Organization—No. 6 (Review and Herald, March 7, 1907)
When the discussion of the subject of organization had been fully opened in the REVIEW, prominent ministers availed themselves of that opportunity to tell of the growing confusion that existed, and the perplexing difficulties that were arising, owing to the absence of organization.
And some grew bold enough to tell that their views of the question were being changed by the discussion the subject was receiving. The following frank statement from Elder M. E. Cornell describes the general situation as it then existed: —
My mind has been for years decided that taking a name, or in any way leaning on the laws of the land, was wrong. I supposed that it was fatal to receive religious benefit from any law provisions whatever. But within the last week my mind has been changed. When I consider the subject more fully and without prejudice, it has a different aspect entirely. And I must confess that I have several times felt embarrassed because of the lack of order and organization in regard to financial matters. I have been perplexed to know what advice to give in regard to building houses of worship; how they should be built and held in trust so as to prevent confusion and trouble. Houses of worship are a growing necessity, but many are so fearful that they will get into Babylon that they dare not move in the matter, and we are often so perplexed that there is really a Babylon existing in our own minds. This embarrassment has become so general that no doubt all can agree in this, that something must be done.
Again: there are those who wish to secure their property to the cause of truth, by will or bequest, in a legal way, but they can not do it because we have no denominational name, and hence can not be known in law. At present I can not see what evil can grow out of God's people taking a distinctive name by which they may be known from all others. I can not find any scripture that would forbid all the remnant being called by one name, but the warning of Scripture is against divisions among them. . . .
To have a name significant of a spiritual life and at the same time be dead is, of course, inconsistent; but to have an appropriate name for the Advent, commandment-keeping, Laodicean, remnant people, I now believe to be a matter of propriety and necessity.
I wish to admit the necessity of complete organization to supply the demands of the cause as far as the laws of God and men will permit. I can not say that 1 have the clear light to suggest “a plan on which we as a people can act," but I feel that it is an important matter, and one that demands the prayer of faith for wisdom. When I consider how much Brother White has suffered from the lack of legal system in the business department of the work, I think his testimony is none too pointed. The necessity exists, and should be mutually realized and acknowledged. — Review and Herald, Vol. XVI, pages 8, 9, May 29, 1860.
At the time Elder Cornell wrote that article, he was one of the most active and successful evangelists in the cause. He was well qualified to state the conditions then existing. His statement throws a flood of light on the situation they were facing. He said they were "embarrassed because of a lack of order and organization;" "perplexed to know what advice to give in regard to building houses of worship," and "how they should be built and held in trust so as to prevent confusion and trouble." "Many," he said, "are so fearful that they will get into Babylon . . . that there is really a Babylon existing. in our minds." "This embarrassment has become so general that . . . something must be done." "Those who wish to secure their property to the cause of truth by will or bequest . . . can not do it because we have no denominational name, and hence can not be known in law."
It is not surprising that in closing his article, Elder Cornell said: "I wish to admit the necessity of complete organization to supply the demands of the cause." If such was the state of perplexity, confusion, and embarrassment without organization at that time, when there were only twenty-five or thirty ministers and workers, only four or five thousand believers, but one small printing plant, no schools, no sanitariums, and the work confined to the narrow limits east of the Missouri River, what would be our condition now without the efficient, far-reaching system of order and organization under which we are carrying forward this many-sided, world-wide movement?
As the discussion of this subject continued in the REVIEW, and among the people in the different States, the call for organization grew more definite and positive in all parts of the field. It was plainly evident that many of our people were changing their views. This encouraged Elder White, who wrote as follows : —
We are happy to say that the discussion of this subject is evidently coming to a close with good results. As far as we can learn, there is a general feeling that something should be done in the line of legal organization, and those who at first started back at the idea, are seriously pondering the necessity of it.—Id., page 20.
In view of the agitation of this question and the growing sentiment in favor of organization, Elder J. N. Andrews proposed that a general council be called for the purpose of giving the subject of organization careful, thorough study with the view of reaching correct and harmonious conclusions. The following is the suggestion he published: —
How shall we manage relative to the legal holding of the office? I would suggest with all respect to the feelings and opinions of others, that no step be taken until we first have a general gathering from all parts of the country, and a prayerful consultation relative to the right course. I believe that in this way we could act in unison, and what is still better, act just right.
I have confidence in Brother White's integrity of purpose in bringing this subject before the brethren. It also seems to me that he is clearly right in asking that something be done. I hope therefore that those who may think that some dangerous step is about to be taken, will pray with their whole hearts that God will be pleased to avert all evil and guide us aright. Meanwhile I would express the hope that we may be able to adopt so simple and proper an arrangement that it will be open to no reasonable objection.— Id, page 108, Aug. 21, 1860.
This was the first proposal ever made by our pioneers to hold a general council in the interests of organization. It was made by one of the most careful, cautious men numbered among the leaders of this cause. It met with hearty approval, and a general meeting was immediately called to convene in Battle Creek, Sept. 28, 1860.
Next: The Council
Friday, December 31, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Our Roots, Pt. 7
We now go back to the series of Review articles on organization. Here we are reproducing the fourth and fifth articles, which were published on February 21 and February 28, 1907.
#4
The first definite proposal to be found in the records of our history to organize the affairs of this cause was made by Elder James White in the REVIEW AND HERALD, Feb. 25, 1860. The gifts for leadership with which Elder White was endowed placed him, at the beginning of this cause, in the front of the battle. From the first it was his lot to bear the heaviest cares and responsibilities connected with its progressive measures.
His large views of the character and scope of the message, and his careful study of the complications that were continually arising with the growth of the work, gave him clear and positive convictions that organization was a necessity. But knowing how generally and decidedly both ministers and people were opposed to organization, he waited long before making it an open issue. The time came, however, when it could no longer be delayed with safety, and then he fearlessly launched the movement.
Believing that the reader who is following this series closely will be especially interested in the first printed call for organization, I will here give the entire statement as it appeared in the REVIEW : —
To those who have so kindly and generously lent money to this office, we wish to say that as an individual, we do not wish to be considered in any way responsible for it. We act simply as publishing agent by direction of the Publishing Committee, for which we receive about three fifths the amount of our yearly expenses. And there are no reasons why we should be responsible for borrowed money used for the benefit of this office, which is the property of the church at large. This property is not insured, therefore in case of fire, would be a total loss. Those who consider it proper to let their money remain at the office under these circumstances, will do so at their own risk.
We hope, however, that the time is not far distant when this people will be in that position necessary to be able to get church property insured, hold their meeting-houses in a proper manner, that those persons making their wills, and wishing to do so, can appropriate a portion to the publishing department. Till this can be brought around, we must do the best we can; but we wish it distinctly understood that we bear no individual responsibility in the matter. To illustrate: A sister in Vermont proposed to let the office have the use of one hundred dollars, without interest, as several others had done. The money was sent, and also a note filled out for us to sign. We refused to write "James White," but in its place, wrote "Advent Review and Sabbath Herald Office," and sent it back to Vermont. In a few weeks the note was returned, and the money called back. This was all done in good feeling. We call on preachers and leading brethren to give this matter their attention. If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan on which we as a people can act? — James White, in Review and Herald, Vol. XV, page 108, Feb. 23, 1860.
This statement set on foot a definite and powerful movement in our ranks for organization. From the time it appeared in the REVIEW, the agitation and discussion of the subject never ceased until organization was successfully and permanently established. But the advocates of organization found that they had on their hands a difficult task. The opposition which this proposal encountered was described a few years later by Elder White as follows: —
Time never can show the bad results of the spirit of anti-organization among us. It kindled and raged like fire at the first suggestion of organization. It prostrated the cause everywhere, and when the scale turned in favor of organization, there was hardly a congregation among us, from Maine to Minnesota, but what had become so distracted and discouraged that they needed the labors of some faithful preacher a month before they were prepared for organization.— Review and Herald, Vol. XXI, page 140, March 31, 1863.
In another article published nearly three years after making his first proposal regarding organization, Elder White published the following statement : —
About all that has been done among the Seventh-day Adventists in relation to organization, is to silence the batteries of those who opposed it, and by dint of battle to succeed in forming the Publishing Association. And there the matter hangs, and we are not in as good condition to make a general strike for organization as we were two and a half years since, when the subject was first introduced. 1. Because those who were then ready to take hold of the work of organizing churches and conferences with courage and hope, have had their courage worn out, and their hopes dimmed, by the opposition of some, and what has been worse, the wavering, hesitating, non-committal position of others. 2. Some of our brethren who were in favor of organization, who were the supporters and best friends of the cause, have become much discouraged as they have seen that the course of several of our preachers has strengthened the hands of rebellion against order, the gifts, and systematic benevolence. Had our preachers all struck unitedly for organization at the first, this rebellion could then have been put down at once; but in Ohio it increased so rapidly as to soon wreck the cause in that State, and leave only the hope that some will make a timely escape. In Pennsylvania and southern New York, it grew with fearful results. The brethren voted down organization, and sent us a report of their doings for publication.— Review and Herald, Vol. XX, page 140, Sept.30, 1862.
From these statements it is evident that very few of our people have any adequate idea of what it cost the pioneers of this cause to establish the plan of organization that has proved such a factor in promoting union, order, and co-operation among us. Sister E. G. White, who also had an active part in that work, has written of it as follows:
It is nearly forty years since organization was introduced among us as a people. I was one of the number who had an experience in establishing it from the first. I know of the difficulties that had to be met, the evils it was designed to correct; and I have watched its influence in connection with the growth of the cause. — General Conference Bulletin, Jan. 29, 1892.
Let none entertain the thought, however, that we can dispense with organization. It has cost us much study, and many prayers for wisdom, that we know God has answered, to effect this structure. It has been built up by his direction through much sacrifice and conflict. — General Conference Bulletin, Jan. 29and 30, 1893.
In presenting this phase of the history of organization as it is related to our cause, it should be made very plain that the opposition the most of our people felt toward organization did not spring from either lawlessness or insubordination. They held conscientious convictions regarding the matter. Anything approaching organization in religious or spiritual affairs alarmed them, for they believed this would result in spiritual declension and unholy alliances with the world. This was the view they had held while connected with the special movement of the first angel's message, and many still firmly and conscientiously maintained it.
#5
The opposition our people felt to organization was dealt with fairly. It was not arrogantly silenced by a large majority, nor overridden by the dominating power of a minority. The whole question of organization received careful, serious study, and free, full, and open discussion. This resulted in convincing the large majority of our people that instead of being the evil, dangerous thing it had been represented to be, organization was a wise and necessary provision given by the Lord for the welfare of his cause in the earth.
More or less of the discussion of this question was carried on in the columns of the REVIEW. Some who were opposed to organization made use of the paper to give their reasons for their opposition, and also to make suggestions as to how to manage the affairs of the cause without organization. Those who believed that organization was necessary gave their reasons for the position they held. It is mainly from the articles that appeared in the REVIEW on this question that we are able to trace the history of this phase of our cause prior to the time organization was effected.
The first response made to Elder White's call for organization came from our esteemed brother, Elder J. N. Loughborough. This response was prompt, definite, and positive, and was decidedly in favor of organization. It appeared in the second number of the paper printed after the call for organization was made. After giving the situation a careful review, Brother Loughborough said: “I am in favor of organizing by law, that we may be able to hold and legally protect our church property."
During the forty-six years that have since passed, our brother has been a firm, consistent advocate of gospel organization, and has practiced what he has advocated. And who could reasonably ask for greater liberty than he has enjoyed while adhering to the details of our denominational organization?
The next response to the call for organization came from one of the associate editors of the REVIEW. His position was expressed as follows: —
Brother White has asked the brethren to speak in relation to his proposition to secure the property of the church. I do not know precisely what measure he intends in his suggestion, but understand it is to get incorporated as a religious body according to law. For myself I think it would be wrong to "make a name," since that lies at the foundation of Babylon. I do not think that God would approve of it. ...
Brother White asks for suggestions for a better plan. He has already proposed that the books should be sent out into different States. This I think would be well. Let them be distributed around for safe keeping, and for convenience. I would take one hundred dollars' worth, and many others in the wide field would do the same. Then the office with what remains, after those engaged therein have performed their duty faithfully, can be safely trusted in the hands of Him who owns the whole.
Those that lend money to the office, lend it to the Lord, and they must trust the Lord for it. If he sees fit to let them lose it here, if they are faithful he will repay them hereafter. He will not fail. He has no lack of means. And he will do what is best for those that trust in him.— Review and Herald, Vol. XV, page 140, March 22, 1860.
In the same article this writer reviews Elder Loughborough's article, in the course of which he says: —
We can trust each other, thank the Lord! and if any man proves a Judas, we can still bear the loss and trust the Lord. . . .
The responsibility of the office debts and liabilities ought not, and in my estimation, does not, rest upon Brother White. I am glad he has spoken upon this point. If any have means in the office that they are unwilling to trust to the Lord and his people as a body, without making any individual or individuals responsible for the same, I hope they will withdraw it. The church can raise the amount and pay them off. There may be those that need what they have lent to the office. Such certainly should be paid.— Id, page 141.
The main reason here given against organizing is that in doing so they would be obliged to take a name by which to be known, and in doing this they would become a part of Babylon.
The suggestion made for storing and safe-guarding the books from the time they were printed until they were sold was that they be distributed in lots of one hundred dollars' worth among the homes of the brethren and sisters in the different States, to be held until called for. Such a suggestion shows how very limited and unbusinesslike were the views of some at least regarding the great and important place the publishing work was to occupy in this cause.
As to the debts of the publishing house, the writer believed that these should not rest upon any specific person or persons, but upon all the believers generally, and that all who were not willing to trust the Lord and this unnamed body of believers would better keep their money in their own care.
The brother who took this position against organization was one of the editors of the REVIEW, and a very conscientious and influential minister in the Eastern States, where the majority of our people lived. His public opposition had the effect of confirming many in their anti-organization views.
Elder White replied to this statement in an article filling seven columns of the REVIEW. By this time the question was before the people in real earnest, and it never ceased to be studied and discussed until the great majority of our people recognized the necessity of organization, and applied it to churches, conferences, and institutions.
Next: A Call to Meet
#4
The first definite proposal to be found in the records of our history to organize the affairs of this cause was made by Elder James White in the REVIEW AND HERALD, Feb. 25, 1860. The gifts for leadership with which Elder White was endowed placed him, at the beginning of this cause, in the front of the battle. From the first it was his lot to bear the heaviest cares and responsibilities connected with its progressive measures.
His large views of the character and scope of the message, and his careful study of the complications that were continually arising with the growth of the work, gave him clear and positive convictions that organization was a necessity. But knowing how generally and decidedly both ministers and people were opposed to organization, he waited long before making it an open issue. The time came, however, when it could no longer be delayed with safety, and then he fearlessly launched the movement.
Believing that the reader who is following this series closely will be especially interested in the first printed call for organization, I will here give the entire statement as it appeared in the REVIEW : —
To those who have so kindly and generously lent money to this office, we wish to say that as an individual, we do not wish to be considered in any way responsible for it. We act simply as publishing agent by direction of the Publishing Committee, for which we receive about three fifths the amount of our yearly expenses. And there are no reasons why we should be responsible for borrowed money used for the benefit of this office, which is the property of the church at large. This property is not insured, therefore in case of fire, would be a total loss. Those who consider it proper to let their money remain at the office under these circumstances, will do so at their own risk.
We hope, however, that the time is not far distant when this people will be in that position necessary to be able to get church property insured, hold their meeting-houses in a proper manner, that those persons making their wills, and wishing to do so, can appropriate a portion to the publishing department. Till this can be brought around, we must do the best we can; but we wish it distinctly understood that we bear no individual responsibility in the matter. To illustrate: A sister in Vermont proposed to let the office have the use of one hundred dollars, without interest, as several others had done. The money was sent, and also a note filled out for us to sign. We refused to write "James White," but in its place, wrote "Advent Review and Sabbath Herald Office," and sent it back to Vermont. In a few weeks the note was returned, and the money called back. This was all done in good feeling. We call on preachers and leading brethren to give this matter their attention. If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan on which we as a people can act? — James White, in Review and Herald, Vol. XV, page 108, Feb. 23, 1860.
This statement set on foot a definite and powerful movement in our ranks for organization. From the time it appeared in the REVIEW, the agitation and discussion of the subject never ceased until organization was successfully and permanently established. But the advocates of organization found that they had on their hands a difficult task. The opposition which this proposal encountered was described a few years later by Elder White as follows: —
Time never can show the bad results of the spirit of anti-organization among us. It kindled and raged like fire at the first suggestion of organization. It prostrated the cause everywhere, and when the scale turned in favor of organization, there was hardly a congregation among us, from Maine to Minnesota, but what had become so distracted and discouraged that they needed the labors of some faithful preacher a month before they were prepared for organization.— Review and Herald, Vol. XXI, page 140, March 31, 1863.
In another article published nearly three years after making his first proposal regarding organization, Elder White published the following statement : —
About all that has been done among the Seventh-day Adventists in relation to organization, is to silence the batteries of those who opposed it, and by dint of battle to succeed in forming the Publishing Association. And there the matter hangs, and we are not in as good condition to make a general strike for organization as we were two and a half years since, when the subject was first introduced. 1. Because those who were then ready to take hold of the work of organizing churches and conferences with courage and hope, have had their courage worn out, and their hopes dimmed, by the opposition of some, and what has been worse, the wavering, hesitating, non-committal position of others. 2. Some of our brethren who were in favor of organization, who were the supporters and best friends of the cause, have become much discouraged as they have seen that the course of several of our preachers has strengthened the hands of rebellion against order, the gifts, and systematic benevolence. Had our preachers all struck unitedly for organization at the first, this rebellion could then have been put down at once; but in Ohio it increased so rapidly as to soon wreck the cause in that State, and leave only the hope that some will make a timely escape. In Pennsylvania and southern New York, it grew with fearful results. The brethren voted down organization, and sent us a report of their doings for publication.— Review and Herald, Vol. XX, page 140, Sept.30, 1862.
From these statements it is evident that very few of our people have any adequate idea of what it cost the pioneers of this cause to establish the plan of organization that has proved such a factor in promoting union, order, and co-operation among us. Sister E. G. White, who also had an active part in that work, has written of it as follows:
It is nearly forty years since organization was introduced among us as a people. I was one of the number who had an experience in establishing it from the first. I know of the difficulties that had to be met, the evils it was designed to correct; and I have watched its influence in connection with the growth of the cause. — General Conference Bulletin, Jan. 29, 1892.
Let none entertain the thought, however, that we can dispense with organization. It has cost us much study, and many prayers for wisdom, that we know God has answered, to effect this structure. It has been built up by his direction through much sacrifice and conflict. — General Conference Bulletin, Jan. 29and 30, 1893.
In presenting this phase of the history of organization as it is related to our cause, it should be made very plain that the opposition the most of our people felt toward organization did not spring from either lawlessness or insubordination. They held conscientious convictions regarding the matter. Anything approaching organization in religious or spiritual affairs alarmed them, for they believed this would result in spiritual declension and unholy alliances with the world. This was the view they had held while connected with the special movement of the first angel's message, and many still firmly and conscientiously maintained it.
#5
The opposition our people felt to organization was dealt with fairly. It was not arrogantly silenced by a large majority, nor overridden by the dominating power of a minority. The whole question of organization received careful, serious study, and free, full, and open discussion. This resulted in convincing the large majority of our people that instead of being the evil, dangerous thing it had been represented to be, organization was a wise and necessary provision given by the Lord for the welfare of his cause in the earth.
More or less of the discussion of this question was carried on in the columns of the REVIEW. Some who were opposed to organization made use of the paper to give their reasons for their opposition, and also to make suggestions as to how to manage the affairs of the cause without organization. Those who believed that organization was necessary gave their reasons for the position they held. It is mainly from the articles that appeared in the REVIEW on this question that we are able to trace the history of this phase of our cause prior to the time organization was effected.
The first response made to Elder White's call for organization came from our esteemed brother, Elder J. N. Loughborough. This response was prompt, definite, and positive, and was decidedly in favor of organization. It appeared in the second number of the paper printed after the call for organization was made. After giving the situation a careful review, Brother Loughborough said: “I am in favor of organizing by law, that we may be able to hold and legally protect our church property."
During the forty-six years that have since passed, our brother has been a firm, consistent advocate of gospel organization, and has practiced what he has advocated. And who could reasonably ask for greater liberty than he has enjoyed while adhering to the details of our denominational organization?
The next response to the call for organization came from one of the associate editors of the REVIEW. His position was expressed as follows: —
Brother White has asked the brethren to speak in relation to his proposition to secure the property of the church. I do not know precisely what measure he intends in his suggestion, but understand it is to get incorporated as a religious body according to law. For myself I think it would be wrong to "make a name," since that lies at the foundation of Babylon. I do not think that God would approve of it. ...
Brother White asks for suggestions for a better plan. He has already proposed that the books should be sent out into different States. This I think would be well. Let them be distributed around for safe keeping, and for convenience. I would take one hundred dollars' worth, and many others in the wide field would do the same. Then the office with what remains, after those engaged therein have performed their duty faithfully, can be safely trusted in the hands of Him who owns the whole.
Those that lend money to the office, lend it to the Lord, and they must trust the Lord for it. If he sees fit to let them lose it here, if they are faithful he will repay them hereafter. He will not fail. He has no lack of means. And he will do what is best for those that trust in him.— Review and Herald, Vol. XV, page 140, March 22, 1860.
In the same article this writer reviews Elder Loughborough's article, in the course of which he says: —
We can trust each other, thank the Lord! and if any man proves a Judas, we can still bear the loss and trust the Lord. . . .
The responsibility of the office debts and liabilities ought not, and in my estimation, does not, rest upon Brother White. I am glad he has spoken upon this point. If any have means in the office that they are unwilling to trust to the Lord and his people as a body, without making any individual or individuals responsible for the same, I hope they will withdraw it. The church can raise the amount and pay them off. There may be those that need what they have lent to the office. Such certainly should be paid.— Id, page 141.
The main reason here given against organizing is that in doing so they would be obliged to take a name by which to be known, and in doing this they would become a part of Babylon.
The suggestion made for storing and safe-guarding the books from the time they were printed until they were sold was that they be distributed in lots of one hundred dollars' worth among the homes of the brethren and sisters in the different States, to be held until called for. Such a suggestion shows how very limited and unbusinesslike were the views of some at least regarding the great and important place the publishing work was to occupy in this cause.
As to the debts of the publishing house, the writer believed that these should not rest upon any specific person or persons, but upon all the believers generally, and that all who were not willing to trust the Lord and this unnamed body of believers would better keep their money in their own care.
The brother who took this position against organization was one of the editors of the REVIEW, and a very conscientious and influential minister in the Eastern States, where the majority of our people lived. His public opposition had the effect of confirming many in their anti-organization views.
Elder White replied to this statement in an article filling seven columns of the REVIEW. By this time the question was before the people in real earnest, and it never ceased to be studied and discussed until the great majority of our people recognized the necessity of organization, and applied it to churches, conferences, and institutions.
Next: A Call to Meet
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Our Roots, Pt. 6
The article quoted in Our Roots, Pt. 5 referred, with the sterility of 50 years' distance, to James White writing "an editorial now and then on 'Gospel Order.'” To really give the feel for these early discussions we have decided to quote one of these editorials as a sample. It comes from the July 21, 1859 edition and makes the suggestion that yearly meetings be held in each region to bring the believers together and further evangelistic plans. After making this suggestion he proceeds to anticipate the priniciple arguments likely to be made against it and refutes them. This was before the days of political correctness, and the writing is very pointed.
Yearly Meetings
We wish to call the attention of the brethren to the subject of holding one or more Conferences yearly in each State where needed. Our yearly meetings in this State, held at Battle Creek, for a few years past, have been most beneficial and refreshing. Then why not have a regular annual meeting in each State, and, perhaps, three or four in Michigan, New York, and some other States? The yearly meeting in this State has a most healthful influence on the cause, especially in the vicinity, then why may not other States, and other portions of this, share the same blessing?
…We lack system. And we should not be afraid of that system which is not opposed by the Bible, and is approved by sound sense. The lack of system is felt everywhere, especially in New England, New York and the West. Much labor is lost by this lack. Why not have a yearly meeting…? Let the time and places of these meetings be seasonably known, and how easy to secure the needed amount of ministerial labor. Many of our brethren are in a scattered state. They observe the Sabbath, read with some interest the Review; but beyond this they are doing but little or nothing for want of some method of united action among them. It is time that all do something to add to the strength of this cause. Its enemies are many and active, and its friends should be awake and zealous. Then let the scattered friends of the cause of Bible truth be assembled in their localities yearly, to learn their present position and duty, and be cheered on to vigorous action.
We are aware that these suggestions, will not meet the minds of all. Bro. Over-cautious will be frightened, and will be ready to warn his brethren to be careful and not venture out too far; while Bro. Confusion will cry out, “O, this looks just like Babylon! Following the fallen church!” Bro. Do-little will say, “The cause is the Lord’s, and we had better leave it in his hands, he will take care of it.” “Amen,” says Love-this-world, Slothful, Selfish, and Stingy, “if God calls men to preach, let them go out and preach, he will take care of them, and those who believe their message;” while Korah, Dathan and Abiram are ready to rebel against those who feel the weight of the cause, and who watch for souls as those who must give account, and raise the cry, “Ye take too much upon you.”
In reply we would say that Bro. Over-cautious reminds us of the brakeman who supposed that all that was necessary to run a train of cars was to use the brake well. We would suggest the he, and others of the same views and feelings, try to run a train by the use of brakes. Their success in standing still would, we think, teach them the necessity of having an engine, wood, fire, water, steam, as well as brakes.
Bro. Confusion makes a most egregious blunder in calling system, which is in harmony with the Bible and good sense, Babylon. As Babylon signifies confusion, our erring brother has the very word stamped upon his own forehead. And we venture to say there is not another people under heaven more worthy of the brand of Babylon that those professing the Advent faith who reject Bible order. Is it not high time that we as a people heartily embrace everything that is good and right in the churches? Is it not blind folly to start back at the idea of system, found everywhere in the Bible, simply because it is observed in the fallen churches?
True, the Bible does not say in so many words that we should have yearly meetings; neither does it say that we should have a weekly paper, a steam printing-press, that we should publish books, build places of worship, and send out tents. Christ says, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set upon an hill cannot be hid,” “Let your light so shine before men,” &c. He does not enter into particulars just how this shall be done. The living church of God is left to humbly move forward in this great work, praying for divine guidance, and acting upon the most efficient plans for its accomplishment.
Men of the world lay their plans wisely and well, combine their strength, and prosecute them vigorously. And should not the church, aided by the principles of the word, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, act as wisely in their high and holy calling? “But,” says Bro. Do-little, “Christ says that the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” Very true; but he does not say they should be. So far from it, that his words are a cutting rebuke on Bro. Do-little, and all his careless, disorderly brethren. It will be seen that these men have wound themselves up in a kind of cob-web argument, and have lain down in an easy position; but we design to tear off the cob-webs, and stir them up to find their place in the church of Christ.
There are two extremes which should be shunned; one is for human wisdom alone to combine its feeble strength to carry on the work of God; the other is to leave with God what he has left with us, and set down with the idea of waiting for special providences before moving. If such move at all, it is independent of the views and feelings of others, each individual constituting an independent church.
Some may cry, The Spirit! and others, The Word! but our cry shall be, The Word and the Spirit. The Word presents the form of doctrine, and requires systematic, united action, and the Spirit sanctifies the judgment, gives vitality to the body, and efficiency to the work. It leads into all truth.
Read the doings of the apostles in the book of Acts. Notice in particular the conference at Jerusalem recorded in chap. xv. Certain ones had been teaching circumcision as necessary to salvation, and had caused trouble in the churches. Paul, Barnabas, and certain others went up to Jerusalem to help settle the matter. After some contention with Judaizing teachers, Peter, Paul, Barnabas and James made scriptural and experimental remarks. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company with letters to the Gentile churches…containing the decision of the Jerusalem conference which commences as follows: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us,” &c. What life-giving words at the very opening of this conference address. They speak forth union among the brethren, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost. No wonder that Luke records the fact that the Gentiles “rejoiced for the consolation.”
We presume that Bro. Confusion and Bro Do-little would have said, “Leave these Judaizing teachers with the Lord. He will take care of them. You must not abridge their religious rights.” And the church would have been rent asunder if it had been left to the care of these unfaithful men. But Paul and his brethren stood forth in the counsel and strength of Christ, as the shepherds of his flock, and the guardians of his truth, and the Holy Spirit was with them to testify to the judgment of the whole assembly of saints, and to bring the unhappy dissension to a most happy settlement.
We wonder if the friends of extreme free discussion and confusion were never shocked at the word “decrees,” applied to the Jerusalem conference documents, in Acts xvi, 4.
In conclusion we would say that it is too late to be afraid of gospel order merely because others have gone into the creed business; too late to run off the bridge on one side, simply because the water roars on the other. Some may feel rebuked in this article; well, perhaps they need it, though this has not been our object, so much as to wake up thought on the subject of yearly conferences, and systematic action of the entire body. Hope others will speak out on these matters.
Next: Baby Steps
Yearly Meetings
We wish to call the attention of the brethren to the subject of holding one or more Conferences yearly in each State where needed. Our yearly meetings in this State, held at Battle Creek, for a few years past, have been most beneficial and refreshing. Then why not have a regular annual meeting in each State, and, perhaps, three or four in Michigan, New York, and some other States? The yearly meeting in this State has a most healthful influence on the cause, especially in the vicinity, then why may not other States, and other portions of this, share the same blessing?
…We lack system. And we should not be afraid of that system which is not opposed by the Bible, and is approved by sound sense. The lack of system is felt everywhere, especially in New England, New York and the West. Much labor is lost by this lack. Why not have a yearly meeting…? Let the time and places of these meetings be seasonably known, and how easy to secure the needed amount of ministerial labor. Many of our brethren are in a scattered state. They observe the Sabbath, read with some interest the Review; but beyond this they are doing but little or nothing for want of some method of united action among them. It is time that all do something to add to the strength of this cause. Its enemies are many and active, and its friends should be awake and zealous. Then let the scattered friends of the cause of Bible truth be assembled in their localities yearly, to learn their present position and duty, and be cheered on to vigorous action.
We are aware that these suggestions, will not meet the minds of all. Bro. Over-cautious will be frightened, and will be ready to warn his brethren to be careful and not venture out too far; while Bro. Confusion will cry out, “O, this looks just like Babylon! Following the fallen church!” Bro. Do-little will say, “The cause is the Lord’s, and we had better leave it in his hands, he will take care of it.” “Amen,” says Love-this-world, Slothful, Selfish, and Stingy, “if God calls men to preach, let them go out and preach, he will take care of them, and those who believe their message;” while Korah, Dathan and Abiram are ready to rebel against those who feel the weight of the cause, and who watch for souls as those who must give account, and raise the cry, “Ye take too much upon you.”
In reply we would say that Bro. Over-cautious reminds us of the brakeman who supposed that all that was necessary to run a train of cars was to use the brake well. We would suggest the he, and others of the same views and feelings, try to run a train by the use of brakes. Their success in standing still would, we think, teach them the necessity of having an engine, wood, fire, water, steam, as well as brakes.
Bro. Confusion makes a most egregious blunder in calling system, which is in harmony with the Bible and good sense, Babylon. As Babylon signifies confusion, our erring brother has the very word stamped upon his own forehead. And we venture to say there is not another people under heaven more worthy of the brand of Babylon that those professing the Advent faith who reject Bible order. Is it not high time that we as a people heartily embrace everything that is good and right in the churches? Is it not blind folly to start back at the idea of system, found everywhere in the Bible, simply because it is observed in the fallen churches?
True, the Bible does not say in so many words that we should have yearly meetings; neither does it say that we should have a weekly paper, a steam printing-press, that we should publish books, build places of worship, and send out tents. Christ says, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set upon an hill cannot be hid,” “Let your light so shine before men,” &c. He does not enter into particulars just how this shall be done. The living church of God is left to humbly move forward in this great work, praying for divine guidance, and acting upon the most efficient plans for its accomplishment.
Men of the world lay their plans wisely and well, combine their strength, and prosecute them vigorously. And should not the church, aided by the principles of the word, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, act as wisely in their high and holy calling? “But,” says Bro. Do-little, “Christ says that the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” Very true; but he does not say they should be. So far from it, that his words are a cutting rebuke on Bro. Do-little, and all his careless, disorderly brethren. It will be seen that these men have wound themselves up in a kind of cob-web argument, and have lain down in an easy position; but we design to tear off the cob-webs, and stir them up to find their place in the church of Christ.
There are two extremes which should be shunned; one is for human wisdom alone to combine its feeble strength to carry on the work of God; the other is to leave with God what he has left with us, and set down with the idea of waiting for special providences before moving. If such move at all, it is independent of the views and feelings of others, each individual constituting an independent church.
Some may cry, The Spirit! and others, The Word! but our cry shall be, The Word and the Spirit. The Word presents the form of doctrine, and requires systematic, united action, and the Spirit sanctifies the judgment, gives vitality to the body, and efficiency to the work. It leads into all truth.
Read the doings of the apostles in the book of Acts. Notice in particular the conference at Jerusalem recorded in chap. xv. Certain ones had been teaching circumcision as necessary to salvation, and had caused trouble in the churches. Paul, Barnabas, and certain others went up to Jerusalem to help settle the matter. After some contention with Judaizing teachers, Peter, Paul, Barnabas and James made scriptural and experimental remarks. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company with letters to the Gentile churches…containing the decision of the Jerusalem conference which commences as follows: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us,” &c. What life-giving words at the very opening of this conference address. They speak forth union among the brethren, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost. No wonder that Luke records the fact that the Gentiles “rejoiced for the consolation.”
We presume that Bro. Confusion and Bro Do-little would have said, “Leave these Judaizing teachers with the Lord. He will take care of them. You must not abridge their religious rights.” And the church would have been rent asunder if it had been left to the care of these unfaithful men. But Paul and his brethren stood forth in the counsel and strength of Christ, as the shepherds of his flock, and the guardians of his truth, and the Holy Spirit was with them to testify to the judgment of the whole assembly of saints, and to bring the unhappy dissension to a most happy settlement.
We wonder if the friends of extreme free discussion and confusion were never shocked at the word “decrees,” applied to the Jerusalem conference documents, in Acts xvi, 4.
In conclusion we would say that it is too late to be afraid of gospel order merely because others have gone into the creed business; too late to run off the bridge on one side, simply because the water roars on the other. Some may feel rebuked in this article; well, perhaps they need it, though this has not been our object, so much as to wake up thought on the subject of yearly conferences, and systematic action of the entire body. Hope others will speak out on these matters.
Next: Baby Steps
Friday, December 17, 2010
Our Roots, Pt. 5
We continue with the Review and Herald series from 1907 on organization.
#3 (February 14, 1907)
While the people who had suffered such bitter disappointment because the Lord did not come as they had expected in 1844, were being scattered, and the leaders in the message were endeavoring to establish some sort of organization, or “associated action,” as they termed it, to aid in holding them together and harmonizing their sentiments, there were some who were earnestly seeking and fervently praying for a Scriptural explanation of that great movement. They could not believe that the message they had received and proclaimed was a deception and a fraud. They had seen nothing that had disproved the correctness of the fundamental truths of the message. They would not reject what they could not prove to be false; and, moreover, they refused to repudiate the personal religious experience they had enjoyed while believing and teaching the message.
Among those who turned to the Scriptures with their hearts set on finding a true, consistent explanation of that terrible disappointment under the first angel’s message were Joseph Bates and James White and his wife. The earnest, prayerful study of these servants of God was soon rewarded. They began to awaken to the fact that there was a third angel’s message which was to follow the first and second messages which they had given. The study of the third message led to a study of the whole sanctuary question, and this gave the desired explanation of the entire movement, including the disappointment, under the first and second messages.
The relief and joy that came to their hearts with this new-found light was beyond all expression. As a natural consequence they yearned to make this explanation known to others. As they endeavored to give to their friends and neighbors the truth they discovered, it became clearer, and grew larger to them, until a beautiful, harmonious, convincing system of truth was developed, which has found its way to all lands, and has won the confidence, love, and loyalty of thousands of men and women.
The dawning of the light of the third angel’s message was to mark the beginning of a new religious movement. The church must again proclaim a definite message “before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” Rev. 14:6; 10:11. That great world-wide movement was inaugurated by those humble believers to whom the time, place, and meaning of the third angel’s message was revealed. Perhaps no great movement in the history of God’s people had ever started in such apparent weakness as did this one. The first believers in the third message were few in number, and had but few friends who sympathized with them. They had no facilities of any kind with which to carry forward their work, and they were penniless. The only possible course open to them was house-to-house visitation among such of their old friends and fellow believers as would listen to them. They made use of this one opportunity. The message had power. Many of their friends were convinced that they had the truth, and joined them in obeying it and in making it known to others. As their numbers increased, they were able to come together for local and general meetings. Men went out as preachers at their own expense, companies of believers were established here and there, printing was undertaken, and the circle of their operations continually widened. Schools were established, medical missionary work was begun, and foreign missionary enterprises were entered upon.
At the beginning of this movement, little thought was given to the question of organization. In the first place, there was very little if anything that called for system or organization, and in the second place the majority of those who first connected with the movement had been in the movement under the first angel’s message, where organization had no place, and by whose leaders it was looked upon with disfavor.
But there came a time when some of the leaders in this new movement became convinced that there should be established some sort of organization securing order, system, and intelligent co-operation in carrying forward the work. Elder James White was among the first to recognize this need. As editor of the Review and Herald, the one general paper of the believers, he occasionally made mention of the lack of order, harmony, and system that existed. He wrote an editorial now and then on “Gospel Order,” which indicated the trend of his thoughts. But it was not until 1860, fifteen years after the cause was inaugurated, that the first definite suggestion was made in the church paper that steps should be taken to establish some form of organization for safeguarding and advancing the interests of the cause.
At the time this suggestion was made, there were several thousands of believers, and some twenty or thirty regular ministers. The cause had been carried as far west in the States as Minnesota and Iowa. Two regular papers were being published, a small printing-house had been built, and equipped with machinery, and a number of small meeting-houses had been erected. And yet there was nothing in the way of organization. No name had been chosen by which the believers might be known or designated as a people. No church organization had been effected. The believers met together wherever they could, and conducted services as they thought best. There were no regularly established church-members nor officers. There was no way of determining who were accredited representatives of the people, and no regular nor adequate means of support provided for the ministers who were known to be true. No provision was made for legally holding the church buildings nor the property of any general institution. Nor was there any way by which wills, legacies, etc., could be made secure to the cause. About six thousand dollars of resources had accrued to the publishing plant, yet it belonged to no one unless it might be Elder White, who acted as publishing agent. Financial obligations had been created, but no one was legally responsible for them.
In view of such a situation, it is not surprising that some of the brethren on whose shoulders the heaviest responsibilities of the cause rested, began to demand that some plan of organization be adopted by which this chaos might be transformed into order.
Next: A Closer Look
#3 (February 14, 1907)
While the people who had suffered such bitter disappointment because the Lord did not come as they had expected in 1844, were being scattered, and the leaders in the message were endeavoring to establish some sort of organization, or “associated action,” as they termed it, to aid in holding them together and harmonizing their sentiments, there were some who were earnestly seeking and fervently praying for a Scriptural explanation of that great movement. They could not believe that the message they had received and proclaimed was a deception and a fraud. They had seen nothing that had disproved the correctness of the fundamental truths of the message. They would not reject what they could not prove to be false; and, moreover, they refused to repudiate the personal religious experience they had enjoyed while believing and teaching the message.
Among those who turned to the Scriptures with their hearts set on finding a true, consistent explanation of that terrible disappointment under the first angel’s message were Joseph Bates and James White and his wife. The earnest, prayerful study of these servants of God was soon rewarded. They began to awaken to the fact that there was a third angel’s message which was to follow the first and second messages which they had given. The study of the third message led to a study of the whole sanctuary question, and this gave the desired explanation of the entire movement, including the disappointment, under the first and second messages.
The relief and joy that came to their hearts with this new-found light was beyond all expression. As a natural consequence they yearned to make this explanation known to others. As they endeavored to give to their friends and neighbors the truth they discovered, it became clearer, and grew larger to them, until a beautiful, harmonious, convincing system of truth was developed, which has found its way to all lands, and has won the confidence, love, and loyalty of thousands of men and women.
The dawning of the light of the third angel’s message was to mark the beginning of a new religious movement. The church must again proclaim a definite message “before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” Rev. 14:6; 10:11. That great world-wide movement was inaugurated by those humble believers to whom the time, place, and meaning of the third angel’s message was revealed. Perhaps no great movement in the history of God’s people had ever started in such apparent weakness as did this one. The first believers in the third message were few in number, and had but few friends who sympathized with them. They had no facilities of any kind with which to carry forward their work, and they were penniless. The only possible course open to them was house-to-house visitation among such of their old friends and fellow believers as would listen to them. They made use of this one opportunity. The message had power. Many of their friends were convinced that they had the truth, and joined them in obeying it and in making it known to others. As their numbers increased, they were able to come together for local and general meetings. Men went out as preachers at their own expense, companies of believers were established here and there, printing was undertaken, and the circle of their operations continually widened. Schools were established, medical missionary work was begun, and foreign missionary enterprises were entered upon.
At the beginning of this movement, little thought was given to the question of organization. In the first place, there was very little if anything that called for system or organization, and in the second place the majority of those who first connected with the movement had been in the movement under the first angel’s message, where organization had no place, and by whose leaders it was looked upon with disfavor.
But there came a time when some of the leaders in this new movement became convinced that there should be established some sort of organization securing order, system, and intelligent co-operation in carrying forward the work. Elder James White was among the first to recognize this need. As editor of the Review and Herald, the one general paper of the believers, he occasionally made mention of the lack of order, harmony, and system that existed. He wrote an editorial now and then on “Gospel Order,” which indicated the trend of his thoughts. But it was not until 1860, fifteen years after the cause was inaugurated, that the first definite suggestion was made in the church paper that steps should be taken to establish some form of organization for safeguarding and advancing the interests of the cause.
At the time this suggestion was made, there were several thousands of believers, and some twenty or thirty regular ministers. The cause had been carried as far west in the States as Minnesota and Iowa. Two regular papers were being published, a small printing-house had been built, and equipped with machinery, and a number of small meeting-houses had been erected. And yet there was nothing in the way of organization. No name had been chosen by which the believers might be known or designated as a people. No church organization had been effected. The believers met together wherever they could, and conducted services as they thought best. There were no regularly established church-members nor officers. There was no way of determining who were accredited representatives of the people, and no regular nor adequate means of support provided for the ministers who were known to be true. No provision was made for legally holding the church buildings nor the property of any general institution. Nor was there any way by which wills, legacies, etc., could be made secure to the cause. About six thousand dollars of resources had accrued to the publishing plant, yet it belonged to no one unless it might be Elder White, who acted as publishing agent. Financial obligations had been created, but no one was legally responsible for them.
In view of such a situation, it is not surprising that some of the brethren on whose shoulders the heaviest responsibilities of the cause rested, began to demand that some plan of organization be adopted by which this chaos might be transformed into order.
Next: A Closer Look
Monday, December 13, 2010
Those Three Angels
As promised, we will now briefly explain the theological references made in Our Roots, Pt. 4. The three angels’ messages that have been so often mentioned are found in Revelation 14:6-12:
The first of these messages is a call to special urgency and attentiveness in worshipping God, because the second coming is near. This message is to be carried to everyone on earth. The second message is that faithful believers should separate themselves from the fallen churches who no longer follow God.
The third message requires more background in order to be understood. We start with Revelation 12:7-9:
Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
A second angel followed and said, “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great,’ which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.”
A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.
The first of these messages is a call to special urgency and attentiveness in worshipping God, because the second coming is near. This message is to be carried to everyone on earth. The second message is that faithful believers should separate themselves from the fallen churches who no longer follow God.
The third message requires more background in order to be understood. We start with Revelation 12:7-9:
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
The point we need to glean from these texts in order to understand the third angel’s message is that within Revelation Satan is referred to as “the dragon.” In order to understand the beast, its image, and its mark, we move forward to Revelation 13:1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14-17:
The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. …The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast?
Who can wage war against it?” All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast… Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast… The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who
refused to worship the image to be killed. It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Now we see that the beast is an entity which is empowered by the dragon (Satan). We also see that at the end of time all the world’s population will be divided into two groups: those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life and those who worship Satan’s instrument, the beast. The third angel’s message, then, is a warning of the consequences of choosing to follow Satan rather than God.
These three angels' messages are cumulative; each one is added to the one before it to be preached together until the second coming. The whole message which emerges is that we are to instruct the entire world to worship God and free themselves from “fallen” religious practices before the second coming, because at that time all those who have rejected God will be destroyed.
The articles quoted in Our Roots, Pt. 4 also referred to the scriptural explanation of the Great Disappointment. What was discovered by the pioneers of Adventism was that the Disappointment itself was actually predicted in Revelation 10:1, 2, 5-11:
Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land… Then the angel I had seen standing on the sea and on the land raised
his right hand to heaven. And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, “There will be no more delay! …the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.”
Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once
more: “Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land.”
So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’” I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”
This experience of John the Revelator eating the scroll was symbolic of the events of the Disappointment. First, the timing is established by the angel’s announcement that the time had come for the mystery of God to be accomplished. The mystery of God is the redemption of the human race through the sacrifice of Christ, and its completion, or “accomplishment,” would be the final cleansing of the world from sin at the second coming. We are, then, dealing with the events which begin the processes of the second coming. Second, the scroll represents Scripture and the eating thereof represents intense study, or “ingestion,” of its contents. This took place when William Miller (and later the Millerites) became intensely interested in the prophetic messages of Scripture and studied them in such great detail. Third, the message they found there (which they believed to be an announcement of the imminent second coming) was a sweet message, like honey. But, fourth, when it didn’t turn out as they thought it became a very bitter thing to accept.
However, the experience doesn’t end there. After eating the scroll that was bitter in the stomach John the Revelator was told that he “must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.” In other words, the work of spreading the three angels’ messages didn’t end at the Great Disappointment. In fact, at the time of the disappointment the Millerites had only taken up the first two of the three messages. The Advent believers realized they still had a work to do. They had to take the three messages together to the entire world.
The obvious question that comes to mind after all this is, Why would God intend for His people to go through an experience like the Disappointment? The Disappointment separated the sincere believers from those who had joined the movement out of either excitement or fear. When preaching a message like the imminence of the second coming you are bound to attract, in addition to those who love the message because they love God, those who are in it just to be part of the big, happening thing and those who are just being good because they want to avoid eternal punishment. Only the true believers stuck with the message even after the Disappointment, and those were the people God needed to pull together into a usable organization. Having the insincere participants along would have impeded the effectiveness of the work.
That’s the short version of the explanations. We could go into a whole slew of additional details on this stuff, but as they aren’t essential to our primary topic of church organization we are going to stop here.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Our Roots, Pt. 4
Now that we have briefly addressed the historical and theological background of the Adventist Church’s origins, we will begin to look at the related issues of organization and structure. This topic was actually addressed in 1907 by a series of articles in the official Adventist periodical, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. (This magazine’s name has since been shortened to The Adventist Review, which will be a more familiar name for most Adventists.) It seems that the Adventist Church was also facing a crisis of organization back then, complete with agitators for radical change, and this series of articles was written by the church leader A.G. Daniells in order to remind the Adventist membership of why things were the way they were and what theological reasons were driving the church’s ongoing direction.
Here we are reproducing a significant portion of the first article in that series, which was published on January 31, 1907, and the entire second article, published on February 7, 1907. These two articles make several theological references in explaining decisions regarding organization that we have not yet explained. For the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with what these references are all about we will provide a follow-up post to explain them. We trust our Adventist readers won’t mind the theological review.
#1
The system of organization adopted by Seventh-day Adventists and applied to the administrative affairs of the denomination has not come by chance, or mere happen-so. It did not take shape without thought, study, or purpose on the part of the pioneers of this cause. The subject of organization received the most careful consideration and thorough study from the ablest men associated with this movement in its early days. Organization had friends and foes. By these it was both approved and condemned. The brethren discussed and agitated the question for years before the agreement was reached that organization should have a place in this movement.
The fear of organization and the opposition to it by the pioneers of this cause may be easily and reasonably accounted for. The majority of those who at the first embraced the third angel’s message had been in the movement under the first angel’s message. In that movement, organization had no place. The purpose of the proclamation of the first angel’s message, the manner in which the proclamation was made, and the brief period of time it covered, appear to have made little demand for organization…
The prevailing sentiment regarding organization was clearly expressed by Josiah Litch in the Advent Shield, May, 1844, as quoted in the Review, Vol. 8, page 43. Mr. Litch was a prominent minister and writer in the first message. He said:--
No provision has been made for the establishment of permanent institutions, among Adventists. Indeed, we have no means of ascertaining the number of ministers, and others, who have embraced the Advent faith… All peculiarities of creed or policy have been lost sight of in the absorbing inquiry concerning the coming of the heavenly Bridegroom. Those who have engaged in this enterprise are from all the various sects in the land… All these have agreed to work together for the accomplishment of a certain object; and the organization to which this has given rise, so far as there is anything which may be called an organization, is of the most simple, voluntary, and primitive form… We neither expect nor desire any other organization, until we reach the New Jerusalem, and organize under the King of kings.
When the movement under the first angel’s message neared its culmination in 1844, the masses of those who embraced it, being unable to remain in their churches in peace, separated from them. The situation at that time was explained by Geo. Storrs, a prominent minister in the movement. Speaking of the attitude of the churches, he said:--
Which of them will suffer a soul to remain among them in peace, that openly and fearlessly avows his faith in the advent at the door? Are not the terms of remaining among them undisturbed, that you wholly refrain from a public expression of faith in the coming of the Lord this year, whatever your convictions may be on the subject, and however important you may feel it to be to cry, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come”?—“The Church and Its Organization,” page 89…
This experience led Mr. Storrs and many of his associates in the ministry to give the following advice to those who believed the advent message and found themselves separated from their churches:--
Take care that you do not seek to organize another church. No church can be organized by man’s invention but what it becomes Babylon the moment it is organized. The Lord organized his own church by the strong bond of love. Stronger than that can not be made; and when such bonds will not hold together the professed followers of Christ, they cease to be his followers, and drop off from the body as a matter of course.—“The Church and Its Organization,” page 87.
It was in this unorganized condition that thousands of these believers came up to the close of the prophetic period, at which time they fully expected the Lord would come. The terrible disappointment they experienced because he did not come, threw them into utter confusion, and the great mass fell to pieces like a rope of sand.
#2
When the ministers who had taken a leading part in proclaiming the first angel’s message saw the confusion into which the believers were thrown by the disappointment of 1844, and when they saw contention, division, and scattering following the confusion, they made earnest efforts to hold the people together until harmony and union could be established. To this end William Miller published an “Address to the Brethren,” in which he pointed out some of the dangers that threatened the cause with which they were connected. He said:--
The cause we advocate calls upon all men to read the Word of God, and to reason, judge, compare, and digest for themselves. This is certainly right, and is the privilege of all rational members of the community. Yet this very liberty may become a stumbling-block to many, and without charity, be the means of scattering, dividing, and causing contention among brethren… Our present difficulties arise more from the multiplicity of masters and leaders among us (some of whom are governed by carnal motives) than from any want of light.—“Life of Miller,” pages 350, 351.
These statements, made by this thoughtful, judicious leader of the movement within six months after the disappointment, reveal some of the causes of the disintegration that so quickly set in. Alarmed by the situation, the leaders called a conference to “consult together respecting the condition and wants of the brethren in the several sections of the country; that we may be better enabled to act in concert, and with more efficiency in the proclamation of gospel truths.” The conference convened at Albany, NY, April 29, 1845. Sixty-one ministers and delegates were present. A committee of twelve, of which William Miller was chairman, was appointed to prepare recommendations for the action of the conference. The committee prefaced its report with the following statement: --
In view of the many conflicting opinions, unscriptural views, leading to unseemly practices, and the sad divisions which have been thereby caused by some professing to be Adventists, we deem it incumbent on us to declare to the world our belief that the Scriptures teach, among others, the following important truths.—“Life of Miller,” page 344.
After giving a synopsis of the fundamental doctrines which they held, they offered the following recommendation regarding organization:--
Associated Action
We are induced, from present circumstances affecting our spiritual interests, to present, for your consideration, a few ideas touching associated action.
Order is heaven’s first law. All things emanating from God are constituted on principles of perfect order. The New Testament rules for the government of the church we regard as binding on the whole brotherhood of Christ. No circumstances can justify us in departing from the usages established by Christ and his apostles.
We regard and congregation of believers, who habitually assemble for the worship of God and the due observance of gospel ordinances, as a church of Christ. As such, it is an independent body, accountable only to the great Head of the church. To all such we recommend a careful examination of the Scriptures, and the adoption of such principles of association and order as are in accordance therewith, that they may enjoy the advantages of the church relation which Christ has instituted.—Ibid., page 349.
This recommendation was unanimously adopted. And this, it appears, was the first step taken by William Miller and his associates toward anything approaching permanent organization. It was taken immediately following the disappointment, and within a very short time after it had been declared by a prominent leader that they should take care never to “organize another church.”
This action is a plain, open acknowledgment that their former position regarding organization could not be safely maintained after the disappointment. It was a course which they saw was absolutely necessary in order to avert the utter disintegration that threatened them.
It is not difficult at this time to give a consistent explanation of the change that then took place. The first angel’s message was a warning to the whole world, including the existing churches. It was committed to the churches to proclaim. Pious men in those churches accepted the message, and gave their lives to its proclamation. Thus the movement under the first angel’s message began in the churches, and for a time was carried forward by them. Under these circumstances there seemed to be no demand for any organization outside of the established churches.
But a regrettable change took place in the churches. The majority of both the preachers and the members turned against the message. They refused to allow it to be proclaimed in their houses of worship, and manifested such hostility toward those who received it as to make it almost impossible for them to hold to the message and remain in their churches.
This change took place when the first message was nearing its culmination in 1844. This called for the proclamation of the second angel’s message, announcing the fall of Babylon. The message was then given with an emphasis that called out nearly the whole body of believers in the first message. This separation was immediately followed by the disappointment.
The situation thus created called for organization. The leaders recognized this, and endeavored to provide what was needed. But they failed on two fundamental points. First, they failed to discover the Scriptural explanation of the disappointment, and the work to be done following it. Second, they failed to obtain anything like an adequate understanding of the organization that would be required to secure the co-operation necessary to carry forward the comprehensive, world-wide movement that was to follow the disappointment. They looked through a glass darkly. Like the blind man, whose eyes the Master was opening, they saw “men as trees walking.” Their proposal was less than a half-way measure, and it failed.
Next: Disorganized Growth
Here we are reproducing a significant portion of the first article in that series, which was published on January 31, 1907, and the entire second article, published on February 7, 1907. These two articles make several theological references in explaining decisions regarding organization that we have not yet explained. For the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with what these references are all about we will provide a follow-up post to explain them. We trust our Adventist readers won’t mind the theological review.
#1
The system of organization adopted by Seventh-day Adventists and applied to the administrative affairs of the denomination has not come by chance, or mere happen-so. It did not take shape without thought, study, or purpose on the part of the pioneers of this cause. The subject of organization received the most careful consideration and thorough study from the ablest men associated with this movement in its early days. Organization had friends and foes. By these it was both approved and condemned. The brethren discussed and agitated the question for years before the agreement was reached that organization should have a place in this movement.
The fear of organization and the opposition to it by the pioneers of this cause may be easily and reasonably accounted for. The majority of those who at the first embraced the third angel’s message had been in the movement under the first angel’s message. In that movement, organization had no place. The purpose of the proclamation of the first angel’s message, the manner in which the proclamation was made, and the brief period of time it covered, appear to have made little demand for organization…
The prevailing sentiment regarding organization was clearly expressed by Josiah Litch in the Advent Shield, May, 1844, as quoted in the Review, Vol. 8, page 43. Mr. Litch was a prominent minister and writer in the first message. He said:--
No provision has been made for the establishment of permanent institutions, among Adventists. Indeed, we have no means of ascertaining the number of ministers, and others, who have embraced the Advent faith… All peculiarities of creed or policy have been lost sight of in the absorbing inquiry concerning the coming of the heavenly Bridegroom. Those who have engaged in this enterprise are from all the various sects in the land… All these have agreed to work together for the accomplishment of a certain object; and the organization to which this has given rise, so far as there is anything which may be called an organization, is of the most simple, voluntary, and primitive form… We neither expect nor desire any other organization, until we reach the New Jerusalem, and organize under the King of kings.
When the movement under the first angel’s message neared its culmination in 1844, the masses of those who embraced it, being unable to remain in their churches in peace, separated from them. The situation at that time was explained by Geo. Storrs, a prominent minister in the movement. Speaking of the attitude of the churches, he said:--
Which of them will suffer a soul to remain among them in peace, that openly and fearlessly avows his faith in the advent at the door? Are not the terms of remaining among them undisturbed, that you wholly refrain from a public expression of faith in the coming of the Lord this year, whatever your convictions may be on the subject, and however important you may feel it to be to cry, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come”?—“The Church and Its Organization,” page 89…
This experience led Mr. Storrs and many of his associates in the ministry to give the following advice to those who believed the advent message and found themselves separated from their churches:--
Take care that you do not seek to organize another church. No church can be organized by man’s invention but what it becomes Babylon the moment it is organized. The Lord organized his own church by the strong bond of love. Stronger than that can not be made; and when such bonds will not hold together the professed followers of Christ, they cease to be his followers, and drop off from the body as a matter of course.—“The Church and Its Organization,” page 87.
It was in this unorganized condition that thousands of these believers came up to the close of the prophetic period, at which time they fully expected the Lord would come. The terrible disappointment they experienced because he did not come, threw them into utter confusion, and the great mass fell to pieces like a rope of sand.
#2
When the ministers who had taken a leading part in proclaiming the first angel’s message saw the confusion into which the believers were thrown by the disappointment of 1844, and when they saw contention, division, and scattering following the confusion, they made earnest efforts to hold the people together until harmony and union could be established. To this end William Miller published an “Address to the Brethren,” in which he pointed out some of the dangers that threatened the cause with which they were connected. He said:--
The cause we advocate calls upon all men to read the Word of God, and to reason, judge, compare, and digest for themselves. This is certainly right, and is the privilege of all rational members of the community. Yet this very liberty may become a stumbling-block to many, and without charity, be the means of scattering, dividing, and causing contention among brethren… Our present difficulties arise more from the multiplicity of masters and leaders among us (some of whom are governed by carnal motives) than from any want of light.—“Life of Miller,” pages 350, 351.
These statements, made by this thoughtful, judicious leader of the movement within six months after the disappointment, reveal some of the causes of the disintegration that so quickly set in. Alarmed by the situation, the leaders called a conference to “consult together respecting the condition and wants of the brethren in the several sections of the country; that we may be better enabled to act in concert, and with more efficiency in the proclamation of gospel truths.” The conference convened at Albany, NY, April 29, 1845. Sixty-one ministers and delegates were present. A committee of twelve, of which William Miller was chairman, was appointed to prepare recommendations for the action of the conference. The committee prefaced its report with the following statement: --
In view of the many conflicting opinions, unscriptural views, leading to unseemly practices, and the sad divisions which have been thereby caused by some professing to be Adventists, we deem it incumbent on us to declare to the world our belief that the Scriptures teach, among others, the following important truths.—“Life of Miller,” page 344.
After giving a synopsis of the fundamental doctrines which they held, they offered the following recommendation regarding organization:--
Associated Action
We are induced, from present circumstances affecting our spiritual interests, to present, for your consideration, a few ideas touching associated action.
Order is heaven’s first law. All things emanating from God are constituted on principles of perfect order. The New Testament rules for the government of the church we regard as binding on the whole brotherhood of Christ. No circumstances can justify us in departing from the usages established by Christ and his apostles.
We regard and congregation of believers, who habitually assemble for the worship of God and the due observance of gospel ordinances, as a church of Christ. As such, it is an independent body, accountable only to the great Head of the church. To all such we recommend a careful examination of the Scriptures, and the adoption of such principles of association and order as are in accordance therewith, that they may enjoy the advantages of the church relation which Christ has instituted.—Ibid., page 349.
This recommendation was unanimously adopted. And this, it appears, was the first step taken by William Miller and his associates toward anything approaching permanent organization. It was taken immediately following the disappointment, and within a very short time after it had been declared by a prominent leader that they should take care never to “organize another church.”
This action is a plain, open acknowledgment that their former position regarding organization could not be safely maintained after the disappointment. It was a course which they saw was absolutely necessary in order to avert the utter disintegration that threatened them.
It is not difficult at this time to give a consistent explanation of the change that then took place. The first angel’s message was a warning to the whole world, including the existing churches. It was committed to the churches to proclaim. Pious men in those churches accepted the message, and gave their lives to its proclamation. Thus the movement under the first angel’s message began in the churches, and for a time was carried forward by them. Under these circumstances there seemed to be no demand for any organization outside of the established churches.
But a regrettable change took place in the churches. The majority of both the preachers and the members turned against the message. They refused to allow it to be proclaimed in their houses of worship, and manifested such hostility toward those who received it as to make it almost impossible for them to hold to the message and remain in their churches.
This change took place when the first message was nearing its culmination in 1844. This called for the proclamation of the second angel’s message, announcing the fall of Babylon. The message was then given with an emphasis that called out nearly the whole body of believers in the first message. This separation was immediately followed by the disappointment.
The situation thus created called for organization. The leaders recognized this, and endeavored to provide what was needed. But they failed on two fundamental points. First, they failed to discover the Scriptural explanation of the disappointment, and the work to be done following it. Second, they failed to obtain anything like an adequate understanding of the organization that would be required to secure the co-operation necessary to carry forward the comprehensive, world-wide movement that was to follow the disappointment. They looked through a glass darkly. Like the blind man, whose eyes the Master was opening, they saw “men as trees walking.” Their proposal was less than a half-way measure, and it failed.
Next: Disorganized Growth
Friday, December 3, 2010
Our Roots, Pt. 3
As promised, this series is now going to start systematically examining the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s organizational structure, how it has changed over the years, and the reasons behind its current configuration. To do this we are going to use three primary sources of material. The first is www.whiteestate.org, which maintains an online library of all published materials by Ellen White. The second is www.adventistarchives.org, the website of the Archives and Statistics Department of the General Conference. This site offers a substantial library of past issues of official periodicals, records of official meetings, books and papers on church issues, and even pre-Adventist periodicals and documents going back as far as 1844. Since reading, much less studying in detail in order to create a comprehensive presentation, all of the material on these two sites would be the work of years we are going to cheat a little bit through the use of our third source. As it turns out, a fair chunk of this work has already been done for us in the form of a doctoral dissertation written by one Barry David Oliver while in pursuit of a PhD in Christian Ministry from Andrews University. Dr. Oliver concentrated his research on the organizational developments between 1888 and 1903, and we will be drawing significantly from his work when discussing that period. (As a point of passing interest, Dr. Oliver is currently serving the Adventist Church as President of the South Pacific Division, a territory which includes Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and a number of smaller islands in the region.) Having mentioned our references here, we will not be crediting them again in this series unless quoting directly.
In order to thoroughly examine the origins of the Adventist Church’s organizational structure, we must first briefly consider the origins of the Seventh-day Adventist Church itself. As was described in Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 30, the Adventist Church grew out of the Millerite Movement of the early 1840s. The leader of this movement was William Miller (who so far as we know was not an ancestor of the William Miller presently serving as President of the Potomac Conference). Miller came to a significant conclusion while studying Daniel 8:14, “And he said to me, ‘For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.’” This is the final component of an extended time prophesy. The “he” referred to in the verse was the angel that was explaining the prophesy to Daniel.
Miller interpreted the “sanctuary” referred to in this verse to mean the earth, and the “cleansing” of it to be the final cleansing from sin that would occur at the second coming of Jesus Christ. From there he had only to fix the start of the allotted time based on the fulfillment of the events prophesied earlier in the prophetic vision of Daniel 8. (We should explain here the concept of “prophetic time.” When biblical time prophesies use the term “days” they are referring to literal years, so this prophesy was actually specifying a period of 2,300 years.) The conclusion Miller came to was that the second coming of Jesus Christ was to occur in October of 1844 (originally he had believed the date to be in 1843, but later concluded that his math hadn’t taken into account differences in ancient calendar systems). When Miller came to this conclusion he was impressed that he needed to warn the world of its approaching end.
The spread of this message brought mixed reactions. Some accepted it joyfully and joined in the work of spreading the message. Others ridiculed it. At that time it was a commonly held belief within Protestantism that the second coming of Jesus Christ would be preceded by 1,000 years of world peace. Since there were still wars actively underway at that time it was believed that the second coming was, at a minimum, still 1,000 years away. This belief gave rise to a complacency which many weren’t happy to have disturbed. When the clamor of those who accepted Miller’s message reached a point where the organized churches could no longer ignore it they reacted by removing those individuals from church membership. When this happened the Millerites simply took to meeting together informally as they waited for the second coming to be accomplished. But then the date came and Jesus did not. This failure to show came to be known as the Great Disappointment.
There were four different ways the Millerites reacted to the Great Disappointment. Some went crawling back to the churches they had previously been members of and tried to forget the whole embarrassing incident. Others maintained that the second coming was still to occur, but they had somehow gotten the date wrong yet again. This group continued to set new dates until it eventually fizzled out. The third group concluded that Jesus Christ must have come after all, but that it was a spiritual coming rather than a physical coming. This group was the beginning of modern Spiritualism. The last group of Millerites went back to study their Bibles again in search of what they had gotten wrong. This brought them to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with their math, but rather that they had misunderstood the nature of the “cleansing” of the “sanctuary” which was prophesied to occur on that day.
To shorten the story a bit, what this final group came to understand was that the “sanctuary” spoken of in Daniel 8:14 was not the earth, but rather a “sanctuary” in heaven. You will recall that when the Israelites were in the wilderness God gave them this instruction, “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.” (Exodus 25:8, 9, emphasis supplied) During their time as slaves the Israelites had largely forgotten their own religion and their knowledge of God, so one of the first things God did after freeing them was to re-instill this knowledge. He did this through an earthly sanctuary and sacrifice system that human minds could understand, as a metaphor for heavenly things. Sacrificing animals couldn’t actually save the Israelites (or anyone else) from sin—but it did serve as a metaphor to point the Israelites by experience to the sacrifice which could save us—that of Jesus Christ.
All of this metaphor system was patterned after the real sanctuary system, and its real sacrifice, which is in heaven. “For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.” (Hebrews 9:24) It is this metaphor provided by the earthly sanctuary system which explains to us what was really meant in Daniel about the sanctuary being cleansed. In the earthly system, sacrifices would be made all year long and, by them, the sin of the people was symbolically transferred to the sanctuary. Once a year the sanctuary would be cleansed of this symbolically transferred sin through a ritual which involved the High Priest entering the Most Holy Place. In the real sanctuary in heaven, Jesus is both the sacrifice and the High Priest. He doesn’t go through the cycle of accumulating and cleansing sin every year as in the metaphor system. Instead, he does it once for all. The prophesy of Daniel 8:14 is specifying the time when Jesus would go from “regular” Godly/sacrificial/High Priestly duties in the heavenly sanctuary to the final, cleansing duties in the heavenly sanctuary which would immediately precede His second coming. So while this prophesy wasn’t about the actual second coming, it was an indicator that that event was to happen soon. (For more detail about the heavenly sanctuary, read further in the book of Hebrews.)
Once this final group of Millerites came to understand this biblical truth they had to figure out what to do with it (and about themselves). Their discovery meant that while the second coming was not quite so imminent as they had thought, the processes preceding its arrival had begun. This was something that they could not simply ignore, and the churches they had come out of before the Great Disappointment weren’t interested in having them back while they insisted on messing with the comfortable order of things with their new theology. Being their own ongoing group also posed some difficulties since except for their understanding of this prophetic event (which came to be known as the “sanctuary doctrine”) they had very little theology in common. Other than the generality of all being Christian each brought to the table the varying slants on doctrine accepted by the diverse denominations they had come out of.
To reconcile these differences they took, once again, to studying their Bibles. They held numerous informal conferences at which large groups of Advent believers, as they loosely called themselves, would gather for prolonged periods of Bible study and prayer on specific points of theology. They would not let a subject rest until they had achieved a common understanding which was based on a solid biblical foundation. One of their more surprising discoveries during these conferences was that the practice of observing Sunday as the day of worship had no foundation in the Bible. Since they could find no biblical basis for the change from the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, they returned to the original day of worship set up by God in the Garden of Eden. It would be these two distinctive doctrines (the soon coming of Christ as indicated by the events of prophesy and the seventh-day Sabbath) that formed the basis of the fledgling denomination’s identity.
Next: Seeds of Order
In order to thoroughly examine the origins of the Adventist Church’s organizational structure, we must first briefly consider the origins of the Seventh-day Adventist Church itself. As was described in Advice from the Spirit of Prophesy, Pt. 30, the Adventist Church grew out of the Millerite Movement of the early 1840s. The leader of this movement was William Miller (who so far as we know was not an ancestor of the William Miller presently serving as President of the Potomac Conference). Miller came to a significant conclusion while studying Daniel 8:14, “And he said to me, ‘For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.’” This is the final component of an extended time prophesy. The “he” referred to in the verse was the angel that was explaining the prophesy to Daniel.
Miller interpreted the “sanctuary” referred to in this verse to mean the earth, and the “cleansing” of it to be the final cleansing from sin that would occur at the second coming of Jesus Christ. From there he had only to fix the start of the allotted time based on the fulfillment of the events prophesied earlier in the prophetic vision of Daniel 8. (We should explain here the concept of “prophetic time.” When biblical time prophesies use the term “days” they are referring to literal years, so this prophesy was actually specifying a period of 2,300 years.) The conclusion Miller came to was that the second coming of Jesus Christ was to occur in October of 1844 (originally he had believed the date to be in 1843, but later concluded that his math hadn’t taken into account differences in ancient calendar systems). When Miller came to this conclusion he was impressed that he needed to warn the world of its approaching end.
The spread of this message brought mixed reactions. Some accepted it joyfully and joined in the work of spreading the message. Others ridiculed it. At that time it was a commonly held belief within Protestantism that the second coming of Jesus Christ would be preceded by 1,000 years of world peace. Since there were still wars actively underway at that time it was believed that the second coming was, at a minimum, still 1,000 years away. This belief gave rise to a complacency which many weren’t happy to have disturbed. When the clamor of those who accepted Miller’s message reached a point where the organized churches could no longer ignore it they reacted by removing those individuals from church membership. When this happened the Millerites simply took to meeting together informally as they waited for the second coming to be accomplished. But then the date came and Jesus did not. This failure to show came to be known as the Great Disappointment.
There were four different ways the Millerites reacted to the Great Disappointment. Some went crawling back to the churches they had previously been members of and tried to forget the whole embarrassing incident. Others maintained that the second coming was still to occur, but they had somehow gotten the date wrong yet again. This group continued to set new dates until it eventually fizzled out. The third group concluded that Jesus Christ must have come after all, but that it was a spiritual coming rather than a physical coming. This group was the beginning of modern Spiritualism. The last group of Millerites went back to study their Bibles again in search of what they had gotten wrong. This brought them to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with their math, but rather that they had misunderstood the nature of the “cleansing” of the “sanctuary” which was prophesied to occur on that day.
To shorten the story a bit, what this final group came to understand was that the “sanctuary” spoken of in Daniel 8:14 was not the earth, but rather a “sanctuary” in heaven. You will recall that when the Israelites were in the wilderness God gave them this instruction, “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.” (Exodus 25:8, 9, emphasis supplied) During their time as slaves the Israelites had largely forgotten their own religion and their knowledge of God, so one of the first things God did after freeing them was to re-instill this knowledge. He did this through an earthly sanctuary and sacrifice system that human minds could understand, as a metaphor for heavenly things. Sacrificing animals couldn’t actually save the Israelites (or anyone else) from sin—but it did serve as a metaphor to point the Israelites by experience to the sacrifice which could save us—that of Jesus Christ.
All of this metaphor system was patterned after the real sanctuary system, and its real sacrifice, which is in heaven. “For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.” (Hebrews 9:24) It is this metaphor provided by the earthly sanctuary system which explains to us what was really meant in Daniel about the sanctuary being cleansed. In the earthly system, sacrifices would be made all year long and, by them, the sin of the people was symbolically transferred to the sanctuary. Once a year the sanctuary would be cleansed of this symbolically transferred sin through a ritual which involved the High Priest entering the Most Holy Place. In the real sanctuary in heaven, Jesus is both the sacrifice and the High Priest. He doesn’t go through the cycle of accumulating and cleansing sin every year as in the metaphor system. Instead, he does it once for all. The prophesy of Daniel 8:14 is specifying the time when Jesus would go from “regular” Godly/sacrificial/High Priestly duties in the heavenly sanctuary to the final, cleansing duties in the heavenly sanctuary which would immediately precede His second coming. So while this prophesy wasn’t about the actual second coming, it was an indicator that that event was to happen soon. (For more detail about the heavenly sanctuary, read further in the book of Hebrews.)
Once this final group of Millerites came to understand this biblical truth they had to figure out what to do with it (and about themselves). Their discovery meant that while the second coming was not quite so imminent as they had thought, the processes preceding its arrival had begun. This was something that they could not simply ignore, and the churches they had come out of before the Great Disappointment weren’t interested in having them back while they insisted on messing with the comfortable order of things with their new theology. Being their own ongoing group also posed some difficulties since except for their understanding of this prophetic event (which came to be known as the “sanctuary doctrine”) they had very little theology in common. Other than the generality of all being Christian each brought to the table the varying slants on doctrine accepted by the diverse denominations they had come out of.
To reconcile these differences they took, once again, to studying their Bibles. They held numerous informal conferences at which large groups of Advent believers, as they loosely called themselves, would gather for prolonged periods of Bible study and prayer on specific points of theology. They would not let a subject rest until they had achieved a common understanding which was based on a solid biblical foundation. One of their more surprising discoveries during these conferences was that the practice of observing Sunday as the day of worship had no foundation in the Bible. Since they could find no biblical basis for the change from the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, they returned to the original day of worship set up by God in the Garden of Eden. It would be these two distinctive doctrines (the soon coming of Christ as indicated by the events of prophesy and the seventh-day Sabbath) that formed the basis of the fledgling denomination’s identity.
Next: Seeds of Order
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)