Report on the Lawsuit Against Raphael Perez

It is with regret and sadness that we share this report regarding the lawsuit filed by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists against Raphael Perez and the Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh-day Adventists.

Brother Perez was asked by the Southeastern Conference to start a Spanish speaking church in July of 1990. With the approval of the Southeastern Conference, he and the church began a radio ministry for the Spanish speaking people, broadcasting from the West Palm Beach area. Eventually the broadcast was being aired on five radio stations.

Taking seriously the counsel in Evangelism, 129, Raphael and the Eternal Gospel church told the conference administration that they would like to start putting advertisements in newspapers. The first one they started with was a tract which they received from the Florida Conference Adventist Book Center entitled “The Law of God” which they thought would especially appeal to the Jewish segment of the population. They bought a full page of advertising space in the Palm Beach Post, in 1991, to spread the message of this tract about the importance of God’s law.

In a matter of time, complaints started coming, and Pastor Perez was asked by his conference president to discontinue the radio program “because it was going outside his district.” He was also told to stop the newspaper ads. It seemed evident that the Lord was blessing with responses to the broadcast and the ads, and Pastor Perez felt that he must continue to spread the warning message for a lost world to all who would listen or read. Eventually, as conflict over these evangelistic outreach efforts developed, the Eternal Gospel Church was disowned by the conference and Pastor Perez was disfellowshipped from the conference. However, he and the group of Seventh-day Adventist believers in the Eternal Gospel church continued to expand their efforts as the Lord provided the way.

Through the next few years, the Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh-day Adventists arranged for ads in major newspapers across the nation. In 1993, the text of “Earth’s Final Warning” was placed in a full page ad in the Fort Lauderdale “The Sun Sentinel.” In 1995, an ad was placed in the “New York Daily News.” This brought some vocal reaction from the prominent Roman Catholic, Cardinal O’Conner and also from a General Conference representative who called the “New York Daily News.” As a result the “New York Daily News” defaulted on the contract for a second ad.

In 1998, ads were placed in the “Washington Times,” “The Miami Herald,” and “The Los Angeles Times.” Ads have also been placed in all the major Spanish newspapers of the nation. Following the appearance of an ad, on September 11, in the “Washington Times,” a Cardinal Hickey wrote an article of protest which was published in the newspaper. In it he called for the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church to make a public apology for the “unconscionable attack” upon the pope and the Catholic church. About the same time, the “Washington Times” was contacted and threatened with a lawsuit for their publication of the advertisement. Pastor Perez had previously received messages from Kermit Netteburg, and eventually from Vincent Ramik, the Roman Catholic attorney who had previously been hired by the General Conference in trademark lawsuit issues, threatening him with court action if he did not quit using the name Seventh-day Adventist.

Finally, on December 3, 1998, Pastor Perez and the Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh-day Adventists were served with a summons to answer to charges filed by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. These charges included unfair competition, and trademark infringement. It is also charged that Pastor Perez and the other members of the church have caused “damage and injury” to the General Conference that is “irreparable,” and further that the use of the term “Seventh-day Adventist” by Pastor Perez, “has caused and/or is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception” producing “irreparable damage and harm.”

The General Conference in this lawsuit, civil action case #98-2940 in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, seeks a court order enforcing that “all their owners, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them” be “restrained pendente lite [while the lawsuit is in progress] and permanently” from using the words “Seventh-day Adventist” and “SDA” or any other words that are similar in connection with their activities. In addition, the General Conference asks the court to order Pastor Perez and the Eternal Gospel Church to forthwith “cease all advertising which includes” the use of the words “Seventh-day Adventist,” “SDA,” and their equivalents in Spanish. The General Conference desires that the court instruct Pastor Perez and his fellow Seventh-day Adventist believers to “deliver up to the Clerk of this court for destruction all signs, advertisements, stationary, and all other materials in the possession or under the control of Defendants” that have the words “Seventh-day Adventist” and “SDA.” The lawsuit also requests payment for “damages suffered by the Plaintiff and for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the General Conference action to take this case to court, and any other further amount for which the court will make provision.

With the help of Max Corbett, a Seventh-day Adventist attorney in Texas, Pastor Perez returned a response to the court on January 19, 1999. In this response the Defendants admit to using the name Seventh-day Adventist, but deny that it is causing damage to the General Conference or that the General Conference even has the right to trademark the name. The Defendants have not engaged in the alleged unfair competition, nor in deceptive and unfair trade practices. They further state that the name Seventh-day Adventist is the name of a faith, and as such is an article of faith, and faith and belief cannot be trademarked. The freedom to use the name Seventh-day Adventist, as an expression of faith, is a fundamental right, and falls under the freedom of religion protected by the Unites States Constitution.

The Defendants also point out that there are a number of organizations and groups outside the General Conference that use the name “Seventh-day Adventist” and that to allow any of them to use the name to the exclusion of the others is to favor some to the exclusion of others which is a violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Defendants state that the lawsuit is actually a case of “malicious prosecution,” and that in reality the Defendants are doing what every Seventh-day Adventist should be doing, namely warning the world about coming chaos to the cities and the enforcement of the national Sunday law—the mark of the beast. In addition to asking the court to make the General Conference pay the costs of conducting the lawsuit, they ask the court to declare that the trademark registration is null and void, and unenforceable.

Pastor Perez asked if the General Conference would be willing to work out a settlement outside of court, and the General Conference responded with a settlement proposal dated January 19, 1999. In it Pastor Perez and the rest of the group were to discontinue all use of the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” “SDA,” and “Adventist,” especially on church signs, in advertisements and publications, church activities, Sabbath services or schedules, pamphlets, magazines, stationary, envelopes, faxes, telephone calls or audio materials, etc. The settlement also required that Pastor Perez was to keep all the terms of the agreement confidential (emphasis and underlining in the original). He was to further agree that if in the future he was found by the court to be guilty of using the name in any of the ways that were forbidden he would agree to pay all court costs, attorney’s fees, and “damages.” This settlement was to be binding upon Pastor Perez, all his associates, successors, and assigns.

Even as the General Conference lawsuit was getting under way, an ad was published on January 25, 1999, in the “St. Louis Post Dispatch” when the pope was making his appearance in St. Louis. A man who had been waiting, for 7 to 8 hours, to see the pope bought a newspaper while he was waiting and in the course of looking through it he came to the advertisement with “Earth’s Final Warning.” He read that the pope was the antichrist, and that the Catholic church had changed the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday. He went to the phone, called the number given at the end of the advertisement, and exclaimed that he had just found out that he had been waiting for eight hours to see the antichrist. He requested more information and literature that was offered.

As can often happen to those who endeavor to stand firmly for the standards of God’s Word, Pastor Perez has been viewed as being “against” the church, although he has publicly offered $1000 to anyone furnishing evidence that he has ever called the church Babylon, or encouraged people to leave the church. People have told him, “You don’t want to work with the conference.” He has responded that he would be happy to work with the conference. He has even stated that he would be willing to stop the radio broadcasts and newspaper advertisements if it can be clearly shown that the Lord wants these stopped. But it would be wrong to stop these things just because man says to stop, when the Lord clearly instructed us to go and preach to all nations and give the last warning message of mercy and impending judgments to the world.

Sometimes, it also happens that General Conference officials will state that they are not filing a lawsuit, only an injunction. An injunction, by definition, is a court order prohibiting or requiring certain actions. A lawsuit, by definition, is a case brought before a court for settlement. An injunction, is a particular kind of lawsuit. It would be a little like pointing to an oak tree and saying: “This is not a tree, it is an oak.” The issue here is whether the court is being sought to carry out and enforce an action.

LETTERS URGENTLY NEEDED

Do not be like the people of Meroz who brought upon themselves the curse of God for doing nothing in an emergency. (See Testimonies, vol. 3, 281.) If you want the Third Angel’s Message to be publicly proclaimed without reprisal, we earnestly ask that you write a letter as soon as possible to Pastor Raphael Perez.

Your letters of support and those of many others are urgently needed. They may be used in court by the lawyers who will be representing the defendants. These letters are part of an Amicus Curiae brief which refers to friends of the court who want to file evidence for use in the case (in this situation on behalf of the defendant). These letters should state reasons why a ruling against the defendants would also be against many others who subscribe to the Seventh-day Adventist faith. All of the letters need to be written in a calm and Christlike way, but should clearly express the concerns which we have. Statements from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy supporting the concerns which you express are appropriate. We have included some examples of such statements with this report. These letters should be forwarded to Pastor Raphael Perez at the following address:

Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventists
P.O. Box 15138
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Phone: 561-688-2150
Fax: 561-688-0470

The following are points to be considered when you compose your letter.

  1. This lawsuit is civil action case #98-2940 in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida.
  2. The author of the letter holds beliefs like those of the defendants in this lawsuit.
  3. Those who share this faith believe that it is our duty to God and our fellow human beings to give the last warning of mercy to the inhabitants of this earth as Pastor Perez and his co-defendants have been actively engaged in doing.
  4. When communicating our faith, Pastor Perez, and all of us who share his faith, should be free from the threat of prosecution.
  5. The name Seventh-day Adventist is a statement of faith and is not the sole property of a group claiming that title. The name was given by God Himself to His last day people.
    “We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, ‘No, no! We are not. It is the name the Lord has given us. It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches.’ ” Selected Messages, Book 2, 384.
  6. Those who hold to the historic beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism should not be forced to forfeit the name that represents our beliefs. The use of a name that expresses our faith is a fundamental right and is protected by freedom of religion as outlined in the first amendment of the United States Constitution.
  7. The actions of the Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventists do not constitute competition or trademark infringement as the sharing of our faith and the last warning message of mercy to the world is not a competitive or profit making venture.
  8. Those who believe and practice the historic tenets of the Seventh-day Adventist faith will not feel damaged or injured by the proclamation of those beliefs to the public. We do not believe that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist has suffered any damage or injury by the actions of the Eternal Gospel Church.
  9. This lawsuit is actually a case of “malicious prosecution” of those who are doing what every faithful Seventh-day Adventist should be doing. As such, those who brought the case should bare the costs of conducting the case.
  10. Since the name Seventh-day Adventist is used by many groups and organizations that work outside the General Conference, to allow some to freely use the name while forbidding others is to favor some to the exclusion of others.
  11. The trademark registration of the name Seventh-day Adventist should be declared by the court to be null, void and unenforceable.

You can also send a copy of your letter to the General Conference President. You may use information from this report as a basis for your thoughts. It would also be appropriate to point out that this action is totally contrary to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. As Seventh-day Adventists, we feel that a great injustice is being done to fellow believers, and that God is being dishonored and brought to open shame by this action on the part of the General Conference. We urgently request that this case be dropped as soon as possible. The address for the General Conference President is:

General Conference President
General Conference of SDA
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Springs, MD 20904
Phone: 301-680-6090
Fax: 301-680-6464

Thank you for your prayers and help.

Statements About Lawsuits from the Pen of Inspiration:

“These men cast aside the counsel God has given, and do the very things He has bidden them not to do. They show that they have chosen the world as their judge, and in heaven their names are registered as one with unbelievers. Christ is crucified afresh, and put to open shame. Let these men know that God does not hear their prayers. They insult His holy name, and He will leave them to the buffetings of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sin.” Selected Messages, Book 3, 299.

“God will deal with the unworthy church member who defrauds his brother or the cause of God; the Christian need not contend for his rights. God will deal with the one who violates these rights. ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.’ Romans 12:19. An account is kept of all these matters, and for all the Lord declares that He will avenge. He will bring every work into judgment.” Ibid., 300.

“I have written largely in regard to Christians who believe the truth placing their cases in courts of law to obtain redress. In doing this, they are biting and devouring one another in every sense of the word, ‘to be consumed one of another.’ They cast aside the inspired counsel God has given, and in the face of the message He gives they do the very thing He has told them not to do. Such men may as well stop praying to God, for He will not hear their prayers. They insult Jehovah, and He will leave them to become the subjects of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sins.” Ibid., 302.

“I call upon you in the name of Christ to withdraw the suit that you have begun and never bring another into court. God forbids you thus to dishonor His name. You have had great light and many opportunities, and you cannot afford to unite with worldlings and follow their methods. Remember that the Lord will treat you according to the stand that you take in this life. . . .

“I tell you solemnly that if you take the action which you now purpose to take, you will never recover from the result of it. If you open before the world the wrongs that you suppose your brethren have done you, there will be some things that will have to be said on the other side. I have a caution to give you.

“In regard to the case of those who shared large responsibilities with you in the Review and Herald, and who have turned to be enemies of the work, you will not wish to hear the verdict that shall be passed upon them when the judgment shall sit and the books shall be opened, and every man shall be judged according to the things written in the books. I want to save you from following a course that would link you up with those who have linked themselves up with fallen angels, to do all the harm they possibly can to those who love God, and who, under great difficulty, are striving to proclaim present truth to the world.” Ibid., 304–305.

The Road to the Inquisition

{{“We should be very cautious lest we take the first steps in this road that leads to the Inquisition.”}}

Solemn events are unfolding around us, both in the world and in God’s professed church. As we see the Bible prophecies being fulfilled in catastrophic world events and political movements, we also see the fulfillment of solemn warnings given to God’s last day people by God’s prophet.

The prophet Isaiah predicted that in the last days God’s chosen people would rebel against Him, and turn their ears away from hearing the Law. They will say to the prophets, who are sent to them, “Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.” Isaiah 30:10, 11.

We must ask ourselves the serious question, Have we in Adventism turned aside from hearing the words of God’s prophet? Have we turned from following God’s Holy Law to follow the commands of another leader?

In this article we will trace the steps of the apostasy, in Adventism, in order to understand how we arrived at the place we now occupy in the Historic Adventist movement. We will also consider where this path is leading and what the sure results will be (according to inspiration) unless a complete change is made.

The Road to the Inquisition

Throughout history Satan and his associates have used a consistent series of methods to destroy those who do not agree with them or will not submit to their authority. Speaking of these steps in Signs of the Times, May 26, 1890, Ellen White wrote, “The papal authorities first ridiculed the reformers, and when this did not quench the spirit of investigation, they placed them behind prison walls, loaded them with chains, and when this did not silence them or make them recant, they finally brought them to the fagot and the sword.” But, you might ask, How does this affect us today? God’s prophet continued: “We should be very cautious lest we take the first steps in this road that leads to the Inquisition.”

Although we may not have seen open, physical persecution, are there other ways that one can lead down the road to the inquisition? Consider carefully another quotation where Ellen White outlines how an inquisition has been set up even among God’s professed people. “An inquisition has been set up among those who should be free from all overbearing. God calls for the extinction of this satanic devising. The love of Christ in the heart forbids all oppression . . . But for years, some, even among those who claim to believe present truth, have acted in an oppressive manner, cherishing in the heart that fearful, hateful thing which has led them to exclude their brethren from their fellowship and their councils, because they supposed them wanting in some respects, as though the Lord has made them judges of character.” Review and Herald, January 7, 1902. [All emphasis supplied.]

Has Adventism begun down the road to the inquisition? We will begin our investigation with the General Conference Session in 1888.

The 1888 General Conference

The issues surrounding the 1888 General Conference have been widely discussed through Adventist circles, but the central issue, which Ellen White labored hardest to combat, has received little attention. That overruling problem was the kingly power that existed among the Adventist leadership at that time, which had led to a restriction of God’s work. In the 1888 Materials, Ellen White wrote about this problem many times. The following is a brief sample:

“Over and over again men have said, ‘The voice of the conference is the voice of God; therefore everything must be referred to the conference. The conference must permit or restrict in the various lines of work.’ As the matter has been presented to me, there is a narrow compass, and within this narrow compass, all the entrances to which are locked, are those who would like to exercise kingly power. But the work carried on all over the field demands an entirely different course of action. There is need of the laying of a foundation different from the foundation which has been laid in the past.

“We have heard much about everything moving in the regular lines. When we see that the ‘regular lines’ are purified and refined, that they bear the mold of the God of heaven, then it will be time to endorse these lines. But when we see that message after message given by God has been received and accepted, yet no change has been made, we know that new power must be brought into the regular lines.” 1888 Materials, 1727, 1728.

“The spirit of domination is extending to the presidents of our conferences. If a man is sanguine of his own powers and seeks to exercise dominion over his brethren, feeling that he is invested with authority to make his will the ruling power, the best and only safe course is to remove him, lest great harm be done and he lose his own soul and imperil the souls of others . . . A man’s position does not make him one jot or tittle greater in the sight of God; it is character alone that God values.” Ibid., 1445.

“Now I want to say, God has not put any kingly power in our ranks to control this or that branch of the work. The work has been greatly restricted by the efforts to control it in every line . . . Let me tell you, if your heart is in the work, and you have faith in God, you need not depend upon the sanction of any minister or any people; if you go right to work in the name of the Lord, in a humble way doing what you can to teach the truth, God will vindicate you.” Ibid., 1746.

What were the results of this kingly power? The first was that the work of spreading the Three Angels’ Messages was hindered, and because of this, Ellen White began to give her support to various independent workers and organizations. The foremost of these was Madison College established by E. A. Sutherland and Percy Magan, in 1908.

The Madison School

For years, Sutherland and Magan had worked in Adventist educational institutes. In 1897 they were both serving at Battle Creek College. Under the conviction that the church had not followed the divine plan for education, as set forth in the counsel of Ellen White, they began attempting to make reforms in that institution. They met stiff opposition, and finally they decided to move the college away from Battle Creek to Berrien Springs, where the new college was called Emmanuel Missionary College. Unfortunately, they still faced severe opposition as they tried to follow the divine plan, so, in 1904, they both resigned and made plans to open a self-supporting school in the South. Under the direction of the Lord, Ellen White helped Sutherland and Magan find the property for the new school, Madison College. She also gave direction for the planning of the school and served as a charter member of the board (the only college board one which she ever served ).

All was not easy for the new self-supporting school. Sutherland and Magan faced opposition (although often not open) from the leaders in the conference, and they received no financial support from the denomination. Despite all of this, Ellen White still counseled them to remain independent from the conference. She wrote: “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.” Manuscript Releases vol. 8, 203–204.

God knew that if the school was under conference direction, the work of spreading the Three Angels’ Messages would be slowed, just as it had been in the older schools that had been established. Sister White wrote: “I have been shown that in our educational work we are not to follow the methods that have been adopted in our older established schools. There is among us too much clinging to old customs, and because of this we are far behind where we should be in the development of the Third Angel’s Message.” Special Testimonies 11,29.

So, we have seen that because of the problems with kingly power and the unwillingness of the Adventist leadership, in Ellen White’s day, to receive her inspired counsel, the Lord had to raise up independent organizations to train workers and spread the Three Angels’ Messages. And, very often, these independent workers were shunned, or their work was hindered because they wanted to follow the divine counsel. Kingly power wants to crush out individuality and freedom to act upon the dictates of your own conscience. This is what the conference did not like.

Has there been a reformation among the Seventh-day Adventist leadership? Or does the same problem of kingly power, which existed in the last century, still exist today? Have advances down the road to the inquisition been made? We do not have to look very far to discover the answers. Notice what happened to the people in the Hungarian General Conference, during the 1960s and 70s, and you decide if you think the problem has been solved or if it has gotten worse.

The Hungarian Crisis

In 1957, the Hungarian Union of Seventh-day Adventists joined the Council of Free Churches, a Hungarian inter-church ecumenical federation. This was done voluntarily and without any governmental coercion. (The Council of Free Churches is the Hungarian branch of the World Council of Churches, which is pushing for a national Sunday Law among other ecumenical goals.)

The knowledge that their own churches were involved in such an activity was very distressing to the faithful Adventist people in Hungary. Faithful Adventists could not keep silent when they saw such apostasy. Did they have a right to be concerned about the Hungarian Union being a part of the World Council of Churches? Notice carefully these words from the pen of inspiration which the faithful Hungarians used to defend their course of action: “The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. To secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed—however important they might be from a Bible standpoint—must necessarily be waived. Charles Beecher, in a sermon in the year 1846, declared that the ministry of ‘the evangelical Protestant denominations’ is ‘not only formed all the way up under a tremendous pressure of merely human fear, but they live, and move, and breathe in a state of things radically corrupt, and appealing every hour to every baser element of their nature to hush up the truth, and bow the knee to the power of apostasy. Was not this the way things went with Rome? Are we not living her life over again? And what do we see just ahead? Another general council! A world’s convention! Evangelical alliance, and universal creed!’ When this shall be gained, then, in the effort to secure complete uniformity, it will be only a step to the resort to force.” Great Controversy, 444, 445.

What are the results of an ecumenical movement? This inspired warning tells us that the sure results will be persecution for God’s true people. For, it will be through ecumenism that Protestant America will form an image to the Roman hierarchy, and civil penalties for the faithful will inevitably result.

How did the Adventist leadership respond to this apostasy by the Hungarian Union? In a sermon, Neal Wilson, the President of the General Conference at that time, replied to the faithful Seventh-day Adventists who were protesting this union with the Council of Free Churches. In regard to those who had joined the CFC he stated: “They did something which seemed good in their eyes. To try to cooperate, to receive those benefits and privileges which they are entitled to by this. If we were to talk over this question today, and if they would ask us whether to enter or not, we would advise them not to enter. Not because it is wrong, or because it would be a denial of what God said . . . Not because we violate our teaching by this, and not because the Union would be committing apostasy by joining the Council of Free Churches. We do not believe this. Never think of it in this way. But because our opinion is that it would be wiser to do so.” The Hungarian Union Apostasy, Pilgrim’s Tractbooks, page 63. [All emphasis supplied.]
Was it apostasy for Adventism to join with the fallen daughters of Babylon in an ecumenical bond, in light of the clear testimony of God’s inspired word? The answer is a resounding Yes! “It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy.” Signs of the Times, February 19, 1894.

The faithful Hungarian brethren pleaded with the Hungarian Union to withdraw from the Council of Free Churches, but they would not. As a result, whole churches that persistently protested this union were disbanded. Those who chose to stay a part of the Conference, in order to restore their membership, had to sign a declaration which stated that they were wrong and that they would remain loyal to the General Conference and accept all church policies. Twelve hundred faithful Hungarian Adventists would not sign the declaration, and all 1200 were disfellowshiped. Twenty-six ministers and Bible workers were discharged for protesting the ecumenical involvement, and five church buildings were shut down and the doors barred to keep the faithful Adventists from gathering there. And at one church, in Budapest, guards were stationed around the church to make sure none of those who had been disfellowshipped could use the building.

Open Apostasy in Russia

About the same time as the Hungarian Crisis, a similar situation occurred in Communist Russia. The issues that the faithful Adventists in Russia faced at this time were that the Conference was 1) promoting SDA children attending school on Sabbath, 2) working to stop evangelism in Russia and 3) allowing the pastors to read fictional books from the pulpit on Sabbath morning.

The faithful Seventh-day Adventists began to write letters to the General Conference about the issue sending their children to school on the Sabbath. Their reply was that they could not find a Biblical reason for them not to be attending schools on the Sabbath. (See The Kulakov File, 49.)

Kulakov, a self-appointed leader, was a strong supporter of all of the apostasy which the faithful Adventists were standing up against. When these faithful ones went to the General Conference for help, with reports of what Kulakov was promoting, not only did they not receive any help, but Kulakov received the support of the GC.

With the backing of the General Conference, Kulakov went to the civil authorities, and with their help, forced the faithful Adventists out of their long established churches. He and his followers then became the registered church in Russia. This then made the faithful Adventists an illegal organization, no longer recognized by the state as legitimate, and this forced them to go underground and hold their worship services in secret.

Do you see the progression down the road to the inquisition? Not only were the members disfellowshipped by the church without Biblical grounds, but the conference did nothing to stop Kulakov from using the civil authorities to disband faithful Adventist churches. This action is directly contrary to God’s express word. In Acts of the Apostles, 305–306, we read: “Christians should not appeal to civil tribunals to settle differences that may arise among church members. Such differences should be settled among themselves, or by the church, in harmony with Christ’s instruction . . .

“It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and this prepared the way for the development of the papacy—the beast. Said Paul: ‘There’shall ‘come a falling away, . . . and that man of sin be revealed.’ 2 Thessalonians 2:3. So apostasy in the church will prepare the way for the image to the beast.” Great Controversy, 443–444.

It was apostasy for the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and it is apostasy when Adventists seek the aid of the civil government today. So, we must ask ourselves, what is the underlying issue that leads men to seek the aid of civil governments to prosecute their brethren? The fundamental issue is the unregenerate heart which seeks to control others. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

When church leaders begin down the road of kingly power, and they wish to control the minds of their brethren, they become progressively more willing use whatever methods they can find to accomplish their purpose. They may start with ridicule, evil-speaking and withholding support, then they may disfellowship the dissenting members, and if that is not successful they may turn to civil authority to meet their end.

All this happened twenty or more years ago in the Adventist Church. Has there been a change since then? Sadly, the answer is no. There has been no reformation among the leadership of the Adventist Church. There is still the same desire to control the work. And many more people, who have been unwilling to submit to the Conference and go along with the apostasy, have been disfellowshiped or have been forced to leave their churches. As this article is being published, the General Conference is using the strong arm of the court to stop the work of a faithful minister (who has been working tirelessly to spread the Three Angels’ Messages), because he uses the name “Seventh-day Adventist.”

A Faithful Adventist Sued

Raphael Perez was a Conference pastor who was preaching the Three Angels’ Messages on radio stations in Florida. When he would not stop presenting the messages, as the Conference demanded, his ministerial license was revoked. Since that time, Raphael’s ministry has expanded to more radio stations and he now puts full-page advertisements in large city newspapers around the United States, giving the final warning message with clarity and power. The suit he is now facing threatens to destroy his ministry and make it financially impossible for him to continue giving the Three Angels’ Messages.

What exactly is the charge in the suit against Pastor Raphael Perez? In his court summons the Conference reveals their true purpose. “[Eternal Gospel has embarrassed the SDA church by his hateful denunciations of the Catholic church.]

The Conference is embarrassed by the clear presentation of the message we have been commanded to give to the world! They have shown this over and over again in recent years. Just this past January, when the Pope visited St. Louis, a number of Historic Adventist groups were there to pass out literature which exposed the Beast and the Mark of the Beast. The conference made a public apology for these “fringe groups” as they called them.

The statement posted on the Adventist Today webb page said, “The recent visit of Pope John Paul II and his message of hope, plea for high moral standards, end to racism, abortion, assisted suicide and the death penalty emphasized issues that need to be at the forefront of thought.

“Unfortunately, in conjunction with the Papal visit, offshoot groups claiming association with the Seventh-day Adventist Church have coordinated negative media campaigns which misrepresent the care, compassion and respect we have for people of all faiths . . .

“As Seventh-day Adventist Christians, we would like to apologize for any and all communications that have advocated discrimination, hatred and unwarranted persecution of members of the Roman Catholic Church . . .

“Kermit Netteburg, communication director for the Adventist Church in North America [said] ‘The public needs to be aware that fringe groups are using the Adventist Church’s name, and not identify the official Church with these ads.’ ”


What a sad day we have come to when the professed people of God no longer call sin by its right name, or call people to come out of Babylon, but instead give medallions to the Pope, complement him for the “good” he has done and participate in his masses.

Has Rome changed? Or does God still require that we expose her iniquity? “The Roman Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of the papacy that existed in past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The papacy that Protestants [professed Adventists] are now so ready to honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High.” Great Controversy, 571

It is not time to join hands with Rome. It is time to give the message with clearly that “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” Revelation 14:8. God’s prophet said, “Time is short. The First, Second, and Third Angel’s Messages are the messages to be given to the world. We hear not literally the voice of the three angels, but these angels in Revelation represent a people who will be upon the earth and give these messages . . . With pen and voice we are to proclaim that very message to the world, not in a tame, indistinct whisper.” 1888 Materials, 926.

Dear friends, the time that remains for this world is very short! Right now we must take advantage of every opportunity to present the last warning message to a dying world, for soon it will be forever too late. Let us each surrender ourselves fully to the Lord so that He can change our hearts, so hardened by sin, and make us fit vessels to do His work. For without Him we can do nothing. We must ask ourselves the question, “Which side am I on? Have I taken the first steps that lead down the road to the Inquisition?” Remember, in the final conflict there will be only two groups, the faithful who will be persecuted and those who will be persecuting. May God help us to be among the faithful.

Conviction vs. Preference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial – What is Behind Religious Lawsuits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contending For the Faith

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

Opening Statements

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

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

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

The Prosecution

Witnesses for the Prosecution were then called.

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

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

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

The Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Standish for the Defense

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

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

No Agreement

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

The trial was to continue as scheduled.

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

The Defense Argues

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

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

Witnesses for the Defense:

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

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

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

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

Obey God Rather than Man

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

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

The Prophet Speaks

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

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

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

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

Heartbreaking Verdict

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

  • Word of Faith Congregational Seventh-day Church

3505 Pulaski Pike
Huntsville, AL 35810

  • United Seventh-day Adventist Church

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

  • The Ten Commandments Universal Saturday Seventh-day Adventist Temple

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

  • Seventh-day Adventist

Congregational Church
Kona Hawaii

  • Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International, Inc.

PO Box 3840
Los Angeles, CA 90078

  • Trinidad Church of Seventh-day Adventist

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

  • Tabernacle Seventh-day Adventist Church

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

  • Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventist

5419 Southern Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33415

The Inquisition has begun!

(Emphasis the author’s.)

Silver and Marik Betrayed

The Merikay McLeod Silver Case

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

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

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

Confrontation

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

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

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

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

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

Discovery

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

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

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

Check Your Rights

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

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

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

The Light Dawns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC Files Suit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trial Begins:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The John Marik Case

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

Cease and Desist

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

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

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

Marik’s Reply

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

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

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

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

Plea for Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the complaints against John Marik were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis supplied.)

Sources:

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