CALLING OUT OF THE LAST CHURCH by John Norton Loughborough

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 21, 1901

CALLING OUT OF THE LAST CHURCH

By John Norton Loughborough

“Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” Rev. 3:3.

These words were addressed to the Sardis Church. That Church is followed by another, called the “Philadelphia” Church, of whom it is said, They have “kept the word of my patience.” They have held fast to that which their predecessors let go. To this Philadelphia Church the Lord says: “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” Verse 11. To them He also declares, “I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.” Verse 8.

It appears from these words that, at the time here designated, the Sardis Church had heard the glorious announcement of Christ’s coming “at the door,” and that they had professedly received it, but had now come to a crisis where they were about to reject that precious truth, and that they tried to hedge up the way of those who held fast to the message, and that they sought to close the door before those who would advance with the light. This obliged the believers to separate from their former brethren. These persecuted ones, “coming out,” and boldly declaring the truths their former associates tried to suppress, are denominated the “Philadelphia” Church—the church of brotherly love.

The course here delineated was the exact experience of those engaged in the great second Advent movement in the year 1844, and resulted in a separation of the Adventists from the nominal churches. Such a separation on the part of those who resolved to follow the path of truth seems to be in harmony with God’s plan for the furtherance of His cause in the earth, as shown in the following quotation: “As the light and life of men was rejected by the ecclesiastical authorities in the days of Christ, so it has been rejected in every succeeding generation. Again and again the history of Christ’s withdrawal from Judea has been repeated. When the Reformers preached the word of God, they had no thought of separating themselves from the established church; but the religious leaders would not tolerate the light, and those that bore it were forced to seek another class, who were longing for the truth. In our day few of the professed followers of the Reformers are actuated by their spirit. Few are listening for the voice of God, and ready to accept truth in whatever guise it may be presented. Often those who follow in the steps of the Reformers are forced to turn away from the churches they love, in order to declare the plain teaching of the word of God. And many times those who are seeking for light are by the same teaching obliged to leave the church of their fathers, that they may render obedience.”—Desire of Ages, chap. 23, par 4.

Relative to this “separation” for the sake of truth, we quote the following: “In the Reformation the Lord sent His gospel anew, and with power, to all people. . . . Multitudes received the gospel, and walked in the light as it was then revealed. But as that was the first step out of darkness, there were other steps to be taken, to reach the fullness of the gospel: there was advance light in which to walk. . . .

“Many of those who had come out of darkness, and had taken the first steps into the light of the gospel, stopped there, became satisfied with that. . . . They grew proud of what they had, exalted themselves upon what they had, and became exclusive. Then, as the gospel must go on, as the light must increase more and more unto the perfect day, it followed that all those who would walk in the advancing light, all who would receive more truth—the fuller gospel—were excluded from the company of those who were self-satisfied, and were obliged to go forward as had the others at the first.”—A. T. Jones, in Review of Feb. 20, 1900.

This “coming out,” and establishing new sects, as new points of truth were received, continued until the Lord sent a message to His people—a message on which all might have united if they would. It was the great Advent proclamation—the announcement, “The hour of His judgment is come.” It was the first call to the marriage supper of the Lamb. This message was to be declared “at supper time,”—at the close of the gospel day,—“to them that were bidden.” Luke 14:17.

As the gospel message was first declared to the Jews,—those who had the Scriptures, and professed faith in God,—and continued with them until they rejected it (Acts 13:46), so the first great call at the close of the gospel day was to go to them who had been bidden,—to the professed churches of God. But when they rejected and opposed this great truth, the Lord, by a second call (Luke 14:21),—the Second Angel’s Message of Rev. 14:8,—separated a people to go forth to the end with the advancing light of His truth.

Those who proclaimed the Second Angel’s Message stated plainly that those who were clinging to the mere opinions of men in place of the plain statements of God’s word, were following thus far in the steps of the mother church of Rome, and were in danger of placing themselves where the day of the Lord would finally overtake them like “a thief in the night.” Of this the nominal churches were told. In the setting aside of the word of the Lord in order to establish their own opinions and creeds, they were like the papal church, which took “the Bible as explained by tradition, by customs, sayings, and practices of the Fathers, popes, and cardinals, which was a direct departure from the Protestant rule of taking “the Bible, and the Bible alone, as the standard of faith.”

Concerning this second message, and Advent experience in that call for separation, we quote from Elder J. V. Himes, one of the prominent laborers in that message. Speaking of William Miller, he said: “His labors had been incessant, and effectual in awakening professors of religion to the true hope of God’s people, and the necessary preparation for the advent of the Lord; as also the awakening of all classes of the unconverted to a sense of their lost condition, and the duty of immediate repentance and conversion to God, as a preparation to meet the Bridegroom in peace at His coming. These were the great objects of his labors. He made no attempt to convert men to a sect or party in religion. Hence he labored among all parties and sects, without interfering with their organization or discipline, believing that the members of the different communions could retain their standing and at the same time prepare for the advent of their King, and labor for the salvation of men in these relations until the consummation of their hope.

“When we were persuaded of the truth of the advent at hand, and embraced the doctrine publicly [in 1840], we entertained the same views, and pursued the same course among the different sects where we were called, in the providence of God, to labor. We told the ministers and churches that it was no part of our business to break them up, or to divide and distract them. We had one distinct object, and that was to give the ‘cry,’ the warning of the judgment ‘at the door,’ and persuade our fellow men to get ready for the event. Most of the ministers and churches that opened their doors to us and our brethren who were proclaiming the Advent doctrine, co-operated with us until the last year. The ministry and membership who availed themselves of our labors, but had not sincerely embraced the doctrine, saw that they must either go with the doctrine, and preach and maintain it, or in the crisis which was right upon them, they would have difficulty with the decided and determined believers. They therefore decided against the doctrine, and determined, some by one policy and some by another, to suppress the subject. This placed our brethren and sisters among them in a most trying position. Most of them loved their churches, and could not think of leaving. But when they were ridiculed, oppressed, and in various ways cut off from their former privileges and enjoyments, and when the ‘meat in due season’ was withheld from them, and the siren song of ‘Peace and safety’ was sounded in their ears from Sabbath to Sabbath, they were soon weaned from their party predilections, and arose in the majesty of their strength, shook off the yoke, and raised the cry, ‘Come out of her, my people.’”—Letter of J. V. Himes, Aug. 29, 1844.

Another engaged in the movement said of the opposition from the churches: “The orthodox churches used every means to prevent the belief in Christ’s soon coming from spreading. No liberty was granted in their meetings to those who dared mention a hope of the soon coming of Christ. Professed lovers of Jesus scornfully rejected the tidings that He whom they claimed as their best friend was soon to visit them. They were excited and angered against those who proclaimed the news of His coming, and who rejoiced that they should speedily behold Him in glory.”—Mrs. E. G. White, in “Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. 1, page 54.

In giving the Second Angel’s Message, Elder Himes said: “Though we may not be all agreed as to what constitutes Babylon, we are agreed in the instant and final separation from all who oppose the doctrine of the coming and kingdom of God at hand. We believe it to be a case of life and death. It is death to remain connected with those bodies that speak lightly of or oppose the coming of the Lord. It is life to come out from human tradition, and stand upon the word of God, and look daily for the appearing of the Lord. We therefore now say to all who are in any way entangled in the yoke of bondage, ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.’”—Letter of Aug. 29, 1844.

About the same time Brother William Miller said: “It is most unnatural and unaccountable that the Christian churches should exclude this doctrine, and their members for this blessed hope. . . . What do they exclude for? I heard of some being excluded for ‘hymning’ second advent melodies; others for insanity, when all the insanity proved against them was that they were watching for Christ. O God! ‘forgive them: for they know not what they do.’”

How the Lord used the opposition to develop a separate people is further described by Brother Himes. He compared it to the course of Paul at Ephesus: “But when divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated

the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. It was not until ‘divers were hardened’ and ‘spake evil of that way [the Lord’s coming], before the multitude,’ that our brethren were moved to come out and separate from the churches. They could not endure the ‘evil speaking’ of the ‘evil servants.’ And the churches that could pursue the course of oppression and ‘evil speaking’ toward those who were looking for the ‘blessed hope,’ were to them none other than the daughters of the mystic Babylon. They so proclaimed them, and came into the liberty of the gospel.”—Letter of Aug. 29, 1844.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.