Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Creation Seventh Day (and) Adventist Church is a Christian movement formed by a small group that broke off of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1988 and officially became a Church in 1991.^[1][2][3] It has been involved in court cases with the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists over trademarks and internet domain names.^[4][5]

Contents 1 History 1.1 Litigation 1.1.1 WIPO ruling on disputed domain names 2 Doctrinal position 3 References 4 External links

[edit] History

Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventism

Background and history Christianity · Protestantism Anabaptists · Restorationism Pietism · Millerites Great Disappointment Fundamentalism · Evangelicalism

People Ellen G. White James White · Joseph Bates J. N. Andrews · Uriah Smith J. H. Kellogg · M. L. Andreasen Edward Heppenstall

Distinctive teachings Sabbath · Conditional Immortality Historicism · Premillennialism Investigative judgment · Remnant Three Angels' Messages Eschatology

Criticism Criticism of Ellen White

Other Adventists Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement Davidian SDA (Shepherd's Rod) Advent Christian Church Church of God General Conference This box: view • talk • edit

The Creation Seventh Day Adventists broke away from the official Adventist church in 1991, because of "doctrinal disagreements".^[1] The United States congregation is pastored by Walter McGill, and located in Guys, Tennessee^[6].

In 2003, McGill opened a school on the Guys property.^[7][8] It had 3 students in the 2004/05 school year,^[9] and 3 in 2007/08,^[10] according to the Tennessee Department of Education. The church believes in private Christian education.

The General Conference filed a lawsuit against the church in 2006, with Walter McGill as the defendant.^[11][3] The jury trial was rescheduled from January 2008^[12] to June.

[edit] Litigation

The length of this article or section may adversely affect readability. Please discuss this issue on the talk page, split the content into subarticles, and keep this page in a summary style.

[edit] WIPO ruling on disputed domain names

On May 23, 2006, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center received notice from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,^[13] regarding several domain names operated by the church. The defendant claimed that such a confiscation of web domains would be a violation of religious freedom.^[14]

In the decision^[15] quoted below, rendered on July 21, 2006, WIPO concluded that:

• a) The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists had "Enforceable Trademark Rights" in the controverted domain names, noting that, "The Panel does not believe that the freedom to practice religion or the deviation from fundamental doctrine constitute defenses cognizable under the Policy to invalidate the protection afforded Complainant by its registered Marks."

• b) The Domain Names in question were "confusingly similar to the Marks in which the Complainant has rights pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i)."

• c) Although "Respondent alleges that he is involved in the free dissemination of the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in commercial activity [...]" and disclaimers were posted on the domains in question,^[16] "persons interested in finding religious information are Internet users and consumers within the meaning of the Policy. Respondent is using Domain Names which are confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. Therefore, he is attracting Internet users and misleading consumers searching for Complainant."

• d) The domain names in question were registered in "bad faith" according to the following conclusions of the Panelist:
  • i) That "the evidence does support the allegation that Respondent is attracting Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites," although "the evidence that Respondent is engaging in commercial activity is inconclusive."
  • ii) That "There is no dispute that Respondent had actual knowledge of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its practices at the time he registered the Domain Names."
  • iii) "An additional factor found to support a finding of bad faith is Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant’s Marks when Respondent registered the Domain Names. When considered with the attraction of Internet users using a likelihood of confusion, the Panel finds this evidence sufficient to support a finding that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)."

Based on these conclusions, WIPO ordered "that the Domain Names be transferred to Complainant."

[edit] Doctrinal position

The group holds^[17] to certain Adventist beliefs,^[18] such as the observance of the seventh day Sabbath, avoiding unclean meats, death as a sleep, the investigative judgment, and an imminent Second Coming of Christ.

The more notable doctrines include: an experience of complete victory over known sins for the born again believer, a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity,^[19] a complete separation of Church and State (i.e., a rejection of the idea that governmental agencies possess the authority to intrude upon freedom of religion), the keeping of New Moons, and religious accountability for a church's actions. The observance of some of the Annual Feasts found in the Old Testament and use of the names יהוה (Yahweh) and יהושע (Yahshua) for the Father and Son of the Godhead in worship are generally practiced by members, although these are not dogmatically taught.^[20] While differing from modern Seventh-day Adventists on the matters listed above^[21], their doctrines regarding religious accountability, rejecting the Trinity, separation of Church and State, and victory over all known sins were practiced and observed by early prominent Adventist leaders.^[22][23][24]

The CSDA Church holds strict views on church membership, claiming that once one has come into unity with Christ, unity with His Church (which they hold to be themselves) will be the natural result, with one not being valid while rejecting the other.^[25] Unlike the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the CSDA constituency has voted the returning of tithes as a test of fellowship,^[26] using the reasoning of Malachi 4:8 (KJV): "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings." As a failure to return tithes is considered stealing, they reason a violation of tithing to be an example of robbery and thus a transgression of the eighth commandment.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Official website