On November 15 and 16, 1996, Elder Willard Santee, a minister of the Oregon Conference, delivered a series of five messages in a tent on the grounds of Prophecy Countdown in Mt. Dora, Florida. As a result of these messages, as well as some more private conversations, the leader of Prophecy Countdown, John Osborne, along with some of his staff, responded to an altar call by Elder Santee in which he appealed to them to “return to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
As he stood on the platform beside Santee, John Osborne said, “I don’t want to be a historic Seventh-day Adventist.”
These words created consternation on the part of many historic Seventh-day Adventists who have been trusting in the leadership of John Osborne and have been giving generous financial support to his ministry. What did these words mean?
A historic Seventh-day Adventist is by definition a person who is holding steadfastly to the principles of truth that were established by the pioneers of our church, and that have been repeatedly confirmed and re-confirmed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Had John Osborne decided to abandon these principles of truth? This was the question that troubled many hearts, and triggered many anxious inquiries. An apparent attempt to answer these questions was made one week later by Dianne Osborne, the president of Prophecy Countdown. She stood before the television cameras and made a statement that included these lines:
“We are seeking to have unity with God’s Church, but we will not unify with apostasy. We must be separate from the evil practices, from apostasy, and from sin both inside and outside the church . . . We realize that you cannot go where error is being preached, nor allow your children to go where error is being taught . . . We will continue to defend the truth.”
Thus the question about abandoning the historic principles of our faith appears to have been answered, at least for the time being. But the entire situation is calling forth another kind of question, which is proper and valid. Members of the historic Seventh-day Adventist community are asking, “What did Elder Santee tell the people of Prophecy Countdown? Did he present new evidence or new light that we all should be considering? Did he point out evidence that we have overlooked? What relevance do his messages have to the entire community of historic Seventh-day Adventists?”
In order to present an accurate answer to these questions, I have listened very carefully to the five messages presented by Elder Santee, and have reached conclusions that I will now share with you. I will first make some general observations as an overview.
- Elder Santee brought forth no new light, presented no new evidence, and advanced no new or overlooked principles of truth. All of the Biblical materials and Spirit of Prophecy materials that he used are very familiar to historic Seventh-day Adventists.
- Elder Santee’s burden of concern appeared to be for individuals or groups who had, a) separated themselves from the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church for invalid reasons; b) were fighting the organized church and manifesting unchristian hatred and contempt for its leaders and members; c) were calling the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon and calling people to come out of her; and, d) were engaging in theological hair-splitting and needless discussions of theological questions and the nature of Christ.
It is immediately apparent that these descriptions could be properly applied to only a minuscule portion of the members of the historic Seventh-day Adventist community, perhaps one or two percent. The vast majority of them are still members of the organized church, (and this includes John Osborne and his family). Most of the very few who are now separated from the “organized church” did not withdraw of their own volition, but were disfellowshipped over their protests. It would be wildly inaccurate to describe them as persons who had separated themselves from the church for invalid reasons. They are neither fighting the church nor manifesting hatred and contempt for its leaders or members, and they would not dream of calling the church Babylon. Their clinging to the principles of our historic faith is most emphatically not theological hair-splitting. So with whom is Elder Santee contending?
My conclusion is that Elder Santee’s messages may have limited application to those few persons who fit his descriptions, but to the vast majority of the members of the historic Seventh-day Adventist community they have no relevance at all. He appears to be contending with imaginary foes—shadow boxing.
The central theme of Elder Santee’s presentations seemed to be that there can never be any justification for separating oneself from the church for the reasons stated above. I view this from the sidelines, so to speak, as one not involved in the situation. But I do have some questions. Was it wrong for the first Christians to leave the Jewish church, for the Protestants to leave the Catholic church, for the Methodists to leave the Anglican church, and for our pioneers to leave the Protestant churches? If Elder Santee’s reasoning is correct, then these persons should have all stayed in their churches and left it to the Lord to clean the churches up. That is what he urges his hearers to do now. As evidence to support this position, he argues that in spite of the wickedness of the Jewish church, Jesus put His name on the books of that church and never took it off. (Actually, the name of Jesus was put on the Jewish church books by Joseph and Mary, when Jesus was a babe in arms. Jesus had nothing to do with it.)
Elder Santee concedes that there is much apostasy in the organized church, even going beyond most historic Adventists by stating that the church is in apostasy. Few of us would go that far. Most of us have pointed out apostasy in the organized church, but have not regarded the church as in apostasy. That might be an over-statement. Elder Santee does say this, but nevertheless affirms in another place that the church is “right on course.” I do not understand how one can hold to both of these positions. Nor do I understand how Elder Santee can urge his hearers on the one hand to be silent in the church and make no criticisms of evil doing, and on the other hand quote Ellen White statements that vigorously condemn such silence. Does she not call for men who are not afraid to call sin by its right name? (See Education, 57.)
Elder Santee manifests a curious unawareness that we who are trying to protect ourselves from error are dealing with theological problems. He sets forth an illustration that he says God gave to him. It consists of two circles which represent two kinds of church members, the “Liberals” and the “Conservatives,” and he states that the two circles are drawing apart. But as they draw apart, there is created a small ellipse where the two circles overlap. This is where God wants us to be, Elder Santee says, in the ellipse in the center, which is partly liberal and partly conservative.
But we are not primarily concerned about the differences between liberals and conservatives. Our major concern is theological. And one has only to recognize this fact and change the labels in the circles from “Liberal” and “Conservative,” to “True Theology” and “False Theology” to see the inappropriateness of this illustration. Does God want us to have a theology that is partly true and partly false? Have we not been warned that truth mixed with error is more dangerous than error alone? (See Great Controversy, 587.)
We may disguise poison by mingling it with wholesome food, but we do not change its nature. On the contrary, it is rendered more dangerous, as it is more likely to be taken unawares. It is one of Satan’s devices to combine with falsehood just enough truth to give it plausibility.
As for seeking unity by theological compromise, the inspired messenger is equally clear: “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 . . . I urge our brethren to unify on a true, scriptural basis.” Selected Messages, vol. 1, 175.
“We are to unify, but not upon a platform of error.” Series B, Freedom in Christ, 47.
The same unawareness of the theological dimensions of our problem is seen in Elder Santee’s description of his own experience. He devotes almost one entire message to a harrowing description of his own sufferings when he was put out of the ministry by “the brethren.” It seems that “the brethren” had dealt with a case of adultery and wanted Santee to stay out of the matter, but he insisted on dealing with it himself. For this, he says, he was put out of the ministry. If his report of the situation is accurate and fair, (which we have no way of knowing) we sympathize with him, but we see no connection between this and our theological problems in the church. To compare this experience with the experience of those who are being put out of the church because they will not accept false theology is hardly appropriate. Procedural problems and theological apostasy are two different categories.
A third and even more astonishing example of Elder Santee’s theological unawareness is placed before us in a passage in which he describes the contributions of a correct theology that have been made by various religious groups. He credits the Greek Orthodox church with getting rid of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the Anglicans with getting rid of Mariolatry; he credits Lutherans for a true doctrine of justification and the Methodists for a true doctrine of sanctification; he credits the Congregationalists and Presbyterians for getting rid of excessive form and ceremony in worship and the Baptists for getting rid of sprinkling as a method of baptism; he credits Millerite, George Storrs for correcting the immortal soul error and the Seventh-day Baptists for correcting the error of the day of worship. He concludes this litany with the stunning statement that: “the Seventh-day Adventists contributed nothing at all.”
This leaves us gasping! Is this man a Seventh-day Adventist minister? Has he never heard of the sanctuary doctrine, that Ellen White describes as: “the very message that has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, 54.
Elder Santee’s use of both the Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy is curious, to say the least. In a lengthy exposition of Exodus, chapter 32, he labors to prove that Moses was never angry with Aaron on the matter of the golden calf, but rather that he was always tender, gentle, and kind, both to Aaron and the people. He quotes verses both before and after verses 26-28 in which Moses is described as calling the faithful to his side, and then ordering them to take their swords and go through the camp and “slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.” This command of Moses resulted in the slaughter of 3000 men, but
Elder Santee does not read these verses, for obvious reasons. They would not fit his theory very well.
Similarly, he quotes words from Series B, Part 1, 15, in which Ellen White writes, “No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth,” and asserts that this means to protest on your knees. This is in harmony with his teaching that church members should make no comment on evils that they see in the church, but only pray about them. In like manner he refers to Ellen White’s warnings against listening to error, but limits her warning to errors presented by non-Adventist teachers and preachers. One can hardly feel comfortable with such handling of inspired writings, nor with his reference to himself and others as “secondary prophets.” We are left to speculate as to what this might mean.
The general tenor of all of the messages was to support Elder Santee’s doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the organized church. This is inferred and implied throughout all of the messages and was firmly and clearly stated in these two passages: “If I want to be in God’s kingdom, I must be part of the organized church,” and “You are going to be lost if you are outside of the church.”
These strong affirmations were followed by an appeal to “return to the church.” We find this puzzling in view of these realities.
- Probably 99% of all historic Seventh-day Adventists have never left the “church,” and have no intention of ever leaving the “church” unless forced out by being disfellowshipped.
- John Osborne, to whom Elder Santee’s words were presumably addressed, has never left the “church.” He and his family have for years held membership in a church in California.
- As noted before, the historic Seventh-day Adventists are not calling the church Babylon, or calling people to come out of her. They are rather trying as best they can to survive spiritually and spread the Three Angels’ Messages to all the world. They understand from statements like the following that listening to error greatly diminishes their chances of survival.
“No error can sanctify the soul . . . Sanctification comes not through error, but through belief in the truth.” Review and Herald, September 30, 1890.
“Truth sanctifies. Error corrupts.” Review and Herald, December 2, 1875.
“Error is falsehood and deception. Those who partake of it must suffer in consequence.” Upward Look, 125.
“Error is never harmless. It never sanctifies, but always brings confusion and dissension. It is always dangerous.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, 47.
“There is in error and unbelief that which bewilders and bewitches the mind.” Selected Messages,vol. 1, 46.
“I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings . . . God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings, where error is forced home to the people by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffeting of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him and the power of his evil angels, and the light around us becomes contaminated with darkness.” Early Writings, 124.
This makes it impossible for us to accept Elder Santee’s recommendations that we attend worship services where error is presented, and simply ignore the error. This is far too dangerous to be attempted, and the inspired warnings against it are unmistakably clear. We firmly reject the proposition that we are attacking the church, or fighting against the church. If one can not speak against sin without attacking the church, what does that say about the church? If one can not speak against apostasy without attacking the church, what does that say about the church?
We have to recognize that if a church leader is misusing his office and performing evil actions, and if church members protest against the evil actions, probably the best defense that the church leader could contrive would be to set up a shrill cry that: “The church is being attacked! The church is being attacked! Come to the defense of the church everybody! Defend the church! Protect the church!”
The Lord will deal with such persons as He sees best. We can safely leave that problem to Him. Meanwhile we are faced with a very practical problem. How shall we avoid the apostasy that is raging in the church today, and survive the great shaking time that will purge all unworthy elements out?
If Elder Santee wants to be helpful, let him cease his shadow boxing with imaginary foes, and address himself realistically to this grimly relevant question. He concedes that there is great apostasy in the church, even saying that the church is in apostasy. The word “apostasy” denotes a departure from theological truth. In disregard of the inspired warnings about listening to error, Elder Santee counsels us to continue worshiping in the churches where theological untruths are being presented, and to remain silent and do nothing but pray about the evils we see and hear. He seems to feel that to do other than this is to be guilty of attacking the church and fighting against the church.
We can only pray that his understanding will be improved, and that he will be able to offer better counsel to us. Until this happens, we will just have to say that he is not really speaking to the historic Seventh-day Adventist community, or ministering to our needs. In the final analysis, the church is described in these words: “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.” Upward Look, 315.