A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Lenin (1870 - 1924)

We hold that truth is enduring; That it can withstand scrutiny; And that it is found, not through the imagination of man, but through God’s Word. We believe that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” and that without it the church can not, and will not, be “equipped for every (or even “any”) good work” (2 Timothy 3:16,17).

We hold that the whole of the Spirit of Prophecy (SOP) is still relevant and trustworthy today. We submit that it’s illumination upon scripture is necessary for the life and witness of the SDA church in this day. We reject the notion that the Word and the “prophetic word” are relics of the past ( or as some now refer to it, the “horse and buggy” days). We believe that the “picking and choosing” by many in positions of leadership is “non-contextual” and undermines both the faith and function of the church As a result, we must choose to heed the following:“Go set a watchman, let him declare what he sees.” Isaiah 21:6 ‘Son of man, I have made you a watchman…therefore hear a word from My mouth and give them a warning from Me” Ezekiel 3:17 “If wrongs are apparent among His people, and if the servants of God pass on indifferent to them, they virtually sustain and justify the sinner, and are alike guilty and will just as surely receive the displeasure of God; for they will be made responsible for the sins of the guilty.” T 5, 676Also: “The plain, straight testimony must live in the church, or the curse of God will rest upon His people as surely as it did upon ancient Israel because of their sins.” Ibid

RESPONSE

It is our firm belief that through Providence we have been awakened to recognition of subtle but substantive error that is now being ushered into many of our SDA churches. Error that is eclectic in nature, arising from the “ancient” streams of Gnosticism, and more contemporary liberal theology, as well as tributaries of the “New Age” movement. This onrushing torrent is now being referred to as the “Emerging Church Movement. We have observed locally how these are coalescing and being neatly packaged and delivered to the churches through the concepts of “intuition and innovation”. We do not oppose change just for the sake of opposition. Change that does not abandon core doctrinal beliefs has long been part of our heritage. We do not deny that in the current message, some truth is being presented. It is the fact that, this truth is so subtly being mixed with error that gives us the greatest concern as this has been the modus operandi of the “author of sin” from the beginning of mankind. As a result, we can no longer remain as silent observers. We must stand up and raise a voice of dissent to the “echoes of error” that are now so audible and are sweeping in a postmodern “world view” like the incoming tide under the cover of darkness. It is now time to “be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God that you might be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” Ephesians 6:10,11

WHO ARE WE?

First, and foremost, this is not about US. We offer this backdrop not to draw attention to persons, but to theological principles. We respond because so many are unaware and uninformed. We are as diverse and varied as the church itself. We are business men and women, health professionals, educators, laborers, homemakers, among many other vocations. We are church elders, deacons, deaconesses, Sabbath School teachers like so many of you, who love the SDA church and the message that God has given us to share with the world. We can no longer remain silent in the face of the subtle but mounting agenda of the Ohio Conference (OC) to attempt to reinvent Adventism. Many if not most of us, who have commenced this journey have done so with the realization that we are already very far down stream. The “river guides” who have helped to pioneer the journey down these heretical streams were a band we refer to as “The Innovators”. Following a blueprint from early 20^th century Adventism, and upon an invitation from leadership, these bright, articulate and very clever individuals formally arrived in Ohio in October, 2005, bringing with them new ideas, new reading lists, new philosophies, and sadly, new methods of flirting with truth.

THE “INNOVATIVE” VENUE

We confess as ‘watchmen’ we slept through the First Annual National Innovation Conference hosted by the Ohio Conference of SDA’s on (October 2- 4, 2005). As the sequel (Second Annual National Innovation Conference, October 1-2, 2006) approached some began to hear revelations from around the country about the alien beliefs held by the featured speaker (Dr Leland Kaiser). Although not a household name to most outside of the healthcare community, we later discovered that he had most assuredly been a confidante and consultant to the Ohio Conference for some time. In the spring of 2006, as a result of an invitation by Conference leadership, several individuals began to review their packets (i.e. handouts from the 2005 National Innovation Conference) that had been sent to themAs they reviewed and studied this material; And as understanding and awareness grew, so did their concern. Further research then lead them to some of the primary writings and philosophies of the key author. The mystical foundations became almost immediately apparent. http://gnosticnotes.blogspot.com/ This information launched a more intensified search of scripture and a growing awareness of the need for personal preparation and greater spiritual discernment. (They were also convicted that they could not attend in good conscience attend the presentations). Concurrently, and without their knowledge, others had begun to investigate some of the same materials and resources. Soon, as a result of prayer, Bible study, thoughtful research, and with counsel from respected Christian brothers and sisters there arose a number of home meetings and group studies. As the circle of awareness widened across the state of Ohio, and while the level of concern deepened one question arose repeatedly; “Understanding what is clearly expressed, what is our responsibility”? “Do we now have an obligation to issue a warning to others?” “If so, how should we go about doing so? There followed a period of prayer and guidance for leading from these groups that were scattered in many parts of the state. Personal discussions were held with OC leaders. Concerns were explicitly expressed. Unfortunately, these pleas, although politely received, have been met with no redirection of purpose or policy.

THE NEW VOCABULARY

At this point it behooves us to insert a revelation about a new vocabulary that we have encountered, (and perhaps which you will recognize…at least in part). Link We were forced to go back to school in order to be “conversive” with new words such as “missional”, “missiology”, “incarnational”, “transformational”, “paradigm shifts”…and others. This became a prerequisite to simply comprehend the books, articles and websites we encountered. (It was certainly reassuring to know that we were not alone in our quest for understanding, as some of our pastors were also asking “what do these words really mean?”) We must politely reject the disclaimer that has been offered; “When our church uses these terms, it means something different” then when used by other denominations who are steeped in Emerging Church ideology.

AN UNEXPECTED CONVERSATION

In early December 2006, as a result of many of these concerns, leadership offered to meet to answer questions. What followed, a few short days later, was (by all accounts) extraordinary in terms of attendance and in terms of the dialogue. "A Conversation With The President" It became almost immediately clear that we had been invited to a “conversation”) although it wasn’t until later we realized what this really meant. As a result of it became very clear that:

• Leadership has underestimated the extent and level of concern of the Church’s constituents (a phenomenon that persists).
• The programming and theological content for the Innovation Conferences was under the direction of a small steering committee. (members: Elder Raj Attiken, Dr. Duane Coving, Elder Monte Sahlin, Dr David Swenson)
• The Innovation Conferences have been subsidized by “external” funding sources and, as such, do not fall under the oversight of standard organizational (i.e. committee) structure.
• Leadership was ill-equipped to defend, either rationally or theologically, the beliefs of the “Innovators.”

At that meeting, attendees were told:

• That “if you have issues with the belief system of the Innovation speaker(s), you should speak to them” …and
• That “While there certainly are lots of stuff (i.e. writings) on their website that hopefully none of us would subscribe to . . . Why that (i.e. the writings)is there and the reason for all of that -- I don’t want to speak for them; But I have talked to them about it and I’m satisfied with their answers to me.” (parenthesis added for clarification) fell short of being convincing; In the absence of a responsible answer to the question asked of “how could anyone safely engage in conversation with one who is steeped in mysticism, spiritualism, and psychic phenomenon, we are thankful for the sound counsel that scripture provides; “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.. Therefore do not be partakers with them.” Ephesians 5:11,6,7

THE RESCINDED INVITATION In the context of the incomplete, evasive and logically contradictory statements offered at the 12/16/2006 meeting, there was offered an unequivocal message of support for the Innovative Conference, the organizing committee and the participant “Innovators.” There followed, quite unexpectedly, a communiqué on 1/10/2007 informing many of the attendees that “the Innovators” who had served as the core faculty to the sessions of 2005 and 2006 and who had played such a pivotal role in establishing the foundational theory of innovation for the church in Ohio would not be asked to return in 2007. While it may have been natural to interpret this as a response to the concerns that had been earlier expressed, and while some may have surmised that this reversal heralded a redirection of the administrative agenda, future events and “conversations” would suggest otherwise. We invite you to investigate further the newest delegates to the upcoming session scheduled Sep 30-Oct 2 2007. Participants