SINFUL INDEPENDENCE?

by Marshall J. Grosboll

The Cooperative Spirit of Heaven

In the great family of heaven, each one has his own individual personality, each has freedom, yet no one misuses that freedom to act independently, for all are held together by the cords of humility toward self and love toward one another. As the bee extracts the honey and leaves the pollen, so in heaven, each one receives in order to give — each works so as to benefit one another. Thus there is perfect harmony, yet with each maintaining his own identity, uniqueness and function.

Even God does not act independently. In fact, we should say especially God! Everything He does is for the well being of His creatures. In all that He does, He elicits the love and cooperation of those He has created. Consider the creation of Adam. As soon as he was created, God set him to work to assist Him. God asked him to name the animals. How much easier it would have been for God to have named the animals without Adam’s help. When Adam was created God programmed his mind with words and language — but He intentionally left out of his vocabulary the names of the animals so that Adam could unite with Him, as far as possible, in the work He was doing. The Bible says, “We are God’s fellow workers” (1 Corinthians 3: 91).

Then God went far beyond merely having Adam name the animals. He told Adam and Eve that they and their descendants were to continue the work that God had begun of populating the earth. God created just enough people so that they could continue His work. Again, how much easier it would have been for God to simply create, in a moment of time, enough people to populate the earth at the beginning — and they would have all been perfect! No one would have been raised by faulty parents! What a risk God took, and how poorly most people have done in carrying on the procreation work of God by the way they have raised their children. Yet, in spite of failure, God has not taken the responsibility away from the human family. God would rather suffer loss than to act alone without our cooperation. God has gone to more trouble than any other being to elicit our cooperation, calling us “kings and priests” (Revelation 1: 6), rather than to act alone and independent.

As it was on earth with Adam and Eve, so it was in heaven with the angels. God did not create a hierarchy or a dictatorship, but a family. That is why there was a war m heaven. When Satan chose to rebel, God could have simply spoken the word, and Satan would have been banished from the society of heaven. But God did not do that, for the angels were His fellow workers, and even in this crisis situation He did not take the reins into His own hands, but allowed the angels, as far as possible, to decide the issue (Revelation 12: 7).

Even after the war, Satan seems to have been allowed to come back to represent the earth at the councils of heaven. In the book of Job, God presented Job’s fidelity and challenged Satan’s claim to represent the earth. Satan did not represent all the inhabitants of the earth, but evidently the angels allowed him to remain. But that time of tolerance ended at the cross.

I have often contemplated the account by Ellen White where she was shown that, “All the angels that are commissioned to visit the earth hold a golden card, which they present to the angels at the gates of the city as they pass in and out.” —EW, 392~ Why must the an- gels who visit the earth present a golden card at the gate? Before the crucifixion of Christ, the angels continued to allow Satan access on what he considered official business (Job 1), because many still had some sympathy for him. At the cross Satan’s “disguise was torn away. . . . Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts and before them accuse Christ’s brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken 3 .” —DA, 761.

Thus the angels decided that Satan could no longer visit heaven as the representative of earth. Jesus was henceforth to be the only representative of this planet. But how were they to keep him out? They evidently decided to issue golden identification cards to all who were commissioned to visit the earth, which they were to present upon exit and entry. Heaven is a very real place, and the angels have far more to do with the running of the government than most realize. Heaven is not run like a communist hierarchy, or like the totalitarian government of Satan, but as a loving family, each with his own part to act, each with a voice, and each with total faith in the wisdom of the Father.

Today there is a judgment going on in heaven. And why a judgment? Does God need a judgment? Of course not! He knew who would be saved and who would be lost from the very foundation of the earth! (Ephesians 1: 4; Isaiah 46: 10). The reason there is a judgment is because God is not running a hierarchical dictatorship. He has made the beings of heaven His fellow workers, and in order for them to be a practical part of the process, they need a judgment. They do not have all knowledge like God has. They must keep records and review them. God could have decided the eternal destiny of each, with complete accuracy, in a moment of time. But what He could do instantly by Himself takes much longer when He involves the cooperation of the angels. He is willing to expend the extra effort and energy in order to work with His angels rather than apart from them.

What a lesson for parents. How much easier it is, when children are young, for parents to make the beds, do the dishes, fix the food, and change the oil in the car by themselves without the help of the little ones. The “help” the little ones give takes so much more of the parents time! It is so much easier to simply tell a child to go off and play for awhile or to watch TV, while we do the work without him. But that is not the way God works. He says: “I want the cooperation of men and angels, even if it costs more work, trouble, and heartache.”

A Change Takes Place in Heaven

So heaven is built on the principle of cooperation and unity, and thus it had always been throughout all the ceaseless ages of eternity, until one arose to begin his own independent ministry and organization. This was sinful independence for it sought to work apart from God and His plans and organization. Independent ministry and self- supporting work were never a part of God’s original plan. But there was one who came along in a perfect environment, a perfect government, and began his own ministry in competition and opposition to the regular and established ministry of heaven which had been in operation for ages.

When that spirit of independence came to earth, this world entered into the darkness and misery of sin. The first great temptation of man was to be independent. The Bible says, “And the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God does know that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’ (Genesis 3: 4, 5). Thus the serpent tempted Eve with the thought that she would be unwise enough to act independently, knowing good and evil herself, without having to depend upon God for guidance. Multitudes still cling to this lie.

Thus this earth became a part of the independent ministry of Satan, which made things rather confusing on planet earth, because nearly the whole population of earth, with a few exceptions such as Noah, became loyal to Satan’s independent ministry. Now those who remained loyal to God, became themselves independent of the rebellion that persisted on earth. Thus those who were independent with Satan became the establishment, while those who humbly remained loyal to God appeared to be independent. The appearance was the opposite of the reality.

God’s Training for Heaven

God’s plan has always been for humble cooperation. God is trying to teach each one of us the essential character traits of humility and submission. This is the character of heaven. Every experience of life is to instill within us these precious traits of character so that we can fit into that society which Satan forfeited because of his pride and independence. That is why Paul tells us in Romans 13 that we are to learn to be submissive to the civil government and to obey their laws. Ephesians 6: 5, 6 tells us that we are to learn to be submissive to our employers. That is what is fundamentally wrong with labor unions. We can choose where we want to work, and whether we want to continue to work in a certain place, but, while there, we are to “be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh.”

Peter tells us that the younger are to be submissive to the elders, that the elders are to learn the principle of submission also, and are to show themselves thus unto the younger. “Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, ‘for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble’ “ (1 Peter 5: 5, 6). A lot of people don’t like the idea of submission, unless they are the ones who are “on top.” Many husbands revel in Paul’s counsel for wives to “submit to your own husbands,” but they overlook the verse before which says that both husbands and wives are to submit to each other. Ephesians 6 tells us that children are to learn the lesson of submission. God wants everyone to be saved — husbands, children, workers, older people and younger people, and thus he is trying to teach each one the lessons that will allow them to fit within the society of heaven.

The spirit of humble submissiveness will be exemplified in the life and character of the 144,000. The Bible describes them as “the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes” (Revelation 14: 4). There is no spirit of independence here. And yet they appear to be independent to human appearance, for “these are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins.” Women, in the Bible, represents churches and religions, and so the 144,000 are those who are not defiled with false religion and the false religious philosophies that predominate throughout the world. They are independent from man- made tradition, yet the Bible says they are “followers” — followers of the Lamb.

Appearance is not Always the Reality

From the beginning of sin, those who have remained submissive and dependent upon God by “following the Lamb, wherever He goes,” have found themselves out of step and independent from the world. Think of Noah. He was given the warning of the coming flood and he determined to follow the Lamb and to build the ark as God had directed. Yet, the rest of the world remained independent of God and His counsels. The churches and religious leaders counseled and legislated against the project. Only Noah and his family remained submissive to God. How alone and isolated Noah and his family seemed. How aloof from counsel he appeared to be! How independent they were accused of being! And yet they were the only truly non- independent ministry on earth.

Satan scored a major victory in the days of Noah when he succeeded in causing the whole world to join him in his independence. Yet his greatest victory came when he caused the whole church, God’s church, to be- come independent of God and of His counsels. God established His church with the children of Israel, and He led them out of Egypt by the hand of Moses. But the people rebelled against Moses and the leadership of God.

From the very beginning the “church in the wilderness” (Acts 7: 38) showed their independence from the Lord’s direction. Upon the return of the faithless spies: “All the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, and the whole congregation (the Old Testament word for church, see Acts 7: 38), said to them. . . Why has the Lord brought us to this land to fall by the sword, that our wives and children should become victims? Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt. So they said to one another, ‘let us select a leader and return to Egypt’ “( Numbers 14: 2- 4). This was the first great nominating committee of the Hebrew church. They were going to select their own leader instead of the one God had chosen for them.

Caleb and Joshua remonstrated with the people, saying: “Do not rebel against the Lord, nor fear the people of the land, for they are our bread; their protection has departed from them, and the Lord is with us. Do not fear them. And all the congregation said to stone them with stones” (verses 9, 10). Caleb and Joshua, m this instance, became independent of the organized church — they did not accept the leader the church was choosing nor the decisions they were making — and so the church chose to disfellowship them by stoning! (Stoning is the ultimate in disfellowshiping.) Thus those who refused to become independent from God became independent from an independent church. And the penalty for independence from the church was disfellowshipment by stoning.

Now, the question at stake is, who was right — those who remained loyal to the church or those who appeared to be independent and were therefore disfellowshiped? It is easy to give the answer when looking back at the Bible account, but not so easy when faced with the situation.

In the old covenant types, God often revealed His pleasure or displeasure immediately, as a “type” of the future reward and punishment of the new covenant which will be fulfilled at the last judgment (Revelation 22: 12). In this case, the unfaithful leaders “died by the plague before the Lord.” Yet, so entrenched was this spirit of independence and insubordination in the heart of the people, that not even the direct intervention of God seemed to be able to uproot it from their midst — and yet they thought they were just right, the holy people of God!

Moses Accused of Being Independent

Two chapters later in the book of Numbers, this sinful spirit of independence sprang up again in the rebellion of Korah. “Now Korah the son of Izar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses with some of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, representatives of the congregation, men of renown” (Numbers 16: 1, 2).

Like our church, the Israelites had a representative form of government. Today, when representatives of the church come together, we call it a constituency meeting, or a General Conference.

These “representatives of the congregation” were “men of renown,” and Korah was their chosen leader, with Dathan and Abiram his assistants. These leaders of the people “gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, ‘You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourself above the congregation of the Lord? ‘ (Numbers 16: 3).

Moses and Aaron were accused of being independent from the church, and taking too much upon themselves without the approval of the church. After all, it was God’s church that Korah and his associates represented, and the church, they said, was holy, for God had chosen it for Himself. Surely, when the entire church, through their appointed representatives, decides on something, it is as the voice of God to the people! How could Moses and Aaron not come under the authority of the church and the leaders the church had chosen? How could they justify their “independent” ways?

Yet, Moses and Aaron were not independent — again, as in Noah’s situation, they were the only truly non- independent ones within the church. Appearance was again deceptive. The church body had become independent, whereas those accused of being independent were the ones who had remained loyal and true to the government of heaven.

A peripheral reading of this story might lead to a false conclusion. I have heard ministers and leaders liken their ministry to that of Moses, and anyone who is not in harmony with their plans or the plans of the conference, regardless of their reasons or convictions, are likened to Korah, Dathan and Abiram. But, in writing to the leaders of the church, Ellen White warns:

“The question of religious liberty needs to be clearly comprehended by our people in more ways than one. With outstretched arms men are seeking to steady the ark, and the anger of the Lord is kindled against them because they think that their position entitles them to say what the Lord’s servant’s shall do and what they shall not do. They think themselves competent to decide what shall be brought before God’s people, and what shall be repressed. The Lord inquires of them, “Who has required this at your hand? Who has given you the burden of being conscience for My people? By what spirit are you guided and controlled when you seek to restrict their liberty?

I have not chosen you as I chose Moses — as men through whom I can communicate divine instruction to My people. I have not placed the lines of control in your hands. The responsibility that rested on Moses — of voicing the words of God to the people — has never been delegated to you.” —MR, # 1335, Aug. 1, 1895.

It should be noted that Moses was not the elected leader of the Children of Israel — he was never elected by the people. Rather, Moses was the one whom the people rejected (Acts 7: 35).

Moses was a type of Christ (Deuteronomy 18: 15), whom the leaders of the church hated and crucified. He was a prophet, chosen by God. The elected leader whom the people chose was Korah! “And Korah gathered all the congregation (or church) against” Moses and Aaron “at the door of the tabernacle of meeting” (Numbers 16: 19).

Did God recognize Korah’s position simply be- cause the whole church was behind him? Would to God that we, today, would remember the lessons of Korah and seek more for the will and direction of God rather than for position, victory at the polls, or referendum mandates. Will we learn the lesson that no committee or conference or power on earth has the authority to change one precept of truth, as the beast power claims to be able to do? God is seeking the cooperation of His fellow workers on earth, but He has not abdicated the throne, nor will He allow mankind to develop and assume kingly and controlling power over His heritage, which are His purchased possession.

John was Independent of Sanhedrin

When God called John the Baptist, a prophet equal with Moses (Matthew 11: 11), to prepare the way for Jesus’ first coming, leaders like Korah were in charge of the church. Though John was faithful to the church, he did not recognize the authority of these self- appointed leaders, and he fearlessly reproved them for their pride and arrogance. “John had not recognized the authority of the Sanhedrin by seeking their sanction for his work; and he had reproved rulers and people, Pharisees and Sadducees alike.” —DA, 132.

John’s calling and authority did not come from man, but from God, and John the Baptist respected the authority of heaven. The Sanhedrin, the highest human authority in the church, had tried to assume prerogatives and authority that belonged to God alone, thus making themselves independent of God, and John the Baptist did not join in their independence by submitting himself to them. Moreover, he reproved rulers and elders just as well as the common people — he was no respecter of people. Though some would consider that criticism of the leadership, John recognized clearly that sin in one was as bad as sin in another, and public sins that were unrepentant of needed to be publicly reproved.

When John the Baptist “saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them . . . . “bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘we have Abraham as our father, ‘ for I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire’ “ (Matthew 3: 7- 10).

John taught the people not to put full faith in any system, profession of personal piety, or institution — for “every tree which does not bear good fruit” will be “cut down.” Every independent person, congregation, conference, institution, or ministry, however large or small, that becomes independent from God, will be cut down. “God has a church. . . . It is the people who love God and keep His commandments.” —Upward Look, p. 315. God’s church, His people who are totally dependent upon Him and who “follow the lamb wherever He goes” (Revelation 14: 4), will go through to the end, and they will go through unitedly as a body of Christ. Yet it must be understood that the movement is much more than systems, buildings, and legal documents. When the Seventh- day Adventist headquarters at Battle Creek became independent, God burned it down, but the church itself survived, and will ultimately triumph. We want to triumph with it. God is not going to start a new church or a new movement. But the movement must be purified from every element of independence from Him.

The Jews thought that because they could trace their lineage and system back to Abraham, they were secure. But John said that God was not dependent upon them to have a people — He could take the stony hearts of the Gentiles and graft them into the true stock. In commenting upon John’s message, Ellen White elaborates:

“Not by its name, but by its fruit, is the value of a tree determined. If the fruit is worthless, the name (Jew, Israel, Christian, or Seventh- day Adventist) cannot save the tree from destruction. John declared to the Jews that their standing was to be decided by their character and life. Profession was worthless. If their life and character were not in harmony with God’s law, they were not His people.” —DA, 107.

Somehow John did not seem to understand, as the leaders did, that the church (which to them meant the visible structure that was under their control) was going through regardless. “The Jews had misinterpreted God’s promise of eternal favor to Israel: ‘Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is His name: If these ordinances depart from before Me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever. Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord’ (Jeremiah 31: 35- 37). The Jews regarded their natural descent from Abraham as giving them a claim to this promise. But they overlooked the conditions which God had specified.” —DA, 106.

The Jews trusted in the promises of the Bible that they would last forever, as long as the sun and moon existed. They could tauntingly argue with John the Baptist, asking “is the sun still shining, John? You see then, God must not have cast us off, has He?” But they had overlooked the conditions upon which the promises were based. John assuredly warned them that “every tree which does not bear good fruit” will be cut down and “thrown into the fire.” — Even Israel and Jerusalem!

When John warned the church that God could work without them, in their eyes he committed the unpardonable sin. Instead of taking his message to heart and working to purify the church so that the conditions of acceptance with God could be fulfilled, they sought to silence the reprover. To them the church was the structure of buildings and the human leadership in Jerusalem, and that system was as secure in their eyes as the throne of God itself. Yet “from the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church.” —AA, 11. Never has the Lord, either anciently or today, made His work or His church totally dependent on physical structure. God removed the structure in Jesus’ day, but the true church survived. Throughout the Old Testament

God had promised that “in the place where it was said ‘You are not My people, ‘ there it shall be said to them, ‘You are the sons of the living God’ “ (Hosea 1: 10). As it is today, so it was then, God was not dependent upon the established church to preserve a people. He could raise up children to Abraham from the stony hearts of the Gentiles, for “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3: 29).

John warned that it is “not, by its name, but by its fruit, is the value of a tree determined. If the fruit is worthless, the name cannot save the tree from destruction.” —DA, 107. When God’s people begin to worry about the semantics of their name, seeking to protect the words themselves by crucifying people who use it, as they did Jesus upon the cross, it is a sure sign that they have lost the true significance of the name. The primary purpose of a name is to signify the character within. If Jesus had not called Himself a Jew, the Jewish leaders would not have put Him to death.

It is time again for the message and ministry of John the Baptist to come to God’s heritage in order that we might be prepared for Jesus’ second coming. Today, we are called to do a work similar to that of John the Baptist, and to give the same message in even stronger terms, yet in a spirit of love. “In this fearful time, just before Christ is to come the second time, God’s faithful preachers will have to bear a still more pointed testimony than was borne by John the Baptist. A responsible, important work is before them; and those who speak smooth things, God will not acknowledge as His shepherds. A fearful woe is upon them.” —lT, 321. It is a fearful thing to be a minister and speak smooth and popular messages that please the people. Though they may receive the credentials and tithes of the conference, God does not acknowledge them as His ministers. “ ‘Peace and safety’ is the cry from men who will never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God’s people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who feel the just vengeance of an offended God.” —ST. 211.

Jesus, our True Example

Probably the only person in the Bible who talked straighter than John the Baptist, as God’s preachers today are to do, was Jesus. When Jesus met the religious leaders, He did not simply call them poisonous snakes, as John had done, He plainly stated that they were the children of Satan. The Jews had argued with Him that they were assuredly God’s people because they had the official name and the official organization that had been sacredly handed down for centuries (John 8: 39- 41), but Jesus said: “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do” (John 8: 42- 44). You may think you represent God because you have the official name and represent the official organization, but if your life is not in harmony with God’s expressed will, you are most assuredly not His representatives.

When Jesus came, He was viewed from the very beginning as being independent, but of all the people on earth, He was the least independent person who ever lived. He said: “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5: 30). Jesus was the least independent minister who ever lived, as far as His own will was concerned, but He was independent from the church organization on earth because they had become independent of God. He would like to have been united with them, but He could not unite with them and remain dependent on His Father, for the two were not in harmony. As the Bible says: “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3: 3).

Thus, to outward appearances, He manifested what appeared to be an independent attitude. “Under the synagogue teachers the youth were instructed in the countless regulations which as orthodox Israelites they were expected to observe. But Jesus did not interest Himself in these matters. From childhood He acted independently. . . .“ Jesus was viewed as being independent, but what was He independent from? Let us finish the sentence. “From childhood He acted independently of the rabbinical laws. The Scriptures of the Old Testament were His constant study, and the words, ‘Thus saith the Lord, ‘ were ever upon His lips.” —DA, 84.

If one wants to cause trouble, let him ask for the authority from the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy when confronted by the church manual. But that is the kind of trouble Jesus caused. (It was because we did not want our church to become like the Jewish church that we decided not to have a church manual when it was first proposed in 1883, but the decision was reversed in the General Conference of 1931.)

Though Jesus tried, “in every gentle and submissive way . . . to please those with whom He came in contact . . . He would not be influenced by their teaching.” —DA, 85. The priests could not tolerate this spirit of independence in Jesus. “They urged Him to receive the maxims and traditions that had been handed down from the ancient rabbis, but He asked for their authority in Holy Writ. He would hear every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; but He could not obey the inventions of men.” —DA, 85. I can hear them urging Him: “Jesus, don’t you believe that this is God’s church?” “Yes,” He would answer. “Well, don’t you believe that God has guided and directed in this church down through the ages?” “Yes,” He would answer again. “Then you must believe the practices and teachings of this church which have been decided upon and practiced for centuries. You don’t believe that all these rabbis were wrong, do you?” (Notice, it was the “maxims and traditions that had been handed down from ancient rabbis” which they urged upon Jesus.) But Jesus would simply answer, “Where does it teach that in the Bible?”

Even Jesus’ own mother, who was a converted person and a conscientious member of the church, thought Jesus was too independent. “Mary often remonstrated with Jesus, and urged Him to conform to the usages of the rabbis.” —DA, 90. What a trial this must have been for Jesus. All alone Jesus bore His fidelity to truth. He was misunderstood by the best people in church — they could not understand how any sincere, consecrated person could become so independent from the teaching of the much respected rabbis of the past and present, since they had been ordained of God.

For Jesus, there was no inspired manual other than the holy Word of God. But so hierarchical had the church become that they knew of no other way that the church could function other than by man- made rules and authority and a strong, Jerusalem- centered structure. But Jesus elevated truth above structure.

Jesus was viewed as being so independent of the structure that the leaders of the church decided that if He was allowed to continue He would destroy the church — and there is no question that their power structure would have been destroyed. “He who was the foundation of the ritual and economy of Israel would be looked upon as its enemy and destroyer.” —DA, 111. The pious leaders of the church tried to prevent His influence from destroying the church in every way possible. They tried to prove Him wrong. They warned the people against listening to Him. They prevented Him from speaking in the churches. They spread lies and rumors about Him and His ministry. They tried everything to limit His influence (and they were quite successful at this) but nothing seemed to stop Him. Finally, as a last resort, they “regretfully” decided that they must put Him to death. They undoubtedly “hated” to do this, but the church must be preserved — its reputation and name must be protected from such irresponsible people as Barabbas and Jesus.

Jesus and Barabbas, of course, were quite different — one was a murderer and one was a life- giver. But they were both independent, and of the two, Jesus was the most dangerous, because His doctrines and practices fooled the common people. And once the spirit of independence gets started, they figured that there was no way to protect the church. It was inconceivable to them that God could protect and preserve His church if they would purify themselves and call upon Him for His protection — no, if they did not preserve it, the church would be destroyed. It was either Jesus or the church (John 11: 50). Therefore, Jesus must be destroyed so that the church could survive. “If He stands in the way of Israel’s well- being, is it not doing God a service to remove Him? Better that one man perish than that the whole nation be destroyed. . . . In their opinion, He had set aside the priesthood. He had refused to acknowledge the theology of the rabbinical schools. He had exposed the evil practices of the priests and had irreparably hurt their influence. . . . Satan told them that in order to maintain their authority they must put Jesus to death. This counsel they followed. . . . Such was their deception that they were well pleased with themselves. They regarded themselves as patriots who were seeking the nation ‘s salvation.” —DA, 540- 541. Thus Jesus was disfellowshipped and the people who disfellowshipped Him thought they had saved the church from some great independent calamity that was threatening their very existence.

The Basis for True Authority

But though they tried, and verily thought they had succeeded, they could not disfellowship Jesus from the church. Jesus was the church. They merely succeeded in disfellowshipping themselves from the true church. For God “has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1: 22, 23).

The church is still to be “built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man. Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction. The Saviour declares, ‘All ye are brethren. ‘ All are exposed to temptations, and are liable to error. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church. Upon this the weakest may depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make Christ their efficiency. ‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm’ (Jeremiah 17: 5).” —DA, 414.

“This principle bears with equal weight upon a question that has long agitated the Christian world — the question of apostolic succession. Descent from Abraham was proved, not by name and lineage, but by likeness of character. So the apostolic succession rests not upon the transmission of ecclesiastical authority, but upon spiritual relationship. A life actuated by the apostles’ spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught — this is the true evidence of apostolic succession. This is what constitutes men the successors of the first teachers of the gospel.” —DA, 467.

Within Christ’s church there is to be no hierarchical, centralized, controlling power that supersedes the headship of Christ. As the messenger of the Lord said, “Battle Creek is not to be the center of God’s work. God alone can fill this place.” —TM, 375. There is a place for order, but it is to be a simple, humble order, always uplifting the primacy of Christ. For “He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence” (Colossians 1: 18).

Thus, as Christ is the head of the body, He is always to “have the preeminence.” Whenever the church assumes preeminence over Christ, or His word, it thereby becomes an idol to the people.

Christ created the structure — it is holy — but it is always to remain subservient to the Word and to Christ as its head. Anything that supersedes God becomes a false God. That’s what the Jews did with their temple. The temple became more important than the truth, or even God’s dear Son. A word of criticism spoken against the temple was worse than a false teaching being taught from its precincts. The final charge brought against Christ was that He spoke against the temple.

In view of this danger of making the system and its leadership a false God, Ellen White has a whole chapter in Testimonies to Ministers entitled, “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me” — She was referring to Battle Creek, its system, and the leadership. She also warns that “the trials of the children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ — how the enemy sought every occasion to take control for the minds of the Jews, and today he is seeking to blind the minds of God’s servants, that they may not be able to discern the precious truth.” —1SM, 406.

Jesus was rejected by most because He was not sanctioned by the visible church. And those who rejected Him were lost. According to the Spirit of Prophecy, this will likewise be our test.

“To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the lord when champions are few — this will be our test.” — 5T, 136.

The Head of the Church

“And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12: 28). God is the One who has promised to place various gifts in the church. When the church is pure, God is the one who calls and ordains through His chosen instrumentalities. He chooses through the official channels when He can, but when he cannot, He will call people directly, as in the case of David and John the Baptist. Never has God turned the entire control of His church over to human instrumentalities.

The Lord wants to direct His heritage and His church far more than we give Him opportunity to do. “If ministers and men in- positions of authority will get out of the way, and let the Holy Sprit move upon the minds of the lay brethren, God will direct them what to do for the honor of his name. Let men have freedom to carry out that which the Holy Spirit indicates. Do not put the shackles upon humble men whom God would use.” —RH, July 9, 1895.

It is not being independent for humble men and women whom God has called to act upon their God given responsibilities. In various places around the world I have been told by laymen that they cannot even give a Bible study without the pastor’s permission. In most places, a laymen is not even permitted to hold a prayer meeting in his own home, if it is called a prayer meeting, without the church’s permission — and if the pastor wants to come in and take control, he assumes that prerogative. Not long ago I was asked to have some meetings in one of the major cities of America. Previous to my coming they had had Ron Spear and Cohn Standish in to speak. This meeting was held in a private hall, and one of the local pastors was in attendance and expressed great appreciation for the meetings. However, the pastor of the largest church in town, where this laymen held office and membership, asked him not to have these meetings. The laymen, however, felt that the Lord wanted these meetings, and as they were not a part of any church function or on church property, and as those who were asked to speak were all ordained Seventh- day Adventist ministers and members in good and regular standing, he felt impressed to quietly go on with the meetings. He had no intention of having a conflict with the pastor, but was simply trying to serve the Lord. Yet, because of his supposed “independence” from the pastor he was duly disciplined by the church by way of official censor and removed from being an elder.

But who was acting independently — the laymen or the pastor? There is no law in the Bible, or even the manual, forbidding people from getting together and reading and studying the Bible together. For the pastor to arbitrarily make these rules is independence indeed! During the Dark Ages it was against the law to hold private meetings, but America guarantees that right — but have we lost it in the church? It is “Satan . . . [who] works to restrict religious liberty, and to bring into the religious world a species of slavery. Organizations, institutions, unless kept by the power of God, will work under Satan’s dictation to bring men under the control of men. . . . His methods are practiced even among Seventh- day Adventists, who claim to have advanced truth.” —TM, 366.

Today if someone tries to raise up a new congregation or hold a meeting for Bible study and prayer, the question asked is: “By whose authority are you holding these meetings?” That was the question that was asked of John the Baptist and Jesus. “Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority’ “( Matthew 21: 23).

“Laws and rules are being made at the centers of the work that will soon be broken into atoms. . . . The Lord does not ask permission of those in responsible positions when He wishes to use certain ones as His agents for the promulgation of truth. . . . Those who know the truth are to be worked by the Holy Spirit, and not themselves to try to work the Spirit. If the cords are drawn much tighter, if the rules are made much finer, if men continue to bind their fellow- laborers closer and closer to the commandments of men, many will be stirred by the Spirit of God to break every shackle, and assert their liberty in Christ Jesus.” —RH, July 23, 1895.

God has appointed leadership to act under Him, but never in His place. There is a place for organization — heaven is a place of order. God’s church, all through the ages, has been a place of order. The Old Testament church was a church of order, and God’s church today is to be just as ordered and orderly as was the Old Testament church. There is a place for leadership, a place for elders, a place for deacons and administrators. But their job description was never intended to be that of being the head of the church or of controlling the church, but rather they were to be the servants of God to the people. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20: 25- 28).

Do you suppose that I, or anyone else, could ever get to the place where we could supersede God’s authority in the church? We could try, but that would be a false, sinful and assumed authority that God and His true people would not recognize anymore than John the Baptist did (DA, 132). Suppose that I had a lot of charisma and a lot of good leadership abilities, and I made a lot of friends and made some good business or political decisions and so began to climb the corporate ladder in the church, until I got to the very top. Could I ever get to the place where I had enough authority to supersede God’s authority? Could I tell someone whom God had called to preach, for example, that God had not called him to preach, as they told John the Baptist and Jesus? I could tell him, but no matter how much authority I might have assumed or think I had, I could never get enough authority to supersede God’s authority. That would be the epitome of independence. But in my blind presumption, I would probably think that the person whom God had called and who was merely fulfilling His God- given mission was being independent because he had not listened to me! —what pride!

“But,” someone might insist, “someone must have that kind of authority in order to maintain order in the church.” That is exactly the claim of the papal church. “It is one of the leading doctrines of Romanism that the pope is the visible head of the universal church of Christ, invested with supreme authority over bishops and pastors in all parts of the world. . . . God has never given a hint in His word that He has appointed any man to be the head of the church.” —GC 50, 51.

While God has not given any man the authority to say who cannot preach, when the Holy Spirit has made it plainly evident that God has called him to preach, likewise God has not given any man the authority to say that someone can or should preach whom God has not called. No local church should ever be forced by some higher human authority to allow a conferenceappointed pastor or leader to speak when the congregation and elders feel, based upon Biblical evidence, that God has not called him to speak.

In fact, for men to receive those sent to them from the conference whom God has not sent, causes them to become independent from God along with the pastor, and results in the withdrawal of God’s blessings. “As there are woes for those who preach the truth while they are unsanctified in heart and life, so there are woes for those who receive and maintain the unsanctified in the position which they cannot fill.” —2T, 552. “There are fearful woes for those who preach the truth, but are not sanctified by it, and also for those who consent to receive and maintain the unsanctified to minister to them in word and doctrine.” —lT, 261, 262.

Yet, how many ministers whom God has never recognized are lauded and applauded by men, and how many ministers have been scourged and even put to death who were the chosen instrumentalities of God.

For a central, ruling authority to assume controlling power over the local membership, telling them who will preach to them and who will not preach to them, is to place one’s self in the place of God over the people. God has entrusted to His people certain inalienable rights and obligations, such as the right and the obligation to carefully and prayerfully decide who they will receive and maintain to minister to them. The Bible predicted that there would come a power that would seek to put itself in the place of God. “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4). That, in a special way refers to the papacy of the Middle Ages, and we can adopt some of the same policies, until we are “following in the track of Romanism.” —TM, 362.

“The high- handed power that has been developed, as though position has made men gods, makes me afraid, and out to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. this lording it over God’s heritage will create such a disgust of man’s jurisdiction that a state of insubordination will result. . . . The spirit of domination is extending to the presidents of our conferences. . . . They are following in the track of Romanism. . . . Rule, rule, has been their course of action. Satan has had an opportunity to represent himself.” —TM, 361- 363.

These statements from the Spirit of Prophecy were not written to imply that the church does not, or should not, have proper authority. The church is to have a great amount of authority under God. When a point or a decision can be shown from God’s word and from the leading of the Holy Spirit to be from the Lord, the leaders are to have a great deal of authority. Whenever the church utters the utterances of God, it is as the voice of God. But when they become independent of God and assume authority such as the Sanhedrin assumed, then they are no longer the voice of God. It was when the leaders were becoming independent of God, that Ellen White said: “That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be, that is past.” —GCB, 1901, p. 25.

The 1888 Problem

In the papal church, one central power decided who is called and who is not called, what should be preached and what should not be preached, what people could read and what they could not read, what meetings could be held and what could not be held. The church was a controlling element, and it was being controlled by human wisdom, with “the eyes of a man” (Daniel 7: 8). That was the same type of controlling element that ruled the church in Jesus’ day. The people came to worship the system as their lord and master rather than Jesus.

This false gospel of system worship, where the organization became the master rather than the servant, was what Ellen White recognized as the main problem of the General Conference of 1888. In talking about the problems of the church, she related the cause of these problems in the following letter: “This is largely due to the feeling of Elder Butler (the General Conference President) that position gave unlimited authority. . . . God designs that men shall use their minds and consciences for themselves. He never designed that one man should become the shadow of another, and utter only another’s sentiments. But this error has been coming in among us, that a very few are to be mind, conscience, and judgment for all God’s workers. The foundation of Christianity is ‘Christ our Righteousness. ‘ Men are individually responsible to God and must act as God acts upon them, not as another human mind acts upon their mind; for if this method of indirect influence is kept up, souls cannot be impressed and directed by the great I AM. They will, on the other hand, have their experience blended with another, and will be kept under a moral restraint, which allows no freedom of action or of choice. . . . If we would be wise, and use diligently, prayerfully, and thankfully the means whereby light and blessings are to come to His people, then no voice nor power upon earth would have authority over us to say, ‘This shall not be. ‘ “ —1888, 110- 113.

In a letter to Elder Butler, Ellen White related what was shown her in vision: “My guide. . . stretched out his arms toward Dr. Waggoner, and to you, Elder Butler, and said in substance as follows: ‘Neither have all the light upon the law; neither position is perfect.’ —1888, 93. The question was not simply theology — Elder Waggoner and Elder Jones’ positions were not perfect, but God had given them a message, even though still imperfect, to give to the church. But the leadership thought that every message should have to go through them for their approval. These young men from the West — Jones and Waggoner — had no right to work without the permission of the General Conference officers.

“Never, never feel the slightest disturbance be- cause the Lord is raising up youth to lift and carry the heavier burdens, and proclaim the message of truth. It has been at this point that Elder Butler has failed, and he is a deceived man . . . . I hope there will never be the slightest encouragement given to our people to put such wonderful confidence in finite, erring man as has been placed in Elder Butler, for ministers are not as God, and too much reliance has been placed upon Elder Butler in the past. Even the messages and testimonies were made of none effect through the influence of the words and ideas of Elder Butler. This sin has not been repented of by some of our people, and they will have to go over the ground again and again unless they cease from man, and put their whole trust in the living God.” —1888, 975.

There is a place for counsel, and even for warnings against false teachings, to be given by the leadership. But all such counsel and warnings are to be based upon sound biblical principle, not upon hierarchical authority. People are thus to be taught to depend upon the counsels and warnings of the Word, rather than that of man. We are to teach people to respect leaders, but not to depend upon human wisdom and leadership. “When our people in the different places have their special convocations, teach them, for Christ’s sake and for their own soul’s sake, not to make flesh their a~…. To place men where God should be placed does not honor or glorify God. Is the president of the General Conference to be the god of the people? Are the men at Battle Creek to be regarded as infinite in wisdom? When the Lord shall work upon human hearts and human intellects, principles and practices different from this will be set before the people. ‘Cease ye from man’ (Isaiah 2: 22).” —TM, 375, 376.

As one reads through the over 1800 pages of The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials and the book Testimonies to Ministers, he cannot help but be impressed with both the seriousness and the present prevalence of corporate independence. This was the chief problem in 1888, and it seems that it was never corrected. Supposedly a correction came in 1901, but two years later Ellen White commented: ‘The result of the last General Conference (1901) has been the greatest, the most terrible sorrow of my life. No change was made. The spirit that should have been brought into the whole work as the result of that meeting was not brought m because men did not receive the testimonies of the Spirit of God.” —MR, #1016, 3- 4 (Letter 17, January 14, 1903). It was in 1901 itself that she said: “We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel.” —EV, 696.

Two Kinds of Kings

Kings are independent. That is why the messenger of the Lord associated independence with kingly power. In 1901 Ellen White warned our leaders against independence, insubordination, and rebellion. At the same time she told how this had come into the church — through the exercise of “kingly power,” so that God’s rulership was replaced by human kingship. In her opening address to the delegates of the 1901 General Conference, Ellen White repeatedly stated that we were being governed by “kingly power.” (See Ellen White’s speech in Spaulding and Magan, 162- 174.)

But there are two kinds of kings, both of which lead to independence from the Lord. First, there are those kings who have enough charisma and influence to get followers. We call them the successful kings. There are also those kings that cannot get anyone to follow them, but they are, nevertheless, going to do whatever they want to anyone, as a king without any subjects, independent of the Lord.

Some might wrongly suppose that because there are bad leaders, that gives them the right to become independent and do whatever they want to do. If they do this, they are no better off than the “bad” leaders they are critical of. God has not called anyone to be independent or to act independently. God has called us all to be servants of one another, and to draw together in true unity and love. God is not calling for separationism, but for a purifying of the church, where all can work together in true harmony for the finishing of the gospel. It is true that truth must be paramount, but wherever truth and the salvation of souls are not at stake, we are to do everything we can to live peaceably with all men and to work together in unity and harmony. We are to consider others first and self last. The true following of the principles of God will not lead to disunity, but to the true unity that was manifested at Pentecost, where all “were with one accord in one place” (Acts 2: 1).

God has a church, and it is the Seventh- day Adventist church. This is the church of prophecy and providence, and only God can start a church — it is to be built upon Him, not upon any human founder (Ephesians 2: 20). True, God’s remnant church is described as “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” in the Laodicean message of Revelation 3, but it is still God’s church. Leaders and members may not always exemplify God’s character, and for this reason we are still on earth. Whole congregations, institutions, or even conferences may apostatize — the organization itself may become so independent of God that He cannot use them any more, just as happened with Israel — nevertheless God will always have true and faithful Seventh- day Adventist people, registered on the books of heaven (Hebrews 12: 22, 23), who will constitute His church and who will go through victorious to the end. God wants every conference, institution, and congregation to triumph with them, if they will be purified of every sin.

Although we should strive to live peaceable with all men, nevertheless, when God sends His message to purify the church of sin and selfishness, it will cause a reaction. “Just as long as God has a church, He will have those who will cry aloud and spare not, who will be His instruments to reprove selfishness and sins, and will not shun to declare the whole counsel of God, whether men will hear or forbear. I saw that individuals would rise up against the plain testimonies. ft does not suit their natural feelings. They would choose to have smooth things spoken unto them, and have peace cried in their ears. . . . The shaking must soon take place to purify the church.” —2SG, 284.

The Lord is calling for individuals today to do the work of Elijah and John the Baptist, in all humility. But there are many who rise up to give a message on their own charge, without a commission from the Lord. There are many who would seek to steady the ark of God, as Uzzah did, with their own human wisdom and might. How can a person know whether he has been called of God or is simply motivated by feelings of importance?

Those who are truly called of God must be faithful, humble servants, not seeking for notice or first place. Moreover, whenever God calls for an individual to be His instrument, He always lays the burden upon more than simply he himself. Even when Jesus began His ministry, though He was not recognized or acknowledge by the church leadership, He was nevertheless acknowledged by John the Baptist and by the Holy Spirit at His baptism. David was anointed by Samuel. The disciples were called by Jesus. Paul received a vision and was set aside by the church at Antioch. Timothy was called by Paul. Daniel and Joseph were set apart by a series of circumstances and providence called forth by the Lord — but both had been faithful in the little things of life before being called to positions of prominence.

A Day and Age of Independence

As never before, a spirit of independence from the Lord afflicts our church, just as it did the Jewish church in the days of Korah and again in the days of John the Baptist (see lSM, 406). We are living in a day and age of independence. When I was pastoring, I was talking to one of my conference presidents about the local Adventist hospital. It had become so large that it was only able to fill a small percentage of its staff with Adventist help, yet they were building it still larger. In conversation one day I kindly pointed out that the Spirit of Prophecy counsels against building large hospitals and staffing them with those not of our faith. His response was that those counsels don’t apply to today. In our educational work, in our administrative work, in our educational work, in our medical work, it seems that self- rule and independence has become the rule of the day. God’s counsels, they reason, don’t apply any more. “Times have changed. These words strengthen their unbelief.” —5T, 211.

I was talking to a union president not long ago. He brought up the subject of tithing, and accused another ministry, that we at Steps to Life work with and support, of being a “thief’ because they accept tithe. They don’t solicit it, but when it comes in they accept it and apply it toward ministerial work. “Why,” I asked, “are they a thief? Who have they stolen from?”

The response was that all the tithe should go through the organization, because it is the storehouse. But I asked: “What then about Quiet Hour, Voice of Prophecy, and Amazing Facts, all of which accept tithe and always have? Are they thieves also?”

This was indeed hard to answer. He would not suggest that other ministries were stealing, but he still maintained that the ministry he was opposed to was stealing the tithe, even though this particular ministry is doing nothing different than most of our accepted ministries always have! The problem was that the ministry he was opposed to was preaching the straight testimony and that was what he was really opposed to — the tithe was only a smoke screen. Nevertheless I pursued the issue.

“What about Ellen White’s example and counsel,” I asked. She paid her tithe directly to various ministers and women Bible workers who were not being paid by the conference. Moreover, she accepted other people’s tithe who gave it to her and who did not want it to go to the conference. “Was she a thief?”

“Well,” he wanted to know, “do you base your beliefs on the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy?” “I thought they were the same,” I replied. But he then informed me that Ellen White did not understand tithing. So I asked him whether he understood the biblical principles of tithing better than Ellen White did.

He responded: “Yes I do. I understand tithing better than Ellen White.” I thought I had misunderstood, so I asked him again just to make sure I had heard right, and I received the same assurance that he understood this principle better than Ellen White. I asked him for his biblical references for his understanding, but he could produce none!

It is interesting that when the Colorado Conference president in 1905 tried to set up his will as the governing rule, stating that all tithe should come into the conference treasury rather than being sent directly to people who were not on the conference payroll, Ellen White warned him that if he agitated this question she would have to make known to others what she did with her tithe. In referring to disagreements with the management of the tithe by the conference, she said in Testimonies, vol. 9, page 249 that we should make our complaints known but that we should not withhold our tithe. However, in the case of apostasy and false teaching by the ministry, and in the case of the conference neglecting or refusing to support those whom the Lord had called and chosen, Ellen White made it crystal clear that it was not only the privilege but the duty of herself and others to send their tithe directly to where they thought it would do the most good (see lT 261, 262; 2T 552; Spaulding and Magan, 117, 215). Moreover, she stated that those who simply trusted the conference to expend their means, without taking responsibility themselves as to the outcome of the money God had made them stewards of, would not be held “guiltless” before the Lord for their stewardship 1888, pp. 1443, 1444. Some have formed such strong opinions and policies that they know more than the Spirit of Prophecy in these and other kindred areas.

Today, prideful independence from the Lord and His counsels has become the rule of the day.

Two Kinds of Independent Ministries

As there have always been, so today there are two kinds of independent ministries. As we read about Jesus: “From childhood He acted independently of the rabbinical laws.” —DA, 84. John the Baptist had an independent ministry from the Sanhedrin -DA, 132. Elijah and Paul had independent ministries. Madison Sanitarium and school was ordained by the Lord, with direct counsel from the messenger of the Lord, that they were to become an independent institution from the General Conference. God has always had independent ministries.

Many of these ministries have been unappreciated. When Elder A. T. Jones was not allowed to speak in Battle Creek in 1891, Ellen White said that “We will secure a hall in the city and the words God has given Bro. Jones to speak the people shall have them.” —1888, pp. 847, 848. Jesus spoke by the seashore, Wesley in the fields, and William Miller in tents. Today, while people like Desmond Ford are allowed to speak in our largest churches, many who have been faithful ministers for years are obliged to speak in rented halls be- cause of the straight message they bear. It may be, if the message is barred from the churches, that God will use the independent ministries to help finish the work where the official church has failed.

And so there is a healthy, God ordained place for independent ministries. God has never tied His hands to any set counsel of men, but has always had the privilege of choosing whom and how He desires. God has always used independent ministries. And yet there is sinful independence today also, as there always has been. Any independence that puts human wisdom and authority above God’s wisdom and authority, making man independent of God, is sinful independence. This was what Eve was tempted to do. Whenever a Christian hospital rejects, either openly or in practice, the counsels of the Lord, it has become an independent ministry. Whenever a church school or union college or university accepts the standards of the world in the place of the standards of the Lord, it has become an independent ministry. Whenever a conference or a church receives the counsels of psychologists and philosophers, or from religious institutions that do not keep the Sabbath, as Ahaziah did when he sought the god of Ekron (2 Kings 1: 2), rejecting the plain counsel of the Lord, it has become an independent ministry. Whenever a ministry that is designated an independent ministry because they are not under the conference structure, departs from the teachings and practices of the Lord, it has become independent in the wrong way. May the Lord save us from sinful independence.

A Reformation Needed

It is time to humble our hearts before the Lord so that He can send upon us the true revival and reformation that was displayed at Pentecost, where unity was achieved through the believing of truth, through humility toward self, and love toward one another; where the full gospel was preached in all its purity and power; where the principles of the government of heaven were followed, with Christ as the true head of the church and all its members were fellow servants.

Kingly power in the hands of religious rulers will never save or exalt the church. Unity through centralization will never exalt Christ. Blindly following religious teachers will not save a single soul. But humble cooperation, where every member is a fellow worker with Christ (1 Corinthians 3: 9), organized together in a body according to the call of God, and where dependence is placed first and foremost upon the revealed will of God, will bring the long- soughtfor blessings of the latter rain and the soon return of Jesus Christ. This is that primitive godliness that will be revealed among God’s people before the final visitation of God’s judgments upon the earth -GC, 464.

Scripture texts are from the New King James

Books titles by Ellen White are abbreviated as follows:

  • 1888 = Ellen G. White 1888 Materials
  • AA = Acts of the Apostles
  • DA = Desire of Ages
  • EW = Early Writings
  • EV = Evangelism
  • GC = Great Controversy
  • GCB = General Conference Bulletin
  • MR = Manuscript Release
  • RH = Review and Herald Magazine
  • 2SG = Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2.
  • IT, 2T, etc. are Testimonies to the Church, volumes I, 2, etc.
  • TM = Testimonies to Ministers

Emphasis are generally supplied

Chapter 3 Desire of Ages — Chapter 65

PROPHETIC PARALLELS
The Church “Then”. . . . . .and the Church Now

by Terry S. Ross

In the last chapter I promised that we would go right to the Word of the Lord to establish who and what the church is and that’s just what we’re going to do. It’s alarming to find so many people who profess to be Adventists tossing out the Spirit of Prophecy. I have heard things like, “Well, if you need Ellen White, I guess that is all right for you, but I just need my Bible.” Perhaps these poor souls do not realize that when we throw away the Spirit of Prophecy, we are throwing away the Bible at the same time for, in the description of the remnant church in Revelation, one of the identifying marks of the true church is the gift of prophecy.

In the book of Acts we will discover the plain, simple truth about who and what the church is. We will better see if people are throwing out only the Spirit of Prophecy. Actually, this will prove that those who do not want to accept the truth will throw it aside no matter where it is found.

The good news is that this little study in Acts is amazingly clear and the honest Christian searching for truth and direction from the Lord will praise His name!

You know the story of Stephen. Now, was Stephen a Conference man or an Independent man? Well, of course. Stephen had been chosen by the disciples (Independent Preachers). The Conference did not recognize these men and told them they had no authority to preach. They forbade them to preach in the name of Christ.

The Independent Preachers (including Stephen) preached anyway because they didn’t get their orders from the Conference, but from the Lord. Stephen was called in by the “Conference Committee” and as he was explaining to them the prophecies concerning Christ, the Conference men became very angry. As a matter of fact, Acts 7 verse 54 says, they “gnashed on him with their teeth”. Let’s pick up the story in verse 55.

Acts 7: 55- 60: “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord [UNITY], And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.”

Now we know that those who stoned Stephen were Conference Leaders. And we know that Stephen was an Independent Preacher who was being murdered by the Conference Leaders for preaching for the cause of Jesus.

Who was Saul? Was he a Conference man or an Independent? Saul, of course, was a Conference man in whom the Conference put a lot of confidence. His future with the Conference looked bright indeed. Saul was gifted in the ability of argumentation and he was bold.

One important lesson we surely don’t want to miss is the spirit Stephen possessed as the Conference was literally stoning him for taking a stand for Jesus. Stephen rather than being bitter, rather than being vengeful, asked the Lord not to lay this sin against their charge. This is the same spirit that Jesus Himself demonstrated as He was being martyred by the same Conference people. Neither one of these men shunned the duty of exposing the true character of this apostate Conference and neither took on the spirit of hate while doing it. Both Jesus and Stephen truly were “not blind, nor bitter,” but let’s read on.

Acts 8: 1- 4: “And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against THE CHURCH which was at Jerusalem;” STOP!

Let’s look at this closely because in these few words is a great truth and revelation! “And at that time there was a great persecution against…” whom? Yes! The church! Now who was persecuting whom in Jerusalem? Were the Romans persecuting the Conference men? No. The Conference men were persecuting the Independents and here the Bible, God’s Word, plainly says that this was THE church. Not A church but THE church. Brothers and Sisters, can it be any plainer than this? Here it is right in the Word of God and to dismiss these plain words you will have to throw away your Bibles. But let’s read on. There’s more.

“And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES.” STOP!

Do you see it? The Bible plainly states that THE church being persecuted which was scattered abroad had the apostles in it. This proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that THE church in Christ’s day was NOT the Conference but those who followed Jesus or whom the Conference would have called the Independents at that time. The Conference hated the Apostles and the other Independent Leaders who had been chosen. This is why they were persecuting them and this is why Saul was persecuting them. But hate them or not, recognize their authority to preach Christ or not, the Conference plainly did not have the say. God did! God said they were THE CHURCH! But we’re not done yet!

“And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havoc of THE CHURCH…” STOP!

Saul made havoc of whom? Yes! THE church. Now just whom was Saul making havoc of? Was Saul making havoc of the Ancient Conference Leaders? Of course not, for he was employed by the Ancient Conference, he being an Ancient Conference man. You know, Saul was making havoc of the Independents and those who supported them for taking a stand for Jesus. Going on.

“And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havoc of THE church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.”

Folks, it just doesn’t get any more simple than this. Here we see clearly that although the Ancient Conference had originally been raised up by Christ Himself and was claiming, “The church is going through, the church is going through,” it was NOT THE CHURCH THAT WAS GOING THROUGH.

Most Adventists (modern day Jews) have fallen into the same trap that the Jews (Ancient Adventists) fell into. Their pride influenced them to trust wholly in the Conference which had been raised by Christ. But when the Conference became corrupt the people which didn’t adhere to principle became corrupt with them and with blind loyalty followed after these men. That’s why Jesus had so much trouble while He was here. That’s why Jesus was rejected by the Conference while He was here. That’s why Jesus rejected and brought to an end the Conference HE HAD RAISED (they hadn’t raised themselves) while He was here. That’s why Jesus chose Independent Leaders and told them to move on with the work while He was here. AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHY HE IS DOING THE SAME THING TODAY.

What are our people reading today?! Many of you know the quotations which clearly tell us that the last day leaders will be educated by the Holy Spirit rather than by literary institutions, that God will have leaders in the last days of His own choosing. Doesn’t it clearly seem that the Lord is having to do just what He had to do while He was here? Are we like King Belshazzar who could not read the handwriting on the wall? This lesson that we are studying is vital! Just as vital to our understanding as it was in the days of our precious Lord for ONLY THOSE WHO GRASP THE LESSON WILL BE SAVED! Please allow me to ask another question. I don’t want anyone to miss these simple truths.

Later in the same story of Saul, what happened to him? He was on his way to Damascus continuing his persecution of THE church. He was on his way there to find those who were following the Independents and to throw them in jail. We read about it in Acts 9: 1- 2: “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.”

So what Saul was doing was securing the authority from the Conference to go down to the local churches to disfellowship people in the strongest way. He was going to take care of these troublers of Israel who followed Jesus Christ, those whom the Conference rejected. But Saul never got the job done. Something happened out of the ordinary and we read about it in the very next verses.

Acts 9: 3- 5: “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined around about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:…”

And so on the road to Damascus Saul literally sees the light and realizes that although he may have thought he was doing the proper work, he was actually persecuting the wrong people. The story goes on, as you know, and because of this experience on the Damascus road, Saul is blinded and spends a few days in Damascus. While there the Lord sends a disciple, Ananias, to him who gave him back his sight and he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Acts 9: 17- 18: “And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.”

This is where the story of Saul’s intended work takes a drastic change and also where the prior claims which the Bible sets forth regarding who was THE CHURCH is verified once again.

Acts 9: 19- 21: “And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that DESTROYED THEM WHICH CALL ON THIS NAME IN JERUSALEM, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?”

Can there be any doubt as to what the Bible is clearly saying here? I think not. God’s Word is expressing in Acts 9 exactly what it did in Acts 7 & 8. God’s church was being persecuted in Jerusalem and that church was NOT the Conference.

Understandably, the church in Damascus (the followers of Jesus) was very apprehensive of Saul. They rightly stated that this was the same man who was persecuting the church in Jerusalem and they were nervous about trusting this Conference man. They were concerned that his intent was to drag them off to the Conference Committee that had already killed Jesus and stoned Stephen. It’s true that this was Saul’s original intent but the Lord had other plans, praise His name!

Acts 9: 22: “But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.”

So, I think Saul understood the situation and was willing to take up his new duties immediately to prove his new loyalty. You might want to ponder the point that Jesus, through His Holy Spirit, lead Saul to preach in His name rather than send him back to some literary institution. What happens next is very interesting and proves that the apostate Conference will, in the end, even turn on its own men rather than listen to plain words of truth.

Acts 9: 23: “And after that many days were fulfilled, the JEWS TOOK COUNSEL TO KILL HIM.”

The story goes on, of course, and Saul tries to work with the disciples in Jerusalem but they are nervous about his intentions. The Lord eventually works out the details and Saul becomes Paul — one of our heroes.

In this story we can learn many things and I want to ask a few questions which will give opportunity for you to reflect upon some important points. Why did the Jews now want to kill Paul, (Saul)? When he saw the truth as it is in Jesus, what was his course of action? Did Saul, who became Paul, continue to persecute THE church or did he support it and which church after his conversion was it that he supported? Did Saul remain a Conference Leader or did he become an Independent Leader? Did the Ancient Adventist Conference support his decision? Will Saul, who became Paul, who became an Independent Leader for Jesus, be in heaven or will the Ancient Adventist Conference Leaders?

I can’t place enough emphasis on the above scriptures and the vital lessons that are clearly in them. What a glorious God we serve Who has made provision for our every need. Most will end up like the Ancient Adventists did, unfortunately. Our own books tell us this but we who love the truth as it is in Jesus need not be deceived. Now let’s get back into the Desire of Ages and continue our study in prophetic parallels.

DA 590: “The priests and rulers had hardened their hearts through selfishness and avarice. The very symbols pointing to the Lamb of God they had made a means of getting gain. Thus in the eyes of the people the sacredness of the sacrificial service had been in a great measure destroyed…. AGAINST THESE PRACTICES CHRIST HAD SPOKEN THROUGH THE PROPHETS.”

What is Avarice? Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language says: “insatiable greed for riches; inordinate, miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth.” Insatiable means: “not satiable; incapable of being satisfied.” The word inordinate is described as: “not within proper limits; immoderate; excessive; disorderly; uncontrolled; unrestrained in conduct, feelings, etc.”

Did you know that millions of the dollars of which God has entrusted to you and of which you believed were going directly into the Lord’s work have been gambled in the stocks and bonds market? That’s right. You didn’t misread it. As a matter of fact, I have the documentation which proves that in 1980, at least $117,000,000 were “invested” in the world market. The documentation is very revealing to the layman who has no idea that this has been happening and this documentation is available through Servants of the Saviour. Let me share a letter written in 1983 by one concerned soul who understood what was going on.

“Dear Elder xxxxxx, “As a faithful member of the Seventh- day Adventist church, I am greatly concerned in regard to what goes on within the church structure. At this writing, I am concerned regarding the finances and handling of the finances of the church. The December 31, 1980 financial report of the General Conference of Seventh- day Adventists Investments leaves many unanswered questions. This report shows that as of December 31, 1980 the General Conference had $117,858,288.07 in investments, and the current value as of December 31, 1980 was $103,909,802.99, making a net loss of $13,948,379.92. This figure alone makes it very plain that our financial leaders and advisors in the General Conference are woefully lacking in following the Lord’s specific instructions to His church. Furthermore, 54 of the long- term investments do not mature until 2000 to 2020 A. D. and this amounts to almost $20,000,000. I have a question. Are the brethren in the financial department of our church putting off the coming of our Lord, or do they really expect Him to come at all? You will find these long- term investments listed on pages 28, 29, 30, 33, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 52 of the 1980 financial report of the General Conference.

“Those of us who are old enough to remember what happened in the years 1930- 1932 know perfectly well that if we had a depression now such as we had at that time, these millions of dollars of the Lord’s funds would be worthless as far as carrying on the church work is concerned.”

This same brother who has shared this documentation with us has also informed me that a couple of years after this letter was written, he was told that the invested amount had risen to over $250,000,000 and a couple of years after that to over $450,000,000!

There is not much I could add to what the letter above states but I would like to ask just three honest questions to go along with those already asked in the letter. Did you know that the funds you were sending in to “finish the work” were being invested in stocks and bonds? Why is God’s money being invested in worldly enterprises in the first place? And do you want to continue sending your dollars to those who do NOT place them into the finishing of God’s work but invest them in the stock market?

I can assure you that God will hold everyone responsible for what happens to the means He has entrusted to them according to the knowledge they have. And this principle doesn’t stop with the leadership, but is just as binding right down through the ranks to the lowliest layman.

In the Desire of Ages, it states that the very things God had entrusted to the church were turned into a way of making large profits and this caused many to lose respect for the sacredness of these entrustments.

I have always been offended (because I believe the Lord is) by the selling of magazine subscriptions, such as the Signs of the Times, in the Sanctuary on the Sabbath. I was a colporteur for about three years. I would never have thought of selling a book on the Sabbath and certainly not in the Sanctuary! I would have given one away, if need be, but never would have done business during these sacred hours or in the Sanctuary. This plainly would have been a violation of the Fourth Commandment. But the Conference thinks nothing of selling these things on Sabbath in the Sanctuary. This is something even the apostate Jews didn’t do! Has the result been a lowering of sacredness for the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and other sacred things? You know it has. In many ways we are worse than the Jews who, we readily admit, rejected Jesus.

DA 590: “HE KNEW THAT HIS EFFORTS TO REFORM A CORRUPT PRIESTHOOD WOULD BE IN VAIN; nevertheless His work must be done; to an unbelieving people the evidence of His divine mission must be given.”

Jesus knew that His work to reform the corrupt Ancient Conference would be in vain. We have been showing for years how the Conference is in apostasy and have tried to plead with these men to reform, but it has been in vain. Jesus, although knowing the Ancient Conference wouldn’t reform, did His work anyway. Why? Because on the books of Heaven the warnings have to be recorded; also others who were listening to the words of Christ would some day be converted. Even though we know that our work is in vain toward an apostate Conference, we also know that honest souls will come to conversion as a result of it, just as they did in Christ’s day. The same loving Jesus is still working through the Holy Spirit Who speaks to those who are willing to be taught. We must continue our work, having faith that these precious souls will come to a correct knowledge and walk in the light.

DA 591: “Those standing nearest Him drew as far away as the crowd would permit. Except for a few of His disciples, the Saviour stood alone.”

As this contest intensifies, the majority of those calling themselves Adventists will draw as far away from the truth as they dare and from those who are advocating it. Like the disciples of Christ, we must be willing to stand with Him alone and will have many opportunities to do just that. When it came time to stand against the apostate Conference in Christ’s day, but few were willing.

DA 592: “But a large number pressed through the hurrying crowd, eager to reach Him who was their only hope.”

These are the ones Christ is working for. These are the precious souls who accept His sacrifice on the cross and are willing to stay on the narrow path of Jesus wherever it leads them. These are those who realize that Jesus is their ONLY hope.

DA 592: “When the panic had abated, they were seized with anxiety to know what would be the next movement of Jesus.”

Here Jesus was coming to stand in His rightful place in the sanctuary which He had ordained. Here He was standing in the midst of the people He had chosen. HE OWNED THEIR VERY NAME, ISRAEL (are you thinking about parallels?), for it was He who had given it to Jacob. Why then were these Conference men and their loyal followers panicking?

Now you must know that after Jesus had cleansed the temple the first time that these Conference Leaders met in one of their committee meetings and discussed what had just taken place. I can almost hear them saying, “If this young fellow from Nazareth ever tries anything like that again, it will be a much different story. We’ll take care of him next time!”

Well, it did happen again and they panicked again! Why? Because darkness and Light cannot co-habitate. When Christ takes a commanding position, the devil’s agents have to give way. As the evidence of apostasy continues to be uncovered and Jesus makes plain to those who want to know the truth, we will witness more and more panic from the apostate Conference Leadership. Panic finally drove the Ancient Conference to seek out, persecute, and murder its own people. Has anything changed after two thousand years? Are you beginning to understand why this study is so important and why Jesus wanted us to have this knowledge? I pray that you are.

DA 593: “One whom they could not intimidate was in command.” So many times I have witnessed Seventh- day Adventist laymen shake in their shoes when someone from the conference was “sent down” to their church to take care of a “problem.” Maybe you have been one of those who have become very nervous when this event has taken place. If you have or have been involved in a meeting of this type, you know what I’m referring to. It seems the whole church just automatically crumbles in fear when the conference man shows up. I’m so glad that Jesus was “One whom they could not intimidate,” aren’t you?

In this little statement there’s a revealing lesson to be learned. If we are being intimidated by those who are trying to get us to serve something or someone other than Jesus, then Jesus is not our Commander. When we are totally converted and Jesus is in full command we cannot be intimidated by anyone, especially those who are trying to scare us into doing that which would dishonor our Lord.

DA 593: “Repairing to the temple where He was teaching, they proceeded to question Him: ‘By what authority doest Thou these things? and who gave Thee this authority? ’ They expected Him to claim that His authority was from God. Such an assertion they intended to deny. But Jesus met them with a question apparently pertaining to another subject, and He made His reply to them conditional on their answering this question. ‘The baptism of John, ’ He said, ‘whence was it? from heaven, or of men? ’”

Are you thinking about parallels? Have you heard similar questions being asked about those who are just preaching and teaching the truth? What they were really telling Christ was, “You can’t preach! You didn’t go to any of our schools and you haven’t obtained our permission!”

John 7: 14- 16: “Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marveled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, HAVING NEVER LEARNED? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.” If you read the remainder of John 7, you will see that the apostate Conference Leadership didn’t want Jesus to preach and were actively trying to stop Him.

They also asked Jesus, “Who gave thee this authority?” or “Who told you that you could be a pastor?” Many times have I heard this question. To many, just as in Jesus’ day the question is not: Is this man bringing to us truth? It is rather: Who said you could preach or who said you could be a pastor? The inference is, of course, the Conference didn’t say that you could be a pastor, so what do you think you’re doing? How sad that we have all this history of the Ancient Adventists and we are still asking such questions. How Satan must marvel at our dullness of mind and stupidity. But, fortunately, the lessons don’t stop here.

DA 593- 4: “The priests saw that they were in a dilemma from which no sophistry could extricate them. If they said that John’s baptism was from heaven, their inconsistency would be made apparent. Christ would say, Why have ye not then believed on him? John had testified of Christ, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. ’ JOHN 1: 29. If the priests believed John’s testimony, how could they deny the Messiahship of Christ? IF THEY DECLARED THEIR REAL BELIEF, THAT JOHN’S MINISTRY WAS OF MEN, THEY WOULD BRING UPON THEMSELVES A STORM OF INDIGNATION; for the people believed John to be a prophet.”

One important lesson we can learn is how to use the methods of Christ; here is the parallel of the above quotation. When someone or some leader who claims to be an Adventist is giving you trouble when you are merely trying to clarify the truth, just ask them from where did the Spirit of Prophecy come? The writings of Ellen White, from where did they come? From the Devil or from God? If the person says from God, you should rightly be able to direct him to whatever references state the truth you are promoting. If he says from the Devil, he will be exposing himself. It’s a good question and just what the Lord did in similar circumstances. This won’t always work, however, and there’s another valuable lesson that is vital for us to know and understand.

In the introductory pages 6- 11 of Great Controversy, Sister White claims very plainly to be that prophet who has come in the Spirit and power of Elijah. She says that you either have to acknowledge her prophetic gift as from God or the Devil, one way or the other. Now read these words once more and let’s see the implication.

“If they [the apostate Conference Leaders] declared their real belief, that John’s ministry was of men, they would bring upon themselves a storm of indignation: for the people believed John to be a prophet.”

Dear fellow Adventists, we have to stop being so naive! Don’t you realize that a large portion of the professed Leadership of the Adventist “church” does not believe Ellen G. White to be inspired! As a matter of fact, they are trying to eradicate her. From a large number of pulpits every Sabbath her writings are either being dismissed or actively trashed. But if you think these Conference Leaders are so foolhardy as to openly declare their true belief (“ that John’s [Ellen White’s] ministry was [is] of men,” and “bring upon themselves a storm of indignation”), then we are indeed in need of the eye salve.

DA 594: “By their cowardice and indecision they had in a great measure forfeited the respect of the people, who now stood by, amused to see these proud, self- righteous men defeated.”

While all this apostasy has been going on openly in the Adventist structure, the same cowardice and indecision have taken place. You probably remember when we first began exposing the “Celebration” churches, the official statement from the Conference was that we will “wait and see.” Brothers and Sisters, Jesus never “waits and sees” in the midst of a spiritual crisis! Aren’t you glad that He doesn’t? If men who call themselves leaders are afraid to lead, then surely it would be better for them to find a position somewhere in which their influence would be minimized. Since they are not likely to pursue that course, let me tell you how it can be brought about anyway. DON’T ALLOW THEM TO LEAD YOU! We can place the blame on the “leaders,” and this is correct to some extent, but that’s not where fault stops. The decision of who leads YOU firmly rests with your own God- given power of choice. I am very happy to say that many have already made this choice and are determined to support those leaders who are supporting the truth, as it is in Jesus.

While the Conference Leaders continue to “wait and see,” Satan continues to divide and conquer. “By their cowardice and indecision they had [have] in a great measure forfeited the respect of the people.”

Before we move on, let me point out one other revealing truth about this decision to “wait and see” where it concerns the “Celebration” churches. Garrie Williams wrote the manual “Trinity Power Circle” that mirrors another book, “20/ 20 Vision” written by a “Celebration” Sunday preacher by the name of Dale Galloway. My research and subsequent exposure to this manual clearly showed that “Trinity Power Circle” was the manual for bringing the celebration service into our churches. Many Adventist Conference men would have you believe that they didn’t really have a part in all this and they weren’t even educated enough to make a judgement on it, so they wanted to “wait and see.” But Brothers and Sisters, I have “Trinity Power Circle” and PLAINLY WRITTEN ON THE BACK COVER ARE THE WORDS “GENERAL CONFERENCE WORLD MINISTRY COUNCIL, INDIANAPOLIS 1990. SEMINAR NO. GCM 7274″!! Did Garrie Williams slip these words onto the back cover without anybody from the General Conference knowing about it? If we believe that, we are very naive! Let’s read the quotation from the back cover about the author.

“Garrie Williams is a New Zealander by birth who studied and worked in Australia for 15 years before moving to the USA in 1982. He has served the Seventh- day Adventist Church as a pastor, evangelist, college lecturer and, since 1985, as Ministerial Director of Oregon Conference. Elder Williams has TRAVELED EXTENSIVELY AROUND THE WORLD and has taught Spirit- filled ministry seminars in a NUMBER OF DIVISIONS. In 1987 he FOUNDED the Homes of Hope small group ministry, and in 1989 and 1990 was chairman of the FIRST NATIONAL Adventist Small Group Conference. Garrie Williams is strongly committed to the historic Seventh- day Adventist message and mission, and believes that we are living in the time of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.”

This quotation really says a lot! It reveals that this man has been intricately involved with the General Conference which has known for years what he has been doing. When you think about it, the main men who have plagued the Seventh- day Adventist “church” with heresy in recent years have mostly come from either the West coast or from Down Under. (And you can take that any way you wish, the application fits either way.) Is it any surprise that the author of 20/ 20 Vision is the proprietor and pastor of the Sunday- going celebration church which was the same one rented by the Seventh- day Adventists who started the first “Celebration” church in Oregon that became known as the Milwaukee Church? Isn’t it also a coincidence that the Seventh- day Adventist Conference Office of the Pacific Northwest is a mere four blocks or so from the same church?

As we continue to uncover these important truths for God’s honest children, it is wonderful to realize that many are breaking the mold of their past and studying to show themselves approved of God. Friends, we are in a desperate struggle for our very salvation. We are moving rapidly to the center of this battle that will intensify to the bitter end. The enemy will not surrender and he is not likely to give up any ground easily. I am happy to say, however, that just a few years ago there were only a handful who saw what was going on. Now there are many more.

DA 594 “But as the popular feeling turned in His favor, the hatred of the priests toward Jesus increased.”

We can read our own future in this statement and I believe the Lord would have us do just that. He warned His disciples many times of what was to come and He would have us realize that we, too, face the same future. Many of us have thought that it would be in the world where our greatest danger lay but we now realize: “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 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.” 1SM 122.

DA 595- 6 “In His contest with the rabbis, it was not Christ’s purpose to humiliate His opponents. He was not glad to see them in a hard place. He had an important lesson to teach.”

For those who still say that it’s sinful to enter into this exposure of the Conference Leaders, we ask the question: What does “In His contest with the rabbis…” mean? We need so much to quickly learn that: “Our work is an aggressive one, and as faithful soldiers of Jesus, we must bear the blood- stained banner into the very strongholds of the enemy. ‘We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ’ If we will consent to lay down our arms, to lower the blood- stained banner, to become the captives and servants of Satan, we may be released from the conflict and the suffering. But this peace will be gained only at the loss of Christ and heaven. We cannot accept peace on such conditions. Let it be war, war, to the end of earth’s history, rather than peace THROUGH APOSTASY AND SIN.”

But on the other hand, Jesus was not elated that His work had to put them in a difficult place. His motive was one of salvation and He was sorrowed to see human beings for whom He was about to die being humiliated. There is a real fear we need to respect — that we will become bitter toward our enemies. Jesus would have us ever keep in mind that vengeance is the Lord’s alone and we are to love even our enemies and not hate them. We are to be “not blind, nor bitter.” Our work must be the same work as Christ’s. That means that some of us will have to do the unpleasant work of exposure, etc. But we are to do our work that precious souls might cast their lot for Jesus — NOT BECAUSE WE ENJOY SEEING PEOPLE BURN! The Bible plainly teaches that any man who takes on this attitude of Satan, even though he may be gifted in all other areas, will himself be lost. Especially as the battle intensifies, we need the grace of Jesus in our lives so that the enemy of all souls is not able to place his character of hate into our motives. As the quotation above (DA 594) states, “the hatred of the priests [apostate leaders] toward Jesus [His followers in these last days] increased,” we will need the love of Jesus fully to keep our own motivation pure.

DA 595- 6: “They made great professions of piety, they claimed to be obeying the law of God, but they rendered only a false obedience. The publicans were denounced and cursed by the Pharisees as infidels; but they showed by their faith and works that they were going into the kingdom of heaven before those self- righteous men who had been given great light, but whose works did not correspond to their profession of godliness.”

Jesus is trying to teach us that we should not follow the example of or allow the influence of such men to rule over us. Yes, we are all human beings and we all make mistakes. But making an occasional mistake (and repenting for it) and making a mockery of inspiration are two different things. You know the difference. The Lord says that we should not allow the men who have no real interest (demonstrated by their works) in the truths we hold near and dear to our hearts to have persuasion over our lives.

DA 597 : “His warnings, failing to arouse them to repentance, would seal their doom, and He wished them to see that they had brought ruin on themselves. He designed to show them the justice of God in the withdrawal of their national privileges, which had already begun, and which would end, not only in the destruction of their temple and their city, but in the dispersion of the nation.”

Jesus came to the very church He had raised. He had handpicked them from among the other nations that He might show the rest of the world His goodness. This church had gone its own way and was misrepresenting Christ while professing to be the expression of who He was. Over the years Jesus had sent many to warn this church of the certain disaster that a lack of repentance and reform would bring. This church’s leaders, time and time again, refused these warnings. Now Jesus had come Himself to give the last call and was being rejected by the people who owed their very existence to Him.

Today, dear friends, can you see the parallel experience that we are passing through? If you ask any professed Adventists if we are living in the last days most of them would say, “Yes.” Do they not see then that the warning given in the message to the Laodiceans is the last message and that its close is in the near future? Oh! that we would understand the time of our visitation! The last message to God’s professed people is going forward. We ARE living in the reality of Ezekiel chapter 8. Ezekiel, chapter 9, is just around the corner and what are we doing!? As these statements reveal, the main reason that the Adventist system will be lost will be due to those apostate leaders who refuse to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Not only this but to some degree we will continue to lose our national privileges and the dispersion of the Adventist “nation” will be caused by these self- destructing professors of Adventism.

The next line in The Desire of Ages is startling; the implication and the lesson to be applied is extremely important for us to better understand our situation.

DA 597: “The hearers recognized the warning.”

Dear precious Adventist friends, please understand that we are dealing with apostate leaders who have calculated what they are doing. They KNOW AND RECOGNIZE THE WARNING. However, they are determined to carry out their present agenda. I can tell you with a completely clear Christian conscience that the agenda hasn’t changed and these apostate leaders are forging ahead. Please don’t be fooled by an occasional strategically well- placed statement here or there. These occasional statements or articles are one of two things. Either a Joseph or Nicodemus is trying to hold the line from the inside or they are calculated to deceive you about the intentions or direction of apostate leaders. Do not be tricked by those who come in old clothes and have molded bread. We need to pray earnestly for the eyesalve of discernment. Our lovely Jesus will make sure it is applied if we do our honest part. He has died for us that we might be saved and He brings these truths forward that you shouldn’t be deceived. We may have made mistakes in the past. We may at times have felt that we are struggling to learn and understand. But let us run to Jesus, for “In Christ the guilty heart has found relief. His is the sure foundation. ALL WHO MAKE HIM THEIR DEPENDENCE REST IN PERFECT SECURITY.” “To fall upon the Rock and be broken is to give up our self- righteousness and to go to Christ with the humility of a child, repenting of our transgressions, and believing in His forgiving love. And so also it is by faith and obedience that we build on Christ as our foundation.” DA 599.

DA 600: “And what was it that destroyed the Jews?” I hope you are still thinking about prophetic parallels as you read this inspired answer to this most important question:

DA 600: “Men set themselves in opposition to God, and all that would have been their salvation was turned to their destruction. All that God ordained unto life, they found to be unto death. In the Jews’ crucifixion of Christ was involved the destruction of Jerusalem. The blood shed upon

Calvary was the weight that sunk them to ruin for this world and for the world to come. …

“By many illustrations and repeated warnings, Jesus showed what would be the result to the Jews of rejecting the Son of God. In these words He was addressing all in every age who refused to receive Him as their Redeemer. Every warning is for them. The desecrated temple, the disobedient son, the false husbandmen, the contemptuous builders, have their counterpart in the experience of every sinner. Unless he repent, the doom which they foreshadowed will be his.”

It is critical, friends, that we understand what constitutes God’s true church. After all, the great controversy is all over what? Yes, whom you are going to worship. We need to take God at His Word and not replace it with man’s opinion or popular committee votes. There is no such thing as a democratic legislation by the professed church on how to be admitted into God’s kingdom. I guarantee, based on the Word of God, that when we are all standing at the Judgment Bar of God, He will not acquiesce to the authority of the Conference Committee.

I will admit that the apostate Adventist Leaders and their followers do have a church. In the book of Revelation, both the true and this other church are spoken of so it would be well for us to read about these churches and their last experience with one another on earth.

Revelation 3: 8- 9, 12: “I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my work, and hast not denied my name. Behold I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, WHICH SAY THEY ARE JEWS, AND ARE NOT, BUT DO LIE; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

All those professed Adventists who believe in the doctrine of the “New Theology;” all professed Adventists who are preaching and believing that we don’t have to overcome but can go on sinning and still get into the kingdom because, after all, Jesus understands; all these poor diluted souls have a church but it is the synagogue of Satan.

Brothers and Sisters, be ye not deceived! Jesus does understand and it is not He who is confused, it is us! Read your Bible for it plainly states, “to him who overcometh will I grant.” What we need to do is quit loving sin and love Jesus enough to understand and believe by an experiential knowledge that we serve an all knowing, all loving, ALL POWERFUL God who will indeed finish the work of perfection which He has started in EVERY WILLING SOUL. May we, poor sinners take on the humility of our crucified Saviour and learn these most sacred truths.

Copyright © 1999 Servants of the Saviour
Terry & Cathy Ross

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements and Forward
Chapter 1 Desire of Ages — Chapter 63
Chapter 2 Desire of Ages — Chapter 64
Chapter 3 Desire of Ages — Chapter 65
Chapter 4 Desire of Ages — Chapters 66 & 67
Chapter 5 Desire of Ages — Chapters 68 & 69
Chapter 6 Desire of Ages — Chapters 70, 71 & 72
Chapter 7 Desire of Ages — Chapter 73
Chapter 8 Desire of Ages — Chapters 74 & 75
Chapter 9 Desire of Ages — Chapters 76 & 77
Chapter 10 Desire of Ages — Chapter 78

The Tithe Problem, Part II

by Ralph Larson

The editors of the Adventist Review have taken notice of the questions about tithe that are troubling an increasing number of our church members and have published in their edition of September 7, 1991, a supplement in the form of an inserted tract dealing with the subject.

This development is most welcome. It is hoped that the Review editors will continue this enlightened policy, and that they will apply it to the other areas of concern that are as troubling to our members as the tithe question, if not more troubling.

We suggest that every church member who has a sincere desire to know and to do God’s will, will do well to save this special insert and compare it with the article on tithe in the September issue of Our Firm Foundation, as well as with this article.

We are confident that only good can come from such a comparison. let every church member examine the evidence and draw his or her own conclusions. Here the matter must ultimately rest, as was recognized by Ellen White in a thought- provoking statement on page 616 of The Desire of Ages:

“The Jewish rulers recognized the obligation of tithing, and this was right; but they did not leave the people to carry out their own convictions of duty.”

It is to be hoped that all concerned parties will remember that church members cannot be forced to pay tithe. They must act out their own convictions in the matter, and these convictions will grow out of their satisfaction with the scriptural and the Spirit of Prophecy evidences placed before them. Scoldings and threatenings will not suffice, and church discipline on this point is specifically forbidden in the church Manual. See page 240 in the 1971 edition and page 165 in the 1986 edition

We, therefore, welcome the decision of the Review editors to bring the subject out into the open, so that church members may be provided with the opportunity to weigh evidence, evaluate arguments, and develop their own convictions of duty.

Basic Principles Before considering the specifics of the situation, let us identify some landmarks and fixed boundaries, basic principles that must apply to any and all of the details. The most important and relevant truth that must be kept in mind throughout all of our study is:

“It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional.” – Selected Messages, book 1,67

The experience of the Israelites, who were once the chosen people of God but were eventually rejected as a people by God, testifies eloquently to the truth of this statement. The opinion that prevailed among the Jews of Christ’s time was that regardless of how far they departed from the express will of God, they nevertheless retained their position as the chosen people of God, with all of the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. This conviction was in spite of such clear warnings as had been given in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Jeremiah 18, and elsewhere.

Here is the crux of the matter. The questions that we must consider are these: Could it be possible that the error of the Jews might have, to some degree, crept into our thinking? Are we beginning to believe that we are unconditionally the true church of God? Are we presuming that the rights and privileges of a true and faithful church are ours unconditionally? That the promises of God are without condition?

Are we supposing that the rights and privileges of a true and faithful ministry can be claimed by our ministry unconditionally? That they have a right to collect tithe regardless of what they teach and do?

Doubtless we would find these questions easier to answer if they were expressed in terms of totality— total rejection of all of the will of God by all of the ministers of our church. We would quickly agree that such is not the case. But does that resolve our problem? Was there not always a faithful remnant in Israel? And do we know of any church today that rejects all of God’s truth? Yet, God rejected Israel, and we know God is calling His people out of the popular churches of our time.

Is it not apparent that there is a line beyond which infidelity may not pass with impunity? A line beyond which neither a church nor a ministry can claim for itself the rights and privileges that God has guaranteed to a faithful church and to a faithful ministry? We must remember the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional.

We come now to the question, How should we see our church and its ministry today? The Review tract writer suggests that there is a significant difference between saying there is apostasy in a church and saying a church, speaking of the entire body of believers, is in apostasy. This point is well taken. I know of only one independent ministry leader who has a conviction that the church is in apostasy. The rest would say, like the Review tract writer, that there is apostasy in the church, although they would not minimize it as he does.

I have received a letter from a Union Conference president which opens with this sentence: “I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding it necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching.” And I would recommend for thoughtful study the Annual Council 1973/ 1974 Appeals for reform as published in Our Firm Foundation in December 1991.

The precise point in increasing apostasy at which it would be appropriate to stop saying there is apostasy in the church and start saying the church is in apostasy is a difficult problem. It is doubtful that human wisdom is sufficient for the question. Probably it would be best to let that point be defined by the Divine Mind that never errs in judgment.

But the questions that are coming to me from all across the country are from church members who are facing an immediate, practical problem. They are being forced to recognize that some of the doctrines being presented in their particular churches are very different from the doctrines they were taught when they joined the church or when they attended Adventist schools. Many recognize the strange doctrines as the very errors they left behind when they withdrew from other churches in order to become Seventh- day Adventists.

These members do not wish to return to those errors, nor have them taught to their children. Many have made fruitless appeals to church pastors and administrators. These are the kind of people who are turning in despair to ministries which are teaching the unchanged Seventh- day Adventist faith. These are the kind of people who are asking the urgent question, “Does God require me to pay tithe to support the teaching of false doctrines? Would it be wrong to pay tithe to a ministry that teaches the faith that I believe?”

I sympathize with them, although I do not presently share their problem. The church where I hold membership is served by a pastor who preaches the historic Seventh- day Adventist message, and so I am comfortable paying tithe and offerings to this church. If this pastor were transferred and a Calvinistic Adventist pastor put into his place, I do not know what I would do. I hope that I never have to face the problem. But others are facing the problem.

These questions are what caused me to do the research that was reported in Our Firm Foundation, September 1991. I set forth my conclusion in this statement:

“In neither Ellen White’s writings nor her practice was there anything to support the view that all tithe, regardless of circumstances, must be paid through regular channels.”

The writer of the Review tract article challenges this conclusion and sets forth a series of arguments in support of the view that all tithe must be paid through the regular church channels, apparently regardless of circumstances. He sees it as the correct understanding of Ellen White’s writings on the subject.

For purposes of analysis, we will group his arguments as follows:

  1. Argument from the Scriptures
  2. Arguments from the Spirit of Prophecy
  3. Arguments regarding Document File 213
  4. Arguments based on supernatural powers
  5. Arguments ad hominem, against the man
  6. Theological questions

Argument From the Scriptures

We use “argument” in the singular form because there is only one scriptural argument presented:

“The Old Testament gives clear instruction for the return and use of the tithe. The New Testament does not elaborate further, except to endorse the necessity of tithe paying.” Page 2

Let us compare this statement with 1 Corinthians 9, in which the apostle Paul responds to questions about his credentials and his right to the financial support of the people. The general principles set forth in the first twelve verses are brought to a specific conclusion in verses 13 and 14:

“Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? And they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”

Verse 13 is an obvious reference to the tithing system, by which the Levites were supported. Verse 14 specifically applies the same principle to another group. And who are they? “They which preach the gospel.”

Their credentials are the gospel which they preach. And was Paul a pluralist? Was he saying that preachers of any gospel and all gospels are to be supported by the tithe? We will find the answer in Galatians 1: 8- 9:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Does “let him be accursed” equate with “Let him be supported by the tithe?” And notice that Paul includes even himself in the warning, saying “Though we preach any other gospel unto you….” Is he not putting the test of truth above all other tests? Is he not telling them that the true gospel is the highest of all credentials? So much so that they should refuse to listen to even Paul himself if he came back to them preaching a different gospel, a new theology? How, then, can it be argued that if a minister is a member of a certain church and carries credentials from that church, he is entitled to be supported by the tithes of God’s people regardless of what gospel he preaches?

Arguments From the Spirit of Prophecy

Unfortunately, much of the material in this area is wasted, because it does not deal with the question before us. The longest series of Spirit of Prophecy quotations presented are warnings against withholding tithe, a practice which no one is defending. All of the parties involved in the present discussion believe that tithe paying is a sacred duty. None would approve of withholding it.

Similarly, much attention is given to the Spirit of Prophecy counsels regarding the proper use of the tithe to support the ministers of the gospel, a matter concerning which there is no significant disagreement. All of the parties involved are committed to following these inspired counsels, although in his list of the proper uses of the tithe, the writer might have included this instruction: “But while some go forth to preach, He calls upon others to answer to His claims upon them for tithes and offerings with which to support the ministry, and to spread the printed truth all over the land” Testimonies, vol. 4, 472; emphasis supplied in all quotations

Emphasis in the Review tract is placed upon a caution against any person “gathering up tithes,” which I would understand to mean solicitation. I do not know of any independent ministry that solicits tithe. Tithe comes to the independent ministries voluntarily from church members who are weary of false teachings being presented in their particular churches. Most of these church members have been faithful tithe payers for many years. Their devotion and fidelity to this Bible truth is not different from their devotion and fidelity to the other truths of our faith which they cannot bear to see changed. Where truth is taught, tithe is paid. That is the bottom line.

A strong attempt is made to apply Ellen White’s warnings against withholding tithe to the payment of tithe through other than the regular church channels. Two lines of reasoning are set forth in support of this proposition.

First, it is argued that for Ellen White the expression “the Lord’s treasury” meant only church and conference treasuries. This statement is in spite of the fact that when she herself sent tithe directly to needy ministers, and not through church or conference treasuries, she wrote, “The money is not withheld from the Lord’s treasury.” (The Watson letter, quoted in Review tract, page 13.) How, then, can it be maintained that for her “the lord’s treasury” meant only church and conference treasuries?

The Review tract writer apparently anticipated this question and offered what is, to my mind’ a very unsatisfactory explanation. After having admonished us that for Ellen White “the lord’s treasury” meant always and only the church and conference treasuries, he then tells us that when Ellen White’s tithe was sent directly to needy ministers, bypassing church and conference treasuries, it was not withheld from the lord’s treasury because they were Seventhday Adventist ministers.

Readers may decide for themselves whether this attempt to walk on both sides of the street at once is persuasive. Would not this interpretation open the door for all of us to bypass church and conference treasuries and send our tithe directly to needy ministers of our choice?

The second line of reasoning advanced in support of the claim that for Ellen White “the Lord’s treasury” meant only church and conference treasuries is that for Ellen White the word “means” does not generally include tithe but is applied only to offerings. Since only this argument was new to me, I checked it out carefully, and quickly discovered that the claim does not bear up well under investigation.

I went to that marvelous invention, the “CD Rom,” as produced by the White Estate, and asked it to report whether in Ellen White’s writings the words tithe, tithes, tithing, and tenth, were ever used in connection with the word means. It promptly supplied 168 references in which these words were used in such a manner as to make it impossible to separate them from the word means, which obviously included them. In some passages tithes and offerings together are referred to as means, and in other passages tithe alone is referred to as means. For the sake of brevity, we will provide here a sampling of those statements that do not include offerings: “Every soul who is honored in being a steward of God is to carefully guard the tithe money. This is sacred means.” Manuscript Releases. vol. 1, 185

“There are a large number of names on our church books; and if all would be prompt in paying an honest tithe to the lord, which is His portion, the treasury would not lack for means.” Counsels on Stewardship, 95

“Of the means which is entrusted to man, God claims a certain portion- a tithe.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 149 “God has given special direction as to the use of the tithe. He does not design that His work shall be crippled for want of means.” Gospel Workers, 224

“Should means flow into the treasury exactly according to God’s plan- a tenth of all the increase, there would be abundance to carry forward His work.” Evangelism, 252

“And in view of this the Lord commands us, ‘Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house; ‘ that is, a surplus of means in the treasury.” Review and Herald, vol. 2, 18

“If all of our people paid a faithful tithe, there would be more means in the treasury.” Ibid., vol. 4, 507

“With an increase of numbers would have come an increase of tithe, providing means to carry the message to other places.” Pamphlet No. 67,9

“If all, both rich and poor, would bring their tithes into the storehouse, there would be a sufficient supply of means.” Testimonies, vol. 4, 475

Since Ellen White went into print 168 times with statements clearly identifying tithes as means, (sometimes using duplicate words), it is difficult to understand how the Review tract writer could have reached an opposite conclusion. And since his representation that for Ellen White the expression “the lord’s treasury” means only church and conference treasuries is not supported by either of the two evidences he offers, it collapses of its own weight. It deprives of all validity the attempt to apply Ellen White’s warnings against “withholding tithe” to those who do not withhold tithe but, rather, send it to ministers that they feel are faithful to our message. And it gives particular force to her statement:

“All the means is not to be handled by one agency or organization.” Spalding- Magan Collection, 421

Arguments Regarding Document File 213

As was stated in my article in Our Firm Foundation, September 1991, this file contains a record of the plans that were made by Willie White, Ellen White’s son and secretary; General Conference President A. 0. Daniells; Elder W. W. Prescott; and others to deal with criticisms of Ellen White that had been published by a Dr. Stewart in the year 1907. Stewart had charged Ellen White with inconsistency in that she recommended paying tithe through organizational channels, yet did not always follow her own counsel. Their proposal for dealing with the challenge was set forth in these words:

“As to the proper use of the tithe: the outline of a statement upon this subject which was agreed upon was briefly this: to give extracts from Sister White’s writings as to the tithe and its use; to show that her testimony and her own usual practice was in favor of paying the tithe into the regularly designated treasury, to be used under the counsel of the committees appointed for such purposes; to show further from her writings that when those who have charge of the expenditure of the tithe so far fail in the discharge of their duty that the regularly organized channels for the distribution of the tithe become hindrances to its proper use, then in order to carry out the divine plan that the tithe should be expended in the wisest manner for the furtherance of the work, individuals have the right to pay their tithes direct to needy fields; but that this involves a considerable degree of personal responsibility, which must be assumed by those who decide to follow this plan. It was thought that this matter could be handled in a way to show that the departure from the regular plans was authorized only when the regular plans failed to be carried out by those in positions of responsibility.”

The Review tract writer tries to offset this evidence by the following methods: First, doubt is cast upon the authorship and dating of the document. I see no reason for such doubts. The file contains four letters from Dr. Stewart on the subject, all addressed to Willie White. There is also a letter of response from Willie White to Dr. Stewart. The notes, or “memoranda,” contain ten references to Willie White as the one who should answer certain questions. The most significant of the ten for the purposes of our inquiry is

“Tithe— to whom it should be paid: “Refer this to W. C. White. Very important.” In the light of this evidence it appears that to question Willie White’s involvement in the proceedings is hardly reasonable. And to question the date is not more reasonable. The four letters if of Dr. Stewart to Willie White are dated October 22, 1906; May 8, 1907; June 10, 1907; and June 24, 1907. Willie White’s letter to Dr. Stewart is dated June 9, 1907. The book by Dr. Stewart was published in mid- October, 1907, and a copy was sent to Willie White on October 27, 1907. The “memoranda” which includes the statement about tithe makes specific reference to this book. These facts seem to adequately establish the date for all practical purposes.

Second, the Review tract writer proposes that these men did not properly understand Ellen White’s thinking regarding the tithe, and supports this proposal with a most unhelpful comparison. He refers to a vision of heavenly planets given to Ellen White in 1846 in the presence of James White and Joseph Bates, who assumed that she was seeing Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. Then, we are told:

“Closeness to a prophet does not guarantee correctness.” We are asked to accept this as evidence that Ellen White’s son Willie, who had been her personal secretary and companion for twenty- six years, did not understand her thinking regarding the tithe, a matter concerning which she had gone into print well over a thousand times. The Review tract writer, viewing the situation from a distance of more than 80 years, seems to feel he has a better understanding of her thinking than Willie White did.

This reasoning strains the credulity to the breaking point.

Another attempt to discredit Document File 213 will be commented on in section 4. Before leaving this section we must mention a puzzling question and answer found on page 5 of the tract:

  1. “I’ve heard it said that other women who joined Mrs. White in her ‘tithe project’ for the Southern ministers didn’t send their tithe through Mrs. White but sent it directly to needy ministers, and that she must have approved of such actions. Is this so?”
  2. “No.” (Followed by a lengthy explanation.) I do not understand how the writer proposes to harmonize this statement with the following lines in the Watson letter, which appears on page 13 of the Review tract:

“If there have been cases where our sisters have appropriated their tithe to the support of the ministers working for the colored people in the South, let every man, if he is wise, hold his peace….

“I commend those sisters who have placed their tithe where it is most needed to help do a work that is being left undone.”

Especially puzzling is the writer’s recommendation that “the only safe course to follow, as regards Mrs. White’s position on the tithe question, is to let her speak for herself.” Page 6

Why, then, should the writer pose two questions about Ellen White’s writings (on pages 5 and 6) and refer us to two interpreters of Ellen White’s writings for the answers? We are reminded of her own words:

“My Instructor said to me, Tell these men that God has not committed to them the work of measuring, classifying, and defining the character of the testimonies.” Selected Messages, book 1,49

I intend no disrespect to anyone, but I prefer to look at Ellen White’s writings with my own eyes and not through the eyes of another.

Arguments Based on Supernatural Knowledge

On page six of the tract we find two statements that go far beyond human knowledge and could only be made by persons who are writing with supernatural wisdom of some kind.

In the first, a White Estate archivist makes reference to the Document File 213 and writes: “The Watson letter is the only Ellen White statement from which they formed their conclusions.” Compare this with some lines from the statement itself: “To give extracts from Sister White’s writings…. To show that her testimony and her own usual practice….. To show further from her writings.”

We see here no indication that they considered nothing but the Watson letter In the absence of such an indication, to state what they did or did not consider would require supernatural knowledge.

On page 6 of the tract we find this bold statement: “And it is an undeniable fact that Mrs. White never counseled anyone to place his or her tithes anywhere except in the denominational ‘treasury.” ‘

This is breathtaking. How could any human being know with such certainty what Ellen White never did? Only by supernatural knowledge. A logician would point out that nothing can be proved by the absence of evidence. It would be more accurate and more modest for a writer to state that he had found no evidence of such counsel in the written records. But, to firmly state as an “undeniable fact” that she never gave any such counsel would surely require godlike powers.

Similar in nature is the bold statement on page 9 of the tract: “Ellen White never even considered such an option.” How can any human being state with such assurance what another person has or has not considered? Would not this require supernatural knowledge?

On page 10 the Review tract writer does not hesitate to tell us what Ellen White intended and on page 15 he explains to us what Ellen White had in mind on a certain occasion. All of this requires powers that are not possessed by ordinary humans. Most of us would have to admit that we are not able to read the minds of our contemporaries, much less the minds of persons who died long before we were born. Surely such statements should be regarded with extreme caution.

Arguments Ad Hominem

A long established principle of discussion is that those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man. This is called the argument ad hominem, against the man, also expressed in the statement:

“As evidence decreases, vehemence increases.” It is to be regretted that the Review tract writer makes several references to those who “solicit or accept” tithe. As stated earlier, I have never heard of any ministry that solicits tithe. Also as stated before, tithe comes to independent ministries unbidden from distressed and disenchanted church members. Ellen White herself did not reject such tithe. (See the Watson letter.)

Neither have I ever heard of anyone who accuses the church of being in apostasy simply because of a different view regarding the human nature of Christ. See “Theological Questions” below. For the evidence which causes most historic Adventists to reject the author’s reasoning about the human nature of Christ, we refer the reader to our 365- page research report, The Word Was Made Flesh, available from Hope International.

When a writer proposes that he will present to us a “fair reading” of Ellen White’s writings (page 11), he is alleging that only an unfair person could understand the matter differently than he does.

And to suggest or imply that persons who quote a portion of a long statement have sinister purposes m mind is again to lay claim to supernatural abilities to read minds and to judge motives.

Since Ellen White strongly indicated in the Watson letter that she preferred that her personal handling of tithe funds not be widely advertised, it is alleged that persons like myself who have made reference to the letter are at fault. This allegation overlooks the fact that the entire letter has been published twice by the White Estate itself, in 1987 in Manuscript Releases, Vol. 11, pages 99- 100, and in 1981 in Elder Arthur White’s Ellen 0. White: The Early Elmshaven Years, pages 3953%. To fault those who now make reference to it is hardly candid.

The tendency to use the argument against the man reaches its climax on page 7, where it is proposed that it may eventually be discovered that

(1) “Those who now take the position that the church has apostatized were themselves guilty of apostasy.”

We respond again that the vast majority of the thousands of members who are calling for the church to return to its pure teachings are not saying that the church has apostatized. They are saying there is apostasy in the church, which the Review tract writer himself concedes (page 3). And we take exception to the writer’s definition of these people’s views about God’s storehouse:

(2)… “teaching others that God’s ‘storehouse’ today is the treasury of any place where Sabbath- keeping religious work for Christ is being performed.”

I have never heard of any person who would so describe the storehouse. To so characterize those who are pleading for the church to hold to all of the doctrines of our historic faith, including the sanctuary, the three angel’s messages, and so on, is not appropriate.

I must commend the Review tract writer, however, for not indulging in the type of argument “against the man” that some others are employing. The allegation is that those who are appealing for the church to heed and follow God’s counsels are setting themselves up as “more holy,” “holy ones,” “pious critics,” “the only ones who are right.” These allegations constitute the nadir, in my opinion, of the arguments against the man.

It is left to the considered judgment of the reader how well the cause of truth is served by such allegations as these. As for the Review tract writer’s attempt to apply the principle of Matthew 18: 15 to the present problem in the church, I refer the reader to Testimonies, Volume 2, page 15, where it is emphasized that Matthew 18: 15 applies to personal injuries, not church problems.

The Review tract writer does not seem to allow for an independent ministry to be legitimate and loyal unless it is to some degree under the supervision and/ or control of the church organization. This is similar to the views expressed in the eleven demands that were made upon independent ministries some time ago. According to P. T. Magan, who with E. A. Sutherland was a co- founder of Madison College, Ellen White’s views were a bit different. From Magan’s copious diaries we excerpt a few lines:

August 8, 1904: “He [E. A. Sutherland?] says that he worked with W. C. White during the forenoon getting articles and plans ready regarding the incorporation of the school at Nashville. In the afternoon he met with Daniels,( the General Conference president,) Prescott, (field secretary of the General Conference,) Griggs, Washburn, Byrd, and W. C. White to consider our plan of organization. Daniels did not like it.”

As later entries in the diary indicate, the Spirit of the Lord was giving instructions through Ellen White to the founders of Madison College which the General Conference president did not like. August 9, 1904: “Talk with Mrs. E. G. White and W. C. White regarding our plans for organization. She said we were not to go under the dominion of the Southern Union Conference.”

August 14, 1906: “Spent forenoon with Daniels. Told him why our school was independent and would have to eat showbread.” May 7, 1907: “Talked with Sister White regarding attitude of General Conference toward us. Mrs. Sara McEnterfer and Lillian present. Told Sister White about the administration view that we had no right to go and get money unless we were owned by the conference. She replied: “You are doing double what they are. Take all the donations you can get. The money belongs to the Lord and not to these men. The position they take is not of God. The Southern Union Conference is not to own or control you. You cannot turn things over to them.”

May 14, 1907: “I talked to her [E. G. White] about the General Conference position that concerns non- conference owned should have no money. She answered: ‘Daniels and those with him are taking a position on this matter that is not of God. ‘”

May 23, 1907: “Spent the forenoon with W. C. White. He gave me Sister White’s letters to Daniels regarding us. He told me he did not agree with the administration at Washington in insisting that all monies pass through their hands. Said that he would not agree to our going under conference domination.”

As is noted by the Review tract writer, Ellen White served as a board member of Madison College. This would seem to indicate that in her view an institution and/ or a ministry could be totally independent from the church organization and still be approved by. the Lord. But, as in Ellen White’s time, this view is still not appreciated by some of our church administrators.

Theological Questions

Although we have already pointed out that the heart of the present tithe issue is a theological problem, the theological points raised by the Review tract writer have been purposely deferred to this section for comment.

After conceding that there is apostasy in the church, the Review tract writer strangely takes no notice at all of the fact that this apostasy is the immediate and urgent concern of probably 95 percent of the people whom he is trying to correct. This apostasy is the specific reason for the redirection of their tithe.

Instead of dealing with this problem, the writer addresses his remarks toward a minuscule group who may be guilty of various charges that he directs at them. This tactic is not helpful to the thousands of church members who are not doing the things that he deplores, but who are deeply concerned about the increasing apostasy in the church. Their question is, Why does he not address our problem? Why doesn’t he talk to us?

And I wish to address to the Review tract writer, as well as to all others who have expressed similar concerns, the same question: Why don’t you talk to us? Why do you tilt at windmills? Why do you flog dead horses? Why do you focus on the symptoms and ignore the disease? Why do you set up straw men and then beat them to pieces while we can only look on in wonderment?

The vast majority of church members who are variously known as “historic Adventists,” “Independents,” and so forth, do not recognize themselves at all in the pictures often painted. The Review tract writer sets out to fault and hopefully correct certain persons whom he apparently suspects of evil purposes toward the church. He identifies these persons by three characteristics which he vigorously condemns:

  1. Solicitation of tithe,
  2. Saying that the church is in apostasy, and
  3. Basing the above accusation on a view of the nature of Christ. When the writer repeatedly describes the offenders as persons who solicit tithe, we can only respond that we do not know of whom he is speaking. I, personally, have never heard of any person who solicits tithe.

When the writer faults persons who say the church is in apostasy, we wonder, “To whom is he referring?”

And when the Review tract writer takes aim at persons who allegedly set forth a different view of the nature of Christ as the basis of their accusation that the church is in apostasy, we ask again, “Of whom is he speaking?” I have never heard of such persons.

The people to whom I minister have enormously larger concerns. They are witnessing, for example, rejection of our sanctuary doctrine, the introduction into our church of false Calvinistic doctrines of justification and sanctification, rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy, and a general lowering of the church standards. They are not helped by the singling out of the nature of Christ as if that were the only issue.

We pause to point out that the true doctrine of the nature of Christ is set forth in the new Seventh- day Adventists Believe, pages 37- 56. Check and see. The Review tract writer places before us an unhelpful comparison of the present apostasy with the pantheistic apostasy of Dr. J. H. Kellogg. We must remember that Kellogg’s apostasy was met head- on. It was not ignored until apostasy had spread through a large portion of the church, as is happening today. A. 0. Daniels, General Conference president at the time, used the power and influence of his office to defend the truth and to oppose the error. We look in vain for such decisive action today, in spite of clear Spirit of Prophecy counsels that apply to both apostasies.

There is a crying need for communication on the part of our church leaders, a communication that includes some attentive, open- minded listening. There are mountains of misunderstanding.

I am finding it more and more difficult to persuade the historic Adventists to whom I minster that the misinformation that is being constantly circulated about them is done in ignorance and not with malice. It is not easy to explain to those who want only to believe and practice the faith that they accepted when they joined our church why they should now be called divisive, controversial, troublemakers, legalists, rightwingers, destructive critics, attackers of the church, and so forth. They see these epithets as grossly unfair, untrue allegations. I believe that any impartial court would agree with them. Surely any fair- minded person would agree that those who are promoting theological changes are the ones who produce division, and those who resist theological changes should not be so accused. To represent those people as attacking the church is absurd. To call for a church to be true to the counsels of the Lord is surely not attacking the church.

We now come to my strongest point of disagreement with the Review tract writer. He presents the following question and answer:

  1. “I recently read that the SDA church leadership is out to resolve its ‘tithe- problem’ by ‘crushing’ and ‘destroying’ independent ministries that are doing a lot of good. Is this so?”
  2. “The answer is No.” (It is followed by a lengthy explanation.) I do not question the sincerity of the writer, but I do not find it possible to accept this answer. At a camp meeting in the Northwest in 1991, a speaker who represents our church administration at its highest level unburdened himself of some opinions about independent ministries. When audio tapes of his messages were sent to me, I listened in deep sadness to language that was inaccurate, intemperate, and highly inflammatory. When copied to typewriter paper, the tirade filled two pages single- spaced, and ended with an appeal to his hearers to “deal with” the offenders in their local churches.

The speaker apparently was not even aware of his inappropriate use of the word “new” to describe the views regarding the nature of Christ that are held by most of the historic Adventists. There are 1200 statements from pre- 1950 Seventh- day Adventist writers, including 400 from Ellen White, to support the position that the historic Adventist view is the “old” and the Calvinistic view is the “new.” Sadly, the speaker seems to regard these 1200 statements as “snake- oil.”

I know of no independent ministry whose books are not audited. I know of no independent ministry that pays anyone a yearly salary of $100,000 or more. Far, far from it. All of the independent ministries of my acquaintance are legally registered as nonprofit corporations and can provide donors with full accountability in the form of tax- deductible receipts. I know of no independent ministry that is trying to divide or destroy the church. Many independent workers are former denominational workers, intensely loyal to the church, who feel called to the work they are doing.

When a church administrator compares certain Seventh- day Adventists to the butchers of Auschwitz and Dachau who exterminated millions of Jews, I feel that we are forced to recognize that it is an attempt to fan the flames of passion against those church members, preparatory to disfellowshiping them. Already it seems that some other church leaders are taking the cue and are adding fuel to the flames.

But will this injustice crush and destroy the faith of those who do not wish to change their theology? I doubt it. It might even cause that faith to grow and to multiply. It has happened before in the history of religion.

A retired Union Conference president said to me recently, “I hope the brethren will not forget that our conservative members are the financial backbone of our church.” This point is worthy of reflection.

To summarize and to state the problem in simple terms: The Seventh- day Adventist church today contains three groups of church members. At one end of the spectrum is a group who know very well what they are doing. They are working vigorously to change the doctrines of our church and with the flexibility of method provided by their theological principle that God does not expect anyone to stop sinning. Hence, the misrepresentations, false allegations, and so on.

At the other end of the spectrum is another group who know very well what they are doing trying to preserve in their purity the doctrines of our church and to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. In spite of bitter opposition and misrepresentation, this group is growing very rapidly.

In the center of the spectrum is a third and larger group who apparently have not yet comprehended what the tensions are about, or who lack the courage of their convictions.

Over all preside our church administrators, most of whom seem to be looking on, either benignly or indifferently, while attempts are being made to change our theology, from time to time issuing piteous pleas for unity which can only remind us of the Ellen White warning:

“We are to unify, but not upon a platform of error.” Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, article “Freedom in Christ,” 47

And we are presently witnessing what appears to be an orchestrated propaganda campaign, conducted for the purpose of fanning the flames of prejudice against historic/ independent church members, preparatory to disfellowshiping them from the church.

So— the historic Adventists continue to ask, “Why will nobody talk to us? Why can we not even be granted a fair hearing? Why are we being so continuously misrepresented and falsely accused? And why do those who thus deal with us yet think they have a right to demand our tithes and offerings?”

I submit that these are valid questions. Since this article began with questions about tithe, let me conclude it with some final thoughts on that subject. Recently I sat in a meeting with a thousand other church members and listened to a General Conference representative repeatedly denounce “the independent ministries who are draining off the church’s money.”

I listened in silence, but the language of my heart was, “Get real, Brother. Get real.” I had heard in my own church a pastor say that televangelist Jerry Falwell counts Seventh-day Adventists as his second largest group of financial supporters. It was stated that the source of this information was a Union Conference secretary. I telephoned’ the secretary, and he verified the report. He had heard it from Falwell’s own lips.

The Union secretary added that an Adventist Church member who had spent some time working with televangelist Pat Robertson’s organization reported the same was true there. When we remember that these men count their receipts in many millions of dollars per year, we have to recognize that the portion they receive from Seventh- day Adventists, their second highest donor group, must also be measured in millions. It is doubtful that the combined budgets of all the Adventist independent ministries would equal what even one of these televangelists is collecting from Seventh- day Adventists each year.

Why is nobody asking why? Why do so many of our leaders seem to be unaware of the malaise that is affecting so many of our churches, where so few messages from the pulpit reflect any sense of the urgency of our task? Is it any wonder that church members, who have never doubted that our Creator is a loving, caring God, (a message they could hear in most non-Seventh- day Adventist Christian churches) grow weary of hearing this truth endlessly repeated, and turn to preaching that seems to have more immediate significance?

Preaching the wonderful love of God we must do, but not leave the other undone. Let us remember that if Noah had done nothing but preach about a loving, earing God, there would have been no ark and his family would have perished in the Flood. If Moses had done nothing but preach about a loving, caring God there would have been no deliverance of God’s people from the land of bondage. If we do no more than preach about a loving, caring God, it will be necessary for God to raise up another people to take the three angels’ messages to the world. Our loving, caring God is a God of action, and His saving action for this world is in its final stages. The last warning message must go to the world. Will it be carried by a faithful Adventist ministry and people, or by those whom God calls to take their places?

And now a thought question. There are two distinct series of Ellen White predictions about the Adventist ministry of the end- time. One series describes how unfaithful ministers will arise among us, and is expressed in such shockingly clear statements as these:

“Many will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from the hellish torch of Satan.” Testimonies to Ministers, 409- 410

“In the very midst of us will arise false teachers, giving heed to seducing spirits whose doctrines are of satanic origin. These teachers will draw away disciples after themselves.” Review aud Herald, vol. 5, 9

The other series of predictions emphasizes that in the closing work God will pass by many ministers who have been trained in “literary institutions,” and will call men from their regular employment to finish the preaching of our message. See The Great Controversy, 608, and Testimonies, vol. 5, page 80 Two classes of ministers are thus placed before us. One group are highly educated but selfconfident, self- dependent, and in some cases unfaithful. The other group, though having less formal education, place their confidence in God, in His Word, and in the Spirit of Prophecy.

Which of these two groups of ministers, according to your convictions, should be supported by our tithes? And are we safe in assuming that this description is a faraway scenario that will probably not occur in our time?

Two very powerful forces within the Seventh- day Adventist Church are now on a collision course and seem to be moving inexorably toward what may well be a major confrontation. One force is represented by the rapidly increasing number of church members who are reacting against changes in our theology and are making firm decisions that, come what may, by God’s grace, they will be true to the Scriptures and to the Spirit of Prophecy.

The other force is represented in what appears to be a heedless, headstrong authoritarianism in which there is an equally firm determination that regardless of circumstances, all church members must be required to submit to the authority of the church. Theological questions, the heart of the problem, are being brushed aside as irrelevant, or are themselves being subordinated to church authority in an echo of the papal policy that the Scriptures mean whatever the church says they mean.

We cannot but view the scene with apprehension as we reflect about similar confrontations in the past. It was headstrong authoritarianism that divided Israel from Judah in the days of Rehoboam. It was similar authoritarianism that divided the followers of Christ from Israel in New Testament times and that divided Protestants from Catholics in Reformation times. Will it be the same with us? Is the remnant church foredoomed to also founder in the shoals of authoritarianism? Or might we yet be able to turn the church back from disaster by joining the apostle Paul in placing the test of truth above all other tests?

As we ponder such matters, we find ourselves struggling with two concepts. On the one hand we have a hope, to which we cling desperately, that the church we love so ardently will recover and complete our God- given task.

On the other hand, we have before us the Spirit of Prophecy predictions that our church will experience an enormous convulsion as we near the end of time, a shaking and a purging that will take many of our leaders and more than half of our members out of the church.

Which experience are we now entering? Will we be granted a respite? Or must we brace ourselves for the shaking time?

In any case, let us remember that the greatest hours of our message, the loud cry and the latter rain, are after the shaking time. Let us take to our hearts the words of the lord to Joshua:

“Have not I commanded thee? Be strong.” Joshua 1: 9

Buy copies of the Tithe Problem in our bookstore.

The Tithe Problem, Part I

The Tithe Problemby Ralph Larson

An Open Letter to the Church

Dear Brethren: For several years I have been receiving from many troubled church members questions about their Christian stewardship of tithes and offerings. The central problem in their minds has been whether God required them to give financial support to the preaching of doctrines that they believed to be contrary to our faith

In response to those questions, I spent much time in research in the Spirit of Prophecy and published a report of my findings on the subject in Our Firm Foundation, September, 1991. My conclusions were the same as those that had been reached by Elders Willie White, A. 0. Daniells, and W. W. Prescott, who had conducted similar research in the early 1900’s.

The reaction to my report on the part of some church officials has been unusual, to say the least. A Union president wrote to me a letter bristling with personal abuse. The president of the Canadian Union, D. Douglas Devnich, wrote a two- page article in the December, 1991, issue of The Canadian Union Messenger, in which he applied to me and to my article such malicious terms as “half- truths”, “distorts the writings of Ellen White”, “gross misquotations drawn out of context”, “accuses the pastors and leaders of the Church with falsity and apostasy”, “deceptive”, “dishonesty”, “willful intent to mislead”, “unscrupulous”, etc.

With minor changes, this article was reprinted in the Columbia Union Visitor, April, 1992, and described as “important counsel beneficial to members around the world”.

This unprecedented procedure has been very disturbing to many church members who have not previously witnessed our church papers being used for launching personal attacks against the character and integrity of a Seventh- day Adventist minister. And since my conclusions were identical with the conclusions of Willie White, A. 0. Daniells, and W. W. Prescott, the question also arises, “Are these former church leaders not being similarly condemned as persons of no integrity?”

And why do church administrators and editors rush such accusations into print without checking them for accuracy, thereby seeming to establish a new low in journalistic irresponsibility?

These questions are lent added significance by the fact that the accusations in the Devnich article can be readily demonstrated to be without foundation. To illustrate this point, I will hereby offer Pastor Devnich a reward of $1,000 if he will produce from my writings a statement that “accuses the pastors and leaders of the church with falsity and apostasy”, as he charged in the Canadian Union Messenger.

I firmly deny that in my writings there are “gross misquotations drawn out of context”, and I challenge Pastor Devnich and those who have reprinted his article to produce their evidence in support of this charge. I will also offer to Pastor Devnich an additional reward of $1,000 if he will produce from my writings a “gross misquotation drawn out of context” from the writings of Ellen White or any author.

Pastor Devnich accuses me of distorting a passage in Testimonies, vol. 7, 176- 177 on the grounds that the word “tithe” does not appear there. I made no claim that the word “tithe” does appear there. The word “stewardship” does appear there several times. I see no way that the responsibilities of Christian stewardship can be properly fulfilled without the payment of tithe. Many persons, speaking in behalf of the SDA organization, have invoked the story of the widow and her two mites (Mark 12: 42) as evidence that all tithe should be paid through organizational channels regardless of existing conditions. Yet, the word “tithe” does not appear in that story. Shall we, therefore, accuse these persons as being “deceptive”, “dishonest”, “unscrupulous”, etc.?

Several weeks ago a “leak” was communicated to me from our world headquarters that my name was at or near the top of a “hit list” of persons who were to be disfellowshiped from the church. I was told that the first step in the planned procedure would be the launching of a smear campaign for the purpose of destroying my reputation and character, which would prepare the minds of the church members for the disfellowshiping that would follow.

The first part of the procedure appears to be well under way, but have the results of this action been carefully considered? What will be the reaction of fair- minded church members? When church members learn that the appalling charges are without foundation in fact, how will this affect their confidence in church leadership? Will this draw them closer to the organization, or will it have the opposite effect?

May I respectfully suggest that all of you have a responsibility in this matter. I believe that since the false accusations have been spread world- wide, there must be an equally world- wide correction.

The church, which by the various articles, has had its attention drawn to this unprecedented personal attack, is watching to see whether there will be fair play and justice. It would seem that a minimal standard of fairness would require that such an accused person should be provided opportunity and space in the papers to respond to the accusations that have been made. I have made this request twice to the editors of The Canadian Union Messenger without results. I am hereby drawing it to your attention and requesting that your influence be exercised in behalf of justice and fair play.

Contrary to what you may have heard, I have never spoken against the church to which I and my wife have given our lives in service. I have spoken out against apostasy in the church, which I understand to be a fulfillment of my ordination vow. In all of my travels and in all of my seminars I urge people to never leave the church but to work for its revival and reformation. My theology is precisely and specifically the theology set forth in the book Seventh- day Adventists Believe. If I am divisive, that book is also divisive.

And one last question, Brethren. If you are the captain of the ship and a crew member warns you that there is a dangerous leak in the hull, what is the wisest procedure? To repair the leak or to throw the crewman overboard?

May the Lord bless and guide you as you consider this matter.

Very sincerely yours,

The Tithe Problem Part I

Today the question of accountable stewardship is becoming an issue in the minds of many Seventh- day Adventists. The awareness that we all have an individual accountability before the heavenly universe, to administer the trust committed to us of God has, in recent years, raised questions in our minds as to how to best fulfill that responsibility. It is not the purpose of this paper to solicit funds, or to attempt to point out what one’s personal responsibility is, but to give our readers information that will help them fulfill their position as God’s stewards.

The subject of tithe has come to be an emotional mine field, and so let us proceed with caution. Voices usually calm are likely to become strident when the subject is introduced, and not infrequently, strongly stirred feelings find expression in bitter accusations. Yet the problem is real, and it is here. It shows no sign of diminishing, but rather is steadily increasing. Ignoring it is not likely to be an adequate answer, nor yet is indulging in emotional outbursts which tend to aggravate tensions rather than to relieve them. Is it possible to calmly consider this problem? Let us try.

My own exposure to the problem has been educational. While I was teaching classes of ministers in the Asian Adventist Theological Seminary I sometimes met the question, “Is it ever proper to send tithe anywhere other than through the regular church channels?” I answered the question with a firm and uncompromising “No. Diverting the tithe to other than the regular church channels could never, under any circumstances, be the right thing to do.”

I must confess that I did not give this answer because of evidence that I had seen, but because of evidence that I was sure I would find in the Spirit of Prophecy if I looked for it. However, since the question did not seem to be an urgent one at the time, and I was very busy with classes, evangelistic meetings, and other projects, I did not engage in any research on this particular topic.

But upon returning to the States in 1985 I was surprised to find that the question was seriously troubling many church members. With full confidence I set out to find the Spirit of Prophecy evidence that tithe should always go through the regular church channels and never anywhere else. This research brought my second and much greater surprise. I did not find what I was looking for. It just was not in the inspired writings.

Was I failing to properly understand what I had read? Apparently not. I did find a statement regarding the question that had been prepared by Willie White (Ellen White’s son and secretary), Elder A. G. Daniells, and Elder W. W. Prescott, which indicated that neither had they found such evidence in Ellen White’s writings. The historical context of their statement is as follows:

On May 9, 1907, a Charles E. Stewart of Battle Creek sent to Ellen White’s office at Sanitarium, California, a 49- page compilation of questions and charges intended to cast doubt on the Spirit of Prophecy as manifested in her ministry. In October of the same year, the material was bound into a small book and published, apparently in Battle Creek. At some later date it was republished by another of Ellen White’s critics, E. S. Baflenger, of Riverside, California. Document WDF 213, in the White Estate Office in Loma Linda, is a record of the plans made by Willie White, Daniells, and Prescott to deal with the charges in the book, one of which was that Ellen White’s counsels and practice in regard to the tithe were not consistent, in that she did not always follow her own recommendations. Paragraph six on page two of the document is a clear statement of how these brethren understood the totality of Ellen White’s teachings in regard to the paying of tithe. “ 6. As to the proper use of the tithe: The outline of a statement on this subject which was agreed upon was briefly this: To give extracts from Sister White’s writings as to the tithe and its use; to show that her testimony and her own usual practice was in favor of paying the tithe into the regularly designated treasury, to be used under the counsel of the committees appointed for such purposes; to show further from her writings that when those who have charge of the expenditure of the tithe so far fail in the discharge of their duty that the regularly organized channels for the distribution of tithe become hindrances to its proper use, then in order to carry out the divine plan that the tithe should be expended in the wisest manner for the furtherance of the work, individuals have the right to pay their tithes direct to the needy fields; but that this involves a considerable degree of personal responsibility, which must be assumed by those who decide to follow this plan. It was thought that this matter could be handled in a way to show that the departure from the regular plans was authorized only when the regular plans failed to be carried out by those in positions of responsibility.”

This statement appeared to be strong evidence that I had not misunderstood the materials I had examined. The conclusions of these brethren were not different from my conclusions, after my study.

As indicated in the quotation, their purpose was to enlarge the outline into a tract or paper on the subject. We would, no doubt, find it helpful if we could read the paper itself, but I have not yet been able to locate a copy.

Certain basic points in regard to tithe paying stand out very clearly in Ellen White’s writings. She had no doubt that returning tithe to the I£ rd is a Christian duty, and that a failure to perform this duty is tantamount to stealing from God (see Malachi 3). She is equally clear and firm in her conviction that the tithe has only one proper use, the support of the ministry of the Word of God. Although she includes those who minister with pen as well as with voice, she specifically excludes other forms of Christian endeavor, such as “school purposes” and “canvassers and colporteurs” (See Testimonies, vol. 9, 248- 249), a poor fund or church expense. See Counsels on Stewardship, 103, and other references.

According to the testimony of God’s inspired messenger, tithe should always be faithfully returned to the Lord, and all of the tithe should be used for the support of the ministry. But which ministry or what ministry? This is the question that is troubling us now. What if a ministry strays from the path of sacred duty? What if a ministry becomes so theologically confused as to depart from the truths of God’s Word and begins preaching a false gospel? What if church leaders begin to use tithe funds for purposes other than the ministry of the Word, such as those listed above, or even to pay the fees of non- Adventist lawyers? What, then, is our Christian duty? We may seek to escape from these troubling questions by shrugging them off and saying, “There is no need for us to concern ourselves about things like that. They could not happen in our church.” But in view of Ellen White’s predictions of a great Adventist apostasy, is this a realistic attitude? Willie White, Daniells, and Prescott took no such position. They did not deny the possibility of a malfeasance, as indicated by these words:”. .. when those who have charge of the expenditure of the tithe shall so far fail in the discharge of their duty that the regular organized channels for the distribution of the tithe become hindrances to its proper use . .

“When the regular plans failed to be carried out by those in positions of responsibility . . . .” Document WDF, 213

Let us remind ourselves that these brethren were not expressing their own opinions. They were setting forth what they understood to be the totality of the teachings of Ellen White. They had before them the example of Ellen White. In the year 1905, two years before their meeting, Ellen White had written a letter to the president of the Colorado conference in which she had revealed that “for years” she had been using her tithe to assist needy ministers who were being neglected by the organization. When this statement was first called to my attention, I dismissed it very easily (I thought) by saying, “She was a prophet, and I am not a prophet. God often gives instructions to His prophets that do not apply to other people.”

But the matter is not quite that simple. The letter also revealed that when other persons offered her their tithe to use as she thought best, she accepted it and used it as indicated above, in support of needy ministers. Perhaps we could still say that she was exercising the prerogatives of a prophet, since the money passed through her hands.

But that would not be true of the third type of tithepayers who are mentioned in her letter: “If there have been cases where our sisters have appropriated their tithe to the support of the ministers working for the colored people in the south, let every man, if he is wise, hold his peace.”

There is no suggestion that this money passed through her hands, or that she was consulted about it. The money was apparently sent directly to needy ministers whose condition had become known to the tithepayers. Ellen White obviously did not disapprove of the actions of these persons, much less accuse them of “stealing” the tithe.

We must recognize that Willie White, Daniells, and Prescott, who were charged with the responsibility of setting forth a comprehensive statement regarding Ellen White’s counsel and practice regarding tithe paying, were faithful to the evidence that was before them. They frankly reported their findings to the people, with neither understatement nor overstatement. They felt that there was no self- contradiction between Ellen White’s writings and her practice. In neither her writings nor her practice was there any- thing to support the view that all tithe, regardless of circumstances, must be paid through regular church channels.

It is probable that they did not anticipate any great trouble for the church organization as the result of the publishing their frank statement. The conditions that they described as making it permissible, according to Ellen White’s writings, for a church member to exercise individual judgment in deciding where to send tithe, (the failure of persons in places of responsibility to use the tithe for its proper purpose) hardly existed in their time, if they existed at all. These leaders could not have been expected to foresee the conditions that have now developed in the church as a result of the great Adventist apostasy that has been the subject of this series of studies.

But church members in our time could hardly be expected not to see these conditions. Many have recoiled in horror from the revelation that hundreds of thousands of dollars of sacred tithe funds have been used to employ Catholic and other non- Adventist lawyers to sue and prosecute persons for calling themselves Seventh- day Adventists, and in at least one case assessing huge fines and putting the person in jail.

Some members may not be aware of such specific incidents as this, but it would be difficult for any member in the North American Division to be unaware of the great theological apostasy which is the very heart of the tithe problem. He or she is likely to encounter it in church on any Sabbath morning.

It is an undeniable fact that there are pastors in Seventh- day Adventist churches, teachers in Seventh- day Adventist colleges, and persons at all levels of church administration who are persistently presenting as truth the devil’s great lie, that Christians cannot stop sinning even by the power of God. Ellen White has identified this assertion no fewer than 35 times as a lie that originated in the heart of Satan, and that was proved to be false by our Lord Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly the strongest of her statements is this:

“Satan declared that it was impossible for the sons and daughters of Adam to keep the law of God, and thus charged upon God a lack of wisdom and love. If they could not keep the law, then there was fault with the Lawgiver. Men who are under the control of Satan repeat these accusations against God, in asserting that men can not keep the law of God. Jesus humbled Himself, clothing His divinity with humanity, in order that He might stand as the head and representative of the human family, and by both precept and example condemn sin in the flesh, and give the lie to Satan’s charges.” Signs of the Times, vol. 3, 264

May we suggest a second thoughtful reading of the above inspired statement? Its implications are staggering. Can it be possible that there are ministers, teachers, and administrators all through our ranks who are under the control of Satan? If the writings of Ellen White are inspired, we have no choice but to believe it.

Here is the heart of the tithe problem. Here is the answer to our question, Who is responsible? Would it not be the ministers who present poison from the pulpits, the teachers who present poison in the classrooms, and the administrators who support and defend them, ignoring desperate appeals from church members?

To blame the tithe problem on independent ministries is as illogical and unjust as to blame the historic Adventists for divisions being created in the church by the preaching of the false doctrines of Calvinism among us. May we here earnestly appeal for clear thinking and fair judgment on this matter?

Consider the problem of a church member who understands our message, is devoted to the truth as it is in Jesus, and has always been a faithful tithepayer. During the years he has built up a small library of Ellen White’s writings and has studied them with care. Then he is confronted with a series of shocks.

On Sabbath he hears his pastor proclaim that our Lord came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, making Him very different from ourselves. He finds it puzzling, and so spends some time on Sabbath afternoon looking through his copy of The Desire of Ages. He finds the opposite affirmed to be true on pages 25, 49, 112, 117, 174- 175, and 311- 312. Soon after, he hears his pastor preach that it is impossible for Christians, by any means, to stop sinning and that it is impossible for anyone to obey the law of God. In his The Desire of Ages the church member finds this statement described as Satan’s lie on pages 24,29, 117, and 761, and he finds in that volume a total of 78 statements that it is possible, through the power of Christ for Christians to obey God’s law. He then turns to The Great Controversy and reads on page 489 that “[ Satan] is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with his fatal sophistry that it is impossible for them to overcome.”

As this heart- wrenching experience continues, the church member is eventually forced to recognize that Ellen White’s predictions about the great Adventist apostasy are being fulfilled before his eyes. Then comes the agonizing question, “Does God require me to pay my tithe to support the great apostasy?”

Like many others before him, he decides that this line of reasoning just doesn’t make sense. He then turns to an independent ministry holding the Seventh- day Adventist historic faith, preaching the message that he accepted when he joined the church. He now begins to send his tithe to that ministry.

Now the question for every fair- minded person to consider is, Who is responsible? Has the church member’s problem been created by the independent ministry, or by the preaching of the false doctrines of Calvinism in his own church?

And will this problem be solved by crushing independent ministries and letting the false preaching continue? The answer is self- evident. To destroy the independent ministries will not solve the church member’s problem, nor will it be solved by cracking whips of church authority over his head, excluding him from church office, or by any other means of coercion.

Tragically, this obvious truth seems to be lost on some church administrators who continue to condemn and rail at independent ministries as if they were the cause of all the difficulty, and that the solution is simply to put them out of existence. It appears that some of these ministries are now being threatened with church discipline as a first step in that direction.

I have been invited to several meetings ostensibly called for the purpose of resolving tensions between independent ministries and the church organization. At none of these meetings did I discern the slightest recognition that the preaching of false doctrines in our churches was the real problem, or even any part of the problem. At none of them did I hear the slightest hint that any attempt would be made to correct this evil. Rather, the message delivered to the independent ministries is simple, “You, and only you, are the problem, and if you do not stop what your are doing, in particular if you do not stop accepting tithe, you are going to suffer the consequences.”

Some are already suffering the consequences. Members of independent ministries have in some places been denied the right to transfer their membership either into or out of the churches where they live. It should be remembered that transfers are a right of church membership and may be denied, according to the church manual, only by properly conducted church disciplinary actions. See pages 162- 163 of the Church Manual.

For that matter, the Church Manual also recognizes the right of independent ministries to exist (see page 158), and also provides that no church member’s standing should be called in question because of his failure to give financial support to the church. See page 165

But strong emotion is the enemy of reason, and as we noted at the beginning of this study, emotions tend to run high when the tithe problem is mentioned- so high that in some cases neither appeals to the Church Manual, to the Spirit of Prophecy, or even to the Bible itself bring any result.

Emotional tensions also contribute to the mishandling of evidence found in various public statements about tithe, and the accusations accompanying them. Possibly the outstanding example of mishandled evidence is a variety of Ellen White statements, written to show that tithe should be used only for the ministry of the Word and not for other Christian endeavors, are misconstrued to mean that tithe should be paid only to one ministry of the Word and not to the other minis- tries of the Word. An oft- quoted example of this misconception is on page 247 of Testimonies, vol. 9:

“Let none feel at liberty to retain their tithe, to use according to their own judgment. They are not to use it for themselves in an emergency, nor to apply it as they see fit, even in what they may regard as the Lord’s work.” Emphasis supplied

What Ellen White meant by the clause “what they may regard as the Lord’s work,” is made clear on the following pages by these lines:

“One reasons that the tithe may be applied to school purposes. Still others reason that canvassers and colporteurs should be supported from the tithe. But a great mistake is made when the tithe is drawn from the object for which it is to be used— the support of the ministers.” 248- 249

In view of the general frailty of human nature, and the specific predictions by Ellen White that there would be many apostates in the Seventh- day Adventist ministry in the last days, (see Testimonies to Ministers, 409- 410; Testimonies, vol. 5, 80- 81, 707) it would have been hazardous indeed for the messenger of the Lord to have singled out any particular group of ministers as the only ones who should ever be supported by tithe, and even more hazardous to maintain that they must be supported by tithe regardless of what they might be teaching or doing.

“It would be poor policy to support from the treasury of God those who really mar and injure His work, and who are constantly lowering the standard of Christianity.” Testimonies, vol. 3, 553

“There are fearful woes for those who preach the truth, but are not sanctified by it, and also for those who consent to receive and maintain the unsanctified to minister to them in word and doctrine.” Ibid., vol. 1, 261- 262

“As there are woes for those who preach the truth while they are unsanctified in heart and life, so there are woes for those who receive and maintain the unsanctified in the position which they cannot fill.” Ibid., vol. 2, 552

Let us take note, also, of Ellen White’s use of the expression, “the treasury of God.” In her letter to the Conference president to which we have already referred, she first tells of her practice and then adds, “The money is not withheld from the Lord’s treasury.” Obviously she did not have the limited view of “the Lord’s treasury” that some have today.

Some independent ministries have pointed out Ellen White’s statements that it is not necessary for all “funds” or “means” to flow through the same channels, and since no exception is stated in regard to tithe, they have concluded, not unreasonably, that these general terms include both tithes and offerings. But some writers have seized upon this conclusion and made it the basis for accusations of dishonesty. Surely this accusation could be termed uncontrolled emotionalism. We certainly want to have much stronger evidence before we accuse any persons of being dishonest.

You and I cannot solve the problems of the church nor the problems of the independent ministries, but we can and must resolve our own personal and individual problem in regard to the type of ministry that we support with our tithe. This problem is best solved by each one of us on his knees before the I£ rd, with the inspired writings before him. Probably none of us should presume to instruct others as to their duty.

Some may think of the widow and her two mites upon whom the Lord pronounced a blessing in spite of the corruption among church leaders at that time.

Others may reflect that we have no evidence that the widow was aware of the corruption, and that in any case there was no representative church government such as we have now. Some will be influenced by Ellen White’s statement:

“God desires to bring men into direct relation with . . . . . Every man has been made a steward of sacred trusts; each is to discharge his trust according to the direction of the Giver; and by each an account of his stewardship must be rendered to God . . . . We are responsible to invest this means ourselves.” Testimonies, vol. 7, 176- 177

“Do we individually realize our true position, that as God’s hired servants we are not to bargain away our stewardship? We have an individual accountability before the heavenly universe, to administer the trust committed us of God.” Testimonies to Ministers, 361- 362

And we must not overlook the warnings previously quoted that there are woes upon those who consent to receive and maintain ministers whose unsanctified attitudes injure the work of God.

It has not been the purpose of this study to give directions to any person as to his individual responsibility. It has been our purpose to prove the following points:

  1. There is no biblical or Spirit of Prophecy evidence to support the view that all tithe must, regardless of circumstances, be paid through organizational channels. Such a position might in some cases require that outright apostasy be supported by tithe, which is far beyond the boundaries of reason.
  2. We have been given through God’s appointed messenger an abundance of clear warnings that there would be a time when apostate ministers would be preaching in many Seventh- day Adventist pulpits, and that the apostasy would sweep through the ranks of our ministers and our members.
  3. If we are to take Ellen White’s words at their face value, that time has at least partially arrived, in that many ministers are now occupying Seventh- day Adventist pulpits who are preaching as truth the devil’s great lie- that Christians cannot stop sinning even through the power of Christ. By unmistakably clear Spirit of Prophecy definition, such ministers are “under the control of Satan.”

Therefore, as Christian stewards under God, we have a solemn responsibility to fulfill in regard to our tithes and our offerings.

May the Lord help each one of us to prayerfully, carefully, and conscientiously return the sacred tithe, as the Lord has directed, for the support of the ministry. May we never be confused and uncertain as to what kind of ministry the Lord deems worthy to receive the tithe. And may we never be confused or uncertain as to who is responsible for the present tithe problem. The responsibility must be placed squarely at the doors of those who are preaching among us the false doctrines of Calvinism and the administrators who are supporting and maintaining them in their positions.

The messenger of the Lord counseled parents, guardians of youth, and those who minister in the service of God:

“When existing evils are not met and checked, because men have too little courage to reprove wrong, or because they have too little interest or are too indolent to tax their own powers in putting forth earnest efforts to purify the family or the church of God, they are accountable for the evil which may result in consequence of neglect to do their duty. We are just as accountable for evils that we might have checked in others, by reproof, by warning, by exercise of parental or pastoral authority, as if we were guilty of the acts ourselves.” Testimonies, vol. 4,516

May God give us faith, courage, and power in these troubled times to know and do the will of the Lord.

Part II

Good Men — Good Church

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” Revelation 3:14–17.

Self-Dependence

How could a people or a church ever become so blind that they are actually naked yet think they are clothed? It is because they have learned to depend upon their own works and their own righteousness rather than the righteousness of Christ. And, though they think they are clothed, their own righteousness cannot clothe them.

It is a situation similar to the one Jesus spoke of in Luke 18:10–13: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector [or publican]. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise [his] eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ”

Today, Pharisees are looked down upon; but back in Jesus’ day, they were respected. Publicans, on the other hand, were the worst of people in the eyes of the Jews. They did not respect God’s church, and the Jews considered them to be collaborating with the Romans. Yet Jesus said, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Verse 14.

God Ordains and Removes

I have often studied with sadness the history of Saul. Here was a man who was chosen and ordained of God. He knew that he had been ordained by God to lead His church. When he went out to fight God’s battles, God fought for him. But when God told him to destroy the Amalekites, he failed to do as he was told. (See 1 Samuel 15.) He reasoned, “Let’s take these animals and show our appreciation and gratitude for God. Instead of just killing them and wasting them, we will sacrifice them to God.”

Look, however, at God’s assessment of what had taken place. “So Samuel said, ‘When you [were] little in your own eyes, [were] you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord anoint you king over Israel? Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord? And Saul said to Samuel, ‘But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.’ So Samuel said: ‘Has the Lord [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, [And] to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from [being] king.’ ” 1 Samuel 15:17–23.

Saul thought he was so good, but he was blind. He thought he was clothed with righteousness, but he was absolutely naked. Verse 23 is a solemn reality that whom God ordains for service, He can remove, and what He has ordained for service, He can also remove. God ordained the children of Israel to be His people. Of them, He said, “Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The Lord of hosts is His name): If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the Lord, [Then] the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.” Jeremiah 31:35, 36. Even if the sun, moon, and stars should be removed, Israel would not be removed from being His people.

The children of Israel reasoned in Jesus’ day, “We are God’s people; nothing can change that. The tide is still coming in; there are still the sun, moon, and stars.” But somehow they forgot that what God establishes, He can also remove. Though God had established Saul, he also removed Him. As with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, though God appointed them, He also removed them. (See Numbers 16:27–32.) Thus it was with the leadership in Jesus’ day, and thus it is today. When men begin to think that they are good because of position or works, they are absolutely blind. There is not a position or work in which we can engage that can make any one of us good. If there is any goodness in it, it is the goodness of Jesus that comes by faith in Him. But men have come to the place where they believe that they can break the Sabbath and be held guiltless. They believe that they can lie and bear false charges as the scribes and Pharisees did against Jesus in His day in order to preserve the system, because it is for a good purpose, and somehow still be guiltless.

Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were in the holy service of God. They had come out of Egypt and gone through the Red Sea; they had eaten manna and drunk the water from the rock. More than that, some of these leaders, possibly even Korah, Dathan, and Abiram themselves, had gone up on Mt. Sinai with Moses. God chose them, through Moses, to be representatives for Him. Moses, on the other hand, was not a representative of leadership; he was a prophet. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, since they were elected and had all of the evidence of God’s leading, came to the place where they became good in their own eyes. They thought that they were rich and had need of nothing and knew not that they were miserable, poor, blind, and naked. (Revelation 3:17.) They came to the place where they thought that they could do things that God had never given them permission to do.

By Church Authority

In 364 a.d., the Council of Nicea declared that the sanctity of the Sabbath had been changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week. They did not do this by God’s authority but by church authority and church decree. They did so because they were leaders of the church.

It has interested me how people study the Bible and seem to twist everything to their own wishes. That was taking place in Ellen White’s day in the 1890s. The leadership was likening themselves to Moses, and anyone who did not go along with them was like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. You see, in 1888, God had chosen Jones and Waggoner and others to give the message of Christ our righteousness, but the leaders said, “Listen, this message did not go through us. What right do these people have to preach? They are not ordained by us; they have not come through our authority. We are the leaders of God’s church.” Do you know what Ellen White says about that? “They were actuated by the same spirit that inspired Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.” The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, vol. 3, 1067. This is just one place where she says that the leaders were likened to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

I have been shocked by the way committees of the church today can somehow come to believe that they have been vested with authority to disregard God’s commandments and laws. When we suppose that we can overlook all of God’s counsels on competitive sports and introduce intercollegiate sports into our schools, are we not committing the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? Are we not coming to the place where we think that we can go against God’s counsels and make our own decisions? When we follow the practices and policies of the world instead of those laid down in the Word of God, are we not committing the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? “Korah would not have taken the course he did had he known that all the directions and reproofs communicated to Israel were from God. But he might have known this. God had given overwhelming evidence that He was leading Israel.” Patriarchs and Prophets, 404, 405. When the church fights the very ministries that God has called into existence, is it not committing the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? That is the sin of the papacy, and dear friend, it is becoming the sin of the church today. It is the sin of anyone who decides that they are so good that they do not need to follow God exactly; they can make their own decisions in life.

Greek Philosophy

In Jesus’ day, the church of God had been sending some of their promising young men to the universities of Greece, especially down to Alexandria, Egypt. Of course, they remained members of God’s professed church, but they learned and brought into it the Greek philosophy, which is the basis of higher education.

The Greeks had come to the place where they believed that the way to be truly educated was to reject everything until it has been proved. When you incorporate that philosophy with the Word of God, it is disastrous, because the Word of God must be studied by faith, not by doubt. I talked with an educator at one of the denomination’s colleges, an ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister, teaching according to the principles of Greek philosophy. He was asking people how they could know that God had really created the world in seven days. I asked him, “How can you instill this doubt into students’ minds?”

He said, “I believe that the way we are educated is to doubt everything. That is the way we learn. This is true faith. Faith is when you doubt so much that you come to doubt your doubts and that is faith.”

When this system of doubt is applied to the Word of God, it destroys faith. You cannot study God’s Word except by faith.

In Jesus’ day, the Jew who was not educated was looked down upon as being a heathen, because everyone was supposed to have a Christian education; that was a duty of a Jewish parent. The educational system, however, had been taken over by a group of liberals called the Sadducees. They rejected much that was in the Old Testament, although they claimed to be true followers of God. What could not be proved, they reasoned away.

You know, it is interesting that there is not a record of a single Sadducee being converted or accepting Jesus as his Saviour. It is a deadly disease, this liberal philosophy that causes people to doubt the Word of God and put human reason and human logic above the Word. But in reaction to the Sadducees came a group of conservative people who said, “We do not believe in this liberal philosophy that puts logic above the Word. We believe the Word simply because God says it.” They were called the Pharisees, but sadly, they became so conservative that they began to look at themselves as good people, because they were doing everything the Bible said. As time went on, they began to confuse conservatism with structuralism and to place more and more faith in a structure and in a system rather than in God. They began to worship the church instead of God. In fact, the church was so sacred and so important that if anyone suggested that it would be destroyed or that the temple would be destroyed, as Jesus said it would be, that person was worthy of death, and they sought to kill him because he was blaspheming God. Any criticism of the structure became criticism of God in their minds, so they killed the person who said that the church would be destroyed.

Do you know what is interesting? The Pharisees were the ones who became the bitterest enemies of Jesus, much more so than the Sadducees. In their minds, anything that did not go through the structure was wrong and was not of God.

Truth will go Through

The Elijah message was the message that John the Baptist had to bring to the people in his day. (See Matthew 3:7–10). It is interesting that this same message that was to prepare a people before Jesus’ first coming is the same message that is to be brought back to the church today before Jesus’ second coming. Ellen White says, “In this fearful time, just before Christ is to come the second time, God’s faithful preachers will have to bear a still more pointed testimony than was borne by John the Baptist. A responsible, important work is before them; and those who speak smooth things, God will not acknowledge as His shepherds. A fearful woe is upon them.” Testimonies, vol. 1, 321.

As Saul so sadly learned, what God ordains, He can also remove. John the Baptist told the people of his day that God could raise up children to make a church out of the stones, and God did it. He took the stony hearts of the Gentiles and fashioned them into the true church of Israel in the New Testament. Paul says, in Galatians 3, Ephesians 2, and Romans 2, that the Gentiles had now become the true church of Israel. The church survived, but it was made up of different people. John the Baptist said “Do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as [our] father.’ [We are the church!] . . . Even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree [not just the trees in John the Baptist’s day but every tree from Saul’s day until Jesus’ second coming] which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” Matthew 3:9, 10.

The truth will go through; the movement will go through; God’s true Seventh-day Adventist people, the movement that He has ordained for these last days, are going through. God promised it would go through. This is the last church, but the church is more than a structure. The structure is only an aspect of the church. God can raise up children to this church from the stones.

Independent Ministry

God says that every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down. In Jesus’ day, the church had become so structuralized that God could not reach it through the system. God had to send John the Baptist as an independent minister, independent of the system. When Jesus came down, He also came as an independent minister. He was never sanctioned or ordained by the church. The church never laid their hands upon Him, and they did not recognize Him.

It is interesting to note that even among those who were in independent ministry, pride and self-sufficiency often came in. We find it in Peter and John. They, thankfully, eventually overcame. But this became the spirit of Judas, and he betrayed Jesus from the independent ministry, from the self-supporting work, even from His own group.

Jesus said that the prevailing problem with the church in the last days would be the problem that has been with the church in all ages—self-righteousness. That is what has brought in all of the errors of the Christian church. It is that righteousness that makes a person so righteous that they no longer need to obey God, and they can decide for themselves what is right or wrong. That was the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden. “God knows that in the day you eat this fruit, that you will be so wise and so good that you will know yourself what you should do and what you should not do.” Self-righteousness, the fig leaves of self-righteousness.

God has a message to the church today. It is called the Elijah message—the Laodicean message. It is a message of love. God says, “I love you too much to let you go. If you will accept Me as your Lord and Saviour, if you will simply come and follow Me, I will give you righteousness; you will not have to earn it. I will give it to you as a free gift, and then you can obey Me because you love Me. I will give you the power to obey every precept from a heart of love.” You will no longer try to find out how little you can do to get to heaven. No! You will have salvation because God has given it to you, and you will be doing everything you can do, because you love Him. None of it will earn you a place in heaven; that was earned on the cross of Calvary 2,000 years ago. Praise the Lord! But it is a gift to the obedient.

Reprinted from LandMarks, June 1994.

Pastor Marshall Grosboll, with his wife Lillian, founded Steps to Life Ministry. In July 1991, Pastor Marshall and his family met with tragedy as they were returning home from a camp meeting in Washington state, when the airplane he was piloting went down killing all on board.

Editorial – Unity and Dissonance, Part VI

Through this series on “Unity and Dissonance,” we have looked at how God’s faithful people at the end will be opposed—first by the professed church and later by the world. We have seen that one of the initial attacks against God’s people by their professed brethren will be the charge that they are not accountable to the church organization, as it is claimed they should be. This is the same attack that was made against John the Baptist at the first coming of Christ. It was made repeatedly against Jesus, and it was also made against the apostle Paul.

God’s people must remember as well that we need to counsel with one another and with the Lord at each step of advancement. On the other hand, we must know that there is a time when the Lord forbids us to counsel with our “brethren.” Inspired counsel has been given to us about this subject.

“A man can not safely be intrusted [sic] with the control of others, unless he himself is under the satisfaction of the Holy Spirit.” Bible Training School, January 1, 1908.

“Honor is to be given to the human powers by putting them to the very highest use in the service of God. Under the control and guidance of the Holy Spirit, all may be co-laborers with God. All whom God has blessed with reasoning powers are to become intellectual Christians. They are not requested to believe without evidence; therefore Jesus has enjoined upon all to search the Scriptures. Let the ingenious inquirer, and the one who would know for himself what is truth, exert his mental powers to search out the truth as it is in Jesus. Any neglect here is at the peril of the soul. We must know individually the prescribed conditions of entering into eternal life. We must know what is the voice of God, that we may live by every word that proceeds out of his mouth. We cannot allow these questions to be settled for us by another’s mind, or another’s judgment.” Review and Herald, March 8, 1887.

“John had not recognized the authority of the Sanhedrin by seeking their sanction for his work; and he had reproved rulers and people, Pharisees and Sadducees alike. Yet the people followed him eagerly. The interest in his work seemed to be continually increasing. Though he had not deferred to them, the Sanhedrin accounted that, as a public teacher, he was under their jurisdiction.” The Desire of Ages, 132, 133.

“From childhood He [Christ] acted independently of the rabbinical laws.” Ibid., 84.

“In His instruction to Moses the Lord very plainly set forth the character of those who were to fill important positions as counselors. They are to be ‘able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.’ [Exodus 18:21.] The Lord’s counsel has been strangely neglected. There are men in places of holy trust who, when reproved, have cared nought for it. Some who for years have stood as counselors have boldly stated that they would not receive the testimonies given. In triumph they have declared that many of our most responsible men have lost faith in the message coming from Sister White. Thus the rejecters of light have been strengthened in their unbelief, feeling that they had quite a strong confederacy. Men who have had the light have walked contrary to the light. These words are appropriate: ‘Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.’ The malaria of unbelief has been diffusing its deathly atmosphere throughout the ranks, nigh and afar off. All this has been stated plainly, yet for years matters have been left unchanged. Can the Lord’s favor be expected under such circumstances? . . .” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 341, 342.

Commitment to God’s Church

Week of Prayer for Sabbath

Many times, at Steps to Life and the Prairie Meadows Church, we receive telephone calls and letters questioning us as to why we are an independent church of Sabbath-keeping believers, not connected with the local conference, the union conference, or the General Conference structure of Seventh-day Adventists. While this is too extensive a question to be answered in one article, a few questions and answers will be given that, hopefully, will stimulate God’s people to think through their position relative to the coming of Christ.

Babylon

In an effort to avoid misunderstandings, it should be stated that we have not in the past called, nor are we at the present calling, the Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon. In LandMarks magazine, the writer has published articles titled, “The Black and White Christian” [September and October 2005]. A large percentage of Catholics and Protestants, including Seventh-day Adventists, are black and white Christians. So many people say, “Either the church must be Zion or it must be Babylon; there are only two sides in the Great Controversy, so it must be one or the other.” They see that the church is in apostasy, which is a cardinal characteristic of Babylon, so they conclude that it is Babylon.

Most of the people we know who call the Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon do so, in large part, because they see apostasy in the church at all levels. If we refuse to call the church Babylon, then these people conclude that it must be Zion—God’s church, and everyone should belong to it and work through the problems associated with it. However, in real life, a situation can be more complicated than just a simple yes or no.

Previous Independent Workers

Before addressing directly the situation of the present day, it is fair to ask the question, Are there instances in the Holy Scriptures or in the writings of Ellen White where individuals or groups of people did not work within the church structure of their day and yet were being led by God to do a work for Him? Many examples should immediately come to mind for any serious Bible student.

Jethro

First of all, there was Jethro. Jethro was Moses’ father-in-law, and he gave advice to Moses concerning church organization. Yet, Jethro was not a member of the children of Israel and refused to become one when Moses extended an invitation to him. Ellen White says, “When Moses was much burdened the Lord raised him up in Jethro an advisor and helper.” Christian Leadership, 55. Obviously, Jethro was being led by the Lord, but, as far as we can tell, he was never a member of the children of Israel. He was a priest and a prince but separate from the children of Israel, as far as membership was concerned. “Jethro was singled out from the darkness of the Gentile world to reveal the principles of heaven. God has ever had appointed agencies, and has ever given abundant evidences that these agencies were heaven-appointed and heaven-sent (Letter 190, 1905).” “Ellen G. White Comments,” Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, 1099.

Jethro did not understand all things, but he was spiritually in advance of Moses when Moses fled from Pharoah. He helped Moses to develop a more correct faith: “All the idolatrous rubbish of heathen lore must be removed, bit by bit, item by item, from Moses’ mind. Jethro helped him in many things to a correct faith, as far as he himself understood. He was working upward toward the light, when he could see God in singleness of heart. . . .” This Day With God, 321.

“And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses’ father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel. And he said unto him, I will not go; but I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred. And he said, Leave us not, I pray thee; forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou mayest be to us instead of eyes. And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall be, that what goodness the Lord shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee.” Numbers 10:29–32.

Eventually, at least some of the descendants of Jethro lived among the children of Israel, and the wife of one of these descendants killed Sisera. (See Judges 4.)

Elijah

A second example is Elijah. The church organization was in apostasy and had been taken over by the woman Jezebel. The times of Elijah are very instructive for people who are confused by the arguments of those who believe that all people must belong to the organization of “God’s church.”

Had God by divine arrangement denominated the children of Israel as His special people? Yes, God had done this very thing.

Were the children of Israel called by a divinely appointed name, and were they God’s chosen people? Yes, they were.

Had their church been organized by divine appointment, and, therefore, was it God’s chosen and organized church? Yes, it was.

Then why did Elijah not cooperate by being obedient and submissive to the church organization? Because the leadership had decided to fight and destroy God’s people and to go contrary to the historic truths of the organization. Therefore, it could not be said any longer that the leadership had divinely constituted authority. They were no longer to be followed. In fact, if you followed the authority of the church leadership, you would be separated from God. The authority of the church organization was not duly authorized by God and did not constitute divinely authorized leadership, because they had decided to follow the practices of the world around them instead of the Word of God.

This is a key point that many people fail to understand. It is only the words and writings of prophets and apostles that give any church organization (including the Seventh-day Adventist Church) divine authority. As soon as a church organization makes decisions that are not in harmony with the Word of God or the writings of prophets, then that church organization no longer has any divine authority. This is true even if the decision is made in a conference session with delegates from all over the world. If the reader would like an example of a decision directly contrary to inspired writings, examine the decision concerning marriage and divorce made at the General Conference session in the year 2000.

There were believers in Elijah’s day who did not submit to or obey the church organization or have any part of it at all—at least 7,000 of them. These people would, today, be thought of as offshoots. They were the ones meeting in home churches and refusing to be a part of the general apostasy. Elijah was accused of being the troubler of Israel. He was saying many things against the church organization, and since he was separate from the church organization, he was no doubt accused of being a separationist. It is never wrong to be separate from apostasy.

Elijah could have been accused of starting a new movement, a new church, a new organization—the same accusations that are leveled at those in independent churches today. But the truth of the matter is that Elijah was being loyal and faithful to the movement that God had originally established, just as we are trying to do today.

The big question that needs to be answered is not to what organization are you loyal, but are you loyal and faithful in practice to the inspired writings? If not, then whether you are a physician, a lawyer, a judge, a minister, or whatever you may be, you are not really being loyal and faithful, even if you are a member in good and regular standing in a church organization. We are headed for the final judgment, and the question is going to be whether or not we were obedient to the Law of God.

Elijah could be accused of pulling apart from God’s organization, and, like today, people probably said that this was not a good sign. Elijah would have responded that the organization had pulled apart from the truth, and he was staying with the truths that had been vouchsafed to God’s people. Elijah could be accused of separating from the organized body.

The experience of the true and faithful in Elijah’s time is very similar to the experience of the true and faithful today. They were unknown. They were, to human sight, unauthorized to be organized in their little groups in caves and other out-of-the-way places. They were, however, recognized in heaven and written down in God’s book as the people who would not in any way participate in the apostasy, not even so much as by a kiss.

New Testament Examples

Other examples from the Old Testament could be given, but it is in the New Testament where we see God calling and using people independent of the organization, of the chosen people of God. This does not mean that the organization is Babylon. It does mean that we need to rise above the level of black and white Christians. We must perceive that God has many ways to perfect His plans, and some of them may be contrary to what humans believe is the only right way to do things.

John the Baptist

John the Baptist worked entirely independent of the church organization of God’s chosen people. He said, “The ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” Matthew 3:10. “Not by its name, but by its fruit, is the value of a tree determined. If the fruit is worthless, the name cannot save the tree from destruction. John declared to the Jews that their standing before God was to be decided by their character and life. Profession was worthless. If their life and character were not in harmony with God’s law, they were not His people.” The Desire of Ages, 107.

“To a people in whose hearts His law is written, the favor of God is assured. They are one with Him. But the Jews had separated themselves from God. Because of their sins they were suffering under His judgments. This was the cause of their bondage to a heathen nation. Their minds were darkened by transgression, and because in times past the Lord had shown them so great favor, they excused their sins. They flattered themselves that they were better than other men, and entitled to His blessings.

“These things ‘are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.’ 1 Corinthians 10:11. How often we misinterpret God’s blessings, and flatter ourselves that we are favored on account of some goodness in us! God cannot do for us that which He longs to do. His gifts are used to increase our self-satisfaction, and to harden our hearts in unbelief and sin.

“John declared to the teachers of Israel that their pride, selfishness, and cruelty showed them to be a generation of vipers, a deadly curse to the people, rather than the children of just and obedient Abraham. In view of the light they had received from God, they were even worse than the heathen, to whom they felt so much superior. They had forgotten the rock whence they were hewn, and the hole of the pit from which they had been digged. God was not dependent upon them for the fulfilling of His purpose. As He had called Abraham out from a heathen people, so He could call others to His service. Their hearts might now appear as lifeless as the stones of the desert, but His Spirit could quicken them to do His will, and receive the fulfillment of His promise.” Ibid., 106, 107.

Would to God that we all could learn the lesson. God is not dependent on the historic Adventists or the home churches or the Adventists in conference churches. He is not dependent on our organizations or institutions to finish His work. He can finish His work through others: “We have a great work to do in our world. If ministers and doctors will work in God’s lines, He will work with them. But they must change, decidedly change, in spirit and character. They must remember that they are not the only ones to whom the Lord will give wisdom. If His people will not follow in His way, the Lord will employ heathen princes to do His will. . . .” Notebook Leaflets from the Elmshaven Library, vol. 1, 62.

The Lord

We will pass over the example we have in the life of our Lord Himself. He took a position independent of the church organization of God’s chosen people, and remember that this was before probation had closed on the Jews as a nation. Some people say that, until probation closes on a church, all should remain in it and work under its authority, forgetting the example of our Lord who said, concerning the leaders of God’s chosen people, that they were blind leaders of the blind. (Matthew 15:14.) He cautioned His children for all future ages that if they followed those who were blind, they, as well as the leaders, would fall into the ditch. He said to let them alone. There is a time when the only safe thing to do is to be separate from those who will lead you into the ditch if you follow them.

“While they had been with Him, the disciples had often been perplexed by the teaching of the priests and Pharisees, but they had brought their perplexities to Jesus. He had set before them the truths of Scripture in contrast with tradition. Thus He had strengthened their confidence in God’s word, and in a great measure had set them free from their fear of the rabbis and their bondage to tradition.” The Desire of Ages, 349.

“Since the healing at Bethesda He had not attended the national gatherings. To avoid useless conflict with the leaders at Jerusalem, He had restricted His labors to Galilee. His apparent neglect of the great religious assemblies, and the enmity manifested toward Him by the priests and rabbis, were a cause of perplexity to the people about Him, and even to His own disciples and His kindred. In His teachings He had dwelt upon the blessings of obedience to the law of God, and yet He Himself seemed to be indifferent to the service which had been divinely established. His mingling with publicans and others of ill repute, His disregard of the rabbinical observances, and the freedom with which He set aside the traditional requirements concerning the Sabbath, all seeming to place Him in antagonism to the religious authorities, excited much questioning. His brothers thought it a mistake for Him to alienate the great and learned men of the nation. They felt that these men must be in the right, and that Jesus was at fault in placing Himself in antagonism to them.” Ibid., 450.

“It was most difficult for the disciples of Christ to keep His lessons distinct from the traditions and maxims of the rabbis, the scribes, and pharisees. The teachings which the disciples had been educated to respect as the voice of God held a power over their minds and molded their sentiments. The disciples could not be a living and shining light until they were freed from the influence of the sayings and commandments of men, and the words of Christ were deeply impressed upon their minds and hearts as distinct truths, as precious jewels, to be appreciated, loved, and acted upon.” Ye Shall Receive Power, 39.

The Apostle Paul

We will also pass over the example of the apostle Paul. Although he was raising up churches all over the Roman Empire, much of his work was done entirely independently of the church organization in Jerusalem. His imprisonment and martyrdom were the result of opposition and unbelief by the church structure, which included some of the apostles. (See Sketches from the Life of Paul.)

Current Time

In our time, did God authorize, during the lifetime of Ellen White, any work and workers which were separate from the church structure and independent of the church structure? For a beginning, look up the expression “irregular lines” in the writings of Mrs. White.

When Madison College and Sanitarium were being started, Ellen White gave the following counsel: “It was quite a problem with Brethren Sutherland and Magan and their faithful associates as to how, with limited means, they were to adapt themselves to the work in Madison, Tennessee. They had many obstacles and difficulties to meet, some of which need never have come into the work.

“The reason these brethren were persuaded to purchase the place now occupied by the Madison school, was because special light was given to me that this place was well adapted for the educational work that was most needed there. It was presented to me that this was a place where an all-round education could be given advantageously to students who should come from the North and the South for instruction. In what has already been accomplished by the Madison school, the Lord is making it manifest that He is blessing the work carried forward there, and is leading the teachers who are associated together in bearing the burdens of the work.

“Many obstacles have been placed in the way of the pioneers at the Madison school of a nature to discourage them and drive them from the field. These obstacles were not placed there by the Lord. In some things the finite planning and devisings of men have worked counter to the work of God.

“Let us be careful, brethren, lest we counterwork and hinder the progress of others, and so delay the sending forth of the gospel message. This has been done, and this is why I am now compelled to speak so plainly. If proper aid had been given to the school enterprise at Madison, its work might now be in a far more advanced stage of development. The work at Madison has made slow advancement, and yet, in spite of the obstacles and hindrances, these workers have not failed nor become discouraged; and they have been enabled to accomplish a good work in the cause of God.

“The Lord does not set limits about His workers in some lines as men are wont to set. In their work, Brethren Magan and Sutherland have been hindered unnecessarily. Means have been withheld from them because in the organization and management of the Madison school, it was not placed under the control of the conference. But the reasons why this school was not owned and controlled by the conference have not been duly considered.

“The lack of interest in this work, by some who should have valued it highly, is decidedly wrong. Our brethren must guard themselves against the repetition of such experiences.

“The Lord does not require that the educational work at Madison shall be changed all about before it can receive the hearty support of our people. The work that has been done there is approved of God, and He forbids that this line of work shall be broken up. The Lord will continue to bless and sustain the workers so long as they follow His counsel.

“Brethren Sutherland and Magan are as verily set to do the work of the Lord at Madison as other workers are appointed to do their part in the cause of present truth. The light given me is that we should help these brethren and their associates, who have worked beyond their strength, under great disadvantages. Let us seek to understand the situation, and see that justice and mercy are not forgotten in the distribution of funds.

“The leaders in the work of the Madison school are laborers together with God. More must be done in their behalf by their brethren. The Lord’s money is to sustain them in their labors. They have a right to share the means given to the cause. They should be given a proportionate share of the means that comes in for the furtherance of the cause.” Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 11, 30–32.

“The Lord has instructed me that, from the first, the work in Huntsville and Madison should have received adequate help. But instead of this help being rendered promptly there has been long delay. And in the matter of the Madison school, there has been a standing off from them because they were not under the ownership and control of some Conference. This is a question that should sometimes be considered, but it is not the Lord’s plan that means should be withheld from Madison, because they are not bound to the conference. The attitude which some of our brethren have assumed toward this enterprise shows that it is not wise for every working agency to be under the dictation of conference officers. There are some enterprises under certain conditions, that will produce better results if standing alone.

“When my advice was asked in reference to the Madison school, I said, Remain as you are. There is danger in binding every working agency under the dictation of the conference. The Lord did not design that this should be. The circumstances were such that the burden bearers in the Madison school could not bind up their work with the conference. I knew their situation, and when many of the leading men in our conferences ignored them, because they did not place their school under conference dictation, I was shown that they would not be helped by making themselves amenable to the conference. They had better remain as led by God, amenable to Him, to work out His plans. But this matter need not be blazed abroad.

“In their change from Berrien Springs, Brethren Sutherland and Magan made many sacrifices. The Lord counseled them where to go, and in their labors at Madison, they have worked far beyond their strength. But under the direction of the Lord they are capable of doing a good work. They will give to the students who come there an education altogether different than what has been given in Washington during the past years. They will not only labor to impart an education in book knowledge and manual work, but they will endeavor to teach the students to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.

“These teachers should be regarded, not as men who have had no valuable experience, but as men who have in the past accomplished a great and good work, and who have suffered privations for the cause of God. They have not exacted their just dues. Had some of their brethren been better able to reason from cause to effect, there would be a different record. The restrictions by which their hands have been tied are not pleasing to the Lord. They might have had a sanitarium and suitable buildings, and they might have been years in advance of where they now are. I would say, Let justice now be done.

“The world is our field. God’s children who feel a burden for the work of the message are to be allowed to work where the Spirit directs them. Let not a forbidding power be exercised to restrict them in their work. Let God accomplish His work through the agencies that He chooses. A great mistake has been made in the exercise of human authority in God’s work, and I am bidden to proclaim the message: ‘Break every yoke, and let the oppressed go free.’ [Isaiah 58:6.] I am bidden to say to church members, ‘Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee’ (Isaiah 60:1).

“When the disciples returned from their first missionary tour, the Saviour asked them, ‘Lacked ye anything?’ And the answer was given, ‘Nay, Lord.’ [Luke 22:35.] The same power that supplied the needs of the first disciples will provide for the necessities of those who today go forth to labor earnestly to give the last gospel message to the world. O, why do men and women feel so little burden to take up the work that needs to be done? Angels of God are waiting to go forth with them in this work.

“In the restrictions that have been placed on some who desired to do a definite work, many have found an excuse why they should not engage in active missionary work. I am bidden to bear my testimony against unnecessary restrictions being laid on those who desire to act a part in the work of the Lord.

“In all their associations together, God desires His followers to guard their personal responsibility to Him, and their individual dependence upon Him. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. No ruling power of man over man is to be exercised. We have as a people lost much time and means, because we have not followed closely the Lord’s plan for us. By carrying out their own devisings, men get in the way of the Lord, and close up the avenue by which He would reach those who need the blessings of the gospel.

“My brethren, stand out of the way of your fellow-beings. . . .

“In the day of final reckoning, the Lord will deal with each soul individually. . . .

“There are among our church members faithful souls who feel a burden for those who know not the truth for this time. But one will say to such, The conference will not support you if you go here or there. To such souls I would say, ‘Pray to God for guidance as to where you shall go; follow the directions of the Holy Spirit, and go, whether the conference will pay your expenses or not.’ ‘Go work today in My vineyard,’ Christ commands. [Matthew 21:38.] When you have done your work in one place, go to another. Angels of God will go with you, if you follow the leadings of the Spirit.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, 202–207.

“Some have entertained the idea that because the school at Madison is not owned by a conference organization, those who are in charge of the school should not be permitted to call upon our people for the means that is greatly needed to carry on their work. This idea needs to be corrected. In the distribution of the money that comes into the Lord’s treasury, you are entitled to a portion just as verily as are those connected with other needy enterprises that are carried forward in harmony with the Lord’s instruction.

“The Lord Jesus will one day call to account those who would so tie your hands that it is almost impossible for you to move in harmony with the Lord’s biddings. ‘The silver and the gold is mine, saith the Lord, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.’ [Haggai 2:8; Psalm 50:10.]

“You and your associates are not novices in educational work, and when you are in stress for means with which to advance the work, you are just as much entitled to ask for that which you need as are other men to present the necessities of the work in which they are engaged.

“You have in the past done much to bring means into circulation in the work of God. And you need not now feel troubled about accepting gifts and free-will offerings; for you will need them in the work of preparing young men and women to labor in the Lord’s vineyard. As you carry on this work in harmony with the Lord’s will, you are not to be kept on a constant strain to know how to secure the means you need in order to go forward. The Lord forbids the setting up of walls and bands around workers of experience who are faithfully acting their God-appointed part.

“Much precious time has been lost because man-made rules and restrictions have been sometimes placed above the plans and purposes of God. In the name of the Lord I appeal to our conference workers to strengthen and support and labor in harmony with our brethren at Madison, who are carrying forward a work that God has appointed them.” Spalding and Magan Collection, 411, 412.

“Well,” someone may say, “Sutherland and Magan started a school, a sanitarium, and a publishing ministry that were independent from the conference, but that was all right, because Ellen White endorsed it.” (Or would it be more fair and correct to say that she endorsed it because it was right—exactly what God wanted them to do at that time?) They continue, “But you are starting churches which are independent from the conference, and that is wrong and not endorsed by Ellen White.” We will look at independent or self-supporting churches in future articles.

Pastor John Grosboll is Director of Steps to Life and pastors the Prairie Meadows Church in Wichita, Kansas.

[Editor’s Note: This topic is so important and extensive that it will be further addressed in additional articles in future LandMarks.]

God Supported Ministries Alive and Well?

Despite the rumors and even some attempted efforts to slow down or stop the independent ministries, we can say “God is still in control.”

What a time we are living in! The shaking seems to have become more intense and many are “flying” in different directions. All seem to be saying, “This is the way to go, come with us.”

Now, as never before, we must be students of the Word. Many are being deceived by the wiles of the devil. Scripture is being twisted, if not out and out disregarded. I am talking about God’s professed people.

May I give some personal advice to each one of you? Because the movement is shifting around, do not make any sudden changes in your position without seeking God through fasting and prayer.

Ask yourself a few questions. Has God been leading you in the past? Are there evidences of His leading? Has your experience with Him been growing daily? If you are sure God has brought you this far, whether in a God supported ministry, home church, independent church, you may be alone, or whatever the case may be, why go back and retrace your steps? God always wants us to continue forward, advance, advance, advance in our experience.

We here at Behold the Lamb Ministry, as well as many other faithful ministries, sense the need to “put the hammer down” before it is too late.

We are being aroused out of our sleep as the Holy Spirit is impressing us once again at this time to go back on Satellite TV. And by His power begin to revive and call back into unity those whose hearts and minds are stayed upon Christ and whose effort will be in the saving of souls by proclaiming and living the Three Angels’ Messages. Pray that God will open a way for this effort.

Once again, we must go back to square one and settle the question once and for all, “Who and what is the church?”

Is the Bible not clear? Is the Spirit of Prophecy not clear? The Bible does say that spiritual things are “spiritually discerned.” I Corinthians 2:14.

“Speak in the demonstration of the Spirit, and with the power which God alone can impart . . . Faithful, God-sent messengers are a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men, not because they place themselves in high position, but because they show that they are strengthened and helped by the Spirit.” Manuscript 165,1899.

We must as a people begin to understand how the New Testament churches were set up and operated and begin to follow that blue-print.

Notice this statement: “His [Paul’s] instruction in his letters to the churches of his day is instruction to the church of God to the end of time.” Letter 332, 1907. [All emphasis supplied.]

Once again we need to be reminded that God works with us as individuals. “We need individually to sit at the feet of Jesus, and listen to His words of instruction.” Manuscript 84, 1901.

Jesus taught us about His church and who could be a part of it and the only one who had to approve it was Him. Praise God!

We must not return to Egypt. We must not return to a structure that is deep in apostasy, for God’s counsel is always the same, in every situation, structure or independent. Separate from sin! God means what He says. Is it not about time we stopped saying, “Yes, but, but, but, and be obedient? Are we goats or sheep?

We must follow the New Testament in its teaching about the “church” and those who labor in its behalf.

Many of God’s ministers are condemned and shunned because they were not “called by man or ordained by man or paid by man.” Notice what God’s servant says about this. “As a gospel minister, it was Paul’s privilege to claim a support from those for whom he labored . . . He did not receive wages for his labor, though as a minister of the gospel, this was his right . . . Paul did not depend upon man for his ordination. He had received from the Lord his commission and ordination.” Manuscript 74, 1903.

Would, that today, men might be found with faith to do as Paul did, men who would preach the gospel, not looking to men for their reward, but willing to receive their reward in souls.

“Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” I Corinthians 9:14.

We at Behold the Lamb Ministry must continue on as God has directed. We understand “who constitutes the Church.” How about you? How are we to interpret these Scriptures such as I Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:5; and Matthew 18:20?

I Corinthians 16:19 speaks about Aquila and Priscilla and their “church that is in their house.”

Romans 16:5 says: “Greet the church that is in their house.” Matthew 18:20 tells us “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” Since Jesus is the head of the church, where He is, we may find the real church!

These are simple but clear passages and cannot be overlooked at the peril of our souls.

Let us go back to “square one” for just a moment so we can be reminded of a few simple quotes that just might keep us from going too far in the north forty.

Upward Look, 315, says: “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.”

This statement is beautiful! It is clear! We cannot misunderstand this point! Praise the Lord! How about this one that has been about “worn out” by many yet not understood?

The Acts of the Apostles, 11: “From the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth .” It is clear. If you live on this earth and are faithful, you are the church. Is that not great?

We must realize that God requires certain things of His people as individuals. Should we not ask the Lord for ourselves? Should we not seek the will of the Lord and not worry about the judgment or opinion of man? How wonderful the thought of a revival where the whole body of Christ would be revived. Sad to say, according to Selected Messages, vol. 1, 122, “That time will never come. . .We must enter upon the work individually.”

“Error is never harmless.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 292. Therefore, because of so much error and apostasy, many have found it necessary to establish separate worship services apart from the structure.

If we are to follow Christ fully, it must be done “if it be over the heads of ministers and presidents.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 369.

“Let those who suppose the voice of the General Conference to be the voice of God, become one with God before they utter their opinion.” Letter to Elder Haskell, November 16, 1899. Let us go a little farther on the subject. “The people have lost confidence in those who have the management of the work, yet we hear that the voice of the Conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it almost blasphemy. The voice of the Conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not.” Manuscript 37, 8, 1901.

Do we individually realize our true position? I am sure “some” do. But what about the “large multitude”? Voices are still needed who will call sin by its right name and are watchmen on the walls.

We must continue our position now as never before. Trust in God as you know He has led in the past and will continue until He comes. Let us by God’s grace be ready.

Behold the Lamb Ministries

P.O. Box 2030

Herrin, Illinois 62948

1-800-238-BTLM

 

Letter from Australia

7th November 1996

Dear Pastor Grosboll,

I have just completed reading your article “A Lesson from Australia” in the September 96 issue of Land Marks. I have found this article very interesting.

It was in the late 1980’s when my husband Peter and I began to get interested in what was happening in Seventh-day Adventism in Australia. We were concerned about what our children were being taught at Avondale College and of some of the student activities happening there. From 1984-90 our five children attended Avondale. At first we neither realized the seriousness or implications of what was happening. We spoke to some about the concerns we had, but were told “not to be critical.”

Then Ron Spear and Marshall Grosboll (and their wives) came to Albury. We asked them to stay with us, and organized a meeting at our home. I can still remember how Ron quoted SOP by memory—it was amazing to us. Marshall took a talk on the Nature of Christ.

After they left we started searching. We soon found ourselves unpopular with our local church Pastor. We searched for truth in our local church and found emptiness. At this time there was a group of about 30 in our church who were meeting with us who were also searching for truth. We knew that we couldn’t stay in a church that was not preparing us for Christ’s soon coming, so we decided to run our own church. We tried to become a Branch Sabbath School and applied to the Conference, but were ignored because we did not go through the “right channels.” We knew that we couldn’t take any new converts to our local Conference Church.

So in 1990 we decided to become a Congregational Church. We ran Sabbath School, Church and Outreach programmes, preaching and teaching the True Advent Doctrine. Then when my husband Peter baptised someone, our local conference church used this as an excuse to disfellowship him and two other men who were also leading out at our church because they did not follow properly constituted church authority, and belonged to a divisive movement.

We continued to meet as a church and had different speakers come to us from America. This caused us problems as they were telling us to go back to the church. Some of our people became confused and went back to the Conference church. After this happened a few times we decided to stop having any visiting preachers and our local men did all the preaching.

We were amazed at these preachers. They were not working for the conference, they were brought to Australia by Independent Ministries, yet they were saying “go back to the church.” At this stage I had only just started hearing about Independent Ministries. Most Australians had the belief that if one was not under the conference, they were not real Seventh-day Adventists. Yet many of these visiting speakers ran or worked for Independent Ministries in America. If they would be doing their same work in Australia, they would not be accepted here.

So much confusion has been caused because our people do not understand what God’s true church is. They mistakenly keep thinking it is the “conference”. We have seen countless people stop attending Independent Camp Meetings—they feel they must go back to “the church,” or if they cannot face the apostasy in their conference church they would sooner stay at home alone rather than worship with us because we have “formed a new church.” We have seen attendance dwindle from hundreds down to small groups.

Not only did we face this confusion, but our pulpit has been used by people with strange theology who see a ready made audience for their way off theology. This has caused us problems when some of our members were influenced by them. It seemed as soon as we gained a few more members, someone would come along and they would leave. We have had issues of separationism, pictures as idols, futurism, corporate responsibility and many more.

Currently we are at our lowest membership for quite some time with a few families leaving. About 20 attend each Sabbath. Yes, Satan has been at work in our church but we also see God’s great blessings. We hear wonderful sermons about being prepared for Christ’s coming. My husband Peter is the original preacher left and he preaches most of the sermons. He finds it difficult to find the time to prepare these as he holds down a full time job in the workforce.

There is much more I could write but time does not permit me to do this. I am so grateful that at long last other people can see the problem in Australia. We have seen the gradual change over years, of some of the visiting ministers, as apostasy deepens in the SDA church. They seem to understand our position and we are not now dismissed as “offshoots.” We are very grateful of the support of Russell Standish, Tom Turner and O.K. Anderson.

Thank you for your magazine. I enjoy the articles and appreciate the effort that goes into these.

May God continue to bless you,
Name Withheld