Spoke like a Dragon....?

[fccool]

I guess my question is... should churches incorporate and sue, thus invoking government to enforce their will upon certain individuals many times by means of secular lawyers? Reading some of the headlines really make you think deep. Is church to be a business corporation which develops its name as a trademark and uses government to enforce it? Do we have any trust in God as far as this issue is concerned?

SDA Church sues Kinship for trademark infringement

GCC Threatens Any Group with "Adventist" in the Name

I guess we are the only adventists Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to look for faults. But I think this is a valid question that people are concerned about that our leadership decided to enforce. Aren't we the one concerned with religious institutions seeking governments enforcing certain religious beliefs?

[phkrause]

I recall these incidents. I believe that the church tried reasoning with there other groups to no avail so they took them to court. Maybe someone else has a better remembrance of this.

pkrause

[Kountzer]

That GCC group was known to take out full page ads in newspapers in major cities and say all sorts of inflamatory stuff about the pope and the catholic church. Then they would use the name seventh day adventist church, when it was not the official church saying those things. It is my understanding that the official sda church asked the gcc group to stop doing this, and they refused. The only other recourse was a legal one. I believe the official sda church was doing the right thing by suing the other group.

[olger]

sad

[Stan]

There seem to be some groups out there that are impersonating our Church. The Creation Seventh day Adventist Church is one of them..

Just my thoughts, not an official statement.

[olger]

Ok.

This verse rings in my head.

"The very fact that there are lawsuits among you means that you are defeated already" (Paul of Tarsus).

[fccool]

I guess, let me restate the question. I know there are always reasons for lawsuits. I understand the reason behind the above mentioned. Yet somewhat confused. Basically the CSDA group was taking out full page ads stating official SDA beliefs, but in very explicit and non-politically correct manner... such as Papal system is Antichrist. People are not burning in hell. The mark of the beast is Sunday keeping. I don't know the specifics and I'm not trying to defend them by any means.

In SDA Kinship case the group was raising money to help the Gay and lesbian people infected by HIV. And GC did not like that either because they were using SDA (three letters) and in their opinion it wold appear to others as that organization was being endorsed by SDA GC. But there were genuine adventist in both churches IMO and especially in the second case as the reason seems to be that the organization chose to be outside of GC control and yet used SDA name and association for what IMO is a noble cause.

In both cases these people were exercising their religious freedom to believing what they do. Do you think it would be infringement of their religious freedom to force them to revoke the SDA association by means of state? Once again, there may be a valid reason to do it as there will always be. I'm just questioning the mode of operation. Should SDA be a trade mark? Are we a corporation just like United Way is a corporation?

So the inevitable question would be... do you sense duplicity on behalf of GC for enforcing a trademark based on beliefs? I understand the problems with letting other people confuse that they are SDA churches and hold the same believes as the rest... but isn't it their freedom to do so? Wouldn't we resemble beast of revelation when we enforce how our mark will be used through same government that we think will try to force the other mark on us? It may seem like an insignificant issue... I mean corporations sue for TM infringements all the time. But can you copyright a religious view and turn it into a FINANCIAL issue... that's what TRADE mark means...

[nuff sed]

In this day and age of "the frivolous" lawsuit, the denomination is "obliged" to protect itself legally. We do not run around "doing the circuit" as did James White.Times have changed. We cannot just waggle our fingers and say, "Naughty, naughty, don't do it again" as in the past.When fringe groups seek to use the church name to 'promote'their particular version of theology, after sufficient time 'talking' sometimes a lawsuit is the only way to get their attention. Too soon we are going to be called to defend what we "do" believe without having people confused by those who want to appear to be Adventists.

[fccool]

How does trust and faith in God factors in the above said? Is it something that is endorsed by God? Or is it a matter of "We" doing what we think is right?

Are we willing to take a risk of government warming up to the idea of regulating and enforcing religious beliefs by way of our actions?

This day and age is not any different from any other time. Today you actually have more religious freedom and I think we should defend it, not abnegate it :)

[delta]

I do believe we all need to AVOID such kindda problem in the very first place.

Whenever they-as SDA layperson-need to do as they wish, is it too hard not using the official corporate name of the Seventh-day Adventists?

We can do 100% the same activities-whatever we want....

However...

What's the problem if you and I NOT using the official name of our own church?

Always better to avoid any problem in the first place.

Remember, this classic issue also exists in our fellow Christian friends in any denomination. And of course the official churches sue their own members only because their"good" activities but using their corporate churches' name.

[olger]

"Are we willing to take a risk of government warming up to the idea of regulating and enforcing religious beliefs by way of our actions?"

[fccool]

It is not a problem that we are not using, and this is not the question that I'm asking . The question is a religious freedom question and weather we should infringe it if person decides to use the name of the church that he belongs to.

[Stan]

People should be able to have freedom of speech..

The problem with the CSDA church is that it is not a SDA Church. If you return tithe there it is not supporting the mission of the Church. They are not audited by the GC auditors, if you join them you are not joining the SDA Church.

I fully support their rights, but they can not say they are a SDA church when they are clearly not.

They have been asked nicely over the years not to proclaim they are an SDA Church.. No one is trying to tell them to change their doctrinal believe, some of which are viewed as querky by some.

They could just as easy call themselves Branch Davidian Church or Sabbath keeping Davidians or what ever...

They are not part of the sisterhood of Churches.

I could not open a independed Church and call it "The North American Seventh-day Adventist" Church, when it has no relationship to the GC SDA Church..

I am not saying that I am in favour of all the OGC is doing with those of us who proclaim to be an Online Adventist Community ie see the bottom of every page..

- - copy and paste - -- -

ClubAdventist® is a self-supporting ministry and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by

The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland or any of its subsidiaries.

Copyright © ClubAdventist.com® 1999 - 2007

- - -

I need to up date that to say 2008..

[fccool]

Stan,

First of all I'd like to tell you that I appreciate you running the site and giving us opportunity for forum (discussion in virtual marketplace ). I think that early church resembled more of a forum than what we see today. I'm not trying to knock modern church down, just saying that there are advantages to the forum too ... especially for guys like I who like civilized and intelligent discussions on our own time.

I totally agree with you that CSDA church described in the case does not belong to the main SDA conference of churches, but I don't think they are trying to hide that fact. Hence they named themselves distinctly as Creation SDA church as they have willingly split. They do have some crazy ideas, but who does not ? I am not questioning whether CSDA should have SDA in their title. That's up to them to decide.

What I am questioning is the mode of GC operation to resolve this issue. This is an issue of enforcing a belief though. It's pretty simple, the CSDA church members believe to be Seventh Day Adventist because they hold on to the similar beliefs that we do. They BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE. We believe that they are not . So, instead of taking our time and working things out through the Bible and reason, we pull out a club by way of government force. Should they be called an SDA church? Probably not. Do they believe to be one? Yes.

So now, this is an issue of religious liberty and us using government to limit their liberty to believe that they are an SDA church . You see what I'm saying here? There are better way than for us to brand our "look" and then collect royalties or penalize people who use our "look". I don't think this is God's way of operation. You can't copyright a religious view !!! But you can copyright a brand. And that's what we are doing... and all I'm asking is where's Biblical support for this?

[John317]

... and all I'm asking is where's Biblical support for this?

The real question may rather be, where does the Bible reject the position of the SDA church on this issue?

If the Bible clearly opposes what we're doing, then of course we would be wrong to go forward with these actions.

It would be similar to our renaming the SDA church the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church, etc. It would only cause confusion. In time there would be even more confusion than there already is over what exactly the SDA church believes and represents. I think the SDA church has a right to protect its name, and I would say the same about the Mormon church or any other.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[fccool]

1 When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers[a]! 2 Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? 3 Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. 4 If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? 5 I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? 6 But instead, one believer sues another—right in front of unbelievers!

7 Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.[c]

Is that good enough?

[delta]

Dear fccool,

If you don't mind, well, please do not ever ask any of the SDA member or maybe the official GC of the SDA before you've got clarification or at least a reason of...

... why they wouldn't love to join the Body of Christ in this same organization-that is the official SDA church worldwide?

If they're pretty sure that their beliefs and doctrines are the same as the corporate SDA's...So the unity is the bad thing or the better thing?

Don't tell everybody that SDA church has a lot of defects so that we must segregate ourself...since we are much holier that the official SDA... There's none in the Bible telling us that His last church is totally pure. NO, it's not. We are a lukewarm church. But Jesus still love, inviting and keep knocking at the door...for whosoever will let them come.

But in this case Jesus said that let the tares and wheat grow up together until the harvest time, then His Angels will separate which ones are valuable and which ones are junk.

Now back to this lawsuit case. I don't think the problem is in our official SDA church. But the problem is much closer home of their own "SDA" group...the Holier of the Most Holy SDA people.

[Stan]

FWIW the GC laboured with them for a number of years, before they tried to resolve that in the courts, it was not a quick decision by any means

I think two of the members are members here as well.. just escapes me who..

[delta]

The problem with the CSDA church is that it is not a SDA Church. If you return tithe there it is not supporting the mission of the Church. They are not audited by the GC auditors, if you join them you are not joining the SDA Church.

I fully support their rights, but they can not say they are a SDA church when they are clearly not.

They have been asked nicely over the years not to proclaim they are an SDA Church..

How about this?

[Stan]

?

[delta]

?

[fccool]

delta,

I appreciate your honesty. My purpose is not running around pointing the specs in people's eyes as I KNOW I HAVE LOGS IN MINE . Yet as a rational person I can't help but ask certain questions that I believe many people are asking today about our beliefs, as many would not be able to tell you the basic beliefs of adventism as many of us derive our beliefs from Sabbath sermons and occasional prophesy seminars. I would like to have an answer for what I believe, and if there are doubts in my mind... I would like to clear those. I have to decide for myself and share my discoveries for you to decide. That's what the forums are for after all. I hope you don't look at me as somebody who longs for controversy and debate just for the sake of the debate.

PS. I am an SDA member . I'm not sure why CSDA Church split off, and I'm sure they have their reasons to do that (I have my guess as to why). I have no control over what they do. My question was specifically about our actions as a church. Since I am SDA church member... the people were elected to represent church corporate actions on my behalf. Is it so wrong to ask for a Biblical reasoning behind their actions and pose some questions to discuss? Is the issue of separation of church and state a non-issue because we as a church immune to it?

[delta]

You said that "I'm not sure why CSDA Church split off, and I'm sure they have their reasons to do that"

So, you don't know or you choose to ignore...keep silent and not asking them the reason why CSDA split off but at the same time jumping into an immediate conclusion that the corporate SDA Church's doing evil thing, spoke like a dragon because filing a lawsuit against its own sheeps?

Spoke like a dragon because of choosing a lawsuit instead of feeding the sheeps, caring and showing the love and mercy no matter what?

[fccool]

Delta,

By no means. I don't jump to conclusions as this is not an issue I just saw and decided to tell you how "evil" GC is . The reference to "Spoke like a dragon" is to remind us that we all can do that too. I hope that you have read enough of my comments on the board to see that I don't share the same attitudes towards GC as the CSDA do. Yet, as a church we are not immune to wrongdoings just because we carry a certain name. I don't just pull stuff out of the hat and go with it. I believe I have presented a Biblical bases for my position. Believers should not drag government into enforcing things on other believers even if it means that they will be wronged. Paul clearly articulates it IMO. This is not just my opinion, but a Biblical position that we forget about. This is not single isolated case either. I understand the damage that Waco might have caused, yet I think it is important to reach out to those confused instead of pulling out a club.

As in Kinship case, they are basically homosexual SDA group that reaches out to gay people. They believe that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible . Are they confused? Yes. Should we be continually reaching out to them as God does to us, or should we seek to cut all the ties?

Dragon of revelation uses the Established corrupt secular governments to mandate "spirituality" and enforce views (probably under guise of safety, progress and love). In these cases, are we speaking like a dragon? Or do we act like lambs?

[Kountzer]

A church is not totally autonomous. A certain amount of church/state cooperation is necessary. If a church builds an edifice, for example, they have to comply and interact with the gov't to hook up the utilities, and keep them paid, etc. Or, of church property is vandalized or stolen, they rely on local gov't police protection. So, if a church feels the needs to pursue a legal case, they must use the state court systems.

As I understand it, church/state entanglement has occurred when the church uses the state to enforce dogma. I don't think the issue in question fits that bill.

Btw, there is an individual in Oregon who has been mentioned in the media, namely the bill oreilly show, for putting up mean spirited bill boards in regards to the pope and catholicism. I think I read about that on this forum.