part 2 of 3
Christ’s Solution to
Our Denominational Impasse
If Christ’s call to “the angel of the church of the Laodiceans” is understood as a call to denominational repentance, then it is obvious that
- the integrity of the church remains intact as the true “remnant “
- its foundational doctrines are valid and thoroughly Scriptural;
- Ellen White remains, despite criticism and attacks, a true, honest agent who exercised the gift of the spirit of prophecy;
- the Lord has not delayed His coming nor has He mocked the sincere prayers of His people who have been loyal to His law. The pioneers were led of the Holy Spirit in their understanding of the prophecies and of the sanctuary doctrine.
What must “give” then, is our corporate, sinful, Laodicean pride which has thwarted all of our Lord’s attempts to bring healing, unity, and revival which would have made the finishing of our gospel task possible. Either our Lord has delayed His coming and lied to us when He has said repeatedly that it is “near,” or we have delayed it by our stubborn impenitence. Insisting on the former virtually destroys the Advent Movement; recognizing the latter alone can validate it. It is our corporate love of self that must be crucified, not the church, not its basic doctrines, not its prophet.
Our denominational history is in fact one continual call to repentance. At any moment, a righteous choice to repent will transform our view of our history into an appropriate metanoia as the practical effect of the “final atonement” or reconciliation with Christ. But sinful corporate or denominational pride will automatically nullify such a union with Him. We can find union with our Lord only in repentance.
“Just Like the Jews”
Our denominational parallel with the history of the ancient Jewish nation is striking. They were God’s true denominated people, enjoying as much evidence of His favor as have we. Their pride in their denominational structure and organization was shown by their attitude towards the temple, which the Lord rebuked: “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these” (Jeremiah 7:4). The “temple” to us is our modern worldwide organization. The Lord did indeed establish and bless the ancient temple, but the Jews’ failure to accept denominational repentance is an illuminated warning to us:
The same disobedience and failure which were seen in the Jewish church have characterized in a greater degree the people who have had this great light from Heaven in the last messages of warning. Shall we let the history of Israel be repeated in our experience? Shall we, like them, squander our opportunities and privileges until God shall permit oppression and persecution to come upon us? Will the work which might be performed in peace and comparative prosperity be left undone until it must be performed in days of darkness, under the pressure of trial and persecution?
There is a terrible amount of guilt for which the church is responsible. (Testimonies, Vol. 5, pp. 456, 457.)
Whatever may be this “terrible amount of guilt for which the church is responsible,” she is still the one object of the Lord’s supreme regard. Without an understanding of the atonement of Christ, it is devastating to any individual’s self-respect to come face to face with the full reality of his guilt. It is the same with the church body. In order to face this “terrible amount of guilt” without a devastating discouragement, the church also must understand that God’s love for her as a body is unchanging, despite her guilt.
Numerous inspired statements liken our denominational failure to that of the Jews, most of which were written regarding the reaction against the message of the 1888 crisis in our history. A few examples follow:
Since the time of the Minneapolis [1888] meeting, I have see the state of the Laodicean church as never before. I have heard the rebuke of God spoken to those who feel so well satisfied, who know not their spiritual destitution … Like the Jews, many have closed their eyes lest they should see. (Review and Herald, August 26, 1890.)
The Lord is at work, seeking to purify His people. . . But many have said by their indifferent attitude, “We want not Thy way, O God, but our own way. . .”
There is less excuse in our day for stubborness and unbelief than there was for the Jews in the days of Christ. . . In our day greater light and greater evidence is given. . . Our sin and its retribution will be the greater, if we refuse to walk in the light. Many say, “If I had only lived in the days of Christ, I would not have wrested His words, or falsely interpreted His instruction. I would not have rejected and crucified Him, as did the Jews;” but that will be proved by the way in which you feel with His message and His messengers today. The Lord is testing His people of today as He tested the Jews in their day.
. . . If with all the light that shone upon His ancient people, delineated before us, we travel over the same ground, cherish the same spirit, refuse to receive reproof and warning, then our guilt will be greatly augmented, and the condemnation that fell upon them will fall upon us, only it will be as much greater as our light is greater in this age than was their light in their age. (Review and Herald, April 11, 1893.)
All the universe of heaven witnessed the disgraceful treatment of Jesus Christ, represented by the Holy Spirit [at the 1888 Minneapolis Session”]. Had Christ been before them, they [the leaders] would have treated Him in a manner similar to that in which the Jews treated Christ. (Special Testimonies, Series A, No. 6, p. 20.)
In Minneapolis God gave precious gems of truth to His people in new settings. This light from heaven by some was rejected with all the stubbornness the Jews manifested in rejecting Christ. (MS 13, 1889.)
Men professing godliness have despised Christ in the person of His messengers. Like the Jews, they reject God’s message. The Jews asked regarding Christ, Who is this? Is not this Joseph’s son? He was not the Christ that the Jews had looked for. So today the agencies that God sends are not what men have looked for. (Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 472.)
If the ministers will not receive the light, I want to give the people a chance; perhaps they may receive it. . . Formerly you acknowledged that Sister White was right. But somehow it has changed now, and Sister White is different. Just like the Jewish nation. (MS 9, 1888: Through Crisis to Victory, p. 292.)
The question comes naturally, Why is the opposition to the 1888 message likened so often to the Jews’ opposition to Christ? (There are actually scores of these statements).
We have seen in our study of repentance that the bedrock sin of all mankind is hatred and rejection of Christ, manifested in His crucifixion. Repentance for this sin is where the miracle of the atonement takes place.
Our 1888 history illustrates this truth, and the inspired messenger of the Lord was quick to discern its significance. The 1888 Conference was a miniature Calvary. It afforded a public demonstration of the same spirit of unbelief and hatred of God’s righteousness that inspired the Jews to murder the Son of God. This is obvious from the above statements.
The spirit that actuated the opposers of the message was not a minor misunderstanding, a temporary underestimate of the importance of a debated doctrine. It was rebellion against God.
How Our History Discloses
Enmity Against God
Bear in mind that these facts in no way diminish the truth that the Seventh-day Adventist church was then and is now the “remnant church.” The brethren who apposed the 1888 message were the true “angel of the church of the Laodiceans,” and God had not cast them off, nor their “children” today. The simple fact is that they (that is “we,” for we all participate together according to the principle of corporate identity) have something to repent about. Our denominational history makes Christ’s call to repent come “alive.” And the only reason it has not come “alive” sooner is that it has not been understood. The true history has been suppressed and denied.
Whereas the ancient Jews rejected their long-awaited Messiah, “we” rejected our long-awaited outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the “latter rain.” The details are complementary:
- The Jews’ Messiah was born in a stable, instead of in a palace; the beginning of the “latter rain” in 1888 was manifested in surprisingly humble circumstances.
- The Jews failed to discern in the anointed Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God in lowly guise; “we” failed to discern in the humble, young, and sometimes faulty messengers of 1888 the Lord’s truly delegated messengers.
- The Jews feared that Jesus would destroy their denominational organization; “we” feared that the 1888 message would damage the character of the church and perhaps destroy its effectiveness through uplifting faith rather than the works of the law as the sole means of salvation.
- The callous, determined opposition of certain leaders of the Jews influenced many people to reject Jesus; the mysterious and persistent opposition of certain prominent leading brethren in the years that followed 1888 influenced many younger workers and the church at large either to disregard the message or to underestimate its importance.
- The Jewish nation never repented of their national sin and therefore never were able to recover the blessings that an acceptance of Jesus’ lordship would have brought them; “we” have never as a denomination faced our corporate guilt and repented of “our” rejection of the beginning of the latter rain. For this reason we have never as yet enjoyed the full blessings of its outpouring. According to the following insight concerning the results of the 1888 unbelief, God’s work could have been finished within a few years at that time:
The influence that grew out of the resistance of light and truth at Minneapolis tended to make of no effect the light God had given to His people through the Testimonies. . . .
If every soldier of Christ had done his duty, if every watchman on the walls of Zion had given the trumpet a certain sound, the world might ere this have heard the message of warning. But the work is years behind. What account will be rendered to God for thus retarding the work? (Ellen G. White Letter, January 9, 1893, read February 28, 1893, to General Conference Session; General Conference Bulletin, 1893, p. 419.)
The evidence is remarkably emphatic and consistent. Ellen G. White did not waver from side to side in her analysis of what happened. There is no need to “explain” her statements. She is her own best interpreter.
To nurture pride and complacency by use of isolated extracts from her writings is a futile task. Equally hopeless is the attempt to wrest her statements toward a blanket condemnation of the church or its leadership. The obvious truth that commends itself to every candid student is that she believed to the end (1) that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the true “remnant church” of Bible prophecy, entrusted with the proclamation to the world of God’s last gospel message of mercy; and (2) that repentance and humbling of heart before God is the only appropriate response that “we” can make that will enable Heaven to pour out the fullness of the Holy Spirit for the accomplishment of the task.