Controversy About the “Great Controversy,” by Nic Samojluk

Most Adventists are aware that there is currently a great controversy taking place regarding Ellen White’s the “Great Controversy” book. Our new General Conference [GC] president, Ted Wilson, decided to distribute said book by the millions, and many zealous Adventist members donated millions of dollars for this unprecedented project apparently unawares that what was being published was an abridged version of the original one written by the author.

A Sanitized Version of Ellen White’s Book 

A  careful inspection of the book being distributed by the millions reveals that it actually is a sanitized version of the “Great Controversy” in which a large number of chapters dealing with the role of the Catholic Church and offensive to Rome were deleted in order to make the content of the book more palatable to the Catholic Church. The argument is that the Catholic organization no longer resembles the one which persecuted, tortured, and killed the saints during the Inquisition centuries ago.

The Donors and the Critics

Critics like David Mould, who some years ago published the complete version of Mrs. White book without paying any royalties to the White Estate argue that those donors who innocently contributed their funds assuming that the original version of the book would be distributed, should be entitled to a refund, and that publishing en emasculated version of the original book does not do justice to the original intent and goal of its author.

This controversy about the revised edition of Ellen White’s book is not something new, but rather a rekindling of the fight between the General Conference and David Mould when several years ago he decided to publish Mrs. White book without paying any royalties to the White Estate. He was sued by the GC but prevailed because apparently the church had failed to extend the books copyright in a timely manner.

At that time, I wrote the article which appears below, and which is very relevant today because it sheds some light on the renewed controversy about one of the most controversial production of Ellen White’s prolific pen. Here it is:

*********

A. Reviving the Great Controversy

When E. White wrote her masterpiece work of literature, “The Great Controversy,” over a century ago, there was a predominant anti-Catholic feeling in the United States, which is clearly reflected in her book. Since then, with the passage of time, the Blue Laws designed to enforce the sanctity of Sunday religious observance faded into the background, and finally were almost relegated to oblivion; nevertheless, a zealous and vitriolic SDA independent preacher named David Mould, founder of the Laymen for Religious Liberty Ministries, with headquarters in the State of Florida, decided to revive the core message of the book.

The first thing he did was to republish White’s book a decade ago with a centerpiece containing nearly 150 color pictures, which he advertised in huge billboards and by means of a six-page ad in the Time Magazine. He managed to do this without the need to pay any royalties to the White Estate. His billboards ignited quite a furor both among Catholics and Adventists as well, because it tended to revive the now fading animosity between Protestants and Catholics. His ministry suffered a severe setback, when his staff resigned following allegations that he had been carrying an adulterous affair with one of his assistants.

B. Adding Fuel to the Fire

Fuel was added to the recently rekindled fire from an unexpected source: The Vatican. Two years ago, Pope John Paul II issued a 20,000 word document entitled “ Dies Domini,” in which he encouraged Christians to protect the sanctity of the Lord’s Day, which he identified with Sunday, in spite of the fact that both the Ten Commandments and the Creation story found in Genesis equates the Sabbath day of rest with the Seventh Day of the week. Energized by this action by the Pontiff, an ex-Roman Catholic named Rafael Perez, pastor of the “Eternal Gospel Church,” originally founded by SDA believers, purchased two full pages of advertising in the Washington Times, coupled with similar space in other newspapers of major circulation, in which he identified the Vatican as the seat of the anti-Christ, and reminded readers that the true day of rest was Saturday instead of Sunday.

C. Pandemonium Erupts

Pastor Perez probably did not suspect the fury his actions would generate. Washington’s Cardinal James Hickey labeled the ad as an uncalled attack upon all Christians who keep Sunday as their chosen day of worship, and demanded a formal apology from the General Conference of SDA’s. The church’s attorney contacted Pastor Perez, threatened to file a lawsuit, and soon after, the beleaguered pastor learned that the church had taken legal action to stop him from using the name Seventh-day Adventist. The result was that almost a year ago, a Florida court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and Pastor Perez’ Eternal Gospel Church was ordered to cease using the SDA identity. There was an appeal, and the case was eventually settled through court mediation. The net result is that Perez’ Florida church, originally labeled as the “Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-day Adventists” now bears the following sign: “Eternal Gospel Church … Founded in 1992 by Seventh-day Believers (Not affiliated with the General Conference of Maryland)”.

D. A Book is Born

Followingthe settlement, with the assistance of David Mould, the founder of the Laymen for Religious Liberty Ministries organization, Pastor Perez published a book entitled “With Your Tithe,” in which he questioned the right of the General Conference to pay their attorneys with tithe funds, absent a consent by the rank and file members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. He also wondered whether the church had abandoned its position on the Vatican as described in the Great Controversy, where the persecuting power labeled as “The Beast” is identified with Rome. Finally, he further questioned the validity of former G.C. president, Neal C. Wilson, who had publicly stated that our long-held view of the Vatican’s role in the earth’s final days events has been discarded on “the trash heap of history.” If this is the case, Pastor Perez wanted to know who made these changes in our official dogma, and when.

E. What is at Stake?

You probably realize that a lot is at stake here! If we no longer accept E.White’s description of the events immediately preceding Jesus Christ return to this earth, then what do we do with the book The Great Controversy? On the other hand, if we still hold to our traditional view of the Vatican’s role as alluded to in Revelation, then why do we sever our relationship with any organization determined to vigorously divulge what our prophet clearly described in her monumental literary production? After all, what the offending SDA pastor published in the newspapers did not contain anything different from what we have in the above-alluded book by E. White. Are we embarrassed by what she openly held and taught? Has the world situation changed so drastically that the new doctrinal wine may require new wineskins? Are her prophetic predictions perhaps reminiscent of Jonah’s frustration when his announced imminent destruction of Nineveh failed to materialize?

F. Our Adventist Eschatology

It is evident that our traditional Adventist eschatology is being questioned at the highest levels of our church organization. Personally, I would offer the following humble solution to this serious dilemma facing the church: 1. Prophetic predictions are not set in concrete, but are rather subject to human response to the divine warnings. When a father tells his unruly son, “Johnny, you’ll get a spanking,” I doubt that he is more concerned about the accuracy of his prediction than about a hoped-for change in his behavior. 2. The original application of the predictions found in Revelation had to do with Imperial Rome, and its eventual application by Luther to the Vatican was a secondary one. At that time, the Catholic Church represented both Caesar and God; today the Pope holds only religious authority over his subjects. 3. It is unfair to hold the present Pope responsible for the sins committed by the church during the Inquisition many centuries ago. Besides, he already apologized for this numerous times. 4. The Lord holds us responsible for our current actions, instead of the actions of our predecessors.

G. A New Eschatology

I humbly propose that we adopt a new eschatology based on what Jesus stated about the last days events as described vividly in the 25th chapter of Matthew. He told his disciples that at the last day the factor determining our destiny would be, not whether we worship on the correct day of the week, but rather the way we treat “the least,” and among humans I can’t think of a more vulnerable group than that of the unborn. John Paul II may be wrong on the correct day of worship, but he is right, I believe, in defending the sanctity of human life, the most magnificent product of God’s creation. He may be wrong on the state of the dead, but he is right about the state of the living! For over a century and a half we have fearlessly defended the sanctity of God’s Holy Time, but we are silent regarding the sanctity of human life. We have built and managed numerous medical institutions to “Make Man Whole.” It is high time that we do what is within our power and influence to “Keep the Baby Whole!”

H. The Many Faces of the Anti-Christ

Two millennia ago King Herod butchered the young babies in Bethlehem. Later on, several Roman Emperors murdered thousands of Christians. Then the Catholic Inquisition did their share during the Middle Ages. More recently, we had Hitler and Stalin, who annihilated innocent human beings by the millions. To top this, our generation is either butchering or poisoning the most innocent of all, the unborn. As you can see, the anti-Christ has many faces, and wears many masks. Somebody said: “In Germany, they came first for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Finally they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up.”