Editorial - "Where is the Lord God of Elijah"...2

A Critique- "The Holy Flesh Movement".................5

Which Way? The Church Rome? Moscow?..............8

The POT and the KETTLE....................................10

Page 2

"Where Is the Lord God of Elijah?"

A "Special Report" supplement to the National & International Religion Report for April 3, 1987 began by saying - "There is an ethical crisis among Christian fundraisers. This is not news. It was not news even before the Oral Roberts story and the Jim Bakker story erupted into headlines." This crisis did prompt a conference which convened in March at Kansas City sponsored jointly by the Christian Stewardship Council and the Billy Graham Center. More than 600 registered, coming in the main from evangelical denominations. Three days were spent in search of "a more excellent way" in fundraising.

Although we in our Laodicean blindness may not recognize it, this same ethical crisis confronts the Adventist community, whether dissident or regular; whether within the accepted perimeter or outside. The hustlers and the con artists aren't restricted to just the TV showmen of the charismatic wing of the evangelical community. The independent ministries of Adventism are making merchandise of what is termed "traditional or historical Adventism." When the editor of Our Firm Foundation boasts that he goes after "the deep pockets" and the pastor of the Prophecy Countdown ministries introduces his sermon - "The Real Elijah Message with a pitch for "big" money telling of $30,000 in four days, the ethical crisis in Adventist fundraising has surfaced whether we are willing to face the implications or not.

The implication involving the hustlers in Adventism is more than the issue of how the money is being spent, or if the cause for which it is being spent is truly the proclamation of the Third Angel's Message. It is a question of simple faith and trust in God versus a trust and dependence on men. It is a question of whether we are merely proclaiming "traditional Adventism" in a setting which projects self, or are we truly presenting that message in verity which finds its basis in faith. (See R&H, April 1, 1890) It is more than merely saying that one is preaching the real Elijah message, or whether one is truly emulating the faith of Elijah in Elijah's God. "Where is the God of Elijah?"

Elijah did not solicit a piece of land along the Brook Cherith. God sent him there and commanded the ravens to feed him. (I Kings 17:24) Elijah did not send "an electronic letter" to the widow woman of Zerephath, who did not even have a SS check. God sent him there and provided a divine "social security." (I Kings 17:9) God even provided for His errant servant, who having exhausted his energy fell asleep under a juniper tree. (I Kings 19:4-7)

Page 3

It is easy by means of modern electronics to project one's self, but when the facade is torn away and the veneer penetrated, the shallowness can be seen. Where is the Lord God of Elijah? He is not there! Froth and icing, glitter and tinsel is substituted for reality. And when the "party" is over, it will be seen for what it is - another "high" on the "broad" way.

Fundamental principles of truth are involved in the proclamation of the truth. It is all one package. You do not profess to proclaim truth, and support it by unethical means, -means which either deny the true God, or means which reveal we are serving a different God than is revealed in the Bible. The God of Elijah is not a different God today than He was in Elijah's time. The Bible states that that God declares - "Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet." (Mal. 3:5) That prophet will not be going after "deep pockets" nor will he be seeking to project self by exploiting "traditional Adventism"; but that prophet will be presenting present truth relying on God to provide as He did under the Juniper tree, and by the Brook Cherith.

Tragically, we are living in a time when "a wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof ?" (Jer 5:30-31) If God's professed people knew their Bibles, these "priestly" hustlers in Adventism could not obtain "the means" which they do; the "deep pockets" would be zipped shut to them.

We are living under the New Covenant. What this New Covenant relationship means is clearly spelled out in the Word. When God's Spirit writes in each heart His will - the law - "they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." (Heb. 8:11) John writes that all under this Spirit guided relationship receive "the anointing" and "need not that any man teach" them. (I John 2:27) Those thus anointed understand clearly "that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (I Cor. 9:14) They do not have to be told, coerced through electronic letters, or "mind controlled" into giving. If led by the Spirit of truth, they will not only support that which is truth, but that which is operated on the principles of truth. Man cannot bless the giver except in words - but the giver who gives under the Spirit of truth will be blessed by the Lord God of Elijah. They will operate freely under the New Covenant rather than under the PR tactics of the hustlers in Adventism.

Those who are using PR tactics are telling you something if you will stop and listen. Their call is not from God - though they may say so - but rather either from men, or from self mesmerism. If it were from God, then God would supply the need to meet the fulfillment of the call without their soliciting a single penny. This is what the God of Elijah did! But when men have to go to men to obtain their funds instead of letting the Spirit of God move on human hearts to provide, you can be sure that the project, program, or whatever, is of man.

Page 4

Then there is a further revelation of God, or gods. Men create a god perhaps only a philosophical god, but nevertheless a god to them as real as any idol ever carved by the heathen; and since that god cannot provide for them, they have to plead, beg, and promote give-aways to bring in the money. One concrete example of this is God's Last Call Ministries. Mike Clute's god does not destroy, neither does he provide the means to meet the needs, so men have to be solicited with letters and offers. The God of Elijah does not operate that way!

One can even preach "righteousness by faith" but seek support of man motivated by human appeal rather than the Spirit of truth who brings genuine righteousness under the New Covenant. If we really want to bring about a genuine repentance, why not encourage the people to seek that "anointing" and let God motivate them to provide for His ministry of righteousness, if such it be. If it is of God, He will provide as He did for Elijah. If not, and one must seek man's pockets, deep or otherwise, then the sooner men realize that the ministry is of man and not of God, the better it will be.

In this hour when many voices are calling and claiming to be sent of God, as was prophesied (R&H, Dec. 13, 1892), everyone of God's professed people should seek that anointing from on High so as to determine what is of God and what is not. And the question to ask is - "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?" (II Kings 2:14) And there is no better way to find the answer as to where the God of Elijah is NOT, than to check who is sending out the electronic letters and weaving into their publication a constant call for means. Anoint thy eyes with eyesalve that thou mayest see where the Lord God off Elijah really is.

Moscow News criticized the "holy alliance" between the Vatican, the US Central Intelligence Agency, and President Ronald Reagan. The newspaper said that "each Friday, CIA antennas are orientated towards the Vatican in order to give all the secret information to the pope." (EPS 87.05.42)

Pope John Paul II in a 114-page letter - "Redemptoris Mater" (Mother of the Redeemer) issued March 25, reaffirmed Roman Catholic teaching about Mary and suggested that all Christians should "together look to her as our common mother, who prays for the unity of God's family, and who precedes us all at the head of the long line of witnesses of faith" in Christ. In the letter, the Pope said Mary's role in salvation is subordinate to Christ's. He observed that Christians still "must resolve considerable discrepancies of doctrine concerning the mystery and ministry of the church, and sometime also the role of Mary in the work of salvation." (EPS 87.04.22)

Milan, Italy - Magistrates have issued warrants for the arrest of Paul Marcinkus, the American archbishop who heads the Vatican Bank. The warrants charge that Marcinkus and two other Vatican bank executives are accessories to fraudulent bankruptcy. (EPS 87.04.07)

Page 5

Were Jones and Waggoner Involved?

A CRITIQUE WITH COMMENTS

When the editors of "Watchman, What of the Night?" wrote on "The Holy Flesh Alternative" (XX-2), Jeff Reich ordered a copy of The Holy Flesh Movement 1889 - 1901, a research manuscript published by the Adventist Laymen's Foundation. [I say, "editors" advisedly because Brother Stump furnished me with a copy of Davis' book, Was Jesus REALLY Like Us? so that I could accurately state what Davis taught as compared with what the men of the Holy Flesh Movement taught.] After receiving the manuscript, Reich wrote that things were coming together for him with the information he had gathered. Then in Number 130 of his Laymen Ministry News, the lead article was captioned "The Holy Flesh Movement." The factual data and most of the quotes were lifted right out of the manuscript and source notations - to the manuscript were given only when no alternative presented itself. The impression is left that the writer had done a lot of original research. One must add that Brother Reich's honesty exceeds that of Vance Ferrell who in collaboration with Ron Spear plagiarized material without the slightest reference to sources. (See Waymarks of Adventism, 2nd ed., appendix)

Page 6

In the hurried appropriation of the historical data found in the manuscript, there is a factual error that should be corrected. It is stated that in 1897, S. S. Davis was a colporteur, yet two paragraphs later, Davis is stated as having been licensed to preach in 1893. (p. 4) Reich has confused the connection between S. S. Davis and Jesse Dunn, who was the State Agent (Colporteur Leader of the Conference) at the time.

This incident points up a growing ethical problem in the dissemination of data, and conclusions based on the research that produced the data. Some of the problems could no doubt be chalked up to ignorance or lack of training in doing research rather than purposeful dishonesty. I know in my formal training, the course in Research and Bibliography, while giving me the tools for research, and how to report that research, also impressed upon my mind that honesty is a factor in the realm of study and research as much as in any aspect of our daily lives. If a clerk gave us too much money back when we paid for a purchase under $20.00 with a $20.00 bill, we would return the excess amount. Why? It is not ours! But when it comes to another's person's research, we do not exhibit such honesty. Why? It is not ours! Herein is the problem of simple ethics in journalism. In the Adventist community it has become acute.

It is possible that the Adventist problem results from how we look at the literary borrowing of Ellen G. White without any documentation. This is not being written from a critical viewpoint, but just stating a matter of fact acknowledged and documented in Church publications such as the Ministry, (June, 1982) Has the attitude we have taken because of this literary borrowing somehow justified our own lax ethical standards in this same area? It is something we should consider.

This editor has some real deep convictions on this subject. Knowing that truth is of divine origin (John 1:14; IHP, p. 140), he does not believe that he should copyright any of his research for protection. A man can receive nothing except it be given to him from above. (John 3:27) Thus truth is free and open, and those who deal in truth should also be honest in respect to another's man work. This editor has found that those who are dishonest in this area cannot be trusted that their word is their bond.

In writing the article - "The Holy Flesh Movement" - Jeff Reich has introduced a new and important aspect to the issues involved in the Movement which this editor did not discover in his research. Whether this was discovered from material obtained through the Archives, or from Brother Reich's collecting of A. T. Jones' writings, and thus his own research is immaterial. The importance of it cannot be overlooked.

In a subsection of his article, Jeff Reich deals with Jones' involvement in the Holy Flesh Movement. In 1899, Jones was the first of two editors of the Review. In the April 18th issue, in a noncaptioned article, he raised some questions involved in the holy flesh controversy. Reich

Page 7

quotes from three key paragraphs in this brief editorial by Jones. We are quoting these because of the direct relationship they sustain to the teachings of Thomas and Margaret Davis. Jones wrote:

There is a serious and very bothersome mistake, which is made by many persons. That mistake is made in thinking that when they are converted, their old sinful flesh is blotted out. In other words, they make the mistake of thinking that they are delivered from the flesh by having it taken away altogether. Then when they find that this is not so, when they find that the same old flesh, with its inclinations, its besetments, and its enticements, is still there, they are not prepared for it, and so become discouraged, and are ready to think that they never were converted at all. ...

Conversion, then, you see, does not put new flesh upon the old spirit; but a new Spirit within the old flesh. It does not propose to bring new flesh to the old mind; but a new mind to the old flesh. Deliverance and victory are not gained by having the human nature taken away; but by receiving the divine nature to subdue and have dominion over the human, - not by the taking away of the sinful flesh, but by the sending in of the sinless Spirit to conquer and condemn sin in the flesh. ... The Lord Jesus took the same flesh and blood, the same human nature, that we have, - flesh like our sinful flesh, - and because of sin, and by the power of the Spirit of God through the divine mind that was in Him, "condemned sin the flesh."

Reich further points out that Jones began in 1900 a series of editorials on the book of Hebrews, which later became the basis for the first section of his book - The Consecrated Way. At the very beginning of these editorials, Jones stated:

The condescension of Christ, the position of Christ, and the nature of Christ, as He was in the flesh in the world, are given in the second chapter of Hebrews more fully than in any other place in the Scriptures. (R&H, Dec. 11, 1900)

After studying Hebrews 1 in the first editorial, Jones proceeded to Hebrews 2, and wrote:

That man was the first Adam; this other Man is the last Adam. That first Adam was made a little lower than the angels; this last Adam, Jesus, we see "made a little lower than the angels." That first man did not remain in the position where he was made, "lower than the angels." He lost that and went still lower, and became subject to sin, and in that, subject to suffering, even to the suffering of death. And the last Adam we see in the same place, and in the same condition: "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." And again: "Both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all OF ONE."

Page 8

As Man, Christ is of the same flesh as is that of men. As Man, He is of the same blood as is that of men. He is of "the same flesh and blood as are the children of men. They are "all one." (R&H, Dec. 18, 1900)

These articles, which struck directly at the teaching of the Holy Flesh Movement's leadership in regard to the Incarnation, did not go without notice. Donnell responded by an article in the Indiana Reporter. He quoted the title Jones had chosen for the editorials - The Faith of Jesus - and leaving no doubt as to his opposition to the position taken by Jones, wrote - "We only call attention to these articles in order to show the fallacy of such a position." - What I Taught in Indiana, (p.15) Reich has performed a real service by bringing to light this hitherto and unknown factor involving the Holy Flesh Movement.

If this were merely past history an open confrontation between the Lord's "messenger" (A. T. Jones) and the leader of the Holy Flesh Movement - we might rest. But now again in 1987, the lines have been clearly drawn. Now it is the confrontation between the position of the Lord's "messengers" 1 of 1888, and those who are professing to teach "historic Adventism" - Spear and Standish. At the unity conclave at Hartland Institute and prior thereto, these men placed themselves behind the teaching of Thomas Davis whose teaching is identical to the teaching of the Holy Flesh men of Indiana on the subject of the Incarnation. (See WWN, XX-2) A careful study of Donnell's position indicates that in his mind little or no difference existed between Christ taking the "born again" nature of a converted man, and taking the pre-Fall nature of Adam. It should tell the reader something that is developing his thesis on the Incarnation, which parallels exactly the Holy Flesh concepts, Thomas Davis in his book - Was Jesus REALLY Like Us when using non-Adventist sources quotes from Evangelical authors. (See Footnotes, Chapters 1-3)

It is not surprising that Spear and Standish have chosen to go along with this teaching, but the real conundrum is Elder R. J. Wieland, who was present at the Hartland Conclave for Unity. He did not open his mouth publically in defense of the Lord's "messengers." Yet he is professing to press for a revival of the 1888 Message. Has his refusal to evaluate current Church history caused him to become unable to discern between truth and error? It is time that every sincere seeker of truth take a new look as to what is taking place on the periphery of regular Adventism, and re-evaluate his position and support.

1 Both Jones and Waggoner taught the same in regard to the Incarnation. At the 1901 General Conference session, E. J. Waggoner at the evening meeting of April 16, choosing as his text, Heb. 10:4-10 - a key Scripture for the Holy Flesh advocates - presented a strong affirmation of the doctrine of the Incarnation as was set forth in the 1888 Message. The next morning Ellen G. White presented her testimony which ended the Holy Flesh Movement.

Page 9

When the Adventist Review for January 22, 1987, came to my desk, I opened to the first section - "Letters" - and there, without editorial comment, was an amazing letter from Neal C. Wilson. It duly chastised the editors for printing two articles on Christianity and Communism. He wrote - "It is ... my opinion that articles of this kind have no political overtones and have no place in our general church paper;..." He also took to task, though not naming him, the author of the articles. He stated - "In my judgment some statements were inaccurate, unnecessarily provocative, and sweeping in nature."

Wilson in his letter labeled the articles "private opinion" that "do not represent the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." He expressed his regret to the government (USSR) and the authorities (the KGB?) "who have shown consideration and kindness to our church."

My interest was quickened as to the one who had written these "inaccurate" and "provocative" articles. (I missed the issues in October, 1986, which carried the articles due to the fact I had not received one issue, and the other came at the time the Thought Paper was due to go to the press.) To my surprise, the author was none other than Dr. B. B. Beach! Here in this "Letter" section of the official organ of the Church, the laity were being given more inside information than has ever been given in "Newsbreak". Here was revealed a major policy conflict within the Curia on the Sligo. It appears as a rupture of consequence between parties who had united to put through at the 1985 General Conference session in New Orleans a hierarchical structure of which a Federal Judge could state in his decision - "Next to the Roman Catholic Church, the Adventist Church is the most centralized of all major Christian denominations in this country." (Proctor vs GC of SDA; See WWN, XX-1) It should be recalled that Dr. B. B. Beach co-authored with his father, Elder W. R. Beach, the book - Pattern for Progress. This book with a "Preface" by Neal C. Wilson was recommended by Wilson to every delegate at the 1985 GC Session. This book contained the blueprint of what was adopted at the session in organizational changes. (See WWN, XVII-11)

There is a another factor which comes into play in this picture of a major policy conflict. In the same month that these articles appeared in the Adventist Review (Oct. 2, pp. 8-9; Oct. 9, pp. 8-10, 1986), B. B. Beach was in Rome for the annual conference of Christian World Communion Secretaries of which he is the Secretary. One will recall that it was at the 1977 annual conference of the same group, also held in Rome, that Beach presented to Pope Paul IV, the Adventist Church in symbol. The 1986

Page 10

annual conference, also at Rome, "included separate sessions with the pope" who "re-affirmed that for Roman Catholicism, 'the search for Christian unity is a pastoral priority.'" This conference voted as its new chairman, Pierre Duprey, secretary of the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Beach was reelected Secretary placing him in tandem with the Vatican representative. (Ecumenical Press Service, 86.10-126) Thus the Adventist Church at its highest level is in a policy split as to which way to go - Moscow or Rome? Since contacts made by Beach at Vatican Council II, he has been leading in the approach to the WCC, and Rome. It was during the Pierson administration that a series of contacts were made with Moscow.

The beginning of these contacts cannot be disassociated from the final arrest, trial and imprisonment of the late Elder Vladimir Shelkov, the leader of the True and Free Seventh-day Adventists in the USSR. A series of dated facts will help us to understand this relationship, and its implications.

1) Elder Vladimir Shelkov spent 23 years of his life in Soviet prisons for his faith. His last release was in 1967.

2) After his release in 1967, he went into hiding and remained so until his final arrest March 1978.

3) Elder Alf Lohne, a Vice President of the General Conference during May, 1977, made a trip to Russia for the purpose of laying the foundation for an official trip of Pierson to Russia.

4) One of the leaders of the SDA Church recognized by the USSR was at Takoma Park during the first part of 1978 to finalize the official trip of Pierson accompanied by Lohne to Russia.

5) Elders Pierson and Lohne were in Russia on an officially recognized visit by the government of the USSR from Aug. 17 through Sept. 5, 1978.

6) Elder Shelkov was tried and sentenced March, 1979.

From this chronology of events, the first visit of Elder Lohne must be carefully noted, and a series of reactions from the official Pierson visit.

First, the Lohne ground-breaking visit: The arrest of Elder Shelkov on March 14, 1978, was made in Taskkent, a Soviet city in Central Asia. When Lohne went to Russia in May, 1977, his report of his itinerary read:

Our trip began in Moscow, the capital. From there we went to Alma-Ata in the South, close to the China border. In this famous wintersports city and surrounding area, there are many believers. It was a joy to worship with them and to share a message from the Bible. Frunze and Tashkent were other cities we visited in Central Asia. (Review, July 411~ 14, 1977, p. 4)

Page 11

Three things are significant from this reported itinerary. 1) Tashkent - the route from Alma-Ata to Tashkent via Frunze is on the north side of a high mountainous area which is well suited for hiding as Shelkov did from 1967 till his arrest in 1978, some nine months after Lohne's visit. 2) Lohne on this trip went first to Moscow, and then directly to the region where Shelkov was in hiding. This in the light of #3 is significant. 3) There were many believers in this area. But when Pierson with Lohne made their "official" visit to Russia, they did not go to this area! Yet Pierson in reporting his trip to the Fletcher, NC, SDA Church, stated that Lohne had "made arrangements well." (Taped Report, Sept. 16, 1978) It is also of significance that Pierson did not get to make his "official" trip until after Shelkov was arrested!

All the factual data leads to only one conclusion. The hierarchy in Washington aided the KGB in the arrest and demise of Elder Vladimir Shelkov. Why was the KGB so intent on the arrest of Shelkov? "Shelkov's entire guilt lay in his rejection of war. Because of this the Soviet authorities feared his influence on young people: as he had deep faith and education, he was able to persuade people he was right." (Quoted in Religion in Communist Lands, Vol 8, #3, p. 205)

After Shelkov's release from prison in 1967, he organized the Adventist underground publishing activities. The True Witness press was successful in the dissemination of thousands of photocopied and written pamphlets and hard bound books. At Shelkov's trial prosecution displayed 110 works produced by him during his hiding. "His works, though theological in content, constantly reaffirm the True and Free Adventist commitment to pacifism, Saturday observance and evangelization of young people." (Ibid " p 206) One of the most revealing sections of the indictment against Shelkov was the accusation that he was sympathetic to the cause of the illegal Baptist sect, and "dissidents" such as, Sakharov, Solshenitsyn, Orlov, and Ginzberg. He established close links with the Soviet human rights movement, even writing to President Carter appealing for help in the release of Yuri Orlov and Alexander Ginsburg who he said had defended "true justice and morality" as enshrined in the Ten Commandments. His activities as a keen, perceptive writer, and the members of the True and Free Adventist group as distributors of those writings, made him the prime target of the KGB. Being unable, to locate his hideaway, contact was made with his "brethren"(?). As result of these contacts beginning in 1977 with the visit of Lohne to the Tashkent area, the KGB launched in 1978-1979 a campaign against the True and Free Adventists in Russia, which involved searches, confiscation of religious literature, arrests and trials, culminating in the final trial and sentencing of Shelkov himself.

Before discussing the present activities of the Takoma Park base hierarchy, we need to note another phase of this picture.

Page 12

At the time when Pierson made his "official" trip to Russia, Shelkov was in KGB custody. Pierson did not go to see him in prison; he avoided the Tashkent area. Neither did he appeal for Shelkov's release even on humanitarian grounds. After Pierson returned from Russia, and it was evident he had said nothing, nor done nothing in behalf of Shelkov, others took up the cause. "Nobel prize winner Andrei Sakharov issued an appeal Monday to the World Council of Churches and to Pope John Paul II on behalf of an 83 year old Seventh-day Adventist leader," so read The Sacramento Union, Nov. 28, 1978. (p. A4) [Note Sakharov did not appeal to the General Conference in behalf of Shelkov.] In December, 1978, Dr. Michael Wurmbrand asked his readers, regardless of religious affiliation to write to the General Conference and ask them "to tell the truth about Communist persecution and start helping the victims." (The Voice of the Martyrs, p. 2) The Church leadership stonewalled the issue. For the many who wrote, a "Dear Friend" form letter was written by Lohne.

When Reuters of London took up the story, the hierarchy in Washington found it necessary to issue a news release. This was done by Elder Roland Hegstad who disassociated the church from any connection with Shelkov and accused him of "political activism." (RNS, March 30, 1979, p., 21) Hegstad is living to "eat" his own words even to the point of joining Neal C. Wilson in that "political activism."

February of this year a Soviet-sponsored International Forum for a Non-nuclear World and Survival of Humanity was convened in Moscow. From he avoided the Grand Kremlin Palace, General Secretary, M. S. Gorbachev, on February 16, released his plan for a new look in Soviet peace overtures. These included, "democratization," "verification," and "glasnost" [open-ness]. The 850 delegates gathered in the Grand Kremlin Palace represented world political and cultural leaders and also included a delegation from the Seventh-day Adventist Church headed by Neal C. Wilson.

Besides Wilson, the other three members of the delegation were - Dr. Jan Paulsen, president of the Trans-European Division; Dr. Ray Hefferlin, molecular physicist from Southern College, of Seventh-day Adventists; and Elder R. R. Hegstad, an associate in the General Conference Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty. Dr. B. B. Beach, who heads the department was not a part of this delegation. He had fallen from grace!

Four full pages the Adventist Review, May 7, 1987, carried the report of this political orientated conclave. In the section written by Hegstad, he noted as sitting "only five or six seats" from him, Andrei Sakharov, who had been released from exile only two months prior. One wonders, if Hegstad sitting there, recalled the appeal that Sakharov made to the WCC and the Pope in behalf of Shelkov. Did he recall his own news release accusing Shelkov of "political activism". Now he was a part of such a delegation involved in a type of activism.

Page 13

The first of the two articles in the Adventist Review on this peace gathering was written by the editor himself. In fact, the front cover in full color, hailed the event - "Adventists and the Soviet Union A New Era?" Johnsson in his article "analyzes the recent flurry of contacts between Adventist and Soviet leaders." He noted that Wilson spoke at this Soviet peace propaganda Forum. Then in a section captioned - "Analysis: A Door of Opportunity," Johnsson comments that in a nation with only 31,000 government registered members "to see our leaders welcomed into the Kremlin and participating in discussions with top Soviet leadership has given Adventists a tremendous boost in morale." (p. 10) One thing is clearly observable in Wilson heading a delegation to the Kremlin. He beat the Pope there!

The price tag should still haunt the Church - the martyrdom of Elder Vladimir Shelkov. The number of "stones" cast by the men in high places has yet to be revealed in their fulness. Only circumstantial evidence is now available. Let there be a glastnost coming from the hierarchy of the church both past and present. Let Elder Lohne tell all to whom he talked in Moscow before preceding directly to the area where Shelkov was in hiding. Let him explain that while many Adventists lived in this area, Pierson did not go there on his "official" visit. How did he prepare the way "well" for Pierson by going to Tashkent, if Pierson did going not go there? Or did he by going to Tashkent prepare the way for Pierson to go to Russia?

Let Pierson tell why in his "official" visit, he endeavored to bring all groups of Adventists together under a government recognized church and bowed to the demands of the Soviet authorities to sanction the attendance of children of Adventist families at school on Sabbath. Let the leadership of the Church explain why they did not join, even for humanitarian reasons, the appeal for the release of Shelkov.

Then there are some other questions. If John Paul II should call for a Unity Forum of the World Religious leaders,-would Wilson head such a delegation, and would Beach be included? What would Wilson say at such a gathering? Could he now refuse after going to the Forum at Moscow? Which way? - the Church. Rome? Moscow? Did not Jesus tell Pilate - "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)

Page 14

In the Adult Sabbath School Lessons Quarterly for the first quarter of this year, a comment was printed which created a furor in the Adventist Community, so much so, that a "form" letter was prepared to answer the volume of inquiries pouring into the Sabbath School Lessons section of the Church Ministries Department of the General Conference. The statement which sparked the outpouring of protest reads as follows:

One thing is certain, nothing is gained by dogmatism and controversy. In such areas as unfulfilled prophecy, we must tread humbly and softly. It is our responsibility to study the Scriptures for ourselves, to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to submit our understandings to those in the church who are able to judge our findings, and then abide by the decisions of the church in order to maintain the unity of the church. (p. 92)

Dr. Erwin R. Gane, Editor of the Adult Sabbath School Lessons, and who formulated the "form" letter in response to the many inquiries, was correct in noting that the context of this statement is in connection with the discussion of "the king of the North" in Daniel 11. He is also correct in noting that there have been different opinions among Adventist writers in the past as to what power is represented by "the king of the North" and/or the "he" in Daniel 11:45.

Dr. Gane further stated - "The subject discussed on p. 92 of the quarterly does not concern any established truth held by the Adventist Church." In a technical sense, he is correct. The church has not made an official pronouncement on the interpretation of Daniel 11:45. It must also be allowed that some of the language of Daniel 11:36-45 is difficult to relate to the present conditions as found in the Middle East. However, Gabriel in relating to Daniel the prophecy found in chapters 11 & 12 prefaced the revelation by stating "I will show thee what is noted in the scripture of truth." (10:21) Also, it dare not be overlooked that Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 are closely linked. In fact, in an understanding of Daniel 11:45, we discover the event which immediately precedes the close of all human probation. In the light of this, and the seriousness of the times to which we have come, the papal overtones of the statement found in Lesson 13 of the Adult Lesson Quarterly constitutes a real basis for concern, notwithstanding Gane's explanation.

At the height of this furor, a friend visited the campus and called my attention to a similar statement in the introduction of the New Catholic Version of the Bible - the Douay Confraternity Version. Written by J. Edgar Bruns, S.T.D., S.S.L. of St. John's University Graduate School of Theology, it reads:

Of course the average reader will often be at a complete loss in determining this [the intent of Scripture]; he must rely on the Judgment of competent scholars who themselves leave the ultimate decision to the Church. Just as it is the prerogative of the Church to safeguard the interpretation of the Bible, so it is the Church alone which can declare what books are or are not inspired.

Page 15

Admittedly the context is different, but there is still that common factor - the authority of the Church in interpreting what is truth. Basically it is the usurpation of the role assigned to the Holy Spirit of truth. The matter of unity is not that unity achieved by ecclesiastical dictum, but a unity realized when men truly submit themselves to the control of the Holy Spirit.

Circulated through the dissident Adventist Community as the time for the study of Lesson 13 approached was a one page tract (printed on both sides), and noted - "For Seventh-day Adventists Only." The title in large bold type read - IT'S A MATTER OF AUTHORITY. The message was a combination of Biblical references and statements from the Writings. The author made a very key point when he asked - referring to the statement in the Adult Lesson Quarterly - "If Luther and the later reformers had followed such counsel, there would have been no Reformation and all today would be in the fellowship of the Roman church for the sake of unity." This concept is equally valid whether referring to prophetic interpretation as the context of the Sab. Sch. Lesson indicated, or whether, as Gain suggested, the author of the lessons intended it to be in reference "to new truth."

However, in checking the references used in the tract from the Writings, my daughter discovered a serious deletion. Quoting from Great Controversy p. 595, the topic sentence of the paragraph had been omitted. That sentence read:

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrine, and the basis of all reforms.

This deleted sentence is in line with counsel found elsewhere in the same book. It reads:

In our time there is wide departure from their [the Scriptures] doctrines and precepts, and there is need to return to the great Protestant principle - the Bible, and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and duty." (pp. 204-205)

To ignore this "great Protestant principle" and to substitute some other authority is just as papal as the statement found in the Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly. This is exactly what the author of the tract does in his ministry. What virtue is there in the "pot" calling the "kettle" black? Sadly, there are many others just as confused in regard to this "great Protestant principle", as he is.

The Spirit was not given - nor can It ever be bestowed - to supersede the Bible, for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Ibid., p. vii)

None but those who have fortified the mind with truths of the Bible will stand through the last great conflict. (Ibid. p. 594)

We are to receive God's Word as supreme authority. (6T:402)