"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." (Galatians 6:7-10, NIV)
"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, NIV)
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfector of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (Hebrews 12:1-3, NIV)
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 40
The pair of pamphlets that came out in early 1906 brought the organizational issues the church leaders had been dealing with to the attention of the general membership. The issues of Kellogg's pantheism had already been dealt with quite directly by the statements made by Ellen White, but Jones's theories on organization hadn't received the same level of attention.
With some, Jones's ideas on organization took root. In January of 1907 Ellen White sent this counsel to a pastor who was pulling his church away from the larger organizational structure and toward a congregational model of governance, "You have lost your bearings concerning many things, and cherish some views that bear the same mark of spiritual disease that has led to the disaffection at Battle Creek. And the enemy is working through you to spoil the flock of God. The Lord bids me say to you, Stop right where you are.
"You are severely tempted, and for some time have been pursuing a course that will impair your future usefulness. The Lord has given you freedom of speech that you might present the truth before the people. But you have been losing the grace of God out of your heart. You have taken a draught of a mixture prepared by the tempter.
"I do not want you to destroy yourself. Battle Creek is not the place where you will get light. The work being done there does not bear the signature of the Divine. Another spirit has come in and taken possession of human minds. The Lord God of Israel will surely punish the men who have set at naught His counsel. The Word of God tells us that just such things would come in these last days" (Letter 44, 1907).
In this counsel Ellen White made no distinction between the pantheism of Kellogg and the organizational extremes of Jones in warning against the spiritually diseased views coming out of Battle Creek. The two views ("God is inside us" followed by "the only organizational leadership Adventists should recognize is the voice of God inside us") were both dangerous to the very existence of the Adventist Church. The first view would change God from a Being to a pervading Essence, and if God is not a literal Being then none of the actions which Christ (or any other member of the Godhead) engaged in as literal Beings can have actually taken place. In short, the whole concept of sin and salvation is thrown out the window. The second view, by making all church members accountable to nothing but their personal whims, destroys all possibility of united corporate action in fulfilling the fundamental function of the Church—the spread of the gospel.
Jones did make allowance for a formal organization at the congregational level, since the New Testament clearly describes certain specific officers that should exist within each local congregation. But his theory on that seems to have been that those positions were only a concession because people weren't adequately advanced spiritually to do completely without formal organization. Ellen White's objections were not lessened by this concession. A congregational model of governance was just as bad as no governance at all so far as the need for coordinated global effort in soul-winning was concerned.
The conflict was heightened even further by the attempts of Jones to take legal control of the church building in Battle Creek—the Tabernacle—away from the denomination. This attempt was possible because the Tabernacle had been established before the system of conference ownership of local church properties was instituted. The Tabernacle was owned by the local congregation, and Jones intended to sway the congregation to give the property to the Battle Creek Sanitarium or otherwise separate it from the denomination.
Ellen White described why this was a problem in a letter to a man in the Battle Creek congregation written on February 4, 1907, "According to the light given me, unless a decided stand is taken to safeguard the Tabernacle in Battle Creek, theories will be presented in it that will dishonor God and His cause. I have been shown that if you understood the matter you would be as decided as I am in the testimony you bear.
"I must act in accordance with the light the Lord has given me; and I say to you that Elder A. T. Jones and Dr. Kellogg will make every effort possible to get possession of the Tabernacle, in order that in it they may present their doctrines. We must not allow that house to be used for the promulgation of error until our work is done in Battle Creek. The Tabernacle was built by the Seventh-day Adventist people. It is their property, and their loyal representatives should control it. On this question I will stand firm, and if you and others will take a decided stand with us, you will be doing that which God requires of you at this time.
"We must make sure the control of the Tabernacle, for powerful testimonies are to be borne in it in favor of the truth. This is the word of the Lord to you and to others. Elder A. T. Jones will work in every possible way to get possession of this house, and if he can do so he will present in it theories that should never be heard. I know whereof I speak in this matter, and if you could have seen the end from the beginning, if you had believed the warnings that have been given, you would have moved understandingly" (Letter 38, 1907).
This effort by Jones and Kellogg was eventually thwarted, but this potentially worst case scenario reveals the value of the handful of limitations on congregational autonomy imposed by conferences in the Adventist organizational structure. These limitations are 1) ownership of all local properties by the conference, 2) hiring, paying, firing, and other pastoral management decisions administered by the conference, and 3) required compliance with the stipulations of the Church Manual. Without these limitations the Church at large would have no recourse for dealing with situations in which some local leader (pastor or lay) took the congregation down a doctrinal or administrative path contrary to the positions of the denomination.
It was while all of this was going on that Daniells issued his series of articles in the Review and Herald tracing the origins of formal organization in the Adventist Church. Articles one through fourteen in this series we have already presented here in Our Roots. Article 15, which we will present in our next post in this series, applied the history lesson to the question of whether or not the Church should have any formal organization. Pointing to the way in which Moses organized the Israelites in the wilderness, he made the case that it has always been God's intention for His people to have a formal, visible organizational structure. Between the running of the 14th and 15th articles in the Daniells series on organization the Review and Herald ran a two part series by T. E. Bowen which examined church organization in the New Testament. Given its significance in debunking Jones's argument that the New Testament didn't provide for any organization beyond the local level we will present Bowen's material after the last article in the Daniells series.
On November 19, 1907 this conflict reached a decision point when the Battle Creek congregation disfellowshipped Dr. Kellogg. Jones also was eventually disfellowshipped, but not until 1909.
Next: Organization—No. 15
With some, Jones's ideas on organization took root. In January of 1907 Ellen White sent this counsel to a pastor who was pulling his church away from the larger organizational structure and toward a congregational model of governance, "You have lost your bearings concerning many things, and cherish some views that bear the same mark of spiritual disease that has led to the disaffection at Battle Creek. And the enemy is working through you to spoil the flock of God. The Lord bids me say to you, Stop right where you are.
"You are severely tempted, and for some time have been pursuing a course that will impair your future usefulness. The Lord has given you freedom of speech that you might present the truth before the people. But you have been losing the grace of God out of your heart. You have taken a draught of a mixture prepared by the tempter.
"I do not want you to destroy yourself. Battle Creek is not the place where you will get light. The work being done there does not bear the signature of the Divine. Another spirit has come in and taken possession of human minds. The Lord God of Israel will surely punish the men who have set at naught His counsel. The Word of God tells us that just such things would come in these last days" (Letter 44, 1907).
In this counsel Ellen White made no distinction between the pantheism of Kellogg and the organizational extremes of Jones in warning against the spiritually diseased views coming out of Battle Creek. The two views ("God is inside us" followed by "the only organizational leadership Adventists should recognize is the voice of God inside us") were both dangerous to the very existence of the Adventist Church. The first view would change God from a Being to a pervading Essence, and if God is not a literal Being then none of the actions which Christ (or any other member of the Godhead) engaged in as literal Beings can have actually taken place. In short, the whole concept of sin and salvation is thrown out the window. The second view, by making all church members accountable to nothing but their personal whims, destroys all possibility of united corporate action in fulfilling the fundamental function of the Church—the spread of the gospel.
Jones did make allowance for a formal organization at the congregational level, since the New Testament clearly describes certain specific officers that should exist within each local congregation. But his theory on that seems to have been that those positions were only a concession because people weren't adequately advanced spiritually to do completely without formal organization. Ellen White's objections were not lessened by this concession. A congregational model of governance was just as bad as no governance at all so far as the need for coordinated global effort in soul-winning was concerned.
The conflict was heightened even further by the attempts of Jones to take legal control of the church building in Battle Creek—the Tabernacle—away from the denomination. This attempt was possible because the Tabernacle had been established before the system of conference ownership of local church properties was instituted. The Tabernacle was owned by the local congregation, and Jones intended to sway the congregation to give the property to the Battle Creek Sanitarium or otherwise separate it from the denomination.
Ellen White described why this was a problem in a letter to a man in the Battle Creek congregation written on February 4, 1907, "According to the light given me, unless a decided stand is taken to safeguard the Tabernacle in Battle Creek, theories will be presented in it that will dishonor God and His cause. I have been shown that if you understood the matter you would be as decided as I am in the testimony you bear.
"I must act in accordance with the light the Lord has given me; and I say to you that Elder A. T. Jones and Dr. Kellogg will make every effort possible to get possession of the Tabernacle, in order that in it they may present their doctrines. We must not allow that house to be used for the promulgation of error until our work is done in Battle Creek. The Tabernacle was built by the Seventh-day Adventist people. It is their property, and their loyal representatives should control it. On this question I will stand firm, and if you and others will take a decided stand with us, you will be doing that which God requires of you at this time.
"We must make sure the control of the Tabernacle, for powerful testimonies are to be borne in it in favor of the truth. This is the word of the Lord to you and to others. Elder A. T. Jones will work in every possible way to get possession of this house, and if he can do so he will present in it theories that should never be heard. I know whereof I speak in this matter, and if you could have seen the end from the beginning, if you had believed the warnings that have been given, you would have moved understandingly" (Letter 38, 1907).
This effort by Jones and Kellogg was eventually thwarted, but this potentially worst case scenario reveals the value of the handful of limitations on congregational autonomy imposed by conferences in the Adventist organizational structure. These limitations are 1) ownership of all local properties by the conference, 2) hiring, paying, firing, and other pastoral management decisions administered by the conference, and 3) required compliance with the stipulations of the Church Manual. Without these limitations the Church at large would have no recourse for dealing with situations in which some local leader (pastor or lay) took the congregation down a doctrinal or administrative path contrary to the positions of the denomination.
It was while all of this was going on that Daniells issued his series of articles in the Review and Herald tracing the origins of formal organization in the Adventist Church. Articles one through fourteen in this series we have already presented here in Our Roots. Article 15, which we will present in our next post in this series, applied the history lesson to the question of whether or not the Church should have any formal organization. Pointing to the way in which Moses organized the Israelites in the wilderness, he made the case that it has always been God's intention for His people to have a formal, visible organizational structure. Between the running of the 14th and 15th articles in the Daniells series on organization the Review and Herald ran a two part series by T. E. Bowen which examined church organization in the New Testament. Given its significance in debunking Jones's argument that the New Testament didn't provide for any organization beyond the local level we will present Bowen's material after the last article in the Daniells series.
On November 19, 1907 this conflict reached a decision point when the Battle Creek congregation disfellowshipped Dr. Kellogg. Jones also was eventually disfellowshipped, but not until 1909.
Next: Organization—No. 15
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 39
On March 4, 1906 Jones brought his attacks against the organizational structure, church leadership, and the Spirit of Prophesy out into the open. He did this in the form of a pamphlet published under the title, “Some History, Some Experience, and Some Facts.” This pamphlet was a reproduction of a talk he had given in the Battle Creek Tabernacle. In this talk he read and commented on two documents. The first was a statement he had prepared and read to three members of the General Conference executive committee (including Daniells) who had recently been in Battle Creek. The second was a letter he had written to Daniells.
The substance of the first document was an accusation that the church leadership was stirring up trouble among the Battle Creek Sanitarium’s workers and students. This “trouble” pertained to instruction given by Ellen White that Adventists ought to leave Battle Creek (or not go there to study in the first place). The following excerpt describes the sort of misbehavior supposedly incited:
“They insist that they ‘must go,’ and send in their resignation to take effect a month or six weeks, or two months or more afterward: or to take effect when their contract expires anyhow. We accept their resignation, to take effect earlier, or possibly immediately. Then they insist that if they go earlier, they must be paid full wages clear up to the expiration of the time of their contract, or they ask to say ‘two weeks’ more; and when we consent to their plea, then they spend their time just as far as they can, and make opportunity day and night, to create dissatisfaction in others of the family, and even in the patients; to attend secret meetings off the premises, or to hold secret meetings on the premises; to show disrespect to their teachers, to those in responsibility, and in fact to everybody who does not fall in with their own spirit; to despise the Bible, prayer, and meetings, whether for religious service, or for the benefit and improvement of the Sanitarium and its work; to be careless, if not reckless, of the property of the Sanitarium; to betray confidence; in short, to do any unchristian thing, and no Christian thing if they can help it. And when at last their own set time expires, or because of their perverse course we are compelled to discharge them, then they claim and report that they are turned out because they believe the Testimonies, and still hang around the place, watching for chances to poison the minds of others, and to make great representations of how ‘the Testimonies tell everybody to get out of Battle Creek.’”
The second document (the letter to Daniells) contained accusations that the changes made to the governance structure at the 1903 Session made it a “czardom” and a “bureaucracy,” among other things. It also claimed that these changes had been pushed through against the will of the majority of the delegates. The letter also accused the church leadership of a personal campaign to discredit and otherwise ruin Kellogg, and went on to try to discredit the Spirit of Prophesy by citing what Jones claimed were inconsistencies and other difficulties with various “testimonies” sent out by Ellen White.
After this pamphlet came out several church leaders spent a week at Ellen White’s home in California going through it and searching out documentation from her writings to refute the various accusations. After this consultation Ellen White wrote a letter of correction directly to Jones. This particular manuscript doesn’t seem to have ever been released to the public by the White Estate, but another letter written a few months later to a couple whose sympathy Kellogg had tried to gain makes clear her attitude toward what was going on:
“I feel intensely sorrowful when I see some of our brethren in Battle Creek taking a course that is leading them away from the truth: for I have had a presentation of the first apostasy in the heavenly courts. The warnings of the Holy Spirit have been disregarded, and there has been persistent work of deception. A. T. Jones has permitted himself to be used as the voice of Dr. J. H. Kellogg. …
“Dr. Kellogg places himself before the world in the position of one who is greatly abused. He writes many letters, as he has to you, making such a representation as would call forth sympathy. But he is still at work with all subtlety. I have felt compelled to warn our people: for they do not understand his cunning. …
“If Dr. Kellogg can destroy the faith of any of our people in the testimonies, he will do it. He sometimes takes the nurses and others, sometimes alone in the night season, and talks with them for hours framing a tissue of falsehood, to make them believe himself a much abused man. Some of these poor souls have heard the truth, and they wish to get out of Battle Creek. They realize that their safety consists in leaving the place where they are so deceived. The doctor will take advantage in every way to make an impression upon human minds in destroying all confidence in the testimonies. If we are not constantly on guard, he will destroy by his sophistries, if possible, the very elect. And those associates who have upheld him will have to answer before God for their individual course of action” (Letter to Dr. and Mrs. Kress, written July 27, 1906).
After completing their research the church leaders made a public response to the Jones pamphlet by publishing one of their own on March 23, 1906 entitled “A Statement Refuting Charges Made by A. T. Jones Against the Spirit of Prophesy and the Plan of Organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination.” This “Statement” detailed the facts and circumstances surrounding each of the situations about which Jones had made accusations.
Regarding the accusation of secret meetings, it was explained that while Daniells and some other leaders had been in Battle Creek on other business testimonies from Ellen White had arrived with instructions that they should be publicly read to the Adventists at Battle Creek. After these readings had been completed a number of people came forward and asked to meet with these church leaders personally to get answers to the questions swirling around in Battle Creek which cast doubt on the authority of Ellen White’s work. The church leaders agreed to meet with these individuals at times and places convenient to them and with whomever else they cared to invite. The result was a series of small, informal, and private (though hardly secret) meetings which countered the influence Kellogg and Jones had been exerting. It is hardly surprising, then, that they would try to disparage these meetings and make it appear that something improper had occurred.
As to the more general charges of destruction of property and consistently unchristian behavior, it was pointed out that no evidence had been produced of any specific instances of this sort of conduct. The “Statement” itself responds to this charge most succinctly, “The real seat of the difficulty lies in the fact that, when the Testimonies were read, some believed them, and they simply exercised their religious liberty, not only to believe them themselves, but to endeavor to restore in their fellow-laborers the confidence of which they had been robbed by the subtle, covert teaching to which they had listened.
“On several occasions we understand, they manifested their disapprobation regarding such teaching as was calculated to destroy their confidence, not only in the spirit of prophesy, but in the message itself. It is possible that some may not have shown their disapproval of the efforts made to disparage the message, and the organized work of God in the earth, in the wisest way. But they had the right to disbelieve what was said, and to protest against it in a proper way. This they did in some instances; but this exercise of religious liberty seems to have been misunderstood. Their courage to remonstrate against error, and exercise religious liberty, is what is here called a spirit of ‘boycott,’ ‘disrespect,” a ‘dishonest course,’ and an ‘unchristian thing.’ No stronger evidence is needed of the complete departure of the Sanitarium management from some of the fundamental principles of this message, than the fact that the simple reading of Testimonies from the Spirit of God in the Tabernacle, and the effort to lead persons back into a belief of them, should call forth such grave charges as are here made.” (p.9)
The Statement also went into considerable detail in explaining the changes in the organizational structure and the reasons behind them. As we’ve already covered that territory in this series of posts we won’t get into the details again, but the introduction to this portion of the Statement describes the situation with such clarity that it is worth including here, “Now is the time for our people to get a clear understanding of just what the called-for reorganization was, and just what response was made to that call. First of all we wish to state very clearly that the call that came to us at the General Conference of 1901 to re-organize was not a call to disorganize. Nor was it a call to abandon the original purpose and general plan of organization adopted by the pioneers of this cause. We accept the assurance that has been given us through the spirit of prophesy, that the Lord led and guided the leaders of this cause who were called to form the original plans of organization for this world-wide movement which we are carrying forward” (p.19).
After discussing the organizational structure, the Statement moved on to the charge that a personal attack was being made on Kellogg, “That the denomination has been passing through a sad and most trying experience during the past four years, we freely admit. But the controversy has been one concerning vital and fundamental principles,--a controversy between truth and error. The fundamental principles of our message have been assailed. Besides this, a policy of administration has been contending for the mastery which is destructive of all organization, and if allowed to secure the supremacy, would bring anarchy and ruin. It is against these things, and these only, that we have been contending. And against these evil things we expect to contend to the end. Men are involved in the contention only as they are the champions of opposing principles. If the men who are now leaders in the strife which is in our midst should step aside, and others take their places, and the apostasy and wicked spirit of domination should continue to assert themselves, the warfare would still continue. Once more let us say, that it is against wrong principles, and not men, that we are contending” (p.36).
The rebuttal then moved on to the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies from Ellen White. After disproving one specific accusation by quoting the entire testimony in question and thereby showing that it simply did not say what Jones claimed it said, the Statement made this observation, “The glaring discrepancies which appear in this instance between what the Testimonies really say and what Elder Jones says they say, are to be seen in all his arguments that follow. He tells us that he has changed his belief respecting the Testimonies; that he can not believe them now as he once did, and cites as a reason certain Testimonies which he claims contain contradictions. But, when these very Testimonies themselves are produced in which the alleged contradictions occur, no such contradictions appear. We invite particular attention to this fact as we examine each of the charges which he prefers against the testimonies. One of two things is certainly true; either Elder Jones has quoted from memory, or he has knowingly perverted the plain statements of the Testimonies. He can impale himself on either horn of this dilemma he chooses” (p.60). The same exercise was undergone with each successive accusation against the testimonies. In each case the actual text of the testimony in question completely disproved the accusation.
One final thought from the Statement will suffice to summarize the whole, “The cry of apostasy has ever been, ‘Ye have killed the people of the Lord.’ It claims the right to carry on its destructive work without opposition. With it, opposition is persecution.
“But the church of God has been set for the defense of the truth, and it can not sit idly by while men wreck the hopes and sincere, confiding hearts for time and for eternity. Elder Jones may boast, if he wishes, that he will ‘never take any part’ in this campaign against error; and so far as we know he has not. Instead, however, he has, to all appearances, allied himself with this apostasy, has become a part of it, and now stands forth as its most prominent champion. Of this, the leaflet under review is indisputable evidence.” (p.38)
Next: Public Resolution
The substance of the first document was an accusation that the church leadership was stirring up trouble among the Battle Creek Sanitarium’s workers and students. This “trouble” pertained to instruction given by Ellen White that Adventists ought to leave Battle Creek (or not go there to study in the first place). The following excerpt describes the sort of misbehavior supposedly incited:
“They insist that they ‘must go,’ and send in their resignation to take effect a month or six weeks, or two months or more afterward: or to take effect when their contract expires anyhow. We accept their resignation, to take effect earlier, or possibly immediately. Then they insist that if they go earlier, they must be paid full wages clear up to the expiration of the time of their contract, or they ask to say ‘two weeks’ more; and when we consent to their plea, then they spend their time just as far as they can, and make opportunity day and night, to create dissatisfaction in others of the family, and even in the patients; to attend secret meetings off the premises, or to hold secret meetings on the premises; to show disrespect to their teachers, to those in responsibility, and in fact to everybody who does not fall in with their own spirit; to despise the Bible, prayer, and meetings, whether for religious service, or for the benefit and improvement of the Sanitarium and its work; to be careless, if not reckless, of the property of the Sanitarium; to betray confidence; in short, to do any unchristian thing, and no Christian thing if they can help it. And when at last their own set time expires, or because of their perverse course we are compelled to discharge them, then they claim and report that they are turned out because they believe the Testimonies, and still hang around the place, watching for chances to poison the minds of others, and to make great representations of how ‘the Testimonies tell everybody to get out of Battle Creek.’”
The second document (the letter to Daniells) contained accusations that the changes made to the governance structure at the 1903 Session made it a “czardom” and a “bureaucracy,” among other things. It also claimed that these changes had been pushed through against the will of the majority of the delegates. The letter also accused the church leadership of a personal campaign to discredit and otherwise ruin Kellogg, and went on to try to discredit the Spirit of Prophesy by citing what Jones claimed were inconsistencies and other difficulties with various “testimonies” sent out by Ellen White.
After this pamphlet came out several church leaders spent a week at Ellen White’s home in California going through it and searching out documentation from her writings to refute the various accusations. After this consultation Ellen White wrote a letter of correction directly to Jones. This particular manuscript doesn’t seem to have ever been released to the public by the White Estate, but another letter written a few months later to a couple whose sympathy Kellogg had tried to gain makes clear her attitude toward what was going on:
“I feel intensely sorrowful when I see some of our brethren in Battle Creek taking a course that is leading them away from the truth: for I have had a presentation of the first apostasy in the heavenly courts. The warnings of the Holy Spirit have been disregarded, and there has been persistent work of deception. A. T. Jones has permitted himself to be used as the voice of Dr. J. H. Kellogg. …
“Dr. Kellogg places himself before the world in the position of one who is greatly abused. He writes many letters, as he has to you, making such a representation as would call forth sympathy. But he is still at work with all subtlety. I have felt compelled to warn our people: for they do not understand his cunning. …
“If Dr. Kellogg can destroy the faith of any of our people in the testimonies, he will do it. He sometimes takes the nurses and others, sometimes alone in the night season, and talks with them for hours framing a tissue of falsehood, to make them believe himself a much abused man. Some of these poor souls have heard the truth, and they wish to get out of Battle Creek. They realize that their safety consists in leaving the place where they are so deceived. The doctor will take advantage in every way to make an impression upon human minds in destroying all confidence in the testimonies. If we are not constantly on guard, he will destroy by his sophistries, if possible, the very elect. And those associates who have upheld him will have to answer before God for their individual course of action” (Letter to Dr. and Mrs. Kress, written July 27, 1906).
After completing their research the church leaders made a public response to the Jones pamphlet by publishing one of their own on March 23, 1906 entitled “A Statement Refuting Charges Made by A. T. Jones Against the Spirit of Prophesy and the Plan of Organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination.” This “Statement” detailed the facts and circumstances surrounding each of the situations about which Jones had made accusations.
Regarding the accusation of secret meetings, it was explained that while Daniells and some other leaders had been in Battle Creek on other business testimonies from Ellen White had arrived with instructions that they should be publicly read to the Adventists at Battle Creek. After these readings had been completed a number of people came forward and asked to meet with these church leaders personally to get answers to the questions swirling around in Battle Creek which cast doubt on the authority of Ellen White’s work. The church leaders agreed to meet with these individuals at times and places convenient to them and with whomever else they cared to invite. The result was a series of small, informal, and private (though hardly secret) meetings which countered the influence Kellogg and Jones had been exerting. It is hardly surprising, then, that they would try to disparage these meetings and make it appear that something improper had occurred.
As to the more general charges of destruction of property and consistently unchristian behavior, it was pointed out that no evidence had been produced of any specific instances of this sort of conduct. The “Statement” itself responds to this charge most succinctly, “The real seat of the difficulty lies in the fact that, when the Testimonies were read, some believed them, and they simply exercised their religious liberty, not only to believe them themselves, but to endeavor to restore in their fellow-laborers the confidence of which they had been robbed by the subtle, covert teaching to which they had listened.
“On several occasions we understand, they manifested their disapprobation regarding such teaching as was calculated to destroy their confidence, not only in the spirit of prophesy, but in the message itself. It is possible that some may not have shown their disapproval of the efforts made to disparage the message, and the organized work of God in the earth, in the wisest way. But they had the right to disbelieve what was said, and to protest against it in a proper way. This they did in some instances; but this exercise of religious liberty seems to have been misunderstood. Their courage to remonstrate against error, and exercise religious liberty, is what is here called a spirit of ‘boycott,’ ‘disrespect,” a ‘dishonest course,’ and an ‘unchristian thing.’ No stronger evidence is needed of the complete departure of the Sanitarium management from some of the fundamental principles of this message, than the fact that the simple reading of Testimonies from the Spirit of God in the Tabernacle, and the effort to lead persons back into a belief of them, should call forth such grave charges as are here made.” (p.9)
The Statement also went into considerable detail in explaining the changes in the organizational structure and the reasons behind them. As we’ve already covered that territory in this series of posts we won’t get into the details again, but the introduction to this portion of the Statement describes the situation with such clarity that it is worth including here, “Now is the time for our people to get a clear understanding of just what the called-for reorganization was, and just what response was made to that call. First of all we wish to state very clearly that the call that came to us at the General Conference of 1901 to re-organize was not a call to disorganize. Nor was it a call to abandon the original purpose and general plan of organization adopted by the pioneers of this cause. We accept the assurance that has been given us through the spirit of prophesy, that the Lord led and guided the leaders of this cause who were called to form the original plans of organization for this world-wide movement which we are carrying forward” (p.19).
After discussing the organizational structure, the Statement moved on to the charge that a personal attack was being made on Kellogg, “That the denomination has been passing through a sad and most trying experience during the past four years, we freely admit. But the controversy has been one concerning vital and fundamental principles,--a controversy between truth and error. The fundamental principles of our message have been assailed. Besides this, a policy of administration has been contending for the mastery which is destructive of all organization, and if allowed to secure the supremacy, would bring anarchy and ruin. It is against these things, and these only, that we have been contending. And against these evil things we expect to contend to the end. Men are involved in the contention only as they are the champions of opposing principles. If the men who are now leaders in the strife which is in our midst should step aside, and others take their places, and the apostasy and wicked spirit of domination should continue to assert themselves, the warfare would still continue. Once more let us say, that it is against wrong principles, and not men, that we are contending” (p.36).
The rebuttal then moved on to the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies from Ellen White. After disproving one specific accusation by quoting the entire testimony in question and thereby showing that it simply did not say what Jones claimed it said, the Statement made this observation, “The glaring discrepancies which appear in this instance between what the Testimonies really say and what Elder Jones says they say, are to be seen in all his arguments that follow. He tells us that he has changed his belief respecting the Testimonies; that he can not believe them now as he once did, and cites as a reason certain Testimonies which he claims contain contradictions. But, when these very Testimonies themselves are produced in which the alleged contradictions occur, no such contradictions appear. We invite particular attention to this fact as we examine each of the charges which he prefers against the testimonies. One of two things is certainly true; either Elder Jones has quoted from memory, or he has knowingly perverted the plain statements of the Testimonies. He can impale himself on either horn of this dilemma he chooses” (p.60). The same exercise was undergone with each successive accusation against the testimonies. In each case the actual text of the testimony in question completely disproved the accusation.
One final thought from the Statement will suffice to summarize the whole, “The cry of apostasy has ever been, ‘Ye have killed the people of the Lord.’ It claims the right to carry on its destructive work without opposition. With it, opposition is persecution.
“But the church of God has been set for the defense of the truth, and it can not sit idly by while men wreck the hopes and sincere, confiding hearts for time and for eternity. Elder Jones may boast, if he wishes, that he will ‘never take any part’ in this campaign against error; and so far as we know he has not. Instead, however, he has, to all appearances, allied himself with this apostasy, has become a part of it, and now stands forth as its most prominent champion. Of this, the leaflet under review is indisputable evidence.” (p.38)
Next: Public Resolution
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Our Roots, Pt. 38
As we have seen earlier, Ellen White did not involve herself with the practical details of determining organizational form. Her concern was with the principles on which that form was based and how well church leaders imbibed and practiced those principles. Any specific form church leaders devised which was in harmony with those principles was acceptable to her. Being content that the form chosen in 1901 and tweaked in 1903 was in accordance with those principles, she focused her energies on counseling church leaders to take the principles to heart. This was significant and necessary because many of the same church leaders that had been in power before the reorganization still held positions of power after it, and unless they took to heart the corrected principles of operation they could just as easily abuse the improved system as they had the earlier system of organization.
The concern that leaders practice the principles on which the reorganization was based is seen in warnings like this one:
“Too much power is invested in humanity when matters are so arranged that one man, or a small group of men have it in their power to rule or to ruin the work of their fellow-laborers. In the erection of medical institutions and the development of their work, there is not to be a ruling, kingly power, as there has been in the past. The kingly power formerly exhibited in the General Conference is not to be perpetuated. The publishing work is not to be a kingdom of itself. It is essential that the principles that govern in General Conference affairs shall be maintained in the management of the publishing work and the sanitarium work. No one is to think that the branch of work with which he is connected is of vastly more importance than other branches.
“The division of the General Conference into District Union Conferences was God’s arrangement. In the work of the Lord for these last days there are to be no Jerusalem centers, no kingly power. And the work in the different countries is not to be tied up by contracts to the work centering in Battle Creek; for [this is] not God’s plan. Brethren are to counsel together; for we are just as much under the control of God in one part of His vineyard as in another. Brethren are to be one in heart and soul, even as Christ and the Father are one. Teach this, practice this, that we may be one with Christ in God, all working to build up one another” (Manuscript 156B, 1901).
This statement from Ellen White is expertly commented on by Barry Oliver in his book, SDA Organizational Structure, Past, Present, and Future, “These paragraphs which were written on 27 November 1901, seven months after the General Conference session, pointed to a danger which still existed—the danger of failing to implement the principle of decentralization in all the features of the church organization. Ellen White wrote in a manner which was conducive to unity, not disunity. But her burden was that there should not be any centers of kingly power. Her implication was that such concentrations of power would supplant the possibility of that unity which was to be a symbol of the relationship in the Godhead” (p.212, emphasis supplied).
Ellen White stayed out of the Daniells/Kellogg/Jones disputes until the substance of those disputes strayed onto the territory of principle. This happened when the no-debt policy came up and again in regard to Kellogg’s book, The Living Temple. As we have already seen, the issue of the no-debt policy was settled fairly quickly. The matter of Kellogg’s book, and the pantheistic viewpoint it contained, was more complicated. In promoting the book, and in the book itself, Kellogg had used statements from Ellen White—out of context and misinterpreted—to make it appear that she supported his pantheistic philosophies. Ellen White did not correct this abuse of her writings until the statements she sent to be read at the 1903 Autumn Council. Afterwards, these same materials were published in the Review and Herald so that the entire church could understand the situation.
“I have some things to say to our teachers in reference to the new book, ‘The Living Temple.’ Be careful how you sustain the sentiments of this book regarding the personality of God. As the Lord represents matters to me, these sentiments do not bear the indorsement of God. They are a snare that the enemy has prepared for these last days. I thought that this would surely be discerned, and that it would not be necessary for me to say anything about it. But since the claim has been made that the teachings of this book can be sustained by statements from my writings, I am compelled to speak in denial of this claim. There may be in this book expressions and sentiments that are in harmony with my writings. And there may be in my writings many statements which, when taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of ‘The Living Temple,’ would seem to be in harmony with the teachings of this book. This may give apparent support to the assertion that the sentiments in ‘The Living Temple’ are in harmony with my writings. But God forbid that this opinion should prevail” (Review and Herald, October 22, 1903, par. 1).
As mentioned previously, this public denouncement of Kellogg’s position strengthened the bond between Kellogg and Jones (who thought that Kellogg was being mistreated). These two were equally unwilling to either abandon their position or to openly dismiss the guidance of the Spirit of Prophesy. Instead, they began to sow doubts about the authority of the writings coming from Ellen White. One of the ways they did this was by suggesting that some of the things she said were from God and others were just her own human opinions. A variation on this suggestion was that W.C. White was influencing his mother’s opinions and writings. They also suggested that some of the documents coming out under her name hadn’t actually been written by Ellen White—that W.C. White or some of her other assistants would write out their own thoughts and send them out under her name.
Ellen White was not in the habit of directly addressing challenges to the authority of her work. Such challenges had been popping up now and then throughout her ministry and her typical approach was to ignore them and allow other church leaders to deal with them. In this case she undertook to address them herself (possibly because this time around the other church leaders were also under attack from the Kellogg/Jones camp). In early 1906 Ellen White sent a letter to more than a dozen of the primary agitators in the Kellogg/Jones camp at Battle Creek, inviting them to ask any questions they might have about the authoritativeness of her writings so that she could clear up any doubts or misunderstandings they might have. The questions poured in and she spent several months responding to them.
Next: Meeting a Direct Attack
The concern that leaders practice the principles on which the reorganization was based is seen in warnings like this one:
“Too much power is invested in humanity when matters are so arranged that one man, or a small group of men have it in their power to rule or to ruin the work of their fellow-laborers. In the erection of medical institutions and the development of their work, there is not to be a ruling, kingly power, as there has been in the past. The kingly power formerly exhibited in the General Conference is not to be perpetuated. The publishing work is not to be a kingdom of itself. It is essential that the principles that govern in General Conference affairs shall be maintained in the management of the publishing work and the sanitarium work. No one is to think that the branch of work with which he is connected is of vastly more importance than other branches.
“The division of the General Conference into District Union Conferences was God’s arrangement. In the work of the Lord for these last days there are to be no Jerusalem centers, no kingly power. And the work in the different countries is not to be tied up by contracts to the work centering in Battle Creek; for [this is] not God’s plan. Brethren are to counsel together; for we are just as much under the control of God in one part of His vineyard as in another. Brethren are to be one in heart and soul, even as Christ and the Father are one. Teach this, practice this, that we may be one with Christ in God, all working to build up one another” (Manuscript 156B, 1901).
This statement from Ellen White is expertly commented on by Barry Oliver in his book, SDA Organizational Structure, Past, Present, and Future, “These paragraphs which were written on 27 November 1901, seven months after the General Conference session, pointed to a danger which still existed—the danger of failing to implement the principle of decentralization in all the features of the church organization. Ellen White wrote in a manner which was conducive to unity, not disunity. But her burden was that there should not be any centers of kingly power. Her implication was that such concentrations of power would supplant the possibility of that unity which was to be a symbol of the relationship in the Godhead” (p.212, emphasis supplied).
Ellen White stayed out of the Daniells/Kellogg/Jones disputes until the substance of those disputes strayed onto the territory of principle. This happened when the no-debt policy came up and again in regard to Kellogg’s book, The Living Temple. As we have already seen, the issue of the no-debt policy was settled fairly quickly. The matter of Kellogg’s book, and the pantheistic viewpoint it contained, was more complicated. In promoting the book, and in the book itself, Kellogg had used statements from Ellen White—out of context and misinterpreted—to make it appear that she supported his pantheistic philosophies. Ellen White did not correct this abuse of her writings until the statements she sent to be read at the 1903 Autumn Council. Afterwards, these same materials were published in the Review and Herald so that the entire church could understand the situation.
“I have some things to say to our teachers in reference to the new book, ‘The Living Temple.’ Be careful how you sustain the sentiments of this book regarding the personality of God. As the Lord represents matters to me, these sentiments do not bear the indorsement of God. They are a snare that the enemy has prepared for these last days. I thought that this would surely be discerned, and that it would not be necessary for me to say anything about it. But since the claim has been made that the teachings of this book can be sustained by statements from my writings, I am compelled to speak in denial of this claim. There may be in this book expressions and sentiments that are in harmony with my writings. And there may be in my writings many statements which, when taken from their connection, and interpreted according to the mind of the writer of ‘The Living Temple,’ would seem to be in harmony with the teachings of this book. This may give apparent support to the assertion that the sentiments in ‘The Living Temple’ are in harmony with my writings. But God forbid that this opinion should prevail” (Review and Herald, October 22, 1903, par. 1).
As mentioned previously, this public denouncement of Kellogg’s position strengthened the bond between Kellogg and Jones (who thought that Kellogg was being mistreated). These two were equally unwilling to either abandon their position or to openly dismiss the guidance of the Spirit of Prophesy. Instead, they began to sow doubts about the authority of the writings coming from Ellen White. One of the ways they did this was by suggesting that some of the things she said were from God and others were just her own human opinions. A variation on this suggestion was that W.C. White was influencing his mother’s opinions and writings. They also suggested that some of the documents coming out under her name hadn’t actually been written by Ellen White—that W.C. White or some of her other assistants would write out their own thoughts and send them out under her name.
Ellen White was not in the habit of directly addressing challenges to the authority of her work. Such challenges had been popping up now and then throughout her ministry and her typical approach was to ignore them and allow other church leaders to deal with them. In this case she undertook to address them herself (possibly because this time around the other church leaders were also under attack from the Kellogg/Jones camp). In early 1906 Ellen White sent a letter to more than a dozen of the primary agitators in the Kellogg/Jones camp at Battle Creek, inviting them to ask any questions they might have about the authoritativeness of her writings so that she could clear up any doubts or misunderstandings they might have. The questions poured in and she spent several months responding to them.
Next: Meeting a Direct Attack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)