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.
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
The Full Truth is Uplifting, Not Depressing
The temptation constantly intrudes to regard the full truth as somehow depressing or "negative." How much better to gloss over the facts and make ourselves feel good!
But the Lord says, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32). Truth is always encouraging because truth is vitalized by love. Truth is divine. Therefore, the most encouraging and edifying news that can come to the church is the full knowledge of her alienated relationship to Jesus Christ as disclosed in His testimony and in the facts of her own history.
A simple fact becomes immediately relevant: a full and final reconciliation with the Lord that will' lead to finishing His task on earth will accompany our experience of repentance.
It has been customary to speak of the 1888 message as a mere "re-emphasis" of the historic, Protestant doctrine of justification by faith as taught by the Reformers. This masks the truth of that era of our history as much as the Jews' way of speaking of a certain Rabbi from Galilee masks a purpose to deny His real identity. Just as Christ was indeed a Rabbi from Galilee, so the 1888 message was indeed justification and righteousness by faith. But just as Christ was far more than a Rabbi from Galilee, so the message was far more than a mere re-emphasis of the teaching of the Reformers of old.
Luther had a great work to do in reflecting to others the light which God had permitted to shine upon him; yet he did not receive all the light which was to be given to the world. From that time to this, new light has been continually shining upon the Scriptures, and new truths have been constantly unfolding. (The Great Controversy, pp. 148, 149.)
That "light" will continue to unfold until it lightens the earth with glory under the ministration of the long-awaited "latter rain" and "loud cry;" the 1888 message was the beginning of its final manifestation. Our great world task is as yet unfinished largely because of a failure to relate ourselves aright to that divine manifestation of truth. (See Selected Messages, Book 1, pp. 234, 235.)
We Are No More Righteous Than Our "Fathers"
We today may feel distressed that any of our brethren of a past generation should have reacted against what the Lord intended to be the beginning of the finishing of His work. We may even feel thankful that we have not been tested as they were. "We were not alive then and therefore cannot be guilty as they were. They were individually responsible to God; they are in their graves; we are innocent, fortunately removed from their temptation by nearly a century."
But the Bible principle of corporate guilt sheds an entirely different light on the matter. We may confess not only what we superficially see as our own iniquity, but also the iniquity of our fathers "with their trespass which they have trespassed" against the Lord. (Leviticus 26:40-42). We know that it is not unfair of the Lord to withhold from us further showers of the latter rain, for until we understand and repent in the same way that the Lord required ancient Israel to understand and repent of their past history, it can be said of us in truth, "Great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all which is written concerning us" (2 Kings 22:13). Surely we can pray as did Ezra, "0 my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to Thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our heads, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this, day" (Ezra 9:6, 7).
Daniel's Corporate Repentance
Our position before the Lord closely parallels that of Israel in the days of Daniel. Here the principle of corporate guilt and corporate repentance comes into sharp focus.
Daniel could have argued before the Lord, "Some of us and some of our fathers were true, Lord; look how faithful Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and I have been! We have practiced health reform, we have received all the light You gave us! Remember how some of our 'fathers' in Jerusalem, as Jeremiah for example, Baruch, and a few others, stood nobly for the truth in times of apostasy. We are not all guilty, Lord!"
But what did Daniel pray? Notice his use of the corporate "we":
O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us confusion faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off. … O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against Thee. . . .
Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey Thy voice; therefore, the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against Him.
. . . For our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.
. . . I was speaking and praying and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel. (Daniel 9:7-20.)
The result of this humble, honest recognition of corporate guilt is well-known. What will be the result of a similar recognition of our own measure of corporate guilt? How could it be anything other than the restoration of the "latter rain" and the "loud cry"?
As we have seen in previous chapters, the principle of individual and corporate guilt and repentance centers in the cross of Calvary. "The spirit of grace and of supplications" is poured on "the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem" when God's people "look upon Him whom they have pierced" (Zechariah 12:10). The fact that we were not physically, personally present at Calvary is seen to make no difference.
The fact that we were not personally present in 1888 likewise will be seen to make no difference. The sin of our "fathers" is "our" sin. Christ Himself, in His own flesh, has shown us the way to experience a repentance for sins of which we have not thought ourselves individually and personally responsible. If He, the sinless One, repented in behalf of the sins of the whole world, surely we can repent in behalf of the sins of our "fathers," whose denominational "children" we are today!
Did the 1901 Conference Cancel the 1888 Unbelief?
Sincere members of the remnant church have assumed that the 1901 General Conference was the scene for an "about-face" and reformation that undid the rejection of the 1888 message and cancelled out its sad consequences. This view requires the parallel assumption that the "latter rain" and the "loud cry" have been progressing since the 1901 Session. This is the historical basis of the popular "all is well" school of thought.
It is true that the 1901 Session did result in great blessings to the world-wide organization of the church. But it is also clear that the results of that meeting in no way show that a deep spiritual reformation occurred that reversed the rejecting of the beginning of the "latter rain." Ellen G. White wrote to a friend a few months after the 1901 Session:
The result of the last General Conference [1901] has been the greatest, the most terrible sorrow of my life. No change was made. The spirit that should have been brought into the whole work as the result of the meeting, was not brought in because men did not receive the testimonies of the Spirit of God. As they went to their several fields of labor, they did not walk in the light that the Lord had flashed upon their pathway, but carried into their work the wrong principles that had been prevailing in the work at Battle Creek. (Letter to Judge Jesse Arthur, Elmshaven, January 14, 1903.)
As the result of this impenitence, the finishing of the work was delayed an indefinite time. The following quotation is well known:
We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel, but for Christ's sake His people should not add sin to sin by charging God with the consequence of their own wrong course of action. (Letter December 7, 1901; M-184, 1901.)
Even so, it was not too late then to engage in an experience of repentance. Mrs. White did not use the phrase "denominational repentance," but she expressed the principle. "All" needed to participate:
But if all now would only see and confess and repent of their own course of action in departing from the truth of God, and following human d visions, then the Lord would pardon. (Idem.)
In sober moments we realize that revival and reformation are needed in every aspect of our vast world-wide work. Every department of our organization needs the infilling of the Holy Spirit-educational, medical, evangelistic, pastoral, financial, institutional, publishing, Administrative. No end of books could be written detailing all the minutiae of our needs. We can spend decades to come in wringing our hands about them.
Much the same situation existed in the days of John the Baptist. He could have spent several lifetimes trying to encompass all the needs for repentance in his day. He preferred to lay "the axe … unto the root of the trees" (Matthew 3:10).
To repent of "our" rejection of the "beginning " of the latter Rain is to lay the axe "unto the root" of our present problem.
There remains in our search for repentance one more question: what will be the practical results of corporate and denominational repentance?