We have seen how error rides smugly on the back of truth. But the converse is not possible, for truth cannot be attracted to error. It is therefore evident that any cause which relies on concealment, trickery and lies, or any other subterfuge to get its message across, must of necessity be a dishonest cause. This fact alone should discount any doctrinal conclusions drawn from dishonest arguments and propositions as found in Questions On Doctrine and Movement of Destiny.

But sadly, these books are now looked upon by the majority of administrators and leaders in the SDA church of Australasia as doctrinally authoritative. Those who point out the twin errors of Christ's limited humanity and His limited atonement are penalized by an administration which is bent on carrying out an undertaking given to Barnhouse to enforce the new stand. This is not altogether surprising when we remember that both books were published with the blessings of the contemporary G. C. presidents* and promoted vigorously by the vast resources of the church.

* As previously noted, Pastor Pierson later repudiated his Foreword to Movement of Destiny.

Before this deplorable dilemma can be resolved, it is essential that we understand the political side of the equation. It is essential to discover how an organization which was formed to preach the three angels' messages has now become counterproductive to the very aims which brought it into existence. Why is it that the call to come out of Babylon has been replaced by demands to conform to Babylon? Why is it, that instead of being a separate people, we now find ourselves in bed with Babylon's daughters, the popular evangelicals?

Only with a proper understanding of the mechanism which has assisted this unholy union, will the church be able to return to its God-given task of preaching the third angel's message and be in a position to repel future attempts at seduction. In other words, it is vital that we learn from history in order that we may profit by our mistakes. It is not generally known that organization and religious liberty were issues around the time of the 1888 meetings. Just prior to the commencement of the General Conference meetings at Battle Creek, 1901, Mrs. White had declared that there must be:

"an entire new organization and to have a Committee that shall take in not merely half a dozen that is to be a ruling and controlling power ... to have this Conference pass on and close up as the Conferences have done, with the same manipulating, with the very same tone, and the same order - God forbid! ... This thing has been continued for the last fifteen years or more, and God calls for a change."(quoted by Jones in a letter to Daniells, January 26, 1906).

This makes it plain that Mrs. White was objecting to an organization that had allowed a few men to "manipulate" our work for a period extending back prior to the 1888 conference. She continued:

"From the light that I have ... there was a narrow compass here; there within that narrow compass is a king-like, a kingly ruling power. God means what He says, "I want a change here!" (Ibid.)

It was this "kingly" power which had prevented our leaders from humbling their hearts and had thwarted the Holy Spirit's attempt to bless our church with the latter rain. At the 1893 General Conference in Battle Creek, Elder A. T. Jones had drawn such spontaneous confession from the delegates while lecturing on the third angel's message.

"Now brethren, when did that message of the righteousness of Christ begin with us as a people? [One or two in the audience: "Three or four years ago."] ... Yes, four. Where was it? [Congregation: "Minneapolis."] What then did the brethren reject at Minneapolis? The Loud Cry.... They rejected the latter rain-the loud cry of the third angel's message." (G. C. Bulletin, 1893, p. 183).

It seems that A. T. Jones soon incurred the displeasure of President Daniells who had sought to circumscribe his activities during his term at Battle Creek Sanitarium as Bible instructor. But problems arose as Daniells saw fit to take part in secret meetings with others of the Sanitarium staff to which Jones was not invited.

During an address at a regular monthly meeting of the Sanitarium family held on March 4, 1906, Jones commented at some length on the meetings and said, "Whatsoever is not as open as the day is of the methods of Satan. "*

*Jones enunciated a principle which does not appear to be understood by some present-day administrators of the S.D.A. Church, e.g. the secrecy of boardroom meetings.

Jones then read to the meeting most of a letter which he had written to Daniells a few weeks earlier, on 26th January. In the main, it had recounted the history of the reorganization of the General Conference in 1901, and the subsequent return in 1903 of the conference to its former bureaucracy.** He reminded Daniells that the reorganization of 1901 was the call away from a centralized order of things in which ... a few men held the ruling and directing power, to an organization in which all the people as individuals should have a part, with God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit as the unifying and directing power (quoted in Jones' letter to Daniells).

It was with this understanding that a new constitution was adopted and, "the monarchy was swept away completely." This was in harmony with Mrs. White's wishes. Said she:

"We want to understand that there are no gods in our Conference. There are to be no kings here and no kings in any conference that is formed, "all ye are brethren" (ibid.).

So it is quite evident that the former organization had degenerated into a bureaucratic power led by presidents. Mrs. White called it a "kingly power." This had now changed. It was replaced by a committee as described by Jones:

"Under this [new] constitution the General Conference Committee was composed of a large number of men, with power to organize itself by choosing a chairman, etc. No president of the General Conference was chosen; nor was any provided for. The presidency of the General Conference was eliminated to escape a centralized power, a one-man power, a kingship, a monarchy." (ibid.).

But the General Conference did not remain without a president for long. Like in Israel of old, there was a clamor for "kingly" leaders. Let Jones take up the story as he castigates Daniells for disobeying the wishes of God by violating the newly-formed constitution [just two years after 1901]:

"A few men . . . without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain words of the constitution, took it absolutely upon themselves to elect you president, and Brother Prescott vice-president of the General Conference. And that there never was in this universe a clearer piece of usurpation of position, power, and authority ...

"You two were, then, of right, just as much president and vicepresident of Timbuktu as you were of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference." (ibid.).

The strength of this rebuke to the two top officers of the church should not be lost upon readers.* Jones then outlines the actions taken by Daniells and his supporters to give the usurpation an air of legitimacy:

"A new constitution was framed to fit and to uphold usurpation." (ibid.).

* Neither was this rebuke lost upon Daniells. Many consider that as a result of such outspoken rebukes, Daniells virtually hounded Jones out of the Church. But it seems that in later life, Daniells repented of his attitude toward Jones and acknowledged that "Jones was right and I was wrong" (source: Pastor G. Bumside, following a conversation with Meade McGuire in USA, 1946).

This, Jones saw as "a Czardom ... which has since gone steadily forward," and he went on to back up his view with the feelings of some men of experience within the denomination:

"There has never been such a one-man power, such a centralized despotism, so much of papacy! ... And as a part of this bureaucracy, there is of all the incongruous things ever heard of, a Religious Liberty Bureau- a contradiction in terms." (ibid.).

And now for Jones' summation of the situation:

"The Seventh-day Adventist denomination is more like the Catholic Church than is any other Protestant church in the world (ibid.).* [For a reproduction of Jones' historic letter, see Appendix.]

And so within the Seventh-day Adventist Church was reinstalled an instrument of "papal-like, kingly" authority, the basic structure of which remains in place to this day. This is not to imply that all succeeding presidents have taken advantage of the "kingly" authority. But some have used it to the peril of our church; and either intentionally or by manipulation, a few men have usurped a position comparable to the Vatican Curia, taking upon themselves the responsibility of redefining our church doctrines.

*Let us remind the reader that this is Jones describing the S.D.A. organization of 1906. Any similarity of Jones' description to conditions today is entirely providential and warrants close examination.

Recently, the author was discussing Adventism's latest pronouncement- "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " with a retired minister. The observation was made that President N. C. Wilson and the General Conference* were still pushing the heresy of a completed atonement, citing the following:

"The atonement, or reconciliation, was completed on the cross as foreshadowed by the sacrifices, and the penitent believer can trust in this finished work of our Lord." ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", p. 315).

* Under the heading "We Gratefully Acknowledge ..." we read: "With the authorization and encouragement of president Neal C. Wilson and the other officers of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, the Ministerial Association has undertaken to prepare this volume to furnish reliable information on beliefs of our church" ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe... ", p. v).

** The reader will notice that this statement not only repeats Froom's error of a completed atonement, but incorrectly implies that this was foreshadowed by the earthly sacrifices, and comes perilously close to satisfying the evangelicals' demands that a Christian must believe in Christ's completed work of salvation.

A similar experience took place a few days later while talking to a very respected evangelist whose faith in our sanctuary and other historic messages seems undiminished. He could see nothing wrong with the claims of Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny, that Christ is now "administering the benefits of a completed atonement at the cross." Both men felt that the author was reading an unwarranted intent into a perfectly innocent statement.

But let it ever be remembered that the overriding purpose of QOD was to convince Christendom that we believe in Christ's completed work of atonement (and by implication, salvation) in order to escape the stigma of cultism. Barnhouse and Martin, having been satisfied on this point, then ridiculed our claim that Christ is carrying on a further work in the heavenly Sanctuary as being illogical. Said Barnhouse:

"Any effort to establish it [Christ's heavenly ministry] is stale, flat and unprofitable." (Eternity, September 1956).

And again,

"The latter doctrine [investigative judgment], to me, is the most colossal, face-saving phenomenon in religious history!" (Ibid.).

* In "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", p. 317, the investigative judgment is referred to as the pre-millennial judgment" and "pre-Advent judgment."

While preaching at the Avondale Memorial Church, Pastor Geoff Youlden of the South Pacific Division Media Centre claimed that in the pre-Advent judgment, "God is up for judgment" and that "God is in the hot seat" (Sermon, "The Gospel and the Judgment," August 20, 1988). When the author later pointed out to him that this is an echo of Fordian teaching,** he claimed that he knew nothing of what Ford believes or teaches! Such a claim is all the more astounding when it is realized that Youlden studied under Ford at Avondale College. Such teaching appears to retain belief in the investigative judgment, while shifting its emphasis on to God's shoulders. Thus the impact of the first angel's message of Revelation 14, which is an urgent call for personal preparedness, is effectively muted.

** Ford wrote in Australian Signs of the Times, June 24, 1957 under the heading "Will believers and Their Sins Come to Judgment?": "God has placed Himself on trial before the universe."

This view is not only comparatively new to Adventism but is contrary to the Spirit of Prophecy:

"The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan." (PP 69; see Appendix for chapter twenty five).

The authority of the Spirit of Prophecy is upheld in the S.D.A. Bible Commentary. Here it is clearly acknowledged that God's method of dealing with sin has been eternally vindicated before the universe:

"The supreme demonstration was made by the incarnation, life and death of God's own Son. God now stood wholly vindicated before the universe.... Thus the charges of Satan were refuted and the peace of the universe was made eternally sure. God's character had been vindicated before the universe." (S.D.A. Bible Commentary vol. 6, p. 508).

There is no doubt that many Adventists are quite naive when accepting deceptive pronouncements which are aimed at destroying biblical Adventist positions. If such statements should come with the blessings of presidents and others who have attained influential positions, it becomes difficult to accept that they are misleading. Instead, some strive to interpret these statements to harmonize with traditional Adventist beliefs. This is the genius of Satan's chicanery, for while trusting souls are silently consenting, heretics are energetically exploiting this dual state of the art.

Dr. Desmond Ford, ex-minister of the S.D.A. Church and still a member of Pacific Union College Church, exploits the "finished atonement" concept to explain his evangelical view of a term used almost exclusively by Adventists- "Everlasting Gospel." In his magazine, Good News Australia, August 1988, Ford writes under the heading, "Meditation upon the Everlasting Gospel." He says,

"Thus in every place where Paul mentions "the righteousness of faith," he means not sanctification, but that justification which is based on the finished atonement." (p. 2).

Notice that his conclusions on sanctification and justification are based on a "finished atonement."

Even being a credentialed minister of the S.D.A. Church does not hinder Pastor Vern Heise from expressing his views in Ford's Good News Australia. Naturally, they are compatible with Ford's evangelical-type gospel. In an article, "Have You Been to Church at Antioch?", Heise takes a tilt at religious "groups that feel that they are "sole custodians of the truth." Of course, being a veteran minister past retiring age, he would be very aware that the S.D.A. Church is the "sole custodian" of the sanctuary truth with its judgment-hour message. Heise tells us that

"there were those in Jerusalem that wanted to make Christianity hard work. They were enjoying their masochism-their self-imposed penances. They were like some today who will perform their religion even if it kills them!" (Good News Australia, September 1988).

Then comes the punch line to which his whole article has been targeted:

"On the other hand, the church in Antioch rejoiced in and celebrated the finished work of Christ." (ibid.).

Yes, that is how the "finished work of our Lord" ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . ") is being interpreted from within our church- shades of Barnhouse, who sees our belief in Christ's heavenly atoning ministry as "stale, flat and unprofitable," and the keeping of Sabbath as legalistic. (A "self-imposed penance"? "Performing their religion even if it kills them"?)

May we remind the reader of Elder F. D. Nichol's words quoted in chapter 12:

"[The ex-Adventist] speaks militantly of the finished work of Christ on the cross." (Answers to Objections, p. 751).

Now, over thirty-five years later, it is a credentialed, ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who so speaks. And who does he now have to back him? Well, according to "Seventh day Adventists Believe. .. ", he could quote the Ministerial Association, who have the authorization and encouragement of president Neal C. Wilson and the other officers of the General Conference.

But worse is to come. The Ministerial Association tells us that "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. " is a biblical exposition of the twenty-seven "Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists" (p. iv and cover title). Yet all the while, recent converts to our church, and young people particularly, are being brainwashed with the evangelical interpretation of a make-believe brother/Saviour Who finished His work at Calvary.

To the carnal mind, a bargain in cheap grace, or salvation in sin, is very appealing. Qualms of conscience can be assuaged by deductive reasoning based on new and erroneous positions touted by official publications of the S.D.A. Church. It goes something like this:

Because Jesus came to this earth with the nature of unfallen Adam, He did not inherit the sinful tendencies that I received from my parents, and therefore, He had an advantage over me and He does not expect me to follow Him as my example.

And because He completed His atoning work of salvation at the cross, there is no need for a later investigative judgment in heaven. If I try to keep his commandments, I am rejecting Christ's victory over sin on my behalf and I am actually committing the sin of trying to save myself by my own works.

Perhaps in the cold light of logic, we should be grateful to the General Conference for showing us in "Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... " that they are unable to clearly interpret their Fundamental Belief No. 23, as enunciated at Dallas. Just look at this pathetic effort to portray the earthly sacrifice as the atonement in an attempt to make their "completed atonement" at the cross appear credible:

"The application of the atoning blood during the mediatorial ministry of the priest was also seen as a form of atonement." (Leviticus 4:35) ("Seventh-day Adventists Believe .. . ", p. 315).

"A form of atonement"? What nonsense! It was a crucial part of the atonement.

But lo and behold, these equivocators are caught in the trap of their own making and go on to contradict their previous statement of "the finished work." In defiance of Barnhouse's and Ford's logic, they have to justify Christ's further ministry in heaven.

They say,

"Christ's priestly ministry provides for the sinner's forgiveness and reconciliation to God." Hebrews 7:25 (ibid., p. 317).

And again,

"The heavenly sanctuary is the great command center where Christ conducts His priestly ministry for our salvation." (ibid., p. 316).

And yet, just one page back (315), we have been told that "the atonement or reconciliation was completed on the cross"! Such is the dilemma into which people arrive when they endeavor to produce a book on Adventist beliefs that has something for everyone.* And if this dose of double-talk has not sufficiently confused the meaning of Fundamental 23, here is more, as we read:

"The issue [investigative judgment] is with God and the universe, not between God and the true child." (ibid., p. 326).

*Many consider the latest statement of Fundamental Beliefs to be a consensus statement. This was openly claimed by pastor Rex Moe at a special business meeting of the Avondale church (September 27, 1987) in his attempt to prove that various interpretations of our Fundamentals are allowed. Now, in "Seventh-day Adventists Believe. .. ", we have the farcical situation of a consensus interpretation of a consensus statement!

In the light of such enchanting statements, the instruction given by God's messenger takes on a new urgency for Seventh-day Adventists today:

"We are individually to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. In the typical service, when the work of atonement was performed by the high priest in the Most Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary, the people were required to afflict their souls before God, and confess their sins, that they might be atoned for and blotted out. Will any less be required of us in this anti-typical day of atonement, when Christ in the sanctuary above is pleading in behalf of His people, and the final irrevocable decision is to be pronounced upon every case? .. .

"We must no longer remain upon enchanted ground. We are fast approaching the close of probation.... Let the church arise, and repent of her backslidings before God. Let the watch men awake and give the trumpet a certain sound. It is a definite warning that we have to proclaim. God commands His servants "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins" (Isaiah 58:1). (1SM 125, 126).

So, just how important is it that Seventh-day Adventists resist the teaching of a completed atonement? Let us hear from the Church's proclaimed authority on the sanctuary:

"No Adventist can believe in a final atonement on the cross and remain an Adventist." (Andreasen, Letters to the Churches titled "The Living Witness," p. 2, as reprinted by LMN Publishing, 1988).

The truth of this statement is supported by the Spirit of Prophecy.

"The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the declaration "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Daniel 8:14 (The Story of Redemption, p. 375).

"When Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of the atonement, He committed to His servants the last message of mercy to be given to the world. Such is the warning of the third angel of Revelation 14." (ibid., p. 379).

Elder A. F. Ballenger was once one of our leading evangelists, and won many souls to the truth. Eventually he was dismissed from the church because of theological differences, and, as one would say, "of all things," the heresy for which he was dismissed is the very doctrine now being forced upon us, teaching that the atonement was made on the cross!

In commenting on his dismissal, Mrs. White said: "[His] proofs are not reliable. If received they would destroy the faith of God's people in the truth that has made us what we are....

"It was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the presentations of the sanctuary questions were given.... Another and still another, will arise and bring in supposed great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks (Selected Messages, Book 1, pp. 161-162).

M. L. Andreasen on the Atonement Letters to the Churches, January 19, 1958

It was well nigh impossible for heresy to gain a permanent foothold while God's Messenger, Mrs. E. G. White was alive. Her influence survived her death and the work prospered in proportion to the number of her dwindling contemporaries.

Particularly was this so in Australasia, where Mrs. White had established the Avondale School for Christian Workers (now Avondale College) according to the blueprint. This model of Christian education was eventually to make its presence felt as its missionaries not only encompassed Australasia, but they were eventually to take a prominent part in speeding the advance of the everlasting gospel around the world.

They had no illusions as to the message contained in the everlasting gospel and they did not deem it advisable to attend colleges of "higher" learning to discover that message. They called their brothers out of Babylon into God's remnant church, that they too might catch a vision of a judgment-bound world on the brink of eternity. They were not ashamed of this "gospel of Christ" with His atoning role as ministering High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.

If, and when Satan tried to gain an heretical foothold within the church, such efforts were stoutly and ably resisted. One such attempt was made in the late 1920s through the person of one of Australasia's capable leaders, Pastor W. W. Fletcher. Some say that he had been sidetracked by Elder L. R. Conradi of Europe, on our sanctuary message and on the Spirit of Prophecy. Let it be stated here, that unlike some later and contemporary heretics, Pastor Fletcher presented his propositions honestly by acknowledging that he believed differently to historic Adventism.

A subcommittee to study Fletcher's propositions was appointed early in 1930 by the Australasian Union Conference of which Pastor W. G. Turner was president. Their report, which rejected Fletcher's views, was forwarded to the General Conference where another committee had been formed to counsel with Fletcher. The chairman of that committee, Pastor Montgomery, wrote to the Australasian Union thanking them for the subcommittee's work and conclusions. He said,

"We feel that this statement is both tenable and adequate to prove the error of the views held by Brother Fletcher."

In the light of present heresies, it is interesting to note one of the highlights of the subcommittee's statement:

"If sin was cancelled at the cross, there is no need for a scapegoat. The typical service however, provided one, which is proof that the sin was not cancelled at the altar of burnt offering, which is the equivalent of the cross. The sin was finally atoned for, not at the cross, but in the true tabernacle in heaven before the "ark of the testament," which John saw in vision (p. 5)."

The late Pastor A. W. Anderson was asked to prepare a paper on Fletcher's attitude to our sanctuary doctrine. This was circulated with the committee's report. In it he correctly observed:

"On the reconciliation [atonement], "That this reconciliation was not completed on the cross is evident from the fact that it was the work of a high priest to make reconciliation. When He was on earth, He was not a priest. (see Hebrews 8:4).

If reconciliation was completed on the cross, then when Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary with His own blood and became our High Priest, His work was already completed."

The concluding paragraph states:

"After a careful re-examination of the ninety passages of scripture in which the words "atonement" and "reconciliation" occur, I am more profoundly convinced than ever that W. W. Fletcher is wrong, and the denominational teaching on the cleansing of the sanctuary is right.

(It should be noted that one of the men on the General Conference committee which commended their Australasian brethren for their defense of a continuing atonement in the heavenly sanctuary was none other than L. E. Froom.)

God signally blessed the efforts of His hard-working, dedicated servants and time came when the homelands of Australia and New Zealand attained one of the highest percentages of Adventists in the world. But things were to change. Satan had targeted this hard-won bastion of truth for one of his most amazingly successful attacks against God's remnant church. He was to succeed eventually in reversing the role of the "blueprint" missionary college to that of a veritable brooder of heresy, with the inevitable result of bringing the advance of the third angel of Revelation 14 to a virtual standstill in Australia and New Zealand.

This dramatic change is revealed in the statistical reports published annually in the Australasian Record. For instance, the report for the year ending June 1972, shows a peak membership gain of approximately 1,023 in the two homeland Unions. This was achieved with the help of 235 ordained ministers. Within ten years (1982) the annual gain had dropped to 448 souls but it took 52 more ministers (287) to achieve this dismal result. The total tithe received in the homelands in 1982 was $18,577,755 which means that for each member increase, it cost $41,468 of tithe against $4,697 for each member increase back in 1972. During the year ending 1984, the Trans-Australian Union Conference actually suffered a membership loss of 166 members.

How could such a catastrophe come about? We must hark back to those fateful years of the early 1950s when vice-president Figuhr and his boys of the Washington club were smarting under the stigma of cultism. When Elder Figuhr came to Australia shortly before his election to the General Conference presidency, he used his fist to emphasize the direction in which he believed authority should travel: "Representation comes up," he said, "but direction comes down."

At that same gathering in Melbourne, he also gave our workers an insight into the characteristics of leaders best qualified to keep that authority moving in the desired direction. He is reported to have spoken along these lines:

"When a man's name is brought up for nomination to leadership, it is not his spiritual or doctrinal standing that is to be questioned, or even his administrative capabilities. No, it is his ability to get on well with his fellows and maintain harmony that should be of paramount consideration."

According to the worker reporting this revelation, this was a rather startling departure from accepted ideals and practice. There was no doubt in the worker's mind that Figuhr was speaking about pliable middle-of-the-road men.* Many years later, Australian Adventists were to see the baleful results of the implementation of this unscriptural policy.

* While Figuhr was making his acceptance speech, after being elected G. C. president, he described himself as a "middle-of-the-road" man.

In the year 1957, our zealous Dr. Froom came to Australasia, promoting his book Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers and the forthcoming book Questions on Doctrine. We are told that he took the opportunity to prepare our ministry for the great leap "forward" that would be expected to follow our new understanding of righteousness by faith. He introduced them to the mysteries of Christ's "vicarious human nature" and the wonders of His "completed atonement."**

** Vicarious: deputed; acting for another, substituted (Collins)

Vicariously: by substitution (Collins)

By the end of the same year, Dr. Edward Heppenstall of the Washington Seminary had arrived at Avondale College to take part in a lengthy extension school for ministers. After a lapse of over thirty years, recollections of all that transpired in his lectures are growing dim. But certain shock statements have left their mark. One student recalls how Heppenstall told them that there is only one covenant. When asked how such a statement can be reconciled with Adventism's two-covenant position as outlined in Patriarchs and Prophets, *** he is reported to have replied smugly, "You don't."

*** Pastor Mervyn Ball, a retired Australian evangelist, told the author how he quoted the Spirit of Prophecy. It counters a claim by L. E. Froom that the atonement had been completed at Calvary. Froom's only response was a stony silence. Apparently other workers felt too embarrassed to press the issue, a phenomenon that has shown up repeatedly in this Division's march toward apostasy.

Others recall how he frequently stressed the need for ministers to emphasize the love of God in their sermons, and left them with the feeling that perhaps doctrines were not too important. Yet another remembers how Heppenstall recited his encounters with M. L. Andreasen, whom he portrayed as a decided hindrance to the advancement of Adventism.

Still others of his students claim that Heppenstall prevented the then Division president, F. G. Clifford from sitting in on his classes. In hindsight, this is not surprising, as Clifford's reputation for doctrinal orthodoxy had probably registered in Washington. By some accounts, there were three students who made quite an impression, not only on Heppenstall, but also on their colleagues. It appears that Heppenstall was very impressed by their receptive attitude to "new light." He warmly commended them and urged them to go abroad for advanced study. Some dutifully followed his advice and eventually all three achieved a degree of notoriety among Adventists: Desmond Ford left the imprint of his name on apostate Adventism, and his theology in Avondale College; Walter R. L. Scragg achieved the honor while president of the Euro-African Division, of overseeing the bestowal of the goldplated medal on the pope;* and Lend Moulds was fired from the theological department of Avondale College for teaching heresy which he picked up while studying in a North American Adventist University.**

* See Review and Herald, August 11, 1977 on Medal.

**Moulds is to be commended for showing a rare degree of honesty, in that, unlike some others at the College, he refused to conceal his new-found "faith" from the administration.

So it was, that doubts on the competency of those who worked out our historic doctrinal positions were planted in the minds of our workers while the authority of leadership as interpreters of scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy was established in the minds of many. All that was needed now was a pliable leadership, amenable to the dictates of a Washington hierarchy. But the time was not yet. President Clifford had a firm grip on the reins. As Froom had seriously observed,***

"We need more funerals to get Adventism up and going."

*** According to a tape of Mike Clute's interview, Froom would ring up Wilkinson on his birthday and express disappointment that he was still alive.

There are men among us in responsible positions who hold that the opinions of a few conceited philosophers so-called, are more to be trusted than the truth of the Bible, or the testimonies of the Holy Spirit. Such a faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John, is considered old-fashioned, and insufferable at the present day. It is pronounced absurd, mystical, and unworthy of an intelligent mind.

God has shown me that these men are Hazaels to prove a scourge to our people. They are wise above what is written. This unbelief of the very truths of God's word because human judgment cannot comprehend the mysteries of His work, is found in every district in all ranks of society. It is taught in most of our schools, and comes into the lessons of the nurseries.

E. G. White

Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 79.

While our Australasian workers were left pondering this twist to Adventist theology, Froom was busy back in Washington, defending and promoting Questions on Doctrine and anxiously counting the "funerals."

But they were slow in coming. Andreasen, who was now an elderly man, just wouldn't go away, and Wilkinson at eighty-five was aggravatingly healthy. And, there were those two troublesome missionaries, Elders Wieland and Short, who had submitted a paper, 1888 Re-Examined, to the General Conference. They had been sent back to their fields of labor in Africa after consenting to let the matter drop. But now, others had seen fit to circulate a number of copies of their paper, and laymen were complaining about a cover-up.

The original response to Wieland and Short's paper by the Defense Committee, while not supportive, had been generally civil and understanding. It carried the signature of the committee chairman, W. E. Read, and was dated December 4, 1951. It said: "The manuscript gives every evidence of earnest, diligent and painstaking effort." But in September 1958, the two missionaries received a second report, from the officers of the General Conference- this time without any signatures.

Not only had there been a change in presidents (Figuhr had succeeded W. H. Branson), but there had been a decided reversal of tone and attitude. The General Conference stated,

"After having checked and examined the Spirit of Prophecy sources and their use in the manuscript, it is evident that the authors have revealed considerable amateurishness in both research and use of facts." (p. 47).

They concluded,

"Had the authors succeeded in substantiating their charges, their work might have been worthy of serious consideration." (U. 49)

In studying Wieland and Short's reply to such insults, one can only praise God for their Christian attitude. They were able to demonstrate that the General Conference's charges were unable to bear the test of careful analysis. To the careful reader, it appears that the reckless charges of the leadership could be better applied back upon themselves. Nevertheless, Elders Wieland and Short were able to write:

"Lastly, if anything in this analysis of "Appraisal" seems to be disrespectful, critical, or presumptuous to your dignity as the Lord's appointed leaders of His work, His "anointed," we assure you that it is not so intended to be. Circumstances have required that we speak frankly." (Letter to Officers and Executive Committee of G.C., October 1958).

These loyal workers were apparently resigned to letting the matter rest there, for in a letter addressed to G. C. secretary, W. R. Beach, January 21, 1959 they wrote:

"We wish to state herewith our desire to leave this matter, to drop it henceforth and to continue as in the past to refrain from any agitation whatsoever or the pressing of our view upon the General Conference or the church.... We return to our mission field, therefore with no desire to make an issue of our views there or elsewhere."

Here the matter could have rested, as far as Brethren Wieland and Short were concerned. They had delivered their message. But, in the providence of God, His messengers were not meant to remain silent. Things happened in this way:

Being an employee of the General Conference, it is highly probable that L. E. Froom would be among those leaders who had complained, "that the manuscript (of Wieland and Short) revealed a very critical attitude concerning the leadership, the ministry, and the plane of work in God's cause" (G. C. "Further Appraisal of 1888 Re-Examined" p. 2).

This unfortunate attitude of many of our leaders was similar to that of the leaders in 1888 who rejected the Minneapolis message. They regarded the messengers, Waggoner and Jones, as young upstarts who were attacking the leadership of older and experienced men. These leaders were not willing to humble themselves by accepting the message lest they be seen as being reproved by God. Said Mrs. White, while commenting on the Minneapolis situation:

"They [the opposers] heard not, neither would they understand. Why? Lest they should be converted and have to acknowledge that all their ideas were not correct. This they were too proud to do, and therefore persisted in rejecting God's counsel and the light and evidence which had been given." (Ms 25, 1890, quoted in 1888 Re-Examined, p. 24).

As this rebuke to Wieland and Short came from the General Conference (meaning its officers), the church was once more doomed to wander in the wilderness and forego the outpouring of the latter rain. Once again its leaders had failed to grasp the real meaning of righteousness by faith in all its beauty and fullness. But this time the rejection would go even further. The church would eventually repudiate the "third angel's message in verity."

I watched them tearing a building down,

A gang of men in a busy town.

With a ho-heave-ho and a lusty yell

They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.

I asked the foreman, "Are these men skilled

And the men you'd hire if you had to build?"

He gave a laugh, saying, "No, indeed!

Just common labor is all I need.

I can easily wreck in a day or two

What builders have taken a year to do."

-Anon

(Published in Review and Herald, January 7, 1954.)