Letter and Response from the General Conference About Disfellowships Regarding the Trinity

Please click the image below for a PDF of two letters.

13 thoughts on “Letter and Response from the General Conference About Disfellowships Regarding the Trinity”

  1. Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.

    It is a very hard concept to believe that the General conference of the Seventh-day Adventist church is not aware of members being disfellowshipped. At the local conference level, they are very aware of members being disfellowshipped.

    My wife and I were disfellowshipped by the retired director for the Michigan conference ministerial department, Pastor Lauren Nelson, and current associate director Pastor Justin Ringstaff. My wife and I were asked to attend a business meeting March 6, 2016 to discuss disciplinary action on to other members. My wife and I had no idea we were on the “chopping block” so to speak. There was one other member that was disfellowshipped without even being present at the meeting, and at this time, September 18, 2017, has still never been notified that he’s been disfellowshipped. Only through my words does he know.

    The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist’s needs to educate themselves and investigate if they are truly unaware. The manner in which some of these disfellowshipments are taking place, are very brutal. I am also aware that some have taken place somewhat biblical. Members are being disfellowshipped for believing that Jesus Christ is the true real begotten Son of God, and that the Father and the Son are not metaphors.

    What most members of the Adventist church do not understand, is that the GC believes the Father and Son are metaphors, and that they are not a true father or a true son. Ref; Adventist World, November 2015, pg 42 titled “A Question of Sonship. Pastor Angel Manuel Rodriguez says “The term ‘Son’ is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead.” So what is happening is that if a member does not comply with a metaphorical father and son, they are being disfellowshipped.

    My message to the GC is to please educate yourself to the happenings within the church, that are not happening in secret. This is why it’s hard to believe the GC is unaware.

    Peace to you, in Christ Jesus,
    Jerry Townsend

    1. Jerry, no where, in the said response letter, does it say that they are unaware of people being disfellowshipped. He states that he was unaware of anyone being disfellowshipped for raising questions about beliefs.

      Please see excerpt from SDA Manual. Note #1, #9, and #10.

      Reasons for Discipline
      The reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline are:
      1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the
      fundamental beliefs of the Church or teaching doctrines contrary to the
      2. Violation of the law of God, such as worship of idols, murder,
      stealing, profanity, gambling, Sabbathbreaking, and willful and habitual
      3. Violation of the commandment of the law of God, which reads,
      “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14, Matt. 5:27-28), as it relates to
      the marriage institution and the Christian home, biblical standards of moral
      conduct, and any act of sexual intimacy outside of a marriage relationship
      and/or non-consensual acts of sexual conduct within a marriage, whether
      those acts are legal or illegal. Such acts include but are not limited to child
      sexual abuse, including abuse of the vulnerable. Marriage is defined as a
      public, lawfully binding, monogamous, heterosexual relationship between
      one man and one woman.
      4. Fornication, which includes among other issues, promiscuity,
      homosexual activity, incest, sodomy, and bestiality.
      5. The production, use, or distribution of pornographic material.
      6. Remarriage of a divorced person, except the spouse who has
      remained faithful to the marriage vow in a divorce for adultery or for sexual
      7. Physical violence, including violence within the family.
      8. Fraud or willful misrepresentation in business.
      9. Disorderly conduct which brings reproach upon the church.
      10. Adherence to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or
      organization. (See p. 59.)(Excerpt from p. 59) ( Although all members have equal rights within the church, no individual member or group should start a movement or form an
      organization or seek to encourage a following for the attainment of any
      objective or for the teaching of any doctrine or message not in harmony
      with the fundamental religious objectives and teachings of the Church. Such
      a course would result in the fostering of a divisive spirit, the fragmenting of
      the witness of the Church, and thus in hindering of the Church’s discharge
      of its obligations to the Lord and the world.11. Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.)
      12. The use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages.
      13. The use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for
      human consumption.
      14. The use or manufacture of illicit drugs or the use, misuse, or sale
      of narcotics or drugs without appropriate medical cause and license.

      1. Grace and peace be unto you Michael, through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.

        May I quote you? and since you cannot answer as I write this, I will quote you. “He states that he was unaware of anyone being disfellowshipped for raising questions about beliefs.” He is the Representtive answering the letter on behalf of the GC. Therefore Micheal, he “IS” saying “that the GC is unaware.”

        This is what I did, (as you say) I raised questions. Then the local conference promptly set in motion the dis-fellowshipping of my wife and I, and another that wasn’t even present at the board meeting. Yes it was the “local church” that took a vote and not the local conference. But the local conference was the entity which pressed the issue with the local church elders and the board. As a matter of fact, we were without pastor when the questions were raised about beliefs. The local conference then sent one of their’s to be interm pastor, and to “Nip this in the bud” were his word’s.

        I nor my wife ever violated any of the 14 aforementioned “Reasons for Discipline.” Nor did we ever interupt or push any kind of agenda. Nor was there a visitation from the elders or pastor beforehand. Never was there an attempt to do any kind of “Redemptive Discipline.” If we were doing something out of order, then there is a process that should have been followed. {Matt 18:15-17}

        What should have been done in a loving manner, was done with anger and resentment. we were not even allowed to defend ourselves. ONE question was asked of me, and that was “what do you believe?” And the answer was “I believe that Jesus is the true real begotten Son of God.” {John 3:16-17}

        My wife and I were dis-fellowshipped for believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God! Amazing!

        Peace be to you Micheal, In Christ Jesus,
        Jerry Townsend

  2. I am opposed to the local disfellowshipping of non-trinitarians for non-trinitarianism. I would support, however, the disfellowshipping of a non-trinitarian for behavior endangering the mission of the church by such means as bringing this issue to the fore in Sabbath School and to visitors and new members, or for making a non-trinitarian position into a test question. In both of these instances, the non-trinitarian belief is not the crux. It is rather, the behavior that destroys the life of the church. Of course, I would not support the disfellowship of anyone who had not been labored with patiently prior to such an action. And I have arranged for non-trinitarian persons to be baptized into the SDA church when I perceived them to view the issue as the pioneers did, as a side issue for occasional comment.

    1. Mr. Prewitt,

      If Anti-Trinitarians really understood the question of Father and son personality, there would be far more of an upheaval than has heretofore been experienced. Without the understanding correct on this, there is no faith. But nobody asked me.

  3. The GC letter speaks two things. Either:

    1) The GC leadership is conceding they are no longer in control of events down at the conferences or,

    2) Dishonesty within the SDA leadership has become so acceptable that a leader can say anything as long as it is ‘politically’ correct to say it; never mind the obvious deception it comes with.

  4. May I ask a question about the two letters please.

    I know at the top of the page it says “Letter and Response from the General Conference About Disfellowships Regarding the Trinity” but is the second letter a direct response to the enquiry?
    This may seem an unnecessary question but the reason why I ask is because (a) the enquiry was sent to Mark Finley but the reply came from Pastor Magdiel Perez Schulz (b) the response said the enquiry was sent Pastor Wilson but it was addressed to Mark Finley and (c) the response letter said the enquiry was asking about the Holy Spirit but the enquirer never mentioned the Holy Spirit.
    I just wanted to make sure the response was a direct reply to the enquiry.
    Thank you
    Terry Hill

    1. Hello Terry,

      I was given the letters by the the woman who sent them in and who received the response. She mentioned sending letters to many of the people at the GC. Thus, it doesn’t seem conflicting that the address would be to one person while the response would be returned from another. Also, when asking about the trinity, many people will immediately answer about the Spirit, as those who believe the trinity doctrine believe that those who don’t believe that doctrine hold that there is no Spirit.

      Here is what could have happened. She gave me the letter that was written to Mark Finley. She had sent in several, so, she may have given me the response which was from the president–written by the “Assistant to the President,” as written at the bottom of the response.

      BUT, I have contacted the one who has sent me the email containing the documents, and I will respond with her answer if she responds as soon as I can.

    2. Here is the reply from the author of the letter:

      “The letter is a direct answer to the inquiry. I sent the same letter to Ted Wilson and 7 other leaders, but I only changed the name at the top for each receiver. The particular one addressed to Mark Finely happened to be the last one I saved. But, to stop the confusion, I am including here the same letter with Ted Wilson’s name. You are correct, the letter did not say anything about the Holy Spirit, because I was trying to have a neutral tone in this letter. It seems, from their response, that somehow they figured out my position on this subject. Interesting…”

      Here is a picture of the “other” letter.

  5. The church pioneers rejected the trinity doctrine because of it false teaching. The bible teaches there is one God and the one God is the father. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:6)

  6. Sometimes you have to wonder if a class action lawsuit might fix some of this. They have used the 500 pound gorilla tactic in the past over their name and copyright. This is just a “what if” thought and scenario. After all, it infringes on your first amendment right, doesn’t it? Especially if you were baptized WAY before the changes, sort of grandfathered in and “untouchable”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *