As a result of concerns raised by then General Conference
president Robert S. Folkenberg and several world division presidents, the General
Conference administrative committee (ADCOM), in early 1998, established an ad
hoc committee to interview the leadership of Hope International, publishers
of Our Firm Foundation, and two other private groups, Hartland Institute,
headquartered in the United States, and Remnant Ministries, based in Australia.
The committee, comprised of General Conference Biblical
Research Institute scholars, General Conference current and former administrators,
and Andrews University Seminary and Oakwood College instructors, developed a
20-question instrument that was the basis of their inquiry and appraisal. The
leaders of Hope International and its associated groups accepted the committee’s
invitation to answer the questions. They met with the General Conference-appointed
group on two occasions for a total of three and one-half days. The following
report constitutes the committee’s assessment of their responses, both written
and verbal, and its evaluation of results of research done by individuals contracted
specifically to study the theology and methodology of Hope International and
ADCOM received the ad hoc committee’s conclusions on April
25, 2000, and, in light of the questions raised by church membership in general
over the years, voted to share this information with the world church.
All of us would agree that Christ is the head of the church.
As Ellen G. White wrote, “Nothing else in this world is so dear to God as His
church. Nothing is guarded by Him with such jealous care” (Testimonies for
the Church, vol. 6, p. 42). But the church is made up of mortals in constant
need of His presence and guidance.
For these reasons there is great need for revival and reformation
in the Seventh-day Adventist Church as it faces the final chapter in the great
controversy. No one will question the importance for church administrators,
pastors, teachers, and laypersons to be personally involved in the task of calling
the whole church back to the purity of faith and Christian living as found in
the Scriptures. Such revival is simply indispensable for the effective fulfillment
of the mission of the church. Our message and mission should be constantly reaffirmed
through voice and action until the glory of the Lord is revealed throughout
the world by a people who are totally committed to Jesus Christ as Saviour and
Therefore, the emphasis on revival and reformation we found
in the message of Hope International, Hartland Institute, and Remnant Ministries
(hereafter referred to as Hope International and associates) is welcomed. Further,
we observed in conversations with Hope International and associates that they
affirmed agreement on many of the major elements of the Seventh-day Adventist
However, the method they have used to express their concern
has resulted in what is perceived by many to be a spirit of constant criticism
directed against the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is the body of Christ,
the remnant church. The effect of this methodology is the discouraging portrayal
of the church as steeped in a state of apostasy. After studying their materials
and meeting with their leaders, we have some serious concerns with respect to
the nature and purpose of Hope International and associates.
Areas of Serious Concern
1. Charge of Apostasy Against the Seventh-day Adventist
According to Hope International and associates, it is an
understatement to say that there is apostasy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The church itself is in apostasy! Therefore, the condition of the church is
worse than that of any other Christian religious body that forms the end-time
Babylon. They are not willing to refer openly to the Seventh-day Adventist Church
as Babylon because of the occasions in which Ellen G. White opposed those who
made such accusations. Yet they have found a way to bypass her counsel by accusing
the church of being in apostasy. We have not found a single case where Ellen
G. White or the book of Revelation accuses God’s remnant people of being in
apostasy. It is this charge of apostasy against the church that keeps Hope International
and associates alive.
If the church is in apostasy, it has no reason to exist,
and the Lord must raise up a new church as His instrument for these last days.
Hope International and associates see themselves as spokespersons for those
who perceive that the church is in apostasy, and they believe that they have
a divine mandate to catalog and publicize this apostasy and to call the church
to repentance. Although we acknowledge that there is apostasy in the church—Jesus
Himself acknowledged the coexistence of wheat and tares in the church—we reject
the blatant and irresponsible accusation that God’s remnant church is in apostasy.
Their definition of apostasy as “any deviation from God’s truth or mandated
Christian practice” is not found in the Bible or in the writings of Ellen G.
2. Distorted View of the Nature of the Church
It is our clear impression that Hope International and associates
believe that the church is composed of both an organized system of administration
and a parallel self-supporting ministry independent of the organized system.
We understand their position to be that, as divinely appointed self-supporting
ministries, they are not ultimately bound by the decisions of the world church.
This model of church organization is used by them to justify their activities.
Such understanding of the church lacks any biblical support and is not found
in the writings of Ellen G. White. Although we acknowledge the need for supportive
ministries within the church, we perceive Hope International and associates
as having parallel organizational structures separate to, and critical of, the
official church organization. Support for this perception is found in the following
characteristics of their organizations:
a. Diverse Understanding of Doctrinal Positions
Though strongly affirming their support for the Seventh-day
Adventist Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, Hope International and associates
seem to have some reservations with respect to several of them. One such reservation
concerns “The Son” (No. 4). In this particular case they have taken a position
different from that of the church by making their particular understanding of
the human nature of Christ part of the doctrine. On the topic of the Church
(No. 11 and No. 13) their understanding of its nature and authority does not
seem to reflect the doctrine of ecclesiology as held by the church (see below).
The same applies to the statement on “Stewardship” (No. 20).
b. Reluctance to Accept the Authority of the Church
Although acknowledging that the church has a God-given authority,
Hope International and associates do not consider the authority of the church
to be final in the community of believers. It is the Seventh-day Adventist position
that the church was formed when a group of believers voluntarily, and under
the conviction of the Holy Spirit, accepted a common gospel, a common lifestyle,
and a common mission, understood to be based on the authority of the Scriptures.
This community was vested with authority by Christ (Matt. 18:15-18). Decisions
made by the properly appointed representatives of the church community are binding
on all members who, in order to preserve the unity of the church and to facilitate
the fulfillment of its mission, are willing to set aside personal opinions and/or
practices to follow the decisions of the body. But if elements of that community
break the common bond that unites it, by developing a judgmental attitude against
the authority of the community, the result is confusion and insubordination.
Hope International and associates appear to have taken the position that their
interpretation of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy is the final arbiter
over the church, to determine whether its decisions are correct or not. If,
in their judgment, a decision is not correct, they reject it and proceed to
believe and act as they think best, while at the same time claiming to be loyal
members of the church. That attitude is consistent with the spirit of schism
and, at the present time, contributes to undermining the authority of the church.
Self-supporting ministries are to work harmoniously with
the church. Paul, who is often referred to as a self-supporting worker, was,
after his conversion, brought by the Lord into a permanent connection with the
church. In that context we are told:
“God has made His church on the earth a channel of light,
and through it He communicates His purposes and His will. He does not give to
one of His servants an experience independent of and contrary to the experience
of the church itself. Neither does He give one man a knowledge of His will for
the entire church while the church—Christ’s body—is left in darkness. . . .
“There have ever been in the church those who are constantly
inclined toward individual independence. They seem unable to realize that independence
of spirit is liable to lead the human agent to have too much confidence in himself
and to trust in his own judgment rather than to respect the counsel and highly
esteem the judgment of his brethren, especially of those in the offices that
God has appointed for the leadership of His people. God has invested His church
with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding
and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God.
“Those who are inclined to regard their individual judgment
as supreme are in grave peril” (The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 163, 164).
c. Rewriting of the Baptismal Vow
A baptismal vow was put together by Colin Standish using
the 1932 Church Manual and other sources. An examination of this baptismal
vow reveals that it is significantly different from what is found in the current
Church Manual as approved by the world church. Among the differences
are the following:
(1) A new fundamental belief added as a requirement for
joining the church: that “Jesus took upon Himself our fallen nature.” Such statement
has never been part of the Seventh-day Adventist baptismal vow or of official
statements of fundamental beliefs. Such change illustrates an independence from
the church in doctrinal matters as they constitute their own particular views
into tests of faith, independent from the remainder of the church.
(2) The vow dealing with tithing does not identify the church
as the repository of tithe, as does the official baptismal vow.
(3) In the rewritten baptismal vow, the Seventh-day Adventist
Church does not receive a mention. The remnant church is mentioned, but it is
never identified with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The fundamental question
here is one of the nature and authority of the church and where that authority
resides. Those who promote the use of this reworded baptismal vow demonstrate
that they do not recognize the authority of the organized Seventh-day Adventist
d. Redefinition of the Tithe “Storehouse”
The financial support of their organizations comes not only
from their own earnings, nor only from the offerings of church members, but
also from tithes. Some of their publications redefine the “storehouse” to be
any instrument of God that is proclaiming “unadulterated present truth.” Whether
intended or not, the influence of such literature is to encourage members to
redirect their tithe away from the church “storehouse,” and to invest it instead
with these independent ministries.
e. Conducting Their Own Camp Meetings
Every year they conduct their own camp meetings, usually
without the concurrence of the conference administration. They express that
the need for such camp meetings arises from their perception that the Seventh-day
Adventist Church is in apostasy, and is therefore incapable of meeting the spiritual
needs of its members through the regular conference camp meetings.
f. Operating Their Own Publishing Enterprises
Hope International and associates have their own publishing
program for the production of materials promoting their views on different doctrines
and lifestyle issues. While much of this material is Adventist in character,
there are numerous examples of a judgmental attitude against the organized church
and its leaders and, from time to time, assertions that the church is in apostasy.
Whatever truths these periodicals contain are more than discounted by a recurring
3. Supporting Dissident Movements
Hope International and associates have supported, and continue
to support, dissident movements who turn against the Seventh-day Adventist Church
and its organization. They have been supporting Norberto Restrepo in Colombia
and Venezuela, a former Seventh-day Adventist minister who is no longer an Adventist,
and is rather one of the most severe enemies of the church in the Inter-American
Division. In 1997 they supported a group of church elders in Guatemala who rebelled
against the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and they sent one of their representatives
to Guatemala to support them. Recently they supported, in a court of law, a
non-Adventist who was attempting to use the name of the church for his own organization.
Their encouragement of breakaway activities in the following countries, and
others besides, is well documented: Australia, Bolivia, England, Fiji, France,
Germany, Holland, Hungary, New Zealand, Macedonia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sweden, United States of America, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.
These associations do nothing to build confidence in the professed loyalty of
Hope International and associates to the church. Rather, it is a powerful evidence
of their disregard for the carefully considered decisions of the church, and
it amounts to disloyalty to the church itself. Their misdirected support interferes
with the regular organization’s attempts to deal with, and hopefully redeem,
such dissident individuals, and makes the task of the church more difficult.
4. Selectively Using Ellen G. White Writings
Hope International and associates pride themselves in their
profuse use of the writings of Ellen G. White to support their teachings. But
they select statements that seem to support themselves, while disregarding other
statements in which activities such as theirs are clearly condemned by Ellen
G. White. Her overriding support of the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church
is intentionally minimized or ignored by Hope International and associates,
or explained away as irrelevant for us today.
The accumulative effect of the above information results
in the perception of many church members that Hope International and associates
are offshoot organizations. They have not taken the decisive step of officially
separating themselves from the Seventh-day Adventist organization, and they
claim that they never will. However, by rejecting the authority of the world
church in session when their interpretation of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy
differs from that of the church, they have set their authority above that of
the world church and operate in a manner that is consistent with offshoot movements.
We appeal, in all sincerity and Christian love, to Hope
International and associates to hear the counsel of the church they claim to
love. It is time for the spirit of condemnation and rebellion to be set aside,
allowing the reconciling blood of Christ to bring unity among His people.
All agree that there is serious need for revival and reformation
in God’s remnant church, but the methods used by Hope International and associates
have produced dissonance instead of reform. When assessed by their fruits, it
is seen that the movement of reform promoted by Hope International and associates
has failed to bring about either reformation or increased unity. The church
is not perfect, but there is wisdom in listening to its advice. We appeal, in
Christian love, for a turn of heart and purpose that will bring Hope International
and associates into full unity with the body of Christ, the remnant church.
If Hope International and associates cannot bring themselves
into harmony with the body of the world church, clearly evidenced within 12
months, the Seventh-day Adventist Church may need to consider whether there
exists a “persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority
or to submit to the order and discipline of the church” (Church Manual,
- Related Websites:
- Hope International
- Hartland Institute