Meetings in San Francisco and a Crisis Correspondent's Criticism by John Norton Loughborough

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 5, 1872

Meetings in San Francisco and a Crisis Correspondent's Criticism

By John Norton Loughborough

In my last I spoke of our interesting meetings held in San Francisco, from Jan. 4-7, 1872. Our hearts were truly encouraged for what we saw and felt of the work of the Lord there. But I will insert right here what is said of our work by a correspondent of the World’s Crisis, who signs himself, “C.” I will say before copying it, that we do not “see things” as “C” does, and he does not see them as he saw them when he wrote a former article, or else his memory is treacherous and he has forgotten what he said at that time. But I will let you read what he says before commenting upon it. In the Crisis of Dec. 6, 1871, this “C” heads a portion of his article, “Comparative Failure and Decline of the Seventh-day Movement in San Francisco.” Here is his statement of the case.

“The Seventh-day Adventists do not appear to be making any headway in this city, and the mistaken men who attempted to break into the fold, established here through Elder Grant’s pioneering, will probably soon retire from the place in as good order, and with as much grace, as they can maintain under the circumstances. Pity that they could not be so enlightened that they could see that we have passed from under the law into the full rule of the gospel of Christ. They have done some harm in this city by giving a sharply sectarian appearance to “Adventism,” as viewed by the world outside; but Eld. Grant could straighten out all the regretted misapprehensions by a few sermons, to such audiences as he alone could at once assemble in San Francisco. And then by the meetings and enunciations at Sacramento, it would be rendered impossible for any man or set of men hereafter, in any other portion of the State, to make the people believe that “Adventism” and Seventh-day-ism were inseparably connected.”

Of this statement as a whole I would say, first, “The wish is perhaps the father to the thought,” in many of his statements. As to making “headway,” I have seen cases in the past where men “appeared” to be making great “headway,” but a few months greatly shrunk the proportions of their work.

In starting a permanent work, it is important to establish its first beginnings right. In forming the nucleus of a prosperous church the first great point should be to be right. So if S. D. Adventists have not employed all the reporters during the past three months to puff them, they have been seeking to dig deep, to have a thorough “heart work” and a thorough scriptural organization and discipline established. While this work has been going on, one after another has taken his stand with us. Although some who came out have moved to other places, not one who was thoroughly established on the truth has given it up.

The next expression that demands notice is this: “The mistaken men who attempted to break into the fold established here through Eld. Grant’s pioneering.” “Fold established”! Where was that fold? When Eld. Grant had succeeded in creating a great interest in the doctrines he presented, and several scores had taken their stand in favor of them, he proposed that they unite with Eld. Bailey’s church, which was a Southern Methodist church. Several articles of the discipline were read, and in some way it was made to appear that Eld. Bailey’s church was either an Adventist church, or would be. And as Eld. Bailey was “the best man he ever knew,” of course it would be safe to leave the flock in his charge. All did not see the matter in that light, and so all were not free to join a Methodist church. As the result of the Minna-St.-church movement, at least one half of Eld. Grant’s converts were left outside. These soon after met and effected a separate organization. So the “fold” Eld. Grant left was a divided fold, and the only distinct fold established was established by the sheep after the shepherd had left the country.

At the time we erected our tent in San Francisco it was apparent to all that Eld. Bailey’s church was no Adventist church, and the members were scattering in every direction. Eld. Bailey himself resigned and joined the Northern Methodist church. The statistics of churches in San Francisco gives Minna St. Church eighty members, attendance forty. Where are they? “C” said after attending one of our meetings at the hall on Minna St., that he observed only two or three of those who attended at the Minna St. church. Then surely we had not broken into his fold, even if such a fold had any existence.

As to pioneering, this “C” writes as though Eld. Grant was the first man to do anything in this country, and, one would judge, the only man. It was about the idea the elder himself advanced, that is, that “nothing had ever been done in the Advent cause here in California,” until he came, thus entirely ignoring the work we had been engaged in here for the last three years. And now he seems to claim the whole State by conquest or discovery; for after he preaches in San Francisco and Sacramento it will not be possible to convince any one that “Adventism and Seventh-day-ism are inseparably connected.”

Well, Eld. Grant has been in San Francisco the past three weeks. I do not see as he has any larger audiences than some other speakers, or that all the city has fallen down to worship.

As for the cause of Seventh-day Adventism, it has more interested hearers in San Francisco than when Eld. Grant came. The tract society has taken an active part in circulating tracts and advertising the meetings; and their effort is bearing good fruit.

Since my last report, I have spent one Sabbath and first-day at Healdsburg, one in Santa Rosa, and some days in San Francisco. In Healdsburg and Santa Rosa the old jewelry was passed in for the general tract fund of this State, and after melting and assaying, amounted to $56.50.

We are of good courage. Our people are waking up some to this important time. May we all earnestly seek God, and being clothed with his strength, upheld by his free Spirit, our labors in his cause will not be in vain.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Santa Rosa, Feb. 2, 1872.