The MerikaThe MerikaThe MerikaThe MerikaThe Merikay Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Caseaseaseasease

It is well-known that theMerikay Silver case repre-sented a turning point in ourmodern church.

It was the first time that,on a large scale, many of ourchurch members awoke to anintransigent situation imposedby part of church leadership.

Later would come the1980s—and the new theologyinroads, the Davenport de-bacle, the AHS $2 billion debt,the approval of exorbitantwages for certain workers, theCelebration worship, hypno-tism retreats, and much more.

But it was the Merikay Sil-ver case which first arousedwidespread controversy—something which not even theEvangelical Conferences, ofthe 1950s, or the Daniel Com-mittee conclusions, of the1960s, had done.

Here, briefly, is the story ofthe Merikay Silver case—viewed from over twenty yearsafter it began.

Merikay was born into theMcCleod family in 1946. While astudent at Grand Ledge Academyin Michigan, Merikay McLeodstudied the book, Great Contro-versy, in class one semester. Ap-parently she had not previouslycome in contact with it. She wasan imaginative type, and the grip-ping scenes and suspense in thatbook caught her imagination. So,when her teacher asked the classto write a story about the time oftrouble, she set to work in herdormitory room—and completeda 45-page story in less than twodays, which she titled Now!

Classmates and friends mim-

eographed and distributed copiesof it. Eventually, FordyceDetamore, our leading evangelistin the early 1950s, was so im-pressed with it that his family hadit printed as a small booklet. Soonit had an even wider circulation.Within five years, over 100,000copies were sold.

There is always danger in writ-ing a fiction story on closingevents, since subtle errors cancreep in and be accepted by themind. But no matter; people likedthe excitement and drama inMerikay’s little book.

Kim Silver was one of the hun-dreds of people who wrote tothank her for writing that vividstory. But he was different thanthe others: He kept writing andcalling, and in 1968 they weremarried.

1971While she was a freshman at

Andrews University, Max Phillips,working at the time on the stu-dent newspaper at Andrews Uni-versity, encouraged her to write aguest column for the campus pa-per. Several years later (June1971), Max phoned to the Silverhome in Seattle, Washington, andtold Merikay he was now work-ing in the editorial offices of thePacific Press at Mountain View,California. He said they had anopening for an assistant book edi-tor; would she be interested in ap-plying for the job?

Of those being considered forthe position, most had a collegedegree. But the editors, quite im-pressed with Merikay’s little bookand her other published articles,decided to hire her.

Little had been said at the timeabout what her salary would be,

but she had been told it would benear that of a book editor. Thewoman she replaced had beenreceiving approximately $600 amonth. But, upon her arrival atthe Press in June 1971, Merikayfound that she would only be re-ceiving about $400 a month. (Byway of comparison, clerk-typistsin central California at that timewere receiving $300-400 amonth.) She was told that only abook editor with a college degreecould receive $600. If they hadtold her this while the couple werestill in Seattle, the following storywould not have been told.

Upon their arrival, Kim andMerikay were thrilled with her op-portunity to help prepare booksat Pacific Press. But Kim had a dif-ficult time finding work in thearea, and living costs were quitehigh throughout the greater SanJose area.

Then Kim lost his job, and, tryas he might, was unable to findanother. The couple were in a fi-nancial crunch and somethinghad to be done. Their apartmentalone was $200 a month.

Dramatic changes can begin insuch little ways. On May 22,1972, Merikay went to her bossto ask for a raise. The Adventistworld in North America wouldnever be the same again.

The Pacific Press was an un-likely place for the earthquake totake place. It was such a conser-vative place. Most of the workerswere middle-aged or older, andmany were returned overseasmissionaries nearing retirement.

Here is the story of what hap-pened:

Early on, Merikay met Lorna

Part One of threePart One of threePart One of threePart One of threePart One of three

22222 WWWWWaaaaaymarksymarksymarksymarksymarksTobler, who became one of herclosest friends. Lorna was secre-tary to Lawrence Maxwell, the edi-tor of Signs of the Times. She hadworked all her adult life (20 years)as an office secretary in thechurch. Married to Gustov Tobler,a minister, they were now at Pa-cific Press, because he was a for-eign language editor.

Frequently, Merikay would lis-ten as Lorna discussed her petpeeve: the need for equal work op-portunities for women in the de-nomination. Lorna was a remark-ably strong-minded individualand complemented Merikay, who,in contrast, tried to please her su-periors in order to avoid confron-tations.

1972In January 1972, Merikay

learned that her co-worker, MaxPhillips, was receiving 60 percentmore in wages than she was. —Yet they were doing the very samework! Astounded, she went to hersupervisor, Richard Utt (Englishlanguage book editor at the Press),and asked why she was paid solittle, when she was doing equalwork with Max.

Utt explained that the PacificPress was on the “head-of-house-hold” plan, and Max had a familyto support, while she didn’t. Thatsounded reasonable.

Time passed. But then, inMarch 1972, Kim lost his job. Un-able to obtain another one, thetwo talked it over and Merikaycame up with a bright idea: Shewould ask the Press for head-of-household status, and that wouldbring enough of a pay raise to tidethem over until Kim could com-plete studies for a better payingjob. She mentioned it to Max, andhe thought it was a good idea. Hehad just finished putting his wifethrough her bachelor’s degree; sowhy could not Merikay do the

same for her husband?But when Merikay mentioned

the idea to Lorna Tobler, she hadan odd smile and was not so sure.Although a strong advocate of“equal pay for equal work,” Lornadoubted that Merikay would begiven the raise.

Shortly afterward, Lornafound a copy of the new WageScale, published by the GeneralConference. Slated to go into ef-fect on July 1, it said this:

“The wage scale provides onebasic salary scale for each jobclassification based on educationand experience to all employeeswithout discrimination on the ba-sis of race, religion, sex, age, na-tional origin or color, with mini-mums and maximums expressedin percentages as well as in dol-lar amounts per month.

“While no recognition of thedifference in financial responsi-bilities between those who areheads of families and those whoare not is given in the basic wagescale, it is recognized that the dif-ferences are to be provided in theliving allowance granted.

“On the basis of need deter-mined by maritial status, depen-dents and financial responsibility,an additional amount of moneymay be paid to employees with-out discrimination on the basis ofrace, religion, sex, age, nationalorigin or color.”—General Confer-ence Wage Scale, July 1, 1972revision.

The new wage scale had beenprompted by a change in govern-ment laws. Would Pacific Pressabide by those laws? Surely, theywould.

When Richard Utt heard aboutit, he sent a letter to Bohner re-questing an appointment forMerikay to meet with him to dis-cuss the matter. In his letter, he

rather completely outlined whather request would be.

In the interim, Kim worriedabout the forthcoming interview.The more he thought about it, themore worried he became. Then herecalled a lecture he attended ear-lier. It had been given by an attor-ney, Joan Kirt Bradford. At hisurging, the couple stopped by heroffice. Bradford was a decisive,hard-hitting attorney. As soon asthey explained their situation, shesnapped that Pacific Press had anillegal wage standard, and didthey want her to start a lawsuit?

They quickly said No. Theyjust wanted to know if it was legalfor Merikay to ask for a raise.

As they drove home, Kim felteven worse. He told Merikay that,although he felt she should askfor the raise, the request wouldonly bring trouble.

May 22, 1972, dawned. It wasa big day for them. In later yearseveryone would agree it was a bigday for the church.

Kim had registered for sum-mer school at San Jose State Uni-versity. It also began that day. Be-fore leaving for school, he toldMerikay to be sure to take Maxwith her, when she asked Bohnerfor the pay raise.

Arriving at work, Merikay toldLorna she ought to get the raise,since both the General Conferenceand the government agreed. ButLorna was not so sure. Then Maxsaid it was time to go to Bohner’soffice.

After some hems and haws,specifically she asked for the“same compensation and benefitsas a married man doing the samework.” Merikay was married, andher husband was out of work andneeded to take a job retrainingcourse.

In response to her request, El-

the merikathe merikathe merikathe merikathe merikay silver cy silver cy silver cy silver cy silver caseaseaseasease 33333der Bohner said Max had an ad-vanced degree, and six years’ ex-perience. In contrast, he said thatshe had no degree and had doneeditorial work less than one year.

After this, the conversationrambled back and forth for a time.Bohner did not appreciate beingreminded by Max that there weremen working at the Press, receiv-ing head-of-houshold status,whose wives were earning $500to $800 a month.

Finally, when Merikay keptpressing the matter, Bohnerhinted that her employment couldbe terminated if she did not dropit.

Bohner repeated it the nextday, when he sent word to Merikayvia Richard Utt that, if she kepturging the matter, he would tellUtt to look for a replacement.

On the 24rd, the ExecutiveCommittee met, and Bohner an-grily told them about Merikay’s re-quest. During the meeting, the1964 Civil Rights Act came up inthe discussion, but hardly anyoneknew anything about it.

Always helpful and always re-markably bold, later that dayLorna stopped by Bohner’s officeand told him about Title VII ofthat 1964 Civil Rights Act (whichspeaks about equal pay for equalwork). Bohner responded by say-ing he felt certain that a companycould pay anything it wants, re-gardless of what any outsideagency—including the govern-ment—might say.

Although Bohner was still liv-ing in the clouds, Max thoughtbest to wake him up if possible. Agrowing number of people at thePress realized that a thunder-cloud was ready to burst if some-thing was not done. On the 26th,Max wrote Bohner an inner-officememo, giving him the names, ad-dresses, and phone numbers of

the Equal Employment Opportu-nities Commission—so he couldlearn some things he needed toknow.

The weeks passed, and gradu-ally, as nothing was done, prob-lems escalated. On May 31,Merikay confided by phone in thatattorney, Joan Bradford. She toldher that Bohner might call herinto his office and yell at her, andshe was worried.

In response, Bradford offeredto write Bohner a letter and offerto help legalize the Press’s employ-ment practices. That soundedgood, but little did she realizewhat was coming.

The next day, she drove withKim to Bradford’s office. Onceagain, Bradford offered to sue thePress. Merikay did not think thatwould be necessary.

But when, on June 1, 1972,Joan Bradford wrote Bohner, herletter was very official in its pre-sentation of government regula-tions. The letter concluded by

stating that all further communi-cation to Mrs. Silver regardingthese matters must be madethrough Bradford’s office.

As you might imagine, thatsent a shock wave through thePress management. Bohner wasin a rage. Richard Utt was furi-ous.

In the days that followed,Lorna, her husband Gus, andMax all visited Elder Bohner’s of-fice and tried to explain the grav-ity of the situation to him.

But Bohner told Lorna thatMerikay would never receiveequal pay with men, since womenwere not worth as much as men.

Weeks passed, and Bradfordwas amazed that the Press hadsent no response to her letter.

In the middle of the nextmonth (July), Bradford finally re-ceived a response. The Press hadhired an attorney, Don McNeil, torepresent them. In his letter toBradford, McNeil stated that thePress was breaking no laws, and

ernment required them to pay alittle more than that, it would notbe a violation of the Ten Command-ments to do so.

2 - We should not obey thelaws of the government, whenthat obedience would cause us toviolate the laws of God.

This brings us to the astound-ing part of this matter: The infor-mation is available (although we donot have space here to include it)that, for decades, our church lead-ers have acquiesced to governmentdemands that our members breakthe Decalogue,—yet, in certaincases in which no moral issueswere involved, our leaders have vig-orously fought obedience to govern-ment regulations!

Why do we always seem to geteverything backwards?

SHOULD OUR CHURCH OBEYTHE LAWS OF THE LAND?

In view of the predictions inGreat Controversy about the se-verity of coming events, should weobey the laws that governmentimposes on us?

1 - We should obey the lawsof the government when they donot run counter to the laws ofGod.

But in the Merikay Silver case,that which was at issue waswhether or not the church wouldhave to pay its workers a higherwage. Although the Spirit of Proph-ecy warns us not to ask for or payexorbitant wages, that was not anissue here.

The desire on the part of ourleaders to practice strict economy,and provide sacrificial wages to allwas commendable. But if the gov-

44444 WWWWWaaaaaymarksymarksymarksymarksymarks

More WAYMARKS - from —Continued on the next tract

PILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTHCR 77, BOX 38A - BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN 37305

that there was “no discrimina-tion.” This implied that womenand men at the Press were beingpaid equally, in accordance withtheir job descriptions. AsBradford told Merikay about it,she urged her to file suit. Butagain Merikay said No.

Replying to McNeil’s letter onthe 20th, Bradford notified himthat the Press was not in harmonywith government regulations, norwith the July 1 General Confer-ence wage provisions.

All the while, in an effort toavert the coming storm, Lorna,Max, and Gus kept writing lettersto Len Bohner, the Press manager,and R.R. Bietz, the board chair-man of Pacific Press and presidentof the Pacific Union.

At the same time, Lorna wasbusy gathering information. Shehad worked at the Press for years,and was well-liked. Sympatheticwomen employees provided herwith photocopies of all their payscale records. Lorna put the data

into orderly charts for compari-son, which revealed that womenwere consistently paid less thanmen.

In the weeks that passed,more letters and confrontationsoccurred.

One day in August, Bietz ar-rived at the Press, spoke withLorna, and then asked to speakalone with Merikay. But she fearedhe would erupt with fury asBohner had done. Frightened, shecalled Bradford, who told her torefuse to meet with him. Bradfordthen wrote McNeil a letter, declar-ing that Press management couldno longer meet alone withMerikay.

That, of course, only added tothe imponderable wall that wasbuilding, brick by brick.

In August, Lorna met withboth Elder R.R. Bietz, presidentof the Pacific Union, and ElderRobert Pierson, president of theGeneral Conference. Both as-sured her that everything would

be worked out. When Lorna askedto address the October 13 boardmeeting, Bietz said the agendawas already full.

But after the board met, Lornalearned that about all on itsagenda was discussions aboutMerikay and Lorna.

In November the AnnualCouncil convened, and also dis-cussed the problem. But nothinghappened—except that Gus wastransferred to the German pub-lishing house. Merikay was terri-fied; for, without Lorna, she couldnot make it. Lorna assured hershe would not leave.

By this time, the matter hadbecame a grand crusade to freewomen from the shackles of amale-imposed wage structure.Many women workers throughoutthe nation were secretly encour-aging the two women to continuewaging the war on their behalf.

On November 7, both womenfiled complaints with the EqualEmployment Opportunities Com-mission (EEOC).

About this time, an investiga-tor (Guy Guerrero) from the Wageand Hour Division of the Depart-ment of Labor came to inspectPress employment records. Butlater checking revealed that incor-rect data had been supplied tothat government investigator.Upon seeing copies of the recordswhich confirmed the deception,Guerrero was astonished, andstrode down the hall to the officeof Elder Bohner to ask him aboutthis matter. Surely, there must bea misunderstanding!

But that which followed wasmore surprising than learning thedata was fallacious. Upon enter-ing Bohner’s office, the Press man-ager flew into a rage—and ordered

WAS OURHEAD-OF-HOUSEHOLDRULE REALLY GOOD?

The basic issue, in the Meri-kay Silver case, was whetherwomen should receive a smallersalary than men doing the verysame classification and level ofwork.

But also involved was ourchurch’s head-of-household rule:When a person has a family tosupport, he should receive extrapay.

Was that a bad rule? It was ac-tually a very good one.

One problem with head-of-household was that it was madeapplicable by leadership to menworkers, and not women. Thatwas unfortunate, and should nothave occurred.

A second problem was that,according to the government regu-

lations, workers doing the samework should receive the same pay,yet head-of-household wouldgrant one worker a higher paythan another working beside him.

Yet, in itself, the head-of-household rule was a good one.It is very unfortunate that the Sil-ver and Tobler cases eliminatedit.

Head-of-household helped awage earner support his family, sohis wife could stay home and carefor the children—and not have togo to work and leave them in thecare of another! As such, it wasextremely beneficial in its moraleffect on the home as a whole, andespecially on the training and nur-ture of the children in that home.

In the view of the presentwriter, head-of-household shouldbe practiced everywhere.

Guerrero ousted!After lunch, Guerrero phoned

Merikay. Thoroughly upset, hetold her that Bohner had thrownhim out of his office, and yelledthat the next time they see himwould be in court. The investiga-tor then asked Merikay if shewanted EEOC to file suit for her.She said she could not decidedthat just then. Guerrero repliedthat if she did not do so, they weregoing to sue the Press on theirown. Bohner had made a gravemistake in not calmly talking tothe man.

When Kim heard what hadhappened, he encouraged hiswife, Merikay, to sue.

The next month (December),Gus left for the Hamburg Publish-ing House in Germany. Lorna didnot go with him. More timepassed.

1973Then, on January 31, 1973,

eight months after her original re-quest for a raise, Merikay Silverfiled a civil action against the Pa-cific Press. It was entered as aclass action suit on behalf of her-self and the other women whoworked there. Merikay was 26years old.

When it began, Civil Action#C-73 0168 CBR was a simplediscrimination case, in violationof the Title VII section of the CivilRights Act.

Pacific Press responded to thesuit by filing a statement throughits attorney, Donald McNeil, onMarch 26, 1973. While admittingthat, during a portion of the time,it had not paid Merikay the funds

The MerikaThe MerikaThe MerikaThe MerikaThe Merikay Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Caseaseaseasease

Continued from the preceding tract in this series as head-of-household to whichshe was entitled,—all other dis-criminatory practices were de-nied.

In mid-June 1973, Merikaymailed an information sheet to ev-ery woman at the Press, explain-ing what was happening. At thetime, only a few of the womenworkers supported Merikay’s ac-tion. In addition to a brief expla-nation about the federal law, sheinvited the women workers to at-tend a meeting on the evening ofJune 25, at a nearby meeting hall.Nearly 50 women came and satquietly as Joan Bradford spokeand discussed the situation, andthen asked for questions. Thenext day, management was tryingto find out who had attended themeeting.

On August 17, Joan Bradfordtook a law clerk and went to thePress and examined its wage andhour records, books, and files.Eight hours of research revealedthat not one woman in the entirepublishing house was paid on thesalary scale; all were hourly work-ers. In contrast, all the men in theeditorial department were sala-ried on the administrative level.It was noted that Merikay wasbeing paid at the clerk-typist level.

Shortly after, Gus wrote fromthe Hamburg Publishing House,that he was under terrific pres-sure to get her over there—or elsehe might be fired. But Lorna de-cided she must stay in MountainView.

By September, Kim was be-coming disgusted with the endlesswaiting for a resolution to the le-gal process. The tension was get-ting him down.

On November 1, Elder Bietz

filed an affidavit with the court,stating that “virtually all” thewomen at the Press did not wishto be part of the suit. Nine pagesof petitions with 188 names wereaffixed.

In response, Bradford filedthree affidavits: one from Lornaand the other two from otherPress employees. One womanwrote that many others were sym-pathetic to the suit but feared togo public, lest they be fired.

On the basis of this, the judgecertified the case to proceed as aclass action suit.

(Later, when the court sent outnotices about the suit, 46 womenat the Press directly or indirectlyjoined the action.)

On October 12, 1973, thePress treasurer, William L. Muir,handed Lorna a note informingher that her employment wouldbe terminated on or before Octo-ber 31, “in order that you mayreturn to Germany to be with yourhusband” who had arrived thereten months earlier. The reasongiven was that the Euro-AfricaDivision was “insistent” that shebe with her husband.

On the 19th, Lorna wrote thePress that it would “certainly beviewed by the law as a reprisal,and I myself can explain it in noother way.” She also noted thatshe and her husband were asunited in spirit as ever; there wasno family problem of any kind.

Did Lorna wait for a reply? Weknow that the same day she filedcharges with the EEOC that shehad been discharged as an act ofretaliation for her support of Mrs.Silver.

At this, the Press backed

Part two of threePart two of threePart two of threePart two of threePart two of three

66666 WWWWWaaaaaymarksymarksymarksymarksymarksdown, and said the word “termi-nated,” in its letter, had been mis-interpreted, and that she was stillan employee at the Press andcould continue to work there.

On December 1, the presidentof the Pacific Union, W.J. (Jack)Blacker, replaced Bohner as man-ager of the Press. Blacker washighly experienced in churchmanagement, and church leader-ship hoped he could help resolvethe problem.

On December 10, a new de-velopment occurred. BruceWickwire, head of the GeneralConference Publishing Depart-ment, sent word to the managerof all three North American pub-lishing houses that they shouldaccept no more book or articlemanuscripts from Merikay Silver,without first counseling with hisoffice. And no copy was sent toMerikay.

1974By this time, the two ladies

were in the habit of starting newlegal actions. So, on January 17,1974, she filed retaliation chargeswith the EEOC.

What had once been a smalldispute, was rapidly becoming agreat mountain of law suits.

Shortly afterward, Merikay re-ceived a phone call from Neal C.Wilson. He said he wanted to visitwith her on February 22.

About 9:30 a.m. on the 22nd,Wilson arrived at her home. Heappeared remarkably friendly,and they spoke together for hours.The entire morning is spent hap-pily discussing a variety of pleas-ant topics.

Eventually he switched theconversation to the Press, andthey began talking more seriously.Several more hours passed, butWilson appeared to be trying toremain understanding in all thatwas discussed. Merikay was an

emotionally driven individual,and Wilson’s intention appearedto be to establish a warm friend-ship, in the hope that he mightlater be able to sway her at somelater time.

Amid assurances that thebrethren were easy to work with,and that everything would workout, he finally left.

In mid-March, Wilson phonedMerikay twice, and said the breth-ren were willing to discuss theproblems with her and try to re-solve them. But when she went toan April meeting with Blacker, hewas sullen and refused to saymuch.

Afterward, Max told Merikaythat Utt was preparing to fire her.

Early the next month, thecourt decided to rule on whetherto accept the Press’s petition tocancel the class action suit—andonly make it Merikay’s own suit.Judge Renfrew ruled that thewomen would decide the matter.

In order to influence that de-cision, Blacker read a letter, fromAttorney McNeil at the April 8chapel period at the Press, thatthe names of all women, and howthey voted, would be made publicby the Press. So everyone wouldknow who had chosen to be partof the class action suit.

Many women immediatelyphoned Lorna to tell her theydared not be in the class suit,since their names would be re-vealed. But, ultimately, the judgestill ruled that the suit would re-main class action.

About this time, Gus phonedLorna, saying that the dream ofhis life was being offered to him:He had grown up in the SwissAlps, and now he was being of-fered managership of the Swisspublishing house (Advent Pub-lishers [Advent Verlag], inKrattigen, Switzerland)—but only

if Lorna would return to Europeto be with him.

Once again Lorna eased Meri-kay’s fears, by telling her that shewould remain at Pacific Press.

On August 31, Kim packed hisbelongings and left. He went backto Seattle to work with his brother.Merikay admitted she had be-come hard to live with, but deeplyloved Kim and was heartbrokento see him go. They would neverbe successfully reunited.

In September, the EEOCstarted its own lawsuit against thePress, by filing a preliminary in-junction. This was the third suitagainst Pacific Press. Its objectivewas to stop the alleged retaliatoryactions against Merikay andLorna.

A major turning point in thelitigation occurred in November1974. The Press hired Malcolm T.Dungan, a constitutional lawyerwith the San Francisco Firm ofBrobeck, Phleger, and Harrison,as the head attorney instead ofDonald McNeil.

It was his assignment to de-fine the position of the Press andthe church in the matter. Work-ing closely with church leaders,he devised a new approach to thematter: The defense would nolonger be a matter of whether thechurch had obeyed employmentand salaries regulations; instead,the matter would be one of reli-gious liberty! In other words, thechurch did not have to obey anysuch laws, since there was a sepa-ration of church and state!

Obviously, such a position, re-lating as it did to non-religiousmatters—if approved by thecourts—would set the churchabove the laws of the land!

We all fully agree with notobeying the laws of man, whenthey run counter to the laws of

the merikathe merikathe merikathe merikathe merikay silver cy silver cy silver cy silver cy silver caseaseaseasease 77777God. But regulations regardingwage differentials are in a differ-ent category.

According to Dungan, the gov-ernment had no right to becomeinvolved in the internal affairs ofthe church—regardless of whatthose affairs might be. It wasstated that the entire matter was“a church controversy whichought to be resolved within thechurch and according to the doc-trine of the church.”

The reasoning went like this:The Pacific Press is part of thechurch, and all church workersare “ministers.” The case was,therefore, a controversy betweenthe church and one of its minis-ters, Merikay Silver. As the Press’slegal brief said:

“Just as the initial freedom ofselecting a minister is a matter ofchurch administration and gov-ernment, so are the functionswhich accompany such a selection. . Matters of church governmentand administration are beyondthe purview of civil authorities.”

In order to strengthen this po-sition, the church’s leaders, to-gether with their lawyers, went astep further: They stated that theauthority of the Seventh-day Ad-ventist Church was entirely fromthe top down! The term used todescribe it was “hierarchical.”

The church was described ashaving “orders of ministers,” withdifferent levels of authority, and a“first minister” at the top: ElderPierson.

To counter this, Merikay’s at-torney charged that this repre-sented a major change in the tra-ditional Adventist view. It was saidthat church leaders were takingon themselves powers which theydid not properly possess. Even theChurch Manual, it was stated, rancontrary to this “hierarchical”view.

Because the trial judge (Ren-frew) was Episcopalian, a mem-ber of a church with a very differ-ent church structure, these pre-sentations, by church leaders,tended to liken the AdventistChurch to that of the Catholic; theimplication was that all the menemployees were priests, and allthe women were nuns—and thechurch was a vast cloisteredhouse.

In response, Merikay’s attor-ney noted that the AdventistChurch was anti-Catholic. Farfrom having any similarity to theCatholic governmental system, itactually abhorred popery and allthat it stood for!

In order to counter that fact,our leadership went on record, ina U.S. federal court of law, as say-ing that the Seventh-day Adven-tist Church no longer was “anti-Roman Catholic” in its beliefs!

Reprinted below is the single,most astounding paragraph in allthe Pacific Press legal statements.It appears as an added commentover the name of Neal C. Wilson,who, at that time, was vice-presi-dent of the North American Divi-sion:

“Although it is true that therewas a period in the life of the Sev-enth-day Adventist Church whenthe denomination took a distinctlyanti-Roman Catholic viewpoint,and the term ‘hierarchy’ was usedin a pejorative [derogatory, dispar-aging] sense to refer to the papalform of church government, thatattitude on the church’s part wasnothing more than a manifesta-tion of widespread anti-poperyamong conservative Protestantdenominations in the early partof this century and the latter partof the last, and which has nowbeen consigned to the historicaltrash heap so far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is con-

cerned.”Truly, that statement is noth-

ing less than sensational in its im-plications! (1) Our denominationonce considered “hierarchy” to bea terrible form of government,since it was the form used by thepapacy. But we no longer considera “top controlling everything be-low it” form of church governmentto be bad. (2) Although earlier inour history our church held to adefinite anti-Catholic position, weare no longer in any sense “anti-Catholic.”

Therefore we must now bepro-Catholic!

Notice that the anti-Catholicpositions and beliefs have been“consigned to the historical trashheap.” First, what is it you put ona trash heap? It is not merelyideas or words; it is writings! Sec-ond, what is the special writingwhich defines our anti-Catholicpositions—more clearly than anyother? It is the book, Great Con-troversy!

The implications of this arefantastic.

But, say some, that was just astatement by the lawyers. (Ourleaders, in an attempt to excuseit away, later said just that.) Notso. First, you can know that ev-ery word in those papers, submit-ted to the court by the PacificPress, was inspected and OK’d byupper leadership. Second, thatparticular statement was over thename of N.C. Wilson, as author.

On May 13, 1974, the annualmeeting of the constituency of thePacific Press met. The workers atthe Press constituted the constitu-ency, and each year they routinelyvoted in, as new members, allthose workers who had beenhired in the previous 12 months.

But at this meeting, a secretballot was used on each name

88888 WWWWWaaaaaymarksymarksymarksymarksymarks

More WAYMARKS - from —Continued on the next tract

PILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTHCR 77, BOX 38A - BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN 37305

separately—and Merikay’s namewas not approved. Because it wasnot, Merikay filed retaliationcharges with the EEOC.

On November 21, Judge Ren-frew ruled that the Press shouldstop harassing the two women.Over lunch that day, Bradford toldMerikay that she should sueWickwire for writing that letter.But Merikay says she cannot doit, knowing he was just a pawnwriting a letter he was told towrite.

The Opening Brief for the De-fendants (the Press) was filed onDecember 4. Here are a few of itsintriguing statements:

3:26-29 - “The only properdisposition is to get this contro-versy out of the courthouse atonce, and back into the Churchwhere it belongs, where it can bedealt with by the ecclesiasticalauthorities.”

29:13-18 - “Just as the initialfreedom of selecting a minister isa matter of church administrationand government, so are the func-tions which accompany such a se-lection. It is unavoidably true thatthese functions, among others, in-clude the determination of aminister’s salary.”

29:28-29 - “What the churchcannot tolerate is for members tobring church disputes into civilcourts.”

73:12-14 - “It follows that theChurch, including the GeneralConference, the departments, andthe institutions, are entitled to theprotections of the first Amend-ment.”

73:15-21 - “At bottom, this issimply a case of schism. Mrs. Sil-ver and Mrs. Tobler have decidedthat they know better than do theElders of the Church how theChurch should behave itself in re-lation to anti-discrimination laws.

The Church per contra has exer-cised its authority to declare thatMrs. Silver is at variance and hasa tendency to ignore Christiancounsel. Such disputes are not forjudicial arbitrament.”

89:9-11 - “Laws designed toenforce fairness to workers in acommercial setting are not de-signed to operate in an ecclesias-tical one.”

89:27-28 - “The wage policy ofa church cannot be determined bythe government.”

The above positions may seemremarkable, but it should be keptin mind that church leaders weretrying to identify our church as es-sentially identical in structure andfunction to that of the RomanCatholic Church. A Catholic priesthas no say over the salary he willreceive; a nun would not dare askfor a raise.

90:2-5 - “Those who work forthe Seventh-day Adventist Churchrespond to a religious vocation inexactly the same sense as does acloistered nun. Man’s law is by itsvery nature not applicable. Ces-sante legis, cessat ipsa lex.”

1975Then, on February 14, 1975,

the General Conference ExecutiveCommittee met in a special Fri-day morning session and voted torecommend to Pacific Press thatit “discontinue the employment”of Merikay and Lorna. The rea-son given was that Merikay Silverand Lorna Tobler should not havesued the church.

We are not recommending law-suits; they are never good. Thepoint here is that church leaderswere decrying member lawsuitsagainst the denomination, whenthe denomination had filed manysuits against members! More onthis later in this study.

“Whereas Merikay Silver and

Lorna Tobler have sued the Sev-enth-day Adventist Church . . :Voted, that the General Confer-ence Committee . . reluctantly rec-ommends to the PPPA board thatMerikay Silver and Lorna Toblerbe discontinued from church em-ployment.”

The action also recommendedthat their local church boards benotified of the matter.

On the evening of February 16,Blacker initiated action at theMountain View Church to haveLorna disfellowshipped. It waspostponed till the next boardmeeting.

The next day, Max contactedMerikay and asked her to stopspeaking to him at work. He saidBlacker had called him into hisoffice—and threatened to fire himif spoke again to Merikay. He saidhe and his wife, Jeanette, wouldbe in a terrible situation if he losthis job.

On Wednesday, February 19,the Press board voted to dischargethe two women, as of the next day.

On Thursday, a friend toldMerikay and Lorna about theGeneral Conference action. If theycould be terminated from employ-ment, this would effectively stopthe class-action suit.

Immediately afterward, Meri-kay received a startling phone call.

A friend from college days,Bob Ruskjer, phoned from south-ern California and told Merikayhe had collected an 18-inch thickstack of papers—dozens of docu-ments, and all of them lawsuitsinitiated by the church against itsmembers. Ruskjer promised to flyup to the Bay Area and bringthem. These documents, pre-sented in court, would disprove a

Bradford. Included were over ahundred cases that the churchand N.C. Wilson had taken partin.

On the evening of March 3, theMountain View Church boardmet. It was well-known thatBlacker fully intended to getLorna disfellowshipped at thatmeeting. But the local church wassplit over the issue and, duringan intermission, Blacker was qui-etly told that papers were in handabout a lawsuit by a memberagainst the church which he hadencouraged. He was told that if hecalled for Lorna’s disfellowship-ping, a call for his own wouldprobably follow.

The rest of the evening passeduneventfully. No further mentionwas made of Lorna’s membershipstatus.

On March 13, 1975, a hear-ing was begun to consider the re-quest of Silver and Tobler to re-main in their Press jobs until theSilver vs. PPPA trial began. Itlasted several days.

All of the following (fromMarch 13 through 21) can be readin the trail transcripts of case C-74-2025 CBR, Volume I:

In his opening statement,Dungan said, “The Pacific PressPublishing Association is ownedand operated by the General Con-ference of the Seventh-day Adven-tists, which is the Seventh-day Ad-ventist Church.” Gasps went upfrom many of the Adventists in thecourtroom at that audaciousclaim.

John Glenn, representing theEEOC, replied that the Press wasnot a church. Using a church-

key argument by the Press in itsfiled court papers.

On Friday, February 21, theEEOC immediately applied for atemporary restraining orderagainst the firing of the twowomen until the EEOC vs. PacificPress trial was concluded. Animmediate hearing at the federalbuilding in San Francisco wasarranged to decide the matter.

As the hearing began, MalcolmDungan strode to a position be-fore the judge and said, “YourHonor, we are here today to dis-cuss the religious discipline achurch has seen fit to administerto its erring ministers. The termi-nation of Lorna Tobler andMerikay Silver is religious disci-pline against two very schismaticministers of the church.”

After hearing Dungan for atime, Judge Renfrew interruptedhim: “Pacific Press has interferedwith the court’s decision-makingability by taking upon itself the de-cision to change the status quoand fire these women.”

Renfrew then ordered that thewomen be back to work at thePress by Tuesday.

Sabbath morning, the 22nd,Merikay learned that the confer-ence had removed Elder LeonardMills from the pastorate of herchurch (the Milpitas SDAChurch), because of a child-mo-lestation charge by a parent. Millshad consistently refused to disfel-lowship Merikay. With him gone,leadership would be in a betterposition to take her membership.

Early in March, Bob Ruskjerbrought the court cases to Joan

Continued from the preceding tract in this series

The MerikaThe MerikaThe MerikaThe MerikaThe Merikay Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Cy Silver Caseaseaseaseaseowned hospital as an example, hesaid: “The true test of that is notthe individual affiliation of themembers . . [if] all are Catholicsor if it is controlled by Catholics,the hospital does not, therefore,become a Catholic Church.”

Both sides knew that an im-portant factor would be ElderMills’ testimony that Merikay wasin good and regular standing athis church. This was important,since only church members couldwork at the Press. But, during thenoon break, Bradford overheardN.C. Wilson threatening Mills withfiring and disfellowshipment, if hetestified in Merikay’s behalf!

But to the surprise of every-one who knew about the threat,under oath, Elder Mills said notone negative word againstMerikay. Joan Bradford askedhim straight-forward questionsand he replied with simple, truth-ful answers. Only by lying couldhe avoid the threatened doom.

The first afternoon was filledwith Dungan trying to prove thecourt had no jurisdiction in thecase, and John Rea (from EEOC)and Bradford trying to prove thatthe General Conference had no ju-risdiction over the local congre-gation.

The next day at the hearing,Dungan asserted that our churchstructure is “hierarchical,” andthe General Conference has theauthority to order any memberfired from employment or disfel-lowshipped from his or her localchurch.

Bradford then called FloydRittenhouse, a retired Adventistcollege president, to the witnessstand to refute that notion.

On Monday, March 17, BobRuskjer testified regarding the

Part three of threePart three of threePart three of threePart three of threePart three of three

1010101010 WWWWWaaaaaymarksymarksymarksymarksymarkslawsuits instigated by the denomi-nation against its members.

At issue was the right ofchurch members to bring churchproblems into the civil courts. ButMerikay’s attorney, Joan Brad-ford, noted that not long beforean Adventist dentist had leasedoffices in a building owned by theCentral California Conference (theconference where the Pacific Presswas situated). When a misunder-standing arose over the terms ofthe lease, instead of resolving thematter privately with their churchmember—the conference suedhim in the public courts! The den-tist, Earl E. Brenneise, D.D.S,brought a cross-action for de-claratory relief, and won.

To make matters worse, be-fore the conference filed suitagainst him, Brenneise had pledwith them not to initiate it, butinstead to amicably settle it in aninternal church hearing. To top itoff, that plea was submitted in aletter addressed to Elder Blacker,at that time union president, andat the time of the EEOC trial, Pa-cific Press manager!

Other incidents of church vs.member court trials were alsonoted. All in all, Bradford placedinto evidence 124 lawsuits be-tween Adventists and Adventistinstitutions in San BernardinoSuperior Court alone. She pointedout that 98 of those cases hadbeen filed against Adventist insti-tutions, and that all the plaintiffsin all those cases were still em-ployees of the denomination, andmany were still writing for de-nominational publications.

On Wednesday, March 19,Judge Renfrew issued his deci-sion, regarding the motion of thedefense, to throw out the case. Hedenied that motion, which wouldhave permitted the Press to im-mediately fire the two women.

This meant the preliminary hear-ing would continue.

On Wednesday, the 20th, N.C.Wilson, at that time vice presidentfor the North American Division,testified. Under oath he said:

“ ‘Hierarchical,’ to some,would indicate that the authorityemanates from the top and flowsthrough . . The General Confer-ence Committee is the highestauthority in the Seventh-day Ad-ventist Church.”

On paper, the General Confer-ence Session is the highest au-thority, not a group of men atworld headquarters. Everychurch member knows that. But,in reality, the highest authority inthe Seventh-day Adventist Churchought to be God and His InspiredWord, not the opinions or deci-sions of any uninspired men.

In his testimony, repeatedlyWilson said “the church saysthis,” when he should say, “theGeneral Conference says this.”

On March 21, after five daysof hearings, the concluding argu-ments were presented by the at-torneys, and the judge handeddown his decision. He ruled thatthe women must be reinstated intheir jobs under the same condi-tions that had prevailed duringthe two weeks prior to their fir-ing, but that they need not begiven editorial work.

He also ruled that the Presswas not exempt, by taking refugein the First Amendment, fromcomplying with Title VII provi-sions of the Civil Rights Act. Thetrial itself was set for October.

But after the hearing was over,the Press immediately appealedthe decision and applied for a stayof injunction pending appeal. Wewill learn below that, on May 26,it was granted by an appealscourt. This action effectively re-versed Judge Renfrew’s decision,and permitted the Press to go

ahead and terminate the employ-ment of both women. This rever-sal meant that, by firing the twowomen, they would no longer bePress employees and Merikay’ssuit could no longer be a class-action suit. It would have to berefiled as an individual suit.

On April 3, Elder Mills phonedMerikay and told her that his trialhad been thrown out because thewoman’s child refused to say whatthe mother said the child hadsaid.

Mills then said he went to thepolice station and saw the recordsof his case. Within those pages,he learned that his Central Cali-fornia Conference president hadtold the police that both he andhis conference office would coop-erate in any way necessary to se-cure Mills’ conviction and impris-onment.

He told Merikay that, becauseof his honest testimony on the wit-ness stand, he doubted that theconference would permit him tocontinue in the ministry.

On April 3, Blacker wroteMerikay, informing her that shehad been stripped from participa-tion on all editorial committees.

On April 10, all work wastaken from her, and she sat in anempty office room.

On May 26, the appeals courtissued a stay of injunctive relief,which meant the Press could firethe two women.

On Thursday, May 29,Merikay received her terminationnotice and severance pay (about$1,000). She drove home andlearned that Lorna, also fired, wasgoing to Germany to be with Gus.

Because Merikay was nolonger a Press employee, the classaction suit could no longer con-tinue, so, in July, Judge Renfrew

the merikathe merikathe merikathe merikathe merikay silver cy silver cy silver cy silver cy silver caseaseaseasease 1111111111decertified it. By this action,Merikay could no longer representa group of women. Henceforth,she could only represent herselfand only those women who wouldindividually enter the suit with heras plaintiff interveners.

1976 - 1983Ten months later, in May

1976, the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals reversed Renfrew’s deci-sion for EEOC on technical, pro-cedural grounds. The case wasremanded to Renfrew who dis-missed it. That ended the firstEEOC suit (on behalf of Silver).

Two months later, in July, af-ter nearly two years of separation,Merikay and Kim were divorced.They loved one another, but theseemingly endless round of litiga-tion had shattered it. (It would benearly two more years before it fi-nally ended.) To our knowledge,Merikay never remarried.

Thirteen months later, in Au-gust 1977, EEOC filed suit onbehalf of Lorna Tobler. The suitwas filed on retaliation charges(her firing, etc.), and to recoverhead-of-household benefits. Thusbegan the second EEOC suit (onbehalf of Tobler).

Half a year later, in April 1978,the Silver vs. PPPA case finallycame up for trial. (Keep in mindthat this was the first suit, and notan EEOC case.) That morning, be-fore it began, she and her attor-ney, Joan Bradford, agreed tosettle out of court. The amountshe received was $60,000, half ofwhich went to Bradford (who hadworked on the case without pay-ment since January 1973). Theyprobably settled, because theythought it likely they would losein court or on appeal. The classaction part of this suit had alreadybeen eliminated, and that was thepoint Merikay was interested in.Also Bradford probably knew that

EEOC planned to file a new classaction suit soon after.

The next month (May), an-other class action suit was filed;this one by EEOC. It was basedon the evidence gathered byBradford during the Silver vs.PPPA case.

In June 1978, Lorna Tobler’sEEOC case came to trial, and bothsides presented their briefs allover again. Once again, it wasJudge Renfrew who presided. Bythis time, he had learned a lotabout us.

Time dragged by, until Decem-ber 1979, when Renfrew receivedan appointment to the Justice De-partment in Washington D.C.Prior to departure, he had to settleall his outstanding cases. So, inthe Tobler (EEOC) suit, he re-jected the Press’s claim that thegovernment had no right to inter-fere with employment practices.His ruling was against the Press.

Four months later, in April1978, the Press appealedRenfrew’s decision.

Over a year later, in August1981, Spencer Williams (the judgewho replaced Renfrew) ruled in fa-vor of EEOC’s class action suit.This meant that the women at thePress could receive equal pay forequal work.

In May 1982, the appealscourt upheld Renfrew’s ruling inthe Lorna Tobler (EEOC) suit.

That same year, church lead-ers decided not to appeal EEOC(Tobler) vs. PPPA to the SupremeCourt.

Four months later, in Septem-ber, the Press dropped 22 employ-ees (probably because of belt-tight-ening, since they were having topay higher salaries to some work-ers). Max Phillips was called inand given six-months salarysettlement. He had been dropped

WHERE ARE THEY TODAY?

At the time of the writingof her 1985 book, Betrayal,Merikay was no longer achurch member, but in a recent1995 article, it was noted thatshe again is a member. Merikayhas completed a master’s de-gree in religious studies, and isa communications consultantfor the California State Univer-sity system.

Lorna and Gus Tobler nowlive in the San Jose area, whereshe works as a legal assistantin a San Jose law firm. Sheholds several offices in theMountain View Church (includ-ing head deacon and chair ofthe personal ministries com-mittee), where both she andGus have their church mem-bership.

also.In December, the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals decreed that Pa-cific Press would have to pay thejudgment in the Tobler (EEOC)case. In the settlement, whichtook place in February 1983,Lorna was given $77,000 by thePress.

The only item yet remainingwas to pay the other women (140of them) who had been repre-sented in Tobler’s class action suitagainst the Press. In October1983, Judge Williams handeddown a judgment, requiring thePress to deposit over $600,000 ina bank, to be disbursed innontraceable checks to thewomen workers at the Press. InDecember, the money was distrib-uted.

The last Silver/Tobler case hadended.

CONCLUSIONAs we look over the accom-

plishments, and the wreckage, weask ourselves: What were the re-

1212121212 WWWWWaaaaaymarksymarksymarksymarksymarks

More WAYMARKS - from —PILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS RESTPILGRIMS REST

HCR 77, BOX 38A - BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN 37305

SILVER VS. PPPA — January 31, 1973 to April 1978It was filed as a class action suit to recover equal pay for equal work on behalf of the women

working at PPPA. The class action aspect was later thrown out, and Silver settled on the day of the trial.EEOC VS. PPPA, et. al. — August 1974 to March 21, 1975

It was filed to stop illegal harassment and firing of the two women by PPPA. EEOC won.EEOC (Tobler) VS. PPPA — August 1977 to December 1979

It was filed because of PPPA “retaliation,” and designed to recover head-of-household benefits forTobler. EEOC won on her behalf.

EEOC VS. PPPA — May 1978 to December 1983Based on data acquired during Silver vs. PPPA suit, it was filed as a class action suit against PPPA,

on behalf of the women workers. EEOC won.

HOW MANY COURT CASES WERE THERE?

sults?

Most obvious of all was the factthat, during the decade of the liti-gation, the church changed its sal-ary policies. First, single men werepaid the same as married men(head-of-household was elimi-nated). Then married female em-ployees received the same healthand maternity benefits previouslygiven to wives of male employees.Finally, single women received thesame salaries and benefits asmale employees.

In 1985, Merikay wrote abook, entitled Betrayal. An inter-esting title. What and who wasbetrayed?

Merikay betrayed the Press,and exposed it to government in-terference. The Press betrayed thewomen workers by not payingthem an equal amount for equaltime. The excellent head-of-house-hold plan, which enabled moth-ers to stay at home with the chil-dren was betrayed. All the work-ers at the Press were betrayed, forseeking to grasp more, many werelaid off. Pacific Press only took ina certain amount of money, andcould only pay out a certainamount of total wages.

The betrayals at Pacific Presssoon spread throughout the

church in the United States.One effect was layoffs. For ex-

ample, because of the Silver/Tob-ler suits, the church work forcethroughout America was reduced.The reason: The women workershad to be paid more. Many smallchurch schools closed theirdoors; other workers were laid off.

Another effect added momen-tum to the women’s lib movement.It had effectively started in Sep-tember 1973, when Dr. JosephineBenton joined the Sligo Churchin Takoma Park, Maryland, as thefirst female associate pastor of anAmerican Adventist congregation.In 1980, she became the firstAmerican in recent history toserve as senior pastor of a church:the Rockville, Maryland, church.

Winning the war on women’swages (what began as a petition,ended, because of leadership op-position, as a war) gave great im-petus to the “women’s rights” is-sues in the church. Every year thelarger battle—to make women asfull-fledged pastors as the men—increases.

But there were also otherlosses.

One was the shattering ofMerikay’s marriage. Another wasMerikay’s loss of her churchmembership.

In the mind of the present

writer, the willingness of churchleadership to destroy people in or-der to accomplish their objectivesstands paramount. Especially inmind is the case of Elder LeonardMills, pastor of the Milpitas Sev-enth-day Adventist Church. It wasa small church, with only about ahundred members at the time ofthe Merikay lawsuit. Early on,Merikay and Kim had transferredtheir membership from the largeMountain View Church to the littleMilpitas Church.

Both the church members andElder Mills recognized they wereChristians, and respected theirconcern to improve the wages ofwomen in the church. In spite ofmounting conference pressures,the little church refused to disfel-lowship Merikay.

So, in order to obtain their ob-jective, church leadership waswilling to put Elder Mills awaybehind bars for fifteen years, if itmight help them win a lawsuit! Hespoke the truth; he did the truth.And they were going to try and puthim in prison to eliminate him.

What a horror! What a revela-tion of motives and character! Be-trayal! Yes, but what a betrayal!