Time to Speak Out

This paper was originally presented to the Michiana Adventist Forum, which meets on the campus of Andrews Unviersity, on September 29, 2018. It is shared here with permission.

We have come to a Luther moment for Seventh-day Adventists. I do not say “for the SDA Church,” because the church at its highest levels is the problem. The speaking out must come at the level of the individual, the member who, along with others, is the church.

I make that statement with great sadness and after much reflection. During the past months my thoughts increasingly have turned to the great reformer. Reluctantly, I have concluded that, while Luther’s situation and ours differ in some respects, in important ways they are bone-chillingly parallel.

The nub, the heart of it all as I see things is this: In Luther’s day the need for change was so glaring as not to be denied, but the entrenched bureaucracy centered in the Papacy blocked any path to the needed reforms; a similar situation exists today.

Recent actions adopted in Silver Spring run roughshod over authentic Adventism: they subvert principles and teachings that are integral to our raison d’ etre. They deny our heritage as heirs of the Reformation; they are inimical to the life and teachings of Jesus. But how to call those responsible to account? I am not aware of constitutional mechanisms to censure top leadership.

When I see these things in my church, I cannot remain silent. If I do not speak out I betray my duty as a follower of Jesus and a minister of His Word.

In this presentation I shall give some attention to my personal journey, especially over the course of recent years. Kindly indulge me in this. If, as I suggest, speaking out must be first of all personal, something that begins and burns in the heart, such sharing is surely not inappropriate.

But I am not alone in my distress over my beloved church. If my concerns were only mine I would be happy to dismiss them as the trepidations of aging brain cells. But they are not. I could list the names of Adventist “greats” past and present who feel as I do. All are household names, all people are respected for their integrity.

Just over a week ago one of them e-mailed me, pouring out his heart. Titling his message “Dismay,” he wrote:

We have not communicated in a long while. But madness has not stopped growing. I have to confess that I have now given up on hoping and thinking that the central leadership team at the GC can be brought to turn around and think differently and to allow the Balm in Gilead to bring the much-needed healing into our church. Instead they are tearing us apart. For _______, I think this is by design, brought on by a much-corrupted and ill-guided theology.

I pray every day for the church, but I don’t know how much further God will allow this to slide.

How sad! Here is a renowned leader, one who has given his whole life to building up the Seventh-day Adventist church, now in retirement dealing with profound dismay at what is happening.

I have to put this question to you my friends: The Scriptures teach us to respect men and women of experience, to value the counsel that comes from white hair; how then can current GC leadership remain unheeding of the united advice from so many former leaders (as well as from others who have not retired) warning that they are pursuing a course of action fraught with the gravest peril for our precious worldwide fellowship?

Luther’s comments keep running through my head: “I went [to Rome] with onions and returned with garlic.” He had to speak out — which, as in my case, meant writing out. He nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle church in Wittenberg; I wrote Where Are We Headed? (2017) and Authentic Adventism (2018). But I hasten to add: this is not to compare myself with Luther.

This Luther moment in our movement suggests three great “C” words: conscience, courage, and confidence. The remainder of this paper will expatiate on each.


“My conscience is captive to the Word of God,” declared Luther as he stood before the Diet of Worms.

With this statement he repudiated the authority of the Papacy as the arbiter in issues of life and death. It was a bold statement, defiant, almost reckless. From now on Luther could be hunted down and murdered.

A long chain of events had brought Luther to this momentous point. We pass over them quickly: the fearful encounter with the Holy as a young man caught in the thunderstorm; the decision to enter the priesthood; the years of striving and torture as he sought peace with an angry God; the discovery of the Gospel as he worked through the Psalms, Galatians, and Romans at the university of Wittenberg; at last the Gospel, blessed peace, freedom.

Along this journey Luther had no intention of breaking with the Roman church. Other reformers before him had spoken out. They had been crushed by the power of the Church and executed. But then Tetzel, the Pope’s henchman showed up in Wittenberg armed with “indulgences” that he was hawking to raise funds for the Pope’s big building project — St. Peter’s Basilica:

As soon as the gold in the casket rings The rescued soul to heaven springs.

For Luther, newly liberated by the Gospel, Tetzel’s perversion of Christianity was the last straw. He had to do something. Luther wrote out the 95 Theses and nailed them to the door of the castle church.

I also have been traveling a road that brought me to the present point. Throughout my ministry, I endeavored by voice and pen to support and uphold the leadership of the church. As editor of the Review I refused to open its pages to negative comments, critical letters.

Over the last few years my journey has become increasingly painful. It has led me to an increasing compulsion to speak out. I know most of the leaders at the GC; for many years they were my colleagues and friends. To write anything that I knew to be unwelcome to them — almost a betrayal — kept me awake through the wee hours of many nights. I should mention, however, that throughout this experience Noelene supported and encouraged me to press on.

Recently someone asked, “Have you become a critic of the church?”

“No,” I replied. “I see my recent writing as a lover’s quarrel with the church.”

For Luther, Tetzel’s arrival was a turning point.

For me, the 2015 GC Session in San Antonio was a turning point.

I did not attend the Session but I followed the events of the fateful Wednesday on TV. Delegates returning from the session provided first hand reports.

Already, however, I was feeling extreme discomfort from what I had viewed on television. The hissing and booing directed at Dr. Jan Paulsen rocked me to the core. It was, I think, the nadir of any meeting of a people who profess to be awaiting Jesus’ return. It was not merely the shameful reaction from the floor, it was the failure of GC leadership to check the outburst and apologize for it.

Other reports from the session added to my dismay: no sharing of the deliberations of the large commission appointed to study women’s ordination; no report from women ministers in China.

Slowly, reluctantly, in the weeks following San Antonio I was forced to conclude that the actions of the Session, far from representing the voice of God were like a politically manipulated convention.

This made me sad. Confused. Angry.

For several weeks I moped around home making life miserable for my long-suffering spouse. Then the thought hit me: WRITE!

I wrote not for publication, just for myself. The writing was a catharsis. That initial piece in time became the opening chapter of a book, Where Are We Headed?

Now I had a manuscript but I hesitated to let it go out. I shared it in confidence with three trusted friends. They encouraged me to go forward but one warned: publication could result in my being shunned by the Brethren.

The next question: who would publish the manuscript? The Pacific Press asked to see it. They responded that the church needs this book but we cannot publish it.

Sad, sad, sad!

Then — seemingly miraculous timing. The Pacific Union was contemplating establishing their own publishing arm in order to supply materials geared to the needs of workers in their field. They were looking for a manuscript as their first publication; I was seeking a publisher.

Where Are We Headed?, marketed through Amazon.com, went viral. Now published in four languages, it led to a rash of speaking requests.

I still feel stunned by the reaction to the book. The timing was right; the book gave voice to what pastors and thinking lay people were thinking but afraid to express.

My beef with current GC leadership is a moral one. As I see it, the whole issue of women’s ordination boils down to a single stark issue — justice. The Adventist Church discriminates against ministers who happen to be women.

This basic fact is often obscured by a thick cloud of theological argumentation. I first became aware of the dynamic many years ago when I found myself appointed to a commission appointed to study — guess what! — women’s ordination. One day I ventured the idea that the issue was not merely one for theology, it had a moral component. I must have expressed my conviction forcibly because my speech offended some of the leading brethren. They brought it up next morning at steering committee. I was ignorant of this development until the full commission convened for the day. Elder Neal C. Wilson, GC president and commission chair, introduced it as the first item of discussion. He mentioned that certain unnamed leaders had taken offence at my remarks and he wanted to know if I had anything to add.

Whether these leaders expected an apology, I do not know. Whatever, I did not back down: I simply stated that I had spoken my convictions, but perhaps more strongly than I should have. I did not intend to single out any individual.

Apparently I said enough to satisfy Wilson because he quickly moved on.

This incident has stayed fresh in memory. As I have reflected upon it my convictions expressed that day have grown stronger. How often have I seen and still see theology introduced as a smoke screen to obscure morality. Perhaps we Adventists are especially prone to fall into this fault because of our preoccupation with theology.

It’s an old, old trap. As old as Israel’s religion. As old as religion itself. The Hebrew prophets thundered against it; as did Jesus, the greatest of them.

Eugene Petersen, in his introduction to the book of Amos, in The Message, makes this penetrating observation: “Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a course or project, anything goes.”

Is this a message for Adventists today?

Today, our church has adopted positions that are blatantly discriminatory. We have in place a two-tier system for the clergy: ordination for males and commissioning for women. The distinction between ordination and commissioning is artificial and has no biblical support, nevertheless by making this distinction, women are denied the ability to occupy administrative posts. They encounter a glass ceiling that limits election to ordained clergy.

The incongruity of the church’s present situation emerges in stark relief in the Southeastern California Conference, the largest conference in the division. The current president was elected at a duly-called constituency meeting. Delegates selected the conference secretary, Dr. Roberts. Under the new leadership the conference has experienced growth and financial strength. But the SDA Yearbook, in listing the officers of this conference, shows a blank instead of Dr. Roberts’ name. When Dr. Roberts attends Annual Council there is no official badge, no seat at the table.

How can it be? Doctor Roberts is Dr. Sandra Roberts.

Yes, my friends. A Luther moment. A moment fraught with matters of the heart. A moment when issues emerge out of the mists of theological argument in sharp outline.

A moment for CONSCIENCE to rule our decisions and actions.


Authentic Adventism values conscience above policy. It respects policy but refuses to make policy the last word in issues of justice.

Authentic Adventism seeks to practice Ellen Whites ringing call to be “men [and women] who will not be bought or sold….who in their inmost souls are true and honest….who do not fear to call sin by its right name….whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole….who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.”

This is the time for every Adventist of conscience to speak out. What form that speaking should take is something that each of us, impressed and impelled by the Spirit, must decide. Speaking out will be a courageous act, just as it was in Luther’s day. And this is a Luther moment.

I have been encouraged to see that speaking out demonstrated here at Andrews University. Several Seminary professors wrote the GC requesting that their ministerial credentials be changed to the same as those given to women ministers. I applaud this brave act. In addition, the Seminary has published material strongly supporting the ordination of women pastors and exposing the fallacies of headship theology.

We have come to strange times indeed for the Adventist church. These times call us to stand up and be counted. That is our proud heritage.

Leaders at the General Conference seem fixated on denying ordination to women in ministry. They seem ready to split the church asunder. The matter has morphed from the original issue of women in ministry to a power contest: leaders seem set on bringing the disobedient unions to heel. The most recent manifestation of their fixation is the development of a complicated system designed to punish the non-compliant unions.

Large amounts of tithe money and time have been poured into this effort to keep women below the glass ceiling. I deplore this squandering of sacred resources. I am shocked at the diversion from the mission the Lord has given to us.

Is this my church?

Is this the church of James and Ellen White, of J. N. Andrews, of A. T. Jones, champion of religious liberty?

It is not. The ideas emanating from the GC are alien to our past history, to the Reformation, to the life and teachings of Jesus.

I protest.

I cannot remain silent.

No value is more core to Adventism’s raison d’ etre than religious liberty. It is the foundation of our doctrinal framework. This precious idea, however, is denied by current proposals that place policy above conscience. They would punish union presidents for obeying their conscience!

Time to speak out? You’d better believe it.


Along with conscience and courage, we need the third C — confidence.

Confidence, not in our own strength and wisdom.

Confidence in the One who is Lord of the Church, who has not forsaken her and who will never forsake her, who will bring us through this awful time.

The SDA church will survive but in what form I cannot predict. I foresee stormy sailing ahead, but we can rest assured that Jesus will bring us safe into His harbor.

A Luther moment! Then let us find strength and courage where the great reformer found it — in Ein’ feste Burg:

A mighty fortress is our God, A bulwark never failing; Our helper He, amid the flood Of mortal ills prevailing.

William G. Johnsson is the retired Editor of Adventist Review and Adventist World magazines, and the author of numerous books including Where Are We Headed? Adventism after San Antonio (2017) and Authentic Adventism (2018).

Photo by Bogomil Mihaylov on Unsplash

We invite you to join our community through conversation by commenting below. We ask that you engage in courteous and respectful discourse. You can view our full commenting policy by clicking here.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/9068

Excellent and inspiring!


Thank you, Dr. Johnsson. It’s interesting to me how those who wish to shrink the tent of Adventism, to buttress the walls and purify the citizenry often cloak themselves in the name “historic Adventists”. Have they not studied our early history of vigorous debate and loving forbearance?


Great article, very appropriate and necessary for a time like this when our Church is being turned, by the GC, into a Titanic about to hit the rocks…
I wonder if there is still time so save this ship??? Maybe the captain has to be ousted?


I remember when reading the letters in the Review was the first thing I did when my parents received the magazine. Then they became meaningless, now I know why. So why has the GC become so authoritarian and unwilling to hear other views. Perhaps years of no critical letters had something to do with it. It could be other things as well, though I tend to think that most things are built upon what proceeded them and that includes what a bureaucracy can get away with leading to taking more power as they have success with the previous incursions.


Pastor Johnson,

Your impassioned presentation at Andrews was pertinent to our current church crisis

You ask that we, the laymen “speak out”.

However we have already had some vehement and vociferous outcries from various church entities (fortunately published here in Spectrum )
which seemingly have fallen on deaf ears.

As the old English proverb opines :
“There are none so deaf as those who will not hear ! “

I think that the only persuasive response is through our financial clout.

All church donations should be marked for local church expense, or sent to the local conference marked “for local conference pastoral support only”.

Or better yet, contributions to Adventist causes should be exclusively labeled : SPECTRUM /. ADVENTIST FORUM.

Because without the transparent reporting of Bonnie Dwyer and her indefatigable crew, our only insight into the sordid shenanigans in Silver Spring would be the FAKE NEWS of the official church press with its self serving spin and propaganda…

The other response is to vote with our feet, which is the response I am taking.


A good lament, but far too late. the time to cry out was when Neal Wilson gave sworn testimony at the trial brought by Mary Kay Silver. He defined exactly what the church is now experiencing in its fullness. At the time I was senior Affirmative Office of a Major Health university. I warned the leadership that federal law was on Marykay’s side The reply was Tom, Tom, You don’t understand. if she were to win it would ruin the Church. That is true but it Was Wilson not MaryKay that took his own appraisal of office on to Glacier View and now to his salt shaker son. Now is the time to hold fast to the Gospel of Grace. No committee can touch that.



What you have said is splendid!

Yet we are preaching to the choir on this blogsite. How can we reach those many Adventist leaders who conscientiously view these issues from a different perspective?

It is they whom you must convince not me! Perhaps this article and many more like it need to be translated into Spanish, Portugese, French and Swahili.


I have to say, I find it amazing that WO advocates will divide the church over an issue that is not even mentioned in scripture!

Not a word about it!

At least Luther had some scripture to back him up.

And we are about to go into schism!


Do you know what you have actually said here? What is then dividing the church? One opinion vs. another opinion. If the subject is not even mentioned in scripture, then on what basis is each side being strident? It’s not a spiritual issue, so it must be based on something else - what?

The GC is excluding women because they always have, and because the cultures that regard women as property have more votes than cultures that have moved on from ancient cultural attitudes; while those looking for equality base their quest on the equality the gospel gives them as outlined in Galatians (SDA’s least favourite book): There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; you are all one in Christ Jesus.


This is the problem in a nutshell. Everything is about protecting the SDA church. Honesty, transparency, doing the right thing, most especially when doing the aforementioned things will, or could, put the church in a bad light, protecting the church wins the day every time.

This behavior is a big problem.


Who is William Johnsson that we should listen to him? Let me tell you my testimony. As a young spiritually depleted or nearly depleted Adventist in 1958 stationed in Thule Greenland, I received the Review and Herald without fail. In Thule, one reads anything one can get his hands on to keep in contact with the “ZI” (Zone of Interior). Those articles gave me a spiritual regeneration to the point that when I retired from the USAF I was asked to conduct the music for an evangelistic meeting in one of those “dark counties”. I knew nothing of music other than singing in the school choir. I was instrumental at founding a new church after those meetings, physically building a church building and blessed to provide much of the financial resources. All because of William Johnsson’s Review and Herald articles. Listen to his wisdom, brothers and sisters. But then, I’m just a nobody layman.


Found a copy of a law in Mexico, Key De Asociación Religiosas y Culto Público, Título 1, artículo 2 (e)," no ser objeto de ninguna inquisición judicial o administrativa por la manifestación de ideas religiosas". In English it might read, law of religious associations and public cults, section 1, article 2(e), "
not be subject to any judicial or administrative inquisition for the manifestation of religious ideas". So maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel.

Scripture says nothing about our practice of ordination, scripture says nothing of denominational organizational structure. The things that scripture does mention often find people with opposing views also. So nearly everything is subject to the one opinion vs another opinion. A Representative denomination order is the best we can do, but it has been diluted with years of employees being the representative to vote, that it is not of much real use. That should have been changed years ago. Most of what we see are the natural results of bureaucratic drift, where the job is the goal and the status quo is the preferred position. It is nice to see people who used to work for the status quo retire and see the problem with it…but it is a bit late.


Well, after the 2015 convention of which I had no part in except to review both sides of the overwhelming dominant debate on women’s ordination. Prior to the 2015 convention I did not realize this was a debate. I have been a Seventh Day Adventist since 1985, and have admired the blessing of knowledge that God has given this denomination. But I came from a religious background that is not steeped in conferences, unions or any such structure, so to this day and also due to my personal dislike I corporate structure ( even though I recognize the need for structure appropriately applied) I have little interest in titles for people or where they stand in the church structure. It is my opinion that when the dust and smoke is cleared this issue of ordination is about money. Somewhere along the line the ordination signet ring gives the individual privileges to the purse of ordination. If not, what is the beef ( vegetarian of course ( please read sarcasm))? I love women; came from one, married one, have a sister. Women have natural psychological tendencies as do men. Women are inherently, nurturing, kind, for the most part amicable, subservient. These are general qualities I have observed, which is why they cater to jobs that deal with people. Mothering, nursing, serving, empathy to booboo’s. Men in general have the following recognized behaviours; risk takers, assertive, possibly confrontational, physical. Jobs that men cater to are usually in engineering, physical work, math oriented jobs and tasks, leaders in general. So how do these generalities fit into the discussion about ordination? Is the discussion raising these obvious differences between men and women? Since God is the creator of man and woman, these should be taken into account when deciding on the issue of ordination. Everyone that would bother to read my views would have read pastor Bohr’s exhaustive work on the subject of ordination based on sex. Women are not second classed or placed on an unequal footing because they are not recognized in the ordination process. I would like to see more women making presentations, even though I usually fall asleep when women talk. They are an equal part of any conversation ( my wife would not agree) and there is a captain that makes the final decision. I can tell this debate will not die. The anti male sentiment that is presently so strong drags the influencer’s along. I recognize this also in the influential positions of Dr Jennings whom I have recently discovered and am blessed by his work. I love how God is using this denomination but I see the influence of the world carrying it to and fro and the wind blows. The winds of change are blowing stronger and I see our movement getting carried away from one wind to another instead of seeking the scripture as we claim we do. If we claim to adhere to scripture we are considered backward, orthodox, unwilling to accept change… the list of accusation goes on. We are in the last days and the issue of ordination should take a back seat unless it diminishes the work of God.


No argument there. There is no theological reason to deny women equal position in the church establishment. And yes, this isn’t about scripture at all.


That may well be, but what it was not was coercion, discrimination and denial of voice.

Me thinks Mr. Shepherd drilled a hole in the bottom of his boat.

Also, For those that think we need to move on with the work of the gospel and not let things like WO get in the way, I guess Jesus should have just gone along with the religious authorities of his time. What’s all this love your neighbor as yourself stuff?

Maybe it’s about time to develop our own Adventist version of Temple Recommends. Wait, my bad, it appears to already be in the works.


WO and other such issues are the tip of the iceberg.

Underlying the way these issues are being dealt with are the methodologies being applied.

Underlying the methodologies being applied is the world view - including the perceived theology that shapes methodology.

Underlying the world view are the core attitudes and focus/purpose of persons and collective groups/sub groups.

Underlying the core attitudes, focus and purpose is the working of one of two spirits respectively representing one of two kingdoms.

The issues at the top are symptomatic of far deeper factors that have been at work ever since the inception of ‘Adventism’. It is this deep anchorage of the more surface issues that sees a lack of headway in efforts and attempts at change.

Nevertheless, there is reality-based cause for hope amid the approaching times. At the end of the day, Seventh-day Adventist was merely a name developed by a group of people for the purpose of negotiating the secular issues involved with ownership of assets. What was of greater importance than the adoption of a name were the core ‘character’-istics that typified those that eventually became the first Seventh-day Adventists - characteristics that were in existence prior to the adoption of that name (and which have also characterised many other people/groups under various names all the way back to the beginning of earth’s history). These characteristics enabled the negotiation of the ‘Disappointment’ of 1844, and has enabled others to similarly negotiate the many subsequent disappointments since that time - Glacier View being a key one within my lifetime as an Australian.

Whether the name Seventh-day Adventist survives the times ahead or not, whether it falls or re-forms, the foundational characteristics that have characterised all who constitute God’s body on this earth will enable those who embrace these characteristics to continue on in whatever form/s that becomes.

As history has born out, the Gamaliel principle is truth: that which is of God will stand, all else will come to an end (Acts 5:38-39). This principle applies not so much at the level of the name of a group, but at the level of the characteristics that underpin those who exist under that name.

Thus, particular groups are likely to continue to come and go - but those who individually and collectively constitute the totality of the universal body of Christ/God will continue to the end - not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord (Zech 4:6). I therefore make the most powerful appeal in this - as in all other issues being faced each day withing the context of the Great Controversy - that I can: God, in response to your invitation, I call upon your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. I acknowledge and affirm that there are many others who also, together, daily make this same appeal.


Until reading this article, i was unaware of the inappropriate behaviour at GC level. Can I imagine Jesus booing? No. Can i imagine Him apologising? Yes.

Really like the lovers quarrel concept.

As a person who left the Adventist Church for 20 years due to unkind human remarks, I can well consider that what is shared at top level shall have far reaching, perhaps unforeseeable, ramifications.

I applaud the not publishing negative viewpoints, yet - I wonder - had some of the adverse comments been printed, would it have made people (who comprise “Church”) aware that some folk were unhappy? Could we have put administration on notice that we do care about local congregations and their issues/concerns?

Martin Luther was a great reformist. No question. However, I feel very upset to know he refused to allow baptism by immersion and actually agreed with putting to death people of Jewish faith. We all have our blind spots - and no human being shall attain perfection until after Jesus returns in the clouds.

If you are implying (as you appear to be) that Dr Roberts is female and therefore treated differently from male counterparts, that truly saddens me.

I agree that commissioning and ordaining do not seem biblical constructs. Laying on of hands, yes - this led to the recognition of elders, deacons and missionaries. With local congregation approval, really acceptance of God’s anointed, gender ought to not be taken into account.

Could Zechariah’s comment about not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of the Lord be applicable?