authority

ISSUES: The Pseudo Issues, Section III

by

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

by Dr. Ralph Larson

Chapter V – The Pseudo Issue Of Attacking The Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter VI The Pseudo Issue Of Divisiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter VII – The Pseudo Issue Of Personalities

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

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

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

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

Chapter VIII – The Pseudo Issue Of Alleged Financial Irregularities

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

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

  1. A chapter dealing with financial irregularities involving NEMA and the Kettering law suit.

  2. A chapter dealing with the suit against the Lake Union by Lloyds of London.

  3. A chapter dealing with the Davenport scandal.

  4. A chapter dealing with the unnecessary declaration of bankruptcy by the Harris Pine Mills.

  5. A chapter dealing with the Rebok scam.

  6. A chapter dealing with the solicitation of tithe from well- to- do members in certain conferences in North America and the diversion of that tithe to a mission field in Central America, along with an explanation of the means whereby that tithe was channeled through a North American Division office so that the donors could have a tax exemption.

  7. A chapter dealing with the highly irregular arrangements that were set up whereby money could be channeled through the books of a certain Union in order to provide secret salaries to the wives of certain highly placed church leaders.

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

Chapter IX – The Pseudo Search For Historic Adventism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues, this is what we find:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next section: The Credibility Crisis

ISSUES: The Side Issues, Section II

by

SECTION TWO: THE SIDE ISSUES
Chapter II – The Side Issue Of Church Authority
Chapter III – The Side Issue Of Christian Unity
Chapter IV – The Side Issue Of Tithes And Offerings

by Dr. Ralph Larson

While awaiting the time for an appointment with the Union presidents of the North American Division, I heard one of the presidents address the others in this manner:

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

Two questions occurred to me. If there is nothing wrong with Spear’s theology, why should he be stopped? And if theological questions must be avoided, what methods will be used to stop him?

The first question remains open, but it seems that the second question is now being answered. The Issues tract and book both carefully avoid the real issue of unjustified and unauthorized changes in our church’s theology. After listing five of the alleged changes on page 5 of the tract, the writers continue:

It is not the purpose of this statement to provide a theological rebuttal to the views held by the members of Hope International.

Therein lies the tragedy. The concerns of the historic church members are theological in nature, and they need to be dealt with on the theological level. No other means can be substituted with effective results. Yet that is what is happening. Attempts are being made to advance the side issues of church authority and Christian unity while ignoring the real issue of unauthorized changes in our church’s theology. As admitted by the Union president, there is nothing wrong with our theology. And he is not alone in this opinion. The president of the Pacific Union wrote to me on May 1, 1990:

I despair with you over the fact that so many of our church members are finding it necessary to turn to independent ministries in order to hear basic Adventist teaching.

And on November 16,1988, Elder Charles Bradford, president of the North American Division, wrote to me:

. . . my views on the nature of Christ are almost identical with some that you and others have expressed. I have preached them at large camp meetings around the world.

When a few persons have criticized my writings, I have responded by asking, “Have I said or written anything that is not true? If so, point it out and I will make an immediate correction.” But nothing has been pointed out. The idea seems to be that even if it is true, I should not have written it. I have difficulty with this concept.

The real issue is unauthorized changes in our church’s theology. But since the Issues writers have chosen to place their emphasis on side issues, we will have to consider them.

Chapter II – The Side Issue Of Church Authority

Has God given authority to the church? Of course. Is this authority supported by the Scriptures? Undoubtedly. Is it supported by the Spirit of Prophecy? Beyond question, it is.

No one is questioning the principle of church authority. But can a valid doctrine of church authority be based upon a false theology? Who would answer “Yes” to that question? How could any person, any group of persons, or any church have authority from the God of truth to teach or enforce doctrines that are not true?

False doctrines have no authority, nor can they ever have. A false doctrine, apostasy, cannot apply to itself any promise of God, nor can apostasy claim for itself any right or privilege that God has given to the true church. Let us remember that the church of God is described in Scripture as “the pillar and ground of truth” I Timothy 3: 15.

To describe a church that teaches untruth as a true church is manifestly ridiculous. Our church has been greatly blessed and honored by God because it has steadfastly taught the truth of God, in spite of strong opposition from the world and from other churches. But now, in an eagerness to have acceptance from the world and the worldly churches, some among us are turning from the truth and are embracing doctrines that are not true. Thus, the church is in peril and is in danger of losing the blessing and the power of God.

Contrary to the allegations in Issues, the Historic Adventists are not saying that the church is in apostasy. They are saying that there is apostasy in the church, and that the apostasy is spreading rapidly with no apparent opposition from most church leaders. And to the degree that church leaders condone or support false doctrines, to that degree they lose their authority. When a church member asks, “Why are the doctrines of the church being changed?” it will not suffice to give him a stern lecture on church authority, nor will denials of the changes be effective when the church member is observing the changes in his own house of worship. When truth goes down, authority goes down with it.

It is not possible for church authority to be the central issue in the present discussion. Fullness of truth brings fullness of authority. Therefore, let our leaders set the church’s theology in order and questions of authority will quickly disappear. Our doctrinal book states:

No one has any independent authority apart from Christ and His word.—. SDAs Believe, page 146. And Ellen White writes:

“Whatever the church does that is in accordance with the directions given in God’s word will be ratified in heaven.”— 7T 263.

“The church. . . must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven.”— DA 806.

This brings us immediately and specifically to the heart of the present problem. In ever widening circles within our church, its spokesmen are emphatically not saying about sin what God says about it. They are saying instead that it will be necessary for us to keep on sinning until Jesus comes, at which time He will miraculously fix us so that we will not sin any more. This is a concept which is forcefully rejected in the Scriptures (Revelation 22: 11- 12), and against which we find more than 40 strong warnings in the Spirit of Prophecy.

When the disciples of Jesus were summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin, they went gladly, anticipating an opportunity to express their convictions about Jesus. They found, however, that the Sanhedrin proposed one question only, Do you submit to our authority? Result— the church was split. When Martin Luther and his companions were summoned to appear before the emperor, they also went gladly, hoping for a discussion of the principles of truth. But they were confronted with the same question, Do you submit to our authority? Result— the church was split.

Today we find ourselves caught up in a similar situation, and we may well reflect about the past. Will our leaders respond to our expressions of concern about unauthorized changes in our church’s theology, or will they simply demand submission to their authority, putting authority above the truth? The question is fraught with great and eternal results. May God save His church.

Chapter III – The Side Issue Of Christian Unity

The same principles that apply to the side issue of authority are also applicable here. The Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy are unmistakably clear in exalting the importance of Christian unity. But Christian unity, like church authority, must be built upon the foundation of truth.

We all believe that unity in the church is precious. It is priceless. Unity was the great burden of the last recorded prayer of Jesus for His disciples (John 17). Unity was what made possible the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Unity was one of the major factors that gave power to the Seventh- day Adventist Church as it emerged from the Millerite Movement.

What is the basis of this precious unity? Paul calls it “the unity of the faith” Ephesians 4: 13. He further describes it as “speaking the truth in love,” verse 15, and indicates that those who have this unity of the faith will not be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” verse 14.

Ellen White describes the search for unity in 1844: We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one In faith and doctrine, for we knew that Christ is not divided.— TM 24. (All emphasis supplied.)

Their prayers were answered. They did become one in faith and doctrine, and they bestowed that legacy of unity upon us. Our church has enjoyed a phenomenal degree of unity throughout most of its history. We who have spent years in soul- winning work have found it an enormous advantage to be able to tell our converts they were uniting with a world- wide church that had a oneness in faith and doctrine over all the earth.

But notice how God has warned us through His messenger that unity must be based upon faith and doctrine:

Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating, ennobling truth and false, misleading doctrines. … I urge our brethren to unify upon a true, scriptural basis.— l SM 175. We are to unify, but not on a platform of error.—. Series B, “Freedom in Christ” 47. Our church has not unified upon a platform of error, but upon a platform of truth. Our doctrines have been the foundation of our unity, but if wrong doctrines are introduced, causing the foundation of truth to crumble, we will struggle in vain to preserve our unity. The wise man does not build his house upon the sand.

At various times in the history of Christianity, there have arisen tensions between Christians who had differing views of what constitutes sound doctrines. Instead of meeting this problem on the theological level, church officials have sometimes tried to resolve it on the basis of church authority. This has never been and never will be successful. Ecclesiology must be derived from theology. Theology cannot be derived from ecclesiology, lest it degenerate into ecclesiolatry.

Chapter IV – The Side Issue Of Tithes And Offerings

Again we note that the returning of tithes and offerings to the Lord is the sacred duty of every Christian. God has commanded us to bring the tithe into the storehouse. But only the storehouse of truth can be the storehouse of tithe.

We doubt that anyone would seriously argue that God requires church members to pay tithes and offerings to support the teaching of soul- destroying false doctrines. Let the questions about false doctrines be properly dealt with and the tithe problem will disappear.

It is unfortunate that attempts have been made to show that Ellen White taught that the tithe should only be paid through regular church channels, regardless of the circumstances. These endeavors do not bear up well under investigation. (See booklet The Tithe Problem— Who Is Responsible? available from Steps to Life bookstore.)

In summation of the section, let us point out that neither authority nor unity nor tithe paying can stand alone or upon the foundation of a false theology. None of them can be first and the truth second. Truth must be first and church authority second. Truth must be first and Christian unity second. Truth must be first and tithe paying second. The real issue in our church is truth in conflict with untruth, unauthorized changes in our church’s theology.

The next section: The Pseudo Issues

The General Conference Inquisition

by
by

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

The Apostasy Begins

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

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

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

The Inquisitorial Committee

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

The Inquisitorial Procedure

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

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

The Inquisitorial Falsehoods

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

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

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

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

The Inquisitorial Ultimatum

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

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

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

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

Research Proves Us Right

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

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

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

False Reasoning and Misrepresentations

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

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

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

Continuing and Authoritative Source of Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turning the Accusation back on the Inquisitors

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

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

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

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

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

Christ Calls for Unity Based upon Truth

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

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

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

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

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

The Ostrich with its Head in the Sand

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

“Duly Constituted Church Authority”

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

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

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

You Be the Judge

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

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

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

We Can’t Do it with Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are they being called troublemakers?

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

Why are they being accused of being critical?

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

Why are they being accused of starting another church?

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

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

printing, publishing, meeting separately, etc.?

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

Why can’t you stop them with theology?

Because there is nothing wrong with their theology.

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

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

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

Dust in the Air

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

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

You Cannot “Balance” Truth with Error

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

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

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

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

“TOOK SINLESS HUMAN NATURE”

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

“TOOK SINLESS NATURE OF ADAM BEFORE FALL”

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

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

Secret Writers Violate Context

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

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

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

Amazing New “Doctrine” Appears

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

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

Love for the Pure, Unvarnished Truth

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

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

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

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

“Reform,” is Our Cry

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

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

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

Spiritual Suicide

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

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

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

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

The Sacred Duty of Disobedience

by
by

Most converts to the Seventh-day Adventist faith are required to sort out their thoughts about authority and obedience quite early in their experience. When the challenge came to me, I was a teenager working on Friday nights. I had learned about the Sabbath truth and was feeling the conviction of the Holy Spirit. But I was under the authority of the owner of the plywood factory where I worked, and friends warned me that I would be fired if I did not work on Friday nights. On the other hand, God had commanded Sabbath observance. What should I do? I had to think it through carefully. I finally came to the conclusion that I had a sacred duty to disobey the factory owner and to obey God.

Choose Ye this Day

Thousands of other converts to our faith have had similar experiences. They have been brought to the realization that, strange as it may seem, under certain circumstances disobedience can be a duty, even a sacred duty. For many, the challenge came, as it did to me, at the very beginning of their Christian life. And for many the experience has been repeated quite frequently as they have made their way through life. Soldiers have had to disobey their officers; students have had to disobey their principals and teachers; citizens have had to disobey government officials, and members of some churches have had to disobey their church leaders in order to obey God. This has led to the formulation of clear concepts of authority in the minds of most Seventh-day Adventists. When forced to make a choice between obeying God or man, they unhesitatingly choose to obey God. They consider that, under such circumstances, they have a sacred duty of disobedience to man.

It would be well if such choices were forced upon us only outside of the church, but the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy make it clear that it can happen within the church. In Acts 5:17–20 we find the record of a situation in which church leaders commanded the apostles to not preach any more about Christ and imprisoned them, but an angel opened the prison doors and ordered them to go back to the temple and continue preaching. Thus, they had a sacred duty of disobedience to church leaders.

Ellen White’s inspired comments on this situation are most instructive. She writes: “’The angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.’ We see here that the men in authority are not always to be obeyed, even though they may profess to be teachers of Bible doctrine.…Because those who were once the depositaries of truth became unfaithful to their sacred trust, the Lord chose others who would receive the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness, and would advocate truths that were not in accordance with the ideas of the religious leaders.” Testimonies to Ministers, 69, 70.

An even more startling passage is found on page 81: “But unless the truth is enthroned in the heart, and a thorough transition takes place from darkness to light, those who handle sacred responsibilities are ministers of darkness, blind leaders of the blind.” Ibid.

A Horrifying Situation

This is appalling. We can hardly imagine such a horrifying situation. What could be the cause of such a condition? Look again at the first quotation above. A careful reading of this entire chapter in Testimonies to Ministers will reveal that the issue is truth, sacred truth. The word “truth” is used over and over in the chapter. Church leaders have an obligation to the truth of the Bible. This is a sacred trust. If they become unfaithful to this sacred trust by ignoring or rejecting the truth of the Bible, they become ministers of darkness in their handling of sacred responsibilities. What then of those who nevertheless obey them? On page 91 where there are three usages of the word “truth” we find this warning: “I call upon God’s people to open their eyes. When you sanction or carry out the decisions of men who, as you know, are not in harmony with truth and righteousness, you weaken your own faith and lose your relish for communion with God.” Ibid.

There is, then, such a thing as a sacred duty of disobedience even within the church. This grim reality forces us to look at our leaders, as our prophet admonishes us to do, with open eyes. The history of Israel places a tragic example before us: “The Jews perished as a nation because they were drawn from the truth of the Bible by their rulers, priests, and elders. Had they heeded the lessons of Jesus, and searched the Scriptures for themselves, they would not have perished.” Ibid., 109.

Ministers of Darkness

They were drawn from the truths of the Bible by their church leaders. Obviously there is nothing about high position that guarantees spiritual authority. Church authority is grounded in Scripture and is limited by Scripture. In order for the church and its leaders to speak with “duly constituted church authority,” they must say about sin what God says about it in His Holy Word. “She [the church] must say about sin what God says about it.” The Desire of Ages, 84.

If church leaders reject the Scriptural definitions of sin and advance their own human opinions as “duly constituted church authority,” they betray their sacred trust, they blaspheme God, and they become ministers of darkness. We then have a sacred duty to disobey them.

The Sin of Christians Suing Christians

No sin that is mentioned in the Bible is defined more clearly, or denounced more emphatically, than the sin of Christians suing Christians in worldly courts. “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you. because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” 1 Corinthians 6:1–8.

To this unmistakably clear admonition from the Apostle Paul must be added the equally clear and emphatic warning from Ellen White: “Those who justify their course of action in going to law, and that with their brethren in the church, are acting out the spirit that developed the rebellion in heaven.” A Message to our Physicians, 5. We must understand this to be the spirit of Satan.

“Lawsuits between brethren are a reproach to the cause of truth. Christians who go to law with one another expose the church to the ridicule of her enemies and cause the powers of darkness to triumph. They are wounding Christ afresh and putting Him to open shame.” Acts of the Apostles, 306.

“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 world. ‘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.” Selected Messages, Book 3, 302.

Read that paragraph again, and then prepare yourself for a shock. “Why,” you are probably asking, “are these grim warnings being published to our readers?”

Because, dear reader, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is now launching a series of lawsuits against Seventh-day Adventists.

Duly Constituted Church Authority

Why are these Seventh-day Adventists being sued? For the “crime” of correctly identifying themselves as Seventh-day Adventists. The first successful suit was against Pastor John Marik and his congregation in Hawaii. Now they have succeeded again with Pastor Rafael Perez and his congregation in Florida. Though the case was won by the General Conference in a Federal court, it is now being appealed, and the final outcome is uncertain. Meanwhile, many other suits are in preparation, in a demonstration of total contempt for both the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy.

The procedure, with some variations, is as follows:

A group of true Seventh-day Adventists is found whose members are worshipping separately, in a home or some suitable place in an effort to protect themselves from the false doctrines that are being taught in many Seventh-day Adventist churches today.

The group is ordered to stop using the name “Seventh-day Adventist.”

If they do not obey this order, they are disfellowshipped on the charge of failing to obey “duly constituted church authority.”

Then it is announced that a group of non-Adventists has been found using our church name. It is claimed that it is all right to sue them, since they are “non-Adventists.”

But are they really non-Adventists? Most emphatically not! They are believing, teaching, and practicing the true Seventh-day Adventist faith, with no corruptions from Liberalism, Calvinism or Modernism. This fact is carefully obscured by the misrepresentations that they are troublemakers and rebels who are “refusing to submit to duly constituted church authority.” Their appeals to church leaders to consider the theological problems with which they are concerned are ignored.

Therefore, when confronted with a choice between submitting to the threat of a lawsuit conducted in total contempt of both the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy, they consider it their sacred duty to disobey men in order that they may obey God. They hold that authority, which is exercised in contempt of Scripture, cannot be “duly constituted.” Under these circumstances they believe that there is a sacred duty of disobedience to man and obedience to God.

One Day Closer to “Home”

Distressing as these apostate prosecutions (persecutions) may be, they should not discourage us. We have been clearly forewarned. God’s special messenger, Ellen White, has written that in the last days our worst enemies will be those who once shared our faith.

“As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the Third Angel’s Message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position, and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light; and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side. Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren.” The Faith I Live By, 336.

How comforting it is to know that our heavenly Father is not surprised or shaken by all of this, as we may be. He knew all about it and gave us an abundance of advance information to bolster our courage. When we see these things happening, we need not panic nor be discouraged. We can remind ourselves that the prophecies must be fulfilled, and say with Jesus: “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” Luke 21:28.

The Church in Apostolic Times

by
by

“He [Jesus] who was the foundation of the ritual and economy of Israel would be looked upon as its enemy and destroyer.” The Desire of Ages, 111. The reason for this was that those who were in charge of the system viewed themselves as being the church, and they realized that if Jesus were to be accepted, many of them would lose their positions.

Considered Dangerous to the Church

Today, there is a similar problem in the professed church of God; there are some inspired counsels we are willing to deal with but others that we are not. If many of the counsels of Ellen White were really advocated, they would be considered to be dangerous to the church, possibly even capable of destroying it. I do not believe, however, we will ever receive God’s blessing until we feed upon every word.

Principles of church organization affect every aspect of the church, from the youngest member on up to the General Conference. In the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, there is a great deal of information dealing with church organization that is written not only to those in leadership positions but to laymen as well.

Throughout history, whenever doctrine becomes corrupted, organization also becomes corrupt. In fact, in Revelation God is as concerned about false organization as He is about false doctrine. In the writings of Ellen White there is a great deal written about doctrine, but I also find hundreds of pages written about church organization which we are afraid to touch, because if we even read the quotation, we will be accused of criticism. It is time, however, that we have the courage of John the Baptist and, with the spirit of love, humbly look at the things God has given to us, praying that He will help us to implement these things so He can pour out His Spirit and finish the work He is seeking to do.

I Corinthians 1:2 tells us how the New Testament church is organized. “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.” The church at Corinth, identified by Paul, is not addressed as the church which is registered. It could be registered, but that is not the point. Nothing is said regarding their organization or where they meet. They may meet in some building, and they are organized, but that is not the point. The church here in Corinth is those people in Corinth who are sanctified and called to be the saints of God. Now the church was to be organized, but the organization was not the church. The people were the church. These people could work in harmony, because this is possible when God is in your heart. So they would meet and work together, send out missionaries and take up offerings, and do all those things which are necessary for God’s work to progress. But the church itself was the people. This is what the church has always been.

In a special sense, the church is those people who are registered in the books of heaven. “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven. . . .” Hebrews 12:22, 23. The church, the true church of God, is composed of those people who are registered in the Book of Life in heaven.

Now this presents a very interesting situation. Who decides who is going to be a church member? Is it the pope who has the keys? If it is not the pope, is it the church board? Can they decide? What about the church body? Can we decide who is saved and who is not, whose name is written in heaven and whose is not?

Well, do we not have anything to do? Oh, yes, we have something to do. We are called to recognize those whom God has registered in the books in heaven; and those whom He has registered there, we are to register here. He does not, however, follow our suit; we are to follow His, and there is a difference.

The Books on Earth Must Match the Books in Heaven

Let us suppose that God takes someone’s name off of the books in heaven, and they are disfellowshipped. Are they still church members? No! But suppose their names remain in the books on earth. This is an interesting dilemma. The church is purified when the books on earth match the books in heaven. You see, God has given mankind no authority to decide who can be a member and who cannot be a member but to simply recognize those whom He has accepted or rejected.

God has local congregations here on earth, and we have organizations here to help organize the work. But the headquarters of your local church is in heaven, where only the sanctified are registered, not in some office in your state or some office in Takoma Park, Maryland. Some people find this rather disconcerting, believing such a policy could lead to all kinds of trouble.

Just suppose that a coup took place in some local church or conference through politicking, and some people, who were not inspired by the Lord or filled with the Holy Spirit, took over through manipulation, and because of their prejudices, certain people were unjustly disfellowshipped. Would those who were disfellowshipped cease to be church members? Certainly not. Suppose, on the other hand, that people were allowed to come into the church who were never converted. Because their names were in the books on earth, would they, therefore, be church members? Not in any way, shape or form. God has never left His church to be manipulated and tampered with by the political whims of mankind. There is coming a time when He is going to turn and overturn the professed church that is called by His name. God’s true church remains the same as it has always—those people who are registered in the books of heaven.

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

When Paul was ordained, he was ordained to baptize and establish churches—the two together. According to inspiration, the same ordination that gives people the right to baptize gives them the right to establish churches. More and more, however, there are increasing restrictions controlling the starting of new churches.

I have been doing some studying on the history of Kansas. In 1903, Kansas had one hundred Seventh-day Adventist churches. The state has grown by almost a million people in the last fifty years, and during that period of time, we have gone from one hundred churches down to fifty-four. [Editor’s Note: This information is taken from ???????????]

God’s Presence Alone Establishes a Church

Not only has God alone reserved the right to start and to recognize a church, but if you and I decide to go out and start a church apart from His will, no matter what conference committee may approve it, it will never be a church. “For the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church.” Upward Look, 315. [All emphasis supplied.] If God’s presence is not the center of His church, it is not recognized by Him as His church, whether or not it is recognized by a conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

In New Testament times, the church was those who were called and sanctified. Wherever Paul went and converted a few people, he organized them into a church, right there and then, without seeking any other permission. It was not up to the church in Jerusalem to give permission or to decide if they were a church but to recognize the fact that they were. Now, of course, if a church apostatized or if a local member apostatized, it was also up to the church in Jerusalem to decide that, as these people were no longer keeping the commandments of God, they were no longer recognized as being one of God’s churches.

For us, individually, to receive the Holy Spirit, we must study the Bible, pray, overcome sin and witness. For the church body to receive the Holy Spirit, they must, as a body, also have these four things present. Not only is it necessary for us as individuals to be winning others to Christ, but God’s design for His church is that every church should start new churches.

Primitive Organization?

One of the things that must take place before God can pour out His blessing upon the church is not only revival of primitive doctrine but a revival of primitive organization. The New Testament churches had the freedom to go out and start new churches, but they were not just started and left to flounder by themselves; they were left with local organization. “And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, `We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.’ So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” Acts 14:21–23.

Authority in the early church was to be earned because of a godly life, a knowledge of the Scriptures and the ability that God had given to one. Never was it to come just by virtue of office. Today, our church is almost being destroyed in some parts of this world, because some have assumed the office of minister and decided that, because they have that office, they are the king of the local church. God never intended that office to be that of a king but one of service.

“From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.” Acts 20:17. What elders were these that He called? These were the elders who had been appointed. Notice, it is elders plural, not the elder. “‘Therefore take heed to yourselves [This is the instruction he is giving to these elders.] and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.’” Acts 20:28–31.

Organization is Needed for Protection

So he called the elders to guard the church from wolves. In a correlating passage to this, in Testimonies, vol. 5, 77, Ellen White, writing of her own experience, says that she could scarcely keep from weeping when she saw the people who were taking charge of the church who were trained by Satan. Paul had the same concern, and the elders were called to protect the church from these wolves.

Now the questions is, suppose that a wolf came from Jerusalem. Were the elders to protect the church from that wolf? “Oh, no,” someone says, “not a local elder.” Turn with me to one of the most interesting passages in the New Testament in regard to this. “Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.” Galatians 2:11–13. Paul stood up and rebuked Peter, but Paul was not happy about this, because he was not the one who should have had to do the rebuking.

God had established a local leadership to protect the church. “Not from Peter,” someone might say, “he was from Jerusalem. He was one of the pillars; he knew Jesus personally. No, not from Peter. They were only Gentiles who had been newly converted to the faith. You do not expect them, these Gentile Galatians who had just come into the Christian church a few years ago, to stand up and rebuke Peter, who was from the Jerusalem church, who had been a Jew all his life, one of the pillars in the church, a follower of Jesus—not Peter! I mean, Paul was an apostle. He could do that.” But Paul was most unhappy that he had to do that. “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?” Galatians 3:1.

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.” Galatians 5:1. Someone might say, “That scripture is dealing with circumcision and all those things.” Circumcision was involved, and eating with Gentiles was involved, but that was not the issue! The issue in Galatians was that Peter had caused them to transgress, and they were to stand in their freedom, even if it was Peter from Jerusalem who should come down and preach false theology.

What is this Strange Fire?

“But strange fire has been offered in the use of harsh words, in self-importance, in self-exaltation, in self-righteousness, in arbitrary authority, in domineering, in oppression, in restricting the liberty of God’s people, binding them about by your plans and rules, which God has not framed, neither have they come into His mind. All these things are strange fire, unacknowledged by God, and are a continual misrepresentation of His character.” Testimonies to Ministers, 358.

The Lord established the church upon the Rock, Jesus Christ, and He is to be the head of the church. (See Ephesians 1:22, 23.) The issue in the days of Martin Luther was who was in charge of the church, the Lord or the pope. That was the issue in Wesley’s day and it was the issue in 1888. I have been amazed at how little Ellen White deals with doctrine in relationship to 1888. The problem with Jones and Waggoner was that they did not go through the “proper channels.” They were not approved by the “proper people.”

The following statements are from a letter that Ellen White wrote to Elder Butler. “God designs that men shall use their minds and consciences for themselves. He never designed that one man should become the shadow of another, and utter only another’s sentiments. But this error has been coming in among us, that a very few are to be mind, conscience, and judgment for all God’s workers. The foundation of Christianity is `Christ our Righteousness.’” The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 112. Do you want to know what Christ our Righteousness means? She tells us what it means. “Men are individually responsible to God and must act as God acts upon them, not as another human mind acts upon their mind.” Ibid. God is to decide what is right, not some human committee. God makes the rules, not some human rule book. The Bible is our creed. We always used to say: “We do not have a creed book; the Bible is our creed.”

“For if this method of indirect influence is kept up, souls can not be impressed and directed by the great I AM. They will, on the other hand, have their experience blended with another, and will be kept under a moral restraint, which allows no freedom of action or of choice. . . . If we would be wise, and use diligently, prayerfully, and thankfully the means whereby light and blessings are to come to His people, then no voice nor power upon earth would have authority over us to say, `This shall not be.’” Ibid., 112, 113.

Where Does Church Authority Come In?

In the book Testimonies to Ministers, Ellen White wrote a great deal of material to the leadership, and ministry in general, after 1888. Much of this book is dealing with this very principle of church authority. Among other similar statements, she said, “The high-handed power that has been developed, as though position has made men gods, makes me afraid, and ought to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised.” Testimonies to Ministers, 361. “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. . . .” Ibid., 362. “Rule, rule, has been their course of action. Satan has had an opportunity of representing himself.” Ibid., 363.

In the chapter “Under Which Banner?” she says, “Humanity is hailed as God.” Ibid., 365. She is talking to us dear friends. She says, “God will not vindicate any device whereby man shall in the slightest degree rule or oppress his fellowmen.” Ibid., 366. A curse is pronounced upon all who do this. (See Jeremiah 17:5.)

“State conferences may depend upon the General Conference for light and knowledge and wisdom; but is it safe for them to do this? Battle Creek is not to be the center of God’s work. God alone can fill this place. When our people in the different places have their special convocations, teach them, for Christ’s sake and for their own soul’s sake, not to make flesh their arm. There is no power in men to read the hearts of their fellow men. The Lord is the only One upon whom we can with safety depend, and He is accessible in every place and to every church in the Union. . . . Is the president of the General Conference to be the god of the people?” Ibid., 375. Following the counsel and teaching of these ideas does not make a person very popular, but we are told to do it.

We Have Placed God Second

Instead of teaching the truth God has commissioned to be taught, do you know what she says we have been taught? “For many years an education has been given to the people which places God second, and man first. The people have been taught that everything must be brought before the council of a few men in Battle Creek.” Ibid., 325. I want you to notice that this is a serious matter, because it is breaking the first commandment. God says, “‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’” Exodus 20:3. “Let me entreat our state conferences and our churches to cease putting their dependence upon men and making flesh their arm.” Ibid., 380. Today we have gone far beyond where they were in 1888.

“In reference to our conference, it is repeated o’er and o’er and o’er again, that it is the voice of God, and therefore everything must be referred to the Conference and have the conference voice in regard to permission or restriction or what shall be and what shall not be done in the various fields. . . . We have heard enough, abundance, about that ‘everything must go around in the regular way.’ . . . He [God] wants every living soul that has a knowledge of the truth to come to their senses.” Spalding and Magan Collection, 163. “The Lord wants His Spirit to come in. He wants the Holy Ghost king.” Ibid., 166. Today we have come to the point, in many places, that if you even invite someone to come and speak in the pulpit, you have to get the permission of the local conference.

God is looking for every one of us, from the General Conference president down, to be broken on the Rock. When Jesus is the King, unity, peace and love pervade. This does not do away with organization. It is the only thing that creates a workable organization. We still have offices, but when God’s plan is followed, no one is striving for office, because everyone is striving to serve one another. (See Matthew 20:25–28.)

Less Control

The message of Christ our Righteousness has to become practical. We need to exercise less and less control over one another and do more and more praying for one another. Let us not decide that God has given any one of us authority to tell everyone else how they are to serve God. God is calling for much more freedom in His church than what we have been willing to allow. There is a place for order, a place for leadership, but dear friend, God is calling for us to be broken on the Rock, to be filled with the humility and the love of Jesus. Then we will find that once again the Holy Spirit will be King.

That Thy Days May Be Long

by
by

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.” Exodus 20:12. This is a promise from God, that refers not only to your happiness and life here on earth, but also your life in the heavenly Canaan. God was talking about your days being forever.

God asks us a question in Malachi 1:6: “A son honors his father, And a servant his master. If then I am the Father, Where is My honor? And if I am a Master, where is my reverence? Says the Lord of Hosts to you priests who despise My name.”

Just as we are to honor our parents, we are to honor our Heavenly Father. What is the basis of the honor, the respect, which we give to our parents or to God? Honor runs parallel with obedience, for the Bible says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” Ephesians 6:1.

When you obey and honor someone, it is because they have authority, and you respect them. God has authority—authority above everyone else. In this article we will study to discern what God’s authority is based upon. This is vital because the devil has deliberately confused a large portion of the world on this question.

First of all let us look at the oppose question. What is the authority of the devil based upon? What is authority in this world based upon? Jesus said: “Jesus called them to Himself and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.” Matthew 20:25. Authority here on earth is based on the fact that the lords or rulers have power—they “lord it over them.” God’s authority is not like that. His authority is not based on power, unreasoning submission or control. Nevertheless, the devil would like people to believe that God somehow tells you what to do, and you have to do it because He is more powerful than you are.

It is amazing how many Christians believe the devil’s lie and ascribe to God the character traits of the devil. “From the beginning it has been Satan’s studied plan to cause men to forget God, that he might secure them to himself. Hence he has sought to misrepresent the character of God, to lead them to cherish a false conception of Him. The Creator has been presented to their minds as clothed with the attributes of the prince of evil himself, as arbitrary, severe, and unforgiving.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 738. [All emphasis supplied.]

The devil has presented God as clothed with the attributes of the prince of evil—arbitrary, severe, and unforgiving. He created the theory of eternal hellfire just to support that. He wanted men to believe that God would punish someone eternally for what they did in their seventy or eighty years of life. This is an example of just how severe a picture Satan has painted of God.

The first character trait the devil applies to God is that He is arbitrary. God has never in all eternity done one arbitrary thing. Look in the Bible account. It is completely against His character. God never asks anyone to do anything, “just because He said so.”

If God never exercises arbitrary authority, would God give me arbitrary authority? No! However, it seems that many today feel He has. This is one of the main reasons we are losing our young people today. Is it any wonder that youth have no interest in religion when they have been taught that God is arbitrary, or we have shown them an example of arbitrary authority? We turn our children away for, “arbitrary words and actions stir up the worst passions of the human heart.” Testimonies, vol. 6, 134.

We ask, If God is not arbitrary and He never exercises arbitrary authority, what kind of authority does He have? God clearly defined it in Deuteronomy 6:24: “And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always.” Our young people need to understand this, and we need to demonstrate it in all of our dealings with other human beings.

All God’s commandments are given for our good always. When the Lord said, Do not commit adultery or do not steal, there was a reason. For every command He has a reason in mind. You and I may not always understand His reason, but that does not mean it is not there. Eve could not figure out why God told her not to eat the forbidden fruit. So she decided to try it. People have been trying it ever since. God says not to do something, and they decide to see what will happen if they do. Sooner or later they find out, and suffer the consequences.

“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.” Deuteronomy 10:12, 13.

 

God Exercises Only Moral Authority

 

All the authority that God exercises is moral authority—never arbitrary, never severe or unforgiving. What does the word moral mean? It has to do with right and wrong. Something moral is right; something immoral is wrong. In other words, God’s authority is based on a principle of right or wrong.

Abraham understood this and he questioned the Lord about it. “And Abraham came near and said, ‘Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? . . . Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth be right?’” Genesis 18:23, 25.

Abraham knew that God was just, and would not let the righteous die with the wicked. So God promised Abraham, if He could find ten righteous people in the city of Sodom, he would spare the city. Sadly, there were not even ten righteous in Sodom, but God in His justice, spared as many righteous people as He could find, taking them out of the city before it was destroyed.

Moses said about God: “He is the rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice. A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.” Deuteronomy 32:4.

We need this firmly fixed in our minds. God’s Word is not a list of “do’s” and “do nots.”Following it is the only true road to happiness. We are doing the greatest injury to ourselves when we think or act contrary to the will of God. We need to teach our children this from the time they are little babies, so that when they grow up, they realize that anything God says to do is for their good.

 

Absolute Authority

 

In addition to being moral, God’s authority is absolute. God has the right to have absolute authority first of all because He has infinite knowledge. The Bible says that very clearly. “In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Colossians 2:3. Because He has infinite knowledge, He never makes a mistake, and He will never err in any of His judgments.

God also has infinite love. He loves those whom He has created, and He will never use His authority or His power in a way that will hurt them. “All the paternal love which has come down from generation to generation through the channel of human hearts, all the springs of tenderness which have opened in the souls of men, are but as a tiny rill to the boundless ocean when compared with the infinite, exhaustless love of God.” Maranatha, 77. Because His knowledge, wisdom and love are infinite, He alone has the right to absolute authority.

All genuine authority is derived from the authority of God. At times God delegates authority to others. Before John the Baptist was born, God sent the angel Gabriel to talk to Zacharias. He told Him that he and his wife were going to have a son. Gabriel had authority because he was delivering a message from God.

When Zacharias did not believe, the angel said to him, I am Gabriel and I stand in the presence of God and I have come to deliver this message to you. Because you do not believe, you will be dumb until the child is born. Gabriel had authority. He did not have absolute, infinite authority as God has, but when God sent him on an errand, the message he delivered had divine authority.

God delegates His authority, not only to the angels, but also to His people. The church hasP> authority, and His ministers have authority. Where does their authority come from? It comes from the Bible. Paul said to Timothy, “Preach the Word.” 2 Timothy 4:2. If I preach the Word of God to you, that message has divine authority.

It is the same Word that gives the church divine authority. This was lost sight of by many during the Dark Ages. The Roman Church said, The Church produced the Word, therefore we have ultimate authority. If you study the history of the martyrs, you will find that they had debates on this question many times.

The relationship between the Church and the Bible is found in the Bible itself. The following is a text that the Protestant Apologists used in their debates against the Roman Catholic theologians: “Of His own will He brought us forth by the Word of truth.” James 1:18.

The church did not produce the Word. The Word produced the church. The commandment says that it is the father who is to be honored, not the child. In the same way, the Bible is to be honored above the church, because the Bible was parented, or produced by the Word. Therefore, if we are going to keep the fifth commandment, the church has to honor the Word which brought it forth.

God not only gave authority to His church or to His ministers, but He also gave authority to parents over their children as revealed in the fifth commandment. What kind of authority do parents have over their children? We have just studied that it is not to be arbitrary, but instead authority that is in subjection to God’s Word.

Consider this. In some countries, if a child becomes a Christian against the parent’s wishes, the child could lose his life. Should that child become a Christian? Yes, he should, and he might, if necessary, need to flee from home to have liberty to follow God. A child is only to obey His parents in the Lord. He has a higher power to obey.

Moral authority always has a moral reason. I am amazed that the God of heaven, when dealing with sinful people, condescends to say to us, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isaiah 1:18. The God of heaven does not exercise authority over His children in an arbitrary, severe, unforgiving manner.

If you want your children to open up their hearts to religion and Jesus, help them to understand this. It will completely change their religious experience. There are homes, churches, organizations and schools all over the world that tell our young people, “You do this because I said so.” That is Satanic. The devil is the one who is arbitrary. Arbitrary commands, with no moral reason, are part of the antichrist power.

Arbitrary authority is one of the reasons why so many marriages break up. As a pastor, people come to me constantly, seeking counsel because their marriages are breaking up. You ought to hear the stories that I hear. It has become clear to me that one of the reasons for this is because we are arbitrary with each other. Remember, arbitrary words and actions arouse the worst passions of the human heart.

When Jesus came to earth, he came to a world where arbitrary authority reigned. The people were accustomed to leaders like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, who came with an army and you did what they said or else! Husbands ruled their wives this way, and parents their children. When Jesus came to the people, He did not come with an army, a dagger. When Jesus came, He said, “Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me. For I am meek [gentle] and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” Matthew 11:28–30. The authority of Jesus was only exercised with love and kindness.

Where is our love, our spirit of compassion? How many times has our wife or our child done something, and we have become angry and said “that’s it.” Consider God’s longsuffering with you. How many times has He forgiven you? We must learn the lesson found in Luke 6:37, 38: “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.” Do not let the devil deceive you about God’s character, or about what your character must be like to enter heaven.

 

Kindness to Sinners

 

It is tragic the way Adventists treat each other. If God treated us the way we are treating one another, we would all be lost. I am astounded at how ready we are to condemn our brothers and sisters. And when someone stops to help these sinners, the report spreads all over the country. “This man is too easy on sin.” Was Jesus easy on sin? Jesus said to the woman who had been involved in prostitution, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” John 8:11. He forgave all of her past sins and gave her the power to live a new life.

I have preached the gospel to rapists, murderers and others who are in prison for committing terrible crimes. I came to them in Jesus’ name, and told them Jesus could take away all their guilt. That He could give them the power to live a new life and that they could have eternal life. Some were converted and baptized from these prisons. Did I make a mistake? Should I have turned away because they were sinners?

Jesus had the same problem in His day. He got in trouble for preaching the gospel to people condemned by the Pharisees. Jesus said to the paralytic man, “Your sins be forgiven you.” This man had been to the priests and the Pharisees. They condemned him to hell, and told him that because of his sin there was no hope for him. But Jesus said, I forgive you, and I offer you eternal life.

Recently, a lady in California told me her experience. She was working with some people who had been involved in drugs. She told me of the miracles that happened in their lives. She started studying the gospel of John with them, and they gave their hearts to the Lord. Within a few days they wanted to go to church with her. So she took them to church. But there was a problem. They had just come off the street. They did not have a suit or tie, or a nice dress shirt. They were wearing jeans and T-shirts. It was obvious when they arrived at the church that they were not welcome. Nobody was friendly to them. They were from the wrong side of the tracks, the wrong part of society.

The cry of my own heart is, “Lord, I want to be all done with Pharisaism. I no longer want to be arbitrary or severe. Please make me gentle and lowly in heart and give me a forgiving spirit.” If we allow the Lord to make these changes in our hearts, our homes will be like a little heaven here on earth. When our homes become like heaven, our churches will become like heaven. When people come in wearing blue jeans and with long hair, they will see that we do have something that they do not have, and they will want it. Then our churches will become evangelistic centers. When we have put away variance, strife and fighting and arbitrary authority, God will be able to pour His Holy Spirit out on us.

Do you want it to happen? Are you willing to pray, “Lord, help me to give up all this arbitrariness, severity and unforgiving spirit and help me to wear the yoke of Christ and have His spirit and character”? We must pray about this day by day. God wants to give it to us. He has been waiting to deliver us from everything that is Satanic and put His own character into our spirit, life and homes.

 

Sinful Independence, part 3

by
by

The Basis For True Authority

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

The church is still to be “built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man. Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction. The Saviour declares, ‘All ye are brethren.’ All are exposed to temptations, and are liable to error. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church. Upon this the weakest may depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make Christ their efficiency. ‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.’ . . .Jeremiah 17:5.” Desire of Ages, 414. “This principle bears with equal weight upon a question that has long agitated the Christian world,—the question of apostolic succession. Descent from Abraham was proved, not by name and lineage, but by likeness of character. So the apostolic succession rests not upon the transmission of ecclesiastical authority, but upon spiritual relationship. A life actuated by the apostles’ spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught, this is the true evidence of apostolic succession. This is what constitutes men the successors of the first teachers of the gospel.” Ibid., 467.

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

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

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

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

Jesus was rejected by most because He was not sanctioned by the visible church, and those who rejected Him were lost. According to the Spirit of Prophecy, this will likewise be our test. “To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few—this will be our test.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 136.

 

The Head Of The Church

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, for men to receive those sent to them from the conference whom God has not sent, causes them to become independent from God along with the pastor, and results in the withdrawal of God’s blessings. “As there are woes for those who preach the truth while they are unsanctified in heart and life, so there are woes for those who receive and maintain the unsanctified in the position which they cannot fill.” Testimonies, vol. 2, 552. “There are fearful woes for those who preach the truth, but are not sanctified by it, and also for those who consent to receive and maintain the unsanctified to minister to them in word and doctrine.” Testimonies, vol. 1, 261, 262.

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

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

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

These statements from the Spirit of Prophecy were not written to imply that the church does not, or should not, have proper authority. The church is to have a great amount of authority under God. When a point or a decision can be shown from God’s word and from the leading of the Holy Spirit to be from the Lord, the leaders are to have a great deal of authority. Whenever the church utters the utterances of God, it is as the voice of God. But when they become independent of God and assume authority such as the Sanhedrin assumed, then they are no longer the voice of God. It was when the leaders were becoming independent of God, that Ellen White said, “That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be,—that is past.” General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901.

 

A Call for Reformation

by
by

In these last days there is a great need for consecrated leaders who will not compromise on godly standards of worship. Sadly, many of those leading out and holding positions in the church today are neither spiritually nor mentally prepared for such responsible positions. Where there is a lack of consecration to God, a wrong impression is given both in the church and in the community about true Christianity and the result is a weakened church.

This crisis is evident as I travel around ministering to the people. I truly believe that we are living in the end of time and it is critical that we sincerely examine our own hearts to “see if there be any wicked way in me.” Psalm 139:24. Never was there a more urgent time to completely surrender to the Lord and allow Him to develop a spiritual maturity than right now. Now is the time to be ready to meet the Lord when He comes.

The same condition prevailed when Isaiah said, “For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counselor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator. And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.” Isaiah 3:1–3.

Because of the inadequacy of the leaders, God said that children would rule over them in Judea and Jerusalem. Some of these young rulers are listed in II Kings 15:32, 33. It says that Jotham, a good ruler, was 25 years of age when he took the throne to be ruler. Aza, an evil ruler, was only 20 years old when he became king (II Kings 16:2). Then Hezekiah, who was a good ruler, was only 25 years old when he began to rule (II Kings 18:2). But Azariah, also a good ruler, was only 16 years old when he took the throne (II King 15:2). Manesseh, an evil ruler, was only 12 years of age when he became a ruler and Josiah, a good ruler, was only 8 years old when he became a ruler (II Kings 22:1). These rulers were aged from 8 to 25 years old. Precisely what Isaiah prophesied about children came true.

The Lord said He would take the mighty men out, the intellectual men; the judges and children would lead the nation. There was not a man in that nation who was able to stand up and take the position and lead out a nation; therefore, the Lord used children.

These rulers represented a lack of maturity and experience, but the biggest lack of all was that of their relationship with God and lack of consecration in their lives. What we often see today around the world is exactly what happened back then—a lack of maturity, lack of consecration, lack of holiness and lack of humility. There is a lack of desiring to develop qualities for the honor and glory of God and to be able to lead a congregation and the churches today to reflect the spiritual level of those church leaders, the elders and those people who are holding positions in the church.

God has said that His people will be holy. He has said that they will keep His commandments and have the faith of Jesus and do His will. In other words, they will apply the principles and statutes that are in the Word of God and in the Spirit of Prophecy to their lives and be able to lead, to represent, to teach and preach the Word of God to the people.

Many today are living a relaxed and comfortable lifestyle and are so wrapped up in working many hours in the secular world, not even thinking upon spiritual things. Some who are holding positions in the church do not have time to do the work of the Lord, to come to prayer meeting or to visit a brother in need. How then can these people lead others?

The church today is embracing a lifestyle that is of the world and foreign to God’s ways. Leaders should themselves be connected to the Source of Light and be able to lead others to Jesus.

The reality is that the closer the walk with the Lord and the closer the connection with God, the further away from the world we will become. It is the duty of every leader to know the way and what it takes to inherit the kingdom of heaven so their lives, their behavior and attitude, will reflect that relationship with God.

There are many who want to hold positions in the church for their own personal agenda and to implement the same into their churches, which causes conflict with the ones who want to do God’s will and to implement a program to God’s glory.

The illustration in Isaiah is relevant today because we also are in need of men who will exhibit these godly characteristics. There are too many who are devoid of the characteristics necessary but who are still holding positions for which they are not qualified according to God’s requirements. However, the Lord does allow people their free choice of who to put into offices even though He knows that they have no relationship with Him.

For example, the people in Samuel’s day were not satisfied with God ruling over them and wanted a king like the other nations. God then sent Samuel to anoint Saul. See I Samuel 10:1. Saul was selected to be king; however, he did not perfect a relationship with God. It was not God’s choice that they have a king, but because the people insisted, Saul was selected. It becomes an individual responsibility to examine oneself to know whether he/she is spiritually ready to hold a position. It might be well to recognize that a person may desire to serve in that position when their heart and mind is ready and they realize that they need to spend some time with God before serving in that capacity.

We are living in the last days of this earth’s history and there is a battle raging. There are two sides in this war and some people are making choices daily to do things God’s way and others are deciding that they would do things man’s way. This war has also crept into the Christian church where genuine reverent worship has been replaced by a superficial worship style that pleases the senses instead of glorifying God. In Isaiah 5:7 the vineyard represents the nation of Israel. Keep in mind that we are spiritual Israel. The civil and the religious leaders were the keepers of the vineyard. The religious leaders were supposed to lead the nation but instead they ate away at the vine. In their self-interest and in their own selfish ways they did not take the time to motivate themselves or others to worship in the way that appealed to God. We have a similar situation today.

Today there are still two divisions of authority, the civil and the religious. Civil authority governs the secular side of things and the church governs the Christian field. One works man’s ways and the other works God’s ways.

However, today the popular teaching around the world is that we should embrace man’s ways and forget about God, that it is impossible to overcome and we will be sinning all the way until the Lord comes. That is worldly philosophy! It is a lie!

Unfortunately, most have embraced this lie which has caused a tremendous crisis in the churches and why we are declining spiritually. If the leaders, whether they be pastors, elders or deacons, are not connected to God and do not encourage the people to lift the standards, the vine will be eaten and eventually destroyed.

In Isaiah chapter 3 we read that it was the leaders, lacking in maturity, knowledge, understanding and wisdom that caused the ruin of the nations. The same will happen again and we are going to be spiritually destroyed if we do not keep constantly elevating ourselves toward God. The devil is ready to devour whoever is wandering from God’s protection and to destroy them. As a result of the lack of consecration, the devil is walking around like a roaring lion seeking whom he will devour (I Peter 5:8).

The leaders have a holy responsibility to do God’s will and not to do their own.

“God has not changed toward His faithful servants who are keeping their garments spotless. But many are crying, ‘Peace and safety,’ while sudden destruction is coming upon them. Unless there is thorough repentance, unless men humble their hearts by confession and receive the truth as it is in Jesus, they will never enter heaven. When purification shall take place in our ranks, we shall no longer rest at ease, boasting of being rich and increased with goods, in need of nothing.” Testimonies, vol. 8, 250.

God wants to send showers of blessings to His people but we are not prepared to receive them. We are so consumed in such a lifestyle of business and self-importance that we are in danger of losing our connection with God. We have a serious crisis today and need to start listening to what God is saying to each one of us.

“With unerring accuracy the Infinite One still keeps an account with all nations. While His mercy is tendered with calls to repentance, this account will remain open; but when the figures reach a certain amount which God has fixed, the ministry of His wrath commences. The account is closed. Divine patience ceases. There is no more pleading of mercy in their behalf.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 208.

What does this mean, that He will close the account? It means that we have refused to become obedient and remain disobedient. We are not willing to cooperate with God and not willing to invite God into our hearts and to cleanse us. We hear the Word, but it is not being applied to our daily life. God will shut the door on those who refuse to apply it.

A call for reformation is being sounded now. There was a time when Moses was leading the people that he could no longer handle the situation by himself so the Lord sent his father-in-law, Jethro, to instruct or advise him.

“The time and strength of those who in the providence of God have been placed in leading positions of responsibility in the church, should be spent in dealing with the weightier matters demanding special wisdom and largeness of heart. It is not in the order of God that such men should be appealed to for the adjustment of minor matters that others are well qualified to handle. ‘Every great matter they shall bring unto thee,’ Jethro proposed to Moses, ‘but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.’

“In harmony with this plan, ‘Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.’ Exodus 18:19–26.

“Later, when choosing seventy elders to share with him the responsibilities of leadership, Moses was careful to select, as his helpers, men possessing dignity, sound judgment, and experience. In his charge to these elders at the time of their ordination, he outlined some of the qualifications that fit a man to be a wise ruler in the church.” The Acts of the Apostles, 93, 94.

Jethro told Moses that the whole package was too big for him. Select individuals who have wisdom and who have the right character. Why not select people who have a relationship with God, who have a union with God and who by their own behavior give glory to God? People who do not possess those characteristics should not be selected, regardless of their seniority or social status in the church. By choosing the wrong people to lead is the very reason the situation today is out of control. There is need to rebuke sin, to call it by its right name. Time is running out! We need to ask people to stand up for the Lord and to consecrate themselves to the Lord through His Word and the blood of Jesus Christ.

There is a great work to be done in the churches and in the communities where we live. What are we doing today to hasten the Lord’s coming? Are we applying ideas and principles of the world and not using the Word of God? The Lord says that if you love me, you will keep my commandments (John 14:15). We have been blessed by the gift of the Spirit of Prophecy where we can look for counsel from Sister White, but most continually fall into the trap and go to secular materials. Philosophies written by doctors or professors, etc., are promoted, forgetting the light shown in the Spirit of Prophecy.

The only way to establish leadership in our churches today, the only way to have the right team for the Lord is by personal consecration to the Lord. We do not want to bring any shame upon our Lord Jesus Christ.

Today many look for positions in the church, but before accepting any position, a self-examination should take place to see if God wants us in a particular position. We should ask the Lord what part of the vineyard we are to labor in and then serve Him with our whole heart.

“King David, toward the close of his reign, delivered a solemn charge to those bearing the burden of the work of God in his day. Summoning to Jerusalem ‘all the princes of Israel, the princes of the tribes, and the captains of the companies that ministered to the king by course, and the captains over the thousands, and captains over the hundreds, and the stewards over all the substance and possession of the king, and of his sons, with the officers, and with the mighty men, and with all the valiant men,’ the aged king solemnly charged them, ‘in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the Lord, and in the audience of our God,’ to ‘keep and seek for all the commandments of the Lord your God.’ 1 Chronicles 28:1, 8.

“To Solomon, as one called to occupy a position of leading responsibility, David gave a special charge: ‘Thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve Him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek Him, He will be found of thee; but if thou forsake Him, He will cast thee off forever. Take heed now; for the Lord hath chosen thee: … be strong.’ I Chronicles 28:9, 10.” The Acts of the Apostles, 94, 95.

David gathered them all together and said, you know your responsibilities and know that every thought that comes into your mind the Lord knows. Keep that in mind, for we are going to give to God an account of every thought and feeling. David told Solomon that God knows his heart. He knows the way of every man. If you honor Him, God will honor and protect you. But if you will not honor Him, He will pull Himself from you and you will no longer be under the protection of God.

We have a responsibility today in the churches to make sure that we daily prepare ourselves, our heart, mind and soul for God. Pray for the Spirit that will make us grow more like Christ every day and pray especially for those who are holding responsible positions in the church. They must have a connection to God, for all are going to give an account to God for neglected responsibilities.

I have heard people say that their job as a deacon or an elder is no big deal. Their job every Sabbath is to read the Scripture and participate in the service and then it is over, but it is much more beyond that. In Ezekiel, chapter 3, God said unto those people who hold positions, You are the watchmen of my people. You are to sound the trumpet when the enemy is approaching the tent or the camp. If you don’t, you are responsible for their blood. You are responsible to tell them what they are doing wrong and if they refuse it, then their blood will not be on you.

We can do that today by becoming true Christians and having a relationship with God, by being disciplined and applying every principle from the Word of God to our lives so that we may be worthy to hold a position to the honor and glory of God and to lead others to the kingdom of God. We want to be able to say to the Lord that we will serve Him and do all we can according to His will.

Those who take church offices lightly should consider the two sons of Aaron and how they presented themselves into the presence of God (Leviticus 10) with their clothes not even fixed right. They presumptuously went into the Holy Place with strange fire and God struck them both down. The strange fire was not approved by God. These same principles are applied today to the leaders of God’s churches. We need to be clear on this issue and acknowledge that God requires holiness. God requires a pure heart and a pure mind in those who serve and hold a position in the name of the Lord and to rebuke self and the world. Those people will serve the Lord according to His purpose.

Jesus said, “Father, Thy will be done.” Matthew 26:42. Are we willing to say that today? “Father, Thy will be done in my life.”

Pastor Domingo Nunez is Director of Outreach Ministry for Steps to Life. He is involved in the coordination of world mission projects and he travels extensively, encouraging the many home churches supported by Steps to Life. He can be contacted at: (316) 788-5559 or by email at: domingonunez@stepstolife.org.

Religious Liberty and the Church

by
by

We do not believe in putting too much confidence in impressions; however, we all have them. Recently I came across the notes of a sermon preached by my brother, Marshall, in Australia during the late 1980s. Though I had not heard it, I was aware of the concepts therein, as I was publicly challenged by a number of his elders and deacons denying those things to be really true.

Some people think that the church will continue to sink downwards into more and more apostasy and then, all of a sudden, bang, at the end, it is just going to spring up perfect. That is not the way it works. If you go deeper and deeper into apostasy, the end result is destruction.

God’s great desire is that He might have a pure and glorious church that is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Ephesians 5:27). Each church member has been called to be a steward guarding its spiritual interests, but as Jesus warned, while men slept, an enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25).

God has ordained four basic ways to purify the church and protect it from being taken over by the tares.

New Members

The church is to exercise loving and judicious care when accepting new members into the church. “When a person presents himself as a candidate for church membership, we are to examine the fruit of his life, and leave the responsibility of his motive with himself. But great care should be exercised in accepting members into the church; for Satan has his specious devices through which he purposes to crowd false brethren into the church, through whom he can work more successfully to weaken the cause of God.” Evangelism, 313.

Baptism represents a death to sin. By it, the candidate makes a statement that he/she has chosen to leave his/her sinful life behind and walk in newness of life, a life that is in harmony with God’s law. This, according to the New Testament, is the condition of the person who is welcomed into church membership. It needs to be remembered that the church is not a club for saints; it is a hospital for sinners. The person who has not made a decision for baptism and chooses to live in sin should also be welcome to come to church, but that person who is openly living in sin, or one who has violated his/her baptismal vow and continues to live in sin, cannot be a church member.

Church Members

Matthew 18:15–17 spells out clearly the procedure to follow when a brother sins against a brother. If I sin against you, you are to come to me and speak with me about what I have done against you. But, if I will not listen to you, you then are to take one or two more and come and talk to me and say, “Look; what you have done is wrong.” If I still refuse to listen after the first two steps, then the matter is to be taken to the church.

Incidentally, Matthew 18 is not referring to difference of opinion. If you look in the Greek text, Jesus said, “If your brother sin against you.” This is specifically referring to a sin, breaking one of the last six commandments against you. The counsel is to labor with that person. If the sin is never acknowledged, the results will be disastrous. “If the sins of the people are passed over by those in responsible positions, His frown will be upon them, and the people of God, as a body, will be held responsible for those sins. In His dealings with His people in the past the Lord shows the necessity of purifying the church from wrongs. One sinner may diffuse darkness that will exclude the light of God from the entire congregation.” Testimonies, vol. 3, 265.

Open sin must not be allowed in the church. That does not mean that the open sinner cannot be saved, but the person who is living in open sin and continues in open sin cannot remain in the church, according to the teaching of Matthew 18.

Judgments

This is not our favorite way of purifying the church; however, it is one way that God uses. In response to the prayers of his servants, God sends judgments on the church. Elijah prayed because of the sins of the children of Israel and God sent judgments so that it did not rain for three years and 6 months, or 1,260 days, on that land (I Kings 17).

In the early church, judgments came upon Ananias and Sapphira who sold property and then lied saying they had given all of the proceeds to the church while keeping back part of the money for themselves (Acts 5:2). The problem was not that they kept some of the money; they could have offered half or a portion of the proceeds, but they lied. Peter said to them, “You have not lied to men, you have lied to God, because you have lied to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:4). Ananias immediately fell dead and three hours later his wife came in and told the same lie. Peter said, “The same people that carried your husband out will carry you out.” Immediately she dropped down dead. Verses 5, 7–10.

Ellen White writes about this. She says, “The Spirit of truth revealed to the apostles the real character of these pretenders, and the judgments of God rid the church of this foul blot upon its purity. This signal evidence of the discerning Spirit of Christ in the church was a terror to hypocrites and evildoers. They could not long remain in connection with those who were, in habit and disposition, constant representatives of Christ.” The Great Controversy, 44. This judgment kept unconverted people from joining the church, but it did not prevent them from soul winning and believers were multiplied to the church.

In our own denominational history as Seventh-day Adventists, God has also sent judgments because of backsliding into apostasy.

In 1902, there were two fires that burned down two of the headquarter institutions. Ellen White wrote, “In visions of the night I saw a sword of fire hung out over Battle Creek.

“Brethren, God is in earnest with us. I want to tell you that if after the warnings giving in these burnings the leaders of our people go right on, just as they have done in the past, exalting themselves, God will take the bodies next. Just as surely as He lives, He will speak to them in a language that they cannot fail to understand.” The Publishing Ministry, 171. That is a scary statement, if the lesson is not learned! Next time, it will not be the buildings; it will be the bodies. It is clear by this statement that judgments are not over yet.

Preaching the Straight Testimony

God purifies His church through the preaching of the straight testimony. This is also referred to in Revelation 3:14–22.

“The searching testimony of the Spirit of God will separate those from Israel who have ever been at war with the means that God has ordained to keep corruptions out of the church. Wrongs must be called wrongs. Grievous sins must be called by their right name. All of God’s people should come nearer to Him. … Then will they see sin in the true light and will realize how offensive it is in the sight of God. The plain, straight testimony must live in the church, or the curse of God will rest upon His people as surely as it did upon ancient Israel because of their sins.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 676.

These four methods are God’s true ways for maintaining and purifying the church and there is going to be a pure church when Jesus comes. We just read it in Ephesians 5:27 and you can read the same thing in Revelation 19:7, 8 and also in I John 3.

There is also another method being used. It is more popular than any of the four methods previously mentioned, but it is a counterfeit and produces the exact opposite result. People think that it will purify the church, but because it involves apostasy, it leads the church astray every time. Throughout the ages, church legislation and persecution have been the most popular method used to try to preserve and purify the church.

Whenever the church has tried to maintain church order by giving power to its hierarchy or ruling group to control its members, it has always, without exception, led to apostasy and persecution. This was the condition of the church in the days of Jesus. The leaders had assumed such great authority over the members that if they professed faith in Jesus, they were disfellowshipped (John 9). However, this control did not keep the church pure, protecting it from the abuse of sin. In fact, it did just the opposite. It protected the church from receiving the straight testimony which God sent to them through John the Baptist, His Son and the apostles, in order for it to become pure. It was the hierarchy, the leaders, who prevented the people from accepting Jesus. They had such a strong hold on the people that the only way they could receive the straight testimony was for the power of the hierarchy to be broken.

Ellen White said, “Through their reverence for tradition and their blind faith in a corrupt priesthood, the people were enslaved. These chains Christ must break. The character of the priests, rulers, and Pharisees must be more fully exposed.” The Desire of Ages, 611, 612. “For a time it had seemed that the people of Galilee would receive Jesus as the Messiah, and that the power of the hierarchy in that region would be broken.” Ibid., 395. It was impossible to accept Jesus as the Messiah unless first, the power of the hierarchy was broken.

This same experience was repeated during the Dark Ages. Never before or since has the church assumed more control, resulting in greater persecution. The more the church exercised control through its leadership, the more it sank into apostasy. In 1414, a church council was called to eradicate apostasy and bring in reformation. It was decided to depose one of the popes who was corrupt and also to burn John Huss at the stake. Persecution was the council’s favorite way in their attempt to purify the church.

During the Protestant Reformation the reformers sought to break the power of the hierarchy over the people in the same way that Jesus did in His ministry, but those who blindly yielded reverence to the church leadership rejected the Protestant Reformation. Ellen White wrote concerning Wycliffe, the morning star of the reformation, “He fearlessly arraigned the hierarchy before the national council and demanded a reform of the enormous abuses sanctioned by the church.” The Great Controversy, 89. She goes on to say, “The fears of the hierarchy were roused, and persecution was opened against the disciples of the gospel.” Ibid., 97. That happened in England. The same thing happened in Germany. The church sought to intimidate with threats and cajole the Protestant leaders to once again accept the hierarchy with promises, but they realized that, “The re-establishment of the Romish hierarchy … would infallibly bring back the ancient abuses.” The Great Controversy, 199.

Concerning the future, Ellen White writes, “When the leading churches of the United States, … will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.” Ibid., 445. During the Dark Ages the church controlled the state and therefore anything done against the church became a civil crime. The image will do the same. One of the chief differences between the Protestants and the Romanists was the way in which the church was structured, but things are changing.

“There is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy. … The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon liberty of conscience which has been so dearly purchased.” The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 380.

Hierarchicalism always leads to religious persecution and a curtailment of religious liberty, because it denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ in practice. By profession the church acknowledges it, but in practice, it is denied. God ordained that there should be judicious administration and shepherd-like leadership for the furtherance of the gospel, but never at any time were lines of control given to human authority.

The Bible says, “He [Jesus Christ] is the head of the body.” Colossians 1:18. The body is the church. Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have preeminence. Whenever a person assumes undue authority in the church, which authority belongs only to Christ, the church is automatically brought into apostasy because Christ is always the head.

The usurping of authority is the sin of the beast power. “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God [hierarchy] in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” II Thessalonians 2:3.

This is also a danger within the Seventh-day Adventist church as well as in other churches and we need to learn the lessons of history. The Lord foresaw this developing in our own church and sent faithful warnings through Ellen White to our church leaders.

“The spirit of domination is extending to the presidents of our conferences. …

“They are following in the track of Romanism.”

This was being done by exerting a spirit of domination, putting a man or a group of men in the place of God.

“If a man … 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.” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 362.

The New Testament church had a simple organization that was efficient, but not hierarchical in nature. There was cooperation, but not control. For example, the apostle Paul tried to cooperate with his brethren, but did not ask permission from the church in Jerusalem to speak or raise up churches in Corinth or Philippi or the other towns that he visited. One of his greatest concerns and sternest warnings was concerning the possibility of undue control being exerted over the local members of the church by some outside force, in fact, the leadership from Jerusalem. Notice, Paul called the elders (plural) of the church at Ephesus and said, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” Acts 20:28–31.

Paul’s concern, over which he stressed with great emotional appeal for three years, was that there would arise leaders in this church who would seek to draw attention to themselves and become a controlling power. He told the elders that they, not he, singular, but they, plural, were to be shepherds of the flock, not set above the flock and to keep this from happening. They were to guard the church from the wolves in sheep’s clothing, the wolves from outside and the wolves from the local congregation, and those who were visiting from a conference or some other church.

This had already been demonstrated in the churches that Paul had established in Galatia. Elders had been selected in the local churches (Acts 14:23). These churches were not independent of the body, but they were highly self-directed and self-sustained and locally organized. A situation arose when leading brethren came from the headquarters church in Jerusalem, namely Peter and some other brethren came from James, the two principal leaders at the headquarters, to minister to these churches in Galatia. Now remember, these people in Galatia had been pagan idolaters and had recently converted to the truth of Christianity. Peter and the other men who came had grown up being taught the Scriptures and had never been involved in worshiping idols.

The Galatians had a tremendous amount of respect for these leaders who had come to them from Jerusalem and it had a terrible effect on the whole congregation. Paul was unsparing in his denunciation of the Galatian leaders for allowing the leaders from Jerusalem to bring apostasy into that church. He said to them, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth?” Galatians 3:1. Notice he does not say, “What has bewitched you?” He says, “Who has bewitched you?” referring to the people who had this influence over them. Paul’s concern was what would happen in the future if the leaders of this church did not protect the church, if they were so weak as to be influenced by these outside forces, by these people from the headquarters church.

Have you ever wondered what Paul would say if he visited our churches today? Is it possible that he would say, “O you foolish churches? Who has influenced you to yield the high standard of truth and practice that was once manifested in your movement?” Paul told the Galatians to, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.” Galatians 5:1. That yoke of bondage he referred to was not just circumcision and the law. If you look at the context of this question in Galatians 3:1 you will see that the yoke of bondage was bondage to leadership that had caused them to waver on a point of doctrine and teaching. He goes on to say, “This persuasion does not come from He who called you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. But he who troubles you … [the leadership from Jerusalem] shall bear his judgment. For you, brethren, have been called to liberty.” Galatians 5:8–10, 13. Paul was concerned about the influence that caused them to apostatize. He was very, very fearful of hierarchal forms of church government that would cause people to look to church councils and leaders for direction rather than the Holy Spirit.

The churches were to be grafted to Jesus Christ, cooperating with each other, and not to develop a human organization, a hierarchy.

This is the kind of organizational purity that has to come back into the church in order for the pentecostal blessings to return. Organizational purity and doctrinal purity go hand in hand and cannot be separated. It is not possible to have doctrinal purity with impure organization. Simple organization and church order are set forth in the New Testament Scriptures, ordained for the unity and perfection of the church.

“The man who holds office in the church should stand as a leader, as an advisor and a counselor and helper in carrying the burdens of the work. He should be a leader in offering thanksgiving to God. But he is not appointed to order and command the Lord’s laborers. The Lord is over His heritage. He will lead His people if they will be led of the Lord in the place of assuming a power God has not given them.” Loma Linda Messages, 464.

Ellen White then said to study I Corinthians 12 and 13 and Acts 15 and learn how the church is to be managed and operated. Again, she continued to write and say that many of the great difficulties that have come into our work are because of this very problem, people wanting to control and rule God’s work. As the church began to grow in the latter part of the 19th century, Ellen White began to warn, over and over, against the kingly power that was coming into the Seventh-day Adventist church. She wrote,

“The high-handed power that has been developed, as though position has made men gods, makes me afraid, and ought to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised.” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 361.

Many people, when beginning to run or operate churches, had very good motives, desiring to do what was right. But, as time went on, they thought that they should be in control and rule so that the church could have prosperity and grow faster. Ellen White said,

“Rule, rule has been their course of action. Satan has had an opportunity of representing himself.” Ibid., 363. “Let me entreat our state conferences and our churches to cease putting their dependence upon men and making flesh their arm. … Our churches are weak because the members are educated to look to and depend upon human resources.” Ibid., 380.

Hierarchicalism leads directly into apostasy and ultimately persecution. How does that happen? When somebody stands up and proclaims a message from God like John the Baptist or one of the prophets or one of the reformers in the 16th century, the hierarchy persecutes the one who protests. It led to the burning of martyrs during the Dark Ages and the imprisonment and death of God’s prophets and messengers throughout history. It also led to the crucifixion of Christ. This very same thing will lead to persecution in any church, including the Seventh-day Adventist church. Initially, the scribes and Pharisees would never have thought they were capable of putting someone to death, but the time came when they reasoned that they had to crucify Jesus in order to preserve the integrity of the church. Caiaphas actually said that if they did not get rid of Jesus they would be wiped out (John 11:47–50). The cross was a last resort after they had tried everything else to stop His ministry. “They regarded themselves as patriots, who were seeking the nation’s salvation.” The Desire of Ages, 541.

Today, we are Protestants and have the heritage of both the Bible and the New Testament church, the Protestant Reformation, and in America, the rich heritage of religious liberty. Concerning this heritage, Ellen White wrote, “This principle we in our day are firmly to maintain. The banner of truth and religious liberty held aloft by the founders of the gospel church and by God’s witnesses during the centuries that have passed since then, has, in this last conflict, been committed to our hands. The responsibility for this great gift rests with those whom God has blessed with a knowledge of His Word. We are to receive this word as supreme authority. We are to recognize human government as an ordinance of divine appointment, and teach obedience to it as a sacred duty, within its legitimate sphere. But when its claims conflict with the claims of God, we must obey God rather than men. God’s word must be recognized as above all human legislation. A ‘Thus saith the Lord’ is not to be set aside for a ‘Thus saith the church’ or a ‘Thus saith the state.’ The crown of Christ is to be lifted above the diadems of earthly potentates.” The Acts of the Apostles, 68, 69.

As standard bearers of the concept of the heritage of religious liberty, we cannot imagine that the Adventist church would ever become persecutors. But if hierarchicalism develops in a church, we have seen what always happens. We think that we could never do anything like the Jewish leaders did or like the Catholic hierarchy did during the Dark Ages, but we have already done it. In one situation a disfellowshiped preacher was first fined, then thrown into prison. What was his crime? He had a sign erected that said, “This is a Seventh Day Adventist church.” Because it was not under the control of the church hierarchy, he was put in prison. This happened in the United States, the land of the free, and this man was only set free after a prolonged court battle.

This proceeding was perpetrated by the General Conference in union with the state and it was financed, by the way, with the tithe money of the members of the church. Whether that man was theologically right or wrong is not the point. The church appealed to the strong arm of the state to enforce its will—its decree. When the authority will be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends, then the church has made an image to the beast. See The Great Controversy, 443.

This may be difficult to hear, but the Seventh-day Adventist church structure has been in the process of building an image to the beast for over twenty years. There have been other people, especially in communist countries, who have found themselves first disfellowshiped and then persecuted by the state in coordination with the church.

This is a testimony by Marshall when giving this sermon: “I personally have traveled to Hungary on several occasions and met with hundreds of disfellowshiped and persecuted brethren of that country. These dear brothers and sisters are true Seventh-day Adventists but simply gave the straight testimony of the involvement of the church in state politics and interdenominational ecumenicalism. Their message was given directly to the church leaders by ordained pastors and committed laymen and the response was, they were all disfellowshiped without a trial—over a thousand of them. Although the review acknowledged that the whole process was illegal, nevertheless, by the total silence of our leaders to even reprimand the offenders of this case, and by the continued barring of all the disfellowshiped members from all official church functions or activities, and by the admitting of the perpetrators of this persecution into the official activities of the General Conference, they have fully condoned their actions as a corporate entity. Now Hungary,” he says, “is just an example. The same thing has happened in Africa and other places. We have been traveling down the same dark road as was traveled by the church in the time of Christ and again during the Dark Ages, disfellowshiping and firing pastors here and there to give many examples, not just in the United States but in Europe, and other countries.”

It was this road—hierarchicalism, leading to persecution—that caused Ellen White to tremble. She said,

“My heart trembles in me when I think what a foe we have to meet, and how poorly we are prepared to meet him. The trials of the children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ.” Selected Messages, Book 1, 406.

“At the time of the first advent of Christ to our world, the men who composed the Sanhedrin exercised their authority in controlling men according to their will. Thus the souls whom Christ had given his life to free from the bondage to Satan were brought under bondage to him in another form.” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 361.

The very people that Christ had died to deliver from the bondage of Satan were brought under bondage to him in another form, through the church. That is what will happen just before the Second Coming. It has already happened!

For many years Ellen and James White fought to establish church organization. She stated, “Without some form of organization there would be great confusion, and the work would not be carried forward successfully.” Ibid., 26. Heaven is a place of order and God cannot bless disorganization. However, organization was never intended to become controlling in nature and hinder the preaching of the straight testimony or to persecute those who gave it and dictate how God should direct the work. Organization was never intended for the purpose of wresting the local churches out of the hands of the local members so that they became mere pawns in the hands of the leadership and the ministry. The leadership was to lead by example, prayer and faith, but not by commanding. The organization was not to restrict and control, but only to coordinate and promote the work, the preaching of the gospel and the straight testimony.

The devil fought so hard when James and Ellen White were trying to establish order and organization in the Adventist church that it took about twenty years before they could even become organized. Finally, when it did become organized in 1863 and the devil lost that battle, he switched his tactics to try to make them over-organized so that within four years of organization Ellen White wrote, “I dreamed I was in Battle Creek looking out from the side glass at the door and saw a company marching up to the house, two and two. They looked stern and determined. I knew them well and turned to open the parlor door to receive them, but thought I would look again. The scene was changed. The company now presented the appearance of a Catholic procession. One bore in his hand a cross [ceremonialism], another a reed [the scepter of a king]. And as they approached, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times: ‘this house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order.’ ” Testimonies, vol. 1, 578. She saw in that vision that the order of church organization had become controlling and persecuting in nature. From that time on she was fought constantly by church officials. Just like all the other prophets who were persecuted during their lifetime, now that she is dead she is revered, but the persecution continues against those who repeat her concerns.

In 1888, God gave the church a message through two young ministers, E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, but the brethren thought that they should not be allowed to give it until they first had their permission. The issue was Christ our Righteousness. Ellen White’s main concern at that time was not about the doctrine, but the issue of organization and control by church organization which was also contained in that message. Referring to Christ our Righteousness, she said, “God designs that men shall use their minds and consciences for themselves. He never designed that one man should become the shadow of another, and utter only another’s sentiments. But this error has been coming in among us, that a very few are to be mind, conscience, and judgment for all God’s workers. The foundation of Christianity is ‘Christ our Righteousness.’ Men are individually responsible to God and must act as God acts upon them, not as another human mind acts upon their mind; for if this method of indirect influence is kept up, souls can not be impressed and directed by the great I AM. They will, on the other hand, have their experience blended with another, and will be kept under a moral restraint, which allows no freedom of action or of choice.” The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 112.

“The Lord will never sanction the exercise of arbitrary authority. … Yet these things have been manifest in the management of the affairs in connection with the work in Battle Creek. Words cannot express too strongly the offensive character of the disposition to rule or ruin which has for years been revealed, and which has been strengthening by exercise. …

“Plans are set on foot for restricting the liberty of workers. Through these oppressive plans, men who should stand free in God are trammeled by restrictions from those who are only their fellow-laborers. …

“Our people, who talk of religious liberty, have lessons to learn as to what liberty in Christ really is. The Lord has marked the oppression that has been practiced.” The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 1357, 1358.

Here in the United States of America, we are privileged to be living in a country that has been made strong and prosperous because of the principles of religious liberty. The Christian exiles who first fled to America and sought an asylum here from royal oppression and priestly intolerance decided that they were going to found a government in this country upon the broad foundation of civil and religious liberty. It was these principles of civil and religious liberty that are the secret of the prosperit and power of the United States of America. It is these same principles that are the secret for prosperity and peace within the church. In fact, the church is the place where religious liberty needs to start. This liberty is not a license to bring false doctrines into the pulpit or to bring in disorderly elements within the congregation, but religious liberty does give freedom of speech, freedom to dissent, freedom of the press without recourse to the law or defamation of character. When there are doctrinal differences, we need to be able to get together and talk those over, frankly and fairly. Error needs to be called by its right name. The problem is, when any kind of error can be taught within a system, if you tell the truth and you are not in the system, it will be rejected. That is how it was in the days of Jesus, so God chose a different channel through which to work. As it was when Jesus was here the first time, it will be again, right at the end of the world.

In the last days, God is going to work apart from those who have tried to control His work and persecute those whom they could not control. Ellen White described it this way:

“The Lord will work in this last work in a manner very much out of the common order of things, and in a way that will be contrary to any human planning. There will be those among us who will always want to control the work of God, to dictate even what movements shall be made when the work goes forward under the direction of the angel who joins the third angel in the message to be given to the world. God will use ways and means by which it will be seen that He is taking the reigns in His own hands. The workers will be surprised by the simple means that He will use to bring about and perfect His work of righteousness.” Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 300.

God’s church is going to be purified and perfected again, just like it was in the early church, but it is going to happen through God’s methods. It is not going to happen through the control of ecclesiastical power curtailing religious freedom.

It is predicted in Isaiah 4 that there is coming a time when everyone who is listed among the living in Jerusalem will be holy. You may think yourself too much of a sinner to be part of that group, but there is a way out. Jesus died to take away the guilt of your sins, to take away the power of sin in your life, to deliver you from your old ways and cover you with His robe of righteousness. But, you can only have it in God’s appointed way. When we try to do God’s work in our own way, we end up ruining it. We must learn the lesson of religious liberty if we are going to have a part in God’s final work.

Pastor John Grosboll is Director of Steps to Life and pastors the Prairie Meadows Church in Wichita, Kansas. He may be contacted by e-mail at: historic@stepstolife.org, or by telephone at: 316–788–5559.