The Mask of Apostasy

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 28, 1906

The Mask of Apostasy

In the early days of every apostasy an effort is made to disguise the real nature of the movement. Until it is driven out into the open and thoroughly exposed, it will conceal itself behind familiar words and expressions, and will wear the appearance of the genuine, even though it is compelled to put on a mask in order to maintain the deception.

So it has been in that apostasy to liberalism which is designated by the phrase, the New Theology. Instead of admitting that it is in reality a repudiation of the old faith, it emphatically maintains that it itself is the original faith. Of course it will grant that there has been a modification of the old-time belief in some particulars, a giving up of some positions formerly defended, but it will assert with the utmost positiveness that it has discarded nothing essential to the truth of the gospel. Even though orthodox preachers and writers point out that the new positions involve such conclusions as really do seriously undermine or utterly overthrow some of the fundamental tenets of the faith, yet their advocates will calmly assert that so far as they can see, the vital things in Christianity are not affected by their change of view, and they will persist in wearing the mask of orthodoxy.

When an honest attempt is made to defend some of the essential truths of Christianity, and to prevent them from being perverted into denials of history and experience, those who are the cause of all the trouble are grieved that there should be a disposition to turn aside from the work of teaching the way of life to spend time in controversy over non-essentials, and innocently propose that all should cease from such a warfare, and that each one should devote himself to presenting the gospel of salvation as he understands it. This has all the appearance of being done in the interests of peace, and seems to force the defenders of truth into the attitude of agitators and controversialists, while the real iconoclasts put on the garments of light, and seem to be full of sweetness and gentleness. Of course this abhorrence of controversy, and this plea for an opportunity to teach the truth in peace, are for the purpose of securing the undisturbed privilege of sowing broadcast the seeds of doubt and skepticism. It is really a request that the citadel of the faith shall be surrendered without any effort to defend it. And the curious part of the experience is that the odium of being disturbers of the peace is cast upon those who are unwilling to betray the trust committed to them, and are therefore compelled to resist the attacks made upon the true faith.

The counterpart of this whole experience is being revealed in our own work. There is a movement at Battle Creek which the spirit of prophecy has designated as an apostasy. What is involved in the doctrinal teaching which has been presented there may be seen from the following extract:—

Few can discern the result of entertaining the sophistries advocated by some at this time. But the Lord has lifted the curtain, and has shown me the result that would follow. The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy. They estimate as nothing the light that Christ came from heaven to give to John to give to his people. They teach that the scenes just before us are not of sufficient importance to be given special attention. They make of no effect the truth of heavenly origin, and rob the people of God of their past experience, giving them instead a false science. . . .

What influence is it that would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhand, powerful way to tear down the foundation of our faith,—the foundation that was laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation?

The latest development in this apostasy is an open attack upon the administration of the General Conference, and a repeated effort to show the unreliability of the Testimonies by citing alleged facts to prove that a portion which has been sent out as Testimony was not true, and therefore could not be Testimony at all. By a perversion of some facts, by the suppression of other facts,

and by that method of reasoning which has heretofore been successfully employed in a good cause, a plausible case is made out, just as infidels are able by the same method to impeach the reliability of the Bible, and the conclusion is reached that “it is not sound for men to hold themselves, or for others to hold them, under obligation to confess anything or change their course, by a Testimony which they do not understand, and when they can not see that they are wrong.”

If this view of the Testimonies is sound, then it is only necessary for one to say, when a Testimony of reproof is sent to him, that he does not understand it, or that he does not see that he is in the wrong, and he is at once absolved from any obligation to change his course of conduct. It requires only a superficial analysis of this teaching to reveal that it puts every man above the Testimonies and makes him a judge of the Testimonies, and really makes the Testimonies altogether unnecessary; for what a man can understand he does not require their light upon, and when he himself knows that he is in the wrong, he does not require them to point it out. This makes every man sustain the same relation to the Testimonies as the Higher Criticism makes every man sustain to the Bible. He becomes a judge rather than a doer. It makes every man in himself the ultimate source of authority. It involves the acceptance of a fundamental principle of the New Theology. It involves the rejection of a fundamental principle of the third angel’s message.

One of the exponents and defenders of this view of the Testimonies declares that he has not attacked the Testimonies nor set aside the Testimonies, and argues thus:—

To yield some particular ground concerning the Testimonies, is not by any means to yield the whole ground of the Testimonies. In other words, with me to yield that some things sent out as Testimony should be found not to be Testimony—this does not sweep away everything that purports to be Testimony, nor does it take away all basis of the Testimonies.

When the “particular ground concerning the Testimonies” which is yielded is that they are reliable, or that one is under obligation to heed any reproof administered through them when he can not see that he is in the wrong, it seems clear to us that such an attitude toward the Testimonies vitiates their authority as a whole. They then become to each individual just what he judges them to be—true or false, reliable or unreliable. And those which he decides to be reliable then become simply corroborative evidence of his own discernment and good judgment. But this places every man above the Testimonies, rather than in subjection to them.

Has the advocate of this view of the Testimonies forgotten his own experience which he has related in public so many times? Does he not remember the time when he went into the dark and lost his spiritual power because he refused to accept a Testimony which he could, to his own satisfaction, prove to be untrue? And does he not also remember that when he decided to believe the Testimony and to acknowledge that it was true before he could see it, his perception was quickened, and he at once saw clearly what he could not see before? Is not this “some experience” which is worth recalling at this time? We appeal from the man in a mist and a fog to the man in the clear light.

It is further apparent that this attitude toward the Testimonies is just the same as the attitude of the Higher Critics toward the Bible. They demonstrate through the testimony of human science and the results of literary criticism that portions of the Bible are untrue, that the writers were often controlled by the spirit and prejudices of the times in which they wrote, and therefore conclude that it is the duty of each investigator to decide for himself what is inspired and what is not inspired. After having taken this destructive course they affirm that they have not attacked the Bible, and that they have not vitiated the real authority of the Scriptures. According to their view they have only separated between the true and the untrue, between the reliable and the unreliable, just as some are now doing with the Testimonies. Are we ready to accept the principle of the Higher Criticism in our attitude toward the Testimonies?

After having made upon the denominational organization and upon the Testimonies a repeated attack, the most subtle and the most severe of any made in the history of this denomination, one of the leaders in this apostasy now makes an appeal to the people on the ground that he is still preaching the third angel’s message just the same as ever, and practically charges the representative workers in the denomination with not teaching that message, and then deprecates the payment of tithe to those who are seeking to defend the present plan of organization and the Testimonies against his attacks. We do not wish to impugn the motives of any man, or to charge that this course is taken with the conscious purpose of deceiving the people, but it is plain to us that this apostasy is putting on its mask to conceal its real nature. How can one really preach this message, and yet oppose the movement created by it and destroy confidence in the reliability of the Testimonies? The history of this advent movement will show that this is not the first attempt to teach certain truths which are found in this message while at the same time rejecting that which can not be separated from the actual development of this message—the reliability of the spirit of prophecy. We do not place the Testimonies above the Bible; but we do affirm that it is impossible to be loyal to the third angel’s message as a movement in the earth, and at the same time to impugn the reliability of the Testimonies. God is not the author of confusion, and he has not given the spirit of discernment to a faction at Battle Creek to correct the denomination and to direct this movement contrary to the explicit statements of the Testimonies.

The real explanation of this attitude toward the Testimonies is that there are certain Testimonies relating to the situation at Battle Creek which some have refused to believe and to follow, although others can see that they are true; and to break the force of these Testimonies an effort is made to impugn the reliability of all such communications. We are glad to learn that our people discern the true situation, and are not being confused by these efforts to justify rebellion. “If men continue to work out their ambitious designs, the Lord will manifest his counterworking efficiency. He will not much longer leave even the appearance that he, the God of heaven, is continuing to serve with those upon whose minds the enemy of all righteousness is working.”

The course of events will witness to the reliability of the Testimonies.