Overview of site
Order Form
Study Links

 

WWN 1970s

~~~

WWN 1980s

1980 Jan-Mar

1980 Apr-Jun

1980 Jul-Sep

1980 Oct-Dec

 

1981 Jan-Mar

1981 Apr-Jun

1981 Jul-Sep

1981 Oct-Dec

 

1982 Jan-Mar

1982 Apr-Jun

1982 Jul-Sep

1982 Oct-Dec

 

1983 Jan-Mar

1983 Apr-Jun

1983 Jul-Sep

1983 Oct-Dec

 

1984 Jan-Mar

1984 Apr-Jun

1984 Jul-Sep

1984 Oct-Dec

 

1985 Jan-Mar

1985 Apr-Jun

1985 Jul-Sep

1985 Oct-Dec

 

1986 Jan-Mar

1986 Apr-Jun

1986 Jul-Sep

1986 Oct-Dec

 

1987 Jan-Mar

1987 Apr-Jun

1987 Jul-Sep

1987 Oct-Dec

1988 Jan-Mar

Feb Knight Descends On Jones. 1of 4.

Mar Knight Descends On Jones. 2 of 4.

1988 Apr-Jun Knight 3 & 4 of 4.

1988 Jul-Sep

1988 Oct-Dec

 

1989 Jan-Mar

1989 Apr-Jun

~~~

1989 Jul-Sep

Jul

Aug

Sep

~~~

1989 Oct-Dec

~~~

WWN 1990s

WWN 2000s

~~~

E-mail

TOP

WWN 1989 Jul - Sep

 

1989Jul -- XXII -- 7(89) -- A National Sunday Law -- PAST? PRESENT? FUTURE? -- Part 2 -- During the crucial years of 1901-1903, Ellen G. White introduced three factors into the events of the last days. Not only did she indicate that we would have to remain many more years in this world because of insubordination (Ms. 184, 1901), but she also wrote immediately following the 1903 General Conference session that - "In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to weighed." (8T:247) In simple terms this was telling the Church, that it, too, as a corporate entity had to pass the review of the Judgment. The Church could not take for granted that its status, as the recipient in trust of "the last warning message for a perishing world" (9T:19), would place it beyond acountability as to how it ministered that sacred trust. If it did not prove true to that trust, it would be "found wanting." (8T:247)

Further, in 1902, Ellen White wrote - "All need wisdom to carefully search out the mystery of iniquity that figures so largely in the winding up of this world's history." (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 118) The working of "the mystery of iniquity" in the final affairs is not going to be as simple as 2+2=4, but must be "carefully searched out." Simply printing a national Sunday Law booklet and urging its distribution is not searching out "the mystery of iniquity," but is rather lulling the unsuspected into a tatal delusion that the final issues will be very obvious. While it is true that "the day of the Lord" is not to overtake us "as a thief in the night," it is conditioned upon the premise that we must be "children of the light." (I Thess.5:1-6) One cannot be a child of the light, following the principles set forth to understand that light - "time and place;" and yet be the devotees of the hawkers of the sensational who are soliciting through that means a "fast buck."

Not only did Ellen G. White call attention to the

p 2 -- working of "the mystery of iniquity;" but in 1901, she observed that Christ connected specific historical events with the scenes that were to take place "just prior" to His return a second time. It would be a new "signal" as the Sunday Law was intended to be in the preceding decade. She wrote:      In the twenty-first chapter of Luke, Christ foretold what was to come upon Jerusalem and with it He connected the scenes which were to take place in the history of this world just prior to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 23-24, emphasis mine)

By specifying Luke 21, rather than Matthew 24 or Mark 13 which are parallel chapters, Ellen G. White was focusing on a specific prophecy in Luke concerning Jerusalem which the other two gospel writers did not. All the synoptic writers - Matthew, Mark and Luke - call attention to the prophetic sign Jesus gave in regard to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but only Luke records that Jesus also said - "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles (nations) until the times of the Gentiles (nations) be fulfilled" (21:24) This Ellen White wrote would signal the time "just prior" to Christ's return. This time we have reached. It is the "now" time for us!

This factor does not exclude an "oppressive" Sunday Law, but it does place it as an "International Sunday Law" rather than the emphasis on a "National" Sunday Law. In the same year - 1901 - Ellen White wrote:      The substitution of the false for the true is the last act of the drama. When this substitution becomes universal, God will reveal Himself. When the laws of men are exalted above the laws of God, when the powers of earth try to force men to keep the first day of the week, know that the time has come for God to work. He will arise in majesty, and will shake terribly the earth. (R&H. April 21, 1901)

Observe this statement carefully. Note and retain in memory the words - "exalted" and "substitution." We will see them again in use. Carefully consider that the final issue is not some "Sunday Closing Law" but a forcing by law the observance of "the first day of the week." At that point in time, God "will arise in majesty, and shake terribly the earth."

Wh at persuasive power will overcome all "pluralistic" factors which now stand as a barrier to "oppressive" religious legislation? Observe carefully this paragraph from a letter written in 1893:      Fallen angels upon earth form confederations with evil man. In this age antichrist will appear as the true Christ, and then the law of God will be fully made void in the nations of our world. Rebellion against God's holy law will be fully ripe. But the true leader of all this rebellion is Satan clothed as an angel of light. Men will be deceived and will exalt him to the place at God. and deify him. But Omnipotence will interpose, and to the apostate churches that unite in the exaltation of Satan, the sentence will go forth, "Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning. and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her." (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 62)

It should be obvious that these two quotations - one written in 1901, and the other in 1893 following "a national Sunday Law" - end with a focus on the same point of time, a time when God "will arise in majesty" thus interposing His "Omnipotence." The future "oppressive" Sunday Law coincides with the deification of Satan by the "apostate churches." In the final drama, it is to be a universal Sunday Law originating at the instigation of Satan as "an angel of light."

[In this schema of events as portrayed by Ellen G. White, one obtains the answer as to the decision made in the Sanctuary when the Church was weighed in the balances. For many it will be too late. She wrote commenting on Ezekiel 9 - "Here we see that the church - the Lord's sanctuary - was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God." (5T:211) The "first stroke" is upon those that "had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image." (Rev. 16:2)

The issue is far more than "a national Sunday Law" for many of those "who profess to keep the Sabbath" will not be "sealed." (5T:213-214) And if one is not sealed with the seal of God, with what is he marked? But today, Satan is using his agents to profiteer and to deceive concerned Adventists in agitation over a National Sunday Law issue instead of studying the Writings as to "time and place."]

Interestingly, Ellen G. White places the setting of the "oppressive" Sunday law in the context of Luke 21:24. She wrote:      After the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all nations [in other words, the times of the nations was fulfilled], every conceivable power of evil will be set in operation, and minds will be confused by many voices crying, "Lo, here is Christ, Lo,

p 3 -- he is there. This is the truth, I have a message from God. He has sent me with great light." Then there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith. A more decided effort will be made to exalt the false Sabbath, and to cast contempt upon God himself by supplanting the day He has blessed and sanctified. This false Sabbath is to be enforced by an opporessive law. (R&H, Dec. 13, 1892)

This prophetic warning, again written after a National Sunday Law, can serve several purposes. It not only tells us about the nature of the coming "oppressive" Sunday Law, but also alerts sincere seekers of truth as to what they face in this "now" time of the fulfilled prophecy of Luke 21:24.

First, let us note in passing the "red" alert this warning gives. One has only to mark the date of the complete fulfillment of Luke 21:24 in 1980 when Jerusalem was proclaimed by the Knesset of Israel to be the Capital of its government, to see that after that date there came on the periphery of Adventism, the "many voices" as foretold. Ellen G. White indicated these "voices" would be confusing voices which would deceive. Ask yourself when you listen to tapes sent to you, when did that voice begin its ministry, or when you receive a newsletter, check the date of first publication of that journal or paper, and you will have a key that will keep you from deception no matter how good it looks or sounds.

We need to consider next the implications of the words describing the nature of the "oppressive" Sunday Law which is to occur in this "now" time. It states that there will be a "more decided effort to exalt the false Sabbath, and to cast contempt upon God Himself by supplanting the day He blessed and sanctified." Now go back to the reference from the Review & Herald, April 21, 1901, (p. 2) and compare these same words,and the synonymn used for "supplanting" - "substitution." It should be obvious that these two quotationsare referring to the same Sabbath law that is to be enacted.

While we do not believe in verbal inspiration, nevertheless words give thought as perceived by the writer. In the paragraph preceding the one quoted from the Review and Herald, Dec. 13, 1892, Ellen G. White speaks of -Sunday as a "rival Sabbath," a "spurious Sabbath." But "after" the truth has been proclaimed as a witness to all "nations," this rival and spurious Sabbath is "exalted" and made to "supplant" the true in seeking to cast contempt upon God. Supplant means "to take the place of and serve as a substitute for especially by reason of superior excellence of power." Thus the exaltation leads to supplanting. There is an interesting calendar in use today in various parts of the world which alters the arrangement of the week, and gives to Sunday the place which God assigned for the true Sabbath - the seventh day. (See page 4)

The details of the future are not open before us, and will be known only as the scroll unfolds. Today, we can see only the broad outlines. However, one has only to do a minimum of thinking to grasp the implications if this calendar form should become universal, and a world-wide law were enacted enforcing the observance of the seventh-day as outlined in this calendar. Do not forget there are forces within society today who would return to such "Sabbath regulations." See WWN XX-6; "Now You Can Hear the Thunder".

The concept from Puritanism giving to Sunday the status of the seventh-day Sabbath and robing "the Lord's day" with the sanctity of the Sabbath is firmly held by the Lord Day Alliance. The cover of Sunday (Jan./March, 1989), the official organ of the LDA in the United States, reads - "May God's JOY of the Sabbath Enter Your Heart THIS SUNDAY!" Of import is the theology of Pope John Paul II on this point. During his 1987 visit to the United States, the Pope observed concerning Sunday:      Today is Sunday: the Lord's Day. Today is like the "seventh day" about which the Book of Genesis says that "God rested from all the work he had undertaken." (Gn 2:2) Having completed the work of creation, he "rested." God rejoiced in his work; he "looked at everything that he had made, and found it very good." (Gn 1:31) So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy" (Gn 2:3).

On this day we are called to reflect more deeply on the mystery of creation, and therefore our own lives. We are called to "rest" in God, the Creator of the universe. Our duty is to praise him: "My soul, give thanks to the Lord ... Give thanks to the Lord and never forget all his blessings." (Ps. 102 (103):1-2) Quoted in Sunday, op. cit, p.23)

How then can we relate to the present agitation for Sunday Closing Laws that have become issues in some parts of the world? To Be Continued

p 4 -- Calendar page showing Sunday Sabbath - 7th day

p 5 -- Some Things Need To Be Said -- This seems to be the most opportune time to say some things that need to be said in regard to the deception being practiced on concerned Adventists by the "many voices" on the periphery of Adventism today. To say or write things which involve the Writings of Ellen G. White in their proper relationship to the Bible always opens the door to the charge, whether true or not, that one does not believe in "the Spirit of Prophecy." Having set forth in this present and previous issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?" two studies on "A National Sunday Law" using only the Writings of Ellen G. White according to the rules which she herself set forth for their use and study, I would hope to allay this charge in writing some things that need to be said. So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me say categorically from the start that this editor believes that Ellen G. White possessed a spiritual gift which is termed "the gift of prophecy."

Today, the "many voices" which Ellen G. White herself prophecied would come after a certain point in time was reached, and have come, are using her Writings to either sustain their theories, or as a facade to give a show of being on the "firm foundation." Tragically, many concerned Adventists, when they become aware of what has and is taking place within the regular organization, grasp at any publication which carries articles by Ellen G. White, believing that here must be the real "historic message." Others are enamoured by studies given by these "voices" which make the whole or major part of their presentations nothing but a series of "quotes" from the Writings.

[There is an exception. In a study or presentation of the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, there must be much use made of the Writings, for in them we have God's evaluation of the events and actions that have taken place in that history.]

What has the Lord's messenger actually written as to the people God will have upon the earth to give the final witness? She stated clearly:      God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. (SP, IV, p. 413)

In 1894, Ellen G. White wrote, "Our position and faith is in the Bible. And never do we want any soul to bring in the Testimonies ahead of the Bible. (Manuscript 7; Emphasis supplied) Yet there are those today who will state that the Sacred Scriptures are a composite of the Bible and the Writings of Ellen G. White. Yet the one who has so written confesses that he does very little study of theology, but in his spare time reads history and science. Now "theology" in its simpliest form is the study of God and His workings in time; in other words, the Bible. What a travesty is being practiced on God's professed people by this one of the "many voices"!

Some of the "voices" express concern for what is termed the "new theology." And there is cause to be alarmed; but what do these voices use? The Bible? No, they seek to exalt Ellen G. White as one of "the major prophets" and declare that you have to have her Writings to even know that the Bible is inspired. The "firm foundation" for the feet of the saints is not Roman Catholic doctrine which teaches that we need an authoritative voice to determine the inspiration of the Bible and how it is to be interpreted. The "new theology" purports to be based on the Bible. Then those who oppoose it need to study their Bibles so as to be able to refute it, and show from the Bible wherein it is in error. But these "voices" are not doing it, and when they do use the Bible in public presentations, they pervert its teachings. An outstanding example can be cited. What these "voices" need is to take time to study their Bibles instead of running hither and yon around the world and across the country teaching heresy under the guise of truth.

The Apostle Paul associated heresy with some very heinous sins which he called "the works of the flesh." (See Gal, 5:19-21) Then he wrote this strong language:      I have told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (vs. 21)

p 6 -- Further, those who accept the heresy will fail to attain the kingdom of heaven as well as those who teach it. A number of "the works of the flesh" involve the participation of two or more. But to use the Writings of Ellen G. White as a facade for teaching heresy as most of the "many voices" are doing reaches the height of blasphemy.

In 1902, Ellen G. White wrote:       "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light." (Colporteur Evangelist, p. 37)      How many by reading the publications of the "many voices" - and some of the more prominent magazines and newsletters could be named - have been led to devote their time to an intense study of the "greater light"? If not then the Writings have been prostituted to serve the personal ends of these "many voices."

Moreover, if all that these "many voices" can use are the Writings, then the objective of the Writings has not been realized in their own lives, and thus they become blind leaders of those they have blinded and are blinding. No one has a right to claim to be a guide in these final hours of the great controversy unless he has been immersed in the "greater light." It would be well if all who today want truth, pure and unadulterated, would perceive as does the devout Jew the significance of the sacred Scriptures. One scholar has written:       Religious Jews believe that in the Bible the Eternal has entered into time, the Unseen has taken a visible form, the unknown has become apparent, the intangible has become tangible in written documents that we can handle. The Law of God has become incarnate in print. For religious Jews, to read the scriptures, and even to quote from them, is to be put in touch with the divine order of Being. That is why in Judaism the study of the Hebrew scriptures is worship. It is more important to study them than to obey them, it is said, because without study you will obey them in the wrong way. (Bible Review. June, 1989, p. 10; "Caps" supplied)

Well has the "lesser light" stated -       "The Bible contains all the principles that men need to understand in order to be fitted either for this life or for the life to come. (Education, p. 123) When are we going to understand this, and cease to be deceived by the facade men make of the "lesser light" to cover their deceptions?

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet,
and a light unto my path."
(Ps. 119:105)

A FAUX PAS IN AUSTRALIA -- A Twoedged Sword! -- [Editor's Note: - The sources used for this article were Australian publications, ALMA Torch and The Anchor. The article in Torch was entitled, "Eggy Faces," while editors of The Anchor devoted an editorial on the faux pas and reprinted two letters, one written by Dr. Russell Standish to Elder Walter Scragg, and the other by Pastor E. B. Price to members of the Waitara Seventh-day Adventist Church in New South Wales.]

According to the information, Elder Robert Dale of the General Conference wrote a letter to Elder Walter Scragg, President of the South Pacific Division of the Church. In this letter, he noted that the Potomac Conference here in the States had not renewed the ministerial credentials of Dr. Colin Standish of Hartland Institute located in the Conference. Elder Scragg in turn passed this information down the chain of command. The reports indicate it created an "uproar", in Australia. To make matters worse, the Potomac Conference through its Secretary, Skip Bell, ultimately conveyed the "card" with an accompanying letter, a copy of which was forwarded to Australia. This faux pas has caused embarrassment to the Australian leadership. The devotees of Colin Standish are making a great issue over it. But it is a twoedged sword!

No one receives credentials in America unless he is in harmony with the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief as voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980, that is, at least gives lip-service thereto. One must conclude that Dr. Colin Standish has conveyed in some manner to the leadership of the Potomac Conference his adherence to and belief in those 27 Fundamentals.

In November, 1988, we sent a Memo and a Questionnaire to ten men connected with the "Independent Ministries" in and out of the

p 7 -- Church. The Questionnaire called for a response how each stood on key teachings of the 27 Fundamentals. This Memo and Questionnaire were published in the January, 1989, issue of WWN (XXII-1). The response received, and the listing of the ones who did not respond were reported two months later in the March issue (XXII-3).

Among the ten to receive the Questionnaire was Dr. Colin Standish. His secretary replied advising us that he was on furlough in Australia and that our letter would "be given to him when he returns." We also received a letter in January that Dr. Standish had left Australia the end of December and that he was bringing on behalf of the writer a contribution for the work of this Foundation. To this date - now approaching six months - we have not heard either in regard to the Questionnaire, nor an explanation from him in regard to the contribution he was carrying.

As for Elder Scragg, all in Australia know where he stands, at least all those on the periphery of the Church seem to know. We, in America, also know where he stands after reading the worship book for 1988 - Such Bright Hopes - which he authored. He may have egg on his face over this faux pas, but he doesn't have two faces!

ROE vs WADE -- The issue of abortion "has become the single most controversial and volatile issue in America since the Civil War." Thus reads the first sentence of a research paper recently received by this editor. Written by Elder John V. Stevens, Jr., Director of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty of the Pacific Union Conference, it is the best yet summary of the issues underlying the present challenge to the Roe vs. Wade Decision which is now before the Supreme Court as a result of legislation passed by the Assembly of the State of Missouri. This research paper presents the last day implications of this whole litigation and its meaning to and for Seventh-day Adventists.

It is "must" reading for every one who wishes to be truly informed about the behind-the-scenes working in this abortion controversy.

While many have tried to project the Sunday Closing Laws issue for personal gain, the enemy has subtly introduced the first of the two great errors - "the immortality of the soul" - which he is using to bring the world under his deceptions for the battle of the great day of God Almighty. (See GC, p. 588)

You can write for your copy to Elder Stevens at 2686 Townsgate Rd., Westlake, CA 91361. Do it today, and I would suggest that you include a dollar to help cover postage - US, Canadian, or Australian. It will be the best dollar you ever invested to inform yourself as to the basic issue in this abortion controversy. --- (1989Jul) --- End --- TOP

1989 Aug -- XXII-- 8(89) -- [There are several pictures in this issue.

A NATIONAL SUNDAY LAW -- PAST? PRESENT? FUTURE? -- Part 3 -- There is not a single Sunday Closing Law on the statute books of the various states of the United States of America with which one observing the Sabbath would be troubled unless there are some remnants of the Puritan Blue Laws remaining from the Colonial Period. Even if the present Sunday Closing laws should be rigidly enforced, one who would make adequate use of the preparation day would find no trouble living through till Monday. In other words, the current Sunday Closing Law agitation in Puerto Rico is not the enforcement of an oppressive law against those who desire to observe the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments. To exploit the issue whether its being agitated in Puerto Rico, or elsewhere, as a means of soliciting for personal promotion, is as questionable as the Sunday laws.

As to whether the attempt to enforce an antiquated Sunday Closing Law in Puerto Rico is a harbinger of things to come remains to be seen. Jose A. Fuste, Judge of the U.S. District Court has refused to stay his ban on the enforcement of the Closing law while the Commonwealth appeals his decision to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the case should go to the Supreme Court, it must be remembered that, that Court in 1961 approved Sunday laws which were on the statute books of both Maryland and Pennsylvania. (See Bible Students, Source Book, Commentary Series, articles #1669 & #1670) The process of appeal should be closely watched.

The San Juan Star reported that the Speaker of the Commonwealth's House of Representatives has altered his position and is now favoring a referendum. (Feb. 23, 1989) If this approach is used in seeking a settlement that has stirred Puerto Rico, then a very favorable opportunity presents itself for witnessing to the truth. We have been advised that "we should seize upon circumstances as instruments by which to work." (Ministry of

p 2 -- Healing, p. 500) Much time and many precious opportunities have already been lost by prostituting the issue for personal ends.

In suggesting what can be done, we speak from personal experience of meeting "head-on" a Sunday referendum. At mid-century two non-related events combined to electrify the city of Toronto, Ontario. The referendum over the Lord's Day Act of Canada produced "the largest vote in the city's history" for the 1950 civic elections. (The Globe and Mail, Jan. 3, 1950, p. 1) Two months prior to the election, Philip Carrington, Anglican Archbishop of Quebec, at a service in Toronto commemorating the 400th anniversary of the Church of England prayer book, remarked that "'the Bible commandment says on the seventh day thou shalt rest. That is Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday.' Tradition, he said, made it a day of worship." (Toronto Daily Star, Oct. 26, 1949, p. 3) This statement combined with the agitation over the upcoming referendum to liberalize the Canadian Lord's Day Act so as to permit Sunday sports from 1 to 6 p.m., opened the door to an opportunity to seize upon circumstances to proclaim truth. (See p. 3 for full article as it appeared in the Star. Also it has been copied into the Bible Students' Source Book, op. cit., art. #1605.

In consultation with the Board of Elders of the First Church, we decided to move to the forefront of the issue even though this was not the usual Sunday closing law, but rather an attempt to open up Sunday that was tightly closed. We also recognized that it would appear that we were allied with the commercial sports interests, as well as other less desirable elements who wished to take advantage of a more open Sunday. We believed that this could be offset by making this strictly a religious issue. It was decided to offer $1,000 for a Bible text commanding the observance of Sunday; however,we would seek to address the issue of the observance of Sunday in honor of the resurrection.

On Sabbath morning when the plan was presented to the church, the response was enthusiastic. I asked the congregation if they were willing to put their money in what was their belief. In less than three minutes they committed themselves to over $2,000. There was no doubt in their minds, it would be returned to them without loss.

One of the brothers of the Church had a Jewish solicitor who freely drew up the offer so as to meet the legal requirements of the Province of Ontario. The money committed had been made quickly available and we set up a trust fund in the Canadian Bank of Commerce. We drew a certified check from the fund, and published the same in the metropolitan newspapers. (See copy, p. 4) This brought an immediate response both with news items in the three Toronto daily's, as well as telephone calls. (See page 4, for the news item in the Globe)

The interest became so great that the Conference assigned Elder 0. B. Gerhart to come to Toronto to assist in personal follow-up contacts. Elder Gerhart at the time was the field representative of the Conference Bible correspondence school. Elder 0. J. Ritz, pastor of the Montreal church also came to assist until the pressure was eased. The church parsonage was temporarily turned into a "motel." My wife got little done except answer the telephone and care for immediate needs.

Besides the published offer, we had begun a series of Sunday night Bible Lectures which were scheduled to end just before the time of the election. The first one was held in the sanctuary of the Church, but it was evident that we could not accommodate the interest. The lectures were transferred to the Canadian Legion Auditorium which was located in the heart of the city. We did not seek to camouflage our subjects as is frequently done in evangelism. The discussion of the Sabbath question was forthright. (See page 5 for sample of advertising.) Simultaneously, we also ran a series of brief studies in the newspapers which paralled the lectures on Sunday night. (See pages 5 & 6)

The religious advertising was heavy in the Saturday editions of the metropolitan papers for December 17, 1949. The churches were urging the electorate to vote - "No" - on the issue of freeing Toronto from the restrictive Lord's Day Act of Canada. But among the three full pages of advertising
was our announcement of the final lecture. It read - "Why Christians Should Vote 'Yes'" (See p. 6) As I unlocked the door on our return from the lecture, the telephone was ringing. The editor of the city desk for The Globe and Mail was calling to ask me to summarize what I had said at the Auditorium. What I said along with the observations by an Anglican and United Church minister were published the next day. (See page 7) This was picked up by the Canadian Press and

p 3 -- flashed across Canada. We received clippings from major city newspapers in Western Canada. One never knows how far reaching will be the witness until he seizes upon the circumstance which presents itself.

The vote of the electorate favored the opening up of Sunday for commercial sports. The Globe and Mail noted - "Gauged by the opposition the Sunday question met during pre-election campaigns, the result of the plebiscite could only be classed as an upset." (Jan. 3, 1950, p. 1) Of course the Jewish population and the Adventists received the blame for the results of the vote. Actually the referendum was to ask the Mayor and City Council to seek legislation from the Ontario government which would exempt the city from certain restrictions of the Lord's Day Act. This opened a broader field for a witness to the true Sabbath.

Reaction -- We received reaction to this forthright presentation of the Sabbath both from within the Church and from other religious groups in the city of Toronto. The latter was expected but not the former.

In Oshawa, Ontario, is located not only the local and Union Conference offices, but also the publishing house and college for Eastern Canada. The,press not only published literture for the Church, but also did commerical printing, which included some business accounts in the city of Toronto. Other business contacts in the city were prime donors for the annual soliciting campaign known then as "Harvest Ingathering." The result was pressure was brought to bear on the conference president, Elder G. Eric Jones, to stop the program of the First Church over the Sunday issue lest these commercial accounts and Ingathering donations be placed in jeopardy.

Elder Jones, one of the most understanding administrators with whom I ever worked, suggested that we place in the metropolitan papers a statement clearly defining our position in the "open" sunday referendum. This we did. (See p. 7) This seemingly mollified the opposition originating from Oshawa although a few local members continued to complain about what was going to happen to their Ingathering donations the next year.

On ly one person came before the Reward Committee to present a text for a claim of the $1,000. The text upon which he based his claim was Psalm 118:24, which though in a Messianic context has no bearing on the Sabbath question. The Dean of the Central Baptist Seminary responded to the offer in a letter. He wrote:      I see by the papers that you are offering a thousand dollars reward. Why do you not offer it for what you use to offer it, namely, to disprove your contention that Constantine changed the Sabbath? If you offer it for that, I will take you up, or have you backed down on this.

To this we replied:      In regard to your letter of December the 7th, let me state first that the official position of the church relative to Constatine has always been that he made the first civil Sunday law. This is in keeping with the statement found in Schaff's Church History, third period, per. 75, p. 379 ff., where he states, "Constantine is the founder, in part at least, of the civil observance of Sunday by which alone the religious observance of the church could be made universal and could be properly secured."

At no time, to my knowledge, has an official of the Seventh-day Adventist Church ever offered one thousand dollars to anyone who could prove that Constantine did not chage the Sabbath, in fact, Mr. Brown, the Sabath cannot be changed by any man. Man can only think to change "times and laws". (Dan. 7:25)

Our offer is in keeping with the spirit of Father Enright's offer which first appeared in 1899. All similiar offers since that time, by Father Enright himself, again in 1905, the Church of God, and ministers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have been in a similar vein. Our offer this time is to get the issue down to the basic fact - "Is there a specific command by Jesus, or His Apostles, setting aside the first day of the week as a holy day, in honor of the resurrection?" To this we say there is none. Can you prove otherwise?

Another very interesting reaction was found in the "Personal" column of the Telegram on November 18, 1949. (Keep in mind that the Sunday night lectures were transferred to the Canadian Legion Auditorium on 22 College St., November 13th.) The "personal" message read - "Joe, you cannot change your mind after you commit suicide. Try finding God first. Meet Him Sunday evening, Legion Hall, 22 College St. Betty." Here is a clear indication that one can present doctrinal truth, yes, even the Sabbath, in such a way that the Spirit of God can take possession of the message and souls can be convicted of the hope that is in Jesus Christ.

One small negative editorial appeared in the Telegram directed at the Reward Offer. It read:      Not Germane -- Dogmatic challenges as to the scriptural accuracy of observing Sunday as the Sabbath are foreign to the issue in the commercialized Sunday sports question. The belief of minorities who hold that this is not a holy day is respected, and they may observe whatever day in the calendar they desire. But where no harm is done and no injustice inflicted minorities may well desist from opposing a custom and practice which the community generally accepts and regards as sacred. (Dec. 16, 1949)

Here the question is raised - Can the thinking of the community at its highest point of vision be challenged? Christ left the throne of Heaven to do just that. It was daring, and it was costly. Can His disciples do anything less?

Article from the Toronto Dialy Star, Wed. Oct. 26, 1949 -- CLERGY SAY TRADITION NOT BIBLE ORDINANCE DECLARED SUNDAY HOLY -- Sunday is kept holy by Christians, not because there is any Scriptural injunction but because there are religious traditions associated with that day among Christians, Protestant and Catholic spokesmen said today. They were commenting on a statement of Most Rev. Philip Carrington, Anglican Archbishop of Quebec, that there is no commandment which states Sunday must be kept holy.

RABBI'S RECOLLECTIONS -- A rabbi recalled that the first Christians were Jews and celebrated the Sabbath on the last day of the week and it was not until the reign of the Emperor Constantine that the day was changed by Christians.

At a service commemorating the 400th anniversary of the Church of England prayer book, Archbishopl Carrington recalled that "the Bible commandment says on the seventh day thou shalt rest. That is Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday." Tradition, he said, had made it a day of worship.

A spokesman for St. Augustine's, the Roman Catholic seminary for the diocese of Toronto, said: "Strictly speaking, that archbishop is correct. There is no scriptural rule for the observance of Sunday. But he doesn't go far enough.

EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE -- "In the Bible, there is evidence that Christ established a church, to carry on his work. He gave that Church authority to carry out God's rule on earth. Because the resurrection occurred on Sunday, and because of the general acceptance today of Sunday as a day of rest, it's fitting that now Sunday should be observed instead of Saturday, as under the old rule."

The Church has a specific church commandment stating Sunday should be observed.

Protestants observed Sunday because for many centuries they had been part of the Roman Catholic Church, and had observed the church commandment, he said.

"There is no specific command in the New Testament about which day shall be kept holy," said Rev. G H. Dowker of Grace Church-on-the-Hill. "The simple fact is, we keep holy the first day of the week because it was the day of the resurrection of Christ."

Rev. Northcote Burke of Christ church, Deer Park, said he thought the archbishop used the statement merely to illustrate church tradition. "Certainly the tradition of the Sabbath has always been to keep the Lord's day on the first day of the week. The early Christians used it because it was the day Christ arose again."

JESUIT GIVES HIS VIEW -- "Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week," said Father Hourigan of the Jesuit Seminary. "That is why the church changed the day of obligation from the seventh day to the first day of the week. The Anglicans and other Protestant denominations retained that tradition when the Reformation came along."

Rabbi David Monson, of Beth Sholom synagogue, said the change was made because of Emperor Constantine. "He changed the Christian Sabbath to Sunday," he said. "The original Christians were all Jews. They celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday."

Rev. W. H. Grotheer of First Seventh Day Adventists church, Awde St., said he agreed with Archbishop Carrington's statement. He explained Adventists still observe Saturday as the sabbath, in harmony with the fourth commandment which says "Six days shalt thou labor but the seventh day is the Sabbath." Mr. Grotheer recalled "Jesus rose on the fist day (of the week) according to Mark 16:9 and in Luk 23:56 it definitely states the day before the resurrection is the Sabbitth according to the fourth commandment."

Rev. Herbert Delaney, speaking for the chancery of the Roman Catholic diocese of Toronto, agreed that under the old rule of the Scriptures, the Sabbath was the holy day. But he said Sunday was observed under a specific commandment of the Church, after the coming of Christ, in an interpretation of the original commandment.

Father Delaney said the reason for the change from Saturday to Sunday under the new rules was that Christ had risen on Sunday.

NOT ONLY TRADITION -- Dr. E. Crossley Hunter of Trinity United church said the explanation lies not only in tradition, but also in records of the New Testament. "Again and again in the New Testament we find reference to the Lord's day as the first day of the week whereas in the Old Testiment it refers to the seventh day," he said. "However, the archbishop is quite
right in the literal meaning of the commandment."

How all this might affect the debate in Toronto on the open or closed Sunday could not easily be determined. Dr. George Webber, of the Lord's Day Alliance, was out of town and Con. Leslie Saunders, one of the stanchest supporters of the closed Sunday, was also away.

One minister remarked: "We've become so accustomed to keeping Sunday as our holy day that it isn't likely this belated discovery is going to change our attitude overnight. Certainly not in Toronto."

P 4 --

$1000 cheque offered. Full size picture at http://adventistlaymen.comPictue of $1000 cheque offered.

Offer $ 1,000 for Bible Text Proving Sunday Is Holy Day -- Reward of $1,000 for anyone who can show from the Bible that Sunday is the holy day in honor of the Resurrection was offered by the Seventh Day Adventist Church board here yesterday.

'The official offer reads reads as follows:      "The undersigned offer to pay a total of $1,000 to any person a persons who can show from th Bible alone (King James Version} a single text where Christ or His Apostles specifically commanded the observance of the first day of the week (Sunday) in honor of His Resurrection." (Signed) W H. Grotheer, B.A.; Dr. E. A. Crawford, M.D.; Monte W Myers.

Proof is to be presented in writing any Wednesday evening, from 7 to 8 p.m. until the offer expires Jan. 15.

"The issue is that if Sunday is not the holy day for Christians there is no more reason for them to oppose sports on Sunday than there is for them to vote legislation to stop sports on Wednesday," said Mr. Grotheer, chairman of the commnittee.

Seven Day Adventists observe the seventh day of the week, Saturday, as their Sabbath, in harmony, they say, with the fourth commandment.

"We do not want a law which would compel men to worship on Saturday. We maintain that all men should be able to worship, or not to worship God, according to the dictates of their Consciences.

"For this reason we are voting yes in the coming referendurn to hasten the day when blue laws shall no longer bind freedom which the Cross of Christ granted to all men - freedom of choice," said Mr. Grotheer.

p 5 --

The Telegram, Wednesday, December 21, 1949, p. 13.
SUNDAY WORSHIP --
Q. - Against what must all doctrine be checked?
A. - To the LAW and to the TESTIMONY: if they speak NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, it is because there is no light in them. Isa. 8:20.

Q: - Did Jesus give specific injunctions concerning things which had not been previously commanded?
A: - Yes. Ye commanded baptism: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them." Matt. 28: 19. He commanded the communion service. "This DO in rememberance of Me." Luke 22.19. He commanded feet washing: "I have given you an expample that YE SHOULD DO as I have done to you." John 13:15.

Q: - Did Jesus give a specific command for Sunday worship?
A: - There is NONE in the Bible! NOTE: - Since Christ did give specific commands concerning Christian practices, is it therefore unreasonable to ask for a Bible command for Sunday from those who are professing to follow a plain "Thus saith the Lord"?

Q: - If Sunday observance is ot commanded by Jesus, on whose authority does it rest?
A: - The authority of man.

Q: - How does God look upon worship based on the commandments of men?
A: - "In VAIN DO THEY WORSHIO ME, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt. 15:9.

Q: - Upon whom is a blessing pronounced?
A: - "Blessed are they that DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter into the gates into the city." Rev 22.14.

Q: - What day will be observed in the New Earth?
A: - The Sabbath day - See Isa. 66:22-23. NOTE: If in the new earth, all flesh will worship on the Sabbath Day, is it not advisable for Christians to establish heavenly customs, as they live as strangers and pilgrims here below? Heb. 11:13. Let us enter into the observance of that Day which Christ created, gave in the Law, and observed while on earth, even the 7th day Sabbath.

You are invited to worship in SPIRIT and in TRUTH with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, 3 Awde St., Toronto. Each Sabbath (Saturday) at the hour of worship - 11 a.m. Address all correspondence to Mr. W. H. Grotheer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p 6 --

The Telegram, Monday, December 19, 1949, p. 8.
THE LORD'S DAY --
Q: - Is the firat day of the week (Sunday) ever called the Lord's Day In the New Testament?
A: - Not one verse can be found.

Q: - Is the expression "Lord's Day" found in the Bible?
A: - Yes - jn Rev. 1:10, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day."

Q: - What day is called the Lord's Day in the Bible?
A: - "The Son of Man is Lord also of the SABBATH." Mark 2:28. "If thou turn away thy foot from the SABBATH, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY." Isa. 58:13. NOTE: The Lord claims the Sabbath, the 7th day as HIS day, not the first day, therefore the Sabbath, Saturday, is the Lord's Day.

Q: - Where did Sunday worship originate?
A: - "The first day of the week, Sunday, was consecrated to Mithra (The SUN-God) since times remote." A. Paiva, 0 MITRAISMO, p. 3.

Q: - Where did the expression "Lord's Day", as applied to Sunday first originate?
A: - "Because the Sun was god, the Lord par excellence, Sunday came to be called the Lord's day, as was later done by Christianity." A. Paiva, 0 MITRAISMO, p. 3.

"As a solar festival, Sunday was the sacred day of Mithra and it is interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as Dominus, Lord, Sunday must have been the Lord's day long before Christian times." Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 145. NOTE: The expression "Lord's Day", when applied to Sunday, is of pagan origin. Nowhere in the Bible is this expression used to refer to the first day of the week. The Bible "Lord's Day" is the seventh day of the week, on Saturday.

You are invited to worship In SPIRIT and in TRUTH with the FIRST SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, 3 Awde Street, Toronto. Address all inquiries to Mr. W. H. GROTHEER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Toronto Daily Star, Thur. Dec. 15, 1949, p. 12.
THE POSITION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS IN THE "OPEN" SUNDAY REFERENDUM!
Since its organization, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church has stood strongly and firmly for the principle of religious liberty. It disapproves of the state enacting legislation which would seek to control the conduct of a man in respect to his worship of God. We have never asked, nor do we want a civil law which would compel men to worship on Saturday, the day we observe according to the Fourth Commandment. Ex. 20:8-11. We maintain that all men should be able to worship or not to worship God according to the dictates of their consence. For this REASON, and not the issue of sports, the members of the Church are urged to vote "Yes" in the coming referendum. We desire for all men the freedom which the Cross of Christ granted - the freedom of choice.

We deplore with all Christians the breakdown of the morals of society, but do not feel that civil legislation relative to Sunday observance is the cure. Men are not born again by enactments of the State, but by the transformation wrought by the Holy Spirit. This comes only by the Word of God. I Peter 1:23. We believe that men and women when made to feel their need of the Divine Word will seek it, without so-called "protective" Sunday Laws: therefore the problem rests wilth the Clergy to preach a plain, "Thus saith the Lord" and the churches will be filled.

We invite all to follow a series of Bible Studies that will appear in successive issues of this paper. - W.H. GROTHEER, B.A., Minister, First Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

p 7 -- The Globe & Mail, Monday, December 19, 1949, p.5.
Three Clergymen Take Three Views of Sunday Sport -- Three clergymen went to their pulpits yesterday to address a sermon to their people on Sunday sport. One was for Sunday sport, oe against, and the third called for a tolerant view.

W.H.Grotheer, minister of the First Seventh-Day Adventists' Church in Toronto, spoke at the Canadian Legion's College St. Auditorium.

He said: "No laws or regulations have anything to do with Christianity. God does not come under the Acts of Parliament.

"Nowhere in the Bible is there any suggestion that Sunday is God's day. And there is no reason why any more prohibitions should apply to Sunday as to any other day."

He is one of three men who hae offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who can find a Bible text saying Sunday is the day specially set aside for worship. He said last night no one has tried to win the reward.

The Rev. J. E. Bell, minister of the Danforth United Church, told his people that there was no objection to Sunday sport, but there was very strong objection to commericalized Sunday sport.

"Commercalized sport on Sunday would mean people have to work," he said, "and the one aim of the Lord's Day Alliance Act is to prevent all except essential services men working on Sunday. The aim is to have one free day when families could be together. Commercialized sport on Sundays would prevent many families from being together."

The Rev. Northcote Burke, rector of the Anglican Christ Church, Deer Park, said to his congregation: "Let's be sane about Sunday."

He said it was every man's choice to do what he liked on Sunday provided he saw to his religious observance. He said people did not want to hve blue laws, but they did not want to have a highly commercialized Sunday.

He called for people to make more effort to amuse themselves rather than to look for ready-made entertainment.

And to throw out a matter of thought to his people, he quoted the French philosopher Voltaire, a definite athiest, who said: "If you would destroy Christianity, you must first destroy Sunday."

When the Ontario Parliament debated the request of the City of Toronto mandated by the election results another field of opportunity was opened. Their decision to grant "local option" to each community enlarged the number of circumstance which couldbe seized for even greater witness. In the Commentary, Vol. III, No. 4, we will give the history of the witness to the Parliament and how the issue was met in one community near Toronto. --- (1989 Aug) --- End --- TOP

1989 Sep -- XXII-- 9(89) -- THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION -- Part 1 -- The primary meaning of "convention" is an agreement or contract between states for regulation of matters effecting all of them. The Genocide Convention was adopted unanimously by the general Assembly of the United Nations meeting in Paris, France, on December 9, 1948. The United States representative signed it on December 11. It was sent to the Senate for ratification by President Harry S. Truman on June 16, 1949. (See pp. 5 & 6 for UN Genocide Convention. Note that the first Nine Articles are substantive, the rest being of a technical nature) Succeeding presidents - Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan each recommended its ratification. Finally on February 19, 1986, it was ratified by the Senate. However, it did not go into effect as far as the United States was concerned until March 26, 1989.

The word - genocide - was first coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish Polish Legal scholar, who had lost 50 family members in the Holocaust. It comes from the Greek word, genos, meaning, race or kind, and from the French, cide, meaning to kill. "Lemkin became a one-man lobbyist who, with unflagging energy, zealous conviction and persuasive logic expressed in a dozen languages, made genocide a fundamental issue in the international community." Already the Nuremburg Tri-
bunal, of which the United States was the principal architect, had set down the rule of law that violation of human rights is a crime against humanity and thus are not exclusively under domestic jurisdiction. This led to the UN resolution 96(1) which declared that "genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns and for the commission of which principals and accomplices are punishable." The Convention followed in 1948.

Over the years, until 1986, the Senate failed to ratify the Genocide Convention. The Senate's failure has been the result of differing perceptions of what the Convention was meant to be. To some it was simply a moral statement expressing outrage at past genocides, and thus to accept it

p 2 -- would be only a symbolic gesture affirming this nation's commitment to human rights. However, the Convention is first and foremost a legal document. It would commit the United States to a number of international obligations, some of which are not clearly defined in the Convention and which effects United States law.

To meet the legal objections raised, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate recommended a set of eight provisos to the Convention. These eight do two things. They spell out and qualify the domestic and legal obligations which the United States would incur in ratification of the Convention, but at the same time maintain the integrity of the instrument thus preserving its symbolic value. (See p. 6 for the Provisos as voted by the Senate.)

The Meaning of Provisos -- What is the force of the Senate's provisos in the application of the Genocide Convention to citizens of the United States? Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides that the President "shall have power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, providing two-thirds of the Senators concur." The power to bind the United States to a treaty is a shared power. George Washington sought to carry out this joint power by consulting the Senate during treaty negotiations, but this proved unworkable. In the present procedure, the Senate acting through its Foreign Relations Committee reviews all treaties submitted to the Senate by the President. If that review reveals problems with the treaty, the Senate can reject the treaty. Alternately, and more commonly, when the Senate finds fault with a treaty it corrects the problem through adoption of ammendments, reservations, understandings or declarations. The Senate's approval of a resolution with such provisos means that, Senate consent to ratification is being given subject to these conditions.

The President may reject the Senate's conditions. "He may not, however, ratify the treaty if he does. If the President accepts the Senate's conditions, he proceeds to ratify the treaty by signing an instrument of ratification. This is then either exchanged with the other parties to the treaty or deposited in accord with the procedures agreed to by the parties. Article XI of the Genocide Convention provides, for example, that instruments of ratification are to be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations." Whatever conditions the Senate places on a treaty are to be included in the instrument of ratification. These conditions, together with the treaty and its accompanying documents, describe the full obligation undertaken by the United States in ratifying the treaty.

In the case of the Genocide Convention, the Senate accepted the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Relations and voted two reservations, five understandings and one declaration. "A reservation is usually defined as a unilateral statement made by a contracting party which purports to exclude or modify the terms of the treaty or the legal effect of certain provisions ... An understanding is generally defined as a statement which interprets or clarifies the obligation undertaken by a party to a treaty." As for the Genocide Convention, the intent of the Committee and voted by the Senate was that the Senate's understanding is the controlling factor, and that no contrary interpretation whether by the International Court of Justice or some other tribunal would supercede or nullify the United States' understandings. "A declaration is generally defined as a formal statement, explanation or clarification made by a party about its opinion or intentions relating to issues raised by the treaty under consideration."

The Two Reservations -- Article IX of the Genocide Convention placed the jurisdiction for the "application, interpretation or fulfillment" of the Convention umder the authority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The first reservation of the Provisos clearly restricted this article stating that before any dispute involving the United States be submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ under this treaty, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case. This reservation was designed to meet situations in which it would be clear that a judication before the ICJ would be contrary to the national interest. This could involve cases brought solely for the propaganda value that might result.

The second reservation places the Constitution of the United States as paramount. The Constitution (Article VI) lists treaties as well as the Constitution and National legilation as the supreme Law of the Land, but

p 3 -- no treaty can override or conflict with the Constitution. (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

The first eight articles of the Convention impose a number of obligations on each nation which accepts the Treaty. Some are clear; others are open to interpretation. If any of these articles should be construed to require the United States to act in anyway barred by the Constitution, this reservation excuses the United States from the assumed obligation. If a conflict should arise in regard to obligations resulting from the Convention, the force of the Convention is limited to that permitted under the Constitution.

"Article V of the Convention states that the parties must enact legislation 'in accordance with their respective Constitutions.' It is not certain whether this article refers solely to the procedures to be followed in passing legislation or whether it concerns the content of the legislation as well. If it includes the latter, the Convention by its terms would remove any chance for conflict between itself and the Constitution. However, the Committee felt that this matter was too important to leave to chance; thus it" recommended this reservation.

"Conflict is most likely to occur between the First Ammendment's proscription on legislation abridging free speech and Article III's requirement that 'direct and public incitement to commit genocide' be punished ... In response to a request for an advisory opinion, or as a result of a proceeding under Article IX, the ICJ could interpret Article III in a way inconsistent with the First Ammendment."

Such an interpretation would not be particularly surprising. "The criminal laws of many countries ban speech related to crimes such as genocide on the theory that this deters the acts themselves." The framers of the American Constitution had a different view. Justice Louis Brandeis noted that:      discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; ... that the fitting remedy for evil counsels... is good ones; [and that] believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion. they [the framers] eschewed silence coerced by law, (Whitney, v. California, 274, 375-76 (1927)

The Genocide Convention was unique among the treaties which the Committee on Foreign Relations has ever reviewed in that it involves such fundamental matters as the relationship between criminal law and the right of free speech. "No other type of treaty, be it one of friendship and commerce, taxation or the like, raises these kind of issues." Because of this, the Committee believed it appropriate that a Constitutional reservation be placed in the Provisos. The Senate concurred.

The Understandings -- Article II of the Genocide Convention states that "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." In the first understanding of the provisos, the Senate voted that this intent must be "specific " In American criminal jurisprudence, the requirement that purposive behaviour be demonstrated is signaled by making specific intent an element of the offense.

"In addition to acts designated to destroy an entire group, genocide under Article II includes the destruction of a group 'in part.' The aim of the Convention is the prevention and punishment of acts undertaken on a mass scale. Thus, the reference to 'in part' means a substantial number of indilvidual group members. An act must be intended to destroy the group as a viable entity to qualify as genocide. Isolated acts of violence against members of a group are thus excluded." They would be covered under other criminal laws.

"This understanding carefully delineates acts that constitutes genocide. One might ask why there is need for such precision. After all massive acts of violence directed at individuals because of their membei in a particular national, ethnic, racial or religious group would seem to be easily discernable. The answer is that over the years the true meaning of the word genocide has been debased. The charge of genocide has come to be levelled against virtually any action with which the accuser disagrees. Raphael Lemkin, the Polish legal scholar, coined the term to describe what was happening to Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. His purpose was to focus the outrage of all civilized people on the commission of such atrocities." By making Article II of the Convention to mean "specific" intent is to keep the original objective in focus.

p 4 -- Section (b) of Article II of the Convention lists among the acts of genocide "causing ... mental harm to members of the group." This could have a wide interpretation. Passing out or printing literature which sets forth the Papacy as "the little horn" of Daniel 7 could be construed as causing "mental harm" to an adherent to Catholicism. To document the activities of the hierarchy of the Seventh-day Adevntist Church could be alleged as causing mental harm. The proviso indicates that the harm be the result of some physical intrusion into the body. Besides the injection of drugs, this would include electric shock and other acts which would cause physical injury to the mental faculties. Thus the Senate voted - "That the term 'mental harm' in Article II(b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques."

The matter of Extradition which has loomed large in the propaganda which has been circulated in regard to the Genocide Convention is also spelled out in a proviso. (See II(3), p. 6, col. 2) This states clearly that no citizen of the United States can be extradited to be tried before a foreign court for acts which would not be criminal if committed in the United States. "Before extradition can be granted, it must be shown that the act complained of, if true, would be a violation of U.S. law."

Article VI of the Genocide Convention declared that the individual charged with genocide be tried by a court where the alleged act was committed. The proviso makes it clear that should an American citizen be accused of committing such an act abroad, the United States could meet its treaty obligation under Article VI by prosecuting the person under United States laws.

Further in Article VI of the Convention, the suggestion is made that an "international penal tribunal" be given the authority to try alleged acts of genocide. The Senate proviso makes it clear that should such a court be established, United States participation be authorized through another treaty which would have to have the consent of the Senate. It could not be done through executive agreement by a future President.

The Senate proviso, II(4), put the United States an record that acts committed in the course of armed conflict which do not have specific intent cannot be considered as genocide, but should such an intent be present, it does become an act of genocide even during a war.

Actually, that which has been voted by the United States Senate protects against a death decree aimed at a political, ethnic, racial or religious group of people. There has been much opposition to the ratification of this Treaty expressed in the Senate hearings over the years as well as in various sections of the media. However, in looking at history during the Christian era, the religious organization that has been guilty of genocide as it has been defined in the Treaty is the Papacy. Moreover, one publication which has inveighed against the ratification of the Treaty has been Spotlight which echoes the objectives of the Catholic right. It was the Papacy which kept silent during the Nazi atrocities against the Jews. Papal policy at present is anti-Jewish, and pro-Arab.

There is one more proviso to the Senate ratification. It is the declaration - "that the President will not deposit the instrument of ratification until after the implementing legislation referred to in Article V shall be enacted." This has now become a Public Law and needs to be carefully considered. To be continued

Bibliography -- "Message f rom the President of the United States" 1949 (Senate, 81st Congress, Ist Session, Executive O)
"Genocide Convention" (Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, 99th Congress, 1st Session, Exec. Rept., 99-2, 1985)
"The Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1988" (Senate, 100th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 100-333)
Gordon Thomas & Max Morgan-Witts, The Year of Armageddon (Granada Publishing Ltd., London, 1984)

p 5 -- Copy of Genocide Convention submitted to the Senate of the United States by President Harry S. Truman, June 16, 1949. ( 81st Congress, 1st Session; Executive O) --

CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE - p.7
The Contracting Parties, -- Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (1) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world;
Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and
Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required,
Hereby agree as hereinafter provided:

ARTICLE I -- The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

ARTICLE II -- In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:
(a)   Killing members of a group;
(b)   Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c)   Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d)   Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e)   Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

ARTICLE III-- The following sets shall be punishable:
(a)  Genocide;
(b)  Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c)  Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d)   Attempt to commit commit genocide;
(e)   Complicity in genocide.

ARTICLE IV -- Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulars, public officials or private individuals.

ARTICLE V -- The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessery legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to

p.8 - PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE -
provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

ARTICLE VI -- Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the ttrritory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

ARTICLE VII -- Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

ARTICLE VIII -- Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

ARTICLE IX -- Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genoide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

ARTICLE X -- The present Convention, of which the Chinese, Engish, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall bear the date of 9 December 1948.

ARTICLE XI -- The preseut Convention shall be open until 31 December 1949 for sigrature on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State to which an invitation to sign has been addressed by the General Assembly.
The present Convention shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
After 1 January 1950 the present Convention may be acceded to on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State which has received an invitation as aforesaid.
Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

p 6 -- PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE - p.9
ARTICLE XII -- Any Contracting Party may at any time, by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, extend the application of the present Convention to all or any of the territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations that Contracting Party is responsible.

ARTICLE XIII -- On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited, the Secretary-General shall draw up a proces-verbal and transmit a copy thereof to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in artide XI.
The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
Any ratification or accession effected subsequent to the latter date shall become effective on the ninetieth day following the deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession.

ARTICLE XIV -- The present Convention shall remain in effect for a period of ten years as from the date of its coming into force.
It shall thereafter remain in force for successive periods of five years for such contracting parties as have not denounced it at least six months before the expiration of the current period.
Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

ARTICLE XV -- If, as a result of denuncians, the number of Parties to the present Convention should become less than sixteen, the Convention shall cease to be in force as from the date on which the last of these denunciations shall became effective.

ARTICLE XVI -- A rrequest for the revision of the present Convention may be made at any time by any Contracting Party by means of a notification in writing addreened to the Secretary-General.
The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such request.

ARTICLS XVII --The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify all Members of the United Nations and the non-member States contemplated in article XI of the following:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions received in accordance with article XI;
(b) Notifications received in accordance with article XII;
(c) The date upon which the present Convention comes into force in accordance with article XIII;
(d) Denunciations received in accordance with article XVI;
(e) The abrogation of the Convention in accordance with article XV;
(f) Notificiations received in accordance with article XVI.

ARTICLIN XVIII -- The original of the present Convention shall be deposited in archives of the United Nations.
A certified copy of the Convention shall be transmitted to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in article XI.

ARTICLE XIX -- The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the date of its coming into force.

Congressional Record Senate -- February 19, 1986, pp. S 1377 & S 1378 -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative, the Senate does advise and consent to the ratifiestion of the Genocide Convention.
The resolution of ratification, including its reservations, understanding, and declaration, is as follows:
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratifiestion of the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted unanimously by the Goneral Assembly of the United Nations in Paris on December 9, 1948 (Executive O, Eighty-first Congress. first session), Provided that:
I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:
(1) That with reference to Article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States iIs required iIn each case.
(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.

II The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following undiustandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
(1) That the term "Intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such" appearing In Article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in Article II.
(2) That the term "mental harm" in Article II(b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.
(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and tresties in force found in Article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in Article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state.
(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by Article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.
(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in Article VI of the Convention, the United States declairs that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate.

III The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declaration:
That the President will not deposit the instrument of ratification until after the iImplementing legislation referred to in Article V has been enacted.

p 7 -- POSTSCRIPT -- To the National Sunday Law -- Since the preparation of the four articles on the National Sunday Law in WWN (XXII-6, 7, 8) and Commentary (III-4), we received from a writer on the West Coast an E. G. White manuscript (Ms. 163, 1898) captioned:  "The Sunday Law, The Law Against the Sabbath, and the Mark of the Beast." It reads: (Deletion marks as in published manuscript)      Satan to Exercise His Power Above Anything Known. Satan is coming down in great power. He is now in the World and is to exercise his power above anything you know of ...

Difference Between Sunday Closing Laws and Laws Forbidding Sabbath-keeping. With regard to the Sunday question: ... If they should come here [the Echo Publishing House, Australia] and say [that] you must close up your work and your presses on Sunday, I would not say to you, "Keep your presses going," because the conflict does not come between you and your God. When they go a little further and say, "You must keep Sunday and you shall not observe Saturday," then everyone that took ... [that] position would have the mark of the beast.

If the authorities should say, "Don't you carry on work here on Sunday" ... You can go on missionary work and make that a day in which you will see what you can accomplish in the work of drawing souls to Jesus Christ, for God does not want us to gratify the devil by defying the powers ...

Drawing the Line Regarding the Sunday Law. Then there are other things that they may draw the line on, but we are not ready for the line to be drawn here in regard to the Sunday law. You just go to work, everyone of you, to disappoint the devil and see how much you can do, how many souls you can bring into the truth.

Just yesterday (July 24), we received from friends in Ohio a 1987 "Appointment Calendar" which had been prepared for the United States Air Force Auxiliary, Civil Air Patrol by the Public Affairs Office, National Headquarters at Maxwell AFB in Alabama. The monthly layout placed Monday as the first day of the week, and Sunday as the seventh, even noting "Easter Sunday." We are reminded again of the prophecy in Isaiah which the Pope used in his Apostolic Letter dated, Good Friday, April 20, 1984. That prophecy in Isaiah 2 reads that "out of Zion shall go forth the law." (2:3) The people that designate themselves as "Zion" are a people forsaken of God. (See Isa. 2:6) We need to beware of the Pied Pipers of Adventism who are using the National Sunday Law question to lure the "children" of God up a false mountain. (See poem by Robert Browning) We have more to fear from within than without!

"If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Jesus

THE GREAT ENEMY OF TRUTH - THE MYTH --
"For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, committed, and dishonest,
but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold to the cliches of our forebearers. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations.
We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
John F. Kennedy (From a Speech given at Yale University, 1962. Quoted by Charles Briggs, County News, Santa Cruz. CA.. July 8, 1976)

"Men occasionally stumble over truth,
but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off
as if nothing happened." -- Sir Winston Churchill

--- (1989 Sep) --- End --- TOP     2002