part 1 of 3

Corporate Repentance and
Our Denominational History

Is there a special reason why our Lord calls the “remnant church” to repent? This serious question deserves a careful answer.

It is easy to assume that only false or apostate churches need to repent. (The fact is that as corporate bodies they are beyond it). The more convinced we are that a certain denomination represents the true “remnant church” of Bible prophecy, the more perplexed we are to understand how she seriously needs an experience of repentance. But her only hope lies in that possibility.

There is objective evidence that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the people symbolized by the “remnant.” Her basic, unique doctrines are taken strictly from Holy Scripture. She establishes her identity by pinpoint accuracy of historical fulfillment of the prophecies of the rise of the “remnant” in the time of the end (Revelation 12:1-17). She is bearing to the world the three angels’ messages that prophecy says will be the task of the last-day church (see Revelation 14:1-14). She evidences that she is the heir of those who throughout history have held to the simplicity and purity of apostolic faith.

Do not these words (Exodus 31:12-17) point us out as God’s denominated people? and do they not declare to us that so long as time shall last, we are to cherish the sacred, denominational distinction placed upon us? . . .

In a special sense Seventh-day Adventists have been set in the world as watchmen and light-bearers. To them has been entrusted the last warning for a perishing world. On them is shining wonderful light from the word of God. They have been given a work of the most solemn import, —the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels’ messages. There is no other work of so great importance. . . .

The most solemn truths ever entrusted to mortals have been given us to proclaim to the world. The proclamation of these truths is to be our work. The world is to be warned, and Cod’s people are to be true to the trust committed to them. (Testimonies, Vol. 9, pp. 18, 19.)

To be such a denominated people, to make such a claim to mankind—is it any wonder that corporate pride can easily arise in our hearts? And, of course, pride always resists any call to repentance. This has ever been true since the inception of Israel.

No one would be so foolish as to deny that individuals in the church need to repent. The problem arises when the Lord’s call to “the angel of the church” is understood to apply to the church as a body, and especially its leadership.

Does our denominational history support Christ’s call to denominational repentance? There are several possible ways of looking at our history:

1. We can view it with corporate pride and satisfaction as does a sports team that has never lost a game. It’s great to be on the winning side. This attitude interprets God’s blessings on the church as His vindication and approval. Current denominational history is interpreted as “progress” or as “advance.” Objective evaluation of the “progress” becomes rare. The result of this attitude is lukewarmness. It is by far the most popular view of our history, but it : generates an unchristlike spiritual arrogance, the opposite of New Testament faith.
2. Others view our history with despair, interpreting our real failures as evidence that the Lord has cast off this denomination and forsaken it. This view has produced various offshoots from time to time, and continually spawns new movements of fruitless, destructive criticism. Often these movements are initiated as a legitimate protest against, although they seldom offer a practical solution to the problem.
   
   Both groups strenuously oppose the principle of denominational repentance, the first on the grounds that it is unnecessary since “all is well.” To suggest that it is necessary is regarded as impertinent, even disloyal, as the ancient priests regarded Jeremiah’s appeals. The second group reject it on the grounds that it is impossible, since they assume that the Lord has withdrawn from the church both the privilege and the possibility of repentance.
3. We can view our history with firm confidence that this is the true “remnant” of prophecy and that God has led and overruled, but with a keen sense of contrition and humility in view of our failure to honor our Lord as prophecy indicates must be done. The world has not yet truly been made conscious of the message, and His people have not been prepared for the second coming of Jesus Christ. This view “rejoiceth in the truth.” It does not seek to evade or suppress the obvious facts of denominational history that call for humbling of heart and repentance. Nevertheless, it is a view highlighted with hope.

Attempts to Explain the Long Delay

Truth always gives ground for hope; and truth always accompanies the crucifixion of self, the antithesis of human pride. But human pride uncorrected, without repentance, will succeed in destroying any ground of hope and cause large numbers of discouraged church members to lose their way eventually. The “all is well” syndrome leads inevitably to frustrated despair for the simple reason that one’s sober judgment insists that all is not well. In view of the needs of the world and the comparative impotence of God’s people, such pride is seen to be a form of self-hypnosis.

The blindest Laodicean is forced to recognize that the long delay in the fruition of the pioneers’ hopes has to be explained in some way. Something somewhere has to “give.” The natural consequence of this perplexity is a variety of suggestions as to what must “give:”

1. Disloyal critics and offshoots consistently declare that the integrity of the church itself must “give,” that is, its hopes are disappointed simply because its very existence has become illegitimate. It has forfeited the favor of God and no longer represents a valid movement of His leading. The church is Babylon, they say, its leadership an apostate hierarchy no better in principle than the Roman hierarchy. This of course is an extreme reaction against denominational pride and arrogance.
2. Increasingly attractive to intellectual circles is the position that it is the fundamental doctrines of the church that must “give.” The pioneers, they say, were theologically naive. In particular, the sanctuary doctrine that made the Advent Movement a unique denomination is in no way supported by Scripture. The entire 1844 doctrine and experience is assumed to be a sham. Again, this “solution” is a consequence of impenitence. The entertainment of Laodicean pride eventually results in the total disintegration of the denominational fabric.
3. At this writing, widespread propaganda suggests that it is also our historic understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy that must “give.” Ellen White did not enjoy the extent of divine inspiration that we have thought was the case. She was inspired only in the sense that countless other religious writers of influence in the evangelical world have been inspired. (Of course, this position makes her out to be a liar, for she claimed direct prophetic inspiration—but something must “give,” and the carnal heart having long resented Ellen White’s high christlike standards, destroying her true prophetic credibility meets with a surprising degree of acceptance).
   
   All attempts to validate our sanctuary and prophetic doctrines on the authority of Ellen White (assuming that these doctrines are not biblical) are vain, because side by side with the debunking of our foundational doctrines as unbiblical comes the attempt also to debunk Ellen White herself. Those who question the Scriptural basis of our doctrines are usually equally ready to question Ellen White’s authority.
4. Implicit in these proposed explanations of the long delay lurks a virtual charge against God Himself. “My Lord delayeth His coming” is the contrapuntal theme. From the days of the pioneers, He has mocked the prayers of a sincere people who have been loyal to His commandments against the ridicule and resistance of the Christian world. He has callously disappointed them, not only on October 22, 1844, but continually ever since, permitting sincere, prayerful pioneers and their followers to misunderstand the prophecies of Daniel and the letter to the Hebrews. While they have valiantly sought to refute their opponents who would deny the basis of their faith, all the while the Lord has upheld their opponents theologically and permitted His commandment-keeping people to be naively blind.

If the Lord has not actually given it to them, He has at. least permitted His Sabbath-keeping people to drink the bitter cup of shame and humiliation before the Christain world. There are even respected voices that now suggest that the basic doctrine of the personal, literal, visible second coming of Christ must “give.” The descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was the real second coming, and it has been going on ever since. How cruel the Lord mist be for over a century to permit a people loyal to Him to be so deceived! How could Seventh-day Adventists continue to trust the Deity as a loving, personal Heavenly Father? When self-denying pioneers earnestly begged Him for bread, He gave them a theological stone. They were so naive that they thought the Bible meant what it says in plain language, supposing that the common man could understand it.