Introduction
As
a result of concerns raised by then General Conference President, Robert
S Folkenberg and several world division presidents, the General Conference
Administrative Committee (ADCOM), in early 1998, established an ad hoc
committee to interview the leadership of Hope International, publishers
of "Our Firm Foundation," and two other private groups, Hartland Institute,
headquartered in the United States, and Remnant Ministries, based in Australia.
The
committee, comprised of General Conference Biblical Research Institute
scholars, General Conference administrators, and Andrews University Seminary
instructors, developed a 20-question instrument that was the basis of
their inquiry and appraisal. The leaders of Hope International and its
associated groups accepted the committee's invitation to answer the questions.
They met with the General Conference appointed group on two occasions
for a total of three and one-half days. The following report constitutes
the committee's assessment of their responses, both written and verbal,
and its evaluation of results of research done by individuals contracted
specifically to study the theology and methodology of Hope International
and associates.
ADCOM
received the ad hoc committee's conclusions on April 25, 2000 and, in
light of the questions raised by church membership in general over the
years, voted to share this information with the world Church.
Report
All
of us would agree that Christ is the Head of the Church. As Ellen G White
wrote, "Nothing else in this world is so dear to God as His church. Nothing
is guarded by Him with such jealous care" (TM 42). But the Church is made
up of mortals in constant need of His presence and guidance.
For
these reasons there is great need for revival and reformation in the Seventh-day
Adventist Church as it faces the final chapter in the great controversy.
No one will question the importance for church administrators, pastors,
teachers, and laypersons to be personally involved in the task of calling
the whole Church back to the purity of faith and Christian living as found
in the Scriptures. Such revival is simply indispensable for the effective
fulfillment of the mission of the Church. Our message and mission should
be constantly reaffirmed through voice and action until the glory of the
Lord is revealed throughout the world by a people who are totally committed
to Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
Therefore
the emphasis on revival and reformation we found in the message of Hope
International, Hartland Institute, and Remnant Ministries (hereafter referred
to as Hope International and associates) is welcomed. Further, we observed
in conversations with Hope International and associates that they affirmed
agreement on many of the major elements of the Seventh-day Adventist faith.
However,
the method they have used to express their concern has resulted in what
is perceived by many to be a spirit of constant criticism directed against
the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is the body of Christ, the Remnant
Church. The effect of this methodology is the discouraging portrayal of
the Church as steeped in a state of apostasy. After studying their materials
and meeting with their leaders, we have some serious concerns with respect
to the nature and purpose of Hope International and associates.
Areas of Serious
Concern
1.
Charge of Apostasy Against the Seventh-day
Adventist Church
According
to Hope International and associates, it is an understatement to say that
there is apostasy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Church itself
is in apostasy! Therefore the condition of the Church is worse than that
of any other Christian religious body that forms the end-time Babylon.
They are not willing to refer openly to the Seventh-day Adventist Church
as Babylon because of the occasions in which Ellen G White opposed those
who made such accusations. Yet they have found a way to bypass her counsel
by accusing the Church of being in apostasy. We have not found a single
case where Ellen G White or the book of Revelation accuses God's remnant
people of being in apostasy. It is this charge of apostasy against the
Church that keeps Hope International and associates alive.
If
the Church is in apostasy, it has no reason to exist and the Lord must
raise up a new church as His instrument for these last days. Hope International
and associates see themselves as spokespersons for those who perceive
that the Church is in apostasy, and they believe that they have a divine
mandate to catalogue and publicize this apostasy and to call the Church
to repentance. Although we acknowledge that there is apostasy in the Church—Jesus
Himself acknowledged the co-existence of wheat and tares in the Church—we
reject the blatant and irresponsible accusation that God's Remnant Church
is in apostasy. Their definition of apostasy as "any deviation
from God's truth or mandated Christian practice" is not found in the Bible
or in the writings of Ellen G White.
2.
Distorted View of the Nature of the
Church
It
is our clear impression that Hope International and associates believe
that the Church is composed of both an organized system of administration
and a parallel self-supporting ministry independent of the organized system.
We understand their position to be that, as divinely-appointed self-supporting
ministries, they are not ultimately bound by the decisions of the world
Church. This model of church organization is used by them to justify their
activities. Such understanding of the Church lacks any biblical support
and is not found in the writings of Ellen G White. Although we acknowledge
the need for supportive ministries within the Church, we perceive Hope
International and associates as having parallel organizational structures
separate to, and critical of, the official Church organization. Support
for this perception is found in the following characteristics of their
organizations:
a.
Diverse Understanding of Doctrinal
Positions
Though
strongly affirming their support for the Seventh-day Adventist Statement
of Fundamental Beliefs, Hope International and associates seem to have
some reservations with respect to several of them. One such reservation
concerns "The Son" (#4). In this particular case they have taken a position
different from that of the Church by making their particular understanding
of the human nature of Christ part of the doctrine. On the topic of the
Church (#11 and #13) their understanding of its nature and authority does
not seem to reflect the doctrine of ecclesiology as held by the Church
(see below). The same applies to the statement on "Stewardship" (#20).
b.
Reluctance to Accept the Authority
of the Church
Although
acknowledging that the Church has a God-given authority, Hope International
and associates do not consider the authority of the Church to be final
in the community of believers. It is the Seventh-day Adventist position
that the Church was formed when a group of believers voluntarily, and
under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, accepted a common gospel, a common
lifestyle, and a common mission, understood to be based on the authority
of the Scriptures. This community was vested with authority by Christ
(Matt 18:15-18). Decisions made by the properly appointed representatives
of the Church community are binding on all members who, in order to preserve
the unity of the Church and to facilitate the fulfillment of its mission,
are willing to set aside personal opinions and/or practices to follow
the decisions of the body. But if elements of that community break the
common bond that unites it, by developing a judgmental attitude against
the authority of the community, the result is confusion and insubordination.
Hope International and associates appear to have taken the position that
their interpretation of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy is the final
arbiter over the Church, to determine whether its decisions are correct
or not. If, in their judgment, a decision is not correct, they reject
it and proceed to believe and act as they think best, while at the same
time claiming to be loyal members of the Church. That attitude is consistent
with the spirit of schism and, at the present time, contributes to undermining
the authority of the Church.
Self-supporting
ministries are to work harmoniously with the Church. Paul, who is often
referred to as a self-supporting worker was, after his conversion, brought
by the Lord into a permanent connection with the Church. In that context
we are told:
"God
has made His church on the earth a channel of light, and through it He
communicates His purposes and His will. He does not give to one of His
servants an experience independent of and contrary to the experience of
the church itself. Neither does He give one man a knowledge of His will
for the entire church while the church—Christ's body—is left
in darkness . . . .
"There
have ever been in the church those who are constantly inclined toward
individual independence. They seem unable to realize that independence
of spirit is liable to lead the human agent to have too much confidence
in himself and to trust in his own judgment rather than to respect the
counsel and highly esteem the judgment of his brethren, especially of
those in the offices that God has appointed for the leadership of His
people. God has invested His church with special authority and power which
no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does
this despises the voice of God.
"Those
who are inclined to regard their individual judgment as supreme are in
grave peril."—AA 163, 164.
c. Rewriting
of the Baptismal Vow
A
Baptismal Vow was put together by Colin Standish using the 1932 Church
Manual and other sources. An examination of this baptismal vow reveals
that it is significantly different from what is found in the current Church
Manual as approved by the world Church. Among the differences are
the following:
1) A
new fundamental belief added as a requirement for joining the Church:
that "Jesus took upon Himself our fallen nature." Such statement has never
been part of the Seventh-day Adventist Baptismal Vow or of official statements
of fundamental beliefs. Such change illustrates an independence from the
Church in doctrinal matters as they constitute their own particular views
into tests of faith, independent from the remainder of the Church.
2) The
vow dealing with tithing does not identify the Church as the repository
of tithe, as does the official Baptismal Vow.
3) In
the rewritten Baptismal Vow, the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not
receive a mention. The Remnant Church is mentioned, but it is never identified
with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The fundamental question here is
one of the nature and authority of the Church and where that authority
resides. Those who promote the use of this reworded Baptismal Vow demonstrate
that they do not recognize the authority of the organized Seventh-day
Adventist Church.
d. Redefinition
of the Tithe "Storehouse"
The
financial support of their organizations comes, not only from their own
earnings, nor only from the offerings of church members, but also from
tithes. Some of their publications redefine the "storehouse" to be any
instrument of God that is proclaiming "unadulterated present truth." Whether
intended or not, the influence of such literature is to encourage members
to redirect their tithe away from the Church "storehouse," and to invest
it instead with these independent ministries.
e.
Conducting Their Own Camp Meetings
Every
year they conduct their own camp meetings, usually without the concurrence
of the conference administration. They express that the need for such
camp meetings arises from their perception that the Seventh-day Adventist
Church is in apostasy, and is therefore incapable of meeting the spiritual
needs of its members through the regular conference camp meetings.
f.
Operating Their Own Publishing Enterprises
Hope
International and associates have their own publishing program for the
production of materials promoting their views on different doctrines and
lifestyle issues. While much of this material is Adventist in character,
there are numerous examples of a judgmental attitude against the organized
Church and its leaders and, from time to time, assertions that the Church
is in apostasy. Whatever truths these periodicals contain are more than
discounted by a recurring critical refrain.
3.
Supporting Dissident Movements
Hope
International and associates have supported, and continue to support,
dissident movements who turn against the Seventh-day Adventist Church
and its organization. They have been supporting Norberto Restrepo in Columbia
and Venezuela, a former Seventh-day Adventist minister who is no longer
an Adventist, and is rather one of the most severe enemies of the Church
in the Inter-American Division. In 1997 they supported a group of church
elders in Guatemala who rebelled against the Seventh-day Adventist Church,
and they sent one of their representatives to Guatemala to support them.
Recently they supported, in a court of law, a non-Adventist who was attempting
to use the name of the Church for his own organization. Their encouragement
of breakaway activities in the following countries, and others besides,
is well documented: Australia, Bolivia, England, Fiji, France, Germany,
Holland, Hungary, New Zealand, Macedonia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sweden, United States of America, Vanuatu,
Zimbabwe. These associations do nothing to build confidence in the professed
loyalty of Hope International and associates to the Church. Rather, it
is a powerful evidence of their disregard for the carefully considered
decisions of the Church, and it amounts to disloyalty to the Church itself.
Their misdirected support interferes with the regular organization's attempts
to deal with, and hopefully redeem, such dissident individuals, and makes
the task of the Church more difficult.
4.
Selectively Using Ellen G White Writings
Hope
International and associates pride themselves in their profuse use of
the writings of Ellen G White to support their teachings. But they select
statements that seem to support themselves, while disregarding other statements
in which activities such as theirs are clearly condemned by Ellen G White.
Her overriding support of the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church is
intentionally minimized or ignored by Hope International and associates,
or explained away as irrelevant for us today.
Conclusion
The
accumulative effect of the above information results in the perception
of many Church members that Hope International and associates are offshoot
organizations. They have not taken the decisive step of officially separating
themselves from the Seventh-day Adventist organization, and they claim
that they never will. However, by rejecting the authority of the world
Church in session when their interpretation of Scripture and the Spirit
of Prophecy differs from that of the Church, they have set their authority
above that of the world Church and operate in a manner that is consistent
with offshoot movements.
An Appeal
We
appeal, in all sincerity and Christian love, to Hope International and
associates to hear the counsel of the Church they claim to love. It is
time for the spirit of condemnation and rebellion to be set aside, allowing
the reconciling blood of Christ to bring unity among His people.
All
agree that there is serious need for revival and reformation in God's
Remnant Church, but the methods used by Hope International and associates
have produced dissonance instead of reform. When assessed by their fruits,
it is seen that the movement of reform promoted by Hope International
and associates has failed to bring about either reformation or increased
unity. The Church is not perfect, but there is wisdom in listening to
its advice. We appeal, in Christian love, for a turn of heart and purpose
that will bring Hope International and associates into full unity with
the body of Christ, the Remnant Church.
If
Hope International and associates cannot bring themselves into harmony
with the body of the world Church, clearly evidenced within twelve months,
the Seventh-day Adventist Church may need to consider whether there exists
a "persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority
or to submit to the order and discipline of the church" (Church Manual
p 169).
[was
printed in Adventist Review and Ministry, August, 2000]
Copyright © Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists®