The revelation of the Davenport Financial Empire has brought to light manipulations of monies devoted for sacred purposes. Whether these funds were "surplus," "trust," or tithe funds, it matters not - for all funds given were devoted by the giver to the service of the Lord - and not for speculation!

God has now brought to light these hidden things of darkness, and has displayed them as it were with a pen of fire for all to read in the public press. With the crumbling of the Davenport Financial Empire, cracks in the foundations of the Church built upon the sand are beginning to appear. No longer protected by the mercies of the God of heaven, the leadership now turns to an outside PR firm to seek to daub the creaking edifice with a whitewash. But the words of God through Ezekiel to the spiritual leadership of Israel apply with equal force today. They read:      Because they lead my people astray, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall. Rain will come in torrents, and I will send hailstones hurtling down, and violent winds will burst forth. When the wall collapses, will people not ask you, "Where is the whitewash you covered it with?"
Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury. I will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you will be destroyed in it; and you will know that I am the Lord. So I will spend my wrath against the wall and against those who covered it with whitewash. I will say to you, "The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace, declares the Sovereign Lord. Eze. 13:10-16 NIV

God has promised to sweep away the refuge of lies with which the spiritual guardians of the people have sought to lull the laity of the Church back into the fatal slumber of death. (See Isa. 28:17-18) A case in point is the attempt of the president of the Potomac Conference of Seventh-day Adventists to cover the investment of that Conference of $45,000 in 1972 with Dr. Davenport. Writing in a "Constituency Letter" dated, Summer, 1981, Elder Ron M. Wisbey stated:  "As far as Potomac is involved, it is a relatively small amount ($45,000) and is totally secured, recorded, and liquid to the point that we already have a buyer for the mortgage... The money invested in 1972 with Dr. Davenport and secured as mentioned above, was done with earnings received from regular investments with trustor monies and in accordance with Church policy. However, the reserve from surplus earnings is more than adequate to cover this $45,000 investment should the worst happen and the entire amount be lost, which at this time does not seem likely." (p. 2) No doubt the laity of the Conference, thus reassured by their "spiritual leader" returned to their slumber.

However, the Los Angeles Times Staff Writers were doing their own investigation of this particular investment with Davenport. Here is what they found:      A title search performed by Title Insurance and Trust Company, in Riverside for the Times found, for example, that Davenport had conveyed a first trust deed of $45,000 to the Potomac Conference Corp. of Seventh-day Adventists in 1972. Yet another apparent first trust deed for the same piece of Riverside property was conveyed by Davenport to the Adventist-affiliated Collegedale Credit Union for $95,714 in 1976. The title search on the sample property in Riverside also revealed the doctor secured loans with deeds to property he did not own.

In this case, title records indicate that Davenport only leased the land on which he had given deeds to the Potomac Conference and the Collegedale Credit Union. According to tax and title records, the property is owned by La Sierra College, an Adventist institution. (LA Times, Aug. 9, 1981, VI, p. 1)

(May God have mercy on the mortgage buyer which Elder Wisbey states he has found for Potomac's trust deed from Dr. Davenport.)

With the filing of the Bankruptcy Petition by Donald J. Davenport, M. D., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 1981, and the Exhibits submitted with the Petitions, plus the release by the Adventist Review (Sept 10, 1981, p. 24) of the amount invested by different church entities with Dr. Davenport, certain questions have been raised which remain as yet unanswered, besides those questions which raise grave concerns and doubts.

Exhibit "A" of the Bankruptcy Petition lists "the ten largest unsecured creditors." (It appears the emphasis is on the word, "unsecured.") On this list besides certain banks, some of which loaned Davenport over One Million dollars, are certain institutions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church - the North Pacific Union Conference, and the Layman Foundation of Madison, Tennessee, the Foundation which has underwritten the self-supporting units in the South. However, the amount of monies involved as listed in Exhibit "A" for the NPU does not correspond with the amount of funds as noted in the Adventist Review. Davenport reports only $100,000, while the Church paper indicates over Six Million dollars. Then the Georgia-Cumberland Conference which the Adventist Review lists as having over Three Million involved is not listed by Davenport, yet documents published in the "green" issue of the SDA Press Release place serious doubts upon the security of the loans made by that conference. Why was not the full disclosure of the amount invested by the North Pacific Union Conference and the investment of the Georgia-Cumberland Conference given by Davenport in Exhibit "A", when monies invested by these two Church entities separately exceeded the amount of the highest figure of any bank loan listed? And how can we believe that banks would loan from one half million to well over one million dollars without security?

Behind the Georgia-Cumberland and the North Pacific Union Conferences investments are two men whose names have appeared in the SDA Press Release - Elder Desmond Cummings, who at the time of the investments was president of the Ga.-Cumb. Conf, and Elder Wayne Massengill, who served as Trust Officer of the NPU. These two men with their wives are also listed as individual creditors by Davenport. (See SDA Press Release, Vol. 1, No. 6) This raises another question - Since it was indicated that only "trust funds" were used, and the laity of the various entities were urged to place their money through the trust department of the Church so that the cause of God would benefited, why didn't these men do likewise? Did they obtain special favors because they used their office to secure other's involvement, or the involvement of the conferences in the Davenport Financial Empire?

Another interesting aspect of the release of names of the creditors - albeit the amount of each individual's involvement has not yet been made known - is the fact that in the case of Elder Massengill, some of his old cronies from Indiana days are listed among the creditors - Elder D. A. Caslow; Wilbur E. Wasenmiller, plus another worker who served in Indiana at the same time - Dr. Jonathan G. Penner. Then, there are two Indiana self-supporting institutions involved - Bethel Sanitarium, and the Adventist Retirement Center, both of Evansville, Indiana. Those who know the roster of the Southern Union Conference can find similar parallels between individual creditors, and Elder Desmond Cummings.

Besides the relationship between these men, and their respective conferences is the fact that other presidents are likewise listed as individual creditors where their conferences are involved. For example; Elder Donald M. MacIvor, now of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference, but who served as president of the Montana Conference; Elder George Liscombe, president of the South Dakota Conference; and Elder E. S. Reile of the Mid-America Union Conference. Only a forthright disclosure by these men of their dealings either with Davenport directly, or their connections with either Elders Cummings or Massengill will suffice to clear the clouds of doubt and suspicion. In connection with this is to be found a vital statement from Manuscript Release #55 by the E. G. White Estate - "Men who are controlled by selfish desires should not remain connected with our institutions, and their course of action had better be exposed, that every church of Seventh-day Adventists may know what principles govern these men."

Among the Church entities listed in the Adventist Review was the Southwest Estate Service as having invested $420,000. This is the organization of the Southwestern Union Conference which gives guidance to the conferences and the laity in regard to trust funds. In Onward Oklahoma, Elder Robert D. Rider, President of the Conference, told the laity of Oklahoma that the conference made a $300,000 investment in the Davenport Financial Empire through the Southwest Estate Service. The claim is made by Rider that this $300,000 was a single irrevocable trust "that required investment." If there was a condition attached to the trust, the possibility of it being revoked was ever present. But another question arises. If the Southwest Estate Service had only $420,000 invested with Davenport, this leaves only $120,000 for the other four conferences of the Union. Why did the Oklahoma Conference carry the brunt of the involvement? Or are the figures released by the Southwest Estate Service to the General Conference inaccurate? Only a full disclosure to the Bankruptcy Court in California will permit this last question to be answered.

The most perplexing question arising from the disclosures is yet to be addressed. The Pacific Union Record (July 27, 1981) in the column - "We're Glad You Asked" -stated - "No General Conference moneys of any kind are invested with Donald J. Davenport, M.D." This is also noted in the Los Angeles Times (July 24, 1981, CC, Part II) in quoting Charles Bradford of the North American Division. The report read - "The General Conference did not invest any money through Davenport." However, the filing of the creditors by Davenport lists - "The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Inter-American Division." (SDA Press Release, Vol. 1, No. 6) Unless the Inter-American Division is a self-sustaining Division, appropriations are made to this division by the General Conference. This Division's investments with Davenport were not disclosed by the Treasurer of the General Conference in his report in the Adventist Review (Sept., 10, 1981, p. 24) Why? Then another far more serious question - why are monies available to this mission Division used for such questionable investments, when the needs - if we are to believe the mission stories - are so great?

There is one final observation. Elder L. L. Butler, Treasurer of the General Conference, stated in his report in the Adventist Review, before listing the conferences and church entities and the amount of the involvement with Davenport - "In each case listed the following amounts may consist of funds due to various lenders (e.g. trust funds, pooled funds, or church entities), and the loan may have been made by various persons, (e.g., trust officers, trustors, or officers of church entities.)" This statement requires careful analysis. We understand the term, "trust funds" and the concept of "pooled funds" which could represent a grouping together of "trust funds" into a common investment account held by a Union Conference in behalf of the local conferences. But funds owed to "church entities" could involve more than trust funds. This was left unexplained. Then in regard to who could invest monies with Davenport - "trust officers" are listed. Does this mean that Massengill in the North Pacific Union was free to invest monies entrusted to him at will, and at his own discretion? Then there is the word, "trustor," or the one giving the money. Were the laity advised by trust officers to give their money with a stipulation that it be invested in the Davenport Financial Empire? If so, what accountability now rests on these ministers of the conference for the losses to be sustained by the ill advised laity?

The financial structure of the Church built upon the sands of human economics is beginning to reveal for all to see the cracks in its foundation. Turning from the truth and faith in God, all that is left are human methods and resources - only shifting sands. The end is not yet, but a full disclosure is not far distant. This is only the beginning of the judgments of God upon an "unfaithful city."

PERTINENT PRESS COMMENTS -- (The news releases appearing in the American Press come primarily from three major sources; namely, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and a source designated as "Walla Walla (AP)." From these sources we glean the following pertinent comments.)

Los Angeles Times (August 9, 1981, Part VI) -- Worried creditors of Donald J. Davenport, once called the "king of post offices" because of his vast investments in post-office buildings, are uncovering evidence that the creditors say shows Davenport mortgaged properties beyond their worth and offered lenders trust deeds on properties he did not own.

The evidence provides some hints as to why Davenport's once massive real estate empire is crumbling, and why he had to file last month for protection under the bankruptcy laws.

Moreover, the case is particularly interesting because Davenport drew substantial backing from fellow members of the Seventh-day Adventist church and from church officials and church sponsored entities. His bankruptcy filing has brought into the public eye disputes that actually have been festering for years between Davenport and his critics within the tightly knit, conservative religious denomination. (p. 1)

Davenport's investors as listed in court records included more than 20 church employees and officials, some of whom held positions of responsibility in church organizations whose funds also were loaned to the real estate developer.

Moreover, some Adventists - citing recent court cases involving other denominations - contend the church itself may ultimately be held liable for money loaned to Davenport that was being held in trust by the church for its members. (p. 3)

Interviews with a sampling of Davenport's lenders indicate that his $5.3 million estimate last month of what he owed his top 10 creditors barely scratches the surface of his debt. The Pacific Union Conference, American City Bank and the First Women's Bank of California, for example, are among the 10 largest creditors on Davenport's petition. Yet their loans alone total nearly $3 million. Church members say the total will be at least $40 million, and a Davenport attorney has been quoted in published reports as calling that number "a correct ballpark figure." However, the lawyer, Robert Shutan, now refuses to confirm or dispute the figure.

Among the creditors expected to scramble for a share of Davenport's assets are an estimated 20 banks and savings and loan associations, seven insurance companies, 14 Seventh-day Adventist regional conferences and perhaps a dozen assorted institutions of other kinds. The remainder of the 250-name list consists of individual investors, including presidents of four Adventist conferences whose funds were invested with Davenport. The list also included other prominent Adventists, such as V. Norskov Olsen, president of Loma Linda University near Riverside. (p. 3)

Davenport borrowed heavily against his properties often encumbering them with loans far in excess of the value of the property itself. An examination of his 1972 divorce papers discloses, for example, that 19 of his 55 postal facilities were mortgaged for amounts greater than their fair market value. One Denver post office was used for collateral or mortgages on loans totaling $80,851 more than its $255,915 market value, the records indicate.

Some critics of Davenport say that he sometimes fell behind in his interest payments, even in the early 1970s. Walter Rea was an Adventist pastor and a member of the committee that handled trusts and investments for the Adventist Southern California Conference at the time when the conference had loaned money to Davenport, and he recalls delays in the interest payments. "Whenever some of us on the committee would mention it, nothing was ever done," recalls Rea, who was defrocked last year after he publicized extensive evidence that Ellen White plagiarized some "inspired" writings from other 19th-century authors. (p. 11)

By the late 1970s, lenders also were encountering difficulty recovering their principal on demand. Three such church members became so concerned that they took their problem to attorney Jerry Wiley, a professor of law and dean at the USC Law Center. Wiley, an Adventist with extensive experience structuring tax shelters, told The Times that he studied Davenport's investment system about five years ago and concluded it worked only as long as there was a constant influx of new dollars from new investors to cover the payments to old investors.

Because the rate of return on post office and telephone company leases was unlikely to cover those payments, Wiley says, he concluded that Davenport would become insolvent if his sources of money ever dried up. "It was a matter of waiting out the hand," Wiley says. The attorney says he took his concerns to top church officials.

At about the same time, internal church critics were also sounding the alarm. Rea wrote a biting letter to Robert Pierson, then president of the General Conference, about the propriety of the Davenport investments as early as June, 1977. John Adams, an Adventist layman in Tennessee, and Sidney Allen, a layman in Redlands, wrote letters warning church members that there were potential problems for the church officials, in being heavily involved in Davenport's financial empire. Then in 1979 - two years after Rea first complained to the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church about the Davenport investments - top church officials began issuing warnings. (pp. 11, 13)

Los Angeles Times, July 24, 1981, Part II, p. 1 -- Faced with worried inquiries from its members as well as regional associations and financial institutions that have lent money to Davenport, the North American Division of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has launched its own investigation, a church official said. Charles E. Bradford, vice president for the conference's North American division, said lawyers and accountants have been retained to "help us get the facts."

"It's going to take us a couple of weeks to find out the extent of the involvement," Bradford said Thursday. However, estimates run as high as $46 million, he added. The General Conference itself did not invest any money through Davenport. The funds turned over to Davenport by regional conferences in North Carolina, Georgia, Spokane and Southern California were "surplus" monies not needed for day to day operations of the church, Bradford said.

Walla Walla (AP) quoted in - The Sunday Oregonian, August 2, 1981, and The Seattle Times, August 2, 1981, p. A14. -- The North Pacific Union Conference may have invested as much as $1.9 million with Davenport, a spokesman said. Other estimates range up to several million dollars for the conference, which covers most of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska.

Investments of the Upper Columbia Mission Society, an arm of the Upper Columbia Conference that covers Eastern Washington, northeastern Oregon and the Idaho Panhandle, are believed to be at least $2 million.

Elder Richard Fearing, president of the North Pacific Union Conference, refused comment on the amount of money involved. "To us, this is very serious," he said. The conference has hired a secular public relations firm to help the church through the crisis.

"We are facing a credibility crisis," said Elder Charles E. Bradford, vice president of the General Conference. "We'll have to prove to the people we've done our best and hope the people will understand."

The Washington Post, August 24, 1981, B7. -- The massive health care, publishing, insurance and health food enterprises of the church's international governing body, the General Conference, have earned it a listing in Standard and Poor's, the only church to be included, according to a spokesman of this closely followed information service on big business. In 1979, the relatively small church reported total assets in excess of $4 billion.

In addition to tithes and offerings, which last year netted the church $425 million, the church has an extensive trust program. Virtually every regional unit of the church in this country employs full-time staff persons to persuade members to invest their savings in church-operated trust funds from which they will receive income as long as they live. On their death the amount reverts to the church.

Some of the money invested in Davenport's ventures came from these trust funds. The trust funds are operated by the separately incorporated Conferences and Unions of the Church. Recent court decisions indicating that a national denomination can be held responsible for the financial shortcomings of one of its parts has raised the specter of multiple lawsuits against the General Conference in the Davenport affair.

For years, some in the church had warned against investing in Davenport's operation. Some in positions of authority did heed the warnings. More than two years ago, Kenneth H. Emmerson, then treasurer of the General Conference, wrote to a church official that he had warned Loma Linda University, the pride of the church's academic institutions, that it "should have nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. Davenport or any of his financial 'schemes.'" In his letter, which has since been widely circulated throughout the denomination, Emmerson promised that at a forthcoming meeting of treasurers of Adventist Conferences and Unions, "We are going to strongly urge, in fact we are going to do everything in our power to make it imperative that the brethren begin to liquidate any connection and investments they have with the doctor."

Why Emmerson's advice of April, 1979, went unheeded, why so many Adventist institutions still were listed as creditors of Davenport in his initial bankruptcy petition filed last month, remains a mystery. Church leaders remain close-mouthed. The General Conference has directed its Conferences and Unions not to talk to the press about the matter but to refer inquiries to the General Conference.

Neal Wilson, world president of the church, has refused repeated requests for an interview. His office refers inquiries to James E. Chase, an affable pastor who heads the communication unit. Chase's response to questions about the Davenport affair: "Testimony is being taken, work is going on. Beyond this I cannot comment."

Among the faithful there are growing indications of dissatisfaction. "The Adventist Church worldwide is not being told the true story by our church leaders," complained Dan Ipes of Columbia. Ipes, an Adventist pastor and son of a pastor, feels the church leadership is not being open enough. "A lot of local pastors are really sweating on this," he said. "I want the church to come clean. If we made a mistake, then let's say we made a mistake."

Forbes Magazine, (October 12, 1981, pp. 36, 38) carried an article entitled, "Bad Faith?" written about the Church's involvement in the Davenport Financial Empire. Go to the Library and read the article.

1981 Dec XIV-- 12(81) -- The Pot, The Kettle - Black -- Church Editor Calls for Action Against Trust Officers and Conference Administrators -- A most unusual editorial appeared in the Adventist Review (Oct. 22, 1981) - the 137th Anniversary of the entrance of Jesus into the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary - carrying the initials of the Editor-in-Chief - "K. H. W." It was captioned, "The Davenport Loans." While its forthrightness and call for disciplinary action against trust officers, and conference officials involved in the Davenport scandal is to be commended, a careful analysis of what Elder Wood wrote should not be by-passed. For the benefit of the readers of the Thought Paper - both at home and overseas who do not receive the Review we shall attempt to give sufficient quotes of what Elder Wood wrote so that the observations made in our analysis will be understandable.

After reviewing the facts of the case, the admitted loss of some $21 Million of unspecified church funds, and "the confirmed reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)" had entered the investigation, he states that certain letters had been sent to "trustors and retirees." These letters allege "that the General Conference had not made loans to Dr. Davenport." This has been the "bottom line" of the hierarchy since the scandal first broke. No doubt from the context of Wood's statement, this is true. He makes the allegation cover only the sustentation funds of the retirees. However, still unanswered is the fact that Davenport in listing his creditors with the Court named - "The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Inter-American Division." This fact was not addressed by the Treasurer of the General. Conference in his, "Summary of Davenport Loans," appearing in the Adventist Review (Sept. 10, 1981), nor was it addressed by Wood in his current editorial. An article appearing in Spectrum, (Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 55) explains these funds were monies received by the Division which the giver had invested with Davenport. This leaves still other unanswered questions arising from this explanation.

Tentatively admitting that it is possible that none of the funds loaned to Davenport will ever be recovered, Wood states that if certain policies and principles had been followed by those in responsible positions this terrible embarrassment to the Church would not have occurred. He writes - "Only when each member of a committee, board, or other group expresses his convictions freely, questions unsafe financial policies, protests unsound proposals, and is willing, if necessary, to cast a negative vote, will responsible church bodies deserve full confidence." This is a laudatory observation, and some of us who in the past years have done so, know the results of this sort of upright behaviour. But in this particular case, there is an ironical twist. In Southern California when the matter of the Davenport loans came up for discussion, and the interest payments were noted as delinquent, the Los Angeles Times (Aug. 9, 1981, IV-11) notes that Walter Rea and others on the committee did speak up, but to no avail. Now one must ask - Was Walter Rea defrocked only because he gave an interview to a Staff Reporter of the Los Angeles Times regarding his findings relative to the writings of Ellen G. White, or were there some other underlying factors such as his protest involving the Davenport investments? Will this be permitted to come to light should a full scale investigation be initiated by the General Conference? It is known that the President of Southern California involved in the defrocking of Rea has been moved the Presidency of the British Union Conference. Promotion for affirmative, reaction to the wishes of the hierarchy, and devastating action against the voice of protest is the rule of the thumb which has been administered over the years. Now the Editor of the Adventist Review says only when this rule is reversed can the church entities deserve the confidence of their constituents. When will Wilson begin to apply this suggestion, and will the previous applications of the "rule of the thumb" noted above be reversed?

Editor Wood calls for the leaders of the various church entities involved in the Davenport fiasco "to give to their constituencies as complete a report as possible on the current situation." He indicates that some have already done so, and implies that in these reports there bas been "openness and forthrightness," with no attempt at a "cover up." Evidently Elder Wood has not followed very closely the nature of the reporting done, for right under his nose in the Potomac Conference, there was a report by the President with all the earmarks of a "cover-up," and was exposed as fallacious by Los Angeles Times. (See WWN, Nov., 1981, p. 2) Before an Editor goes to press involving himself in an issue as volatile as the Davenport case, he should carefully do his home work. Apparently Wood slipped badly in suggesting that the reports already given were "as transparent as the sunlight." We hope that all future reports would be as Wood suggests they should be.

In his editorial, Wood calls for a public confession by the leaders of the church entities involved in the Davenport loans, quoting supporting statements from the Spirit of Prophecy. Then he comments "Forgiveness, of course, does not mean exemption from consequences. Though forgiven by both God and man, a person may receive discipline or punishment for irresponsible actions. We think that the individuals, boards, and committees that lent funds to Dr. Davenport should be called to account for their actions." He then lists the nature of the offenses for which an accounting should be given: One, if the leadership of the entities did not follow the policy of the, General Conference; and Two, "if it can be shown that individuals used their office for personal advantage" to themselves, in other words, was there a "confiict of interest" involved. Admittedly, this should be investigated. It will be of great interest to see what plea will be raised to justify noncompliance with the General Conference policy should such a trial and investigation be conducted by the Curia on the Sligo. Will it be shown that the General Conference's own investment policies which involved the New York stock market since 1967 proved to be so risky for the subentities of the Church that they decided to launch out on their own which has resulted in the Davenport fiasco. When all of this comes out into the open, and we are given the figures on all the investments of all the bodies concerned, including the General Conference - will the color of the pot vary much from the color of the kettle? Won't they both be black?

Finally, the Editor in a very pious - very holy, and very much above the fray - comment states: "Whatever may be the ultimate outcome of the Davenport affair, we think we should remind ourselves that the strength of the Adventist Church is not its money, but its message." And here is where Editor Wood gets involved heavily in the picture. We must ask ourselves - Is the strength of the Church, its message as changed and altered as a result of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences, and which alteration was affirmed in the Statement of Beliefs adopted by the Dallas Session in 1980; or was the strength of the Advent Movement, the faith committed to it following the disappointment in 1844, and in the Message sent to it in 1888? And the affirmation at Dallas, and the commitment given in 1844 are not the same message.
 

We have already made available for our readers the contents of a series of correspondence in which Elder Wood was involved from 1968 to the present. (WWN, Oct.,1981) In 1968, Wood stated to a layperson that he was next to the whole situation from the beginning regarding the publication of Question on Doctrine resultant from the SDA-Evangelical Conferences (also known as the Barnhouse-Martin Conferences). Further he has admitted that the departure from Historic Adventism was so subtle that only a person well informed in the Truth could detect that departure. He professes to be in that category - well informed in the Truth. But where was his voice at that hour? Did he take his stand with Elder Andreasen? Has he through editorial comment in the Review confessed his error? Has he suggested that all the men involved in this terrible apostasy, including himself by his own admission, be called to give an account of their surrender of the historic faith, and be "dealt with firmly but fairly" as he is suggesting should be done in the Davenport case? He considers the sins of the leaders involved in the Davenport situation in the same light as the sin of Achan which caused the defeat of Israel at Ai. And it is a great sin, bringing reproach on the Church; however, I can read from the same books from which Wood's quoted to justify his call in the editorial, these words:      If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded by God as a grievous crime, and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God. (3T:281)

There was a religious crisis in 1955-1956, resulting from the SDA-Evangelical Conferences. But where was Elder Wood? As late as 1968, he was writing to the laity of the Church defending the Apostates knowing full well, that these conferences did result in a change of our historic truths. Wood was not neutral, nor indifferent, but supportive, and defended this departure in the faith to the laity of the Church. To have been merely neutral or indifferent would have been the manifestation of "the very worst type of hostility against God." How then is Wood's sin to be classified? From where we sit, the editorial calling for an accounting from all the men involved in the Davenport embarrassment is merely the pot calling the kettle black. Let us have a full clean up starting with the beginning of the Omega of apostasy in 1955-1956, and let it include the Editor of the Adventist Review!

COMMENTS IN SPECTRUM -- Commenting on why General Conference policy was ignored, Tom Dybdahl, writing in Spectrum (Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 61) gives his explanation, and then asks some probing questions. We quote:      "There are several reasons why in violation of the guidelines - leaders often invested their own money, and the church's money with Davenport. He had a good track record, he was a fellow believer, and he paid top dollar, at least to influential individuals. A good many people, often personal friends of Davenport, simply felt that in this case the rules could be ignored.

"The situation appears to be different with respect to the General Conference. As early as 1968, the treasury department began discouraging investments with Davenport, and in April 1979 Emmerson and Osborn were strongly urging church organizations to shun any connection with Davenport. The department's actions, particularly the Emmerson letters to W. J. Blacker and Harold Calkins, make the General Conference look blameless. Still, however, there is reason, in light of claims it has recently made in court, to ask whether the General Conference was unable to do anything about the Davenport matter except give warnings. In the legal case involving the Pacific Press Publishing Association and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the church had argued that it was of the ' hierarchial variety,' with 'orders of ministers,' and a ' first minister at the top.' In the press' reply brief, this had been explained to mean that a 'hierarchial' church is one in which final decisions are made at the top of the organizational ladder, in contrast to a 'congregational' church organization in which every local group, like the Baptists and Unitarians, is free to go its own way.' This reasoning was then used to justify the action of the General Conference Committee when it reached all the way down to declare that two women employees of the press were 'at variance' with the church and therefore should be fired.

"If such is in fact the church's organizational structure, it is difficult to believe that the General Conference was as impotent as it wishes to appear. Indeed, from Emmerson's letter it is clear that the threat to withdraw support from Loma Linda University made any traffic with Davenport suddenly unattractive. It would be interesting to know if such tactics were ever considered in dealing with other uncooperative units, or what role Davenport's friends - and creditors - in the General Conference might have played.

"If there was really nothing the General Conference could do but plead with the union brethren, to whom are the union leaders accountable? The answer should be ' their constituents,' but given the secrecy with which church financial matters are generally handled, most laymen know little about them. And those who try to find out, such as John Adam and Walter Rea, often meet a stone wall. Or if the General Conference could not actually enforce its guidelines, could it not have ordered an audit and then informed the appropriate constituency of the problems and conflicts of interest, a strategy which would likely have resulted in some changes? And finally, if the General Conference is powerless in such matters, it does not inspire confidence that better rules and procedures will prevent any repeats. For despite all the negative publicity and the General Conference pressure, church organizations were reportedly loaning Davenport money as recently as March 1981."

The Term "Hierarchy"