Chapter 12 — What Our Denominational History Tells UsThe Bad News: We have lost some battles; the Good News: the war is not over. Does our denominational history give meaning to Christ’s call for last-day repentance? There are several possible ways of looking at our history:
But there is something that both groups hold in common: Both strenuously oppose denominational repentance. The first group oppose it on the grounds that it is unnecessary. Even the suggestion is regarded as impertinent, disloyal, as the ancient priests regarded Jeremiah’s appeals for national repentance. The second group reject it on the grounds that it is impossible, since they assume that the Lord has withdrawn from the church both the privilege and the possibility of such repentance. There is a third view possible:
Attempts to Explain the Long DelayTruth always gives ground for hope. Denying or suppressing the truth produces frustrated despair. The reason is that the human conscience recognizes the reality of the passage of time, the pervading spiritual inertia, and the distressing world outlook. A disregard of Christ’s call to repent will inevitably destroy the morale of thoughtful, informed church members all over the world. The loss to the church is incalculable. We are forced to recognize that the long delay must be explained in some way. Something somewhere has to “give.” Four possible solutions are usually suggested:
Implicit in all the above lurks a virtual charge against God Himself. “My Lord delays His coming” is the reechoing theme. From the days of the pioneers, it is assumed, He has mocked the prayers of a sincere people who have stood loyal to His commandments and the faith of Jesus, against the ridicule of other Christian churches and the world. This view requires us to believe that He has disappointed His people, not only on October 22, 1844, but continually ever since. The question at issue is the faithfulness of God! The Historical Solution to Our ImpasseIf we understand Christ’s call to “the angel of the church of the Laodiceans” as a call to denominational repentance, then we can see the four proposed solutions above in a different light:
On the other hand, the alternative is frightening. If our Lord has indeed delayed His coming, He has deceived us and we cannot trust Him in the future. But if we have delayed His return, then there is hope. Something can be done. Our unbelieving impenitence can be healed. Insisting that our Lord has delayed His coming virtually destroys the Advent hope, but recognizing that we have delayed it can validate and confirm our hope. “Just Like the Jews”Our historical parallel with the ancient Jewish nation is striking. They were God’s true denominated people, enjoying as much evidence of His favor as we have enjoyed. Their pride in their denominational structure and organization was shown by their attitude, “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 worldwide organization, which is as much a source of pride to us as was the temple to the ancient Jews. The Lord did indeed establish and bless the ancient temple, but the Jews’ refusal of national repentance nullified its meaning:
Without the atonement of Christ, it is devastating to any individual’s self-respect to face the reality of his or her guilt. It is the same with the church body. To face this “terrible amount of guilt” without discouragement, we also must see how God’s love for the church is unchanging. Whatever that “guilt” may be, she is still the one object of the Lord’s supreme regard. Again, this involves recognizing the creative aspect of God’s agapé love. Critics who are ready to abandon hope for the church are unwittingly at war with that fundamental truth of God’s character. The “final atonement” that we have long talked about must include a final reconciliation with the reality of His divine character in the setting of the antitypical Day of Atonement. Many inspired statements liken our denominational failure to that of the Jews. A very few examples must suffice:
As surely as the Jews’ history illustrates their need for a national repentance, so does our 1888 history illustrate our need for repentance and a final atonement. The inspired messenger of the Lord was quick to see it. According to Ellen White, the 1888 Conference was a miniature Calvary, a demonstration of the same spirit of unbelief and opposition to God’s righteousness that inspired the ancient Jews. The spirit that actuated the opposers of the message was not a minor misunderstanding, a temporary underestimate of a debatable doctrine. It was inward rebellion against the Lord. If the Lord’s messenger means what she says over and over, it was a reenactment of the crucifixion of Christ—in principle. This reality is our great stone of stumbling and our rock of offense. Our History Discloses Enmity Against GodBear 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 opposed the 1888 message were the true “angel of the church of the Laodiceans,” and God did not cast off the church. Our 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 church is basically honest at heart, and the long delay in repentance is solely due to the truth having been misconstrued and distorted. Whereas the ancient Jews rejected their long-awaited Messiah, we rejected our long-awaited outpouring of the latter rain. Note some points of comparison:
Note how the gospel commission could have been finished nearly a century ago:
That humble messenger believed to her end that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the true “remnant” of Bible prophecy, entrusted with God’s last gospel message of mercy. She was loyal to the church to the end, believing that humbling of heart before God is the only response we can make that will enable Heaven to renew the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Full Truth is Uplifting, Not DepressingThe full truth is always upbeat, positive, encouraging. Someone might try to distort Peter’s sermon at Pentecost and label it as “negative” because it clearly pinpointed the guilt of the nation and called for repentance. But Pentecostal power for witnessing followed Pentecostal repentance. A repeat of this glorious phenomenon awaits our repentance and reconciliation with the Lord. God’s love for the world demands that His message of Good News go everywhere with power. We know that it is not unfair of the Lord to withhold from us further showers of the latter rain until we repent in the same way that the Lord required ancient Israel to repent. It can be said of us in truth, “Great is the wrath of the Lord that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us” (2 Kings 22:13). We can pray as did Ezra, “From the days of our fathers down to this present day our guilt has been very great” (Ezra 9:7, NEB). The reason is that the sins of spiritual fathers get ingrained into us, except for specific knowledge and repentance. Even though we were very few in number in 1888, the character of that unbelieving impenitence has been propagated throughout the worldwide body like a spreading virus. The disease must run its course until repentance can eradicate it. Until then, each new generation absorbs the same lukewarmness. This is not the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. There is no genetic transmission of guilt. We simply recognize the reality of how sin has been propagated ever since Eden “through the medium of influence, taking advantage of the action of mind on mind, … reaching from mind to mind” (Review and Herald, April 16, 1901). Daniel’s Corporate RepentanceOur position parallels that of Judah in the days of Daniel. He could have argued before the Lord, “Some of us and some of our fathers were true, Lord; look how faithful I have been, also Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego! We have practiced health reform. Remember how some of our ‘fathers’ such as Jeremiah, Baruch, and others, stood nobly for the truth in times of apostasy. We are not all guilty, Lord!” But how did Daniel pray? Notice his use of the corporate “we”:
The fact that Daniel was not personally present in the days of King Manasseh did not keep him from confessing Manasseh’s sins as though they were his own. The fact that we were not personally present in 1888 makes no more difference than that Daniel was not living in the days of his fathers. Christ in His own flesh has shown us how to experience a repentance for sins in which we have not thought we were personally involved. If He, the sinless One, could repent “in behalf of” the sins of the whole world, surely we can repent in behalf of the sins of our fathers, whose spiritual children we are today. The essential truth that cries for recognition is that their sin is ours, because of the reality of the Biblical principle of corporate guilt. Did the 1901 General Conference Cancel the 1888 Unbelief?We must take a brief look at an argument that has been assumed to contradict the need for denominational repentance. Some have assumed that the 1901 General Conference Session was an about-face, a reformation that undid the rejection of the 1888 message and cancelled its consequences. This view implies the parallel assumption that the latter rain and the loud cry have been progressing ever since. Large baptisms and financial and institutional growth are often cited as evidence, even though the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses can also cite phenomenal statistical growth. It is true that the 1901 session did bring great organizational blessings that could keep our machinery running smoothly for centuries. It is also clear that no deep spiritual reformation occurred. The lady with keen discernment wrote to a friend a few months after the 1901 Session:
In consequence of this impenitence, the finishing of God’s work was delayed an indefinite time:
Even so, it was not too late then to engage in an experience of repentance. The Lord’s messenger did not write the phrase “denominational repentance,” but she expressed the principle. “All” needed to participate: But if all would only see and confess and repent of their own course of action in departing from the truth of God, and following human devisings, then the Lord would pardon (Idem).1 John the Baptist could have spent several lifetimes trying to encompass all the needs for reformation in his day. So we could spend decades addressing each departure from the Lord’s plan for us. But John preferred to lay “the ax … to the root of the trees” (Matthew 3:10).2 Would repenting of “our” rejection of the latter rain lay the ax to the root of our present spiritual problem? Yes, for that is indeed its root. But roots have a way of lying beneath the visible surface. Notes for Chapter 12:
|
Read Chapter 13 — Corporate Repentance: Path to Christlike Love |
Home | Articles Index | Robert J. Wieland Articles Index |