Should GC Legal Stop those who impersonate the Church? Yes or No?

[Pastor_Chick]

Yah Our Righteousness!!!

Wow that name sounds like the company I met in California some years ago. "The Lord Our Righteousness."

[...]

sky

[Stan]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

[...]

Your member or members in Cawson were milking the good work and name that real Adventist Church build up over the years.

It is a lazy way, and unchristian to do what you do.

[..]

Stan,

I really want to avoid any "name-calling" (excuse the potential for pun). I do wish to examine some meanings of your words. All of us need to understand without a fog.

1) "milking": Give me some better language to describe what ACTUALLY took place in Cawston.

2) "a lazy way": What exactly are you putting that "label" on?

As an aside, I noticed the thread has changed names. I suppose that is at the discretion of the admin?

What I mean if this a a shoe company called, for example Nike, and some says God told them to create a shoe Company called Nike.... they are exploiting their hard work work and $$$$$ needed to brand their organization.

That is what I mean by being lazy.

People heard of the name Seventh-day Adventist in Cawston by what the local church, and conference and union and NAD invested into the town. He comes along and establishes a presence with the cost of doing so.

I have no problem with you establishing a new organization, but do it at your own expense and not at the expense of the local or international sisterhood of Churches.

[CoAspen]

[skyblue888]

Of course Christ is our righteousness. Now please read p.13 of The Sanctified Life again since you profess to believe in the SoP.

sky

[skyblue888]

What I mean if this a a shoe company called, for example Nike, and some says God told them to create a shoe Company called Nike.... they are exploiting their hard work work and $$$$$ needed to brand their organization.

That is what I mean by being lazy.

People heard of the name Seventh-day Adventist in Cawston by what the local church, and conference and union and NAD invested into the town. He comes along and establishes a presence with the cost of doing so.

I have no problem with you establishing a new organization, but do it at your own expense and not at the expense of the local or international sisterhood of Churches.

Stan.

______________________________

Stan, problem is, how can one compare the kingdom of God on earth--His church--to a worldly business? Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." To have trademarked the name "Seventh-day Adventists" is to have committed spiritual fornication with the world. We have made God's house a place of merchandize, a den of thieves. We are doing worse than the Jews because we have had more light. We did this because we have put God aside and accepted the devisings of men. (T.M.481)

"And thou Capernahum (Seventh-day Adventists, who have had great light, which art exalted unto heaven in point of privilege), shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." (Luke 19:42) E.G. White, Signs of the Times, Vol.3, p.69. August 1, 1893.

"The eye of Jesus, looking down the ages, was fixed upon our time when He said, 'If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace.' It is still thy day, O church of God, whom He has made the depository of His law. This day of trust and probation is drawing to a close. The sun is fast westering. Can it be that it will set and thou wilt not know 'the things which belong unto thy peace!'? Must the irrevocable sentence be passed, 'But now they are hid from thine eyes.'" (Luke 19:42) E.G. White, Letter 58, 1887.

And this last statement was written months before the General Conference at Minneapolis in 1888 and the first one 5 years after the Minneapolis meeting!

sky

[Stan]

so tell me then, why did they have to copy a name that already exist?

They can start their own, and not leach off of the hard work of another.

If I see a Church sign "Montreal Seventh-day Adventist Church" I would expect that to be a Seventh-day Adventist Church. Would that not be reasonable?

If I see a Church Sign "Montreal Southern Baptist Church" would you not expect that to be a Southern Baptist Church?

[Stan]

In every generation God has sent his servants to rebuke sin, both in the world and in the church. But the people desire smooth things spoken to them, and the pure, unvarnished truth is not acceptable. Many reformers, in entering upon their work, determined to exercise great prudence in attacking the sins of the church and the nation.

AND in this case it is GC legal going after those who impersonate the Remnant Church.

[Light Fox]

"It's okay for us - we're the TRUE Church" is a historically dangerous justification for taking professed Christians to task with civil power. It's one that Adventists of all people should be ashamed to make.

I really don't know what else can be told to you on this, Stan. We use the name we do because it was given by God through Ellen White to describe a faith - a faith that we hold dear. We use *another* name - Creation Seventh Day Adventist - because we believe it was given to us specifically by God after we were told to separate.

At best, your argument here would be that we should stop using the name CSDA and call ourselves SDA, going by Mrs. White's counsel alone. I find it highly unlikely you are going to suggest that, however.

The only alternative is that you are suggesting we violate the plain words of Inspiration and take a name God has not given us to replace one that God has given us. That is where the problem lies. That is where the idea of you "attempting to be [someone's] God" comes from; you are attempting to give a name to replace one that God has already given, as though Sacred things can be discarded so easily. You would have as much success telling us to "just pick another day to worship on" in lieu of the seventh-day Sabbath.

Now, you will say "God didn't give you that name, He gave it to us and our organization." You might even say that we do not believe in Seventh-day Adventism. Okay, you believe that we are in error as to who we are spiritually. I can accept that. Can you accept that I believe the same regarding you, without attempting to enforce your side of the disagreement on which of us is the "real Adventist" with civil power?

The fact you are trying to justify these lawsuits seems to imply that the answer is "no."

[Scion]

Well, that is some scary sounding stuff!

I ask for Biblical references, and I get (sorry to single one or two people out):

Quote:

Is the legally trademarked name worthy of a suit? Is the legally trademarked name in harmony with biblical principles?

In both cases I believe the answer is yes.

Again I ask, is this Biblical reasoning, or human? If we "believe" that taking others (brethren or not!) to court is in harmony with the Bible... which part of the Bible? What verses of the Bible? What statements from inspiration would give us even the least inkling that God looks down from Heaven upon those who employ worldly policy, worldly authority, a corrupt system, and threats of sanctions (as I understand it), and says, "That is the right course of action."? I'm baffled, brethren! It seems we are "hell-bent" (and I don't think I am using the term lightly) on pursuing a course for which EVERY Scripture I can find, EVERY Spirit of Prophecy quote I can uncover, speaks violently against it. Of course, some may say, "Well, in this case it is a little different, because..."

Whatever happened to being firm as steel to "principle?"

Quote:

It is lawful and within biblical principles to sue someone who is not a member of your congregation. Your neighbor? Yes, sometimes, that also has to be done. Using the Government to "prosecute" your case? Paul did that by declaring himself to be a Roman citizen and demanding that all due respect and the weight of the law be followed.

No! Paul used it to get himself a fair hearing after he had already been accused of a crime. What we are discussing here is the spiritual value of a Christian beginning a lawsuit or other legal procedure. For those not familiar with the legal system in most countries "prosecution" is the opposite of "defense." Consider an extreme case: if one were to slay another while defending himself... this is not the same thing as murder or manslaughter. Brother, I urge you to reconsider your reasoning here, because your premises are terribly flawed

Quote:

Jesus followed the law of the land whenever it did not conflict with His Godly duties. As did the apostles and the disciples. It is clear to me that Government laws cannot be treated lightly.

And do we let the court determine what is a godly duty? Do we let lawyers determine who should be respected when their beliefs conflict with the legal standards? I tell you truly, if the Sunday Law were to pass tomorrow, all the Sundaykeepers would be making this exact same argument! Think about it for just a second. THIS is why EGW and our pioneers were so afraid of this way of thinking. How could it be any other way?

Quote:

As to the biblical references used to support the CSDA case against "suing a brother", I don't beleive they apply based on my interpretation of what constitutes a "brother". Once you have been removed from "membership", by resignation or disfellowship, you loose certain rights and privileges.

So is it a "right" or a "privilege" that a member can't be sued by the GC? By the way, if I understand the earlier stages of this lawsuit madness correctly, they DID begin by suing their own members, but lost the case. Do we wish to try and justify that action, or is the same action okay now that it has been directed away from the constituency? People who are not within the Church are still people, and still have consciences they are bound to follow if Protestant. I made reference to the Sunday Law. I make reference now to the Golden Rule. Do you want others to treat us the way these "outsiders" are currently being treated?

For me, what stands out in harmony with the Bible are these:

1) We are told not to take a "brother" to court.

2) The parable of the Good Samaritan clears up very distinctly who our "brethren" and our "neighbors" are (I don't think there is any justification for straw-clutching to make a distinction between those two)

3) The Bible's wisdom tells us to leave outsiders alone, and restrict our punishments to those inside the fold. (e.g., Mat 18)

4) God judges us the way we judge others, and most Adventists ARE anticipating a time when the things we believe are our God-given duties will conflict with the laws of the land.

5) We lose NOTHING by tolerance! If people are seen as thieves and liars, vengeance is God's, He says. What is this absurd fear that the Conference Church will collapse or fall into obscurity if other people have "Seventh Day Adventist" as a part of their name? We have coexisted with the Reform Church, the Davidians etc. for years and years... never suffered for it except from some annoying Sabbath visits... and we're expecting worse persecution than that from the world, right?

6) It is ok to admit there are problems in the Church. The apostles did it all the time... but things will never get any better for us if we ignore them.

7) I can't find a single circumstance where a lawsuit began by a Christian is approved, or even passes without negative comment in any inspired writing. The testimony is universally against it. And while not every conceivable situation is addressed, I just don't see reason in looking for loopholes where there is no gain.

8) The similarities that people are trying to draw between the Church and earthly businesses like Nike are nauseating. The Church is the Church! Nike does not have the promised protection of God! We do! Nike has no recourse BUT the courts, and they can use the law the way it was intended, to protect intellectual property developed in the mind of man. The Bride of Christ has a Divine Court to which to take its grievances, such as when Israel was surrounded by Syria. God did not let His people down then, and He will not let us down now... unless we do not ask HIM for help, but instead go to another.

This situation is really bothering me, brothers and sisters, and I plead with you for a breath of spirituality on this matter, rather than just dragging the party line. No one has ever answered my two questions: What does God think about this? What would Jesus do? I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but I think if we prayerfully approach those two questions, we just have to come up with an answer different than what I'm hearing from a lot of people.

[ClubV12]

It is ridiculous to think a "church" can simply ignore the rulers and laws of the land. Rulers set up by the Lord Himself, and He has told us to honor them. This is not a violation of conscience, it is fanaticism.

Don't sue you because it's not the christian thing to do, while you steal and continue to steal boldly, unashamed that which is not yours? That is presumption of the highest order.

I don't buy the argument God "gave you the name", it was given to, has been used and is associated with another group. Your stealing that name, and defaming God by saying "He made us do it." The anti-type of the "devil made us do it." Same principle, failure to take responsibility.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Don't sue you because it's not the christian thing to do, while you steal and continue to steal boldly, unashamed that which is not yours? That is presumption of the highest order.

[...]

Club,

True "stealing" would be a "crime." Nothing has been TAKEN AWAY from anyone. No one has LOST anything (well, prior to the lawsuit, anyway).

This LEGAL conflict is merely CIVIL in nature. The courts and law enforcement will do NOTHING to enforce the injunction unless they are PRESSED with motions and hearings by the GC to establish non-compliance with their demands.

Even after being found "in contempt of court" three times, the contempt is still CIVIL in nature. The court does not even describe my disobedience as "criminal."

The GC attorney has to tell the court what they want in terms of sanctions, and the court considers what latitude they have under the "civil codes." It is true that incarceration is one sanction that the GC attorney has been seeking. BUT, even that is not considered "punishment" but "coercion" in order to encourage compliance with the GC's injunction.

After being held in jail for a time (and that time is not well-established by precedent), one who is guilty of "civil disobedience" may be released without further sanctions. If a person will not cooperate under oppressive sanctions, what more can be done? I think the longest anyone was held for "civil contempt" was something like 14 years. Normally, the term is up to 18 months. Civil incarcerations come with a "keys-in-pocket" policy. The idea is that one will become tired of lock-up and agree to comply with the court order.

In my case, however, because of conscience, I could NEVER and would NEVER recant or comply. You may trample upon my conscience with all sorts of justifications, but I would conclude what you have concluded about another individual, and that expression is not even allowed on this forum which does over-look all manner of abusive language and personal attacks against others.

[Windsor]

If the name is really that important, then why don't you name yourselves the "Seventh Day Sabbath Keepers Who Believe in Christ's Soon Return" Church. It's a little long but everyone gets the point that you keep the Sabbath and believe in the second advent of Christ.

[Stan]

True "stealing" would be a "crime." Nothing has been TAKEN AWAY from anyone. No one has LOST anything (well, prior to the lawsuit, anyway).

Interesting, similar comments have been made about people cracking their system to receive free cable etc, that other people pay for.

[Stan]

Even after being found "in contempt of court" three times, the contempt is still CIVIL in nature. The court does not even describe my disobedience as "criminal."

Three times, and yet that light bulb never went off?

There are 1000s of names to use without impersonating and leaching off of the good name of an existing organization.

[skyblue888]

It is ridiculous to think a "church" can simply ignore the rulers and laws of the land. Rulers set up by the Lord Himself, and He has told us to honor them. This is not a violation of conscience, it is fanaticism.

Don't sue you because it's not the christian thing to do, while you steal and continue to steal boldly, unashamed that which is not yours? That is presumption of the highest order.

I don't buy the argument God "gave you the name", it was given to, has been used and is associated with another group. Your stealing that name, and defaming God by saying "He made us do it." The anti-type of the "devil made us do it." Same principle, failure to take responsibility.

Club, you do not yet see that the apostasy of the leaders is what has led to this conflict. You profess to believe in the Testimonies. The Testimonies tell us that the leaders have put God aside and accepted the devisings of men. That order of things has continued until now. The name given to us was not to be trademarked as though the church of God was a worldly enterprise. You know how Jesus said to the leaders of the Jews that they had turned the house of God into a house of merchandize, a den of thieves. We are guilty of the same.

We have become so much like the world that no difference can be seen.

sky

[Stan]

Pastor Chick

I would really want to help you, and I would pay the expenses, of you getting another name, and then you can get on full time with the good work you are doing.

The Pearl of Africa really needs some help. You will know what I mean by that and other would not.

[Pastor_Chick]

If the name is really that important, then why don't you name yourselves the "Seventh Day Sabbath Keepers Who Believe in Christ's Soon Return" Church. It's a little long but everyone gets the point that you keep the Sabbath and believe in the second advent of Christ.

The answer is "simple." There is one name given by YAHWEH to the final Philadelphian congregation. That name was given via a divine revelation and under a divine mandate.

Something I have not made mention of on this forum is that I was NOT the ONLY person receiving that revelation. Another Adventist, Brother D. R. Smith, had the identical revelation. There is NO mistake.

"...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (Rom. 14:10)

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." (Rom. 14:4)

[ClubV12]

I understand and appreciate the potential "apostasy" of the GC. And I sympathize with Pastor Chicks plight and delima.

Having weighed the evidence, given it serious consideration, I can't agree with their position. I do think, at some point, any "corporation", secular or christian, has a God given right to protect themselves. Using the legal system.

I'm not happy about it, but thats the call I feel is right in this case.

[Stan]

So it would be ok with you, if someone opened up a new Church called New Town Seventh-day Adventist Church, took tithes and offerings as if they were a real Adventist Church? Lived off of the investment that adventist provided around the world and then began teaching weird things, as if they were a real Adventist Church?

We have had more than one scenarios happen, not only with the Church but with ADRA as well.

It is not like we are running our of either vowels or names in the english language

[Stan]

AN example of an ADRA, a fake one, gave $10,000 receipts for everyone $1,000 given to them, so people could get significantly more dollars back on their tax returns.

When the news story broke, it was all about ADRA,,,, the real one. that hits front page, when the story unfolds that story in one page 37...

There are enough names available that they do not need to impersonate and existing organization...

Just sayin'

[Light Fox]

"It's okay for us - we're the TRUE Church" is a historically dangerous justification for taking professed Christians to task with civil power. It's one that Adventists of all people should be ashamed to make.

I really don't know what else can be told to you on this, Stan. We use the name we do because it was given by God through Ellen White to describe a faith - a faith that we hold dear. We use *another* name - Creation Seventh Day Adventist - because we believe it was given to us specifically by God after we were told to separate.

At best, your argument here would be that we should stop using the name CSDA and call ourselves SDA, going by Mrs. White's counsel alone. I find it highly unlikely you are going to suggest that, however.

The only alternative is that you are suggesting we violate the plain words of Inspiration and take a name God has not given us to replace one that God has given us. That is where the problem lies. That is where the idea of you "attempting to be [someone's] God" comes from; you are attempting to give a name to replace one that God has already given, as though Sacred things can be discarded so easily. You would have as much success telling us to "just pick another day to worship on" in lieu of the seventh-day Sabbath.

Now, you will say "God didn't give you that name, He gave it to us and our organization." You might even say that we do not believe in Seventh-day Adventism. Okay, you believe that we are in error as to who we are spiritually. I can accept that. Can you accept that I believe the same regarding you, without attempting to enforce your side of the disagreement on which of us is the "real Adventist" with civil power?

The fact you are trying to justify these lawsuits seems to imply that the answer is "no."

I thought perhaps this might have been missed, due to the repetition.

[Light Fox]

Well, that is some scary sounding stuff!

I ask for Biblical references, and I get (sorry to single one or two people out):

Quote:

Is the legally trademarked name worthy of a suit? Is the legally trademarked name in harmony with biblical principles?

In both cases I believe the answer is yes.

Again I ask, is this Biblical reasoning, or human? If we "believe" that taking others (brethren or not!) to court is in harmony with the Bible... which part of the Bible? What verses of the Bible? What statements from inspiration would give us even the least inkling that God looks down from Heaven upon those who employ worldly policy, worldly authority, a corrupt system, and threats of sanctions (as I understand it), and says, "That is the right course of action."? I'm baffled, brethren! It seems we are "hell-bent" (and I don't think I am using the term lightly) on pursuing a course for which EVERY Scripture I can find, EVERY Spirit of Prophecy quote I can uncover, speaks violently against it. Of course, some may say, "Well, in this case it is a little different, because..."

Whatever happened to being firm as steel to "principle?"

Quote:

It is lawful and within biblical principles to sue someone who is not a member of your congregation. Your neighbor? Yes, sometimes, that also has to be done. Using the Government to "prosecute" your case? Paul did that by declaring himself to be a Roman citizen and demanding that all due respect and the weight of the law be followed.

No! Paul used it to get himself a fair hearing after he had already been accused of a crime. What we are discussing here is the spiritual value of a Christian beginning a lawsuit or other legal procedure. For those not familiar with the legal system in most countries "prosecution" is the opposite of "defense." Consider an extreme case: if one were to slay another while defending himself... this is not the same thing as murder or manslaughter. Brother, I urge you to reconsider your reasoning here, because your premises are terribly flawed

Quote:

Jesus followed the law of the land whenever it did not conflict with His Godly duties. As did the apostles and the disciples. It is clear to me that Government laws cannot be treated lightly.

And do we let the court determine what is a godly duty? Do we let lawyers determine who should be respected when their beliefs conflict with the legal standards? I tell you truly, if the Sunday Law were to pass tomorrow, all the Sundaykeepers would be making this exact same argument! Think about it for just a second. THIS is why EGW and our pioneers were so afraid of this way of thinking. How could it be any other way?

Quote:

As to the biblical references used to support the CSDA case against "suing a brother", I don't beleive they apply based on my interpretation of what constitutes a "brother". Once you have been removed from "membership", by resignation or disfellowship, you loose certain rights and privileges.

So is it a "right" or a "privilege" that a member can't be sued by the GC? By the way, if I understand the earlier stages of this lawsuit madness correctly, they DID begin by suing their own members, but lost the case. Do we wish to try and justify that action, or is the same action okay now that it has been directed away from the constituency? People who are not within the Church are still people, and still have consciences they are bound to follow if Protestant. I made reference to the Sunday Law. I make reference now to the Golden Rule. Do you want others to treat us the way these "outsiders" are currently being treated?

For me, what stands out in harmony with the Bible are these:

1) We are told not to take a "brother" to court.

2) The parable of the Good Samaritan clears up very distinctly who our "brethren" and our "neighbors" are (I don't think there is any justification for straw-clutching to make a distinction between those two)

3) The Bible's wisdom tells us to leave outsiders alone, and restrict our punishments to those inside the fold. (e.g., Mat 18)

4) God judges us the way we judge others, and most Adventists ARE anticipating a time when the things we believe are our God-given duties will conflict with the laws of the land.

5) We lose NOTHING by tolerance! If people are seen as thieves and liars, vengeance is God's, He says. What is this absurd fear that the Conference Church will collapse or fall into obscurity if other people have "Seventh Day Adventist" as a part of their name? We have coexisted with the Reform Church, the Davidians etc. for years and years... never suffered for it except from some annoying Sabbath visits... and we're expecting worse persecution than that from the world, right?

6) It is ok to admit there are problems in the Church. The apostles did it all the time... but things will never get any better for us if we ignore them.

7) I can't find a single circumstance where a lawsuit began by a Christian is approved, or even passes without negative comment in any inspired writing. The testimony is universally against it. And while not every conceivable situation is addressed, I just don't see reason in looking for loopholes where there is no gain.

8) The similarities that people are trying to draw between the Church and earthly businesses like Nike are nauseating. The Church is the Church! Nike does not have the promised protection of God! We do! Nike has no recourse BUT the courts, and they can use the law the way it was intended, to protect intellectual property developed in the mind of man. The Bride of Christ has a Divine Court to which to take its grievances, such as when Israel was surrounded by Syria. God did not let His people down then, and He will not let us down now... unless we do not ask HIM for help, but instead go to another.

This situation is really bothering me, brothers and sisters, and I plead with you for a breath of spirituality on this matter, rather than just dragging the party line. No one has ever answered my two questions: What does God think about this? What would Jesus do? I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but I think if we prayerfully approach those two questions, we just have to come up with an answer different than what I'm hearing from a lot of people.

Same as above; I'd really like to see some comment on what this fellow is asking. So far, all I'm seeing are arguments of "How would you like it if X happened" and similar "logic" and "reasoning." I'd really like to see some kind of Inspiration involved in this discussion. If human wisdom and truisms are the best that can be offered, I think any honest Adventist (or Christian for that matter) can see what the answer to this thread's (new) question is.

[ClubV12]

I think there has been a robust exchange of inspiration insights, SPO as well as bible quotes on this thread.

Interpretation of what those quotes say remains problematic, which is often the case with any quote. I don't see anything in direct conflict with the word or the question, "What would Jesus do?". Many other's do, many for whom I have great respect and it pains me to be on the other side of this argument from them. More quotes and inspiration won't bridge the gap I'm afraid.

[Stan]

Please let's not forget this, if the Church does not protect their trademark name Seventh-day Adventist they lose it.

We have seen that happen with all kinds of brands over the years. ie aspirin, kleenex etc.

Would we really want anyone to start their own Seventh-day Adventist Church?

Think of the confusion it would cause if an upstart Seventh-day Adventist Church publicly denounced the Sabbath? Or the state of the dead.

Pastor Chick would you be ok with that to happen? Seriously, the GC legal MUST PROTECT IT, or we lose it.

This is one of the reasons that the General Conference Legal must protect the full name Seventh-day Adventist Church. If they do not, they will need to be replaced and get a team that does.

As I said before, I would be will to purchase and host FREE any name of your choice.

[Stan]

If an upstart Church, claimed the name Seventh-day Adventist, and renounced the Sabbath or EGW etc, the members would be yelling and screaming at the GC wanting to know why they did not protect the name, vegetarian blood would flow then. AND not in a kind way :)