|
PROFILE OF Wm. H. GROTHEER AND HISTORY OF ADVENTIST LAYMEN'S FOUNDATION To understand the work of Adventist Laymen's Foundation one needs to understand the man, William H. Grotheer, principal founder of the organization. Ellen G. White wrote: The greatest want of the world is the want of men-- men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall. (Education, p. 57.) Like any other mortal, the man was not without his flaws; but he had the basic qualities of character which conform to this description by Mrs. White. This enabled him to take a stand against the Church organization upon which he was dependent for his livelihood. He was also well-prepared by intellect and educational qualifications to take issue with a progression of apostasy from the Truth by the Seventh-day Adventist Church which burst into the open in the late 1950s. Antagonistic towards Elder Grotheer's work, an educational arm of the Church organization, the Center for Adventist Research, James White Library, Andrews University, damns him with faint praise: William H. Grotheer was born in Boone, Iowa, on October 14, 1920, as the son of Henry and Nora Bohner Grotheer. In 1942, he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from Union College at Lincoln, Nebraska. He married Dorothea Miller. As a young man he worked as a pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada and then in theUnited States serving at the First Toronto Seventh-day Adventist Church (1950) among others. By the mid-1960s he was the head of the Bible and History Department at Madison College. He then went to Andrews University where he completed a Master of Arts degree in 1966 graduating “cum laude.” Afterwards he requested a leave of absence in order to be free to write and speak. Soon after, he established Adventist Laymen’s Foundation, which also accepted tithe and offerings. The Foundation built a campus in Ozone, Arkansas, where monthly convocations, annual fellowships, and other meetings took place. Grotheer spoke at many meetings around the country. He also published the periodical, Watchman, What of the Night? from 1967 to 2006. On March 26, 1972, he was dropped from membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He was well acquainted with Greek, and studied the writings of Ellen G. White, M. L. Andreasen, and other writers. He was active and well-known among Adventist Independent ministries. The damning with faint praise is readily apparent after mention of Elder Grotheer's request for a leave of absence. He did indeed establish Adventist Laymen's Foundation in association with laymen who were concerned as he was about the apostasy in the fundamental doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The payment of tithes and offerings to the Foundation was not because of solicitation by the Foundation. This is one of the characteristics which has set the Foundation apart from the general world of Independents. (Cf. LET'S TALK ABOUT MONEY, highlighted.) To merely state that "Grotheer spoke at many meetings around the country" is to fall far short of his extensive influence throughout the United States. His sermons and lectures were always instructional in biblical exegesis and sound doctrine. His own study was broad and deep, and extended far beyond the writings of Ellen G. White, M. L. Andreasen, "and other writers." His writings and sermons are laced with a scholarly knowledge of biblical, church, and secular history. His expositions are fully documented for verification. Grotheer's calling to his special ministry is described in the following quotation from "Let's Talk About Money": Perhaps it would be in order to tell you how this work began. I was employed in an educational project in the State of Mississippi which required driving a 120 mile round trip each day. [At that time, I had requested, and received a leave of absence from the ministry.] Due to testing that I had to supervise, sometimes it was late at night - midnight and after - when I would return home. This left me with little time for my first love - study, and research. The dark clouds of apostasy were getting darker and heavier, and voices of warning were few indeed back there in 1967. Already the last sign Jesus had given was in the process of fulfillment. I had not perceived this fact at that time - that came a few years later. One morning - after one of those nights of testing in this Adult Learning Program - I was returning to the Center in Yazoo City. My mind was agitated - torn between what I was doing, and what God was calling me to do. I pulled over to the side of the road, and broke down in crying. It was then that I told the Lord that if He would find me a job closer to home so that I would have time to study and write, I would do it. He did, and I, by His grace, kept my word - the first Thought Paper was published, January, 1968, and has been in continuous publication since then. On the subject of Elder Grotheer being a disfellowshipped member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the history is stated in the following quotation from a letter from him to Robert H. Pierson, President of the General Conference dated July 12, 1976: In your letter you state "that the brethren must have had good grounds for separating him from the organized work." The facts are that I took a voluntary leave of absence from the organized work. In a statement dated November 29, 1966, on official stationary, Elder H. H. Schmidt, President of the Southern Union Conference stated: -"This is to establish the fact that Wm. H. Grotheer left the employ of Old Madison College and the Southern Union Conference strictly on his own, June 1, 1965. He was in good and regular standing as a denominational worker when he took this voluntary leave of absence." Not only has this statement been written, but my credentials were maintained until 1967 by the Southern Union Conference, when at the Session in that year, they were allowed to "lapse". At no time have my credentials ever been taken from me, nor requested from me. . . In your letter you state that you do not know "what grounds" were given to disfellowship me from the church several years back. Has one of your division presidents been so derelict in his responsibilities that he did not inform you of the committee he appointed to hear the case, and did he not give you a copy of the report issued by the committee? Let me refresh your memory by outlining for you the facts involved. When the charter of the Adventists Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi was granted, action was forthcoming to remove me from the church roll on the grounds of insubordination as I was not recognizing properly constituted church authority. It was first attempted by board action alone, and then under pressure of the fact that such was not in keeping with the Church Manual, a business meeting was called for the purpose. At this business meeting, attended by the local conference president, action to disfellowship me was taken without me being able to speak in my own defense as is guaranteed in the Church Manual. Interestingly, also, is the fact that not another single board member of the Foundation at that time, and none since, have been called in question as to their membership. If I were in “sin" because I was a member of the board, then were not all members of the same board also in "sin"? So I appealed the unScriptural and unconstitutional action taken. A committee of administrators, pastors, and laymen was set up, who came to Mississippi to hear the case. They issued a report entitled - "Grotheer Hearing Committee". Among the recommendations made was that the Foundation be dissolved and that "any assets of the Foundation be paid over to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and an accounting be given of prior receipts and expenditures." In 1972, I was totally unaware that you and other church leaders were playing in the legal "crap game” the world uses with the money the laity entrusted to you. (I use the term, "crap game" because that is how a Seventh-day Adventist layman in good and regular standing, and who is himself a stock broker, described the transactions of the stock market.) Now let me assure you that at no time has the Foundation had enough money to cover the paper and/or real losses sustained by your administration in the stock market. Further, at no time have we had enough money to invest in such a game, and even if we did, we would not play the stock market. We believe that the funds placed with the Foundation are a sacred trust to be used in harmony with the will of God for this time so that His people might be warned of the apostasy in high places. Now there are other aspects of this Committee report that you may not know. In a letter from one of the members of the committee after the hearing, I was told that if I met the conditions noted in the above paragraph, and others such as personally recognizing myself as no longer a minister of the Gospel, then I could be restored to church membership "on a basis different than would be in the case in most circumstances." This was explained verbally to me by the individual to mean that I would not need to be rebaptized, nor make a profession of faith. Now let the implications of this fact sink into your thinking. Further, I received a letter from still another member of the same hearing committee which stated - "On several occasions he [Elder L. L. Bock, the chairman] made it emphatically clear that whatever the problem was, it was certainly not in the area of theology." Now let us do a little reasoning together. You know that I was once a minister in the organization - some twenty-five years holding regular credentials, the prime years of my life. From your viewpoint, I am now a lost sheep of the house of Israel. Have you as the first minister of the church as you style yourself, adopted a shepherd's role, and made any attempt to find the "lost sheep"? If I am in a lost condition, should you not seek to rescue me as you encourage your ministers to seek the lost in the world? Did not Christ die for me, as well as for them? Is my soul of no value to you? Or are you afraid if we sat down together, you could not defend the heresy and error you have placed your imprimatur upon? Here is proof of the great courage and integrity that Elder Grotheer exhibited in the confrontation between him and the Church hierarchy. When he died in 2009 some issues had to be resolved by a Court of Law. Surreptitious efforts were made by representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church organization in the course of the court hearings to stake a claim to the Foundation's assets . Also, an agent/agents of the Center for Adventist Research conspired with Elder Grotheer's daughter, Anne Shull, to unlawfully remove the most valuable research papers and books of the Foundation from its Campus, and these are now lodged in the Center's library. As to the court hearings, the Court commissioned a Research Report by one David W. Daily, Ph.D., which captured the qualities of the man and the Foundation's written and audio publications that make them a unique and verifiably valid source of true Seventh-day Adventist theology. Under the heading ALF’s Relationship with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church Dr. Daily wrote: The relationship between ALF and the Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA) may be traced in part through a brief account of the life of William Grotheer. Grotheer and his mother converted to the SDA Church when he was a child. He started preaching when he was ten years old and as a young man was ordained an elder in the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA). He studied at SDA institutions, including Union College in Nebraska and Andrews University in Michigan, and in the mid-sixties he took a leave of absence as a minister in good standing. That leave of absence ended in the mid-eighties when the SDA regional conference in Mississippi reportedly withdrew his ministerial credentials. [Incorrect.) The story of Grotheer’s adult life is that of a growing estrangement from the SDA Church and an increasing theological isolation from other Adventist organizations. In fact, he spent most of his adult life documenting the ways in which SDA Church leadership had compromised and ultimately abandoned what he saw as the central truths of Adventism. Most of those compromises, from his point of view, glossed over distinctive Adventist teachings in order to make the SDA Church more in line with other Protestant sects. Grotheer’s breech with the SDA Church was more or less complete in 1980, when the SDA General Conference approved a new statement of faith called “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists.” In his view, the 1980 statement of faith compromised historic Adventist theological traditions in several key areas. Some of these areas are listed below, with brief explanations attached. No attempt is made to provide the full theological and exegetical bases for these differences, although further explanation may be provided if the court desires. 1. Doctrine of Christ. The SDA Church used the traditional language of conservative, evangelical Protestants to describe the doctrine of the incarnation, in which Christ assumed a sinless human body on earth. This represented a shift away from earlier SDA teachings that the divine Word had assumed fallen, sinful, human flesh. 2. Doctrine of the Godhead. The SDA Church moved toward historic creedal formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity, while Adventist teachings had previously tended toward tri-theism. Here again, the trend was toward making the SDA movement more in line with evangelical groups like those associated with the National Association of Evangelicals. 3. Doctrine of the sanctuary. The SDA Church downplayed the significance of Adventist teachings about Christ’s post-ascension atoning work in the heavenly sanctuary, or temple, presenting the more evangelical view that the atonement was accomplished exclusively and completely through Christ’s crucifixion. 4. Doctrine of scripture. The SDA Church increasingly emphasized the use of modern historical-critical methods in interpreting scripture, in contrast to viewing scripture as “self-attesting,” particularly by means of the proof-texting method. Also, according to Grotheer, the SDA Church compromised the teaching of “sola scriptura” (scripture alone) by granting parallel authority to the writings of Ellen White (1827-1915), one of the founding figures in the history of the Adventist movement. 5. Doctrine of sanctification and the “final generation.” The SDA Church, according to Grotheer, has largely rejected the earlier view that at the approach of Christ’s advent or return, a remnant of Christians would be given the grace to live a sinless life while still embodied in sinful flesh. 6. Attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church. Beginning in 1977 some SDA Church leaders were involved in dialogues with the Vatican. This development showed a obvious softening of earlier SDA teachings that identified the papacy with the Satanic beast in Revelation 13. 7. Priority of doctrinal purity over church unity. The SDA Church has sought to use its statements of faith over the last thirty or forty years to allow for a wider diversity of belief within SDA institutions. At the root of Grotheer’s objections to the SDA is its latitudinarian (or tolerant) approach to doctrine as a means to maintaining church unity. This list of theological issues is not meant to be comprehensive. Grotheer’s writings grew out of what appear to have been a tightly organized system of thought, so his differences with the SDA Church in any one doctrine would also have resulted in differences in others as well. Note the last paragraph, which underscores the comprehensive scope of the systematic theology exposited by Elder Grotheer. This stands in stark contrast to the many, many, laymen "theologians" in the community of Seventh-day Adventists who fail to understand how Bible doctrines are interlocked when established by sound exegesis. It is unwise to regard all learning as suspect and unworthy of respect because the scholars of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have embraced the false theology of apostate Christianity. Grotheer has stood in opposition to them from the very beginning. Dr. Daily's Report dealt with the differences between Grotheer and the "Historic Adventism" movement in the Seventh-day Adventist community. Under the heading ALF’s Relationship with Historic Adventism he wrote: If Grotheer had no constructive relationship with the SDA Church, then that raises the question of his possible relationship to other Adventist movements or organizations. On that issue, I have found that Grotheer’s thought had at least some affinities with a movement called “Historic Adventism,” although he stood at a distance from that movement as well. Historic Adventism may be defined as a reform movement within the SDA Church that seeks to steer the denomination back to what it sees as distinctive Adventist doctrines. There are a wide range of groups that make up Historic Adventism, with the Hartland Institute and Hope International being the most prominent among them. While Historic Adventists are diverse in their beliefs, they typically share an admiration for the thought of M. L. Andreasen (1876-1962), who sounded the alarm about a possible drift away from distinctive Adventist doctrines in the late 1950s. The focal point of Andreasen’s dissent was the controversial book, Questions on Doctrine (1957), which was published with the support of SDA denominational officials. It grew out of dialogues between prominent SDA leaders and two evangelical theologians named Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin. The dialogues were prompted by an incident in which Barnhouse, on a widely-heard radio program, described the SDA Church as an heretical cult. SDA leaders sought to convince Barnhouse and other conservative Christians in America that the SDA Church was not heretical and that its core beliefs were consistent with historic Christian creeds. For Andreasen and other Historic Adventists, those dialogues—and the 1957 book that resulted from them—brought to light a dangerous trend toward integrating the SDA Church within the broader evangelical movement in America. Grotheer shared that point of view. In fact, in his interpretation of SDA Church history, the 1980 SDA statement of faith—which helped to seal Grotheer’s final break with the SDA—was the culmination of the trajectory that first became apparent in the publication of Questions on Doctrine twenty-three years earlier. It is clear, then, that Grotheer maintained a point of view in sympathy with a larger dissenting movement known as Historic Adventism. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that Grotheer stood apart from the Historic Adventist movement in several important ways. First, he did not grant Ellen White’s writing as much authority as Historic Adventists typically do. By his own estimation, his sola scriptura standard separated him from 95% of the other “independent ministries” identified with Historic Adventism . . . Second, he believed that many Historic Adventists veered toward a wooden recapitulation of earlier doctrines, when the Adventist doctrine of “present truth” required instead that believers build and develop the earlier doctrines by interpreting the Bible in light of new developments in the world. Third, he believed that many Historic Adventists interpreted Adventist thought in such a way that it supported a misguided “works-righteousness,” thereby compromising the teaching of salvation by faith alone. At the heart of this issue, for Grotheer, was Herbert Douglass’ teaching of the “harvest principle,” which said that a final generation of believers will achieve a state of sinlessness. Grotheer shares Douglass’ “last generation” theology, but regards their sinlessness as the result of a gift of grace rather than an act of their own sanctification. Fourth, and most importantly, he went further than Historic Adventist groups in declaring the SDA denomination as an apostate church. Most Historic Adventist groups seek to reform the SDA Church, while Grotheer’s energies were directed toward condemning the SDA denomination and urging its members to leave it for the sake of the truth. [Underscored emphasis added.] Here, from our intimate knowledge of Elder Grotheer's methodology of biblical exegesis two of Dr. Daily's statements need to be clarified. On the subject of Ellen G. White's authority Grotheer was doing two things: following the "Sola Scriptura" principle of the Protestant Reformation and the counsel of Ellen G. White herself. In SOME THINGS NEED TO BE SAID (WWN July, 1989,) Elder Grotheer quoted a statement of Ellen G. White (in italics in the following extract) in the following context: Today, the "many voices" which Ellen G. White herself prophesied would come after a certain point in time was reached, and have come, are using her Writings to either sustain their theories, or as a facade to give a show of being on the "firm foundation." Tragically, many concerned Adventists, when they become aware of what has and is taking place within the regular organization, grasp at any publication which carries articles by Ellen G. White, believing that here must be the real "historic message." Others are enamored by studies given by these "voices" which make the whole or major part of their presentations nothing but a series of "quotes" from the Writings. [Underscored emphasis added.] [There is an exception. In a study or presentation of the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, there must be much use made of the Writings, for in them we have God's evaluation of the events and actions that have taken place in that history.] What has the Lord's messenger actually written as to the people God will have upon the earth to give the final witness? She stated clearly: God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. (SP, IV, p. 413) In 1894, Ellen G. White wrote, "Our position and faith is in the Bible. And never do we want any soul to bring in the Testimonies ahead of the Bible. (Manuscript 7; Emphasis supplied) Yet there are those today who will state that the Sacred Scriptures are a composite of the Bible and the Writings of Ellen G. White. Yet the one who has so written confesses that he does very little study of theology, but in his spare time reads history and science. Now "theology" in its simplest form is the study of God and His workings in time; in other words, the Bible. What a travesty is being practiced on God's professed people by this one of the "many voices"! [Underscored emphasis added.] This same "Sola Scriptura" foundation of Grotheer's theological work precluded advocacy that "believers build and develop the earlier doctrines by interpreting the Bible in light of new developments in the world." In "WHAT IS IT? BASIC ADVENTISM" (WWN MAY, 1993,) he stated: What was to be the nature of Adventism which the Messenger of the Lord envisioned for the Church? This is not a trivia question, but a question fraught with eternal consequences. In 1890, Ellen White addressed this question. She wrote: We must not think, "Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge." The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light." (R&H, March 25, 1890; underscored emphasis supplied) This vision of "advancing truth" and "increasing light" was an issue at the time of the 1888 message, and it has become an issue again as a result of the present crisis in Adventism. The resolution of this crisis cannot be found in the hue and cry of staying with Historic Adventism. This is deceptive, just as deceptive as staying in the apostasy that has engulfed the Church. It leaves those who embrace this concept in the same Laodicean blindness that they decry in the leadership of the Church itself. The advancing truth can be found only through sound exegesis of the Bible and the Bible only, and Grotheer never wavered from this position. Perhaps Dr. Daily confused doctrine and prophecy. The historical method of interpretation of prophecy is never abandoned; but "new developments in the world" can change our understanding of a specific prophecy (Elder Grotheer's interpretation of Luke 21:24 is a prominent example.) This history is a portrait of a man who was moved by a call to the Gospel ministry at an extraorinarily youthful age. He was ever committed to providing meat in due season, which is pure, unadulterated Truth, for the flock of Jesus. There was not a hint of compromise in his spirit. To maintain this uncompromising posture required a strong character, and a willingness to stand alone. There is every indication that he was a chosen vessel - a fact that the many in the community of Seventh-day Adventists are neither inclined nor willing to recognize. Demonstrably, Elder Grotheer's teaching ministry, even after he is gone, has the effect of training the laity in the same methodology of biblical exegesis that enabled him to expound sound doctrine. (Cf. BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS, and A BIBLICAL HERMENEUTIC, and Note the following passage in the latter): The "proof text" method used by Christ as He interpreted the Scriptures is the same method used by His disciples after He "opened ... their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." (Luke 24:45) One has only to read the first gospel to see its use in operation. An event in the life of Jesus is cited. Then following the historical accounting is written - "Now all of this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying" - and the prophet is quoted. (See Matt. 1:22; 2:6, 17, 23; 3:3) Moved by the Spirit, Peter on the Day of Pentecost used the same method. (Acts 2:16, 25, 34-35) Paul's recorded sermon in the" synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia follows the same hermeneutic. (Acts 13:32-37) These chosen men of God - called and instructed by the Son - turned the world upside down altering the course of history as per the Divine Design. An interesting summary is to be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It reads: To the first Christians, who, were Jews, the law and the Prophets were already sacred. Their national sacred writings were to them the oracles of God, though they could no longer be regarded as containing the whole truth of God. The coming of the Messiah had revealed God with a completeness that could not be discovered in the Old Testament. The word of the Lord was authoritative as even Moses and the prophets were not. Yet since all the hopes of the Old Testament seemed to these Jewish Christians to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, they more than ever were convinced that their national sacred books were divinely inspired. From this source they drew, if not the articles of their creed, at least the proofs and supports of their doctrines. Christ died and rose again, according to the scriptures. All the writings of the Old Testament spoke of Christ to them. Legal enactment, prophetic utterance, simple historical record, and more emotional psalm, - all alike could be covered by the phrase "the scripture says," all were treated as of one piece, and by diligent use of type and allegory single passages torn form any context could be used as proof texts to commend or defend belief in Christ. (Vol. 3, p. 499, 1958 ed.) One can view the method of the-apostles as "single passages torn from any context" or one can perceive it as spiritual discernment by which the Divine Design which "was kept secret since the world began" was understood from "the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God ... for the obedience of faith." (Rom. 16:25-26) (Italicized emphasis added.) The reader is offered the opportunity to read and listen to Wm H. Grotheer's Bible expositions with Bible opened to test the validity of the doctrinal and prophetic positions of the writings and sermons. The commendation of Acts 17:10-11 is one to be coveted: And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:10-11.) But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day (Proverbs 4:18.) CONVINCED THAT WM. H. GROTHEER'S SERMONS AND WATCHMAN, WHAT OF THE NIGHT? ARTICLES ARE BIBLICAL TRUTH? IF SO:
"Review, |
