to a particular type of obedience.

We see no dilemma. We consider historic Adventism as pre- 1957. We observe that:

1- The Issues writers in describing this statement acknowledge that it was the work of one man (Uriah Smith) and was published in the Review on his own initiative. It was, therefore, not produced by the “Adventists” speaking by way of a board, a committee or a constituency meeting.

2- Though Uriah Smith may not have been clear on the eternal pre- existence of Christ, he was clear on the human nature of Christ and on sanctification, as shown in his book Looking Unto Jesus (c189 7 ), pages 23 and 30:

In the likeness of sinful flesh, He reached down to the very depths of man’s fallen condition, and became obedient unto death, even the ignominious death of the cross. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to demonstrate before all parties in the controversy that it was possible for men in the flesh to keep the law. He demonstrated this by keeping it Himself. On our plane of existence, and in our nature, He rendered such obedience to every principle and precept, that the eye of Omniscience itself could find no flaw therein. His whole life was but a transcript of that law, in its spiritual nature, and in its holy, just and good demands. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, by living Himself in the flesh and doing no sin, showing that it was possible for man thus to live.

3— The Issues writers also describe the statement as non- binding, unofficial, non-creedal, non- binding and non-creedal.

Yet in the tenth line following we find this: To accept what Adventists considered binding at that time. . . . So the statement no longer reflects the thinking of Uriah Smith but of “Adventists” and that which was described as non- binding, unofficial, and non-creedal, has suddenly become “what Adventists considered binding.”

While you are catching your breath, we will move on to the next problem. Throughout their discussion, the Issues writers place great emphasis on the alleged absence from the three statements (1861, 1872, 1931) of any reference to our historic view of the nature of Christ and the doctrine of sanctification. But when we examine those statements in the appendices of

Issues, this is what we find:

1861
. . . covenanting to keep the commandments of God.— Issues book, page 36.

1872
That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race. . . . That the new birth comprises the entire change necessary to fit us for the kingdom of God, and consists of two parts: first, a moral change, wrought by conversion and a Christian life. . . . That as all have violated the law of God, and cannot of themselves render obedience to His just requirements, we are dependent on Christ, first for justification from our past offenses, and, secondly, for9race whereby to render acceptable obedience to his holy law in time to come.— lbid. 437, 439.

1931
While retaining His divine nature He took upon Himself the nature of the human family. . . .

By accepting Christ, man is reconciled to God, justified by His blood for the sins of the past, and saved from the power of sin by his indwelling life. Thus the gospel becomes “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” This experience is wrought by the divine agency of the Holy Spirit, who convinces of sin and leads to the Sin- Bearer, inducting the believer into the new covenant relationship, where the law of God is written on his heart, and through the enabling power conformity to the divine precepts.— lbid. 444.

The end is not yet. The Issues writers have woven through all of their presentation a very strong emphasis upon the doctrines of church authority, Christian unity, and tithes and offerings. We have taken note of this emphasis in our section on side issues.

Then, turning their attention to the alleged faults of historic Adventists, they argue strenuously that if a doctrine is not specifically mentioned in the 1872 statement it is therefore nonbinding, but rather optional, and different views and practices on those points are not subject to challenge.

We ask. Where in the 1872 statement do we find a reference to the three doctrines that are the basis for their planned disciplinary actions— the doctrines of authority, unity, and tithe? Answer: nowhere. There is not a word in the 1872 statement about any of these three doctrines. Therefore, by their own argument, the Issues writers have pronounced judgment against themselves for preparing to apply church discipline to us.

We rest our case. Section Four: Credibility Credibility is a crucial factor in all church administration. The church is not able to levy taxes on its members like the government does and collect them by force, applying stiff fines and even prison sentences for failure to pay. The vast financial structure of our church and its institutions, involving total annual budgets that doubtless run into billions of dollars, must of necessity rest upon a foundation of confidence, trust, credibility. Let this confidence and trust be lost, let this credibility be destroyed, and the church will struggle in vain to collect money from its members.

How important, then, that wise statesmanship be exercised in all decision making and in the conducting of all church affairs. The question that urgently needs to be considered at every step of the way is, How will this affect the church’s credibility? Openness, accuracy, fairness, justice and truthfulness are the vital elements that will enhance credibility. The absence of any of them, in whole or in part, will do enormous damage to the church’s credibility and thus to the church’s financial structure. financial structure.

We would like to suggest that the expensive publication of the Issues tract and the 467 page book has done nothing to enhance the church’s credibility. The many responses that are reaching us indicate that it may have a severely damaging effect. As briefly as possible we will list some potential problems.

The next section: The Credibility Crisis