Tennessee Man Jailed for Insisting on Using the Name “Seventh-day Adventist” Despite Court Order
by AT News Team
Walter “Chick” McGill was arrested by San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies Friday evening in Loma Linda. The charge was that he continues to defy a Federal court order to stop using the name of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for his small congregation.
McGill is pastor of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church in Guys, Tennessee. He believes that God has told him to use the name Seventh Day Adventist and that the Federal court is unconstitutionally taking away his religious rights. The General Conference (GC) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church often advocates the protection of religious rights, but in this case there is a conflicting interest. It does not want other organizations to steal the name of the denomination.
For decades the GC attorneys have worked on registering the name “Seventh-day Adventist” as a trademark and protecting the trademark. So far as Adventist Today has been able to determine, this is the first time that someone has been jailed for using the trademarked name without permission.
The Creation SDA Church is a small splinter group that adheres to a number of Fundamentalist doctrines which they believe are the original version of Adventist theology, such as opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Most historians agree that there were significant numbers of early Adventists who seemed to take a number of these positions, but they also point out that this was before there was any doctrinal statement officially adopted by the denomination and Adventist theology was still being hammered out.
The GC did not take any specific action to have McGill jailed, but it could ask the judge to have him freed. McGill was jailed because of contempt of court due to his refusal to follow a court order. The court order came as a result of a lawsuit filed by the GC to enforce its trademark and after a Federal judge examined the facts in the case.
“I don’t think this is really the Christ-like way to deal with these people,” one pastor told Adventist Today, on condition that he not be identified. “These people are wrong in what they believe and maybe not totally rational, but they are no threat to the denomination. We ought to have the maturity and grace to just ignore them.”
“It is simply a case of theft,” said an active lay member of the Adventist Church who is an attorney. “If you steal someone’s car or their good name, you can expect to go to jail. You would not tolerate identity theft if someone was using your name to open credit card accounts or make purchases. Why should the Church tolerate the misappropriation of its name?”
Seventh-day Adventists are generally not aware that there are a number of small denominations that use a version of the same name. This is much more common to Baptists, for example. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different denominations with some variation of “Baptist” in their name.
McGill believes sincerely that it is a matter of divine truth and spiritual authenticity. “God told us to use this name,” he says. Before he was arrested he told Adventist Today that if he were jailed, he will begin a hunger strike.
In a future print edition, Adventist Today will publish a full analysis of this case and the issues related to the use of trademark law to protect the denomination’s name.
"The morning after Adventist Today published the story above, the North American Division of the General Conference sent the following statement to Adventist Today:
"Recent news reports have addressed the trademark infringement claims between Mr. Walter McGill and the Seventh-day Adventist Church The following news release from the Seventh-day Adventist Church serves as an accurate account of the relationship between Mr. McGill and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
"According to church records, Walter McGill was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church but left in the early 1990s citing reasons of doctrinal differences. He has never been a pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. After leaving the Seventh-day Adventist Church, McGill began a new ministry utilizing the name “Seventh-day Adventist.” Prior to filing a claim in 2006, the Seventh-day Adventist Church attempted on multiple occasions to reach out to McGill asking him to cease and desist the usage of the name “Seventh-day Adventist.” These attempts were made because McGill’s ministry was not a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
"After numerous attempts to resolve this matter amicably, the Seventh-day Adventist Church filed suit against McGill to stop using the name “Seventh-day Adventist.” As a part of the court process, the Court ordered mediation but McGill did not appear at any of the court ordered mediations. The Court warned McGill that his lack of participation in the mediations could result in sanctions. McGill continued to disregard and disobey the requests of the Court. During this time, McGill also ignored the District Court’s orders by placing and replacing signage on his church’s property containing the name “Seventh-day Adventist” as well as operating Web sites bearing the name “Seventh-day Adventist.” It was at that point McGill was found in contempt of violating the District Court’s orders.
"It is not now nor has it been the intention of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to shut down McGill’s ministry or for him to be jailed. Recent developments are the result of actions taken by the court because Mr. McGill did not comply with the court’s ruling.
"We believe that Mr. McGill has the right to exercise his religious beliefs and operate a ministry, however to falsely identify himself with an organization of which he is not a part, is not acceptable. This false association confuses the public, media and at times members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Seventh-‐‑day Adventist Church has defined processes and procedures for establishing and maintaining congregations."
I wonder if the church spent much time in conversations that would embrace McGill, rather than shoot him down. In their efforts “to resolve this matter amicably,” was their approach “all my way or the highway?” Did they offer to send him to Andrews for additional training, and include him in ministerial meetings, to win him through love and friendship? Did they offer in-depth Bible analysis, public debate, on the Trinity issue, in a friendly format?
Why on let McGill use the SDA name with a disclaimer that he may hold some novel ideas, yet in the whole the church appreciates his devotion, sincerity, and his emphasis on the Sabbath, EGW, etc.
I wonder how much money the church spend on court and lawyer ($$) fees to accomplish his incarceration. Sounds like we are imitating Rome. Those who disagree with us, we jail, expecting that this will forcibly change their minds, destroy the support base, ruin financially and publically embarrass.
What kind of management has God provided the Christian church in the last 2,000 years? He has allowed (called) a huge diversity of Christian leaders, Calvin, Luther, Puritans, Wesley, Whitfield, Billy Graham, etc., that call upon his name, none of them agreeing on all issues. God appears to be more gracious with human emotions and convictions then the SDA church. What if God had patented the name “Christian” punishing and denouncing all offenders that failed to adhere to His 29 fundamental tenets?
Hello David,
I appreciate the reasoning of your response. As a FYI, the denomination did not attempt to dialogue with McGill before the lawsuit whatsoever; neither to "shoot him down" or to "embrace." The first notice of any contest over the CSDA name came via legal filing in 2006, and legal filings have constituted the entirety of "discussion" since.
But whilst that covers dialogue before the lawsuit, what dialogue was there for the court-mandated mediation during the litigation? And why? The article above suggests MxGill didn't turn up? Can you confirm?
Certainly. Pr. McGill was in Uganda conducting missionary work while awaiting the trial date, for which he intended to return. On the interim, the judge handed down a summary judgment on "Seventh-day Adventist," but ruled that the ancillary terms "SDA" and "Adventist" warranted a trial on the proscribed date.
Before the trial date, Pastor McGill's attorney agreed without his consent to a voluntary mediation. When Pastor McGill learned of this, he immediately fired his attorney after having him certify to the court that he would not be attending, as he had nothing to compromise on the remaining issues. The primary case was lost, and his conviction would not allow a compromise regardless. Spending the funds to fly back merely to say that was considered a waste of both his, the churches, and the Conference's resources.
Regardless, the judge held the voluntary mediation as if it had been agreed to by Pr. McGill himself. As a result, the secondary issues of "SDA" and "Adventist" were given by default to the General Conference without a trial.
In summary, the mediation was 1) over "SDA" and "Adventist," the case having already been lost on the name itself. 2) Supposedly voluntary, agreed to by Pr. McGill's attorney. 3) Held against him as a mandate, despite firing the attorney immediately and certifying to the court his true position on the matter.
By the way, court mediations are not an attempt to sit down and reconcile. The parties are kept in separate rooms without interaction; attorneys go back and forth between the rooms with proposals and counter-proposals. There is no friendly discussion of Scripture or doctrine involved in the process.
I trust this answers your inquiry satisfactorily.
The are two primary questions before the court in such a case: 1) Has the defendant been using a name that has been registered with the US Office of Patents and Copyrights without the permission of the registrant? 2) If so, what damage has been done from that unauthorized use, or what damage might result from the continued unauthorized use? Mr. McGill's best course of action will be to agree to cease and desist from any and all use of the name because the risks from continued use can be very expensive.
The primary issue I am seeing in this discussion thread is the discomfort people have with the church protecting its name. That gets combined with the assumption that, because the commenter has some dispute with the church that their opinion gives authority to violate both the law of the land and God's law which declares "Thou shalt not steal." Using the name without permission is stealing an identity that does not belong to them. Endorsing that action makes a person as guilty in God's eyes as if they had committed the crime themselves.
Lucan,
The church claims that it has made many attempts to resolve the conflict “amicably” before filing the lawsuit. You seem to be denying this! Can you confirm your denial?
Hi Nic,
Yes, that is correct; I categorically deny that any attempts were made to resolve the conflict amicably before filing the lawsuit, much less "many." Our records show the first notice of contest to be via legal filing in 2006. The Conference has yet to provide a single example to verify their claims otherwise.
They say any publicity is better than no publicity. This shows it is not always true.
McGill's church is called "Creation Seventh-day Adventist" Does not the addition mean that is not stealing the name?
At any rate, calling undue attention to someone that would never have otherwise been identified is using tithe money to pay lawyers to sue such individuals; but, hey, it's your tithe money. If you object what will you do?
Creation Seventh Day Adventists believe that God is the source of this name – that He is the one that named this Church.
I have also read that the Seventh-day Adventist church believes that God is the source of the name, Seventh-day Adventist.
When God owns something, He certainly has the perogative to give it to whomever He chooses.
Since God is the originator of the name, the only way it could be 'stolen', would be if God 'stole' it from the Seventh-day Adventist church and gave it to the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church.
Certainly that cannot be the case!
Barbara,
The name may describe what God is doing, but the church owns the name and the law of the land gives them legal right to use it exclusively. The name "Seventh-day Adventist Church" is registered with the U.S. Office of Patents and Copyrights. The "Three Angels" logo is trademarked. That means the denomination is the legal owner of each. Anyone using either of them without permission is at risk of suffering legal penalties that could get them fined and/or imprisoned.
My church's original name was "Harvest of Grace Seventh-day Adventist Church." Some years ago we were forced to change the name because a church in Maryland had copyrighted the name "Harvest of Grace." Never mind that our church had been using the name in legal matters for more than a year ahead of the other church. What mattered was that they had copyrighted the name and we had not. So we changed our name to Grace Fellowship. A curious footnote to the matter was they had started with great dreams of becoming a mega-church with an international TV ministry but have since dissolved as a corporation. However, their copyright on the name remains until someone challenges it. We remember the old name fondly but have no reason to go back to it.
I don't believe "The church has every right to protect it's name" as the GC General Counsel says.
When Christ said not to forbid a man acting in His name, (Mark 9:39) He was allowing others to use or misuse His name. Why should His church prosecute over their name, unless this in not about Christ, it's about money–tithe and control over every SDA church in America?
When Christ's disciples wanted to call fire down on a village, He replied, You know not what spirit you are of," Luke 9:55. Could this be true of the General Conference? It is the beast power of Revelation 13 and 17 that persecutes/prosecutes, and Christ gave a blessing on those who are persecuted for His name's sake. Matt 5:11; Lk 21:17.
The GC claims this fellow is not a "Seventh-day Adventist" and it's true that some of what he teaches isn't heard in SDA Churches, but neither do we hear what 1888 was about–that information has been covered up! So who is to say he's an off-shoot? When we make a list of 27 points, maybe we're missing some other things in the Bible…
We know the history of Rome persecuting Christians. Why would the General Conference follow their ways unless it's infiltrated with Jesuits who see it clearly–If the SDA Church persecutes others for their liberty of conscience now, they have no right of appeal later when they are persecuted. This could be the water that primes the pump!
SDAs have a history of belief in liberty of conscience, but strange things are happening to the leadership that Christ says is blind, Rev 3:17. Some day soon, we will all hear Christ say, "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto Me." Fearful thing the church is doing in Christ's name!
Richard Ruhling
http://WakeUpAmericaForTheEnd.com
Richard, I think this is indeed a very messy issue. However, upon reflection of some of your points:
1. I do get your point re Mark 9:39. But wasn't the point of this being that this matter was still on the same 'team' as the disciples, because he was performing miracles in Jesus' name. Thus, a better analogy might be to many independent SDA ministries, who are working outside of the official SDA organisation, but are still on the same 'team' working with the same goal as the official SDA Church. By contrast, the CSDA are arguably doing the exact opposite. They are using the SDA name but for purposes contrary to the mission and goals of the SDA Church. Thus, I am not sure if this is a valid analogy.
2. I am not sure if your example in Luke 9:55 is a valid analogy either. In that situation, the disciples were dealing with the doubt of a Samaritan village. By contrast, a more accurate example would be Jesus treatment of ‘competitor’ religious groups and leaders for the hearts and minds of the Jewish nation. If one sees how Jesus treats ‘competitor’ groups, including the Pharisees and Sadducees, it was not always very good.
3. Re Jesuits, who is to say the CSDA itself isn’t a Jesuit organisation, designed to cause confusion as to who and what the SDA Church is and believes? That appears wholly more likely. One can imagine that it would be easier for McGill to be a Jesuit, which resulted in this course of action. By contrast, even if there were Jesuits in the GC, this sort of action requires the agreement and involvement of a whole host of people, including Conference leaders, their lawyers and PR team. The smaller CSDA group is more like to be subject to a Jesuit conspiracy, not the much larger (and harder to control given organizational bureaucracy) official GC.
4. I agree the GC should not bring legal actions against brethren. However, the CSDA itself does not claim the GC as brethren but apostate. Moreover, the GC is fair to treat the CSDA as a ‘tax collector’ or ‘pagan’ per the requirements prescribed under Matthew 18 – provided the process for disfellowship have been followed properly.
5. Religious liberty is a two-way street. The right of a neighbour to worship freely and to proselytize includes my own right to worship freely and proselytize. To the extent that you infringe my own rights, your rights must be abrogated under the law. Thus, religious liberty is a qualified, rather than absolute right.
6. The Bible itself makes clear that a name bestows the naming party certain propriety rights of ownership. That is why Adam was told to name the animals, because it cemented his position as ruler of the natural world on earth. That is why Daniel and his friends had their names changed – to symbolise the new ownership in a relationship of fealty by Nebuchadnezzar over the Judean princes. That is why God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, and Jacob to Israel, as part the covenant. This notion of a name being a propriety right is not merely found in the Bible but in many cultures around the world.
7. Religious liberty does not give a right to steal a neighbour’s name – even where that neighbour claimed to have a vision that it was to be done. If my neighbour claimed they had a vision, where God purportedly told them to steal my car, would that be accepted – no I would call the police, and Caesar would be the agent of wrath against such a wrongdoer (Romans 13). Likewise, from the perspective of the GC, the fact that McGill claims to have the prophetic gift is not sufficient from the GC’s point of view to justify the stealing of its name.
8. I am not saying the GC was smart in commencing these legal actions, because I agree with comments that this may result in giving CSDA exactly what it secretly wants – free publicity. However, I am just saying I don’t think the GC’s actions are necessarily immoral either, as some have suggested.
P.S. I take it you are a member of the CSDA or an ex-Adventist of some sort?
Richard,
The church's claim to defend the use of its' name is based in federal law established two centuries ago and with much longer histories in society. Those who infringe on it are at risk of fines and/or imprisonment.
dear friends . I dont think you have met these people " creation seventh day Adventists " I have the "priviledge " someone mentioned why not invite them to the ministerial meetings and try to win them over . This so called " Pastor " believes he has the light and we are all wrong . I talked to the man , and you could not reason with him . His argument goes like this , Adventist are in apostasy , we have a last day living prophet ( this prophet contradicts the bible ) just think that even " historics Adventists" think these people are crazy . So I think the right place for someone like this " Pastor " is jail in solitary confinement so he wont infect other feeble minded individuals with his beliefs . Iam sure he will be out of jail soon after the Psycological evaluation he will be out of jail .
Hello "Anonymous Seminary Student,"
Allow me to provide you with a quote that seems to embody your basic argument, although with far more eloquence.
"With all the power of learning and eloquence, Aleander set himself to overthrow the truth. Charge after charge he hurled against Luther as an enemy of the church and the state, the living and the dead, clergy and laity, councils and private Christians. "In Luther's errors there is enough," he declared, to warrant the burning of "a hundred thousand heretics."
In conclusion he endeavored to cast contempt upon the adherents of the reformed faith: "What are all these Lutherans? A crew of insolent pedagogues, corrupt priests, dissolute monks, ignorant lawyers, and degraded nobles, with the common people whom they have misled and perverted. How far superior to them is the Catholic party in number, ability, and power! A unanimous decree from this illustrious assembly will enlighten the simple, warn the imprudent, decide the waverers, and give strength to the weak." [GC 148]
Seminary Student,
You seem to have a bit of a problem with the command to 'speak the truth in love'. There are many in the SDA church who are equally stubborn in their beliefs and can't be reasoned with. I really doubt they are suffering from a psychological disorder or that solitary confinement is the way to deal with them.
It's amusing and mystifying to see progressive Adventists hate on the Church, and abandon any shred of intellectual honesty and integrity they might otherwise claim, by shamelessly applying double standards to conflicts between church members/employees and Church institutions. When an aggrieved Church member or Church employee initiates use of the court system against the Church to vindicate legal rights, progressives are out there beating the drums of law and justice, hectoring the Church about how important it is to operate within the law as they (progressives) interpret it or wish it to be.
But when the Church, as a corporate citizen, uses the courts to vindicate its legal rights, suddenly progressives piously whine that the Church must show mercy, forbearance, and forgiveness, rather than seek the justice to which it is by law entitled. Do progressives realize how stupid they appear when their guiding moral principles vis a vis Church institutions are: 1) "The enemy of my enemy is my friend;" and 2) "Church institutions are always presumptively wrong." – unless of course they are adopting progressive dogma or in battle with more conservative elements within the Church?
Nathan, I am a 'progressive' and I would hate to say I agree with your observations. I have repeatedly seen a bit of a double-standard by progressives on a range of issues. Don't get me wrong, I do think conservatives are often hypocrites on a range of 'merit' issues. However, progressives are often hypocritical on matters of process, even where I wholly agree with the substantive merit position.
This is just another example in kind.
And to be fair, to be honest I am sure people can rightly say I am a bit of a hypocrite at times.
Nathan,
The question of using the church name is a simple matter of the law, which is clearly on the side of the denomination. The church it completely within its rights under the law to pursue legal action against anyone else using the name.
Like you, I wish there were a less oppositional path to a resolution. Is there evidence that such a resolution was or was not attempted, or why it failed?
Nathan,
Your brush is too large and you sound as foolish as those you are critiquing.
Rudy, I don't think so. I think that is just a lame attempt to use your own 'large brush' to detract from Nathan's very good point. A simple comparison between the 'liberal' comments on this article, compared with the article about the Health Worker Whistle-blower, gives strong circumstantial evidence in support of Nathan's point.
What I have noticed is that the 'liberals' on this site seem to treat ex-Adventists as their ideological 'kin', whilst at the same time treat the official Church and their conservative brethren as if they were the 'opponents'. You even see a bizarre ideological alliance when the liberals support ex-Adventists who have left the Church for ultra-conservative reasons.
I am not quite sure why this is so but I have asked the question – as has somewhat Nathan. I suspect it is because many liberals are already 'one foot out the door' as thus have natural empathy for ex-Adventists against the official Church. By contrast, whilst I see myself as a 'liberal', I certainly see myself as well within the official Church camp, and see conservatives as my brothers and sisters in Christ, especially compared with ex-Adventists.
I am not saying liberals should leave the Church – I am actually saying the opposite.
P.S. A movie analogy is the liberals are acting like the Film Actors Guild (FAG) in the movie Team America World Police, who team up to support Kim Jong-Ill of North Korea. If you actually look into what the South Park creators say, they dislike conservatives, but they hate liberals – because liberals are the biggest hypocrites of all, whilst pretending to be the most open minded. This idea has gained such a following now that it has even coined the phrase, 'South Park Republican'. Check it out if you don't believe me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park_republican
Stephen,
You make some interesting points I had not thought of, but I think it is generally the conservatives who express themselves as deserving rightful ownership of the church. Perhaps there is bitterness on the part of progressive for always being treated as interlopers in the church. I think it is much healthier for them attribute the problem to the church instead of the conservatives. Naturally the conflicts here are going to be between conflicting points of view, conservatives vs. progressives. So,nasty rally here accusations from both sides, but is primarily conservatives who talk about the opponents not belonging in the church. I don't think attacking flawed doctrine or bad attitudes as "hating on the church". In fact, I interpret Nathan's comment as a backhanded way of boasting about his loyalty.
Our church is undergoing a great upheaval because the head deacon of 12 years was not asked this year to continue. The truth is he is a selfish bully that has had conflict with the majority of the church. Can't go in to all the details to prove it here, but in my opinion this has festered because there is so often a self righteous self-entitled group in the church that is primarily concerned about preserving conservative doctrinal interpretation and control over the church. They will not hesitate to viscera the those who are more tolerant and accepting (typically progressive) while allied with those who openly exhibit unloving selfish attitudes, but cling to traditional ideas about the church (doctrine, structure, worship style, etc.)
When you move out of the cosmopolitan or institutionally connected churches, IMO what I described is common place. While this dynamic may exist amongst humanity in general. I think you can trace its prevalence in Adventism to some of our flawed interpretation of scripture. I think those who want reform this situation in the church are naturally labeled as liberals or progressives (more often liberals). Yes, they are more likely to be seen as attacking the church, but it is a broad brush to accuse them all of "hating on Adventism". The real question should be what is God's vision of church and who is really trying to support that vision.
The SDA church in my life time has moved at several times toward more tolerant and broader minded attitudes that IMO represent the acceptance that Jesus exemplified. But, we always slide back inTo the narrow minded world of the Cliff Goldsteins and Ted Wilsons. Is it really surprising that progressives are frustrated with the church when they pick people of this ilk as their champions of Adventism.
Personally I find it very appropriate to diagnose the problem as the fruit of denominational flaws instead of concluding that groups of people are inherently evil. Most of the liberals I know can live peaceably with conservatives when they are suggesting or implying progressive do not belong in the chutch.
I have little information to support this, but it is my impression the dynamic I describe is particularly prevalent in The USA.
Interesting points Rudy.
Doesn't the SDA Church go in cycles? For a long time didn't the 'liberals' have the dominant control of the leadership and its institutions? I very much grew up in the conservative camp and that was always the impression. It is for that reason that most of the 'independent ministries' have in the last few decades been conservatively-aligned.
There is no doubt a change now with the election of Ted Wilson as GC President. It appears the conservative have now well and truly captured the bridge of the SDA-ship. It takes a long time to turn a big ship around but it has now started to turn. You see it in the new anti-evolution jihad in official SDA publications. You see this in the most recent Adventist World edition, where GYC was given a whole two-page spread, which is a long way from being seen the fringe, conservative and independent-ministries movement it was originally.
Perhaps, Rudy, I did paint with an overly broad brush. I too would be considered a progressive by most conservative Adventists because I see myself as more of an evangelical Adventist – very much a Christian before an Adventist. But I love my church deeply. I love it as it is, not just as I wish it to be – and I love it not so much on an institutional level as at the local faith community level which I experience. But I acknowledge the deep debt of gratitude I owe to those who built the institutional Church. For without those institutions, I would not be who I am today, and I would not have the faith community or family that I have today. And I also acknowledge my obligation to preserve for future generations the best of institutional Adventism, so that they too will have access to that which has been such a blessing in my life.
I suspect I should have used a term like "hard Left Adventists," or unitarian Adventists," although those labels too would have distorted reality in one way or another. I have observed that those whose contempt for Adventism as an institutional organism blinds them to the hypocrisy of their double standards tend to be very derisive of religious faith in general – and conservative Christian faith in particular. Therein, I think lies a key to understanding the Adventist Left. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton: "When men stop believing in God, they'll believe in anything; and what they believe in will become their god(s).
The nature of religious faith is that Truth trumps truth. Religious faith becomes fundamentalist, in the pejorative sense, when the realm of Truth cannot accommodate the penultimate truths of reason and experience. As Fritz Guy has wisely observed, there are both liberal and conservative fundamentalists in the Church.
Thank you for your honesty, Stephen. When I wrote what I did, I too was thinking about the Leftists' gleeful embrace of what I think most rational, non-gullible people would see as rather kooky allegations against Florida Hospital.
The conciliatory comments are appreciated. I still believe Adventists who realize their church does not meet their expectations for the body of Christ need to more honestly consider the causes. If we are to reflect God's grace the traditional purist doctrinal ideas are never going to work. Take an honest look at the reasons God continually chastised Israel. They had a boat load of laws, but God 's pleading was focused on their relationship to him and other people. Add in the NT opening of the kingdom to Gentiles and the ideas of 1st century Judiasm is not what modern Christians should emulating, but IMO we very frequently do.
" truh in love " ? Really ? The church has been dealing with these people in love for a long time . These people are crazy . Yes. We are a church but remember there are laws that need to be obey . Laws are what separate us from beasts . So these people refuse to abide by the law , they deserve everything. , my only concern is that tax payer is paying for this pastor food and for being in jail , they should put these people to do hard labor so they can pay for food , clothing etc . Maybe they disobey the law just to have a roof , food , clothes for free . Enough about the argument of speaking the truth in love . How abou saying it like it is .
Well, you should be happy to hear that he's not eating while incarcerated, then. Are you willing to apply your standard to those Seventh-day Adventists who were jailed for violating Sunday laws in the late 19th and early 20th century?
Perhaps you could just go ahead and conclude with "they should be killed" so we have the literal wording of the prophecy being fulfilled.
One of the curious aspects of the "Messiah complex" which this man appears to have is the self-infliction of suffering for the purpose of drawing attention to themself. But hunger strikes rarely lead to the protester starving themselves to death because the need for food overcomes the motivation to protest. So I'm not concerned.
Seminary student,
Of course, it is sometimes necessary to “say it like it is.” I believe that you can, however, say it like it is with love. After all, the Bible tells us clearly and in no uncertain terms that without love, we are nothing and are most certainly unable to piece together a rational argument. Calling anyone who deviates from the Church’s interpretation of truth crazy is a vast over-generalization.
That said, the church is within its legal rights to pursue action against Mr. McGill, especially considering the fact that he is advocating doctrine directly opposed to the Adventist Church’s beliefs. However worthy a discussion of the Trinity may be, the fact remains that it is a foundational doctrine of the SDA Church. McGill is speaking out against this doctrine, therefore acting in outright opposition to the Church. He therefore cannot substantiate any claim of association with the church and should not be able to use the name or any part of it. McGill has no legal leg to stand on here.
Trademark laws are in existence for a reason (to protect us!) and the church is not obligated in any way to overlook McGill’s illegal actions simply because it is a Christian organization.
To be fair to Seminary Student, I find the delivery of his comments, which for the avoidance of doubt I rarely agree with, to be any less 'with love' than many ways liberal Adventists heap scorn and derision on conservative Adventists here. More of that double-standard hypocrisy in my book. That said, Seminary Student, if he believes he is in the right, should act the Christian others may not act.
Perhaps we should expect a slightly higher standard from someone who will soon be an official representative of the church. Do you want a pastor who goes around accusing those who diagree with the church of being psychologically unbalanced and should be placed in solitary confinement? Would you trust him to deal with a church member who was psychologically unbalanced?
Melanie,
Can you explain why we find not a single instance in the New Testament of someone being baptized in the name of “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” as allegedly ordered by Jesus in Matthew 28:19? Eusebius, who had access to the original manuscripts, which were destroyed by Trinitarians, did claim that said Trinitarian biblical text was fraudulent.
Is that perhaps a trolling comment?
“'I don’t think this is really the Christ-like way to deal with these people,'” one pastor told Adventist Today, on condition that he not be identified. “'These people are wrong in what they believe and maybe not totally rational, but they are no threat to the denomination. We ought to have the maturity and grace to just ignore them'.”
I think this expresses the issue well. Especially that last sentence. I still believe the Gamaliel approach would be the best one.
There are some things I am having a hard time understanding:
Good questions, Nic. There does seem to be a double standard.
I see that Nic and Jean are surprised that there are double standards in how the institutional Adventist Church operates. Welcome to the real world of Adventist politics.
Someone can correct me, but the word 'Adventist' or even 'Seventh Day' is not trademarked; it is the combined phrase 'Seventh-day Adventist'. If CSDA had merely called themselves 'Creation Adventist' (i.e. missing Seventh-day) or 'Creadtion Seventh-day Church' (i.e. missing Adventist) there would be no problem. However, they insist on using the full combined phrase 'Seventh-day Advenist'.
Similarly, who will note Adventist Today does not use the registered phrase 'Seventh-day Advenitst' – they only use the generic term 'Adventist'.
Thus, the criticism is unfounded.
I am glad that you later discovered and admigtted that you were mistaken. Here is your ow n admission:
http://www.adventist.org/trademarks.html
The only true God (John 17:3) who I serve is omnisciencent. He knows who are his true followers or disciples. Using the name" seventh-day adventist" or being a member of the seventh-day adventist church which has copyrighted the name "seventh-day adventist" is not a requirement for salvation. If I am wrong please show me the "plain thus saith the LORD" to set me straight.
Lucan,
The church claims that it has made many attempts to resolve the conflict “amicably” before filing the lawsuit. You seem to be denying this! Can you confirm your denial?
Who notified the law enforcement of San Bernardino County that McGill was in violation of a court order and had him arrested? Was he a danger to the citizens of San Bernardino? What prompted his arrest? With all the violent crimes in that area, why would McGill present physical harm to anyone?
The SDA church might have been better served to simply ignore him as only a very few Adventists would even have known of him or his church. Such publicity is not conducive to making Adventism look attractive. The church preaches that brother should not take brother to court, but they have instigated this lawsuit, in violation of their own principles.
Elaine,
What if someone stole your personal identity and did things that both damaged your reputation and finances? There basic difference between stealing someone's identity and stealing a corporate identity is the potential scale of the damages. Your reputation gets besmirched and your finances can be disrupted for decades. Both are acts of theft. Both are against the law.
One often-overlooked difference between violent and non-violent crime such as identity theft is that some non-violent crimes can cause damage lasting far beyond the day when the physical damage from an act of violence has healed.
I have not seen a report of the events leading to his arrest. Such simple things as getting stopped for speeding can get you arrested because that check the police officer runs on your driver's license shows if there is an outstanding warrant with your name on it. A misdemeanor warrant may leave you with an admonition to resolve the matter when you get home, but a felony warrant usually results in your immediate arrest and extradition back to wherever the warrant was issued.
William,
Please, ready the commemnts about the parable of the two debtors I posted below. The man who refused to how mercy was condemned not on the basis of legality, but on his moral duty to show mercy.
Nic,
Applying the parable of the two debtors is a complete avoidance of the central issue, which is whether or not someone has violated the legal authority of the church to protect its name. You would be upset if someone stole your identity and used it in a way that damaged your reputation. Using the church's registered name without permission is the same thing.
Good question, Elaine. And I was informed by a friend that the church spent $75,000 dollars of tithe money to put this man in jail. Said funds could have been used for evangelism imnstead!
On another blog, it was reported that this church was in Guys, TN in an old garage with a painted sign identifying it.
Now tell me how this damages the SDA church? Had this information not been reported via the SDA church, few would have heard of this small, insignificant (in size) church. It only takes one individual to declare he has a church.
The church is pursuing, with tithe money, the prosecution of a man that has no possible chance of damaging the church.
While the church is in its legal right and power to prosecute to the full intent of the law, it is not always wise to do so. If you are a member, were you asked if you wished your tithe money to be spent on very high-paid lawyers for such a case?
Yes, it is against the law to speed, and I have been stopped. But is is also within the power of the officer either to charge or not. Discretion is not always used in illegal activities.
You have failed to show how the church has been damaged. When there are no financial damages, what are the damages that this church has inflicted upon the church?
The primary issue is not damages, but ownership. Yet some dare to assume their opinion on a topic authorizes or endorses someone to break God's law, which declares "Thou shalt not steal."
The church's action at this point may prevent direct damages if Mr. McGill complies with the court order and the law. Far greater damages will come from those who have disagreements with the church using the matter as cause to increase and expand their complaints.
A few facts:
1) Had the Adventist church taken the view many are advising here – leaving small groups alone – there would never have been a CSDA Church to ignore. Our sole reason for separation was the acquisition and enforcement of the trademark on "heretical Adventists" outside of denominational control. It is our teaching that this – and only this – constitutes the fall of a church and the call of God to "come out of her my people."
2) Ownership is an unfortunately myopic way to approach the issue, since there are legitimate issues with assuming ownership of a faith-based identitity. For example, the name was taken three years before a General Conference was organized. You have as good of an argument as if you tried to force others to deny they are Christian, because they do not subscribe to your idea of Christianity. You do not own the name Christian; you do not own the name Seventh-day Adventist. To claim otherwise is theft from God who, Inspiration tells us, created the name.
Seventh-day Adventist identified a faith from the beginning; early Adventist writings back this up, stating that, for example, if the Evangelical Adventists kept the Sabbath they would be recognized as Seventh-day Adventist brethren. You would accuse James of "stealing" the identity of Israel for writing to the twelve tribes, and Paul for describing Christians as the true Israel.
Ultimately, you think that the name belongs to an organization regardless of whether it adheres to the faith. We think that the name belongs to the faithful, regardless of whether they belong to your organization. It is not hard to see which view was held by the early church. Nonetheless, you have the power of the state to enforce your view of the matter on those who do not comply; we do not, nor would we want it. In a very short time, all the world will see what the True Judge thinks of these things. And I assure you – "Well done thou good and faithful servant, for putting those deceived people in jail" is not among the word that Jesus will utter.
Lucan,
Ownership of the name may be "myopic" in your vision, but it is still the issue of law in this case. Cultures have had laws protecting the names and reputations of individuals and businesses since well before the time of Christ. The name "Seventh-day Adventist" is protected by US Copyright law. The Ten Commandments admonish us to not "bear false witness" against our neighbors. What greater like can someone tell than to take their name?
How does this look to the average Christian non-SDA? Do they now see the leadership and members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as violating 1 Corinthians Chapter 6? Does it help the Seventh-day Adventist Church take the Revelation 14 message to the world?
1 Cor 6 is talking about lawsuits amongst believers. The CSDA are not 'believers' but apostates – or from the CSDA point of view, the SDA Church are not believers but apostates – but I am sure the feeling is mutual. The passage you should have chosen was Matt 18, where according to Jesus CSDA can be treated as pagans and tax collectors (or from the CSDA point of view, the SDA Church as pagans and tax collectors). Anyway, the SDA-CSDA are mutually entitled to go to secular courts to settle disputes.
Moreover, 1 Cor 6 says Christians should judge their own disputes because they will one day judge angels. But who is qualified to do the judging when neither the CSDA or SDA acknowledge the same authority? Who do you say Glen should be the judge of this dispute? What person would both the CSDA and SDA accept as judge?
Actually, we regard the Seventh-day Adventist constituency as much our brethren as Paul considered the Jewish nation. As far as the idea that 1 Cor 6 only applies to church-members, I'd suggest the principle of the Good Samaritan parable be re-examined. Mrs. White had no such limited understanding of the verse:
"Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Cor. 6:1-9). . . . When church members have this knowledge, their practice will be of a character to recommend their faith. By a well-ordered life, and godly conversation, they will reveal Christ. There will be no lawsuits between neighbors or brothers." [3SM 303]
Note that she says "neighbors or brothers;" will you, willing to justify yourself, ask "who is my neighbor?"
Once more, she writes:
"I have written largely in regard to Christians who believe the truth placing their cases in courts of law to obtain redress. In doing this, they are biting and devouring one another in every sense of the word, "to be consumed one of another." They cast aside the inspired counsel God has given, and in the face of the message He gives they do the very thing He has told them not to do. Such men may as well stop praying to God, for He will not hear their prayers. They insult Jehovah, and He will leave them to become the subjects of Satan until they shall see their folly and seek the Lord by confession of their sins." [3SM 302]
And one more for closing:
"To lean upon the arm of the law is a disgrace to Christians; yet this evil has been brought in and cherished among the Lord’s chosen people. Worldly principles have been stealthily introduced, until in practice many of our workers are becoming like the Laodiceans—half-hearted, because so much dependence is placed on lawyers and legal documents and agreements. Such a condition of things is abhorrent to God." [3SM 303]
Far too many here seem content to set aside a "Thus saith the Lord" for a "Thus saith the Court." It is not for any human authority to judge who is, and is not, a true Seventh-day Adventist or church of Seventh-day Adventists. It flies in the face of the most basic understanding of what was wrong with Catholicism doing the exact same thing during the dark ages to those who claimed to be "Christians" yet were deemed heretics.
Perhaps, Lucan, it was this lack of respect for civil court processes – that allowed the source from which you quote to disregard copyright law, and to copiously borrow from other authors without credit or permission.
Hyperbolic statements and contradictions were the metier of Ellen White. She had little difficulty using the coercive power of the government to accomplish justice when it came to prohibition and slavery. I suspect, Lucan, that you would have no difficulty invoking the coercive power of the government to effect justice in the right circumstances. You, like Ellen White, just draw the lines differently, and make exceptions to accommodate your moral and religious preferences.
BTW, I presume from your comments that you would oppose the Church's efforts to use the civil courts to protect religious liberty interests???
Man, what a convoluted debate! It's enough to trigger my first posting ever here, even though I've been around for two or so years (as a member). Yes, I am by some definitions a progressive Adventist (from Canada, for the record).
First of all, this whole debate has centered way too much on legal rights (in the "United States of Litigation") and not one bit on the morality of the contention (other than some Biblical references about not fighting each other). I have seen the GC of the Seventh-day Adventist Church involved in 5 or 6 such fights before, and my stand is always the same.
Neither side is totally right in these fights, but the GC is much more right, for one major moral reason: Every organization has a moral right to be clearly identified without any confusion arising from other organizations with a confusingly similar name. Thus, the (GC) Seventh-day Adventist Church has the moral right to not be accidentally associated with other organizations carrying "Seventh-day Adventist" or "SDA" in their names.
On the flip side, an organization of some type of "other" Adventists must also have the moral right to choose a name that embodies who they are, as long as it is not "confusingly similar" in violation of the above moral right.
The best would be for both parties to work out a name for the "other" Adventists that meets all these needs, but failing to be able to do so, the impartiality of the secular courts seems to serve best in resolving such an issue (no compliment to the Christian community, huh?) And such impartiality usually upholds the first moral principle stated above, which is probably why that principle is effectively embedded in the law that has been such a big subject in this debate.
Hey, you might hear more from me here. I love AToday!
How about the principle of mercy derived from the parable of the two debtors?
Adventist is recognised as a much broader term then Seventh-day Adventist. If you look up 'Adventist' you will find a number of churches listed. And at the time we organised, there were a greater number. To argue that 'Adventist' applies only to the SDA church would be somewhat difficult given the history of the word. It would be also difficult to prove that Adventist Today is not an Adventist – or even Seventh-day Adventist – publication. It may not be a conservative SDA organisation, but that is a different matter, although for some of us an important one.
Obviously no one read my comment above (not even to say it was wrong) but I thought the word 'Adventist' or even 'Seventh Day' was not trademarked; it is the combined phrase 'Seventh-day Adventist'. If CSDA had merely called themselves 'Creation Adventist' (i.e. missing Seventh-day) or 'Creadtion Seventh-day Church' (i.e. missing Adventist) there would be no problem. However, they insist on using the full combined phrase 'Seventh-day Advenist'.
Similarly, who will note Adventist Today does not use the registered phrase 'Seventh-day Advenitst' – they only use the generic term 'Adventist'. The official GC link on the issue is as follows:
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main-guide5.html
Just to contradict myself, I do see the word 'Adventist' is trademarked as well. According to the GC website, the following terms are trademarked:
http://www.adventist.org/trademarks.html
I think the advice of Gamaliel doesnt appy to this . Christians were not trying to use the name " Judaism " so different circumstances . once again it is amazing that Some people just want to trash the church . Iam sure that if the church had not done anything there would be people here also critizing us . I am glad this person was send to Jail , if they had done this with Koresh they would have avoided a tragedy . Once again Laws is what separate us from animals .
Agree, insofar as I gave a detailed response to this 'Gamaliel argument' the last time AToday posted on this issue. I am not sure I would say I am glad this man went to jail. I also wouldn't say what the GC did was smart politically or from a PR basis. However, I wouldn't say what they did was immoral.
As Christians wed need to look at this case not only from the legality of what we have done but also from the mercy point of view. Consider the parable of the two debtors: The man who was forgiven a great debt failed to show mercy towards the other poor man who owed him a small sum of money and had him placed in jail.
Jesus did not condemn him for acting illegally but rather for failing to show mercy. He had all the legal right to incarcerate the one who owed him a small debt, but he had the moral duty to show mercy the way he had been the recipient of mercy.
The Lord has shown great mercy towards the Adventist Church in the past. As a church we have been the recipients of great mercy from God and from our own employees and hospital patients. Before his death, my dad was scheduled for a minor surgery which required blood transfusion because he was terribly anemic. The doctor was determined to find out the cause of his anemia, and asked my father permission to perform a certain medical procedure.
My dad did not agree, so this physician asked my sister to authorize said procedure. She refused, and the doctor asked me, and I refused as well. This surgeon decided to put him to sleep to prevent him from resisting and performed said medical procedure while he was under anesthesia. We could have sued the hospital, but we felt that suing our own church was inappropriate. I am thinking of how many thousands of similar cases must have taken place in the past.
This reminds me of Patricia Moleski who was fired for reporting allegedly criminal activity taking place in our hospital system. In the event you have not heard about Patricia Moleski’s claim, let me suggest that you take the time to watch the video she recorded for our benefit in which she relates her experience while working for the AHS until she was fired for refusing to follow orders to delete the true cause of deaths of several patients. Here is the link for the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hN9nR1KA
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F91hN9nR1KA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If we want to continue to be the recipients of God’s mercy, we need to let Pastor McGill go free to his home, his family, and his church.
I largely agree. However, what would you say the SDA Church do if McGill had simply stole money, say a $1 million? Would you still say the SDA Church should forgive him – and wouldn't that be a more faithful application of the analogy? Moreover, would it matter if a Church member stole the money, compared with a non-church member (remembering that McGill is not a Church member but a 'pagan or tax collector' per Matt 18)?
To put a different perspective on this, a young woman (a non-Christian) approached one of our local churches (mainly with elderly people) asking for money for a life-saving operation, because she claimed she had cancer. There was a lot of pressure by the Church's elders on the parishioners to pay up, and anyone who didn't pay up or even question the situation was called un-Christian, un-merciful and a whole host of nasty words.
At the end, the local church raised something like $1 million, with some individual members paying hundreds of thousands of their life's savings to pay for this woman's medical treatment. You can guess what happened – there was no medical treatment, because the young woman didn't have cancer – it was all a con job!
The police were called and the young woman was charged with fraud. She is now in jail and there was an article in the local newspaper about this incident. Several older folk lost a large part of their life savings, money they couldn't really afford to lose.
Two questions:
1. Was the local church actually morally or immorally in pressing charges against this young woman, who swindled several older folk out of their life savings by pretending to have cancer?
2. If the official SDA organization had stepped in, to protect its vulnerable members, would that illustrate that Conference was acting prudently or without mercy?
For me, we must show mercy, but also justice. We are to be innocent as doves, but also as cunning as snakes. If someone has done us wrong, we should show mercy, but that doesn't mean justice shouldn't be done. Has McGill shown any sort of remorse in this matter – it doesn't appear so. All he has done is shown contempt for Caesar, who is appointed by God to bring wrath to the wrongdoer.
Lucan wrote:
“You have as good of an argument as if you tried to force others to deny they are Christian, because they do not subscribe to your idea of Christianity. You do not own the name Christian; you do not own the name Seventh-day Adventist. To claim otherwise is theft from God who, Inspiration tells us, created the name.”
That is an interesting point. Perhaps our Adventist Church should have included the word “Christian” among our trade marketed names, which would have given us the monopoly over all Christian churches. In this, we probably have shown a lack of vision.
By the way, the fact that we have chosen to go against a small group of “Adventists” who have chosen to emphasize our belief in Creation is till a mystery to me. Has the church ever attempted to deprive Adventist Today from their right to include the word “Adventist” in the name of its magazine? Most of the original founders of AT do not share Ted Wilson’s view about the story of Generis and origins. Do I see a double standard here?
I hope no one will misunderstand me on this point. I believe that AT should not be deprived of the right to use the name Adventist. There exists a diversity of Adventists today, and anyone who thinks that there is a utopic group of Adventists all believing the same must be dreaming.
Nic, the doctor was terribly wrong. A physician cannot perform a procedure against a patient's will and must always, always get permission in writing. The only time this can be done is if the patient is unconscious; there are no family to consent; and the patient is in a life-threatening situation–usually an ER case.
I was recently hospitalized and signed numerous consent forms for procedures; none of which could have been performed without my consent or both the physician and hospital would have been liable.
Elaine,
Exactly the point: you have total authority over your life so the medical staff must seek your permission before doing things that will impact your life. It is the same under the law with a name and reputation.
I've been away for a couple of days, so rather than tuck my response away in comments that require substantial scrolling, I'll just comment here. First of all, glad you're participating Hartmut, and looking forward to hearing more from you.
As to those who abandon common sense by trying to separate "Adventist" from Seventh-Day" suggesting that there is a double standard reflected in Church's failure to exercise hegemony over each term independently in all situations, please come back to earth. You couldn't trademark "Apple" and "Computer" independently of one another. But suppose you started a business, called it Apple Computer, and found yourself on the recieving end of lawsuit for injuntive relief filed by Apple Computer. Would you see a double standard at work because Apple Computer hasn't sought injunctive against all people who use the words "computer" or "apple" as part of their identification? Erv taylor would probably think it perfectly reasonable to respond, "Of course not! Apple Computer is not a Seventh-Day Adventist organization." And how could I argue with such penetrating logic? There are many logical reasons why an organization might choose to ignore potentially actionable trademark infringements. Each of the examples given above by Nic are readily distinguishable from McGill's trademark infringement.
As to the issue of harm – again, let's try and resort to that politically inconvenient, but oh so precious commodity – common sense. A single drip of water often causes no perceptible or immediate damage. But tiny drips turn into big drips. Anyone who wants to protect a trademark must guard against the small drips, or they may be estopped from seeking protection when they find that the drips are consequential. I would like to hear, from those who think this infringement is too de minimis to warrant legal action, what infringements they think would suffice to justify legal action to stop an infringer.
Every organization has to decide when it is cost-effective to protect its trademarks. It has to make a subjective judgment about when a potential infringement has gone too far, and whether the trademark usage will likely be prohibited by the courts. Our local Adventist Academy uses the roadrunner as its symbolic mascot. A few years ago they got a cease and desist letter from Disney Corporation pointing out that the cartoon symbol was identical to what had been tradmarked by Disney. We recognized that problem, and immediately changed the cartoon so it would not violate Disney's property rights.
This is not a black and white moral issue. In fact, I don't see it as a moral issue at all. It is a civil matter. Our discourse becomes very divisive and brittle when we insist on seeing all of our opinions as moral mandates, with the forces of righteousness on one side, and the forces of evil arrayed on the other. But then, that's the way both liberal fundamentalists and conservative fundamentalist love to find meaning and moral significance. The key for those who see reality as more nuanced and prefer more intellectual honesty is to keep both conservative and liberal fundamentalists away from the political levers of power that precipitate religious wars.
Nathan,
Would you say that the parable of the two debtors does not apply to this case? The man who had his debtor incarcerated had all the legal rights to do what he did; nevertheless, Jesus condemned his action because he had no mercy the way he had been the recipient of mercy. Do you think that our SDA church has not been the recipient of mercy in the past? If yes, then why can't we show mercy for this man and ask the judge to let him go home to his family and his church?
Nic, likewise to you, if McGill had literally broken in and stolen $1 million, should the SDA Church simply forgive him? Was the local conference in my area wrong in pressing charges against the young woman who conned a whole bunch of old people out of their life savings, by fraudelently claiming to have cancer? How do we, as Christians, deal with the twin issues of mercy and justice?
The point of the parable is not that we are required to forgive a million dollars debt, but rather that if we refuse to forgive a small debt, the Lord will hold us accountable for our unwillingness to show mercy. How do you understand the lesson of said story?
Nic, you are the one using the parable to say the Church should in effect forgive McGill for the criminal offence of stealing its property. It is for you to explain it, and explain how it shouldn't or shouldn't apply to my example of the con-artist stealing money from senior citizens by pretending to have cancer.
Stealing is a criminal matter, which is a little bit different from a debt. In a debt, the receiving party obtains the money with the consent of the lender; this is very different from someone stealing property without consent.
Moreover, in the parable all the parties were in some sort of fiduciary relationship to each other. There was a master, and then two servants, one who owed money to each other. You will note the debt was between two servants. I am not sure if the CSDA and SDA are fellow 'servants', so I am not sure if the parable fits. CSDA are apostates, so from the SDA Churches point of view, following Jesus' words in Matt 18, they are to be treated as tax collectors and pagans – not as brothers.
Nic,
The parable of the two debtors cannot be stretched to apply for a simple reason: the legal process leading to the current situation requires at least two actions with the potential for resolution before a court order is issued. First is when the plaintiff sends the offender a cease-and-desist order. Second is when the legal complaint is filed with the court and a pre-trial hearing is held in which the judge gives the offender a chance to recant and settle without punishment, thus avoiding going to trial. Obviously, Mr. McGill refused both opportunities.
By instituting such a lawsuit, the church has presented a side to the world that is less attractive than the one they usually pay large sums of money to present: its health institutions; its schools, it healthy lifestyle. This displays its soft underbelly which, just as on humans, is not the most attractive.
And of course you know this to be true just how, Elaine? "Such a lawsuit…" Precisely what legal rights is it acceptable for the Church to claim, and what princip[les would you apply? Obviously you have no problem with aggrieved employees and Church members instituting lawsuits. But there appears to be some kind of force field that you would impose on Church institutions to estop them from seeking justice. Could you kindly enlighten us regarding the Elaine Nelson rules of litigation for the Church.
Are you serious, Nic? Institutions, by their very nature, are incapable of mercy. Mercy, like love and compassion, is a personal virtue. Corporations are no more virtuous than spoons are virtuous. Their leaders and Boards have fiduciary duties to advance and protect the interests of the institutions they serve, subject to the wishes of stockholders or constituents. A leader who is inclined to yield to sentiment and override instiutional policy with mercy has a conflict of interest and should withdraw from decision making. Personal feelings should not be a part of responsible corporate decision making. The Church can ignore trademark infringement if it chooses to do so, but such action would not be merciful. It would simply be a considered judgment that overlooking the infringement is in its best interests.
The court made orders that McGill refused to comply with. He was in contempt of court. Disobeying a court order isn't simply a matter between the Church and McGill. It is a crime against the state, just as theft or assault are crimes against the state. The Church had no power or authority to imprison McGill. All the Church could get was injunctive relief and/or monetary damabges. All McGill has to do to get the contempt citation lifted is to comply with the court order.
The debtor in Jesus parable had no money, and thus, no ability to pay. The only reason for putting him in debtor's prison was for revenge, or to force the family to pay his debt in order to get him out of prison. McGill has always had the ability to comply with the court's orders. He simply chooses not to, and apparently has no intention of complying in the future. Mercy for an unrepentant person who insists on the rightness of his illegal conduct???
Our Church is incapable of showing mercy because its an orginization? Oh my…what is the point then?
Ben, it's because mercy is a personal quality. Mercy is compassionate street justice. Corporations can't fall in love; they can't smell roses; they can't feel compassion; and they can't get angry. Their executives and employees can of course do all those things. But when acting within the course and scope of their employment, they are constrained from letting their personal sentiments guide or interfere with instituional interests. They are legally bound, as employees and fiduciaries, to serve the interests of their employer, as defined by the employer, as long as they are acting within the law. If they cannot do so, they should either resign or, as to a particular decision in which they cannot separate feelings from duty to their employer, they should recuse themselves.
If I get stopped for speeding, and the California Highway Patrol officer just lets me off with a warning, has the State of California shown mercy? Of course not! Has the officer? Well, that depends on your definition of mercy, and what is going through his/her mind at the time. He/she may simply be in a hurry to meet buddies at the donut shop; the officer may have just received a call to a more pressing matter. If it is a flirtatious, attractive young woman who gets off with a warning from a male officer, would that be mercy? Even if you want to call it mercy, it is not the State of California that has shown mercy. It is a personal decision by the officer.
I tend not to put a lot of stock in no-cost, no-risk "mercy". Is being large-hearted and generous at your employer's or someone else's expense really mercy or charity? (Okay…I know that question only makes sense if you are not a "liberal" Democrat.) The truth is that there can often be a fine line between mercy and indulgence. What we like to define as mercy is usually nothing more than cheap papering over of law and policy with sentiment that makes us feel good about ourselves.
The point of a church organization, as I see it, is to facilitate communities of faith that promote and nurture personal discipleship. By definition the Church, qua institution cannot possess the personal virtues which it exists to preserve and promote.
Sorry, but the church and highway patrol have two incredibly different functions. If being an organization keeps the church from showing mercy, then why be an organization? The whole purpose of “the Church” is to be the body of Christ. The Gospels make it pretty clear how Jesus felt about the organization of his day’s treatment of others. If our church organization is not merciful its because the leaders aren’t merciful, not because its impossible for them. That’sgetting into a whole argument loaded with technicalities and symantics.
Except that corporations are run by people. Some of the greatest acts of mercy and generosity I have ever witnessed happened in the name of corporations when the individuals running them applied the greater resources of the corporation to do far more than they could have done on their own.
I reject the theory that institutions are incapable of showing mercy. Institutions are managed by individuals, and individuals do have the capacity of showing mercy. God deals with institutions as if they were individuals and holds them accountable for their actions.
Both the church and Walter McGill argue that they have the God given right to use the Adventist name. McGill cites Ellen White where she states that the name Adventist was given by God to his people. His argument is that the Adventist Church has departed from the straight path set by our Adventist pioneers and thus have become a “sister to Babylon” as predicted by Mrs. White. He claims that his church is the right heir to the Adventist name.
This is probably not a question of legal right but rather a moral disagreement. Both sides are convinced that their case is the right one. By showing an intransigent spirit, both will loose. I have been in communication with Lucan Chartier, and have concluded that any effort to convince McGill to choose an alternative name for their church is futile. He believes that it would show a lack of faith on his part to compromise.
There is now an order for the arrest of Lucan Chartier, and he is planning to surrender to the government authorities. The drama is getting thicker by the hour. For additional details about my communications with Lucan Chartier, you can visit my web site at:
http://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/pastor-chick-defends-his-creation-7th-day- -church/
SCOTUS has declared that corporations are now people, but can they vote, be prosecuted and incarcerated, join a church, care for the sick?
This ruling prostitutes all that this nation has stood for: Government by the people, not by corporations, but that is the result of the SCOTUS ruling.
Individuals in a corporation can show mercy, but can also embezzle, lie, and commit fraud. Sometimes the corporation is punished with a fine; sometime the specific individual is punished. How are such decisions made when in theory, the individual and corporation are equal and the same?
The entity that took legal action against McGill is not a person. It is a creature of the government; a legal fiction. The law regards a corporation as a person for certain enumerated purposes. But no amount of legislation can invest a corporation with sentient qualities that are unique to individual humans. Nic, you may reject the theory that an institution is incapable of possessing human sentiments. You may also reject the theory that corporations are incapable of falling in love. But calling a fact a theory doesn't make it a mere theory.
We can talk sensibly and reasonably about what is the right thing for the Corporation to do vis a vis CSDA Church. We can talk about whether it is appropriate and in the best interests of a corporate body of Christians to use the civil courts to address perceived threats and wrongful acts against it. But as long as we insist on using a rhetorical sledgehammer like "mercy" to anthropomorphize an inanimate entity -the Corporate Church – and end meaningful dialogue ("If you disagree with my analysis, you obviously do not believe in mercy."), it's tough to have a rational discussion.
Elaine, you make an excellent point when you observe that, while individuals in a corporation can show mercy, they can also act out of malice and evil motives. Once you go down the road of saying that individuals in an organization are free to use their personal feelings to trump a course of action or policy determined by the corporation, you abandon policy and principle to caprice, whim, and prejudice, which can be exercised negatively as well as positively. Concentrated power corrupts. A person who shows bias in favor of one group or individual will inevitably justify the decision as mercy and compassion. Others will easily see it as arbitrary bias or self-delusion which compromises other important values.
It has been my sense that one of the fundamental progressive criticisms of church institutions is that they are not sufficiently accountable; that they are not guided by the rules, policies and procedures that make stakeholders feel represented, and secure in the knowledge that Church leaders will abide by policy; that by operating too much on autocratic caprice, which they presume to call divine guidance, their "justice" becomes punitive and their "mercy" looks a lot like cronyism and abuse of power.
So let's dispense with slogans and bumper stickers, and talk like adults about what principles should guide the Church and its members in seeking vindication and enforcement of rights from the State. Or let's talk pragmatically about the pros and cons of abandoning what may well have been a perfectly legitimate legal course of action to begin with. Why can't we seem to get away from seeing every issue as a battle between good and evil?
William – I have no quarrel with your observation that individuals, acting corporately, can multiply mercy and charity exponentially. But the fact that a corporation is set up for the general purpose of charity and mercy does not mean that its leaders/employees are free to autonomously follow their own "righteous" impulses in carrying out their duties. Would it be a legitimate act of mercy for the Treasurer of your local conference to take a million dollars of revenue and, on his way to deposit the money in the bank, impulsively decide to drive around the city distributing the money to homeless people? Would that act of "mercy" not be a cause to fire the treasurer for misappropriation?
Suppose God had prompted Pastor McGill to start an organization and name it "Adventist Disaster Relief Association." Now, assuming ADRA (Adventist Disaster Relief Agency), organized to perform acts of mercy and charity, has trademarked its name, would you folks argue that a trademark infringement action by ADRA against McGill would be violative of the Christian principles of charity and mercy upon which ADRA is founded? I respect those who argue that neither the Church nor its members should resort to the civil courts for dispute resolution. But for those who do not take such an absolutist position, isn't it incumbent on you to articulate meaningful principles, rather than simply making feeling-based arguments that cannot serve as a basis for guiding future action in the same or similar circumstances?
Nathan,
It is amazing how much effort you are willing to put into tangential discussion so you can avoid admitting that someone broke the law and is being called to account for it!
Huh??? I have vigorously argued for precisely the proposition that you suggest I am reluctant to admit! There have been at least three convergent lines of argument for why McGill should not be held to account for breaking the law: 1) The Church should not have trademarked its name, much less litigated to enforce its trademark rights; 2) Even if the Church is right on the law, McGill and Co. are too minor for the Church to keep giving them the attention that this has generated. The Church should ask the judge to withdraw the contempt citation; 3) The Christian virtue of mercy dictates that the Church should back off, despite the fact that McGill shows no repentance, and gives every indication that he will continue to break the law.
I am really scratching my head as to how you could possibly read any of my comments as a refusal to admit that someone broke the law and is being called to account for it. Am I that obtuse??
Totally agree – I think that pretty much goes to the heart of the matter and people's reactions.
Nathan Schilt wrote:
ReplyApproveDelete
“Nic, you may reject the theory that an institution is incapable of possessing human sentiments. You may also reject the theory that corporations are incapable of falling in love. But calling a fact a theory doesn't make it a mere theory.”
Did I say that? I think that I said the opposite. I cited the parable of the two debtors. The man who was owed a small sum of money failed to show mercy toward his debtor and was condemned by Jesus.
The Adventist Church has done a lot of good, but it has made many mistakes and has disregarded the rights of people on numerous occasions. The Lord has been merciful toward the SDA Church; should not the church show mercy toward a small group of people who happen to disagree with us on doctrine?
Yesterday I checked the number of denominations using the “Baptist” name and no one is trying to monopolize said name. I counted almost 100 denominations using the Baptist name in the U.S. alone. Why can’t we likewise be gentle with those who share with us the hope of a soon coming Savior but disagree on minor points of doctrine?
When Wilson was elected to the presidency of the church, the first thing he emphasized was the doctrine of creation. Pastor McGill’s church seems to share Wilson’s belief that the doctrine of creation is fundamental for Christians. Given this fact, I can’t understand why we have this man in jail. We need to let him go to his home, his family and his church.
This is not a discussion about theology or religious beliefs, but about legal rights of a corporation to defend those rights. It has nothing to do with whether this Creation SDA church has Bible-based beliefs or believes in the 2nd coming. This man refuses to accept the legal ruling, which is why he is in jail. This is what happens when anyone, for whatever reason, defies the law in the U.S.
Many Christians have defied the laws in the past but that does not exempt from paying the consequences. MLK was jailed; in the early church they were executed. Why should exceptions be made for this man?
"Many Christians have defied the laws in the past but that does not exempt from paying the consequences… in the early church they were executed. Why should exceptions be made for this man?"
….Wow.
This man is insane.
If Ellen White is right, then the day will come when Adventists will be labeled as insane for keeping the Sabbath and will be the victims of persecution. Will we then be entitled to mercy if we fail to show mercy towards others today?
What was the purpose of Jesus in telling us the parable of the two debtors? Was it to emphasize the fact that the man who failed to show mercy had the legal right to have his debtor incarcerated? Or was it to show that we need to show mercy in spite of our legal rights?
"… judge not that you be not judged… God is the judge… who shall cast the first stone…" Do you require chapter and verse? I don't think so.
I was baptized at the Loma Linda University church in 1975 at the age of 25. I've read the Bible three times cover to cover and have prayerfully studied both within church groups and independently to reach my current beliefs. Early on, I was very conservative and gradually grew more liberal as time passed. As you may also know there are both conservative and liberal SDAs within the church. Having left the SDA church in 1996 due to their administrative practices, not doctrinal differences, I'll bet there are as many different interpretations of SDA doctrine within the church body as there are outside among those who have left the church but still adhere to some form of Adventist theology. Because I am no longer within the denomination, some might say I'm no longer an SDA and yet it's the only denomination with which I identify abecause of it's Biblical interpretation. If you know what "your" church believes, it's an easy task to look at the list of beliefs for the SDAs and CSDAs to recognize that they are not the same. If you aren't sure, you have some work to do, don't you?
I had the pleasure of meeting Pastor McGill and his Associate Pastor, Lucan Chartier, just days before the media published their incarcerations. Both are aparently intelligent men, knowledgeable about scripture and church history, and passionate about what they believe. We spent possibly three hours discussing these matters and, while I'm in no position to determine their sanity, I can't say either of them ever appeared out of "the norm" any more than any liberal might perceive the logic of a conservative. In fact, had I not known up front that they were from "an SDA offshoot", I would have classified their views along with many founder-based religiounists I'd often heard expound within the halls of SDA churches many times before. The only difference is that these gentleman were passionate enough about it to isolate themselves from everyone who disagreed with them.
But spiritual things are strongly interpretive and who can look upon the heart of another and know enough to rightly judge them? In this case the issue is complicated as with comparing apples to oranges. Which is more "right" the side of divine inspiration or the law of the land? The bottom line is that I answer for myself and you must answer for you self before God. The administrators of the General Conference and these two pastors are no different… regardless of whether or not the General Conference recognizes the legitimacy of these men as pastors. If there is any vallue in discussing this controversy, it should be that "I" am inspired to examine "my" heart and "my" relationship with my Creator and Redeemer to a greater degree that I have in the past and from that vantage point determine "my place" based on my personal understanding from the Holy Spirit's leading. My salvation isn't based on "which side" I choose here, only that I treat others within the divine scope of love and charity as my Lord would have me do. Is it any wonder people become disillusioned with organized religion when they see the "business" of the church and mistake it for the heart of Christianity? The Remnant isn't trifling over trademarks and jail time. The remnant is about hearing the Shepard's voice and following faithfully. Let it be so….
I have never met Walter McGill or Lucan Chartier, but I have corresponded with both of them and I am still corresponding with David Aguilar. I can testify that they are not a threat to society and I see no reason for keeping them in jail with common criminals.
What did they steal? A name? When John and James complained to Jesus that someone who did not belong to their group was healing in Jesus’ name, Jesus did not order the arrest of said man, but told his disciples to leave him alone. There are millions in the world who identify themselves with Adventists. Should we try to imprison them because they do not accept all 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the church and are not sending their tithes to the General Conference coffers?
Try to Google the “Baptist” name. I counted almost 100 different Baptist denomination using the Baptist name in the U.S. alone, and they are not suing each other for using the same Baptist word in their name. If we engage in the persecution of dissenters, what shall we say when we will become the target of persecution?
Nic, I totally agree with you, the difference being that no Baptist groups have trademarked their name. What surprised me about the list above, the one showing names and phrases trademarked by the GC, is that I couldn't believe the many common words (not used in a phrase) that could be trademarked, words like "Dialogue", "Evidence", "Liberty", and "Ministry". Having ownership of a company trademark myself, I understand that it's all about usage. If I were to use the name "Liberty", for example, as a non-profit for abused children, it might be approved if no one else has it. But if I were to use it for a magazine, it would be a trademark infringement. (BTW, a list of Adventist periodicals can be found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Seventh-day_Adventist_periodicals. It lists additional single-word Adventist magazines, which I suspect are also trademarked, such as "Message" and "Listen", not named above.) Logic would tell me these trademarks should have included the word "Magazine" as a qualifier because of the common language words being used and the fact that these publications are often identified that way in conversation and, more recently, located online with their qualifier.
My point is this… churches are obviously businesses and, under the circumstances of our society and rules of accountability, credibility, and responsibility to each other AND governing bodies, it's impossible to "organize" as a group for collecting money (tithe) and disseminating it "legally" without entangling its members in heavy documentation, restrictive protocols, and legal procedures and processes. Perhaps this is one reason EGW warned against growing too large as churches. Small groups are able to effectively manage and maintain the accountability, etc. among themselves with much less effort. They bond differently and, with Christ/God as the head is there any real need for a mega-institution to regulate and dictate all that they do? It's the size (mega-collectives) that allows for messes like these – whether in the corporate world or among religious organizations. I propose that if the SDA church wants to claim EGW as an inspired leader of the church (or prophetess, as some would insist) then (Listen up here!) follow what she says!! This is not a new arguement and one that frustrates many within the church who don't understand the "selective" adherence to her advice. A lot of grief and unnecessary dollars spent on legal matters are no doubt wasted because of this single bit of wisdom from her inspired pen. As a result, we (and I include mysself as a human of weak primal propensities) embrace greed and forget our spiritual connection long enough to point fingers of blame at each other, even to the point of taking legal messures to "punish" our brethren. Shame on us!
Statements about the validity or not of the beliefs of this CSDA, that is not the point: it is whether they are illegally using the trademarked name Seventh-day Adventists. All the rest is good commentary but avoids the heart of this discussion. What do you think of another organization using a trademarked name? Do you believe it is legal because they are both religious organizations and religious liberty should prevail for anyone, anywhere to simply choose the name of a more prominent denomination and piggyback on its name? How long would that work with Apple, Microsoft, Dell, or any prominent corporate names. The name of Seventh-day Adventist has been incoporated and trademarked, and is right in protecting that.
Like Sandi, I have not been an SDA member for more than 25 years, but I am still interested in the inside workings (machinations?) of the only church I've known and am even more passionate about liberty and justice wherever someone or another organization treads on that entitiy.
Elaine – I think it is dangerous spiritually to judge, but I can voice my opinion in general. I will do so with another question. Is the GS another Apple, Microsoft, or Dell… a corporation? Or is it a religious denomination – like Baptists, Methodist, Lutherans, etc.? I see church/state concerns here. I see religious freedoms issues here, particularly since the CSDA pastors believe their name was "divinely appointed". These pastors are the only ones who can and will answer to God for this matter.
I like what Nic wrote above in his second paragraph about Jesus taking a "hands-off" attitude regarding someone "not of their group" who was healing others in His name. If the GC hadn't partnered with the principalities and dominions of government, it would not be obliged to show any concerns about the "sharing" of the Seventh-day Adventist name and the CSDA would possibly be an obscure offshoot working their deeds in God's name according to their personal beliefs. In fact, taking them at their word about choosing a church name, I even wonder if including the SDA name would have had any value to thie CSDAs if there wasn't some spiritual question regarding the trademarking of a denominational name. Just a thought.
If we accept the premise that "All things work togehter for good to those who love the Lord and are called to his holy purpose…", then shouldn't both sides here be asking personal questions about "why this is happening?" Is this not an opportunity for peronal introspection on both sides of the issue?
There is a Reformed SDA church, established nearly 100 years ago. Have they ever been prosecuted by the church? I believe one is listed in the Sacramento area.
It's doubtful that they could since the GC didn't obtain the trademark on the name until the 1980s.
Elaine,
There is another one in Readlans, California, and one in Riverside, I believe.
It is doubtful if the courts would adjudicate between religious entities UNLESS
the appeal was based on legitimate trademark. That is the ONLY thing that would be ruled upon. Whether one has a vision to name their church cannot be on the docket.
Imagine: The power of the entire Mormon church taking the Reformed LDS who practice polygamy, to the courts? They are misusing the name, but that is
the reason the courts will not address religious disputes. They are addressing trademark, which is a legal right protected by law.
I only know about Aus and the UK (but the US is often similar as part of the common law system), but generally one cannot bring a matter to the Courts about an internal religious matter, as such an application is unjusticiable:
'Religion is something to be encouraged but is not the business of government’: R v Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations ex p Wachmann [1992]; ex p Aga Khan.
The Courts will indeed only intervene to settle property disputes. As has been discussed repeatedly, a name is indeed property – intellectual property bound up with good will. To use someone else's name to 'sell' your product is known as 'passing off' and generally unlawful.
Re the Mormons (who I assume you mean the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), I understand that indeed have taken on fundamentalist groups over the name 'Mormon'.
And its main strength is in Europe. That may put them beyond the reach of US trademark laws.
I suspect it is more because they were in existence before the 1980s. The SDRM are still based on the US. By the way, there are actually 2 SDA Reform Churches. It is a long story, but they had a split in the 1950s.
Also interestingly, when they had a schism, both groups had no problems in going to lawyers over who should have the name SDA Reform. One group did win, taking most of the property as well as the name, and the other group has to use the name 'International Missionary Society' (IMS) instead.
Timo,
Yes, the term "Reformed" sets them apart; and the word "Creation" sets McGill's church apart as well. Adventist and Baptist are generic terms. There is no need to fight over this!
Although it's my understanding, Nic, that the GC does hold claim to the word Adventist and fights to retain it as well as the acronym "SDA". I read this another website
Kevin,
There are Reformed Adventists in South America as well.
Well, I have been in jail and just got around to this thread. From the top, I was taken aback by the title:
Tennessee Man Jailed for Insisting on Using the Name “Seventh-day Adventist” Despite Court Order
While that sounds "poltically correct," it does not tell the unvarnished truth. What I "insist on using" is the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" and "Creation Seventh Day * Adventist Church." The asterisk represents the common separation between "Creation 7th Day" AND "Adventist Church." On our church building you will notice the large sphere (a symbol of the moon) that separates the two phrases. The separation clearly distinguishes what kind of "Adventist Church" this is. It is an Adventist Church which observes the Creation 7th Day. My insistence on continuing with what we have done for 20 plus years is based on conscientitous grounds as fairly reported at ReligiousLiberty.tv.
I am sorry that "the powers that be" misunderstand and misrepresent our intentions and our faith and religous practice. We accept the consequences of our religious observances and missionary services. It is said by many that we are being done wrongly. Others (the majority) favor our sanctions.
We have left the final arbitration and case disposition to the Supreme Court of Heaven. We shall maintain a clear conscience before God and walk through the fires of hell unscathed by the grace of the Almighty.
Respectfully submitted,
Pastor "Chick" McGill
Pr Chick, in all seriousness I hope you are eating again and are generally well?
Also, I would be interested to know what happens from here? What is the GC and/or Court likely to do, because I assume you are simply going to continue using the name Seventh-day Adventist?
Stephen,
"In all seriousness," I appeal to any vestige of grace and honesty that you may possess – I do NOT "continue using the name Seventh-day Adventist." The courts admit there was NO INTENTION to deceive or defraud. Even the judge who ordered my arrest has admitted the name was taken by "divine mandate." Why do you think the Court sentenced me to 30 days in jail INSTEAD of the permanent incarceration that was requested by the GC attorney? Obviously, had I been guilty of a "crime," the judge would have "thrown the book" at me.
Will you insist on taking a stand inconsistent with the courts that you espouse in this conflict? Please excuse a hint of "righteous indignation" here, but you have crossed the line of reason again. And, I notice a few souls are taking my side of the arguement in fact. Throughout history, we understand that the majority are always on the side of truth — no? We also read in history and prophecy that governments always rule on the side of justice and equity — no?
Read carefully– "CREATION 7TH DAY" (then a separation, either "AND" or a large spherical symbol) "ADVENTIST CHURCH." And, remember please, the GC has filed documents with the USPTO disclaiming exclusive rights in the name "Adventist" with respect to the service mark class of "conducting religious observances and missionary services." That means simply that the GCC has no legal grounds for state protection of the name "Adventist" when associated with a church. A "CREATION 7TH DAY" type of "ADVENTIST CHURCH" is NOT in violation of law when properly read and applied. In Uganda, the "Registrar of Companies" understands my logic and has approved our use of the name. It is typically in the "civil – ized" West that you rule against the minority with prejudice.
Your side of the debate reminds me of the Sunday-keeping apologists who REQUIRE the comma to be as it IS in all of the English Bibles, indicating the "thief on the cross" went to Paradise that very day. Why not move the comma where it belongs? If you refuse to move the comma to its proper place, then, at least concede that we insist on moving the comma. When our name is read as it is generally published, there is NO ASSOCIATION with the organization that sports the name "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST," and you probably know it somewhere there in your heart.
As for your question about "what happens from here…?" You tell me, since you are "one of them." I would say that soon the King is coming and will destroy all sin and sinners with the brightness of His advent. By faith, I plan to be translated. You are welcome to go, but you must be willing to allow the name "Creation 7th Day Adventist" in Heaven. "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD." (Isa. 66:22, 23)
Stephen,
My associate reminds me that I missed your "vestige of grace" in the first sentence of your post.
Pr Chick, in all seriousness I hope you are eating again and are generally well?
Admittedly, I was distracted by your second paragraph above.
I began eating after 40 days of fasting for you and the SDA constituency at large, along with any others seeking freedom from all sin and earthly bondage. I was blessed with health throughout the fast, and it was empowering to realize thorough cleansing during the period of focused mental, physical and spiritual discipline. My youth is renewed, and I am perfectly well. Thank you for a human concern.
In case you do not realize what God has taught me regarding this trademark controversy, I will tell you. My Angel has instructed me that ALL Seventh-day Adventist members are corporately guilty of "crucifying Christ afresh and putting Him to open shame," and that if there is NOT "corporate repentance" and "individual repentance," there is no hope of Heaven remaining for the unrepentant individuals. While the very ones I seek to save continue to lash out at me and ridicule me (and my brethren), I experience a small, but bitter, taste of what our Savior endured by His rejection.
My motive for educating your brethren is based on what I understand from God's message to me.
Respectfully,
Pastor "Chick"
That's fine and as I said I do hope your health is ok because fasting for 40 days is certainly a physical feat (although no doubt possibly spiritually nourishing).
As to my second question, perhaps I didn't ask it the right way. I was simply wondering if the Court case is over? If the Court case is over, what was the outcome?
As to your forecast that:
"ALL Seventh-day Adventist members are corporately guilty of "crucifying Christ afresh and putting Him to open shame," and that if there is NOT "corporate repentance" and "individual repentance," there is no hope of Heaven remaining for the unrepentant individuals"
I can only hope that you are wrong there, and that the Lord would not condemn some 20 million other Adventists, most of which have never heard of you group and have nothing to do with the GC. What type of 'corporate repetence' should the SDA Church in Western Australia (where I am from) be repenting of exactly – for argument's sake assuming you are right?
Stephen,
Thanks for clarifying your wonderment:
"I was simply wondering if the Court case is over? If the Court case is over, what was the outcome?"
ANS: Some years ago, I lost by default judgment while in Uganda. (I know; my adversaries make big hype about how I refused to cooperate with the court and lost because of that, etc. The truth is different from the hype, but it makes no difference to an opposer whether the truth is revealed or not.) The case is closed. All appeals have been exhausted. The "Court case" is over and has been for a long time.
Right now, and for a couple of years at least, we have been and are continuing in the "contempt phase" of the "after-case" which runs as long as the GC wishes to pay their legal team to pursue me/us. I could just go back to Uganda and leave my brethren (few as they may be here in the USA) to suffer the brunt of the sanctions. However, I cannot take the cowardly way out of this. Whatever sanctions are dished out, I must absorb as much as I am able. I am commtted to the death if necessary. This is about conviction, not preference.
The fact is– everyone (including you and all of my articulate opposers, along with the District Court) is tired of this conflict. The county jail guards, the CDC medical staff, and the lawyer that represented me before the District Court judge at Riverside Federal Court House in California (including the US Marshals who bound me in chains) were sympathetic to my unusual situation. The District Court judge did not know what to do with me, so the hearing had to be continued for two days while he and the US Attorney did some research into "civil contempt procedures."
No one really thought I deserved to be sanctioned for publically testifying to the true label of my religion. None of them could believe one old man could instigate so much trouble for a multi-billion dollar international church corporation. Of course, all of them have a job to do, and they did just that.
You further queried:
"What type of 'corporate repetence' should the SDA Church in Western Australia (where I am from) be repenting of exactly – for argument's sake assuming you are right?"
ANS: When Peter was preaching at Pentecost, we read, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know–this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. […] "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ– this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:22, 23, 36-38; emphasis mine)
This same "corporate accountability" has come upon the "men of Israel" and "all the house of Israel" of today who have "crucified Christ afresh" "in the person of His saints" "by the hands of godless men." Those who are "pierced to the heart" will ask the correct questions and find the same answers that were given during Peter's sermon. This is a direct parallel and repeat of history. Many of those who heard Peter's sermon were not even present during the crucifixion, and yet they heard the voice of God with conviction in what Peter told them.
Perhaps you will not see the connection; you certainly hope I am wrong. But, I tell you the truth; God has never told me a lie, and I am declaring to you what God has said to me. In addition, if you cannot believe the testimony of Ellen White regarding these principles, how can you blieve me?
This amounts to the final phase of the "judgment of the living" — the last solemn period of the "investigative judgment." Let those who have "ears to hear" listen to the voice of God's Spirit before it is forever too late.
I have endeavored to answer your questions as truthfully and clearly as I know how.
Respectfully,
Pastor "Chick"
Let's assume you are correct about the House of Israel being equivalent to the modern SDA Church. The message of universalism in the NT certainly shows that merely being a member of any group or blood child, to be a descendant of Abraham, is certainly not enough to guarantee salvation. I don't think anyone would dispute that concept.
The message of the New Covenant is that any person, regardless of what group they belong to, can find salvation in Christ. Even though merely being a member of the House of Israel is not enough, there was always certain 7,000 faithful to Israel.
I don't believe nor have ever believed belonging to any particular religious organisation per say, whether it be the SDA Church, the CSDA Church or the RC Church, is sufficient to guarantee salvation. We must each as individuals approach the Cross with fear and trembling, realising our own personal works are but filthy rags, yet recognising that there is eternal life for anyone who accepts the gift of Jesus.
A wise old Pastor (who actually belonged to the SDA Reform Church actually) once mentioned. If you look at the 7 Churches in Rev, it is all about collective action and responsibility. But then if you get to the end of the passage, after Laodicea, it suddenly shifts to the individual. Jesus says, "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." (Rev 3:20).
No Church is going to save you – not even the CSDA. It is up to each of us whether we are the 'anyone' who opens the door to Christ or not.
Stephen,
We agree completely with the truth that "group membership" does not "guarantee salvation." However, we might disagree on the truth of what does guarantee salvation. We are "old-time" Adventists maintaining the sanctuary message as understood by certain pioneers such as M. L. Andreasen. That doctrine teaches two phases of the atonement: 1) the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross — where the "shed blood of the covenant" ratified the New (and better) Covenant, and 2) the mediatorial work of Christ as our High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary — where the blood of the covenant is applied, which is the practical out-working of each souls personal cleansing from ALL sin.
Creation 7th Day Adventism is the only faith system in modern times that teaches the doctrine of the sanctuary in its purest form as understood by the pioneers of Seventh-day Adventism. (That is NOT to say that no other pastors among SDA believers are teaching this truth. We may not know them; and they may not know us. But, eventually, we shall be together as one.)
What I mean by the above is this. Our message is the one that CAN facilitate the total cleansing of the soul temple such that a person is fitted for translation at the second coming of Christ — to be changed from this mortal to immortality "without seeing death."
That does not mean that EVERY member of the CSDA Church is going to be saved OR translated. Salvation is truly a personal relationship with YAHWEH through His Son, and by Their Holy Spirit.
Surely, some of what I am writing here is agreeable to you. The problem with being "corporately accountable" for the iniquity of an organization is that staying in covenant with and supporting the evils of an organization that is no longer adhering to the simplicity of the Gospel, disconnects one from an intimate relationship with God. It is a subtle form of idolatry which God condemns. The two great commandments are: 1) Love YAHWEH with all your heart, mind, and soul, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
The true church is the "body of Christ," and all believers who have an intimate relationship with God will seek membership in that Body. There cannot be more than ONE Body of Christ. Yes, sincere Christians may be scattered among the various false denominations, but they will be open to truth and willing to make whatever changes are necessary to come into "full conformity to the will of God." It is the complete unity of the believers that will be manifested just prior to the second coming of Christ — a church "without spot or blemish."
The Almighty called me in 1988 to serve Him in the special capacity of facilitator in this process of gathering the remnant who "love the truth" and "His appearing." While I am but a worm, I do always those things that please my Father, "for [whom] I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things [that I now suffer], but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day." (2 Tim. 11, 12)
Respectfully,
Pastor "Chick"
'Our message is the one that CAN facilitate the total cleansing of the soul temple such that a person is fitted for translation at the second coming of Christ — to be changed from this mortal to immortality "without seeing death."'
My understanding this is in effect quite standard SDA eschatology, in the notion that at the End of Time at the Close of Probation God's people will be perfect (having undergone the sanctification process at the conclusion of the Investigative Judgment) and yet still living. The great question is when? I see a great danger in any person suggesting a time for when this will occur, or claiming it has occured (which was very much the heresy of the Holy Flesh Movement, which Ellen White condemned). As such, there can be a danger of perfectionism of the sort promoted by the Pharisees.
Are you suggesting Probation has closed and that you are now perfect? My understanding from Mrs White is that God's true people won't actually know when that happens. In fact, any person who thinks they are perfect probably show they aren't, by virtue of that in itself being an illustration of pride of the sort that brought down Lucifer. You will recall that Christ Himself showed such perfect humility in declaring only God good (Mark 10:18; Luk 18:19).
The notion that your group has 'special knowledge' and that this knowledge alone will grant your members salvation to the exclusion of others is not very Christian, IMO, but actually has more in common with Gnosticism and other ancient pagan mystery religions, which Paul spent much time combating.
You might well be horrified to know that I actually think the sanctuary doctrine a 'non-essential' doctrine. Knowing one's date in Court is not quite as important as having a personal relationship with the Judge and Advocate of that Court.
As to the corporate SDA Church, it is only a community of believers. Those believers are a group of sinners. I am also sure your own group has sinners in it.
And the notion of being a small, select elite with special knowledge doesn't just begin with the ancient Gnostics, it actually extends all the way back to Eden. It is the same trick the Serpent used on Adam and Eve. No doubt it is the same trick Lucifer used on the his fellow angels.
Even if you do have the 'purist' doctrine on the Sanctuary, that hardly guarantees your salvation. I would be very wary of any person or group claiming to have the way to clense someone of sin whilst still alive here on earth. Only the Holy Spirit can do that, it is isn't a magic trick that any person or group can manipulate God to bring about that outcome.
Again, it was the pagans who tried to control their dieties . The essence of following Yahweh is to submit onceself totally to Him and become His instrument for His glory, lest any of us boast of our own righteousness, which is of flithy rags.
God will santify me in His own time through His Spirit. If I ever become perfect whilst still on this earth, no doubt I will never know it, always claiming that only God is good.
Stephen Ferguson, those last two posts of yours are worthy of being the definitive last word on this whole topic in regard to moral, Biblical, and spiritual matters. Thank you for such inspired writing, in which I really do sense the Holy Spirit. Without violating my "last word" comment above, I've posted a message below on the purely practical side of a suitable non-contentious name for the CSDA Church.
I'm back after a hiatus. Wow, it was sure good to see Pastor Chick McGill himself show up and write here. While I now know I wouldn't want to be part of his group, I sure objectively uphold the naming principles I had previously expressed in this thread.
As such, after seeing Chick's "separation" explanation regarding their current name (a good explanation), I would propose three alternate names for his group that might not be contentious to the GC SDA Church, yet still embody the full meaning this group wants to impart:
1. Creation Seventh Day Church of Adventists
2. Creation Seventh Day Church, an Adventist Organization
3. Creation Seventh Day Church of Retro-Adventists
As an IT professional who is involved in domain name (and related company name) choosing, I am always seeking win-win solutions wherever possible.
Mr. Sager,
I am not sure what was "good" about me "show[ing] up and writ[ing] here." However, I do appreciate what appears to be a positive word from you in saying — "a good explanation."
Obviously, you have not read the permanent injunction written by the GC attorneys and approved by the court. None of your suggestions will satisfy the GC, the court, or the CSDA (but for different reasons).
Let me say it one more time (in case you and others missed it) — we have taken our name by "divine mandate" given via two separate "divine revelations." (This basic fact of "divine origin" has been recorded in the court documents. It has been admitted by the Court of Appeals that to stop infringing on the Plaintiffs' mark would "substantially burden" my religious practice.)
This conflict is between the requirements of God and man, God and corporation, God and "fictitious person." In fact, there is a ploy wrought out by modern-day spiritualism fulfilling the Scriptural prophecy of Rev. 16:13, "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." This "three-fold union" is made up of "spiritualism, Romanism, and apostate Protestantism." The goal of this confederacy is to restrict the religious liberty of "the hated sect" and to "substantially burden their religious practice" to the degree that "none may buy or sell save those who have the mark."
Respectfully,
Pastor "Chick"
It should have been obvious "what was good about you showing up and writing here". It was good to hear your side directly from you!
Indeed, you're right, I have not read the entirety of the document(s) involved. I thought I had read enough to know accurately what's going on, but maybe not. My proposals were based partly on the several other cases I had looked at in some detail and on the GC SDA Church's requirements in those cases.
You sure aren't very friendly or conciliatory, are you, based on the slightly abrasive opening line in your posting above. I was only trying to help find a solution suitable to both parties. I'll try to stay out of your claim of "divine mandate" and "divine origin" as much as possible, but a comment and two questions are in order.
When you say that the basic fact of "divine origin" was recorded in the court documents, I'm pretty sure that the court didn't actually declare it to be fact, but noted your claim on the record as your sincere belief and thus concluded that there is some infringement on your church name by the GC SDA Church.
My two questions: How precise was the "divine mandate" in regard to the name of your church? Was it right down to that exact name? And what about your domain name "csda-adventistchurch.to"? Was that one "divinely mandated" too, right down to the included hyphen?
Perhaps I should have left well enough alone. I like to help, but sometimes that's not welcome.
I'll bow out, secure in the knowledge that the final elect will be chosen based on their individual relationship with the Lord, and not on labels like Adventist, SDA, CSDA, the remnant, the only remnant, etc., even though the topic of remnancy is very important.
The problem with the 'divine mandate' claim, from the perspective of both the Court and GC, is that obviously they don't and can't believe it. For the GC to believe that argument would be to say that they recognise your prophetic gift, which clearly they don't. For the Court to accept it would be to allow spiritual arguments to persuade a secular court, thus abolishing the distinction between Church and State, the very thing Pastor Chick seems to be complaining about.
From the perspective of the Court, if someone broke into my house and stole my car, it wouldn't matter if the accussed claimed a 'divine mandate' to justify that action. Similarly, those who flew planes into the Twin Towers likewise claimed a 'divine mandate' for their actions, but the secular US Government clearly can't and didn't accept that claim.
Hartmut I am addressing Pastor Chick when I say 'your' obviously, not you.
Mr. Sager,
Please accept my apology for what seemed abrasive to you. I intended no personal offense to you.
If you choose to step into my shoes for a brief period, you might better understand what dynamics take place as I read the many comments here. While I do testify to a "special calling," "Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are" (James 5:17), and so my "like passions" might be recognizable. I surely cannot always discern motives.
It seems from your more detailed development, that your motive in wanting to "help" was pure. "Officiousness" is a sin that few souls think much about, and I expect you have thought little about it.
If I may take the liberty, I can save you some time going through the many legal documents, though since you have decided to back away from this, I may be wasting my effort. Nevertheless, I can report accurately that the permanent injunction restricts our use of "Seventh Day", "Adventist", "SDA", "Seventh-day Adventist," or any equivalents, whether separately, together, or in combination with other terms. Ours is a rather unusually strict prohibition.
Whether you or any of your associates (viz., SDA members) believe in my "prophetic gift," matters little. (I might add that few of the posters on this forum seem to esteem the "prophetic gift" of Ellen White.) The Court has stated "the fact" as a "conclusion" from "the evidence" that I took the name as the result of a "divine revelation." And, of course, the GC does NOT recognize me as a "messenger of God"; they do not recognize me as being Adventist. And, of course, the Court is not moved by the Spirit's inspiration. The Court merely deliberates on the "letter of law." If there were to be a "national Sunday law" enacted by Congress, you would face the same situation of being condemned for disobeying the "law of the land." No Court would care about your "sincerely-held" religious beliefs.
In case you might be interested (without the need for taking considerable time in research), the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said my RFRA claim did not apply, though it was admitted by the Court that my religious belief was "sincerely held." AND, that same Court opined that IF the RFRA were to be applied in my case, the belief that God requires me to continue infringing Plaintiffs' mark is strong enough to conclude that preventing my use of the name would "substantially burden" my "religious practice." The opinion of the Sixth Circuit prompted a high-tier law firm in Wash. D. C. to contact me and offer to petition the U. S. Supreme Court on my behalf pro bono (a value of about $1,000,000). The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief as well.
The GC legal gave a "boo hoo" objection to my petition, saying that as a church, they could not fairly argue against the RFRA which they supported prior to its being signed into law in 1993. Do you understand the ramifications here?
Now, I do seriously question what is "good" about my posting here. I am regularly ridiculed and reminded that I am a criminal, no matter how eloquently I develop my position. I was smacked around while in jail, and I come here for more of it. Am I complaining? Christ, Himself, once asked why He was being slapped. (Notice, He did not turn the other cheek at that time.) Well, I am being slapped for my "sincerely-held" religious belief. Many professed "Christians" ridicule my "sincerely-held" belief repeatedly. Do I care? Of course, I do not relish reading the many false and exaggerated claims against me. But, I continue stating that I am willing to accept personal responsibility, including the legal sanctions and other consequences for my decisions.
I have served time in jail and will probably serve more time before this matter is settled. I could be incarcerated permanently (which really means until I comply). Is that somehow favorable to me?
Do you (or anyone else here) think I savor the idea of spending my last days (I am now 66 years old) locked away with "real" criminals. I read hype about how I orchestrated all of this in order to gain something. What!? What have I gained? I have a home in Uganda where there is fresh air, pure water, and organic food. I have a wife living there, and I would enjoy spending my days in peace with the most kind, gentle, supportive and Christian love of my life. She and I worked together there over four years healing thousands of sick persons via natural remedies. People in Uganda, even SDA members there, love us and appreciate us. None of them want me to spend my life in jail. They beg me almost weekly to return to Uganda. Yes, I want to go back to that country of "religious freedom." However, I must always obey my Father in heaven, and He has not given me permission to leave America.
Whatever comes to me comes from Christ. While much of what comes to me tastes bitter, I accept His Providence as my pre-measured blessing. My heart-felt desire and consciencious commitment is to please my Father.
Respectfully,
Pastor "Chick"