|
XXII - 03(89)
"Watchman,
what of the night?"
"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
A REPORT TO DATE
Responses to QUESTIONNAIRE
On November 28, 1988, we sent by certified mail a Questionnaire to ten men whom either the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference considered as "Independent Ministries" or one which we perceived to be in the same category because of their activities and publications. With this Questionnaire we enclosed an explanatory Memo. In this Memo we clearly stated that following January 15, 1989, we would prepare a report summarizing "the response or nonresponse to this Questionnaire" by these ten men.
In the January, 1989, issue of WWN, the lead, article was entitled - "A Time to Face Reality." We included with this article a copy of the Memo and Questionnaire so that each reader could know what was sent. In concluding the article, I wrote:
I am not suffering under any disillusionment. I am sure that only a few, if any, of the ten men to whom the Questionnaire has been sent will reply. For the most part they will prefer to take the "Fifth Amendment" and will find some excuse not to respond.
However, a "few" did respond of the ten, three to be exact. What was most interesting was the fact that some readers responded, by marking the Questionnaire in WWN and returning the same to us. A retired pastor in Southern California used red ink to make emphatic his reaction to the five Fundamental Beliefs noted in the Questionnaire. All the "X's" were "No!" Then he signed his name with his regular black ink pen. A young couple in the Washington DC area, within the shadow of the "Curia on the Sligo," likewise, with emphasis, making big "X's" registered - "No!" A medical doctor on the West Coast responded marking with strong "X's" the "Yes" blanks, except for Fundamental Belief #17. He checked the "No" with
Page 2
-- the comment - "This word should be omitted" and crossed out "authoritative."
The first, of the ten men to respond to the Questionnaire was Robert W. Hauser, M . D., author of Give Glory to Him, a book using a method of interpretation alien to any used by the pioneers of this Movement. The doctor so admitted in the introduction to his book. (p. 3) The position of this editor in regard to Dr. Hauser's interpretation was accurately stated in the report by the BRI on "Independent Ministries."
Dr. Hauser answered in the affirmative to all five Fundamental Beliefs picked for the Questionnaire. Then he wrote:
First, and foremost, in answer to your question, I deny operating an independent ministry as the BRI claims. I am a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church in good and regular standing. I have never at any time accepted any tithe money nor solicited funds. I am engaged in the practice of medicine so am not dependent on any income from the church or church members.
(To keep the record straight, Frank Holbrook of the BRI actually wrote in the Institute's Report - "Although Dr. Hauser is engaged in medical practice and may not be considered as organizing an independent ministry, yet his work is similar.")
Dr. Hauser continued -
At the invitation of nearly fifty Adventist churches on the west coast I held week-end seminars in those churches from 1983-85. After the secretary to the Biblical Research Institute sent a letter to the presidents of all conferences in the North American division advising them to "keep Hauser out of the churches" the invitations still continued to come but it became necessary to utilize other facilities for the meetings. I still hold weekend seminars at the request of different groups of Adventists but none on the premises of the church. I do not publish a newsletter or periodical.
Justifying his individual interpretation of the prophecies of Revelation, Dr. Hauser wrote:
The reason that I continue to respond to requests to hold seminars and to meet with anyone interested in prophecy is that I believe that Daniel and Revelation were intended primarily for our generation.
James White and Uriah Smith did not agree in every aspect of the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation and carried on a discussion of their differences in the pages of the Review and Herald without implying that to accept the other interpretation would label someone as an independent ministry.
[Editor's note: It is true that Smith and White differed in their interpretation of certain aspects of the prophecies, but they both used the same accepted method of interpretation, which Hauser does not do as noted above. The other issue is whether Daniel and Revelation were "intended primarily" for this generation as Hauser insists.]
Elder Alexander Snyman also responded twice, first to the Questionnaire, then after receiving a copy of WWN (XXII-1) a second time. In the Thought Paper, I had written that Elder Snyman was spokesman for the American Cassette Ministries. He corrected this by writing-
I was back in 1985 and 1986, but no longer. ACM and I were always, and still are, on good terms, but it became quite obvious, with my strong emphasis on the Message of 1888, that I was preaching a message which conflicted with that being given by ACM's other speakers. My present position, as it has been for years, is one of the speakers on the 1888 Message Study Committee team.
In regard to the Questionnaire, Snyman marked "Yes " for each of the five Fundamental Beliefs listed. Then he added the following comment, asking that, if used, it be quoted in full. He wrote:
First of all, I do not consider mine an "independent" ministry. I am quite uncomfortable with this term. I prefer to consider what I do as well within the framework of the Seventh-day-Adventist Denomination.
While I believe the statements of belief as published by the denomination, my total understanding of the truth of the Gospel goes considerably beyond what is given there. As an example, the articulation of the fundamentals of the Everlasting Gospel, particularly as brought out in the Jones and Waggoner (and Ellen G. White) presentations at the General Conference held in Minneapolis in 1888, are not being given emphasis by the Seventh-day Adventist Church today, and since "this is the message God commanded to be given to the world" (TM 91-92) I feel that I should do everything I can to recover, assimilate, promote, and promulgate, this truth as far and wide as I possibly can. The vital elements of what Ellen G. White called "the Third Angel's Message in verity" (RH 4/1/1890 and
Page 3
1SM372) are what I feel should receive our first and foremost emphasis and given, under the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, to the hungering multitudes of earth.
[Editor's Note -- Elder Snyman's disassociation of himself from the American Cassette Ministries is to be applauded. If there is one agency among others which at the present time is feeding the Adventist Community "fruit" from the Tree of the Knowledge of Truth and Error, it is this ministry. However, does Snyman's response to the Questionnaire reflect the position and thinking of The 1888 Message "team" with whom
he is now associated? (Wieland and Short did not respond to the Questionnaire) In the light of this, we have sent to
Mrs. Helen Cate, Editor of Wieland and Short's official organ, a copy of the Questionnaire for her response, a copy of Elder Snyman's response, and a cover letter. (See p. 4 for cover letter)]
At "Celebration '88" held in Minneapolis, the attempt was made to associate the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief with the Message of 1888. Such major doctrines as the Law and the Sabbath, the Three Angel's Messages, and the Atonement were used as examples to show that in reality the Church was in line with what God designed for His people in 1888. The failure was not that we did not accept the message, but that we needed to preach these doctrines in the framework of the 1888 Message - the lifting up of Jesus.
Now Elder Snyman states that his "total understanding of the truth of the Gospel goes considerably beyond" the 27 Fundamentals and well it should! But in so stating, he still gives consent to five key doctrinal statements concerning which there are major questions, if not right out error. Here is a serious problem. The message of "the righteousness of Christ" by faith - using the same source he used - is declared to be "pure, unadulterated truth." (TM, p. 65) How then can he assent to error, and state that he believes it, and proclaim "the Third Angel's Message in verity"? This is a fearful mingling of truth and error in the life of one professing to proclaim "pure, unadulterated truth." While James used a series of questions in another context, they are likewise apropos here. He asked:
Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain yield salt water and fresh." (James 3:11-12)
Now let us face reality. To consider one's ministry to be "well within the framework of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination" which means giving assent to the 27 Fundamentals, and then seek to promulgate "the message of 1888", as something "beyond" yet in harmony with, is duplicity. This is Laodiceanism compounded because it is perceiving the message of Jesus standing at the door as consistent and in harmony with the tenets of Laodicea itself. The tenets of Laodicea and the "message" of Jesus at the door are totally incompatible or else He would not be at the door, but inside!
There is another point of this attempted mingling of error with the giving of "the Message of 1888" to meet the need of 1989. It centers in "the search for the Cross." What we either fail, or refuse to recognize is that "the Cross" is to be found "without the gate." (Heb. 13:12) To bear a message of "Christ's righteousness" involves also "bearing His reproach" (13:13) But not doing so, the message, no matter how true it is in and of itself, is being used in a manner which deceives the laity. This comes under the sin category of the ancient sanctuary services wherein the High Priest in his official capacity caused Israel to sin. This "official" sin was considered in the eyes of the Lord as corporate in nature, and corporate confession was required. The sad part of that ancient picture is that forgiveness" was left in suspended judgment. (See Commentary, Vol . III , #2, p. 2 ) All of these factors make it mandatory that the 1888 Message Study Committee through its Chairperson-Editor state its position clearly even if Wieland and Short take the "Fifth
Amendment" personally.
Ron Spear of Hope International responded through his Associate Executive Director, Joe DiGiacomo. Mr. DiGiacomo wrote:
We received your questionnaire and cover letter. Regarding it, any yes/no evaluation of selected fundamental beliefs begs a nonqualitative response as these are typically qualitative issues. Consequently, we cannot respond to your questionnaire at this time. Up to this time we have not performed a thorough analysis of the 27 fundamental beliefs. Thus we cannot provide an official critique of them. (Letter dated, January 3, 1989.)
The Questionnaire provided space to clarify one's position, or to qualify any answers given. In fact, both Dr. Hauser and Elder Snyman utilized the space provided either to protest their inclusion as an independent ministry, or to explain their mission. So to say that R. D. Spear could not reply because it required more than a Yes/No answer is begging the question. However, the truth did come out in an unbelievable admission. Note again what was written "Up to this time we have not performed a thorough analysis of the 27 fundamental beliefs." These Statements were voted over eight years ago! The last two quarters of 1988 were devoted to the study of the 27 Fundamentals! What did Spear and his associates study for their Sabbath School lessons those two quarters? This is irresponsible leadership. If less time had been spent in going after the "deep pockets" to support an "ego" trip, and that time had been devoted to knowing where one stood on the doctrinal issues confronting the Church such an excuse for default of responsibility would not need to have been pled.
This is a form of agnosticism which marks Laodicean blindness. It is not that one cannot see to read. It is not that one does not have a mind to think. To plead ignorance, one can continue in a work of deception, and thus avoid taking a stand which might endanger the flow of revenue. Jesus summed it up well, when He described such as "blind guides." (Matt. 23:16, 26) Now the question remains, how long will many of God's professed people continue to be enamored with such leadership? The counsel of Jesus should be heeded - "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (Matt. 15:14)
It is tragic when individuals become conscious that something is wrong within the Church, and then in seeking an answer are lulled into a fatal security by these "blind guides." The facade is beautifully deceptive in their publication - Our Firm Foundation. They use extensively Ellen G. White material to project an image of "real" Adventism. Why could they not have marked at least, "Yes" for Statement #17? Or are they merely using Ellen G. White to further their own ends?
Soon after the Questionnaire was posted, we received a letter from Hartland Institute indicating that Dr. Colin Standish was "on furlough in Australia until the end of December," but as soon as he returned the certified letter would be given to him. We, also, received the first of January a letter from a brother in Australia with whom Dr. Standish had been visiting. It stated that Dr. Standish left on the 29th and had agreed to bring an item from him for us. To date (Feb. 8), we have heard nothing from Dr. Standish, nor have we received what the brother sent. Barring personal tragedy, or an emergency at Hartland Institute, this is highly questionable conduct.
Not only has Dr. Standish not replied, nor any of the following: Charles Wheeling, John Osborn, Vance Ferrell, Elder Joe Crews, and Elders R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short. This silence would indicate that these would prefer to take the "Fifth Amendment." There is an adage, however, which says that "Silence is consent." If this be so, then why are any of these independent? If the 27 Fundamentals as voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980 are their confession of faith, there is no reason why they shouldn't be incomplete working arrangement with the Takoma Park based Church, in educational pursuits, in evangelism, and in pastoral ministry, as well as in literature distribution.
If on the other hand, the 27 Fundamentals are not their confession of faith, they ought to be forthright and stand up and be counted. Genuine Christian character is not developed by taking a compromised position, or by remaining silent in a time of crisis. Paul wrote that "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Rom. 10:10) There are no provisions for taking the "Fifth Amendment" in the Constitution of Heaven. In fact, in the Charter of the Kingdom of Heaven as outlined by Jesus we call it the Sermon on the Mount He declared - "Let your word be, Yes, yes; No, no: for whatsoever is more than these cometh from the evil, one." (Matt. 5:37 lit.)
What is our position? We do not believe that the 27 Fundamentals as voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980, express the true faith which should characterize God's remnant people in the closing hours of time. We perceive the Statements as voted a betrayal of the "sacred trust" committed by God to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (See Documentary - #SS-2 - "The Sacred Trust BETRAYED!")
Page 4
January 25, 1989
Mrs. Helen Cate, Editor
The 1888 Message
2934 Sherbrook Dr.
Uniontown, OH 44685
Dear Mrs. Cate;
On December 21, 1988, Elder Alexander Snyman replied to the Questionnaire concerning belief in certain specific statements from the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. (A copy of his response is enclosed)
When we chose his name along with Elders Wieland and Short, in addition to the names listed by the Biblical Research Institute as "Independent Ministries," we were under the impression that Elder Snyman "was a spokesmen for the American Cassette Ministries." After receiving WWN (XXII-1) in which we had so stated, he wrote to us that this was no longer so, but that his "present position, as it has been for years, is one of the speakers on the 1888 Message Study Committee team."
We are with this letter enclosing a copy of the Questionnaire for your response. Do you as Editor believe in regard to the five statements cited as Elder Snyman, one of your speakers, does? Further, I am sure you are in full agreement with what Elder Snyman wrote regarding the Everlasting Gospel. You need not repeat this, but would you reconcile your concept of the Everlasting Gospel with the Fundamentals as cited in the Questionnaire.
Further, can I accept your response as reflective of the position of Elders Wieland and Short, since you are editor of their official organ? They have apparently chosen to take "The Fifth
Amendment" in regard to the Questionnaire which was sent to them.
Looking forward to your reply, I remain,
Respectfully yours,
Wm. H. Grotheer, Editor
Page 5
THE OPPORTUNISTS TOOK THE BAIT!
Principle Is Principle!
After Marik Comes Kinship!
Now that the reaction both pro and con has somewhat subsided to the article - "What's In a Name?" (XXI-12) - and factual information is being requested, perhaps a candid discussion of the facts connected with the choice of a name in 1860 would be enlightening. But first a few comments.
When reams of paper are used to inflame the emotions of concerned Adventists, with many "the kingly power of reason" is dethroned. It is surprising how many good people have been caught up in this propaganda crusade. But perhaps now that "Trademark" litigation which cannot be camouflaged by "paper" confronts the same ones who have "used" the Marik case, their "nakedness" might help sincere people see through the charade.
In the last issue of WWN, p. 7, we noted a news item that in February, the case involving professing Seventh-day Adventists homosexuals, and their use of the name is scheduled for trial in Los Angeles. Are the same ones who signed a petition for the Marik case going to sign a similar petition for the Kinship group of homosexuals who desire to use the name, Seventh-day Adventist? Sadly, many have been led down a "dead-end" street by following blind leaders who can see no further ahead than the sentence to follow the last sentence they put into their word processor. I am sure that many a concerned dissident, and regular member as well, were swept up in the emotional frenzy created by a deceptive press, which did not inform them that Marik was as far out in Adventist doctrinal teaching in one direction as the Kinship group is in "life-style" in another direction. Quite frankly, it will be interesting to see how many "tracts" and "updates" Vance Ferrell "reams" out supporting the Kinship group in their "Trademark" litigation. Will Max Corbett offer his services to them free, and will contributions be solicited? AND, will you give of your time and money as you did in the Marik case?
Principle is principle no matter who is involved. If principle was at stake in the Marik case, the same principle is at stake in the Kinship case. Isn't it the same "Big Bad Wolf" who is taking action against the Kinship group that took action against the poor little Hawaiian church? Really now weren't the emotions inflamed to be "against" under the guise of being "for"? And now, to continue to be "against" brings one face to face with being "for" something that is not palatable. Tragically the "sheep" are the ones who are
left "penned up" while an editor and a "do-gooder-for-free " seek something else sensational to write or advocate so as to titillate the "ears" of their devotees. Will God's concerned people never learn, and continue to be deceived by the propaganda being rolled off the presses in reams?
On May 13, 1860, the group of Adventist believers in Parkville, Michigan, before erecting a church, organized so as to "hold property in a lawful manner." They used the name of "Parkville Church of Christ's second advent." Loughborough remarked - "Perhaps a more appropriate name will be chosen by us as a people." At this very time, a question high on the agenda of the leadership of the fledgling Adventist Church was - Who was to hold the title to the Church's publishing house - the Review and Herald? To have an organization that could hold property, it had to have a name as well as being organized. In setting up the organization, a name was chosen which became the "trademark" of that organization. It was not generic, but a name chosen by a specific group of people under which they could operate lawfully. At that time, the keeping of the Sabbath and the belief in Christ's soon return was a unique combination, and so attested to by Ellen G. White with the approbation of Heaven. (lT:223-224)
Today that name is no longer unique, though still the official legal name of the Church. There are numerous groups who recognize the seventh-day Sabbath, and who believe in the soon return of Jesus a second time. In a nearby community, on the Sabbath some fifty Seventh-day Adventists meet in their church, while in the same town another one hundred and fifty likewise meet on the Sabbath and
Page 6
they, too, believe in the second coming of Christ. These are not Adventist dissidents. They have another official name, and few, if any, were ever Seventh-day Adventists. Today, and time and place must be considered, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is officially the church which believes the 27 Statements of Fundamental Beliefs voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980. An article in the SDA Encyclopedia explains:
The full title "Seventh-day Adventist" (or the equivalent title in various languages) is the official name of a specific denomination with a specific body of doctrines, of which the Sabbath and the Second Advent form only a part. (p. 1324. See also p. 1044; 1976 ed.)
All the institutions of the Church are held in this name. In reality ever since 1860, it has been the "trademark" name of the organization. Recently, steps were taken to make the fact, legally restrictive. How the leadership of the Church have proceeded to implement this action is the key question. The method chosen has afforded certain dissidents an opportunity to inflame the emotions of many Adventists. But what alternate solution has been suggested to the Church leadership by those who are critical of the method being pursued? Ferrell has not proposed any, neither has Max Corbett. I have none to offer either, because I believe the solution for those who are concerned in Adventism today is in another direction. I do not believe in modern charismatic manifestations unless adequate verification is made. Thus I could not support Marik's use of a name that does not stand for what he believes to be a part of his "Christian" experience. Neither can I support the Kinship defense as I believe their life-style is contrary to the Holy Scriptures.
Let this fact be engraved in the mind of whoever reads this article. The name, Seventh-day Adventist, now stands for a group of people who accept as their confession the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief as voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980. While it is true that these 1980 Statements are at variance with previous Statements starting with the first formulation in 1872, the historic continuance of the organization from 1863 to 1989 confirms the title to the name, Seventh-day Adventist, to the Takoma Park based church. Whether the leadership of the Church has now officially trademarked the name is actually irrelevant, because in forming a publishing organization in 1860 to hold title to property, that name became theirs uniquely when on May 13, 1861, under the laws of the State of Michigan, they incorporated as the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association. It is not generic. It is specific - a trade-mark name. When in 1971 a group of laymen and myself formed the Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi, Inc., a search was first made by the State Agency involved with charters to see if the name chosen was unique. It was and the charter was issued. No one else has the right to use that name without permission.
At this point certain questions face each person who believes himself to be a Seventh-day Adventist. Do you accept as your confession of faith the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief? If not, then you cannot in strict honesty call yourself a Seventh-day Adventist. This is why so many of the leaders of the "independent ministries" to whom the Questionnaire was sent are seeking to take the "Fifth Amendment." They are not willing to face this reality. The second question is - if you face the reality, what do you do? Why you must do something is now made very clear by recent Judicial opinions being rendered today in America against "individuality in religion." This we will discuss in the next issue of WWN.
WHG
|