In the August 26, 1991, issue of Newsweek, the Religion section carried the headline - "Public Enemy Number One." The first paragraph read:

As they watched the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, China's aging leadership became convinced that the man most responsible for the party's sudden fall from grace was none other than Pope John Paul II. Last summer, internal party documents accused him of directing "reactionary and subversive" forces against communists everywhere. And now, in their determination to remain the last important Communist power in the world, the Chinese are attempting to rout out all papal loyalists in their midst. (p. 47)

This past May, John Paul announced that in 1979, he had secretly made Archbishop Gong, who is in exile at Stamford, Connecticut, a cardinal. The Chinese Foreign Ministry charged the Pope with "meddling in the country's internal affairs." This announcement merely brought to the surface the behind-the-scenes activities which the appointment of Cardinal Gong signaled.

This is but one more evidence that the Papacy is again involving itself in the affairs of nations to accomplish its design to reign over the kings of the earth. The fingering of the Pope as the ring leader in the subversive activities against the communist government of China is merely recognizing - unwittingly - the designation which prophecy gives the Papacy, which makes "all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." (Rev. 14:8) The very stones are crying out!

The Papacy is not only China's Enemy Number One, but is also God's "Public Enemy Number One"! Behind this sinister religio-political force is the true "Enemy" of God and man, Satan himself. On this the prophecy of God's word is clear and distinct. In the book of Revelation, the dragon is declared to be "the Devil, and Satan." (Rev. 20:2) It is he who gives to the first "beast" of Revelation 13, "his power, and his seat, and great authority." (13:2) The objective of

Page 2

these enemies of God is to gather "the kings of the earth and of the whole world" to "the battle of the great day of God Almighty." (16:14)

Paul in describing this last day power against God designates him as "that Wicked" one "in whom all iniquity has fixed its abode." (Thayer on II Thess. 2:8) He would operate by the "energy of Satan with all power, and signs, and terrors of falsehood." (verse 9, Fenton)

In God's plan and purpose, He did not intend to leave Himself without a witness in the earth against this malignant working of Satan. He committed to a people in sacred trust the Three Angels' Messages. (9T:19) These messages were to reveal "to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people," the nature of Babylon, and the designation of the "beast" - his image and his mark. Now as the time is nearing for the marvelous working of Satan as the false christ, and the forces of earth are being marshalled for that hour, the voice of God's professed people is muted, and their actions speak contrary to the light bestowed.

The first official intimation of the muting of the Church's witness in regard to the Papacy is to be found in the 1931 Statement of Beliefs. The Statement deleted that which had been written in all previous statements, the designation of "the man of sin" as "the papacy." A revelation of a major change in the thinking of the Church's hierarchy came in 1975, when the Church through its legal counselors submitted to a Federal Court a footnote in one of the legal briefs which read:

Although it is true that there was a period in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term "hierarchy" was used in a perjorative sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the Church's part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery among conservative protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned. (p. 41, Excerpts - Legal Documents)

In the same Brief, it is further stated:

While, however, Adventist doctrine continues to teach that church government by one man is contrary to the Word of God, it is not good Seventh-day Adventism to express... an aversion to Roman Catholicism as such. (ibid., p. 46)

Then in 1977, during the final months of the reign of Pope Paul VI, the Review carried this announcement:

In connection with a recent consultative meeting of secretaries of World Confessional Families held in Rome, B.B. Beach, secretary of the Northern Europe-West Africa Division, one of the 15 participants and the only Adventist in the group, presented a book and a medallion to Pope Paul VI on May 18.

The book was the Adventist missionary book Faith in Action, and the medallion was a gold covered symbol of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (August 11, 1977, p. 23; Emphasis supplied)

Not only did Beach place the Church in symbolism into the hands of the Pope with the full approval of the Church's leadership, but this same Beach with the same authority requested that the Vatican send an "official observer" to the General Conference session in Indianapolis. The Vatican responded, and Beach introduced this representative of "the man of sin" to speak to the delegates all under the guise of "witnessing." (See GC Bulletin #6, p. 7; #7, p. 8 [1990])

A few months ago, the president of the General Conference was responding to questions at a meeting on the campus of Atlantic Union College. One series of questions involved the Church's attitude toward Catholicism and the ecumenical activities of the Church. Folkenberg replied that the position of the Church had not changed from its historic position. We wrote him a letter asking how he harmonized the position of the Legal Brief cited above with his answer at AUC. To this date (September 5), he has not replied.

Today, the very stones are crying out. Men with no Biblical insight, let alone Christian convictions, can see the workings of the Papacy. Yet God's professed people, who have had great light, are muting the truths of prophecy, even though they profess a great zeal for "Revelation Seminars"!

THINK

"But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to take away many."

Daniel 11:44

Page 3

(Part Two)

In the Original manuscript, 1888 Re Examined, Elders R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short called for "denominational repentance" - and rightly so! In a brief resume of the points covered in chapter 10, they wrote:

A recognition of the significance of our denominational history in the light of the Spirit of Prophecy declarations, is essential before the loud cry can be recognized, and received. Could any other kind of "loud cry" than that which follows a denominational repentance "lighten the earth with glory?" What glory for God would there be in it? (A Warning and Its Reception, Second Printing, White Sec., p. 133; Emphasis theirs)

In their "Constructive Recapitulation" at the close of the manuscript, they stated the same thing using Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 250, in support of their contention. (ibid., p. 196)

The General Conference "brethren" to whom this manuscript was submitted understood what Wieland and Short were calling for. In their first "appraisal" of the manuscript, the Defense Literature Committee wrote to Wieland and Short as follows:

Throughout your manuscript it is evident that you feel the denomination should rectify certain things pertaining to 1888, and then make due acknowledgement and confession of the same. This is really more than a suggestion; you strongly urge that this course be followed. The following extracts are quoted from your manuscript:

Then on p. 133 you write that a "denominational repentance" is essential before the loud cry can be received. (ibid.. Blue sec.. pp. 7-8)

The "Further Appraisal" made by the General Conference in 1958 clearly recognizes the call given and rejects it. It read:

The solution proposed, of the denomination making confession of the mistakes of men made in the 1880's and the 1890's and of a denominational repentance is not possible nor would an attempt to do so be of value. The experience of the church is a collective experience of its members and leaders, and thus rightness with God is a matter of present day personal relationships. (ibid., Green Tint Sec., p. 2)

As the Centennial of the 1888 General Conference session approached, Wieland and Short published a revision of their original manuscript. This book was reviewed in the special "Righteousness by Faith" issue of Ministry (Feb., 1988). The reviewer, Dr. C. Mervyn Maxwell of Andrews University, wrote:

You may not agree with everything in it [the revised edition], but this book deals with an important topic. It is a crusading book. The original edition was almost too intense to read. But the new edition speaks lovingly of wayward brethren, hopefully of an erring church, and thankfully of God's invitations to repent.

Mercifully, no mention is made of "corporate repentance" and very little of the "sinful nature of Christ," terms that have been stumbling blocks to many erstwhile Wieland and Short admirers. (p. 63)

Now the two new books - "Lightened with His Glory" and "Made Like...His Brethren" - not only speak of "denominational repentance" again, but Short's book centers its emphasis on the "fallen nature" which Christ took upon Himself in the incarnation. While Short's presentation of the incarnation is the same as stated in the original edition of 1888 Re-Examined, the same cannot be said for the concept of "denominational repentance."

Wieland frames a question - "What is the difference between 'corporate confession' and 'corporate repentance'? To this he answers:

"Corporate repentance" is a million miles away from a mere committee action, or a four-color advertisement promoting it as the latest "groupthink" strategy. That would never help, for there are many who because of ingrained "loyalty" will jump on any new program that is promoted by "groupthink," for they want to be "in" and thought well of. [Look who is writing now!] ...

The word "corporate" has nothing to do with the organization of the hierarchy. Repentance is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not a constituency vote. The work of repentance is always individual and personal, but the word "corporate" is simply the proper term to describe how each "member of the body" relates to the Head and to one another. (p. 121)

Is not this what the "brethren" told Wieland and Short in 1958? Why now, and not then? Then as Wieland continues his answer, he cites

Page 4

the experience of the preaching of Jonah and the reaction as "an example" of national repentance, led by "the king and his nobles" (Jonah 3:5-9)." Then he concludes - "A repentance of the church today would be denominational. The Lord will give the gift, and His honor requires that He have a people who respond, both leaders and laity." (p.122;emphasis his) Wieland appears to be separating "corporate" and "denominational" repentance, but this is only "hair splitting" for "corpus" in Latin means, "body." Short takes a similar approach, but doesn't try to split hairs. He wrote:

The remnant church will understand that "corporate repentance has nothing to do with the organization, the hierarchy. Rather it is the humble acceptance, individually and as a body, of the call that the True Witness makes to the seventh and last church. His plea is specific that this corporate body, "the angel of the church," "be zealous therefore, and repent." ("Made Like. . His Brethren", p. 98)

Yet in 1986, Wieland wrote, "that the 'angel of the church of the Laodiceans' is primarily the responsible leadership [hierarchy] of the Seventh-day Adventist church on all levels, each segment appropriately responsible." ("As Many As I Love", p. 59)

Why the confusion? The problem harks back to a conclusion based on a faulty premise in the original manuscript. There can be no question but that the Lord called for a "denominational," "corporate" - whichever term you want to use - repentance in 1950, and that it involved the hierarchy. He sent, as in 1888, two "messengers" with this call. And interestingly, these servants of the Lord directed it to where it should have been given first - the leadership, the hierarchy! [How they reacted, when the call was not accepted by the "brethren" is another question which we addressed in the first article]

In the original 1888 Re-Examined, Wieland and Short called for repentance of the rejection of the message of 1888 as given by Jones and Waggoner. There is no indication in the Bible, nor the Writings that such was called for. Not a single reference can be produced, though Wieland attempts to "word" his way through to such a conclusion. In the original manuscript, they did use a reference from Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 250 (op. cit., p. 196), but this is not talking about the message of 1888, but the results to which the rejection of the message led.

Let us briefly note the background of the call to "denominational" or "corporate" repentance which Ellen G. White made in 1903. First one must observe her analysis of what occurred in 1901. She wrote:

Who do you suppose has been among us since this Conference began? Who has kept away the objectionable features that generally appear in such a meeting? Who has walked up and down the aisles of this Tabernacle? - The God of Heaven and His angels. And they did not come here to tear you to pieces, but to give you right and peaceable minds. They have been among us to work the works of God, to keep back the powers of darkness, that the work God designed, should be done and should not be hindered. The angels of God have been working among us. (General Conference Bulletin, 1901, p. 463)

Two things need to be kept in mind concerning this statement: 1) The 1901 Constitution which was drawn up and adopted at this session was God-inspired, and angel directed. 2) The "brethren" to whom Wieland and Short directed their call, in turn directed Wieland and Short to this inspired analysis in 1958. (See A Warning and Its Reception, Green Tint Sec., p. 32) This they ignored and wrote a 70 page answer to the "brethren" maintaining that they had used "Ellen G. White statements honestly, reasonably, and in harmony with the expressed intent." (ibid., Ivory Sec., p. 47) This is simply not true in their use of the statement in Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 250. In fact, when they published their revised edition of 1888 Re-Examined, they did not quote Vol. 8 as they had done previously.

In these new books, the former "messengers" still refuse to face the facts of what Ellen G. White was calling for when she indicated that "the church [should] repent and be converted."

The leavening of backsliding which had been kneaded into the dough in 1903, if continued and not repented of, would make the church an abhorrence, and a byword among the churches. (See 1 Kings 9:7) In other words, "corporate repentance" does involve "organization," and much more than committee action to be sure. It involves a change in the 27 Fundamental Beliefs so that they are not neutral on the incarnation, and express the meaning of "righteousness by faith in an end-time setting." The sanctuary concepts, and the "nature of sin" need to be clearly spelled out. There are "fruits" involved in repentance! (Luke 3:8)

Now another question - Why are Wieland and Short so reluctant to face up to this fact of "denominational repentance" in the light of how it was called for by Ellen G. White in 1903? Simply, they still believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a corporate body will "turn around" and go through to the kingdom.

Page 5

Wieland, not having a secure base for his belief either in the record of Bible history, nor in the Writings, resorts to name calling. Those who do not accept his premise are possessed of the devil - "We must remember that there is one personality who firmly opposes denominational repentance and who believes it is impossible. His name? Satan." (Wieland, op. cit., p. 123) This is merely following the example of the Laodicean Pharisees of Christ's day, who said to Jesus - "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil." (John 8:48) If there was ever One who longed for the "denominational repentance" of the Jewish Church, it was Jesus; but it proved impossible!

Short's major premise on this point in his book is that as Christ was made like unto His brethren, there will be "brethren" - the 144,000 - made like to Him. In other words, Christ is our Example, and there will be a final demonstration of God's grace which will produce a people who reflect His likeness. This is absolutely true! However, Short fails to note the parallel in time between the One made like unto His brethren, and those who will be like Him. The time when Christ came to this earth as a man was "the Laodicean" period of the Jewish Church. (See Desire of Ages, p. 280, par. 3 where Rev. 3:17-18 is quoted)

Observe Jesus' experience with the Jewish Laodicean Church. From the local congregation of which He had been a member since childhood, He was cast out for telling them the truth. (Luke 4:25, 28-29) As Jesus ministry enlarged, and He confronted the "General Conference" of His day, headquartered at the temple, He was twice cast out. (John 5:16; 8:69) Even a third attempt was made. (John 10:39) During His ministry, He said - "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." It was the same message that God asked be given in 1950. Even the Lord of glory in earthly guise could not turn the Jewish Laodicean Church around. God will no more force modern Laodicea than He forced Jewish Laodicea.

In turning Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion, the Jewish hierarchy insured that he would die outside of Jerusalem. In this also, His brethren must be made like unto Him. Well is it written in the letter to the Hebrews:

Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. (Heb 13:12-14)

While Short points to the Day of Atonement ritual as an answer (p. 118f), he reveals that he has not studied in depth the significance of the three step "cleansing" revealed in the type, and thus fails to put it all together. Both he and Wieland, as Abraham of old, need to return "unto the place of the altar which he had made there at the first" and reassess the call God gave to them in 1950.

A syndrome is defined as "a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality." Within recent weeks and months I have heard and read this word used in connection with specific persons of the Bible with the inference that these same symptoms have afflicted and are afflicting certain of the "saints" today within the Adventist Community.

This past week a particular conference president was indicated to be suffering from the "Eli" Syndrome. This comment sparked my interest, and I asked what that syndrome was. The answer - "A man who knows what to do but doesn't do it, and sits around and gets fat." Elder D. K. Short in his book, "Made Like ... His Brethren", writes of the "Peter Syndrome - "desire for approbation." (pp. 30-31) In the application of this syndrome - the Church's experience with the Evangelicals - he is on target!

A third syndrome that I have heard several use is called the "Elijah" syndrome, and this is based on Elijah's response to the question God asked him - "What doest thou here, Elijah?" To this Elijah responded - "I, even I only, am left." (1 Kings 19:9-10) Then God, who reads human hearts, pointed out that He had found in Israel 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Among these was Obadiah, governor of Ahab's house, who "feared the Lord greatly." (1 Kings 18:3) He had preserved another part of those 7000 - a hundred prophets - in two caves and fed them bread and water. BUT, and here is the issue - when Elijah asked the people - "How long halt ye between two opinions?" - not one of the 7000, including Obadiah, responded. In the hour of crisis, God could count on only one, and he had an "abnormality" from a human viewpoint - "I, even I only." (1 Kings 18:21-22)

How do we square our zeal for the 7000 with this dictum? It reads:

If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime, and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God.

3T:281

Sometimes, we seem to forget what God has planned for each individual - "Not more surely is the place prepared for us in the heavenly mansions than is the special place designated on earth where we are to work for God." (COL, p. 327) It is difficult for me to believe that God is planning for anyone a dormitory room to accommodate 7000 people. No, He is preparing for me a home, and I pray a family home. Just so, He has a "special place designated on earth" in which I should serve Him. And interestingly, "I, even I only" can fulfill that particular responsibility. May God find us in that special place serving Him, yes, even with the "Elijah" Syndrome conviction.

*****

"He who seeks truth and finds it must first himself be honest."

*****

Page 6

The matter which I want to talk over with you in this "editorial" was prompted by two telephone calls, and an article plus a video sent as a result of one of the calls. The main question raised by the two callers was the subject of separation, and the video and article focused on this topic. Since the article is in black and white, and thus can be documented, I will discuss the issue within its framework.

The article is by Dr. Ralph Larson. He asks, "Is Separation the Solution?" (Our Firm Foundation, August 1991, pp. 28-30) To this he answers, "In a word, No." Yet before the article is completed, he writes, concerning those who wish to be faithful, "they may have to meet separately for study and prayer, and they may have to gather at camp meetings where truth will be honored." (p. 30; emphasis supplied) If separation is not the solution, then why recommend it, for meeting together "separately" whether in small study groups, or at "camp meetings" is separation!

The inference is clear that the campmeetings where truth is honored are those sponsored by Hartland Institute and Hope International. Here is where the video came into the picture. It was the question period at one of these mini-campmeetings. Those in the audience were pressing Hal Mayer hard because he had taken an untenable stand, and actually perverted Scripture in an attempt to sustain his position. He boxed himself into the same contradictory position in which Larson placed himself in the article.

Larson's article is primarily a series of quotations from the Writings, followed by a chastisement of those who would use the same Writings to teach some things contrary to his interpretation of them. He wrote - "But you ask, are there not being circulated papers and books calling for separation from the church and using quotations from Ellen White? Indeed there are!" Then he described an unnamed publication which did so commenting, "but not one of these quotations stated that the time would come when the faithful would have to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They were all being interpreted to mean that." (ibid.) This is followed by a very insightful paragraph which reads:

When reading such a document, we must never lose sight of the difference between a statement and an interpretation. A statement tells us what the writer meant and what the writer said. An interpretation is someone else's attempt to tell us what the writer meant but did not say. Thus, it represents the thinking of the interpreter, not the thinking of the writer. This fact remains, whether the interpretations number in the hundreds or in the thousands. No number of interpretations can equal a statement. A thousand times zero is still zero. (ibid.)

Usually misuse and personal interpretations of the Writings follow a recognizable and specific pattern, such as, 1) quoting out of context, and 2) using ellipses to omit key thoughts which the one quoting wishes to avoid. This Larson has done in his article. Space will not permit an illustration of his violation of #1. We will cite, however, his use of #2, which can be readily checked by the reader. He quotes from the Bible Commentary (7:985), as follows:

After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations,...there will be a removing of the landmarks. and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith. A more decided effort will be made to exalt the false Sabbath. (See page 29)

The reference from R&H, Dec. 13, 1892, reads in full: (The part omitted will be underscored)

After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations, every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation, and minds will be confused by many voices crying, "Lo, here is Christ; lo, He is there. This is the truth. I have a message from God. He has sent me with great light." Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to pull down the pillars of our faith. A more decided effort will be made to exalt the false sabbath, and to cast contempt upon God Himself by supplanting the day He blessed and sanctified.

Why the omissions? First this prophetic testimony contains a time sequence, connected by a series of conjunctive adverbs of time - "After," "Then" (This Larson omits, which in so doing destroys the force of the prophecy), and "While" later on in the reference. Larson ignores, by omission, because the statement declares that the apostasy - "the removing of the landmarks" and the tearing down of "the pillars of our faith" - come "after" the proclaiming of the truth "as a witness to all nations." Since he believes this witness is yet future, he is confronted with the fact, according to the time sequence of this reference, that what is now taking place is not really apostasy, but from the other references he does believe the church to be in apostasy. So to avoid the conflict in his own theology, his best way out is to distort truth by omission which he did by using an ellipsis.

There is a further factor in this prophetic reference from the Review & Herald. This says that "after the truth has been proclaimed as a witness," the powers of evil will be set in motion, and "minds will be confused by many voices" proclaiming they have light and a message from God. To accept the prophecy of Jesus which gives light as to when Heaven views the completion of the witness of truth would cause Larson a number of problems. He would have to admit that the "two" voices with which he is associated - Hope International and Hartland Institute - are among the "many voices" which God through His messenger says would come at this time to confuse minds.

There are only two questions which need to be asked and answered by which the issue of separation can be determined: 1) Has the Seventh-day Adventist church been weighed in the balances of the sanctuary? 2) What was the decision rendered? It is clearly stated that the Church "is to be weighed." (8T:247) The criteria by which she is to be judged is likewise clearly defined. Once the answers to these questions are determined, the action to follow is plainly illustrated in the experience of Daniel the prophet.

God did not leave Himself without a witness. Jesus gave a prophecy, and God permitted that prophecy to be fulfilled at a specific time to let His people know that corporate judgment had been completed. This evidence has been documented and published in the manuscript - The Hour and the End. It is a must to everyone who really wishes to know the answer to the question of separation.

To separate without a Biblical, "Thus saith the Lord," is to walk in the sparks of one's own kindling. To fail to separate once God gives the signal is to walk in darkness instead of the prophetic "light that shineth in a dark place." (II Peter 1:19)

WHG

*****

"If preserving the legacy of 'historic Adventism' and proclaiming its doctrines is considered our goal, commonly called, 'finishing the work,' we may find ourselves trapped. Like Jerusalem of old, we can barricade ourselves in our doctrines and programs without ever striking a blow for truth and for the God of heaven. With good reason, a prophet has warned this church that the destruction of Jerusalem is a type of the final conflict."

Made Like...His Brethren, p. 116.