Here I was a fourth-generation Seventh-day Adventist, pastoring the growing Watsonville, California, SDA church, and nearly through my doctor of ministry program at Andrews University. Now I had serious questions about the validity of the writings of Ellen White, the truthfulness of “the central pillar” of SDA theology, and the integrity of Adventist leadership.
Carolyn also was employed by the Central California Conference of SDAs and gave Bible studies to groups of women. One day in a Bible study that included both Adventists and non-Adventists, the discussion led to the types of judgment, particularly the investigative judgment. The non-Adventist ladies questioned such an idea. Carolyn decided she, too, needed to get to the bottom of this issue. Only instead of reading all I had read, she would get it from the Bible and the Bible alone. She got a long roll of shelf paper, took her concordance, and started writing every text in the Bible that had anything to do with the judgment. When she finished, her “Judgment Scroll” was, as I recall, over 12 feet long. She brought her findings to me and said, “I cannot find the investigative judgment anywhere in the Bible.” Carolyn had warned me not to get her fired by my study and its conclusions. Fortunately for our marriage, we both studied the issues.
Our joint conclusion was that the historic Adventist investigative judgment was not only unbiblical but was contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture and undermined the assurance found in the gospel of Christ.
Our joint conclusion was that the historic Adventist investigative judgment was not only unbiblical but was contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture and undermined the assurance found in the gospel of Christ.
I worked up about a three hour Bible study contrasting the Adventist teaching of the investigative judgment with the biblical teaching of judgment. With the stakes so high, I felt I should seek the counsel of “experienced brethren” who could show me where I was wrong—if I were wrong, or where I could find biblical support for the Adventist teaching. I asked two of my most trusted ordained Adventist pastor friends, Elder Fred Speyer and Elder Harvey Voth,57 whom I had worked with for seven years while teaching at Monterey Bay Academy, for three hours of their time to present my study. At the conclusion of the three hours, they agreed it “appeared” the Adventist teaching was wrong, and I was following the Bible.58 They counseled me to be careful and not do something that would ruin my ministry.
The Watsonville SDA church had a number of well-educated, professional leaders, several of whom were elders on the church board. Lon and Bonnie Wilson, who had helped me so much when I was pastor in Santa Monica, were again under my pastoral care. Bonnie played the organ, and Dr. Wilson, now teaching in the post-graduate naval school in Monterey, was one of our church elders. After Des Ford’s “bomb” mentioned in the last chapter and the Glacier View meeting, it was open season on the discussion of Adventist issues. The information from the Adventist underground came pouring down each rivulet in the Adventist mountainside and flooded the homes of many families in my church. Soon I was questioned regarding my understanding and research.
From my youth I was taught that truth was the hallmark of Adventism. If you ask an Adventist about their experience of joining the SDA church, it was usually framed, “When did you come into the truth?” Likewise, the expected answer was, “I came into the truth…” Because of this mindset, I saw myself then, and still do, as a “truth seeker.” I have never left the pursuit of truth, no matter what the cost, and I hope I never will. Therefore, when Dr. Raymond Cottrell’s tape of his Adventist Forum presentation of the problems with the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8, and his revelation of the top secret committee was circulated, I felt free to give it to several of my educated, professional elders for their comments.
About this time, Walter Rea’s research on the huge amount of plagiarism in the writings of Ellen White found its way into the Adventist underground pipeline and was speedily pumped throughout the network. I knew he was soon to publish more of his findings and that this material could decimate the faith of historic Adventists in her inspiration. Therefore, I felt it my pastoral duty to prepare my congregation for this. As strange as it seems to me now as I write this, at that time I had not lost faith in the inspiration of Ellen White but was changing my view of inspiration to allow for both the errors and the copying. This seemed to be the method taken by loyal Adventists at the time.59
Once each year in the Adventist Church, there is a “Spirit of Prophecy Day.”60 On this day, all pastors are asked to preach a sermon designed to engender faith in the writings of Ellen White.61 I carefully prepared a sermon for this day designed to do three things: first, encourage people to maintain faith in Ellen G. White. Second, alert them to the problems that were soon to be announced; these problems included, plagiarism, historical and factual errors in her writings, and places where her writings actually contradicted Scripture. Third, help reshape the church members’ concept of inspiration to allow for these glitches.
I felt—and many agreed—that I had dealt with a very delicate subject in a very appropriate way. However, Elder Bunker, a retired union conference president, was a member of my congregation. At the conclusion of my message, he immediately stood and addressed the congregation and me. He said there were no discrepancies in the writings of Ellen White. He quoted a statement from her writings that said they are either all of God or are entirely of the devil.62 There was to be no watering down of her inspiration. It was either black or white, and if Ellen White disagreed with Scripture, she was a false prophet. However, he went on to assure everyone that she never contradicted Scripture. I had just told the church in my sermon that she did, on occasion, give an interpretation that was not supported by Scripture or that was contrary to the Bible. Elder Bunker looked at me with all the authority of a union conference president and challenged me before the whole church to point out just one place where she disagreed with Scripture.
I had not expected such an outburst and had not carefully thought through what I should do on such an occasion. I tried to get out of answering, but He insisted that I give one place where EGW disagreed with Scripture.
In retrospect, I should have taken control, dismissed the congregation, and told him I would meet with him personally. Nevertheless, I accepted his challenge, and having studied the subject thoroughly; I immediately pointed out that Hebrews 6:19, 20 very clearly showed that Jesus had already entered “within the veil” when the book of Hebrews was written. I explained that every time Scripture uses the term “within the veil” or “before the veil” it always has reference to the veil separating the holy place from the most holy place. Ellen White said this veil was the curtain that separated the outer court from the holy place and endorsed the teaching that on October 22, 1844, Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary for the first time. My illustration not only showed that Ellen White had contradicted Scripture, that the whole 1844 judgment message was wrong but even worse, I had shown this retired union conference president to be in error.
You can imagine the fallout from this meeting! I soon got a phone call from the conference office asking me to meet with Charles Cook, the conference president. When we met, I told Elder Cook of my struggle in trying to support the investigative judgment from Scripture and my inability to do so. He responded that he knew there were problems but did not know any better interpretation than the traditional one.
Another issue was polarizing Adventism at the time. Des Ford had been a strong promoter of the gospel of justification by faith. Historic Adventism, however, made sanctification part of the foundation of acceptance with God, and that clouded the gospel. One never knew, according to Ellen White, if one was saved. One should never say he/she is saved because one does not know if he/she will stand the test of future temptations or if his/her righteousness is good enough to pass in the judgment. Des Ford and many other “gospel Adventists,” as we called ourselves, were rejoicing in the good news of justification by faith. There were some Adventist leaders and writers, however, who were strongly opposed to the teaching of Ford. About this time, a book came out entitled, Omega. This book was based upon the term “omega of deadly heresies” in Ellen White’s writings. By this term, she pictured some terrible future heresy that would confront Adventism.63 This book tried to make it appear that the gospel teaching of Des. Ford, dubbed, “new theology,” was the terrible heresy she had predicted.
On one of several trips to the conference office, I was cornered. Present were President Charles Cook, Secretary George Elstrom, and Treasurer Gordon Bullock. Elder Bullock asked me if I agreed more with Des Ford or the writers of the book, Omega. I answered that I did not base my theology on either, but on Scripture. I simply believed in Paul’s gospel, spelled out most clearly in the book of Romans. However, this was not sufficient for them; I had to choose between these two. I told them I thought Dr. Ford was closer to the teachings of Paul. I could tell by the “I’ve got you now” look on their faces as they glanced toward each other, that they had what they were fishing for. Now I was labeled a “Fordite,” which was anathema for many.
One day one of the ladies of our church came by our house and talked with Carolyn and me. She presented herself as one honestly seeking truth. She wanted to know what I believed regarding the “issues.” I told her that I did not want to promote anything against the teachings of Adventism. After some time of dealing with her pressing questions, I told her some of the problems with 1844 and Ellen White. She, I learned later, went home and immediately called the conference president. She had come for the express purpose of gathering information that could be used against me. Yes, there was indeed a gathering storm.
I was invited to be the speaker for a week of prayer at a non-denominational school in the Dominican Republic. Carolyn and I took nearly two weeks off for this trip, which included a stop in Haiti. Here I preached a gospel sermon in an Adventist church on Sabbath. Upon returning home, we could not believe our eyes. Across the lobby of the San Francisco Airport was a huge banner, reading, “WELCOME HOME.” There were about 20 of our church members with outstretched arms. We were elated at such a grand reception. As we rode home with one of the church families, however, we began to sense that all was not well. They began to relate to us what had transpired in our absence. They said Elder Bunker had called a group of the church members together and they had banded together to get me out of the church. I was told many of them had contacted the conference officials and told them they were withholding their tithe until I was removed.
I was called to meet with Charles Cook again. I asked him for three hours of his time, so I could present the results of my Bible study on the subject of the investigative judgment. He promised he would give me the time, and later, he called and asked if Elder Elstrom, the conference secretary, could also sit in on the study. I assured him it would be O.K. with me. I told Elder Cook if I were ever fired from the ministry, I wanted the person who fired me to know I was doing my best, to be honest in my study of Scripture and true to my conscience. However, when the time came near, he backed out64 and had me meet with Harold West, the conference ministerial secretary, and Dr. Robert M. Zamora, who had been at Dr. Ford’s Glacier View hearing and who pastored a large SDA church in the San Jose area. The three of us met for about four hours, and the conversation was taped. I was never given a set of these tapes even though I asked for them, and I am sure that if they still exist, they will never be released. In those four hours of conversation, both of these men admitted that Daniel 8 primarily referred to Antiochus Epiphanies, the investigative judgment was in error, and they downplayed the authority of EGW, especially for doctrinal issues. However, it wasn’t long until I heard both men strongly support the traditional denominational position at the Soquel camp meeting, a large public gathering, and quote EGW in an authoritative way in their presentations. I began to question the integrity of the present denominational leaders and workers.
“…Consider the church to be your employer. Do what you can with a clear conscience, and don’t make any waves.”
One day Harold West asked to speak with me. We went for a short walk so we could speak privately. In the course of our conversation, he said, “Dale, we both know the doctrine (investigative judgment was implied) is wrong. It is not our fault, and we can’t do anything about it. We are too old to go out and find employment outside of the church. Consider the church to be your employer. Do what you can with a clear conscience, and don’t make any waves.”
“Harold,” I told him, “I feel God called me to preach the truth; perhaps I am in the wrong denomination.” That conversation deepened my conviction that denominational integrity was lacking.
Another one of my pastor friends, Barry Crabtree, was being interviewed for the position of conference president in Australia. Barry related to me the essence of part of his interview. As the sanctuary topic was the hot issue, the union conference president asked him, “Do you believe in 1844?” Barry’s answer was, “Sure, don’t you?” As he was telling me of this interview, he said in a lowered voice, “Dale, I not only believe in 1844, I also believe in 1981.”
Another pastor in the same conference told me that he would tell the conference president whatever he wanted to hear just to keep his job.
The book, Omega, was highly promoted at the camp meeting in Soquel. It was said “If you only have the funds to purchase one book, get Omega.” Many, if not most, of the people purchased and read it.
It was my custom to arrive at church early and greet the people, often shaking hands with them. On the first Sabbath after camp meeting, when I reached out my hand to greet one of our deacons, he pulled his hand back and said, “I will not shake hands with the omega of heresies.” I was dumbfounded. How could reading a book bring such a division between me and one I had considered my friend?
The days clicked by mechanically like the second hand on a grandfather clock. There is no way to slow them down or turn them back. Soon I would meet with Charles Cook again. Was I beyond the point of no return?
NEXT WEEK: “DECISION DAY”
Endnotes
57. Now deceased.
58. This statement is not intended to say that they agreed with me fully as they had, at that time, not given full study to the subject, nor do I know what their final decision was.
59. It appears to be the path still followed by the SDA church. Rather then admit the error of EGW’s writings, the church seems to be determined to find similar problems in Scripture, (though not in the same context) and then say, “Well, if the Bible writers copied, why should we not expect Ellen White to do the same?” Since leaving the Adventist church, my concept of inspiration has become more conservative while Adventism’s has become more liberal to allow for the obvious errors in EGW and still claim divine inspiration for them.
60. At least this used to be the practice. With the importance of the writings of Ellen White to the Adventist Church, I can only assume it still is.
61. The Ellen G. White Estates, or the General Conference Ministerial Department, prepared sermons for this special day that pastors were encouraged, but not required, to use.
62. “The testimonies either bear the signet of God or that of Satan.” Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 98.
63. Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. We have now before us the alpha of this danger. The omega will be of a most startling nature. Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Physicians and Pastors, SPTB02.016.003: I am instructed to speak plainly. “Meet it,” is the word spoken to me. “Meet it firmly, and without delay.” But it is not to be met by our taking our working forces from the field to investigate doctrines and points of difference. We have no such investigation to make. In the book “Living Temple” there is presented the alpha of deadly heresies. The omega will follow, and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given. Ibid., SPTB02.050.003.
64. I have always assumed that Elder Cook did not want to study with me as he did not want to be forced to face the biblical evidence.
- The Sabbath: From Ritual to Reality - December 19, 2024
- Wise Men Still Seek Him - December 12, 2024
- The Gospel is Good News! - December 5, 2024