Our Denominational History and the
Laodicean Message
Chapter 6 (Continued — part 2)
How do we know that this sin was an
unconscious one? The brethren involved thought that they were reacting
against an over-emphasized and erroneous message.
They thought they were rejecting some fanatical, imperfect or even
dangerous messengers. They thought they were "standing by the old
landmarks", nobly defending the pillars of the three angels’
messages. They were proud of their orthodoxy. Note how their true
motivations were veiled from their knowledge:
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. and there was much talk about standing by the old landmarks. But
there was evidence they knew not what the old landmarks were. There
was evidence and there was reasoning from the word that commended itself
to the conscience; but the minds of men were fixed, sealed against
the entrance of light, because they had decided it was a dangerous error
removing the "old landmarks" when it was not removing a peg of
the old landmarks, but they had perverted ideas of what constituted the
old landmarks. (MS 13. 1889, CWE 30; emphasis added).
There is very good reason why Ellen White
so often compared this reaction against the 1888 message to the hatred of
the Jews for Christ. The Jews were unconscious of their true motives; and
our brethren were the same. Both the Jewish leaders and our brethren did
not know that they were condemning "the greatest Teacher that the
world ever knew". The unconscious nature of their sin is further
disclosed as follows:
I can never forget the experience which
we had in Minneapolis, or the things which were then revealed to me in
regard to the spirit that controlled men, the words spoken, the actions
done in obedience to the powers of evil … They were moved at the meeting
by another spirit, and they knew not that God had sent these young
men to bear a special message to them which they treated with ridicule
and contempt, not realizing that the heavenly intelligences were looking
upon them. I know that at that time the Spirit of God was insulted. (MS
24, 1892).
Is that sin still unrealized by us? Look
at all the authoritative books published about our history during the past
eight decades. Is there one that makes clear the full truth about 1888 and
the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry?
The following seems prophetic:
The message of the True Witness finds the
people of God in sad deception, yet honest in that deception. They know
not that their condition is deplorable in the sight of God. (3T 253).
What we do find in our histories is much
boasting of the marvelous "enrichment" that came to the
Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1888 message. We are "rich and
increased with goods" is the general theme. Millions of our people
around the world are ignorant of the sober fact that the Lord faithfully
did His part and gave the "beginning" of the latter rain and the
loud cry almost a century ago, but that the heavenly gift was rejected.
The truth is as follows:
Satan succeeded in shutting away from our
people in a great measure. the special power of the Holy Spirit that God
longed to impart to them.. The light that is to lighten the whole earth
with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own [leading]
brethren has been in a great degree kept away from the world. (1 SM 234,
235).
There is need for a final atonement or
reconciliation with Christ in consequence of the "disgraceful
treatment" accorded Him at one of our General Conference Sessions!
This is one reason for it.
Indeed, the truth as found in the
messages of Ellen G. White is "a startling denunciation" (3T
253), one that we could wish could be covered up
forever or somehow successfully denied.
But the actual words of Christ in the
Laodicean message pinpoint our self-imposed deception as basically historical
in nature. The Greek expression is a very unusual one in that it repeats
the same word "rich" in the clause, but in a different tense and
voice. It puts in our lips the expression of a proud boast, "I am
rich (in understanding righteousness by faith) because I have in my
history been blessed by the acceptance of a great enrichment" (plousios
eimi, kai peplouteka). Neither the King James translators or
others were able to sense the full import of what they were seeking to
translate from the Greek of the words of Jesus. Hence the King James
translators tried to avoid what they thought was a meaningless repetition
by a euphemism, "I am rich and increased with goods". This is
understandable, for they lived too early. Consider the literal Greek of
Revelation 3:17: "Thou sayest, Rich I am, and I
have been enriched".
For decades we have shown a general
feeling of satisfaction …
|
