*Revolution among Seventh-Day Adventists* by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 23, 1908

“Revolution among Seventh-Day Adventists”

By Editor

UNDER this title there appeared in The Sabbath Recorder, the church paper of the Seventh-day Baptists, of Dec. 9, 1907, an article by Dr. A. H. Lewis, the former editor of that journal, giving his views of some recent experiences in our denomination. He declares that “a brief pre-view is necessary for a proper understanding of the situation,” and he accordingly sketches and interprets the history of the whole advent movement from the time of William Miller. Whether his “pre-view” is unprejudiced and his interpretation sound may be judged from some extracts:—

Mr. Miller’s conclusions were based on an unscientific, unhistorical, and illogical group of notions incorrectly named an “Interpretation of the Book of Daniel.” . . . When time went on as usual after April, 1844, the Millerite movement disintegrated as rapidly as it had risen. . . . After the first sad shock of disappointment had passed, various efforts were made to correct errors in the calculation of events, and in unknown factors. This was done under the name of Biblical interpretation, but much of it had no right to that name. The only effort at correction and readjustment that became of permanent value, resulted in the birth of Seventh-day Adventism. . . .

Mrs. Ellen G. White, when a young girl, fragile in health and a victim of catalepsy, became interested in the Millerite movement. She was born in Gorham, Maine, Nov. 26, 1827. Her deep religious convictions, her mental make-up, and her physical state, made mental impressions and religious experiences so vivid, that she became subject to “visions.” These were made up of the thoughts, imagery, and religious conceptions with which she was impressed by the preaching of Mr. Miller and his coworkers. . . .

Unconsciously, perhaps, but not less certainly, a controlling element of self-righteousness developed, and as the new form of organization grew, spiritual tyranny was unavoidable. It was first turned toward the world outside the denomination, but easily unfolded into tyranny over all who refused to accord with the authority represented in “the spirit of prophecy.”

Meanwhile a scientific and educational element, “Health Reform,” was introduced. . . . While this was made religious in some respects by the rank and file, it was an enlarging and culturing element much broader than the theological system of the denomination. . . . The great Battle Creek Sanitarium became the first and central representative of the medical movement. . . . All this has brought a breadth of culture, a scientific spirit, and a type of individuality in thought and action hitherto unknown. . . .

The scientific spirit, the progressive thought, the revival of individual consciousness, and a growing desire for higher spiritual life on the part of many, set over against spiritual tyranny in the denominational machinery, has created an impassable gulf between the two elements. . . .

The more thoughtful and broad-minded Adventists have discarded, with greater or less unanimity, the doctrine of the “inspiration” of Mrs. White. . . . Disintegration will continue. It will not stop; it can not go backward. While it is primarily a movement within the denomination, it involves tendencies and interests much larger than the denomination.

Dr. Lewis’ article is interesting, and in some ways instructive, although not altogether accurate. It presents the view of one who has no sympathy with the doctrine of the near advent, and who attempts to explain the whole advent movement by applying the principles of human philosophy. To him “the results which now appear are by no means unexpected.” After “wider study and riper thought” led him to discard such “opinions of the Adventists” as he had previously entertained, he has confidently expected the downfall of the whole system, and now discerns the evidences, satisfactory to him, that the fulfilment of his expectations is close at hand. To one who had decided that the interpretation of the book of Daniel, which was accepted by Adventists is merely “an unscientific, unhistorical, and illogical group of notions,” the failure of Adventism was, from the standpoint of scientific thought, simply a question of time.

It may help our readers to interpret Dr. Lewis’ article to know that he had

recently been in Battle Creek, presumably a guest at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, and therefore has been looking at things through the Battle Creek glasses. To one stopping at the sanitarium it would be altogether natural and easy to stigmatize our organization as ‘distinctly hierarchical;’ to regard Mrs. White as ‘a victim of catalepsy;’ to write of ‘spiritual tyranny;’ to mention Health Reform as ‘a scientific and educational element,’ ‘an enlarging and culturing element,’ which brought in ‘a breadth of culture, a scientific spirit’ hitherto unknown; and to speak of those who have made shipwreck of their faith in Mrs. White’s writings as ‘the more thoughtful and broad-minded Adventists.’ To one who looks upon the lot where the Review and Herald printing plant formerly stood, and who notes a considerable decrease in the size of the congregation at the Tabernacle, and who sees the former offices of the General Conference deserted, but throngs of people at the sanitarium, the conclusion would be plain that the believers in the ‘hierarchy’ and the apostles of ‘spiritual tyranny’ had come to confusion, while ‘the more thoughtful and broad-minded Adventists’ were flourishing like a green bay tree. Dr. Lewis has fallen into the not uncommon error of drawing a large conclusion from too narrow premises and from too limited observation. Because a few disaffected Adventists formed a Seventh-day Baptist church at Battle Creek, and some who had apostatized from the truth have been disfellowshipped, he seems to have a vision of the ‘disintegration’ of the whole denomination, and the possibility of some accessions to the Seventh-day Baptist body.

But in another particular Dr. Lewis is more accurate in his diagnosis of the situation. His reference to ‘the scientific spirit, the progressive thought’ as having a relation to the so-called ‘revolution’ in this denomination is quite to the point. We believe that we do Dr. Lewis no injustice when we say that he ‘has the scientific spirit’ to that extent that he accepts the evolutionary theory both in science and in theology, and that he is ‘broad-minded’ enough to be in sympathy with the Higher Criticism and some tendencies of the New Theology. He therefore sympathizes with that same scientific spirit and broad-mindedness wherever he meets it, and naturally regards the rejection of these evolutionary and revolutionary ideas by the leaders of this denomination, and their refusal to give them standing ground in the denomination, as evidences of ‘spiritual tyranny.’ We plead guilty to the charge that our course in this respect has not been in harmony with the liberal standards now prevailing; but we do affirm that the gospel message for this generation which is to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord, if true to itself, must be a consistent and continual protest against apostasy from the primitive truths revealed in the Scriptures, a protest against substituting human philosophy or ‘science falsely so called’ for revealed truth, a protest against putting the human in the place of the divine. It was the holding to these original principles and making protest against these perversions within the denomination as well as without, which precipitated what Dr. Lewis is pleased to designate a ‘revolution among Seventh-day Adventists.’

Nearly every other denomination, the Seventh-day Baptists included, we fear, has succumbed to the demands of the ‘broad-minded’ men imbued with ‘the scientific spirit,’ and has either repudiated the foundation truths of the gospel or is non-committal concerning them. The Seventh-day Adventists have declined to adopt principles which would set aside the whole Christian economy, and this has brought on a crisis, as the result of which Dr. Lewis prophesies the continued disintegration of this body. Time will deal with his prophecy.

We ask for the proof of ‘disintegration.’ Is it a loss in membership? Is it a decrease in tithes and offerings? Is it the collapse of our medical work? Is it a falling off in the circulation of our books and periodicals? There has been an increase in all these items during the last five years, while we have been passing through this ‘revolution,’ and in some of them the increase has been very marked. We have no disposition to boast, but we are thankful that the evidences of this ‘disintegration’ are not apparent to us.

From the somewhat easy-going manner in which Dr. Lewis writes of what he regards as the prelude to the downfall of Seventh-day Adventism, we might expect that the Seventh-day Baptists were setting us the example of what a healthy and rapidly increasing denomination ought to accomplish in the world. The Seventh-day Baptists have stood loyally for centuries in behalf of the Sabbath truth, and we honor them for this; but having failed to accept the other truths which belong to the gospel message for this generation, they have missed the opportunity to lead in Sabbath reform, and are falling behind. This declaration that the Seventh-day Adventists are suffering from ‘disintegration’ does not therefore seem quite becoming.

At least one reader of the Recorder seems to appreciate that Dr. Lewis’ article is not in good taste or justified by the facts, for a letter appeared in the issue of December 30 from which we take the following:—

It is certainly a mistake for the Seventh-day Baptists to mention disintegration, Mrs. Whiteism, or the dissensions at Battle Creek, or anything that might be construed as tending to a feeling of unpleasantness between the two denominations. The Seventh-day Adventists are the only friends that the Seventh-day Baptists have on the face of the earth, and if they are of the belief they have other friends, they are laboring under delusion.

So when we come back to the original proposition that Sabbath reform is the vital question, it must be admitted that the Seventh-day Adventists have been more aggressive or have had greater success; since the statistics show that the Adventists have seven or eight times as many members, in something like one fifth of the number of years.

We wish the Seventh-day Baptists abundant success in all good undertakings, but we do not think their success will be assured by casting reflections upon the Seventh-day Adventists, or by making long arms to those who have been disfellowshipped from this body.

*“Revolution among Seventh-Day Adventists”*

“Revolution among Seventh-Day Adventists”