Sectarianism | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jun 26, 1901

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 27, No. 26.

Sectarianism.

It is not a difficult thing to call a religious body a “sect,” and a member of that body a “sectarian.” It is easy to catalogue as “sects” all who are outside of “my church,” which sometimes is summed up in one individual.

The Roman Catholic Church condemns as “sects” all bodies outside of her communion. The Church of England and the Greek “Orthodox” Church make similar charges as regards the dissenting bodies of Christendom. But these characterizations and charges are in themselves nothing to a Christian. One body of religionists may condemn a man as a heretic, his brethren as a sect; but this does not make them so. In his relation to a religious body a man may be a sectarian, while in his relation to God, he may be a true member of the church of Christ.

Let us examine the meaning of the terms, and decide our relation to sectarianism in the light of the Word.

The word “heresy” is the literal Greek word, hairesis Anglicized and transferred, not translated. “Sect” in Scripture is translated from the same word. The meaning of the Greek word is “to take for oneself,” to choose, to prefer.

Neither its definition nor use in the New Testament necessarily attaches to the word a bad meaning. The Sadducees and Pharisees are each spoken of as a “sect,” in the simple sense of party division, or class. Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5. It is used by the Jews of the Christians. Acts 24:5; 28:22. In none of these instances does reproach attach to the use of the term. It was the kind of sect that was condemned, not the fact that certain ones were a sect. So much for its use by men.

On the other hand, God condemns heresy, a sect, or sectarianism. See 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1. Heresy is among the works of the flesh, among the last-day developments of apostasy.

The wrong of heresy, of sectarianism, lies not in the mere choosing, but in the motive of choosing and the thing chosen. Either a wrong motive or the choice of a wrong thing would be the heresy condemned by the Word as one of the fruits of the flesh. “Heresy,” or “Sectarianism,” in the light of the Gospel lies in the choice of that which is contrary to the Gospel, in preferring the way of man to the way of God, whether that may be held by one man or by a body.

Now the rule of the Christian’s faith is the Word. That was the guide of Christ’s faith. It is the living Scriptures of truth, “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine [“teaching,” R.V.], for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. No wonder that the apostle charges the Christian minister with but the one thing—“Preach the Word.” Naught else is needed. The child of God finds in the Bible all that he needs both for his own character-building and his labor for other souls.

It therefore follows that he who takes that Word—the Holy Scriptures—as his guide, the lamp to his feet and the light to his path, is not a heretic. He may not know all the truth; but he has grasped it all in principle, and coming to its knowledge is but a matter of time. He is in the path of knowledge; let him pursue it to the end.

It also follows that he who chooses some other standard from that of the Word is in the light of the Gospel a heretic. When he feels that human wisdom must formulate the living Word into a formal creed, must add or subtract something to make it clearer (or easier), must in some way fix or crystallize human expression of faith so as to define heresy, in that very doing he becomes a heretic, and the people who thus erect a different standard from the Word become a sect, a class, a division of God’s army.

And, again, it follows that no person is a heretic, no body a sect, that faithfully, truly, takes God’s Word as the rule and follows that alone.

But what about the “name”? says one. Well, the name may be important; it may not be. It may mean honor to some man instead of Christ, such as Lutherans, Calvinists. Such a name, it seems to us, would hide the face of the Master by the man. It may indicate some prominent characteristic, such as Methodist (the methodistical one), Presbyterian (government by presbyters), Congregationalist (government by the congregation). In some cases prominent features of belief are expressed in the name. In the word Baptist the fact is indicated that emphasis is laid on baptism. Seventh-day Adventism makes prominent two things, the seventh day and the second advent. Some of these names first came in as a term of reproach by enemies, and were afterward used by the body to whom applied. Others came in thru the special features emphasized in the beginning of the denomination.

The Early Church.

In the early church, it is very probable that the disciples did not themselves formally adopt a distinctive name. We have the terms “church of God,” “church of Christ,” “disciples,” “saints,” “the faithful,” “the elect,” “household of God,” etc.; but none of these were evidently adopted as a name; at least we have no record of such an act. The more definite names came later. The name used was the one best suited to the occasion.

That the adoption of one of these ancient names is not a prevention against sectarianism is manifest in the different bodies which have adopted, for instance, the name “the Church of God.” Tho possessing the same name, they are at antipodes oftentimes in belief and practice. What the name may be called is of minor importance if it be God’s glory that is sought, and the name does not glorify the creature rather than the Creator.

This brings us to the question of a friend, “Are not you, in adopting a name, sectarian? Is not the ‘SIGNS OF THE TIMES’ published to build up a ‘sect, the Seventh-day Adventists?’”

Objects of a Name.

To both of these we reply, No. The name is not that which is held with respect to God; it does not express our relation to Him. We are His children by grace, His called-out-ones (ekklesia) if we have heeded His Gospel. The name Seventh-day Adventist serves a threefold purpose: (1) Primarily, in purpose it is a part of the message which we have to bear to the world. We are associated together in order to give that message to the world. The name in itself represents two great Gospel truths, one of which has long been trodden under the feet of the apostasy, and the other greatly neglected. Around the Sabbath truth, vitally connected with it, are the great truths of God’s creative and regenerative power; for the Sabbath is a sign of the latter as truly as it is a memorial of the former. Eze. 20:12; Ex. 20:8–11. The Sabbath truth is a protest against the life-destroying, evolutionary-higher-criticism theories, which like deadly miasma are poisoning the very life-blood of Christendom. And the doctrine of Christ’s second coming, including the when and the how, is a protest against the delusive theory of a converted world, while it embodies all the glorious blessings and promises of the Christian’s hope. This was the object, the sole object, in adopting the name. (2) It serves to distinguish those who are bearing this message to the world from other bodies especially other bodies of Adventists. (3) In its corporate existence the body must have some legal name, or else hold its property thru individuals in trust. There are few who care to assume so much responsibility, and for the publishing houses and other institutions among us, a corporate existence is necessary, and for this one name is as good as another.

“But why not take the name ‘Church of God,’ or ‘Christians’?” (1) Because we do not believe that all the church of God is found in us; God’s people are scattered thru all the bodies of Christendom. (2) The above, and similar terms have been assumed by others who are no nearer the truth because of the name they hold. Why add to the confusion by assuming names already overburdened and often misapplied? The name Seventh-day Adventists have chosen is a part of their God-given message to the world.

Not a Sect.

Are they by adopting such a name a “sect”?—No; for they have chosen not their own way, but God’s way. They have no creed; no formulated statement of belief to which subscription is demanded. The words of Holy Writ are sufficient,—“The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. They propose to follow, hindered by no human creed, bound by no dead human hand, the light of the ever-unrolling scroll of the seven-sealed Gospel thru the gloom and darkness of earth’s errors to the dawning of the perfect day. When the creed comes, crystallization comes, and growth ceases. And that has been the case with every body of religionists which for conscience’ sake has been born anew from its parent fold. Human creeds can not contain the new wine of the Gospel. Its place is hearts renewed from day to day in Christ Jesus.

Not to Build up a Sect.

Our reply to the latter question asked above is already given. Yet we are constrained to make the reply more direct. We are not publishing this paper to build up Seventh-day Adventists as a denomination. We trust that our motive is higher than that. This paper is published for the one purpose to bring men to God, to convert souls to the Lord Jesus Christ, to save them from sin and sinning thru the power of His endless life, in order that His character, His obedience, may be developed in them.

And in this, reader, go with us. Study with us in the way. Take God’s Word as it is. Let it be a living word in your life. And where that lamp leads you, fear not to go. It is ever the way of righteousness, peace, and everlasting life. If this brings souls to unite with us in the carrying forward of this blessed message, well; we praise God for it; and can say with one of old, “Come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel.”