Second Man Arrested in Trademark Battle over the Name “Seventh-day Adventist”
by AT News Team
Lucan Chartier turned himself in at the Redlands, California, police station last night on a Federal warrant after holding a press conference on the sidewalk near the Loma Linda University Church. He had planned to surrender to U.S. Marshals on the Loma Linda campus, but they did not show up, nor did county sheriff’s deputies or local police. Campus police did ask him to move from the place where he was on the lawn behind the church and move his press conference to the sidewalk and he complied immediately.
Reporters from the daily newspapers in San Bernardino and Riverside were present, as well as the local community news service in Loma Linda. Chartier distributed a news release and related statements, and answered questions for half an hour before friends drove him to the police station.
Adventist Today has previously reported on this case which dates back to 2006 when the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination sued for trademark protection against the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church of Guys, Tennessee. This small group splintered off from the denomination because it follows a more fundamentalist version of Adventist faith which it claims represents the original teachings of the Adventist movement.
Walter “Chick” McGill, pastor of the Creation church, was arrested by San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies on Friday, July 13, on the grounds of the Loma Linda church. He is involved in a hunger strike in his cell in the county jail. Both men were arrested on Federal Court bench warrants because they have defied the order of a Federal judge to cease and desist using the name “Seventh-day Adventist.”
The North American Division of the General Conference issued a statement soon after McGill’s arrest claiming that it never intended for him to go to prison. George Johnson, the spokesman for the denomination, stated that it respects the religious rights of McGill and his group, but wants to stop the misleading use of the denomination’s name by a group that is not affiliated.
McGill and Chartier believe that God has told them to name their group Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. They believe that if they were to comply with the Federal court order, they would be disobeying God.
“This is a silly situation,” one pastor employed by the Adventist denomination told Adventist Today. “You would think that the people at the GC would be smart enough to see that they are creating publicity by the tactics they are using. This is a miniscule group that would otherwise be unknown.”
McGill and Chartier contend that they have not tried to mislead anyone about their relationship to the denomination. One of their handouts even includes a quote from Judge J. Daniel Breen that “there is no evidence that the Defendant intended to confuse the public into believing that his church was one of the Plaintiff’s.”
There has been a proliferation of independent congregations and ministries in the Adventist movement over the last couple of decades. Denominational leaders are concerned that this trend may reduce the ability of the denomination to “speak with one voice” and weaken their control over the local church. Before he retired in 2006, Dr. William Johnsson, beloved long-time editor of the Adventist Review, wrote a book entitled The Fragmentation of Adventism, commenting on this trend.
It is unclear how long Chartier and McGill will be held. Local news media in Tennessee have reported in recent days that the offending, hand-painted sign is still visible at their church.
I believe it is known in PR as the Barbra Streisand effect, which is "a colloquial term to describe the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbra_Streisand_effect
I think the GC has the moral right to act the way it does, and it isn't responsible for these men being in jail. It is these men's own decision to refuse to comply with an order of Caesar re the theft of property. However, that is not to say that the GC has acted smart in a PR sense.
It’s desperately sad that Chick and Luke couldn’t have been embraced as Adventist believers years ago when Chick began his dialogue with professors at the Theological Seminary at Andrews. There are thousands of NAD Adventists “in good standing” that could care less about the 28, that are just as eccentric, and far less concerned about Truth and the world’s suffering. As far as I’m concerned, Chick and Luke are canaries in the mine of Adventist theology and practice. I’ve talked to them, each of us respectful of the other, brothers bound together in Christian love. Nut cases all.
Andrew,
You make a good point. Often these situations have a long history that is not obvious or apparent when it explodes into confrontation and the public view. Many of these situations might be avoided if we gave the questions and issues people raise enough respect to address them and promote understanding instead of dismissing them with a short "because this is what we believe."
Decades ago, the General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists applied for, and was granted, a trademark on the name “Seventh-day Adventist.” The United States, by granting this trademark request, indicated thereby that the General Conference Corporation was entitled to sole use of that name, and that it would be protected from others trying to use it in an “unauthorized” manner.
There are a few issues that arise with the above that places the General Conference Corporation in opposition to the principles of Biblical Christianity.
First, trademarks are applied to matters of “intellectual property.” Adventist doctrine clearly states that the name “Seventh-day Adventist” is of divine origin. “We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, 'No, no! We are not. It is the name the Lord has given us. It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches.'"' [Adventist author Ellen G. White in Selected Messages, Book 2, 384, emphases added]
In other words, the Lord gave that name to His people, and though the government, and well-meaning individuals who do not accept this doctrine, and worldlings in general, offer the advice, “Just change your name, and everything will be fine,” it is clearly not that simple.
In fact, the name in question “Seventh day Adventist” was given to Bible-believing Christians before the Corporation that now claims sole ownership of it was even formed! Further, even the Conference claims (on paper) to accept that the name is of divine origin, endorsed and strongly promoted by prophetic writer Ellen White as an integral part of the faith. And so, its claim that the name is its “intellectual property” is deceptive on at least two counts. First, it cannot possibly be “owned” by the Conference, since the name pre-dated it; and second, it was conceived in God’s “intellect” and is therefore HIS property, not man’s. Neither the Father nor the Son has applied for a trademark, to have the human courts defend Their right to use it or give it to others faithful servants as They will. No, that was done by man.
It is the Living God's prerogative alone to give “names” to His people – it is a sign of His authority and headship over the Church, just as Adam naming all the animals was a sign of his dominion over the physical world. (Genesis 2:19, Genesis 17:5, Genesis 35:10, etc.)
Why is it that the General Conference is coming after the CSDA Church? Their claim is that the CSDA members, by bearing the name “Seventh-day Adventist” and yet teaching different doctrines, is misrepresenting the people that are authorized (by the U.S. Government) to use that name. The concept of God’s authority vs. the U.S. Government’s authority is a whole other (but related) matter. But we might well ask, what are the “different doctrines” that so concern the General Conference leadership that they should seek to bring their “kingly power” to bear against that little movement?
The WORD OF GOD, plainly says that “whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.” (1John 3:9) By virtue of merely being “born again,” a man’s heart is replaced. The cold heart of stone is removed, and a warm heart of flesh is installed. (Ezekiel 11:19) In many Biblical contexts, “flesh” is a sign of the human, the flawed, the corrupt; however, here it is contrasted with “stone,” to emphasize its characteristics of warmth, life, and the potential to grow.
CSDA doctrine, which is unique in many respects, based on what I have read and know, teaches that a born-again Christian will never again willingly commit an act that is known to be sinful. And further, the process of “sanctification” that takes place thereafter involves ceasing to do evil, and learning to do righteousness, (Isaiah 1:16, 17) without – as an act of faith – even considering the possibility of “backsliding” into those errors and sins that we have left behind. This is because when a Christian truly repents of a sin, and confesses it, we are not merely forgiven, but it is written, “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1John 1:9, emphasis added)
Satan has inspired the spirit of force, which true Adventists believe to be “the last resort of every false religion,” [Ellen G. White, The Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897, emphasis added] within the most logical enemies of the CSDA Church… their former brethren. What is the true reason why the CSDA evangelists are being persecuted and incarcerated? It is because this doctrine, different from the Conference Corporation’s version of the Gospel, is being taught under the name “Seventh-day Adventist.” This, and other true doctrines of the Bible, are being restored to their place in the Gospel message, in the Adventist message, and Satan is activating anyone who follows his principles (including force, persecution, greed, corruption, selfishness, and various other works of the flesh) to move against the messengers.
When it comes to what Adventists once believed, and should believe, about genuinely becoming a Christian, we may read, “Not one should be buried with Christ by baptism unless they are critically examined whether they have ceased to sin, whether they have fixed moral principles, whether they know what sin is, whether they have moral defilement which God abhors. Find out by close questioning if these persons are really ceasing to sin, if with David they can say, I hate sin with a perfect hatred.” [Ellen G. White, Letter 26d, 1887, p. 6]
“When the doctrine we accept kills sin in the heart, purifies the soul from defilement, bears fruit unto holiness, we may know that it is the truth of God. When benevolence, kindness, tenderheartedness, sympathy, are manifest in our lives; when the joy of right doing is in our hearts; when we exalt Christ, and not self, we may know that our faith is of the right order.” [Ellen G. White, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings, p146]
But these teachings, and this doctrine, are not founded on the words of Adventist writers and pastors of today.
Satan hates the doctrine of victory over sin. And why? Because anyone who accepts it, truly, and without doubting, will begin to live as Enoch did, as Elijah did… as Christ did! The sons and daughters of God would be filled with the Holy Spirit and, though the faithful continue to be tempted, for we they have sinful flesh until the Second Advent, they have escaped the power of the enemy, settling firmly and unwaveringly into everlasting life.
“For he is not a Jew [SDA], which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew [SDA], which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Rom 2:28-29
“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” Rev 3:10-11
Any new creature born from God, has Christ seed remaining in him/her, is a Seventh day Adventist before Christ's eyes, in the same way "Christ was a Seventh day Adventist in all intents and purposes." [Ellen White]
Note: I am sorry for this long post, but it was very important to share this, to help others see the real and spiritual issue behind this controversy and arrests.
Giselle,
You're a little off the mark about trademarks and intellectual property. Patents protect intellectual property and inventions. Trademarks protect names, logos, and similar. Copyrights are typically used to protect such creations as musical compositions and writing but can also be used to protect names and logos. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are so close to each other that it is easy to get them confused unless you're working with them on a regular basis.
Thanks for trying to clarify my understanding regarding trademarks and intellectually property but what I said above was based on what WIPO says regarding intelectual property.
"What is Intellectual Property?
Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
IP is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs."
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/
My argument is the following:
If the name “Seventh day Adventist” was of Divine Origin, and if the Church of Christ is not of this world, and don’t react according to the works of the flesh (Gal 5: 19-21) but walks according to the Fruit of the Spirit, (Gal 5: 22-25) and if we as Christians acknowledge the Divine Truth, that the SOURCE of every Christian and thus The Church is the Almighty, the Creator. How can the leaders of the Corporation of G.C lie and exalt themselves by saying that the name that was Divinely given by God to a people, (who believe in the purity of Biblical truths, like the Second Coming of Christ, the Investigative Judgment, the Commandments of God, etc) is of private use because they were the original creators and the source of inspiration, when that name existed even before the General Conference was even formed?
This is what they say to the Courts of the Land, thru legal documentation, but this is an outrageous lie.
“Behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto My chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call His servants by another name.” Isaiah 65:14-15
If Creation Seventh day Adventists say they have received a Divine revelation about a new name, without receiving any instruction to remove the oldest part of that name. Who are we, simple mortals, to punish them in the name of Christ with the sword of Cesar for following their own consciences and religious convictions?
It is evident that many modern Adventists really don't know the character of the Son and the Heavenly Father that are revealed in the Scriptures? If they knew THEM they would act and speak as Christ would, and they would love their neighbor as themselves, they would speak words of mercy and encouragement.
Christ said: “These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.” John 16:2-3
I would not dispute the Almighty’s ability to arbitrate those who are to receive His gifts. But then again, those are His choices. When a human being takes it upon himself to decide what God should do, and then go on to DO those things, as if they were doing God a favor, then we have the sacrifice of Cain. It was the best of his efforts, but it was not what God wanted. Then we have the error of Uzza who, thinking the ark was about to be dragged through the mud (literally speaking) put forth unsanctified hands to steady the holy object.
This is an explanation that human policies, when they are at odds with God’s instructions, have human victims. Real people get hurt when such things take place, like CSDAs are getting hurted now, and true Christians should acknowledge this.
I wonder where are the Gamaliels of today, who at least acknoledge that God is the ONLY ONE WHO should be in charge of judging this matter, and not men.
Giselle,
Regardless of our feelings about how things should or should not be, we must deal with the reality of law as it exists. If a name is registered with the government, then it has an identified owner who is entitled to exercise the protections offered by the law. Those who violate that ownership do so at the risk of suffering such penalties as the law allows.
If you wish to lobby the government for a change in the law, feel free to do so through your elected representatives. But don't get your hopes up because such legal protections have been written into the laws of almost every culture and nation since before the ancient Chaldeans, who recorded it in the Code of Hammurabi.
This is a sure sign that Satan has infiltrated the church from within. We are counseled in the spirit of prophecy that we are to stay clear of civilian courts. The church does not even follow the rules it is supposed to be upheld by. I trully believe that the statement made by Mrs. White in EARLY WRITINGS is manifest even moe so in our time than in hers: "Only 1 in 20 church members are adequately prepared to meet the Lord, the rest are just pew warmers." Sad indeed that church members of this corporation (business) are spending so much time and human effort and money on lawsuits that ultimately will be held against them by the Creator. There are people leaving the church due to all this confusion. This corporation will be held responsible for leading people astray.
Bottom Line: The SDA Church is not what it used to be. It has evolved, as everything must with time but I believe the church is on the wrong track. By the way….has anyone visited the SDA Headquarters in Maryland? Very impressive. It must have cost millions yet ministers in third world countries do not earn enough to pay their rent or feed their families. My family has had to help ministers outside of the United States with their livelyhood. IN GOD I TRUST.
"The SDA Church is not what it used to be."
When was the SDA Church what is used to be exactly?
The SDA Church has never been, nor has there been a 'golden age', and it always has and always will continue to evolve by continuing the Reformation Process, according to present truth and progressive revelation, as it should be.
Some years ago, I heard of a painting that was subtly anti-papal. It showed the pope, sitting on a throne, and surrounded by men dressed in fine clothing. On the other side of the painting, Christ was shown, simply dressed and riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.
The Spirit of Christ has not changed in 2000 years. He cannot work through those who have the money to waste on such finery as (new name – whatever it once was) lists, so I agree with him entirely. Court cases, fueled by tithes that ought to have been given to the work of the Gospel, demonstrate exactly where this gentle spirit is NOT found. I've seen some pretty weak attempts at justifying the Conference's actions here, but really… none of them stand up to the character of the Redeemer that the Church was originally created to teach. There's no excuse for this kind of behavior, very simple.
Neither God nor the Divine have standing in court.
Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church is not the same as Seventh-day Adventist Church. Excuse my ignorance but it looks like two different entities. When people name their organizations they can use similar words as long as it is not a duplication.
My opinion is that the "Adventist" name is now a generic name like the term "Baptist." I counted nearly 100 religious denominations using the Baptist word in their official names. These two men should be released from jail and allowed to rejoin their families and their church. They are not a threat to society and should not be incarcerated with common criminals.
There are nearly 100 denomnations in the U.S. alone using the "Baptist" generic word in their official names, and they are not suing each other in an attempt to monopolize the Baptist name. Can we emulate them on this?
Agreed. As I said, McGill's plan was what they call in PR terms 'The Barbra Streisand Effect' – and everything is no doubt proceeding in accordance with McGill's plans. I think the GC has been caught in a catch-22 ambush.
Excuse me, I didn't intend to get into what he is all about. I am simply addressing the fact that along with 7th day Adventist he has included Creation. When we file for a LLC, Inc. etc. as long as we don't duplicate what someone already has filed as the name of their corporation, it is legal. Would someone please answer this? I understand the logistics of not wanting to share part of a name especially when there is a feeling of discord and mischief.
The morality of the GC’s actions comes down to 4 biblical questions:
The first issue is whether the name ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ is ‘property’ or not? The question is obviously important, because if it is ‘property’, it can be ‘stolen’, and the stealing of that name is a breach of the 8th Commandments. Moreover, any person who is unauthorised to use that name may be breaching the 9th Commandment against bearing false witness by ‘passing off’, causing confusion.
Names are extremely important in the Bible. In fact, theologically the act of giving someone a name in effect gives the bestower certain rights of dominion and ownership over the bestowee. You see this way back in Genesis 2, where God gets Adam to name all the animals, to demonstrate mankind’s dominion over the natural world. You see if with names changes from Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel or Saul to Paul.
Moreover, this is not just a Jewish thing but a common notion found throughout the world in many cultures. King Nebuchadnezzar renamed Daniel, Hananiah, Misha'el and Azariah as Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Likewise, in many tribal societies, one never reveals their true, secret name, as it is believed this would bestow powers over the person.
Finally, in Numbers 27:4 we see a close link between the notion of preserving one’s name for posterity and the possession of property. We also see the sin of ‘passing off’, when Ahab’s wife Jezebel conspired to obtain a vineyard by writing letters in Ahab’s name to the elders and nobles in Naboth’s town, instructing them to have two scoundrels bear false witness claiming that Naboth has cursed both God and the king (1 Kings 21:8,20-21).
Therefore, it is reasonably clear that a name is ‘property’, and as such it can be ‘stolen’. More specifically, to ‘pass off’ using someone else’s name without permission, as Jezebel did, is actually two great sins of stealing and bearing false witness.
The main argument of the CSDA is that they are not ‘stealing’ the name SDA because they believe God told them to take it. Pastor McGill and others have claimed to have had visions to this effect. However, obviously those arguments are irrelevant to the SDA Church, because to accept that argument would be to accept McGill is a true prophet, something it cannot do. If a thief breaks into my house, steals by jewellery but claims, ‘God said it was ok,’ I obviously am unlikely to accept that argument and will simply call the Police. Therefore, from the perspective of the SDA Church, the CSDA is clearly stealing or making a false witness by passing off to be Seventh-day Adventists, contrary to the 10 Commandments.
A good expansion of the law here is found in Jesus’ comment in Matt 15:4-7. In that situation, Jesus noted that despite the Commandment to ‘Honour your father and mother’, people would get around this by saying their property was dedicated to the Temple. As such, people often argued that to give money to their parents would be to break their oath to God.
A similar situation by analogy is happening here. McGill is trying to rely on his ‘devotion to God’ to nullify the clear word of God against stealing and being a false witness.
Finally, many people have argued that the GC has somehow been immoral or unchristian in bringing legal action against our brothers and sisters in the CSDA, supposedly in contravention of scripture. But the major point is – they aren’t our brethren! CSDA itself says we are not their brethren, calling the SDA Church apostate.
Moreover, provided the SDA Church has complied with Jesus’ prescribed procedure for a wayward brother in Matt 18, the SDA Church is entitled to treat McGill and the CSDA as a pagan or tax collector. That might sound harsh, but again, Jesus’ exact words were: ‘If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.’ (Matt 18:17).
CSDA (and their ex-Adventist and CB supporters) often try to raise the Gamaliel example in Acts 5:34,38-39 for the proposition that the GC should have done nothing. But that example is not directly analogous. The Apostles were not passing off pretending to be imposter High Priests or the Sanhedrin, and no doubt if they had, the outcome may have been very different. Rather the Apostles were preaching their message clearly in the distinguishing name of Jesus of Nazareth, and it was the right to preach the message itself that Gamaliel was addressing.
Likewise, at no time has the GC said McGill and co cannot teach their message, including notion of Binitarianism and the rest. Rather, the GC is principally concerned with the common stealing of its property, and the dangers of confusion resulting in CSDA ‘passing off’ to be the SDA Church.
Much has also been said against the SDA Church for allowing these men to go to jail. However, the truth is, it is the Court alone who is sending these men to jail for contempt, for not respecting the Court’s authority contrary to Rom 13:1-6. Again, McGill and Co are utilising a Matt 15:4-7 argument to justify their behaviour. But it should be remember that the Court are ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ (Rom 13:4)
Thus, I believe the GC has no moral case to answer for re its action. Whether the GC has been political smart – that is a different question.
Stephen,
Excellent analysis! Bravo! On-point the whole way through.
I have not heard of this man or this CreationSDA church until now. I did go to a website a minute ago to take a quick look – so I don't have real knowledge about this specific situation. But if we could expand the conversation to include the fact that we, as the official world church of SDA who holds the trademark, have NO tolerance for any deviations of what we hold as true and holy. We also believe we are the ONLY true church, the remnant, and anyone (from any other church) who will enter the pearly gates of heaven have to first convert to SDA and only then be eligible to enter heaven . We do a good job of bashing other denominations – especially the poor Catholics and 666. We have the only true message given to us by EGW and show great reverance – despite the fact that her writings have basically been copied – mostly word for word.
Think of all the people that have been treated poorly (put mildly) as they have sincerely attempted to enlighten, caution, or challenge a new interpretation of the Bible. If we examine the timeframe of 1960's to the present day, Carnage is the word that flashes through my brain. If we were to search for the 100+ clergy who were defrocked in a short period of time in the '80's what would we find? Some have done church plantings, started congregations on their own, joined mainline Christianity. But from the SDA organization (who holds the trademark) they are considered backsliders and slanderous things are said about them
I recently went to the official website of the SDA church NAD and read terrible things about Ron Gladden and snide remarks about his ministry. In looking at Ron Gladden's webite, positive affirmations toward the church of SDA. The word ecumenical has had negative connotations in our church. I had the opportunity visiting a church of another denomination and found it lovely hear prayer from the pulpit for other churches in that town. They do Vacation Bible School together. They work together supporting charities, etc. We can't even be decent to those we consider as backsliders or who have tarnished the church, or are thinking outside the box – too far. It would be wonderful if we could embrace more expansively our own people – they have been treated severely and thrown out of the organization.
“But if we could expand the conversation to include the fact that we, as the official world church of SDA who holds the trademark, have NO tolerance for any deviations of what we hold as true and holy.”
Bea, I don’t think that is respectfully true. The SDA Church is in fact quite theologically diverse and tolerant. The fact that CUC could vote to ordain women, and will probably get away with it (whether you agree or disagree), just illustrates that diversity. The fact that the SDA Church has a range of independent ministries, including 3ABN and even AToday, is further proof.
Moreover, as observed by non-Adventist theologian Kenneth Samples, of the Christian Research Institute:
“As an interested outsider with my nose pressed to the window, I see quite a bit of theological diversity within Seventh-day Adventism. In some ways it reminds me of present-day evangelicalism. One strand of Adventism appears quite traditional, another very liberal, and still another distinctly evangelical. There also seems to be a segment that is atheological in nature and reflects what I would call a cultural Adventism.” (emphasis added)
See: http://qod.andrews.edu/docs/08_kenneth_samples.pdf
In fact, some outside Christian commentators have even criticised this lack of centralised control, as it has arguably prevented the SDA Church from stating ‘the official position’ on a range of subjects:
“Because of Adventism's strong emphasis on progressive scriptural understanding, they have been reluctant to adopt any formal creed. Even their doctrinal statement known as the "27 Fundamental Beliefs" allows for change and revision. Historically, this lack of a formal creed and emphasis on progressive biblical understanding has given place to a wide spectrum of doctrinal interpretation among Adventists. In the 1950s, as today, this tolerance of divergent and sometimes heretical views has hurt the unity and doctrinal soundness of their denomination. This was a critical issue for the evangelicals, who could not hope to accurately represent the position of Adventism to the evangelical world if the Adventists themselves lacked consensus as to those positions.” (emphasis added)
See: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0005b.html
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/9-are-seventh-day-adventists-subject-to_11.html
Do you think this level of diversity and tolerance exists in say the Roman Catholic Church, or even many of the Pentecostal Mega Churches?
“We also believe we are the ONLY true church, the remnant, and anyone (from any other church) who will enter the pearly gates of heaven have to first convert to SDA and only then be eligible to enter heaven.”
Again, a think that is probably a gross overgeneralisation. I am not aware of any official statement that suggests the SDA believes or teaches that only Adventists will go to heaven.
Adventists might say they are a unique remnant people with a special message, having the most truth as found in the Bible, but probably not the truth. Of course, every religion or denomination in the world says that as well – otherwise they wouldn’t be in business.
As with most Christian traditions, the SDA Church has not officially or historically ever held that it possesses all ‘the truth’, in the sense of a final and complete knowledge of God. In fact, we actually say the exact opposite officially! As further stated in the preamble to the 28 SDA Fundamentals, which notes we are open to revision of our statement of fundamental beliefs:
“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.” (emphasis added)
Thus, the SDA Church almost uniquely amongst Christendom has no formal creed other than the Bible (2 Tim 3:16), and recognises the principle of present and progressive scriptural truth (2 Pet 1:12). As stated by SDA pioneer Ellen White:
“And the years of eternity, as they roll, will bring richer and still more glorious revelations of God and of Christ. As knowledge is progressive, so will love, reverence, and happiness increase. The more men learn of God, the greater will be their admiration of His character.” (Ellen White, Mar 373.2, emphasis added).
You might be getting confused because Adventists make the slight but important distinction between the Church at Large, comprising all individual believers found a multiple of Christian denominations, compared with the remnant role of the Seventh-day Adventist movement. This is a position also found in many other ‘mainstream’ Christian groups, who no doubt each believe their denomination has a special mission.
This is a concept similarly held by other Christian traditions, including the Roman Catholic faith (see Second Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium), the Eastern Orthodox Church and even the North American Assemblies of God (the largest Evangelical-Protestant denomination).
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/23-is-it-true-adventists-claim-they.html
It amazes me that we invest a fortune to protect our intellectual property, but forget that our prophet, Ellen White did borrow–should I say steal?–the intellectual property of other authors with impunity. If we expect the world to show mercy towards our church, should we not show mercy towards others?
My simple question has not been answered. CSDA is not SDA. There is a C in front of SDA, therefore when filed, it is a different name. I am not taking sides theologically – I don't know a thing about the organization CSDA.
Thanks for the expose' EGW,SDA Stephen. A bit evasive in hitting the nails ( modern- day examples posed above) directly on the head regarding the question I asked. By the way, I should have placed quotation marks (from a very conservative person) regarding all other churches in the end would have to become SDA in order to be saved. Certainly not my view.
Again, the central issue in 'passing off' is whether 'consumers' are likely to be confused, or whether someone is stealing or using someone else's goodwill and reputation to their unfair advantage. For example, if I started a internet directly company called 'Blue Pages', that would be stealing (and illegal) because we all know instantly that it is probably an internet directly as we all know what 'Yellow Pages' is. Likewise, if a started a fast food hamburger restaurant called 'Delicious McDonalds' that would also most likely be stealing the goodwill and reputation of the McDonalds.
Thus, simply inserting the name 'Creation' in from of 'Seventh-day Adventist' may still be stealing or bearing false witness against the SDA Church. The Court's judge in this case has already ruled it is illegal.
I admit it is difficult at times to know where to draw the line, but even the Bible teaches that a person or group's name is really, really important – perhaps the most important thing. In the Bible, names help define who we are – to ourselves and to outsiders.
How does another separate denomination, Seventh-day Adventist Reformed Movement equate to this issue/dispute? Did they choose their name BEFORE the "official" SDA church trademarked the name? Since they have been using the name "Seventh-day Adventist", along with "Reformed Movement" as their name, since world war II, are they somehow grandfathered in as being permitted to use the name? How many other groups are entitled then to utilize the name?
IP (intellectual property) is not my expertise. However, I suspect it is indeed because the SDA Reform Movement took on that name before the official GC trademarked the name.
Interestingly, there are actually two SDA Reform Churches – not one. They had a schism in the 1950s. They did each sue each other, over naming rights and property. The group that lost now calls themselves 'International Missionary Society', presumably because the other 'Seventh-day Advenitst Reform Movement' has similarly used legal action to protect its name.
How about "Adventist Today"? Does this magazine which uses the name "Adventist" share all the Fundamental Beliefs of the Adventist Church? Do we prosecute only those who have very little financial resources to defend themselves in court? If Walter McGill had had the millions in the GC coffers, would the church have prevailed in court?
There may be more at stake here than a few people meeting in an old gas station in Tennessee.
I'm not saying it will happen, but if someone with money and a sence that opening the church is in everyone's best interest, say, could a court be confinced that 'Seventh-day Adventist' is protected only when used without modifiers such as Creation or Reformed or Today's or Michigan or Progressive or …?
Now, if that were the case, the court would also have found that 'Seventh-day Adventist' was in sufficient general use for a period that long predates the present organization that it is no more protected than Lutheran.
Well, it is a name that was used commonly well before there was a General Conference, that is for sure.
Were 'Seventh-day Adventist' to become 'Luthern,' if you will, not only would the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists be faced with formally losing control it once thought it had with regard to ordination, it would even be formally forced to legally conceed that doesn't and never had control of the church name itself.
This is potentially not a small matter.
Congregationalism would have become the enforced model. It would be the end of the Roman Catholic model the current church president's father, then holding the same office as his son currently holds, claimed in a failed attempt to escape federal sanctions in the Merikay Silver employment case
I don't expect this outcome.
And stranger things have happened.
And if this happens, it will be the result of the current activist president having taken his eye off of that which holds us together as a church, the Gospel of Jesus the creator and redeemer who has promised that as much as we don't want to be in the pew beside someone, the arrangmeent is that they will be our next door neighbor in the life to come, where everyone is everyone's neighbor.
Jesus told a story about neighbors, of course. And wouldn't you gess, there were some fine points of religion involved. And the point of the story was that the fine points are pointless when it comes to who is truly our neighbor.
Is there a single one here that doesn't believe that the spirit of Jesus hovers over this little band in the old gas station? So who are we to make the point that they are not our neighbors?
OK, I wish to present a very serious question for EVERYONE to consider:
If the Seventh-day Adventist Church is so determined to protect its' name, how did it ever stand by and permit a group to produce a film titled "Seventh-Gay Adventists"? Ok, that "name" does not represent another, separate, (offshoot) denomination but is there not a risk that the churchs' name and reputation may be sullied when this movie hits all around the world?
And please, do not postualte that I am "off topic" here. This article, and the subsequent comments, addresses the use, and the protection of, the "official" church name – or even any part of it. The church has trademarked even the word Adventist(s) to my understanding, as well as the initialized version of SDA.
How on earth will anyone that is casually encountering this movie NOT KNOW that it is not an official church release? Or IS IT, in fact, in truth a backdoor (pardon the pun) propaganda medium that some department of the church, agenda driven, has spearheaded?
Good question. I suspect that the GC could have a legal right to sue over the name 'Seventh-Gay Adventist'. The only exception perhaps is trying to rely on a 'fair comment' or 'satirical' exception, but doubt it.
I suspect a more important question flowing from this is:
Why does the GC enforce its trademark rights in some situations, which it is morally and legally entitled to do, but not enforce its trademark rights in other situations?
I am not sure what the answer to that is, and something the GC's own lawyers would need to answer. Perhaps AToday would like to find out – or maybe they are too scared in case the GC comes after their use of the name 'Adventist' in Adventist Today, which is trademark protected.
I agree with you. Trademarks and their protections can be a sticky wicket requiring the wisdom of Solomon for a judge to decide with clarity.
I have a friend who is a farmer in the midwest. He can read AT blogs but can't afford the magazine, so he has asked me to add his feelings to this blog. He writes below:
"
As one who was employed in communication and marketing for the Adventist church for a good number of years, I see three peculiar reasons (not often discussed) why the denomination wishes to hold tight to its trademarks.
First, it is tacitly recognized that the Adventist church membership consists of many people who are prone to swerve off into doctrinal enthusiasms and speculative theories about this or that prophecy, this or that occult, Jesuit personage, this or that conspiracy to suppress a prophecy of Daniel 12, this or that reason the Lord will return during the presidency of a black man (yes, some friends of mine….). I will not ponder here why Adventism is so blessed with such inventive minds, except to say that the church's marketing stance has for so long been one of "prophecy, prophecy" that it tends to pick up a large share of adherents who have a bit of an extra-strong affinity for that theme. (As the ghost of William Miller can attest, long study of prophecy does not necessarily guarantee less than embarrassing results, at least in the short term.) To be able to tell a dis-fellowshipped group that it is now legally bound not to use the word "Seventh-day Adventist" in referring to itself is a great advantage, when for public relations the church desires dissociation. Second, there is (still alive and well) a segment of the Adventist church that holds that the entire membership must become pure, holy, and Christ-representative before the end can come. These individuals hold that for this ever to happen, the ability of leadership to decisively purge away those who are contaminating the clear radiance of Christ in the church must be held inviolate.
And third, the church holds on retainer and staff a team of attorneys skilled in the arena of trade-name registration and protection. These three ingredients, working together (and I see no immediate prospect of things changing) are absolute indicators that anything short of the Lord's Coming itself will not change this aspect of the church, anytime soon—and I have often suggested to my musical friends that if the angelic host in the clouds of heaven should happen to decide to play a copyrighted Advent anthem, such as "We Have This Hope," the last Adventists on earth will be found in a court room, desperately trying to get a legal injunction against its unauthorized public performance….Someone has also suggested that the reason there will be no Adventist section in the Holy City is because the Lord couldn’t get legal clearance to post the sign. But, seriously, there are cultural and religious reasons in Adventism that make it unsurprising, on reflection, that we have this bent toward tight defense of our trade name. And, again, I see no prospect of change in the immediate future.
Do the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians have similar problems? I know there are many divisions but do they fight over naming rights?
You are right: because Adventism was born out of particular and peculiar interpretation of prophecy that really was unique, they very jealously guard their name. But what about the independent ministries that liberally advertise that the leader-speaker is SDA and denominationally employed? One who sells (at a good price) his DVDs books, etc. are mainly focused on prophetic interpretation and surely are not much different that the Creation SDA church.
These independent ministries certainly appear as "off shoots" in many ways, but they have free rein to preach their stuff all the time. Do all the money they receive for their publications and DVDs go straight to them or to the SDA church? Is this considered appropriate even if legal? Is the church unconcerned that they are siphoning off funds from the G.C.?
The Adventist-laymen's Services and Industries (ASI) organization (an umbrella group of self-described independent ministries, with liaison with the General Conference itself) originated in 1948, to all appearances to offer a "best of both worlds" way for Adventist groups with strong self-administrative streaks to enjoy that independence, without drifting away and losing touch with the Mother Ship. Members of ASI do not designate their organizations "SDA" but "affiliated with the Adventist Church through ASI," or "with ASI."
Most of the "independent ministries" in the church today are members of ASI, and being a member of that association automatically gives the organizations at least arm-length use of the word "Adventist," as members under the “Adventist-laymen's Services and Industries” umbrella.
ASI bu any count has been enormously successful in its efforts to keep groups "in the church, but not of the church," to paraphrase the words of Jesus.
My view is that the correct question we need to ask is not whether the church has the legal right to prosecute these men. In the parable of the two debtors, the one who was forgiven a huge debt failed to show mercy toward the other man who owed him an insignificant amount of money.
He had all the right to insist on his legal rights, but Jesus condemned his action for his unwillingness to show mercy. My understanding is that the church has spent nearly $100,000 dollars in the prosecution of this case. The Adventist Church has been the recipient of God's mercy more than once. Is it right for us to show a lack of mercy towards these men?
Nic,
Thank you for your kind and gentle spirit. I have appeciated your several posts on this thread.
Let me offer one correction for the record. The $100,000 is a rounded estimate (could be $75,000 to $100,000 — I have not seen the latest filings) of the attorneys' fees for litigating the contempt of court issues only. That is the court-assessed amount for me to pay to the GC attorneys. The full 6 years of the conflict has surely cost the SDA Church one million or more. The GC began with J. Tew, the high-profile lawyer from Miami who won for them in the Perez case. Our case was heard at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which cost a goodly amount. Nevertheless, the GC is not talking about litigation costs, and you can imagine why. The Wash. DC firm that represented me in my cert. petition to the US Supreme Court told me if I was paying for their service it would have cost me one million dollars. The GC retained a Supreme Court specialist to counter our petition at the high court, and you can imagine what that might have run.
I am pleased to read comments from a few souls who oppose the legal action(s) of the GC against us. One principle, however, that is being disregarded altogether is "corporate accountability." It does not satisfy Heaven to blaime the leaders of the SDA Church. Each covenanted member of the SDA Church is carrying the same weight of guilt as the leaders who have erred. This is the primary reason we try to inform and eduate the SDA constituency regarding the lawsuit and its ramifications.
Do we desire media coverage? That becomes a "two-edged sword." We gain nothing positive from the media presentations. All of it tastes bitter. However, when the GC puts a tight lid on the conflict and keeps it away from the SDA constituency, secular media becomes the channel by which the information is dissiminated. The GC included the world church as co-plaintiffs, and did not give them fair notice. It is necessary for every member to make an intelligent decision regarding this dispute and the consequences to both parties. Our doctrine teaches that how we respond to this conflict will decide our eternal destiny, and we cannot keep quiet any more than we can safely go along with a Sunday sabbath.
I do not expect a majority of SD Adventists to agree with us, and in fact, Christ said, "Few there be that find it" (i.e., life and truth). However, we seek to make a way for every involved soul to understand the costs, the benefits, and the consequences in relation to this great controversy.
Respectfully,
Pastor "Chick" McGill
When John and James complained that someone was performing miracles in the name of Jesus without proper authorization, did Jesus order him incarcerated? Did Jesus resort to the civil authorities? No! He told his disciples to leave the man alone. Can we follow the example of Jesus in this?
I don't believe "Adventist" is trademarked. How could it be when it is an adjective meaning someone waiting for the advent? (maybe on the 7th day 😉
Bad grasp of history? Unlike the Baptists, there are not enough Adventist groups to speak up and object to the trademarking of the name. While many of us prefer SDA as the abbreviation, the GC is pushing 'Adventist' as it bolsters our claim to the name. It doesn't take long trying to write about the early history of the SDA church, or even earlier church history, to realise that 'Adventist' is needed to apply to a wider group than just the SDA church.
The name 'Adventist' is trademarked – see the GC link below:
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main-guide5.html
Interestingly, laygroups (presumably including Adventist Today) are subject to the followin policy position of the GC:
5) Lay Groups. Lay and professional groups must apply for written permission to the Office of General Counsel. The articles and bylaws of such groups must indicate that they are independent of the Church and are not its agents as well as meet other criteria. After receipt of written notice of General Conference approval, such groups may use the trademarks solely for noncommercial purposes.
6) Revocation of Permission. For cause the General Conference Corporation Board of Directors may revoke permission of any denominational entity or lay group to use the trademarks. "For cause" includes, but is not limited to, conflict with the objectives or doctrines of the Church as determined by the General Conference and commercial use by nonchurch groups.
It appears to be theoretically possible to revoke the right of Adventist Today to use the name 'Adventist' in its title for 'conflict with the objectives or doctrines of the Church…'
Theorectically, Pres Ted could muscle the GC to revoke AToday's right to use the name 'Adventist' on the basis of articles (and not merely comments) supporting evolution, homosexuality or are critical of the Church (such as the whistleblower artlies about Florida Adventist Hospital) etc. I am obviously not supporting that idea, and think Pres Wilson would have enough sense not to do that, just saying he theoretically could if his wanted to further his conservative jihad.
I believe the likelihood of success decreases with the time elapsed since the GC knew of the 'breach'. Considering how long Adventist Today has existed, the first question asked is likely to be 'why now, after so long?' Attempts to protect trademarks are expected to be timely, which is why the GC has people keeping watch for breaches.
Yes, I am no IP expert and you may be right.
Timo, I was not suggesting AToday was teaching contrary doctrine. I suspect the GC has a very wide tolerance for all 'independent ministries', including both liberal and conservative. As I have said before, there is a big difference between independent ministries, even those who are critical of the GC and want reform, but are still 'inside' the 'Adventist tent', compared to groups like CSDA who are 'outside' the 'Adventist tent' and want to destroy the tent.
But it still is not entirely clear on what basis the GC enforces its trademark rights in some circumanstances and not others. Are you aware of any GC policy on the matter – I'm not? Shouldn't the GC has a transparent and consistent approach to this matter, as good governance requires, not seen to be acting artbitrarily?
Again, if you read above I gave a detailed defence of the GC's actions. But I still don't quite know why they did what they did either!
So after receiving official permission to use the SDA name does that also entitle them to receive (and keep) all money sent to their particular ministry?
Elaine,
Whoa! As an old Southern saying goes, "You done gone from preachin' to meddlin'!" 🙂
The ministry has the right to keep money sent to it, with or without official approval from the church. The church has no right to interfere in the finances of any ministry unless it is run by the church, and even then it is subject to the law and church policy. Official recognition of a name doesn't give any financial rights.
Makes a good side income for those pastors whose side ministries are charging hefty fees for DVDs and books. "Double dipping" never function so well. Guess it shows that "pastoring" may not always be a full-time job even with large congregations. It's not my tithe.
Technically, all products that result from performing your duties belong to your employer. Perhaps something the church should consider. Educational institutions (and some commercial enterprises) are very much aware of that, and help their employees develop and copyright/trademark products and services precisely for that reason. Not that the employer takes everything, but does gain some advantage, whether tangible or intangible. Given that much of it takes place on the employers time (24/7 for church workers) and as a result of training/education often provided/subsidised by the employer it seems only fair
Does Adventist Today actually have permission from the GC to use the name Adventist? If so, when was it granted. Thanks.
It was the church who persecuted Jesus for not preaching the exact beliefs of what His church taught. Seventh Day Adventists have fallen into the same pompous way of thinking. I call myself a Christian. I'm sure that's also trademarked somehow. Maybe the SDA church can build it's own jails and or dungons for such offenders.This makes me sorry to belong to such a bunch at reading things like this. Our church should be all about drawing people to Jesus so what's a name got to do with it? Perhaps it's all about money instead of Christ
Yes I know there are arguments pro and con on this issue. This should not have happened.
Now we face another ridiculous issue of womans ordination.Perhaps ordination should be done away with then this problem would not exist.
If we can't get past these foolish details then I see no reason to even desire to be taken to Heaven as these typs of arguments would only continue if SDA's were the only ones there. I know that's not going to be the case.
I praise God for people with common sense.
Very disgusted,
Steve Tanner
Agree, but this is what happens when movements become Churches. When Churches obtain property, then that property has to be protected. As soon as the Church produced its own magazine, or business, or healt care facility, then it entered this world. Ellen White's own property is copyrighted as intellectual property, and guarded by the Ellen White Estate.
Isn't it an irony that "EGW's property is copyrighted as intellectual property and guarded by the EGW Estate" and yet it has been known for years that the majority of her work was copied (not as harsh a sound as the P word)?
Bea,
Thank you for noticing the difference in SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST Church and CREATION Seventh Day * Adventist Church. You see the asterisk separating Day and Adventist in my sentence. On our church house, we have a large sphere, representing the moon that separates <b>Creation 7th Day</b> from <b>Adventist Church</b>.
Though we acknowledge that our religion is Creation Seventh Day Adventist (or ism), we have tried to distance our advertising as much as possible to avoid any confusion with the "mother church." AND, in fact, we have succeeded. Our Plaintiffs could not establish one instance to the court of "actual confusion" in more than 17 years of our existence. That is quite significant if you stop to think about it. The court has further stated that the evidence shows I never took the name in order to confuse the public or defraud the SDA Church. That speaks loudly as well. The strongest ground the GC Plaintiffs had to prevail in the instant conflict was the trademark doctrine of "initial contact confusion" which cannot be objectively measured. Consequently, if the defendant's name is similar at all, or in the magistrates mind, potentially "confusingly similar," to the other party's name, the plaintiff is likely to win on that shallow ground.
I am not surprised that intelligent and well-meaning people differ as to how they break down descriptive language. We see the following development of the religious names in question being reasonable:
"Adventist" — that label (noun) refers to any person who is expecting the second coming of Christ, and there is a "family of churches" that can be categorized under that name. When employing the word to modify "church" as in "Adventist Church," the word becomes an adjective. But, "Adventist Church" can refer to any one of the several churches qualifying as being members of the "Adventist family of churches."
If you place words before "Adventist" or "Adventist Church," such as "Seventh-day" or "First Day" or "Historic" or "Reform" or "Free" or "Davidian" or even "Creation," you are describing "what kind" of "Adventist" or "Adventist Church" being referred to.
But, what if one of those "Historic," "Reform," "Free," "Davidian," or "Creation" also keeps the Bible Sabbath (the Creation 7th Day) along with believing in the second coming of Christ? Now it is reasonable to add in the words "Seventh Day" between the first descriptor and the "Adventist" or "Adventist Church." This will tell "what kind" of "Seventh Day Adventist" or "Seventh Day Adventist Church" is being referred to.
For example: Historic Seventh Day Adventist, Reform Seventh Day Adventist, Free Seventh Day Adventist, Davidian Seventh Day Adventist, and Creation Seventh Day Adventist (and "Church" can be added on to each one as well). Consequently, the name Creation 7th Day * Adventist Church indicates "what kind" of "Adventist Church" we are, and if one must require, it tells "what kind" of "7th Day Adventist Church" we are. This is a simple development of the classification of religions (or denominations) which are to some degree closely related, and yet distinct.
I hope you have followed my reasoning adequately.
Respectfully,
Pastor "Chick" McGill