Adventist Interchurch Relations: A Study in Ecumenics [1 ed.] 9783737014632, 9783847114635

Citation preview

Kirche – Konfession – Religion

Band 84

Herausgegeben vom Konfessionskundlichen Institut des Evangelischen Bundes unter Mitarbeit der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen von Dagmar Heller und Kai Funkschmidt in Verbindung mit Andreas Feldtkeller, Miriam Rose und Gury Schneider-Ludorff

Die Bände dieser Reihe sind peer-reviewed.

Stefan Höschele

Adventist Interchurch Relations A Study in Ecumenics

With 2 figures

V&R unipress

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der Theologischen Hochschule Friedensau. Dieses Buch wurde im Rahmen einer Forschungsarbeit an der Evangelisch-Theologischen Fakultät der Karlsuniversität in Prag verfasst. © 2022 Brill | V&R unipress, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau und V&R unipress. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlagabbildung: Rosettenfenster der Kapelle Friedensau, © Ralph Spiegler, Möckern (Pabsdorf / Friedensau) Lektorat: Jonquil Hole Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2198-1507 ISBN 978-3-7370-1463-2

To Prof. Dr. Dr. Klaus Fiedler Doktorvater, Christian friend, Baptist brother, and inspiring example

Contents

Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

Notes on the Cover Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Aim and Rationale . . . . 1.2 Sources and Literature . . 1.3 Approach and Perspective

. . . .

27 29 31 34

. . . .

39 41

. .

41

. .

47

. . . .

52 57

. .

57

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

2. On Studying Interchurch Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Ecumenism and Interchurch Relations: Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Ecumenics and the Study of the Churches’ Relationships: Taking Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Interchurch Relations Research: Premises, Problems, Promises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Approaches and the State of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Historical Approaches: Interpreting Developments in Intra-Christian Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

8

Contents

2.2.2 Theological Discourses: Models of Unity – Models of Relationships? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Social Sciences: Applying Relations Relevant Theories 2.3 Factors and a Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 A Phenomenological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 A Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

3. Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Non-Denominationalism and Millennialist Revivalism: The Impact of the Restorationist and Millerite Movements . . . . 3.1.1 Interchurch Relationships in Early 19th Century America . 3.1.2 The Millerite Movement and the Denominations . . . . . . 3.1.3 Effects of Separatism and the “Great Disappointment” . . . 3.2 Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission: Sabbatarian Adventists and Other Christians, 1844–1860 . . . . . 3.2.1 Intra-Millerite Relations and the Emergence of Sabbatarians 3.2.2 Identity Formation, Church Concepts and Notions of Unity 3.2.3 Attitudes to Other Christians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism: The Early Seventh-day Adventist Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Becoming a Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Sabbatarian Ecumenism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Relating to the Christian World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

60 69 88 88 97 100

.

111

. . . .

111 111 115 120

. . . .

124 124 136 150

. . . .

163 163 174 185

4. Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Musings on Christian Unity and Church Union Efforts . . . . 4.1.2 Encountering the Sunday Law and Temperance Movements . 4.1.3 The Importance of Theological Development and Ellen White’s Ministry for Adventist Interchurch Relations . . . . 4.2 Cooperating so that Christ Can Come? Adventists and the Protestant Missionary Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 The Impact of Changing Adventist Missionary Thought . . . 4.2.2 Continuing Friction, Courteous Attitudes: The SDA Paradox . 4.2.3 The Comity Issue: Developing a Denominational Statement . 4.2.4 Institutionalized Cooperation in the 1930s and 1940s . . . . .

205 207 207 216 224 235 236 243 250 256

9

Contents

4.3 Critical Observers of Alternative Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Contacts with the Incipient Ecumenical Movement . . . . . . 4.3.2 Uneasy Ties with American Fundamentalists . . . . . . . . . 5. Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Experimenting with New Types of Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Discussing with Evangelicals in the 1950s . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Observing Vatican II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Conversing with the World Council of Churches . . . . . . 5.2 Functioning as a Christian World Communion . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Bert B. Beach and the Christian World Communions . . . 5.2.2 Enduring Ambivalence, Maturing Positions . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Intentional Interaction, International Differentiation . . . . 5.3 Dialoguing with Other Denominations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The Lutheran-Adventist Conversations and Their Epilogue 5.3.2 Adventists and Roman Catholics: Open-Ended Exchange . 5.3.3 Family Reunion: Meeting the Reformed and Evangelicals .

264 264 274

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

281 283 283 297 308 323 323 331 341 358 368 374 383

6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

399

7. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Appendix I: Chronology of Adventist Interchurch Relationships and General Ecumenical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Appendix II: Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

409

8. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Books, Dissertations, and Theses on SDA and ICR . . . 8.2 Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR . . . . . . 8.3 Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents . . . . . . . 8.4 Unpublished and Digital Items on SDA and ICR . . . . 8.5 Adventist Writings of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries 8.6 Adventist Theology and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

. . . . . . . .

439 439 444 459 474 479 483 491

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

507

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

A supplementary bibliography of articles on Adventism and interchurch relations in popular Adventist magazines can be accessed online: http://www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com/hoeschele_adventist (see downloads) Password: GR8bsB6uuQ

409 413

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Figure 2. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13.

A two-dimensional interchurch relations visualization with selected descriptors Ideal types of inter- and intra-church relations Inter-organizational relations: Factors motivating / preventing collaboration “Manifestations and features of four elementary relational models” according to Fiske Ecumenical / interchurch relations phenomena and practices Descriptors and metaphors for interchurch relations Factors in interpretations and interchurch relations classifications A typology of unity concepts and their relational content Post-Millerite radicals’ “shut-door” concepts, 1844–1850 Themes and papers of the WCC-Adventist conversations Unity concepts (shortened version) Beach 1975: Unity concepts – references and themes Johnsson 2013: Unity concepts – references and themes Dialogue types with some descriptors Adventist bilateral dialogues and conversations

94 107

78 82–83 90–92 95–97 99 102–105 129–130 312–313 337 338 339–340 362 363–367

Foreword

The conversations between Seventh-day Adventists and Lutherans were my first experience of global ecumenical dialogue. In 1994, I had just started my work at the Institute for Ecumenical Research in Strasbourg, a place that conducts the dialogues of Lutheran churches in collaboration with the Lutheran World Federation. As a young theologian coming from Finland, I had no previous firsthand experience of the Adventists. In this new job I was suddenly responsible for the preparation of our first bilateral talks. I was fairly nervous before this meeting in Darmstadt, Germany, in November 1994. However, during the course of the Adventist–Lutheran conversations from 1994 to 1998 the atmosphere was always cordial and the quality of academic theology outstanding. I got to know and made friends with remarkable Adventist theologians. With William G. Johnsson we drafted the earliest versions of many joint statements. Bert B. Beach organized and chaired several meetings in his dynamic and constructive fashion. Ángel Manuel Rodriguez and Jon Paulien contributed profound papers on Adventist theology. We were warmly received in the world headquarters of the Adventists in Silver Spring, USA, in October 1997. The President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Robert S. Folkenberg, visited our last meeting in Switzerland in May 1998. I learned many new things about the Adventists, but I also gained new insights to my own Lutheran tradition. The Augsburg Confession of 1530 states that “it is enough for the true unity of the church to agree concerning the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments” (§7). Given this, do we need to agree whether the weekly worship takes place on Saturday or Sunday? Most Lutherans have never considered this issue. Do we need to agree on eschatological matters? Our dialogue was among the first ecumenical encounters to take eschatological teachings seriously. I was also very impressed to see a truly global church born out of Protestant tradition. Lutherans and other Protestants claim to be global but our official church structures remain merely national. The Seventh-day Adventist Church works as a global institution and organization in ways that are almost unique in

14

Foreword

post-Reformation Christianity. Our dialogue results were very effectively disseminated through this global body. The Lutheran World Federation is also fairly good in this kind of work, but the Adventists were ahead of us. After this dialogue, I have had only occasional contacts with the Adventists. However, I have often used the resources and outcomes of this dialogue in my teaching in Helsinki. I have also followed the development of many other conversations of this kind. It is therefore a great joy to see Stefan Höschele’s Habilitationsschrift to appear in print. With this learned volume, we can trace the manifold origins and currents of Adventist ecumenism. Ecumenical books of this kind serve at least three purposes. They offer a documentary history, reporting what has actually taken place. They also offer a theological analysis, telling us in which ways the Christian faith is explained in these encounters and how it should be understood today. Thirdly, they encourage us to constructive community-building in our own contexts. With such books, we can better serve our communities and become aware of our Christian vocation. I know Stefan Höschele personally from the meetings of the European network of ecumenical research, Societas Oecumenica. He has served this network in various roles, always with diligence and cheerfulness. Having worked myself as research director for many years in the Faculty of Theology in Helsinki, I am constantly aware of the importance of such qualities for theological research and demanding leadership tasks – like a positive attitude and an encyclopaedic orientation. These qualities are also visible in the present volume. Risto Saarinen, Professor of Ecumenics, University of Helsinki

Preface

This book is the revised version of a habilitation thesis defended at the Protestant Theological Faculty of Charles University, Prague, in 2017. The academic and personal journey with the colleagues in the Czech Republic, which began in 2006, was an extremely pleasant one: The then president of Societas Oecumenica (the European Society for Ecumenical Research), Professor Ivana Noble, invited me to pursue the envisioned research project under the auspices of her faculty, and I have never regretted becoming part of the oldest university in Central Europe. For a German who learnt but a few words of Czech, the gracious interest of the very interdenominational faculty team – with colleagues from Evangelical Brethren, Hussite, Moravian, and even Orthodox and Roman Catholic backgrounds – meant a lot. It was a double impulse that originally prompted me to engage with the question of interchurch relations. The first was, as for many Protestants one century ago, the experience of mission. I had worked in Africa for seven years, and the encounter between a host of imported and indigenous versions of Christianity in Tanzania soon presented itself as a fascinating topic, which I could but partially address in my doctoral dissertation.* Moreover, when I was asked to teach Systematic Theology at my alma mater, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau near Magdeburg, in 2003, I gladly did so even though my major interest had hitherto been missiology. One crucial field that connects mission studies with dogmatics is ecclesiology, and the communal aspect of faith has remained dear to me far beyond those earlier years. The study of how churches interact has naturally been a crucial element of this interest. Being of a Seventh-day Adventist background at times means sailing on waters that are quite distinct from the Protestant theological mainstream (and from other Christian traditions in general). By focusing on the relationship between denominations, I chose to use this habitual aloofness as an asset – for academic * Christian Remnant – African Folk Church: Seventh-Day Adventism in Tanzania, 1903–1980, Studies in Christian Mission 34, Leiden: Brill, 2007, 97–105, 136–144, 459–476.

16

Preface

inquiry needs critical distance as much as dedication to fully exploring a topic. At the same time, in examining Adventist history and theology as a case study, being familiar with the sources was helpful. Nevertheless, the topic is such a “hot potato” in the traditional discourse of this religious community that it seemed crucial for a scholar to deal with it in a most disinterested manner. If this book can contribute to a better understanding of how this denomination has developed a dialectic perspective on other churches, and how this particular story illuminates the many ways of the churches’ interaction, and indeed of the relationship between human beings and the communities to which they belong, the efforts of the ten-year research project behind this volume will not have been in vain.

Acknowledgements

It is both a pleasure and my duty to express gratitude after so many people have supported me and the research behind this book for years. I am grateful, first of all, for the support by Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, my employer. This study was done as part of my work, and all research, travel, and publication expenses were generously paid by this institution. My colleagues and superiors were just the right kind network around me, regularly asking how things were going but never putting pressure on me. In a particular way, I am obliged for two partial research semesters in 2008 (for travel and collecting sources) and 2014 (for writing). Thank you so much, Ivana and Tim Noble – for befriending the stranger who appeared in your lives in 2006–07, for inviting me to all the colloquia and conferences, for sharing deep and sacred moments, and for supporting me with encouragement throughout. All this has been nothing short of a miracle to me. To two of my teachers of theology (who later turned into valued team-mates in teaching) I wish to express gratitude with words even if these cannot articulate what you mean to me. Rolf Pöhler, professor of Systematic Theology, predecessor, and friend, encouraged me to undertake this study when I was just a fresh Ph.D. in 2006. Bernhard Oestreich, whose scholarly acumen and unpretentiousness I will ever admire, graciously took over some of my administrative responsibilities in spring and summer 2015 so that I could finish writing – in spite of the fact that he had recently retired! A host of persons helped me in collecting, reproducing, and sorting out sources. I am deeply indebted to John Graz and Bert B. Beach at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for their moral support of this study and for opening their files for my research. Thank you, John and Médina, particularly for your hospitality in May and June 2008! Ángel Rodríguez, then director of the denominational Biblical Research Institute, gave me access to other relevant files in 2011; the staff of the General Conference Archives helped me with innumerable items, and my friend Joshua Marcoe and his digitization staff were incredibly helpful in putting millions of pages of 19th and 20th century

18

Acknowledgements

publications online. Special greetings and thanks also to Tom Tryniski of fultonhistory.com, who digitized more than 30 million pages – among them the 19th century Seventh Day Baptist Sabbath Recorder! I do appreciate the contribution of the M.T.S. students at Friedensau as well, with whom I discussed some of the ideas in this thesis. In 2014 I stumbled across Relational Models Theory (RMT) in the context of searching for interpretative strategies to be utilized in the field of ecumenics. When I read, digested, and reflected upon this general theory of human relationships, it was as if the social world around me were making sense as never before. Beyond serving as a point of reference in this study, this key meta-theory of the social sciences – which is too little known even among social scientists themselves – can shed new light and help re-interpret a host of phenomena, ranging from family interactions to political parties and even religious practices and notions of the most diverse kind. Although I have not met Professor Alan P. Fiske, the principal author of RMT, in person, I am deeply grateful to him for the insights, stimulation and joy that the theory of this anthropologist has brought to this research and, indeed, my life. Among the people who helped the manuscript become a book, I would like to thank particularly Dagmar Heller with her fellow editors of the Kirche – Konfession – Religion series for the extremely quick approval of the manuscript, Julia Schwanke of Brill / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht for the smooth cooperation, Ralph Spiegler, a cherished colleague who contributed the cover photo, and Mrs Jonquil Hole, copy editor and former colleague in a large denominational encyclopedia project. Jonquil, I still don’t know how to thank you properly. But I guess emulating your altruistic spirit is what you will appreciate, so I’ll try! It may seem a bit unusual, but I would also like to thank a person whom I met in the midst of writing but who has little to do with this study as such. Nevertheless, he mirrors the ethos of one of the aspects appearing in it, i. e. what has been called “ecumenism of life.” In a very difficult moment of 2015 – a few hours after my mother died – physician Dr. Dominik Rahammer from Barmherzige Brüder Hospital, Munich, unexpectedly became a sign of God’s consolation. When he had finished his duties, this Roman Catholic Christian offered my father and me, two Adventist pastors, to play Bach’s “Jesu bleibet meine Freude” (Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring) on the family piano. Rarely has the friendly care of a fellow believer in the God of Jesus Christ been as comforting as on that day. Finally, I must mention Klaus Fiedler, my Doktorvater between 1998 and 2005. I count it a blessing to have been one of the many students whom he coached in writing a dissertation. Yet he was much more than the best supervisor I can imagine. Klaus entered my life in an unforgettable manner – he, the accomplished professor of church history and missiology teaching at a state uni-

Acknowledgements

19

versity in Africa, visited me in Magdeburg, Germany, right at the home of the 24year-young Adventist student unknown to him, who was just starting to prepare for service in Tanzania. What followed were annual colloquia with serious academic grooming, but also gracious invitations to live in his house each time I came over to Malawi, and extraordinary sympathy for my research project, which he supported without gaining anything except a younger friend. It is most fitting that this study be dedicated to him. S.D.G.

Abbreviations

ACK AE AOY AR AR BRI CAR CCC CIR CS CCWC CWC DEM DFM EGWE EM FMCNA GC GCA GCC GCOM ICR IMC IOR

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland (German National Council of Churches) Adventecho (German Adventist denominational journal) Assemblies of Yahweh Authority Ranking (RMT) Adventist Review (the major North American Adventist magazine, succeeding RH) Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, USA Center of Adventist Research, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, USA China Continuation Committee Council on Interchurch Relations,* General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, USA Communal Sharing (RMT) Conference of Secretaries of Christian World Communions Christian World Communion Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. by Nicholas Lossky et al. 2d ed. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002 Division of Foreign Missions, NCCCUSA Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, USA Equality Matching (RMT) Foreign Missions Conference of North America General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, USA General Conference Archives of Seventh-day Adventists General Conference (Executive) Committee General Conference Officers’ Meeting Interchurch Relations International Missionary Council Inter-Organizational Relations

* The name of this entity changed later; it was called “Council on Interchurch/Faith Relations” from 1990 onwards, and several other small name adjustments followed.

22 JATS LAC

LCL

LWF MP NCCCUSA PARL QOD

PT RH RM RMT SDA SDB SRM ST STAus WARC WCC

Abbreviations

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation: Report and Papers Presented 1994–1998. Silver Spring: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2000. Rasmussen, Carol E. (ed.). Living the Christian Life in Today’s World: A Conversation between Mennonite World Conference and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and Mennonite World Conference, 2014. Lutheran World Federation Market Pricing (RMT) National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department (GC) Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: An Explanation of Certain Major Aspects of Seventh-day Adventist Belief. Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers, and Editors. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1957. Present Truth [early sabbatarian Adventist paper] [Second] Advent[ist] Review and [Sabbath] Herald (the major North American Adventist magazine, succeeded by AR) Relational Model Relational Models Theory Seventh-day Adventist Seventh Day Baptist(s) Sociology of religious movements Signs of the Times [Adventist magazine, USA] Signs of the Times [Adventist magazine, Australia] World Alliance of Reformed Churches World Council of Churches

Technical Notes

1. All quotations from languages other than English have been translated by myself except where indicated otherwise. 2. In the few cases where he or she can be written, e. g. for “the scholar,” this study uses “she.” 3. Some sections were taken, with minor modifications, from previous publications. These texts appear in the following parts: sections 3.1, 3.2.3, 3.3.1 (published before the habilitation thesis was defended, about 16 pages), and 4.3.1/5.1.3 (published after the habilitation defence, about 25 pages). Detailed references are found in the respective sections.

Notes on the Cover Picture

The photograph on the cover of this book shows the rose window in the Friedensau chapel, in the middle of the main building on campus, Otto-Lüpke-Haus. Friedensau is a village founded by Seventh-day Adventists in 1899 in the heart of Europe, about 100 kilometres west of Berlin, and hosts the oldest Adventist institution of higher learning in Europe – Theologische Hochschule Friedensau. This window, with a diameter of seven metres, was originally manufactured around 1904, was repaired after World War II, and had to be replaced in 2004. An artist from Dresden, Marion Hempel, created a new version: instead of the original very regular pattern, she came up with the design that is seen here. The centre of the rose window, the Chi Rho Christogram, remained in its original shape. I was tempted to choose another cover illustration (such as a bridge, a modern footwashing painting, a colourful mosaic, or the photo of a meeting of Christian World Communion representatives with Adventist Bert Beach in their midst). But no one picture can express the variety of aspects that characterize interdenominational relationships. The reasons for choosing the Friedensau rose window are many: from the start of the school, Seventh-day Adventists thus expressed the idea that they are rooted right in the midst of age-old Christian traditions, with Jesus Christ at their centre. Christ is the centrepiece of everything; he is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end of all (Revelation 1:8, 17), God the Creator and God the Consummator of history. The Adventist emphases on creation and the coming kingdom are thus embedded in the one confession that unites all of Christianity, “Jesus is Lord.” The renewed design of 2004 made the entire window dynamic and stimulating. When some visitors saw what seemed like “holes”, they initially thought that it had not yet been finished. However, the previous uniform structure, consisting of many small rhombi, had deliberately been changed into a net with some torn parts. As an image of the Christian life and of Christian communities, it signals the brokenness with which we have to live as believers this side of the eschaton. Christians never finish everything on this earth; there is always a need to mend

26

Notes on the Cover Picture

our nets. Interchurch relations, of course, are likewise unfinished business that we have to attend to until God’s Kingdom will be fully realized. From the beginning of our journey of faith, we use the tools that are given to us to connect, to bridge gaps, like the fishermen whose nets were breaking when Jesus called them as his first disciples (Luke 5:1–10). And, finally, in the Gospels the Kingdom is identified with a net that collects “all kinds of fish” (Matthew 14:47). Something else that few people actually see at first sight is the green vortex that starts from the centre and then moves to the outer part of the window. This whirling movement symbolizes the Holy Spirit, who does not always follow exact paths that we might imagine but, like life itself, provides surprises and detours. This powerful imagery of the pneuma, whose power frees us from the constraints of one-directional thinking, can certainly continue to inspire our relationships to Christians of all backgrounds and people of good will everywhere.

1.

Introduction

One of the most characteristic features of human existence is the ability to engage in relationships. Individuals, groups and organizations alike inevitably relate to one another in a multiplicity of ways. Religious congregations, associations and movements are no exception: beyond providing space for sociality to their adherents, they also function as players in an economy of intergroup relations. In this economy, Christianity constitutes a major relational space. From the earliest stages of its existence, it has been able to form viable communities of believers in different ethnic groups and nations, who had to relate to churches in other regions in some way. In later phases of history, cultural differences, theological divergences and leadership conflicts would lead to many separate strands of the Christian faith. Yet most of these did not remain completely isolated; some degree of interaction at least with neighbouring types of Christianity was the rule rather than the exception. After the Reformation and its subsequent strains in inter-church relations in many parts of Europe, the 19th and 20th centuries produced an entirely new situation. For the first time in history, the Christian faith spread in a truly global fashion and thus raised several major questions regarding the relationship of churches world-wide. What would appropriate ties of Christians, churches, and church organizations with the “mother churches” look like? Should the denominational divisions extant in Europe and America be reproduced in the “mission fields”? And if Christians of different confessional backgrounds could cooperate in Africa, Asia, and Oceania, might this not be possible in Europe and North America as well? These were some of the questions that ultimately spawned the Ecumenical Movement. With its success in bringing forth significant organizations and engaging a large variety of ecclesiastical traditions and denominational entities, it seems sensible that the period after 1910 has frequently been called the “ecumenical century.” Evidently there is no other epoch in which the issue of Christian unity was discussed and aimed at to such a great extent while Chris-

28

Introduction

tianity was at home in almost all countries of the inhabited world, the οι᾿κουμένη. At the same time, the epithet “ecumenical century” is problematic for several reasons and actually betrays a Western perspective. For the aim most commonly stated by the movement’s representatives, “visible unity,” has not been achieved to any significant degree across the spectrum of churches. On the contrary, alongside a drive to realize more tangible ways of expressing the unity given to Christians in Jesus Christ, the same century has seen an unanticipated and unparalleled global proliferation of denominations and church-like organizations.1 Studies of ecumenism, therefore, have to note this reality when trying to measure the accomplishments of the ecumenical drive. Moreover, when observing dynamics and phases of 20th century ecumenism, several crucial developments must qualify its evaluation as an epoch of ecumenical successes. Beyond the high points of important conferences and the birth of organizations, the increasing momentum that ecumenical thought and action gained after World War II and especially after Vatican II is obviously significant. Surprisingly, though, this dynamism did not take a long time to give way to a perceived stagnation, which went hand in hand with calls for a “reconfiguration” of the movement from the 1990s onwards.2 The very success of establishing a large international organization – the World Council of Churches (WCC) – also contributed to a certain degree of inertia in moving beyond the paradigm it exhibited. One major issue in reflections on such a reconfiguration is the existence of a large number of denominations that have not sought formal membership in the WCC and are not likely to do so in the future for practical, theological and various other reasons. Apart from the Roman Catholic Church, this is true for many churches that have stayed at the periphery of ecumenical activities: Pentecostal denominations, various Evangelical groups, and a large number of indigenous churches in the Majority World. Many of the latter are still so young that an evaluation of their interchurch contacts and related activities has to await later researchers’ attention; various denominations from the Evangelical and Pentecostal traditions, however, have been hesitant regarding membership in ecumenical organizations for several generations. 1 According to David B. Barrett, the leading statistician of global Christianity at the time of his death in 2011, there were about 43,000 denominations at that time; see his article “Status of Global Mission, 2012, in the Context of AD 1800–2025,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 36.1 (2012), 29. 2 For first results from the ensuing debate in the first century of the 21st century, see, e. g., the articles in Reformed World 55.2 (2005) – including, among others, Konrad Raiser, “Towards a New Ecumenical Configuration for the 21st Century,” 77–95, and Hubert van Beek, “The Reconfiguration of the Ecumenical Movement: An Overview of the Discussion so Far,” 96–103.

Aim and Rationale

29

An overview of extant research on interchurch dialogues, cooperation, and relations reveals that such less ecumenically inclined movements have been largely ignored in the discipline of ecumenics. Understandably, scholars in the field have focused on those churches that engaged most actively in the advance of ecumenism. The state of research on Pentecostals and ecumenism has changed in the last few decades,3 but all in all, there are still few studies so far about the interchurch relationships of movements which have remained at some distance from the ecumenical mainstream.4

1.1

Aim and Rationale

One notable example of such a movement is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Despite the fact that Adventism has a 180-year history and its major denominational heir has grown to over 20 million members worldwide, the Adventist relationship with other denominations has not been explored in a major study so far. Yet precisely such a case study of a single denomination can serve as an example to illustrate the theological logic, historical dynamics and social forces that led to the hesitant stance of its representatives vis-à-vis conventional ecumenism and to instances where such hesitancy was overcome. Given the fact that Adventism has brought forth a numerically significant body and is one of the older surviving movements of what might be called Protestant ecumenical sceptics, one would expect that insights gained from an analysis of this church’s interdenominational relationships could shed light on similar movements as well. Therefore this study aims at enriching the discipline of ecumenics in a manner that may seem counter-intuitive at first glance, but which is necessary to understanding the under-researched aspects of church unity: focusing on a vigorous religious community that wants to live Christ’s prayer “that they all may be one” without membership in organizations that aim at creating or facilitating this unity. At the same time, one must bear in mind that even without institutional membership, Adventists had to interact with other Christians not of their persuasion. Similar to Paul Watzlawick’s

3 For a helpful overview, see Peter Hocken, “An Emerging Pentecostal Ecumenism?,” One in Christ 46.1 (2012), 264–278; cf. also Telford Work, “Pentecostal and Charismatic,” in Geoffrey Wainwright and Paul McPartlan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ecumenical Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, 187–205. 4 A good example of a study by a sympathetic outsider is Raymond Olin Ryland, “A Study in Ecumenical Isolation: The Southern Baptist Convention,” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1969. Although it is quite dated now, it has not lost its value as a case study.

30

Introduction

famed first axiom of communication theory, “one cannot not communicate,”5 Christian denominations, even ecumenical sceptics, cannot avoid relating to other churches. Beyond the denominational focus, the following research also presents an example of how a global church body has positioned itself vis-à-vis other Christian traditions and interchurch organizations in its history and through its theology. This seems a necessary undertaking in the sense that there have been significant evaluations of the ecumenical stance of specific church organizations since the 1950s, but very little ecumenical research has focused on specific Christian World Communions so far.6 Apart from these larger issues of traditions with a tendency of critiquing the Ecumenical Movement and of Christian World Communions facing this movement and other communions, this study aims at presenting a detailed account, a thorough analysis, and a first comprehensive interpretation of the history of Seventh-day Adventist interdenominational relations. Since there has been no inquiry of this kind to date, it will be the task of the present work to explore in detail historical developments, theological backgrounds and social aspects of this complex theme.7 There are two limitations in this endeavour. One is regional: the study focuses on North America – for this is where the power centre of the denomination was situated for more than one hundred years – and on developments of global significance. Regional story lines will be considered only where their relevance for the total picture makes this mandatory, for space does not permit presenting an exhaustive account of Adventist interchurch relationships around the globe. The second limitation concerns the aim of this study. An inquiry such as this has to take stock and produce models of understanding phenomena. Its prescriptive potential is, however, limited. Most importantly, this study does not intend to pronounce judgement on whether certain activities, attitudes, committee decisions or evolving trends were appropriate or even “correct.” Such a verdict can only be announced on the basis of far-reaching systematic-theological or even ethical agreement – which is frequently non-existent even among 5 Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Donald D. Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes, New York: Norton, 1967, 49. 6 One important reason for the common focus of research on entities other than the World Communions is, of course, that they normally do not have much authority, which is due to the fact that state or regional bodies often constitute the decision-making units. 7 There is one more dimension of Adventism which makes it particularly interesting with regard to interchurch relations: it began in the 19th century, i. e. just around the time when the tributaries of ecumenism appeared – revival movements, the missionary movement, and the Evangelical Alliance. Thus here one can observe how an emerging movement related to ecumenism in statu nascendi.

Sources and Literature

31

protagonists of ecumenism, and is not automatically extant among Adventists either. If, however, this research adds insights regarding approaches in the study of ecumenical phenomena, thus improving theory in the field of ecumenics and contributing to normativity in terms of procedures in interpreting interchurch relationships, the study will have reached one of its major aims.

1.2

Sources and Literature

While the subject of general interchurch relations has brought forth a whole academic discipline with its vast literature,8 the absence of a thorough academic analysis of Seventh-day Adventist interchurch relations as a whole is remarkable.9 Several shorter scholarly texts do provide an overview of this theme, mostly from a historical perspective,10 but owing to their shortness and orientation, they merely highlight a few noteworthy events and general developments but do not provide a systematic evaluation. A more interpretive approach is found in a small number of articles assessing particular periods, events, or aspects of Adventist interchurch relations. With their focus on the Adventist attitude to the Protestant missionary movement11 and to Vatican II,12 on Adventist theological dialogues,13 8 Such works of significance for this study will be referred to and discussed in chapter 2. 9 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is mentioned only in passing in The Oxford Handbook of Ecumenical Studies of 2021. There are two theses that partly address the topic: Newton W. Hoilette, “Ecumenism since 1910 and the Seventh-day Adventist Viewpoint,” M.A. thesis, Andrews University, 1975, focuses on ecumenism in general, not on the Adventist interaction with the Ecumenical Movement or other denominations; and Rudatinya M’shoza Mwangachuchu, “Seventh-day Adventists and the World Council of Churches,” M.A. thesis, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2000, explores Adventist views of the WCC but did not access important archival sources. 10 Cosmas Rubencamp, “The Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 6.4 (1969), 534–548; Børge Schantz, “The SDA Church and Ecumenism,” chapter 5 of Børge Schantz, “The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought: Contemporary Appraisal,” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983, 144–186; Hans-Diether Reimer, “Die Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten und das Problem zwischenkirchlicher Beziehungen,” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 49 (1986), 267–275; Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, “Relationships with Other Christians,” chapter 27 of Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Nampa: Pacific Press, 2000, 442–457. See also the more recent cursory overview of Saulo Caleb Cruz Huaranga and Gluder Quispe Huanca, “La Iglesia Adventista del Séptimo Día y el Movimiento Ecuménico: un estudio teológico-histórico desde el Concilio Vaticano II hasta el 2015,” Revista Muro de la Investigación 1.2 (2017), 33–53. 11 Keith A. Francis, “Ecumenism or Distinctiveness? Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes to the World Missionary Conference of 1910,” in Robert N. Swanson (ed.), Unity and Diversity in the Church, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, 477–487; Stefan Höschele, “From Mission Comity to

32

Introduction

and on contemporary developments,14 these essays represent pioneering attempts at evaluating the Adventist way of being ecumenical, albeit mainly against the background of a continuity and change grid rather than a more comprehensive theoretical framework. Of importance are also the few book-length studies on Adventist attitudes to or relationships with specific movements15 and other churches in particular countries.16 They add important nuances to the somewhat sketchy overall picture that the literature presents. In contrast to the relatively few significant academic studies, there is an abundance of sources. Because of the topic, sources and literature cannot be clearly separated in each instance; a good case in point is the discussion of the Ecumenical Movement by theologians and other writers from an Adventist background. They range from a few major works17 to a large quantity of popular

12

13 14 15

16

17

Interdenominational Relations: The Development of the Adventist Statement on Relationships with Other Christian Churches,” in Børge Schantz and Reinder Bruinsma (eds.), Exploring the Frontiers of Faith: Festschrift in Honour of Dr. Jan Paulsen, Lüneburg: AdventVerlag, 2010, 389–404. Keith A. Francis, “Seventh-Day Adventism’s Reaction to Vatican II,” in David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.), Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries), Adventistica 9, Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 2010, 127–136. Rolf Pöhler, “Der adventistisch-röm.-katholische Dialog. Erste Schritte: Adventisten und Katholiken im Gespräch,” Freikirchenforschung 16 (2007), 135–152; Stefan Höschele, “Adventistische interkonfessionelle Dialoge,” Spes Christiana 21 (2010), 139–154. Reinder Bruinsma, “Seventh-day Adventists and Other Christians: An Appraisal of the Current Situation,” in Trim and Heinz (eds.), Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization, 137–149. Reinder Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 1844– 1965, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1994; The Charismatic Movement, A Report of the Special Committee Meeting in Camp Cumby-Gay, Georgia, January 4–9, 1973, [Washington, D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,] 1973; Lowell Tarling, The Edges of Seventh-Day Adventism: A Study of Separatist Groups Emerging from the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1844–1980), Barragga Bay: Galilee, 1981; and the lengthy thesis by Stephan Gäbel, “Adventgemeinde und Charismatische Bewegung in Deutschland,” M.A. thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2011. There are studies of this kind on the following countries (for titles and publication details, see the bibliography in section 8.1): the former GDR (two almost identical books by Böttcher in 2001) and Hungary (Rajki 2012); two dissertations on Adventist-Evangelical relations in the USA during the 1950s (McGraw 2004 and Nam 2005), one on the Congo (McKey 1989), one thesis on China (Prouty 2009) and two on contemporary Germany (Mutamba 2009 and Spiegler 1999). Of importance are also a few scholarly articles and book chapters (cf. the bibliography, 8.2) on Germany (Höschele 2009), France (Lehmann and Willaime 2008 and Verfaillie 2011), and Britain (Peake 2010). The most important of these studies is still (after almost two generations!) Bert B. Beach, Ecumenism: Boon or Bane?, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1974. The book was also translated into Dutch, Finnish, and German. Other relevant works include Suryanica A. Pasuhuk, “An Assessment of the Ecclesiology Suggested by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches from the Conservative Christian Viewpoint,” Ph.D. diss.,

Sources and Literature

33

articles18 and may be regarded as belonging to both categories, for they analyse ecumenism from a denominational point of view as well as constituting part of the Adventist developing discourse on interchurch relations. The same is true in principle for Adventist reflections on non-Adventist theology.19 While they were mostly not written with ecumenism in perspective, they evidently did contribute to the overall discussion on other Christian traditions that developed in the denomination. One kind of source that plays an important role in the ensemble of texts to be analysed is a number of official and quasi-official statements with either explicit references or implied links to interchurch relations. Different from articles in church magazines, some of these statements were not easily accessible; they were, therefore, collected in a volume that also contains reports of bilateral dialogues with Adventist participation.20 Of some importance among the other groups of sources are the papers presented in Adventist theological dialogues. They are

Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2010; Lothar E. Träder (ed.), Ökumene: Verpflichtung oder Versuchung?, Die Adventgemeinde in Geschichte und Gegenwart 20, Seeheim: Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, 1983; and René Zywietz, “Taufanerkennung als Grundlage ökumenischer Zusammenarbeit?,” M.A. thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2010. 18 See the list of relevant magazines mentioned in the bibliography, section 8.2. A semi-official and semi-popular text, which is representative of the common Adventist view, is “Ecumenism,” in Don F. Neufeld (ed.), Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Commentary Reference Series 10, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1966, 361–363. 19 As relevant works will be referred to in the pertinent chapters, only some more important examples will be mentioned here. Bryan W. Ball, The English Connection: The Puritan Roots of Seventh-day Adventist Belief, Cambridge: Clarke, 1981, demonstrates that many of the doctrines commonly thought of as “typically Adventist” were actually inherited from Puritanism. Richard Müller, Adventisten – Sabbat – Reformation, Studia Theologica Lundensia 38, Lund: Gleerup, 1979, traces the Sabbath teaching from the Reformation to the 19th century. The popular book by George E. Vandeman, What I Like About… The Lutherans, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Charismatics, the Catholics, Our Jewish Friends, the Adventists: Rescuers of Neglected Truth, Boise: Pacific Press, 1986, reveals a common Adventist perspective on other churches even in its title. Among the many dissertations in which Adventist scholars explore theologies of non-Adventist thinkers, two with a certain significance for interchurch relations are Bruce R. Norman, “Ecclesiology in Dialogue: A Critique of the Understanding of the Nature of the Church in the Thought of G.C. Berkouwer,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1991; and Robert Osei-Bonsu, “The Nature of the Church and Ministry in the Theology of John Calvin and John Wesley, and Its Implications for the Adventist Church,” Ph.D. diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2009. 20 Stefan Höschele, Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents, Adventistica 10, Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 2010. In addition to these documents (with 23 sections of statements and 6 dialogue reports), the book also contains Adventist documents on interreligious relations (12 documents) and introductory comments on each of these texts.

34

Introduction

largely unpublished,21 and many of them may be accessed at the denomination’s Council on Interchurch Relations and the General Conference Archives, as is the case with relevant correspondence and minutes of pertinent committees at the denomination’s global headquarters, the General Conference.22

1.3

Approach and Perspective

Approaching the topic of Adventist interchurch relations entails several challenges, which are related to (1) very divergent assessments of the Adventist position in the ecumenical sphere, (2) the generally problematic role of this topic in the Adventist denomination, (3) some intricate issues linked with it in the Adventist theological tradition, (4) dissimilarities with predominant modes of ecumenical reasoning, (5) the fuzzy shape of the academic discipline of ecumenics, (6) the peculiar role of the researcher, and, finally, (7) the question of an appropriate method in exploring a new and large area of inquiry such as this. Each of these issues has to be deliberated in its own right in order to frame an appropriate perspective on the theme. (1) Widely diverging assessments of Adventist interchurch relations reveal that particular perspectives play a strong role in this complex issue. While a leading German ecumenist claimed “ecumenical significance” for Adventism a few years ago,23 an important discussion on ecumenical theology by a British scholar considered “the position of the Seventh-Day Adventists … ultimately irreconcilable with Christian ecumenism” only a few years earlier.24 Certainly the 21 See section 8.3 (bibliography). Only two complete sets of papers presented in dialogues were published: Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation: Report and Papers Presented 1994– 1998, Silver Spring: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2000; and Carol E. Rasmussen (ed.), Living the Christian Life in Today’s World: A Conversation between Mennonite World Conference and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and Mennonite World Conference, 2014. 22 Many other significant documents from the 19th century, especially correspondence and manuscripts of the earliest Adventists in the time of the denomination’s formational period, are accessible in the Ellen G. White Estate, which is also located in the General Conference headquarters, Silver Spring, USA. 23 Erich Geldbach, “Die ökumenische Bedeutung der Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten,” in Dagmar Heller, Christina Kayales, Barbara Rudolph, Gert Rüppell, and Heinrich Schäfer (eds.), Mache dich auf und werde licht! Ökumenische Visionen in Zeiten des Umbruchs: Festschrift für Konrad Raiser, Frankfurt a.M.: Lembeck, 2008, 180–186. 24 Gillian R. Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology: The Lessons So Far, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 58. Evans argues that Adventists take “the denominationalist case as far as it is possible to take it by holding that the entire justification of Adventism lies in its unique possession of the truth. To seek to unite with other churches would be to lose the

Approach and Perspective

35

Adventists’ non-membership in the WCC and in most national councils of churches is a reason for observers to cultivate reservations about their ecumenical aptitude. For many who are engaged in mainstream ecumenism, Adventism appears not to be “us” but part of “the others.” The ensuing challenge is, by and large, the one that anthropologists encounter: conducting research on a group in a manner that does justice to its own selfunderstanding, intentions, and ethos (i. e., in an emic way), and, at the same time, with an outlook and terminology that is intelligible to a larger audience (the etic view). In this case, this audience is mainly the community of scholars in the field of ecumenics, who hold various ecclesiological convictions and concepts of ecumenicity, which does not necessarily make it easy for the plural conversation partners to communicate. This study will therefore attempt to stay as close to the developing Adventist thought and activities as possible while interpreting these in the larger context of the academic field. (2) Conflicting external assessments of Adventist interchurch relations are paralleled by similar but much more vigorous disagreements inside the denomination. Even the mere act of mentioning the word “ecumenism” or “ecumenical” in an Adventist meeting can cause discord due to the negative connotations these terms carry for many members. There are but few Adventist voices that portray the Ecumenical Movement as a generally positive phenomenon, and a significant minority engages in harsh polemics with regard to ecumenism in general and supposed or real Adventist involvement in ecumenical organizations in particular. Thus the church leadership’s attempts to foster positive interchurch relationships regularly encounter an attitude of suspicion or even accusations that the denomination is abandoning historic positions and is betraying its members.25 In such a climate, any study of themes related to the Ecumenical Movement, and particularly of the Adventist stance towards this movement and other denominations, is destined to provoke severe misgivings when it seems partial. The upheaval caused by church leaders’ moves such as the implementation of a German Adventist guest status in the nation’s council of churches during the raison d’être of the church. That is a position other communities have taken or continue to take although not always in such an extreme way.” While her assessment of the denomination seems to be fuelled by a limited knowledge of the Adventist tradition, the afterthought indicates that the issue behind is of much more general significance in the relationship between the churches. 25 See, e. g., the books by Ferrell, Kobialka, Rosner, Standish/Standish, and Wiggers (for details, see the bibliography, 8.1). It should be noted that these were all published outside denominational publishing houses and were authored by individuals who take some positions not typical of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. At the same time, their radical rejection of friendly contact with other churches enjoys considerable appeal in some sections of the denomination.

36

Introduction

1990s26 illustrates that research needs to apply great care in analysing the issues at stake. Yet all this does not mean that studies in this field are doomed to polarize Adventism further. On the contrary, a thorough examination of largely unknown 19th and 20th century sources, and a fresh discussion of the issues in those eras, is indispensable for unearthing and assessing the denominational tradition of relating to other churches and Christians. (3) Some of these issues may be best explained with particular historical configurations in view, but others are of a distinct theological nature. Very early in their history, Seventh-day Adventists adopted a number of distinctive convictions, which soon developed into a well-defined theological tradition. The denominational attitude to, and interactions with, other churches was significantly influenced by these early beliefs and theological traditions. They included an eschatology driven by a premillennial (and thus pessimistic) outlook on history, the world, and Christendom at large, a Sabbath teaching that not only distinguished Adventists from most other Christians but was also viewed as a mark of true Christianity, and an ecclesiology that stressed the role of Seventhday Adventists in the end-time.27 It is remarkable, therefore, that this belief system did not hinder Adventists from ultimately relating to representatives of other churches in a cordial manner. While official theological reasoning in the realms mentioned above has remained rather stable, a tradition of friendly interchurch relations developed alongside these elements from a very early period onwards, i. e. the 1870s. Research on the Adventist stance towards other Christian movements must, therefore, inquire into the reasons for such more positive interactions than one would have expected. In fact, this may help Adventists clarify their own reasoning, especially in areas of ecumenical thought and practice where their discourses are underdeveloped. (4) While an emphasis on certain unique doctrines and some degree of ecclesiological self-assuredness is the rule rather than the exception even among major players in global Christianity, one major challenge in analysing and interpreting Adventist interactions with the ecumene is the continuing dissimilarity of rhetoric and ecumenical reasoning when comparing the discourse in 26 Cf. Stefan Höschele, “Gaststatus als Modell von Ökumenizität? Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten und die Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland – Hintergründe, Entwicklungen und Einsichten,” Freikirchenforschung 18 (2009), 188–204. 27 The present study presupposes familiarity with the general lines of Adventist history and theology as outlined, e. g., in Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Nampa: Pacific Press, 2000, and Richard Rice, The Reign of God: An Introduction to Christian Theology from a Seventh-day Adventist Perspective, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1985. Thus no detailed analysis of all the theological themes that might have a bearing upon Adventist interchurch relations is provided here.

Approach and Perspective

37

this denomination with the predominant voices in ecumenism. Adventists are evidently located on the periphery of the Ecumenical Movement at best, which is why their sentiments frequently do not fit in with the very questions discussed in this movement’s major organizational expressions. This challenge does not merely arise from the insider-outsider dichotomy resulting from membership or non-membership in ecumenical organizations such as the WCC. Institutionalized ecumenism, like any bureaucracy, tends to create bounded sets and can thus thwart the very goal of visible unity it advocates, but even centred sets with their blurred boundaries, i. e., movements which resist clear-cut distinctions between “us” and “them,” cannot avoid the emergence of centres and peripheries. Yet innovations and dynamism often arise in the peripheries, and thus the Adventist story may contribute to ecumenical thinking and practice in ways which differ from more conventional modes of being ecumenical. This investigation, therefore, will have to look out for uncommon expressions of ecumenicity shaped by periphery perspectives. (5) An intriguing parallel to the many facets of ecumenical action is found in the academic field of ecumenics. Since its growth into a distinct scholarly discipline in the 1960s, discussions on its actual object have not ended. With four major foci – (a) the Church and the churches, (b) theology, (c) unity, and (d) the world viz. church-world relations – and more than a dozen specific approaches to delineating its task,28 the fuzzy shape of the discipline has led to a situation in which there are few commonly agreed methodological standards except in studies that utilize Systematic Theology approaches or those which actually represent instances of specialized church historiography. Although an examination of Adventist interchurch relationships can evidently not clarify the shape of the discipline as a whole, I have proposed a comprehensive definition of ecumenics elsewhere: “the study of Christian unity and diversity.”29 Such a broad definition calls for investigations with a variety of methods and, at the same time, a focus on the diverse types of projected unity as well as developing an understanding of differentiation processes in the Christian Church. Hence the Adventist case will be a contribution to the discipline of ecumenics in that a specific global example is highlighted. (6) Ecumenics, like various other subdisciplines of theology, is a somewhat peculiar academic pursuit also in that researchers are often committed to the very church that they investigate, thus creating at least a potential conflict of interest. Because of ideological consequences and possible relevance for ethics, no study of theological import can be fully neutral; nevertheless, this research strives for an 28 Cf. Stefan Höschele, “Defining Ecumenics Fifty Years after Mackay,” Communio Viatorum 55.2 (2013), 105–136. 29 Ibid., 128–135.

38

Introduction

objectivity that arises from both a sense of duty to the church I serve and the wellaccepted scientific criteria of consistency, parsimony, usefulness, and falsifiability. I am convinced that such research will ultimately be most helpful to this ecclesial community and the ecumene at large. (7) This leads to the question of method. Like the relationship between churches in general, Adventist interchurch relations can be approached from several angles. A very useful but rarely used approach to ecumenical affairs is a social science perspective. Fully-fledged inquiries of this kind would demand major studies of their own; however, chapter 2 will discuss the importance of the social sciences for studying interchurch relations and present a typology of relational models applicable to the sphere of ecumenism. One of the major contributions that the present research intends to make is to demonstrate how social scientific theory on human relationships can enrich the discipline of ecumenics. Beyond this aim in the realm of theory, the study contains some sections where systematic-theological reflections are included. However, even this approach, when applied seriously, would necessitate an investigation in its own right.30 Therefore, chapters 3 to 5 mainly utilize a historical approach, which aims at highlighting the origin, development, contributing factors, effects, and peculiar characteristics of Adventist interchurch relationships. This also includes an investigation of the internal logic in the course of a whole denomination, the attempt to interpret various twists and turns, and a candid analysis of episodes that appear rather un-ecumenical.31 The partitioning of the three historical chapters follows a generational logic. Chapter 3 ends with the 1880s, when the denomination’s first outstanding leader (and its major founder), James White, died. Chapter 4 extends one generation beyond the death of Ellen White, his wife, whose counsel was considered of prophetic significance among Seventh-day Adventists and their predecessors from the late 1840s onward. Chapter 5 begins about one hundred years after the events that sparked the Seventh-day Adventist Church into being, and explores the era in which the denomination engaged in dialogue with other Christian communions.

30 Investigations of this kind are frequently based on the bilateral dialogues of certain Christian traditions. In this case, such an approach did not seem promising, for such dialogues with an Adventist participation did not actually aim at convergence or consensus. For a short history as well as notes on the aims, types, dynamics, and results of Adventist bilateral dialogues, see Stefan Höschele, “Adventistische interkonfessionelle Dialoge,” Spes Christiana 21, 2010, 139–154. 31 With this approach I shall try to walk along the lines of the contributions to Stephen Neill and Ruth Rouse, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948, London: SPCK, 1954.

2.

On Studying Interchurch Relations

The relationship between Christian ecclesiastical bodies entails a complexity that one can only appreciate when taking a closer look at the number and variety of such organizations and the agents involved in these relationships. Beyond thousands of denominations, dozens of major global denominational alliances, and six ecclesiastical “megablocs,”32 interchurch relations are ongoing dynamics in somewhat formal ecumenical contexts (such as councils of churches or dialogue meetings) as well as outside of these. Moreover, the relationship between churches comprises many dimensions – cultures, theologies, memory of history, church law, organizational logic, individuals’ contributions, performance aspects, and social forces. This diversity of dimensions is, of course, reflected in the literature on ecumenism that has developed during the last three generations. Thus, alongside many introductions to and overviews of ecumenism, an enormous body of specialized studies has come into existence. Many of these focus on systematictheological issues, specific dialogues or dialogue in general, ecumenical institutions, and various types of ecumenical ministry. It may seem somewhat surprising, however, that studies of interchurch relations with a focus on relationships are relatively rare33 in spite of the rising prominence of deliberations on 32 David B. Barrett has used this term (earlier: “ecclesiastical bloc”) in his annual “Status of Global Mission” report in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research since 2001. He distinguishes Anglicans, “Independents,” “Marginal Christians” (mostly non- or anti-trinitarians), Orthodox, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. Harding Meyer refers to 17 Christian World Communions (global denominational alliances) with delegates at the annual conference of CWC representatives in his chapter “Christian World Communions,” in John Briggs, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, and Georges Tsetsis (eds.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, Vol. 3: 1968–2000, Geneva: WCC Publications, 2004, 104; David Barrett counts 350 CWCs altogether; see his article “Missiometrics 2006: Goals, Resources, Doctrines of the 350 Christian World Communions,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 30.1 (2006), 27–30. 33 Exceptions are treatments on attempted or successful church unions; however, in such cases the “relationship” aspect tends to be ancillary to the merger process. In rare cases, studies on

40

On Studying Interchurch Relations

relational aspects of theology in general;34 in fact, it appears that a research focus on specific churches’ relationships is more common where these are troubled.35 One may argue that this situation is merely an issue of terminology, for in ecclesial discourses the terms “ecumenism,” “interchurch relations,” “Christian unity,” “dialogue,” and even “interdenominational cooperation” are often used as synonyms. However, such a fuzzy use of terms conceals the fact that each of these expressions implies a different emphasis: the label “ecumenism” commonly presupposes certain types of interchurch relations, various concepts of Christian unity translate into specific relationships between denominations, dialogue represents a relationship or creates a specific mode of relating to each other, and cooperation constitutes or results from the relationship between two groups. In other words, there is considerable overlap, but each of the foci contained in these different terms deserves attention of its own. A research concentration on interchurch relations will in no way ignore other common approaches to what happens between Christian churches; to the contrary, any such study will profit from insights derived from all the other specialized inquiries in the field. At the same time an interchurch relations perspective will re-assess the issues common in those other debates to help construct an overall picture that is larger than the peculiar emphases found in them. By so doing, this perspective may ultimately help clarify problems that remain a puzzle when studies emphasize “unity,” “ecumenism,” or “dialogue” without duly taking into account the larger relational space in which these are situated. One example of such a puzzling situation is the diversity in the use of the term “unity.” As Simon Harrison demonstrates, the ecumenical discourse utilizes

“relations” do not actually focus on the relations but on ecumenism at large; see Robert Towler, “Inter-Church Relations: A Sociological Comment,” in John Kent and Robert Murray (eds.), Church Membership and Intercommunion, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973, 203–225. 34 Cf. the many references in contemporary theology to Martin Buber’s I and Thou, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1937 [German original: 1923]; see also (with special reference to soteriology) Dorothea Sattler, Beziehungsdenken in der Erlösungslehre: Bedeutung und Grenzen, Freiburg: Herder, 1997, as well as Jacques Haers and Peter de Mey (eds.), Theology and Conversation: Towards a Relational Theology, Leuven: Peeters, 2003. 35 A case in point is Northern Ireland; cf. Ian M. Ellis, Vision and Reality: A Survey of Twentieth Century Irish Inter-Church Relations, Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University of Belfast, 1992; and Maria Power, From Ecumenism to Community Relations: Inter-Church Relationships in Northern Ireland, 1980–2005, Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2007. For studies of other problematic periods and episodes, see, e. g., Winfred E. Garrison, “Interdenominational Relations in America before 1837,” Papers of the American Society of Church History 9 (1934), 57–93, and Joseph A. Loya, “Interchurch Relations in Post-Perestroika Eastern Europe: A Short History of an Ecumenical Meltdown,” Religion in Eastern Europe 14.1 (1994), 1–17.

The Problem

41

this term in more than twenty different ways.36 While Harrison provides a helpful tripartite taxonomy and criteria to distinguish these many uses, his study essentially describes a condition of institutionalized misunderstandings. In a larger framework of interchurch relations, however, many of the sub-categories he identifies37 will translate into a dimension of a relationship,38 thus representing a key to understanding why this central ideological element of Christian ecumenism can be defined in such diverse manners. This chapter, therefore, aims at charting a sound approach to the study of interchurch relations with the double objective of enriching ecumenics as an academic discipline and establishing a theoretical foundation for the evaluation of Adventist relationships with other churches. More specifically, it (1) suggests a definition of “interchurch relations” and (2) ponders issues to be considered in establishing appropriate ways of studying the relationship between churches in the larger context of research on ecumenism (section 2.1), (3) discusses major approaches to the study of interchurch relations (2.2), (4) deliberates factors to be considered in assessing these relationships (2.3.1 and 2.3.2), and (5) develops a typology of interchurch relations (2.3.3).

2.1

The Problem

2.1.1 Ecumenism and Interchurch Relations: Terms and Definitions From its beginning, the study of ecumenical thought and phenomena has entailed the challenge of defining the word “ecumenical.” Visser ’t Hooft’s wellknown seven-fold explanation of the term already demonstrates its polysemic nature; he listed the following meanings: (a) the whole (inhabited) earth; (b) … the whole of the (Roman) Empire; (c) … the whole of the Church; (d) that which has universal ecclesiastical validity; (e) … the worldwide missionary outreach of the Church; (f) … the relations between and unity of two or

36 Simon Harrison, Conceptions of Unity in Recent Ecumenical Discussion: A Philosophical Analysis, Religions and Discourse 7, Oxford: Lang, 2000. 37 The three main categories are (1) “characterizing use,” (2) “referential use,” and (3) “nonconceptual use”; important sub-categories are: (1) given, relational, goal, images; (2) grace, order, history, activity, belief, symbolic; (3) contextualizing, reference, motivational, devotional. For an overview, see ibid., 136. 38 A more detailed discussion on the connection between models of unity and types of relationships is found in the middle part of section 2.2; cf. also the typology in Table 6, section 2.3.

42

On Studying Interchurch Relations

more Churches (or of Christians of various confessions); (g) that quality or attitude which expresses the consciousness of and desire for Christian unity.39

When considering how many more activities, attitudes, and aspects are labelled “ecumenical” in contemporary discourses,40 it is evident that a thorough treatment of any subject matter connected with ecumenism must define its object of inquiry well. This is also true for studies in interchurch relations, for they are commonly undertaken in this very context of ecumenical research. Several questions need clarification: (1) How interchurch relations and ecumenism are to be connected or differentiated is one question that arises immediately, and (2) what “church” means in this context. (3) The nature of “relationships” viz. “relations” must be delineated as well as (4) the meaning of “interchurch relations” as a distinct concept and a field of inquiry. Given the widely divergent ecclesiologies in different Christian traditions, the definition of “church” has been a significant challenge even in the Ecumenical Movement. In the “Basis” of the World Council of Churches, an earlier short characterization of churches as communities “which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour” was complemented with a more explicit trinitarian formula at the New Delhi Assembly in 1961.41 This evidently implies that WCC 39 Willem Adolf Visser ’t Hooft, “The Word ‘Ecumenical’ – Its History and Use,” in Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (eds.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517– 1948, London: SPCK, 1954, 735. 40 A recent collection by a South African scholar lists 23 of these, which may be grouped in 12 categories (Arabic numerals refer to his items below): (i) geography (1, 15, 20); (ii) theology (2, 6, 18); (iii) church history (3, 4); (iv) mission (5); (v) social service and ethics (7, 11, 12); (vi) theological education (8); (vii) worship (9); (viii) organizations / structure (10, 23); (ix) interfaith concerns (13, 14); (x) ecology (16, 17); (xi) dialogue (19); (xii) cooperation (21, 22). See Ernst M. Conradie (ed.), “Notions and Forms of Ecumenicity: Some South African Perspectives,” in Ernst M. Conradie, South African Perspectives on Notions and Forms of Ecumenicity, Stellenbosch: Sun, 2013, 13–76. His list consists of the following elements: “1. The whole inhabited world”; “2. Ecumenicity and catholicity”; “3. The recognition of seven church councils”; “4. The conciliar movement”; “5. Mission and evangelism in an ecumenical spirit”; “6. Faith and Order”; “7. Life and work”; “8. Ecumenical theological education”; “9. Worship and celebrating the liturgy together”; “10. Ecumenism from above? A fellowship of churches or what ecumenical structures, offices and bureaucrats do?”; “11. Church and society”; “12. Ecclesiology and ethics”; “13. Ecumenicity as ‘dialogue’ with other living faiths”; “14. A ‘wider ecumenicity’”; “15. The whole household of God as the global political economy”; “16. The planetary household”; “17. The universe story – At home on Earth”; “18. A return to Nicene Christianity”; “19. Bilateral conversations”; “20. A sense of belonging to Christian world communions”; “21. Ecumenism as ad hoc collaboration”; “22. Inter-denominational reform and deform movements”; “23. The search for more inclusive ecumenical structures.” 41 Here churches were characterized as bodies “which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit”; see WCC Constitution and Rules,

The Problem

43

member churches tend to restrict ecclesiality to communities with creeds or confessions containing reference to the Trinity. At the same time, recognition of a “church” identity in Christian communions outside one’s own lies at the very heart of the ecumenical problem, which prompted the WCC to express very early that member churches must recognize “elements of the true Church” in other members even if they cannot agree that they are churches “in the full and true sense.”42 Any scholarly treatment of interchurch relations will have to face the impasse that the problem of defining “church” theologically and in a non-confessional manner at the same time is, ultimately, unsolvable. All concepts of “church” accepted in one tradition will provoke disagreement in another, for in much of Christian history, issues of orthodoxy and heterodoxy have been inseparably linked with ecclesiological matters. Therefore, in the context of the inquiry presented here, church (with a small c) will merely mean a group of persons considering themselves Christians and perceiving themselves as a unit divided from other followers of Christ. Whether such groups organize themselves in a purely local manner, according to regional or national boundaries (like the German territorial Protestant churches), or internationally (as global denominations or other Christian World Communions), is of secondary importance, as all these patterns exist and have actually been translated into ecclesiologies. The strength of such a comprehensive and not primarily theological but rather descriptive identification of “church” is its inclusivity – which is evidently an important characteristic in the context of a discipline studying a movement that promotes strongly inclusive notions. Of course, the broad (and somewhat constructivist) approach behind it implies that various movements will have to be contemplated that either do not qualify for mainstream ecumenism or whose Christian identity is contested.43 At the same time, one should remember that online: http://wcc2013.info/en/resources/documents/2012_WCC_ConstitutionandRules_E N_23_October.pdf, accessed March 21, 2014. While a “church” identity of communions which do not subscribe to this formula is not explicitly denied, the reference to the NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed and a number of other “theological criteria” for membership (ministry of celebrating the sacraments, trinitarian baptismal formula) mentioned in the WCC Rules, I 3 a, make it clear that an overwhelming majority of WCC member churches draw a clear line between what is a proper Christian church and what is not. 42 “The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches: The Ecclesiological Significance of the World Council of Churches,” Statement by the WCC Central Committee (commonly called “Toronto Statement”), 1950, IV.5, quoted from Michael Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope (eds.), The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices, Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997, 467. 43 An example of the latter category is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the main representative of the Mormon tradition; the former category includes such non-trinitarian groups as Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians. For an attempt at rehabilitating Mormonism as one form of the Christian faith, see Stephen H. Webb, Mormon

44

On Studying Interchurch Relations

these “Marginal Christians,” as statistician David Barrett calls them, cannot always be clearly distinguished from the “Independents” category (i. e. revivalist, charismatic, and indigenous varieties of Christianity)44 and from large numbers of believers in the traditional denominations who may lack orthodox theological comprehension or merge the dogmatic tenets of their church with alternative religious beliefs. For an appropriate understanding and a useful definition of interchurch relations, it is necessary to clarify what is meant when we speak of “relations” or “relationships.”45 Leopold von Wiese, a leading sociologist of the mid-20th century and a main proponent of a sociology of relationships, equated these with what he called “the social,” a sphere he also termed “interhuman.” He explained, “the social consists of a relatively endless chain of occurrences taking place in time,”46 and argued, “[t]he term ‘social relationship’ is used to denote the labile but relatively static conditions of attachment or detachment resulting from social processes.”47 In other words, according to von Wiese, relationships (1) have a process character, (2) consist of all interactions of the humans involved, (3) are both labile and somewhat static, and (4) imply a sense of distance or nearness. This view of relationships combines well with some of Paul Watzlawick’s major findings on communication:48 (1) that it is impossible not to communicate (and, thus, not to relate), (2) that communication always has content and relational aspects – which implies that even in interchurch relations, theology and social aspects always come in a package, and (3) that communication is always both cause and effect: in other words, relationships always have a pre-history of

44 45

46 47 48

Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-Day Saints, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Barrett, “Status of Global Mission, 2012,” 29. In many languages, there is only one word for these two; thus “relations” and “relationship” will essentially be used as synonyms in this study. There is a difference, of course, in their common usage in that relations typically refers to a more formal context and interactions of larger entities, whereas relationship is used when individuals or smaller groups relate. However, at times the latter term also appears when larger groups are referred to. A helpful distinction is used in the field of inter-organizational relations: “relations” refers to the field of study, while “relationships” is utilized to denote the relationships (interactions, connections) between agents. See Steve Cropper, Mark Ebers, Christ Huxham, and Peter Smith Ring, “Introducing Inter-Organizational Relations,” in Steve Cropper, Mark Ebers, Christ Huxham, and Peter Smith Ring (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of InterOrganizational Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 4. Leopold von Wiese, System der Allgemeinen Soziologie als Lehre von den sozialen Prozessen und den sozialen Gebilden der Menschen (Beziehungslehre), Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1966 [= reprint of the 2d ed., 1933], 102. Leopold von Wiese and Howard P. Becker, Systematic Sociology: On the Basis of the Beziehungslehre and Gebildelehre, New York: Wiley, 1932, 71–72. Watzlawick, Beavin Bavelas, and Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication, 48– 59.

The Problem

45

some sort, but they are also constantly being reinvented. On the basis of these theorists’ insights, this study will use “relations” viz. “relationships” to describe the totality of communication between individuals and groups. Hence “interchurch relations” refers to all interactions between churches and those who belong to them. The literature on interchurch relations so far is curiously heterogeneous. In the current Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, for instance, “relations” appears in only three titles of entries; here it is used in a manner that indicates a stage preceding official dialogue49 or a rather fuzzy overall situation50 – as opposed to “dialogue,” for instance, which appears in more than thirty entry titles. In other publications “interchurch relations” and synonyms are frequently used in somewhat peculiar cases – in older publications,51 regarding troubled contexts or aspects of ecumenism,52 or in connection with specific churches, mainly those outside of the ecumenical mainstream.53 At times the term is used for denominational guidelines,54 and in some Christian traditions it appears in names of organizational entities dealing with dialogue or ecumenism.55 49 Denton Lotz, “Baptist-Orthodox Relations,” DEM, 94–95; Geoffrey Wainwright, “Methodist-Orthodox Relations,” DEM, 756–757. 50 In George Vandervelde, “Evangelical Roman Catholic Relations,” DEM, 440–443, the term is presumably used because Evangelicals are rather diverse and the dialogues between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics lacked the official status that such projects have when a second confessional church organization is involved. 51 See, e. g., Carl Mirbt, Das Mischehenrecht des Codex juris canonici und die interkonfessionellen Beziehungen in Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr, 1922. Allan Runyon Knight, “Basic Factors Underlying Interchurch Relations of the Period to 140 A.D.,” Th.D. diss., Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1946, addresses an issue preceding later “ecumenical” questions but related to them: the relationship of congregations in a large geographical territory. 52 Apart from the titles on Ireland mentioned above (footnote 35 in this chapter), see, e. g., Heinz-Günther Stobbe, “Konflikte um Identität: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung von Macht in interkonfessionellen Beziehungen und im ökumenischen Prozeß,” in Peter Lengsfeld (ed.), Ökumenische Theologie: Ein Arbeitsbuch, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980, 190–237. 53 See, e. g., Robert E. Johnson, Partnerships: Studies in the History of American Baptist Interchurch Relationships, special issue, American Baptist Quarterly 20.1 (2001), which focuses on international intra-Baptist relations; Michaela Köger, “Die Koptische Orthodoxe Kirche mit ihren interkonfessionellen Beziehungen,” Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift 91 (2001), 101–136. 54 See, e. g., James M. Lapp, Principles and Guidelines for Interchurch Relations, Scottdale: Mennonite General Conference, Interchurch Relations Committee, 1971; Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Interchurch Committee, A Manual of Interchurch Relations for the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Pittsburgh: Interchurch Committee, 1999. 55 Many North American denominations have or had commissions, departments, or committees that include “interchurch relations” in their designation – e. g., the United Presbyterian Church, the Mennonite General Conference, the Church of the Brethren, and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.

46

On Studying Interchurch Relations

In this mosaic of usages, it is evident that “interchurch relations” often serves the purpose of summarizing any kind of positive and intentional communication, and at times appears as an even more general description for all types of interaction between churches. Since it seems somewhat vague (is “church” a congregation, an alliance of congregations, or a confession?), a few related terms complement its use – such as “interdenominational” or “interconfessional” relations. Yet as a descriptor interchurch relations has some definite advantages, for the term (1) implies that “church” can be and actually is defined in very divergent ways, ranging from local congregations to global organizations, and (2) indicates a fundamental recognition of the fact that the Others are a church, at least in some sense – a view that even the term “ecumenical” can conceal to some extent. (3) The term also implies churches in the plural, thus reflecting a realism regarding Christian diversity (4) and it limits the attention to specific churchchurch processes by excluding e. g. interfaith relations, except where they have an impact on the relationship between churches (thus reducing the fuzziness of ideas associated with “ecumenism”). (5) Moreover, a focus on interchurch relations is expedient in terms of research because it entails the necessity of a less passionate and prescriptive and more analytical and descriptive perspective of interactions between churches.56 (6) Ultimately, a focus on studying interchurch relations can also be derived from the divine agape, which reflects relational aspects of the Kingdom of God and is patient even where we only “know in part” in terms of Christian unity and “see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” (1 Cor 13:9, 12). What, then, is the difference between research in interchurch relations and studies of ecumenism, ecumenics, or ecumenical studies? At first sight, the former merely refers to one part of what is called ecumenical, i. e. Visser ’t Hooft’s sixth option: “the relations between and unity of two or more Churches (or of Christians of various confessions)”, and, on closer inspection, possibly the seventh: “that quality or attitude which expresses the consciousness of and desire 56 This also means that such research avoids inappropriate simplifications, such as an “inside”/ “outside” dichotomy e. g. as related to membership in the World Council of Churches. This issue is pertinent to the focus of the present study – cf. Gillian R. Evans’s undifferentiated claim in the section on “The problem of those who refuse to join in” of her book Method in Ecumenical Theology: The Lessons So Far, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Contrasting the “non-joiners” with those who “have been associated longer with the movement but have tended to behave as partial outsiders,” she notes that “[o]thers have refused to come in at all, and that is a different matter.” She singles out the stance of Seventh-day Adventists as “irreconcilable” with ecumenism, “and not in a way which can (as far as one can see), be useful to the movement” (ibid., 57–59). If Evans does not mistake Jehovah’s Witnesses for Adventists (which occasionally happens in the public), she evidently presupposes that full involvement in the WCC as a member is the decisive measure of ecumenicity, a blackand-white scheme implying an exclusivism that may also be hard to reconcile with an ecumenical attitude – various denominational exclusivisms notwithstanding.

The Problem

47

for Christian unity.”57 There may not be much of a difference, then, between interchurch relations research and several lines of ecumenics, which analyse dialogues, interdenominational cooperation in various fields of ministry or service, and Christian councils of all kinds. At the same time, a researcher with a focus on interchurch relations will not only study those aspects that connect churches – or, as Michael Kinnamon and Brian Cope have put it, “common service,” “common fellowship,” “common witness,” and “common renewal.”58 She will also highlight and appreciate all those issues that divide them, cause conflicts, and continue to produce diversity and divergence, for what is “the whole of the Church” and what “has universal ecclesiastical validity” (Visser ’t Hooft’s meanings three and four of “ecumenical”) is precisely what is disputed among the churches.59 Thus in some ways an interchurch relations perspective appears to be even more comprehensive than “ecumenical studies” or “the study of ecumenism,” for it will include everything that happens between the churches, whether as a result of cooperation or of conflicts among churches.

2.1.2 Ecumenics and the Study of the Churches’ Relationships: Taking Stock This is not to say that ecumenics has had a narrow focus so far. To the contrary, its many definitions and even somewhat conflicting tendencies have led to a situation in which the discipline consists of numerous research orientations which partly overlap but use different methods and even lack a common object. John A. Mackay’s early sketch of ecumenics, for instance, designed it as “the Science of the Church Universal, conceived as a World Missionary Community,” an academic discipline which was to investigate the Church’s “nature, its functions, its relations and its strategy.”60 This ornate definition arose in an age of ecumenical enthusiasm and evidently corresponded to the feeling common at the time that Christian churches were on the brink of conquering the world through joint efforts. Yet it was also designed in an attempt to counter the tendency (which

57 Visser ’t Hooft, “The Word ‘Ecumenical’,” 735. 58 “General Introduction,” in Kinnamon and Cope, The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology, 2. 59 The first and second meanings listed by Visser ’t Hooft, “the whole (inhabited) earth” and “the whole of the (Roman) Empire” are no longer of importance in the usage of the term “ecumenical” today, as is the fifth (“the world-wide missionary outreach of the Church”), which was significant in the beginning of the modern Ecumenical Movement. 60 Mackay, Ecumenics: The Science of the Church Universal, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964, 27. He evidently used the formulation as early as the 1940s; cf. Winburn T. Thomas, “Ecumenics in the Curriculum,” Journal of Bible and Religion 11.4 (1946), 210.

48

On Studying Interchurch Relations

apparently existed already in the 1960s) of limiting the notion of ecumenism to matters of church unity viz. interchurch relations.61 This nascent “Science of the Church Universal” soon disintegrated into various related but different discourses: on the Church and the churches on the one hand, comparative dogmatics and attempts at constructing interconfessional or intercultural theologies on the other, as well as various theologies of ecumenism or studies of the Ecumenical Movement and, more generally, of interchurch relations or attempts at theorizing interchurch processes. Again others did ecumenics or “ecumenical theology” as a reflection on ecumenical missiology, church-world relations, or by doing interdenominationally oriented studies of a variety of themes (e. g. inculturation, spirituality, peace, ethics, or ecology) and even interfaith studies.62 In other words, ecumenics as a composite discipline soon suffered from a certain lack of congruency. In this tapestry of themes, interchurch relations and the related issue of church unity was but one of many foci. The thought of another early representative of studies in ecumenism illustrates this situation well, but also points towards a solution of the impasse regarding the role of interchurch relations research. Like Mackay, Canadian Dominican Bernard Lambert’s 1962 overview of ecumenism portrays “the ecumenical problem” as a composite theme. In his thinking, it consists of a historical, dogmatic, missionary, structural, liturgical, psychological, and a sociological problem. While he considers these seven dimensions, which are treated in seven of his chapters, “the constituent aspects of the ecumenical problem,”63 one other chapter also addresses an eighth issue – “the problem of interdenominational relationships.” The importance of these relationships in Lambert’s thinking can be appreciated when his definition of ecumenics is pondered. He asks, “How can we form an exact definition of Catholic ecumenism as a science? It is a part of theology whose object is the study of the unity and universality of the Church in its relationship with the present separation and ultimate reconciliation of the Churches and Christian communions.”64 In this view, therefore, ecumenics is to focus on processes taking places between ecclesiastical “separation” and “reconciliation”; or, as Lambert puts it, “[a]t the present time we must take the path from multiplicity to unity. A choice has to be 61 Mackay, Ecumenics, 187. 62 For more details and a discussion of the fourteen common approaches to ecumenics listed here, see Stefan Höschele, “Defining Ecumenics Fifty Years after Mackay,” Communio Viatorum 55.2 (2013), 109–122. 63 Bernard Lambert, Ecumenism: Theology and History, New York: Herder and Herder, 1967 [French original: 1962], 2. The seven chapters referred to are chs. 2 and 4–9; other chapters deal with the “Eastern Churches,” Israel and “Renewal and Unity.” 64 Ibid., 45.

The Problem

49

made between various forms of ecumenism. This is the problem of inter-denominational relations.”65 Here interchurch relations appears to encompass all the other approaches to “the ecumenical problem” while constituting the very essence of it. Lambert’s reflections two generations ago are instructive for an adequate framing of research today not only because he had a clear focus as far as the subject matter of ecumenics is concerned. He also grasped the necessity of enlisting the help of various other academic disciplines while utilizing theology as a main perspective.66 At the same time, his work reveals the limits of an approach that attempts to mine non-theological theory with the aim of supporting a particular dogmatic perspective. For ultimately his contribution consists in listing and expounding aspects of the various academic fields that fit in with his specific theological view of ecumenism. With regard to sociology, for instance, one finds little more than the church-sect theory of Weber and Troeltsch and reflections on institutions which soon turn out to be, again, theological in nature.67 Perhaps the social sciences had not developed enough for deriving many more insights for the study of interchurch relations at the time. Lambert’s actual intention, however, to conceive of ecumenics as a discipline in which the relationships between the churches are explored with the help of diverse methods, was pioneering. Given the pace at which new knowledge and novel theories and interpretations are being created in many academic fields, one might presume that half a century later this intention has brought forth significant research programmes with a notable influence on the way ecumenism is studied. Yet it appears that ecumenics as an academic discipline has largely continued in the paths trodden by Mackay. While it is not surprising that the bulk of inquiries in the field are done with a systematic-theological perspective (given the fact that this corresponds most closely to the training of those active in the field), this situation also implies that other approaches – with the exception of history – are underrepresented. Different from various other areas of theology, in which contributions of the social sciences have significantly contributed to the discourse,68 the sociological, psy65 Ibid., 48. 66 He argued, “Its method [of ecumenics] is theological because its whole procedure is governed by reason illuminated by faith … In its advance towards unity, faith makes use of reason and of everything that co-operates with that purpose: the history of symbols, doctrines, denominations and Churches, psychology, sociology, etc. … If we restricted ourselves to the dogmatic point of view alone, it would mean reducing the ecumenical problem to one of its component parts, even though it is the principal one.” (Ibid., 46.) 67 Ibid., 362–363 (church-sect theory); 376–394 (institutions). 68 The social sciences have had a notable impact on Biblical Studies and Church History in the last few decades; Practical Theology has partly been transformed into a social science in the same period, and the discipline of Mission Studies has always had an affinity to sociology and

50

On Studying Interchurch Relations

chological and cultural dimensions of ecumenism have been given little prominence in its study. Although the significance of the “non-theological factors” in interchurch relations was debated in the Ecumenical Movement from time to time,69 ecumenics appears to have been mainly shaped by a systematic-theological orientation. There seems to be, therefore, a dilemma in the way the study of ecumenism is commonly pursued. All attempts at doing ecumenics are shaped by theological and, hence, confessional or convictional premises. Yet for the sake of transdenominational acceptability, it would be desirable that research of ecumenical matters be done in a supra-confessional manner – like Biblical Studies and Church History, and similar to Religious Studies, which aims at a doctrinally neutral study of religions. Of course, as in the relationship between Mission Studies and Christian mission, most ecumenics scholars will start from the premise that their object of study is, at least in general, a theological mandate. However, because of this very premise, they ought to combine a generally positive view of Christian unity viz. constructive interchurch relations with a critical distance to actual ecumenical developments and models of interdenominational interaction. With such a view of the scholarly task, research on ecumenism would be slow in advocating certain types of interchurch activities or forms of ecumenical existence. Because of the scholar’s implicit or explicit affinities – especially with regard to her confessional background, but also sympathies towards or distance from bodies or movements such as the WCC, the Evangelical Alliance, or the Charismatic Movement – she will often be able to elucidate specific situations and provide analyses of patterns in the relationship between the churches. At the same time, such affinities imply that positions taken and solutions suggested will almost invariably be partial. Thus the scholar’s task cannot be the development of a prescriptive version of ecumenism except possibly where it aims at adherents of a specific tradition with its authoritative documents, from which it is then decultural anthropology. In Systematic Theology, by way of contrast, the social sciences and their empirical methodology have hardly been utilized so far. Only one major collection of reflections on this theme is available to date, and most of the contributions remain rather tentative or even sceptical: Matthias Petzoldt (ed.), Theologie im Gespräch mit empirischen Wissenschaften, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. For more detailed discussions on the relationship of theology and various social sciences, see Michael H. Barnes (ed.), Theology and the Social Sciences, Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001. 69 For early contributions to this discussion, see Willard L. Sperry (ed.), The Non-Theological Factors in the Making and Unmaking of Church Union, Faith and Order Paper 3, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1937; “Non-Theological Factors that May Hinder or Accelerate the Church’s Unity,” Ecumenical Review 4.2 (1952), 174–180; C. H. Dodd, Gerald Cragg, and Jacques Ellul, Social Factors in Church Divisions, Faith and Order Commission Paper 10, Geneva: WCC, 1952.

The Problem

51

rived. Like a historian, the researcher of ecumenism will have to assess and interpret but leave pronouncements on what is to be considered normative in the ecumene to voices of faith and representatives of particular movements.70 Apart from historical research, such an approach to interchurch relations is visible most clearly in a number of sociological studies of ecumenism. No comprehensive sociology of ecumenism exists to date;71 most of the articles in this field – and a few dissertations and monographs – emerged as somewhat isolated pieces in the larger body of research on ecumenical matters, although they frequently highlight crucial aspects of the relationship between the churches. While no full assessment can be provided here, a few notes will suffice to demonstrate the importance of such studies for ecumenics at large. Peter L. Berger’s early analysis, for instance, interpreted seemingly contradictory tendencies in American Protestantism: mergers and denominationalism. He likened the former to “cartelization” and the latter to “marginal differentiation” with the aim of competing for adherents in a context where the religious “product” was very similar at least in mainline Protestantism.72 While some ecumenists might find Berger’s metaphors unpalatable (because he borrowed them from economics), his observations point to a fundamental problem connected with interchurch relations even beyond North America. Later sociological studies of ecumenical phenomena present a multi-coloured mosaic: among other aspects, they focus on developments inside specific denominational traditions73 or particular countries,74 organizational dynamics in denominations75 and local churches,76 social factors supporting ecumenism and 70 Cf. Thomas Bremer, “Ökumene und ökumenische Theologie im Umbruch,” in Thomas Bremer and Maria Wernsmann (eds.), Ökumene – überdacht: Reflexionen und Realitäten im Umbruch, Freiburg: Herder, 2014, 36: “A theory of ecumenical processes can merely observe and describe how ecumenical interaction takes place in particular segments. To comprehend this is, however, definitely not little.” 71 Michael Root, “The Unity of the Church and the Reality of the Denominations,” Modern Theology 9.4 (1993), 385–401, commented one generation ago that “ecumenical work remains blissfully innocent of sociological corruption”; probably his verdict might be more differentiated today, but a wide-ranging study of this kind is still unavailable. 72 Berger, “A Market Model for the Analysis of Ecumenicity,” Social Research 30.1 (1963), 77– 93; quotation on p. 90. 73 See, e. g., Robert Currie, Methodism Divided: A Study in the Sociology of Ecumenicalism, London: Faber & Faber, 1968, a book which deals almost exclusively with the history of Methodist schisms and the movement towards intra-Methodist unification until 1932; its sociological perspective is largely restricted to the final chapter. 74 Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America, 1776–1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1992. 75 Donald Warwick, “Organizational Politics and Ecumenism,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11 (1974), 293–308. 76 Helmut Geller, Eckart Pankoke, and Karl Gabriel, Ökumene und Gemeinde: Untersuchungen zum Alltag in Kirchengemeinden, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 2002.

52

On Studying Interchurch Relations

leading to schism,77 and the impact of postmodern sentiments.78 One inquiry even reaches the conclusion that denominationalism must exist as long as there is religious freedom “in order to meet the diverse spiritual, emotional, psychological, and social needs of a pluralistic society.”79 Yet most of these studies have produced little or no echo in the mainstream of ecumenical studies, a fact that Peter Staples deplored two decades ago80 – and hardly anything seems to have changed. The situation is somewhat different with regard to sociological studies of schism, intrachurch conflicts, and interchurch discord,81 but apart from their role in the histories of ecumenism, which also tend to prefer inquiries into attempted or successful church mergers to schisms, interpretations of denominational splits do not rank high in the agenda of ecumenics as a whole.

2.1.3 Interchurch Relations Research: Premises, Problems, Promises How, then, may interchurch relations be studied? First of all, this question addresses the basis on which such research takes place. In Systematic Theology, this basis is evidently ecclesiology, for the inter-relationship between groups of Christians, of congregations and clusters of congregations, has been a theme of ecclesiology even in the New Testament. Ecclesiology always has an ecumenical dimension; there is something deeply relational about the Church as much as it is an issue of theological reflection. It is not necessary to elaborate the relationship between the theological and social dimensions in detail here; it suffices to point out that theological aspects – and, thus, concerns of particular theological tra77 Robert Lee, The Social Sources of Church Unity: An Interpretation of Unitive Movements in American Protestantism, New York: Abingdon, 1960; Robert C. Liebman, John R. Sutton, and Robert Wuthnow, “Exploring the Social Sources of Denominationalism: Schisms in American Protestant Denominations, 1890–1980,” American Sociological Review 53.3 (1988), 343–352; James R. Kelly, “Spirals Not Cycles: Towards an Analytic Approach to the Sources and Stages of Ecumenism,” Review of Religious Research, 32.1 (1990), 5–15. 78 Jean-Paul Willaime, “L’ultramodernité sonne-t-elle la fin de l’oecuménisme?,” Revue des sciences religieuses 89.2 (2001), 177–204. A precursor text is Jean-Paul Willaime, “L’oecuménisme écartelé: Quelques hypothèses en sociologie de l’œcuménisme,” in Jean-Paul Willaime (ed.), Vers de nouveaux oecuménismes, Latour-Maubourg: Cerf, 1989, 15–38; here Willaime does not argue that postmodernism plays a role but that ecumenism was transformed from a social movement of lay intellectuals to a professional enterprise that appears “quartered” (i. e. divided itself in spite of its aims of unity). 79 André Nauta, “ ‘That They All May Be One’: Can Denominationalism Die?,” Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 6 (1994), 35–51; for the quoted words, see 35. 80 Staples, “Sociology of Ecumenism,” DEM [published in 2002], 1053–1055. 81 There is, of course, an abundance of studies in the history of schisms in general church history; sociological interpretations of the same are less common. One of the few comprehensive works dedicated to schisms in general is James R. Lewis and Sarah M. Lewis (eds.), Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 11–33.

The Problem

53

ditions – commonly take precedence over social aspects in systematic-theological reflection. By way of contrast, in a study of interchurch relations that takes a particular interest in the relational aspect, the social character of religion would be considered essential as well, not only an additional step of adapting, contextualizing, or relating theology to a particular setting. In other words, here empirical data would serve as contributions82 to building an ecclesiology in a manner analogous to Christology, where both the divine and the human dimensions of Jesus Christ are to be considered. The Divine Society is a human society, and an ecclesiology that consciously incorporates interchurch relations into its reflections would welcome all insights e. g. of the sociology of religion and utilize them to develop a comprehensive and adequate view of Church. After all, even the earliest Christian writers employed a host of metaphors from non-theological realms to shape Christian ecclesiology83 – starting with the term ἐκκλησία itself. As proto-ecumenics, therefore, ecclesiology will do well to incorporate deliberations of both the Church and the churches with their relationships, thus integrating concepts “from above” and insights “from below.” Several issues emerge in research on interchurch relations. They can be classified as follows: (1) Types: Since a considerable variety of relationship models exists, which are related to cultures, particular Christian traditions and theology, these emphasize different elements as helpful, important or even essential for upholding relationships. Beyond the theological foundations of these different types, questions of power and the role of individuals are not to be overlooked. (2) Intensity: What type of social distance an appropriate relationship entails is one of the key questions in the sociology of personal relationships. In larger Christian bodies, this translates into questions such as “charismatic” (grassroots, spiritual, etc.) vs. institutional ecumenism viz. interchurch relations and the more general issue of performance, i. e. how unity or relationships are enacted.84 (3) Quality: Both the types and the intensity aspect mentioned above 82 Cf. Stefan Höschele, “Sola Experientia Facit Theologum? The Role of Empirical Study in Systematic Theology,” Spes Christiana 20 (2009), 141–152, where four roles of empirical findings in theology are discussed, resulting in four types of theological orientation (apologetic, conversionist, contextual, and missional). 83 Paul S. Minear’s classic Images of the Church in the New Testament, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004 [1st ed. 1960], lists 96 of such metaphors. An interesting sociological perspective on images of the Church is provided by Alan W. Black, “Organizational Imagery and Interdenominational Mergers,” British Journal of Sociology 41.1 (1990), 105–127. In the context of church mergers in Scotland, Canada and Australia, he found that “advocates of union typically used organismic images … whereas opponents … typically used contractual images” (105). 84 Inquiries regarding performance aspects of interchurch relations would constitute a new field of its own; so far there is little if any theoretical work on this issue. For a first attempt at

54

On Studying Interchurch Relations

may be reflected in perceptions of positive and negative relationships, but quality is probably more than the mere congruence of expectations. As in interpersonal relationships, positive relations between churches – whether expressed as “being in communion,” as an international denominational alliance or with the term “friendship”85 – may be determined by the conflict solving capacity of, and some degree of flexibility in, the system rather than closeness and similarity alone. (4) Change: Relationships develop in time, and both their (imagined or real) intention and the (perceived or actual) effects must be examined. In the case of interchurch relations, one particularly important aspect is whether the relationship is thought of as expressing unity (at least to some degree), as leading towards it or as competing with true Christian unity. This overview of issues shows that ecumenical matters always address theological and social dimensions of the Church. Since these two dimensions cannot be fully disentangled, interchurch relations research must study both social and theological constructions of viz. perspectives on the same. The promise of such a research orientation is that the two dimensions will illuminate each other; at the same time, one should take into consideration that one major emphasis of the Ecumenical Movement, the aim of visible unity, necessitates a shift of focus: the more visible, the more social – as unity is to become more tangible, its expression will be reflected in a social reality to be examined with the help of the social sciences. A survey of “ironies of ecumenism” will illustrate this nexus. Each of the paradoxes and ambiguities that Alan Black observes in ecumenism86 arises from the interface of theological and social factors. Yet when studying ecumenism not only as attempts at denominational mergers and agreements regarding fuller communion but as interchurch relations, these “ironies” turn out to be normal elements found in any relational system.87 Thus an interchurch relations research orientation also entails the promise of shedding new light on a number of ecumenical conundrums. Black observes, for instance, that: (1) Many churches express a desire for Christian unity, but few produce church unions.88 From a relationship systems perspective, this is not surprising:

85 86 87 88

shedding light on this aspect, see Thomas E. Reynolds, “Improvising Together: Christian Solidarity and Hospitality as Jazz Performance,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 43.1 (2008), 45–66. Cf. the aim visible in the name of the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, which was founded in 1914 and existed until the 1940s. Black, “Ironies of Ecumenism,” Ecumenical Review 45.4 (1993), 469–481. Some of these paradoxes had already been noted by Peter Staples, “Towards an Explanation of Ecumenism,” Modern Theology 5.1 (1988), 23–44. For a more extensive consideration of relevant social science fields and theories, see the last part of 2.2. Black, “Ironies of Ecumenism,” 469.

The Problem

55

as in family systems or political systems, the status quo means stability, and every change implies a threat. In a systemic view, even groups or relationships that appear dysfunctional from the outside permit their members or players to be assured of their respective roles and of fulfilling particular functions. (2) Union efforts often produce intra-denominational conflict.89 In addition to the systemic perspective, this situation can be clarified with the help of conflict theory, which is a necessary interpretament in any analysis of inter-organizational relations. While approaches differ, relevant theories, especially the sociology of conflict, generally posit the inevitability of conflict, particularly in situations of complex change.90 (3) Rapprochement can cause unintended effects in the larger ecology inside and among denominations: in “drawing nearer to one ecumenical partner there is a danger of moving further from other potential partners” – and “denominational factions which would usually be somewhat opposed to one another have sometimes formed temporary alliances in opposition to particular unity proposals.”91 These observations both demonstrate that interchurch and intrachurch relationships between interest groups are not different in principle, and that all these are subject to the dynamics of intergroup relations, which often serve to reinforce identity constructions in groups. (4) A small group of people who are involved in ecumenical processes cannot pass on their ecumenical convictions to the church as a whole.92 This seems natural in a relationships perspective: relationships are highly personal, and unless a church has a strong theological conviction that specific persons (such as a pope or a committee) are fully authorized to draw the whole church into these relationships, the tension between individuals and the group may increase as individuals “move away” from the sentiments of the larger group. (5) High majorities are needed for unions to avoid factions forming new churches; the smaller the agreement, the more likely the formation of new, confessionalist churches.93 This situation, at least in the context of denominations in which a democratic culture is part of the church’s heritage, points to the fact that social relationships are culturally organized according to various models in which decision making and criteria for what are considered “just” and “appropriate” relationships differ.94 89 Ibid. 90 See e. g. the classic by Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict, Glencoe: Free Press, 1956. 91 Black, “Ironies of Ecumenism,” 470, 469. 92 Ibid., 470. 93 Ibid., 470–471. 94 For an important explanation of human sociality, which sheds light on such notions, see the discussion on Relational Models Theory below (see section 2.2.3, especially Table 2).

56

On Studying Interchurch Relations

(6) The Ecumenical Movement has developed a technical and clerical tendency as opposed to lay, student and missionary impulses in its beginning.95 From a sociology of movements perspective, interchurch relations had to begin with initiatives of individuals, who often did not hold key positions in their respective organizations. The success of a movement, however, is mostly linked to some degree of institutionalization – which, in the case of ecumenism, meant a stronger involvement of office bearers. Even if this means that the early “grassroots” initiatives are no longer the centre of ecumenical gravity, this does not necessarily imply that the movement has “waxed cold” or that formal ecumenism has replaced relationships in which more passion was visible. Nevertheless, maturation also entails change, and what seems helpful in a research focus on interchurch relations is that it can unveil how the actual interaction between churches has evolved underneath ecumenical discourses and the development of ecumenical institutions. Even though a final word on many issues which seem paradoxical in the Ecumenical Movement and, therefore, are contested in ecumenics, is not possible, the interchurch relations orientation offers a broad and, at the same time, clear perspective of the discipline. This perspective originates from a temporal suspension of ecclesiological judgement, which enables the researcher to develop a realistic perspective regarding Christian diversity. By so doing, it takes account of the fact that many of the very key elements of ecumenism are disputed. Eventually, this research orientation encapsulates the question, “whose ecumenism?” Once interchurch relationships in their variety are regarded as constitutive in the realization of Christian unity, various theological concerns of churches both of the “established” and of the “free church” type can be taken into consideration, for all of them have relational repercussions. If the latter often emphasize the freedom of operation, mutual recognition as “Christian,” and, possibly, the acceptance of diversity, the former commonly may be more interested in the reduction of political friction, mutual recognition as “church,” and the healing of divisions. What both types of tradition agree upon is certainly Christian unity as given by God and as a goal. Since this double nature of unity reflects the dimensions of Christian eschatology as a bridge between the already and the not yet of God’s kingdom, a research focus on appropriate interchurch relations may ultimately be seen as corresponding to the very nature of the ἐκκλησία as an interim reality pointing to the kingdom of God.

95 Black, “Ironies of Ecumenism,” 472.

Approaches and the State of Research

2.2

57

Approaches and the State of Research

2.2.1 Historical Approaches: Interpreting Developments in Intra-Christian Interactions After the above survey of terminology and the potential of a research focus on interchurch relations, the following sections review and discuss the three major approaches to its study: history, theology and the social sciences. Because of the twofold nature of the kingdom of God, which is “among” Christ’s disciples and yet to come, the historical investigation of interchurch relations is the most natural point of departure in any study. This history may be interpreted very differently, however. In his study of English Methodism and its ecumenical relations, John M. Turner reflects, “The historian of church relations in an ecumenical age finds himself in an exposed position. Theologians bid him bear in mind their goal of an organically united church … Fellow historians bid him remember, however, that schism may be a sign of life.”96 Church history could indeed be written as a history of schisms and attempts to deal with the ensuing realities:97 from the earliest time, Christianity experienced divisions. The consensus quinquesaecularis,98 which is at times appealed to in ecumenical dialogues, is an irenic 17th century construction, which anachronistically conceals the conflicts in the Church that the ancient Christian councils dealt with. It stems from the attempt to create unity by majority votes in those councils that turned Arians, Nestorians and various Oriental Orthodox churches into “heretics.”99 While writing church history merely as a history of schisms hardly seems attractive, and the development of comprehensive schism theories

96 John M. Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation: Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England, 1740–1982, London: Epworth, 1985, xiii. 97 In commenting on the first volume of A History of the Ecumenical Movement and its new approach to the history of Christianity, Reinhold von Thadden-Trieglaff notes that “[d]ivisions have existed in the Christian society since the period of the New Testament” and that “Church History has often been written in terms those divisions.” See von ThaddenTrieglaff, “Foreword,” in Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, xxi. 98 The term is often attributed to Georg Calixt, who, however, formulated “consensus primaevae antiquitatis”; “consensus quinquesaecularis” was coined by his opponent Johann Georg Dorsche. For references and a discussion, see Johannes Wallmann, Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Tübingen: Mohr, 1995, 75. 99 For an insightful discussion of Arianism as part of ecumenical church history, see Frederick W. Norris, “The Arian Heresy?,” in Timothy J. Wengert and Charles W. Brockwell (eds.), Telling the Churches’ Story: Ecumenical Perspectives on Writing Christian History, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, 55–71.

58

On Studying Interchurch Relations

has just begun,100 a historical approach to interchurch relations evidently has to incorporate the examination of the whole range of developments and historical dynamics between intrachurch tensions and church splits.101 This does not mean, however, that the historical study of interchurch relations will focus on schismatic events (and their attempted reversal) alone. True, many denominations existing today resulted from break-ups in extant ecclesiastical bodies. Many others, however, came about as a result of individuals’ efforts to restore their ideal of pristine Christianity or to establish what they considered a more appropriate form of faith than those that already existed.102 Countless church organizations today can be traced back to such religious pioneers or revival movements; even if many of these did not aim at creating denominations, they ultimately added to diversity in the Christian realm. Their initial attitude to established Christianity may often have been ambivalent or antagonistic; nevertheless, denominations born in revivals or initiated by particular founders, like the churches resulting from schisms, sooner or later have to relate to other churches in some way. Evidently these relationships can develop in very divergent manners. This is why the assertion of Welsh church historian Tudur R. Jones is correct: One of the most interesting topics in the history of Christianity is the relationship between the various churches, denominations and sects. It is also one of the saddest. In different periods they would revile each other, persecute each other and go to war against each other. One could understand someone who reached the conclusion that quarrelling was part of the essence of Christianity.103

Since a historical approach to interchurch relations has to investigate all interaction between churches, these less pleasant parts must be deliberated as well as periods of more successful communion, cooperation or, at least, coexistence. This includes all manners of, and even attempts at, relating, including initiatives of reunion and the study of dialogues, which is so popular in ecumenical theology. Yet of the same importance would be examinations of what may be called 100 An excellent attempt is presented by Roger Finke and Christopher P. Scheitle, “Understanding Schisms: Theoretical Explanations for Their Origin,” in Lewis and Lewis (eds.), Sacred Schisms, 11–33. 101 Ephraim Radmer, A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012, actually takes the violence connected with the Christian quest for unity (ending in actual disunity) in history as a point of departure for his argument that any ecclesiology has to be realistic and take into account the divisive forces produced by religion. 102 Cf. the classic from Africa on this theme: David B. Barrett, Schism and Renewal in Africa: An Analysis of Six Thousand Contemporary Religious Movements, Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1968. 103 Jones, “Foreword,” in Noel A. Davies, A History of Ecumenism in Wales, 1956–1990, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2008, xi.

Approaches and the State of Research

59

“ecumenical failure” – interchurch conflicts of all sorts, failed merger attempts, and the decline or problematic aspects of ecumenical institutions. Such a broad view of interchurch relations history largely corresponds to the common contemporary approaches to general church history, in which descriptive and interpretative elements are intertwined, but theological positions do not play a major role, and a non-confessional, irenic perspective has become the standard.104 In other words, the very breadth of scope and the multiplicity of stories and cases do not allow the church historian to produce normative claims for theology, which also implies a caveat for any attempt at deriving ecumenical convictions from the study of history. At the same time, a historical study of interchurch relations will frequently focus on the very issues that the classic histories of ecumenism portray and discuss. In fact, in the first volume of the History of the Ecumenical Movement one can notice a virtual identity of what the authors portray as the history of ecumenism with stories of interchurch relationships, only that instances of conflict, violence and division do not appear as a focus.105 The large variety in ecumenical thought, ideas, ideals, schemes, and successes visible in this survey of more than four centuries shows how diverse such relationships could look. An appropriate approach to the history of interchurch relations will, therefore, seek to combine the virtues of ecumenical church historiography and the historical study of ecumenism: (1) Like general church history with its sine ira et studio attitude, research in interchurch relations must consider all factors and developments from a non-partisan perspective; (2) similar to histories of the Ecumenical Movement, its focus will be on all that happened in the relational space between Christian denominations and traditions. (3) Moreover, as is common in contemporary global church historiography, highlighting the agency of movements in the periphery and minorities is called for.106 This threefold 104 For valuable reflections on suitable attitudes and methods, see Timothy J. Wengert and Charles W. Brockwell (eds.), Telling the Churches’ Story: Ecumenical Perspectives on Writing Christian History, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995; for an actual attempt at writing a full ecumenical history of the Church, see Raymund Kottje and Bernd Moeller (eds.), Ökumenische Kirchengeschichte, 3 vols., Mainz: Grünewald; München: Kaiser, 1970–1989. 105 Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948. The other two volumes (Harold E. Fey [ed.], A History of the Ecumenical Movement, Vol. 2: 1948–1968, London: SPCK, 1970; and Briggs, Oduyoye, and Tsetsis, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, Vol. 3: 1968–2000) are narrower in scope: their focus is clearly the World Council of Churches and affiliated organizations. 106 Cf. Claudia Jahnel, “Ökumenegeschichtsschreibung,” ZMiss 40.4 (2014), 324–345, who emphasizes the importance of “counter-histories that scrutinize the power relations of global and ecumenical historiography, its myths and narratives, and highlight the agency of the so-called global south” (345). She also criticizes what she views as the “so far lacking reflection and historicization of its own methods and presuppositions” in the historiography of ecumenism (325).

60

On Studying Interchurch Relations

orientation is, therefore, largely the approach to the historical aspects in this study of Adventist interchurch relations.

2.2.2 Theological Discourses: Models of Unity – Models of Relationships? When approaching relationships between churches from a theological perspective, two major themes need to be addressed. One is the distinctly ecclesiological question of how Christian groups are to relate to other such groups – be it congregations or clusters of congregations which define themselves as a cohering entity but for some reason differ from other such clusters (i. e. “denominations”). In ecumenics, this issue has been largely treated under the rubric “models of unity” or “models of union.” In the context of this study, the question must be asked how various unity or union ideals translate into actual relationships. The New Testament, Church Unity and Interchurch Relations The second theme, which is commonly given much less attention in ecumenics, will be treated here first because it is foundational for any systematic-theological reflection on interchurch relations: the unity of the Church in the New Testament.107 There are few comprehensive studies of the theme,108 and here it is impossible to do justice even to the major texts, developments and problems with regard to the relationship between emerging Christian communities in the New Testament. Nevertheless, a few observations will help draw a sketch of the situation in the first century from which important insights can be derived.109 These 107 Attempts to derive normative insights for interchurch relationships from the Old Testament are problematic because they essentially ignore the christological foundation of Christian ecclesiology. For one such attempt by an Adventist Old Testament scholar, see Gerald A. Klingbeil, “ ‘United We Stand’: A Biblical Perspective on Ecumenical Relations,” JATS 25.2 (2014), 104–131. More than half of this paper discussed OT passages and narratives; in the part on the New Testament, the author mostly focuses on dualistic elements in the book of Revelation. 108 The most thorough discussion of the theme is found in Ulrich Luz, “On the Way to Unity: The Community of the Church in the New Testament,” in Lukas Vischer, Lukas, Ulrich Luz, and Christian Link (eds.), Unity of the Church in the New Testament and Today, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, 29–161 [original German edition: 1988]. Surprisingly Luz’s observation is correct even today – that there are “not very many … studies” of the theme of Christian unity in the New Testament (“On the Way to Unity,” 32). 109 The following partly relies on Luz’s discussion but adds insights from my own observations in the texts and other literature, notably James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 2nd ed., London: SCM, 1990; and François Vouga, “Einheit und Vielfalt des frühen Christentums,” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 3.6 (2000), 47–53. The contributions to Anatoly A. Alexeev, Christos Karakolis, Ulrich Luz, and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (eds.), Einheit der Kirche im

Approaches and the State of Research

61

observations will be presented in two sections – on (1) Jesus and (2) the time of the apostles. (1) Jesus’ focus was the kingdom of God. From the few texts in which features of the kingdom seem applicable to dimensions of the church, one cannot develop a distinct ecclesiology; the same is true for the two verses in which Matthew portrays Jesus as speaking about the ἐκκλησία. Nevertheless, Jesus’ own actions provided a background for later thinking about the relationship between believers; in the group of the Twelve and Jesus’ followers “the basic dimensions of what later became the church were already laid out”.110 Thus in giving instructions on the relationship between those who were to become the nucleus of the later body of believers, he provided some overall principles applicable to the relationship between Christians belonging to different clusters of churches as well. Beyond general teachings on kingdom ethics, which evidently have a bearing upon the life of the Church, key themes were (a) desisting from judging others;111 (b) the dismantling of hierarchies among believers;112 and (c) a positive relationship to those with an affinity to the Jesus movement.113 At the same time, Jesus (d) preached about the judgement and the final separation between the just and the damned,114 (e) about division115 and (f) false prophets.116 There was, therefore, both a clear sense of shared identity among the Jesus followers and an awareness of threats to this bond. Contrary to what one finds in ecumenical writing at times, Jesus did not command unity117 but prays to the Father for his disciples and those who believe through them “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). In the words of Jesus as he is depicted by the Gospel writers, one finds, therefore, a picture of relational structures among Jesus’ followers that remains somewhat dim, but one in which stress is laid upon love, mutuality, and a basically egalitarian structure.

110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Neuen Testament: Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg, 24.–31. August 2005, WUNT I 218, Tübingen: Mohr, 2008, do not add much to the general picture found in earlier literature. Luz, “On the Way to Unity,” 41. Matt. 7:1–5 (“Do not judge”); cf. 13:24–30.36–43 (the parable of the weeds). Matt. 18:1–5 (“Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”); 20:1–16 (the parable of the workers in the vineyard); 20:20–28 (the mother of Zebedee’s sons); John 13:12–17 (footwashing). E.g. John the Baptist and individuals driving out demons in Jesus’ name: see Matt. 11:1–15 (Jesus and John the Baptist); Mark 9:38–40 (“Whoever is not against us is for us”). Matt. 25 (the parables of ten virgins, the talents, and the sheep and the goats). Luke 12:51–53 (“Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.”) Matt. 7:15–23; 24:11. See, e. g., Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology, 27, who speaks about “a Scriptural imperative in Christ’s instruction to his people to be ‘one’.”

62

On Studying Interchurch Relations

(2) The apostles and the other believers in the post-Easter period faced multiple challenges that strained the cohesion of the growing Christian movement. While the confession of Jesus as Messiah, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, interaction between the congregations and the apostles constituted bonds of unity between emerging congregations, a few other forces (mission, tradition and references to Jerusalem) were more ambivalent with regard to Christian unity.118 Moreover, some factors caused considerable tension: itinerant charismatics, congregations attached to particular personalities, cultural factors and other elements of tension inside local churches (e. g. the poor and the rich; the position of women in the churches), as well as divergent understandings of Jesus Christ. Enduring problems were also the relationship of the Church to Israel (expressed in conflicts between radically Jewish Christians, Paul’s views, and the group around James in Jerusalem) and heresy, especially the emerging gnosticism.119 Thus while evidently one cannot view interactions between congregations in the period of the apostles as being analogous to modern interdenominational relations, it is noteworthy that a large number of more or less unifying and divisive elements existed among the various sections of Christianity as early as the first century. It is in this context that the first significant ecclesiological reflections on unity in the New Testament period emerged. Precisely because there were strained relationships did the epistle to the Ephesians, especially chs. 4 to 6, emphasize the “unity of the Spirit” and the “unity of faith,” which is to be “preserved” – it is only here (4:3, 13) that ἑνότης is used in the New Testament apart from Col. 3:14 (“bond of unity”). In the book of Revelation, the churches struggle with different temptations and problems, including internal ones (Rev. 2–3) – but they look forward to the glorified state of the church as a heavenly bride (chs. 7; 14; 21–22). In Acts, the unison of believers in the early church is narrated in the brightest colours (2:42–47; 4:32–37) in spite of the fact that substantial frictions also occur (chs. 5, 6, 15). While descriptions of the church’s ministries and offices diverge significantly, their importance in fostering the unity between Christians rises in later writings such as the Pastorals.120 These elements of the emerging New Testament ecclesiology and their background in the life of the earliest churches imply that patterns of relationships between congregations and especially groups diverging ideologically were not of a nature corresponding to consistent structures at such an early period. In fact, if one derives one major insight from the New Testament data regarding the relationship between contemporary Christian sub-groupings, it is probably that 118 Luz lists these all as “Unity-promoting forces” (“On the Way to Unity,” 47–54; 95–126 = sections 2.2 and 6.2 to 6.6) but concedes the ambivalent nature of the latter three. 119 Cf. ibid., 61–76, 106–113, 142–161. 120 Luz, “On the Way to Unity,” 126–142.

Approaches and the State of Research

63

conflicts existed and were acknowledged, were tackled, but consensus could not be institutionalized. In cases of tension such as in the circumcision issue, a split was prevented by debate and some degree of mutual tolerance.121 Thus, one can summarize with Ulrich Luz that it is “clear … that the wide range of diversity we find already in the New Testament keeps us from transferring our findings from the New Testament directly into the present.”122 It follows, therefore, that “[ j]ust as the struggle for church unity belongs to Christian faith, so the variety and the differences of these [Christians] also belong to Christian faith.”123 Concepts and Models of Christian Unity in the Ecumenical Movement Against the background of such a variety of factors, actors, and ensuing emphases in the reflection on unity and intra-Christian relationships in the New Testament writings, it is not surprising that the Ecumenical Movement has also faced and developed diverging concepts and models of Christian unity. Or, as Luz put it, “Christianity’s unity has not always been understood in the same way. It has changed throughout history and has been – and still is – a matter of dispute among the … Christian communities.”124 Concepts and models were typically developed on the basis of particular ecclesiologies, and it is these ecclesiologies which are themselves contested; de facto each doctrine of the church implies a model of Christian unity. When read from an interchurch relations perspective, the common concepts of unity and models of union constitute specific ways of conceptualizing a permanent relationship between constituents. After all, the very terms “unity / union” indicate that there are elements which enter a kind of relationship that makes them to be, or to be perceived as being, a larger entity – i. e. “one.”125 Thus 121 Bernhard Oestreich, “Meinungsstreit und Einheit in der frühen Christenheit,” Spes Christiana 6 (1995), 14–25, illustrates these dynamics by discussing the way in which the conflict on Paul’s mission among the heathen is depicted in Acts. He finds that (1) perceived problems were not ignored; (2) they were solved by discussions, which implied a will to remain united, conscious efforts such as visits on both sides, and an honest struggle with arguments; (3) the criteria for taking a decision were God’s deeds and the interpretation of Scripture as related to the situation – not persons with authority, majorities, or power; (4) there were signs of love supporting the decisions: the collection for the poor in Jerusalem, Timothy’s circumcision, and shared praise of God; and (5) the consensus was not institutionalized – thus the conflict continued to exist to some extent. 122 Luz, “On the Way to Unity,” 31. 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid. 125 This is also the subject matter of mereology, a subfield of philosophy that receives very scant attention in contemporary academia. For a helpful overview of discussions in this field (with an emphasis on material objects), see Kathrin Koslicki, The Structure of Objects, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

64

On Studying Interchurch Relations

George Lindbeck’s neat distinction between “unitive” (merger) and “interdenominational” (relational or cooperative) ecumenism126 is valid only from a rather dichotomizing perspective. Oneness in the sense of unitedness127 always implies relationships, and relational realities always create some type of oneness. While Bernard Lambert had already reflected this logic in equating models of union with interchurch relations,128 a more detailed account of the relational aspects of these models is yet to be developed. A full discussion of such a relational reading of “unity” would probably require a major study of its own; however, a first step of applying the common concepts and models129 to interchurch relations is to ask what their relational implications are,130 for all of them can be interpreted as relationship concepts.131 The most common of these models and concepts132 are (1) organic union, (2) mutual recognition, (3) and the cooperative-federal model.133 Further models of importance, even if they are commonly not included in models lists (pre126 George Lindbeck, “Two Kinds of Ecumenism: Unitive and Interdenominational,” Gregorianum 70 (1989), 647–660. 127 As opposed to unicity, e. g. the unicity of God in Islamic thinking; see, e. g., Hanna Kohlbrugge, “Tawhid: Das Herz der islamischen Theologie,” Evangelische Theologie 51.3 (1991), 271–295. 128 Lambert, Ecumenism, 101–133. This chapter is entitled “Interdenominational Relations,” but the author actually discusses “Forms of union” (105ff). In another section, Lambert also attempts to construct a simple “general typology of associational relations” by distinguishing “groups completely isolated” and “groups in contact with each other,” and, among the latter, “opposition” and “accommodation.” Accommodation, again, appears in the forms of “combination” and “full integration” according to Lambert (ibid., 374). Thus he suggests a basic tree model, which, however, lacks a more comprehensive rationale and an interface with the social sciences. 129 For useful overviews of such models and concepts, see Harding Meyer, That All May Be One: Perceptions and Models of Ecumenicity, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, and Jutta Koslowski, Die Einheit der Kirche in der ökumenischen Diskussion: Zielvorstellungen kirchlicher Einheit im katholisch-evangelischen Dialog, Münster: Lit, 2008. Terminology found in the literature to describe the various models, and even the use of the term “model” in this context, varies; for a discussion, see Harrison, Conceptions of Unity, 183–206. 130 Meyer, That All May Be One, 3–5, stresses the difference between concepts viz. understandings of unity and models of union. This differentiation is justified from the perspective of those who aim at closer institutionalized union; for those favouring a more spiritual view of Christian unity, it merely indicates degrees of institutionalization. The following discussion, therefore, will not adopt Meyer’s distinction as foundational. 131 Cf. Nelus Niemandt, “Relational Ecumenicity,” in Conradie (ed.), South African Perspectives on Notions and Forms of Ecumenicity, 147–153. 132 Further discussion on these eight concepts is found in section 2.3.3. 133 For an extended discussion of these first three, see Meyer, That All May Be One, 73–100; on the historical development of the debate on them in Faith and Order, see Günther Gassmann, Konzeptionen der Einheit in der Bewegung für Glauben und Kirchenverfassung 1910–1937, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. The other models and concepts do not appear in this book as such but have been selected from accounts in Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, and recent developments in the ecumenical discourse.

Approaches and the State of Research

65

sumably because they articulate only “unity,” not “union”), are (4) one which will be called “alliance” in the context of this study, (5) the so-called “ecumenism of profiles,” (6) the “forum” model, (7) spiritual unity, and (8) “ecumenism of life.”134 While other terms for unity viz. union could be added, these will suffice to illustrate how much, and in what a diverse manner, the relational content plays a role in each case.135 The first two models lay an emphasis on the juridical-structural aspect of unity. (1) Organic union presupposes a relationship of organizational closeness bringing about fusion, which leaves little room for disagreement on a large number of issues; here the marriage metaphor is certainly appropriate and points to the complex ramifications beyond theology occurring in any permanent close association of individuals and groups.136 This model presupposes that unity has been “broken” by ecclesiastical splits or is absent owing to the existence of multiple denominations. The relationship needs to be “healed” and, essentially, ordered by duly appointed authorities. The concept behind such thinking is that the lack of unified organization implies a lack of appropriate relationship. (2) While the mutual recognition model conforms to the same general orientation regarding a necessary institutional healing procedure, it represents a less radical view in terms of steps to be taken. The marriage metaphor evoked above contains a contractual element as well, but the aspect of full merger is missing in this second model. Here reference metaphors are reconciliation or covenant;137 thus the relationship imagined appears as being of a rather formal 134 Several of the five latter models are part of the reflections on ecumenical paradigms by Christoph Raedel, “Unity to the Greater Glory of God: Promising Paradigms in Current Ecumenism,” Review of Ecumenical Studies 8.2 (2016), 169–186: his section on Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism relates to the “alliance” model (4); the ongoing “search for truth” corresponds to the “forum” model (6), and Raedel mentions both “spiritual unity” (7) and instances of ecumenism of life (8; he calls this “biographical experience and personal encounter”). 135 The choice of models and conceptions is also linked to a social scientific reference theory discussed below; for an overview that links this theory and the eight models presented here, see Table 6. 136 Cf. Alan W. Black, “A Marriage Model of Church Mergers,” Sociological Analysis 49 (1988), 281–302, who surveys sociological theories of church mergers and refers to numerous cases of successful and failed merger attempts in the 20th century. He is right in pointing towards the multiplicity of aspects to be considered in the change of relationship occurring in an organic union viz. marriage: “Economic, demographic, cultural, social, religious, and purely idiosyncratic” (285), historical heritage, critical elements such as tradition, trust, willingness, a new name, time factors, rites of passage, and post-wedding life (285–286). Thus the marriage metaphor can also account for state-imposed unions, highlights the process character of and power issues in church mergers, and helps explain why in certain cases mergers are hard to conceive. 137 The Leuenberg Agreement, for instance, is commonly called “Leuenberg Concord” in German, which connotes a covenant-like understanding.

66

On Studying Interchurch Relations

nature, and the relational problem to be solved is the lack of full recognition, i. e. the removal of some degree of disrespect, detachment, indifference, or attitudes of superiority. Different from the regulatory nature of relationships expressed in these first models, the next two essentially define relations as cooperations. (3) The cooperative-federal model, which is the radical variety, implies churches seeking unity by engaging in organizations such as the WCC,138 national councils of churches, or similar federations. Membership and collaboration constitute forms of relationship which focus on common action rather than full recognition, and since each member church typically retains its full autonomy, the primary goal is not union but unity, representing a corollary of a broader synchronization of activities. The success of this model, especially as compared to the relatively small number of actual denominational mergers, is precisely due to the ability of churches to coordinate common interests and thus relate to one another positively without having to yield much of cherished tradition. (4) Closely related is what may be called the alliance model – a less radically unitive but at times even more collaborative mode of interaction between churches. While unity may not be a primary goal here, it does forcefully emerge in the life of lay movements, voluntary associations such as interdenominational mission societies, or Bible Societies.139 Here interchurch relationships are valued not for the security that official recognition ensures or the orderly coordination that federal approaches promise but the specific common cause for which a partnership is formed.140 Two further conceptions of Christian unity centre upon the communicative interaction between ecclesial bodies. (5) What has been called “ecumenism of profiles” and, earlier, “ecumenism in contrasts”141 is an attempt to conceptualize the relationship between Christian churches as a path in which clarification takes place. Many of the bilateral dialogues with their negotiation content constitute a part of this picture, for not all aimed at or were able to reach a level of agreement as intended in model 2. Yet that does not mean that this is an inferior view of unity; in fact, a relational view of the dynamics occurring here suggests that it contains many analogies to Christianity in the first century A.D. In a “profiles” 138 The WCC’s “Toronto Statement” of 1950 declared, “The World Council of Churches represents a new and unprecedented approach to the problem of inter-Church relationships.” See “The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches,” 464. 139 Cf. Ruth Rouse, “Voluntary Movements and the Changing Ecumenical Climate,” in Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 309–349. 140 This approach to unity evidently corresponds to a functional emphasis in ecclesiology, as opposed to a stronger ontological emphasis in the organic union and mutual recognition models. 141 Erich Geldbach, Ökumene in Gegensätzen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987.

Approaches and the State of Research

67

perspective, unity is the relational bond that acknowledges the variety of Christian denominations and expresses the resemblance of Christianity as a whole to an orchestra.142 Thus it also reflects a plural society in which cooperative and friendly-competitive aspects are integrated in non-authoritarian, openended relationships between individuals and groups. (6) The forum concept has not yet matured into a widely acknowledged notion of ecumenism but has recently grown in importance because of the development of initiatives such as the Global Christian Forum143 and regional as well as national Christian forums.144 It is similar to the preceding profiles model in its emphasis on dialogue but less radical in terms of emphasizing differences. “Forum” is a fitting metaphor for a space in which the lack of communication between Christians and churches is reversed, ideas and experiences can be freely exchanged, and where a minimum of exclusionist forces exist, thus catalysing a sense of genuine mutual hospitality without implying constraints of membership in organizations,145 agreements on the basis of canon law, and the like. Upon closer inspection, it appears that such a relational space is found inside denominational bodies as well: particular Christian World Communions, in spite of their confessional conformity, embody a huge intercultural sphere and a spectrum of diverse Christianities relating to one another in manners quite similar to the way in which one denomination relates to others. Even the Apostolic Council reported in Acts 15 may be likened to such a forum, in which the communicative process is valued over authority ascriptions which are valid only inside specific subgroups. This option, as well as the following two, may seem much less definitive than the preceding ones and of little structural impact as far as ecclesiastical organizations are concerned. However, even the two remaining types of interchurch 142 Cf. the characterization of ecumenism as “jazz performance” in Reynolds, “Improvising Together: Christian Solidarity and Hospitality as Jazz Performance.” 143 See Huibert van Beek, Revisioning Christian Unity: Journeying with Jesus Christ, the Reconciler at the Global Christian Forum, Limuru, November 2007, Oxford: Regnum, 2009; Stefan Höschele, “Das Global Christian Forum: ‘Forum’ als Paradigma für die Zukunft der Ökumene?,” in Stephen Lakkis, Stefan Höschele, and Steffi Schardien (eds.), Ökumene der Zukunft: Hermeneutische Perspektiven und die Suche nach Identität, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 81, Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2008, 117–133; and Huub Vogelaar, “Das Global Christian Forum – Ein realistischer Weg der Ökumene?,” in Bremer and Wernsmann, Ökumene – überdacht, 317–333. 144 E.g., Christian Churches Together in the USA and the National United Christian Forum in India. 145 Cf. the guest status found in some national councils of churches; for reflections regarding “guest status ecumenicity” on the basis of a case study of Adventism in Germany, see Stefan Höschele, “Gaststatus als Modell von Ökumenizität? Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten und die Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland – Hintergründe, Entwicklungen und Einsichten,” Freikirchenforschung 18 (2009), 188–204.

68

On Studying Interchurch Relations

relationships correspond to meaningful concepts of unity, for they focus on experiential aspects of interactions which the other concepts and models cannot guarantee and may even tend to cloak with their respective emphases on the juridical or on action. Thus (7) the concept of spiritual unity, as contrary as it may seem to decades of emphasis on “visible unity” in the Ecumenical Movement, highlights the insight that relationships – both between humans and between humans and God – can ultimately not be guaranteed structurally or through activities. Connected to various types of Christian spirituality, including revivalism, this model of unity aims at countering the lack of a common experience of unity by providing a sphere for the same in a fellowship of the like-minded. By centring upon the experiential dimension, this sphere naturally enhances close relationships but tends to focus on relations between individuals rather than larger entities. This is also a key reason why attempts to reinvent Christianity on the basis of such a concept have eventually not worked out but led to new denominations rather than reforming or uniting those that already existed.146 (8) A more moderate version of such an experience-oriented Christian unity has been called ecumenism of life.147 This term seems rather fuzzy at first sight, yet the emphasis on shared Christian life addresses a realm that is easily forgotten among ecumenical professionals: Christians of different churches live together daily and share their lives as believers regardless of the specifics of their confessional tradition – often even in families or as interchurch couples.148 It goes without saying that such a perspective on Christian unity has much to do with

146 A case in point is the restorationist “Christians” movement of the 19th century, which was founded to counter “sectarianism,” i. e. the denominational fragmentation in the USA, but ended up forming new denominations (including the Disciples of Christ) and quasi-denominations. 147 Cardinal Kasper referred to “ecumenism of life” at various occasions; see, e. g., Walter Kasper, “Ökumene des Lebens und Eucharistiegemeinschaft – Perspektiven für die Zukunft,” in Walter Kasper, Sakrament der Einheit: Eucharistie und Kirche, Freiburg: Herder, 2004, 55–79. 148 Four contributions to the Societas Oecumenica consultation in 2006, which addressed “ecumenism of life,” dealt with interchurch marriages and families; see Bernd J. Hilberath, Ivana Noble, Johannes Oeldemann, and Peter de Mey (eds.), Ökumene des Lebens als Herausforderung der wissenschaftlichen Theologie – Ecumenism of Life as a Challenge for Academic Theology, Beiheft zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 82, Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2008, 315–342 (the chapters by René Beaupère, Ivana Noble, Ruth Reardon and Thomas Knieps-Port le Roi). A more recent volume that also emphasizes the importance of real-life encounter for ecumenism is Maria Flachsbarth, Regina Heder, and Ute Leimgruber (eds.), Ökumene, die das Leben schreibt: Konfessionelle Identität und ökumenisches Engagement in Zeitzeugenberichten, Münster: Aschendorff, 2017.

Approaches and the State of Research

69

relationships, especially friendship,149 but also with other rather unspectacular bonds, the hardly seen but vitally important web of cohesion that exists among believers who apply their faith to everyday life. This implies the insight that the practice of ordinary believers, their martyria, leiturgia and diakonia, is a locus theologicus for reflection on Christian unity.150 As has been seen, each model and concept of oneness can be translated into a peculiar kind of relationship between believers and between churches. Thus one can say that ultimately these are models of both unity and relationships. The fact that there are four general orientations, and a more radical as well as a more moderate stance in each case, can be traced to the under-defined concept of unity in the New Testament. While each of the concepts of unity presented here has roots in Biblical precedents or reasoning, it is the variety of New Testament believers’ and churches’ relationships that is reflected in the diversity of unity notions appealed to by ecumenists.

2.2.3 Social Sciences: Applying Relations Relevant Theories If theology presents such a variety of notions of unity, can the social sciences help in clarifying why these exist? So far they have played but a minor role in assessing dynamics in the ecumene and in relations between the churches.151 Nevertheless, a social science perspective could engender a unique approach to ecumenics in the future. A first attempt of this kind was initiated half a century ago; the 1968 call by the French sociologist of religion Jean Séguy that a non-theological but multi-disciplinary “ecumenology” be created152 went virtually unheard153 but 149 Cf. Bernd J. Hilberath, “Ökumene des Lebens als kommunikative Theologie – Erste Vorblicke auf ein Programm,” in Hilberath et al., Ökumene des Lebens, 24–26, and Antoine Arjakovsky and Marie-Aude Tardivo (eds.), Friendship as an Ecumenical Value: Proceedings of the International Conference Held on the Inauguration of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies, Lviv, 11–15 June 2005, Lviv: UCU-IES, 2006. 150 “Introduction,” in Hilberath et al., Ökumene des Lebens, 12; Hilberath, “Ökumene des Lebens als kommunikative Theologie,” in Hilberath et al., Ökumene des Lebens, 23. Hilberath’s and Kasper’s deliberations (the latter’s in “Ökumene des Lebens und Eucharistiegemeinschaft”) to some extent conflate what has been presented here as concepts 6, 7, and 8. 151 For references to notable sociological studies of aspects of ecumenism, see footnotes 72 to 80 in this chapter. 152 Jean Séguy, “Thèses et hypothèses en oecuménologie,” Social Compass 15.6 (1968), 433– 442. 153 His own 116-page booklet on the matter (Jean Séguy, Les conflits du dialogue, Paris: Cerf, 1973) – with the first chapter on “the sociologists and ecumenism” (19–58) – was essentially a collection of three papers: a review of previous publications (ch. 1), reflections on “informal groups” as ecumenical phenomenon (ch. 2) and the impact of secularism on ecumenism (ch. 3).

70

On Studying Interchurch Relations

indicated a blind spot in the contemporary discourse. It took another generation for this idea to develop further, this time by a church historian with sociological training. Peter Staples proposed “a new ecumenical interdiscipline” incorporating theology, history and sociology.154 He suggested that the purpose of this refurbished “ecumenical science” should be to clarify “the processes of denominational differentiation” and of “ecumenical dedifferentiation,”155 thus providing a “fundamental reflection upon … the interactions between hundreds of belief-systems in the total ecumenical process.”156 According to Staples, studies of ecumenism must therefore examine both “positive and negative interactions” between denominations.157 Surprisingly, Staples viewed ecumenical realities in a rather dichotomous way; according to him “ecumenicity and anti-ecumenicity” are “two rival processes within the wider Christian constituency,”158 and he frequently referred to “anti-ecumenical” attitudes or agents.159 Although he also mentioned that interchurch relationships entail constant “negotiation-processes,”160 he seemed to overlook the vast spectrum of attitudes, options, and operations between an unequivocal dedication to Christian unity on the one side and a stance of reservation regarding particular ecumenical organizations, ventures and avenues on the other. Staples’ insistence that ecumenics must analyse the whole picture of interchurch relations is to be heeded, but to fulfil the promise of such a research programme, one needs to take account of the enormous range of possible interactions between denominations, which often entail both “positive” and “negative” aspects. Beyond various areas that Staples suggested for further analysis, many of which have hardly been addressed so far in ecumenics,161 there is one important insight that the few properly sociological studies of ecumenism as a whole have 154 Peter Staples, “Theory and Method in Ecumenical Science,” in Sigurd Bergmann et al. (eds.), Ekumeniken och forskningen, Uppsala: Nordiska Ekumeniska Rådet, 1992, 164. 155 Ibid., 145. 156 Peter Staples, “Towards an Explanation of Ecumenism,” Modern Theology 5.1 (1988), 23. 157 Ibid., 28. 158 Ibid., 41. 159 Ibid., 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38. 160 Ibid., 28, 37, 39. 161 He mentions (1) bargaining and negotiation theories, (2) social rule theory, (3) the study of elites, (4) cognitive and affective dimensions of ecumenism, (5) the “dramaturgical” dimension, (6) bureaucratization theory, and (7) organizational mergers theory; see Staples, “Theory and Method in Ecumenical Science,” 164–167. Significant studies are available only for the two last items: Walter G. Muelder, “Problems of Church Bureaucracy,” in Nils Ehrenström and Walter G. Muelder (eds.), Institutionalism and Church Unity, London: SCM, 1963, 145–168; among the few studies on mergers, see Mark Chaves and John R. Sutton, “Organizational Consolidation in American Protestant Denominations, 1890– 1990,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43 (2004), 51–66.

Approaches and the State of Research

71

produced: both Bryan S. Turner and Jean-Paul Willaime correctly emphasize the variety of phenomena labelled “ecumenical.” In the early 1970s, Turner162 criticized contemporaneous standard explanations of “ecumenicalism” as being one-sided and insufficiently precise. He suggested that “secularization, bureaucratization and homogenization,” being the three “causes” stated in earlier sociological explanations,163 were not connected with what he called “amalgamation” (he noted that this occurs infrequently anyway) but with “ ‘councils,’ ‘alliances’ and ‘collaboration’,” i. e. friendly interchurch relationships without actual mergers.164 Writing thirty years later, Willaime went considerably further: not only did he stress ecumenical diversity – in addition to the complex picture of interchurch dialogues, he listed nine independent modes of ecumenism165 – but he even insisted that many of these ecumenisms are incommensurable because each “complies with types of logic unique to itself.”166 On the basis of such observations on the whole of ecumenical activity, Willaime concluded that ecumenism can appear in many respects as a continuation of the denominational conflicts with diplomatic means. It is no more about neutralizing the other denomination by considering it an invincible enemy, but about entertaining good relations with it while remaining oneself.167

In other words, On the level of ecumenical practices, it … seems that ecumenism is geared less toward the reunification of Christian churches than pacified and fruitful cultivation of their relationship and cooperation.168

Such a view of ecumenical praxis implies a remarkably sceptical view of Christian union rhetoric; however, it can help explain how decades of ecumenical discourse 162 Bryan S. Turner, “The Sociological Explanation of Ecumenicalism,” The Expository Times 82.12 (1971), 356–361. 163 In addressing these three issues, Turner mainly refers to Bryan Wilson, Religion in Secular Society, London: Watts, 1966, 126 (secularization), Peter Berger, “A Market Model for the Analysis of Ecumenicity” (secularization and bureaucratization), and H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: Holt, 1929 (homogenization). 164 Turner, “The Sociological Explanation of Ecumenicalism,” 360. 165 These modes are: (1) doctrinal-dialogical; (2) pastoral cooperation; (3) ecumenism of the ecclesiastical apparatus; (4) movements (e. g. the Charismatic Movement or socio-political Christian movements); (5) local parish ecumenism; (6) mixed marriages; (7) ecumenism “induced by secular authorities”; (8) “ecumenism of economic, political or social actors”; and (9) ecumenism of individuals. See Willaime, “L’ultramodernité sonne-t-elle la fin de l’oecuménisme?,” 177–178. 166 Ibid., 177. 167 Ibid., 182. 168 Ibid., 183.

72

On Studying Interchurch Relations

and activities have led to a situation in which virtually all major denominations engage in some forms of “ecumenism” while organizational change occurs at an exceedingly slow pace or not at all. In other words, according to this sociological analysis, regardless of theological pronouncements regarding “visible unity,” the main focus of the whole ecumenical endeavour is positive interchurch relationships, with the double benefit that old conflicts are settled or at least deescalated while the institutional status quo is upheld. This situation evidently implies the importance to be given to studies of social forces in actual interchurch relationships. The few observations in this section so far have shown that sociological perspectives of ecumenism viz. interchurch relations can bring forth uncommon and critical but useful insights regarding ecumenical dynamics and realities. However, there remains much to be done in terms of a more comprehensive social scientific inquiry into relationships between denominations. The present study cannot fill this gap, and it would probably require several book-length projects just to lay a foundation for such a task. The following pages, therefore, merely present a modest attempt at sketching an overview of how some pertinent theories of social realities and insights from a few fields of social research apply to the intra-Christian ecumene and its relational dimensions. Among such theories and fields relevant for the study of ecumenism and interchurch relationships, at least ten can be mentioned as outstanding. They range from a specifically sociological perspective to those of a general social science orientation: (1) the sociology of religious movements, (2) the sociology of organizations, (3) organizational ecology, (4) the study of inter-organizational relations, (5) the study of social networks, (6) intergroup relations theories, (7) conflict and peace studies, (8) systems theory, (9) communication theory, and (10) Relational Models Theory. Each of these interpretive perspectives contributes to an appropriate understanding of ecumenism and interchurch relations dynamics, although only some will be utilized in this study. Four of these have already been used to some extent in studies of ecumenical phenomena but will not serve as reference theories here: systems theory (8), for instance, mainly illuminates the overall dynamics of the religious subsystem of society rather than specific relationships of a particular church with others.169

169 For a recent application of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory to ecumenical phenomena, see Heinz-Günter Stobbe, “Einheit der Kirche, ökumenische Forschung und Systemtheorie,” in Bremer and Wernsmann, Ökumene – überdacht, 37–73. Although still in general terms, Maria Wernsmann, “Identität und Macht in der Ökumene: Die römischkatholisch/orthodoxen Beziehungen in systemtheoretischer Perspektive,” in Bremer and Wernsmann, Ökumene – überdacht, 180–206, succeeds in relating Luhmann’s theory even to a specific interchurch relationship. For an attempt at applying Talcott Parsons’ view of

Approaches and the State of Research

73

General theories of communication (9) shed particular light on dialogue,170 i. e. a particular part of relationships, but not their overall dynamics. Conflict and peace theories (7) are relevant for situations in which violence plays a significant role or where power is a major issue, which is not the major focus in this study,171 and the sociology of organizations (2) focuses on structures and processes inside organizations172 rather than those between them. This field would, therefore, certainly be a suitable reference for studies of entities such as the WCC, national councils of churches, etc. Three of the other approaches to social phenomena which seem not to have been applied to ecumenics so far, at least in major publications, would certainly yield some important insights for an understanding of interchurch relations. In this study, however, they will not be employed as a frame of reference because of their limited usefulness in interpreting attitudes to, relationships with, and thinking about other churches in a whole denomination: organizational ecology (3),173 again, explores the whole of a system (here: the religious economy in a society), and the study of social networks (5)174 would be relevant for an analysis

170

171

172

173

174

systems to Roman Catholicism, see Michael F. Aloisi, “Vatican II, Ecumenism and a Parsonian Analysis of Change,” Sociological Analysis 49.1 (1988), 17–28. For the impact of communication theory on the study of interchurch dialogues, see, e. g., József Fuisz, Konsens, Kompromiss, Konvergenz in der ökumenischen Diskussion: Eine strukturanalytische Untersuchung der Logik ökumenischer Entscheidungsfindungsprozesse, Münster: Lit, 2001; for a reflection on ecumenical communication with a focus on the WCC, see Stephen Brown, “Changing Paradigms of Ecumenical Communication,” Media Development, no. 1 (2012), 33–39. A discussion of power issues in interchurch conflicts is found in Heinz-Günther Stobbe, “Konflikte um Identität: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung von Macht in interkonfessionellen Beziehungen und im ökumenischen Prozeß,” in Lengsfeld, Ökumenische Theologie, 190– 237. See, e. g., Amy S. Wharton, The Sociology of Organizations: An Anthology of Contemporary Theory and Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. For an early attempt of an application to denominations engaged in ecumenical relations, see Nils Ehrenström and Walter G. Muelder (eds.), Institutionalism and Church Unity. London: SCM, 1963. The classic by Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman, Organizational Ecology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, suggests an evolutionary perspective of organizations and examines their establishment, changes, and “death” in their larger context. The theory stresses that the need for organizational reliability leads to inertia, and that there are different niches, leading to generalist and specialist organizations, which results in predictions on consequences for organizations in ecologies with different densities. The application of this theory to ecumenism would evidently necessitate several major studies. Cf. Patrick Kenis and Leon Oerlemans, “The Social Network Perspective: Understanding the Structure of Cooperation,” in Cropper et al., The Oxford Handbook of InterOrganizational Relations, 289–312. The social network perspective (also called “social network analysis”) focuses on relationships between actors, who may be individuals, groups, organizations, regions, etc., and are called “nodes” or “vertices”; these relationships are called relations, lines, edges, or ties (290). Social network analysis aims at describing tie strength “defined as the combination of time, emotional intensity, the intimacy, and the

74

On Studying Interchurch Relations

of groups more actively involved in ecumenism. Intergroup relations (6), a phenomenon studied in social psychology, tends to focus on individuals in groups and their stereotypes about the Other as well as on conflict rather than the dynamics of actual relationships. The three theories and fields which serve as social scientific points of reference in this study, therefore, are the sociology of religious movements (SRM), interorganizational relations (IOR), and, most important, Relational Models Theory (RMT). As a whole, this triad illuminates almost the whole range of aspects implied in the relationship of a religious movement viz. organization with other such movements and organizations, especially those related by a common heritage. Moreover, each of these three is of relatively more relevance at different levels of interchurch relations: the macro (SRM, IOR), meso (IOR, RMT) and micro (RMT) levels. Ecumenics and the Sociology of Religious Movements Applications of the sociology of religious movements to ecumenics can evidently be done in a rather straightforward manner. The fact that sociologists of religion have extensively investigated manifold schismatic and innovative religious movements and, inevitably, their interface with established groups, should seem to have made this line of study the natural choice for interpretaments of ecumenical dynamics. And once in a while such connections are in fact stated in the literature, albeit more in sociological works than in those of researchers in ecumenism.175 Yet altogether the lack of in-depth studies in interchurch relations from a sociology of religions perspective is noteworthy. Perhaps this is the case because sociologists interested in religious movements mostly focus on understanding specific groups or on classifying them into “types.” This is due, in part, to the orientation of two of the founders of the sociology of religion, Troeltsch and Weber, who have shaped the discussions in the field until the present. With their polar descriptions of “church” and “sect”176 (and, less relevant to interchurch relations, “mysticism”), they aimed more at expounding the function of reciprocal services which characterize the tie” (ibid.) Research with a social network perspective focuses on issues such as tie formation, tie termination, tie functioning, network effects, and tie dynamics. 175 See, e. g., Rodney Stark and Charles Y. Glock, “The New Denominationalism,” Review of Religious Research 7 (1965), 17–28; Dean M. Kelley, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion, New York: Harper and Row, 1972; and Finke and Stark, The Churching of America. 176 For their discussions on “sect” and “church,” see Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, New York: Macmillan, 1931 [1912], 993, and Max Weber, “ ‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy,” in Max Weber, The Methodology of the Social Sciences, Glencoe: Free Press, 1949 [1904], 93–94.

Approaches and the State of Research

75

these modes of religious organization for their adherents than at explaining how these bodies would relate to one another. By way of contrast, the classic in the American context, The Social Sources of Denominationalism,177 reflected a religious setup which differed very much from Europe and was written with the issue of Christian unity in perspective. Its author, H. Richard Niebuhr, bemoaned not only the divided state of Christianity but especially what he considered the causes of this division: classism, nationalism and the “color line.”178 While Niebuhr sympathized with the “churches of the disinherited” (i. e. the “sects”) to some extent,179 he argued that these radical movements tend to soften and develop into churches over time, thus relaxing their relationship of protest against the worldliness of prevailing religion. One of Niebuhr’s contributions to the sociology of religious movements is, therefore, to assign to the term “denomination” the meaning of entities occupying a middle ground between the typological church and sect. It took two generations for the sociology of religions to discuss, modify, and variously re-define the types and concepts suggested by Troeltsch and Weber with the addition of Niebuhr’s denomination type, and a concept of “cult” introduced shortly afterwards,180 leading to new typologies and subtypologies.181 A change in the discourse was heralded by Benton Johnson, who suggested simplifying the various descriptions and definitions in favour of a simple but measurable attribute to classify religious groups: tension with the environment.182 From this point of departure and on the basis of rational choice theory,183 Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge developed a comprehensive “religious economy” model in the mid-1980s, which illuminated the sociology of religion as a whole. Later they expanded this model into a social theory of religions which helps explain the variety of religious groups and movements in a given society184 – and, most important, their different inter-relationships.

177 178 179 180 181

Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: Holt, 1929. Ibid., 236–263 (chapter 9, “Denominationalism and the Color Line”). “Even sectarianism is preferable to the absence of vital Christian conviction” (ibid., 76). von Wiese and Becker, Systematic Sociology, 621–628. E.g. the classification of “sects” by Bryan Wilson, Religion in Secular Society: A Sociological Comment, London: Watts & Co., 1966, 179–198: conversionist, revolutionist, introversionist, manipulationist sects (being the most common types) and thaumaturgical, reformist, utopian, and ritualist sects. 182 Benton Johnson, “On Church and Sect,” American Sociological Review 28.4 (1963), 539– 549. 183 Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000, 36–56. 184 Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985; Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge, A Theory of Religion, New York: Lang, 1987.

76

On Studying Interchurch Relations

Space does not permit a discussion of all important aspects of this theory of religions; most salient for ecumenics is the understanding of churches, sects, and cults. According to Stark and Bainbridge, churches are bodies with little or no tension with the environment. Sects are in a state of relatively high tension with society and arise from schisms or founders who differ with the leadership of the existing religious organizations while remaining attached to the core of religious tradition. Cults, by contrast, “lack a close cultural continuity with (or similarity to) other religious groups”185 and arise from importation (e. g. Buddhism in Europe) or innovation (e. g. Scientology). Cults may be in more or less tension with the environment; their relevance for ecumenics is merely the question of how religious groups define the boundaries of Christianity and, therefore, of internal Christian relations. The significance of the sect and church definition for interdenominational relations, however, is that churches tend to be ecumenical in orientation while the separation and antagonism of sects make them stand apart not only from the churches but also from other sects.186 With regard to ecumenics, the insight that there is a large spectrum between these ideal types (which is populated by the “denominations”) is, of course, of great importance; the degree of tension with society will, therefore, typically predict the readiness of a religious organization to engage in positive relations with other such organizations. Yet since any society consists of a religious economy in which all the niches of religious strictness exist,187 many groups in the higher-tension half of the spectrum will be extremely unlikely to identify with ecumenical discourses (even if their interchurch relationships may reflect little actual opposition to other Christian groups) or to seek organizational unity. Thus theological and historical reflections on ecumenism and interchurch relationships will have to consider this inevitable range of options in religious intensity and the tension towards the environment which are typically associated with it. In other words, any research on interchurch relations and ecumenical thought or ventures must reflect the fact that these objects of study are no isolated phenomena but take place in a much larger economy of relationships between agents of religion.

185 Stark and Bainbridge, The Future of Religion, 25. 186 According to Stark and Bainbridge, tension (also described as subcultural deviance or social distance) can be measured in terms of three dimension: difference, antagonism and separation. See their discussion in The Future of Religion, 50–62. 187 Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith, 193–217 (chapter 8, “A Theoretical Model of Religious Economies”).

Approaches and the State of Research

77

The Relevance of Studies in Inter-Organizational Relations A second relevant field of reference, inter-organizational relations (IOR), has become a distinct research area in the last decades. While its relevance for the study of interchurch relations is evident, there is little indication of any crossfertilization in the last thirty years, presumably because the common IOR focus is business firms. However, IOR is not economics; it is evolving into a social science of its own, which borrows from sociology, political science, social psychology, law, economics, management science, and even population ecology. Because of its importance for praxis – for managing organizations in many subsystems of modern society – IOR tends to concentrate on “relationships that are based on mutual interest – i. e. cooperative or collaborative.” However, the field also “includes inquiry into competitive and conflictual relationships.”188 There are many areas in which ecumenics can benefit from the field of IOR research. It is particularly pertinent in a situation where organizational mergers remain rare189 and where a variety of relationships are pursued for a common goal, for the field of IOR “focuses on the properties and overall pattern of relations between and among organizations that are pursuing a mutual interest while also remaining independent and autonomous, thus retaining separate interests.”190 Very similar to a comparative inquiry into interchurch relations, the aim of IOR studies is “to understand and explain … the antecedents, content, patterns, forms, processes, management, or outcomes of relations between or among organizations.”191 Thus each element of relationships is given particular attention, which means that the complexity and diversity of inter-organizational relationships are duly considered.192 This also implies a promise of shedding light 188 Cropper et al., “Introducing Inter-Organizational Relations,” in Cropper et al., The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations, 5. 189 Chaves and Sutton, “Organizational Consolidation in American Protestant Denominations, 1890–1990,” approach the subject of church mergers from a perspective that is related to IOR; their comprehensive analysis demonstrates that mergers were relatively rare and related to four necessary factors: “[1] the influence of the ecumenical movement, [2] efficiency concerns, [3] political structure and [4] ethnic and regional identity” (63); membership in organized ecumenism was non-significant – thus, ecumenical influences were diffuse, i. e. an “ideological climate” rather than a direct impact. 190 Cropper et al., “Introducing Inter-Organizational Relations,” 9. 191 Ibid. 192 A helpful overview on dimensions to be considered is found in Ute Fuess, “Die Organisation von Kooperationen: Rahmen, Parameter und Modelle der Gestaltung von Interorganizational Relations,” Dr. oec. diss., Universität St. Gallen, 1997, 49. Among the 15 dimensions mentioned by her, the following are relevant for interchurch relations: (i) cooperation direction (horizontal / vertical / complementary-diagonal / functional); (ii) contributions (same or complementary); (iii) direction of actions (mutual / third party); (iv) intensity, method (coordination of activities / specialization / spin-off entity); (v) advantage distribution (reciprocal / redistributive); (vi) degree of formalization (flexible / fixed

78

On Studying Interchurch Relations

on dimensions of interchurch relations that have been overlooked so far – e. g. issues of life cycles of interorganizational entities and the related question of IOR dynamics, issues of trust, innovation in IOR, power issues, the evaluation of IOR, or issues of structure (types and intensity of relations).193 One example that illustrates further how the study of inter-organizational relations can help understand ecumenical reality is the identification of obstacles in cooperation (see Table 1). Table 1. Inter-organizational relations: Factors motivating / preventing collaboration194 Driving forces

Restraining forces

Strategic / organizational factors

Knowledge generation Need for resources Economies of scale Interdependence Hurting stalemate

Institutional / societal factors

Government incentives III Power differences Legal/regulatory mandate Disincentives New opportunity arises History of conflict & mistrust

II Limited vision of domain I Perceived loss of control Perceived loss of constituent support Internal conflict IV

Many of the forces in organizations apply to religious groups as well, and even some of those that seem not to apply at first sight may be more or less conscious factors in interchurch relations. The “restraining forces” column lists some of the most divisive issues when it comes to ecumenical involvement and interchurch relations, while the institutional/societal driving forces (quadrant III) indicate the importance of context, i. e. opportunity and the societal environment. In the case of interchurch relations, governments will rarely intervene, except authoritarian regimes that demand organizational consolidation, but the effects of societal pressure towards cooperative attitudes must not be overlooked when analysing the development of ecumenical relationships. Yet in many cases the factors addressed in quadrant II are probably decisive: it is organizational rationality that often determines the shape and outcome of interaction between denominations. The one major study on ecumenism and inter-organizational relations that exists illustrates the potential of IOR research for an understanding of intercontract); (vii) centrality of task (high: new entity / low: no new entity); (viii) time span (project / specific time span / open-ended); (ix) number of participants (two / few: network / many: pool, syndicate); (x) size of partners (large / mid-tier / small); (xi) geographical/ cultural distance (local / regional / national / international / global). 193 Ibid., 11–15, and Cropper et al., The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations, 527–718 (= part IV). 194 From Barbara Gray, “Intervening to Improve Inter-Organizational Relations,” in Cropper et al., The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations, 667 (slightly adapted).

Approaches and the State of Research

79

church dynamics and confirms that organizational factors play a crucial role in ecumenical matters. Although Dean A. Boldon’s dissertation on American Protestant conciliarism was written almost five decades ago and therefore did not discuss many of the issues important in later IOR research,195 it remains an indispensable analysis for understanding ecumenical realities and options in institutionalized interchurch relations – hence its results will be presented here at some length. Boldon studied Protestant denominations above 40,000 members involved in some kind of national interdenominational organization. Fifty such organizations were identified, and their relative importance was weighted in the overall evaluation.196 His main findings were the following:197 (a) Characteristics of denominations that participate in many conciliar ventures. Such denominations are commonly “large and complex organizations” (145), “professionalized organizations” (150), and, unsurprisingly, predominantly “non-fundamentalist organizations” (157). However, Boldon also found that Evangelicals and even Fundamentalists participate in more conciliar ventures than is commonly assumed (115–116). Moreover, he explained that “polity type of denominations is not related to conciliarism” (152) – different from instances of merger, “where the locus of authority is always a serious issue” (154– 155). (b) The relative importance of theology and organizational variables. In spite of a stronger non-fundamentalist involvement in conciliar ecumenism, Boldon found that theology alone was hardly a predictor of conciliarism. When theological differences were excluded from statistical analysis, “the organizational variables were able to explain 74 percent of the variance in conciliarism” (103), which is surprising because churches are very much “ideology-dominated organizations” (103). The major difference in terms of theology was between “nonfundamentalist” and “fundamentalist” groups: among the latter, theology accounted for 50 % of their interchurch activities or non-involvement, while the 195 Dean Allen Boldon, “The Ecumenical Movement in America: Protestant Conciliarism as Interorganizational Relations,” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1975; Boldon’s major was sociology. Some of his findings were later published in two articles: “Organizational Characteristics of Ecumenically Active Denominations,” Sociological Analysis 46.3 (1985), 261–273, and “Formal Church Polity and Ecumenical Activity,” Sociological Analysis 49.3 (1988), 293–303. 196 Thus the National Council of Churches of Christ USA and the National Association of Evangelicals were given considerably more weight than e. g. the American Association of Bible Colleges or the General Commission on Chaplains and Armed Forces Personnel. In spite of his list of fifty quite diverse interdenominational councils and conciliar organizations, Boldon discovered that “conciliarism is a unitary phenomenon” – i. e. the various sub-types of conciliarism analyzed by Boldon “cohere so closely that it is virtually impossible to distinguish empirically one type from another” (“The Ecumenical Movement in America,” 117). For more details on weighting method and scales utilized, see ibid., 104–116. 197 All numbers in parenthesis in the following paragraphs refer to Boldon’s dissertation.

80

On Studying Interchurch Relations

other half could be explained by organizational variables (128). Thus Boldon concluded, “Perhaps theology is more important in specifying the agencies a denomination will join than in determining the number of agencies it joins” (161); in other words, “in terms of interorganizational relations at least, churches behave much like other organizations” (173). (c) Ecumenism and denominationalism. Boldon boldly asserts that “denominationalism is not a hindrance to the conciliar form of ecumenism.” (162) This may seem surprising, but the logic behind it is that denominationalization means creating organizations, which almost inevitably develop and tend to engage in interorganizational viz. interchurch relations after some time (162). It is true that participation in conciliar ecumenisms can take on a variety of brands, e. g. evangelical or “mainline,” but Boldon suggests not disregarding evangelical conciliarism and argues that those who do so probably suffer from narrow, ideological views of what ecumenism entails (165). This leads to a fourth insight: (d) Ecumenical rhetoric and interchurch activities. There is often a significant cleavage between public pronouncements and actual interchurch relationships, cooperation, and conciliar involvement. Southern Baptists, for instance – a denomination commonly known as promoting an anti-ecumenical stance – cooperate with other denominations in many regards and in an institutionalized manner, which makes them the 11th most active body among the 48 surveyed by the study (63; 164). In terms of conciliar ecumenism, Boldon correctly observes, they are “a very active – and ‘ecumenical’ – denomination, once the rhetoric of the ecumenical debate is stripped away” (172). In other words, sociological and IOR analyses are valuable in distinguishing between theological statements and ecumenical or anti-ecumenical rhetoric on the one side and actual interchurch activities on the other. In spite of the fact that Boldon’s research findings have been taken up by few scholars so far, his conclusion is worth considering: actual ecumenical participation by denominations is a matter best approached by focusing on denominations as organizations … To base any sociological discussion of ecumenism solely on research on theological opinion misses the central dynamics of interorganizational relations between churches (171).

This is, of course, not to say that systematic-theological studies of ecumenical thought are unimportant; nevertheless, there seems to be a certain imbalance in studies of ecumenism even today. The neglect of empirical studies of interchurch relations calls for some degree of shifting the attention from the ideal to the actual. At any rate, Boldon’s approach, “to examine the ecumenical movement as a matter of interorganizational relations between organizations in modern society” (2), contributes an element to a more integrated and realistic analysis of ecumenical matters.

Approaches and the State of Research

81

Relational Models Theory and the Interpretation of Interchurch Relations While the sociology of religious movements mainly concerns the macro level and IOR approaches tend to focus on the meso level, on a micro level (such as local churches, individual actors, or face-to-face encounters e. g. in dialogues) it is the nature of relationships themselves which is of particular interest in the context of this study. Therefore the following paragraphs will present a more detailed discussion of a theory that elucidates the whole range of human interactions and relationships, including interchurch relations: Relational Models Theory (RMT). This theory suggests that humans are inherently social, not essentially selfcentred or even asocial, as some traditions of psychology have assumed. Its main claim appears to be surprisingly simple yet has a profound impact on the understanding on all human interaction: there are only four “elementary forms of sociality”;198 all human relationships and, therefore, all contact and interface between individuals and groups are structured according to one of these four. Each of them follows a different principle: Communal Sharing (CS) is governed by the close and physical bonds of those who relate, Authority Ranking (AR) by a hierarchy, Equality Matching (EM) by egalitarian procedures, and Market Pricing (MP) by more abstract notions of proportionality.199 A fifth relational option is the “null relationship,” which in reality is not a relationship at all but the neglect or rejection of other persons as humans. Each of the four relational “modes” or “models”200 materializes in a host of domains such as manners of constituting groups, decision making, moral concepts, expected contributions of individuals to groups, concepts of work, and motivation (see Table 2201). All four are like grammars, which are applied by every human being and society, but in different contexts: it depends on cultural pa198 Alan P. Fiske, “The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations,” Psychological Review 99 (1992), 689–723. 199 In a later study, Fiske defines the models from the perspective of “how people constitute social relationships”: “Four Modes of Constituting Relationships: Consubstantial Assimilation [CS]; Space, Magnitude, Time and Force [AR]; Concrete Procedures [EM]; Abstract Symbolism [MP],” in Nick Haslam (ed.), Relational Models Theory: A Contemporary Overview, Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2004, 61–146, quote on p. 61, emphasis by S. H. 200 Alan P. Fiske, “Relational Models Theory 2.0,” in Haslam, Relational Models Theory, 3, later started using the term “mods” for these “cognitively modular but modifiable modes of interacting”; in this study, however, they will simply be called “models” or “modes.” 201 Shortened and slightly adapted from Fiske, “The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality,” 694– 696. The original 3-page table lists further details which are less relevant for this study – reciprocal exchange, distributive justice, work, the significance of (material) things, orientations to land, significance of time, social influence, social identity and self, motivation, interpretation of misfortune, (violent) aggression and conflict, related natural selection mechanisms, and approximate age when children first externalize the model. Copyright: American Psychological Association (APA). Permission: Fair use policy of the APA (https:// www.apa.org/about/contact/copyright).

Authority Ranking (AR)

Spatiotemporal ordered arrays (e. g., who is in front, who comes first). Differences in magnitude (size of dwelling, personal space, plural pronouns for respect). What supreme being comMoral judgment Caring, kindness, altruism, and ideology selfless generosity. Protecting mands is right. Obedience to intimate personal relationwill of superiors. Heteroships. Traditional legitimanomy, charismatic legitimation in terms of inherent, es- tion. sential nature or karma of group.

Characteristic Enactive, kinaesthetic, senmode of marksorimotor rituals, especially ing relationships commensal meals, communion, and blood sacrifice.

By authoritative fiat or decree. Will of the leader is transmitted through the chain of command. Subordinates obey orders.

Followers of a charismatic or Sense of unity, solidarity, shared substance (e. g., other leader. Hierarchical or“blood,” kinship). One-forganization (e. g., military). all, all-for-one. Gemeinschaft, mechanical solidarity, primary group.

Communal Sharing (CS)

Decision making Group seeks consensus, unity, the sense of the group (e. g., Quaker meeting, Japanese groups).

Domains and Features Constitution of groups Market Pricing (MP)

Concrete operations involving physical manipulations of tokens or persons so as to balance, match, synchronize, align, or place them in onefor-one correspondence. Fairness as strict equality, equal treatment, and balanced reciprocity.

Abstract, universal, rational principles based on the utilitarian criterion of the greatest good for the greatest number (ratio metric for assessing all costs and benefits). Rationallegal legitimation.

Abstract symbolic representation (especially propositional language and arithmetic).

Corporations, labour unions, stock markets and commodity associations. Gesellschaft, organic solidarity. Also, bureaucracy with regulations oriented to pragmatic efficiency: rational-legal organization. One-person, one-vote elecMarket decides, governed by tion. Everyone has equal say. supply and demand or exAlso rotating offices or lotpected utilities. Also rational tery. cost and benefit analysis.

Equal-status peer groups. For example, car pool, cooperative, and rotating credit association.

Equality Matching (EM)

Table 2. “Manifestations and features of four elementary relational models” according to Fiske

82 On Studying Interchurch Relations

Corresponding scale type

Features that the cultural implementation rules must specify

Domains and Features Contribution Noblesse oblige: superiors give beneficently, demonstrating their nobility and largesse. Subordinate recipients of gifts are honoured. What are the criteria for rank. What dimensions mark precedence. In what domains may authority be exercised.

Everyone gives what they have, without keeping track of what individuals contribute. “What’s mine is yours.”

Who is “us” and who is “other,” including how people acquire and lose corporate membership. What is shared. What kinds of restraint people must exercise and what excuses them from giving. Categorical or nominal. Ordinal.

Authority Ranking (AR)

Communal Sharing (CS)

Table 2 (Continued)

Ratio.

What entities may be bought and sold (e. g., sex? drugs? votes? people?). What are the ratios of exchange? What counts as a cost or a benefit.

Who and what counts as equal. What procedures people use for matching and balancing. What are the appropriate delays before reciprocating. Interval.

People assessed according to a fixed ratio or percentage (e. g., tithing, sales, or real estate taxes).

Market Pricing (MP)

Each contributor matches each other’s donations equally.

Equality Matching (EM)

Approaches and the State of Research

83

84

On Studying Interchurch Relations

rameters with whom people relate in a close communitarian, i. e. CS manner, for instance in sharing food, experiencing a religious ritual together, or having body contact (only nuclear family or extended family, fellow church members, or neighbours?). Notions of who or what is an authority (AR – government, a prophet, a priest, holy scriptures, the rich, the strong), in which cases this authority is valid, and how important this power is, are contested at times even inside societies. Nevertheless, many relationships function according to norms of rank to the satisfaction of those involved. Likewise, EM relationships, in which notions of reciprocity and equality in a peer group are decisive, may occur in very different contexts depending on cultural standards, but imply definite views on justice and appropriate interactions different from the other models. MP is the most abstract relational model, which is largely present in organizations with their bureaucracies, administrative logic, and market-like exchange as the prototypical interaction. Yet “Market Pricing” also entails the realm of negotiation, of propositional language, and of rationality when judging on morality or ideology. Hence this model, in spite of its name, is not restricted to the economic sphere but plays a crucial role wherever measurements, definitions, reasoning and contractual thinking frame people’s interaction. – All human cultures utilize each of these four models, yet their respective configurations and concrete operationalizations differ widely – which makes societies complex and pluriform, with diverse echoes of these features even in religious communities and organizations. Relational Models Theory was developed in the late 1980s by Alan P. Fiske, a researcher in psychological anthropology, who built on earlier social research in various fields such as development psychology (Jean Piaget), the sociology of authority (Max Weber), and economic anthropology (Karl Polanyi), as well as symbols theory (Paul Ricoeur)202 and on extensive field research in West Africa.203 In the 1990s, RMT was extensively scrutinized and validated with regard to several foundational questions: (1) whether there are really only four forms of sociality, (2) whether Fiske’s characterization of the four is sound, and (3) whether the four models are in fact “incommensurable categories rather than … dimensional continua.”204 On the basis of the theory’s cogency, researchers 202 Fiske, “Relational Models Theory 2.0,” 16–21, recounts how he came to develop the theory; for bibliographic details on the theorists mentioned there as well as those mentioned here, see also Fiske, “The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality,” 710–712, 717–723. 203 The results of his two-year fieldwork are found in Alan P. Fiske, “Relativity within Moose (‘Mossi’) Culture: Four Incommensurable Models for Social Relationships,” Ethos 18 (1990), 180–204, and his book Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations, New York: Free Press, 1991, 231–368 (= part IV). 204 Nick Haslam, “Research on the Relational Models: An Overview,” in Haslam, Relational Models Theory, 28. Seven published studies examined and confirmed RMT with regard to these questions by utilizing factor analysis in comparison with competing relationship

Approaches and the State of Research

85

have increasingly applied it to various themes, fields and academic disciplines, e. g. personality dimensions,205 social errors, personality disorders, ethnography,206 studies of trust,207 moral psychology,208 values research,209 organizational behaviour,210 and relationships between business companies.211 It has even served as the basis of a comprehensive novel theory on violence.212 RMT, therefore, has been firmly established and is widely applicable and fruitful in terms of generating research programmes. Seen in this light, it is probably not an exaggeration that Relational Models Theory bears great potential for utilization in various subdisciplines of theology as well: Mission Studies and Pastoral Theology, possibly even Biblical Studies, and various loci of Systematic Theology. While it appears that RMT has hardly been applied to any of area of religious studies and theology so far,213 this study will make a beginning by using it with regard to ecumenics. In constructing a typology of interchurch relations (in section 2.3.3), the theory is very useful; at this point, however, it is enough to state some of the ways in which the theory

205 206 207 208

209

210 211 212 213

theories and a taxometric approach to weigh the claim of RMT regarding categoriality against views of relationships as being dimensional; for details see ibid., 29–33. Dionyssios Caralis and Nick Haslam, “Relational Tendencies Associated with Broad Personality Dimensions,” Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 77.3 (2004), 397–402. For an overview of items covering these three fields, see Haslam, “Research on the Relational Models,” 34–51. Leah D. Houde et al., “The Four Faces of Trust: An Empirical Study of the Nature of Trust in Relational Forms,” in Haslam, Relational Models Theory, 287–306. Tage Shakti Rai and Alan P. Fiske, “Moral Psychology is Relationship Regulation: Moral Motives for Unity, Hierarchy, Equality, and Proportionality,” Psychological Review 118.1 (2011), 57–75; Peter DeScioli and Siddhi Krishna, “Giving to Whom? Altruism in Different Types of Relationships,” Journal of Economic Psychology 34 (2013), 218–228. Sonia Roccas and Clark McCauley, “Values and Emotions in the Relational Models,” in Haslam, Relational Models Theory, 263–285; Pascal Biber, Jörg Hupfeld, and Laurenz L. Meier, “Personal Values and Relational Models,” European Journal of Personality 22.7 (2008), 609–628. P. Christopher Earley, Face, Harmony, and Social Structure: An Analysis of Organizational Behavior Across Cultures, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, 133–136. Blair H. Sheppard and Maria Tuchinsky, “Interfirm Relationships: A Grammar of Pairs,” in Barry M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 18, Greenwich: JAI Press, 1996, 331–373. Alan P. Fiske and Tage Shakti Rai, Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. The two exceptions of which I know are a recent study by one of my students and an article of my own: Philip Nern, “Spiritualität als Beziehung: Das Gott-Mensch-Verhältnis unter der Perspektive der Relational Models Theory,” Spes Christiana 32.1, 2021, 27–60, and Stefan Höschele, “On Loving Neighbours and Others: Effective Altruism and Christian Ethics in a Relational Models Theory Perspective,” in Dominic Roser, Stefan Riedener, and Markus Huppenbauer (eds.), Effective Altruism and Religion: Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2022, 147–167.

86

On Studying Interchurch Relations

elucidates dynamics in the relationship between churches and Christians of different denominational backgrounds: (a) Cultures, relationships, and unity: Different cultures (and church cultures) give preference to differing types of relationships in particular social spaces, which imply diverging views of how humans are to be “united.” Thus an analysis of cultural notions of relationships, which can be invariably described with the help of RMT, has an immediate bearing upon theological models of unity. (b) Religious groups as traditions of relationality: Religions, including the Christian faith, celebrate, enact, uphold or challenge relational models found in human societies. Since religious groups are unique combinations in which each of the four models plays a distinct role and is represented by peculiar traditions, they represent specific embodiments of relationality. It is not surprising, therefore, that they relate to bodies perceived as allied, similar, other, or distinct in very different ways. (c) Relational models and ecumenicity: In seeking Christian unity, churches relate to other Christian bodies in one or several ways, typically reflecting their own preferences for particular relational models. Thus it is not surprising that each relationship model appears in elements of the ecumenical discourse214 (while the null relationship corresponds to Staples’s “anti-ecumenicals”). (d) Conflict between the models: The fact that the four models are incommensurable points to their inherent conflict potential. Like Thomas Kuhn’s famous scientific paradigms,215 the models do not complement one another but enshrine very different perspectives on appropriate actions. Thus in relational praxis actors mostly cannot choose freely what pattern to appeal to. While cultures (including religious cultures) act out different models in different situations, it is the cleavage between cultural expectations and applications that creates friction.216 This state of affairs is likely to be aggravated when such patterns are translated into theological categories, and since even notions of unity are always governed by assumptions about how humans and groups formed by 214 A few examples will suffice here: Communal Sharing: open communion or intercommunion; Authority Ranking: the aim of organic union with an episcopal system of church order; Equality Matching: democratically functioning organizations such as national councils of churches; Market Pricing: the insistence of free church type denominations on religious liberty in order to gain access to an “unregulated religious market,” i. e. one in which there is no oppression of minorities. For a more detailed discussion, see 2.3.3. 215 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. 216 One study found complex and diverse conflict patterns and concluded that differences between in-model and between-models friction are not significant; the most significant conflicts seem to happen in a CS framework (i. e. over the inclusion or exclusion of individuals in a given group). The strength of conflicts evidently depends on various variables, not only the Relational Models; see Barton Poulson, “Discord in Relational Models as a Source of Interpersonal Conflict,” Ph.D. diss., City University of New York, 1999.

Approaches and the State of Research

87

humans properly relate, this has grave consequences for the relationship between churches.217 (e) Sequence logic: The same is true in principle for concepts of which “steps” of a relationship should follow which. Does the performance of a community ritual such as the Lord’s Supper (CS) presuppose recognition of certain dogmatic tenets or even the guarantor authority of the same (AR), or is unity possible on one level (CS) while disagreements remain on the other (AR)? Are procedures desirable in which majorities vote “compromises” inside a religious body, in a united denomination, or a council of churches (EM) – or is a hierarchy necessary that ensures continuity with a tradition (AR)? Should interchurch cooperation only consist in temporary alliances in areas in which all actors clearly anticipate a positive outcome (EM)? Is conversation the real heart of Christian unity (MP)? It seems probable that gridlocks in the ecumenical sphere are often not solely of a theological nature but are grounded in specific convictions on the nature of proper relationships among Christians. After this survey of social scientific approaches to religious movements, to organizations and to relationships and their significance for the study of interchurch relations, one must ask: what is their overall import for ecumenics as a discipline? To what extent can they inform or even shape future research on interchurch relations? In contrast to their prevalent neglect, various strategies of interpretation lend themselves to application in research: assuming an overlap with theology and history (up to the point of virtual identity) or a complement to theological interpretations in traditional ecumenics, observing conflicting analyses, analogies between the two areas, or normativity of one. While it is true that “[n]o easy consensus about correlating sociology [and related disciplines] and theology … is likely to emerge because of the conflictual nature of both disciplines,”218 one can hardly deny that the social sciences clarify issues and dynamics on which theological consensus is hard to reach. They not only speak to ecclesiological matters but also illuminate views of the world, of humanity, history, and, ultimately, of God. While social theories and insights such as those outlined above cannot constitute normativity of any kind, they do serve as heuristic devices which inform systematic-theological reflection and historical 217 This incommensurability also explains what I would call the “paradox of Christian unity”: concepts of unity necessarily indicate where oneness ends; thus the very concepts that aim at creating unity also create ecumenical peripheries, i. e. they are actually instruments of exclusion. Since they aim at enabling certain bodies to relate – on the basis of a specific relational logic – they also exclude those groups which do not share the same approach to relationships viz. unity. 218 John A. Coleman, “Every Theology Implies a Sociology and Vice Versa,” in Barnes, Theology and the Social Sciences, 14. In the original, the quotation appears in uppercase because it is part of a heading.

88

On Studying Interchurch Relations

analysis, especially in a context where diverging normative claims are unavoidable because of confessional traditions. Such a use of the results of social research will still face the question of how weighty their findings should be. Michael H. Barnes has distinguished two approaches to this question: inviting the social sciences “inside the theological tent to work … in a serving role” and considering them an “animal to be domesticated” but not to be left into the same “tent.”219 In both cases the social sciences play an inferior role. An alternative metaphor, in which theology and the social sciences interact at eye level, is that of a conversation – similar to the interaction between denominations, where the dialogical principle is paramount. In this study, such an approach will be taken, for cross-fertilization can take place best when disciplines are imagined as mature conversation partners.

2.3

Factors and a Typology

The above walk through crucial aspects of ecumenical research and various realms of the social sciences also raises the question of the specific role that insights from the sociology or religious movements, Inter-Organizational Relations research and Relational Models Theory should play – in analysing and evaluating interchurch relations in general and the Adventist interaction with other denominations in particular. How can theological and historical perspectives on ecumenism be enriched and possibly corrected by utilizing these insights? To answer these questions, the last part of this chapter will take three steps. First the horizon will be widened once more by presenting a tentative phenomenology of interchurch relations. A second step will be to identify pertinent factors in interpreting the dynamics of different interchurch relationships, and the last section will present and discuss a typology of unity concepts enhanced by a relationships perspective.

2.3.1 A Phenomenological Approach Any attempt at addressing ecumenical phenomena and typical practices occurring in interchurch relations faces a forest-like array of different items of such a kind. Ranging from official interdenominational processes to individuals’ private interactions, from local to global, from bilateral dialogue to multilateral parachurch ministries, and from highly confessional to anti-denominational perspectives, these phenomena and practices are at times con219 Michael H. Barnes, “Introduction,” in Barnes, Theology and the Social Sciences, xi.

Factors and a Typology

89

tradictory, often do not carry the label “ecumenical” and nevertheless contribute to the mutual understanding and positive relationships of Christians and leaders of ecclesial traditions which that consider each other to be separated. Obviously no Christian communion is actively and officially involved in each of these practices everywhere. At the same time it is remarkable how many churches interact with major other traditions in several of the ways listed in Table 3, at least sometimes or in some contexts. Moreover – and this is the reason the full list is included here – it is apparent that each of the phenomena or practices is clearly related to a particular major concept of unity (or, in a few cases, to two or three) as well as to various modes of Relational Models Theory. How does this phenomenological approach to interchurch relations help in interpreting specific instances of denominational interactions with other churches? There are several insights that can be derived for ecumenics immediately: (1) Most of the phenomena and practices express specific concepts of unity. This is not surprising, for these concepts must be reflected in some tangible ecumenical practices. (2) Yet there might also be cases in which there is no congruence between practices and the concepts invoked in the public discourse. Interchurch relations research will probably shed light on reasons for this state of affairs: ecumenical “progressives” may differ from their constituency, or expectations from the larger ecumenical sphere may lead to a rhetoric that cannot be converted into action. (3) About one quarter of the items relate to more than one concept of unity viz. interchurch relationships. It appears that many of these220 are particularly common, possibly because they (and the various concepts of unity connected with them) possess an appeal to larger groups of people with their diverse thought on Christian unity. Yet this mingling of concepts also bears a potential for misunderstanding and unfulfilled hopes because the very foundational values, i. e. the relational ideals attached to them, are at times incompatible. This may account both for successes in ecumenical dynamics due to widespread initial support and for later standstill associated with these practices.

220 Especially the work of Christian World Communions, dialogues, ecumenical conferences, ecumenical theological education, ecumenical theology, federations of churches, and the recognition of baptism.

90

On Studying Interchurch Relations

Table 3. Ecumenical / interchurch relations phenomena and practices221 Phenomenon or Practice

Corresponding Unity Concept alliance alliance

Related RMs EM EM

mutual recognition spiritual unity organic union

AR CS AR

5. Association of denominations cooperative-federal 6. Bible societies alliance

EM EM

7. Brotherliness, solidarity 8. Christian World Communions

ecumenism of life cooperative-federal, alliance, ecumenism of profiles

CS EM, MP

9. Church unions / mergers 10. City churches

organic union spiritual unity

AR CS

11. Collaboration / cooperation 12. Comity (mission comity)

cooperative-federal, alliance cooperative-federal

EM EM

13. Community churches

ecumenism of life, spiritual unity mutual recognition

CS AR

15. Consensus dialogues 16. Conversations / colloquia / consultations224

mutual recognition forum

AR MP

17. Diaconical ecumenism 18. Dialogue

cooperative-federal, alliance alliance, forum, ecumenism of profiles

EM EM, MP

19. Dual membership 20. Ecumenical communities

mutual recognition, spiritual unity spiritual unity

AR, CS CS

21. Ecumenical conferences

mutual recognition, spiritual unity, forum spiritual unity

AR, CS, MP CS

cooperative-federal, alliance

EM

spiritual unity

CS

1. Affiliation of churches222 2. Affiliation of denominations223 3. Altar / table / eucharistic fellowship, intercommunion 4. Assimilation of minor denominations

14. Consensus agreements

22. Ecumenical hymnody 23. Ecumenical peace organizations 24. Ecumenical prayer

221 While an attempt was made to include as many items in this overview as possible, there is no claim of comprehensiveness connected with the list. 222 I.e. a loose association of independent congregations; e. g. the Calvary Chapel association (see “Calvary Chapel,” online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary_Chapel, accessed March 17, 2014). 223 E.g. the Church of Christ in Zaire viz. Congo. 224 E.g. the annual CWC secretaries’ meeting.

91

Factors and a Typology

Table 3 (Continued) Phenomenon or Practice

Corresponding Unity Concept alliance

25. Ecumenical professionals’ organizations 26. Ecumenical religious educa- cooperative-federal, alliance tion

Related RMs EM EM

27. Ecumenical spirituality spiritual unity 28. Ecumenical theological edu- cooperative-federal, alliance, forum cation

CS EM, MP

29. Ecumenical theology, ecumenics 30. Ecumenical worship

forum, alliance

MP, EM

spiritual unity

CS

31. Encounter Forums 32. Eucharistic hospitality / open communion

forum spiritual unity

MP CS

33. Exchange of personnel 34. Faith & Order

cooperative-federal EM mutual recognition, alliance, forum, ecu- AR, EM, menism of profiles MP

35. Federations of churches225 36. Global ecumenical organizations

mutual recognition, cooperative-federal

AR, EM

cooperative-federal, alliance

EM

37. Grassroots ecumenism 38. Inter-church marriages

spiritual unity ecumenism of life

CS CS

39. Interdenominational friend- spiritual unity, ship ecumenism of life 40. Interdenominational minis- alliance tries

CS

41. Interdenominational mission societies 42. Interdenominational partnerships

cooperative-federal

EM

alliance

EM

43. International denominational partnerships 44. Liturgical ecumenism

cooperative-federal, mutual recognition

EM, AR

spiritual unity

CS

spiritual unity

CS

45. Local church (Watchman Nee)226

EM

225 E.g. the former Federation of Evangelical Churches in the GDR. 226 On Watchman Nee and his concept of non-denominational “Local Churches,” see Dongsheng John Wu, Understanding Watchman Nee: Spirituality, Knowledge, and Formation, Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012.

92

On Studying Interchurch Relations

Table 3 (Continued) Phenomenon or Practice

Corresponding Unity Concept cooperative-federal, alliance

Related RMs EM

cooperative-federal, spiritual unity

EM, CS

48. Mutual recognition 49. National church / state church

mutual recognition organic union

AR AR

50. National ecumenical organizations 51. Non-denominational theological research

cooperative-federal

EM

alliance

EM

52. Observer relationship

MP

53. Prayer movements

forum, ecumenism of profiles spiritual unity

CS

54. Pulpit fellowship 55. Recognition of baptism

mutual recognition mutual recognition, spiritual unity

AR AR, CS

56. Reconciliation

spiritual unity, mutual recognition alliance

CS, AR

58. Reunion 59. Revivals

organic union spiritual unity

AR CS

60. Simultaneum227

EM, MP

61. Toleration / tolerance

alliance, ecumenism of profiles ecumenism of life

CS

62. Union Negotiations

organic union

AR

46. Local ecumenical organizations 47. Ministerial ecumenism

57. Regional ecumenical organizations

EM

(4) Both the diversity and the limited number of distinctive concepts of unity are clearly reflected in the phenomena and practices listed here. Since they can be associated with one of Fiske’s relational models in each case,228 it should be expected that denominational practices vary according to respective ecclesiological backgrounds, for preferences and their configurations depend on theological foundations which also express themselves in relational patterns thought to be divinely sanctioned. 227 A church building used by different confessional groups, a practice starting in 16th century Germany. 228 Interestingly there is a clear preponderance of Equality Matching (cooperative) and Communal Sharing (experiential) items (EM: 28; CS: 22; AR: 17; MP: 10 – with all multiple references counted), which points to the greater variety potential of these more involving and personal types of relationships.

Factors and a Typology

93

One further step from phenomena to a systematic view of interchurch relations is a listing of descriptors and metaphors of possible interchurch relations; more than 300 of these are listed in Table 4.229 Like the practices and phenomena above, these terms demonstrate that there is a large variety of relational options. Different from the listing above, however, non-friendly relationships have been included to make the overall picture more comprehensive. A more detailed analysis230 would yield a model with at least three aspects of relations (harmony, distance and power/flexibility),231 which can be mapped in a three-dimensional coordinate system. In the context of this study, this model can be simplified by ignoring power differences: although they constitute a nonnegligible ecumenical issue of its own,232 in most contexts where churches engage in relationships today, these relationships are relatively egalitarian due to the fact that religious liberty principles are commonly valued in their respective societies. In a two-dimensional coordinate system, therefore, most of the descriptors can be located at specific places; Figure 1 includes a few sample items. While a further detailed exploration would be the task of social scientists engaging in empirical studies,233 even these first basic steps of untying threads from the complex web of interchurch relations reveal that there is not only a remarkably large variety of notions, conditions, and situations to be pondered in this field but that any interpretive attempt that does not take into consideration this differentiated picture is inappropriate. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate this: From a quadrant II perspective, for instance, the entire lower part of the interchurch relations universe 229 Probably there are many more. For comparison: in the classic study on personality traits in the English language, more than 4500 words were found; see Gordon W. Allport and Henry S. Odbert, “Trait-Names: A Psycho-Lexical Study,” Psychological Monographs 47.1 (1936), 1–171. 230 Thorough processing of the items would mean to subject them to principal component analysis or factor analysis in order to identify relevant dimensions, but this would reach beyond the scope of this study. 231 These three aspects are part of various social scientific approaches to relationships; see e. g. the “interpersonal circumplex,” which is a two-dimensional model (with love and power axes) first developed by Timothy Leary, Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality, New York: Ronald, 1957. Its application to systems such as the family has been of great importance for therapy; see, e. g., David H. Olson, “Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems,” Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2000), 144–167. A more comprehensive model, which includes all three factors, is found in Frank E. Millar and L. Edna Rogers, “Relational Dimensions of Interpersonal Dynamics,” in Michael E. Roloff and Gerald R. Miller (eds.), Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research, Newbury Park: Sage, 1987, 117–139. 232 Cf. Wernsmann, “Identität und Macht in der Ökumene.” 233 This includes measurements of views on the items in Table 4 in representative groups, which would necessitate significant effort in terms of research design, operationalization, statistical analysis, and the like.

94

On Studying Interchurch Relations

Figure 1. A two-dimensional interchurch relations visualization with selected descriptors

(III and IV) appears to be divided while quadrant I may actually contain more internal division and enmity than the friendly but loosely connected diversity of church organizations in quadrant III. Conversely, a perspective of indifference (between III and IV) will downplay not only the real disunion between denominations but may also ignore conflicts (I) and acquiesce to some even more inimical types of interactions between Christian groups. It appears, therefore, that each friendly or neutral type of relationship has corresponding lack-ofharmony types of relations. At the same time, simple dichotomies do not map relational realities well, for remote and close kinds of relationships differ significantly but can each range from positive to highly inimical.

95

Factors and a Typology

Table 4. Descriptors and metaphors for interchurch relations 1. Absorption

2. Acceptance

3. Accommodation

4. Accord 7. Admiration

5. Accusation 8. Affection

6. Acquaintance 9. Affiliation

10. Affinity 13. Aggression

11. Agglomeration 14. Agreement

12. Aggregation 15. Allegiance

16. Alliance 19. Anathematization

17. Amalgamation 20. Ancestor

18. Amity 21. Anger

22. Antagonism 25. Appreciation

23. Antipathy 26. Assent

24. Appeasement 27. Assembly

28. Assimilation 31. Attack

29. Association 32. Aversion

30. Attachment 33. Balance

34. Battle 37. Blend

35. Belonging 38. Bitterness

36. Benevolence 39. Body

40. Bond 43. Church

41. Brotherhood 44. Celebration

42. Business relationship 45. Clan

46. Clash 49. Closeness

47. Class (in society) 50. Club

48. Class (learners) 51. Coalition

52. Coexistence 55. Coldness

53. Cohabitation 56. Collaboration

54. Cohesion 57. Collegiality

58. Combination 61. Committee

59. Comity 62. Communication

60. Commitment 63. Communion

64. Community 67. Complementarity

65. Companionship 68. Compliance

66. Competition 69. Compromise

70. Comradeship 73. Concord

71. Concession 74. Concurrence

72. Conciliation 75. Confederacy

76. Conference 79. Conformity

77. Confidence 80. Confrontation

78. Conflict 81. Congeniality

82. Conglomerate 85. Connection

83. Congregation 86. Conquest

84. Congruity 87. Consensus

88. Consent 91. Contact

89. Consortium 92. Contempt

90. Consultation 93. Contract

94. Control 97. Convergence

95. Controversy 98. Conviviality

96. Convention 99. Cooperation

100. Coordination 103. Covenant

101. Cordiality 104. Criticism

102. Council 105. Culture

106. Defeat 109. Dependence 112. Dialogue

107. Defence 110. Descendant 113. Difference

108. Deference 111. Detachment 114. Disagreement

96

On Studying Interchurch Relations

115. Discord 118. Disharmony

116. Discrepancy 119. Dislike

117. Discrimination 120. Disparity

121. Dispute 124. Dissent

122. Disregard 125. Distance

123. Disrespect 126. Disunity

127. Divergence 130. Divorce

128. Diversity 131. Domination

129. Division 132. Encounter

133. Enmity 136. Esteem

134. Envy 137. Exchange

135. Equilibrium 138. Exclusion

139. Excommunication 142. Faction

140. Extended family 143. Faithfulness

141. Extinction 144. Familiarity

145. Family 148. Feud

146. Federation 149. Fighting

147. Fellowship 150. Flock

151. Following 154. Fusion

152. Forum 155. Generosity

153. Friendship 156. Genocide

157. Goodwill 160. Guerilla

158. Group 161. Guest

159. Guardianship 162. Guidance

163. Guild 166. Helping

164. Harmony 167. Herd

165. Hatred 168. Heresy

169. Heritage 172. Hostility

170. Hierarchy 173. Hostile takeover

171. Hospitality 174. House

175. Harlotry 178. Inclusion

176. Ignorance 179. Incongruity

177. In-laws 180. Incorporation

181. Independence 184. Influence

182. Indifference 185. Institution

183. Inferiority 186. Integration

187. Interaction 190. Intimacy

188. Interest 191. Intolerance

189. Interdependence 192. Irritation

193. Isolation 196. Joint venture

194. Jealousy 197. Kindness

195. Joining 198. League

199. Learning community 202. Loyalty

200. Link

201. Love

203. Manipulation

204. Marriage

205. Membership 208. Misunderstanding

206. Mentorship 209. Mix, mixture

207. Merger 210. Mother-child (Parentchild) relationship

211. Mutual assistance 214. Mutual support

212. Mutual defence 215. Mutual understanding

213. Mutual obligations 216. Mutuality

217. Neighbours 220. Obedience

218. Negotiation 221. Obligation

219. Network 222. Observer relationship

223. Offspring

224. Opposition

225. Oppression

97

Factors and a Typology

226. Organization 229. Pact

227. Orchestra 230. Parasitism

228. Outcast 231. Party / Parties

232. Participation 235. Patchwork, Patchwork family

233. Partition 236. Patron-client relationship

234. Partners / Partnership 237. Peace

238. Persecution 241. Prejudice

239. Pluriformity 242. Protest

240. Power 243. Quarrel

244. Rebellion 247. Reintegration

245. Recognition 248. Rejection

246. Reconciliation 249. Relations

250. Relationship 253. Resentment

251. Relatives 254. Resistance

252. Remoteness 255. Respect

256. Reunification 259. Rivalry

257. Reverence 260. Romantic relationship

258. Revolt 261. Schism

262. Seduction 265. Service

263. Separation 266. Ship

264. Segregation 267. Siblings

268. Sisters / Sisterhood 269. Society 271. Split 272. Step family

270. Solidarity 273. Strained Relationship

274. Struggle 277. Superiority

275. Subjugation 278. Support

276. Submission 279. Suppression

280. Swarm 283. Sympathy

281. Symbiosis 284. System

282. Symmetry 285. Table fellowship

286. Takeover

288. Teamwork

289. Tension

287. Teacher-StudentRelationship 290. Ties

291. Tolerance

292. Treaty 295. Trust (trusting)

293. Tree 296. Trust (cartel)

294. Tribe 297. Unanimity

298. Unification 301. Unison

299. Uniformity 302. Unity

300. Union 303. Variety

304. Violence 307. Warmth

305. Visit / Visitors 308. Warning

306. War 309. Working Group

2.3.2 Factors In classifying phenomena or items, a key issue to be considered is the set of factors that should play a role in this process. In the case of relationships, the factors that have been utilized in major studies differ, but commonly include the dimensions of harmony, distance and power mentioned above, and unsurprisingly, there are echoes of all of these in ecumenics as well. Although there does

98

On Studying Interchurch Relations

not seem to exist a consensus among the scholars dealing with relationships (i. e. mainly social psychologists and sociologists) as to which of these factors are paramount and how they can be used in measuring, categorizing, and conceptualizing relationships,234 there is agreement that relationships must be analysed with due consideration of their multi-faceted nature. Moreover, it is widely agreed that the situation is even more complex when intergroup or interorganizational relations are studied, for here it is not only individuals that relate to each other, but also systems which influence patterns of individuals’ relationships ( just as individuals shape a system’s interactions with corresponding systems). In the case of intergroup relations inside a larger religious tradition, an additional factor to be taken into account is theology. More generally speaking, the ideology of a group, organization or denomination plays a role in many instances of an intergroup relationship, and presumably the importance of this role increases in proportion to the centrality of ideology (i. e. theological convictions, philosophical teachings, or worldview) for the group.235 This evidently means that all organizations or movements that emphasize dogma, doctrine or convictions over experience will be more reserved regarding unitive interchurch relations. At the same time, ideologies in the context and particularly those of other specific entities that a group relates to determine the degree of amity that is possible. The same is true for social factors; one can say, therefore, that relationships consist of the sum of a group’s configuration and its experience of the context combined with ideological factors (cf. Table 5). In the overview of these two sets of factors, it is not difficult to recognize the debate on theological and non-theological factors in the Ecumenical Movement.236 What the conceptualization here suggests, however, is that the “nontheological,” i. e. social factors do not merely reside either in a denominational system or in ecumenical organizations, processes, or phenomena. Of course every group, organization or denomination “produces” social realities, but these realities are all intertwined with contextual realities and with ideological factors. Group ideology and group configuration are mutually dependent, as are the configuration of groups and their experience of the context. All four quadrants are actually linked, and influences can flow in each direction.

234 Cf. the discussion in Nick Haslam, “Categories of Social Relationship,” Cognition 53 (1994), 59–90. 235 Cf. Boldon’s finding that generally 74 % of inter-organizational variance can be explained with organizational variables while in “fundamentalist” groups this figure was only 50 % (and the other 50 % relating to theology). See Boldon, “The Ecumenical Movement in America,” 103, 128. 236 Cf. footnote 69.

99

Factors and a Typology

Table 5. Factors in interpretations and interchurch relations classifications

Inside Churches: Outside Churches:

Ideological factors II. Group ideology Confessional tradition III. Ideology of context Ecumenical theologies

Social factors I. Group configuration Denominational setup IV. Experience of context Interchurch experiences

The manner in which the four quadrants are associated can be expounded more thoroughly with the three social scientific reference fields and theories outlined above: the sociology of religious movements (SRM), Inter-Organizational Relations (IOR), and Relational Models Theory (RMT). SRM inspects the whole system and lays a special emphasis on the interface of the inside and the outside. By explaining the interactions between all relevant movements and demonstrating that diversity and tension is inevitable in religious economies, it sheds light particularly on the dynamic aspects of interchurch relations, i. e. developments, changes and discontinuities. The two columns of Table 5 can be illumined by utilizing insights from the two other research fields. The social factors in the relationship between ecclesial groups can be best elucidated with the help of IOR research, e. g. by analysing the variety of features influencing willingness to cooperate (cf. also Table 1 above) and evaluating interchurch relationships with regard to general classifications of cooperations. RMT, by way of contrast, helps examining the ideological reasons for variegated IC relationships. This may seem a surprising assertion, for this theory explains many aspects of particular social dynamics as well. Yet its main value for studies of interchurch relations is its interpretive potential regarding different ecclesiologies and, thus, theologies of Christian unity. Ecclesiological concepts and ecumenical theories can all be reduced to basic types corresponding to the four basic relational models,237 which is not surprising given the fact that the ultimate grounding of ideology is often a tradition that sanctifies particular values.238 These (cultural or worldview) values are necessarily rather static and provide stability to the religious or cultural systems in which they are embedded. Relational Models Theory can, therefore, serve as an appropriate framework for investigating the ideological core of denominational relational behaviour.

237 See the more detailed discussion in the next section. 238 It does not make much of a difference whether ecclesiologies or relational model (RM) ideals are “primary” or, more generally speaking, whether ideology is a frozen RM preference or RM preferences stem from ideology. This chicken-and-egg problem is not solvable because social realities commonly come with an ideological “kernel,” and ideological (or, more specifically, theological) positions arise in a specific social setting.

100

On Studying Interchurch Relations

2.3.3 A Typology Section 2.2.2 presented a preliminary discussion of the relational content of various concepts and models of unity. The following will build on these observations and expand them in the light of the social scientific points of reference mentioned above. Any reasonable taxonomy of interchurch relationships of an accommodating or amiable kind,239 i. e. relationships building on the basis of a unity concept, must rely on an empirically defensible and sound system of general relational options. In the field of relationships, Relational Models Theory is such a system, and an extremely reliable one: beyond the various empirical tests and applications to diverse fields of research,240 its claim of comprehensiveness has been put to the test in extensive philosophical discussion241 and has even been explored with the help of mathematical theory.242 RMT suggests that there are only four basic types of relationships: Authority Ranking (AR), Equality Matching (EM), Market Pricing (MP), and Communal Sharing (CS).243 Among the eight common concepts of church unity identified above, two correspond to each of these types, and among these two there is always what may be called a radical and a moderate version (see Table 6). The two models with a juridical orientation, organic union (1 – radical) and mutual recognition (2 – moderate), correspond to the Authority Ranking (AR) model, where a relationship is constituted with reference to recognizing an authoritative structure or agreement. This leads to a new institutionalized shape of 239 There are many other IOR options which will not be discussed in detail here. Fuess (“Die Organisation von Kooperationen,” 41–43) categorizes IOR types as follows (numbering, major categories and detail formulations are mine): (A) Direct relationship: relationships of a specific type exist already: (1) Symbiosis – mutual dependency; (2) Barter – two-directional exchange without dependency; (3) Parasitism – one-directional exchange, with only one side benefitting. (B) Indirect relationship: direct and positive relationship is difficult or impossible: (4) Competition for resources or output; (5) Conflict: opposing goals. (C) Relevant for cooperation: common or congruous goals; relationships which are yet to be established: (6) Complementarity – complementary goals; (7) Harmony – common goals. (D) Others – less relevant: (8) Neutrality – goals in different realms, e.g. religion and art; (9) Regulative – one dominates the other (not IOR in the narrow sense). 240 See above, footnotes 203 to 210. 241 John Bolender, Digital Social Mind, Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2011. 242 Fiske, Structures of Social Life, 202–230 (chapter 9, “Semiotic Marking and Relational Structures”). Here Fiske and chapter co-author Scott Weinstein expound that Communal Sharing is an equivalent relation, Authority Ranking expresses linear ordering, Equality Matching follows the rules of an ordered Abelian Group (commutative group), and Market Pricing corresponds to an Archimedean Ordered Field, in which the principle of strict proportionality applies. For a discussion of RMT with the help of insights from physics, see John Bolender, The Self-Organizing Social Mind, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010. 243 For the main content of these models, see Table 2 (“Manifestations and Features of Four Elementary Relational Models”) above.

Factors and a Typology

101

relations either in a united church or in an enduring fellowship of denominations. The fact that much of ecumenical discussion has focused on these two models of actual church union indicates that many church leaders believe these to be the theologically most appropriate ways for Christians to relate. At the same time, the relative scarcity of reunifications and church mergers (and the more prevalent but regionally limited recognition networks, in which little of confessional tradition has to be surrendered) indicates that the AR models have often proved incompatible with the existing constellation of ideological and social factors: either ecumenical convictions clashed with group ideologies and denominational configurations, or thoroughly ecumenical ideas of particular denominations – including the concomitant ecclesiologies, which tend to stress unity over the other notae ecclesiae – did not match with a context that construed proper interchurch relations viz. Christian unity differently. The two concepts that translate Equality Matching (EM) into interchurch relations are the cooperative-federal (3) and the alliance model (4). Here the importance of visible unity still ranks high; however, it is not primarily expressed by an institutionalization of recognition but by attempts to pursue common aims in an organized manner. Thus unity is not sought for its own sake, but because of the assumption that coordinated ministries uniting equal partners are more credible and successful than that of each individual ecclesial group. This EM-related concept of unity has evidently yielded the most tangible results globally, for the World Council of Churches, its national equivalents and a host of other interdenominational organizations aiming at service to humanity and enhancing Christian ministry represent this approach to interdenominational cooperation.244 In other words, cooperative models of unity have provided the largest space for the congruence of group and context ideologies: while joining conciliar or associational manifestations of ecumenism indicates a strong commitment to catholicity and an irenic spirit, denominations can continue to hold on to almost all of what they construe to be their “identities.” Market Pricing-type relationships have rarely been viewed as being expressions of unity so far, and the term “ecumenism of profiles” (5) promoted by Wolfgang Huber245 has initiated some discussion on whether the concept behind it is actually compatible with the consensus of the ecumenical mainstream. Yet like the “forum” model (6), it presupposes a viable relationship in which strategic partnering, open-ended conversation and friendly competition 244 The passionate controversies between WCC ecumenists and Evangelicals in the 1970s and 1980s exemplify the difference between the more radical version of this cooperative type (3 – WCC) and its more moderate version (4 – Evangelical Movement) and thus articulated a Protestant (= Equality Matching) family quarrel rather than an even more general disagreement on unity and church relations. 245 Huber, Im Geist der Freiheit: Für eine Ökumene der Profile, Freiburg: Herder, 2007.

2. RMT Reference models

Authority Ranking radical

moderate

Equality Matching

radical

moderate

Market Pricing radical

moderate

Communal Sharing

radical

moderate

1. Types

A. Juridical (1) organic union

(2) mutual recognition

B. Cooperative

(3) cooperative-federal

(4) alliance model

C. Communicative (5) “ecumenism of profiles”

(6) forum

D. Experiential

(7) “spiritual unity”

(8) “ecumenism of life”

ethical ecumenism, grassroots ecumenism

WCC, NCCs, other conciliar types of ecumenism Bible Societies, interdenominational mission societies

Leuenberg Church Fellowship, Porvoo Communion

United churches, reversed schisms

5. Examples, organizations, movements

research consortium, communication network

symbiosis, informal network

Pietism, mystics, Christian Ashrams, 19th century Disciples of Christ interchurch families

Global Christian Forum, Christian World Communions

friendly competition, stra- denominational alliances tegic alliance (on various levels)

partnership, cooperative

joint venture

systemic production network, cartel

merger, monopoly

4. IOR or networks analogies

revivalism, grassroots ecu- ad hoc alliance menism

conversation, open space

confessional ecumenism

lay movements, voluntary associations

conciliar ecumenism

reconciled diversity; church fellowship

reunion, unification

3. Alternative terminology

Table 6a. A typology of unity concepts and their relational content

102 On Studying Interchurch Relations

(7) “spiritual unity” (8) “ecumenism of life”

prayer, worship everyday activities

conversation

(6) forum

D. Experiential

debate

council resolutions service strategizing

(3) cooperativefederal (4) alliance model

C. Communicative (5) “ecumenism of profiles”

consensus dialogue

unification negotiations

6. Typical activities

(2) mutual recognition B. Cooperative

A. Juridical (1) organic union

Types

fellowship, experience friendship, solidarity

forum, hospitality

patchwork, orchestra

federation, council coalition, partnership

contract, reconciliation

marriage, fusion

7. Relational metaphors

lack of common experience of unity lack of faith lived in common

lack of communication

lack of clarifycation

lack of coordination lack of cooperation

lack of (ecclesial) recognition

lack of unified organization

8. Relational issues in view

Table 6b. A typology of unity concepts and their relational content

very high

extremely high

10. Importance of structural unity

by-product or assumed to subsist already

not in focus; pre-supposed

low

low

not very high

not very high

high Focus or by-pro. duct or moderately high peripheral

primary focus

9. Role of unity

natural, given, spontaneous

interactive, processual

diaconicalmissional

institutional, formal

11. Nature of unity and relationship

high

low

medium or low

medium

12. Closeness aspect of relationship

Factors and a Typology

103

“The whole gospel through the whole church to the whole world”

Evangelicals, Pentecostals / Charismatics

Philippians 4:2 (“I plead with Euodia and … Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord.”) Mark 9:40 (“Whoever is not against us is for us.”)

Ephesians 4:3 (“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”)

1 Corinthians 1:13 (“Is Christ divided?”)

15. Emblematic biblical references

(8) “ecumenism of life”

(7) “spiritual unity”

D. Experiential

(6) forum

groups with a congregational polity, non-denominational groups, individuals in all traditions individuals in all traditions

Evangelicals, Independents, Pentecostals / Charismatics, Postliberals

“In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity”

“We are one in the Spirit”

“Unity in diversity”

John 13:35 (“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”)

Matthew 18:20 (“Where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”)

Matthew 7:1 (“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”)

C. Communicative (5) “ecumenism Conservatives of all backgrounds, Evan- “Speaking the truth in love” Philippians 1:18 (“The important thing is that in of profiles” gelicals, Pentecostals every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.”)

“We intend to stay together”

Anglicans, Protestants

(3) cooperativefederal (4) alliance model

“Visible unity”

Anglicans, Roman Catholics

Anglicans, Mainline Protestants, Ortho- “What unites us is greater dox, Roman Catholics than what divides us”

14. Slogans applicable

13. Chief advocates

(2) mutual recognition B. Cooperative

Types A. Juridical (1) organic union

Table 6c. A typology of unity concepts and their relational content

104 On Studying Interchurch Relations

negative a scandal

a historical reality to be mended

significant

unavoidable, problematic

instruments of ministry

positive important for identity

to be acknowledged insignificant

irrelevant of secondary importance

A. Juridical (1) organic union

(2) mutual recognition

B. Cooperative

(3) cooperative-federal

(4) alliance model

C. Communicative (5) “ecumenism of profiles”

(6) forum D. Experiential

(7) “spiritual unity” (8) “ecumenism of life”

oneness hierarchy

18. Ecclesiological emphases

disciples, the elect, remnant aroma, exiles, friends, salt

citizens, people of God

ambassadors, letter from Christ, light, witnesses

assembly (ecclesia), household, nation army, servants

mystical body fruit & gifts of the Spirit

exchange holiness

apostolicity witness

ministry

comity

branches of the vine, brotherhood, authority family, tree catholicity

ark, body, temple

17. Biblical metaphors for the Church

N.B. Some of the terms in column 4 (IOR / networks analogies) have been taken from Catherine Alter and Jerald Hage, Organizations Working Together, Sage Library of Social Research 191, Newbury Park: Sage, 1993, 51, 60–61, and Fuess, “Die Organisation von Kooperationen,” 51. It should be noted that these, as well as the terms used for the types and those in the metaphor column, are often used with varying meanings. The biblical metaphors for the Church have been selected from Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament.

16. Denominations are…

Types

Table 6d. A typology of unity concepts and their relational content

Factors and a Typology

105

106

On Studying Interchurch Relations

do not exclude one another.246 While unity of purpose – being God’s witnesses in the world – is presupposed, it is diversity that is emphasized. Different from AR interactions, MP relationships do not need an authoritative code of reference or an Archimedean point; thus they are much less stable but certainly more flexible. Here unity is, therefore, more a description of a process of debating appropriate contextualizations of apostolicity (and its various confessional constructions) than a structure; how the configuration of a group and its context interrelate can be redefined when new experiences suggest change. This change is not necessarily of an organizational nature, but will concern the discourse that associates the group’s tradition with the thought prevalent in the environment. Communal Sharing vocabulary, finally, is probably most frequently invoked in ecumenical rhetoric. However, CS designates a relational sphere that is as distinct from emphases on institutional unity (AR) and conversation (with an MP tendency) as it is from cooperation (EM), for it presupposes the givenness of unity to an extent that is foreign to the other approaches to interchurch relations. Its two varieties, spiritual unity (7) and “ecumenism of life” (8) constitute important spaces for the interaction of those representing different ecclesiastical traditions. At the same time, one must understand that such interactions do not automatically increase the potential for an ecumenical spill-over into any of the other three logics of interchurch relations; after all, experiences in the CS realm often happen because the denominations are viewed as irrelevant or of little importance anyway. Thus interchurch relationships developing along Communal Sharing patterns often lack the vigour of influencing larger settings; because ideological aspects of ad hoc or grassroots groups tend to be weak or at least fluid, they will hardly be able to make a significant impact on the thinking on the environment. Only when revivalist or other groups of spiritual energy form themselves into a more lasting and viable association can they influence a larger community – but risk losing their spiritual emphasis with its liquid ecclesiology, inclusive setup and nonauthoritarian structure. As a whole, the four relational models also shed light on the variety of negative, neutral and positive interactions between Christian movements. On a two-dimensional graph constructed by axes defined as “harmony” and “distance” as in Figure 1 five distinct types of churches’ positive and neutral interrelationship, as

246 This is similar to what Michael Root called “friendly division with permeable borders” in his article “The Unity of the Church and the Reality of the Denominations,” Modern Theology 9.4 (1993), 385–401 (the formulation is found in a heading on p. 386).

107

Factors and a Typology

well as three types of negative relations emerge (Figure 2).247 While RMT research has established the four relational models as independent variables (hence items cannot be fully captured in a two-dimensional model), a simplified application, which does not claim an exact identification of the ideal types presented here with relational models248 but points to significant analogies, appears to be the following:249

1: unity

3: uniformism

(CS)

(AR)

II

close

2: congruity

III

friendly

5: discord

I inimical

remote

(EM)

(MP)

4: diversity

6: pluralism

7:antagonism

IV 8: division

Figure 2. Ideal types of inter- and intra-church relations

The “unity” type (1), which combines closeness and harmony, corresponds to Communal Sharing, where harmony is much valued and closeness exists by definition as group members are highly interdependent. Evidently this kind of relationship exists mainly among relatives, intimate friends, and similar clusters, where physical closeness and deep trust is possible. Diversity (4), by way of contrast, coincides with Equality Matching, where goodwill is as important as in as in the CS model, but is realized with some distance between the individuals or particular groups entering the relationship. One important insight here is that

247 This (slightly adapted) graph and its rationale are further discussed and substantiated in Stefan Höschele, “Defining Ecumenics Fifty Years after Mackay,” Communio Viatorum 55.2 (2013), 133. 248 Different from the relational models, for which Fiske and other researchers claim cognitive categoriality, the Weberian ideal types referred to here are abstractions, which implies that the existence of a pure form is not asserted. 249 These analogies resemble the findings of Houde et al., “The Four Faces of Trust.” Here the authors demonstrate that there are four types of trust, which roughly correspond to the four Relational Models: deep interdependence (CS; cf. “unity” in Figure 2), shallow interdependence (EM; cf. “diversity”), shallow independence (MP; cf. “pluralism”), and deep dependence (AR; cf. uniformism). For a more detailed discussion of these identifications, see ibid., 288–291.

108

On Studying Interchurch Relations

friendly relations do not need closeness as a foundation; this is why EM is the most common way of achieving harmony without reducing differences. Pluralism (6) is analogous to Market Pricing: there is no closeness, but some degree of dependence on the Other to uphold the relationship in an overall context where centrifugal forces are strong. The fact that interaction can be halted at any time indicates the sensitive nature of unity in such a setting. Uniformism (3), on the other hand, broadly corresponds to Authority Ranking, where a relationship is established with reference to a duly accepted decision maker, marking the dependence of the parties involved upon certain entities appointed to speak or act for them. The term “uniformism” has been chosen because in an ideal type this authority has considerable power and can establish all the criteria for defining or creating a relationship. What of the remaining types? The three negative relationship conditions on the right – discord, antagonism and division – describe variants of the “Null” relationship, i. e. the absence of any relational quality or conditions when one group ignores the other, the main difference between the three being spatial: inter-ecclesial (8) or intra-ecclesial (5). The type on the extreme left, congruity (2), finally, expresses unity in diversity – an ideal rarely realized this side of the eschaton, but certainly the kind of oneness that the Christian Church is called to reflect: a reasonable degree of average closeness and essentially positive relationships. Theologically speaking, it is certainly permissible to argue that such a situation, in which the various relationship models are combined or complement each other, ultimately reflects the primacy of the Kingdom of God over human conceptions of church. Beyond merely illuminating and classifying different types of interchurch relations and the common concepts of unity, the benefit of Relational Models Theory for ecumenics is its applicability to various other descriptions and interpretations of the relationship between denominations. In terms of Inter-Organizational Relations, for instance, RMT indicates that all four major options do not simply occur by chance but actually have a rationale couched in ideology. Moreover it is worth noting that interchurch relations range from mergers through various types of more or less permanent partnerships to rather loose, network-like cooperations and alliances,250 and therefore cover the whole range of IOR options available in the larger context of organizational ecologies, not only the two whose ecumenical equivalents are referred to mostly in the ecumenical discourse, i. e. AR and EM.251 250 See Table 6, col. 4. 251 An interesting analogy is found in Sheppard and Tuchinsky, “Interfirm Relationships”: they point out that traditional organizational behaviour research (which focused on business firms) has almost exclusively focused on MP (business!) and AR; they emphasize,

Factors and a Typology

109

Similarly, an RMT perspective on interchurch relations enhances the interpretative contributions to ecumenics that the sociology of religious movements can generate. As mentioned earlier, SRM is useful in interpreting the whole of interactions in religious economies as well as the dynamics effected by and affecting individual players (“religious firms”) in their respective contexts. While “churches” have little tension with the environment, sect-like movements are in high tension with society and, therefore, with other religious movements. But what does this mean for the relational grammars of such religious movements? The churches’ low tension with their environment does not necessarily lead to a propensity towards organic union, for AR presupposes structures of authority and acceptance of these authorities which are often stronger in sect-type groups. Mutual recognition (moderate AR) and, frequently, cooperative-federal unity (radical EM) are more likely ways of relating to other churches because lacking tension is not at all the same as enthusiasm for relinquishing one’s routines. The high tension with society engendered by sects (such as the earliest Seventh-day Adventist movement) can also be mapped with the help of RMT. Sects produce an intimate CS space for their members, which implies that similarly close relationships become unlikely with Christians of other traditions (and even non-Christians). The conflict with the larger religious sphere may be interpreted as a controversy regarding authority (AR!), making any move toward mutual recognition or organizational unification virtually impossible. Even cooperative models (EM) are hardly applicable for a thoroughly sectarian group, whereas a communicative relationship of some kind (MP) is mostly unavoidable due to the fact that sectarian groups aim at persuading the outside world of their truth claims. Of course most Christian bodies are far from representing any of the extremes, i. e. “church” and “sect.” The denominations extant in most nations range on a wide spectrum between them and therefore vary in their manners of relating to corresponding movements. In addition to keeping some of the traits of their sectarian past (i. e. a CS and AR intra-church relational grammar), most denominations benefit greatly from cooperative (EM) types of relationships, in which they have to give up little and yet gain much. Thus they “follow a substantive rationality, a course dictated by economic efficiency only as long as there is no interference with certain ultimate values.”252 In other words, organic union and even full ecclesial recognition of other denominations (AR-based interchurch relations) may be no actual option except where only minor differences exist, as was the case in the majority of church unions in the 19th and 20th therefore, that EM and CS are valid and valuable models for the analysis of organizational behaviour as well. 252 Boldon, “The Ecumenical Movement in America,” 183.

110

On Studying Interchurch Relations

century: they were typically based on a common denominational or confessional tradition.253 From an RMT perspective, therefore, it is not surprising that the most successful ecumenical activity has been going on in the realms of cooperation (EM) and conversation (MP).254 While this survey of the multiplicity of relationships and options for interpreting them is merely the beginning of ecumenics done with an RMT perspective, it is the author’s hope that these interpretaments will be useful in future research on ecumenical situations and the relationships of churches. In this study, it is now time to turn to the history of Adventist interchurch relationships.

253 Chaves and Sutton, “Organizational Consolidation in American Protestant Denominations, 1890–1990”; the authors call this phenomenon “endogamy” (ibid., 52). 254 In contradistinction to what may appear institutionally fixated interchurch dynamics in sect, church and denomination type movements, representatives of Troeltsch’s third ideal type of religious groups – mysticism – show some affinity with a CS relational grammar.

3.

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

This chapter describes and analyses the early development of Adventist relationships to other Christians. It traces tributaries that rose in the early American republic and highlights the heritage of the Millerite Adventist Movement, which epitomized many elements that had become typical of American Christianity two generations after independence. Moreover, it explores the development of sabbatarian Adventism from an anti-ecclesiastical movement to a new denomination, which had to relate to other movements and churches in some ways even as its main early challenge was the development into a viable organization. Finally, this chapter discusses the interactions of the infant Seventh-day Adventist Church with other churches and Christian movements from its inception in 1863 to the 1880s – the “sabbatarian ecumenism” evolving in the relationship with the Seventh Day Baptists, the general conflictive climate and developments in the attitude to other Christians. All these early cases and positions were of enduring significance for the denomination’s course of action in the 20th century as well, and they exemplify the complexity of factors involved in the ecumenical stance of an incipient Christian movement.

3.1

Non-Denominationalism and Millennialist Revivalism: The Impact of the Restorationist and Millerite Movements

3.1.1 Interchurch Relationships in Early 19th Century America During the last quarter of the 18th century, Christian churches in the United States of America found themselves relating to one another in a novel context. The newly born nation and its changing religious sphere were as unfamiliar territory as the regions in the West of which the frontier pioneers would take possession in the decades to come. It is not entirely surprising, therefore, that the principle of experimentation soon characterized developments in matters of

112

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

faith: values and attitudes of the recently established democratic political system also spilled over into aspirations, concepts, and experiences in the field of interchurch relations and Christian unity. All in all, the two generations that followed independence were filled with considerable interdenominational competition and strife. This is an unforeseen development given the fact that church members counted less than 25 % of the total population in 1776.255 Since Christianity was the only significant religious influence in the former colonies, one might have expected a joining of forces in attempting to evangelize the non-churched. Yet it was an atmosphere of rivalry that ensued, and one might assume that this should have made churches that were most involved in interchurch bickering unsympathetic and produce little success in terms of missionary outreach and numerical growth. However, the opposite is true; former minority churches – especially Baptists and Methodists – entered a phase of massive and unprecedented quantitative and geographical expansion precisely in these fifty years.256 At least four major factors seem to have contributed to the extensive changes in American Christianity and its internal relationships during this period: disestablishment, egalitarian impulses, frontier revivalism, and new movements. With the exception of four of the thirteen colonies and provinces,257 there had been “established church” systems in each territory, mostly in favour of the Church of England, and in two cases the Congregational Church. Disestablishment took place until 1790 in most states; only in Connecticut and Massachusetts, did full religious liberty become effective in 1818 and 1834, respectively.258 Thus in all but two of these states, as well as in the new regions successively added to the young nation in the same period, old privileges of state support had fallen very soon, which naturally led to a new setup in the way the denominations related to one another. The concomitant change of religious culture was significant and paralleled the general cultural paradigm shift from a hierarchical, authority-conscious colonial setup to a “free market” sphere. What is more, it was the most evangelistic, egalitarian movements with a simple message and a revivalistic approach that appealed to the unchurched masses as well as to the frontier folks who often did not enjoy religious services 255 Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America, 1776–2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005, 31, indicates 17 % total membership in religious organizations (20 % among the Whites and between 7 and 26 % in the various states, almost all in Christian churches). By 1850, the overall rate of religious adherence had grown to 34 %; by 1926, it reached 56 %. 256 For an overview of this period, see Edwin Gaustad and Leigh Schmidt, The Religious History of America, New York: HarperOne, 2004, 121–161. 257 These were Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Rhode Island. 258 Congregationalism had been the established church in Connecticut, and Massachusetts had a parish church system, in which local majorities decided about denominational belonging.

Non-Denominationalism and Millennialist Revivalism

113

from any settled pastor. Combining this thrust with the anti-traditionalism and democratic ideology typically associated with the pioneer spirit of the era, the most promising versions of Christian faith in such environments were those in which uneducated but committed and creative leaders could play the role of planters and builders rather than serving as pastors and theologians.259 This, of course, did not please leaders of the more reputable churches with their collegetrained clergy – but what could they do? Ultimately the Baptists, Methodists, as well as new religious movements of the restorationist kind would also influence the less enthusiastic and dynamic denominations such as the Congregationalists and Presbyterians. In the 1830s, the final years of what has been called the “Second Great Awakening,” revivalism reached the latter as well, especially in the person of Presbyterian lay preacher Charles Finney, and eventually the denominational conflicts over souls, shifts in regional influence, and the shape of religion deemed proper also decreased in intensity.260 The motifs behind these conflicts, however, would reappear in later movements such as Adventism, the Holiness Movement and Pentecostalism. In the course of only two generations, therefore, new relationships evolved between Christians and their organizations as patterns of religious practice took on a significantly more evangelistic, emotional and experimental shape. As much as certain phenomena such as the Methodist circuit riders were typical of a specific denominational tradition, other developments of the era swept almost the whole Christian landscape in many regions of the expanding nation: extempore preaching, campmeetings, revivalism, holiness theology, popular songs, and millennialism all became the standard repertoire of preachers and activists in a variety of movements. For all the peculiarities of budding churches, there existed in such practices and thought patterns a strand of non-denominationalism uniting Christians in ways that ignored much of traditional ecclesial authority structures.261 It is merely the logical consequence of such sentiments that Restorationists of the Stone-Campbell Movement (“Disciples,” “Christians”) and, in New England, the associated Christian Connection claimed that they were no denomination at all. They initially tried to renew Christianity from within by seeking unity while eschewing church organization above the level of congregations.262

259 An excellent analysis of this period is presented by Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. 260 Ibid., 195–201. 261 Ibid., passim (especially chs. 1, 2, 6, and 8). 262 On the Restorationist Movement, see Douglas A. Foster, Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams (eds.), The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

114

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Altogether, 19th century American Christians developed a curious mixture of cooperative and competitive elements in interdenominational interactions. Most of the divisions in European Christianity had been replicated in the New World, and religious innovation added to the rainbow of ecclesiastical organizations almost immediately after independence. While the issue of slavery did not divide churches until mid-century, the years before the Civil War saw a “recrudescence of sectarian bitterness”263 in attempts to attract followers. Yet a multitude of nondenominational voluntary societies was established in the same period to promote missionary and reform goals – the distribution of the Bible and Christian literature, supporting Christian education and Sunday Schools, and lobbying for temperance, peace, and abolition.264 As in Europe, these causes were often linked to revival advocates;265 what was stronger in the American context was a disregard of traditional confessionalisms and the concomitant conviction that Christianity could be reinvented both in practice and in terms of ecclesial or para-ecclesial organization. The evolution of the religious economy in early postcolonial America is crucial for understanding the Adventist story, especially for this movement’s attitude to other ecclesiastical organizations. Nathan Hatch’s interpretament – “democratization” – is particularly useful in clarifying the dynamics that characterized American Christianity in this period; it implies (1) a shift of membership growth towards former minority churches with an appeal to the common people, and (2) a change in religious culture towards popular types of practice as well as an associated ideology. Hatch demonstrates that the prevailing opinion after independence favoured enterprising individuals of little education whose religious message appealed to other simple folks and who insisted that everyone could think for himself. Such lay movements were, therefore, highly critical of established religion and typically combined the “Bible as the only creed” slogan with a disdain for tradition.266 Adventism built on this young but robust American alternative tradition, which took democratic values in religion for granted and started from the premise that individuals had the right to frame their own biblical theology and the responsibility for doing so. 263 Winfred E. Garrison, “Interdenominational Relations in America before 1837,” Papers of the American Society of Church History 9 (1934), 59 (quotation) and 87 (on slavery). 264 Donald H. Yoder, “Christian Unity in Nineteenth-Century America,” in Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 235–236. Some examples: the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission was founded in 1810; the American Bible Society in 1816, and the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance in 1826. It should be noted, though, that some denominations opposed these voluntary societies or set up their own, especially the Methodists and Baptists. 265 Cf. Ruth Rouse, “Voluntary Movements and the Changing Ecumenical Climate,” in Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 309–316. 266 Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, passim.

Non-Denominationalism and Millennialist Revivalism

115

On the level of relationships between Christians and churches, the religious democratization that this culture offered implied a noticeable change from the predominant Authority Ranking outlook in the established religious organizations. What the upcoming “democratic” sects and denominations offered was nothing less than a radical reinvention of the religious sphere, which included a sweeping shift of preferred relational modes among believers and, by implication, a new standard of how loyalties were to be negotiated in this pluralistic setup. In terms of Relational Models Theory, the growing religious movements applied the egalitarian (Equality Matching) and demand-oriented (Market Pricing) principles which the new democratic culture extolled;267 for interchurch relationships, this generally meant disdain for traditional claims on parishes and a predominantly competitive approach. While on the surface it seemed that the point of reference was merely changing from time-honoured authorities – bishops, synods, tradition, creeds – to the Bible, in reality it was charismatic leaders with their interpretations of biblical texts whose influence was now decisive. Therefore, somewhat ironically, new authorities rose to prominence by appealing to egalitarianism and freedom of inquiry but in a manner that was often as authoritarian as earlier religious leaders. All the same, the cultural tide turned against what was felt to be the preindependence establishment; the consequence in terms of interchurch relations was an open religious economy, in which the most competitive religious “firms” succeeded in winning their share of a vast market of unchurched citizens.

3.1.2 The Millerite Movement and the Denominations268 These processes extended over two generations but slowed down in the 1820s and 1830s.269 It is significant that the Millerite Adventist revival began when the diverse democratic Christian movements had become somewhat established270 267 One example found in Hatch’s book will illustrate this further. On a leading Baptist lay evangelist, John Leland, he explains, “Using plain language and avoiding doctrinal refinements, he proclaimed a divine economy that was atomistic [EM] and competitive [MP] rather than wholistic [CS] and hierarchical [AR]. This kind of liberal individualism [EM and MP] could be easily embraced at the grass roots. Ordinary people gladly championed the promise of personal autonomy as a message they could understand and a cause to which they could subscribe.” (Ibid., 101) 268 This section and the following (3.1.3) contain portions of my previously published chapter “On the Ecumenical and Separating Potential of Revivals: A Case Study of the Millerite Movement,” in Peter de Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf (eds.), Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012, 337–355. Materials taken from that chapter are not rendered in quotation marks. Copyright: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt Leipzig. Used by permission.

116

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

and moved from a sectarian setup to a more church-like identity. William Miller’s movement combined elements from the very traditions which had been most successful in popularizing Christianity since American independence: Methodists, Baptists, and the “Christians.”271 At the same time, it reacted against what its protagonists viewed as a mood of cosiness that was increasingly becoming visible in these very movements.272 In order to understand Seventh-day Adventists and their attitudes to other churches, it is crucial to consider the impact of both these antecedents and the Millerite Movement.273 Millerites built on the “democratic” churches and currents, and Seventh-day Adventists in turn inherited Miller’s approach to interpreting the Bible, carried on much of the apocalyptic rhetoric of his followers, based their reasoning on experiences in the Millerite Movement, constructed their theology with reference to it, and initially recruited its followers uniquely among Millerites. Thus the later Seventh-day Adventists tended to interpret crucial aspects of eschatology through Millerite lenses and configured their relations to other denominations according to patterns of its radical wing. It all began with William Miller’s 1816 reconversion from Deism to the Baptist Faith of his youth in the revivalist atmosphere of the period. In the following years, Miller applied his rationalist common sense philosophy to an 269 “By 1840 populist dissent had diminished in American Christianity.” (Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, 16). 270 Ibid., 93: “By the 1840s, the Methodist church in America had undertaken its own pilgrimage to respectability”; cf. also ibid., 193–195, 201–209. These dynamics of evolving into an “established” denomination would soon lead to the formation of the more radical Wesleyan Methodists, Free Methodists, and, later, the Nazarenes and Pentecostals. 271 Of the leading Adventist lecturers, four were Baptists, six Methodists, five belonged to the “Christians” movement, one each came from a Presbyterian and Episcopalian background, and two were Congregationalists; see David T. Arthur, “ ‘Come out of Babylon’: A Study of Millerite Separatism and Denominationalism, 1840–1865,” Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1970, 14. Everett N. Dick, William Miller and the Advent Crisis, 1831–1844, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1994, 166, calculates that of 174 Millerite preachers (“lecturers”) with an identifiable religious background, 44.3 % were Methodists, 27 % Baptists, 9 % Congregationalists, 8 % Christians, and 7 % Presbyterians. 272 William Miller to Truman Hendryx, October 26, 1837, quoted in David L. Rowe, Thunder and Trumpets: Millerites and Dissenting Religion in Upstate New York, 1800–1850, AAR Studies in Religion 38, Chico: Scholars, 1985, 9, deplored the “great change in our [Baptist] ministry within 30 years” and concluded that preaching was “no more than a trade.” 273 There are about a dozen major academic studies on the Millerite Advent movement and its various aspects; among the most important are Rowe, Thunder and Trumpets; Ronald L. Numbers and Jonathan M. Butler (eds.), The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993 [1st ed. 1987]; George R. Knight, Millennial Fever and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism, Boise: Pacific Press, 1993; and David L. Rowe, God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Non-Denominationalism and Millennialist Revivalism

117

intense study of the Bible. Although he had come to the conviction that the world’s history would soon end through Christ’s Second Coming, he did not preach about this until 1831. When he continued doing so throughout the 1830s in some rural areas of New England, small local revivals accompanied his presentations. Only in 1840 did this personal initiative begin to develop into a movement through meetings in larger cities, conferences, magazine publications and a constantly increasing number of preachers from various Protestant denominations who accepted his reasoning and propagated the message that Jesus would return very soon. By 1842, one could speak of a large-scale movement. Millerites had begun to hold camp meetings and expanded throughout the developing American nation. Naturally, the years 1843 and 1844 became the climax. From the beginning, Miller had announced that he believed Christ would return to the earth “about A.D. 1843.” When this did not happen by the end of the Jewish year (i. e. March 21, 1844), recalculations in August on the basis of Daniel 8:14274 led the majority of Millerites to enthusiastically embrace October 22, 1844 (the Jewish Day of Atonement) as the date of the parousia. About 50,000 faithful prepared for the event275 but were bitterly disappointed. Miller presented a novel reading of the scriptures, but it was firmly rooted in the religious culture of the time. Thus his interpretations were at first welcomed by ministers of various denominations. His 800 lectures in the 1830s added new members to most of the churches he toured and stirred many of those who already belonged to Christian congregations to commit themselves more strongly to their faith, thus enhancing the conversionist element in the churches’ life. The logic behind this supra-denominational venture was that Christ’s impending Second Coming made confessional differences unimportant: apocalypticism could produce a peculiar but effective kind of ecumenism. The dynamics of separatism evolving later have been described as a journey changing Miller’s followers “from ecumenists to come-outers.”276 Yet the movement started with the conviction of William Miller that his concern would be welcomed by all (or at least by all Protestant) Christians. His initial acceptance by ministers of different denominations and the broad alliance 274 The 2300 days mentioned there (in the King James Version), interpreted to imply 2300 prophetic years to begin in 457 B.C., underwent a slightly corrected calculation, which ended a year later than originally thought. 275 More than half a million persons attended Millerite camp meetings between 1842 and 1844; see Milton Lee Perry, “The Role of the Camp Meeting in Millerite Revivalism, 1842–1844,” Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1994, i. 276 Wayne Judd, “From Ecumenists to Come-Outers: The Millerites 1831–1845,” Adventist Heritage 11.1 (1984), 3–12; cf. Arthur, “ Come out of Babylon.” Both studies focus on the separatist dynamics provoked by the Millerites.

118

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

forming into a movement in the early 1840s seemed to confirm his optimism. A biblical teaching found in the Apostolic Creed, so Miller and his followers felt, would certainly unite Jesus’ followers from diverse backgrounds. Thus wrote Joshua Vaughan Himes, second in importance in the movement and its key promoter, in the leading Millerite paper, Signs of the Times, in 1840, Our fellow labourers are among the choicest of the faithful in Christ from among all denominations. We know no sect, or party as such, while we respect all … Our object is to revive and restore the ancient faith, to renew the ancient landmarks …We have no purpose to distract the churches with any new inventions, or get to ourselves a name by starting another sect among the followers of the Lamb. We neither condemn, nor rudely assail, others of a faith different from our own, nor dictate in matters of conscience for our brethren, nor seek to demolish their organizations; nor build new ones of our own … nor do we refuse any of these, or others of divers faith, whether Roman or Protestant, who receive and heartily embrace the doctrine of the Lord’s coming in his kingdom.277

Denominations were, therefore, not to be viewed as negative per se.278 At the same time, for these Advent enthusiasts the eschatological horizon clearly relativized the ecclesiastical establishment.279 It was not only interpretation of prophecy which contributed to such sentiments. North American Christianity in the early and mid-19th century was pregnant with scepticism about denominationalism. Various streams of the Restorationist Movement emphasized the necessity of laying aside all dogmas, creeds, “sectarian” (i. e. denominational) organization and even denominational names and to gather as “Christians” only.280 The Millerites were more moderate and pragmatic ecclesiologically because of their focus on the parousia, but they borrowed a significant amount of restorationist reasoning and style: their publications are replete with criticism of “sectarianism” and “creeds” and, increasingly, of the religious establishment.281 With several of the leading Millerites, 277 “Our Course,” Signs of the Times, November 15, 1840, 126. 278 Although Millerites shared the 19th-century anti-Catholicism common in North America, it is noteworthy that the first Millerite general conference spoke respectfully of Roman Catholics with the same formulation as in the quote above; see “Circular: The Address of the Conference on the Second Advent of the Lord, Convened at Boston, Mass., October 14, 1840,” Signs of the Times, November 1, 1840, 117. 279 This is also why delegates at the Adventist first “general conference” of 1840 could take the Lord’s Supper together without any problem; see “The General Conference,” Signs of the Times, November 1, 1840, 115. 280 The Disciples of Christ, the Churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches with a total membership of more than 2.5 million are today’s heirs of this movement. Cf. Foster et al., The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. 281 Miller formulated in his personal confession of faith, “Art. XVI. I believe that before Christ comes in his glory, all sectarian principles will be shaken, and all the votaries of the several sects scattered to the four winds; and that none will be able to stand but those who are built on the word of God.” (Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller, Boston: Himes, 1853,

Non-Denominationalism and Millennialist Revivalism

119

including Joshua Himes, coming from a Christian Connection background, this is not surprising. In fact, Miller’s movement may well be considered as a kind of restorationism with an increased apocalyptical content. Like the various groups of “Christians” and the Disciples of Christ, the revival was an ecumenical experiment, only diverging from them in that its motivation was connected with an alternative eschatology. One key difference from the essentially separatist Christians movement was, however, that Adventists managed to strike a delicate balance – at least for some time – between emphasizing their particular concern and message to the churches and the need to cooperate with them. Thus an August 1841 action plan originating in the movement’s second general conference advised adherents to form prayer meetings as well as Bible classes to study matters related to Christ’s Second Coming, but stressed their duty of remaining within existing churches and working inside them rather than severing membership ties.282 As far as its leaders were concerned, the movement was not to become divisive but a cause that would stir up all the churches. At the same time, one must not overlook the fact that a critical distance from all organized denominations was inherent in Miller’s reasoning. The assumption that true Christians were found in all churches and viewing the division of “sects” as “the last sign” before the parousia (as the fulfilment of a prophecy on “the scattering of the holy people”; Dan 12:7) were two sides of the same coin. Miller argued, How are they to be scattered? I answer, … by dividing the people of God into parties, divisions and subdivision [sic] … Yea, the sects are all divided now. Presbyterians are divided into Old and New School … Congregationalists are divided between Orthodox and Unitarian, old and new measures, Unionists, etc. Methodists are divided between Episcopal and Protestant. Baptist[s] are divided between old and new measures, Antimasons, Campbellites, open and close communion, etc. etc. Quakers are divided between Orthodox and Hicksites; and thus might we go on and name the divisions and subdivisions of all sects who have taken Christ for their captain.283

In Miller’s apocalyptic thinking, Christian disunity was not only a scandal but also a symptom of a world approaching its end, a “conclusive sign by which we may know we live on the eve of finishing the prophecies.”284

79.) At the same time, Miller remained a Baptist and never intended to leave his denomination. 282 “Circular,” Signs of the Times, August 2, 1841, 70. 283 William Miller, Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ, about the Year 1843, Boston: Himes, 1842, 113. 284 Ibid., 112.

120

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

3.1.3 Effects of Separatism and the “Great Disappointment” As time developed, and especially as the oft-announced year 1843 approached, the stress on Christ’s near advent assumed increasing prominence. Some of the movement’s leaders underlined the time factor; others resisted. Miller had somewhat naïvely assumed that his proclamation would be received by every sincere believer, but as the distance to the awaited parousia shrank and the majority of Christians rejected the movement’s reasoning, the very message of Millerites that they hoped to become a uniting factor among the denominations began to separate them from other Christians. The interdenominational revival was becoming disruptive; it began to follow the very “sectarian” path that its protagonists denounced – even if they did not seem to realize this. Conflicts with the church establishment stemmed in part from Himes’ aggressive leadership from 1840 onward. Different from Miller, who had only responded to invitations, his younger associate opened activities in big towns even when local denominational leadership did not welcome the movement’s presence. Opposition to the Advent folks intensified because of the very content of the premillennial preaching (which differed from the generally accepted postmillennialism of the times) and its concomitant calculations. Even though many of those who argued with Millerites thought their beliefs not to be heretical, only somewhat odd, the “time” question, i. e. the assumption that the Second Coming could be determined mathematically, led quite understandably to much debate; after all, a statement of Jesus himself on the question appears in the Gospels (see Matt. 24:36). Although the main Millerite leaders themselves were divided on the time issue,285 it assumed increasing importance as the year 1843 approached. The development of what was perceived as a distinct Adventist identity was a gradual but one-way process of merely four years. Although any intention of forming an organized body of believers had been denied at the outset, the increasing focus on a specific year (and, later, a specific date) and the experiences connected with the Advent revival led to a situation which implied for some a point of no return. After all, the interdenominational identity of the movement was only one face of the innovative and restorationist sphere connected with their millennial views. This is also visible in the fact that many of the movement’s protagonists came from the ranks of vigorous reformers and anti-slavery activists. The “historical affinity” of “abolitionists and temperance advocates with the Adventist cause”286 observed by various interpreters of the movement implied 285 Arthur, “Come out of Babylon,” 29. 286 Stephen D. O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, 207; cf. also Ronald Graybill, ‘The Abolitionist-Millerite Connection’, in Numbers and Butler, The Disappointed, 139–152. The logic behind the

Non-Denominationalism and Millennialist Revivalism

121

that the revival carried in itself a tremendous critical potential and a degree of radicalism that could not be easily tamed. Thus the fact that earlier evangelistic cooperation with the churches could transmute into the complete rejection of ecclesiastical authorities is not surprising. As in other revival movements, distance from the churches developed in small steps. The fact that the 1841 action plan exhorted believers to remain in their churches also indicates that some must have considered alternatives. By 1842, Second Advent Associations had been created in the largest cities, New York and Philadelphia, to organize worship services on Sunday afternoons. Similar groups were formed in 1843 in other larger towns. By initiating newspapers, conferences, camp meetings, prayer groups, and these associations, the movement grew into an increasingly well-organized network.287 The more organized such a movement becomes, however, the more challenging inter-organizational relations become when there is no well-established cooperative pattern that can be followed. In the Adventist case, time pressure and the conviction regarding the soon eternal separation between the saved and the damned evidently added to the development of strong boundaries.288 The next phase began in 1843, when a growing number of Miller’s followers were excommunicated by their respective churches.289 In this critical phase, the earlier irenic attitude of Miller and his moderate associates in leadership gave way to diverging voices. An increasing number of churches turned against Millerism in a seemingly irrevocable manner. Adventists responded in a fourfold way in their reasoning about those who continued to belong to any denomination: (1) Some, like Miller himself, urged the Advent believers to stay in their churches; (2) others declared denominational membership a matter of individual conscience; (3) some advised withdrawal for practical reasons; and (4) the most radical leaders insisted that leaving the churches had now become a divinely sanctioned necessity.290 Among the radicals, the outstanding figure was Charles Fitch, a prominent Millerite preacher of Congregationalist origin. He was a friend of the well-known holiness advocates Walter and Phoebe Palmer and had been associated with Presbyterian revivalist Charles G. Finney in the 1830s, but by 1842 he engaged

287 288 289 290

affinity was that many reformers considered Jesus’ return as the fulfilment of all reform endeavours. Arthur, “Come out of Babylon,” 27–28. In a Relational Model Theory perspective, this is a natural occurrence: the strongest group identity results from a Communal Sharing relationship (reflected in the revivalist sense of unison), which implies, at the same time, the most pronounced distinction from out-groups. For a detailed autobiographical account of such a case, see Ellen G. White, Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1915, 43–53. Arthur, “Come out of Babylon,” 48–80.

122

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

in debates with him and the Oberlin College faculty which revealed that he and his former colleagues had developed what they viewed as very divergent sentiments in terms of eschatology.291 It was probably such experiences that finally prompted Fitch in the summer of 1843 to preach and publish a sermon entitled “Come out of Her, My People.”292 This reference to and interpretation of Revelation 18:1–5 expressed most clearly how far many Millerite Adventists had moved from their original conciliatory stance vis-à-vis the churches: Fitch identified the whole of Protestantism with “Babylon” and “Antichrist” together with Roman Catholicism. He argued that the churches were all “opposed to the personal reign of Christ,”293 i. e. did not believe in his literal Second Coming (and its specific time), and were thus unprepared to meet him;294 moreover, to him their “fall” was evident in that Christians of the various denominations aimed at “accumulation of wealth,” were characterized by “lust for gold” and did not reject slavery.295 Employing some of the contemporary restorationist rhetoric, he opposed the proliferation of “sects” and creeds and even suggested that they might fulfil the prophecy of Revelation 13:8 by having reached 666 in number. These views were very different indeed from those stated at the first Millerite general conference less than three years before: “We are not of those who sow discord among brethren, who withdraw from the fellowship of the churches, who rail at the office of the ministry, and triumph in the exposure of the errors of a secular and apostate church.”296 Not all Millerites followed Fitch’s reasoning, but his sermon was widely distributed as a booklet, and by 1844 the radicals had the movement in their hands. Miller’s more ecumenical stance was a thing of the past. Revival movements face a dilemma: if they merely reinforce views or practices already common in a religious context, they tend to be short-lived or of little impact. A radical departure from inherited religion, by way of contrast, may lead to cult formation (as in the case of Mormons, who had started a little earlier but were also inspired by restorationist ideas) or to an addition to the sectarian variety in the religious economy of a society. The Millerites, like revivalists in other eras, had tried to steer a middle course between these two options as long as possible. As Whitney Cross has observed, their teaching was “nearest to strict orthodoxy of all the creations of the period”; Miller’s followers were not dif291 Gluder Quispe, “The Five Stages of Charles Fitch’s Life (1805–1844),” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 12.2 (2009), 167–191. 292 Charles Fitch, Come Out of Her, My People, Rochester: J. V. Himes, 1843. 293 Ibid., 10 (all in capitals in the original). 294 Ibid., 18–19. 295 Ibid., 12, 16. 296 “Circular: The Address of the Conference on the Second Advent of the Lord, Convened at Boston, Mass., October 14, 1840,” Signs of the Times, November 1, 1840, 116.

Non-Denominationalism and Millennialist Revivalism

123

ferent from the mainstream because of a “radical change from traditional notions” but because of their “intensified adherence to them.” Cross even maintains that “[t]heir doctrine was the logical absolute of fundamentalist orthodoxy.”297 This conclusion may be somewhat overstated, but it is true that Millerites were not as strange as some later interpreters have made them.298 It was precisely the North American context where certain parameters were largely agreed upon in the mid-19th century – a literalist biblicism, popularized common sense philosophy,299 and a revivalistic religious culture – that could produce the reasoning of Miller and his movement. Thus by way of a differing interpretation of prophecy, the (optimistic, postmillennialist) logic of the prevailing religious culture was suddenly questioned. The fact that this ultimately led the majority to put in question the very orthodoxy of Miller’s adherents300 shows that an interdenominational movement can easily become sectarian the moment it is rejected by its environment. There is only a fine line between “ecumenical” revivalism and separatism. When the parousia did not take place in October 1844, the movement continued but soon disintegrated, with some of the believers returning to the ecclesial groups they had belonged to, others losing interest in religious matters altogether, and many trying to make sense of their experience while remaining outside of their former churches. There are excellent accounts of ensuing steps leading to the formation of several new denominations;301 what is of importance for this study, however, is the initial phase of a transformation in which a small group of radicals became the major heirs of Millerism. Successor movements to the Millerite revival had several options for dealing with the evident failure of its focus on a particular time for Christ’s return: relativizing, repeating, transforming or theologizing. Many of the moderate leaders in the revival relativized the date-setting and the excitement of 1844, thus stripping Millerism of what they viewed as extremes. By forming the “Evangelical Adventist” denomination, which they considered to be in direct continuity with the movement, the revival was thus giving way to routinization among the Millerite “conservatives.” These 297 Whitney R. Cross, The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800–1850, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1950, 320. Cross’ history is the classic study on the region where the Millerites had a stronghold in 1843 and 1844; he also discusses the Finney Revival, Mormons, Shakers, etc. 298 Clara Endicott Sears, Days of Delusion: A Strange Bit of History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1924, focuses on individuals’ reminiscences of oddities happening in 1843–1844. 299 Cf. Tommy L. Faris, “William Miller: A Common Sense Life,” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2007. 300 Cf. Ruth A. Doan, The Miller Heresy, Millennialism and American Culture, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987. 301 See footnote 305 below.

124

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Evangelical Adventists counted little more than 1,000 members in the late 19th century and disappeared in the following years.302 The repetition of the movement’s prime emphasis in its last year, a stress on Christ’s soon return connected with a particular time founded on a computation of prophetic periods, remained a temptation only for a minority after both spring and autumn 1844 had proved to be incorrect interpretations. However, the fascination with the possibility of finding out details of God’s final intervention in the world by way of arithmetics found new advocates in another notable successor movement – the Bible Student movement, later to become the Jehovah’s Witnesses.303 Its leader, Charles Taze Russell, was influenced by former Millerites who had perpetuated time speculations. A transformation of emphasis is best visible in a second large group of Miller’s followers who later formed the Advent Christian Church. One addition to their firm convictions about the near parousia that became a rallying point was the doctrine of conditional immortality, i. e. “soul sleep” and annihilationism. In the eyes of many, this teaching justified the formation of an independent organization.304 A final option was theologizing the path of the Advent movement. Some included the “Great Disappointment” of 1844 in an interpretation of salvation history. The same individuals soon adopted the Saturday Sabbath as a day of rest, and this group ultimately grew into the largest body resulting from the adherents of Miller. It is these developments that the next section discusses.

3.2

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission: Sabbatarian Adventists and Other Christians, 1844 –1860

3.2.1 Intra-Millerite Relations and the Emergence of Sabbatarians Millerite Groups in 1845 The abrupt end of the Millerite Movement in the “Great Disappointment” of October 23 led to a situation in which its adherents had to find ways to cope not only with thwarted hopes, unexpected practical problems of everyday life, and a theological puzzle, but also with ecclesiological and ecumenical questions. They had to position themselves vis-à-vis their Christian context, ponder options of religious community, and reconcile their eschatological convictions with a reality 302 Knight, Millennial Fever, 329. 303 On the Millerite-Jehovah’s Witnesses connection, see M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2d ed., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997, 14 –20. 304 This denomination still exists and has a little more than 25,000 members.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

125

for which they had no compelling interpretative strategies. It is not surprising, therefore, that both initial responses and later developments diverged significantly among the Millerite Adventists, and that the formerly united movement splintered into various factions.305 Already in early 1845 this division was clearly visible. The first major fault line appeared with regard to the interpretation of “definite time,” i. e. the calculations regarding the parousia. Some attributed the “Seventh Month Movement” – the spread of the idea that Christ would return on October 22, 1844306 – to satanic influences; many considered it a human error, but others believed it had all been God’s guidance.307 Most of those in the first group abandoned their Adventist beliefs, and the moderates in the second were initially the majority. It is among the radicals in the third group that a tendency of experimentation, charismatic experiences, and the search for “new light” developed, providing the seedbed for a sabbatarian movement in the years until 1850. Before new group identities could be shaped, years of instability and fissures would plague the acephalous Adventist community. Some of the major pre-1844 leaders around Miller and Himes made an early attempt at steadying the course of the movement by calling a conference at Albany, New York, in the end of April 1845. Invited were those who professed to “still adhere to the original Advent faith” and who were ready “to unite … efforts for the conversion and salvation of sinners.”308 This left out most of those who belonged to the third group mentioned above, for they commonly believed that there was no more salvific opportunity for “sinners” after October 22.309 The Albany conference was not only significant for its choice of participants; its purpose and resolutions were also clearly polemical. The principal leaders behind the meeting aimed at checking “fanatical” phenomena as well as novel ideas and practices, including those that would later form the core of Seventh-day Adventist identity: ecstatic experiences, sabbatarianism, and alternative explanations of what key leaders considered established points of Millerite inter-

305 The most comprehensive treatment of this period is Arthur, “ Come out of Babylon,” 85– 278 (for the period from 1844 to 1852) and 279–371 (on the years 1850 to 1865, treating the mainline Millerites; thus the precursors of Seventh-day Adventism are mentioned only in passing). For an insightful treatment of the development from 1844 to early sabbatarian Adventism, see George Knight, Millennial Fever and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism, Boise: Pacific Press, 1993, 217–325. 306 The “Seventh Month” referred to the Jewish calendar; the Jewish Day of Atonement, which was deemed the time of fulfilling Daniel 8:14, occurs during this “Seventh Month.” 307 Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller, Boston: J. V. Himes, 1853, 293. 308 Morning Watch, March 20, 1845, 96. 309 This “shut door” view and its implications will be discussed further below.

126

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

pretation.310 With its statement to the public and the moderation it promoted, Albany succeeded in unifying the Adventist majority, yet it also reinforced the division in the movement. Among the radical Adventists, a number of diverging trends appeared soon after the Great Disappointment. There were attempts at spiritualizing the Second Coming ranging from mild to extreme forms,311 idiosyncratic paths followed by individual leaders,312 and a number of novel practices and teachings.313 Moreover, many adopted a modified allegorical interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25, a biblical text that had been regarded as applicable to the Adventist experience even before October.314 According to Joseph Turner, one important Adventist leader and editor of the period, the Millerite experience was a fulfilment of this parable, and the non-return of Jesus indicated that he had gone, as the “bridegroom,” to a heavenly wedding from which he was soon to come to the earth. To this explanation was added that “the door was shut” in the parable (Matt 25:10) must mean that there is no more salvation for those who did not wait for Christ in October 1844. By implication, this signified that the time of waiting for the parousia for the faithful was very short and that Adventist expectations had been essentially correct.315 While not all who accepted “bride310 The conference resolved, among other items, to “have no sympathy or fellowship” with those who make “great pretensions to special illumination” and “for Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth, or for any of the distinctive characteristics of modern Judaism.” Other practices explicitly rejected in the resolution were “the salutation kiss” and “promiscuous feet-washing” – practices that were also common among radicals as well as the earliest sabbatarian Adventists in the following years. See “Mutual Conference of Adventists at Albany,” Morning Watch, May 8, 1845, 151. A follow-up conference held at New York explicitly added “[t]hat we have no confidence in any new messages, visions, dreams, tongues, miracles, extraordinary gifts, revelations, impressions, discerning of spirits, or teachings, &c. &c., not in accordance with the unadulterated word of God.” Morning Watch, May 15, 1845, 158, quoted in Knight, Millennial Fever, 273. 311 Knight, Millennial Fever, 245–255. 312 Samuel S. Snow, the creator of the “Seventh Month Movement,” which focused on October 22, 1844, proclaimed himself to be Elijah the prophet in 1845; Enoch Jacobs, the publisher of the Millerite magazine Day-Star, led a group of Adventists into the Shaker community, a religious group that believed Jesus to have spiritually returned in their founder, Ann Lee, in 1770; cf. ibid., 255–262. 313 Some believed they were immortal already; others held it was sin to work, and again others deserted their families because they were convinced that heavenly rules, where there was no more marrying, already applied; cf. Arthur, “Come out of Babylon,” 120–123. 314 The term “midnight cry,” which is borrowed from this parable in Matthew 25, had been utilized as title of one of the major Millerite magazines since 1842, and the promotion of the parousia date of October 22, 1844, was commonly called “the Midnight Cry” as well; cf. chapter 10 of Knight, Millennial Fever, 187–216 (“The ‘True Midnight Cry’ ”). 315 Apollos Hale and Joseph Turner, “Has not the Savior Come as the Bridegroom?,” Advent Mirror, January 1845, 1–4. For an insightful discussion of this earliest phase of the “shut door” concept, see Merlin D. Burt, “The Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

127

groom” thinking denied the possibility of further conversions, the general tendency among the “Shut Door” viz. “Bridegroom Adventists” was to consider missionary activities among non-Millerites pointless. Such sentiments, combined with an anti-denominational self-understanding of almost all Adventists in the period, obviously meant that one could hardly speak of any kind of interchurch relations: even the missionary function of the church lost its importance now that the kingdom was at hand. The Beginnings of Sabbatarian Adventism The nature and development of shut door concepts among Bridegroom Adventists in general, and among the later sabbatarian Adventists in particular, has been a matter of considerable controversy among scholars,316 but it seems clear that there was a definite spectrum of opinions among the advocates of the “bridegroom view.”317 The main rift appears to have existed between the radical spiritualizers and the more moderate literalists. The spiritualizers believed that in some sense the parousia had already happened or that it would occur in a figurative sense; they consequently denied that there was any more salvific opportunity for non-Millerites – a kind of extra Millerismum nulla salus position. The literalists tended to agree that they had no more mission to the “wicked world” and the “fallen churches,” but did not rule out the possibility that there were still a few “honest souls” or “children of God” in the churches or elsewhere.318 While these positions overlapped in part and individuals’ under-

Role in Sabbatarian Adventism from 1844 to 1849,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2002, 77–82. Although unpublished, this is the most detailed and important study on early sabbatarian Adventism. 316 An apologetic study is Arthur L. White, “Ellen G. White and the Shut Door Question: A Review of the Experience of Early Seventh-day Adventist Believers in Its Historical Context,” TMs, 1982, EGWE; it responds to the critical inquiry by Ingemar Lindén, 1844 and the Shut Door Problem, Studia Historico-Ecclesiastica Upsaliensia 35, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1982. An important yet unpublished comprehensive investigation, to which Lindén’s book tried to respond, is Rolf Pöhler, “ ‘… and the Door Was Shut’: Seventh-day Adventists and the Shut-Door Doctrine in the Decade after the Great Disappointment,” research paper, 1978, Center of Adventist Research, Andrews University (163 + 25 pp.). 317 Cf. Pöhler’s discussion in “ … and the Door Was Shut,” 76–89, which distinguishes extreme and moderate versions of the shut door concept. 318 The phraseology cited here is common in the period: it frequently occurs in correspondence as well as publications, e. g. in various sections of James White, Joseph Bates, and Ellen G. White, A Word to the “Little Flock,” Brunswick: [privately printed], 1847. This pamphlet was crucial in that it was the first to document the unity of the three founders of the later Seventh-day Adventist Church.

128

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

standings changed in the latter part of the 1840s, those who became sabbatarians in this period tended towards the more moderate stance (cf. Table 7).319 Between mid-1845 and early 1846, Bridegroom Adventism disintegrated at a fast pace. A further significant date setting regarding the Second Coming in October 1845320 again disappointed the “little flock,” as this type of Adventists liked to call themselves, and all the four magazines formerly advocating shutdoor views abandoned these.321 There were, therefore, very few individuals left who advocated any kind of shut-door explanations for the failed 1844 parousia. Yet it is precisely among these individuals that a continuous line of sabbatarian Adventism commenced in 1846 and 1847. These two years were decisive for the later Seventh-day Adventists in several respects.322 One was that the lack of leadership among Bridegroom Adventists, despite the bewilderment that it meant for many, created an opportunity for new individuals to fill the vacuum that had been left. Moreover, the most extreme shut door views began to slowly ebb away while being merged, and finally replaced, with alternative explanations for what happened on October 22, 1844. The crucial new concept was that the cleansing of the sanctuary mentioned in Daniel 8:14323 – the key text in the Millerite calculations regarding 1844 – does not refer to the earth but to a heavenly event, which allowed for an interim period until the parousia, with a length that could not be determined.324 While the sanctuary doctrine, as it was later called, was not devised with any ecclesiological consequences in view, it did provide a rationale for both Millerite convictions and a continued existence in this world as God’s people – and was thus indispensable for the later development of a doctrine of the church, which the Millerite Movement could not provide because it had none. A last but most important development was the addition of a significant new teaching that fitted in with the apocalyptical orientation of the movement but modified its thinking by complementing and redirecting it. After all, majority Millerism had come to a theological dead end in late October 1844. Unlike many other revivals, it had not merely led people to conversion but out of their churches. At the same time, the Albany-related Adventists had little to offer 319 With very minor adaptations from Rolf Pöhler, “ ‘… and the Door Was Shut’,” Supplement (Index), no page number. Permission granted by the author. 320 James White also promoted this date; see his article “Watchman, What of the Night?,” DayStar, September 20, 1845, 25–26. 321 Burt, “The Historical Background,” 175–272. 322 Cf. ibid., 273–351. 323 In Daniel 8:14, an angel says to Daniel: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” (KJV) 324 For an analysis of the early importance of this sanctuary teaching, see Alberto R. Timm, “The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages, 1844 –1863: Integrating Factors in the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines,”·Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1995.

Message & mission

Conversions

None to non-Millerites

No message & mission to a “wicked world” and “fallen churches”; work is forever finished – work for God’s people only, including backslidden Adventists and the few honest children of God still in the churches and world

Whoever is out is out – whoever is in is in (no Whoever is out is out Those who are out can get in; those who are in movement) – whoever is in can can get out (“two-way traffic”) still get out (“one way traffic”) No more possible Apparent conversions are still possible True conversions are still possible

How shut is the door

None to the world and churches as a whole but to the few unconverted yet honest souls still to be called out

The last message of mercy to the world (sinners) and churches; invitation to all. Large-scale conversions expected

Those who once believed in the Advent but then wickedly opposed it, ascribing it to mere human or satanic influence

Those who wickedly (5: and persistently) opposed the Advent doctrine

Wicked world and fallen church

Rev 3:7–8

“Wicked world,” “sinners,” “fallen churches” All who did not come All who rejected the offer of salvation and/or out of world/churches the Advent message (all who were not in a and accepted the Ad- saved stage before God in Oct. 1844, i. e. “sinvent message viz. 7th ners”) are rejected and lost. Month Movement (non-Millerites) are rejected/lost.

4. Revised 5. Modified shut-door view shut-door concept Door of High Priest in heavenly sanctuary

Humankind

3. Moderate shut-door concept Door of kingdom, of access Mt 25:10; Rev 3:8

Matt 25:10; Rev 22:11; Dan 12:10

2. Early shut-door view

Probation ended for…

1. Extreme shut-door doctrine Door of mercy

References

Designation

Shut-Door Chart

Table 7. Post-Millerite radicals’ “shut-door” concepts, 1844–1850

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

129

Spiritual coming of Christ Joseph Turner, S. S. Snow, C. S. Minor/ Peavy, Clemons, Brown

Tendency

Advocates

Finished Finished

Sanctuary cleansing Eschatological sealing Move to position 4 → Enoch Jacobs, J. B. Cook, O. R. L. Crosier, Sabbatarian Adventists (1840s)

Turner & Hale (Article: “Has not the Savior Come as the Bridegroom?,” Jan. 1845)

Still future Presently being finished

Still future

3. Moderate shut-door concept Continues for the saints Christ entered the Most Holy Place – continues for saints

← Move to 1 or 3 →

? Finished?

Has taken place?

1. Extreme 2. Early shut-door doctrine shut-door view Finished Oct. 22, 1844 Finished Oct. 22, 1844? Christ left the Most Christ left the Most Holy Place Holy Place?

“Marriage of the lamb” / bridegroom’s Has taken place marriage

Intercession

Atonement

Shut-Door Chart

Table 7 (Continued)

(Final development)

Present

5. Modified shut-door concept Continues for humankind Continues for humankind

Sabbatarian Adventists (1850s) Seventh-day Adventists (open door is increasingly eclipsing shut door concept)

Move to position 5 →

Present

4. Revised shut-door view Continues for all honest ones Continues for all honest ones

130 Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

131

except rallying calls, and thus most of the Advent believers remained arrested in a millenarian faith that did not differ too much from that of other churches but was marked with the evident failure of a wrong prediction. Among the Adventist radicals, a few other innovations such as footwashing and the “holy kiss” were common,325 but with the exception of a teaching on the non-immortality of the soul (or “soul sleep”),326 none of them was of enough weight to gather adherents into a stable group. By way of contrast, the Saturday Sabbath was so unique that it had the potential for providing a platform on which a distinct group identity, and, later, a novel ecclesiology, could grow. At first sight, the Sabbath seemed to have little in common with the Millerite emphasis on apocalyptic prophecy, but its swift career from a biblical motif noted by a few fervent believers and an alternative practice among a tiny minority to an eschatologically loaded concept demonstrates how crucial it was for one emerging Adventist group. The main founders of Seventh-day Adventism,327 Joseph Bates, James White and Ellen Gould Harmon (who married James White in August 1846) accepted seventh-day Sabbath keeping not only because they viewed it as a scriptural command, as Seventh Day Baptists and a few Millerites did; they made it an intrinsic element of their apocalypticism.328 Earlier Millerite advocates of Saturday sabbatarianism had given the Sabbath only a mildly eschatological colouring,329 but Bates linked it with the heavenly sanc-

325 Burt, “The Historical Background,” 175. 326 This doctrine became the basis of the Advent Christian Church in the 1860s; see Arthur, “Come Out of Babylon,” 201–204, 307–351. 327 Cf. George Knight, Joseph Bates: The Real Founder of Seventh-Day Adventism, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2004, and Gerald Wheeler, James White: Innovator and Overcomer, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2003. 328 In this, they differed from the earliest Adventist Sabbath keepers at New Hampshire, who had kept the Sabbath on a theological basis that was essentially Seventh Day Baptist. For details of the transmission of Sabbath keeping from Seventh Day Baptists to these first sabbatarian Adventists, see footnotes 529 and 530. 329 J. B. Cook, an early Millerite Sabbath advocate who abandoned sabbatarianism later (in 1848), had linked it to the millennium in articles written for the magazine Bible Advocate; cf. Burt, “The Historical Background,” 338–339, 344–345. Thomas M. Preble, Tract, Showing that the Seventh Day Should Be Observed as the Sabbath, instead of the First Day, “According to the Commandment,” Nashua: Murray and Kimball, 1845, 10, argued that Daniel 7:25, where the “little horn” is described as changing “times and laws,” is fulfilled in the change of the holy day from Sabbath to Sunday. Moreover, he asserted that Revelation 22:14 refers to the Sabbath (in the KJV, it reads: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”) While most modern translations prefer translating “washing their robes” (“πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν” instead of “ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ”) and the proper translation has been subject to some debate, it appears that textual criticism and references to the text by the Church Fathers actually support the traditional KJV reading; see Stephen Goranson, “The Text of Revelation 22.14,” NTS 43 (1997), 154–157.

132

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

tuary from the beginning,330 then associated it with the “three angels’ messages” of Revelation 14,331 another prominent motif that Millerites had applied to their own movement, and to the eschatological “seal of God” (Rev. 7:2–4; 9:4).332 In this manner, the new teaching reconfigured Millerism by innovating in the very sphere that the Adventist movement claimed as its own but which had led to the 1844 impasse: the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy. It was the mixture of a strong sense of continuity with the Millerite Movement (including its climax in the 1844 “Midnight Cry”) and such a momentous novel element that had the potential for forming the ideological basis for a new and more permanent movement.333 What was so appealing in this fresh theological setup to many of the Adventists who had sacrificed their ecclesial belonging for their desire to enter God’s kingdom was that here an explanation for their past experience was linked with a promise of access to the very kingdom that had not yet materialized.334 Evidently something had been incomplete before the Great Disappointment, and now they were convinced they had found the “missing link.” Moreover, the new explanation was pointing forward to the eschaton and backward to biblical practice at the same time; its appeal, therefore, also touched the nerves of the restorationist mind typical for North American Christianity at the time. What is more, sabbatarian Adventists soon even added an “ecumenical” 330 Joseph Bates, The Opening Heavens, or a Connected View of the Testimony of the Prophets and Apostles, Concerning the Opening Heavens: Compared with Astronomical Observations, and of the Present and Future Location of the New Jerusalem, the Paradise of God, New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1846, 36. This booklet referred to astronomical data and connected them with biblical texts to counter spiritualizing tendencies among Adventists. 331 Joseph Bates, The Seventh Day Sabbath: A Perpetual Sign, from the Beginning, to the Entering into the Gates of the Holy City, According to the Commandment, New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1846, 24. Significantly, the title of the booklet alludes to Revelation 22:14. 332 James White had already hinted at a connection in J. White, Bates, and E. White, A Word to the “Little Flock” [1847], 3. The association of the Sabbath and the eschatological seal is the basis for Bates’ booklet A Seal of the Living God: A Hundred Forty-Four Thousand of the Servants of God Being Sealed in 1849, New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1849, and of the broadside by Ellen G. White, “To Those Who are Receiving the Seal of the Living God,” January 31, 1849. 333 The sociology of religious movements suggests that “medium tension” with the environment is necessary for a movement to achieve growth. With the emphasis on the Sabbath teaching, this group of believers accomplished exactly such a medium tension with their fellow Millerites: while appealing to shared convictions, they offered something that marked them as special, thus calling other Millerites (and, later, other Christians) for a clear decision for or against their set of beliefs. For further discussion on medium tension, see William Sims Bainbridge, The Sociology of Religious Movements, New York: Routledge, 1997, 31–59 (general) and 89–118 (on Adventism as a typical movement of this kind). 334 Several of the earliest sabbatarian Adventist booklets contain a reference to Revelation 22:14, which expresses this line of thought; cf. the discussion in footnote 329 above (in this chapter). Articles in the movement’s magazine Review and Herald have more than 230 references to the verse.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

133

notion to their work – somewhat similar to the Christians movement: James White, for instance, claimed in 1849 that “now the time for the saints to be gathered into the unity of the faith, and be sealed by one holy, uniting truth has come.”335 The new doctrinal orientation and the resultant mission of disseminating this “present truth” among the Advent believers reshaped the nascent group of sabbatarians in unforeseen ways. Firstly, their propaganda brought about startling success in the late 1840s and early 1850s. Hundreds became Sabbath keepers each year. Of course, one reason for this achievement was that few competing forces were left among the shut-door advocates. Apparently Bates and the Whites had not expected such results themselves; they intended to proclaim the last message before the awaited advent, not to build a new church.336 Yet once reliable leadership, a critical mass of adherents and a minimum of structure provided by a new magazine, Present Truth, existed by the beginning of the new decade, further expansion of the movement, the development of stable congregations and, finally, defining a group identity was less difficult than one might imagine. Coincidentally, it was in the same period that the shut door concept, which had provided such a strong sense of continuity with pre-October 1844 Adventism, declined. While its ecclesiological implications had been highly problematic, the major function of this view had been to explain why Christ had not returned yet. By the early 1850s, sabbatarian Adventists had developed alternative explanations: a new phase in the heavenly sanctuary ministry and a new earthly mission – proclaiming the Sabbath. Not only did increasing numbers of nonMillerites accept the sabbatarian teaching,337 but shut door views now also seemed no longer to match with missionary opportunities to the very persons who had thus far been considered “lost.” Besides, it was hard to keep up indefinitely the extremely exclusivist notions that some had attached to the “shut door.” In face of a reality in which Christ’s return, which had been awaited in a span of days or weeks, did not occur, it was more expedient to refocus attention to 335 James S. White – Brother Bowles, November 8, 1849, EGWE, online: http://ellenwhite.o rg/content/correspondence/white-js/020018pdf, accessed March 1, 2016. 336 James White had argued: “Unless they [the “advent people” mentioned before] keep the commandments of God, they will be lost. I do not expect that many of them will receive the truth, yet we have a duty to do to them.” See James S. White – Brother Bowles, Topsham, October 17, 1849, EGWE, online: http://ellenwhite.org/content/correspondence/white-j s/020017pdf, accessed March 1, 2016. 337 The first case mentioned in print is apparently one in August 1850. James White reports: “One brother, who had not been in the advent, and had made no public profession of religion until 1845, came out clear and strong on the whole truth. He had never opposed the advent, and it is evident that the Lord had been leading him, though his experience had not been just like ours.” See [James] W[hite], “Our Tour East,” The Advent Review, August 1850, 15.

134

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

apocalyptic texts mentioning an “open door” such as Revelation 3:7–8. While this process went on slowly and silently in the early 1850s,338 the result was that salvation, in the minds of sabbatarian Adventists, became attainable again for everyone. In the absence of a clear-cut ecclesiology, this soteriology raised significant questions regarding the understanding of the church and for interchurch relations – thus shaping Adventists’ interaction with the Christian world even generations later. The Remnant Motif The development of sabbatarian Adventist theology was a basic ideological prerequisite for the forging of a group identity, but relations to other Christian groups, and thus the self-definition as an entity with church characteristics, also depended on the existence of an explicit and viable ecclesiology. However, after the emergence of a separatist mood in 1843 and because of a certain anarchic strand among the Adventist radicals – the widespread rejection of anything that seemed like ecclesial organization – ecclesiological thinking was fraught with enormous obstacles: Babylon had fallen, and in the mind of many sabbatarian Adventists organizing a denomination amounted to initiating a new Babylonian identity.339 Thus it is not surprising that the future Seventh-day Adventists began their reflection on the church with a concept that clearly differed from the major traditional ecclesiological imagery and implied a strong non-establishment potential: the remnant.340 “Remnant” was, initially, just one of many motifs taken mainly from the reservoir of New Testament apocalyptic with which Millerites expressed what they considered their role in the last days of earth’s history. It had already been used in other North American movements which had an eschatological penchant,341 and Miller as well as his adherents utilized it in a somewhat fuzzy way

338 Pöhler, “… and the Door Was Shut,” 89–98. 339 They tended to side with George Storrs, a leading Millerite who had argued in early 1844 (evidently from an extreme Communal Sharing point of view) that a church “becomes Babylon the moment it is organized. The Lord organized His own church by the strong bonds of love. Stronger than that cannot be made; and when such bonds will not hold together the professed followers of Christ, they cease to be His followers, and drop off from the body as a matter of course.” Storrs, “Come Out of Her, My People,” Midnight Cry, February 15, 1844, 238. 340 For a detailed analysis and discussion, see Stefan Höschele, “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism: From Apocalyptic Antisectarianism to an Eschatological Denominational Ecclesiology,” AUSS 51.2 (2013), 267–300. 341 E.g. among the Stone-Campbell Movement and the Mormons, but also (as early as the 17th century) the Seventh Day Baptists; for references see Höschele, “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism,” 271–274.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

135

but also applied it to themselves.342 Among the many motifs and interpretations of prophecy that Millerites bequeathed to sabbatarian Adventists, the remnant motif in Revelation 12:17 proved to be most applicable in terms of ecclesiology. A somewhat ironical aspect of the early Adventist remnant interpretation is that it connected with the restorationist anti-ecclesial sentiments in its early stages but later became the basis for a distinctly denominational ecclesiology. Thus could a Millerite writer argue in the heat of the “Midnight Cry,” as the preaching of summer and early autumn 1844 was called, that theirs was the time to be “delivered” from the “sectarian” churches, for the church … apostatized so much that there was only a remnant of her seed which kept the commandments of God, and had the testimony of Jesus Christ. Why? Because when the whole church was of one language, and of one speech, they said one to another, “Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven.” … Unlike, however, the ancient builders of Babel, after the confusion of tongues – the many sects continue the tower building, and each is sanguine that his will be the only one that will reach to heaven.343

A few months later, in the winter after the “Great Disappointment,” William Miller related the motif to his followers in an unambiguous manner: A small remnant have recently left the churches, because they will have no fellowship with satanic kingdoms. And the political powers are angry and making war with this remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev. xii. 17.344

It took only about two years until the nascent sabbatarian Adventist movement further narrowed down this remnant understanding. Having inherited from the Millerites a rather diffused ecclesiological thinking, they still utilized the motif alongside a host of others,345 but in 1847 Joseph Bates, the principal founder of Seventh-day Adventism beside Ellen White and her husband, first sabbatarianized the term and soon reasoned that Sabbath keepers, as the “remnant,” were the only true heirs of the Advent revival ready for meeting Jesus Christ at his 342 Miller himself applied the concept to “the ecclesia invisibilis, the true church, the persecuted end-time church, the final generation of converts, early Christians, faithful believers of all ages, and the ‘bride’ meeting Jesus during his parousia” (Höschele, “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism,” 275; for references and quotations, see ibid., 274–278). 343 E[mily] C. C[lemons], “The Lord, He Is God,” Advent Herald, September 25, 1844, 62–63, here 63. 344 William Miller, “Elijah the Prophet,” Advent Herald, February 5, 1845, 202–203, here 203. 345 The earliest sabbatarian publications and correspondence frequently contain the terms “saints,” “God’s (peculiar) people,” “company,” “(advent) believers,” “the faithful,” “(true) Israel,” “out-casts,” “brethren,” “(true) children of God,” “band,” “scattered/little flock,” “pilgrims,” and “remnant.” For a more detailed discussion, see Höschele, “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism,” 278–284.

136

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Second Coming.346 Since they did not distinguish between exegesis, theology and applications of scriptural content to their own experience and situation, these early Adventists sought in the remnant motif an explanation for the path on which they had trodden as well as a way forward theologically and ecclesiologically. They did not foresee how their interpretations of the concept would serve as a crystallization of views in their relationship to other Christians and Christian bodies in generations to come, but for the time being, a proto-ecclesiology had been forged.

3.2.2 Identity Formation, Church Concepts and Notions of Unity From “Remnant” to “Remnant Church” Hardly anyone would have predicted the growth of the tiny sabbatarian Adventist movement from a few dozen individuals to a cluster of numerous congregations with about 2,000 members in the course of a few years – between 1846–47 and 1852.347 The time around 1850 became a watershed among the future Seventh-day Adventists in many respects: a periodical was initiated and a hymnal printed in 1849;348 committees that ran publications from 1850 onward emerged, conferences were planned regularly, and James White began to call for “gospel order” (i. e. a leadership system).349 All this indicated that sabbatarian Adventism was organizing itself into a tangible entity, which clearly distinguished itself from other groups of Advent believers as well as the rest of North American Christianity. This consolidation during the early 1850s was also visible in how Adventist Sabbath keepers continued to develop their self-understanding, which centred on the remnant theme.350 Revelation 12:17 was repeatedly interpreted as referring 346 Bates, The Seventh Day Sabbath: A Perpetual Sign, 2d, rev. and enl. ed., New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1847, iii, iv, 52, 59; Bates, Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps, or, A Connected View of the Fulfillment of Prophecy, by God’s Peculiar People from the Year 1840 to 1847, New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1847, 69. 347 James White, “A Brief Sketch of the Past,” RH, May 6, 1852, 5. 348 James White (ed.), Hymns for God’s Peculiar People That Keep the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus, Oswego: Oliphant, 1849. 349 A first occurrence is [James White,] “The State of the Cause,” PT, May 1850, 80; in the same year, there was a case of church discipline; see [James] W[hite], “Our Tour East,” The Advent Review, August 1850, 14. For further developments, see 3.3.1. 350 The Review and Herald, the movement’s key periodical in the 1850s, yields more than 900 automated search occurrences for the term in the 1850s, many more than other motifs common in the period; “little flock,” for instance, yields only 150 items in the same period. Such automated searches can be done online in the collection at the Archives of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (www.adventistarchives.org).

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

137

to a (1) small (2) last generation (3) sabbatarian group that (4) experienced persecution because of commandment keeping,351 and soon remnant thinking was clearly disentangled from its connection with the Millerite Movement.352 By the middle of the 1850s, the use of the remnant motif lost its sharp contrast to “church.” Earlier phraseology such as “the remnant of the church”353 further developed into “the churches of God’s remnant people”354 and, finally, “ remnant church.”355 The simple term “remnant” remained the preferred description, but the remarriage of expressions in the newly coined “remnant church” articulated the growing ecclesial self-understanding of Adventist Sabbath-keepers. The church had come back; the anti-sectarian remnant of the Millerite remnant was on the way to forming a new denomination. A gradual change in preferred terminology in the mid-1850s reveals the development of thinking during the period.356 Whereas sabbatarian publications during the 1840s and in the earliest 1850s had frequent references to “scattered believers” and “the little flock,” the mid-1850s saw a significant increase in the positive use of “church” in the Review and Herald. Merritt E. Cornell published his booklet The Last Work of the True Church in 1855, and it is not merely coincidental that Ellen White’s well-known Testimonies to the Church began to 351 This reasoning appears in an almost identical manner in “To Ira Fancher,” RH, March 1851, 52; “The Sabbath and Ten Commandments Taught and Enforced in the New Testament,” RH, June 2, 1851, 90; “The Faith of Jesus,” RH, February 28, 1854, 44 (aspects 1–3); “The Position of the Remnant,” RH, September 12, 1854; and [Uriah Smith,] “Who are the Remnant?,” RH, February 28, 1856. 352 In 1849, Bates began to argue that commandment keeping – including the Sabbath – was the key criterion for the eschatological “sealing” and for belonging to the remnant (rather than a connection with the Millerite revival); see Joseph Bates, A Seal of the Living God: A Hundred Forty-Four Thousand of the Servants of God Being Sealed in 1849, New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1849, 61–62. In the early and mid-1850s, this sabbatarian argument became the standard mode of thinking, and the larger remnant concept, which included Millerites, faded. For details, see Höschele, “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism,” 285–291. 353 See, e. g., in O[tis] Nichols, “The Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet,” RH, March 2, 1852, 98; [James White,] “Signs of the Times,” RH, September 13, 1853, 73, 75. This formulation drastically lost importance in the following years; an automated count of RH references yields fewer than 60 hits until the end of the 1990s, i. e. less than one instance every two years. 354 [James White,] “The Position of the Remnant,” RH, September 12, 1854, 37. Later in the same year, he wrote about “the remnant, the last of the church on earth”; see “[Sabbath School Lesson] Number XX,” Youth’s Instructor, December 1854, 95. 355 [James White,] “A Cloud of Witnesses,” RH, October 17, 1854, 78; [James White,] “The Cause,” RH, October 24, 1854, 84. The first occurrence had “remnant” in quotation marks; from 1857 onward, the term appears regularly. 356 This paragraph and the one following are reproduced almost verbatim from my article “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism,” 291–292, 295. Copyright: Andrews University Seminary Studies. Used by permission.

138

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

appear in the same year.357 A considerably enlarged hymnal was put into the hands of Sabbath keepers in 1855 as well; its preface read, “for the use of the Church of God scattered abroad … To the Church of God, waiting for the coming and kingdom of Christ.”358 Thus the waiting remnant had begun to develop a distinctly eschatological ecclesiology which was open to a denominationalizing interpretation. This development was further enhanced by a more definite interpretation of the remnant motif with reference to the verse where it appears in the book of Revelation (12:17: “the remnant …, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ”). Earlier sabbatarian Adventist reflections had emphasized the general continuity of spiritual gifts and the legitimacy and significance of prophetic ministry,359 but in 1855 James White elaborated a close connection between the gift of prophecy and the “remnant” by referring to Revelation 19:10 (“the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”).360 This would soon become a standard explanation among Sabbath keeping Adventists.361 It added a powerful dimension to their remnant ecclesiology: they could now claim that both sabbatarianism and the prophetic gift of Ellen White362 were fulfilments of biblical predictions and marks of the true end-time church. The mid-1850s were, therefore, a period in which Seventh-day Adventist ecclesiology developed through a growing “church” self-understanding, a more systematic explanation of the eschatological remnant, and an incipient use of the term “remnant church,” which combined these two developments into an ecclesiologically viable concept. This remnant doctrine in fieri obviously enhanced

357 Merritt E. Cornell, The Last Work of the True Church, Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1855; the “Testimonies” booklets from the 1850s and part of the 1860s were later republished as the first part of a nine-volume series; see Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1948. These were the first sabbatarian Adventist book using “church” in the title and the first Ellen White publication to do so. 358 James White, Hymns for Those Who Keep the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus, Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1855, preface. 359 [Joseph Bates,] “The Gifts of the Gospel Church,” RH, April 21, 1851, 69–70 (connects “remnant” with Joel 2:19–20); David Arnold, “The Oneness of the Church and the Means of God’s Appointment for Its Purification and Unity,” RH, June 26, 1855, 249–251. 360 “The Testimony of Jesus,” RH, December 18, 1855, 92–93. 361 J[ames] W[hite], “Revelation Twelve,” RH, January 8, 1857, 76; J[ames] W[hite], “Unity and Gifts of the Church – No 3,” RH, December 31, 1857, 60–61; J[ames] W[hite], “Unity and Gifts of the Church – No 4,” RH, January 7, 1858, 68–69; Roswell F. Cottrell, Foreword to Spiritual Gifts, by Ellen G. White, vol. 1, Battle Creek: James White, 1858, 15– 16; D. T. Bourdeau, “Spiritual Gifts,” RH, December 2, 1862, 5–6. 362 Ellen White had her first two visions in December 1844, when she was 17 years old. Further visionary experiences and dreams followed, and after her prophetic ministry was recognized by sabbatarian Adventists in the mid-1850s, she continued to relate divine instructions until her death in 1915.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

139

group identity; yet in terms of relations to other Christian bodies, its effects were likely to remain somewhat chequered. Evolving Ecclesiological Thinking A survey of more general sabbatarian Adventist thinking on the church in the same period confirms this ambivalence. With the exception of a study on church unity in Ellen White’s thinking,363 ecclesiological reasoning among the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not yet been explored in a comprehensive study and would probably demand a fuller inquiry.364 For the purpose of this research and particularly for an understanding of early Adventist interchurch relations, it will suffice to discuss some major aspects. The general impression resulting from a reading of sabbatarian Adventist publications in the 1840s and 1850s is that ecclesiology, apart from the developing remnant concept, was definitely a concern secondary to the message that this young movement believed it should bear to its environment. This is hardly surprising given the fact that an imminent Second Advent was still the principal framework of thinking in which its adherents operated. Even though the Sabbath occupied much more space than the parousia in the magazines and booklets from 1849 onwards, it did not trigger a “church” consciousness until a few years later,365 and even then, it was ancillary to the mission that was considered the movement’s raison d’être. This situation contrasts conspicuously with the frequent instances in which the ecclesiastical establishment is portrayed in a pessimistic manner. Throughout the period under study in this section, it is a negative ecclesiology which 363 Wendy Jackson, “The Unity of the Church and the Role of Church Authority in Maintaining that Unity in the Writings of Alexander Campbell and Ellen G. White,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2015. Jackson emphasizes the Christ-centred view of unity in both White and Campbell, and the fact that Ellen White did not advocate “any one particular form of authority structure,” instead emphasizing “the importance of order, and the character of the leaders within the authority structure” (abstract, no page given). 364 Andrew G. Mustard, James White and SDA Organization: Historical Development, 1844– 1881, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 12, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1988, touches on early Adventist ecclesiology on a few pages (the section on “Theological Grounds for Seventh-day Adventist Organization,” 195–217), but does not explore it in its own right. 365 In the earliest hymnal, for instance, one finds an overwhelming number of songs with an eschatological orientation, some Sabbath hymns and very few that imply ecclesiological notions. Those that do almost exclusively reflect notions of individuality rather than fellowship (p. 17, no. 15: “This World is not My Home”; p. 18, no. 16: “Christian Soldier”; p. 20, no. 19: “I’m a Traveller”; p. 34, no. 36: “A Pilgrim and a Stranger”). Even the one song on “Washing Feet” (p. 6, no. 4) emphasizes humility, not community. See J. White, Hymns, for God’s Peculiar People.

140

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

dominates the overall picture. Joseph Bates opens the lament in one of his 1847 books, where his scepticism of all denominations contrasts with “God’s peculiar people.” He quotes William Miller, who stated that many “ ‘churches … have the papal spirit. But it does not follow that there can be no churches that love the Lord in sincerity’ ”; yet Bates adds, “I wonder if there is such an organized church to be found. I think this globe will be searched in vain for it.”366 The common Millerite “anti-sectarian” sentiments continued to be evoked,367 and phraseology such as “the professed churches” or “the nominal churches” served to disqualify them as “children of God.”368 The climax of the anti-church affect was an 1854 pamphlet by a British nonconformist, Robert Atkins, republished from an earlier edition in the Millerite “Second Advent Library” series.369 Atkins painted a completely dark picture of “the churches,” using even more defeatist vocabulary than Sabbath-keeping Adventists: “Apostasy, apostasy, apostasy is engraven on the very front of every church”; he claimed there is “indisputable evidence that the measure of the iniquity of the Gentile church is full.”370 Evidently sabbatarian Adventists viewed such representations as vindications of their own views. While they preferred letting others use a stronger wording than they would have done, they certainly 366 Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, 19. Bates’ scepticism regarding all denominations (viz. “sect[s]”) is further referred to on pp. 23, 28, 34, and 35. The quotation is taken from William Miller, Apology and Defence, Boston: J. V. Himes, 1845, 32. 367 James White, for instance, argues in the first edition of the magazine The Present Truth, “They [the Israelites] could not keep his Sabbath in Egypt. They could not keep it; neither can we keep it when bound by sectarian creeds. Therefore God has brought us out of the churches to prove us, to try us, to know what is in our hearts, whether we will keep his commandments.” See his article “The Weekly Sabbath Instituted at Creation, and Not at Sinai,” PT, July 1849, 1–2. 368 One example: Francis Gould, “God’s Peculiar People,” RH, August 7, 1855, 21, asks where “God’s peculiar people” are found: “But where shall we find God’s peculiar people at the present day? Shall we find them in the professed churches? Those bodies are not characterized as being the children of God. We find them at the ballot-box, we find them going hand in hand with the world and helping to establish and carry out all the great and national sins of the age.” 369 Atkins, A True Picture or Description of the State of the Churches. Rochester: Advent Review Office, [1854]. Original: A True picture; or a Thrilling Description of the State of the Churches throughout Christendom. Boston: J. V. Himes, 1843. That this sermon of a non-conformist minister of Liverpool was significant for Adventist reasoning is also visible in the fact that Ellen White quotes material from the same pamphlet in her 1888 and 1911 editions of her most widely read book: The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, Oakland: Pacific Press, 1888, 387–388, and The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1911, 388. 370 Ibid., 6, 7. Further specimens of his style include the following: “awful state of Christendom” (1), “degenerate age” (2); “apostasy from primitive purity and primitive simplicity, and … total want of primitive power” (8); “the anti-Christian, apostate Gentile churches” (9); “the truth is, Christ is gone; there is no Christ in the churches” (10).

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

141

agreed with their conclusions.371 At any rate, they concurred that there was a sharp contrast between “man-made churches” – Roman Catholicism plus “all the churches that have come out of her …, daughters of the mother” – and the “Church of God.”372 The negative energy that many of the articles and booklets dealing with “the churches” breathe may appear repugnant to a 21st century reader, yet one must remember that generally the tone of writing was significantly more polemical in those days than it would be in today’s religious press.373 While the style appears, therefore, typical of its time, it is the quasi-doctrinal status of such assessments that needs to be considered here. What functions did the negative ecclesiology of sabbatarian Adventists have, and what did it imply for their development of thought on the church? One obvious consequence of the dark colouring that the denominations receive in the publications of the period is that separation from them was and remained not only justified but mandatory. It is consistent, therefore, that an 1844 article by Millerite leader Joshua Himes, which argued for disassociation, was republished in 1852,374 and that this logic was repeated over and over in discussions on apocalyptic “Babylon.”375 Behind this separatist approach to thought on ecclesial matters, however, lurked another conception: an eschatologically motivated non-church ecclesiology, which could be best expressed with 371 [James White,] “The State of the Church,” RH, February 7, 1856, 148, argues, “The universal deadness of the nominal churches has been the subject of many and severe comments by men of her own communion,” and provides some examples. For another text of this antichurch genre, see J. H. Jones, “Churchianity vs. Christianity,” RH, January 20, 1859, 70, where the non-Adventist author argues, “Churchianity does not require submission to God, nor holiness of heart and life … Churchianity cares not whether a man is anti-slavery or proslavery, a temperance man or the contrary … Its chief ambition is to build a large church that will be popular with the world.” 372 Joseph B. Frisbie, Order of the Church of God, Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Review and Herald Office, 1859, 3. 373 One example may illustrate this. Even the postmillennialist revivalist Charles Finney made remarks that sound very pessimistic; Adventists added them to Atkins’ pamphlet A True Picture. Finney claimed, “Spiritual apathy … is almost all-pervading, and is fearfully deep; … very extensively church members are becoming devotees of fashion – join hands with the ungodly in parties of pleasure, in dancing, in festivities, etc. … [T]he churches are becoming sadly degenerate. They have gone very far from the Lord and he has withdrawn himself from them.” The original article, “The Church Sadly Degenerate,” appeared in the Oberlin Evangelist, February 4, 1846, 21–22. 374 Joshua V. Himes, “Separation from the Churches,” RH, January 13, 1852, 76; reprinted from Advent Herald, August 29, 1844. Himes argued, “Most of them [of the advent believers] 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 …, they were soon weaned from their party predilections … and raised the cry, ‘come out of her my people’.” 375 For an extended discussion, see section 3.2.3 below (“Attitudes to Other Christians”).

142

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

such motifs as the remnant. As long as the advent hope was measured (even if unconsciously) in terms of weeks or months, a new church was not necessary. Indeed, church organization per se was deemed a hindrance376 to the purity of the fellowship of the faithful. This theological translation of the Communal Sharing relational model, the notion of a group thought of as being free of constraints in genuine faith, hope, and love, was so attractive because alternative forms of constituting a communion of believers might be a hindrance in entering the eternal kingdom. Yet such an essentially non-ecclesial identity with its focus on spiritual unity, as attractive as it may seem from the vantage point of certain kinds of kingdom theology, could not hold for long. Like the thinking on the remnant motif, the sabbatarian Adventist thought on “church” and “churches” went through subtle modifications in the 1850s. It started from a basis which defined “church” mainly in a negative manner: in his 1847 booklet Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps, Joseph Bates presents the common Millerite anti-sect and anti-church rhetoric,377 but also qualifies the “anti-Christian” church as a body that (1) disregards “humanity” (e. g., by tolerating slavery),378 (2) becomes “carnally minded and covetous,” (3) does not do the work of the church, (4) or disregards “any of the fundamental truths of the Bible.”379 With such exclusion criteria, it was easy to disqualify almost all denominational bodies if only the standard was set high or depending on how these “fundamental truths” were defined. It is this comprehensive negative definition which throws light at the short positive one that Bates provides in the same context: “[a] Christian Church is an assembly or congregation of faithful men.”380 The fact that he did not develop this 376 In 1853, an earlier Millerite article against organization was reprinted in full; see “Church Organization,” RH, January 6, 1853, 135, originally published in 1844 by the magazine Voice of Truth. The article argued against “sectarian” organization and confessions of faith as opposed to the following approach: “The commandment of God is, to keep the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace.” (Emphasis in the original.) 377 Here the “organized churches” are identified with apocalyptic Babylon; see pp. 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 34; cf. the anti-“sect” polemics on pp. 23, 28, and 34. Bates also criticizes the Albany Conference Adventists (i. e. the majority of Millerites who would later form the Evangelical Adventist Church) and assigns to them the “Laodicean state of the church” since they “commenced a new organization”; see ibid., 35. 378 Ibid., 28. The ethical slant of Bates’ ecclesiology is visible in his argument that the slavery issue or any issue of “humanity” is of greater significance than the following criteria; in fact, according to him false doctrines merely implied “the mildest form of an anti-Christian Church” (25). Bates and many other Millerite leaders had been active in anti-slavery organizations and various social reform movements; see Ronald Graybill, “The AbolitionistMillerite Connection,” in Ronald L. Numbers and Jonathan M. Butler (eds.), The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993, 139–152. 379 Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, 25. 380 Ibid.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

143

brief characterization, which is actually an incomplete rendering of one of the Anglican “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion” of 1563,381 indicates that Bates’ aim was not to present an alternative ecclesiology but to prove that the time of the churches had ended. If the remnant was the “last end of the church,” as the Millerites had already reasoned,382 there was little need to devote much thinking to ecclesiological models that transcended congregations. The 1850s saw hardly any change in reflections on the nature of the church in the thinking of Sabbath-keeping Adventists. It is the theme of “gospel order” or “church order” that developed in this period, mainly in the context of leadership development and attempts at checking elements deemed “fanatical.” Like much of Adventist reasoning in the period, such treatises mostly utilized a “proof-text” approach – presenting collections of biblical texts with short comments.383 Interaction with inherited models of theology was largely limited to a rejection of “tradition.” More extensive reflections on ecclesiology in the sense of developing a church model were absent. This does not mean, however, that there were no hints at notions of ecclesiality among Adventist sabbatarians. With “the churches” as a dark background, “the church” could, at times, appear in a wholly positive light.384 More important, as time went by, “church,” like “remnant” was associated with a functional content385 – a missionary dimension, which equated the true ekklesia with “the last work” to be done on earth.386 381 The phrase “congregation of faithful men” is borrowed from article XIX (“Of the Church”), presumably mediated through the twenty-five Methodist “Articles of Religion” (1784), article XIII. The omission of the rest of the article, which refers to “the Sacraments” to be “duly administered,” is conspicuous. 382 In his first book, which was later enlarged and reprinted several times, William Miller had asserted that “ ‘[t]he remnant’ is the last part of the church.” See Miller, Evidences from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ about the Year A.D. 1843, and of His Personal Reign of 1000 Years, Brandon: Vermont Telegraph Office, 1833, 53. 383 See, e. g., Joseph Bates, “Church Order,” RH, August 29, 1854, 22–23, and especially the two-article series by J[oseph] B. Frisbie, “Church Order,” RH, December 26, 1854, 147–148, and January 9, 1855, 153–155. The latter two articles are a unique miniseries unmatched in the decade, the fullest ecclesiological statement, although it is characteristic that the author mainly presents multiple biblical texts with short comments. These two articles formed the basis of the later brochure by the same author (Joseph B. Frisbie, Order of the Church of God, Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Review and Herald Office, 1859). The brochure follows the same general outline, but adds some material and shortens other parts. 384 E.g. in James White, “The Sabbath a Perpetual Weekly Memorial,” PT, July 1849, 2–3. 385 One example of such a functional approach to the church is S. Vonnieda, “Churches and Millstones,” RH, July 24, 1856, 90–91. In this short sketch of a popular ecclesiology, twelve aspects of the church are described on the basis of a millstone allegory (variety of pieces, evenness, centrality of the eye, need of frequent examination, etc.). It is noteworthy that this is the first extended discussion of “church” after Joseph Bates’ treatment of the question in 1847, and the first positive one – spoken through the word of a non-Adventist. The author’s name most probably refers to Solomon Vonnieda (1809–1880), a United Brethren minister at the time.

144

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Consistent with the Adventist rejection of ecclesiastical tradition connected to such a focus on functionality, the longest text on the nature of the church in the movement’s publications during the 1850s is a poem entitled “What Constitutes a Church?” The fact that words of a non-Adventist author were utilized suggests that the emerging church of Sabbath keepers was not yet sure of the contours of its ecclesial identity: they could best express their sentiments in the words of an outsider and in figurative speech rather than rational discourse. At the same time, these words of a voice from outside their own fold indicated that protagonists of this movement were able to sympathize with non-Adventists who shared some of their non-institutional attitudes. The verses read:387 What Constitutes a Church? What constitutes a Church? Not Roman basilic or Gothic pile, With fretted roof, tall spire and long drawn aisle, These only mock thy search; Fantastic sepulchres when all is said – Seek not the living Church among the dead. What is a Church, indeed? Not tripled hierarchy, or throned priest, The stolen trappings of the Romish beast, Altar or well-sung creed, Rites magical to save, to sanctify, Nor aught that lulls the ear, or lures the eye. A band of faithful men, Met for God’s worship in an upper room Or canopied by midnight’s starry dome, On hill-side, or lone glen, To hear the counsels of his holy word, Pledged to each other and their common Lord. These, few as they may be, Compose a Church, such as in pristine age Defied the tyrant’s zeal, the bigot’s rage – For where but two or three, Whatever place, in Faith’s communion meet, There, with Christ’s presence, is a Church complete.

386 Cornell, The Last Work of the True Church [1855]. This small book hardly speaks about the church as such but its task of propagating the correct doctrine – the focus is, unsurprisingly, the Sabbath. 387 “What Constitutes a Church,” RH, April 9, 1857, 177. It appears that this poem was first published in America in the Quaker magazine The Friend: A Religious and Literary Journal, June 13, 1846, 311, indicating that it was written by Josiah Conder, a nonconformist author.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

145

Again, it seemed easier to state what a church is not, as seen in the first two stanzas; hence the somewhat apophatic approach mirrored in the poem, similar to the “negative ecclesiology” already found in Bates’ reflections. Sticking to a very few scriptural motifs (“two or three,” “faithful,” “communion” “Christ’s presence”), the poem demonstrates that it was a minimal ecclesiology that Adventists advocated in the 1850s. This minimalism, of course, carried on the non-church self-conception of the Millerite Movement and sought to cultivate the revivalistic focus on experience, holiness and the Christus praesens. This type of ecclesiality neatly corresponds to the Communal Sharing (CS) relational model with its small group approach, proximity, and intensity. In terms of relating to the Christian Other, this attitude entailed a curious mixture of lacking institutionalization and exclusivism – for the boundaries of CS-based fellowship are the strongest in all types of relationships and groups. Notions of Church Unity Yet even such a minimal ecclesiology could not do without one aspect of sabbatarian Adventist thinking that is most important for the study of interchurch relations: the concept of unity. That these initiators of the later denomination did wrestle with this question is evident, for discussions on this nota ecclesiae surface in their writings throughout the 1850s and appear in connection with a whole range of deliberations.388 Three main convictions were repeatedly stressed in this period. One was directly derived from the apocalyptic-centred ideology inherited from the Millerites: that Christian unity represents an eschatological reality, fulfilled in the sabbatarian Adventist movement, which was thought of as being essentially different from all other movements and denominations. After all, as an extension of the Advent revival of the early 1840s, it was not to be viewed as one of the “fallen churches.”389 Already in 1849 James White conceived this reasoning on the basis of the apocalyptical symbol of “the sealing” of Revelation 7; he asserted, “The saints … will all be united on the great sealing truth, which is the Sabbath of 388 These include various issues of church order, eschatology, doctrinal discussions, the reasons for unbelief in the world, and the goal of unity; see, e. g. [James White,] “The State of the Cause,” PT, May 1850, 80; James White, “Gospel Union,” RH, December 6, 1853, 72; J. B. Frisbie, “Church Order,” RH, December 26, 1854; “Church Order,” RH, January 23, 1855, 164, and “Calvin on Christian Unity,” RH, March 10, 1859, 121–122. 389 This is why Roswell F. Cottrell (“Babylon Might Have Been Healed,” RH, August 4, 1853, 46) reviewed the Millerite Movement by stating, “Christians of every creed were brought into unity of faith. They ceased disputing about the doctrines of men, and came directly to the doctrines of the Bible.” In his thinking, the same applied to sabbatarian Adventism.

146

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

the Lord our God.”390 This view actually developed from the sabbatarians’ experience among the anarchic Bridegroom Adventists; Hiram Edson could argue shortly later, “thank God, the time has come for the flock [i. e. Millerites] to be gathered into the ‘unity of the faith.’ Divisions are being thoroughly healed, and strong union, and fervent Christian love increase among us.”391 The predominant model of “ecumenical” thinking among the earliest Adventists, therefore, was that acceptance of the Sabbath teaching would unite all true believers. This thought pattern – that the true end-time church subsists in and will be fully reflected in the “remnant” – led Sabbath-keeping Adventist leaders to contrast their movement with other Adventists and the Christian world at large, which naturally made those others appear in an unfavourable light. Bates, for instance, claimed, “The true believers that are alive at the second coming of the Lord will be found united in the last message,” and observed that other Adventists, “who stand aloof from this message, … are already divided into two parts, and subdividing and diminishing daily.”392 James White devoted a whole article to “Gospel Union” and declared, “Nothing can be more desirable than gospel union in the church of Christ,” but dismissed “efforts frequently put forth to secure union among different denominations holding widely different sentiments.” At the same time, he was convinced that “[t]he true church will arrive at this state of consecration and harmony before Jesus comes.”393 This eschatological view of unity was closely related to a second aspect: the question of truth. According to White, truth was the key to unity. He was convinced that “God’s revealed truth is a unit”; union of any kind could only work once there was no “confusion of views, and separate interests.”394 It is Uriah Smith, however, who developed the sabbatarian Adventist stance into a veritable ecumenical theory. The beginning of a pertinent 1857 article by Smith395 reads like an impassioned plea of a 20th century ecumenist; he argues that Jesus’ words in John 17 are so obviously of importance for Christian mission and their application by professed believers is so deplorable that Christendom is but a “Babel.” Smith’s antidote to “discord, divisions and heresies” was simple: “truth.” Truth, according to him, was as “plain” as “the questions from which divisions 390 James White, “Repairing the Breach in the Law of God,” PT, September 1849, 25–29, here 28. 391 Hiram Edson, “Beloved Brethren, Scattered Abroad,” PT, December 1849 (no. 5), 34; very similar: “Letters,” RH, December 1850, 15. 392 “Letters,” RH, August 5, 1851, 6. 393 James White, “Gospel Union,” RH, December 6, 1853, 72. 394 [James White,] “Babylon,” RH, June 19, 1852, 20–21. 395 [Uriah Smith,] “The Babel of Christendom,” RH, September 24, 1857, 164. The most important parts of this text are included in appendix II.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

147

have sprung” were “foolish.” By contrasting the “literal teachings of Christ and the inspired writers” with “the schisms of the professed church,” Smith constructed an argument that few committed Protestants of his time could reject. Its emphasis on the orthodox Protestant perspicuitas Scripturae doctrine not only echoed William Miller’s common sense hermeneutics, but also reflected widespread sentiments among all the restorationist, anti-traditionalist movements of the time.396 Thus Smith could argue in a manner typical for the era that the gospel’s “whole genius and spirit and teaching, when followed, is to unite. Would the churches take it now, and laying aside their creeds, follow it, there would be a union speedily. Whatever church will do this will be the true church.”397 The reasoning proffered by Uriah Smith – a nexus of biblicism and Christian unity – was neither new nor particularly surprising in the North American context in which he wrote: the Disciples and other restorationists had essentially taught the same, and even laid considerably greater emphasis on these subjects.398 What makes Smith’s ecumenical theory peculiar is its application to the sabbatarian Adventist movement, which according to him represented the “true church,” and was, by virtue of this identity, not to be “included among the sects of the day.” Thus he applied a simple but effective strategy: by exempting Adventism from the verdict of divisiveness, he cut the Gordian knot of problems in the theologies of unity. Sabbath keepers, according to Smith, were different from all the other churches for a simple reason: as a fulfilment of prophecy, they were “a church free from every denominational creed, planting itself upon the broad basis of the Bible, keeping the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus.” It is this reference to the apocalyptical parts of the Bible – here to Revelation 14:12 – that made all the difference to Adventists. Restorationism, “literal Bible truth,” 396 Cf. the discussion of restorationism in the beginning of this chapter. 397 Smith, “The Babel of Christendom,” 164. Similar reflections appeared in 1853 in an article by a Seventh Day Baptist reprinted by Adventists (“Babel – Babylon,” RH, October 25, 1853, 124, containing part of an article of C. Rollin Burdick, “The Bible in Our Common Schools,” Sabbath Recorder, September 8, 1853). Burdick argued that “The whole Christian world is a babel of unknown tongues. The church of Christ, shattered into a thousand fragments, by jars, discords and heresies, is bleeding at every pore … It all arises from a want of proper understanding of the Bible. Let its truths and doctrines be more universally disseminated, and their spirit more fully imbibed, … and sectarian hate and exclusiveness would find no place among Christians … [W]ere the Bible placed in the hands of children, without note or comment, either oral or written, and its study more perseveringly enjoined, they would form more nearly correct notions of its teachings than are now held by the religious world, and the number of sects would be diminished tenfold.” 398 Cf. the foundational document of the Disciples movement and its emphasis on restoration and unity: Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington, Washington (Pa.): Brown & Sample, 1809.

148

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Christian unity – all these motifs were significant but made sense to them only as part of a larger mosaic, a distinctly eschatological framework. It was, therefore, a zealous “truth approach” to unity connected with non-tradition notions and the eschatological “remnant” motif interpreted as the “last end of the church” which enabled these Sabbath keeping Adventists to construct a model of ecumenicity that projected Christian unity into the eschaton but by doing so also claimed its initial fulfilment in the very present – for the end-time had already come. As the sabbatarian remnant developed into a church organization, Christian unity and “Unity of the Remnant Church”399 would, unsurprisingly, soon mean the same thing for them. A third position which reinforced the conviction that Adventist Sabbath keepers epitomized true Christian unity was their view of the continuity of spiritual gifts – a position held by other restorationist movements as well400 – and, particularly, the gift of prophecy. The train of thought that the church needs all gifts mentioned in the New Testament at the end of time is found quite early in the process of building the future Seventh-day Adventist Church;401 it then slowly expands and finally complements the “truth” viz. Sabbath argument. In James White’s thinking, the time before the Second Advent was to be a mirror of the “perfect unity of the faith” in the time of the apostles, which “never has existed” since then and which was to be effected by a Spirit outpouring “in all its fullness” in what was called in the phraseology of the time the “latter rain.”402 The connection of the gift of prophecy, the end-time and church unity becomes a commonplace in Adventist reasoning in the ensuing years.403 Its cul-

399 R. F. C[ottrell,] “Unity of the Remnant Church,” RH, March 10, 1859, 125. He argued, “all human efforts for union have proved a failure … The third message [of the angel in Rev 14:9– 12] cannot fail to bring the remnant of God’s people into unity of faith.” (Ibid.) 400 Cf. the insistence in the early New Apostolic Church that all spiritual gifts and New Testament offices (including the apostle’s office and prophecy) must be revived before the parousia; see Helmut Obst, Neuapostolische Kirche – die exklusive Endzeitkirche?, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Bahn, 1996, 118–126. As is well known, similar notions on the spiritual gifts were common among the early Pentecostals. 401 [James White,] [Untitled Editorial Comment,] PT, December 1849 (no. 5), 40, argued regarding dreams and vision: “the Bible no where [sic] teaches that the time has past [sic] for such special revelations; and … there is positive testimony that the Church is to be blessed with special revelations ‘in the last days’ ” (emphasis in the original). 402 [James White,] “Gospel Union,” RH, November 25, 1851, 56. The “latter rain” motif occurs in several biblical texts – e. g. Joel 2:23 and James 5:7–8. Cf. also on the later prominence the “latter rain” motif in the Pentecostal Movement R. M. Riss, “Latter Rain Movement,” in Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas (eds.), New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, 830–833. 403 See, e. g., James White, “The Gifts of the Gospel Church,” RH, April 21, 1851, 69–70; David Arnold, “The Oneness of the Church and the Means of God’s Appointment for Its Purification and Unity,” RH, June 26, 1855, 249–251; J[ames] W[hite,] “Unity and Gifts of the

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

149

mination is the 1858 foreword by former Seventh Day Baptist Roswell F. Cottrell to Ellen G. White’s first major book, Spiritual Gifts (with the subtitle The Great Controversy).404 Cottrell vigorously argues for the continuity of spiritual gifts after the New Testament period and their necessity at the end of the Christian era. His following affirmation is quoted in full because it summarizes the restorationist-eschatological arguments that had become the standard among the future Seventh-day Adventists in the late 1850s:405 All these gifts were given for the perfecting of the saints in unity, knowledge and spirit. Under their influence the primitive church enjoyed for a time that unity. “The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” And it seems a natural consequence of this state of unity, that “with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.” Acts iv, 31–33. How desirable such a state of things now! But apostasy with its dividing and blighting influence marred the beauty of the fair church, and clothed her in sackcloth. Division and disorder have been the result. Never was there so great a diversity of faith in christendom as at the present day. If the gifts were necessary for the unity of the primitive church, how much more so to restore unity now! And that it is the purpose of God to restore the unity of the church in the last days, is abundantly evident from the prophecies. We are assured that … in the time of the end the wise shall understand.406 When this is fulfilled, there will be unity of faith with all that God accounts wise; for those that do in reality understand aright, must, necessarily, understand alike. What is to effect this unity, but the gifts that were given for this very purpose?407

This ecumenical notion, that only the gifts of the spirit, especially prophecy, could restore Christian unity, served a double purpose: averting criticism regarding Ellen White’s prophetic role and building a theology in which her ministry was actually an asset. In view of the vacuum left by the radical rejection of “tradition,” her voice could indeed provide a measure of unity in a sphere

404

405

406 407

Church,” RH, December 3, 1857, 29; December 10, 1857, 37; December 31, 1857, 60–61; January 7, 1858, 68–69. Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Battle Creek: James White, 1858. This book would become vol. 1 of a four-volume series and had the subtitle The Great Controversy between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels. Earlier publications by Ellen White were pamphlets and booklets as well as articles. The 1858 edition became the precursor of three revised and greatly expanded editions of 1884, 1888, and 1911. For a similar train of thought by the same author in an article written much later, see R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Unity and Harmony Characterize the Work of God,” RH, November 18, 1884, 730–731. Here he argues that disunity “in the brief history of this work” was caused by “fanatical and factious ones” (731). “The wise shall understand” is a quotation from Dan 12:10 – a book and chapter of great influence on the Adventist thinking of the time. Cottrell, [Foreword], in E. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 12–13 (emphases in the original). Later versions of the Great Controversy (1884, 1888, 1911) do not contain Cottrell’s foreword; a modified version is included, however, in the first of four volumes entitled Spirit of Prophecy, which was published from 1870 onwards.

150

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

where other authorities beside the Bible no longer existed and where the believers’ radicalism and individualism could threaten the cohesion and even existence of the emerging denomination. The developing Adventist views on church unity – their emphasis on unity as an eschatological-present reality, its basis on “truth,” and its guarantee in the gift of prophecy – all implied that the young movement was in the process of consolidating its structure. An entirely authority-free (Communal Sharing) zone could not hold for long, and the ecclesiological dream of two or three gathered without hierarchy did not prove practical in a fellowship of several thousand believers. Sociologically speaking, the movement had to develop mechanisms for countering the centrifugal tendencies that inevitably occur when a group reaches a certain size. In terms of inter-organizational relations, appropriate structures were still in the process of formation but had to be formed as the movement grew. Thus theologically, prophetic authority represented the ideal vehicle for transforming the Adventist self-understanding from a non-institutional, anti-credal fellowship of the elect to a more well-organized body with a living authority – a flexible one, but an authority all the same. Organic, visible unity was possible once its basis was clearly defined; Adventists had rejected confessions and creeds, councils and clerics – instead, they rejoiced in possessing “the truth” and God’s voice among them.408

3.2.3 Attitudes to Other Christians Interpreting “Babylon” The sabbatarian Adventists’ view of Christian unity corresponded to, and their negative ecclesiology crystallized in, an idea which played an eminent role in their early attitude towards the churches: the Babylon concept.409 The Millerite Ad408 Cottrell would later actually argue that the “the spirit of prophecy” makes ecclesiastical tradition unnecessary; he reasoned, “now the church has so far advanced from her wilderness seclusion, that the word and the Spirit – the commandments and the testimony – have been restored to their legitimate place in the church, and tradition and creeds are being rejected as worthless – as human and not divine. We lose nothing by rejecting these. The Lord gives us, in the place of tradition, his immutable word, and in the place of creeds, his unerring Spirit.” See R. F. Cottrell, “Schism,” RH, January 24, 1865, 65–66. The major portion of this text appears in Appendix II. 409 While there is much non-academic and some exegetical literature on this subject in the Adventist context, the only short study on the variety in the early Adventist use of the motif is Johannes Hartlapp, “Der Gebrauch des Begriffes ‘Babylon’ in der Kirchen- und STAGeschichte in kurzer Übersicht,” Spes Christiana 6 (1995), 33–50 (on early Adventists: 40– 45). A helpful overview of the history of interpretation is found in James Harding, Babylon and the Brethren: The Use and Influence of the Whore of Babylon Motif in the Christian

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

151

ventists had inherited, via the Puritans, a tradition of viewing the pope as the biblical antichrist and Roman Catholicism as the “great whore,” the Babylon of Revelation 17.410 However, many restorationists of the period also applied the latter motif to the other denominations, and among Adventists the divisive developments of 1843–44 reinforced the notion that Protestants had fulfilled this prophecy of John the Revelator as well.411 The Sabbath keeping Adventists, who built their thinking on assumptions of the Millerite radicals, naturally adopted this view.412 Yet for them it meant much more than merely shedding light on a biblical passage or identifying a particular part of an end-time scenario. Even statistically, the motif is extraordinarily significant in this early period of the future Seventh-day Adventists.413 Its importance can be best appreciated when analysed in light of their eschatological framework of thinking and limited ecclesiology. The fact that Babylon had “fallen” (Revelation 14:8) meant that only one of the three end-time messages of the three angels in Revelation 14 was remaining to be proclaimed, which confirmed the conviction that the time until the parousia was likely to be short. Ecclesiologically, Babylon signified all that these Sabbath keepers did not want to be, and since the Advent was impending, they did not believe that there was a need for them to develop a comprehensive teaching on the church: the remnant, the “last end of the church,” was an interim stage, and as a concept, it had to suffice for the brief remaining period.

410

411 412

413

Brethren Movement, 1829–1900, Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2015, 49–72. The remaining parts of the book present an interesting parallel to Adventist reasoning: according to Brethren interpretations of different phases, “Babylon” represented papal Rome, all of corrupt Christendom, doctrinal confusion and worldliness. A history of prophetic interpretation written by a mid-20th century Adventist apologist depicts the wirkungsgeschichte of the Babylon and antichrist motifs (besides other eschatological imagery): LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, 4 vols., Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1950. For some time, they republished Millerite articles with this very thrust; see, e. g., “Come out of Babylon!,” RH, December 9, 1851, 57–59, 64 (reprint from Voice of Truth, September 1844; this journal was edited by Joseph Marsh, a former Christian Connection preacher). P. Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, 179–184, offers an overview of some pertinent utterances of the period; however, his presentation does not engage with the sources and the reasoning contained beyond a descriptive approach. Apart from the many articles on the topic, the word Babylon (or Babel, Babylonian) is mentioned more than 1200 times in the in the 350 issues of the Review and Herald during the 1850s; about 250 issues in total contain references to the term. For comparison: “Sunday” and “remnant” appear about 1800 times each; “denomination(s)” about 1200 times.

152

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

In terms of interactions with the existing denominations, the all-or-nothing attitude contained in the term “Babylon”414 obviously implied an extremely challenging manner of relating from the Adventist side and a lack of motivation offered to the other side to initiate any kind of dialogue, with the possible exception of Seventh Day Baptists.415 Of course the fact that the sabbatarian Adventists did not view themselves as a denomination in the 1840s and 1850s also meant that a relationship on equal terms was impossible. Moreover, for many Sabbath-keepers, “Babylon” still corresponded to establishing a permanent organization; in this sense, the very non-institutional identity of this Sabbath keepers’ movement implied that cooperation and even genuine conversation were next to impossible. The fact that there was some variety in, and discussion about, the finer details of interpreting the Babylon passages in the last book of the Bible is noteworthy,416 but such exegetical debates did not make a major difference in terms of theological conclusions and interchurch relations.417 For an extended period James White believed the texts to be fulfilled in Protestantism only418 whereas John N. Andrews419 viewed the term as referring to “all the corrupt religious bodies which ever have existed.”420 For both, the consequence was that true believers were to leave their denominations. Joseph Clarke421 even clothed this idea in a 414 James White, “The Third Angel’s Message,” PT, April 1850, 66, explains about the years 1843–44 in the Millerite Movement, “The churches … shut out the ‘everlasting good news’ of the coming kingdom; and when that was accomplished, Jesus, and the Spirit of truth left them for ever [sic], and the churches or Babylon fell.” John N. Andrews, “Thoughts on Revelation XIII and XIV,” RH, May 19, 1851, 81–86, explained, “Babylon is the apostate churches … The proclamation of the coming kingdom was made to her by the first angel, and the message having been rejected no farther work could ever be done for her.” (81) 415 Sabbatarian Adventists and Seventh Day Baptists differed on the interpretation of Babylon; see J[ohn] N. Andrews, “What Is Babylon?,” RH, February 21, 1854, 36–37, an article that reacts to a Seventh Day Baptist article discussing Adventist views. The article does not address the question how Adventists viewed their sabbatarian contemporaries. For later interactions between SDA and SDB, see section 3.3.2 below (“Sabbatarian Ecumenism”). 416 Samuel K. Chemurtoi, “James White and J. N. Andrews’ Debate on the Identity of Babylon, 1850–1868,” M.A. thesis, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2005; Hartlapp, “Der Gebrauch des Begriffes ‘Babylon’,” lists some further instances in which Babylon is utilized in a figurative manner. 417 The theological concern behind these two emphases were most likely a missionary task to all other Christians (Andrews) and a salvation-historical view of Revelation 14 that provided a raison d’être for the existence of the sabbatarian Adventist movement (James White). 418 [James White,] “The Angels of Rev. xiv – No. 3,” RH, December 1851, 63–64. 419 Andrews, who was born in 1829, became the movement’s premier theologian during the 1850s. One major publication is his History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week, Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Review and Herald Office, 1861 (340 pages!). 420 J[ohn] N. Andrews, “What is Babylon?,” RH, February 21, 1854, 36. 421 Cf. [Michael W. Campbell,] “Unsung Heroes: Joseph Clarke,” November 11, 2013, online: http://www.adventisthistory.org/2013/11/11/unsung-heroes-joseph-clarke, accessed Sep-

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

153

14-stanza poem on the topic. After describing how “the message” reaches all parts of the world, the poet continues by connecting stereotypes of the day and the Adventist view of Babylon:422 To the frowning Papist, and confident Greek, To the selfish Jew, and the Christian meek; To the silly Mormon, and stubborn Turk, The awful message will do its work. The sects have decided, their houses are closed, And the truth which would save them, is blindly opposed. Habitations of devils they now have become, While the message so fitly is tracing their doom. Tradition for Bible, and fables for truth, Beguile the unwary, the children and youth; The man of gray hairs, and the man in his prime, Then heed ye the message, ere the close of time. ………………………. . Let lake, sea and ocean be peaceful and still, While the cry of the angel sounds clear and shrill, Babylon is fallen! come out of her my people!

The arguments utilized to demonstrate that the fall of Babylon was a reality were many. Three stand out and illustrate how these early Adventists attempted to translate three of the classic notae ecclesiae – unity, apostolicity, and holiness – into their time (notions of catholicity were conspicuously absent). One is a protest in the name of unity: the criticism of “sectarianism,”423 inherited from the restorationists and at times connected with a hint at the possible correspondence of the number of denominations to the “number of the beast” (Rev 13:18) – “six hundred three score and six.”424 The second is a peculiar application of apostolicity to themselves: a combination of the back-to-the scriptures emphasis (implying a return to apostolic Christianity) with their Advent proclamation (implying a specific mission) led them to interpret the Millerite Movement as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Revelation 14. This interpretation, in turn, made it tember 15, 2014. Clarke had apparently been a Seventh Day Baptist who joined the Adventist movement in 1855. 422 Clarke, “Babylon Is Fallen! Come out of Her, My People! – Rev. xviii,” RH, November 4, 1858, 190. 423 J[ames] W[hite], “Babylon,” RH, March 10, 1859, 122–123; and a short note: M. S. C., “John Wesley on Union,” RH, December 18, 1856, 53 (quoted from Wesley’s Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, 1st ed. 1755; for the quote see also the edition London: Epworth, 1950, 8): “Would to God that all the party names and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world were forgot [sic].” The author comments, “Surely Babylon is fallen.” 424 Andrews, “Thoughts on Revelation XIII and XIV,” 85.

154

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

natural to project the 2nd angel’s message of Babylon’s fall into the separatist phase of the Advent revival, i. e. the years 1843–44.425 It is noteworthy that this explanation entered the writings of Ellen White,426 the movement’s prophet, who even intensified it by declaring, “I saw the state of the different churches since the second angel proclaimed their fall. They have been growing more and more corrupt.”427 Why such an unequivocal condemnation? The key to Ellen White’s 1858 statement is the third, ethical line of argument for the fall of Babylon: slavery and the churches’ stance toward it. More than half of the chapter that bemoans the corruption of the churches consists of declarations regarding the slavery system; she warned, “God will restrain his anger but a little longer. His anger burns against this nation, and especially against the religious bodies who have sanctioned, and have themselves engaged in this terrible merchandise.”428 Like sabbatarian Adventists at large,429 who had inherited their strong abolitionist stance from the Millerites,430 the movement’s prophet believed that the lack of Christian commitment to slave liberation and the actual pro-slavery position in numerous denominations was a blatant corruption of Christian holiness and thus revealed that “Satan has taken full possession of the churches as a body.”431 The remaining arguments advanced in the period to identify “Babylon” – spiritual lethargy, pride, selfishness, lack of simplicity, and the mixing of religion and politics432 – all connect with holiness notions of the period as well. However, 425 [James White,] “The Angels of Rev. xiv – No. 3,” RH, December 1851, 63, recounts for instance: “The few living souls in all these churches, who had received the advent message … were not allowed to speak freely of their faith and hope. Their testimony being crushed, the way was fully prepared for the second message, ‘Babylon is fallen,’ etc.” 426 A whole chapter in Ellen White’s first full-length book deals with this view, see White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1: The Great Controversy between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels, Battle Creek: James White, 1858, 140–143 (“The Second Angel’s Message”), as well as 144–153. 427 Ibid., 189. 428 Ibid., 191. 429 James White, “Repairing the Breach in the Law of God,” PT, September 1849, 25, speaks of the “falling judgments of Almighty God” which “will not be averted by such a fast as was holden August 3d, while on this nation rests the cruel, and damning sin of slavery.” Further references are found e. g. in A. P. Lawton, “Babylon,” RH, March 6, 1855, 190; J[ohn] N. Andrews, “The Three Angels of Rev. IXV, 6–12,” RH, March 6, 1855, 185–187; and M. E. Cornell, “Babylon Fallen,” RH, November 4, 1858, 192. 430 Cf. footnote 286 in this chapter. 431 E. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 189. 432 These various assertions are made e. g. by O[tis] Nichols, “Babylon,” RH, January 13, 1852, and J. H. Waggoner, “Babylon is Fallen,” September 5, 1854, 29 (politics viz. mixing church and state); [James White,] “Babylon,” RH, June 24, 1852, 28–29 (spiritual dearth); J[ohn] N. Andrews, “What is Babylon?,” RH, February 21, 1854, 36 (conformity to the world, pride, intemperance, politics); S. B. Warren, “Babylon Fallen!,” RH, August 1, 1854, 204 (pride, dress, dancing); Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 190 (iniquity, selfishness,

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

155

compared with the first three, they seem rather weak theologically and exegetically because they were consistently supported with mere anecdotal evidence.433 Nevertheless, this kind of reasoning points to an important dimension in the concomitant genesis of sabbatarian Adventist ecclesial thinking and, by extension, reflection on interchurch relations. Like the arguments above, the items mentioned here all had a subjective-empirical dimension in addition to their objective-theological core. The Babylon motif, therefore, meant different things to the earliest Adventists in different realms: on the objective level, it implied (1) an attempt at gaining an (exegetical) understanding of biblical passages such as Revelation 14 and 17, (2) applying (ethical) judgement in a contested issue of political import, and (3) solidifying the (eschatological) conviction regarding a near parousia. All these seemingly rational pursuits, however, could only be undertaken insofar as they also spoke to, and were shaped by, (1) an (experiential) explanation of what had happened in the movement’s recent past, (2) an (ultimately emotional) justification for a course of action such as the separateness from other Christians and (3) an (ecclesiological) enhancement of the role that their own new group of believers would gain. The Babylon concept, therefore, not only fitted in with the theological-historical system inherited from Millerites, but its refined and invigorated use on these different levels also made it the hub of sabbatarian Adventists’ interchurch relations thinking during the period – an utterly self-confident and thoroughly sectarian approach. Sabbatarian Adventists and Revivals Given this thinking on “Babylon,” it is hardly surprising that the sabbatarian Adventist assessment of developments in the Protestant denominations was decidedly negative. Since Millerites and their sabbatarian offspring had originated in, and continued to relate to, the revivalist atmosphere of their time, revival phenomena were of particular importance to them. Thus it is interesting that the earliest shut-door Adventists argued in 1845 that genuine revivals did not occur anymore – otherwise, one of their prominent writers argued, it was “time

pride, adornment); J[ames] W[hite], “Babylon,” RH, March 10, 1859, 122–123 (various items). 433 Many of the “Babylon” articles of the period utilize stories found in other magazines, experienced by the author, or selected from representatives of other denominations to support the claim of “fallenness.” One particularly notable example is J. H. Waggoner, “Babylon is Fallen,” September 5, 1854, 29–30, an article which presents a whole collection of assertions and explains, “We judge that they are fallen, from their own statements and admissions.” A similar case is J[ames] W[hite], “Babylon,” RH, March 10, 1859, 122.

156

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

for the adventists [sic] to return to the churches, and not only make their confession, but renounce their hope.”434 Two of the three major leaders of the future Seventh-day Adventists, Joseph Bates and James White, echoed this thinking,435 and the third, Ellen White, held a similar view. Still under the influence of shut-door thinking, she declared in 1850, The excitements and false reformations of this day do not move us, for we know that the Master of the house rose up in 1844, and shut the door of the first apartment of the heavenly tabernacle … [T]he Lord … hath withdrawn himself … from them. The Lord has shown me that the power which is with them is a mere human influence, and not the power of God.436

Yet she also reported having seen that “mysterious signs and wonders, and false reformations would increase, and spread.”437 Thus a few years later, a first application of her prophecy to local revivalistic phenomena was made by a Review reader,438 and when the 1857–58 revival developed first in New York and then in other cities,439 sabbatarian Adventists quickly and unambiguously rejected it as a deception.440 It may seem somewhat ironic that representatives of a movement that had been born from an awakening just a few years before changed into staunch critics of revivalism (even while carrying on many such features themselves). However, the ambivalent stance regarding slavery in the 1857–58 movement441 differed

434 A[pollos] Hale, “Brother Hale’s Article,” RH, September 16, 1851, 25–28, here 27 (= “Has the Bridegroom Come?,” Advent Herald, February 26, 1845, 17–19). Hale even postulated, “It may be shown from a large number of facts, that the last special cases of spiritual interest among the professed churches were the result, directly or indirectly, of the Advent doctrine.” (Ibid.) 435 Joseph Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, 53, argued, “How can you have faith in Babylonish revivals, after Babylon has fallen?”; James White observed the “great spiritual dearth” and the lack of revivalism and spiritual interest in “the churches” and interpreted this condition as a proof “that the churches have fallen.” See [James White,] “Babylon,” RH, June 24, 1852, 28–29, here 28. 436 Ellen G. White, “My Dear Brethren and Sisters,” PT, March 1850 (no. 8), 64. 437 Ellen G. White, “Dear Brethren and Sisters,” PT, August 1849 (no. 3), 22. 438 E. R. Seaman, “Can Ye not Discern the Signs of the Times?,” RH, February 21, 1854, 37. 439 For a comprehensive study of the revival, see Kathryn T. Long, The Revival of 1857–58: Interpreting an American Religious Awakening, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 440 See, e. g., “Extracts from Letters,” RH, February 4, 1858, 103; Jesse Dorcas, “Exhort One Another,” RH, June 17, 1858, 37. For further source references, see Damsteegt, Foundations, 184–185, and the footnotes below. 441 In a chapter entitled “ ‘Where is the Evidence of Your Revival of Religion?’ Critiques of the Revival’s Social Impact,” Kathryn Long, The Revival of 1857–58, explains that criticism came mainly from “non-evangelical abolitionists and evangelical antislavery radicals” (110). She concludes, “the Revival of 1857–58 provided little or no ethical impetus for such acti-

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

157

markedly from the Millerite heritage and enraged Adventists. Moreover, the logic behind rejecting later movements of awakening was common among other revivalists442 and is understandable from a Relational Models Theory perspective.443 Moreover, it was compelling to its advocates (if one-sided when viewed from a distance): the Advent awakening was the last major revival in salvation history before the “Third Angel’s Message,” the proclamation of the Sabbath by Adventists from 1846 onward. According to this thinking, it was impossible for denominations that had not accepted either of these two elements to experience true awakenings.444 Or, as the editor of the sabbatarian Adventist paper, Uriah Smith, put it in 1859, we know of course that they cannot recover from that condition [of being fallen], until they first repent of the steps that led them to it – until they grieve for their past neglect, and walk up to the abundant light that now shines forth from the word of God. Nothing of this kind have they done; and yet they claim that a wonderful revival has taken place among them, a wonderful outpouring of the Spirit of God has been realized in their very midst.445

“That which must not, cannot be.”446 The Sabbath-keeping Adventists, therefore, had explanations for the spiritual upsurge in the country other than a rise in true religious interest: a connection with the rising trend of spiritualism447 or a satanic strategy “to increase the political strength of the nominal church, and thus

442 443

444

445 446 447

vism apart from the imperatives of prayer and evangelism. It was, in that sense, revivalism without social reform” (126). In a chapter on what he calls “the 1859/1873 revival,” Klaus Fiedler, The Story of Faith Missions, Oxford: Regnum, 1994, 113, demonstrates that representatives of movements stemming from earlier revivals commonly view new revivals “as a danger or a nuisance.” Revivals are prime materializations of spiritual unity notions – with the strongest possible bonds holding together the fellowship of the awakened. For many of those who experience such Communal Sharing relationships, it is difficult to imagine that individuals can undergo the same kind of experience on a basis differing from their own. Such notions of mutuality and equivalence necessitate an appreciation of the (seemingly less spiritual) Equality Matching relationship. A. S. H., “Reformations in the Nominal Churches,” RH, March 11, 1858, 136, and [Uriah Smith,] “The Recent Revivals,” RH, April 21, 1859, 172–173, list various reasons, which essentially echo the Adventist reasoning regarding Babylon: (1) the division of the churches is sectarian, (2) God rejected the churches when they grieved the Spirit in 1843, (3) the churches have experienced a “downward course” since that time, (4) anecdotal evidence of inconsistencies or lack of true spirituality, and (5) the issue of slavery. Added is criticism regarding sensationalism, exaggeration and fictitious stories. [Smith,] “The Recent Revivals,” 172. From a 1910 poem by Christian Morgenstern, “Die Unmögliche Tatsache [The Impossible Fact].” The movement’s magazine quoted an article from a spiritualist paper, Spiritual Age, April 10, 1858, in which a representative of this movement states that revival converts will find spiritualism “an unexpected and inestimable treasure”; see “What Spiritualists Expect to Reap from the Revivals,” RH, April 29, 1858, 192.

158

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

prepare the way for the last persecution against the people of God.”448 On the other hand, there was, indirectly, good news in revivalist phenomena: if the 1857– 58 revival – or its 1859 counterpart in Ireland449 – was a false one or even represented “the greatest deception ever imposed on mankind,”450 it also pointed to the soon end of history. As the flames of American religious enthusiasm faded in the early 1860s, the Adventist argumentative strategy changed. Now references to the “dearth of revivals” in the country were offered as evidence for the desolate state of Christianity.451 Moreover, Adventists soon tended to redefine true revival as selfdenial452 and adhering to principles of righteousness rather than sensational experiences.453 Thus shortly after forming a denomination of their own, Roswell Cottrell claimed that Seventh-day Adventists actually represent the “last revival – the closing up of the work of the reformation”; in view of the near parousia, no global spread of conversions was to be expected: “Not a revival that will convert the world, but one that is destined to gather out a few – the little flock – and prepare them for translation at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”454 The Beginning of a Missionary Consciousness If the Sabbath keeping Adventists viewed “the sects” and revivals in an exceedingly sceptical manner, it was natural that their assessment of missionary activities by the churches and conversions resulting from them followed a similar track. In the 1840s, this suspicion-driven perspective was, of course, enhanced by a shut-door view that did not allow for any conversions: only Millerites were believed to be able to accept the Sabbath and thus prepare for entry into the kingdom. Bates, for instance, sweepingly asserted in 1847, “although the 30 months have rolled away since that crisis [Oct. 1844], I have yet to learn of one individual that has been brought into that state where that Gospel required the 448 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “The Present ‘Revivals’ in Babylon,” RH, May 13, 1858, 206. 449 [Uriah Smith,] “The Revival in Ireland,” RH, November 24, 4. 450 Ibid. Regarding the 1859 revival in Ireland, J[oseph] Clarke, “The Revival in Ireland,” RH, October 6, 1859, 157, argued (after very sceptical remarks) that “a powerful agency is at work on the other side of the great waters,” thus stopping short of attributing it to the devil. For a scholarly reflection on the Irish revival and parallels in Scotland, Wales, and England, see chapter 4 (“Revivalism, Ritualism and Authority, 1859–1876”) of Stewart J. Brown, Providence and Empire: Religion, Politics and Society in the United Kingdom, 1815–1914, Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2008, 214–226. 451 “A Dearth of Revivals,” RH, February 5, 1861, 96; this article quotes the Oberlin Evangelist, which stated that “there are but very few revivals of religion at this time in the country.” 452 “Revival Preaching,” RH, February 14, 1865, 91. 453 “Religious Revivals,” RH, December 1, 1863, 3. Interestingly, this latter view was borrowed from The Chronicle, a Baptist magazine. 454 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “The Great Revival Here,” RH, August 29, 1865, 100.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

159

church of God to stand and pass through the fiery furnace of affliction … [I]t is utterly vain to look to the nominal church for any such individual.”455 However, the conviction of these future Seventh-day Adventists – that there was no more work to be done for “the world and the fallen churches,” as they frequently formulated in the years after the Great Disappointment – soon proved a dilemma. What should they do if an opportunity arose for them to speak about their faith? James White refers to such an occasion in an 1846 letter. He reported his plan to preach at a funeral of “[o]ur very dear Sister Mary Ann Lawrence,” whose mother he considered “a Lamb [sic] among wolves” because there were no other Adventists in the area. White further related that he was to address “a congregation of old hard ugly Congregationalists and Methodists” and evidently felt obliged to defend himself for interacting with them, for he added, “Do not think bro James is getting formal or is going to try to convert people to the advent faith[,] no its [sic] too [late].456 But its [sic] our duty on some occasions to give a reason of our hope I think even to Swine.”457 This early correspondence not only reveals the utterly antagonistic attitudes to the denominations and to non-Adventists in general, but also testifies to the continuation of some kind of missionary impulse. Minuscule though it may have become, it could not be fully extinguished even in the period of most exclusive Adventist self-conceptualization. It is noteworthy that James White wrote these lines a few days before he and his fiancée Ellen Harmon married and, soon after, began to keep the Sabbath,458 for the Sabbath teaching would soon reconfigure the thinking of many Bridegroom Adventists and their relationship to the outside world. It merely took months to shift the centre of their Millerite and shut-door system of beliefs to a complex which they summarized as “Sabbath and shut door.” After a few years, this formula would be superseded again by the biblical slogan “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev 14:12), which implied that they had quietly abandoned the earlier “no conversions” ideology. Thus it is the Sabbath teaching that initiated a dynamic which transformed a tiny, backward-oriented group of anti-mission shut-door Millerites into Adventist Sabbath-keepers who believed themselves to have a present and future mission to their fellow Adventists, then to other Christians, and, finally, to the world. 455 Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, 40; a whole section of the booklet (55–68) deals with the “shut door.” 456 Illegible in the original (text destroyed by the letter seal); “late” is a conjecture. 457 James S. White – Philip Collins, August 26, 1846, EGWE (emphasis in the original), online: http://ellenwhite.org/content/correspondence/white-js/020002-opdf, accessed March 1, 2016. 458 The letter is the document in which the White’s marriage is referred to for the first time (“We shall be married perhaps Monday”; it was written the Wednesday before); see ibid.

160

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

How was this possible? It took several small steps; none of them seemed to be a major modification, but taken together they implied a complete paradigm change. (1) Once Bates, the Whites and a few others had adopted Saturday sabbatarianism, they quickly incorporated it into their apocalyptical worldview and assumed that it was a key to enter God’s kingdom. (2) After they associated the “seal of God” of Revelation 7 and 14 with their Sabbath teaching in 1848, Ellen White emphasized that “the remnant … were not all sealed,”459 thus checking tendencies at declaring the sabbatarian group closed and viewing its mission as accomplished. (3) Soon Bates declared that non-Millerites could gain access to salvation as well.460 This seemingly minor but crucial bent opened the way for further steps. (4) Having shifted away the focus from fellow Millerites, the sense of mission – connected with the group’s sabbatarian beliefs – led to a thoroughly refurbished evangelistic reasoning and, thus, a modified attitude to non-Adventist Christians. By late 1849, James White wrote, “I believe that the Sabbath truth is yet to ring through the land, as the Advent never has.”461 (5) In 1850 Ellen White began to utilize new mission rhetoric: instead of the earlier shut door sentiments,462 the emphasis was now on “poor souls dying for want of the present truth”; the movement’s prophet urged that “the swift messengers must speed on 459 Ellen G. White, To Those Who Are Receiving the Seal of the Living God [Broadside], January 31, 1849, containing an account of a vision of January 5, 1849 (entitled “The Sealing”). Later publications of the vision omit the “all” in this statement, thus reducing apocalyptic urgency and opening up a perspective of more wide-reaching missionary work; see Ellen G. White, A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White, Saratoga Springs: James White, 1851, 21, and Ellen G. White, Early Writings of Ellen G. White, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1882, 38. 460 In 1849 he reasoned about the group of “those who do not yet so well understand the advent doctrine; but are endeavoring to serve God with their whole hearts, and are willing, and will receive this covenant and Sabbath as soon as they hear it explained. These will constitute the 144,000, now to be sealed with ‘a seal of the living God’.” See Bates, A Seal of the Living God, 61. The 144,000 refer to those who receive the eschatological “seal” in Revelation 7; cf. also Revelation 14:1–5. 461 James S. White – Brother Bowles, November 8, 1849, EGWE. This does not mean that he believed in mass conversions or a ministry that extended over a long period, for in late 1850, he observed, “True, some have professed conversion to God, and to the Advent faith since 1844, enough to fulfil the words of the Prophet, [Hosea v, 7,] ‘they have begotten strange children.’ But it will not be denied that where one has embraced the faith ten have given it up.” [James] W[hite], “Our Present Position,” RH, December 1850, 13–15, here 15. 462 There was one exception to this change: in January 1850, James White reported that his wife had stated, “I saw yesterday our work was not to the shepherds who have rejected the former messages, but to the honest deceived who are led astray.” Thus it appears that shut door thinking remained with regard to religious leaders but disappeared regarding the average believer at the time. See James S. White – Brother Hastings, January 10–11, 1850, EGWE, online: http://ellenwhite.org/content/correspondence/white-js/020020-opdf, accessed March 1, 2016.

Apocalyptic Anti-Institutionalism and Sabbath Mission

161

their way to search out the scattered flock” and that believers should support them in doing so.463 (6) Finally, in the early 1850s the sabbatarian Adventist magazine published an increasing number of conversion stories of individuals who had not been Adventists before,464 a practice contrary to convictions in the years before. Bates’ vision of the apocalyptic 144,000 to be gathered in literally465 entailed an enormous challenge for the tiny group of believers, but Adventists were serious about the task they believed they had been given. It is this missionary consciousness that would shape their interchurch relationships in the generations to come. With their vision that earth’s “final harvest” consisted of the fruit of a very well-defined mission, alternative missionary concepts understandably aroused scepticism among these Adventist Sabbath-keepers. In the mid-1850s, Uriah Smith argued that large-scale Protestant efforts at influencing the nation with the gospel had availed almost nothing to anyone and actually could not benefit society; after all, “He who foresaw the end from the beginning, has told us that goodness and virtue should gradually cease to find an abode in the hearts of men; that wickedness and vice in most hideous forms, should increase and flourish.” Only the Adventists’ proclamation would lead to the result that “a few may be saved.”466 In a similar manner, other Adventist leaders continued to argue in the late 1850s that foreign missionaries’ work produced little success and that the conversions to which their work contributed were “of a doubtful character.”467 The shut door had opened, sabbatarian missionizing was now thinkable, but the view of other churches’ activities remained part of the Babylon template.468 At the same time, the Adventist missionary consciousness was developing further and finally revolutionized the way in which these sabbatarians viewed their own movement.469 Their aim was to call “many dear saints united with the

463 Ellen G. White, “To the ‘Little Flock’,” PT, April 1850, 71, 72. 464 See, e. g., Harriet Cole, “From Sister Cole,” RH, June 2, 1851, 96; “Extracts of Letters,” RH, November 25, 1851, 55. 465 Joseph Bates, “From Bro. Bates,” RH, January 13, 1852, 80. He closed his letter, “O, God speed the work of gathering the 144,000 here, and all over the field. Amen.” 466 [Uriah Smith,] “Evangelizing the World,” RH, November 6, 1856, 8. 467 J[oseph] B. Frisbie, “The World’s Conversion,” RH, August 19, 1858, 105, quoting an article from the Detroit Weekly Advocate (no title article indicated). See also M[erritt] E. Cornell, “Will They Convert the World?,” RH, December 22, 1859, 37. 468 It is two generations later – after Seventh-day Adventists had begun global missionary activities beyond Christendom in the late 1890s – that this view changed. See 4.2. 469 For an overview of further developments in Adventist missionary thinking particularly from 1860 onward, see Børge F. Schantz, “The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought: Contemporary Appraisal,” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983, 232–276.

162

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

various bodies of professed Christians” so that they may “get out of Babylon.”470 But what did “out” actually mean? Uriah Smith formulated, “we are anxious that the truth should be brought before the people, that honest souls may come into the ark before it is too late.”471 “Ark” actually meant the body of Sabbathkeeping Adventists, a fellowship that differed markedly from the small groups of sabbatarians a few years earlier. It was a well-structured church,472 no longer just a “band”; this group did not merely wait for the end of history but had a mission and actually defined itself in a missionary manner very soon.473 The future Seventh-day Adventists had indeed gone through enormous changes of perspective in merely fifteen years. After the “Great Disappointment” and the subsequent disintegration of the Millerite Movement in 1845, they had built a tiny new movement into a church. Starting among the most radical antiestablishment activists and anti-organization advocates, they built their theology on a foundation that was unlikely to produce any lasting momentum or numerical growth – the “shut door” teaching. With regard to relationships with Christians outside the Millerite realm, these Bridegroom Adventists were predisposed to almost total indifference and antagonism. The inherited views on Babylon and the scepticism regarding developments among those churches reinforced the utterly dark picture that they painted of Christendom. The pioneering nucleus of these apocalypticists would have probably imploded had they not refined and modified their initial convictions on the basis of their sabbatarianism. With the Sabbath teaching and practice as a key to group identity and, progressively, mission theology, they were able to reshape their extremely close-knit and exclusivist fellowship into a body in which a delicate balance of power rested between the movement’s leaders and its prophetic voice. The price for this adoption of the authority (AR) principle in addition to the experience orientation (CS) in the small Adventist shut-door communities that had characterized the earliest phase after 1844 was that crucial developments – in doctrine and structure – were no longer in the hands of the entire body of believers. The “remnant” became the “Remnant Church”; the fellowship with its negative ecclesiology birthed an organization that conceived of itself as a missionary body; the movement turned into a denomination. 470 J[ohn] N. Andrews, “What is Babylon?,” RH, February 21, 1854, 37. Similar statements, which emphasize that there are “honest souls” viz. “God’s people” in the churches, are found in other articles as well; see, e. g., A. S. H., “Reformations in the Nominal Churches,” RH, March 11, 1858, 136; R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “The Present ‘Revivals’ in Babylon,” RH, May 13, 1858, 206; J[ames] W[hite], “Babylon,” RH, March 10, 1859, 122–123. 471 U[riah] S[mith], “Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord,” RH, May 30, 1854, 148. 472 Or, as Smith put it, “that each member should be found standing at his post and filling his allotted place, is necessary for a vigorous and healthy condition of the whole church” (ibid.). 473 See, e. g., B. F. Snook, “The Great Missionary Society,” RH, July 7, 1863, 46, an article that defines the church with mission characteristics.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

3.3

163

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism: The Early Seventh-day Adventist Church

3.3.1 Becoming a Church The Laodicea Motif But before Seventh-day Adventists actually organized into an incorporated body, a few other aspects of self-understanding had to evolve. In addition to the growing missionary momentum, the time factor – the passing of a decade after 1844 – modulated their one-dimensional understandings of “remnant” and “church” by the mid-1850s. Of course eschatology continued to play a decisive role in Adventists’ ecclesiological thinking; the church, to them, was an entirely liminal association. At the same time, as the self-description as “church” was on the rise474 this less explicitly eschatological term expressed a new consciousness. In fact, the numerical growth of Adventist Sabbath keepers in the early and mid-1850s led to a situation in which a considerable number of individuals no longer displayed the original Millerite fervour.475 Apparently the “waiting remnant” could not remain in a high-tension position of anticipation for more than a decade, and while a church became reality, the movement’s leaders observed what they interpreted as a slackening of commitment, a “lukewarmness” of spirituality. Interestingly, this trend led to a picture in which “remnant church” ecclesiology and frequent severe criticism by the Adventist prophet went hand in hand. In the early 1850s, Ellen White had already pointed to the need of more dedication among sabbatarian Adventists.476 In 1854, she wrote, again, “I saw that the remnant were not prepared for what is coming upon the earth. Stupidity, like the [sic] lethargy, seemed to hang upon the minds of most of those who profess to believe that we are having the last message. … A great work must be done for the remnant. They are, many of them, dwelling upon little trials.”477 474 See section 3.2.2 above (“Identity Formation, Church Concepts and Notions of Unity”). 475 This paragraph and the following five render text (with some modifications) already published in my article “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism,” 292–295 (copyright: Andrews University Seminary Studies. Used by permission). For another largely descriptive account of the beginnings of Laodicea thinking among sabbatarian Adventists, see Damsteegt, Foundations, 244–248. 476 Ellen G. White, “To the ‘Little Flock’,” PT, April 1850, 71–72. Here she criticized that many among the “people of God” were “stupid and dormant; and were but half awake” and “attached to their possessions, and were not willing to cut loose from them and sacrifice to speed the messengers on their way to feed the hungry sheep.” Further rebukes like this are found in her contributions to RH in the following years. 477 Ellen G. White, Supplement to the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White, Rochester: James White, 1854, 39–40. James White himself held similar sentiments and called sabbatarian Adventists “an inexperienced and unsanctified church” and deplored

164

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Similar statements frequently appear in her Testimonies from 1855 onwards. In the very first of these (entitled “Thy Brother’s Keeper”), she reports: I saw that the Spirit of the Lord has been dying away from the church … I saw that the mere argument of the truth will not move souls to take a stand with the remnant; for the truth is unpopular … I saw that the church has nearly lost the spirit of self-denial and sacrifice; they make self and self-interest first, and then they do for the cause what they think they can as well as not.478

It should be noted that here “remnant” and “church” are used synonymously to describe sabbatarian Adventists. The many other texts and visions of Ellen White containing statements of this kind479 raise the question, What ecclesiological consequence did such recurrent reproofs have? When comparing her portrayal of sabbatarian Adventists’ lives with the common depiction of other Christians, one finds parallels in many cases, even if the assessment of “Babylon” is still darker. Yet the generally sceptical attitude regarding the Christian character of all “professed” or “nominal” believers’ discipleship, whether Sabbath keepers or non-sabbatarians, indicates that the principle behind these assertions is what may be called a “critical ecclesiology,” a church concept derived from an eschatologically loaded theology combined with a pessimistic anthropology on the one side and a strongly Arminian soteriology on the other. It is this critical undercurrent of all Adventist reasoning on the church that led to an unanticipated turn in sabbatarian ecclesial thinking in the mid-1850s: the application of the “Laodicea” motif of Revelation 3 to their own movement. In the early 1840s, the “lukewarm” Laodiceans, the last of the seven churches of Revelation 2–3, had been interpreted by Millerites as referring to Christianity in general;480 in the second half of the 1840s and early 1850s, Sabbath keepers applied the motif to the non-sabbatarian Millerites,481 while the exemplary

478 479

480 481

“the rash, exclusive and retaliating spirit of some of the brethren” (James White, “The Faith of Jesus,” RH, March 7, 1854, 53, 54). This 1855 text is republished in Testimonies, vol. 1, 113–114. For 1855, see “Parental Responsibility” (chapter 18) and “Faith in God” (ch. 19); for 1856, “Conformity to the World” (ch. 23); and for 1856, “Be Zealous and Repent” (ch. 25). The latter text contains a reference to the “message to the Laodicean church” (Testimonies, vol. 1). Numerous other texts from later years could also be cited. See, e. g., Miller, Evidence [1842 ed., Boston: Joshua V. Himes], 155–156. See Joseph Bates’ references in his books The Opening Heavens [1846], 36–37, Second Advent Way Marks [1847], 77, An Explanation of the Typical and Antitypical Sanctuary by the Scriptures with a Chart, New Bedford, Mass.: Benjamin Lindsey, 1850, 13–14; as well as his articles “The Laodicean Church,” RH, November 1850, 7–8; and “Our Labor in the Philadelphia [sic] and Laodicean Churches,” RH, August 19, 1851, 13–14. Further see [James] W[hite], “The Design of the Chart,” RH, February 1851, 47; and [James White], “The Immediate Coming of Christ,” RH, February 17, 1853, 156. Other radical post-disappointment Adventists had held similar views about the mainstream Millerites; see Höschele, “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism,” 277–278.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

165

“Philadelphia” church was thought of as being identical to the sabbatarian remnant.482 Yet in 1855 Ellen White hinted at the Laodicea motif in her first collection of Testimonies directed to sabbatarian Adventists,483 and James White changed his position in the following year by interpreting “Laodicea” as applying to Sabbath keeping Adventists.484 His view was soon adopted by others,485 including his wife, who promoted it in her writings,486 and it has since served Seventh-day Adventism as an instrument of self-criticism.487 The ecclesiological relevance of this anti-triumphalist notion should not be underestimated. Just when remnant reasoning with its central importance for sabbatarian Adventist identity construction had reached a first stage of maturation and the fast-growing movement of the early 1850s had consolidated for a while, the triumphalist potential inherent in the self-view as “the last true church” was curbed by another eschatological motif. The wholly unexpected numerical explosion of sabbatarians had created not only a church but also the need for an ecclesiology that kept the balance originally inherent in the view of a small, nonecclesiastical, and anti-organization remnant. In the changed circumstances of a movement mutating into a church, the emerging sabbatarian ecclesiology needed a critical corrective to the remnant notion, which was readily provided by the sphere of ideas in which Adventists breathed – the inventory of biblical apocalyptic. The Laodicea concept served several purposes. Beyond its inherent self-critical notion, it reconfirmed the movement’s self-understanding as “the last church” in the world of apocalyptical reasoning inhabited by Adventists. Being the seventh (and last) of the churches in Revelation 2–3, its application to Sabbath-keeping Adventists conformed to their historicist interpretation of these chapters (and, 482 Bates, An Explanation of the Typical and Antitypical Sanctuary [1850], 13–14; James White, “The Third Angel’s Message,” PT, April 1850, 68. 483 Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 1, 126 (originally written in 1855; she quotes Rev 3:15b– 16: “I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth”). 484 James White, “Watchman, What of the Night?,” RH, October 9, 1856; James White, “The Seven Churches,” RH, October 16, 1856. 485 See, e. g., R. F. C[ottrell], “Are We in Laodicea?,” RH, January 1857, 77; J[oseph] B. Frisbie, “Communication from Bro. Frisbie,” RH, February 12, 1857, 115. 486 See, e. g., the chapter “The Laodicean Church” in her Testimonies, vol. 1, 185–195 (originally written in 1859). 487 Interestingly, Ellen White had applied the words to Laodicea in Revelation 3:14–20 to “many who profess to be looking for the speedy coming of Christ” already in 1852, implying that some sabbatarian Adventists were also among those whom she considered to be “like the nominal church”; see “To the Brethren and Sisters,” RH, June 10, 1852, 21. Even James White saw the Laodicean condition in some Sabbath keepers during the same year, but did not change his interpretation of Revelation 3 on this basis; see “Eastern Tour,” RH, October 14, 1852, 96.

166

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

indirectly but significantly, explained the experienced delay of the parousia). Thus it confirmed but also modified their remnant view; the curious combination of Laodicea and remnant indicates that in the long run, a single ecclesial motif was too weak to capture a church’s self-description. Yet the second dimension of church added by means of the Laodicea motif also meant that future Adventist conceptualizations of the church’s nature would need to encompass the paradox of a true church whose ecclesiality is constituted eschatologically but also questioned by the coming kingdom of God. In terms of interchurch relations, such an adjusted ecclesiology with its corpus permixtum dimension also implied the potential for developing a new perspective on other denominations. Criticism of “the churches” was also indirect self-criticism; the critical ecclesiology derived from the primacy of eschatology had to be applied to each church body, including one’s own. “Gospel Order” While thinking on the nature of the church was developing slowly and around the three foci remnant, Laodicea, and mission, the realm in which Adventist ecclesiology experienced the most problematic starting point was organization. The experiences of 1843–44, the Restorationist rejection of denominational organization, the Baptist heritage of congregationalism, the common Adventist equation of Babylon with “the Protestant sects,” and the highly individualistic personalities of those who chose to keep the seventh-day Sabbath in a culture where Puritan Sunday observance was the rule all combined into massive antiorganization sentiments. Ultimately every group or movement – religious or non-religious alike – will organize in a more or less tangible manner, and in addition to shared ideology, continued existence and growth depend on a purposeful structure, accepted leadership roles, and agreements regarding manners of cooperation. In an interchurch relations perspective, these developments are of interest not only because they reveal how churches act as organizations. They are also crucial because the organization of a church is commonly a pattern mirrored in the kind of interactions in which a denomination prefers to engage. In the case of sabbatarian Adventists, their non-church identity in the 1840s and 1850s reflected their unwillingness to relate with other denominations of any kind. When their organizational setup began to change in the 1860s, this would almost necessarily also have an impact on their attitude to and relationship with other churches.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

167

The efforts toward organizing a denomination had already started in the early 1850s,488 although the terminology utilized at the time, “gospel order” or “church order,” did not suggest the outcome of the process a decade later. Initially the Whites’ statements and actions were intended to control itinerant preachers – an interesting parallel to the first century A.D. – and to curb what they viewed as extreme positions, especially with regard to ecstatic practices.489 A few attempts at regularizing congregational life through ordinations added to the general feeling that local church order was needed.490 With regard to organization beyond the congregational level, however, reservations continued throughout the 1850s. Notably Joseph B. Frisbie and Roswell F. Cottrell, who wrote a number of articles on church order,491 developed ideas of their own. Cottrell, a former Seventh Day Baptist, came from a strongly congregationalist background, whereas Frisbie, who had been a Methodist, suggested that only practices explicitly stipulated in the New Testament should be followed – thus membership lists, for instance, were not warranted according to him, because the names of believers were recorded in heaven.492 By way of contrast, James White did not appear to cherish very peculiar strictures. Always a practical thinker, he reasoned: Disorderly spirits scorn the idea of order in the Church of God, and talk of its being “like the old churches.” But we are sure that God does not call his people to leave the churches to run into wild confusion. The imperfect systems of human creeds are far preferable … Some talk loudly of coming out of Babylon, who carry a perfect Babel of confusion, and unscriptural notions with them, and in their own little congregations, and in their own families may be seen more of real Babylon than in many of the nominal churches … The

488 A comprehensive account is found in the dissertation by Mustard, James White and SDA Organization, especially pp. 116–192. 489 Cf. the following two letters: James White – Bro. and Sister Collins, September 8, 1849, EGWE (“Now it does seem to me that those whom God has called to travel and labor in His cause should first be supported before those who have no calling from God are encouraged to go from place to place”) and James White – Leonard Hastings, March 18, 1850, EGWE (“I hope the church will soon get right when they can move in Gospel order”). Online: http://ellenwhite.org/content/correspondence/white-js/020016-opdf and http://ellenwhite.o rg/content/correspondence/white-js/020023-opdf, accessed March 1, 2016. 490 In 1851, deacons were chosen; by 1853, James White and Joseph Bates endorsed travelling preachers with identification cards and ordained individuals to the ministry, and in the same year, White wrote a first comprehensive article series on church order; see Mustard, James White and SDA Organization, 122–128, and James White’s series on “Gospel Order,” RH, December 6, 1853, 173; December 13, 180; December 20, 188–190; December 27, 196– 197. 491 For references, see Mustard, James White and SDA Organization, 135. 492 Frisbie, “Church Order,” RH, December 26, 1854, 147.

168

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Scriptures present a perfect system, which, if carried out, will save the Church from imposters.493

Order, confusion, Babylon, creeds – by referring to these themes in such a manner, White certainly did not strike a chord with all of his fellow Adventists. What these arguments surrounding the first practical steps toward a denominational identity demonstrated, however, was that any establishment of a system of interrelations, even among like-minded Christian congregations, necessitated a considerable amount of negotiation and an authority recognized by the major stakeholders. The Name Issue and the First Denominational Split In the latter part of the 1850s, there were various elements of organization that held sabbatarian Adventists together – a small number of leaders, doctrinal consensus on many issues, two magazines, a printing press, and local church property. In spite of these, the movement was still a loose association of congregations rather than a coherent body of believers. Moreover, various matters of practical concern demanded attention: the legal status of the publishing establishment, local church property, and representation of churches in the movement’s leadership. While it may seem that these were issues to be dealt with in a pragmatic manner, the biblicist approach to decision making among early Adventist meant that discussions on them touched sensitive nerves. Even the choice of a name, which was necessary for an association to hold property such as church buildings or a publishing press, turned into a delicate ecclesiological debate.494 Several factors contributed to sentiments of opposing the choice of a particular name and, finally, to resistance against the choice of “Seventh-day Adventists.” Among them was the origin of a considerable number of sabbatarian Adventists in the Christian Connection, which not only rejected denominationalism, but also insisted on “biblical” names for congregations formed by followers of Christ (such as “Christian Church” or “Church of Christ”).495 It is no surprise that these concepts likewise lurked among sabbatarian Adventists.496 493 James White, “Church Order,” RH, January 23, 1855, 164. 494 A comprehensive account of the steps that led toward the adoption of the name “Seventhday Adventists” is provided by Godfrey T. Anderson, “Make Us a Name,” Adventist Heritage 1 (1974), 28–34. The following four paragraphs are reproduced, with a few modifications, from my article “What’s in a Name? Identity Construction and Denominational Designations: A Case Study of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 15.1 (2012), 87–103, here 89, 91–94. Copyright: author. 495 Among adherents of the “Christian Church,” which had been founded by the leading Restorationist James O’Kelly, one of the “Five Cardinal Principles” held from 1794 onwards

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

169

The Sabbath-keeping Advent believers had utilized many different self-descriptions. Beyond biblical motifs, sabbatarian Adventist congregations assemblies chose a variety of local names, e. g., “the scattered flock,” “Seventh day people,” “Advent Sabbathkeepers,” “Sabbathkeeping Remnant of Adventists,” “Church of Christ’s Second Advent,” “Church of God,” or “Church of the Living God.”497 This diversity both implied that it was ultimately impossible not to name a group, and that agreeing on an official designation became a demand of transparency at some point.498 Added was a good deal of missionary pragmatism by James White, the movement’s pre-eminent leader. During the decisive conference in 1860, he declared that opposition against choosing a denominational name was to be anticipated but such a name was “essential to the prosperity of the cause.”499 Having settled the question of whether or not a church name was necessary, the issue remained as to which one was to be chosen.500 There is a full record of the proceedings at the 1860 conference that led to the recommendation of the name that Seventh-day Adventists have officially borne ever since.501 It says that the name “Church of God” was “zealously advocated by some” and one person

496

497 498 499

500

501

was actually to use “[t]he name Christian to the exclusion of all party and sectarian names.” See Wilbur E. MacClenny, The Life of Rev James O’Kelly and the Early History of the Christian Church in the South, Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton, 1910, 121. For a discussion of the importance of the Restorationist heritage for Seventh-day doctrine and the denomination’s gradual move away from this influence, see Stefan Höschele, “Constructions of Catholicity and Denominational Particularity: Key Stations in the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrinal Journey,” in Leo J. Koffeman (ed.), Christliche Traditionen zwischen Katholizität und Partikularität / Christian Traditions between Catholicity and Particularity, Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2009, 131–147. Anderson, “Make Us a Name,” 29–30. Moreover, the growing congregations often needed to hold property, which necessitated incorporation, a move which in turn inevitably led to some official name for local bodies of believers who organized themselves. “Business Proceedings of B.C. Conference,” RH, October 23, 1860, 179. The rugged individualism typical for the era and for early Adventists is visible in White’s further statements. He expected conflicts because he had experienced similar opposition “all the way along, first against publishing a paper, then against issuing pamphlets, then against having an office, then against the sale of publications, then against church order, then against having a power press.” See ibid. Ibid. The proceedings show that a first resolution, “That we take the name of Seventh-day Adventists” was withdrawn and the resolution “That we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists” was voted for instead. The difference was probably to indicate that this is a humble, human-made designation, not even a real name, which is therefore not “taken” but a mere matter of convenience. Thus, something of the Restorationist heritage was upheld in that a name was not adopted officially – although the decision ultimately had the same effect. Twenty-five persons were present; the discussions have been summarized in several studies, e. g. Anderson, “Make Us a Name”; Schwarz, Light Bearers, 94–95, and C. Mervyn Maxwell, Tell It to the World: The Story of Seventh-day Adventists, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1976, 143–146.

170

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

dissented after the choice of “Seventh-day Adventists.”502 The proceedings also record that the latter was “proposed as a simple name and one expressive of our faith and position.”503 This implies that different perspectives were represented in the two proposed names: one was a strongly biblicist outlook insisting on a particular formulation found in the scriptures, while the other arose from a missionary impulse, which aimed at transparency regarding the major tenets of the group’s faith. The architecture of the name that was chosen had a clear logic: a crossfertilization of “Seventh Day Baptists”504 and the term “First-day Adventists,” which sabbatarians used to refer to non-Sabbath keeping former Millerites.505 On the surface, the distinct doctrinal content of “Seventh-day Adventists” seemed to imply a more separatist stance with regard to other Christian bodies than “Church of God.” Yet a major reason for the majority to reject “Church of God” was that in addition to being used by other groups it was deemed to have “an appearance of presumption.”506 It might indicate a belief that this body was the only divinely instituted Christian organization and that believers in other denominations were not Christians at all, a concept that the nascent Adventist denomination did not advocate – in spite of their view on “Babylon.” Thus the name “Seventh-day Adventists” was conceived as a witness to unique doctrinal positions but also entailed an attempt to eschew the ecclesiastical pride that was viewed as being connected with the most popular alternative, “Church of God.”507

502 “Seventh-day Adventists” had been used very rarely and not as a name, but a description – once in 1853 (here as “seventh-day Adventist”: S. T. Cranson, “From Bro. Cranson,” RH, April 14, 1853, 191) and twice in 1859 (John N. Andrews, “History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week,” RH, August 4, 82; “Extracts from Letters,” RH, August 18, 1859). Even James White had advocated “Church of God” a few months before this conference but evidently changed his view later; see J[ames] W[hite], “Organization,” RH, June 17, 1860, 36. The importance of the term “Church of God” is also visible in the fact that the one book that had been published by sabbatarian Adventists on ecclesiological matters, Joseph B. Frisbie, Order of the Church of God, Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Review and Herald Office, 1859, declared on its first page: “The Name – The Church of God. … This is the name that God has seen fit to give to his church, because it belongs to him.” (Emphasis in the original.) 503 “Business Proceedings of B.C. Conference,” 179. 504 The first sabbatarian Adventists had been introduced to the Sabbath by Seventh Day Baptists; thus they were well acquainted with Seventh Day Baptist doctrines and used many of their writings for their own propaganda. 505 Anderson, “Make Us a Name,” 30. For a later discussion on church names with the same thrust (and special reference to the Disciples), see W. H. Littlejohn, “Denominational Names,” RH, September 19, 1882, 593–594. 506 “Business Proceedings of B.C. Conference,” 179. 507 It should be noted that Seventh-day Adventists did not include “church” in their original self-designation.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

171

The 1860 steps of choosing a name and forming legal associations to hold property were a breakthrough in initiating a swift process which made sabbatarian Adventists a denomination in just three years. In 1861, the congregations in Michigan formed the first “conference” organization, churches in other regions followed suit, and the year 1863 brought forth a “General Conference” structure. This top-layer organization was to oversee operations everywhere, coordinate the ministry of the conferences (which counted six at the time), and ensure unity.508 The move from an essentially congregational-connectionist setup to a Methodist-type conference system and a centralized authority was no small measure. Moreover, the controversies involved and the ultimate move of some sabbatarian Adventists towards organizational separation from the newly emerging denomination are of ecumenical importance as well. Here the young church had to experiment, for the first time, with separatism in its own midst and thus steer processes of intergroup relations which resembled those emerging in the events in the early and mid-1840s. The roles of majority and protest were now reversed. But what were the issues? One was that of a denominational identity. The selfperception as a denomination appeared late in the 1850s, and only in a very guarded manner.509 The “sectarianism” argument in the Babylon interpretation had implied that organizing a new church body was a dangerous move towards a “Babylonian” identity: but this stance was now changing. In fact, James White argued in the name-giving conference of 1860, “it is objected that we shall be classed among the denominations. We are classed with them already, and I do not know that we can prevent it, unless we disband and scatter.”510 Such reasoning was a long way from the anti-organization views that had prevailed in the 1840s. It indicated how the movement had become ready to marry eschatology and ecclesiology – while relativizing, at the same time, some elements of earlier apocalyptical interpretations. The second issue was that of a church name. From an outside perspective, the restorationist-inspired insistence on “biblical” names may seem odd or, at least, theologically questionable, and due to the idiosyncrasies of individuals. Yet beyond attributing these kinds of squabbles merely to psychological factors (which no doubt played a role in such a protest movement, which attracted persons who were ready to quarrel about many details of faith),511 the name issue 508 Mustard, James White and SDA Organization, 143–162. 509 Alvarez Pierce, “From Bro. Pierce,” RH, May 7, 1857, 6, spoke about “the other denominations.” 510 “Business Proceedings of B.C. Conference,” RH, October 23, 1860, 179. 511 An example that may serve as an illustration is the issue of oath taking promoted in the context of ecclesiological writings. In 1855, Merritt E. Cornell advanced the view that the

172

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

implied distinct theological concerns. Not only did it reflect the biblicist approach in the Millerite interpretation of the Scriptures and the fact that the same issue had already been connected with the Restorationist “anti-sectarian” and “Babylon” rhetoric. In the context of sabbatarian Adventism, the name question also reflected a preoccupation with apocalyptic texts and eschatological perfectionism: if God’s name was written on the foreheads of the redeemed (Rev. 14:1), could a church choose another name than one directly referring to God? The analogy to the Sabbath as the end-time “seal of God” (Rev. 7) vs. Sunday as a humanly chosen day (interpreted as the “mark of the Beast” in Rev. 13:6) was important. In other words, the choice of a name for the movement reflected two different approaches, one biblicist and casuistic, the other pragmatic and mission-oriented. A third strand of straining factors in the sabbatarian Adventist movement had to do with leadership and various contested interpretations. These two were connected because the majority leaders and their views obviously influenced many – but they also alienated some. Both James White’s tendency to harshness512 and Ellen White’s prophetic claims had considerable potential for giving the movement direction and stirring opposition. It is from among those who had experienced conflicts with the Whites that parts of the later Church of God developed, notably a faction in the 1850s that has come to be called “Messenger Party”513 and the followers of Gilbert Cranmer, a preacher to whom James White did not want to issue a minister’s license.514 After 1860, these individuals and congregations associated with them joined various groups that opposed the name “Seventh-day Adventist” and the movement’s denominationalizing dynamics as well as forces that were critical of the “remnant” must keep all of God’s commandments, including the rejection of any kind of oath – even in court cases (Cornell, The Last Work of the True Church [1855]). However, like the earlier practice of a “holy kiss,” this stance did not subsist, presumably because Ellen White spoke against it; in her “Testimony,” no. 5, she states, “I saw that some of God’s children have made a mistake in regard to oath-taking, and Satan has taken advantage of this to oppress them, and take from them their Lord’s money. I saw that the words of our Lord, ‘Swear not at all,’ do not touch the judicial oath.” See E. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. IV, part II (Testimonies), Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1864, 42. 512 Mustard, James White and SDA Organization, 167–179. 513 Initiators were Hiram S. Case and C. P. Russell, who had clashed with the Whites in 1853 in a quarrel of their local church. They published a magazine entitled Messenger of Truth for a few years, probably until 1858, when their groups disbanded. See Richard C. Nickels, History of the Seventh Day Church of God, 4th ed., Neck City: Giving & Sharing, 1996, 3–4. 514 Unlike most of the other sabbatarian Adventists, Cranmer did not reject tobacco and used it freely. For a more comprehensive account of the story, see Nickels, History of the Seventh Day Church of God, 14–22, and “Some History and Some Information regarding the Church of God – Adventist and Seventh-Day,” TMs, Ellen G. White Publications, Washington, D.C., 1944, 13–14.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

173

Whites’ leadership. Church leaders in Ohio opposed the new name,515 a congregation in Iowa split over views on Ellen White’s ministry, and Cranmer raised churches in Michigan. In 1863, the latter initiated a magazine entitled Hope of Israel and, in the same year, a “Church of God” organization emerged.516 In the decades to come, former Seventh-day Adventist leaders joined this smaller denomination in several cases.517 This was a plausible move: differences with Seventh-day Adventists were largely limited to the rejection of Ellen White’s writings, differing views on some exegetical details, and the church name issue. These “offshoots,” as Seventh-day Adventists viewed them, could be brushed off as insignificant or short-lived. Yet they challenged the confidence they had expressed in the 1850s that the Sabbath was going to represent a kind of ecumenical platform. One of their leading thinkers, Roswell Cottrell,518 had put it this way: The message of the third angel is one message. And as the last step in the restoration of primitive Christianity, and the last merciful warning to prepare a people for translation,519 it will unite God’s people in one. It will not divide and scatter the flock of God, but will move harmoniously, and accomplish its destined work. There is no danger that the ship will split upon some rock; for our Father is at the helm.520

This hope of unity was not fulfilled. Relations between Seventh-day Adventists and the much smaller Church of God, later renamed Church of God (7th Day),521 remained distant until the late 20th century.522 The latter organization is indirectly significant in having brought forth a number of other sabbatarian movements,523 including the Worldwide Church of God, which was more well515 Leaders from Ohio wrote to the RH that they opposed the name (“Secession,” RH, April 9, 1861, 164–165). 516 In 1866, the paper was moved to Iowa, where several former Seventh-day Adventist ministers took over publication. These were B. F. Snook, W. H. Brinkerhoff, Henry E. Carver, and Abe C. Long. See Nickels, History of the Seventh Day Church of God, 25–39, and Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 130–131, 613. 517 Nickels, History of the Seventh Day Church of God, 49, 64, 66. 518 Cottrell was one of the major critics of adopting a name in 1860, but consented when the majority chose to do so. 519 Here the somewhat uncommon use of the word “translation” refers to what is more commonly called “rapture” today; cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:17. 520 R[oswell] F. C[ottrell,] “Unity of the Third Message,” RH, September 18, 1855, 44. 521 In 2010, this denomination had about 14,000 members in the United States and 200,000 worldwide; see “Church of God (Seventh Day), Denver, Colorado,” http://www.thearda.com /Denoms/D_1232.asp, accessed September 22, 2014. 522 A few meetings of an SDA-Church of God (7th Day) dialogue took place in the 1980s; see 5.3. 523 For later Church of God history, see Nickels, History of the Seventh Day Church of God, and Robert Coulter, The Journey: A History of the Church of God (Seventh Day), [Broomfield]: [Bible Advocate Press], 2014. An overview of sabbatarian bodies in the early 21st century is found in the Directory of Sabbath-Observing Groups, Fairview: The Bible Sabbath Association, 2001, which lists 436 different groups. Many of them are tiny; some, like the Assembly

174

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

known internationally because of its aggressive publication and distribution activities.524 However, none of these would align or cooperate with Seventh-day Adventists in the generations to come.

3.3.2 Sabbatarian Ecumenism The Seventh Day Baptists’ Early Importance for Adventists While attempts at ensuring sabbatarian unity among Adventists proved unsuccessful during the period of setting up an organization, the years that followed saw the first SDA cooperation with another body of Sabbath keepers: the Seventh Day Baptists. This episode – the pioneering efforts at establishing constructive interchurch relations in the history of the organized denomination – is significant in that it reveals both the ecumenical potential and relational strictures of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Seventh Day Baptists525 originated in 17th century England, where the “Seventh-Day Men,” as they were often called, shifted Puritan Sunday sabbatarianism to Saturday and increased the day’s overall theological weight, formed congregations, drew members from various classes (except the lowest), and fought ideological wars with Anglican bishops and fellow nonconformists alike.526 The first American spin-off emerged in the 1660s in the tolerant colony of Rhode Island, where the second governor was a Seventh Day Baptist and three more followed. From there, various Seventh Day Baptist groups developed throughout North America.527 Whereas English Sabbath keepers dwindled in numbers and were almost extinct by the early 19th century, North America produced a slowly growing,

524

525 526 527

of Yahweh (a small “sacred name” denomination), originated from the Church of God (7th Day). After the death of its founder Herbert W. Armstrong, a former Church of God minister, his successor Joseph Tkach steered the denomination away from sabbatarianism and other non-mainstream doctrines in the 1990s. It is today called “Grace Communion International” and has more than 40,000 members; at its peak, the Worldwide Church of God had had more than 120,000 members. For an account of the denomination’s transformation see Larry Nichols and George Mather, Discovering the Plain Truth: How the Worldwide Church of God Encountered the Gospel of Grace, Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. “Seventh Day Baptist” is today’s spelling. In earlier centuries, various spellings were used, including “Seventh-day Baptist.” Bryan W. Ball, The Seventh-Day Men: Sabbatarians and Sabbatarianism in England and Wales, 1600–1800, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Clarke, 2009. Russel J. Thomsen, Seventh Day Baptists: Their Legacy to Adventists, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1971, 24–31. This 95-page book is of a popular nature but presents a helpful overview of epochs of interest in general Seventh Day Baptist history and of events that brought them in contact with Seventh-day Adventists.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

175

stable movement that reached about 5,500 adherents in the 1840s.528 It is through the mediation of Seventh Day Baptist Rachel Oaks529 in Washington, New Hampshire, that the first Adventist preacher accepted sabbatarian convictions in 1843. Soon a whole congregation of Sabbath observing Adventists was found in the same place, three years before the Whites began keeping Saturday holy. These earliest sabbatarian Adventists influenced others in the Millerite Movement to adopt Sabbath observance until the subject reached Joseph Bates and, through him and the Whites, many others.530 Initially the relationship between Seventh Day Baptists and the burgeoning sabbatarian Adventist movement was ill-defined. On the one hand, there was sympathy and affinity. However, Adventists were often more dynamic and aggressive; thus they also attracted some Seventh Day Baptists and other sabbatarians who were in favour of such a type of religion. Most prominent among these early converts was Roswell Cottrell, soon a leading Adventist minister, whose family had an SDB background but had formed congregations of their own on the basis of several doctrines with an affinity to Seventh-day Adventists.531 Although Cottrell upheld exceptionally good relations with his former peers and even considered himself “a Seventh-day Baptist Adventist”,532 this trickling away of members certainly did not amuse Seventh Day Baptists. One incident in particular soured sentiments among their leaders. In 1855, two Adventist evangelists, D. P. Hall and James M. Stephenson,533 preached to the Hayfield Seventh Day Baptist church in Pennsylvania – with the result that one third of the members withdrew and formed their own congregation.534 Although 528 Burt, “The Historical Background,” 46. Today there are about 50,000 Seventh Day Baptists worldwide and about 5,000 in the USA; the number had grown to slightly less than 10,000 around the year 1900 in America. 529 Rachel Oaks (1809–1868) was a widow who married again in later years and thereby became Rachel Oaks Preston. Her earlier last name is also frequently spelled “Oakes.” 530 Ibid., 46–55. It is likely that Thomas M. Preble, who lived in Nashua, 50 miles from this earliest sabbatarian Adventist congregation, had accepted the Sabbath from their example; see ibid., 121. His 1845 Tract, Showing that the Seventh Day Should Be Observed as the Sabbath, influenced Joseph Bates to become a sabbatarian. 531 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Sacred Notions, No. 2,” RH, February 9, 1869, 52. His father and maternal uncle advocated the non-immortality of the soul and a premillennial advent, and formed churches in two counties of upstate New York. Their churches were known at the time as “Cottrellites.” He was a frequent contributor to the RH and authored numerous articles that addressed the SDA-SDB relationship. 532 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “I Am a Baptist – and I Am More,” RH, September 13, 1870, 101. 533 While Stephenson did not play a major role in the sabbatarian Adventist movement, he seems to have been one of their theologically ambitious minds: he wrote a comprehensive book entitled The Atonement, Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1854 (190 pages). 534 T. H. Dunn, “The Lectures of Eld. D. P. Hall in the Seventh-day Baptist Church at Hayfield, Crawford, Co., Pa., and their Results,” RH, February 20, 1855, 178–180. The main issue of debate was the immortality of the soul. In later references to the episode, writers refer to

176

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

the two evangelists left Seventh-day Adventist ranks the same year,535 the ill feeling on the side of the weakened Seventh Day Baptist congregation and their leaders must have remained. Somewhat more cordial relations unfolded in the 1860s. Adventist leaders evidently enjoyed reading the Sabbath Recorder, the Seventh Day Baptist magazine, for they frequently referred to its articles or republished them.536 A fourteen-part discussion on the “nature and destiny of man” began in May 1864 and ended in September 1867. The two representatives of their denominations, Nathan V. Hull537 and Roswell Cottrell, ultimately did not agree on questions such as the immortality of the soul and the time when eternal life is received by the believer, but the very fact that they had discussed theology in a rather calm and dialogical manner was a novel step for Seventh-day Adventists. Although the dialogue did not end with as friendly a tone as it had begun with – Hull claimed Cottrell had been “overwhelmingly beaten,”538 but the latter, of course, did not agree – a first attempt at a true conversation had been made. Beyond stimulating the spirit of dialogue, this exercise in theological conversation is of importance also because some sense of unity prevailed at the end. Even though Hull felt that no progress had been made, Cottrell ended the exchange with a cheerful note that expressed the Adventist approach to ecumenicity of the period: I fully believe that the true, loyal, law-binding, Bible-honoring Christians of our denominations, and all others, will not only come to closer union, but be perfectly united in one body before the coming of the Lord, an event which is near, even at the doors. And it is evident that whatever people have the true exposition of the third angel’s message (Rev. xiv, 9–12), they constitute the nucleus to which all the remnant of God’s people will be gathered.539

535 536 537 538 539

Meadville, located only six miles from Hayfield. Hayfield is (and presumably was) a rural area with hamlets while Meadville is the town with the associated county seat. Apparently James White also visited the newly formed fellowship a little later. They aligned with the “Messenger Party” (cf. footnote 513 in this chapter); see J[ames] W[hite], “The Review ‘Sectarian’,” RH, December 4, 1855, 80. Almost 400 references to the “Sabbath Recorder” are found in the RH in the 1850s and 1860s. Hull was editor of the Sabbath Recorder from 1872 onward. After serving as an SDB pastor, he served as a professor of theology at Alfred University, which was then associated with the Seventh Day Baptists. N[athan] V. Hull, “Nature and Destiny of Man: Elder Hull’s Fourteenth Article,” RH, September 24, 1867, 227. R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Nature and Destiny of Man: Eld. Cottrell’s Fourteenth Reply,” RH, September 24, 1867, 227.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

177

A Decade of Fellowship Presumably it is this eschatological approach to Christian unity that opened another chapter in the Adventist-Baptist sabbatarians’ interchurch relationship in 1869: a ten-year contact between the two denominational General Conferences which included the exchange of delegates. Since several studies on this period exist,540 no full account needs to be presented here; nevertheless, the decade deserves due attention because it constitutes the first official Seventh-day Adventist cooperation of any kind with another church body. It is the Adventist side which initiated the communication. The circumstances of the committee action are not known, but it is likely that Cottrell had a hand in it. The annual denominational General Conference session recorded in 1869: Believing that we ought to cultivate fraternal feelings with all those who keep the commandments of God and teach men so, and believing that some of our brethren have not pursued the most judicious course in regard to them, therefore, RESOLVED, That Brethren Cottrell, Andrews, and Fuller be a committee to address the Seventh-day Baptists, and open such correspondence with them as they may deem fit.541

That the committee did its work soon is visible in the publication of a lengthy statement sent to the Seventh Day Baptists.542 It mainly dwelt on the topics of the Sabbath and the soon Advent, but broke new ground in two ways. One was expressing officially that “friendly and Christian relations may be established and maintained between our respective bodies, as they already exist between many of us as individuals” even if “[p]erhaps direct cooperation is impracti540 A shorter study, Michael Campbell, “Developments in the Relationship between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists, 1844–1884,” AUSS 55.2 (2017), 195–212, here 205– 210, essentially reports on the contours of SDA-SDB relations during this period in the context of earlier interactions and interprets them through the lens of an “insider”/“outsider” scheme. Unfortunately, the 70-page study of Robert M. Johnston, “Relationships between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” research paper, Andrews University, 1962, CAR, DF 398, was not published. It explores SDB-SDA relations from the 1840s to the 1880s and devotes twenty-seven of its seventy pages to the relationship between the two bodies from 1869 to 1879; a limitation of the paper is the author’s lack of access to the Sabbath Recorder. The following account does not follow Johnston (who essentially presents materials in a chronological manner), but highlights crucial aspects and exemplary details, including some not noted in his paper. A much shorter and less analytical description of the events in this period is Thomsen, Seventh Day Baptists, 44–55; mention of the delegate exchange is also found in A. E. Main, “The Seventh-Day Baptist General Conference, 1802 to 1902,” in Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, Plainfield: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1910, 149–236, here 199–209. 541 “Business Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Session of S. D. Adventists,” RH, May 25, 1869, 173. 542 “The Address to the Seventh-Day Baptists,” RH, August 10, 1869, 52–53. The text was reprinted in Höschele, Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Documents, 15–16.

178

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

cable.” The second was an expression of sorrow over the propaganda activities in 1855. Although the statement did not include a formal apology or request for forgiveness, it referred to Hall and Stephenson and said, “We deeply regret the fact that errors have been committed, on the part of various individuals, which have been well calculated to produce alienation of feeling between us … Whatever demands correction at our hands shall receive it promptly when that fact is understood by us.” This conciliatory move opened the way for an exchange of delegates from 1870 onward. For ten years each denomination sent changing representatives to the respective other church’s annual leaders’ convention almost each time; they reported on their own church’s progress and at times participated in the deliberations.543 While records exist of the presence of such delegates from 1870 to 1879, their contributions were preserved in detail only in a few instances. From these, one can deduce the kind of bond that developed in the period. A noteworthy example is the interchange at the Adventist session of 1871: Nathan Wardner, a former SDB China missionary, made a speech that did not conceal the fact of doctrinal differences but expressed his excitement over the fact that an Adventist woman had convinced nine Baptist ministers regarding the Sabbath, leading to four new Seventh Day Baptist churches. Thus he concluded: “I believe that in all matters of practice, so far as practical duties are concerned, we are a unit.” John Andrews, who had been the Adventist delegate the same year, responded, “there is nothing that gives me greater pleasure than to know that the two bodies of Sabbath-keepers are drawing together” and expressed his “hope that we might be like the two wings of the same army.”544 The most significant statements were those by James White, who served as General Conference president at the time. Not only did he draw attention to instances in which Seventh Day Baptists tried to establish good relations with their younger Adventist siblings; White also expressed renewed regret regarding the 1855 Pennsylvania incident, and emphasized that the relationship needed to be improved. It is the final part of his speech, however, that is particularly striking in that it offers the first instance of an Adventist leader developing explicit dialectic regarding the young denomination’s convictions: In some points of theory we may see an importance that our Seventh-day Baptist brethren do not see. We are not inclined to urge these. And we will try to remember that, on these points, they do not differ with us any further than we differ with them. The spirit of brotherly kindness, of Christian courtesy, of charity and liberality of feeling is a

543 Johnston, “Relationships between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” 39– 51. 544 “Business Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Session of the General Conference of Seventhday Adventists,” RH, January 2, 1872, 20.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

179

great deal more in harmony with the Spirit of God, than is the reverse, as manifested in contention and debate; and we shall be much more likely to be led together by the Spirit of God while cherishing happy relations than while cherishing a spirit of contention that might gender strife and division. I am very happy to know that such relations do exist; and in this I speak the sentiments of my brethren. God grant that they may continue and increase.545

While these views and feelings were specifically directed to fellow Sabbath keepers, they indicate a substantial difference of orientation to the anti-organization, anti-denomination and “Babylon” emphasis of the 1850s, and reveal a measure of both pragmatism and generosity rarely seen before.546 The sabbatarian ecumenism visible in White’s thinking evidently consolidated over the years. In 1876, after attending a Seventh Day Baptist General Conference meeting himself, he made a comprehensive general statement on the relationship of the two groups.547 This statement picks up the thread of thought visible in his reflections of 1871 in declaring that “Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists cannot afford a controversy on doctrines which neither regard as tests of Christian character.” Yet it is particularly remarkable in that it goes one step further: an advocacy of what would in later periods be called “mission comity.”548 White actually concluded the statement by recommending “that Seventh-day Adventists … avoid laboring to build up … churches where Seventh-day Baptist churches are already established,” for “no good can result to either from controversy and proselyting.” With such sentiments coming from the undisputed Adventist leader, the denominations’ relationship seemed secure and moving towards an unprecedented level of cooperative unison.

545 Ibid. James White had expressed similar sentiments earlier that year, when he wrote, after an SDB campmeeting which he had addressed: “[W]e may, by divine grace, enjoy a strong union; and while Seventh-day Adventists may prize very highly, and tenaciously hold, their views upon the immortality question, and may cherish as important to the glory of God and their own prosperity, their definite views of the manifestation of spiritual gifts, they will agree that it will be much better to seek for that union that may be enjoyed upon the broad fundamentals of our faith, than to sacrifice that union in urging upon the Seventh-day Baptists sentiments peculiar to Adventists.” ([James White,] “Western Tour,” RH, July 4, 1871, 20. 546 Johnston, “Relationships between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” 66, correctly observes, “James White and the other Seventh-day Adventist leaders earnestly sought a modus vivendi with the other body which would be beneficial to both.” However, from his statements it appears that the whole matter did not imply solely a tit-for-tat thinking but arose from genuine wishes of well-being for the other. 547 J[ames] W[hite], “The Two Bodies: The Relation Which the S. D. Baptists and the S. D. Adventists Sustain to Each Other,” RH, October 12, 1876, 116. The full text is included in appendix II. 548 Cf. chapter 4.2.3.

180

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

A noteworthy international contribution to the positive development in the relations of the two bodies came from Europe.549 John Andrews, who had twice been an Adventist delegate to a Seventh Day Baptist General Conference meeting, was sent to Switzerland in 1874 – the first official foreign missionary of the young denomination. On the way to his final destination, he spent two weeks with William M. Jones, D. D., an American who pastored the last surviving Seventh Day Baptist congregation in England – the historic Mill Yard church in London.550 Jones took him to scattered Sabbath keepers in the rest of the country, involved him in preaching, invited him to participate in the Lord’s Supper, wrote a most sympathetic report to his General Conference,551 and, most important for Andrews, organized first contacts and thus opened the way for the later Adventist mission in Great Britain.552 Andrews visited England again in 1877, 1879, and 1880, and each time Jones was the same helpful gentleman, who did not mind watching the Adventist fold grow faster than his own congregation.553 For some time, therefore, the two tiny churches formed a veritable missionary alliance in this part of Europe. On the American side, however, things gradually changed. While some may have even thought of organic union until 1876,554 the North-Western Association of Seventh Day Baptists complained in 1877 that the non-intrusion promise had not been kept – and questioned the sense of unity achieved in the years before.555 549 A comprehensive account of this story is found in Harry H. Leonard, “John N. Andrews and England’s Seventh Day Baptists: ‘We Are Brethren’,” Adventist Heritage 9.1 (1984), 50– 56, and a short sketch in Thomsen, Seventh Day Baptists, 56–63. 550 At the time, there were only about 30 members left in the whole of Great Britain; Jones had started to serve the congregation in 1872. Mill Yard was the first SDB church in London and had been founded in 1651 or earlier. 551 Cf. also William M. Jones, “Seventh-Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” ST, June 25, 1874, 22. 552 John N. Loughborough started official missionary activities in 1878 after William Ings had done preliminary work as a colporteur. Andrews, in turn, also asked Adventists to support Jones’s missionary activities; see J[ohn] N. Andrews, “The Sabbath in England,” ST, December 31, 1874. 553 Thomsen, Seventh Day Baptists, 58–59, reports that there were only three members when he arrived; during his tenure twenty-six were added. 554 At their 1876 General Conference, Seventh Day Baptists resolved to continue the “interchange of delegates with the Adventists, but not the consolidation of two bodies holding such opposite views concerning important doctrines” (see Main, “The Seventh-Day Baptist General Conference,” 206). Although Adventists indicated no interest in a merger either, this implies that the idea of a “consolidation” existed and was presumably even mentioned at the meeting. 555 “North-Western Association,” Sabbath Recorder, July 12, 1877 (no page numbers). These proceedings contained a note about a motion that said, “WHEREAS, Eld. James White, of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, gave assurances to the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference at its last session that their laborers be advised not to go into our societies; and, WHEREAS, since that time increasing labors have been performed by them in our churches

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

181

James White wrote a quick and somewhat protest-like reply, supported by a clarification of a former Seventh Day Baptist who had turned Adventist.556 Reversed dynamics occurred in the following year, when a former Adventist physician and preacher turned to the Seventh Day Baptists, which led to disagreements over his course and claims.557 At times conflicts can produce magnanimous sentiments and stimulate theological thinking. Andrews, writing from Switzerland, not only tried to calm the emotions, he also asserted with regard to the two denominations that “[i]n practice they are substantially one” and “not essentially different.”558 Moreover, he tackled the thorny issue of changing church affiliation in a way not heard before, for he explained that there must be no grudges in cases of Adventists joining the Seventh Day Baptist side – he even affirmed, “[w]e know of several who have done this in an honorable manner.”559 Finally, by stressing more than any other Adventist before and after him that he would wish that Seventh Day Baptists prosper and grow,560 Andrews delineated contours of an ecclesiology that included other sabbatarians in an evidently non-denominational manner of defining the true Church. In spite of attempts at stabilizing and reviving the positive relationship that had developed in the mid-1870s, the September 1879 visit of the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference by the entire White family561 was the last positive official communication between the two denominations for a considerable period. The conference report seemed quite encouraging,562 but then the tide

556

557 558 559 560 561 562

in Minnesota, to the damage of our cause; therefore, Resolved, That the pledged faith of the head of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for fraternal union has been violated much to our grief, and prejudicial to our unity with them.” J[ames] W[hite], “The Two Bodies,” RH, August 16, 1877, 60; D[avid] P[orter] Curtis, “Another View,” Sabbath Recorder, August 2, 1877 = RH, August 16, 1877, 60–61. Curtis was a former SDB minister in Minnesota and is listed as an SDA minister in Adventist Yearbooks as well (the first yearbook was issued in 1883). Cf. also his farewell letter to his former denomination: “Letter from Bro. Curtis,” Sabbath Recorder, July 16, 1874. Interestingly, the Sabbath Recorder repeatedly mentions Curtis as participating in Seventh Day Baptist activities in the following years. J[ames] W[hite], “Dr. Lee and the Recorder,” RH, August 15, 1878. Charles Lee belonged to a Swedish community where Adventists had made some progress in the years before. J[ohn] N. A[ndrews], “Seventh-Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” RH, October 24, 1878, 132. Ibid. Andrews reasoned, “The world is large enough for us both to do some work for God,” and, about the Seventh Day Baptists in England, “We would gladly see these little churches strengthened and enlarged.” (Ibid.) J[ames] W[hite], “Seventh-Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” RH, December 4, 1879, 180. “Nathan Wardner, delegate to the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference, expressed the opinion that the people were modifying in their sentiments; and that each change brought

182

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

turned. No delegate was appointed to the Adventist General Conference meeting later that year. The Whites were again appointed to the 1880 meeting of the Seventh Day Baptists, and a resolution was voted that resembled earlier statements on the sister denomination,563 but after a number of rather negative statements on Adventists and cooperation with them in the Sabbath Recorder,564 James White did not actually go. He died in 1881, and evidently no more delegates were appointed or received in the following decades.565 Intra-Sabbatarian Relations: An Interpretation It is unclear if White’s attendance would have made a difference; at any rate, the severance of the formerly cordial relationship was due to more factors than just a few points of friction that developed between 1877 and 1879.566 In spite of their historical link and the Sabbath commonality, there remained a much deeper rift between the two denominations. Several factors contributed to this cleavage: (1) In terms of class and culture, the Seventh Day Baptists were certainly more educated and wealthy. (2) The two bodies had clearly diverging self-perceptions: the orientation of the history-conscious 200-year old Baptists was one of decency and individuality, whereas the young, vigorous, mission-oriented Adventists did not care much about established routines and tended to curb individualism.567 (3) The tensions felt among some Seventh Day Baptists because of individuals’

563 564 565

566

567

them nearer to us in belief.” (Main, “The Seventh-Day Baptist General Conference,” 208.) Is it possible that James White, the delegate that year, denied such observations of “change”? Did Seventh Day Baptist feel uneasy about the presence of Ellen White, whose prophetic ministry they rejected? One can only conjecture, but it seems evident that apprehensions existed that could not be removed, and possibly were even confirmed, by a visit of the most important Adventist leaders. “General Conference (Concluded),” RH, December 11, 1879, 190. The full statement is reproduced in Höschele, Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Documents, 17–18. These articles and the rupture they brought are described by Johnston, “Relationships between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” 51–61. Individuals evidently attended Seventh Day Baptist meetings, even General Conferences, but no longer as official delegates; see, e. g., W. S., “The Seventh-Day Baptists,” RH, October 19, 1886; E. A. Stillman, “The Seventh-Day Baptist General Conference,” RH, September 12, 1899. Thus it is true only on the surface that “[i]t was the Seventh-day Adventist side which initiated the affiliation; it was the Seventh Day Baptist side which initiated the rupture.” (Johnston, “Relationships between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” 2). One should rather view interactions and, therefore, the relationship as a swelling and dwindling of intensity in a mutuality that continually depended on both sides. Johnston puts it this way: “the scholarly, conservative character of the Seventh Day Baptists did not mix well with the enthusiastic, aggressive, charismatic nature of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.” (Ibid., 27.)

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

183

transfer to Adventism must have been much more acute than the few incidences reported in publication suggest.568 Behind all these sentiments were issues raised by the “democratic” churches that had been so successful in the early 19th century. While Sabbath-keeping Baptists and Adventists agreed on many of the motifs that were prevalent in such movements – restorationism, criticism of “tradition,” common sense hermeneutics, and a similar approach to salvation history – they parted ways in other respects. With their more popular appeal and rejection of respectability, Adventists cultivated millennialism, an emphasis on a simple lifestyle,569 and especially a church planting approach that produced dynamics similar to the early Methodist expansion when they were still without stationary pastors. To their much more settled Baptist counterparts, they became what the Christians, Methodists and Baptists had been in an Episcopalian and Congregationalist context three generations earlier. In terms of ecumenics proper, it has to be noted that methods of dialogue and mutual recognition available at the time were evidently inadequate. Delegate exchange, personal acquaintances, and friendly words had the potential to build good relationships,570 but these measures alone could not ensure that such relations would endure. In the absence of any further mutual recognition, especially one that would clarify the question of members changing affiliation, any occurrence of incidents viewed as unpleasant on either side endangered the interactions. On the positive side, however, this earliest episode of official Adventist interchurch relations demonstrates that the denomination was capable of relating to other Christian movements in a constructive and egalitarian manner571 at quite 568 Besides, there were other well-known individuals who joined Adventism. Among them was Joseph Clarke, a frequent contributor to the Review and Herald magazine (see Campbell, “Unsung Heroes: Joseph Clarke”) as well as the Spicer family. Ambrose C. and Susan Spicer, the parents of the later SDA General Conference president William A. Spicer, were pioneering teachers at Milton Academy, a Seventh Day Baptist institution. Both had Master’s degrees, which was a significant achievement at the time, especially for women. 569 Already in 1871, after being a delegate for the first time, Andrews reported “a few things which did not so favorably impress” him in the General Conference meeting: a lack of devotional time and plainness of dress, tobacco use, and a “spirit of debate” with some “use of sharp language.” See J[ohn] N. Andrews, “Visit to the S. D. Baptist General Conference,” RH, September 19, 1871, 109. 570 A related factor of limited impact was blood relations. Cottrell once reflected, “having a Stillman for my mother, I should judge that a majority of the whole denomination are relatives and connections of mine.” Yet ultimately the centrifugal forces of transferring denominational adherence seem to have been stronger. See R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Seventh-Day Baptists,” RH, September 20, 1870, 109. 571 To a certain degree, the SDB-SDA interactions reflect the Equality Matching relational model, especially with regard to territorial mutual non-inference. This mode of relating was

184

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

an early stage. Admittedly the Sabbath doctrine was a decisive factor in the entire interchange; hence Adventists also removed their Seventh Day Baptist allies from their interpretation of apocalyptic Babylon.572 Yet the experimental approach and the development of reasoning in the course of encounters imply that some leaders of the young denomination were able to reflect on their own identity and that of others in a dialectical manner. The attempts at a “healing of memories” regarding the 1855 events, and the various pronouncements during the decade, indicate that Seventh-day Adventists, in spite of their separatist past and their claim to a worldwide mission, had the potential to interact in a conciliatory manner at least with some other churches. After the delegate exchange ended, the early 1880s brought forth a few positive573 as well as certain less pleasant instances of interaction between representatives of the denominations.574 In later decades, disaffected Adventists frequently continued keeping the Sabbath by joining the sabbatarian Baptist side.575 In a somewhat belated call, Ellen White addressed the cooperation with Sev-

572 573

574

575

evidently not compatible with the basis of a more common free enterprise (MP) approach on which Adventist evangelists generally operated. [Uriah Smith,] “A Question on Babylon,” RH, January 2, 1880, 72. Actually, the author concluded, “that S.D. Adventists regard the S. D. Baptists not as included in Babylon, but as cherishing one, at least, of its errors” – i. e. the immortality of the soul. One such positive instance is related to the marriage of the famous Adventist physician and director of Battle Creek Sanitarium, John Harvey Kellogg, with Seventh Day Baptist Ella Eaton in 1879; cf. Richard W. Schwarz, “John Harvey Kellogg: American Health Reformer,” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1964, 89–95. A good number of other employees at the Adventist sanitarium continued to be Seventh Day Baptists. Another instance illustrating positive intent is the publication of a three-part series on the “Origin of the First Seventh-Day Baptist Church in America,” ST, January 15, 1880, 16, January 22, 1880, 28, and January 29, 1880, 40, 45. Johnston, “Relationships between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists,” 63– 64. One particularly controversial encounter was the one involving Alexander McLearn, a Baptist, as president of Battle Creek College in Michigan, the pioneering Adventist educational establishment. He served from 1881–82, left after serious conflicts, then joined the Seventh Day Baptists, and soon published a hostile pamphlet against Adventists: SeventhDay Adventism: Some of Its Errors and Delusions, New York: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1888. See Thomsen, Seventh Day Baptists, 51, 54, and Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 126–127. The most famous example is Ludwig Richard Conradi, the pioneer and long-time leader of Adventism in Central and Eastern Europe. In 1932, he left the movement that he had steered since the mid-1880s, and was accompanied by a few hundred members. Cf. his booklets Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists: How They Differ, Plainfield: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1934, and The Founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination, Plainfield: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1939. For accounts of his separation from Adventism, see Daniel Heinz, Ludwig Richard Conradi: Missionar, Evangelist und Organisator der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Europa, Frankfurt: Lang, 1998, 107–110, and Johannes Hartlapp, “Eine vergessene Liebe: Ludwig Richard Conradi und die Adventgemeinde,” Spes Christiana 17 (2006), 69–83.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

185

enth Day Baptists once more in 1886 – the last major statement on the relationship to this denomination by an Adventist leader for several generations. Her concerns reflected the typical Adventist approach to interchurch relations – Christian unity based on a missionary, Bible-centred faith and honest personal relationships based on humility. The principles contained in her exhortation would reappear in Adventist interchurch relations unfolding in later periods. She asked: Why should not the Seventh-day Adventist and Seventh-day Baptist harmonize? Why not co-operate? Why not unite in the work and become one without compromising any principle of truth, and without damage to any interest worth preserving? Both are in defense of the law of God. The Bible and the Bible alone is to be the rule of our faith, the sole bond of our union, and they who evade the truth of the Bible will not desire more intimate relationship. But if these two bodies would unite in the Sabbath-school interest, in the effort to open the word of God to the people, a work would be done that would not please the artful foe at all. One grand lesson should be taught to our children, and that is, freedom from every particle of egotism and bigotry. They should be taught that other souls outside of our faith are precious, and that jesting, sneering, sarcasm, or contempt for those outside of our faith will be an offense to God. Such a course will wound the soul, hinder the prayers, and enfeeble the spiritual growth of those who indulge in them. We should educate the children not to be narrow, but broad; and an agony of desire and a wrestling faith should be encouraged, that God will give them the ability to win souls.576

3.3.3 Relating to the Christian World One reason why the positive interactions with Seventh Day Baptists are so significant is that for three generations nothing of a similar nature happened in the Adventist relationship with other ecclesial groups. This was, of course, due to the fact that the denomination started out with the conviction that such relationships were not called for in view of their sabbatarian mission in the short time remaining until the end of history. It is remarkable, however, how the leaders of the SDA church organization began reflecting upon questions on interchurch relations after the denomination had existed a relatively short time.577 Evidently, one should not expect a fully systematic approach to this subject to have emerged; 576 Ellen G. White in a Sabbath School Worker, October 1886 article, quoted from the CDROM Ellen White Writings: Comprehensive Research Edition, Silver Spring: Ellen G. White Estate, 2008. 577 Among the few deliberations regarding relational aspects of the movement published before its denominational organization, the following is probably one of the most carefully reflected observation: “Unbelievers are watching the remnant for their faults, and it is to be feared that the rash, exclusive and retaliating spirit of some of the brethren has done much to hinder the progress of the cause of present truth.” See [James White], “The Faith of Jesus,” RH, March 7, 1854, 54.

186

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

after all, the Adventist stance vis-à-vis other churches resembled a “David vs. Goliath” attitude, and the main focus in relating to what they considered “Babylon” was an effort at proselytizing – an activity that was often done with somewhat antagonistic approaches such as public debates. Beyond evaluating the few early pronouncements on interchurch relations, therefore, attempts at charting Adventist relationships with other Christians in this period also have to analyse other indicators of the young denomination’s attitudes to various Christian churches – such as reflections on their activities, shared elements of spirituality, and comments on outstanding Christian leaders. The First Adventist Statements on Interchurch Relations The earliest general declarations on interchurch relations were published in the 1870s, the very period of intensified SDA-SDB interactions. A first short but highly significant statement was voted in 1870 at the annual General Conference session. It reads: Resolved, That for the sake of our blessed Redeemer we desire to cultivate fraternal feelings, and maintain friendly relations, with all who name the name of Christ; and in particular with those who in common with us hold to the unpopular doctrine of the second advent of our Saviour near.578

While it is not known how this resolution was initiated,579 its association with Adventist-Seventh Day Baptist relations is a major dimension to be considered. For not only does it constitute a logical wider horizon of intra-sabbatarian relations, even the diction of this statement closely resembles the declarations of amity regarding the Seventh Day Baptists: “fraternal feelings” were invoked several times in the mutual communications. Evidently Adventists used the opportunity of beginning closer relations to reflect upon the relationship between Christians in general.580 Given the strained relations with the major other Adventist groups, it appears that the general climate of openness developing in the context of SDA-SDB contacts was thus applied to Adventist-Adventist rela578 “Business Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Session of the General Conference of Seventhday Adventists, March 15, 1870,” RH, March 22, 1870, 109. 579 One episode in 1869 may have been decisive in moving Adventist thinking in this direction. Several Seventh-day Adventists, including Ellen White, attended a large general meeting of “First-day” Adventists at Springfield. Mrs. White used the opportunity to speak in a “social meeting” (where personal testimonies were commonly shared). The fact that she spoke, although she claimed to say only non-controversial things, caused such a stir that the Seventh-day Adventists were soon urged to leave. Ellen White reflects upon this event at length in a letter: To “Children,” Sept. 1869, Letter 12, 1869, EGWE. 580 The formulation “name the name of Christ” is a quote from 2 Timothy 2:19 and evidently does not limit the group of Christians referred to in this statement.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

187

tions as well. But what seems noteworthy and even somewhat inconsistent is that the “friendly relations” should be possible with all Christians, not only fellow sabbatarians and other Adventists – in spite of the view that they belonged to “Babylon.” One key to understanding this apparent inconsistency is that the statement referred to individuals, not churches; thus it does not explicitly address the relationship between ecclesial bodies as a whole, and their ecclesial nature is not the subject of discussion. However, it is important to note that the 1870 General Conference meeting was among the most “ecumenical” of such early meetings in several regards: of its six major recorded discussions on the same day as this statement was issued, one was an issue of self-criticism, and five extended the horizon of this American movement – to (1) non-English speaking immigrants, (2) Seventh Day Baptists, (3) the first Seventh-day Adventists in Europe,581 and (4) non-sabbatarian Adventists582 as well as (5) Christians in general. Even though no significant reception history of this short statement ensued, it is one indication of the fact that seven years after their formation as a denomination, the 5500 Adventists of the time began to develop a considerably broader perspective of the Christian world. This broadening outlook, combined with sabbatarian restraints, is also visible in an article of the following year, the first to explicitly address “Relations of Sabbath-Keeping with Sunday-Keeping Denominations.” As can be seen in other instances as well, here an Adventist writer, Joseph H. Waggoner, deals with a difficult topic by utilizing other writers’ words – in this case, those of a Seventh Day Baptist.583 Quoting from the Sabbath Recorder was, of course, not uncommon, but the fact that Adventists picked up this theme from them might indicate that they felt more at ease not taking an unambiguous stand themselves at the time. Essentially these “excellent remarks” try to strike a balance between “extremes either side of the truth.”584 Together with the original author, 581 The first group of Sabbath-keeping Adventists had sprung up through the labour of Michael Belina Czechowski, a Seventh-day Adventist and former Roman Catholic priest, who served in Northern Italy and Switzerland as a missionary supported by non-sabbatarian Adventist groups and, later, as an individual without support from an organization. Cf. R. L. Dabrowski and Bert B. Beach (eds.), Michael Belina Czechowski, 1818–1876, Warsaw: Znaki Czasu, 1979. 582 It appears that around this time a more relaxed relationship developed between Seventh-day Adventists and at least some non-sabbatarian Adventists. In the previous year, James White had reported that he had visited the national Adventist campmeeting for three days and met Joshua V. Himes and his son, and expressed “hope for a more friendly relation of the Voice of the West and the Review and Herald,” the former belonging to the Advent Christians, to whom Himes had moved from the Evangelical Adventists in the 1860s. 583 J. H. W[aggoner] and James Summerbell, “Relations of Sabbath-Keeping with SundayKeeping Denominations,” RH, August 15, 1871, 68. 584 Ibid.

188

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Waggoner admits that in “our Christian experience, we are so nearly alike that only a line divides us and keeps us apart” – but maintains that the Decalogue is this line. Therefore the authors insist that “[d]enominational boundaries cannot limit the divine command to ‘love one another’,”585 yet affirm that there are limits of brotherliness: inviting non-sabbatarians to communion was unthinkable to them.586 As one reads these reflections six generations later, the struggle of these Sabbath advocates to come to grips with the reality of a divided Christianity is remarkable, especially because essentially their view of this divide was a rather dualistic one. It is James White, the denomination’s spiritus rector and General Conference president at the time, who took up the theme in an even more general manner as the last Adventist author to do so during the remainder of the 19th century.587 This is also the instance when the issue of interchurch relations was made the topic of an article for the first time by a denominational leader himself. His lengthy discussion emphasizes the Adventist worldwide message and mission, peaceful relationships, and refraining from improper manners in relating to other Christians – all supported with a variety of biblical texts. What is striking in this presentation is both (1) White’s attempt at keeping a balance and (2) his distance from non-sabbatarian Adventists. He rejected the course of “men [who] handle the truth in a manner to excite prejudice, and call out opposition” because they soon “turn martyrs, and cry persecution.” He conceded that “[w]ith all the religious bodies, Seventh-day Adventists differ on some points” but emphasized, we should be on peaceable terms with the religious bodies, so far as possible with the free and uncompromising proclamation of the word of life. God save us from the extremes which are the misfortune and weakness of very many.

The very fact that White addressed this broad theme also implied that the Millerite Adventist sphere, which had been the major frame of reference in the 1840s and part of the 1850s, was no longer his major orientation. In fact, he seemed more than annoyed at the general non-sabbatarian Adventists’ course of action, for he claimed, “Notwithstanding their loud protestations against sectarian creeds, and their boasted free discussion of Scripture questions, we know of no people this side the church of Rome who are more shut up to dogmas, or more under the control of narrow, bigoted leaders, than these Adventists.” Whether a recently published history of the Millerites, which included a rather 585 Ibid. 586 The Adventist view on open and closed communion would change later; see 5.2.3. 587 J[ames] W[hite], “Our Relation to Other Religious Bodies,” RH, February 18, 1875, 60. A part of the article had appeared in the Signs of the Times the week before (February 11, 1875, 116).

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

189

critical view of the Whites,588 irritated him most is hard to say. At any rate, twelve years after establishing a centralized denominational organization Adventists had reached a stage in which they no longer considered themselves mainly a subvariety of Adventism but a body that was able to relate to Christians of any other background. Attitudes to Other Churches This does not mean, however, that Seventh-day Adventists as an organization started to engage in interchurch relations in an active manner. Being preoccupied with what they considered their unique mission, with membership growth and the resulting expansion of administrative units and an institutional network, the denomination put its focus on internal affairs and continued to relate to other churches mainly in a competitive manner with regard to potential converts. In the absence of significant developments in active interchurch relations, one must, therefore, examine Adventist views of, and attitudes toward, other Christians and denominations in the last decades of the 19th century. At a first glance, the Adventist literature of the period abounds with a distinctly negative tendency in describing and appraising other denominations. Almost all groups and traditions mentioned in the leading church magazines receive criticism. The major anti-ecclesia of these early Adventists’ thinking is, unsurprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church.589 With the background of the pope being identified as the antichrist in the Protestant tradition, widespread antiCatholic sentiments in the American population and a rising Irish immigration, the era was saturated with nativist reasoning and prejudice against Roman Catholics anyway.590 Yet beyond the collective American memory, in which Catholicism had remained the great oppressor of faithful Protestants, the Adventist version of a critical stance towards the pope, the Roman Catholic Church and its members 588 Isaac C. Wellcome, History of the Second Advent Message and Mission, Doctrine and People, Yarmouth: I. C. Wellcome, 1874; on James and Ellen White, see ibid., 397–408. The book was republished by Seventh-day Adventists much later; see Isaac C. Wellcome and Gary Land, Second Advent History, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2008. 589 For an in-depth study of Adventist attitudes in the period, see Reinder Bruinsma, Seventhday Adventist Attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 1844–1965, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1994, 123–202 (chapter 4, entitled “Adventists and Catholics: 1863–1915”). Since this study contains an abundance of references, no further sources are referred to here. A search in the annual indices of the Review and Herald magazine yielded dozens of articles on the Roman Catholic Church, which consistently portray the negative image described below. 590 Cf. the classic of John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955.

190

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

was aggravated by the expectation that another persecution by the same power would soon close the end-time and thus test true believers before the coming of Jesus.591 Almost every single instance of referring to Roman Catholics in the leading church papers, therefore, contains a negative assessment of this church.592 Both discussions on history593 and references to current developments in the Roman Catholic Church594 are characterized by the judgement that the pope and his fellow bishops aimed at increasing their power and dominating even where they did not have significant influence yet – including America.595 This does not mean, however, that Adventists were more anti-Catholic than most other Protestants or that their attitude to what they often pejoratively called “the Romish Church” was much different from their outlook towards the rest of Christianity. Other Christian groups also received their fair share of SDA criticism in the period under study. The two most prominent bodies among them were the Mormons and the Methodists. As for Mormons, there are several motives for invariably depicting this movement in a negative light: (1) the fact that they were immediate rivals as an eschatology-oriented movement with a prophet, thus appealing (at least in part) to a similar class of people; (2) the tendency of the public to mistake Adventists for Mormons;596 (3) the Latter-Day Saints’ move away from the Bible; (4) the polygamy issue; (5) Mormon political influence in the Utah region; and (6) the general anti-Mormon sentiment in the population. It is not surprising, therefore, that Adventists made their rejection of all that was connected with Mormonism utterly explicit.597 591 Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4: The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Controversy, Oakland: Pacific Press, 1884, 380–397 (“Character and Aims of the Papacy”) and 398–410 (“The Coming Conflict”). 592 The one positive reference to contemporary Roman Catholicism I was able to find is an article on an evangelical reform movement inside this church: “The Gospel Reform in Catholicism,” RH, February 15, 1898, 103. 593 Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 158–162. 594 Ibid., 163–165. These developments included the declaration of papal infallibility in 1870 and several papal encyclicals (Pius IX: Quanta Cura with its attached Syllabus Errorum, 1864; Leo XIII: the famous encyclical Rerum Novarum, 1891, which Adventists viewed as a mere political statement, and Longinqua, addressed mainly to American Roman Catholics, 1895). 595 Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 166–174. 596 See, e. g., “Are We Mormons?,” RH, September 20, 1881, 200, where care is taken to point out that William Miller was not influenced by Mormons, as some (especially the Mormons) appeared to claim. Ellen White also reports that Adventists were frequently confused with Mormons because of “the Bible argument of the perpetuity of spiritual gifts”; see her Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2: My Christian Experience, Views and Labors in Connection with the Rise and Progress of the Third Angel’s Message, Battle Creek: James White, 1860, iv. 597 Even the titles of some articles devoted to Mormonism reveal Adventists’ disgust with this movement: “The Remedy for Mormonism,” RH, March 22, 1881, 189; “The Mormon Pla-

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

191

With regard to Methodists, the general negative picture painted by Adventist papers is related to several factors as well. One major theme – the seemingly weakening moral impulse of Methodism – was continually and unequivocally stated, albeit with variations: the (Southern Methodist) acceptance of slavery,598 laxity in the formerly strict lifestyle combined with the display of wealth,599 and a general easing of membership requirements.600 Yet implicit in this disapproving assessment of Methodists were several issues that explain why this tradition was critically discussed more often than any other except Mormonism and Roman Catholicism. One was presumably the fact that Methodists had been most prominent in the Millerite Movement;601 unconsciously, therefore, Methodism could count as the mother of Adventism, a parent that had deeply disappointed the advocates of a timed parousia. Another aspect was the Adventist admiration for John Wesley602 and the significant holiness orientation in the structure of SDA ethical reasoning, which paralleled the thinking of Wesley’s early followers. Coupled with an awareness of the tremendous growth of Methodism from an insignificant body to the largest American religious movement, its supposed downward spiral in terms of morality was considered a parallel to what many American Christians called the “Great Apostasy” in early Christian history – and

598 599

600

601 602

gue,” ST, March 13, 1884, 163; “Mormons,” RH, November 6, 1866, 179, has the subtitle “The Mormon Delusion.” For further discussions of Mormon matters, see, e. g., M[erritt] E. Cornell, “Who are Mormons?,” RH, April 7, 1863, 149; “Mormons,” RH, November 6, 1866, 179; “Mormonism,” RH, October 3, 1871, 128, “Mormon Evidence for Sunday-Keeping,” RH, October 31, 1871, 156; “The Crisis of Mormonism,” RH, October 3, 17, and 31, 1871, 123, 139, 160; “The Mormons,” RH, May 11, 1876, 152; “The Mormon Organization,” ST, July 21, 1881, 317; “The Spread of Mormonism,” ST, August 18, 1881, 363; “The Mormon in Congress,” RH January 10, 1882, 29; “Progress of Mormonism,” RH, May 20, 1884, 326; “Mormonism in Europe and America,” RH, April 28, 1885, 262. See, e. g., “Methodism in Virginia,” RH, March 18, 1858, 139; “Methodism and Slavery,” RH, May 27, 1858, 10–11; [James White,] “Picture of a Fallen Church,” RH, July 19, 1864, 57–58. Issues mentioned were, among others, tobacco, adornment, morality, and the persecution of other Christians. See [James White,] “Picture of a Fallen Church,” RH, July 19, 1864, 57–58; “The Methodists as They Were and Are,” RH, April 11, 1865, 146; “Discipline in the M. E. Church,” RH, March 5, 1872, 96; D. M. Canright, “ ‘Farewell to Methodist Discipline’,” RH, December 14, 1876, 189; A. Smith, “Worldward Tendency of a Prominent Church,” RH, June 1, 1886, 343. See “Decline of Wesleyan Methodism,” RH, June 13, 1867, 12; “The Methodist Book Concern,” RH, August 22, 1871, 77, and June 18, 1872, 2; D. H. Lamson, “I’m a Stiff Methodist,” RH, February 18, 1875, 61; C. H. Bliss, “Early Teaching of Methodism,” RH, April 14, 1874, 139; D[udley] M. Canright, “Methodism Then and Now,” RH, July 15, 1875, 20; “The Methodist Church South,” RH, October 3, 1878, 114; “Strange Words for Protestants,” RH, June 29, 1886, 407; U[riah] S[mith], “ ‘To the Church of the Methodists Write,’” RH, August 16, 1898, 525. Ellen White herself came from a Methodist background, and more than 40 % of the Millerite preachers had a Methodist origin. For details, see footnote 271. See below (p. 197–198) and E. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4: The Great Controversy [1884], 175–178, 186.

192

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

a warning example to Adventists. With regard to assessing the state of American Protestantism in general, Methodism thus served as crown witness. A survey of Adventist publications addressing other denominations reveals that Methodism, while being mentioned more frequently, attracted no qualitatively different comments than all others. Essentially the same judgements – especially regarding lifestyle,603 the slavery issue,604 and lack of graveness in church life605 – are found in connection with Protestantism in general. Hardly any major group of American Christianity is omitted in the critical reporting on religious life:606 non-sabbatarian Adventists,607 Baptists,608 Congregationalists,609 Disciples,610 Episcopalians,611 Presbyterians,612 the Orthodox,613 and Quakers,614 as well as non-denominational groups such as the YMCA.615

603 See, e. g., A. Smith, “The Popular Church and Ministry,” RH, February 11, 1890, 87. 604 “The Tract Society,” RH, October 15, 1857, 185; “The Tract Society and Slavery, Illustrated from Paul, Jonah, and John,” RH, November 25, 1858, 2. After the Civil War, the attention shifted to the treatment of African Americans in general. See, e. g., G. C. T., “The Armenian Trouble,” RH, January 8, 1895, 22, an article which argues that the murders of former slaves in the USA resemble the Turkish massacres of Armenians. 605 The austere tendency in the Adventist approach to religion during this period is visible in “Modern Church Methods,” RH, March 11, 1884, 176, which argues against merry-making, “festivals,” “church bazaars,” and other “sociables.” For a similar line of reasoning, see also S. Craw, “Evangelistic Frauds in Chicago,” RH, March 16, 1886, 166 (“To make bad matters worse, the sermon was interspersed with ‘laughter’, ‘applause’, and ‘continued laughter’, thereby turning a religious meeting into a theatre, a political gathering”); A. Smith, “The Low State of the Popular Church,” RH, December 17, 1889, 791; George I. Miller, “Church Festivals,” RH, October 20, 1891, 647. 606 A notable exception seem to be the Lutherans. No full article on this church could be found in the Review and Herald during the 19th century, presumably because their German and Scandinavian origin, to which they still adhered quite strongly, made them less prominent in public life in this period. It is also significant that Lutherans opposed moves of other Protestants to establish a Sunday law, which made them an Adventist ally in this matter; see section 4.1.2 below. 607 Relatively little material on non-Sabbath keeping Adventists is visible from the 1870s onward in SDA publications. Among the few items is John Vuilleumier, “The First-Day Adventist Convention at Worcester, Mass.,” RH, May 10, 1892, 291. 608 “Sunday among the Baptists,” RH, August 29, 1878, 76; “The Baptist Church in Politics: A Parable,” RH, March 3, 1891, 135; George B. Wheeler, “Baptists and Their Principles,” RH, March 13, 1894, 164. 609 “Congregationalism,” RH, May 30, 1882, 345 and “The New Congregational Creed,” RH, March 25, 1884, 198 (on pastors who have very little belief in traditional Christian doctrine); William Penniman, “Drifting Romeward,” RH, December 25, 1894, 803. 610 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Meeting with the Disciples,” RH, November 19, 1857, 13; H. E. Carver, “A. Campbell and the Law,” RH, November 25, 1858, 5; J[oseph] H. Waggoner, “Cambpellite Traditions Exposed,” RH, September 24, 1861, 132. 611 “Is Protestantism a Mistake?,” RH, April 1, 1884, 214 (an Episcopal Bishop proposing union between Roman Catholics and all Protestants); “The Largest Denomination,” RH, August 28, 1894, 547 (the Episcopal Church as a church of the uncommitted).

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

193

In this diverse crowd, one particularly noteworthy case is that of the Salvation Army. Its shared background in Methodism and its beginning after Adventism make it a special instance from which significant insights can be derived. Initiated in 1865 in England and expanding to America from 1880 onward, this revivalistic and innovative movement quickly caused indignation among the more dignified established denominations. Seventh-day Adventists disliked the Salvationist approach not only because of the exuberant spirituality displayed in their music and approach to people; they also could not imagine that a movement that had started after their own and which did not call Christians to the observance of the Sabbath while emphasizing the social aspects of faith was a genuine work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore this movement had to be a false revival; or, as Dudley Canright, one of the most vocal Adventist ministers of the period (soon to become the leading opponent of Seventh-day Adventism),616 argued, “Sr. White’s prediction that false reformations would increase … just before the end, is strikingly fulfilled in this movement.”617 This line of argument would be applied to other revival movements in later periods as well, particularly the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements of the 20th century. Unlike Gamaliel of old (Acts 5:38–39), Adventist leaders mostly did not feel they had to leave the judgement on such rival sects to God, but were convinced they had been given the task of watchmen (cf. Ezekiel 33).618 Thus even 612 B. M., “A Presbyterian’s View of Seventh-day Adventists,” RH, December 19, 1865, 23; Charles B. Reynolds, “A Skirmish with a Presbyterian,” RH, July 12, 1877, 19; W. A. C., “Good for Baptists, but a Shame to Presbyterians,” RH, November 25, 1890, 729 (on teaching religion in public school – an initiative by Presbyterians rejected by Baptists and, of course, Adventists). 613 “The Greek Church,” RH, August 7, 1879, 52. This article, which actually treats the Russian Orthodox Church, argues, “Like the Catholic church it is in a fearfully fallen condition.” 614 “The Quaker Church Changing,” RH, July 30, 1889, 487. This reprinted newspaper article claims, “The quiet waiting for the moving of the Spirit, the impressive silences that prepare the heart of the speaker and listener for the highest and truest utterances, – this is missed in most of the Quaker meetings of the present time.” 615 See “The World Converting the Church,” RH, October 4, 1870, 123 (with critical comments on festivals and theatrical play); for disapproving comments on another interdenominational group, see “A World-Wide Prayer Union,” RH, March 18, 1884, 184 (the Prayer Union of Melbourne and its call to pray “to hasten the coming of Christ”). 616 Canright left the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1887 and soon published several books directed against the denomination. For more details, see 4.3.2. 617 D[udley] M. Canright, “The Salvation Army and Others,” RH, February 24, 1885, 123. Canright’s major argument was that their style lacked any solemnity, and with their singing and methods “every possible effort was made to get up noise and an excitement”. For similar views, see D[udley] M. Canright, “The Salvation Army,” RH, June 9, 1885, 361– 362; R. A. Underwood, “The Salvation Army,” RH, May 26, 1885, 323–324; and “The Salvation Army: Character of the Men and Women Who Compose It,” ST, May 28, 1885, 323. 618 In Ellen White’s published writings, the term watchman/watchmen appears more than 700 times according to a search of the CD-ROM Ellen White Writings: Comprehensive

194

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

no less a figure than Ellet J. Waggoner, one of the two major proponents of an emphasis on “righteousness by faith” in the epoch-making 1888 General Conference meeting of the denomination,619 declared the Salvation Army a “counterfeit religion.” He argued that their “Holiness Bands” (i. e. congregations) were “but feeders for Spiritualism; … they are, in fact, forms of Spiritualism; and … the leaders are simply in training, unconsciously, for Spiritualist mediums.”620 To Waggoner, there was “no intermediate ground between truth and error” – reality was either black or white. At the same time, his dualistic worldview was reinforced by an enlightenment impulse: “Do not be misled by loud professions, and fervent prayers and exhortations.” Thus he could claim, “We write in no spirit of harsh criticism. We pity the poor souls who are ensnared by this terrible delusion.”621 Waggoner’s perception of Salvationists indicated his lack of understanding of crucial aspects of what the followers of William and Catherine Booth wanted to communicate, but it also revealed much about a characteristic Adventist mode of thinking in the period and the denomination’s general selfimage in relation to other churches. Viewing Other Christians in a Positive Light While the overall portrayal of Christianity outside the Adventist realm was, therefore, quite consistently unfavourable,622 there were a few exceptions. One voice actually dissented regarding the Salvation Army. George C. Tenney623

619 620

621 622

Research Edition, Silver Spring: Ellen G. White Estate, 2008. For several decades, the denomination even published a journal entitled The Southern Watchman (1901–1917) viz. The Watchman Magazine (1917–1946). The similarity to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower magazine is not accidental: the terminology also frequently appears in Millerite writings and journal titles, such as the Advent Watchman viz. Second Advent Watchman, Faithful Watchman, and Watchman of the Night & Millennial Morning. For a discussion of this theological crossroads, see 4.1.3. E[llet] J. W[aggoner], “The Salvation Army,” ST, December 4, 1884, 728–729. It appears that Waggoner was echoing an idea published by Ellen White a few months earlier (in the summer of the same year), in The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4: The Great Controversy, 405, where she commented, “Spiritualism is now changing its form, veiling some of its more objectionable and immoral features, and assuming a Christian guise. Formerly it denounced Christ and the Bible; now it professes to accept both. The Bible is interpreted in a manner that is attractive to the unrenewed heart, while its solemn and vital truths are made of no effect. A God of love is presented; but his justice, his denunciations of sin, the requirements of his holy law, are all kept out of sight.” On the importance of the Spiritualist Movement at the time, see Bret E. Carroll, Spiritualism in Antebellum America, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Waggoner, “The Salvation Army,” 729. One exception is a surprisingly objective sketch of Orthodox churches; see the four-part series W. A. Colcord, “The Greek Church,” RH, June 25, 1889, 406; July 2, 421; July 9, 438, and July 16, 454; as well as “Faith of the Greek Church,” RH, June 10, 1890, 358. It appears that the comparison with Roman Catholicism contributed to a more positive appraisal. For a

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

195

differentiated between the Salvationists’ approach on the one side and their commitment and spirituality on the other, thus arriving at the following conclusion: We cannot approve of all the methods employed. The indecorous performances, the apparently unsanctified familiarity with which they speak of sacred things before their audiences … But while this is so, we must not judge the Salvation Army and its work by these things alone … [T]heir methods, so uncanny to refined Christian minds, are well adapted to reach a very large class of people who stand in great need of their help. Their workers are devoted men and women who know what it is to deny self, to work hard for meager reward, to suffer reproach, and yet who are ready to help any one [sic] anywhere … The workers in the Army are largely composed of those who feel that the cold, formal churches do not afford the means of spiritual life … The stirring zeal and devotion of the Salvation Army joined to a knowledge of present truth, form a combination which we wish were far more abundant than it is.624

Tenney’s self-criticism implied in the last sentence and his overall appreciation of the Salvationists’ dedication to reaching people demonstrates that at least some Adventist leaders were ready to concede that movements outside the Sabbath keepers were involved in a divine mission – a view that was otherwise rarely stated, and if so, mainly regarding regions of the world where Adventists were not yet active.625 Explicitly positive attitudes to other contemporary Christian groups were primarily expressed in the case of sabbatarians. Of course here Adventist reporting also aimed at boosting the self-esteem of the young denomination’s adherents. At a time when SDA mission work had just begun,626 they rejoiced in finding themselves in the company of faithful commandment-keepers both in the United States and worldwide. In addition to Seventh Day Baptists, the church papers contain approving observations on German Seventh Day Baptists (the “Pennsylvania sabbatarians”), sabbatarian Dunkers (the predecessors of today’s Church of the Brethren), and a famous Sabbath-keeping philanthropist in

623 624 625 626

more critical view, see H. P. Holser, “At Service in a Russian Church,” RH, December 24, 1889, 806–807 (Holser praises “exceptionally fine” singing but frowns upon the overall liturgy, which he calls “a meaningless round of forms”; see ibid., 807). Tenney was a lesser-known figure in 19th century Adventism but a frequent contributor to the church paper in that period. He had been a missionary to Australia, taught at Battle Creek College, and assisted in editing various church magazines, including the Review and Herald. G[eorge] C. T[enney], “The Salvation Army,” RH, October 16, 1894, 646–647. See “Protestants in France,” RH, April 17, 1879, 127; “Protestantism in Cuba,” RH, March 12, 1889, 167; “The Martyr Bishop of Melanesia,” RH, February 4, 1890, 70; “Zenana Medical Missions,” RH, December 23, 1890, 791. John N. Andrews was sent to Switzerland as the denomination’s first missionary in 1874. Others followed to various countries with a Christian background, but activities in countries outside the Christian realm were initiated only in 1894 – in today’s Ghana and Zimbabwe.

196

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

America,627 as on sabbatarian movements628 and traditions in China,629 Mongolia and Hungary as well as other European countries630 and Russia.631 Apart from these Sabbath keeping groups, there were only few contemporary movements that received some recognition or praise from Adventist writers: Irvingites, who may be viewed as the British counterpart of the American Adventist revival,632 the Stundists of the Ukraine (an indigenous free-church movement),633 and Christians living under unfavourable circumstances and in

627 “Seventh-Day Dunkers,” RH, August 18, 1868, 142; “Pennsylvania Sabbatarians,” RH, May 23, 1878, 163; Joseph Bates, “Dear Bro. White,” RH, March 1851, 55 (a visit of Gerrit Smith by Bates, who mentions that Smith keeps the Sabbath with his family); J[oseph] H. Waggoner, “Gerrit Smith,” RH, January 15, 1875, 24 (a short obituary which also mentions Smith’s sabbatarianism). On Smith, see also Ralph V. Harlow, Gerrit Smith: Philanthropist and Reformer, New York: Holt, 1939. On the Dunkers viz. Brethren, see Carl F. Bowman, Brethren Society: The Cultural Transformation of a Peculiar People, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. 628 Like Ellen White, other Adventists at times referenced Waldenses’ possible or actual Sabbath keeping; see, e. g., “The Waldenses Kept the Commandments,” RH, August 1877, 77; E. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4: The Great Controversy [1884], 69–70. For a debate of the historicity of this view, see Donald Casebolt, “Ellen White, the Waldenses, and Historical Interpretation,” Spectrum 11.3 (1981), 37–43; Jean Zurcher, “A Vindication of Ellen White as Historian,” Spectrum, 16.3 (1985), 21–31; and Donald Casebolt, “Ellen White on Waldenses, Albigenses,” Spectrum 16.5 (1986), 62. 629 The Taiping Rebellion (or Revolution, as it is called by Chinese scholars), which led to about 20 million deaths, was led by a syncretic but Sabbath keeping movement. See “SabbathKeepers in China,” RH, February 18, 1875, 58–59; February 25, 1875, 65–67; and “The Ti-Ping Revolution and the Sabbath,” RH, June 9, 1885, 358. Cf. also Franz Michael, The Taiping Rebellion: History and Documents, vol. 2: Documents and Comments, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1971, 313–315, 319–320. 630 “Sabbath-Keepers in Hungary,” RH, April 20, 1869, 136; “The Sabbath of the Mongols,” RH, October 26, 1886, 663. While the Mongol Sabbath mentioned here is of a non-Christian background, Hungary had an anti-trinitarian Christian sabbatarian tradition reaching back to the 16th century; see Daniel Liechty, Sabbatarianism in the Sixteenth Century: A Page in the History of the Radical Reformation, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1993. For a short overview of regions with Sabbath keeping groups before Adventist missionary work began to make an impact, see J[ohn] N. Andrews, “The Sabbath in Continental Europe,” ST, August 5, 1875, 308. He mentions “Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Bohemia, Hungary, and Italy.” 631 In Russia, there were sabbatarians among the Molokans; see “The Molokaners of Russia, RH, February 16, 1860, 104; “Sabbath-Keepers in Russia,” RH, November 17, 1874, 164; “The Malakani of Russia,” RH, January 1, 1880, 9–10. 632 “The Irvingites,” RH, November 20, 1856, 19, comments positively on Irving’s “solemnity” and the Irvingites’ view of the continuity of spiritual gifts; cf. also J[ohn] N. Loughborough, “English Denominations: The Irvingites,” RH, April 17, 1879, 124–125. 633 “Religious Intolerance in Russia,” ST, April 8, 1889, 211; “The Stundists,” ST, November 1993, 27; “Stundists,” ST, March 12, 1894, 299. On the Stundists, see also Hans-Christian Diedrich, Siedler, Sektierer und Stundisten: Die Entstehung der russischen Freikirchentums, Berlin: Evangelische Verlags-Anstalt, 1985.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

197

far-away countries such as China, Madagascar, or Peru.634 It is not difficult to detect the reasons for an SDA identification with, or positive attitude towards, precisely these groups: like sabbatarians, they were those that mirrored characteristics which Adventist ascribed to themselves. Like the core of the denomination’s ecclesiological vision, the remnant of Revelation 12, these movements epitomized faithfulness in a sceptical or indifferent world or amidst difficulties and persecution, and could thus be considered the counterpart of Adventism in their respective environments. While a positive attitude to such remote types of Christians does not imply interchurch relations of the same kind, it indicates the willingness to concede that authentic Christianity is found in many organizations. Or, as Moses Kellogg put it, Christians of any denomination may believe that the particular organization with which they are united is the one nearest right, but this should be coupled with the belief that there are also Christians in other denominations.635

Acknowledging proper Christian piety outside one’s own realm was, of course, much easier when it manifested itself in shared positions or practices. It is, therefore, not surprising, that Adventist papers contain a significant number of statements or views of well-known non-Adventist personalities that support SDA views. After an initial tendency to quote only Millerite and sabbatarian materials, selective references from non-Adventist and non-sabbatarian Adventists’ writings occurred quite early.636 Such quotes from and texts about reformers and other authorities served the double purpose of creating a link to historical or contemporary Christian heroes and, thereby, enhancing the importance of particular SDA teachings. The two outstanding non-Adventist figures referenced in denominational publications are Martin Luther and John Wesley. While a comprehensive discussion of a reception of their thought in Adventism would need studies of

634 “What Christian Chinamen Must Endure,” ST, April 22, 1886, 249; “The Society of Friends’ Mission in Central Madagascar,” ST, September 3, 1894, 682; “Protestant Disabilities in Peru,” RH, August 3, 1897, 485. 635 M[oses] E. K[ellogg], “The Reformed Presbyterian Church,” RH, July 20, 1897, 452. In this article, the author criticized that this denomination, which was also very active in promoting an American Sunday law, had a “bent … to compel others.” 636 They coincide with the first consolidation of the sabbatarian Adventist movement into a distinct if non-incorporated church by the mid-1850s. See, e. g., “The True Christian,” RH, September 12, 1854, 38–39, quoted from The General Evangelist; [Horacio L. Hastings,] “The Three Worlds,” RH, November 14, 1854, 107, 110–111 (a lengthy text from a nonsabbatarian Adventist written after the Great Disappointment); November 21, 118–119; “Extracts from Thomas a Kempis,” RH, December 11, 1855, 83.

198

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

their own,637 even a cursory survey of the use of materials from and on these two in the major church papers demonstrates how important traditional Protestant authorities were for the young denomination in spite of their official rejection of “tradition.” Adventists claimed these two evangelical heroes as forerunners, examples worth emulating,638 theological reference points regarding the Ten Commandments639 and the second advent,640 and as a confirmation of SDA principles of moral conduct.641 Such a selective reading of these two Protestant pioneers evidently resulted in a somewhat skewed picture, but their portrayal is remarkable in that it emphasizes continuity to an extent that strikingly contrasts with the minimal relationship to the actual churches and Christians who resulted from their ministry. However, there is a peculiar logic in this paradox: as in Ellen White’s Great Controversy,642 past reformers like Luther, Wesley and the Waldenses643 served as predecessors to the contemporary remnant of faithful believers, the crowning movement of salvation history – sabbatarian Adventism.

637 For Wesley’s thought on redemption and Adventist theology, see Woodrow W. Whidden, “Adventist Soteriology: The Wesleyan Connection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 30.1 (1995), 173–186. Regarding Luther, a beginning has been made by Denis Kaiser, “ ‘God Is Our Refuge and Strength”: Martin Luther in the Perception of Ellen G. White,” in Rolf Pöhler (ed.), Perceptions of the Protestant Reformation in Seventh-day Adventism, Adventistica: Studies in Adventist History and Theology – New Series 1, Friedensau: Institute of Adventist Studies, 2018, 49–65. 638 See, e. g., “Luther as a Preacher,” RH, July 29, 1884, 291; “Wesley and His Preachers,” RH, January 6, 1862, 45–46; “Wesley’s Industry,” RH, July 28, 1868, 85; “Wesley’s Power as a Preacher,” RH, July 1871, 24; “John Wesley’s Opinion of Unfaithful Ministers,” RH, October 13, 1874, 122; “Wesley’s Preaching,” RH, April 3, 1879, 111; S. N. Haskell, “John Wesley in College,” ST, January 13, 1881, 20–21; “How Wesley Preached,” RH, October 28, 1884, 683. 639 J[ohn] N. Loughborough, “Martin Luther on the Law,” RH, January 8, 1861, 62; “Wesley on the Law,” RH, January 13, 1859, 61–63; [John Wesley,] “The Original [sic], Nature, Properties, and Use of the Law,” RH, August 28, 1860, 113–115. 640 “Luther on the Advent,” RH, March 13, 1866, 113–114. 641 “John Wesley on the Danger of Increasing Riches,” RH, January 31, 1856, 138–139; D[udley] M. Canright, “Wesley on Dress,” RH, August 12, 1873, 67, repeated November 11, 1873, 175; “John and Charles Wesley’s General Rules,” RH, March 22, 1877, 91. The article “Character of Luther,” RH, October 8, 1867, 262–263, depicts Luther as honest, simple, cutting, and even makes him a holiness advocate! 642 E. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4: The Great Controversy [1884], 94–155 (on Luther) and 175–179 [Wesley]. The earliest version of the Great Controversy had contained only about three pages on Luther, and hardly any historical details; see E. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1: The Great Controversy [1858], 119–122. 643 Cf. H. P. Holser, “Among the Waldenses,” RH, June 20, 1893, 390 (the author, however, claims, “As a people, they are no longer what they once were. Both morally and physically, they have degenerated; their opposition to the papacy is not as strong as in the past”); “The Waldenses,” RH, June 19, 1894, 389 (emphasizes that Waldenses knew much of the Bible by heart). Even the Albigenses are portrayed as Christians holding on to true elements of faith in an apostate environment; see “The Albigenses of Southern France,” RH, September 15, 1896, 582.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

199

Consistent with this scheme are several further tendencies implying at least a potential positive attitude towards other Christian traditions. One is the practice of referencing parallels to Adventist views in authoritative texts of other Christian traditions, especially on God’s law,644 but also other distinctive themes such as the non-immortality of the soul,645 religious liberty and the rejection of creeds.646 Another trend is a changing view of global Protestant mission activities shortly after Adventists began to engage in sending out missionaries as well.647 In a number of instances Adventists began to draw devotional material from somewhat unusual sources quite early,648 and as time went by, extra-denominational books found their way into both into the advertisements in church papers or books649 and into the movement’s printing press.650 644 See, e. g., “Church of Scotland,” RH, January 1, 1861, 54; “Catechism of the M. E. Church on the Law of God,” RH, April 19, 122; “The Episcopalians on the Law and Sabbath,” RH, March 1, 1877, 66; “Baptist Hymn Book,” RH, January 24, 1878, 32; M[oses] E. Kellogg, “A Methodist on the Law,” RH, February 2, 1897, 68. 645 See “The Church of England vs. Eternal Torment,” RH, June 28, 1877, 4, and the article series of D[udley] M. Canright, “Teachings of the Apostolic Fathers concerning the Nature of Man,” RH, April 17, 1879, 121–122, and “The Early Fathers,” RH, April 24, 1879, 129–130; May 1, 1879, 145–146; and May 15, 1879, 153–154. This is one of the few instances of 19th century Adventist writings on the time before Luther except Ellen White’s later editions of the Great Controversy with chapters on the Waldenses and “Early Reformers.” Another example, which represents the rather pessimistic Adventist view regarding the first centuries, is Ellet J. Waggoner, Fathers of the Catholic Church: A Brief Examination of the “Falling Away” of the Church in the First Three Centuries, Oakland: Pacific Press, 1888 (392 pp.!). 646 In these two fields, Adventists felt an affinity with Baptists; see A. O. Tait, “Canadian Baptists and Creeds,” RH, September 22, 1891, 592 (congratulating Baptists that they reject a creed in favour of the Bible), and “The Baptists and Religious Liberty,” RH, September 1892, 615. 647 Cf. the discussion in chapter 4.2. 648 E.g. Emanuel Swedenborg, “The Christian Church – Its Rise and Fall,” RH, September 4, 1856, 143 (quoted from The Heavenly Mysteries, vol. 2, no. 1834; cf. Emanuel Swedenborg, The Heavenly Mysteries, London: Swedenborg Society, British and Foreign, 1878, 305–306); “The Quaker’s Corn Crib,” RH, July 2, 1861, 41–42; [Friedrich Adolf] Krummacher as quoted by R[oswell] F. C[ottrell], “The Hidden Church,” RH, December 24, 1861, 29. Here the author comments, “The twilight of present truth seemed to dawn upon our author’s mind.” See also John of Damascus, “Hymn for All Saints,” RH, October 28, 1862, 169. 649 One example: Joseph Bates, The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates, Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868 [publications catalogue appendix, 14], contained advertisements for Martyn, The Great Reformation; D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation, Barrows, Companion to the Bible, Taylor, The Voice of the Church (“A very valuable work”); Patterson, Fables of Infidelity, Dobney, The Scriptural Doctrine of Future Punishment, Nelson, The Cause and Cure of Infidelity, and various concordances, Bible dictionaries, etc. 650 Among the earliest non-sabbatarian Adventist publications printed by the movement’s press are Horace L. Hastings, The Three Worlds, or, Earth’s Past, Present, and Future, Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1855 (he was an Adventist, but a non-sabbatarian); and Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Celestial Rail-Road, Rochester: Advent Review, [ca. 1865]. Hawthorne

200

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Spiritual Connectedness: Evaluating Adventist Attitudes Such an increasing appreciation of non-Adventists’ materials, texts, and thought is probably more visible than anywhere else in the development of SDA hymnody. The history of Adventist singing in the 19th and early 20th centuries is well documented,651 but a comprehensive evaluation of the origin of songs has not been attempted. Given the importance of congregational singing in worship, church music as an ecumenical realm in its own right probably deserves more attention in the study of interchurch relations than it has been given so far.652 A thorough study of Adventist hymnals in this perspective would no doubt uncover a host of significant details; nevertheless, here only a sketch can be provided. The earliest sabbatarian Adventist hymnal, James White’s 1849 Hymns, for God’s Peculiar People (with 53 songs),653 contained mainly texts that had been used by the Millerites654 and some produced by sabbatarian Adventists themselves, along with a few older hymns.655 Later hymnals included many more songs and presented a much more balanced choice of themes: against an almost exclusive focus on eschatology in 1849, the 1855 Hymns contained 435 items in 20 sections, of which about two thirds were not devoted to eschatological themes. Moreover, a much larger number of items was taken from non-Adventist sources.656

651

652 653 654

655 656

was a well-known novelist and writer of short stories. This short story, which contextualizes Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress into the 19th century, was republished by Seventh-day Adventists “to show the deplorably fallen condition of the nominal churches” (29). See Charles Pierce, “A History of Music and of Music Education of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” D.M.A. diss., Catholic University of America, 1976; Wayne Hooper and Edward E. White, Companion to the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1988 (with a historical introduction chapter); and James R. Nix, Early Advent Singing, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1994. For a short attempt in this regard, see Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, “ ‘Through the Church the Song Goes On’: Ecumenical Implications of Singing Together,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 53.2 (2018), 245–261. James White (ed.), Hymns, for God’s Peculiar People, That Keep the Commandments of God, and the Faith of Jesus, Oswego: Richard Oliphant, 1849. Many are from the three-volume hymnal Joshua V. Himes, Millennial Harp: Designed for Meetings on the Second Coming of Christ, Boston: [J. V. Himes,] 1843; others appear in The Advent Harp: Designed for Believers in the Speedy Coming of Christ, Boston: J. V. Himes, 1849. Of these, the origin of ten could be identified: one is from Charles Wesley, one is the 1674 doxology of Thomas Ken sung in many denominations, and the others are (unsurprisingly) taken from various American hymnals published in the early 19th century. Hymns for Those Who Keep the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus, Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1855. The exact amount of material not related to Millerite hymnals and Adventist poetry could not be determined exactly, but a preliminary estimate is between one third and one half.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

201

After further revisions, a completely new hymnal was published in 1886.657 Among its 1,413 songs, the overwhelming majority was of non-Adventist origin: in addition to 150 written by Seventh-day Adventists, an estimated 250 had been present in the Millerite tradition,658 and altogether 275 authors were identified.659 The explanation of the choice of authors is revealing: besides the Wesleys and Zinzendorf, the portrayal of many poets as “reformers of like character”660 indicates how important it was for the SDA leadership to present a convincing rationale for their use of texts from outside the denominational tradition.661 At the same time, the fact that they freely used such an amount of material and would continue to do so in later hymnals662 implies an unmistakable sense of continuity with other Christian traditions (the “Babylon” status of Protestant churches notwithstanding) – especially earlier reformist currents among them. A similar sympathetic approach to extra-Adventist Christianity appears with regard to a few peculiar religious personae. These cases seem to be the exception rather than the rule, and it is only truly extraordinary individuals who are depicted in such bright colours. Outstanding among these are Dwight L. Moody, Georg Müller and Phoebe Palmer – the famous American evangelist, the faith hero in England663 and the leading woman of the Holiness Movement.664 Like portrayals of Luther and Wesley, references to Moody’s beliefs and activities emphasized aspects of his piety and quasi-Adventist positions,665 while 657 General Conference [of Seventh-day Adventists], The Seventh-day Adventist Hymn and Tune Book for Use in Divine Worship, Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1886. 658 Songs 787 to 1010 belonged to four categories related to eschatology: “Waiting for Christ,” “Second Advent,” “Death and Resurrection,” “Reward of Saints”; see ibid. Among these (and in some other sections), many had been taken from Millerite hymnals. It should be noted, however, that the Millerites had also borrowed many hymns from earlier traditions. 659 Stephen N. Haskell, “The New Hymn Book,” RH, November 9, 1886, 697. 660 Ibid. 661 Consistent with this attitude, then, some wording in the texts was changed because of what they considered “pagan and papal errors.” Other texts were restored to their original; thus the hymns were thought of as being “strictly in harmony with the teachings of the Scriptures.” See General Conference, The Seventh-day Adventist Hymn and Tune Book [1886], iv. 662 Cf. The Church Hymnal: Official Hymnal of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1941; Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1985. Essentially the same approach to hymnology is visible in denominational collections in other countries. In striking comparison to this, the “cousins” of Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, almost exclusively use hymns of their own; see, e. g., Sing Praises to Jehovah, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1984. 663 Cf. Nancy Garton, George Mu¨ller and His Orphans, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1963. 664 Cf. Charles E. White, The Beauty of Holiness: Phoebe Palmer as Theologian, Revivalist, Feminist, and Humanitarian, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. 665 “Mr. Moody on Prayer,” RH, November 7, 1878, 151; D. W. Reavis, “Moody and the Children,” RH, July 24, 1879, 35; “Mr. Moody on the Bible,” RH, July 8, 1890, 421; “Mr. Moody’s Mind,” RH, December 15, 1896, 793; M[oses] E. K[ellogg], “Moody in Chicago,”

202

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

Müller’s social ministry built on faith was apparently so much beyond criticism that his spirituality and dedication had to be presented as a model to be followed.666 As for Palmer, there is only one major reference to her in Adventist publications, but it is of high significance. In a book on “the perpetuity of spiritual gifts” published to support the validity of Ellen White’s prophetic claim,667 Adventist author Merritt Cornell presented a collection of instances in which prophecies, visions, dreams, fulfilled prayer, and miracles, as well as the practices of discerning spirits, expelling evil spirits, and healing the sick, occurred – mainly among early Christians, Reformers of the 16th century, and Methodists, but also a few other cases. In a second edition, he included Phoebe Palmer, who had died shortly before, in 1874. What is remarkable is that the book references her visionary experiences of 1840 and portrays them in a favourable light.668 With this positive assessment of Palmer’s supernatural call, Müller’s unwavering trust in God and Moody’s evangelistic zeal, Adventists identified themselves with individuals representing (at least in their perspective) the cream of evangelical Christianity. At the same time, this praise of individuals who represented spiritual movements rather than denominational organizations also implied being able to uphold a critical stance to the very Protestant churches to which they belonged and to concepts of institutional Christian unity at large. Like the mosaic of SDA thought on other churches, movements, and Christians, the picture that emerges from such representations is an ideal in which Adventists hoped to be mirrored as well, and which they believed was the essence of Christianity. Critical articles about other churches, quotations from eminent religious pioneers, expressions of like-mindedness with regard to sabbatarian and other “reformer” movements, and shared hymn content ultimately all emphasized a few major themes that characterized the Adventists’ spirituality and convictions: (1) Bible vs. tradition, (2) restoration viz. “reform,” (3) imminent eschatological expectations, (4) the Sabbath, (5) Puritan strictness and holiness, (6) rationality as opposed to emotionality, and (7) a committed, sacrificial lifestyle. Many of these concerns had been inherited from earlier restorationist and

RH, April 13, 1897, 229 (recommending Moody’s stance on the Law of God); “Moody on the Second Coming,” RH, March 29, 1898, 203. 666 “George Muller,” ST, November 27, 1879, 357; “George Muller and His Work,” ST, February 24, 1881, 96; “George Muller,” RH, November 23, 1897, 746. 667 Merritt E. Cornell, Miraculous Powers: The Scripture Testimony on the Perpetuity of Spiritual Gifts. Illustrated by Narratives of Incidents and Sentiments Carefully Compiled from the Eminently Pious and Learned of Various Denominations, 2nd ed., Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1875. 668 Ibid., 70.

Denominationalization and Sabbatarian Ecumenism

203

democratic churches,669 and wherever several elements of this blend appeared in combination outside the denominational realm, Adventists were ready to acknowledge spiritual like-mindedness. Even so, the ambivalence that remained in view of the Christian Other was significant. In some instances, as in the case of the Salvation Army discussed above, Adventist leaders did not agree among themselves as to how they should assess particular movements. A similar case is the YMCA: in spite of critical notes in some instances, Adventists protested when their adherents were not accepted into the membership of this non-denominational evangelical organization in some places.670 This implies, again, an aversion against institutionalized Christianity and the desire to be recognized as authentic believers, a distance from the Christian establishment combined with a feeling of affinity to devout men and women from other denominations. The chief root of this ambivalence was the continuing Seventh-day Adventist apocalypticism. The denomination’s dualistic view of Christendom was a logical consequence of an eschatological expectation in which very soon only two groups of people were to remain: the true believers, who kept all the commandments of God and remained faithful to Jesus in the last persecution, and the apostate rest of the Christian world together with non-Christians. Faithful believers, therefore, could still be found in all the churches (and, possibly, even outside of them); the historical champions of faith as well as contemporary luminaries were examples of these. The relationship with the other denominations, however, was essentially one of competing for souls thought of as being in danger of eternal damnation. In terms of ecclesiology, it is the liminal remnant motif that embodied this somewhat ambiguous attitude to non-Adventist Christians and their churches. According to the SDA conception, this remnant needed the other churches as a sphere of operation, but its own ecclesiality was little defined.671 As a church, the

669 Cf. the discussion in section 3.1.1 above. Of the elements mentioned here, the following are identified by Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, with regard to the “democratic” churches that began to flourish shortly after American independence: 1 (primitivism, “no creed but the Bible”; 179–183); 2 (restorationism; “the quest for the ancient order shifted their own efforts to the center stage of cosmic drama”; 169); 3 (millennialism connected with “hunger for achievement and [a] sense of providential mission”; 184–189, here); 6 (anti-emotionalism among the Disciples and Mormons: the earliest followers of Joseph Smith “remained unconvinced by the fervor of emotional revivals”; 122); and 7 (the Methodist early lifestyle and emphasis on intinerancy; 85–89). 670 See “The World Converting the Church,” RH, October 4, 1870, 123 (criticism); “What is Evangelical?,” RH, December 9, 1890 (an article emphasizing that Adventists are evangelical); “The Y.M.C.A.,” RH, February 3, 1891 (information on places where Adventists were members of the YMCA). 671 It is only recently that attempts have been made to construct a more elaborate theology around the Adventist tradition connected with this term; see, e. g., Ángel M. Rodríguez

204

Apocalyptic Heat and a Diversity of Attitudes: The Formative Years of Adventism

remnant was only to be a preliminary auxiliary structure supporting the individual believer to remain “faithful until the end” (Matt 10:22). This ecclesiological minimalism, which was pragmatically expanded only when organization became inevitable but was also enhanced by Ellen White’s prophetic ministry, made it relatively easy for Adventists at the time to avoid developing a perspective of even a potential relationship with other denominations (except sabbatarian ones) on an equal footing. At the same time, it opened the door to relating to individuals on a basis of shared spirituality – thus essentially exhibiting a “spiritual unity” approach. The eschatological foundation of this thinking does not mean, however, that Adventists were peculiar in their double attitude regarding other churches and Christians. Leaders of other populist movements of the early and mid-19th century, especially the Disciples and the Mormons, equally viewed the Christian world at large as being under the spell of antichrist;672 after all, they agreed with Baptists and Methodists that there had been “a great falling away” or “Great Apostasy” shortly after the age of the apostles.673 In many cases, this radicalism might simply imply assuming divine blessing for the intense competition for souls among the unchurched and on the free religious market in 19th century America. For Adventists, however, the more pronounced apocalyptical dialect of this language of separation further increased the distance from other Christian churches. The fact that this dialect soon became a prophetically sanctioned theological idiom of its own and provided the platform for a new denominational culture meant that the existing rift would be consolidated before long – with the result that it would remain far beyond the decades of origin, in spite of the ecumenical beginnings of Adventism in the Millerite Movement.

(ed.), Toward a Theology of the Remnant, Silver Spring: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2009. 672 Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, 76, 114. 673 Ibid., 167. For an example of the Adventist reception of this “Great Apostasy” motif, see E. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1: The Great Controversy [1858], 103–107.

4.

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

The late 19th century was a period of experimentation for Seventh-day Adventists in many ways. They entered the 1880s as a movement that had firmly established itself in some regions of the United States, but the denomination had just begun operations in a few other countries – Canada, Switzerland, Germany, France, Scandinavia, and Great Britain. The congregations there were tiny, and it would take more than another decade until significant numerical growth started. Moreover, the movement lost its undisputed leader, James White, in 1881. After his death, many activities continued as before, but an intense theological conflict in 1888 and the frictions between John Harvey Kellogg and the denominational leaders in the early years of the 20th century674 indicated that his rigid style of governance no longer functioned. With regard to interchurch relations his passing meant that White’s overtures towards leaders in other movements were a thing of the past and that further instances of interaction with other denominations necessitated democratic dynamics, which typically moved in a more slow-paced manner. Adventists continued having an authoritative voice in their midst – James’ wife Ellen – but her influence was of a completely different kind. She was wise enough not to involve herself directly in too many of the young church’s activities, and because of her prophetic role, she did not hold any church office. Her impact on the question of interdenominational relationships was significant,675 but she mostly spoke with the authority of a recognized counsellor to the whole church, not as part of the administrative machinery, and rarely as a contributor to theological discussion. Her move to Australia, where she served as a special kind of missionary throughout the 1890s, indicated that the denomination was ready to work on global expansion in a serious manner. Each new step of opening up to the challenges in a diverse world required the Adventist movement to

674 See 4.1.3 below. 675 For details, see 4.1.3.

206

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

review their former attitudes and patterns, and Ellen White played her part in such processes. More than one generation after their beginnings in the Millerite revival, Seventh-day Adventists faced a curious situation indeed. The inherited ambiguities and ambivalences were many: (1) with their shut-door soteriology in the background, a more open approach to Christianity and the world outside the Adventist realm relativized the exclusivist attitude inherent in their theological thinking; (2) ecclesiologically, their remnant ideas now overlapped with a “church” self-image, including the self-critical Laodicea motif; (3) missiologically, the limitation to America that seemed natural to the Millerites and sabbatarian Adventists of the 1850s and 1860s had given way to an increasingly global orientation; (4) organizationally, the former anti-institutional sentiments had been overcome by the need for “gospel order,” but when Adventists formed into a denomination, it experienced a split right away; (5) the first experiments of interchurch amity ultimately failed, non-sabbatarians continued to be considered “Babylon,” but Christians of various kinds were respected, particularly with regard to their spirituality and dedication. The second and third generation would not resolve most of the tensions in this multi-faceted ambiguity, but church leaders had to make sense of it in their own way. By and large, they succeeded in holding these divergent elements in suspense – and not unlike among the earliest Christians, the missionary propagation of the movement’s message shifted the focus on a goal that superseded the potential of friction inherent in the denomination’s heritage. This trend to expand through mission outreach and numerical growth soon added further contact surface with Christians of other backgrounds, thus impacting Adventism’s ecumenicity in a permanent manner. Moreover, the death of Ellen G. White in 1915 implied that the denomination remained without charismatic authority and corrective one generation after they had lost their first principal leader. In terms of interchurch relations, this period was filled with unprecedented challenges and opportunities for the Adventist movement as well. The Sunday law and temperance agitation in North America had a direct influence on SDA interchurch relationships (4.1.2), as had the growing interface with other missionary organizations, which led to the first significant cooperative experiences of Adventists and other Christian bodies and to an official stance on relationships to other mission organizations (4.2). On this basis, encounters with the Ecumenical Movement would develop according to a peculiar Adventist logic, as would interactions with American Fundamentalist Christians, the closest cousins of Seventh-day Adventists in the period (4.3). Yet the background for all this was an emerging conception of Christian unity, which will therefore be discussed first.

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

4.1

207

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

4.1.1 Musings on Christian Unity and Church Union Efforts Quite naturally, the attitudes of Adventists regarding other Christians and faith communities surfaced in their unfolding views on church unity. It is particularly significant, however, to observe how the denominational discourse on oneness changed as compared with the movement’s earliest years. The 1850s had seen the development of three lines of argument:676 that Christian unity is (1) based on scriptural truth (a restorationist dimension), (2) is achieved in the end of time (an eschatological dimension),677 and (3) is confirmed through the prophetic gift (an experiential dimension). As the sabbatarian Adventist movement grew into a denomination, these convictions were complemented with a few other motifs. The emphasis on “truth” as a foundation continued,678 even with a distinct rejection of concepts that would much later be called hierarchia veritatum.679 But the underlying view of truth as a rational and unified, comprehensive system of propositions,680 which reflected the common sense philosophy of 19th century America, soon developed a distinct bent towards uniformity. Diversity, argued Roswell Cottrell, the most frequent contributor on matters of unity to

676 See above, 3.2.2. 677 For a later affirmation of this concept, see Bible Readings for the Home Circle, Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1889, 497– 499 (the section entitled “Unity of Believers”): a “solemn message, just before the Lord’s coming, will bring this unity” – the proclamation of “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” as referred to in Revelation 14:9–12 (ibid., 499). 678 R. F. Andrews, “Unity and Disagreement,” RH, January 7, 1873, 29, argued that sabbatarians are united while Sunday keepers disagree in their arguments against the Sabbath or for Sunday. The typical Adventist attitude of the period is revealed in the author’s exclamation, “O Consistency! thou art a jewel.” 679 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Essentials and Non-Essentials,” RH, November 18, 1873, 181. Cottrell argued, “We believe that all of God’s requirements are essential; and that men have no right to sit in judgment on the doctrines and duties of revelation, classifying them as essentials and non-essentials.” A similar line of reasoning is found in “Non-Essentials and Essentials,” RH, May 28, 1889, 341. For a thorough study of the issue in the context of Roman Catholic dogmatics and interchurch dialogue, see Ulrich Valeske, Hierarchia Veritatum: Theologiegeschichtliche Hintergründe und mögliche Konsequenzen eines Hinweises im Ökumenismusdekret des II. Vatikanischen Konzils zum zwischenkirchlichen Gespräch, München: Claudius, 1968. 680 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Unity of Truth,” RH, February 9, 1886, 90, actually argued for such a type of unity on a binitarian basis: “God is one; the Father and the Son are one – one in purpose and in work … The truth, also is always in harmony with itself … Truth is ever the same.”

208

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

church papers in those years,681 was not desirable, for the Bible demands unity; thus “the blame of diversity, instead of unity, of faith, rests with men, and not with God and his word.”682 Hence the desire for a “uniformity of habits” as well as “uniformity of faith,”683 and a call for laying “aside all difference of opinion and compromise the truth for the sake of union”684 were typical attitudes in the period.685 Few (and late) were the voices suggesting that diversity and unity are not mutually exclusive principles.686 Oneness being thus defined in the common Adventist mind, publications abound in calls for unison inside the denomination,687 with Ellen White contributing her share.688 The high frequency of such reminders indicates that the 681 Between 1870 and 1891, Cottrell contributed at least 15 articles dealing with the theme of unity to the Review and Herald – in addition to dozens of others. 682 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Unity and Diversity,” RH, October 22, 1872, 148. The full text of this article, in which the nexus between early Adventist views of revelation, truth and Christian unity are presented in a characteristic manner, is included in appendix II. Similar arguments are found in R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Lying Unity,” RH, April 22, 1873, 148: “This oneness, so far as revealed truth is concerned, is far from being diversity in unity and unity in diversity” but “unity in all truth.” 683 T. M. Steward, “Unity in the Church,” RH, January 10, 1865, 55. Steward particularly emphasized issues of health, use of tobacco, and similar issues. For similar reasoning, see W. S. Foote, “ ‘Be of One Mind, Live in Peace’,” RH, October 25, 1864, 175, and Joseph Clarke, “Union,” RH, October 29, 1867, 306. 684 J. S. Miller, “Union,” RH, February 18, 1868, 157. 685 J[oseph] H. W[aggoner], “Christian Union,” ST, April 1, 1875, 162–163, argues regarding “unity in diversity”: “we are sure no such unity as that was ever learned from the word of God.” In 1889, a certain Eugene Leland, “A Test of Fellowship,” RH, January 15, 1889, 34, even argued that tithing, attendance at meetings, proper Sabbath keeping, etc., are a “test of fellowship.” 686 The first such voice in the Review and Herald is apparently G[eorge] C. T[enney], “Unity in Diversity,” RH, October 27, 1896, 684, where the author argued, “There is room for diversity in God’s plan. He is not as narrow as we are.” On the same page but in another article (G[eorge] C. T[enney], “Unity and Division,” RH, October 27, 1896, 684), he qualifies these statements and explains, “Diversity and division are two distinct things.” Thus, “[w]hile the Bible condemns strife, debate, dispute, and wrangling, it does not preclude the expression of individual sentiments or judgment.” 687 See, e. g., Francis Gould, “The Church a Unit,” RH, January 9, 1872, 26–27; Joseph Clarke, “Unity of the Church,” ST, October 21, 1875, 381; A. L. Hollenbeck, “Unity among Brethren,” RH, July 28, 1884, 467; H. F. Phelps, “Unity,” RH, February 16, 1886, 100; R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “The Unity of the Spirit,” RH, August 23, 1887, 532; M. G. Huffman, “Are We in the Unity of the Spirit?,” RH, September 17, 1889, 578–579; G. W. Rogers, “The Unity of Faith,” RH, May 5, 1891, 274; A. Weeks, “Unity,” RH, December 25, 1894, 802; and J[ohn] N. Loughborough, “God’s Plan of Unity,” RH, June 18, 1895, 386. 688 In the Review and Herald alone, she addresses questions of unity in six major contributions between 1880 and 1890; see her articles “Unity of the Church,” RH, February 19, 1880, 113– 114 (republished June 16, 1885, 369–370); “Unity in Christ,” RH, March 4, 1884, 145–146; “Unity and Love,” RH, August 12, 1884, 513–514; “The Disciples of Christ Are One in Him,” RH, November 12, 1889, 705–706; and “Christ Prayed for Unity among His Disciples,” RH,

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

209

theory of a united end-time church,689 which was to demonstrate unity perfectly,690 did not automatically translate into church life. Or, as one writer in the leading denominational paper put it, “What is it that divides and separates the true family of Christ, if it is not the remaining corruption of our nature …?”691 In line with the common perfectionist sentiments on unity of the time, Ellen White once even opposed the idea that different methods of missionary work are needed in different countries; after visiting Europe from 1885 to 1887, she insisted that national peculiarities are “dross that God would have consumed” and that “[t]he very first work that God would have us do is to seek to unite the interest of the brethren of different nationalities.”692 In a similar vein, Stephen Haskell, one of the leading ministers, argued against following private judgement in issues of importance for the church as a whole and argued, “[t]he General Conference represents the combined judgment of his [God’s] people. The State Conference comes next.”693 Such reasoning reflects the fact that in merely one generation, the loose-knit bands of Sabbath keepers had changed into a vertically structured church with a clear authority configuration effectively ensuring intradenominational unity even if differences continued to exist underneath this organizational garb. Being convinced that true Christian unity was only to be found among the ranks of “commandment keepers,” the corresponding Adventist view of en-

689

690

691

692

693

March 11, 1890, 145–146. Cf. also “Christian Unity,” RH, April 27, 1897, 257–258. These articles are largely of a hortatory and devotional nature; only two address specific issues. R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Unity of the Church,” RH, March 30, 1886, 199, presents twenty questions answered with “proof texts.” The gist of the article is that unity will be restored eschatologically in the remnant (question 19: “Will the last message complete the reformation, and restore the church to unity?”). Cf. Albert Stone, “Unity,” RH, October 28, 1890, 660, who wrote, “Members of the Church … must be one in spirit and temper, one in desire and pursuit, striving together for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Absolute perfection is the constant aim of every one who carries in his bosom the Spirit of Christ.” In a similar vein, J[ohn] N. A[ndrews], “Unity of Action,” RH, December 2, 1873, 196, writes about “work in perfect union.” M. Wood, “Christian Unity,” RH, October 1, 1872, 123. Another complained that believing in “the last message” and “keeping all the commandments of God” while speaking evil of brethren was unacceptable; see S. H. Linscott, “The Oneness of God’s People,” RH, June 17, 1884, 388. E[llen] G. White, “The Disciples of Christ Are One in Him,” RH, November 12, 1889, 705– 706. Against the idea that “You cannot labor here [in Europe] as you do in America,” she maintained, “Some have thought that you must labor for the Germans in a different way from the way in which you work for the French or English; but the Germans need to learn at the foot of the cross the same lessons that the French must learn there.” For contrasting statements by Ellen White that emphasize the need for a consideration of context and inculturation, see Stefan Höschele, From the End of the World to the Ends of the Earth: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missiology, Nuremberg: Verlag für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, 2004, 30–31. S[tephen] N. Haskell, “Unity of Action,” RH, April 26, 1877, 132–133, here 132.

210

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

deavours to realize unity among non-sabbatarians was utterly pessimistic. John Andrews had expressed his scepticism regarding the Evangelical Alliance approach in the late 1850s; he viewed it as an attempt of reaching different types of people while denominations remained unchanged.694 To Adventists, this “confederacy” mode of “all the so-called evangelical churches”695 smacked of cheap compromise; unsurprisingly, it was also opposed by later writers of the movement, who applied Isaiah 8:12 (KJV) to this situation: “Say ye not, a confederacy, to all to whom this people shall say, a confederacy.”696 So high were the ideals of unity which they pursued that any associational approach was simply deemed inadequate. Another facet of Adventist union pessimism was the conviction that much of the energy invested in interchurch relationships was actually “thoroughly antiChristian,”697 that it was based on forsaking Christian standards of holiness and true doctrine.698 And, as Joseph Waggoner argued, it was in vain anyway with regard to the largest Christian body; like many Protestants at the time he was convinced that Roman “Catholicism never changes its policy.”699 Of course the Adventist passion for “truth” also implied that any unitive platform different 694 J[ohn] N. Andrews, “Unity of the Church,” RH, September 22, 1859, 140, reporting on a Methodist’s sermon, whom he quotes as follows: “How can Christians best unite? Some say, abolish all but our church, but the evangelical alliance advised that each church should stick to every thing [sic] in its organization and church government. Union is not by all seeing alike, but by being of one Spirit … Methodists can gain access to a certain class that Baptists and Presbyterians cannot, and so each denomination can reach some that the others cannot reach. These different churches are like the states of the Union, all with separate constitutions, yet all united under the constitution of the United States.” 695 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Christian Union: Not a Confederacy of Sects,” RH, January 16, 1872, 37; reprinted: ST, August 19, 1880, 368. 696 Ibid; see also R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Union of Christians,” RH, March 11, 1890, 146, and [George C.] T[enney], “Our Position,” RH, August 6, 1895, 501. The Adventist argument would commonly move to other verses in Isaiah 8, which reads, “Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples” (v. 16), and “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (v. 20). 697 “True Union and the False,” RH, January 23, 1872, 42–43, here 42; this article further speaks of “union-furor” and “unionism” (42) and likens it to the story of Genesis 6, where the unholy union of “sons of God” with the “daughters of men” is introduced just before the wickedness of man leads to the deluge. 698 I. K. Lombard, “Christian Union,” ST, July 22, 1875, 291; cf. “Christian (?) Union,” ST, June 23, 1881, 288: this article reports that some Presbyterians do not view the pope as Antichrist anymore and judges that this contradicts the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 25.vi. The writer concludes, “The desire of the early church for ‘union’ resulted in the great apostasy, and any union that is not the ‘unity of the faith,’ must necessarily result in spiritual declension. There can be no union between Christ and Belial.” 699 J[oseph] H. W[aggoner], “Christian Union,” RH, July 22, 1873, 28; reprinted: ST, July 8, 1875, 277. Waggoner was convinced that Protestants want unity with Catholics, but “they cannot unite with Catholics for the reason that Catholics will not unite with them … [T]he Catholics are more consistent than they.”

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

211

from their own doctrines was wrong. To them, “Christian union” – a term often used interchangeably with “unity” at the time – was an all-or-nothing affair, not merely cooperation or good relationships. Thus any definition of oneness that excluded complete dogmatic agreement was viewed as unacceptable.700 Yet the interpretation of union movements with the most important longterm impact was one that gained prominence in the 1880s: the connection of church union efforts with the expected persecution of Adventists because of their Sabbath keeping (and lack of Sunday keeping). Uriah Smith, the denomination’s foremost interpreter of prophetic books701 and long-time editor of its leading paper, claimed that a “union … between the different denominations of the Protestant world … must precede the fulfillment of the latter portion of Revelation 13 – the formation of what is there called the ‘image to the beast’, and the enforcement of the ‘mark of the beast’ ”702 (interpreted to be compulsory Sunday keeping). In an atmosphere where a host of organizations lobbied for Sunday laws in the USA, he was convinced that the “American Congress of Churches,”703 founded in 1885, aimed at “virtually a national church”704 and that other developments led the nation and the denominations in the same direction.705 The “American Congress of Churches” disintegrated swiftly, but later Adventist writers found more confirmation for their schemes of interpretation706 – with suspicion regarding the nexus of ecumenical rapprochement, Sunday

700 Thus the author of an article entitled “Christian Union,” ST, April 1, 1875, 165, complains that some Christians “have sought for union on a different basis. Not to be united in spirit, in judgment, in doctrine, and in word, but to be united in personal courtesies, in mere outside civilities, and this they call ‘union of Christians’!” The fact that “many who profess to be Adventists have talked long and loud about this union” particularly annoyed this writer – even if (as the text indicates) these were non-sabbatarian Adventists. 701 Cf. his book Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Books of Daniel and the Revelation, Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1881, which was republished many times until well into the 20th century. 702 [Uriah Smith,] “The Coming Ecclesiastical Union,” RH, March 16, 1886, 168. 703 Cf. American Congress of Churches, Proceedings of the Hartford Meeting, 1885, Hartford: Case, Lockwood & Brainard, 1885. 704 [Smith,] “The Coming Ecclesiastical Union,” [1886]. 705 Cf. [Uriah Smith,] “The Approaching Ecclesiastical Union,” RH, June 1, 1886, 343, and [Uriah Smith,] “Union of Protestants and Catholics,” RH, June 15, 1886, 375, with anecdotal evidence regarding Episcopalians in Louisiana trying to initiate positive relationships with Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church, as well as quotes from an Episcopalian paper, Living Church, and The Catholic Mirror regarding “new evidence … indicating a spirit of union between Protestants and Catholics” (ibid.). 706 See the following section (on the Sunday law movement) and further articles such as [Uriah Smith,] “ ‘The Reunion of Christendom’,” RH, October 26, 1886, 664; M. C. W., “A Union of Protestants and Catholics,” ST, November 25, 1889, 711; H. J. Farman, “Union of Protestantism and Catholicism Becoming More Apparent,” ST, January 15, 1894, 164–165; and M[oses] E. K[ellogg], “Church Union,” RH, December 11, 1894, 775.

212

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

laws, and the oppression of Sabbath keepers continuing to dominate the denominational discourse on relationships between the other churches. In such a context, the Adventist thinking on ecclesial oneness faced tremendous challenges indeed. On the one hand, the movement’s restorationist roots necessitated the advocacy of church unity. On the other, efforts outside the Adventist realm were quickly branded with the judgement of apostasy or even suggestions of conspiracy. Thus Roswell Cottrell distinguished only four types of unity in 1870:707 (1) the spiritualists’ scheme, which “proposes ‘to unify mankind in one harmonious brotherhood, and convince skeptics of the immortality of the soul’”; (2) the Roman Catholic approach of declaring “the infallibility of the pope as the bond of union”;708 (3) Protestant ecumenical initiatives, which work through “mutual concessions and compromises” for the “ ‘visible unity’ of the church … to be effected”;709 and (4) the true striving for oneness on the basis of “the commandments of God and … the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev 12:17). Unsurprisingly, Cottrell concluded that only this last type represents a unity that will answer the prayer of the Saviour, harmonize with the exhortation of apostles, and fulfil the predictions of prophets. No human council has been, or will be, called to lay the platform. It was laid by inspiration eighteen hundred years ago.710

In principle, this was a view representative of the movement as a whole. In a seminal article written in the context of the Adventist-Seventh Day Baptist interchange, James White likewise emphasized “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev 14:12) as a basis for uniting “a people” before the parousia. He even claimed that “There is no sentiment in all the New Testament 707 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Unity of the Church,” RH, October 18, 1870, 141; reprinted: RH, March 22, 1881, 178. 708 Interestingly, Cottrell argues, “In this, it must be admitted, they are consistent with themselves … it is proper that all the members of the body should be directed and controlled … so that there shall be ‘no schism in the body’” (ibid.). 709 Here Cottrell particularly highlights what he calls the “Protestant Ecumenical Council”; this refers to the Evangelical Alliance general conference, which was scheduled to take place in 1870 but was postponed because of the Franco-Prussian War 1870–71. Cf. Philip Schaff and S. Irenaeus Prime (eds.), Evangelical Alliance Conference 1873, New York: History, Essays, Orations, and Other Documents of the Sixth General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, Held in New York, October 2–12, 1873, New York: Harper, 1874. 710 Cottrell, “Unity of the Church” [1870], 141. Another article from his pen with the same title and different details, but similar arguments is R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Unity of the Church,” RH, May 29, 1888, 338–339. Shorter, but also similar, is R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Christian Unity,” RH, November 3, 1885, 681. In the 1888 article, he refers to Quod Anniversarius: Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on His Sacerdotal Jubilee, April 1, 1888, where the pope expresses his hope that “all nations and all peoples, united in the faith by the bond of charity may soon form one flock under one shepherd” – an option that Cottrell obviously dismisses.

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

213

more strongly expressed than that of Christian union.”711 What was most striking in White’s reasoning, however, is the conclusion he drew from these insights. Others might turn their attention to perceived threats connected with unity efforts among Sunday keepers; James White upheld the anti-sectarian impulse of the Millerites. He observed, those who have been splitting up into petty sects during the nineteenth century over forms of church government, matters of expediency, free and restricted salvation, trinity and unity, whether we may sing any good hymn in church, or only the Psalms of David, and other matters which constitute no test of fitness for Heaven, now pounce upon us, and display any amount of religious horror, simply because we regard strict conformity to the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus the only true test of Christian character.712

Others might battle for uniformity; the movement’s leader argued that there are many “small matters which could be no test of Christian character.” Thus he asserted, “We hold it to be a wrong to differ with others where there are no good reasons to differ.”713 Yet White died in 1881, and it appears this kind of thinking was hardly taken up by any leading minister of the following generation. Beyond James White’s call for moderation and concentration on a few pillars of faith, there is one more theory of unity in the overall Adventist discourse of the era that deserves mention: an emphasis on spiritual oneness. While it appears only in a few instances,714 and only once with reference to Christians outside the Adventist fold,715 its presence is noteworthy – for it reverses the general emphasis on doctrine. Perhaps it is the situation after the initial steps of organizing the denomination that made Uriah Smith reflect upon the essence of unity in this

711 J[ames] W[hite], “Christian Union,” RH, October 12, 1876, 116; reprinted (with minor changes): “Christian Union,” RH, December 4, 1879, 180, and “Christian Union,” ST, January 8, 1880, 4. 712 Ibid. 713 Ibid. 714 Cf. also M. C. W., “True Christian Unity,” ST, May 27, 1889, 311; the article argues, “True Christian unity comes not by seeking for it” and “[u]nion with God is the first step.” For a later example, see John N. Loughborough, The Church, Its Organization, Order, and Discipline, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1907, 57–60 (ch. 12, entitled “Unity in the Church,” which is essentially a collection of biblical texts and Ellen White quotations; it emphasizes like-mindedness and love). 715 Joseph Clarke, “United We Stand,” RH, February 17, 1891, 100, mentions a drought in Missouri and Kansas during the 1870s. He narrates, “a day of fasting and prayer was set apart by all denominations, and all, including the world, with the different sects, flocked to the houses of worship …; and these knelt in fervent prayer to God … It was with one heart that petitions went up to God … [P]rayer so united brought returns, and the season following was one of such plenty as was not before remembered by any inhabitant.”

214

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

way. In a remarkably candid manner and in contradistinction to his own earlier “truth” emphasis,716 he admitted in 1861, If sameness of theory is all that is necessary, this characteristic is possessed by other classes much more completely than by the people of God … Look at almost any denomination in the land; look at the Catholics, a body more numerous than all the Protestant sects put together … Come to the smaller Protestant sects. Take the Baptists, Methodists, and others; and we find them, as bodies, as perfectly joined together in theory as could reasonably or scripturally be required.717

But Smith was convinced that “mere unity of theory” was worthless; he observed, “How is it with the sects? Look at the bitter animosities, personal hate and jealousy existing among many of their members.”718 Whether his argument was calculated to provide groundwork for Adventist ecclesiology or to motivate Adventists to live Christian love, he insisted that “the unity mentioned by the apostle will be a characteristic of the true church, especially in the last days, and, among other things, distinguish it from all the fallen and lifeless denominations in the land.”719 Thus unity, in Uriah Smith’s thought, was essentially a spiritual and affective matter: “We must have that unity of feeling, that christian [sic] sympathy and brotherly love for each other which Christ designed as characteristics of his followers.”720 What can be concluded, then, regarding Adventists’ perspectives on oneness in this first period of their existence as a denomination? Four main aspects are paramount: (1) An affinity to Roman Catholic reasoning. In many respects, their protoecumenical thinking resembled that of Roman Catholics before Vatican II. The Adventist abhorrence for sectarianism, their general rejection of diversity and their inclination towards celebrating uniformity were all motivated by hierarchical thinking; while they did not have a pope, they apparently perceived their interpretation of the Bible as next to infallible and connected their doctrinal convictions with the confidence that there must be an organizationally defined people of God on Earth who adhere to these interpretations. (2) Scepticism regarding Protestant moves. It is plausible, then, that the Roman Catholic model of church unity of the day found more approval with Adventists721 than the first Protestant attempts at securing more amity between the

716 Cf. [Uriah Smith,] “The Babel of Christendom,” RH, September 24, 1857, 164; for the major sections of this text, see appendix II. 717 [Uriah Smith,] “Be of the Same Mind,” RH, March 5, 1861, 128. 718 Ibid. 719 Ibid. 720 Ibid. 721 Cottrell, “Unity of the Church,” RH, October 18, 1870, 141.

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

215

denominations.722 Whatever tentative steps the Evangelical Alliance or other entities took, Seventh-day Adventists consistently exuded utter scepticism as to the aims and validity of such moves.723 SDA notions regarding the fulfilment of prophecy and their propensity towards an all-or-nothing perspective probably left them with hardly any other option in the context of American Sunday agitation. (3) Lack of differentiation regarding unity concepts. In interpreting this overall picture, one has to consider also that interchurch relations of any kind were of an experimental nature at the time. There had not been any successful movement, organization or result of negotiations that could serve as a reference model in the field. In this setting, it was easy to mistake ecumenical talk – essentially a negotiating, discursive device (or, to put it in Relational Models Theory terms, an MP reality) – for a move towards organizational union (an AR pattern). To Adventists of that period, alliances, federations and the like (which are actually EM entities) appeared to be potential persecutors724 because in their worldview there were only two groups: those enjoying the intimate fellowship of the redeemed – a CS relationship – and those outside of it. (4) Facing Adventist reality. The communitarian closeness that the earliest sabbatarian Adventists had dreamt of and which they had experienced – at least according to their collective memory725 – continued even after the movement had turned into a denomination, albeit in a more restrained manner. James White’s call for moderation, Uriah Smith’s emphasis on spiritual and affective oneness, and the frequent appeals focusing on unison inside the Seventh-day Adventist 722 This is even true with regard to the Seventh Day Baptist attempt at calling other Baptists to join them in keeping the Sabbath. When Adventists republished an important SDB booklet entitled An Appeal for the Restoration of the Bible Sabbath in an Address to the Baptists, Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Review and Herald Office, 1860, they added a footnote saying (p. 1): “We do not look for the unity of the great religious bodies upon Bible truth; but we do believe that God will ‘take out of them a people for his name,’ who will exhibit the unity expressed in Eph. 4; John 17; Rom. 15:6,7; 1 Cor. 1:10; Col. 3,1–4; 1 Pet. 3:8. Pub[lisher]s.” 723 An interesting example of this scepticism relates to the Pan-American Congress of Religion and Education, which took place from July 18–25, 1895. [George C.] T[enney], “Christian Unity,” RH, August 6, 1895, 501, referred to it in a rather negative manner. [John H. Kellogg,] “The Pan-American Congress of Religion and Education,” Good Health, June 1895, 187, on the other hand, represents a very positive announcement, which indicates that some variety was possible in later 19th century Adventism. However, John Harvey Kellogg, the health celebrity of the denomination, had already been moving away from Adventist theology since at least the early 1890s; see Brian C. Wilson, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and the Religion of Biologic Living, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014, 68–81. 724 Persecution evidently corresponds to the “Null relationship” of Relational Models Theory, i. e. the absence of a relational model defining the interaction between individuals or groups and thus opening up the possibility for indifference, mutual oppression, and the like. 725 Cf. the many stirring stories contained in Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, Battle Creek: James White, 1860.

216

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

fold all reveal a reality that necessitated a reflection on unity inside the young church. Agreement on doctrine and practice certainly formed the basis of the denomination, but the awareness of unity challenges inside the Adventist body demonstrated that oneness inside an organization and between organizations differs in degree but not necessarily in principle.

4.1.2 Encountering the Sunday Law and Temperance Movements The one unifying cause in 19th century American Christianity that Adventists viewed with the highest degree of apprehension was the attempt by a significant movement to establish Sunday laws in various states and the American nation at large. Regional Sunday legislation of various kinds had already existed in earlier centuries, but advocacy for new laws developed from the early 19th century, with Sunday mail and Sunday travel being the focus in 1829 and the 1840s, respectively.726 After a first peak in the National Lord’s Day Convention of 1844, the Civil War slowed the movement for a while. Nevertheless, many advocates of strict public Sunday observance were convinced that the moral fabric of society depended on this weekly religious symbol. The leading vehicle for agitating this question was, for several decades, the National Reform Association (NRA), an organization founded in 1863, which also lobbied for a Christian amendment of the US constitution. Theologically, this movement built on the idea that the Civil War had been God’s punishment for the lack of references to him in the constitution and of more explicitly Christian elements in national law.727 Many of the NRA activists were drawn from a Presbyterian background, with the concomitant Calvinist ideology of churchstate relations providing the rationale for such politicized religion, but Congregationalists, Methodists and individuals from other major denominations – even some Baptists – played a role as well.728 Unsurprisingly, Adventists disagreed not only with their alternative sabbatarianism but also with the very approach to the public role of religion and the kingdom theology hidden in it. One can imagine that a guarded or sluggish relationship to the proponents of 726 For an overview, see Roy Z. Chamlee, “The Sabbath Crusade, 1810–1920,” Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 1968, 30–98. A perceptive analysis of this “reform” attempt and related movements before the Civil War is Kyle G. Volk, Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014 (on Sunday laws: 37–68). 727 Cf. Robert T. Handy, A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities, 2d ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1984, 82–133 (chs. iv and v). 728 Dennis L. Pettibone, “Caesar’s Sabbath: The Sunday-Law Controversy in the United States, 1879–1892,” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Riverside, 1979, 19–89 (chapter 2, “The Proponents”).

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

217

Sunday laws and their denominations was the maximum that Adventists could cultivate. The Sunday movement, particularly from 1879 to 1892, is well documented;729 thus its advance does not need to be presented in detail. What is important in the context of the present study, however, is its significance for interchurch relations, especially with regard to Adventists. Such relationships were first of all local – which often implied trouble, for religious diversity is frequently a correlate of societies where minorities see a need for change. Sunday laws and the movement behind them played various roles and had several faces. It was the ugly ones that reassured Adventists that they were on the right side. During the 1880s and 1890s, legislation prohibiting Sunday labour turned to an effective tool to settle neighbourhood quarrels in several states, particularly Tennessee and Arkansas.730 Exemptions to Saturday keepers were often not granted. Adventists, Seventh Day Baptists, Jews and Buddhists were fined for trivial offenses while the very prosecutors at times engaged in the same “work” activities on their holy day.731 Thus one can probably conclude that the whole issue was as much about petty conflicts and power play in rural communities as it was about bigotry and religious views translated into political and juridical terms. For Seventh-day Adventists, however, enforced Sunday observance constituted more than an oddity in American religious history; it assumed a theological significance that can only be appreciated when one understands the denomination’s roots in biblical apocalyptic. They had interpreted much of Revelation 12 to 14 as referring to their own time, and were therefore expecting the last persecution of God’s faithful that they believed to be described in Revelation 13. As early as 1847, Ellen White had predicted that a persecution of the true Sabbath keepers would usher in the very last events of world history.732 Her husband had claimed in 1850 that the final remnant will not merely keep God’s commandments and experience persecution, but asserted,

729 Chamlee, “The Sabbath Crusade,” 217–319; Pettibone, “Caesar’s Sabbath,” and Douglas Morgan, Adventism and the American Republic: The Public Involvement of a Major Apocalyptic Movement, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2001, 38–66; for the historical context, see also Alexis McCrossen, Holy Day, Holiday: The American Sunday, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001, and for juridical aspects Andrew J. King, “Sunday Law in the Nineteenth Century,” Albany Law Review 64 (2000), 675–772. 730 For a detailed account of one area, see Everett N. Dick, “The Cost of Discipleship: Seventhday Adventists and Tennessee Sunday Laws in the 1890s,” Adventist Heritage 11.1 (1986), 26– 32. 731 Dennis Pettibone, “The Sunday Law Movement,” in Gary Land (ed.), The World of Ellen G. White, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1987, 113–119. 732 See Ellen G. White, “A Vision,” Broadside, April 7, 1847, containing what was later called her “Sabbath Halo” vision.

218

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

The “remnant” of the seed of the woman [Rev. 12:17], or last end of the church just before the second advent, is made war with, and persecuted, for keeping the “commandments of God,” and for having the “testimony of Jesus Christ.”733

Thus persecution had to come, but more specifically, it had to be connected with the controversy centring on the “seal of God” (Rev. 7:2 – interpreted to be the Sabbath) vs. the “mark of the Beast” (Rev. 13:16–17 – interpreted to be Sunday observance). There was little surprise among Adventists, therefore, when the activities of the NRA and other organizations such as the American Sabbath Union734 and the Department of Sabbath Observance in the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) gained momentum in the 1880s. In fact, they confidently asserted that their earlier predictions were now becoming reality.735 Ellen White herself published a much more explicit prophecy (which became a well-known quote among Adventists) 736 in 1884, when the Sunday movement was already visible nation-wide: Protestantism will yet stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of Spiritualism; she will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, our country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience … Those who honor the Bible Sabbath will be 733 James White, “The Third Angel’s Message.” The Present Truth, April 1850, 66 (emphasis added). 734 Here, as in most of the Sunday advocates’ literature of the 19th century, “Sabbath” means “Sunday.” 735 J[oseph] Clarke, “The Sunday Laws,” RH, November 6, 1879, 157, for instance, declared, “For about thirty years the leaders in the proclamation of the third angel’s message have been proclaiming to the world that the Sunday question would yet be introduced into the politics of our nation. At first, this position was considered purely imaginative; … but the matter is gradually taking shape.” For similar pronouncements, see, e. g., Geo[rge] I. Butler, “The Coming Conflict on the Sunday Question,” RH, February 28, 1882, 136; G[eorge] I. Butler, “The Sunday Crisis Approaching,” RH, July 6, 1886, 424–425; and W. A. Colcord, “Adventists and the Blair Bill,” RH, January 22, 1889, 50–51. A similar claim had been made already in the 1860s with reference to developments in the state of Maine by D. M. Canright, “A Sunday Movement. Conventions, etc.,” RH, October 2, 1866, 141 (“Seventh-day Adventists have long said that before the coming of Christ there would be strict Sunday laws enacted against them”). 736 The “hand across the gulf” quotation (often cited as “hands across the gulf”) has appeared in various Adventist publications since the time Ellen White wrote it. In the Review and Herald magazine alone, the formulation occurs about 100 times, at times even in article titles; cf. Laurentino E. Gonzaga, “Hands across the Gulf,” RH, September 27, 1962, 1, 4; Harry W. Lowe, “Hands Across the Gulf,” ST, February 1964, 14–15, 31; and the booklet by Clifford Goldstein, Hands across the Gulf: Catholics and Protestants Break Reformation Barriers, Boise: Pacific Press, 1987. But contemporaries already claimed fulfilment of this prediction as well; see, e. g., H. J. Farman, “Union of Protestantism and Catholicism Becoming More Apparent,” ST, January 15, 1894, 164: “Is not this a fulfilment of what is stated in ‘Great Controversy,’ pages 571, 576, edition 1891?”

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

219

denounced as enemies of law and order, as breaking down the moral restraints of society, causing anarchy and corruption, and calling down the judgments of God upon the earth … The Protestant churches … are now adopting a course which will lead to the persecution of those who conscientiously refuse to do what the rest of the Christian world are doing, and acknowledge the claims of the papal Sabbath.737

From the distance of over a century, these expectations may seem exaggerated, but at the time her reasoning was presumably not bizarre at all. Spiritualism had millions of followers,738 Roman Catholics were considered persecutors anyway, and Evangelicals were uniting around the Sunday issue. Thus White’s explanation did not need many supporting hypotheses; to Adventists themselves, this interpretation was almost self-evident. True, it inflated the importance of Adventism, which was still a tiny religious group in the expanding American nation. But the reasoning reveals that they essentially shared the Protestant perspective on society dominant in the era, the major difference being that they rejected the Puritan Sunday – a crucial unifying symbol of denominationally divided Protestantism and, in Adventist eyes at least, a likely platform for Protestants and Roman Catholics to agree upon. If the forecast regarding comprehensive Sunday legislation distanced members of the denomination from other Protestants, there was often probably little that could be added to the rift that existed already: for both to Seventh-day Adventists and to the average evangelical Christian, the question had assumed a centrality that is hard to grasp five generations later. Thus, like Sunday issues in general, the fining and incarceration of fellow church members received ample coverage in church papers,739 and the fact more than 100 Adventists were prosecuted for Sunday work from 1885 to 1896740 evidently infused them with a collective martyr self-image. While Sabbath keeping as such was never punished anywhere, most SDA believers believed it their duty to keep the other part of the commandment by working six days rather than five, which made it easy for prosecutors to find a basis for a condemnatory sentence. Whatever the reasons for the Adventists’ “Sunday breaking” (some were so poor that they felt they had to work),741 the whole affair represents a formidable example of an intra-Christian family quarrel that left little to be desired in terms of obstinacy on all sides.

737 White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4: The Great Controversy, 405, 409–410. 738 For an astute treatment of Spiritualism during the period, see Ruth Brandon, The Spiritualists: The Passion for the Occult in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, New York: Knopf, 1983. 739 Cf. Dick, “The Cost of Discipleship.” The terms “Sunday law” or “Sunday laws” appear over 800 times in the Review and Herald between 1880 and 1899. 740 Pettibone, “The Sunday Law Movement,” 115. 741 Ibid., 113.

220

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Even as a model of interchurch relations – with the aim of reshaping the United States into a Christian nation and unifying Christianity – the Sunday movement was a double-edged sword. For the main targets of enforced Sunday legislation were not Sabbath sabbatarians; they were Roman Catholics and German-Americans (whose “continental Sabbath” viz. lax Sunday traditions annoyed their stern Puritan contemporaries), the many unchurched, and nonChristians. Beyond these well-identified but heterogeneous opponents to Sunday laws, many other Christian leaders, notably from Episcopal, Baptist, or Disciples backgrounds, did not support the idea of such a religious law. In effect, the Sunday movement was an attempt by a significant pressure group to create a majority and enforced unity where there was none; this attempt at unifying actually divided society as did few other subjects. For Adventists, the experience of the 1880s and early 1890s had definite consequences in terms of relationships to other Christian denominations. One was that their scepticism of union movements and of closeness to other churches – which had already been strong in the decades before – was consolidated and became part of the collective Adventist consciousness way beyond the 19th century; in fact, there are regular outbursts of Sunday law speculations until the present.742 The second was that an extensive nation-wide lobbying campaign, especially when the Blair Bill for a national Sunday law was introduced in Congress in the year 1888,743 led to the formation of an organization to advance religious freedom in 1893 (the International Religious Liberty Association). This implied that Adventists expected similar developments to take place again; ap-

742 See, e. g., G. Edward Reid, Sunday’s Coming: Eye-Opening Evidence That These Are the Very Last Days, Fulton: Omega, 1994; 2d ed. 2005. Reid was a departmental director in the denomination’s North American Division. For a more recent discussion of Sunday law speculations (which adds other hypothetical elements from observations of the North American political scene), see Michael F. Younker, “Adventist Eschatology in Relation to the Religious Left and the Religious Right,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 23.2 (2012), 190–242. Cf. also the one-sided reflections on ecumenism in Norman Gulley, Systematic Theology, vol. 4: The Church and the Last Things, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2016, 561–609 (ch. 20, “Eschatology: Global Gathering. Revisioning and Roads Leading to Rome”), and ibid., 93, 151, 367, 528. Gulley expects ecumenical developments to usher in last-day events and “the final battle against God” (p. 562). 743 The outstanding individual in fighting the bill was Alonzo T. Jones, who led an Adventist delegation on the issue; cf. Alonzo T. Jones, The National Sunday Law: Argument of Alonzo T. Jones before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor, at Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 1888, Oakland: American Sentinel, 1889. The 1888 Blair bill and later amended versions did not pass. An important part of lobbying was the production of a journal specifically devoted to the issue in 1884 (Sabbath Sentinel), soon to be renamed American Sentinel (1886) and later Sentinel of Liberty (1900). Since 1906, the denomination’s religious liberty department has published Liberty.

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

221

parently they wanted to be well-prepared.744 In organizing this entity, they unwittingly created an alternative platform for cooperation and interchurch relationships as its aim expanded from the Sabbath concern to more general religious liberty issues. There is an irony in the configuration of the 1880s and 1890s that was hard for them to explain even at the time. Being among the most literalist and conservative Christians of their period in terms of lifestyle and biblical interpretation, Adventists actually formed a coalition with religious liberals in contending for pluralism. This does not mean that they drew closer in a permanent fashion, for the opponents of Sunday legislation were not well organized and a motley crowd indeed. However, it is interesting to observe a parallel to the 16th century, where the diverse Radical Reformation groups significantly differed from the Magisterial Reformers in their approach to the state, and where early conceptions of religious liberty were developed. This paradox of an unlikely alliance was complemented by an irony that each apocalyptic movement has to face at some point. The Adventist claim that the end of the world was to occur very soon – ushered in by the very national Sunday law that they opposed – now combined with activities aimed against this end occurring too rapidly. Or, as one scholar has put it, “they wished to delay the end in order to preach that the end was soon.”745 As for the earliest Christians, the delay of the parousia created space in which Adventists had to translate their apocalyptic faith into some kind of this-worldly action. In terms of interchurch relations, this space reshaped the total rejection of the other churches into ambivalence: at least some of them could become partners in struggling for liberty. Ambivalence is also what characterizes Adventist interaction with other denominations in the other major public issue that the movement faced during the late 19th century: temperance viz. prohibition.746 Like Sunday keeping, the struggle against alcohol and the saloons was a key focus of evangelical activists, and in some respects these two emphases were interwoven: Sunday legislation targeted the sale of alcohol in a special way, and often the same reformers who were active in one cause also reappeared in the other. This was most evident in the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, which adopted Sunday advocacy (and 744 And so they were: Adventists tirelessly worked to defeat more than 100 national Sunday observance bills between 1888 and 1933; cf. Douglas Morgan, “Adventism, Apocalyptic, and the Cause of Liberty,” Church History 63.2 (1994), 246, and C. S. Longacre, “MuchAgitated Question Submitted for National Recovery,” Liberty, 4th quarter 1933, 99. 745 Jonathan Butler, “The World of E. G. White and the End of the World,” Spectrum 10.2 (1979), 8. 746 For an Adventist portrayal of the movement (without comment on the Adventist involvement), see Jerome L. Clark, “The Crusade against Alcohol,” in Gary Land (ed.), The World of Ellen G. White, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1987, 131–140.

222

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

other causes such as woman suffrage, better working conditions, public health, and anti-polygamy laws) in addition to its original aim – alcohol abstinence.747 Seventh-day Adventists, who had developed a health emphasis early in their history,748 neatly fitted in with the common evangelical teetotaling stance. As a young denomination that was just beginning to develop its position on various issues, one major question in their early years was the extent to which they should identify with the general temperance movement. One particularly hot issue was whether church members should vote for political candidates who favoured prohibition, for a strong non-voting sentiment dominated the movement’s ranks during much of the 19th century. In terms of developing a public consciousness, these issues were of crucial importance in the first two generations of the SDA Church;749 yet they also represented a realm in which a peculiar model of interchurch cooperation developed. Temperance cooperation was a unique type of “ecumenism,” wholly dedicated to a mission beyond Christian unity for its own sake, and essentially a humanitarian cause; nevertheless, it generally took place on the platform of Protestant convictions, thus being inspired by a mixture of religious and moral sentiment. The fact that Adventists – including Ellen White, who cherished the role of temperance speaker750 – participated in the temperance drive in various places

747 On the WCTU, see Ruth Bordin, Woman and Temperance: The Quest for Power and Liberty, 1873–1900, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981; and Ian Tyrrell, Woman’s World – Woman’s Empire: The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in International Perspective, 1880–1930, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. 748 Joseph Bates had been a pioneer in organizing temperance societies in Massachusetts from 1827 onward; see his Autobiography, 205–208. For Ellen White’s interest in health (including visionary experiences focusing on the health issue, vegetarianism, and the fight against alcohol and tobacco), see Ronald Numbers, Prophetess of Health: Ellen G. White and the Origins of Seventh-day Adventist Health Reform, rev. and enl. ed., Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992. 749 Cf. Yvonne D. Anderson, “The Bible, the Bottle and the Ballot: Seventh-day Adventist Political Activism, 1850–1900,” Adventist Heritage 7.2 (1982), 38–52; and Morgan, Adventism and the American Republic, 36–38 and 62–63. 750 She reports on her temperance talks before audiences of thousands of listeners in several instances; the largest crowd seems to have been (according to her estimates) 20,000 people at a campmeeting in Groveland (Massachusetts) in 1876; see Ellen G. White, [unspecified article] ST, September 14, 1876 [page number not indicated], included in the CD-ROM Ellen White Writings: Comprehensive Research Edition, Silver Spring: Ellen G. White Estate, 2008, and Ellen G. White, “At the Groveland Camp-Meeting,” Ms 29, 1897, EGWE, included in Ellen G. White, “Co-operation with the W.C.T.U. and other Temperance Organizations: Selections from the Writings of Ellen G. White,” TMs, St. Helena, Elmshaven Office, 1934, 3, EGWE. Cf. also her books Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, Battle Creek: Good Health Publishing, 1890 (268 pp.), and a compilation of her writings on the topic, Temperance, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1949 (309 pp.).

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

223

where significant numbers of them lived in the 1870s751 implies that their aloofness from other Christians was not a matter of principle but depended on the issue. Even though their overall contribution to the temperance movement was minimal before the turn of the century,752 the experience became a crucial one for shaping Adventist patterns of interaction with other religious groups. This was particularly true because the Adventist stance toward the prohibition movement received a major blow in the 1880s. It is in this period that many of the prohibitionists of the time joined hands with those working for a national Sunday law, thus alienating Sabbath keepers until the end of the century – and some permanently. Only in 1899 did the WCTU pass a resolution against the persecution of those keeping days other than Sunday.753 It was easy, therefore, for radicals like Alonzo T. Jones to argue that the WCTU was an “apostate” organization and that Seventh-day Adventists should hence not cooperate with them. But there were also moderate voices – and Ellen G. White, the movement’s prophet, played a decisive role in putting temperance activities and associated interdenominational relationships into perspective.754 She had always been a keen supporter of the WCTU’s main thrust755 and reasoned, The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union is an organization with whose efforts for the spread of temperance principles we can heartily unite. The light has been given me that we are not to stand aloof from them, but, while there is to be no sacrifice of principle on our part, as far as possible we are to unite with them in laboring for temperance reforms … By uniting with them in behalf of total abstinence, we do not change our position regarding the observance of the seventh day, and we can show our appreciation of their position regarding the subject of temperance. By opening the door, and inviting them to unite with us on the temperance question, we secure their help along temperance lines;

751 Anderson, “The Bible, the Bottle and the Ballot,” 41–43; for a notable example (Oakland, California, in 1874), where a large Adventist tent contributed to the success of a campaign against alcohol, see Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, vol. 2: The Progressive Years, 1862– 1876, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981, 416–417. 752 One exception is local activity at Battle Creek, where the Adventist headquarters were located. In 1877, SDA temperance advocates teamed up with hundreds of women of the town’s WCTU and of the Battle Creek Reform Club; they organized a restaurant for the thousands expected to watch a circus performance of “Barnum’s big show” to reduce the attractiveness of bars. This turned out to be a great success. See Morgan, Adventism and the American Republic, 37. Yet altogether, Adventists did not play a significant role in the WCTU; Tyrrell, Woman’s World – Woman’s Empire, does not even mention them. 753 A[lonzo] T. J[ones], “The WCTU and Sunday Laws,” American Sentinel, January 4, 1900, 3–4. 754 For details of the debate, see George R. Knight, “Another Look at Babylon: Cooperating with other Christians?,” Ministry 75.4 (2002), 5–9. 755 In fact, she refers to the WCTU and (in a few cases) similar temperance associations in at least 25 instances, and always in a very positive manner; see White, “Co-operation with the W.C.T.U. and other Temperance Organizations.”

224

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

and they, by uniting with us, will hear new truths which the Holy Spirit is waiting to impress upon hearts.756

White’s arguments settled the issue for the denomination, and Adventists continued to cooperate with temperance organizations757 while also setting up similar associations of their own.758 When a ban of liquor production and sale was finally made national law in 1920, evangelical Christians triumphed. The fact that Prohibition also had problematic consequences such as a tremendous growth of criminal organizations was not foreseen by temperance advocates.759 Yet for Adventists the experience was a defining one in terms of relating to other Christians, or, as Ellen White had put it, of “uniting” with them: cooperation was possible in some realms and, in certain cases, even became a duty.

4.1.3 The Importance of Theological Development and ELLEN WHITE’s Ministry for Adventist Interchurch Relations The experience of the temperance and Sunday movements is typical of the early Adventist story of interchurch relations. Outside influences and essential SDA impulses blended in the construction of positions that had to be established by negotiation at first but which would then significantly shape future reasoning. Similar dynamics can be observed with regard to the development of general theological thinking, which took place in the triangle between inherited traditions, biblical references and the need to respond to challenges from within or without. As far as such developments related to issues discussed in the larger Christian context, these were evidently also relevant for the subsequent course of Seventh-day Adventist interchurch relations. 756 Ellen G. White, “Disseminating Temperance Principles,” RH, June 18, 1908, 8. 757 This involvement continues even today; cf. Melody Tan, “Adventists Appointed to Lead WCTU,” Record, October 21, 2006, 1, 4 (on Australia), and Melody Tan and Glenda Amos, “Adventist Women in PNG Lead WCTU,” Record, December 13, 2008, 1, 3. While temperance organizations have lost much of their public importance in Western countries, they may play an important role in nations of the majority world in the future. 758 A first organization was initiated by Adventists in 1879: the American Health and Temperance Association, with almost 10,000 members by 1881; this association became part of John H. Kellogg’s cluster of organizations promoting health in later years. In 1932, Adventists organized the American Temperance Society and, later, the International Temperance Association, each with a set of publications and closely aligned with the SDA denomination. See Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Commentary Reference Series 10, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1966, s.v. “American Temperance Society” and “International Temperance Association.” 759 Because of these problems and a turning tide in public opinion, Prohibition was repealed in 1933. For an analysis of how Prohibition came about, see James H. Timberlake, Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900–1920, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963.

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

225

The earliest Adventists may often not have been aware of it, but much of their thought had actually been bequeathed to them by antecedent movements. The inventory of Puritan thinking,760 the intellectual world of the Christian Connection761 and traditions of Methodist revivalism, piety and perfectionism762 all added distinct flavours to the apocalyptic reasoning of their Millerite forebears. While Ellen White and other leading SDA writers preferred to identify with Luther and a few other reformers of the past rather than Calvinist Puritanism and anti-denominational restorationist movements,763 Adventists could not view themselves as being completely disconnected from their Protestant world at large even theologically. It is not surprising, therefore, that already in the 19th century significant instances of theological development in the denomination implied some change in the way Adventists would later view the other churches and, finally, ways of relating with them.764 Even the establishment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as an organized entity in 1860–63 indicated a theological shift away from pure apocalypticism to an ecclesiological realism in which denominational existence was deemed unavoidable. Where denominations existed, they had to interrelate sooner or later;765 thus the ecumenical question became unavoidable, even if Adventists continued to interpret the existence of alternative organizations with terms such as “Babylon.” 760 Cf. Bryan W. Ball, The English Connection: The Puritan Roots of Seventh-day Adventist Belief, Cambridge: Clarke, 1981. 761 For details, see Bert Haloviak, “Some Great Connexions: Our Seventh-day Adventist Heritage from the Christian Church,” TMs, 1994, online: http://documents.adventistarchive s.org/conferences/Docs/UnspecifiedConferences/SomeGreatConnexions.pdf, accessed January 6, 2015; and Bert Haloviak, “A Heritage of Freedom: The Christian Connection Roots to Seventh-day Adventism,” TMs, 1995, online: http://documents.adventistarchives.o rg/conferences/Docs/UnspecifiedConferences/AHeritageOfFreedom.pdf, accessed January 6, 2015. 762 Cf. Woodrow W. Whidden, “Adventist Soteriology: The Wesleyan Connection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 30.1 (1995), 173–186. For more references and a discussion of revivalist Methodist heritage in Adventism, see Rolf J. Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development,” Th.D. diss., Andrews University, 1995, 155–157. 763 Cf. Mrs. White’s 1884 version of the Great Controversy (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4), where three chapters are devoted to Luther, one deals with the “Early Reformers” (John Wycliffe and Jan Hus) and one with “Later Reformers” (Tyndale, Knox, the Wesleys, and the English Seventh Day Baptists). 764 For an overview of crucial developments in SDA theological thinking, see Stefan Höschele, “Constructions of Catholicity and Denominational Particularity: Key Stations in the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrinal Journey,” in Leo J. Koffeman (ed.), Christliche Traditionen zwischen Katholizität und Partikularität / Christian Traditions between Catholicity and Particularity, Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2009, 131–147. 765 Cf. James White’s statement in 1860 that Adventists are “classed among the denominations” already; see “Business Proceedings of B.C. Conference,” RH, October 23, 1860, 179.

226

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

The overall evolution of Adventist theology – at least in the 19th and early 20th centuries – suggests a distinct course toward increasing closeness with Protestant Christianity at large. In assessing Adventist doctrinal development, Rolf Pöhler’s comprehensive study portrays its overall direction as indicating a change from “heterodox to orthodox,” from “distinctive to fundamental” and from “legalism to evangelicalism.”766 Each of these characterizations clearly entails a move in the direction of other Protestants, and while they apply to the 20th century more than the 19th, the foundations for this shift were already laid from the 1880s onward. The major theological turning point for the denomination – with indirect consequences for interchurch relations – was what is commonly referred to as “1888” or “Minneapolis.” The General Conference session, which then still took place annually, convened in the largest Minnesota town during October 1888, and while its main purpose was denominational business, it has remained in collective memory for the theological debates that followed devotionals presented by Ellet J. Waggoner and Alonzo T. Jones. These two prominent younger ministers presented an emphasis on “righteousness by faith” (i. e. a christocentric view of salvation) that had been unknown in earlier Adventism and seemed to contradict the common SDA emphasis on the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments. The most important leaders at the time, General Conference president George I. Butler and the denomination’s chief theologian and editor, Uriah Smith, as well as many conference participants opposed their interpretations (particularly of the law in Galatians),767 and the atmosphere of the meeting has been described as full of criticism and animosity.768 The conference as such was but the culmination of vigorous earlier debates in publications,769 a situation implying that the denomination had grown beyond its infancy after one generation of organized existence. In terms of relating to the Christian world beyond, it also signalled a move away from the tendency of 766 Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology,” 285–288 (section headings). He also characterizes it as having moved from “flexible and simple to fixed and compound statements of faith” (ibid., 279), which is probably an unavoidable development in most movements, and is particularly visible in the first two generations. 767 Cf. George I. Butler, The Law in the Book of Galatians: Is It the Moral Law, or Does It Refer to That System of Laws Peculiarly Jewish?, Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1886. Initially, the contested question was the understanding of the law as παιδαγωγός in Galatians 3:24 – was it only the “ceremonial” law (as traditionally assumed by Seventh-day Adventists), or did it include all law and, therefore, even the Decalogue (as Waggoner and Jones thought)? 768 Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 181–182; for the conference as a whole, see ibid., 175–188. Butler was actually sick and not present. 769 Uriah Smith, the editor of the denomination’s major paper, the Review and Herald, and Waggoner, who edited The Signs of the Times, had been arguing back and forth in their papers and in books between 1886 and 1888; cf. E. J. Waggoner, The Gospel in the Book of Galatians: A Review, [Brochure,] Oakland: privately printed, 1888.

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

227

interacting with thought outside the realm of Seventh-day Adventists770 only when it concerned their “pillars” (i. e. distinctive teachings) 771 or confirmed their views of faith and lifestyle. Questions of soteriology had not been under Adventist scrutiny except when related to their sanctuary teaching; but now this central issue of the Christian faith, and indeed of religion, came back to the fore. While the General Conference meeting did not produce any motion on the subject, the subsequent years saw an increasing acceptance of what entered Adventist historiography and theology as “the 1888 message,” not least because of its full-hearted endorsement by Ellen G. White, who promoted this Christcentred approach to the Adventist faith by touring churches and campmeetings in the following seasons.772 The ecumenical implications of Adventism’s christocentric turn, while not evident to its adherents at the time, can hardly be overestimated. The new theological emphasis on the gospel altered the traditional centrality of the Law in Adventist thinking, thus opening the way – in the long run – also for developing the denomination’s Sabbath theology into a genuine expression of the gospel. Thus it would ultimately temper the earlier understanding of the Sabbath as the final “testing truth,” the “separating wall”773 between the true and false Christians. This eventually enabled Adventists to dialogue and cooperate more closely with non-sabbatarian denominations; after all, they had to accept that others (at least other Protestants) had the same salvation experience. Theologically, this adjustment also implied a careful balance of eschatology with soteriology. Although the Sunday law agitation occurred in the same period and fuelled Adventists’ end-time expectations for a while, later generations could draw on an SDA theological paradigm that was as much Pauline as it was apocalyptic and 770 Although the origin of Jones’s and Waggoner’s emphasis on faith for salvation seems to have been their exploration of Scripture, at least in the case of Waggoner, the period coincides with a voluminous study (of almost 400 pages) on the Church Fathers that he undertook; see Ellet J. Waggoner, Fathers of the Catholic Church: A Brief Examination of the “Falling Away” of the Church in the First Three Centuries, Oakland: Pacific Press, 1888. This book essentially presents an apologetic Protestant perspective and contains lengthy quotations from a variety of authors, indicating that Waggoner read widely outside Adventist publications. 771 These “pillars” or “landmarks” were not formally defined, but commonly Adventists used these terms to refer to the teachings that set them apart from most other Christians – the premillennial second coming of Christ, the Sabbath, conditional immortality, the sanctuary teaching, and the gift of Prophecy. For a discussion of Adventist terminology for their distinctive doctrines, see Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology,” 358–362. 772 Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers, 183–185. 773 E. White, “A Vision” [1847], already speaks of the Sabbath as a “separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers”; the term “testing truth” is utilized by Adventists from at least 1850 onwards. – This criteriological understanding of the Sabbath did not, of course, disappear, but its potentially threatening character decreased somewhat, and its importance was relegated to the very end of history, which was thought of as being “not yet.”

228

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Jacobine. Thus, all in all, the Minneapolis episode and its corollaries made Adventists more Protestant and brought them back from an essentially semi-Pelagian Christian Connection pattern of soteriology to a Methodist-Arminian outlook on salvation. An analogous development is the adoption of trinitarianism, which started around the turn of the century. The decisive role was played, again, by Ellen G. White, whose theological influence as a prophetic voice viz. the movement’s spiritual mother turned out to be even more important after her husband died in 1881. James White and his fellow leaders in the earliest Seventh-day Adventist Church had all been confirmed anti-trinitarians. With their rationalistic approach to the Bible and to theological reasoning, the “old unscriptural trinitarian creed,” as he once called it,774 simply did not make sense. While some amount of misunderstanding was apparently involved in their polemic against the doctrine775 and while Adventists likewise rejected Unitarianism, thus generally arriving at some kind of binitarian position (without calling it by that name), it is clear that there was little disagreement on the issue in their midst during much of the 19th century. Since they did not count the doctrine of God among their distinctive teachings nor its proclamation as part of their mission, Adventists were largely satisfied to differ from most major denominations in this regard, but did not consider the question a “test of faith.” It is the end of the 19th century that saw a slow but decisive shift in the SDA reasoning on the persons of the godhead – with all the consequences for their own theology as well as opening the possibility of more unimpeded dialogue with trinitarians. The developments around 1888 already suggested a modification in their doctrine of God, for the increased importance of Christ militated against semi-Arian and Arian views of some ministers lurking behind the SDA antitrinitarian stance.776 Largely because of Ellen White’s statements on the personality of the Holy Spirit in the second half of the 1890s and quasi-trinitarian language she used in the following decade,777 most Adventist leaders adopted the doctrine of the Trinity in subsequent years. Its later incorporation in the denomination’s first set of official Fundamental Beliefs (1931) was, therefore, es774 James White, “Letter from Bro. White,” The Day-Star, January 24, 1846, 25. 775 Cf. “Trinity and Anti-Trinitarianism in Seventh-day Adventist History,” chapter 13 in Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve, The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2002, 190–203. 776 Ibid., 196, 209–211. 777 Ibid., 204–220 (chapter 14, entitled “Ellen White’s Role in the Trinity Debate”) and 221–231 (“Ellen White on the Trinity: The Basic Primary Documents”). Details of how Ellen White herself came to endorse a clearly trinitarian position are presented by Gilbert Valentine, “Learning and Unlearning: A Context for Important Developments in the Seventh-day Adventist Understanding of the Trinity, 1888–1898,” AUSS 55.2 (2017), 213–236.

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

229

sentially a statement of a fait accompli. As in the case of soteriology, Ellen White’s corrective course therefore reshaped the church’s restorationist heritage (which her husband had represented) and brought it in line with her Methodist heritage, thus ending the journey from heterodox to orthodox in this realm. Such a revision of theological thinking did not mean, however, that Adventists immediately recognized in trinitarian concepts a basis for a broader platform in terms of interdenominational relationships. Quite to the contrary: in the same period, the denomination experienced one of the most painful conflicts in its history, which also touched on the doctrine of God. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the director of the nationally famous (and SDA-initiated) Battle Creek Sanitarium, a notable health educator,778 probably the most well-known Adventist of the period779 and a former protégé of the Whites, had gradually moved away theologically from his roots and increasingly emphasized the “non-sectarian” character of his various projects of “medical mission.”780 Precisely the developing Adventist trinitarianism of the 1890s was one of the sources for a theology of divine immanence that Kellogg developed in the same period – and which led to the break with the church leadership after the publication of The Living Temple.781 In this book, which focused on physiology, health and healing, God is depicted as permeating nature – an emphasis that his contemporary Adventists interpreted as “pantheistic.” Kellogg defended his position as being in line with denominational teachings and building on Ellen White’s own insistence on the importance and personality of the Holy Spirit, but the ensuing differences of opinion triggered dynamics that soon led to irreversible rupture. What had happened? Beyond the usual strains of relationships caused by personalities in such affairs, the key to understanding the ideological gulf that effected the denomination’s break with the doctor is their respective theological-hermeneutical approach. With their biblicist type of religion and their insistence upon the literality of anthropomorphic depictions of God, Adventists were unable to accommodate the essentially liberal understanding of Christianity exhibited in Kellogg’s reasoning. Their adoption of trinitarianism meant that they had moved closer to the tenets of orthodox Christianity, just as 1888 implied a more conscious 778 The 1994 film The Road to Wellville takes up several of the major motifs of his life but exaggerates some and introduces a number of elements that are not authentic. 779 Wilson, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, 81. 780 Ibid., 51–61, 110–111. Kellogg had also cooperated with the WCTU in the 1880s, and, together with his wife, actually contributed to this organization for some time when Frances Willard invited them to be superintendents of its “department of social purity.” Cf. ibid., 53. 781 John H. Kellogg, The Living Temple, Battle Creek: Good Health, 1903.

230

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Protestant identity, but both shifts removed them further from the doctor, who moved in the direction of a merely cultural Adventism and a Christianity that left little of the specific claims of the Christian creed except the creator. The Kellogg affair actually sharpened both of the main theological developments of the era. The rapprochement with Protestants and traditional Christianity did not mean that Adventists were now open to dialogue with universalists, evolutionists, or others who relativized what they considered the essentials of Christian belief. It was conservative Protestantism that Adventists actually identified with and which would remain their major reference group in terms of interchurch relationships in the generations to come. What is remarkable in these three instances of doctrinal debate and adjustment is that one woman played a decisive role in all of them. The influence of Ellen Gould White, the undisputed prophetic voice of the movement, was felt throughout her adult life, even theologically; thus the question of how her ministry impacted the interaction with other churches must also be duly considered. In general, Ellen White played diverse roles as far as Adventist thinking is concerned: in her statements on theological matters, she often simply expressed the Adventist consensus or what she believed it was, thus embodying the movement’s thought in her writings. In some cases (such as 1888 and the trinitarian development), she aimed at influencing the public opinion, and probably she was the only person who could effect major changes without wreaking havoc in the denomination. Yet mostly her emphasis was practical Christianity rather than doctrinal quibbles.782 Thus her writings mostly contain materials to be classified as moralistic parenesis and little in terms of analytical theological thought. What does this mean for her statements on the relationship to other Christian movements and denominations? That she would comment on this theme once in a while was almost unavoidable;783 it is important to note, however, that she devoted relatively little energy to the subject and did not define principles in a systematic manner. After all, the main emphasis of her ministry was serving the spiritual community to which she belonged: other Christians often came into sight only as potential recipients of “the Adventist message” or as eschatological 782 Fritz Guy, “Theology,” in Terrie D. Aamodt, Gary Land, and Ronald Numbers (eds.), Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014, 144–159. 783 See the collection by Konrad F. Müller (compiler), “Seventh-day Adventists’ Relationship to Other Churches as Portrayed in the Writings of Ellen G. White,” Manuscript, n.d., E. G. White/SDA Research Centre Europe, Newbold College, England, DF 2002, 13 pp. [published only in German: Konrad F. Müller (compiler), Die Beziehung der STA zu anderen Gemeinschaften und Kirchen wie sie in den Schriften von Ellen G. White dargestellt wird: Eine Zitatensammlung, Nürnberg: Schosch, 1994]. A short discussion of her main ideas in this realm is found in Teófilo Ferreira, “Elena White y las relaciones interconfesionales,” Revista Adventista, January 2006, 16–17.

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

231

agents of persecution. At the same time, her few thoughts on the matter did play an important role among her fellow believers far beyond her lifetime – hence the main thrust of her remarks, as well as her activities that fall into the purview of interchurch relations, must be duly considered. Together with her family, the young Ellen Harmon underwent a painful experience when she was about fifteen years old. The Methodist congregation to which they belonged rejected their Millerite convictions and excommunicated them all against their will. Separation, therefore, belonged to the church realities that she had to cope with even as a young Christian. Moreover, three years earlier, she had been shocked – at the time of her baptism – to see a woman received into the church with “gold rings on her fingers, and large gold ear-rings in her ears”:784 Already at twelve years of age, Ellen evidently knew no lightness and took the Christian religion utterly seriously, both personally and with regard to fellow church members. It is this demanding version of Christianity and a critical view of those who profess following Jesus that would significantly contribute to shaping her perspective on the churches and the Adventists’ relationship with them in the years to come. After the “Great Disappointment” of 1844, she soon balanced her essentially negative portrayal of Christendom with the insight that “God has children who do not keep the Sabbath.”785 Yet altogether in her reasoning, as for her fellow sabbatarian Adventists, the Christian world remained divided in a dualistic manner. In the second instalment of her first book, Experience and Views, she declared in 1854, “I saw that the nominal churches had fallen; that coldness and death reigns in their midst.”786 On the other hand, she believed that there were “honest children among the nominal Adventists and the fallen churches,”787 but soon a separation would occur between true believers and those who were Christians in name only: [B]efore the plagues shall be poured out788 ministers and people will be called out from these churches and will gladly receive the truth. Satan knows this, and before the loud cry of the third angel,789 raises an excitement in these religious bodies, that those who have rejected the truth may think God is with them. He hopes to deceive the honest, and lead them to think that God is still working for the churches. But the light will shine, and

784 White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, 13. 785 Ellen G. White, A Vision [Broadside], Topsham: Joseph Bates, 1847. The original contains a comma after “children” which today would render the meaning incorrect. 786 Ellen G. White, Supplement to the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White, Rochester: James White, 1854, 36. 787 White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1 [1858], 172. 788 This refers to the plagues of Revelation 15 and 16, which the sabbatarian Adventists expected to take place very soon. 789 This is a reference to Revelation 18:2.

232

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

all who are honest will leave the fallen churches, and take their stand with the remnant.790

The basic scheme formulated here in 1858 continued in her writings until her death;791 later versions of the Great Controversy reformulate this expectation but do not change its basic thrust.792 Thus there is an essential continuity with regard to the apocalyptic separation of true and false believers, and a concomitant hesitancy of engaging with Christians of other backgrounds in any permanent manner. It is all the more remarkable how often Mrs. White emphasized the need of coming close to believers belonging to other denominations. Of course the main impetus behind these admonitions was the goal of presenting Adventist convictions and winning people to Adventism. As the common metaphor of the time ran, “God has jewels in all the churches”793 – and it was considered the task of the end-time remnant to gather these into their fold. Nevertheless, there is a distinct sense of sympathy that goes beyond a mere trade of cooperation for potential converts. In the context of temperance activities, for instance, she could argue, “We should unite with other people just as far as we can … We should not work solely for our own people, but should bestow labor also upon noble minds outside of our ranks.”794 The fact that she practiced what she preached is not only visible in her temperance lecturing activities but also in that one of her major books, Steps to Christ, which did not contain too explicit Adventist materials, was published by a non-Adventist publisher in 1892795 – a rather unusual matter at the time. The foundation of such actions and sentiments seems to have been a peculiar “theology of light.” Frequently in her writings Ellen White emphasized the need to live according to the light one has received.796 On this basis, she could also

790 White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 172–173. 791 Cf. Don Leo M. Garilva, “The Development of Ellen G White’s Concept of Babylon in The Great Controversy,” JATS 18.2 (2007), 223–242. Garilva argues for an essential continuity of her views regarding this motif. 792 See White, The Great Controversy [1911], 461–478 (chapter 27, “Modern Revivals”); 582– 592 (chapter 36, “The Impending Conflict – Its Causes”); and 603–612 (chapter 38, “The Final Warning”). 793 Ellen G. White, “The Church Must Be Quickened,” Review and Herald, January 17, 1893, 1. 794 From a speech of Ellen G. White reported in the article “Michigan Health and Temperance Association,” Review and Herald, October 21, 1884, 12 [670]. 795 Arthur Patrick, “Author,” in Aamodt, Land, and Numbers, Ellen Harmon White, 104, tells the story of how Adventist minister George B. Starr, a former co-worker of Dwight L. Moody, had arranged for Moody’s brother-in-law, Fleming H. Revell, to publish the book. Revell was one of the leading American Christian publishers at the time. 796 A search for the phrase “according to the light” on the CD-ROM Ellen White Writings: Comprehensive Research Edition, Silver Spring: Ellen G. White Estate, 2008, yields 183 hits,

Adventist Ecumenical Thinking and Anxieties in the Late 19th Century

233

maintain that there is a kind of spiritual unity of all true Christians; in 1890, for instance, she asserted, “There are many outside our people who are in the favour of God, because they have lived up to all the light that God has given them.”797 Whether a minor theological adjustment was the basis for such reasoning or the consequence of it is a matter of debate. George Knight observes that the Millerites had tended to view Babylon’s fall in Revelation 14:8 and in 18:1–4 as being identical,798 but that James White had differentiated these two in 1859. While Revelation 14:8, according to Adventism’s spiritus rector, had been fulfilled “in the past” (i. e. the early 1840s), he applied the verses in chapter 18 “to the present, and more especially to the future.”799 Ellen White adopted her husband’s thinking, characterized the fall of Babylon as “progressive” – and reasoned in 1888 that “the perfect fulfillment of Revelation 14:8 is yet future.” Even if the distinction between Babylon (all religious bodies), its fall (beginning in the 1840s) and the culmination of its fall (future) seems complicated or arbitrary from an outside perspective, it enabled Seventh-day Adventists of the period to relate to other Christians in a more brotherly manner: if other churches were not fully fallen, there was still some hope of constructive interaction. Thus one of the themes that increasingly appears in Ellen White’s writings from the 1880s onward is instruction regarding Christian politeness. In the 1860s and 70s, the spirit of dispute had raged in the Adventist camp until the denomination was known to consist of thoroughly self-opinionated controversy seekers. The prophet, therefore, asserted, “There should be no going out of the way to attack other denominations; for it only creates a combative spirit and closes ears and hearts to the entrance of the truth. We have our work to do, which is not to tear down but to build up.”800 A special point of reference was Catholicism. In the context of flares of anti-Catholic sentiment in the still Protestantdominated nation, Ellen White’s calls for restraint appear agreeably levelheaded. She pleaded, Let not those who write for our papers make unkind thrusts and allusions that will certainly do harm, and that will hedge up the way and hinder us from doing the work that we should do in order to reach all classes, the Catholics included … Among the

797 798 799 800

which mostly refer to this thought. The phrase “light given” appears 832 times and also generally refers to the same idea. E[llen] G. White, “Christ Prayed for Unity among His Disciples,” RH, March 11, 1890, 146. Knight, “Another Look at Babylon,” 6. J[ames] W[hite], “Babylon,” RH, March 10, 1859, 122. Letter 39, 1887, EGWE; this part was published in the compilation Ellen G. White, Evangelism, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1946, 574.

234

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Catholics there are many who are most conscientious Christians, and who walk in all the light that shines upon them, and God will work in their behalf.801

In her typical manner of sending warnings primarily to Adventists themselves, she continued, Those who have had great privileges and opportunities, and who have failed to improve their physical, mental, and moral powers, but who have lived to please themselves, and have refused to bear their responsibility, are in greater danger and in greater condemnation before God than those who are in error upon doctrinal points, yet who seek to live to do good to others. Do not censure others; do not condemn them.802

It appears that Mrs. White was among the very few who would comment on the relationship with other denominations and their representatives at all, and among these few, she was probably the only one at her time who clearly included a call for moderation in such reflections, even to the extent of emphasizing that “[t]he Lord has His representatives in all the churches.” The instruction that follows regarding interactions with pastors from other denominations must be considered highly unusual in the context of general Adventist sentiments of the time: Our ministers should seek to come near to the ministers of other denominations. Pray for and with these men, for whom Christ is interceding. A solemn responsibility is theirs. As Christ’s messengers, we should manifest a deep, earnest interest in these shepherds of the flock.803

Thus the movement’s prophet left a significant heritage to her church – one that synthesized the apocalyptic and sceptical strands of thought regarding other denominations with an attitude of fairness and spiritual connectedness. While rejecting organizations that promoted what Adventists considered unbiblical doctrines and thus following the trends of popular American Christianity in the 19th century, she attempted to design a balanced approach to the Christian world 801 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1948 [1st ed. 1909], 241–244. Cf. also various similar statements by Mrs. White collected in Höschele, Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents, 24–30. 802 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1948 [1st ed. 1909], 241–244. She had formulated very similar ideas already twenty years earlier: “We should not, upon entering a place, build up unnecessary barriers between us and other denominations, especially the Catholics, so that they think we are their avowed enemies … There are many among the Catholics who live up to the light they have far better than many who claim to believe present truth, and God will just as surely test and prove them as He has tested and proved us.” (Manuscript 14, 1887; this part was published in White, Evangelism, 144.) 803 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1948 [1st ed. 1901], 70–71; 78.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

235

at large. Similar to her role in the development of SDA doctrine and theology in general, her contribution consisted in contributions to forming, preserving and revising804 the common Adventist stance. While the basic negative view of Christendom had been inherited from the Millerites, the main impact of her ministry seems to have been catalysing a differentiation of reasoning, calls for moderation and a consolidation of the denomination’s consensus of her time – which would, via her prophetic authority, significantly shape future Adventists’ views and actions.805

4.2

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come? Adventists and the Protestant Missionary Movement

The sphere in which interdenominational relations became most tangible for Seventh-day Adventists in the first half of the 20th century was the missionary expansion of Christianity to formerly non-Christian regions. Adventists were latecomers in global mission activities; however, they soon mutated from an essentially North American movement to one of the leading missionary sending Protestant denominations in this period.806 Such a situation had hardly been foreseen by church leaders, and it implied the necessity of interacting with other mission bodies in unprecedented ways. In the “home field,” competition for souls had been the rule rather than the exception in much of the 19th century. By way of contrast, in much of Africa and Asia, there were huge areas where no Christians were found at all; thus the question of dividing territories and other types of cooperation necessarily arose as a corollary of missionary strategizing. The vast Adventist missionary enterprise has made it the most globally widespread Protestant denominational organization from the mid-20th century 804 Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology,” 411–421, describes her role as participating in doctrinal formation, maturation, development, preservation, and revision. Her preserving role is visible already around the turn of the century: there were individuals who heavily relied on quotations from her writings (in addition to biblical references) even in matters of church unity; see, e. g., J[ohn] N. Loughborough, “Unity of the Church,” RH, February 19, 1901, 122. 805 Cf. Roy Graham, “Ellen G. White’s Influence on SDA Approaches to Ecumenism,” chapter 8 of Graham, Ellen G. White: Co-Founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, American University Studies (Series VII: Theology and Religion) 12, New York: Lang, 1985, 297–354. This chapter deals with Adventist attitudes to ecumenism in general; significant Ellen White materials mainly appear on pp. 318–327. 806 In the year 1935, when Adventists counted slightly over 400,000 members worldwide, the denomination supported 1200 missionaries – around one tenth of the total American Protestant missionary force; see Robert T. Coote, “Twentieth-Century Shifts in the North American Protestant Missionary Community,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 22.4 (1998), 152–153.

236

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

onwards; therefore, research on interchurch relationships and frictions in these numerous mission contexts would demand a major study of its own. Very little has been done so far in this realm in terms of systematic analysis, either by Adventist writers807 or by other historians,808 presumably because the denomination’s mission history contains many themes that have seemed more appealing.809 This section, therefore, will utilize a few regional examples to illustrate typical dynamics taking place when Adventist mission practitioners encountered colleagues from other Christian backgrounds. Such encounters soon resulted in the question of comity – i. e. official agreements on cooperation – which necessitated an official response by church leaders. In spite of Adventism’s peripheral position in the Protestant spectrum, these developments would then lead to institutionalized forms of cooperation. But before embarking on the 20th century ecumenical journey of Adventism, a short review of its path towards missionary cooperation needs to be charted.

4.2.1 The Impact of Changing Adventist Missionary Thought At the turn of the century, Adventism had changed from a regional revival phenomenon to a global movement which encountered other Christians not only as competitors but also as colleagues in reaching the world with the gospel. Missionary activities had developed from meagre beginnings in Christian lands to a far-flung network of projects, stations and churches world-wide. By 1900, 51 countries had been entered; in 1910, this number rose to 86, with roughly one

807 Børge Schantz, “The SDA Church and Ecumenism,” chapter 5 of Schantz, “The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought: Contemporary Appraisal,” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983, 144–186, discusses issues of interchurch relations in missionary contexts only on pp. 152–154. Chapter 11, part D of the same dissertation (“SDAs Face the Charge of Proselytizing,” pp. 412–419) focuses on statistics and arguments that membership growth in much of Africa growth resulted from conversion from traditional religions rather than convincing non-Adventist Christians of the denomination’s doctrine. Many other Adventist works on mission history in particular regions do not comment on relationships with other mission societies at all. 808 A few examples: Alvin M. Goffin, “Protestantism in Ecuador: A Case Study in Latin American Church History, 1895–1980s,” Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 1990, 58–59, mentions conflicts between Adventists and the few other Protestant mission bodies; Graham H. Hassall, “Religion and Nation-State Formation in Melanesia: 1945 to Independence,” Ph.D. diss., Australian National University, 1990, 93–96, reports similar frictions but notes that governments at times welcomed some competition, believing this would lead to rising standards in the services the missions provided. 809 Adventist mission history has been mainly written by missiologists (not church historians), who were often more interested in missiological issues and the emergence of indigenous churches than in instances of conflict and cooperation with neighbouring missions.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

237

third each in Europe and Latin America and a dozen countries in Africa and Asia, respectively.810 This was a long way from the anti-mission rhetoric of the movement two generations earlier.811 In those years the predominant feeling among Sabbathkeeping Adventists had been that in view of the imminent parousia any attempt to call non-Christians to conversion was flawed. Moreover, they were convinced that such endeavours were connected with theories that contradicted biblical teachings: in their interpretation the postmillennial-inspired American mission movement of the period tended to teach “the world’s conversion,” the vision of triumphant efforts at Christianizing the globe. As architects of a counter-cultural movement, Adventists dismissed this notion as a “fable.”812 Thus until the late 1860s Adventist statements on missionary activities by various denominations in Africa and India largely echoed the scepticism of the contemporary secular press.813 After Adventists organized their own missionary society in 1869, initially only aiming at sending literature abroad,814 their view of mission changed slowly. Like the Millerites in the early 1840s, they began to interpret the success of Christian missionary work in far-away countries as a “sign of the end” and thus indirectly commended these efforts.815 By the 1870s, their own need to engage in mission projects became the predominant motif of the discourse,816 and from the early 1880s onwards, the efforts of other traditions found explicit applause in denominational publications as well.817 Thus one generation was enough for Ad810 According to geographical distinctions of the early 1980s; for a list, see Schantz, “The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought,” 766–767. 811 See section 3.2.3. 812 Cf. the six-part article series in 1865 by R. F. Cottrell, “The World’s Conversion,” RH, June 27, 29; July 11, 45–46; July 18, 53; July 25, 61; August, 1, 69; and August 15, 84; see also “Evangelizing the World,” RH, December 20, 1870, 5. For a prototypical expression of the view, see Laurens P. Hickock, The Complete Idea of the World’s Conversion to Jesus Christ, Boston: T. R. Marvin & Son, 1866. 813 See the mission-sceptical articles “Converting the Heathen,” RH, June 9, 1868, 396; “Missionaries in Asia: Anglican Exclusiveness in India,” RH, July 21, 1868, 70–71; and “Missionary Work in Africa,” RH, July 19, 1881, 61. 814 James White, “Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society,” RH, June 15, 1869, 197. 815 D[udley] M. Canright, “The Spread of the Gospel a Sign of the End,” RH, December 6, 1870, 196. 816 See, e. g., J. Matteson, “Missionary Societies,” RH, December 5, 1871, 197; Geo[rge] I. Butler, “Missionary to Europe,” RH, September 15, 1874, 100; “Missionary Hymn,” RH, March 30, 1875, 102; “Missionary Hymn,” RH, April 13, 1876, 118; E[llen] G. White, “Address and Appeal, Setting Forth the Importance of Missionary Work,” RH, January 2, 1879, 1–2; General Conference Committee, “Our Foreign Missions,” RH, December 11, 1879, 189. 817 A fourteen-part series on mission in the major church paper Review and Herald, starting January 4, 1881, 12, and ending April 26, 1881, 268, included, inter alia, M. L. H., “The

238

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

ventist perspectives on Protestant mission activities to undergo a complete reversal. The pro-mission attitude soon developed into missionary enthusiasm, and by the last decade of the century, this attitude also had a significant impact on Adventists’ views of other Christians. In a few instances, earlier writers had portrayed non-Adventist mission ventures as examples to be followed,818 and in a rare moment of liberality, one author even included a positive reference to the ministry of Roman Catholics in Japan.819 But when the non-denominational Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions (SVM) gained momentum in the early 1890s,820 Adventists appeared to relinquish their former reservations regarding Protestant missions entirely. Being invited to its first international convention, they commented in their leading paper, All who are interested in the movement [i. e. the SVM], and can do so consistently, should attend this convention. We know of no enterprise for the advancement of foreign mission work, that we indorse more heartily than the Student Volunteer Movement. It is undenominational in character, but has sympathy and encouragement from all Christian bodies.821

The importance of the SVM (in reality a completely Protestant venture) for the development of Adventist interchurch relations can hardly be overestimated.822 In spite of their sabbatarian convictions and exclusivist heritage, SDA leaders sensed a spiritual like-mindedness among these evangelicals, who gathered around the slogan “The Evangelization of the World in This Generation.” The

818 819 820 821 822

Moravian Mission to Greenland,” RH, January 11, 1881, 28–29; January 18, 1881, 43–44; “The Moravian Mission to the West Indies,” RH, February 15, 1881, 107–108; and “The Moravians among North American Indians, RH,” March 8, 1881, 155. In the January 11, 1881, issue, the author noted, “true piety and Christian simplicity have characterized the early history of all Christian denominations” (28). Another instance of a positive early reference to non-Adventist missionaries is J. S. Olive, “Dr. Judson, the Pioneer Missionary to Burmah,” RH, February 1, 1881 (a lengthy poem on the first American foreign missionary, who lived from 1788 to 1850). See, e. g., M. L. R., “A Mission Established by the Baptists,” RH, January 24, 1882, 55; “Beginnings of Protestant Missions,” RH, February 4, 1890, 70; “The Pioneer of Chinese Missions,” RH, March 25, 1890, 182. He admitted that “there was power in the gospel which was preached by the Jesuits, to preserve and keep those who trusted in Him [i. e. Christ].” See “The Persecution of the Christians and Their Expulsion from Japan,” RH, July 22, 1890, 454–455, here 455. Cf. Michael Parker, The Kingdom of Character: The Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1886–1926, Lanham: University Press of America, 1998. “International Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement,” RH, February 17, 1891, 102. A more detailed history of Adventist interactions with the SVM is offered by Edward Allen, “The Impact of the Student Volunteer Movement on the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” paper presented at the Triennial Conference of the Association for Seventh-day Adventist Historians, March 17–20, 2016, La Sierra University, Riverside, online: http://www. sdahistorians.org/uploads/1/2/3/6/12365223/allene.pdf, accessed August 24, 2016.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

239

commitment of such missionaries-to-be to the proclamation of the good news impressed Seventh-day Adventist representatives so much that one of the denomination’s mission leaders suggested that “a new era in the history of foreign mission work” had started.823 When considering that Adventists had hitherto deemed their own proclamation to constitute the last act in salvation history, this evaluation is remarkable indeed. Behind such musings lay an impulse that must be considered ecumenical in its own right. It is the combination of a (premillennial) eschatological perspective with a focus on evangelism that enabled Adventists to assess the SVM as a collaborative space rather than an initiative to compete with. So much was this congruency felt that a denominational journal applied biblical language of oneness to this movement – formulations formerly unheard of: [T]he Student Volunteer Movement is one which merits the full sympathy and cooperation of Seventh-day Adventists. Unselfish, unsectarian (so far as concerns Protestant sects), animated by pure zeal and devotion to the cause of Christ, and seeking only to bring the sound of his gospel to the millions whose ears it has never reached, it is a part of the great gospel work which God is doing for the world in this last generation of its history, and in which it has pleased him to assign us so wonderful a part. The cause is one, the hope is one, the reward will be one when the Master shall come to reckon with his servants.824

Both from a later perspective and in view of their earlier reservations, this stress on oneness with regard to the missionary movement is unique in Adventist thinking. It did, of course, reflect a mood that was developing among other Evangelicals and was hence quite typical of the era. For Adventists, however, such reflections implied a significant step beyond their earlier approach to Christians outside of their denominational boundaries. It is this mix of a passionate sense of their own mission combined with enthusiasm about global Protestant missionary advances that characterized Adventists at the beginning of the 20th century. Thus their interchurch relationships were now configured through a twofold mission consciousness: the conviction that the Adventist message aimed at everyone, both Christians and non-Christians, and a sentiment that God’s hand was in the successes of Christian mission world-wide. Given the Adventist support for the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Mission – one of the main tributaries to the Protestant

823 P[ercy] T. M[agan], “Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement,” RH, March 1891, 150–151. Magan served as the secretary of the denomination’s Foreign Mission Board, established in 1889 as the first proper Adventist missionary sending organization. 824 L. A. S[mith], “The World’s Convention of Student Volunteers for Foreign Mission,” RH, March 17, 1891, 168–169, here 169.

240

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

missionary movement at the time – it is not surprising to see them participating at the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference in 1910 as well. Edinburgh is often portrayed as the birth of the modern Ecumenical Movement, and it is significant that six Adventist delegates attended this conference.825 The denomination’s General Conference sent three representatives to the main meeting: its secretary (i. e. the second in rank of its administrative hierarchy), William A. Spicer; the leader of the church in Europe, Ludwig Richard Conradi; and W. J. Fitzgerald, the British Union President. Three others were to represent the denomination at the Synod Hall meetings,826 where parallel assemblies were conducted for those involved in administrative work for mission societies.827 A revealing paradox in the Adventist engagement with the Edinburgh conference is their animated reporting combined with a complete lack of contributions to the meetings as such.828 Why could they call the event “[o]ne of the greatest world’s [sic] missionary conferences ever held,”829 a “gathering … of the deepest interest to us,”830 and “a great and striking sign of the times,”831 and yet remain silent in all of the discussions during the conference? Of course not every 825 For discussions of this episode, see Keith A. Francis, “Ecumenism or Distinctiveness? Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes to the World Missionary Conference of 1910,” in Robert N. Swanson (ed.), Unity and Diversity in the Church, Studies in Church History 32, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, 477–487, and the essentially narrative account of Schantz, “The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought,” 387–393. Francis over-interprets the first General Conference committee action of January 1910 – to send Conradi “and whoever may go over from America to the summer meetings in Europe” – as implying that the denominational leaders viewed the meeting as “unimportant” (481). He also construes a “change of attitude” by March 1910, when six persons were appointed (482). While it is true that a letter from Conradi contained an appeal to send delegates after the first General Conference committee action, the significance of the conference is evident in all Adventist publications commenting on it. For details, see L. R. Conradi – W. A. Spicer, January 18, 1910, GCA; General Conference Committee Minutes, January 17, March 6, and April 20, 1910, GCA. 826 These were M. A. Altman (from Scotland), who was replaced by William T. Bartlett for unknown reasons (another church leader in Great Britain and former missionary to East Africa), Herbert C. Lacey (a professor at and president of Healdsburg College), and Guy Dail. Dail was serving as the secretary of the European Division of Seventh-day Adventists. 827 For more details of these various meetings, see Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 73–90. 828 Cf. World Missionary Conference, 1910, vol. 9: The History and Records of the Conference, Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson, and Ferrier, 1910. There are at least two occasions of mentioning Adventist activity in different mission contexts in the other volumes, which were largely prepared before the conference, but also included reports of discussions during the meeting. 829 [Untitled,] RH, April 7, 1910, 24. 830 S[picer], W[illiam] A. “Notes from the Edinburgh Missionary Conference,” RH, July 21, 1910, 9–10, here 9. 831 Bartlett, W. T. “The World Missionary Conference,” ST, July 26, 1910, 10–11, here 10.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

241

delegate had the opportunity to speak, but with three leading Adventists present, they could have taken the opportunity to draw attention to an aspect of faith or mission that seemed of particular weight for them. In his analysis of the event, Keith Francis suggests that they preferred to engage in “what could be called ‘observer ecumenism’ rather than ‘participatory ecumenism’,”832 and although this nomenclature entails some degree of anachronism,833 his remark certainly captures something of the SDA delegates’ attitudes. There may be, however, more deep-seated dimensions of their reserve: it is most likely that Adventists were not at ease with public communication in such a context; their relative lack of (at least formal) education and the absence of experience in positive interactions with their peers from other denominations made an unrestricted participation rather difficult – especially when several Adventist colleagues were watching, none of whom had revealed himself as being an interchurch bridge builder. At the bottom of it all lay, presumably, the unresolved ecclesiological puzzle regarding “Babylon”: if these fellow Protestants served in spreading the good news, how did this relate to their being representatives of “fallen churches”? The ensuing attempts at evaluating Edinburgh indicate how much Adventists were of two minds about the trends visible in it. William Spicer devoted two articles to the World Missionary Conference, one focusing on mission, the other on the question of unity.834 On the positive side, he interpreted the contemporary missionary surge as “a mighty movement that comes in the providence of God to prepare the way for the closing work of the gospel” and “the complement and the successor of the Reformation movement.”835 At the same time he noted that “dropping of denominational distinctions in the mission fields” was a muchsupported suggestion made in Edinburgh. In this regard, Spicer commented,

832 Francis, “Ecumenism or Distinctiveness,” 483. Francis also assumes that sending only six delegates (instead of more than twenty who could have been sent) implied the same attitude (ibid.); one should not underestimate, however, the expenses implied, which would point to a pragmatic decision rather than a “political” course of action. After all, even the “younger churches,” i. e. the Christians in Asia and Africa, were represented by only 17 of the 1216 delegates. 833 Observer status began to be granted in national councils of churches after they were founded, which largely happened after World War II. 834 W[illiam] A. S[picer], “Notes from the Edinburgh Missionary Conference,” RH, July 21, 1910, 9–10; W[illiam] A. S[picer], “More Notes from the Edinburgh Missionary Conference: The Strong Side and the Weak,” RH, August 11, 1910, 11–12. 835 Spicer, “Notes,” 9. W. J. Fitzgerald, “President’s Biennial Report,” The Missionary Worker, August 17, 1910, 119–120, echoes part of Spicer’s evaluation: “we have some reasons to believe that the World Missionary Conference, and the work which is to follow, will greatly aid in preparing the whole world for the rapid promulgation of the Third Angel’s Message.”

242

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

But there were also wise and earnest words spoken by some regarding the futility and weakness of compromising conviction in order to stand on apparently common ground … [A]long that way lie the same dangers and pitfalls that the church federation movement is plunging into in the home lands.836

Thus the Adventist silence at the conference also quietly expressed their cautious assessment of its major thrust: Christian unity translated into missionary cooperation. At least one Adventist participant seemed to agree with the prevalent problem analysis behind this goal; William Bartlett reflected that “[o]ne of the causes that at present hinder the work of missions is the division existing between the workers. This leads to duplication of effort, to waste, and to unchristian rivalry.”837 However, like the other SDA commentators, he doubted that cooperation agreements were really going to provide a solution. Whether from experience or on the basis of suspicion, the common Adventist assumption was that power abuse could turn missionary coalitions into instruments of oppression in the hands of majorities838 and that such efforts for unity would tend to a weakish lowest common denominator approach.839 At the same time, Bartlett noted the genuine piety exhibited at the conference:840 it must have been eye-opening for Adventist leaders to rediscover other Christians’ deep spiritual identity. The SDA conception of unity implied in these evaluations showed their either-or mindset, the view that one must choose between the maximum and minimum: if full doctrinal and organizational union could not be achieved (and they were convinced this was impossible outside their own denomination), 836 Spicer, “More Notes,” 11. Spicer also maintained that a “weak point in the conference was that is shut out all work in Roman or Greek Catholic lands” (ibid., 11). 837 W[illiam] T. Bartlett, “The World Missionary Conference,” ST, July 26, 1910, 10. 838 He argued, “Cooperation will put a powerful weapon in the hands of those who secure control of it, to drive out all missionary effort that for any reason finds itself unable to agree with the more powerful bodies.” (Ibid., 11.) Conradi likewise noted, “We want to hope only the best regarding this committee [the envisioned central advisory board] that it will really enhance the work of mission in the manner of Christ in all the world without any impairment of the different confessions or privileges for larger missionary societies.” See Ludwig R. Conradi, “Weltmissionskongreß zu Edinburg,” Herold der Wahrheit, July 1910, 104. 839 With reference to the Edinburgh conference, Fitzgerald, “President’s Biennial Report,” argued, “it is quite evident that the great communions, as organizations, will unite only as there is practically an abandonment of the real principles which have made them potent movements in the world.” A British Adventist paper expressed similar scepticism already before the conference; see “Church Federation,” The Present Truth, January 7, 1909, 2. Here the unnamed author mentions plans in connection with the Edinburgh meeting and contemplates the consequences of “federation”: “It leads to a silencing of the old testimony against error, and frequently to a practical abolition of the barriers between the church and the world.” 840 He observed “the reverent and enthusiastic spirit that marked the occasion. Much emphasis was laid upon the importance of prayer, and every day there was a special period of intercession” (Bartlett, “The World Missionary Conference,” 10).

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

243

purely spiritual unity was to be preferred to democratic, compromise-type attempts at securing oneness.

4.2.2 Continuing Friction, Courteous Attitudes: The SDA Paradox The Adventist unwillingness to be absorbed into cooperative mission ventures is visible in much of the missionary reports and correspondence of the period. As in America and Europe, where they were in direct competition for souls with the established churches and other minority denominations,841 frictions were reported in most corners of the globe. They did not necessarily seek conflict, but the very presence of Adventist missionaries or publications often caused such controversy that harmonious coexistence was hardly thinkable. In Bengal, for instance, the Baptists developed a distinct aversion against an SDA magazine which evidently enticed some of their members to change their affiliation,842 while on the other side of India, in the Punjab, the United Presbyterian mission board resented that Adventists had entered “their” territory.843 However, there were also times when some limited cooperation with other evangelical groups was possible, as in Mexico, where a law banned all nonMexican born individuals from serving as ministers. While Methodists and Presbyterians threatened Adventist workers on this basis, the Y.M.C.A. provided some kind of protection for the American SDA missionary.844 Altogether, it seems 841 For a discussion of Adventist conflicts and general relationships with other denominations in Germany until the early 1930s, see Johannes Hartlapp, Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten im Nationalsozialismus: Unter Berücksichtigung der geschichtlichen und theologischen Entwicklung in Deutschland von 1875 bis 1950, Göttingen: V & R unipress, 2008, 66–79, 170–195, 577–580. A parallel account regarding Britain is Christopher Peake, “Seventh-day Adventists in Britain in Relation to Their Host Community in the Early 20th Century,” in David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.), Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries), Adventistica 9, Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 93–116. 842 Cf. L. G. Mokerjee – J. L. Shaw, April 10, 1918, GCA/21/1918-M. Mokerjee, himself an Indian and the secretary of the Bengal Mission, reported, “We are known everywhere in Bengal through our magazine … The paper is doing such a good work in East Bengal that the Baptists are stirred up and are publishing articles against us in their papers. But they can do nothing against the truth.” 843 V. L. Mann – Brother Griggs, May 8, 1918, GCA/21/1918–Loasby, F. H. Mann explains that when Adventist activities started in the Punjab in an area with 50,000 inhabitants, “the local U. P. missionary who located 15 miles west of us made the statement that our intrusion did not bother him as at present they did not have the men and means to work the territory that we had occupied.” Later the Presbyterian mission board intervened and demanded that Adventists leave, but apparently this did not happen, for Adventists built a hospital in Chuharkana (later called Farooqabad, which is located in today’s Pakistan). 844 J. A. Leland – A. G. Daniells, April 30, 1918, GCA/21/1918-Leland, J. A.

244

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

that tension was frequently simply due to the fact that Adventists came later and presented an alternative to the existing religious scene. The South Pacific provides a good example: the largely Congregationalist London Missionary Society, for instance, dominated Samoa; thus Adventists were not given an area of their own and consequently ignored territorial claims of other societies. Yet interestingly this was generally not a pattern imposed by foreigners; as the historian of Adventism in the region, Dennis Steley analyses, “Except for the initial founding of the Adventist mission in a group, expansion came through the zeal of converts from unentered areas, who either began to gather their own family and friends into their new religion or who invited the mission to send missionaries to do so.”845 Similar examples could be cited from numerous other areas, for the worldwide missionary programme of the denomination regularly led to analogous situations. Although tracing the sources is a challenge, a global study of this issue would justify a major inquiry of its own. Here three case studies should suffice to illustrate the different paths that such quarrels could take: South America, German East Africa and China. In South America with its Roman Catholic predominance, Adventist missionary activities evidently led to interchurch friction right from the beginning.846 But it is the conflicts with other Evangelicals that were most painful to both Adventists and their fellow Protestants. One episode from the era exemplifies the tensions that characterized such relationships and the difficulties in resolving them: two missionaries, one Mennonite and the other Adventist, became friends while travelling to their mission fields on the same boat. After some time in the field, J. W. Shank, the Mennonite, wrote a lengthy letter to his Adventist colleague, explaining the apprehensions he encountered regarding Adventists in Argentina.847 His words are quoted at length here to capture the emotional flavour of the affair: I have travelled for many thousands of miles … and … visited a large number of Protestant missions. Without a single exception the different missionaries whom we visited, Baptist, Methodist, Plymouth Brethren, Missionary Alliance, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Union, etc., have expressed themselves as bitterly opposed to the missionary methods of you people. Some of them consider your methods fully as dangerous and unjust as those of the Catholics. All of them said to us, “We have been able to extend the 845 Dennis Steley, “Unfinished: The Seventh-day Adventist Mission in the South Pacific, Excluding Papua New Guinea, 1886–1986,” Ph.D. diss., University of Auckland, 1990, 368. On the issue of interchurch relations in general, see pp. 345–410 (chapter 6: “External Relationships: Other Churches and Religious Liberty”). 846 For an extensive presentation of denominational history in this region, mainly presented as institutional and mission history (with hardly any reference to interchurch relations), see Floyd Greenleaf, The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2 vols., Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1992. 847 J. W. Shank – A. A. Cone, July 3, 1919, GCA/21/1919-Comity.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

245

hand of welcome to all other Protestant workers except the Adventists.” “These people,” they said, “are impossible to work with. They come to destroy. They come to sow tares by night. They come to snatch lambs from the flock.”

Then he related how Protestant missionaries complained about Adventists targeting their members: they took particular exception to SDA colporteurs, who sold their books to their members and thus stirred controversy. He ended, “It is a shame to the gospel of Jesus for men to do such things among the members of another Protestant mission … Are there not enough towns and districts in Argentina where there are no other missionary bodies at work where your colporteurs can do their work and stay there and follow up their book selling with some real constructive work?” These were strong words indeed, but as in strained marriage relationships, there are often at least two perspectives in cases of interchurch conflicts. In his reply, the Adventist missionary A. A. Cone mentioned various examples of cases where other Protestants had done similar things to new Adventist converts. This scenario illustrates the troubles inherent in the splintered setup of Protestantism but also raises the question of how much Adventists were accepted by other Protestants as being one of them. Evidently many of them viewed them with the same disdain as they regarded Roman Catholics – as a different type of Christians altogether, or even not as Christians at all. Unsurprisingly, Cone’s emphasis was on “conviction” and religious freedom; he emphasized, Whenever a Seventh-day Adventist becomes a Baptist or a Mennonite, we do not consider that our Baptist or Mennonite friends have stolen one of our sheep. If conviction and a plain “thus saith the Lord” does not hold a member with us, we can but recognize his right to find his affiliation wherever his choice may lead.

Controversy, Cone argued, did not imply departure from the gospel: Baptists and Methodists had stirred conflicts at the very time when they were growing fastest. Adventists regarded “missionaries of other societies as men and women of God” and instructed all employees to avoid controversial actions of any kind, and “that they give all possible consideration to the feelings and beliefs of others, whether they be Protestants, Catholics or Mohammedans.” At the same time, Cone insisted that is was their duty to declare “ ‘the whole counsel of God’ ‘to every creature’ ‘in season and out of season’.” Thus he affirmed, “We have no controversy with any man, or with any organization of man, but with error.”848 With these words he clearly expressed the standard Adventist paradigm of interchurch relations at the time: ecclesiastical organizations other than his own were unimportant at best (and potentially detracting from “truth”); unity was mainly

848 A. A. Cone – J. W. Shank, August 12, 1919, GCA/21/1919-Comity.

246

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

about doctrinal content and individuals joined by a personal relationship with God. The case of German East Africa849 is significant for several reasons: (1) it was the first large-scale foreign mission project of European Adventists; (2) the German and British colonial governments handled the question of the relationship between missions in different manners; and (3) here Adventists first tasted the benefits of territorial divisions that would guarantee them an area of their very own. The Adventist mission had started in 1903, and after the first baptisms in 1908 in the southern South Pare Mountains near Kilimanjaro, the first churches began to thrive in the years until World War I. Because of the German colonial policy of exclusively assigned mission territories, the relationship with the neighbouring Lutherans in northern South Pare was generally friendly. The Lutherans had serious conflicts with Roman Catholics in the adjacent Kilimanjaro region and did not seem to be much interested in the field that Adventists occupied. By 1906, a boundary was negotiated, and cordial mutual visits were reported. Frictions only occurred when indigenous church members invited other Africans to learn about their faith. Adventist missionaries applied the territorial division only to schools and mission stations and did not restrict their church members in sharing their convictions – a policy that Lutherans resented.850 When a second, much larger territory at Lake Victoria was explored by SDA missionaries a few years after entering the Pare field, one reason for choosing this region was the idea that “virgin territory” would allow Adventists to pursue their activities in an uninhibited way – free from conflict with other denominations.851 This was a novel approach indeed, for aiming at the Christianization of whole peoples and shunning competition had not been in Adventist minds before. Evidently they learnt from the missionary strategies of other mission societies and imagined benefits of a monopoly as far as Christian religious options for new converts are concerned. The aim at getting hold of an exclusive territory turned out to be more difficult than intended, for just after Adventists came to the area, the Africa Inland Mission and the White Fathers also signalled interest. Thus the district administration negotiated a division of the area, to which the three missions consented. Even though this territorial allocation was, therefore, a state-mediated agreement, this development constitutes a step beyond what was common in Adventist 849 For a detailed account, see Stefan Höschele, Christian Remnant – African Folk Church: Seventh-Day Adventism in Tanzania, 1903–1980, Studies in Christian Mission 34, Leiden: Brill, 2007. On Adventist interchurch relations before and during World War I, see ibid., 76– 80 and 93–105; for later periods, see 136–144 and 459–469. 850 For references, see ibid., 76–78. 851 Ibid., 93–94.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

247

reasoning at the time. This is reflected in the fact that the secretary of the denomination’s European Division, Guy Dail, thought it necessary to defend the European missionaries’ deviance from what Americans viewed as the correct course in such matters.852 His chain of arguments shows how much he adhered to traditional Adventist thinking while looking for ways to improve interchurch relations in the mission fields. He argued:853 (1) Territorial agreements allow a free hand in a given territory. Working along the lines of least resistance, at least at first, will bring better results. (2) Adventists cannot avoid the expected apocalyptical persecution from the “fallen churches,” but this does not mean that one should not cooperate in anything with other denominations. (3) The Adventist light may become known to other Christians through a humble and godly life and if Adventists do not oppose their suggestions from the very first. (4) Instead of being viewed as intruders everywhere, Adventists should use the opportunity to develop better relationships with other religious societies. (5) In Europe, Adventist proclamation is still done amongst other Christians notwithstanding territorial agreements in heathen lands. (6) The Adventist practice in West Africa, where an American missionary opened a station a few miles from another mission, must be opposed. (7) Territorial agreements may contain a significant eschatological dimension, for it means “to so divide up the world that the name of Christ may more speedily be proclaimed where it is not.” (8) The work which other mission societies are doing is preparatory to the work Adventists are to do; thus, there is no need to interfere with their activities. – With his well-argued points, Dail produced a distinct stance of European Adventists that created a synthesis of ecumenical motifs and the common SDA approaches to interchurch relationships. It is in China that Adventist interactions with other Protestant churches would, ultimately, lead to an official statement on relationships with other mission societies that became the basis for the denomination’s future ecumenical stance. The first Seventh-day Adventist missionaries arrived in 1902, when other denominations and missions had already worked in the country for decades. While the diversity of groups was considerable, for some time after Edinburgh 1910 it seemed that a united Protestant church could become a reality, with Presbyterians forming the nucleus of what was to be the interdenominational Church of Christ in China in the 1920s.854

852 Guy Dail—T. E. Bowen, 23 June 1914, GCA/21. 853 The following summary also appears in Höschele, Christian Remnant, 104 (in a version with slightly different wording). 854 For a helpful overview of the dynamics of union and in the period, see R. G. Tiedemann, “Comity Agreements and Sheep Stealers: The Elusive Search for Christian Unity among Protestants in China,” IBMR 36.1 (2012), 3–8.

248

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

This goal, however, proved unattainable because a host of minor and new Christian movements were started and grew significantly precisely during the period in which these efforts were intensified. Besides Anglicans and Lutherans, who preferred to create their own organizations, several fundamentalist, holiness and faith mission groups, a rising number of unaffiliated missionaries and various indigenous churches considerably developed in size during the first decades after 1900.855 A rather independent manner of evangelizing – the common approach of Seventh-day Adventists – was, therefore, the rule rather than the exception in the first generation of the 20th century. While relations with other missions appear to have been positive in general, presumably because China was so large that each group could easily choose territories of their own,856 frictions did arise over Adventist literature.857 Evidently their printed products circulated among both non-Christian and Christian Chinese, and, unsurprisingly, most of the other Protestant did not like the sabbatarian arguments presented in such writings. Thus occasionally there were bouts of complaints, as in several 1913 issues of The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, a Presbyterian paper in which editors and missionaries expressed their objection against “acts of unfair dealing” of SDA missionaries who (according to their perspective) “ignore[d] the rights of other Missions [sic],”858 thus causing “discord and doubt.”859 In such a context, Adventists felt they could only protest against what they felt was a misrepresentation.860 The Chinese situation exemplifies the limits of the intra-Protestant search for unity in a most fitting way: as much as Adventists might have tried, their teachings were as little welcome as a Roman Catholic presence. Even if they did 855 Ibid., 4–7. 856 One example of this attitude is expressed in a letter of missionary Joseph W. Hall to an administrator in the world headquarters. He wrote from Tsinan (Jinan) in the Shandong province and explained, “We are trying to build up a clean work with a back-bone in it, directed at the heathen mass, and not merely a parasite on other missions, as I am sorry to find that some of our work has been in the past … Our relations are good with missionaries of other denominations here, and I copy a statement from one which he wrote in a letter to me …: ‘I admire so much what you are doing as a mission, it appeals to me, and sometimes think I would like to be one of you.’” See Joseph W. Hall – J. L. Shaw, June 11, 1918, GCA/ 21/1918-Hall, Joseph W. 857 Cf. John Griffith, “Seventh-Day Adventism,” The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, August 1913, 512–513, and an advertisement for a book in Chinese directed against Adventists in the same issue, 508–509. The book was entitled The Lord’s Day or the Jewish Sabbath, published by the Baptist Publication Society in the country. 858 “Seventh-day Adventists,” The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, July 1913, 405. 859 “Our Seventh Day Adventist Brethren,” The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, November 1913, 656. 860 C. N. Woodward, “A Protest,” The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, November 1913, 707–708. Woodward wrote for the Executive Committee of the Asiatic Division of Seventh-day Adventists.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

249

not actively aim at proselytizing from other denominations (for at least in the early years only a rather small fraction of their members came from a Christian background),861 their message proved attractive to a number of individuals.862 Seen from this perspective, it is somewhat ironic that the same polarizing dynamics triggered by the Adventist presence did not stop at the door of Adventism itself: when the True Jesus Church, a sabbatarian and non-trinitarian Pentecostal movement, started shortly before 1920, it extracted numerous members from the SDA Church, largely through mass mailings targeting specifically Adventist congregations.863 In the 1920s, the True Jesus Church overtook Adventism in terms of membership,864 and today it claims 1.5 million members worldwide, most of them in China and Taiwan.865 All in all a picture emerges in these instances of missionary expansion which includes continued inter-mission and interchurch friction in the environment of Adventist ventures. Such frictions were the rule rather than the exception between Christian missions with widely diverging theological tenets and where groups were involved that believed their message to be of high urgency. The tensions experienced in China, Africa and South America were, therefore, to be expected. Hence it was necessary for Adventists to develop a dialectic to cope with their common rejection by other Protestants, and it is remarkable that in some instances – as in Tanzania – this dialectic bordered at agreeing to comity. Characteristically, the frictions were strongest where Protestants thought of themselves as being united against a common enemy (such as the predominant Roman Catholics in Latin America). The Chinese situation, finally, may be interpreted as representing the most typical situation of Adventists in that they did seek to minimize competition for souls but did not want to declare complete mutual non-interference to be their official stance.

861 According to William Spicer, the following proportions of members came “from heathenism direct”: 83 % in the Hunan area and 80 % in the Honan (Henan) region. See [W. A. Spicer] – J. E. Moncrieff, July 17, 1916, GCA/21/1919-Comity. At the time, the denomination had less than 2,000 members in total in the whole of China. 862 Joseph Tse-Hei Lee, “Co-optation and Its Discontents: Seventh-Day Adventism in 1950s China,” Frontiers of History in China 7.4 (2012), 587–588. 863 Lian Xi, “A Messianic Deliverance for Post-Dynastic China: The Launch of the True Jesus Church in the Early Twentieth Century,” Modern China 34.4 (2008), 407–441, here 417. 864 Ibid., 424. 865 For more details, see “About Our Church: Facts and History,” online: http://www.tjc.org/abo ut/factsHistory.aspx, accessed July 2, 2015.

250

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

4.2.3 The Comity Issue: Developing a Denominational Statement Precisely at the time when Adventist frictions with Protestant missions in China developed, the latter initiated a system of closer cooperation through the China Continuation Committee (CCC) of the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference, which would create the National Christian Council of China by 1922. In 1917, the CCC adopted a statement on comity,866 i. e. on territorial arrangements, mutual non-interference, arbitration and receiving members from other churches and missions. The statement had been adapted from a similar text adopted in India in 1916, and by 1922, 115 missions indicated that they had accepted it.867 As far as Seventh-day Adventists are concerned, the comity statement posed a significant challenge. They wanted to uphold or create friendly relations with other Protestants, but the idea of territorial restrictions did not fit in with their traditional approach to evangelism. Remaining silent was not an option, for all mission societies were officially asked to respond in 1917, and in the case of Adventists there was additional urgency: apparently local frictions had exacerbated to the extent that there was danger that the China Continuation Committee or even international mission bodies officially declare Adventists personae non gratae.868 While the CCC secretary, Edwin C. Lobenstine, evidently viewed such attempts as unreasonable,869 he advised Adventists to exercise due caution in activities related to the comity issue. Moreover, Lobenstine and other mission functionaries urged Adventists to produce an official statement on comity as quickly as possible, ideally at their world headquarters.870 The question of how such a statement was to be created proved difficult.871 Those years were not exactly the ideal period for denominational decisions with 866 Report of the Special Committee on Comity Presented to the China Continuation Committee, Hangchow: Special Committee on Comity, 1917. The statement as such comprises seven pages. 867 R. Pierce Beaver, Ecumenical Beginnings in Protestant World Mission: A History of Comity, New York: Thomas Nelson, 1962, 123–124. Beaver’s global survey is the most comprehensive treatment of comity. For further details on comity in China, see ibid., 111– 133. 868 C. C. Crisler – J. G. White, November 17, 1918, GCA 21/1919/Comity. 869 Crisler reported that “Mr Lobenstein [sic] is favorably inclined toward our Mission Board” and that Milton T. Stauffer, another representative of the CCC who had visited him, explained “that in some parts of the interior, particularly in the province of Honan there are a considerable number of missionaries of limited education and of rather narrow views who seem to have an altogether wrong conception of our methods of work.” See ibid. 870 Ibid.; C. C. Crisler – E. C. Lobenstine, March 22, 1918, GCA 21/1919/Comity. 871 For a more detailed account of this process, see Stefan Höschele, “From Mission Comity to Interdenominational Relations: The Development of the Adventist Statement on Relationships with Other Christian Churches,” in Børge Schantz and Reinder Bruinsma

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

251

a global perspective. The war situation made it impossible for large numbers of delegates to attend the then quadrennial General Conference sessions in 1918. But missionary administrators in Asia did not want to decide alone and asked for counsel from the world body.872 In 1918, the former Asiatic Division was split into several smaller bodies, with the Eastern Asia Division administering China. Leaders in Eastern Asia continued to hope for advice from the General Conference leadership in Washington D.C., but when it did not arrive until early 1919, they ultimately felt the need to produce their own statement.873 By March the same year they had voted a text entitled “Our Relationship to Other Societies.” An examination of this statement874 reveals that it is an outstanding Adventist text of the period. In fact, it must be considered one of the most important 20th century statements made by Adventists: predating the Fundamental Beliefs of 1931 and composed only four years after Ellen White’s death, this is probably the first text of public significance from the era after the denominational founders. What, then, did it imply for Adventist interchurch relations? Since the statement mainly concerns the Adventist view of being church or part of the church and especially its mission, one would expect some explicit ecclesiology. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that the word “church” is used only in two paragraphs (2b, 2d), which deal with church membership and church employment, not more general ecclesiological issues. However, this scarcity of the term “church” is made up for by an impressive variety of other ecclesiological or quasi-ecclesiological terminology: “society,” “agency,” “communion,” “mission,” “religious affiliation,” “organization,” “denominational bodies,” “religious movements,” and “people.” This does not imply, as one may presume, a weak ecclesiology. To the contrary, the view of “Church” is very precise in this text: it is conceived as a missionary movement. This is why the “divine plan for the evangelization of the world” (1) is made the first point of reference and why all missionaries and mission organizations are viewed as being part of this plan. What counts for the authors is not so much some historically grown structure but God’s mission. Likewise, in the introductory explanation, the statement explains that it provides guidance for the “relationship to the work of other societies” for Ad(eds.), Exploring the Frontiers of Faith: Festschrift in Honour of Dr. Jan Paulsen, Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2010, 391–393. 872 J. S. James – Dear Brethren, September 18, 1917, GCA/21/1919/Comity. 873 I. H. Evans – A[rthur] G. Daniells, W. T. Knox, and J. L. Shaw, December 2, 1918, GCA 21/1918/Evans, I. H; C. C. Crisler – J. L. Shaw, March 19, 1919, GCA 21/1919/Crisler, C. C.; I. H. Evans – A[rthur] G. Daniells, March 20, 1919, GCA/21/Evans, I. H. 874 The full statement is printed on the following page and is also included in appendix II, where a synopsis with its last amended version (of 2005) is provided.

252

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

ventists workers; par. 2 also formulates, “Wherever the prosecution of the gospel work brings us into touch with other societies and their work;” 3a speaks about God’s “work for men,” and the whole statement ends with a reflection on “evangelistic work.”875 It is the church’s work, its mission, that is (almost overly) emphasized here. Church, therefore, is a process, it is ministry; the essence of church is mission. “Our Relationship to Other Societies,” Eastern Asia, 1919876 In the desire to avoid occasion for misunderstanding or friction in the matter of relationship to the work of other societies, we, the General Conference Committee of Seventh-day Adventists for the Far Eastern Division, submit the following statement for the guidance of workers in the division: 1. We recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ. 2. Wherever the prosecution of the gospel work brings us into touch with other societies and their work, the spirit of Christian courtesy, frankness, and fairness should at all times guide in dealing with mission problems; and in this matter we adopt the following principles and plan of operation: a. That we recognize that the essence of true religion is that religion is based upon conscience and conviction. It is therefore to be constantly our purpose that no selfish interest nor temporal advantages shall draw any person to our communion, and that no tie shall hold any member, save the belief and conviction that in this way he finds true connection with Christ. When change of conviction leads any member of our society to feel no longer in accord with us in faith and practice, we recognize not only his right but his duty to change his religious affiliation to accord with his belief. b. That before admitting to church membership any one who is a member of another church, every care be exercised to ascertain that the candidate is moved to change his religious affiliation only by force of religious conviction and out of regard to his personal relationship to his God; and that wherever possible, consultation be had with those in charge of the church or mission with which the applicant is connected. c. That persons under censure of another mission for clearly established fault in Christian morals or character shall not be considered eligible for membership in our mission until they have given evidence of repentance and reformation. d. That an agent employed or recently employed by another church or mission or other organization shall not be employed by our church or mission without preliminary consultation with the church or mission with which the agent is or was formerly connected. e. We advise that when setting salaries, the local mission auditing committees give consideration to the salaries paid by other missions operating in the same field.

875 Emphases all mine. 876 Earliest version in: W. A. Spicer – [J. L.] Shaw, March 21, 1919, GCA 21/1919/Spicer; first publication: RH, August 19, 1920, 5–6 (1061–1062).

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

253

3. As to the matter of territorial divisions and the restriction of operations to designated areas, our attitude must be shaped by these considerations: a. As in generations past, in the providence of God and the historical development of his work for men, denominational bodies and religious movements have arisen to give special emphasis to different phases of gospel truth, so we find in the origin and rise of the Seventh-day Adventist people, the burden laid upon us to emphasize the gospel of Christ’s second coming as an event ‘even at the door,’ calling for the proclamation of the special message of preparation of the way of the Lord as revealed in Holy Scripture. b. As this advent proclamation is described in Scripture prophecy, particularly as the revelation of Christ sets it forth in the terms of Revelation 14:6–14, it is commissioned that this special message of the ‘everlasting gospel’ which is to precede the coming of the Saviour shall be preached ‘to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.’ While this commission makes it impossible for us to restrict our witness to this phase of the gospel to any limited area, and impels us to call it to the attention of all peoples everywhere, our policy is to make the great masses of the people our special aim in evangelistic work.

With such a mission-driven ecclesiology, the Adventist view of other mission societies, denominations, organizations, and churches had to reflect the theology of mission that defined “church” for them: inasmuch as a movement participated in God’s mission, it was to be considered “Church.” The positive wording of the whole first paragraph is remarkable given the denomination’s apocalyptic heritage: “1. We recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ.” With such a recognition of missionary Christianity as part of God’s plan, which implied at least an implicit recognition of related bodies as “churches”877 and of other Christians as brothers and sisters,878 it was only logical that good relations were the principle to be pursued; any “misunderstanding or friction” was to be avoided.879 877 Par. 2b speaks about “a member of another church”. Presumably the ecclesiality of at least other Protestant denominations was never a matter of debate among Adventists precisely because “church” was not viewed mainly in an institutional manner but as a function of God’s mission, which could work in many, even non-institutional ways. 878 It is interesting to observe that the term “brother” surfaces in some of the correspondence between Adventist leaders and non-Adventist mission administrators. One example: In a letter related to the 1919 statement, J. L. Shaw wrote to E. C. Lobenstine, “We wish to assure you from the Mission Board side of our continuous desire to work harmoniously with our missionary brethren of other denominations. With them we wish to make Christ and his gospel known in every land.” J. L. Shaw – E. C. Lobenstine, August 13, 1919, GCA 21/1919/Comity. 879 This even referred to very practical matters: In case of converts or employees joining from other churches, consultation were to initiated between mission representatives regarding the genuineness of the conversion and for the sake of ensuring that persons under censure would not simply switch affiliation (2b–d). Even in financial affairs such as salaries, Adventists were to consider the practices of other missions (2e).

254

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

While “Our Relationship to Other Societies” tries to avoid Adventist jargon and, therefore, does not mention remnant ecclesiology, it does refer to Revelation 14 and its “special message” to “every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” thus implying elements of the peculiar Adventist self-understanding. Yet this way of self-presentation also indicated that the remnant motif was not the only defining mark of Adventist ecclesiology: the ecclesiological and ecumenical thinking of denominational representatives revolved around the two poles of an ellipsis containing the general mission of Christianity and the special mission of Adventism.880 This is why, besides affirming the peculiarities in the Adventist message, the statement could assume an enduring validity of the testimony of various denominational bodies that arose in “the historical development of his [God’s] work for men.” Behind this missionary ecclesiology and its ecumenical consequences lay a very pronounced anthropology linked to a distinct view of God, visible in a key word in the text: “conviction.” Appearing four times in the statement,881 it aptly summarizes the Adventist approach to faith and to the human nature in that epoch. Most striking is the rather clumsy affirmation, “we recognize that the essence of true religion is that religion is based upon conscience and conviction.” This pronouncement combined sentiments regarding the virtue of honesty, the tradition of religious liberty, a theology of God’s personal call, and a peculiar concept of a free will. While space does not allow an elaboration of all of these, the anthropological significance of this mode of thinking is clear: the individual is utterly responsible for his choices. This is also why, in line with Radical Reformation thought, a change of religious affiliation, whether in joining or leaving the Adventist movement or any other religious group, was considered a matter of purely individual conviction, of someone’s “personal relationship to his [!] God” (2b).882 The background of this text is of great interest not only because earlier drafts indicate a considerable variety of opinion: the statement would later also become the Adventist standard in interchurch encounters of all kinds. In a way, this is not surprising, for at that time the denomination did not have a confession of faith, 880 This is why the statement ends with an attempt at balanced reasoning regarding the consequence for Adventist mission (3b): “While this commission makes it impossible for us to restrict our witness to this phase of the gospel to any limited area, … our policy is to make the great masses of the people our special aim in evangelistic work.” 881 And one more time in the introduction to the statement in RH, August 19, 1920, 5–6 (1061– 1062). 882 Similarly, the introduction to the text in the Review and Herald version praises the statement as helpful “to keep the church free from uninstructed persons who may easily drift from one society to another without real conviction.” This element of a realistic anthropology is found in the main text as well when it states that “no selfish interest nor temporal advantages shall draw any person to our communion.”

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

255

an organizational working policy and well-formulated guidelines or traditions that would later be incorporated into the Church Manual. Any reasonable sufficiently well-known text was, therefore, a likely candidate for future use, in spite of the fact that the intention of its use was initially strictly limited to its region of origin.883 Its two antecedents shed light upon the intra-Adventist discussion and positions at the period, and elucidate how far missionaries were ready to go in cooperating with other Protestants. The Asiatic Division’s “Comity Declaration” draft of 1917884 is highly significant because it is the immediate precursor of the 1919 statement and received input of Arthur G. Daniells, the denomination’s General Conference president. Altogether, more than half of the text is similar to the 1919 version as far as ideas are concerned, even if the wording differs significantly. The main thrust is also closely related: recognition of other mission societies and missionaries, good Adventist relations to them, practical advice regarding converts from other churches, and no “dividing of mission territory into denominational areas.” What is missing in the 1917 draft is the whole discussion of “conviction” and an exposition of the Adventist view on salvation history. In fact, one could even argue that there is nothing in the text that marks it as being Seventh-day Adventist in any way.885 By way of contrast, the “Statement on Comity” of the India Union Mission886 is presumably an immediate response to the Daniells draft and could actually be termed “Statement on Non-Comity.” While congratulating other missionary societies and mission pioneers, it rejects comity in the second paragraph, emphasizes “the Church’s duty to preach the special gospel messages of Revelation 14:6–14 to the people of every nation,” and affirms that “we feel it to be our duty also to make known these truths to our fellow-Christians of whatsoever race in

883 W[illiam] A. Spicer – [J.L.] Shaw, March 21, 1919, GCA 21/1919/Spicer, W. A. Spicer, then the General Conference Secretary, had been attending the meetings in China that voted the text and was involved in finalizing the draft. Cf. also J. S. James – Dear Brethren, September 18, 1917, GCA/21/1919/Comity. 884 See appendix II. The draft was enclosed in J. S. James – Dear Brethren, September 18, 1917, GCA/21/1919/Comity. This text was not published at that time and was presumably not used in the context of missionary work, although there is a possibility that a similar text was used by the North China Union Mission: the North China comity declaration referred to in related correspondence has not been found. 885 The only hint at Adventist concerns is the formulation that “our conception of the great gospel commission, and of the purpose and message of God for this generation, prevents us from co-operating with others in any plan for dividing mission territory.” 886 “Statement on Comity,” November 17, 1917, GCA 21/1919/Comity. The full statement is found in appendix II.

256

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

every mission field and in every Christian land.” The only field of cooperation envisioned in this fairly unsophisticated text is church discipline.887 The rapid ascent of the 1919 statement from a regional text produced to satisfy the potentially threatening Protestant environment to an official policy of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination worldwide by 1926888 demonstrates that the need of a clear position was keenly felt even in regions beyond China, and that the Adventist leadership sensed that the principles incorporated in this declaration were valid elsewhere as well. The text underwent slight changes much later, in the last quarter of the 20th century,889 most notably in the title: “Our Relationship to Other Societies” became “Relationship to Other Religious Organizations” in 1977 and, finally, “Relationships with Other Christian Churches and Religious Organizations” in 1988. One can notice, therefore, a broadening horizon and a more definite relevancy for interchurch relations, which is also visible in the fact that the text was quoted in most of the major instances of later Adventist theological dialogues.890 Nevertheless, the main thrust of the statement remained and continued to reflect the missionary situation of the early 20th century.891

4.2.4 Institutionalized Cooperation in the 1930s and 1940s How did this official positioning translate into actual relationships of Adventists with other missionary sending bodies and with associations coordinating missionary work? In this period, the most relevant organizations of this kind were the Foreign Missions Conference of North America (FMCNA) and the International Missionary Council (IMC). The FMCNA had been founded in 1893 to serve as a 887 This was to be done by “receiving into our communion only such persons as we believe give evidence of true conversion and who share our convictions concerning present truth” (ibid.). 888 For details, see Höschele, “From Mission Comity to Interdenominational Relations,” 394– 395. The reason for this rise in importance is mainly that in 1926 the Seventh-day Adventist Church produced its first General Conference Working Policy, in which various rules and regulations were made binding for the denomination’s governing body and its global operations. 889 These are discussed in ibid., 395–397. 890 Notable instances were the book Questions on Doctrine (cf. 5.1.1), the WCC-SDA dialogue (see the latter part of 5.1) and the Lutheran-Adventist bilateral conversations, 1994–1998 (5.3.1). For references and a discussion, see Höschele, “From Mission Comity to Interdenominational Relations,” 397–398. 891 The denomination’s Global Mission Issues Committee prepared a thoroughly reworked draft in the 1990s (entitled “Our Mission and Other Christians”), but this text was not voted by the General Conference Administrative Committee. The full text is included in appendix II and in Bruce L. Bauer (ed.), Adventist Responses to Cross-Cultural Mission: Global Mission Issues Committee Papers, Vol. I: 1998–2001, Berrien Springs: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2006, 176–177.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

257

coordinating platform of Protestant American mission societies. Its aims were to organize annual conferences, to establish committees for specific missionary problems, to strengthen the common cause in representing missionary boards as a whole and to promote mission studies. Theological questions were not on the agenda, and there were good reasons for excluding them. Debates of a theological nature would have ended nowhere, for the organization reflected almost the whole breadth of American Protestantism in the early 1920s – young denominations with fundamentalist leanings, the largest missions such as Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists, but also African American mission organizations, Pentecostals and even Universalists.892 Thus Seventh-day Adventists would have easily fitted in with this diverse crowd. Yet apparently they did not become an FMCNA member until the 1930s,893 when the “Daniells-Spicer era” came to an end.894 These two missionary statesmen had dominated the denominational leadership for three decades and actively participated in transforming the North America-focused church into a global enterprise. In doing so, they aimed at both building on the heritage of the denomination’s founders and pragmatically translating it for the first generation after their death. However, their period of leadership, which was still characterized by a considerable degree of pioneer charisma, did not lend itself to thorough involvement with interdenominational organizations. It was during their years that the Adventist course of cautious cooperation combined with free missionary operations was charted, and it seemed natural to uphold a certain distance from non-Adventist organizations. Yet the first steps toward later significant involvement with the FMCNA895 happened precisely during their time.896 Around 1920, the British government 892 Cecil M. Robeck, “The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Cooperation, 1920–1965,” in Wonsuk Ma and Robert Menzies (eds.), Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 11, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997, 110–112. 893 The exact beginning of SDA membership could not be ascertained, but the fact that the denominational leadership advised withdrawal in 1950 after significant involvement in committees since the 1930s allows the inference that membership started around that time. 894 The dissertation by Bruce Bauer, “Congregational and Mission Structures and How the Seventh-day Adventist Church Has Related to Them,” D.Miss. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983, 146–192, provides the background for this move by analysing Adventist missionary structures and administration in this period. This era began 1901, when Arthur G. Daniells was elected General Conference president and William A. Spicer began to serve as General Conference secretary. They swapped offices in 1922, and both served until 1930. 895 This closer alignment even had a few parallels; the denomination’s General Conference Secretariat, i. e. its major missionary sending organization, “had harmonious and broadly cooperative relationships … with inter-church missionary bodies and other Protestant churches’ mission boards” according to Ashlee L. Chism, David J. B. Trim, and Michael F. Younker, “We Aim at Nothing Less than the Whole World”: The Seventh-day Adventist

258

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

demanded that mission boards adopt declarations “regarding work in British territories and the attitude of missionaries toward teaching loyalty to the powers that be.”897 Since the Foreign Missions Conference represented most Protestant missions, some degree of cooperation with this organization seemed a logical step to take.898 In the following years, Adventists further developed a positive perspective on the FMCNA,899 from the early 1930s, Adventists regularly attended the organization’s meetings,900 and by the mid-1930s, when the denomination had become an FMCNA member, SDA delegates appear as members of various subcommittees.901 Somewhat surprisingly, the war years saw Adventist participation rise to a maximum, with additional denominational delegates contributing to the Moslem committee, East Asia committee, Medical committee,902 and, ultimately, fully seven committees, including financial commitments to their activities.903

896

897 898

899

900

901 902 903

Church’s Missionary Enterprise and the General Conference Secretariat, 1863–2019, General Conference Archives Monographs 1, Silver Spring: General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, 2021, 180. For references and details beyond the FMCNA, see ibid., 200, footnote 28. There are traces of Adventists attending FMCNA meetings as “delegates” already in 1917 (two of the four being Arthur G. Daniells and William A. Spicer), but it appears membership was not an issue at that time; see Folder Foreign Missions Conference, GCA/21/ 1917–1950/Subject Folders. This was the Adventist interpretation of the British demands; see GCC Minutes, January 19, 1920, GCA. Ibid. Adventists had been listed in FMCNA yearbooks even earlier, but it is unlikely that this listing alone indicates an actual working relationship. Cf. Burton St. John (ed.), Foreign Missions Year Book of North America, 1919, New York: Committee of Reference and Counsel, FMCNA, 1919. In 1921, minutes indicate an appropriation to the FMCNA “to aid in maintaining the Missionary Review of the World” (GC Committee Informal Meeting, February 17, 1921, GCA); and there are further instances of correspondence indicating cooperation in 1926, 1928, 1929, and regularly from 1930 onward (GCA 21/1917–1950 Subject Folders). The General Conference Officers’ Meeting / General Conference Officers’ Council minutes (GCOM, 1930–1982) are a veritable treasure trove of details on such interactions. This informal meeting prepared larger committee meetings and often discussed delicate questions. For an FMCNA meeting attended by Ernst Kotz in 1931, see GCOM, May 12, 1931, GCA; for further meetings see sections in December 1931, November 1932, December 1933, November 1936, 1938, 1939, and further on until the 1950s. In 1936, Adventist C. K. Meyers had already been serving on the Africa Committee of the FMCNA for an unknown time; Ernest D. Dick was to replace him. See GCOM, December 9, 1936, GCA. GCOM, July 19, 1939; GCOM, September 23, 1940; GCOM, December 21, 1942, GCA. In addition to those mentioned above, these also included the India, Rural Missions, and Literacy and Literature committees. Except for the Christian Medical Council (formerly Medical committee), Adventists were represented by two members in each of these committees; see GCC Minutes, November 30, 1944, GCA. For contributions made, see GCOM, December 6, 1942, GCA.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

259

How far Adventists were ready to go in their relationships with fellow missionaries is visible in the same war period. Through their contributions to the subcommittees and because of their global activities, Adventists had apparently become a fairly respected part of the North American Protestant missionary community.904 In the religious liberty905 and medical lines, cooperative activities fitted in well with the denominational mission strategy; thus active support of the interdenominational Vellore Medical School in South India was deemed natural.906 Similarly, increased personal and congregational interaction with FMCNA representatives907 indicated that on the level of mission, Adventists were more ready to open up to Christians of other traditions than in general. At the same time, these interactions also demonstrate where the line between cordiality and actual cooperation passed. Respect, mutual assistance in technical and organizational matters, listening to each other: all this fitted in with SDA ecumenical sentiments. Anything beyond such low-level collaboration could not evoke Adventist enthusiasm of any kind. Projects such as a plan to unite the pastoral ministry of Protestants in Liberia908 and the pooling of financial resources for the erection of church buildings in areas affected by World War II909 were clearly outside of the scope of what they deemed proper interdenominational activities. In the long run, this restrained approach coupled with the overall friendly relations would lead to a situation in which Adventist contributions to, and participation in, the ministry of the FMCNA did not seem fully consistent any904 After an FMCNA Convention on Africa in 1942, an Adventist participant, J. F. Wright, reported discussions and resolutions “of a nature to be extremely interesting to Seventh-day Adventists,” and denominational leaders stated with a sense of satisfaction that “it was particularly encouraging to know that the work of Seventh-day Adventists in general is held in very high esteem by the leadership of other denominations.” See GCOM, July 12, 1942, GCA. 905 Cf. an increased appropriation to religious liberty activities of the FMCNA in 1945; see GCOM, April 6, 1945, GCA. 906 GCOM, January 23, 1944, GCA. The reasoning was also that later Adventist medical ministry and training could benefit from such positive relationships. Money was donated to Vellore, and a possible visit of the famous founder, Dr. Ida Scudder, to the Adventist Theological Seminary, was anticipated; see GCOM, September 27, 1944, GCA. 907 Emory Ross, a former Disciples missionary to the Congo, was invited to meet with the General Conference officers in November 1942, spoke to the students at the nearby Adventist Theological Seminary, and addressed the Sligo church, the leading Adventist congregation near the denomination’s world headquarters (GCOM, September 30, 1942; GCOM, October 14, 1942, GCA). Although this was a morning meeting, it is not clear whether he actually preached (non-Adventists were generally not accepted for sermons in Adventist churches) or delivered another type of speech. For a similar instance in the same year, when Presbyterian missionaries were to speak to appointees for missionary service in Muslim-dominated countries, see GCOM, December 27, 1942, GCA. 908 GCOM, March 29, 1944, GCA. 909 GCOM, January 13, 1947, GCA.

260

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

more. However, attempts at further reducing the felt distance did not succeed: a proposed “appointment to study plans of cooperation between the General Conference and the Foreign Missions Conference” proposed by the FMCNA was courteously declined in 1945.910 A contributing factor was presumably that since 1944 there had been talk of the FMCNA becoming part of what was to be a newly constituted National Christian Council.911 This was a development that Adventists viewed with some degree of apprehension, for this successor organization of the Federal Council of Churches reminded them of the Sunday law activities that the latter had initiated in its early period.912 When, finally, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA formed in 1950 and the FMCNA joined this organization as its Division of Foreign Missions (DFM), the Adventist leadership, like leaders of the Southern Baptists,913 felt it had to alter their relationship to this organization – although not without discussing the issue at length.914 The appertaining General Conference Committee action is quoted here at length because it exemplifies the thinking of denominational leaders at the period in a very accurate manner: Whereas, It is advisable that we avoid any form of union which might result in restraining the full proclamation of the message we feel called upon to bear to all the world, or that would identify this denomination with any movement among the churches involving any program, or pressure on government, or any public pronouncement with which we could not be in accord; and Whereas, Full membership in the Division [i. e. the DFM], while promising complete autonomy to member boards and agencies would nevertheless have the effect of linking this denomination with the National Council; and Whereas, It would be desirable to maintain some form of contact with the Division of Foreign Missions so as to keep in touch with the general missionary movement among 910 GCOM, July 1, 1945, GCA. 911 GCOM, June 15, 1944, GCA. Cf. also “Items of Interest,” RH, May 2, 1946, 1946, 2. In this short note, the leading Adventist paper reports that the FMCNA voted to “take final action in 1948 on the question of joining the proposed National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States”. 912 Cf. the section on the Sunday law movement above (4.1.2). 913 Cf. Raymond O. Ryland, “A Study in Ecumenical Isolation: The Southern Baptist Convention,” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1969, 81–83. 914 In April the same year, considerations in the “Officers’ Meeting” sounded as if continued membership in the Foreign Missions Conference were the better option; see GCOM, April 17 and 23, 1950, GCA. The latter minutes included a note that “should the Foreign Missions Conference become a member of the National Council of Churches, we would continue our present relationship with the Foreign Missions Conference as a division of the organization.” However, in May, the General Conference Committee appointed a “committee … to investigate possibilities, and make recommendation … relative to our future relationship to the Foreign Missions Conference” (GCC Minutes, May 8, 1950, GCA). This committee evidently recommended a more diffident course of action.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

261

Protestants as well as to avail ourselves of the special services supplied by that organization; and Whereas, Our denomination has always been interested in the opportunity for consultation rather than in planning for and participating in work on the field with other bodies; therefore We recommend, That the General Conference notify the Division of Foreign Missions that we are herewith regretfully withdrawing from membership in the Division on the present basis, and that we request that relationship be established with the Division of Foreign Missions on the basis of a “consultant board.”915

This action is important in several respects. (1) It demonstrates that membership in the FMCNA had been a balancing act between denominational interests, a Protestant identity and uneasiness about more fully ecumenical moves. (2) Active Adventist interchurch relations at the period were the exception rather than the rule. It was mission that justified such activities; wherever ecumenism became an end in itself or seemed to do so, the denomination’s leaders changed down a gear. (3) The overriding principle of Adventist interactions with other Christian traditions was that of general distance combined with alliances in case of mutual benefit. The fact that the Adventist involvement in the FMCNA was rarely publicized916 indicates that it did not fully arise from a theological or principled basis but was mainly a matter of pragmatic considerations. The fact that such pragmatism was possible implies that no non-relations policy existed among Adventists, and that separatism did not, at least not explicitly, assume a dogmatic structure, as was the case in the fundamentalist circles around Carl McIntire that had much influence among Evangelicals at the time.917 The SDA act of balancing positions took place inside the denomination, not in exchange with the larger Evangelical fold. In the absence of a vocal opposition to decisions on such issues, it was, therefore, relatively easy for the denominational leaders to define the direction. The consequences of the Adventist withdrawal were remarkably insignificant. The change of their relationship with the FMCNA-turned-DFM implied, of course, no more membership in committees, but involvement in them was carried

915 GCC Minutes, June 8, 1950, GCA; this action was discussed and adopted as well in the “Officers’ Meeting”; see GCOM, June 26, 1950, GCA. 916 “Items of Interest,” RH, May 2, 1946, 2, is one of the few references to the FMCNA in the denominational paper. The only instance in which Adventist membership in the organization is mentioned that could be identified so far is found in a context of SDA criticism of ecumenical trends; see Thomas J. Michael, “Trends Toward Union of Protestant Churches,” Ministry 18.3 (1945), 3–4, 46, here 3. 917 Cf. Shelley Baranowski, “Carl McIntire,” in Charles H. Lippy (ed.), Twentieth-Century Shapers of American Popular Religion, Westport: Greenwood, 1989, 256–263.

262

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

on,918 appropriations did not cease,919 services were still rendered to SDA missionaries and missionary administration, Adventist delegates continued to attend meetings,920 and altogether the denomination’s restrained ecumenism persisted. A similar pattern is seen in the Adventist leadership’s interactions with the International Missionary Council.921 This organization, which owed its existence to initiatives at the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference in 1910, began operations in 1921, and the first major meeting that SDA delegates attended was a 1926 conference on Christian mission in Africa held in Le Zoute, Belgium.922 Adventist involvement remained on a low level, and attendance both at the 1928 meeting in Jerusalem and the third international missionary conference at Tambaram in 1938 did not work out.923 A few Adventists did attend smaller conferences, however,924 and some IMC initiatives were supported925 while others, especially the explicitly unitive ones, were deemed outside of denominational 918 GCOM, November 12, 1952, GCA. In 1957 Adventists J. A. Buckwalter and T. R. Flaiz prepared a chapter for a book of the Medical Department of the DFM; see GCOM, October 7, 1957, GCA. 919 The “consultant board” setup continued in the following decades, and the GCC Minutes, October 15, 1974, GCA, still list donations to various “Area Departments” (the successors of the FMCNA committees) and the general administration of the DFM. 920 GCOM, June 26, 1950; GCOM, November 5, 1951, GCA. Among the new ventures of the NCCCUSA in which Adventists participated (at least in the 1950s) was the Protestant National Radio Commission; see GCOM, January 5, 1949, GCA. 921 For a comprehensive historical account that stresses the ecumenical role of the IMC, see William R. Hogg, Ecumenical Foundations: A History of the International Missionary Council and Its Nineteenth-Century Background, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952. 922 Adventists participants were W. H. Anderson, W. E. Read, and C. K. Meyers; see Edwin W. Smith, The Christian Mission in Africa: A Study Based on the Work of the International Conference at Le Zoute, Belgium, September 14th to 2lst, 1926, London: International Missionary Council, 1926, 181. Adventists had asked for three more delegates to be admitted, but apparently this was not granted; see folder 1926 African Missions Conference in Belgium, GCA/21/1917–1950/Subject Folders. Nevertheless, it appears that these three finally attended without “right of speech or vote”; see B. E. B. – W. H. Anderson, June 20, 1926, GCA/ 21/1926-African Mission Conference in Belgium. 923 With regard to Tambaram, the information on conference details was apparently not presented to the respective denominational committee early enough, although initially one SDA delegate had been authorized to attend (it had originally been planned to take place in China, but this was changed because of war there). When Adventist interest was expressed, the list of participants was already closed (GCOM, September 18, 1938; GCOM, September 25, 1938, GCA). It appears that Adventists also did not attend the smaller post-World War II missionary conferences in Whitby 1947 and in Willingen 1952 (there are only few passing references to reports of these meetings in church magazines and no allusion to any participant), most probably because they had different priorities after the traumatic war events, and possibly because they were not invited. 924 GCOM, November 20, 1933; GCOM, September 18, 1935, GCA. 925 See, e. g., GCOM, December 11, 1935, GCA, on the issue of religious minorities’ rights in Ethiopia.

Cooperating so that Christ Can Come?

263

interests.926 Thus even in the interactions with the IMC a very hesitant ecumenism emerges as the general picture of Adventism in its post-pioneer generation. This intermediate period – the years between the denominational founders’ death and the first involvement in theological dialogues – is of interest regarding SDA interchurch relations in several respects. Probably it is the period of which least is known so far; one looks in vain for any study or publication which addresses these decades. Yet precisely in this phase Adventism developed a stance on issues for which there was no precedent. By translating earlier positions and traditions into new situations, the denomination’s leaders framed the structure of later Adventist ecumenical patterns. While there was apparently little development in terms of a theology of interchurch relations, this consolidation of the founders’ sentiments on Christian unity was mainly catalysed by experience: in this case, the experience that other (Protestant) Christians’ missionary service resembles Adventist mission in many ways. Such a similarity could not be ignored in the long run. On the other hand, the fact that the modern Ecumenical Movement was still in its early stages implied that its internal developments – mainly in the institutional realm, but also in terms of theological emphasis – could also influence the Adventist course of action, as is visible in their departure from the FMCNA. In this respect, one can note that Adventist ecumenical thinking in this era was, to a significant extent, reactive: applying the denominational heritage, i. e. what was considered the church’s “message,” to contextual demands entailed the necessity to respond to developments in the real world and fitting these into the Adventist framework of interpreting history. What is interesting in these common dynamics of denominational theologizing is the similarity and difference with Adventism’s closest relatives, the Evangelicals, and particularly one peripheral group among them that represented an important analogy to Adventists: the Assemblies of God. Like Adventists, this young denomination joined the FMCNA, remained critical of some of its activities, and thus embodied the sceptical stance vis-à-vis ecumenical ventures typical of most Evangelicals at the time.927 A comparison of the Assemblies’ involvement with Adventists shows that the latter participated much more actively (by being members in subcommittees). The Assemblies of God would later move closer towards the National Association of Evangelicals 926 One example is a plan for cooperation in post-war Japan: the IMC suggested a “cooperative basis and not on an individual denominational basis” for Protestant operations; Adventists declined the invitation to participate. See GCOM, May 26, 1943, GCA. Likewise in 1945, Adventists turned down a general budget request from the IMC; see GCOM, April 6, 1945, GCA. 927 For a very detailed account, see Robeck, “The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Cooperation, 1920–1965.”

264

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

(NAE),928 which, however, led to conflicts with separatist voices of the Evangelical Movement because minimal cooperation with the DFM continued.929 By way of contrast, Adventists would remain as aloof from Evangelical organizations as from other institutionalized ecumenisms. The Adventist post-World War I generation, therefore, charted an ecumenical course of its own. It appeared very similar to the guarded and critical Evangelical positions but differed from the Fundamentalists’ rigidly separatist stance. Its largely pragmatic steps reveal both the inherent flexibility in Adventist operations and thinking and the limits that the movement’s ideological strictures applied to interchurch activities. In all of these, the denomination’s missionary self-image remained the crucial factor: whenever the church’s end-time mission seemed to be furthered by other movements, association with them appeared possible or even desirable. In this respect, Adventists had unconsciously but unambiguously begun to pursue an alliance type of unity – different from the 19th century, when organic union thinking dominated the denominational discourse, with spiritual unity notions lurking underneath this prevailing conception. Now Sabbath keepers were no longer the only possible allies. More radical types of cooperation were to be rejected, as the withdrawal from the DFMto-be indicated, but limited partnerships could always be entered. Christian unity, thus, lost some of its earlier eschatologically motivated definiteness for Adventists but thereby gained a degree of realism that would continue to accompany them in the following generations.

4.3

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

4.3.1 Contacts with the Incipient Ecumenical Movement930 For the Ecumenical Movement, the first half of the 20th century was a period when earlier initiatives, experiments, voluntary movements and unitive concepts converged931 and came to a climax in the formation of national Christian 928 Thomas F. Zimmerman, the Assemblies’ General Superintendent in the USA, was elected president of the National Association in 1960. 929 Robeck, “The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Cooperation, 1920–1965,” 132–148. 930 After finishing the manuscript as a habilitation thesis, this section was published as part of my article “From Detachment to Conversation: Early Adventist Interactions with the World Council of Churches,” Spes Christiana 25–30 (2014–2019), 201–228 (this section containing pp. 201–210). Copyright: author. 931 The standard overview of the preceding phase in America is still Donald H. Yoder, “Christian Unity in Nineteenth-Century America,” in Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 221–259. His discussion demonstrates that many ideas and unitive strategies that gained prominence in the later Ecumenical Movement had already been

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

265

councils932 and, finally, the World Council of Churches. As heterogeneous as the movement was when it began, it soon swept the Protestant landscape, included some Orthodox individuals and churches and would ultimately become a significant part of Roman Catholic thinking and activities as well. With their separatist heritage but a global vision, Adventists could evidently not ignore the various strands of ecumenism that developed in these decades. But answering the questions of how they should interact with the proponents of more visible Christian unity, what Adventist involvement in these initiatives should look like, and whether the entire scope of ecumenical activities was to be viewed with suspicion, needed considerable discussion. The denomination’s point of departure with regard to unitive ecumenism was utmost scepticism. This attitude was based on a double foundation: (1) the experience of Sunday advocates in America organizing themselves into political pressure groups in the late 19th century and (2) the longing to see the parousia and the preceding “last-day events” become reality. Since the Adventist interpretation of these events included the persecution of true Sabbath keepers, plans of Sunday keeping Christians to establish more unity indicated to them that the Sunday law experiences of the 1880s and 1890s could be repeated at any time, thus implying that Christ’s Second Coming was at hand. It is largely with this peculiar interpretative grid of their unique apocalypticism that Adventist leaders would evaluate ecumenical developments in the period. When the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (FCC) formed shortly after the turn of the century,933 Adventists immediately assumed that the oppression of minorities was coming back in the name of Protestant unity.934 In their reasoning even the federation principle was wrong; any attempt of religious forces allying to secure a majority or to form a pressure group was a deviation

discussed or experimented with; some became part of the ecumenical mainstream, others developed a life of their own or evolved into alternative ecumenisms: e. g. revivalism, new denominations with an emphasis on Christian unity, missionary cooperation, intercommunion and a “Plan of Union” between Presbyterians and Congregationalists (1801–1852), which finally did not work out. Moreover, “return ecumenism” was visible in the idea of an Episcopalian theorist of unity that his Protestant Episcopal Church was “the Comprehensive Church” to absorb other denominations. Finally, a host of interdenominational societies with religious and social reform aims constituted ecumenical spheres in their own right. 932 Yoder, “Christian Unity in Nineteenth-Century America,” 252, appropriately calls this development “The Triumph of Federal Union.” 933 On the general history of the FCC, see John A. Hutchinson, We Are Not Divided: A Critical and Historical Study of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, New York: Round Table Press, 1941. 934 “The Federal Council of Churches,” RH, December 31, 1908, 3–4, and January 7, 1909, 3–4; K. C. Russell and W. A. Colcord, “Nearing the Final Crisis,” RH, January 21, 1909, 17–18.

266

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

from the gospel.935 Moreover, the fact that Sunday sanctification was among the issues to be considered by the Federal Council led Adventist thought leaders to the conclusion that this was the hidden (or even the not-so-hidden but predominant) agenda of the “Federation Movement.”936 Altogether, the entire project seemed to dilute Protestant principles and entice its representatives to lean toward Roman Catholicism,937 a charge which amounted – for Adventist leaders – to apostasy.938 In this framework, Adventist membership in the Federal Council was evidently inconceivable. The denomination’s general approach to this precursor of other national Christian councils remained characterized by a mixture of suspicion, rejection and distance.939 This does not mean that Adventists let FCC conferences pass unnoticed; at least in the 1940s, observers were regularly sent to general assemblies as well as to some subcommittees.940 Moreover, some degree of SDAFCC cooperation was possible in welfare activities: after World War II, such common initiatives directed at European countries actually worked very smoothly.941 But altogether, the understanding of faith promoted by FCC leaders

935 See George B. Thompson, “The Great Federation Movement: Is It on Right Principles?,” ST, September 11, 1907, 5, and the entire special issue The Great Federation Movement, ST, September 11, 1907, with several other articles on “The Federation Movement.” 936 Cf. Osarasa [sic], “The Sunday Movement the Central Theme,” ST, September 18, 1907, 4, and Asa O. Tait, “The Object of the Federation Movement,” ST, September 18, 1907, 3–4. 937 [Milton C. Wilcox,] “Roman Catholics and Church Federation,” ST, July 8, 1908, 8, 5. 938 Similar lines of reasoning are found in two books of Alonzo T. Jones, Church Federation and the Kingdom of God: Under Which King?, n.p.: privately printed, 1910, and The Reformation, 14th–16th Century: What It Meant Then; What It Means Now, n.p.: privately printed, 1913. Jones – a crucial protagonist of Adventism’s theological turn towards a renewed sola gratia understanding in 1888 – was no longer a church member at the time of publishing these books, but his reasoning remained typically Adventist and was built on a radical understanding of religious liberty. 939 Cf. the unsigned article “Menacing Federal Council Trends,” Ministry 12.5 (1939), 36–37. Here the author quotes an article of another religious paper, Christian Life and Faith, which claimed that the “direct effect” of the FCC “has been division in many churches” and that it implied “anti-Christian attitudes and activities” (36). Added are charges of communism and dissatisfaction over the FCC’s attempt at controlling Christian radio programmes in the country (37). 940 See GCC Minutes, October 29, 1941 (C. B. Haynes was sent to the FCC National Service Board), January 1, 1945, and November 22, 1948, GCA (various individuals attended general FCC meetings). The most positive trace of such interaction is found in an article by T. J. Michael, “Listening in on the Cleveland Convention,” Ministry 18.3 (1943), 5–6, 46. Michael rejoiced that SDA mission activities were publicly mentioned as exemplary because of their global nature (5). 941 One example is an FCC welfare programme for Italy; like other churches from among the ecumenical sceptics (mentioned were the Southern Baptists), Adventists were represented by FCC and FMC agents, and apparently this mission was successful. See GCC Minutes, January 16 and June 25, 1945, GCA.

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

267

appeared so different from their interpretation of the biblical message942 that Adventists could only note a situation of general incompatibility.943 As the director of the religious liberty department of the Adventist General Conference (the official most immediately responsible for interchurch contacts at the time), Frank Yost, put it in 1948: the denomination had “not been refused membership; it has never asked for it.”944 It is not surprising that SDA representatives renewed their interest in the development of the FCC during the late 1940s. Public attention to ecumenical matters was at a high point anyway, especially in North America. The Federal Council had announced plans to be moulded into a new and more broad-based organization, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States (NCCCUSA). It was to absorb several analogous organizations representing educational, missionary, and diaconical interests of American churches by 1950. Moreover, with the official establishment of the World Council of Churches in 1948, a new ecumenical era had evidently begun. For Adventists, however, this new era seemed like a fulfilment of prophecies to which they had referred for several generations. Yost’s comments on the move towards a National Council are illuminating: he emphasized that the “formation of an ‘image to the beast’ ” in Revelation 13 “seems to us to require a uniting of churches”945 who would then proceed to oppress and persecute those who do not participate in their united course of action. His reasoning found support in the “threefold union” quotation from Ellen White’s Great Controversy that predicted that Protestants, Catholics and Spiritualists will form a coalition.946 942 In an interesting unpublished comment on an FCC document in 1941 (entitled “The Present Summons to a Larger Evangelism: A Message to the Churches”), the then General Conference President James L. McElhany noted the good spirit of emphasizing evangelism but bemoaned that the document does not interpret “the things that are taking place in the world as being the fulfilment of prophecy, nor as pointing to the coming of the Lord”; see GCC Minutes, April 14, 1943, GCA. 943 A 1946 Master’s thesis presented an attempt at evaluating the history of the FCC and concluded, “[t]hat the Federal Council has violated the historic American principle of separation of church and state is evident.” See John J. Robertson, “The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America: Its Contact with Civic and Secular Affairs,” M.A. thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1946, 100. This thesis, which was supervised by Frank Yost (see the following footnote), focuses on the issue of church-state separation and does not contain explicit Adventist reflections except in the end, where “Bible prophecy” is mentioned as a point of reference regarding “an intermingling of civil and religious powers in the United States” (109). 944 Frank H. Yost, “New Drive for Church Unity,” Ministry 23.6 (1948), 19. 945 Ibid. 946 “The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of Spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience.” Ibid., quoting White, The Great

268

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

The line of reasoning employed by Yost is remarkable. Not only did it aptly summarize Adventist feelings two generations after these words had been written by the movement’s prophet. His thought merits closer inspection also because he emphasized that in actual fact, Adventists were much in favour of a united Christianity, “not advocates of disunity.” In a precipitous turn of argument, he affirmed, “[w]e are very sympathetic with the efforts made by the Disciples of Christ, under the leadership of Alexander Campbell, a century and a quarter ago, to rally all Christendom into a great Christian union.” Adventists, asserted Yost, “have no desire to see perpetuated the differences in belief and practice existing between Presbyterians, Baptists, Adventists, Roman Catholics, and/or any other churches.” Yet he deemed the method of uniting Christians by forming broadbased councils problematic. According to him, the eschatological people of God was to be “one church – the united body of Christ,” but true unity was only to “be found on Bible terms,”947 which evidently meant a dogmatic basis more fully in line with Adventist theology. With this background of scepticism regarding federal types of Christian unity, it was to be anticipated that Seventh-day Adventists would observe parallel developments on a global scale with an apprehension that made them decline the invitation to membership in the World Council of Churches. This does not mean that the choice of staying aloof was a course of action without alternative; after all, the exact shape of the WCC and types of participation were all subject to discussion in its early stages. However, Adventists clearly lacked the taste for ventures that entailed a challenge to their apocalyptic orientation – or that seemed to fulfil a certain part of the prophetic scenario they believed to lie before them. The denomination’s communications in the pre-history of the World Council confirm this general orientation but reveal noteworthy variations of the theme. Apparently no Adventist delegates participated in the 1927 Lausanne meeting of the World Conference on Faith and Order.948 However, Arthur S. Maxwell, editor of the British SDA paper Present Truth, attended as a journalist. Maxwell Controversy Between Christ and Satan, Oakland: Pacific Press, 1888, 588 (identical wording and page in the 1911 version). Interestingly, the formulation in the 1884 Great Controversy quoted above differed slightly; it actually expressed this prophecy in more definite terms (“Protestantism will yet stretch her hand across the gulf”), and in 1892, Ellen White even stated that this event is currently taking place: “Protestantism is now reaching hands across the gulf to clasp hands with papacy, and a confederacy is being formed to trample out of sight the Sabbath of the fourth commandment” (An Appeal to Our Ministers and Conference Committees, Special Testimonies, Series A, 1892, 38, quoted from the CD-ROM Ellen White Writings [2008]). 947 Yost, “New Drive for Church Unity,” 20. 948 There is also no SDA response in Leonard Hodgson, Convictions: A Selection from the Responses of the Churches to the Report of the World Conference on Faith and Order, Held at Lausanne in 1927, London: SCM Press, 1934. However, the book contains a response of the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference; see ibid., 58–61.

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

269

reported in a straightforward and sympathetic manner, referring to the Adventist tradition of interpreting prophecy in only one instance, but praising the sincerity and “loftiest motives” of the conference organizers. He even included a call for prayer that the Christian leaders behind the Faith and Order movement “be guided by the Holy Spirit in their labors.”949 The Swiss Adventist leader Jean Vuilleumier was somewhat more critical, bemoaning what he viewed as a trend towards “unity at the expense of truth.” At the same time, Vuilleumier suggested that “a general movement toward the maximum of unity on ‘Faith and Order’” instead of a minimum, in a “gradual and united recovery of truth possessed by the apostolic church” might achieve what was really called for. He argued, “There is no reason why the Protestant and Greek churches could not agree to unity gradually on points of organization first, and, later on, on points of doctrine” – if they followed his maximalist approach.950 What Vuilleumier did not realize was that this sketch of an Adventist ecumenical model did not diverge substantially from the one that the architects of the Faith and Order Movement envisioned – the only major difference being that his model presupposed an end result that already existed: Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. Apparently the possibility that his own tradition contained imperfections did not dawn upon him. When Faith and Order organized another world conference ten years later in Edinburgh, the denomination was officially represented, unlike at the analogous conference of Life and Work, which had convened a few days earlier at Oxford. But the fact that Adventists were not among the delegates at the latter meeting did not mean complete absence; as in Lausanne, the church sent an observer on a journalist’s ticket,951 this time Walter L. Emmerson, for whom this meeting started a lifelong interest in ecumenical matters.952 While the initiative for attending came from the denomination’s General Conference in the USA,953 the

949 Arthur S. Maxwell, “Is the League of Nations to Be Followed by the League of Churches?” ST, October 25, 1927, 8–9, 12, here 8; cf. also the sequel by the same author, Arthur S. Maxwell, “Can Christendom Combine?” ST, November 1, 1927, 8–9, 12. 950 Jean Vuilleumier, “The Great Church Council at Lausanne,” ST, September 13, 1927, 3. 951 Apparently Adventists were “not listed among the churches which were to be represented,” i. e. they had too little contact with the Life and Work Movement until then to be included among the invitees. It is indicative of the SDA peripheral position in the emerging ecumenical movement that they did not take note of this conference as an ecumenical gathering but as one which focused on church-state relations. See J. I. Robison – E. D. Dick, June 18, 1937, GCA 21/1937-Northern Europe. 952 Among Emmerson’s publications are about 50 church magazine articles reporting about meetings and issues of ecumenical importance. 953 GCOM, April 21, 1937; GCC, April 22, 1937, GCA; E. D. Dick – W. E. Read, April 25, 1937, GCA 21/1937-Northern Europe.

270

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

individuals who ultimately participated were prominent British leaders, who did not have to travel far to attend.954 The reports on the two conferences indicate both the general Adventist agreement on ecumenical matters and the areas where their assessment differed. On one side of the spectrum, Emmerson presented an extremely sympathetic general outlook on the Life and Work assembly by commending the spirituality and the critical view of the world presented in the conference.955 On the other end was the 82-year old William W. Prescott, formerly a leading college Bible instructor in the denomination.956 He presented the familiar Ellen White quote on the unification of Protestantism, Catholicism and Spiritualism,957 added accusations of “Modernism” viz. a “liberal spirit”958 and presented a defence of a spiritual unity model based on “the presence of the third Person of the Godhead” that forbade, according to his reasoning, attempts at “suggesting a particular form of unified organization.”959 Between these two poles lay more descriptive and guarded but slightly critical reports by Harry Lowe, who attended the Faith and Order conference in Edinburgh.960 Lowe, at that time the British Union president, apparently felt at ease in the midst of the many denominations present.961 Evidently in response to Prescott, he asserted that the Edinburgh delegates did not display “the spirit … of blatant, destructive modernism.”962 Moreover, he expressed respect of “these obviously saintly and sincere men”963 and of speakers such as John Mott even if disagreeing with his reasoning that the divisions of the church turned away

954 Walter E. Read was Northern European Division president at the time; Harry W. Lowe was British Union president. 955 Walter L. Emmerson, “Christianity Faces the Crisis,” ST, September 28, 1937, 8–10, and “Diagnosing the World’s Ills,” ST, October 5, 1937, 8–10. 956 Prescott published a four-part series: “Momentous Implications at Oxford – No. 1,” Ministry 11.1 (1938), 14–15; “Implications at Oxford – No. 2,” Ministry 11.2 (1938), 24–25; “The Threefold Union Forming – No. 1,” Ministry 11.4 (1938), 16–17; “The Threefold Union Forming – No. 2,” Ministry 11.5 (1938), 18–19. 957 Prescott, “Momentous Implications at Oxford – No. 1,” 14; cf. also the wording of the title in the two articles “The Threefold Union Forming.” 958 Prescott, “Implications at Oxford – No. 2,” 24; “The Threefold Union Forming – No. 2,” 17. 959 Prescott, “The Threefold Union Forming – No. 2,” 16. 960 His first reports are: “World Conference on Faith and Order,” ST, November 9, 1937, 6–7, and “Unifying the Churches,” ST, November 16, 1937, 6–7, 14–15. 961 He writes, “Greek, Armenian, and Russian Orthodox dignitaries were there with flowing hair and striking robes; African and Indian bishops appeared in purple cassocks. Methodists, Episcopalians, Anglicans Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Brethren in Christ, Adventists, and many others were present at the sessions.” “World Conference on Faith and Order,” 6. 962 Lowe, “Unifying the Churches,” 7. 963 Ibid., 6.

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

271

people from God.964 Lowe concluded that “it must … be admitted that considerable progress was made toward union”965 and ended in a positive note appearing to support the cause of Christian unity. Half a year later, Lowe contributed two more articles to the Adventist journal for pastors, Ministry, and repeated some general lines of argument while adding historical background and a discussion of “greatest obstacles to reunion.”966 Evidently, Prescott’s onesided interpretation did not represent the general Adventist feeling anymore; a “wait and see” attitude had gained ground.967 It is this noncommittal attitude that lay behind the dragging process which ultimately resulted in a refusal to accept membership in the World Council of Churches. Although there was no time at which an inclination towards becoming a member was clearly visible, the development that led to declining participation demonstrates dimensions typical of Adventist interchurch relations and is, therefore, significant. In 1938, Adventists were among the many denominations invited to join this new organization. The “Committee of Fourteen” officially addressed J. I. Robison, the denomination’s secretary of the Northern European Division,968 who felt the global denominational leadership had to speak on the issue. Robison’s differentiated reasoning on the question is enlightening; he wrote to Ernest D. Dick, the General Conference secretary, It would seem that their constitution does not involve any power to legislate over the participating churches and they do not claim any authority to act in the name of the various members. To join this organisation though would probably be contrary to the policies that we have followed in the past, although it might be some advantage in dealing with the governments, especially in Europe where oft-times our believers are brought in conflict with government authorities.969

Such cautious sympathy for the incipient WCC970 was evidently not shared by Adventist leaders in the USA. Among them, some wanted to involve the leader964 Lowe, “World Conference on Faith and Order,” 6. 965 Lowe, “Unifying the Churches,” 15. 966 Lowe, “Ecumenical Movement Afterthoughts – No. 1,” Ministry 11.6 (1938), 20–21; “The Ecumenical Movement – No. 2,” Ministry 11.7 (1938), 17, 42, 44. 967 It is perhaps more than a coincidence that another article appeared between the two halves of the second part in Prescott’s series, i. e. on the same two pages: A. V. Olson, “Assuming the Role of Prophet,” Ministry 11.2 (1938), 24–25. Olson, then president of the Southern European Division, admonished readers that they were called “to expound prophecy, not to project sensational predictions.” 968 Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft – J. I. Robison, November 15, GCA 21/1938–Northern Europe. 969 J. I. Robison – E. D. Dick, November 29, 1938, GCA 21/1938-Northern Europe. 970 In his reply to Visser ’t Hooft, he stated, “We recognise that the critical times in which we are living indeed demand something special on the part of the Christian Church to meet the conditions in the world which are tending toward disintegrating of Christian forces, and I am glad to note that there is growing out of the Oxford and Edinburgh Conferences an effort to continue the work there begun.” J. I. Robison – W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, November 29, GCA

272

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

ship of the various world regions (i. e. the “Divisions”),971 but after a considerable time of discussing the issue among the major denominational leaders,972 the General Conference executive committee voted to reply to the Northern European Division that “in harmony with our denominational position concerning such matters, we do not consider it advisable to accept membership in this organization.”973 After this action, individual regions of the church never considered going their own way with regard to WCC membership; the extremely strong intra-denominational global SDA cohesion implied that such a step was almost unthinkable. The 1939 committee advice regarding World Council of Churches membership naturally had a long-term impact on SDA interactions with the Ecumenical Movement. Yet it also functioned as a watershed in a way that was less evident at the time: it explained Adventist aloofness in a manner that cemented one tradition while ignoring another. Admittedly, the non-membership approach had been dominant in the denomination’s stance toward interdenominational associations. However, in the case of the FMCNA, SDA membership seemed innocuous, and in several contexts outside of North America, Adventists became members in missionary councils.974 Still, asserting “our denominational position”975 to be non-membership in any such organizations meant that from that point on, exceptions to the rule had to be supported with very carefully crafted arguments. With these committee dynamics and such a decision in the back-

971 972

973 974

975

21/1938–Northern Europe. It is noteworthy that this section of his letter copy in the General Archives has a question mark added at the margin; the receiver (probably E. D. Dick) evidently did not support this appreciative comment. A. W. C[ormack] – J. I. Robison, December 16, 1938, GCA 21/1938-Northern Europe; Cormack explained, “we will want the best counsel that we can secure from our divisions all around the circle.” GCOM 516, December 19, 1938, and GCOM 552, March 29, 1939, GCA. The latter deliberations included the following lines: “The General Conference has always counseled against connecting with an organization of this kind, looking toward the union of all the churches, as it would seem to be repudiating our message to come out of Babylon.” GCC Minutes, March 30, 1939 (“Membership in World Council of Churches”), GCA. In Kenya, Adventists were members in the Missionary Council when it was organized in 1924; see F. B. Welbourn, “The Impact of Christianity on East Africa,” in History of East Africa, vol. 3, ed. D. A. Low and A. Smith, Oxford: Clarendon, 1976, 399. In Zambia, the Missionary Conference included many Protestants, Adventists and Catholics; see Charles P. Groves, The Planting of Christianity in Africa, vol. 4: 1914–1954, London: Lutterworth, 1958, 133. In the letter explaining the committee decision to Robison, Cormack asserted, “The consensus of opinion was … that while it is in order for us to cooperate with members of other religious bodies in every way possible without the compromise of principle, we would be departing from our age-old position of holding ourselves ‘separate’ if we were to participate in these affairs on a membership basis.” See A. W. Cormack – J. I. Robison, March 31, 1939, GCA 21/1939-Northern Europe.

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

273

ground, it is natural that little positive interaction between Adventists and the WCC followed in the years until Amsterdam 1948 and well into the 1960s.976 In the months before the Amsterdam meeting, the reasoning in Adventist publications did not change much. The well-known evangelist George Vandeman invoked the “peril of church union to minority groups”,977 and Carlyle B. Haynes, another leading evangelist, administrator and book author, criticized WCC attempts as striving for “mere external unity,”978 rejecting what he viewed as tendencies at creating a “superchurch.”979 In a manner reminiscent of sabbatarian Adventists one century earlier, he argued that Christian unity is entirely spiritual, and not to be found “in federated churches. It is not in church councils. It is not in organization. It is not in men. It is in Christ.”980 Contrasting WCC plans with the “ ‘unity of the Spirit,’ which is the only genuine unity set before the disciples of Christ in the Bible,”981 Haynes claimed that the “church unity” sought at Amsterdam and true “Christian unity” differed greatly.982 Against the backdrop of such scepticism, it is all the more remarkable how relatively objective denominational reporting turned out when the World Council of Churches had been formed. Edward B. Rudge, president of the British Union Conference, who evidently participated as an observer, described the council’s members, themes, agreements and disagreements, major points of discussion and praised the organizers for having “accomplished a great task in bringing together so many bodies holding divergent views on many vital issues.”983 While he wondered whether ultimately the Protestants of this organization would reunite with Rome, it is impressive how neutral Rudge remained when he suggested interpreting the WCC as “a new instrument of continuous 976 Denominational papers include a few notes that refer to the WCC, but they mostly contain elements of suspicion or outright polemic. For the latter see Carlyle B. Haynes, “The Church and Peace,” Ministry 16.7 (1943), 20; here Haynes rejects a WCC memorandum that emphasizes that the church “has a specific task in relation to peacemaking and the creation of an international order.” Further sceptical reporting is found in Gwynne Dalrymple, “World Council Plans,” Ministry 11.12 (1938), 36; “Ecumenical Church Developing,” Ministry 13.2 (1940), 15; “Interchurch Co-operation,” Ministry 15.11 (1942), 37–38; and Carlyle B. Haynes, “Will There Be a Super Church?,” ST, June 27, 1944, 4. 977 George E. Vandeman, “World Council of Churches – Amsterdam, 1948,” Ministry 21.8 (1948), 12. 978 Carlyle B. Haynes, “One Church for One World? Will Amsterdam Demonstrate Unity or Disunity?,” ST, August 3, 1948, 6. 979 Carlyle B. Haynes, “Amsterdam and Christian Unity,” ST, August 24, 1948, 6. Vandeman, “World Council of Churches – Amsterdam, 1948,” 12, likewise cautioned, “when a great body speaks, it apparently speaks for all.” 980 Haynes, “One Church for One World?,” 6. 981 Haynes, “Amsterdam and Christian Unity,” 6. 982 Ibid. Emphases in the original. 983 Edward B. Rudge, “Significance of World Council at Amsterdam,” Ministry 21.11 (1948), 4–6, 52, here 5.

274

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

relationship between the churches.”984 Different from the ecumenical enthusiasts on the one side and those Adventists who projected apocalyptical scenarios on the World Council of Churches, he thus captured its essence in a realistic manner. Of course Adventist criticism of this new organization would not take long to be articulated as well. In an otherwise balanced analysis appearing a few months after the meeting, Frank Yost included a section spelling out “four points of weakness and danger in the World Council” that representatives of the Evangelical Alliance had published: (1) not being “strictly evangelical,” (2) not being “strictly Protestant,” (3) the tendency to become a “superchurch” and (4) the danger that such a body “might ignore dissident churches” and lead its members to “a Romanized Protestantism.”985 While Yost thus expressed his uneasiness with words borrowed from cousins of Adventism, his reflections demonstrate that denominational distance from the new organization was clearly established from the outset and continued the traditional SDA rejection of federal union models.

4.3.2 Uneasy Ties with American Fundamentalists A last significant strand of Adventist interchurch relationships in the first half of the 20th century was the denomination’s interaction with the movement that resembled Adventism most: American Fundamentalism. This movement was not entirely new; it reflected both earlier Presbyterian divisions and the heritage of 19th century premillennialism. However, Fundamentalists gained strength in the 1920s on the basis of opposition to what was then called “Modernism” in the major Protestant denominations.986 They emphasized the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, the historicity of miracles (all of which the Modernists questioned or denied), and largely rejected Darwin’s theory of evolution.987 With such a programme developing among these religious con984 Ibid., 6. Here Rudge quotes an unknown source (“The places this new organization occupies has been described as ‘a new instrument’”). 985 Frank H. Yost, “The World Council of Churches – No. 1,” Ministry 22.1 (1949), 20–22, here 21; cf. also Frank H. Yost, “The World Council of Churches – No. 2,” Ministry 22.2 (1949), 34–37. A condensed version of these two articles appeared with the title “When the Churches Met at Amsterdam,” ST, May 15, 1951, 10–11, 14–15. Although the provenance of these four points could not be traced (no reference was included in the article), their origin in the Evangelical Alliance appears plausible. 986 For an analysis of the background of this movement and its development into public prominence, see George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925, New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. 987 Ibid., 171–184.

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

275

servatives, it is not difficult to guess in which camp Adventists felt more at home.988 Both Fundamentalists and Modernists were found in all the major denominations, but for at least two decades growing polarization led to a split in some of them and made the life of others increasingly difficult. In the vibrant but variegated American religious sphere, this added strains to some interdenominational relationships but also opened the way for new alliances. As far as Adventists were concerned, this changing scene also implied new opportunities for defining themselves in the totality of Christian movements and for attempting to express affinity to particular strands of faith. This does not mean, though, that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was suddenly on good terms with non-sabbatarian denominations. In fact, a strangely ambivalent relationship to the Fundamentalist camp characterized Adventists throughout the decades when this movement played a significant role in the religious public.989 On the one hand, SDA reports on Fundamentalist conferences and activities were very positive; one such report even claimed that fundamentalists are “doing a great work for God in the earth”990 – an assessment that would not have been automatic in the 19th century. With Modernism increasingly being interpreted as a force to lead Christianity into end-time apostasy,991 Fundamentalists seemed the natural allies in the struggle for upholding genuine Christianity. At the same time, it was largely the Fundamentalist camp that continued to condemn Adventists because of their peculiar teachings.992 Modernist, liberal, more ecumenically minded Christians did not have a penchant for attacking particular denominations; Fundamentalists, by way of contrast, were fond of apologetics and dogmatic assertiveness. Thus paradoxically the very movement with which Adventists overlapped developed the strongest repelling power with 988 Cf. Carlyle B. Haynes, Christianity at the Crossroads, Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1924; W. G. Wirth, The Battle of the Churches: Modernism or Fundamentalism, Which?, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1924; and the twelve-article series by Milton C. Wilcox, “Fundamentalism or Modernism – Which?,” RH, January 15 to April 2, 1925. 989 A survey of mutual perceptions from about 1900 to 1955 is found in Juhyeok Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and ‘Questions on Doctrine,’ 1955–1971,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2005, 1–45. 990 “The Christian Fundamentalists,” ST, September 6, 1921, 10. For a further positive assessment, see F. M. Wilcox, “A Significant Religious Gathering: A Bible Conference on the Return of Our Lord,” RH, June 13, 1918, 2, 4–5. Adventist leaders also attended a number of Fundamentalist “Prophetic Conferences” in 1918 and 1919 and mostly reported favourably; see Michael W. Campbell, “The 1919 Bible Conference and Its Significance for Seventhday Adventist History and Theology,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2008, 41–56. 991 See e. g. the argument in F. M. Wilcox, “Babylon Is Fallen: ‘Come out of Her, My People’,” RH, February 21, 1924, 2. For further references, see Nam, “Reactions,” 33–35. 992 For a sample of such voices, see Nam, “Reactions,” 15–23.

276

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

regard to this isolated church. Adventists might consider themselves Fundamentalists in the proper sense993 – the true, leading and most fundamentalist of Fundamentalists994 – but to the Fundamentalists themselves, they were simply heretics. There were, of course, reasons for this lack of amity. Not only was it wellknown that Adventists had called other Protestants “Babylon” for decades. The Sabbath, soul sleep, sanctuary, and spirit of prophecy doctrines also all made the denomination seem cultic in evangelical perspective. But probably the most important conflict factor was the publication of vigorous attacks by former Seventh-day Adventists,995 notably Dudley M. Canright.996 After serving the denomination for 22 years, he left Adventism in 1887 and became a Baptist pastor. As an Adventist minister, Canright had served as a leader in various capacities, including being a member of the three-person General Conference committee. Moreover, he had published several books and was known for his sharpness in arguing and debating. Soon after leaving the denomination, Canright began to publish books against his former beliefs,997 and the rest of his life was mainly dedicated to attacking Seventh-day Adventism. It is one of the stunning ironies of SDA history that Canright, one of the most energetic Adventist apologists of the early period, defected in middle-age 993 It is probably more than a coincidence that the first official Adventist statement of faith, written in 1930–31, was entitled “Fundamental Beliefs”; it was included in the denominational Yearbook from 1931 onwards. 994 F. M. Wilcox, “Forsaking the Foundations of Faith,” RH, November 28, 1929, 13–14 (“the chief of Fundamentalists today”); William H. Branson, “Loyalty in an Age of Doubt,” Ministry 6.10 (1933), 3 (“fundamentalists of Fundamentalists”). Cf. also Francis D. Nichol, “Modernism’s Inadequacy Is Our Opportunity,” Ministry 9.2 (1936), 13–14, 22, who characterizes Adventists as the true Fundamentalists in view of Modernism. For more references from the period and of differentiated Adventist views in later periods, see also Rolf Pöhler, “Fundamentalismus in Geschichte und Gegenwart der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten,” Stufen, no. 46 (1993), 54–57. 995 For a short account of ex-Adventists who attacked their former denomination in the first half of the 20th century, see Paul Ernest McGraw, “Born in Zion? The Margins of Fundamentalism and the Definition of Seventh-Day Adventism (Walter Martin, Donald Gray Barnhouse),” Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 2004, 109–117. This account focuses on E. B. Jones, who had been part of the “Reformation” movement, an Adventist offshoot, and later adhered to dispensationalist eschatology. 996 A discussion of Canright’s importance for Adventist-Fundamentalist relations is found in McGraw, “Born in Zion?,” 56–91. 997 See his books Why I Gave up the Seventh Day, Oakland: Messiah’s Advocate, 1887; The Jewish Sabbath Abolished: The Commandments of God, What Are They?, Des Moines: Oracle, 1887; Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced: After an Experience of Twenty-Eight Years, Kalamazoo: Kalamazoo Publishing, 1888; and Adventism Refuted in a Nutshell, New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1889. The latter was the most important religious publisher in the USA at the time. Ironically, this interdenominational establishment published Ellen White’s Steps to Christ just three years later.

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

277

and turned his vigour against his previous denomination. Yet this most famous dissident also epitomizes the unease which Adventism experienced in the first half of the 20th century with regard to relationships with other evangelical Christians. Canright’s writings998 reflect an earlier approach to each other, the polemic style and opinionatedness typical of many believers in the 19th century. However, when the Adventist manner of interacting with other Christians mellowed a generation later – at least with regard to Fundamentalists – Canright’s publications were still the main source of knowledge regarding Adventism for those outside the denomination’s boundaries. Thus, 19th century attitudes and configurations determined much of early 20th century Adventist interchurch relations even though the denomination itself had begun to move in the direction of the Christian mainstream just around the time of Canright’s defection.999 Adventists were, therefore, in a curious situation indeed, and relations with their closest relatives would continue to be uneasy. On the one hand, the denomination received little more than criticism from spokesmen of the Fundamentalist movement. On the other, Adventists did contribute – at least in a limited manner – to Fundamentalist discourses. The most well-known instance is Seventh-day Adventist self-made geologist George McCready Price, who laid the basis for creationism with his publications.1000 Yet Benjamin G. Wilkinson, an Adventist professor of theology, also appealed to Fundamentalists at large when he produced the most comprehensive collection of arguments against Bible translations other than the King James Version.1001 Since his position was not

998 Cf. also his later books The Lord’s Day, from Neither Catholics Nor Pagans: An Answer to Seventh-Day Adventism on This Subject, New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1915; and Life of Mrs. E. G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1919 (published shortly after his death in the same year). His major book, Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced, was republished in 14 editions until 1914 and was reprinted again in 1948, 1961 (by Baker Book House), and several times more until 2001. 999 For a discussion of important steps in this development – mainly the 1888 General Conference session with an emphasis on “righteousness by faith” as opposed to the earlier heavy emphasis on the law, and a gradual acceptance of trinitarianism – see section 4.1.3 above and Stefan Höschele, “Constructions of Catholicity and Denominational Particularity: Key Stations in the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrinal Journey,” in Leo J. Koffeman (ed.), Christliche Traditionen zwischen Katholizität und Partikularität / Christian Traditions between Catholicity and Particularity. Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2009, 131–147. 1000 The authoritative history of this movement and its foundation in Price’s work is Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, New York: Knopf, 1992. 1001 Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Washington, D.C.: [privately printed], 1930. On the issue of translations in general, see Peter J. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999 (on Wilkinson: 62–65).

278

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

supported by Seventh-day Adventist leaders,1002 he self-published his book, a strategy that was highly unusual for a denominational employee at the time. The Wilkinson episode points to a development that, paradoxically, moved Adventism closer to Fundamentalists in one way and, at the same time, further removed the denomination from the evangelical mainstream: the creation of an specifically Adventist brand of fundamentalism. Essentially the question was whether both Ellen G. White’s writings and the Bible were inerrant.1003 The former question was discussed at and after a major denominational “Bible conference” in 1919, just four years after the prophet’s death in 1915.1004 The “progressives,” among them General Conference president Arthur G. Daniells and theologian William W. Prescott, advocated a more flexible hermeneutical approach to White’s writings, while the traditionalist camp, in which Wilkinson was also found, believed the publications of Ellen G. White to have authority equal to the Bible and to be verbally inspired. Both groups abhorred Modernism, but the traditionalists soon accused the progressives of diluting the Adventist heritage. Adventists were, therefore, in a quandary. Despised by their Fundamentalist cousins, often viewing themselves as the real Fundamentalists and the true Protestants,1005 but mainly keeping distant from them in practice and in some aspects of theology,1006 they experienced grave internal tensions over the future course of Seventh-day Adventism.1007 These tensions demonstrated more clearly than ever before that intra-denominational unity was not guaranteed. What is 1002 For a discussion of this episode, see McGraw, “Born in Zion,” 101–109. 1003 This position was evidently held against Ellen White’s own convictions. Cf. Frank M. Hasel, “Was Ellen G. White a Fundamentalist?,” in Martin Pröbstle, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Martin Klingbeil (eds.), “For You Have Strengthened Me”: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, St. Peter am Hart: Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007, 347–359. Hasel argues that Ellen White had “much in common with basic fundamentalist beliefs” and was “more fundamentalist than some would like to believe” but also notes differences in the areas of religious liberty, eschatology, and issues of inspiration, particularly regarding the issue of verbal inspiration, which she did not advocate. 1004 For a comprehensive discussion of this significant conference and intersections with Fundamentalism appearing in it, see the 2008 dissertation of Michael Campbell, “The 1919 Bible Conference.” 1005 This self-image even prompted Adventists to publish a paper entitled The Protestant Magazine for several years (from 1909 to 1915); it had a strong anti-Catholic bent. 1006 An interesting study that clearly differentiates Adventism and Fundamentalism is Carl W. Daggy, “A Comparative Study of Certain Aspects of Fundamentalism with Seventh-Day Adventism,” M.A. thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1955. He notes agreement on Christology but divergence with regard to views on inspiration (ibid., 60–61). 1007 Therefore this phase of Adventist intellectual history is summarized with the question “What is Fundamentalist in Adventism? (1919–1950)” by George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000, 128 (this formulation is the title of chapter 6 in his book).

Critical Observers of Alternative Movements

279

more, a fundamentalist split of their own happened right at the time when the denomination’s prophet had died. The “Reformation Movement,”1008 the most significant Adventist offshoot,1009 started in a secondary centre and in a situation of external pressure – during World War I in Europe, far away from denominational headquarters – but soon impacted the church in all countries where a significant constituency existed.1010 The “Reformers” were born out of the intensification of apocalyptic expectation during the war, soon criticized the European church leadership’s support of military service, particularly on the Sabbath, and proclaimed that the Seventh-day Adventist Church had become “Babylon.”1011 This development of a separatist-fundamentalist subspecies of Adventism is significant in several respects. Of course one can argue that it was to be expected at some point once the church could no longer rely on a living prophet,1012 especially in a denomination which depended on the fulfilment of a prophesied scenario that did not actually materialize. Yet the emergence of the Reformation Movement also expressed the growing unease with a church organization that had centralized religious impulses and interpretations, where individual initiatives were no longer welcome in some areas – in short, a denominational bureaucracy that had replaced the “unity of the Spirit” which had been of such great importance to sabbatarian Adventists in the mid-19th century. Little did it seem to matter to Reformers that the movement’s prophet, with whom they henceforth claimed continuity, had herself moved away from the religious culture of her youth and had developed a dialectical stance on many issues, including that of attitudes to other Christians. By implication, the self-ejection of some of the most radical elements meant for Seventh-day Adventism that the denomination as a whole would continue along the lines of their own kind of orthodoxy but shun attempts to reinvent its beginnings. In terms of interchurch relations, this also opened the possibility of slightly more relaxed interactions with non-Adventists: those advocating the most antagonistic course of interrelating with the outside world would tend to be 1008 For the history of this movement, see Herrmann Ruttmann, Die adventistische Reformationsbewegung, 1914–2001: Die Internationale Missionsgesellschaft der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten Reformationsbewegung in Deutschland, Köln: Teiresias, 2002. 1009 On other splinter groups, see Lowell Tarling, The Edges of Seventh-Day Adventism: A Study of Separatist Groups Emerging from the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1844–1980), Barragga Bay: Galilee, 1981. 1010 Alfons Balbach, The History of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, Roanoke: Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, 1999. 1011 For a discussion of the causes for the initiation of a separate organization, see Hartlapp, Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten im Nationalsozialismus, 101–117. 1012 For an account of how church leaders dealt with the loss of Ellen White’s voice, see Paul McGraw, “Without a Living Prophet,” Ministry 73.12 (2000), 11–15.

280

Experimenting with Distance and Proximity: The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

drawn to the separatism of the Reformers. By way of contrast, most of those who remained would favour a more balanced approach to other churches. One hundred years after its beginnings and one generation after the death of its last founders, the Seventh-day Adventist movement had experienced significant diversification in terms of attitudes to and interactions with other Christians and churches. Several aspects of identity inherited from the 19th century – the apocalyptic interpretations developed by their founders, their canonization in Ellen White’s writings, and experiences with North American Sunday law agitation – continued to define their general perspective towards the Christian world. Other factors relativized some of the consequences that many derived from these: Ellen White’s own dialectic with regard to non-sabbatarian Christians, shattered ideals regarding the unity of Sabbath-keepers, and the developing insight that dedicated believers outside the Adventist movement were actually doing God’s will in their ministry and mission. These factors, combined with significant developments in the Christian world and the emerging Ecumenical Movement at large, formed a Seventh-day Adventist tradition of interchurch relationships that appeared rather pluriform in the mid-20th century. In the realm of mission, pragmatic alliances were deemed desirable as long as they did not interfere with the denomination’s plans of expansion. The interactions with the World Council of Churches in its early stages revealed the enduring SDA reservations regarding federal types of Christian unity. Most affinity was felt by Adventists with Evangelical-Fundamentalist Christians in North America – in spite of the fact that their sympathy was rarely reciprocated. Nevertheless, there was a sense of spiritual like-mindedness that bordered – at least sometimes – on sentiments of spiritual unity with these Christians, thus setting the stage for the first experiences of interchurch dialogue for Seventh-day Adventist in the following years.

5.

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

At mid-century, the state of Seventh-day Adventist interchurch relations was curious indeed. The movement had existed for one full century. It had preached the soon end of the world during all the years since its beginnings in the disappointment of the 1840s, and continued to regard Christendom as apocalyptic Babylon. At the same time, Christianity at large had taken a course that differed from what the denomination’s most articulate representatives had predicted in the 19th century: Sabbath keepers, even if they remained at the periphery of Protestantism at large, had to fear persecution only in rare cases. Leaders of the missionary movement were generally cooperative. Protestants and Roman Catholics were not much closer than in the 19th century, despite occasional reports of rapprochement. Instead, a World Council of Churches had been birthed – without representatives of the largest Christian church. Pressure towards enforced unity among American churches may have been felt in an isolated realm such as radio ministry,1013 yet all in all religious liberty clearly prevailed, not only in North America and mission fields such as Africa, but increasingly also in Europe and South America. Their traditional suspicion and distance from the majority of other churches notwithstanding, Adventists came to realize that positive relationships with Christians of other denominations were actually possible. In spite of a general continuity in theology, practice and attitudes, Seventh-day Adventism had also changed. More than one generation after Ellen White’s death, the denomination had become a truly global movement with all that this identity shift entailed. Of course the premillennial-inspired, somewhat pessimistic view of the world at large was reinforced during two world wars. Yet the geographically formerly limited horizon of Adventist pioneers and their expectation of the parousia during their own lifetime had given way to a worldwide vision of evangelism, changing Adventism into a missionary machine that con1013 Tona J. Hangen, Redeeming the Dial: Radio, Religion and Popular Culture in America, Raleigh: University of North Carolina Press, 2002, especially 112–158.

282

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

stantly encountered new cultures, challenges, and lines of service. This dynamism necessarily influenced the way Adventists interacted with believers of other traditions. Beyond globalization, the sheer numerical growth also implied that contacts with Christians outside Adventism became more frequent and, at least potentially, more friendly. Between 1900 and 1950, the denomination’s membership grew tenfold, from about 75,000 to 750,000 members.1014 In the 19th century, the small and recently established Adventist congregations could more easily ignore the world around or relegate it to the realm of evil than after World War II, when North America alone counted almost 250,000 Adventists. The cosy feeling of belonging to a small movement that holds exclusive truth continued to exist, but the awareness that partnerships with Christians from other backgrounds were unavoidable at least in some realms had also begun to establish itself. Expressed in Relational Models Theory terminology, true Christian unity might be preferentially defined in a Communal Sharing and Authority Ranking manner, but interchurch relations could also be accepted on an Equality Matching platform. Although Adventists were probably hardly aware of it, their ecumenical thought had moved away from earlier models. The conviction among Adventist pioneer thinkers that true Christian unity would manifest itself among end-time Sabbath keepers1015 materialized only in an incomplete manner. The abortive SDA-Seventh Day Baptists friendship in the 1870s had already cast shadows over the idea that true Christian unity would become manifest among sabbatarians, and the split caused by the Reformation Movement demonstrated that this theory did not work in practice. Although the unique Adventist sense of global fellowship continued in the denomination after the Reformers established themselves as a rival organization, the radical spiritual approach to ecclesiology got lost as questions of authority gained momentum. It is with such a mixed bag of motifs that the denomination reached the second half of the 20th century: a tradition of spiritual unity (CS), a reality in which the question of power viz. the prerogative of interpretation (AR) had led to a split in the movement, and a size and global spread that made encounters and even limited partnerships with other missionary movements on an equal footing (EM) appear more reasonable than an unshakeable exclusivism. The only types of interchurch relations that were missing in the Adventist portfolio at the time were the more communicative ones (MP). These needed opportunities to arise for interdenominational theological talk, and although at the time conversations of this kind were regarded as highly unusual for Adventists, it was only logical that 1014 By 1993, another tenfold increase was recorded by the church’s statisticians: global membership reached 7.5 million (excluding unbaptized children and youth). 1015 See section 3.2.2.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

283

they started engaging in this type of interaction: most other denominations began similar activities in the same period, and some kind of dialogues would match well with the self-image of churches that conceptualized themselves as witnesses for truth.

5.1

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

5.1.1 Discussing with Evangelicals in the 1950s The First Dialogue Experience The time for Adventist theological dialogue activities arrived in the mid-1950s. The denomination’s eschatological teachings and general doctrinal convictions had been formulated in 22 “Fundamental Beliefs” in 1931,1016 and although this set of articles was not deemed a confession of faith, it canonized both Adventist distinctive teachings and the movement’s general orthodoxy.1017 With such a text as a basis, theological conversation with Christians of other traditions was possible even if no pressure towards such activities was felt in the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1950s, the situation changed imperceptibly. World War II was over; another apocalyptic moment of world history had passed without the occurrence of the long-awaited Second Coming. The kingdom of God seemed farther away than in the war years, and more or less consciously, the question lingered as to how Adventism was to be translated into a post-war reality. More than one hundred years after the denomination’s initial spark, Adventists needed to come to grips with several facts: (1) that history had not ended in the anticipated cataclysm, (2) that other Christians seemed to engage in projects worthy of support, and (3) that the Adventist message was often misunderstood by the general public. These factors all connected Adventists with North American conservative Evangelicals. Like Seventh-day Adventists, many of them had adopted a premillennial eschatology (1); in terms of religious culture and common activities, the overlap was greater than with any other subset of the population (2), and, naturally, Adventists appealed mostly to people with a conservative Evangelical mind-set (3) – even if Evangelicals at large deemed SDA teachings heretical. Nevertheless, if there were other Christians with whom there was significant affinity, it was the conservative Evangelicals. As was the case with their precursor 1016 Its text was included in the annually published Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook and the denominational Church Manual from 1931/1932 onward. 1017 Cf. Stefan Höschele, “Adventist Orthodoxy Codified: The Fundamental Beliefs of 1931,” Spes Christiana 32.2, 2021, 107–134.

284

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

movement, the Fundamentalists of the 1920s and 1930s, their ideological distance from Seventh-day Adventism was much smaller than they realized. The beginnings of Adventist theological dialoguing in the 1950s have been described and discussed in detail in several scholarly works. The most comprehensive of these is a 2005 dissertation by Juhyeok Nam,1018 which focuses on the intra-Adventist and intra-Evangelical discussions following what was called the “Seventh-day Adventist/Evangelical conferences” in 1955–1956. As in other studies,1019 there is little discussion of this episode in terms of ecumenical encounter, but Nam presents a host of details regarding various meetings, steps towards a common understanding of doctrinal issues, and a survey of the effects that these Adventist-Evangelical conversations had both in the Evangelical world and in Adventist theologizing.1020 Because of this readily available scholarly groundwork, the following account does not aim at completeness but intends to situate and analyse the conversations of the period in the larger framework of Adventist interchurch relations. The first contacts between Seventh-day Adventist leaders and a number of Evangelicals arose when Walter R. Martin, a young scholar working for the evangelical magazine Eternity, planned a direct encounter with his object of research in early 1955. Martin, who had already gained some reputation as a “cult” specialist at the early age of 27, had prepared a manuscript on Adventists and wanted to get access to first-hand information. The editor of the magazine, Donald G. Barnhouse, a leading North American evangelical pastor at the time, provided him with correspondence he had had with an Adventist confer1018 Juhyeok Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and ‘Questions on Doctrine,’ 1955–1971,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2005. 1019 T. E[dgar] Unruh, “The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955–1956,” Adventist Heritage 4.2 (1977), 35–46, contains a factual report by one participant; “Currents Interview: Walter Martin,” Adventist Currents, July 1983, 15–24, 28, is an extensive and candid review of the conversations and its outcome after one generation; Paul E. McGraw, “Born in Zion? The Margins of Fundamentalism and the Definition of SeventhDay Adventism (Walter Martin, Donald Gray Barnhouse),” Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 2004, focuses on the question of Adventism’s “cult” status among Evangelicals during the period. A brief account of another participant is found in LeRoy E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1971, 476–485. This book also contains the earliest comprehensive interpretation of the development of Adventist theology. 1020 There are a number of polemical publications on this period as well, which claim that Adventists departed from their original theology in this encounter, thus corrupting the official teachings of the SDA Church. See, e. g., Der Anfang vom Ende: 1955–56, Winterswijk: Inter-Euro Publishing, n.d.; and Russell R. Standish and Colin Standish, A History of Questions on Doctrine: Fidelity or Compromise?, Narbethong: Highwood, 2007. The latter authors have published several other books with a similar content. For further polemical literature, see Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences,” 379.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

285

ence president, T. Edgar Unruh, a few years earlier. On the basis of this correspondence, Martin established contact with Unruh and asked for a meeting with Adventist representatives, including LeRoy E. Froom, an Adventist church historian and apologist, whose writings he already knew.1021 What he did not know (but which was an aspect of importance for the process that unfolded) was that Froom was the foremost promoter in giving Adventism a respectable place in society.1022 Martin’s research interest finally led to six meetings or “conferences,” as these theological conversations were called at the time, and to the publication of two major books: Questions on Doctrine (QOD, 1957), published by the denomination’s leadership,1023 and Martin’s study The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism.1024 The importance of these two works can hardly be exaggerated: QOD represented the first monograph that explained the whole of Adventist theology to the outside world without an immediate evangelistic aim or in a defensive tone, thus representing the state of the art in SDA theologizing and creating a standard for future decades.1025 Martin’s study was the first booklength attempt at a non-polemical portrayal of Adventist teachings by an outside observer.1026 While it included the common criticism of Adventist doctrines and traditions such as the Sabbath, Ellen White’s prophetic role, the non-immortality of the soul, and the heavenly sanctuary, it concluded with the verdict that despite a number of peculiar convictions Seventh-day Adventists actually are Evangelical Christians. At the outset of these meetings, it was far from clear what the final result would be. Martin and an evangelical New Testament professor, George E. Cannon, started with many controversial questions while Unruh, Froom and Walter E. 1021 LeRoy E. Froom had published The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, 4 vols., Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1950. 1022 For an overview of Froom’s public relations activities in the years preceding 1955, see McGraw, “Born in Zion?,” 123–133. 1023 The book is commonly referred to as Questions on Doctrine; the full title, however, is Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: An Explanation of Certain Major Aspects of Seventh-day Adventist Belief, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1957. Instead of indicating authors, the title page states, “Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers, and Editors.” 1024 Martin, The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960. 1025 Its theological importance is discussed in the introduction to its annotated re-publication: George R. Knight, “Introduction to the Annotated Edition,” Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: Annotated Edition, Adventist Classic Library, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2003, xiii–xxxiv. 1026 Booton Herndon, The Seventh Day: The Story of the Seventh-day Adventists, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960, was published earlier the same year by a non-Adventist author, probably the first monograph that evaluates SDA history in a positive manner. It does not, however, discuss details of Adventist teachings but focuses on mission stories.

286

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Read, a General Conference administrator, emphasized “doctrines held … in common with Evangelical Christians of all faiths in all ages.”1027 Then, in an unanticipated turn of events, by the second day of the first meeting, Martin came to the conclusion that Adventists were “truly born again Christians.”1028 From this point onwards, he accepted that they were “members of the Body of Christ and possessors of the faith that saves”1029 – even if there was doctrinal disagreement on several subjects. On this basis, the conferees could develop a dialogue method, clarify misconceptions, and formulate areas of agreement and difference. With the help of further participants – Donald G. Barnhouse from the Evangelicals and Roy Allan Anderson on the Adventist side – and with the endorsement of the SDA General Conference president, Reuben R. Figuhr, five more meetings produced a question and answer catalogue on all debated issues. Ultimately, the process led to a consensus on those questions that Martin and his colleagues considered essential for declaring to the world that Evangelical-Adventist “fellowship” was to be the normal state of affairs.1030 This result is intriguing in several respects. (1) First of all, it was not planned but arose from the encounter of open-minded Christians on both sides. While they were firmly convinced of their respective readings of the Scriptures, their readiness to listen to each other made these meetings an example of true dialoguing, even though initially the idea was not to design a process of learning from each other. (2) Although very little of the interaction mode was defined at the beginning, it was clear that in many fields of discussion, dialogue would not mean finding consensus formulas but expressing divergent positions and challenging the other party – not unlike the “hard questions” approach in the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic dialogues.1031 (3) Finally, Martin’s position represented a new approach with consequences that could not be predicted. New alliances can endanger old ones; both in the Evangelical world and inside Ad1027 1028 1029 1030

Unruh, “The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences,” 37. Ibid., 38. Martin, The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism, 237. The immediate outcome of the conversations was a four-part article series: Donald Grey Barnhouse, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians? A New Look at Seventh-day Adventists,” Eternity, September 1956, 6–7, 43–45; Walter R. Martin, “The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism: Its Historical Development from Christian Roots,” Eternity, October 1956, 6–7, 38–39; Walter R. Martin, “What Seventh-day Adventists Really Believe,” Eternity, November 1956, 20–21, 38–43; and Walter R. Martin, “Adventist Theology vs. Historic Orthodoxy,” Eternity, January 1957, 12–13, 38–40. 1031 For a helpful discussion of this method, see Jelle Creemers, “Can Hard Questions Soften Relations? Some Observations on Dialogical Method in the International Roman CatholicClassical Pentecostal Dialogue,” in Mark D. Chapman and Miriam Haar (eds.), Pathways for Ecclesial Dialogue in the Twenty-First Century: Revisiting Ecumenical Method, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, 43–55.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

287

ventism, this step to more mutual recognition did not imply widespread acceptance of the same sentiments. Declaring Fellowship At the same time, the fact that these conversations resulted in a declaration of fellowship reflected the peculiar logic of conservative Evangelical thinking at the time. Like early Adventists, their cousins tended to think of other Christian groups in a black and white scheme; for Martin and for most others from his religious subculture, non-Protestant Christians were thus no objects of “fellowship.”1032 Viewing Adventism as a “cult,” i. e. a non-Christian group altogether, was, therefore, consistent with an attitude which did not allow for degrees of proximity or different types of interdenominational relationships. With such an all-or-nothing concept, declaring fellowship Adventists was the only alternative to their wholesale rejection. What, then, did the “fellowship” that Martin and Barnhouse declared actually mean? This term and the entire discussion surrounding it in the publications of these two men indicate1033 that Evangelicals at the time had a straightforward view of Christian unity. In terms of ecumenical theory, they shared the Adventist distaste for federal models, formal dialogue and attempts at securing organic union. At the same time, their concept of fellowship allowed for a recognition of fellow Christians as true Christians on a rather simple basis: (1) acceptance of “the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith” or “evangelical orthodoxy,” and (2) absence of other differences constituting an “insuperable barrier.”1034 In other words, they simply had to be close enough to their own interpretation of faith – then the spiritual bond that Evangelicals supposed to be the true Christian unity was established. For Martin’s analysis of Adventism, this perspective necessitated a double inquiry: on the “cardinal doctrines” and on the weight of SDA doctrinal dis1032 Cf. the booklet entitled The Errors of Romanism in Martin’s series “The Modern Cult Library,” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957. 1033 Barnhouse, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?,” 7, 45; Martin, “The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism,” 39; Martin, “What Seventh-day Adventists Really Believe,” 20, 43; and Martin, “Adventist Theology vs. Historic Orthodoxy,” passim; Martin, The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism, 223–235 (ch. 10, “The Problem of Fellowship – A Great Controversy”). 1034 Martin, “Adventist Theology vs. Historic Orthodoxy,” 12. “Cardinal Doctrines,” according to Martin, are “The doctrine of the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, the perfect human nature of Christ during the incarnation, His eternal deity, the vicarious atonement of Christ on the cross for all sin, the bodily resurrection of our Lord from the grave, and His visible second advent to judge the world.” See Martin, “What Seventh-day Adventists Really Believe,” 20. A similar basis is found in Barnhouse’s article “Basis of Fellowship,” Eternity, May 1955, 8.

288

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

tinctives. If orthodoxy could be established and denominational peculiarities did not outweigh their continuity with historic Christianity (and with common denominators of Protestantism such as a sola scriptura emphasis and salvation by grace and faith), they were to be judged proper fellow believers. Martin’s father had been a well-known attorney, and his assessment of Adventism largely reads like a juridical opinion: in his point by point investigation, he succeeded in differentiating false or one-sided charges of polemicists such as Canright, issues of enduring tension between Evangelicals and Adventists, and the question of whether certain traditional views were grave enough to justify a denial of fellowship. One example will illustrate his approach. Surprisingly, Martin claimed that “[t]he doctrine of ‘soul sleep’ (unconsciousness in death) and the final extinction of all the wicked … is probably regarded as the greatest bar to fellowship between Adventists and their fellow Christians”1035 – not the Sabbath doctrine, the prophetic role of Ellen White or some other SDA teaching. Whether this merely echoed the view of his mentor Barnhouse1036 or not, Martin both completely rejected the standard Adventist arguments in favour of what they call “conditional immortality” and granted that Tyndale, Wycliffe and Luther had taught like them.1037 Therefore, he could conclude that this doctrine “does not constitute a bar to our having fellowship with them, since the basis of fellowship is Jesus Christ crucified, risen, and coming again … and not the nature of man or the intermediate state of the soul pending the resurrection.”1038 Since this supposed greatest obstacle was removed (and once the basic orthodoxy of Adventism was established), in a way the rest remained merely an exercise in dialectics. Martin walked through one Adventist conviction after the other, submitted questions, received answers, ticked his checklist of cardinal doctrines,1039 and dismissed as non-essentials those areas where disagreement continued.1040 With such a scholastic approach and the cooperation of Adventist leaders willing to be recognized as a respectable Evangelical body, the resulting accord, despite enduring ideological differences in many details, was foreseeable. The style of these Evangelical-Adventist discussions is significant also because the theological result on the SDA side, Questions on Doctrine, was markedly 1035 Martin, “Adventist Theology vs. Historic Orthodoxy,” 12. 1036 Barnhouse, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?,” 45. 1037 LeRoy E. Froom took up this issue later in his two-volume study The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1966. In vol. 2, Tyndale, Wycliffe and Luther feature prominently (49–111). 1038 Martin, “Adventist Theology vs. Historic Orthodoxy,” 13. 1039 Martin, “What Seventh-day Adventists Really Believe,” 20. In his introductory sentence, the author asks, “Are the differences between Adventist and orthodox Christian doctrines sufficient to deny them fellowship?” 1040 Martin, “Adventist Theology vs. Historic Orthodoxy,” 12.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

289

shaped by it. For the first time, a comprehensive Adventist theological tome had been brought about as a fruit of dialogue. While the QOD authors made “no claim [to] have provided the final word on Christian doctrine,”1041 its content was to be understood as “an expansion of our doctrinal positions contained in the official statement of Fundamental Beliefs.”1042 At the same time, chapter 3, which treated the “Seventh-day Adventist Relationship to Past Positions,” made it clear that some positions held during phases of earlier diversity – e. g. in the questions of Christ’s eternal pre-existence, the question of the Trinity and the interpretation of the atonement – were no longer supported. Therefore, this first all-inclusive monograph on Adventist theology both asserted its authority over against earlier voices and embraced the dialogue principle in its superstructure. In fact, Questions on Doctrine made it clear in the very first chapter where Adventist leaders wished to situate themselves in the Christian world. This chapter listed 36 beliefs and classified them in three categories: (1) “In Common with Conservative Christians and the Historic Protestant Creeds”; (2) “On Certain Controverted Doctrines among Conservative Christians, We Hold One of Two or More Alternate Views”; and (3) “In a Few Areas of Christian Thought, Our Doctrines Are Distinctive with Us.”1043 It is significant that the number of beliefs listed in these categories decreased step by step – from 19 (category 1) and 12 (category 2) to only 5 (category 3). The message was clear: with regard to the bulk of Protestant doctrines, Adventists were to be considered fully orthodox, and the few traditions that distinguished them from all other denominations were not decisive with regard to interchurch relations. Reactions and Theological Impact These repercussions of a dialogue orientation did not please everybody. While an extensive involvement of administrators and theologians had been secured by the denominational leadership, this process had not included all who would have liked to contribute. One retired theologian in particular, Milian L. Andreasen, claimed that traditional Adventist teachings – on the atonement and the human nature of Christ during the incarnation – had been falsified. In protest, he began circulating letters and pamphlets among Adventist congregations and initiated

1041 Questions on Doctrine, 9. 1042 Ibid. This was underlined by placing the denominational Fundamental Beliefs in front of the remaining text, thus also adding some weight to this text, which had not figured very prominently in the generation before. 1043 Ibid., 21–25. The full text of this book is also found online: https://documents.adventista rchives.org/Books/QOD19570101.pdf, accessed March 1, 2022.

290

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

correspondence with denominational leaders.1044 Andreasen was more than 80 years old, but he had been the most influential Adventist theologian in the 1930s and 1940s. His activities continued for about five years, until shortly before his death, and provided the basis for several critical groups inside the denomination and “ministries” that would continue claiming that QOD had falsified Adventist teachings.1045 Thus, in an unanticipated turn, increasing congruity with another Christian cluster also catalysed internal discord – a paradox frequently visible when unification movements or processes of creating more proximity between Christian groups take place. Similar dynamics took place in the Evangelical world. As soon as Eternity and two related magazines (Our Hope and Christian Life) published articles on Adventism from September 1956 onward, a flood of critical voices began to be heard. While there were also many positive responses, the negative reactions seemed to exceed the sympathetic ones by far. Scores of letters to the editors came in; Eternity alone lost one third of its 33,000 subscriptions during the following year (but subsequently made up for this loss).1046 Other Evangelical magazines such as The King’s Business, Herald of His Coming and Christian Truth reacted by accusing Martin and Barnhouse of misunderstanding or misrepresenting Adventist theology.1047 Evangelical responses to Questions on Doctrine and to Martin’s 1960 book The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism were also mixed, but mainly critical.1048 These reactions were not very surprising in view of the fact that American Evangelicals at the period were hardly united, especially on questions of interchurch relationships. Underlying these varying assessments were, of course, both theological issues and ecumenical conceptions. “Fellowship” implied a particular view of the church and of who can be called a Christian – this is why the very first article in the series (written by Barnhouse) asked precisely this question in its title: “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?” Most Evangelicals with their somewhat lean ecclesiology looked at Christology, soteriology and the teaching 1044 Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences,” 262–345. Cf. also the published collection of his views on the affair: Milian L. Andreasen, Letters to the Churches, Baker [Oregon]: Hudson, 1959. 1045 Cf. the polemical writings referred to in footnote 1020, as well as the presentations at the Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, October 24–27, 2007, online: http://qod.andrews.edu/downloads.html, accessed August 27, 2009, especially the following: Herbert Douglass, “The QOD Earthquake: Attempted Merger of Two Theological Tectonic Plates,” and George Knight, “Questions on Doctrine: Symbol of Adventist Theological Tension.” 1046 “Currents Interview: Walter Martin,” 19–20. 1047 For an overview of these reactions, see Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences,” 105–145. 1048 See ibid., 145–174, and 189–218 (on QOD) and 185–189 (on Martin’s book).

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

291

on Scripture and found it difficult to accept that Adventists, with their aggressive sabbatarianism and distinct eschatology, should really agree with them in those areas of central concern. Apart from the enduring doctrinal divergence, three main factors contributed to the cleavage. (1) At least in part the problem was terminology. In some fields of doctrine, mutual comprehensibility was marred by decades of separate usage. As in many cases of communication problems, the common use of one mother tongue did not imply that two sides actually meant the same when using certain words. As Martin recalled later, “we had two different vocabularies. And … we were actually … synchronizing vocabulary structure between Adventism and evangelical Christianity, which had never been done before.”1049 The “Remnant Church,” for instance, was not a biblical expression but one that Adventists had utilized to explain their experience and self-image.1050 Explaining it to the outside world necessitated communication in which the receptor’s impressions were taken account of. However, this was possible much more easily with those who engaged in the conversations. As is often the case in interchurch dialogues, those who actively participate are able to grasp the theological concerns behind some of the terminology that is commonly misunderstood, but the general public may remain unconvinced because it was not involved in the dynamics of listening and rapprochement. (2) Another factor that contributed to the success of the conversations and to the lack of acceptance among the wider constituency, especially the Evangelicals, was that significant doctrinal development had taken place among Adventists. Even though most Evangelicals and Adventists were not aware of it, the SDA theological edifice had gone through several waves of reconstruction: the acceptance of grace and faith as the basis for justification after the 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis, a move to trinitarianism after the turn of the century, and the publication of Fundamental Beliefs in 1931, which articulated the denomination’s major teachings in a permanent manner.1051 Yet Evangelical criti1049 “Currents Interview: Walter Martin,” 19. Unruh expressed it in a similar manner: “We came to see that many misunderstandings rested on semantic grounds, because of our use of an inbred denominational vocabulary” (“The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences,” 40). 1050 While the sources do not indicate other instances of terminological divergence, Martin and Unruh possibly referred to such expressions as “the health message” (i. e. Adventist teachings on diet and a healthy lifestyle), the “Great Controversy” (the peculiar SDA portrayal of salvation history), or “present truth” (the distinctive Adventist teachings). 1051 For a comprehensive discussion of Adventist theological development, see Rolf J. Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development,” Th.D. diss., Andrews University, 1995. The second published version of this dissertation is titled Dynamic Truth: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development, Adventistica: Studies in Adventist History and Theology – New Series 3, Friedensau: Institute of Adventist Studies, 2020.

292

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

cism of Adventist teachings still largely relied on Dudley Canright, who had left the SDA Church one year before the Minneapolis conference. Martin, Barnhouse and Cannon quickly realized that a mid-20th century dialogue cannot rely on 19th century sources alone. One important area in which theological development had taken place but was not yet codified was the Adventist understanding of the atonement. With their apocalyptic orientation and rooting of theological thinking, early Adventists had mostly used the term “atonement” for Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary rather than for his death on the cross. Uriah Smith’s 1872 statement of beliefs1052 even explicitly rejected the application of the term to Christ’s death. He formulated: That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father …; that he … makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in Heaven.1053

In the 1890s, however, this definite view began to be modified, and from the 1930s onward, Adventist writers commonly distinguished three phases of the atonement: (a) the cross, (b) Christ’s heavenly intercession and (c) “his final mediatorial work in the heavenly sanctuary.”1054 With this background, it is understandable that non-Adventists relying on 19th century sources had misgivings about the denomination’s soteriology. Locating God’s atoning activity solely in the present and in heaven meant so stark a departure from traditional Christian thought patterns and appeared as such a strong invitation to eschatological perfectionism and legalism that the orthodoxy of Adventism could be dismissed on the basis of this idea alone. However, the authors of Questions on Doctrine had a solution even for the potential friction that a three-phase atonement model would cause: they distinguished between the “complete atonement” of Calvary and the “application of the benefits” of this atonement.1055 Thus a combination of terminological adjustment and theological development made mutual understanding possible for the dialogue partners.

1052 A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists, Battle Creek: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1872. For an indepth discussion of this important text, see Stefan Höschele, “The 1872 Declaration of Fundamental Principles: On the Contextual-Theological Significance of Adventism’s First Statement of Beliefs,” Spes Christiana 31.2 (2020), 25–46. 1053 A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles, section II. 1054 Pöhler, “Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology,” 195. 1055 QOD, 357, 355. Altogether, the book devotes more than 100 pages to the subject (together with the related concept of the “investigative judgement”); see QOD 341–445.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

293

(3) A third factor in the Evangelical-Adventist cleavage, internal differences in the SDA camp, had apparently not been expected by the denomination’s leadership but soon complicated issues. In fact, the formulation of atonement theology in QOD highlighted aspects that contemporary Adventist leaders wanted to emphasize. However, the conviction that “atonement” also, or even primarily, referred to the last phase of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, was far from dead. Andreasen’s protest was more than senile stubbornness, and in an ironic turn of events, Figuhr’s successor as a General Conference president in 1966, Robert H. Pierson, was a major representative of the so-called “last generation theology,” a perfectionist approach to soteriology and eschatology, which built on Andreasen’s thinking.1056 As much as Questions on Doctrine represented a new approach to Evangelicals, its theology did not convince everybody in the Adventist fold. This was visible in at least two other areas of theology. With regard to Christology, the Evangelical dialogue partners attached the greatest importance to Christ’s nature being equal to Adam before the fall. Andreasen and many other Adventists had emphasized that his nature was that of Adam after the fall. While some might dismiss this as another theologians’ ivory tower squabble on the basis of Greek ontology, this prelapsarian vs. postlapsarian position had important consequences for concepts of human nature, of sin and of salvation. The postlapsarian view emphasized the human ability to follow Jesus in terms of morality and live like him – an important ingredient in the eschatological scheme that Andreasen had constructed on the basis of some Ellen White statements. The prelapsarian (Calvinistic Evangelical) model, by way of contrast, removed all tendencies, inclinations or propensities toward sin from Christ. Since both positions existed in the Seventh-day Adventist context (evidently with a preference for postlapsarianism), the conversations with partners for whom their pre-fall view was a sine qua non of Christian identity were not easy. What complicated the matter further was the fact that Ellen White had written on Christ’s nature – and her statements were not consistent.1057 The QOD authors, therefore, faced the dilemma of endangering the entire dialogue. Whether they really understood the problem of their own biased hermeneutic is unclear; they might have been convinced that all passages in the prophet’s writings that seemed to contradict their view had to be interpreted in the light of those that agreed with their position. At any rate, Froom, Anderson and their 1056 For a discussion of this “Last Generation” theology and the importance of Andreasen in formulating its basis, see Knight, A Search for Identity, 144–152, and Paul M. Evans, “A Historical-Contextual Analysis of the Final-Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2010. 1057 For an extensive discussion, see Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh: One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology, 1852–1952, Cherry Valley: Cherrystone, 1986.

294

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

colleagues explained the Adventist position by quoting Ellen White selectively to support the prelapsarian view.1058 By so doing, they made Questions on Doctrine a lasting witness to the power of dialogue, but one that also demonstrates the paradox that such conversations produce – for the leading Adventist church historian, George R. Knight, correctly argues that QOD became the “the most divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist history.”1059 How did this happen? The book was issued by the major denominational publishing house and had been prepared in a series of articles in Ministry, the Adventist journal for pastors. Nevertheless, what was at stake in this entire discussion was not only a few theologoumena, but a question of fundamental theology: the role of Adventist tradition. Beyond defining “atonement” and debating Christ’s nature in comparison with Adam’s, the conversations with extradenominational discussion partners forced Adventists to account for how they wanted to construct theological thinking, and particularly what function Ellen White’s writings were to have. Was she a “female pope,”1060 as Martin challenged them? To what extent were her statements authoritative – especially with regard to biblical interpretation? Of course, these questions had to figure prominently in any dialogue with Adventists. Questions on Doctrine featured one section (with only one question) on this issue, and in it the Adventist party explained carefully that they regarded White as a prophetic voice to their movement but not equal to the Bible. This conciliatory position, however, did not reflect the full picture: many Adventist leaders actually did ascribe doctrinal authority to White’s writings.1061 QOD theology represented the position of those Adventist leaders who wanted to clothe their denomination with respectability, but some aspects it presented as standard Adventist view would nevertheless remain controversial.

1058 QOD, 647–660 (appendix B); cf. George Knight’s extensive annotations in Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: Annotated Edition, 513–547, which include the revision of appendix B as published in Ministry 45.2 (February 1972). 1059 Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: Annotated Edition, xiii. 1060 “Currents Interview: Walter Martin,” 18. 1061 This point was also raised by Raymond F. Cottrell in his extensive review of Martin’s articles; see Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences,” 241– 242. Martin saw two distinct groups among Adventists: “people who really were believers and held to the foundations of the Gospel” on the one side and “worshippers of Ellen White – who had exalted her beyond the role that she ever claimed for herself” on the other; see “Currents Interview: Walter Martin,” 17.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

295

An Assessment How, then, should the first dialogue experience of Seventh-day Adventists be evaluated? Certainly it was (1) an episode of high significance, which reflected and, partly, caused what has been called the period of “Adventism in Theological Tension.”1062 The maturing of the Adventist movement inevitably entailed some degree of differentiation,1063 which both implied the existence of competing interpretations inside this traditionally strongly uniform movement and allowed for new approaches to Christians outside its own realm. Thus in terms of interchurch relations, the importance of the events in 1955–56 is that they were the first kind of genuine dialogue conducted by church leaders with non-sabbatarians over an extended period. The fact that it was the first, but not the last of such dialogues – both with Evangelicals and in general1064 – also suggests that at least some impact was felt in terms of a dialogue culture. (2) In sociology of religious movements terms and with regard to inter-organizational relations, this dialogue indicated that Adventism had moved away some distance from its sectarian 19th century identity while feeling strong enough organizationally to relate to particular partners. While upholding their unique features, Adventists, like other Evangelicals who re-thought their roots in Fundamentalism, moved toward seeking acceptance by a wider public and thus presented themselves as a respectable denomination rather than a pariah group. Suspicion against the ecumenical mainstream and the organizational features of ecumenism might continue, as among their Evangelical dialogue partners. Yet cautious attempts at creating ecumenisms of their own kind were now conceivable, at least in terms of relating to those closest to them in their general theological orientation – as long as this did not imply endangering their own organization. (3) Interchurch Relationships can assume many different forms depending on the unity concepts on which they are based. Before the conversations with these Evangelicals, Adventists had appealed to various models as ideals – mainly spiritual unity and organic union (the radical versions of the juridical and experi-

1062 Knight, A Search for Identity, 160–197 (chapter 7), thus characterizes the period from 1950 onwards. 1063 See, e. g., the following papers of the Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference (by the most evangelical and the most traditionalist Adventist presenter, respectively): Larry Christoffel, “Evangelical Adventism: Questions on Doctrine’s Legacy”; and Colin Standish, “Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: The U-Turn in Doctrine and Practice.” 1064 In the 1980s and in 2006–2007, two more Evangelical-SDA dialogues took place – with the World Evangelical Fellowship viz. Alliance (the World Evangelical Fellowship changed the last part of its name to “Alliance” in 2001). For a discussion of further dialogues, see 5.3.

296

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

ential type).1065 However, they applied these two almost exclusively to Sabbath keepers. To some extent, through their participation in mission councils and Bible Societies, they also started practicing an alliance model (the moderate version of cooperation) with non-sabbatarians.1066 It is in the conversations with their Evangelical dialogue partners that Seventh-day Adventists finally discovered a fourth option of relating to other Christians – in a communicative way. This forum type of interaction with its negotiating sphere opened up a space in which more intimate relational options such as the somewhat fuzzy “fellowship” pronounced by the Evangelicals could be embedded. While the dialogue did not imply full mutual recognition or the establishment of permanent structures for cooperation, its appeal to a common authority – the biblical scriptures – with the respect towards differing interpretations implied a “unity in diversity” attitude that broke new ground for Adventist interchurch relations. (4) Thus even in terms of the development of Adventist theology, the Evangelical-Adventist “conferences” played a catalytic role. Admittedly, the framework of the debate was narrow, with the conversation partners discussing on a basis that generally was as conservatively Protestant and biblicist as the general Adventist thinking of the period itself. Yet the very fact that SDA leaders used the opportunity of exchanging ideas and formulating positions on themes other than the denomination’s favourite subjects – i. e. on Christology and soteriology rather than the Sabbath and eschatology – helped them grow in their overall theological proficiency. Moreover, presenting SDA doctrines in a manner that was understandable and possibly even appealing for non-Adventist Christian leaders constituted a step ahead in moving the Adventist paradigm from controversial theology to constructive reflection. At the same time, one should not overlook the fact that this first series of theological dialogue meetings was limited in its impact. In spite of some degree of experimentation with formulating Adventism for listeners from other backgrounds, the denomination’s traditions remained; the fact that some common ground had been affirmed did not mean that the more contested doctrines had evaporated. Moreover, the semi-official nature of the conversations (despite endorsement by the General Conference president) had reflected the Adventist reluctance to engage in high-profile ecumenism. Questions on Doctrine was an attempt to lift the level of engagement, but when it went out of print in the 1960s, it was not republished. Some degree of ambivalence, therefore, remained visible as the story line continued.

1065 These two correspond to the Communal Sharing and Authority Ranking relational models of Fiske’s theory. 1066 The alliance model corresponds to Fiske’s Equality Matching relationships.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

297

Another major limitation was the setup of North American Adventists meeting with Evangelicals who represented none other but themselves. North America was still the centre of Adventism, but this would change in the 1960s and 1970s, when the denomination began to develop into a truly global, polycentric body. Thus the direct impact of these talks by a few persons in the 1950s was necessarily regional. QOD theology had a wider reach than the dialogue from which it had arisen, but even here the influence of the more than 130,000 copies was felt mainly in North America.1067 As for Evangelicals, they were an agglomeration of denominations rather than a clearly defined entity; “Evangelical” was a style, not an organization. The conversations, therefore, were not a typical interchurch process but a phenomenon of intra-Christian negotiations. Nevertheless, this forum-type experience opened up a new world for Seventh-day Adventists and set a pattern for future dialogues and interactions with Christians of different backgrounds.

5.1.2 Observing Vatican II The second major ecumenical learning experience of Seventh-day Adventists in the post-war period came as a surprise. Like the Evangelical-Adventist conversations, the opportunity to relate to Roman Catholics at a real council had not been anticipated by leaders of the denomination. Most other Protestant observers of Catholicism had not expected such a development either, and therefore the dynamics that unfolded were of an experimental nature for all participants. It is important to bear in mind that for Adventists any interaction with Roman Catholics was fraught with the greatest degree of apprehension. They had inherited the generally anti-Catholic attitudes of American 19th century Protestantism, which essentially meant a non-relationship coupled with a posture of religious enmity.1068 While the Adventist pacifism prevented them from participating in violent approaches directed at Catholics – as it surfaced in the Ku Klux Klan and other nativist organizations – their inherited apocalyptic scheme, in

1067 Knight, “Introduction to the Annotated Edition,” QOD Annotated Edition, xxiii. Froom actually estimated more than 138,000 copies. The exception to this limitation to North America is Latin America: the text was translated into Spanish and Portuguese in the 1970s and 1980s; sections of it were reproduced as articles, and finally the book was published in 1986 and 2008, respectively; see Alberto R. Timm, “Questions on Doctrine: History and Impact in the South American Division,” Paper presented at the Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference. 1068 Cf. John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955.

298

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

which Catholicism played a decisive role in persecuting the Sabbath-keeping saints, implied a permanent distance to these fellow Christians. Adventist views of Roman Catholicism until Vatican II and their concomitant reaction to developments in the largest Christian church do not need to be discussed here in detail for two reasons: (1) they have been analysed comprehensively by Reinder Bruinsma1069 and (2) they exemplify, almost without exception, variations of the same theme: suspicion mingled with a claim to authoritative prophetic interpretation, combined with an absence of any actual interchurch relationships.1070 The latter state was, of course, the rule for all Evangelical bodies until well into the 1960s. Yet it is important to bear in mind the peculiar Adventist situation because it entailed an even more unlikely basis for an impartial or friendly assessment of the council. In other words, Adventist-Roman Catholic relations were non-existent at best, and the potential for any future relationship that would exceed mutual condemnation was minimal. There was one important exception to this general Adventist sense of sceptical distance: Ellen White. Admittedly, her most famous book, The Great Controversy, predicted the aforementioned persecution by a Roman Catholic-Protestant alliance that Sabbath keepers would have to endure shortly before the parousia.1071 However, by the latter half of the 1880s, the movement’s prophet began to caution regarding unfair dealings with Roman Catholics, probably at least in part because of her experiences in Europe.1072 From the 1890s onward, her 1069 Reinder Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 1844– 1965, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1994. A summary is found in Reinder Bruinsma, “Adventists and Catholics: Prophetic Preview or Prejudice?,” Spectrum 27.3 (1999), 45–52. 1070 The one exception to the general lack of interaction between Adventist and Roman Catholic leadership is the SDA reply to the encyclical Lux Veritatis (December 25, 1931) in 1932. This statement did not seek to build bridges but reacted to the Pope Pius XI’s invitation of returning to Rome to those Christians “who differ from the Apostolic See” (ibid., no. 5). The Adventist reply did not comment on the major content of the encyclical, i. e. its antiNestorian arguments. It was voted by the Executive Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists on March 3, 1932, and was published in Review and Herald, March 31, 1932, 3– 4 [291–292], as well as in several other magazines. For the full text, see also Höschele, Interchurch and Interfaith Relations, 39– 43. 1071 Cf. the discussion in section 4.1.2. 1072 In her diary, she wrote in 1886: “Tramelan, May 23, 1886. … The master of the house … was well acquainted with Oscar Roth, and he told him that he did not want anything more to do with him since he published such things as he did about the Catholics in the French Signs. He said he was greatly offended, and Oscar told him that neither he nor his sister Mary, who was with us, was responsible for these pieces being put in the Signs. He smoothed down after a time and said, ‘Well, we will talk no more about it. We will talk of something else.’ We look upon this as being an interesting little bit of experience.” (Manuscript 64, 1886, 5–6 / Diary, April 30–May 23, 1886, EGWE.) In a subsequent address to Adventist missionary workers, she entreated them, “We should not upon entering a place build up unnecessary barriers between us and other denominations, especially the Catholics, so that they shall

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

299

calls for moderation and amity in relating to Roman Catholic Christians became more frequent and appeared in print.1073 While these counsels were not among the oft-quoted Ellen White statements and did not imply any change in attitude to the theology or polity of Roman Catholicism, they constituted a basis for differentiated interactions with this church as an organization in the generations to come. The actual steps toward an Adventist observer participation in the council were surprisingly easy. The Vatican had made provision for “delegated observers” from various churches and religious organizations, an invitation to which more than thirty of these responded.1074 While Seventh-day Adventists were not included, denominational leaders delegated several persons as journalists to attend – Raymond Cottrell of the Review and Herald, Marvin E. Loewen for the Religious Liberty Department and, later, Arthur Maxwell for Signs of the Times. Since none of them spoke Italian, they also asked Bert B. Beach, a young historian and educational administrator, to be among the group. Beach’s presence turned out to be crucial, for he quickly made friends with other Protestant observers, attended all four sessions (unlike his colleagues), and was later accepted into the meetings as an unofficial observer.1075 The tendencies in Adventist reports on the council were mostly similar. Accurate reporting, “perhaps even scrupulously so,”1076 went hand in hand with

1073

1074

1075 1076

think we are their avowed enemies. We should not create a prejudice in their minds unnecessarily, by making a raid upon them. There are many among the Catholics who live up to the light they have far better than many who claim to believe present truth.” (Manuscript 14, 1887 [Address given March 7, 1887, before the Institute at Basel, Switzerland], EGWE.) See Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers, Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1892, 299; Special Testimonies to Ministers and Workers, no. 3, N.p.: n.p., 1895, 24–29; Letter 20, 1896, EGWE (published partially in Counsels to Writers and Editors, Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1946, 64–65); “The Seal of God. No. 2,” ST, November 8, 1899, 2 [722] (“There are true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion”). The latter statement had already appeared in an earlier version of the Great Controversy, in the book entitled Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 282, in 1884, as well as in the 1888 version of the Great Controversy. John W. O’Malley, What Happened at Vatican II, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008, 22, 33, 122, 338. The number of observers and official guests rose during the council and ultimately reached 182; see ibid., 33. Cf. also Bert B. Beach, Vatican II: Bridging the Abyss, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1968, 332–336 (appendix C: “Council Observers and Guests”). For a short account on this episode, see Bert B. Beach, Ambassador for Liberty: Building Bridges of Faith, Friendship, and Freedom, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2012, 73–77 (chapter 13: “An Observer to Vatican II”). Keith A. Francis, “Seventh-Day Adventism’s Reaction to Vatican II,” in David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.), Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries), Adventistica 9, Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 127–136, here 130. Francis’ text indeed presents a few Adventist reactions in denomi-

300

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

comments that revealed the authors’ uneasiness about the developments they observed. They admitted that the council changed elements of Roman Catholicism in a significant manner, but the sense that these changes were only of a cosmetic nature remained strong.1077 After all, Adventists were convinced that their expectancy of future events – and the involvement of the pope in it – was correct. Moreover, it was hard for Adventists to believe that the largest Christian organization, which had thus far rejected ecumenism and religious liberty almost completely, had changed more than just language and strategy by promulgating its decree Unitatis redintegratio and the declaration Dignitatis humanae. The most comprehensive evaluation of the council from an Adventist perspective, even 50 years after the event,1078 is found in Bert Beach’s book Vatican II: Bridging the Abyss. An analysis of this book demonstrates both continuity and change in Adventist thinking at the time, and it is probably not an overstatement that in several respects it was epoch-making with regard to SDA interchurch relations: (1) It was the first comprehensive monograph on contemporary developments inside any other denomination,1079 (2) it included the first extensive treatment of issues in interchurch relations,1080 and (3) it was the first book to take a guarded, empirical, inductive approach to what was going on in another Christian church. This last observation is of particular importance, for Beach continued to use some rhetoric of appeal to prophecy and its traditional Adventist interpretation, but in his detailed analysis, he mainly depended on exegetical, theological and logical arguments. Thus rather than invoking future

1077 1078

1079

1080

national publications; however, it does not evaluate them in a systematic manner and with regard to the general development of Adventist ecumenical thought. The main thrust is the question of “self-identity that religious minorities face when they are no longer in the minority” (ibid., 127). Ibid., 131–134. There are few later discussions of Vatican II in Adventist literature. One more significant text is an appendix of a German book for religious instruction of young people, which focuses on church history and the history of Adventism: Josef Butscher, “Das 2. Vatikanische Konzil – eine Weichenstellung?,” in Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten, Weichenstellungen: Ein Gang durch die Kirchen- und Adventgeschichte, Hamburg: Saatkorn, 1989, 284–299. Butscher’s contribution presents an essentially negative evaluation along the line “Rome did not really change” and consists largely of quotes from council documents, supplemented by short comments. Interestingly, it was also translated into Polish (but no other language) and was published even shortly before the original: Bert B. Beach, Vaticanum 2 most nad przepas´cia˛, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo “Znaki Czasu”, 1967. Evidently the book’s somewhat critical general stance regarding Roman Catholicism corresponded to the interests of the Polish government at the time. Beach, Vatican II, particularly 243–287 (the chapters entitled “Ecumenism the Path to Unity” and “The Decree on Ecumenism”), but also 288–325 (“Accomplishments of Vatican II,” “Success or Failure?,” “Is Rome Really Changing?” and “The Christian Attitude toward Vatican II”).

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

301

scenarios and connecting these with deductive reasoning regarding the interpretation of current events, as was common among writers and evangelists of the generations before, Beach’s monograph silently applied to the present a moratorium regarding apocalyptic expectations. How much this approach differed from his antecedents is visible when one compares his Vatican II book with the few earlier Adventist monographs that had Roman Catholicism in view. From Alonzo Jones’s historical overview of Roman “apostasy” coupled with its projected replication in America (1891)1081 and Percy Magan’s speculations during World War I that the Vatican would utilize diplomatic means to gain power again (1915)1082 to Alonzo Baker’s interpretation of the Lateran Treaty as the fulfilment of the “deadly wound” prophecy of Revelation 13:3 (1929)1083 – all these writers essentially mixed the interpretation of biblical apocalyptic, an analysis of contemporary events and predictions regarding the future.1084 In Beach’s book, the concomitant sensational and speculative elements were conspicuously absent. This does not mean, however, that Beach’s perspective represented a complete break with Adventist tradition. He justified the very act of publishing a book by arguing that “Seventh-day Adventist comment on the decisions and farreaching results of Vatican II, based on observation and study from a Biblical and prophetic standpoint, is clearly called for.”1085 Similarly, the editor of the major denominational weekly, Review and Herald, Kenneth H. Wood, ended his foreword by expressing the hope that the book “should become a standard 1081 Alonzo T. Jones, The Two Republics; Or, Rome and the United States of America, Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1891, is an 899 page-work. Jones was one of the “stars” of Adventism at the period in terms of publishing and public issues. In the early 20th century, he separated from the denomination but remained a sabbatarian. 1082 Percy T. Magan, The Vatican and the War: A Retrospect and Forecast, Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1915. The subtitle says, “Being a review of the past attitude of the Vatican towards civil and religious government, and an analysis of her latest utterance upon these matters as related to the European war.” Much of the book is on Christian and general history. Magan was a medical doctor and an outstanding educationist of the denomination; he also served in top leadership positions of what was to become Loma Linda University. 1083 Alonzo L. Baker, The Pope King Again: Is the “Deadly Wound” Healing?, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1929. The lengthy subtitle reads, “A Study of the Papacy in the Light of Certain Principles Fundamental to the Modern Conception of Democracy and Freedom; and an Examination of the Roman Catholic Church as a Fulfillment of Divinely Inspired Prophecies Made by Daniel, Paul, and John the Revelator.” 1084 The other two relevant books before the 1960s focused on doctrine and the interpretation of biblical texts that Adventists connected with the history of Roman Catholicism: Jesse C. Stevens, The Papacy in Bible Prophecy, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1928, and Mary Walsh, The Wine of Roman Babylon, Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1945. 1085 Beach, Vatican II, 11.

302

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

reference work for all who desire a scholarly, Bible-prophecy-oriented evaluation of Vatican II.”1086 Thus a whole section in the introduction is entitled “Vatican II in the Light of Bible Prophecy.”1087 However, it is significant that these appeals to “prophecy” do not lead to instances in which fulfilment of any specific biblical passage is claimed in the developments of Vatican II. Beyond stating the general conviction that his generation lives at “the time of the end,” Beach does not connect contemporary events and the Seventh-day Adventist interest in apocalyptic in these introductory considerations. In fact, he even emphasizes that “prudence is called for … [I]t is not sound to interpret prophecy simply through newspaper headlines, as people and preachers are sometimes tempted to do.”1088 What, then, does Beach’s Vatican II book say about the developing interchurch relations stance of his denomination? Four aspects are outstanding: (1) an increasing willingness to observe and listen, (2) an interest in ecumenism that transcended mere apologetics (and, thus, implied some degree of creative self-reflection with regard to interchurch relationships), (3) the recognition of divine activities in the contemporary history of other Christian churches, and (4) a somewhat dialectical approach to Adventist tradition. Each of these aspects deserves a more detailed discussion. (1) The increasing Adventist willingness to listen, to learn and to observe carefully is visible, first of all, in Beach’s comprehensive treatment of the council themes. Not only does he devote considerable space to explaining the history and nature of church councils and the setting of the proceedings1089 – an important contribution to the general education of the SDA public before the age of Wikipedia. Beach also relates key facts regarding almost all of the major schemas, themes and decisions of Vatican II, dedicating about one third of his book to “internal” subjects (revelation, the church, papal supremacy, the bishops and the laity)1090 and almost half to matters of “external” interest (church and world, calendar reform, religious liberty, Roman Catholicism and the Jews, and ecumenism).1091 Meticulous reporting is combined with popular style but perceptive observations and evaluations from an Adventist perspective, mainly based on Protestant arguments and at times adding particular SDA concerns such as an emphasis on the Second Coming.1092 1086 Ibid., 10. 1087 Ibid., 12–13. Here Beach explains, “I have simply endeavoured to paint with Adventist brushes, against a background of Bible prophecy and within the framework of scriptural doctrine and teaching, some meaningful tableaux on the canvas of church history” (13). 1088 Ibid., 15. 1089 Ibid. 1090 Ibid., 43–137. 1091 Ibid., 138–287. 1092 This emphasis explains some critical remarks in the chapters on “The Doctrine of the Church” (ibid., 66–91; here 73–80), “The Church and the World” (138–158; here 156–157)

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

303

(2) Reporting on the changing Roman Catholic ecumenism discourse permitted Beach and the Adventist movement to reflect upon several sub-themes of interchurch relations. One was the question of whether other denominations really amended their positions or whether ecumenical rhetoric only represented cosmetic change. While Beach tended to the latter assessment on the basis of a traditional Adventist perspective on Roman Catholicism, he admitted that Vatican II had indeed drastically altered Rome’s approach to interchurch relations in practice.1093 A second sub-theme was the issue of dialogue. At the time of writing, this was still a relatively novel subject in the Ecumenical Movement, and Adventists had no bilateral dialogue experience; thus Beach’s comments represent the first pertinent reflection on the topic in his denominational sphere. They are quoted at length here because his reasoning indicates both the critical perspective he took and his positive view of dialogue, which was an innovation in the Adventist context: Though the word “dialog” has entered the Catholic vocabulary, it appears to have a modified meaning from its accepted ecumenical significance. In the World Council circles dialog implies basically a searching of points of mutual contact and agreement, a discussion of conflicting views, and a desire to develop a more unselfish grasp of one another’s position – all this in view of obtaining a more complete understanding of truth in the quest for unity, no matter where this road may lead. For Rome, however, the opening of dialog appears to aim at clearing up any existing misunderstandings or preconceived hostile feelings toward the Catholic Church. Dialog, in its Vatican sense, aims primarily at removing “warped judgment” regarding Catholic doctrine and practice.1094

While Beach may have somewhat overstated the case on the basis of his conviction that the Roman Catholic “return ecumenism” had not changed,1095 he pointed to a major intrinsic problem of all dialogue activity: the question of who will accept modifications of traditional doctrinal formulations. Moreover, there is an irony in his statement, because his characterization of Roman Catholic dialogue may be applied to later Adventist dialogue activities as well. A third theme, though mostly implicit, was how Adventists should view ecumenical activities and how they should engage in interchurch relationships. Beach’s discussions of increasing Roman Catholic ecumenical openness – and of the change in Protestant attitudes toward Rome – do indicate some ambivand “Ecumenism the Path to Unity” (243–266; here 263–264). In each case, Beach judges that Roman Catholics do not sufficiently accentuate biblical apocalyptic in their eschatology. 1093 Ibid., 244–249. 1094 Ibid., 275–276. 1095 Ibid., 256–258, 277.

304

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

alence. While acknowledging the significance of removed barriers, he essentially dismisses all attempts at creating organizational closeness by interpreting John 17:21–22 as applying only to “individual disciples of Christ.”1096 While he appears to advocate a model in which only the commandment-keeping “church of the remnant”1097 represents true unity, Beach admits that “God’s people today consist of the faithful in every communion and walk of life,” thus presenting a view of the ecclesia invisibilis that reaches far beyond Adventists and even Christians. His conclusion is, therefore, that it “is high time that we look upon Catholics not as ‘subversive opponents’ but as ‘separated brethren.’ … Neither are evangelical Christians to be guilty of die-hard theological segregation or of blindness that is oblivious to changing reality.”1098 (3) Adventist interchurch relationships, like ecumenism in general, also depended on a pneumatology that would grant – at least to some extent – that God’s current activities could be recognized in other churches. In the case of Roman Catholicism, this was the greatest possible theological challenge for many Adventists, for the papal system and the history of Catholicism represented everything they rejected. The task of recognizing the Spirit’s active work among non-Adventists was aggravated further by the tradition that applied the “spirit of prophecy” almost exclusively to Ellen White and by the anti-enthusiastic SDA stance of the late 19th century.1099 Thus it is significant that Beach’s book grants – albeit in the most tentative way possible – that divine activity is possibly to be been seen in Vatican II. He asked, can we with certainty affirm that God’s Spirit was not able to work in the Council halls, pleading with honest as well as hardened hearts? Can we not say that even such a Council, despite all its erroneous premises and faulty conclusions, by pinpointing vital issues, represented in the climactic period of this world’s history God working out rightly and quickly that which He has conceived to do upon the earth? God works in mysterious ways His wonders to perform.1100

1096 Ibid., 259. Cf. also p. 266, where he argues, “This [Christian] unity cannot be achieved by pageantry, force, organization, apostolic authority, petrine succession, not by anathemas and condemnation of heresy, nor by ecclesial self-glorification, but solely ‘by the blood of Christ,’ who reconciled man to God and made fellow citizens of His kingdom all those who through faith have the privilege of membership in His church, and keep ‘the faith of Jesus’ in humble obedience to the commandments of God.” 1097 Ibid., 265. 1098 Ibid., 325. In the original setting of this quotation, we is italicized. 1099 Cf. section 3.2. Regarding “manifestations” of the Holy Spirit, Beach commented critically, “I could not recognize anything approaching a Pentecostal experience of complete commitment to God’s service by laying all on the altar of sacrifice and consecration. … I was not able to detect any convincing evidence of widespread spiritual awakening and revival of primitive godliness sweeping through episcopal ranks” (Beach, Vatican II, 17). 1100 Ibid., 18.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

305

(4) The assessment implicit in these questions points towards the general approach that Beach utilized in his book. He wanted to remain true to his denomination’s teachings, shared its inherited general scepticism of ecumenism in general (and its Roman Catholicism version in particular), but opened the door to a much more nuanced and differentiated view of other Christian churches. In doing so, Beach imperceptibly also employed what can be called a dialectical approach to Adventist tradition.1101 While affirming its peculiar eschatological scheme – including the interchurch conflict scenario it contains – and invoking its biblical foundation and validity, he relegated it summarily to an undefined future. Even the subtitle of the book – Bridging the Abyss – indicates this dialectic. On the one hand, it quotes from Ellen White’s well-known statement on an expected union of Catholicism and Protestantism with the implication of persecuting sabbatarians.1102 On the other, Beach creatively reinterprets the phrase by recognizing that “Rome is endeavouring to gradually erect bridges across many old yawning gulfs of separation: between Bible and tradition, laity and clergy, pope and bishop, Catholics and non-Catholics, believers and non-believers, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, and between Rome and the world.”1103 Therefore Beach’s evaluation of the council as a whole, in spite of interspersed critical remarks and reflections,1104 is essentially positive. In his analysis, “[t]he main accomplishment of Vatican II seems to be a new spirit in the Roman Catholic Church, a change in thinking, attitude, and atmosphere. The core of Catholic dogma stands essentially unchallenged, but profound psychological

1101 Thus Francis’s analysis in his article “Seventh-Day Adventism’s Reaction to Vatican II,” 130, may be correct for many of the articles published in SDA papers, but not for Beach’s book – at least not fully. He argued, “The reactions in the articles to Vatican II can be divided into two categories: first, no reaction at all, instead a simple reporting of the facts; second, interpreting the developments through a Seventh-day Adventist lens, thus noting that events at the Council confirmed Seventh-day Adventist beliefs about Roman Catholicism.” 1102 Beach, Vatican II, 243, 267. On the latter page, Beach juxtaposed E. White’s statement with a 1964 quotation from Pope Paul VI: “An abyss of diffidence and scepticism has been mostly bridged over.” These different views indicate that Beach wished both to fairly portray new developments and to uphold a traditional Adventist perspective. 1103 Ibid., 16. 1104 An example of such criticism coupled with praise is Beach’s comment on The Church in the Modern World. He argues, “This text contains a wealth of fine statements regarding the present situation of the world, its problems, and the role of the Catholic Church. It is addressed to all men, not just Catholics, and this is a new departure in Catholic conciliar history” (Vatican II, 140), and adds, “For the first time in Catholic conciliar history attention was focused on important social problems of mankind” (146). At the same time, Beach points out that the “main Seventh-day Adventist objection” to the document is “its underlying humanistic and evolutionistic philosophy” (156) – a typical Adventist point of concern, but one that at least partly misses the aim of the statement, which is not doctrine.

306

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

changes are there for everyone to see and feel.”1105 Beyond “so many and so varied”1106 accomplishments in the areas of worship, ecclesiology, collegiality, theology of revelation, ecumenism, and views on religious liberty,1107 Beach applauded a general shift of emphasis “often in the direction of what Protestants have for centuries been advocating.”1108 Most important to Beach, a future religious liberty official in the SDA denomination, in terms of “human liberty and the primacy of conscience,” Vatican II could be evaluated as “a limited success” with “some positive steps in the right direction.”1109 Therefore, he summarized his appraisal by stating, “I would by no means deny that post-Vatican II Catholicism is an improved, updated, more effective church. Some of the most irritating aspects have been amended. Many others remain, however.”1110 This guarded optimism regarding the Vatican and religious liberty1111 is a key for interpreting Beach’s overall stance vis-à-vis this “improved, updated, more effective church” and for understanding his attitude regarding ecumenism. Being preoccupied not with eschatological expectations projected into the near future but the question of religious liberty, Beach made this very question the main interpretament in discussing the council. To him, the trouble spot was not the traditional SDA apocalyptic scenario but issues that might cause impediments to amicable interchurch relationships in the present. This is also the reason why his final evaluation of the Vatican II may sound so tentative and rather cautious when compared to traditional Adventist pronouncements on Catholicism. Ecclesiologically, Beach’s considerations rest upon a way of thinking that tacitly (and probably unconsciously) modified the customary Adventist remnant concept. He asserted the identity of “the visible agency of the Seventh-day Adventist Church” with “the divinely ordained movement of Revelation 14 gathering together the ‘remnant’ of the People of God found in all churches and denominations, or outside the circle of organized Christianity.”1112 By so doing, Beach both emphasized the importance of Adventism and widened the “remnant” – while criticizing essentialist approaches to the church, for he continued, 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111

Ibid., 297. Ibid., 289. Ibid., 290–297. Ibid., 296. Ibid., 303. Ibid., 320. For a comprehensive discussion of the council’s teaching on this subject from a Seventhday Adventist religious liberty perspective, see also Edwin Cook, “Roman Catholic Hegemony and Religious Freedom: A Seventh-day Adventist assessment of Dignitatis Humanae,” Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2012. The section relevant for the current study, chapter 4 (Dignitatis Humanae and Seventh-day Adventists, pp. 174–229) contains much general material on various Adventist views regarding Roman Catholicism (including many lengthy quotations) but little specific discussion of the council’s declaration. 1112 Beach, Vatican II, 91.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

307

“the church must continually keep its ecclesiological definitions and institutions operational and evangelistic … rather than frozen in narrowly hierarchical and legal forms of church organization.”1113 While this was intended as criticism of Roman Catholicism, it evidently also implied a differentiated view of his own denomination. In other words, Beach had a very evangelical and missional view of church; his emphasis, therefore, was not the SDA church organization, but a particular understanding of the gospel to be shared. It is on this basis of what may be called a missional-communicative ecclesiology that he could advocate increased interchurch relations activities which were both personal relationship and conversation oriented. In a relational models perspective, this corresponded to “forum” type (or moderate MP) relations coupled with spontaneous individual friendship and unreserved Christian brotherhood.1114 This approach was rooted in crucial Adventist values; it grew out of an enhanced observer model of ecumenical contact and thus represented the logic inherent in both the general Protestant involvement in Vatican II and the Adventist style of approaching other churches in the past. At the same time, it created dynamics of its own as Beach made personal acquaintance with major protagonists of ecumenism on the Protestant side such as Edmund Schlink, Lukas Vischer,1115 Willem Visser t’Hooft and Oscar Cullmann,1116 as well as among Roman Catholic theologians, e. g. Hans Küng and Yves Congar. Some even became friends, such as Cardinal Jerome Hamer and Thomas Stransky.1117 All in all, Vatican II had an enormous significance for Adventists’ interchurch relations. Even though they were not aware of it, the council influenced their future attitudes and activities in a mostly indirect but nevertheless definite manner. (1) Apart from the fact that the council was the first opportunity to encounter Roman Catholic dignitaries and thinkers on an equal footing, it represented (2) an extended space for meeting with largely like-minded Protestants of different backgrounds. (3) What is more, the fact that Adventists had to listen to them as well as to council spokesmen, i. e. representatives of the Christian tradition that they viewed as the most problematic of all, implied a necessity of 1113 Ibid. 1114 Beach’s comment on the rise of papal supremacy in his Vatican II book points in the same direction. He argues that with the institution of the papacy, “human and institutional, hierarchical and juridical, authority is exalted to take the place originally held by the first love of Christian fellowship” (114): a typical CS line of reasoning (“fellowship” vs. authoritarianism). 1115 Ibid., 334. 1116 Beach, Ambassador for Liberty, 74. 1117 Ibid., 75–76; interview Bert Beach, Silver Spring, June 1, 2008. Stransky was among the first staff members in the Secretariat (later: Pontifical Council) for the Promotion of Christian Unity, and headed the Paulist Fathers in the 1970s.

308

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

change at least regarding the willingness to hear what others were saying and intending to say. (4) An unintended but nevertheless crucial result of these encounters was that Adventists, for the first time, reflected on ecumenical matters in a comprehensive manner, building, of course, on their earlier views, but taking into account contemporary developments that were hard to deny. (5) In so doing, reflections on options in their own interactions with other Christian traditions – both directly and indirectly (by analysing Roman Catholic moves) – were done in a systematic manner for the first time. (6) Bert Beach’s future path of serving the denomination in the field of interchurch relations started here as well. The most important contribution of Vatican II to Adventism may be Bert B. Beach himself. He had not planned to attend the council and had no history of interest in interchurch relations;1118 much later he reflected, “If I had known what that would mean I would not have accepted.”1119 But accept he did, and the following years would move his ministry in a way that made him the premier (and, for a long time, the only major) expert on ecumenism in the denomination. Moreover, Beach not only continued authoring articles on interchurch relations but soon became the key actor in organizing dialogues and initiating the denominational Council on Interchurch Relations, thus becoming the Adventist “Mr. Interchurch Relations,” a kind of SDA David du Plessis,1120 but with a much stronger rootage in the denomination’s organizational structure.

5.1.3 Conversing with the World Council of Churches1121 Vatican II not only catapulted the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical sphere; it also catalysed a process of further interest in interdenominational contact in Adventism that is illuminated by the next significant episode in the denomination’s interchurch relationships. While in Rome, Bert Beach made the acquaintance of, and even befriended some, important leaders in the Ecumenical Movement. Of special significance was the friendly relationship with

1118 “Until I was 34 [in 1962], I had almost nothing to do with other churches, I was not interested in other churches, I had not spoken to a Roman priest even” (interview Beach). 1119 Interview Beach; cf. Beach, Ambassador for Liberty, 73, where he presents similar sentiments and adds, “After all, I had a division [world region] education department to run.” 1120 du Plessis, an Assemblies of God minister, played an important role in bringing Pentecostals in contact with the Ecumenical Movement; see Joshua R. Ziefle, David du Plessis and the Assemblies of God: The Struggle for the Soul of a Movement, Leiden: Brill, 2013. 1121 This section was published as part of my article “From Detachment to Conversation: Early Adventist Interactions with the World Council of Churches,” Spes Christiana 25–30 (2014– 2019), 201–228 (here pp. 211–225). Copyright: author.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

309

Lukas Vischer,1122 the Faith and Order research secretary and, from 1966, its director. He was a key analyst of Vatican II ecumenism on the Protestant side, which also meant that Beach, his Adventist counterpart, was in touch with him frequently. Although the available sources do not indicate which of the two suggested the idea of a WCC-SDA dialogue in the mid-1960s,1123 it seems likely that it was Vischer, for at the same time the World Council of Churches made a deliberate effort to establish closer links with other large non-member churches or movements.1124 It is significant, however, that Beach not only agreed to these conversations but actively pursued this engagement over a period of eight years. Moreover, one can view a clear development in the progression of meetings: these “informal conversations,” as he still called them in 1970, started from “a completely informal basis” in 1965, then became “somewhat more formal” until 1969 and, finally, developed into what may be called genuine theological dialogue with a preliminary report in 1970 and a second report statement in 1972.1125 This increasing momentum is mirrored in the fact that the entire project was completed with a booklet that included these and a few related statements in addition to general documentation on the WCC and the SDA Church.1126 Given the fact that such conversations were breaking entirely new ground (with the exception of the much more unofficial discussions with North American Evangelicals in the 1950s), such an endeavour needed an individual who made the project his own. Beach was certainly the right person: he was experi1122 In later years, Beach and Vischer corresponded on a first-name basis, as Beach did with many other ecumenical leaders; see correspondence in the WCC Archives, Geneva, 23.6.041 Faith and Order – World Confessional Bodies, 1962–1971, and 23.6.042 Faith and Order – World Confessional Families, Correspondence 1969–1977. 1123 Bert B. Beach, “The World Council of Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Conversations and Their Significance,” The Ecumenical Review 22.2 (April 1970), 163–167, says (p. 163): “while in Rome in connection with the Vatican Council a WCC staff member and an Adventist representative came to the conclusion that an informal meeting of a small group of Seventh-day Adventists with an equal number of representatives from the World Council of Churches would fulfil a useful purpose.” Published also with the same title in Ministry 43.5 (1970), 13–15 (part 1), here 13, and 43.6 (1970), 59–61, and as a booklet: Seventh-day Adventist Conversations and Their Significance, Faith and Order Paper 55, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1970. 1124 One result of this effort was the 1967 publication of M. B. Handspicker and Lukas Vischer (eds.), An Ecumenical Exercise: The Southern Baptist Convention, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Kimbanguist Church in the Congo, the Pentecostal Movement in Europe. Faith and Order Papers 49, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1967. 1125 Only presentations and discussions of the last meeting (in November 1972) were, therefore, not included in a published report. 1126 So Much in Common: Documents of Interest in the Conversations between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1973.

310

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

enced in interchurch contact after his apprenticeship during Vatican II, a speaker of several languages, a friendly, non-threatening character, and a denominational employee who had considerable influence on leaders of his church without serving in an executive position himself – for that would have tied him to too many other administrative duties. Moreover, his position as an American serving in Europe, far away from the denomination’s headquarters but relatively close to the centres of ecumenical decision-making, and being of good standing with the denominational leaders at the headquarters,1127 contributed to the relative ease with which he was able to steer matters in these experimental years. While it is possible that Beach passed on some information orally to Adventist General Conference officials in 1968,1128 only in mid-1970 did more detailed information reach them officially. The reaction of the denominational leadership was less than enthusiastic. Apparently they sensed that something was going on that they ought to control more, for the informal but powerful General Conference Officers Meeting noted in July 1970: Invitations have been received by Beverly B [sic] Beach of the Northern European Division to meet representatives from the Vatican and the World Council for the sake of holding dialogue with these religious organizations … To accept appointments of the nature withdraws him for an extended time from his usual duties. The Northern European Division and B B Beach desire to know how to relate themselves to such invitations. Agreed, To advise the Northern European Division and Beverly B Beach that invitations for discussions of various types with other religious groups should be relayed to the General Conference Secretary through the Offices of the Northern European Division.1129

One week later, a nine-person committee was established “to give study to … broader aspects of conversation with other religious groups.”1130 The entire style of the resolution demonstrates that there was uneasiness with the affair on the

1127 He was also well known because his father, Walter Beach, served as General Conference secretary from 1954 until his retirement in 1970. 1128 According to his own memory, Beach was “in touch with the GC [General Conference]” and probably had considerable freedom in this undertaking, for he also selected many participants himself; see interview Beach. First references to “B. B. Beach contacts” with and a “B. B. Beach report” about the WCC in minutes are found in GCOM, August 7 and 12, 1968, GCA. However, there is no mention of the conversations, only reference to the WCC Assembly and “contacts made in Eastern Europe,” which probably imply other activities of Beach. 1129 “Dialogues with Religious Bodies – Europe,” GCOM, July 1, 1970, GCA. Interestingly, Beach’s father, who was the General Conference secretary at the time, was not present during that particular meeting; the reason is not known. 1130 “Dialogues with Religious Bodies,” GCOM, July 8, 1970, GCA.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

311

one side and trust in Beach’s reliability on the other. The issue was to be studied “in the light of the denomination’s philosophy and the finances involved in any further contacts” – but, at the same time, the denominational leaders adopted the project as their own, for they formulated, “Dr. B B Beach has been our liaison man with the World Council of Churches in Europe.” Apparently this dialogues committee did not meet, or if it did, it did not produce a resolution; at any rate, it did not leave any mark in the continuing conversations. While some reports were soon sent to General Conference leaders,1131 Beach essentially continued to steer the encounters with WCC representatives on his own. It appears that even in subsequent years he did not ask the top leaders for permission to conduct the meetings1132 but continued along the lines of the previous years. He recruited personnel to participate in the dialogue meetings almost exclusively from Europe – no doubt also for financial reasons.1133 Thus from the evolving dynamics visible in the extant sources1134 one can clearly deduce that the entire endeavour was done by keeping a low profile vis-à1131 Some correspondence from this period was not yet available at the time of research, but letters in the Biblical Research Institut files indicate that in December 1970 lengthy reports on the November meeting were sent to General Conference officials by Beach and Raoul Dederen, a Belgian theology professor at Andrews University and one of the few participants who had come over from the USA; see Raoul Dederen – R. H. Pierson [the General Conference president], December 3, 1970, and B. B. Beach – G. M. Hyde et al., December 21, 1970, both in the folder “World Council of Churches,” BRI. 1132 The 1970 report contains illuminating information on this point: it states that after 1965, “the three Adventist Divisions involved have given their blessing by facilitating the selection of the SDA representatives” (Beach, “The WCC / SDA Conversations and Their Significance,” 163); this suggests that Beach presented the conversations as a fait accompli and merely asked for input, but not for views on whether the meetings should take place or not. 1133 Raoul Dederen – Robert H. Pierson, December 8, 1970, Folder “World Council of Churches,” BRI, mentions considerable expenses for the trip – $452, which would be about seven times this amount today according to online inflation calculators. A list of participants is included in the report by J. A. McMillan, “Report of Conversations between the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Department and a Group of Seventh-day Adventists, Held at Geneva, Switzerland, and Collonges, France, November 23–25, 1970,” n.d., Folder “World Council of Churches,” BRI: it includes 13 Adventist participants and 12 persons representing the WCC. 1134 The only extensive report published in an English Adventist paper apart from the two-part paper mentioned above (Beach, “The WCC/SDA Conversations”) is a text by Paul Schwarzenau “Seventh-day Adventists and the World Council: Doctrinal Agreements with Member Churches,” Ministry 46.2 (1973), 9–11, which was also part of “The World Council of Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971,” Ecumenical Review 24.2 (April 1972), 200 –207, and (identical) Seventh-day Adventist Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971, Switzerland, Faith and Order Paper 62, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1972. For a short German introduction to the latter report that is independent of the English version, see Bert B. Beach, “Ökumenischer Rat der Kirchen und Siebenten-Tages-Adventisten: Eine Gewissenssymbiose,” Ökumenische Rundschau 21 (1972), 230–232.

312

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Table 8. Themes and papers of the WCC-Adventist conversations Year Theme

Date

1965 No topic [Discussions on the SDA Church, the WCC and on interchurch relations]

May 10–11

1966 Law and Gospel, with Special Reference to the Third Commandment

March 30– April 1

1967 Religious Liberty, Christian Witness and Proselytism

[Probably November]

1968 Prophecy

November 25–27

1969 Apocalyptic Prophecy

November 24–26

Known Papers No papers

SDA

*Hilgert, Earle. [Presentation on the Sabbath]. *Olsen, V. Norskov. [Presentation on the Reformation – probably 1966]. WCC Handspicker, M. B. “The Seventhday Adventist Church.” [Not known] SDA

*Seton, Bernard. [Study on Prophecy]. *Vick, Edward W. H. [Study on Prophecy]. WCC *Klopfenstein, Martin. [Presentation on the Question of Prophecy]. [Not known]

1970 The Word of God – Revelation – November Inspiration 23–25

SDA

1971 The Social Responsibility of the Church

SDA

November 24–26

Dederen, Raoul. “Revelation and the Bible: A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective.” *Henning, Heinz. [Study on Luke 17:20–27]. *Hugedé, Norbert. [Study on Col 2:4, 2 Cor 3:4–6, and Gal 3:10–13.19– 22]. *McMillan, J. A. [Presentation on Inspiration, Revelation, and Illumination]. WCC *Bovon, François. [Study on the Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15–19)]. *Grayston, Kenneth. “The Word of God: Revelation and Inspiration.” *Beach, Bert B. [Presentation on the Socio-Political Responsibility of the Church]. *Schwantès, Siegfried J. [Presentation on the Nature and the Mission of the Church] WCC *Nagy, Gyula. [Presentation on the Social Responsibility of the Church]. Schwarzenau, Paul. “Doctrinal Agreement between Seventh-day Adventists and Christian Churches Belonging to the World Council.”

313

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction Table 8 (Continued) Year Theme 1972 The Nature and the Mission of the Church

Date November 22–24

Known Papers SDA

*Paulsen, Jan. “An Ecclesiological Self-Understanding.” WCC *Hofman, [N.N.]. [Presentation on the Nature and the Mission of the Church.]

* = Papers presented, but apparently no copy extant

vis both the church constituency and leadership outside Europe. Beach did involve representatives from the Southern and Central European Divisions (i. e. the neighbouring regional organizations), but his office in the then Northern European Division was the brain behind the Adventist side during the whole dialoguing period. No publication exists to date that analyses these conversations from the perspective of a person not involved in these dialogues.1135 In fact, the only comprehensive assessments so far are the reports produced by Beach, a few other Adventist participants, and World Council representatives themselves.1136 Therefore not even a list of presentations is available so far; the overview of the actual dialogue content in Table 8 tries to remedy this situation.1137 Unfortunately 1135 The only significant attempt at analysing the conversations was done in the GDR and remained unpublished; it is a sympathetic but largely non-interpretative attempt presenting paraphrases and summaries and relating the WCC-SDA discussions to the Adventist “remnant” self-understanding: Helmut Bendix, “Das ekklesiologische Selbstverständnis der Gemeinschaft der STA: Die ‘Gemeinde der Übrigen’ und ihre Beziehungen zum Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen,” TMs, Konfessionskundliches Arbeits- und Forschungswerk (Evangelischer Bund) der Evangelischen Kirchen in der DDR, [1985], 162– 193. 1136 Ibid. and Beach, “The WCC/SDA Conversations.” 1137 Details were collected from M. B. Handspicker, “Beziehungen zwischen dem Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen und den Siebenten-Tages-Adventisten,” Ökumenische Rundschau 17.1 (1968), 60–62; a short article by Victor H. Cooper, “SDA Scholars Present Position on Prophecy,” RH, May 1, 1969, 39; Beach, “The WCC/SDA Conversations”; J. A. McMillan, “Report,” G. Stéveny, “Entretiens avec le Conseil Oecuménique,” L’Echo du Salève, February–March 1972 (no page indicated); and Bert B. Beach, “Coming Near to Other Church Leaders,” Northern Light, January 1973, 2–3. Participants mentioned on the Adventist side included: W. E. Aittala (Finland), G. L. Caviness (USA/Great Britain), S. Dabrowski (Poland), Raoul Dederen (USA), Herbert Douglas (USA), E. H. Foster, Roy Graham (England), Heinz Henning (Germany), Earle Hilgert (USA), Norbert Hugedé (Collonges/France), Pierre Lanarès (Berne/Switzerland), Alf Lohne (USA), D. Lowe (Great Britain), J. A. McMillan (Great Britain), Viggo N. Olsen (USA), K. C. van Oossanen (Finland), Jan Paulsen (Norway), Bernard Seton (Switzerland), P. Steiner (Switzerland), G. Stéveny (France), Arthur Strala (Germany), P. Tièche (Switzerland), A. Vaucher (Switzerland); R. D. Vine (Great Britain), Bert Beach (USA/Great Britain – co-chair). WCC representatives mentioned were: Vitaly Borovoy (Russia), François Bovon (Switzerland), Kenneth Grayston (England), Bishop Hermogen of Podolsk

314

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

it is not complete, and only very few papers could be traced.1138 Nevertheless, together with the reports this overview does provide a general picture that is sufficient for a preliminary evaluation. This evaluation will address the following aspects: (1) the nature of the dialogue, (2) the inner logic of the evolving process, (3) important themes, and (4) results. (1) The WCC-SDA dialogue was, initially, an open-ended gathering aiming at getting better acquainted with the other group’s “structure, functioning and thinking.”1139 This motivation was evidently strong enough both to make the first meeting happen and to lead to more profound interest in the others’ theological reasoning and traditions.1140 In other words, the conversations started from a general willingness with regard to mutual understanding, which then expanded into curiosity about details and the background of each other’s convictions. (2) The logic of this expansion was, therefore, a beginning at points of doctrine or interpretation peculiar to Adventists (i. e. concepts viewed as deviant by many other Christians),1141 and a broadening towards more general themes – hermeneutics and the understanding of church and mission. As is typical for dialogue processes, these movements through various themes could not be determined from the beginning; hence both sides demonstrated the flexibility needed for serial conversations such as these. The fact that the dialogue meetings ended in 1972 should probably be interpreted as an expression of the realization that all the prominent issues had been discussed. (3) The major themes were, naturally, (a) the Sabbath, (b) apocalyptic prophecy, (c) hermeneutics, and (d) ecclesiology – these being, not entirely coincidentally, subjects that correspond to the three parts of the name

1138 1139 1140

1141

(Russia), Walter Hollenweger (Switzerland), Denton Lotz (USA), Gerald F. Moede (USA), Gyula Nagy (Hungary), Konrad Raiser (Germany), Willy Rordorf (Switzerland), Paul Schwarzenau (Germany), R. Smith (Great Britain), Metropolitan Emilianos Timiadis (Geneva), and Lukas Vischer (Switzerland – co-chair). Many others were referred to (either with their specific title or a topic) in the various reports. Beach, “The WCC/SDA Conversations,” 163. The fact that significant change occurred among the participants was certainly due to the availability of personnel on both sides and the willingness on the Adventist side (and probably also of leaders on the WCC side) to give a wider group of persons the opportunity of such exposure. The proselytism issue discussed in the third meeting was the exception to this sequence; presumably it arose from the feeling among the WCC staff that Adventists disagreed with common ecumenical sentiments on the question. While no paper title from that year is known and although the report does not indicate why the theme was put on the agenda and how it was discussed, it is possible that the process that led to the 1971 statement on “Common Witness and Proselytism” prompted the WCC to test the preliminary text with the SDA side. The statement was published as “Common Witness and Proselytism,” Ecumenical Review 23.1 (1971), 9–20; the same journal issue contained a response (alongside others) by B. B. Beach, “An Adventist Reaction,” Ecumenical Review 23.1 (1971), 38–43.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

315

“Seventh-day Adventist Church” (a, b, d) and its strong biblicist tradition (c, b). While debates on the Sabbath-Sunday question (1966), as expected, did not lead to much that could be agreed upon,1142 the discussion on the issues of religious liberty, witness and proselytism (1967) revealed general agreement, particularly in view of a 1960 WCC document on the question.1143 In the deliberations on the social responsibility of the Church (1971), partial consensus was observed, the major difference being the question of how politically involved Christian churches should be.1144 The exchange on the nature and the mission of the Church in the final year of the conversations (1972) were evidently neither controversial nor of major impact, for no report was drafted on this last meeting. Altogether, the key subject turned out to be Scripture and its interpretation, especially those parts that Adventists traditionally interpret as being related to the end-times: the three central encounters of the seven with a general theme dealt with these issues. This is hardly surprising, for Adventists had always attached great importance to both Scripture in general and the books of Daniel and Revelation in particular; in fact, many Adventist leaders continued to insist that their denomination’s very identity, mission, and raison d’être depended on specific texts in these books and their peculiar understanding of them. It is here that the cleavage between Adventist theology and views presented by WCC representatives became most apparent. While the Faith and Order staff hailed from a variety of confessional backgrounds, they evidently did not share interpretations that had become a tradition in Adventism – such as the identification of referents in Revelation 13, the connection between Scripture and certain current or historical events, or the assumption of a general systemic coherence of apocalyptical texts and symbols. On the other hand, it is significant that the common SDA approach to the Bible and biblical interpretation in general, which resembled a conservative Protestant approach but repudiated the theory of verbal inspiration, was supported by several WCC representatives, particularly those with an Orthodox background – to the surprise of Adventist participants. They had evidently not expected this, for their ecumenical horizon had thus far been an intra-Protestant one coupled with their inherited reserve regarding Roman Catholicism. Raoul Dederen, a

1142 Beach, “The WCC/SDA Conversations,” 164. 1143 Ibid. The report contains a reference to the 1960 WCC document [although it incorrectly states 1961] “Christian Witness, Proselytism and Religious Liberty,” Ecumenical Review 13.1 (1960), 79–89. 1144 “The WCC / SDA Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971,” 206–207.

316

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Seventh-day leading Adventist theologian of the period, who presented on “Revelation and the Bible,”1145 reported: Several times the Eastern Orthodox representatives very strongly indicated their conviction that they stood extremely close to the SDA position, although they wished we would have given more importance to the role of the Church. It was so much so that two or three times when I was asked by someone to address myself to this or that objection or clarification, an Eastern Orthodox did not even give me time to speak up, but stood up and affirmed that he could easily indicate our position on that particular issue.1146

Of course this did not mean that agreement or rapprochement was achieved with the Orthodox in more general terms, but the episode illustrates what the conversations did to Adventists and, indeed to both sides: in addition to a shared look at doctrines of difference, similarities and agreements were uncovered in areas and with people from traditions that would not have been thought of before. Thus the general conclusion that Paul Schwarzenau, a German Lutheran professor of theology, drew,1147 was justified: although he found some disagreement with WCC majority views in doctrines particular to Adventists, Schwarzenau observed much agreement in most areas of belief at least with some other Christians.1148 Hence he interpreted Seventh-day Adventists as conservative Protestants with some distinctive doctrines built upon a particular eschatology. This eschatology, Schwarzenau argued, was linked to a peculiar

1145 Raoul Dederen, “Revelation and the Bible: A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective,” Paper presented at WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 23–25, 1970, Folder “WCC Consultation,” BRI. 1146 Dederen – Pierson, December 3, 1970. This is confirmed by a passage in another report on the same meeting by J. A. McMillan, “Report of Conversations”: after R. Dederen’s paper, “[i]t was stressed that … many of the member churches of the World Council of Churches stood on the same ground as the Adventists” regarding their view of the Holy Scriptures. The same report also noted that in the discussion on grace and law, “Father Borovoy point[ed] out that the Adventist view coincided with the position of the Orthodox Church.” The Orthodox members of the WCC group were Vitaly Borovoy (Russia), Metropolitan Emilianos Timiadis (Geneva), and a certain Bishop Hermogen of Podolsk (Russia), whose identity could not be further ascertained. 1147 Schwarzenau, “SDA and the World Council” = “The WCC / SDA Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971,” 200–204. Schwarzenau had participated from 1968 onward; see Paul Schwarzenau, Ein evangelischer Theologe spricht über die Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten, Laasphe: Wittgenstein, 1978, 4. This brochure contains a short summary of Schwarzenau’s sympathetic attempts at understanding Adventists. 1148 Schwarzenau’s report contains one problematic statement: that Adventists are in agreement with the Athanasi[an]um; see “The WCC / SDA Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971,” 202. While Adventists had adopted trinitarianism in the early 20th century, the detailed ontological definitions of the Quicunque Vult were certainly not common stock among them. Even the introduction to this creed (“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith”) contradicted the Adventist ethos and traditional rejection of creedal constitution of church fellowship.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

317

experience: the Great Disappointment of 1844, the “Tower Experience” of Adventism. With such a general assessment, the title of the publication that summarized the findings of the seven-year dialogue was not far-fetched: So Much in Common.1149 (4) What, then, were the results of the WCC-SDA conversations? They can best be presented in antithetical pairs. (a1) While no actual convergence could be recognized, (a2) the degree of mutual understanding grew;1150 agreeing to disagree and solid consensus were both part of the findings. (b1) Adventists did not join the World Council, which apparently was a disappointment to Lukas Vischer.1151 (b2) However, they grew more appreciative of positive elements in the Ecumenical Movement, turned into regular official observers at future WCC meetings, and at least some Adventist participants would henceforth display a largely appreciative attitude towards the WCC.1152 This included active participation in the Faith and Order Commission by Adventist individuals from 1967 onward – not as official denominational representatives, but with a view to contributing an Adventist perspective.1153 (c1) In the long run, the conversations and the publications arising from these encounters gave fuel to anti-ecumenical sentiments among some groups of Adventists, contributing to a substantial body of polemical literature.1154 (c2) Yet the same statements and the book So Much in Common documented for the first

1149 1150 1151 1152

For publication details, see footnote 1126. Beach, “The WCC/SDA Conversations,” 163. Interview Beach. Cf. the activities of Beach mentioned in following sections and the very balanced, almost detached analyses by Raoul F. Dederen, “Ecumenical Trends,” Ministry 46.6 (1973), 8– 10; idem, “Ecumenism – the Old and the New,” Ministry 46.10 (1973), 14–16; and idem, “The State of Ecumenism,” Ministry 48.9 (1975), 12–14. Earle Hilgert had written on Faith and Order in a very appreciative manner already before the meetings; see Earle Hilgert, “The Bristol Meeting of the Faith and Order Commission,” part 1, RH, October 12, 1967, 4–5; part 2, October 19, 1967, 5–6. He left the denomination around 1970 and subsequently served as a professor at a Presbyterian institution. 1153 For the beginnings of this membership of an Adventist theologian, see Lukas Vischer – W[alter] R. Beach, October 21, 1966, and Lukas Vischer – Earle Hilgert, October 24, 1966, both GCA/21/Folder 1966 World Council of Churches. The first such individual was Earle Hilgert; he was followed by Raoul Dederen, also a professor of theology at Andrews University. 1154 See, e. g., the three works by Vance Ferrell, the books authored by Colin D. and Russell R. Standish in the bibliography, and [Wim Wiggers,] Die ökumenischen Verbindungen, Winterswijk: Inter-Euro Publishing, [1987]. Beyond these and similar publications published privately or through “fringe” publishers, a host of websites arose from about 2000 onward which criticize Adventist presumed involvement in ecumenical activities.

318

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

time that Adventists could relate to an official body of the Ecumenical Movement in a brotherly and near-objective manner.1155 (d1) Ironically, the conversations also indicated that Adventist aloofness from the WCC would be cemented for the decades to come. Conversation was desirable; membership was not. Since this was the premise of the dialogue and as the 1970 report stated it,1156 later generations would not even think of the pros and cons of a further enhanced relationship. (d2) Nevertheless, the WCC-SDA conversations kick-started Adventism’s dialogical encounter with other Christian movements in a manner that could not be reversed. This new condition would soon reveal itself in the role which Adventists would play in the annual consultations of World Christian Communions,1157 where the other major purposes of these conversations with the WCC – fellowship, information, communication1158 – were also of central importance. For an overall evaluation of the role that the WCC-SDA conversations played for the growing mosaic of Adventist interchurch relationships, one must read it in the context of the denomination’s general discourse on ecumenism and, in particular, on the World Council of Churches in the period. This discourse had been largely sceptical right from the outset;1159 it contained some sprinkling of recognizing its leaders’ positive motives and – until the 1960s – recurring references to the WCC or WCC-Roman Catholic rapprochement as a possible or actual fulfilment of prophecy predicting the oppression of a faithful minority.1160 A major theme in discussing the World Council was the reason why Adventists 1155 For an echo in Germany, see Heinz Henning, “Die Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten und der Ökumenische Rat der Kirchen,” TMs, 1974. It is noteworthy that Henning, who had also participated in some of the WCC conversations, presented these insights to a large youth meeting (“Jugend-Bibelwoche”), which indicates the open atmosphere in which these matters could be discussed as early as the 1970s. 1156 Beach, “The WCC/SDA Conversations,” 163. 1157 See below, 5.2.1. 1158 Beach, “The WCC/SDA Conversations,” 165. 1159 See above, 4.3. The SDA attitude to the World Council of Churches still awaits a thorough study of its own. The only major inquiry so far is Rudatinya M’shoza Mwangachuchu, “Seventh-day Adventists and the World Council of Churches,” M.A. thesis, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2000. Beyond presenting general information on the WCC, this thesis focuses on the question of membership in the council and presents an attempt at studying this issue systematically, but does not go beyond the arguments against WCC membership found in a few key articles. 1160 Walter L. Emmerson, “The Days Ahead,” RH, January 1, 1962, 1, 4–5; R. R. Figuhr, “A Letter from Our President,” RH, May 6, 1965, 5; Walter L. Emmerson, “How Church Unity May Come: Surprising Development in the Ecumenical Movement,” ST, July 1968, 13–15, here 15; Kenneth H. Wood, “Rome and the World Council of Churches,” RH, August 8, 1968, 4–6, here 6, and Kenneth H. Wood, “Looking Back, and Looking Ahead,” RH, September 5, 1968, 10–12, here 11. Cf. also Jean Zurcher, “Why Adventists Don’t Join the WCC: Part II,” Ministry 52.5 (1979), 6–8.

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

319

did not seek membership – a discussion that brought forth a genre of articles in its own right.1161 Particularly in the first part of the 1960s, one of the most successful and self-assured phases of the World Council, articles abounded with assessments that indicated how little sympathy SDA authors felt with the Ecumenical Movement’s dynamics: the developments of the council in terms of membership, the perceived sympathy of Roman Catholics with the WCC, the latter’s changes in terms of theological orientation (“liberal” and “episcopal” tendencies) and activities (particularly the social-political emphasis)1162 all irritated Adventist observers while, at the same time, confirming their concept that the World Council’s approach to Christian unity was generally flawed.1163 Unsurprisingly, this was most visible in assessments of WCC assemblies, on which Adventist reports commented in a rather critical manner until Vancouver 1983. The one exception was the Evanston Assembly in 1954, which received much praise because of its “Adventist” theme (Christ – the Hope of the World) and the affinity of its theological emphasis to the general SDA eschatological 1161 Francis D. Nichol, “We Stand Alone – Part 1,” RH, November 14, 1957, 8–9; “We Stand Alone – Part 2,” RH, November 21, 1957, 8; the six-part series by Francis D. Nichol, “Our Relationship to the National Council” (RH, May 12–June 16, 1960), closed with an article entitled “We Hold the Same Attitude toward World Council” (June 16, 1960, 4–5); Francis D. Nichol, “Why We Cannot Join,” RH, March 18, 1965, 14–15 (French version: “Pourquoi nous ne pouvons nous joindre au mouvement œcuménique,” Revue adventiste, October 1965, 8–9); Raymond H. Libby, “Ecumenism in Prophecy,” ST, September 1967, 17; Walter R. Beach, “Adventists’ Relationship with WCC Is Unchanged,” RH, August 8, 1968, 32; Walter R. Beach, “SDA Relationships to the National and World Council of Churches,” RH, October 9, 1969, 6–8; Walter R. Beach, “Why We Stand Apart,” RH, October 16, 1969, 6–7. Cf. also from a later period Jean Zurcher, “Why Adventists Don’t Join the WCC: Part I,” Ministry 52.3 (1979), 10–12, and part II, 52.5 (1979), 6–8. 1162 This motif regularly appears from the Uppsala Assembly onward and throughout the 1970s; see Kenneth H. Wood, “Trends and Crosscurrents at the WCC Fourth Assembly,” RH, July 25, 1968, 1–2, 20; idem, “The World Council Urges ‘Development’ , ” RH, August 15, 1968, 7–8, 20; Walter L. Emmerson, “Verdict on Uppsala,” ST, April 1969, 22–23, 30–31; T[homas] A. D[avis], “Confused Ideas Regarding Salvation,” RH, February 1, 1973, 14–15; Daniel Walther, “World Council Celebrates 25th Anniversary,” RH, November 1, 1973, 20–21; Bert B. Beach, “Evangelicals in Critical Discussion with WCC,” Ministry 48.7 (1975), 7–9, here 9; Kenneth H. Wood, “Nairobi – Pro and Con,” RH, February 5, 1976, 2, 15; Walter L. Emmerson, “Rocking the Ecumenical Boat,” ST, 1976, 6–9; Kenneth H. Wood, “Wrong Ways to Right Wrongs,” AR, September 27, 1979, 18–19. 1163 An exception to this general approach is found in an article that mainly features an interview with Eugene Carson Blake, the General Secretary of the WCC from 1966 to 1972: Ella M. Rydzewski, “The World Council of Churches and Seventh-day Adventists,” Spectrum 3 (1973), 33–41. Rydzewski, who worked as a secretary in Blake’s former congregation, asked him many tricky questions which were evidently discussed at the time in popular Adventism (on the WCC as a “superchurch,” using force to oppress minorities, WCC leaders’ view of Spiritism, of the Charismatic Movement, and on prophecy). She concluded, “Many of the rumors I had heard about the WCC and the ecumenical movement do not appear to be correct in the view of someone who presumably should know. The danger of the WCC seems to lie in its naiveté rather than in any threat of power” (41).

320

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

orientation.1164 Other assemblies, however, while attracting considerable Adventist reporter presence, revealed what could be termed the “sceptical church” background of Adventism. An altogether fairly balanced account of New Delhi 1961 contained reservations regarding a growing “this-worldly” orientation and what the author, Walter Emmerson, viewed as a more “Catholic conception of unity” because of increased Orthodox involvement1165 and of what he considered a generally increased catholicizing tendency in the council.1166 Uppsala 1968 received overwhelmingly negative comments for its social and political agenda,1167 as did Nairobi 1975.1168 The report on Vancouver contained the same criticism, but the then new editor of the Adventist Review, William Johnsson,1169 clothed it in a good number of positive observations and, particularly, an accurate and guarded assessment of Roman Catholic ecumenical aspirations,1170 thus opening an increasingly realistic phase of Adventist views on the Ecumenical Movement.1171

1164 See Roy Allan Anderson, “Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches,” Ministry 27.9 (1954), 2; idem, “Progress of the World Council,” Ministry 27.10 (1954), 4–7; Arthur S. Maxwell, “Evanston Memories: Looking Back at the Second General Assembly of the World Council of Churches,” ST, October 12, 1954, 3–4, 15; idem, “Evanston Message,” ST, October 26, 1954, 3–4. The major denominational paper even published most of a plenary address by the German professor Edmund Schlink, “Christ – the Hope of the World,” RH, September 23, 1954, 3–6: it corresponded very much to Adventist sentiments. Even before the assembly, D. E. Rebok, “The Theme for the Assembly of the World Council of Churches,” Ministry 26.3 (1953), 8–9, had argued in a typical Adventist manner (but quite untypically for SDA comments on the WCC): “the World Council of Churches is fulfilling prophecy.” He stated this with reference to Luke 21:26–28, implying that that the WCC was turning the fears of humanity towards the expectation of the Second Coming. 1165 Walter L. Emmerson, “What Kind of Unity?,” RH, December 28, 1961, 12–13, 7, here 7. The Russian Orthodox Church joined the WCC during the 1961 assembly. 1166 Walter L. Emmerson, “The Days Ahead,” RH, January 1, 1962, 1, 4–5, here 5. 1167 Wood, “Trends and Crosscurrents,” and idem, “The World Council Urges ‘Development’ . ” 1168 Wood, “Nairobi – Pro and Con”; Emmerson, “Rocking the Ecumenical Boat.” 1169 William G. Johnsson, “World Council of Churches Meets in Vancouver,” AR, August 11, 1983, 4–6; idem, “A Day at the Sixth Assembly,” AR, August 25, 1983, 4–8; idem, “Whither the World Council of Churches?,” AR, September 8, 1983, 8–12. Later Johnsson served as a delegate in most Adventist interchurch dialogues, and (after his retirement) as an assistant to the General Conference president for interfaith dialogue; see William G. Johnsson, “Conversations with Other Churches,” chapter 13 of William G. Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2008, 180–193; William G. Johnsson, “Global Interfaith Conversations [Interview],” Spectrum 38 (2010), 11–12, 17. 1170 “Johnsson, “Whither the World Council of Churches?,” 10–11. 1171 Cf. the article series by Roy Adams, AR, April 11–May 2, 1991 (Canberra), various report items written by him on the Harare Assembly in 1999 in AR, January 7, 19–20, January 14, 20–21; February 11, 6 and 14–19; March 11, 5; and March 25, 5; as well as AR reports by different authors in 2006 (Porto Alegre) and 2013 (Busan).

Experimenting with New Types of Interaction

321

All in all, the context in which the WCC-SDA conversations took place was, therefore, a somewhat disparate discourse. Seventh-day Adventists apparently knew well what they rejected. At the same time, they employed a dialectic in which objectivity and the attempt at fair, dispassionate reporting and reflection played an increasing role. Conjectures on the future function of the World Council of Churches in bringing about oppression of Sabbath keepers and thus fulfilling Ellen White’s predictions flared up until the 1970s,1172 but there were also voices that explicitly warned against speculative reasoning regarding agents in the ecumenical sphere.1173 Attempts at predicting the future subsided sometime after the WCC-SDA dialogue in the major Adventist publications; they continued, however, in periodicals and books published by “independent ministries.”1174 The dialogue experience with the World Council of Churches, therefore, stands out as a major step in the enfolding Adventist approach to other Christian traditions in general and to the WCC in particular. Although it built on earlier initiatives of friendly and communicative contacts with non-Adventists,1175 it was breaking new ground in creating space in which interdenominational interaction could take place on a level that was more official than all that this organization had undertaken before. It was not known to the participants that this established a pattern that could be built upon later1176 – in the 1980s, but especially from the 1172 The last article in denominational papers presenting more than a passing reference of this kind connected with the WCC is Jean Zurcher, “Why Adventists Don’t Join the WCC: Part II,” Ministry 52.5 (1979), 6–8. 1173 Francis D. Nichol, “Comments on the World Council of Churches,” RH, September 23, 1954, 14–15, here 15. 1174 For the larger configuration of such predictive attempts, see also Michal Balcar, “Conspiracy Theories in the [sic] Seventh-Day Adventism,” M.A. thesis, Newbold College, 2011. For a later example of applying Ellen White’s statements to the WCC and the Ecumenical Movement in general, see Gerhard Pfandl, “Unity – But at What Cost?,” JATS 10.1–2 (1999), 184–190. 1175 One outstanding example is a series run by Ministry in 1961. In eight articles, Louise C. Kleuser wrote about other Protestants under the heading “Our Friends the …” (June: Baptists; July: Presbyterians; August: Disciples of Christ; September: Lutherans; October: Congregationalists; November: Anglicans [for unknown reasons entitled only “Protestant Episcopal Church – Anglican”; December: Methodists]. See also the introductory article, Louise C. Kleuser, “Our Protestant Friends,” Ministry 34.5 (1961), 30–32. Cf. the friendly approach of Daniel Walther, “A Conversation with Karl Barth,” Ministry 27.5 (1954), 4– 6, and idem, “Interviews with Ecumenical Leaders,” Ministry 29.9 (1956), 4–7. 1176 There was also an immediate outcome in the USA, where SDA-WCC/NCCCUSA conversations took place – which apparently ended after three sessions in 1969 (an exploratory meeting without fixed topic), 1970 (on eschatology), and 1971 (on “The Nature and Mission of the Church”). These conversations evidently closed without a report, and it is not known why they did not continue. All the three papers presented are extant: Raymond Cottrell, “The Eschaton: A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective,” Paper Presented at the Ecumenical Consultation between Select Representatives of the World Council of Churches and Sev-

322

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

1990s onwards – and the conversations were hardly mentioned in the popular Adventist publications. Nevertheless, familiarity with the dynamics of such a way of communicative exchange meant that Adventists had opened the door for a new mode of interchurch relations. This mode is visible even in what the conversations did not achieve: membership in the World Council of Churches. Seventh-day Adventists continued to appreciate some aspects of the Ecumenical Movement, but their discomfort with it, and particularly with the WCC, remained. To some extent, it was a theological discomfort largely shared with other Evangelicals and expressed with a similar rhetoric (against socio-political emphasis, leftist attitudes, pluralism viz. too much tolerance, an episcopal penchant, and what was considered arbitrary Bible interpretation).1177 Yet there was an even more profound uneasiness that arose from the very ideal of Christian unity that Adventism embodied. Adventists had realized it was time to welcome conversation with other Christians; thus communicative models of interchurch relationships, i. e. forum or “ecumenism of profiles” settings,1178 which had not ranged highly in their priorities before, now could be counted as part of their ecumenical agenda. By way of contrast, a cooperative-federative model of ecumenism, which the WCC represents and which entails membership of equal partners with equal rights and duties, remained a model that Adventists could not accept. As an organized denomination, they did incorporate such an approach to Christian unity in their own setup: with their five-tier church structure and the democratic mechanisms that ensured their worldwide association of church units, this radical Equality Matching approach to holding Christians together worldwide built on a large degree of uniformity in doctrine and ethics. In other words, for Seventh-day Adventists, conciliar ecumenism was something that ought to happen when the constitutive units of a global denomination met and decided matters together. enth-day Adventists, Berrien Springs, March 4–5, 1970 [with responses by Paul S. Minear and Eugene H. Maly], Folder “WCC Consultation,” BRI [published (shortened versions): Spectrum 5.1 (1973), 7–40]; Raoul Dederen, “The Nature of the Church,” Paper presented at the World Council of Churches/Seventh-day Adventist Consultation, July 1971 [published: Ministry 45.7, July 1972, 3–6; 32–35]; Gottfried Oosterwal, “The Missionary Task of the Church,” Paper presented at the World Council of Churches/Seventh-day Adventist Consultation, July 1971 [published: Ministry 45.7, July 1972, 7–10; 36–39]. 1177 Cf. the Adventist book review of a major monograph written by an ecumenical sceptic: Marvin G. Lowman, Review of Stanley C. Lowell, The Ecumenical Mirage, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, Andrews University Seminary Studies 8.2 (1970), 189–191. It is interesting, however, that the review author distances himself from what he views as an exaggerated anti-unity attitude of Lowell. 1178 These both correspond to Fiske’s Market Pricing model of relationships, which centres on negotiation, debate, measuring (here: e. g. defining terms and exegetical details), and, in ideological or ethical issues, universal principles and clarification of how their rational application ought to look like.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

323

Like organic union or mutual recognition,1179 the implications of such a global council were so much of a top-down nature for them that this model remained unattractive as an approach to interchurch relations. In contrast to the moderate Equality Matching approach in the more temporary alliance model, which does not necessarily involve membership and makes unity a by-product of shared projects rather than the major outcome, they could not but suspect that the cooperative-federative nature of conciliar ecumenism might ultimately lead to inhibiting or even oppressive situations. Although these suspicions and reservations proved to be unfounded, Adventists preferred to remain on what they viewed as the safe side – the side of their tradition of “remaining aloof” coupled with engaging in some dialogical processes.

5.2

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

5.2.1 BERT B. BEACH and the Christian World Communions By the early 1970s, Adventist contacts with other Christian bodies reached a new stage, which coincided with a second phase in Bert B. Beach’s ministry of interchurch relations. The WCC-SDA conversations were still part of an exploratory phase and had begun when Beach’s involvement with the Vatican Council was not yet over – his book Vatican II appeared in 1968. While the interactions with the WCC were of a different nature than the observation and journalistic evaluation of developments in the Roman Catholic Church, they had started in a rather tentative manner. The 1970s brought a change in Beach’s activities in that he began to engage in yet another line of ecumenical interaction: the Conference of Secretaries of Christian World Communions (CCWC).1180 He had followed Lukas Vischer’s invitation to represent the Seventh-day Adventist Church at this annual threeday meeting in 1968, and in 1970 he was elected secretary of the group. Beach was then re-elected every two years until 2002, which means that he soon became, in effect, Mr. Christian World Communions, organizing each meeting, communicating with all the representatives of the various confessional world organizations that participated, and to some extent also steering the course of this organization.

1179 The two (radical and moderate) Authority Ranking-type approaches to ecumenism. 1180 In the sources, the abbreviation used is often CS/CWC. This section builds on my earlier article “Bert Beverly Beach: Bridge Builder,” Communio Viatorum 57.2 (2015), 167–180, and considerably expands the section on the CCWC (175–177).

324

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

The CCWC is little known even among scholars of ecumenics, but its importance in the last three decades of the 20th century must not be underestimated. It is an organization with extremely light structures, without a formally established permanent office, but one that has represented more than 80 % of all Christians since the 1980s.1181 Its main activity is an annual consultation in which representatives of global denominational bodies1182 meet. The CCWC began in 1957 on the basis of initiatives by John A. Mackay and Willem Visser ’t Hooft, and a major boost came in 1968, when representatives of the Roman Catholic Church joined – just at the time when the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Reformed Ecumenical Council participated for the first time as well.1183 It remained a very non-institutional entity in spite of the fact that the annual meetings have taken place since 1976 without exception.1184 From representing seven global bodies in 1957, the group grew to 23 in 2009, thus making it one of the most denominationally inclusive Christian groups. It is evident that such a lean organization was of an entirely different type from the World Council of Churches, but it is precisely this approach to interchurch interaction that was attractive to Beach and his fellow Adventist leaders. In the 1970s, therefore, Beach continued to establish positive contacts and friendships on the basis of these annual meetings. Interestingly, he did so almost entirely on his own initiative; as in the case of the WCC-SDA conversations, he did not ask the denominational leadership for permission to serve in this capacity. Beach 1181 A helpful summary of the meetings, emphases and members is found in David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, and Peter F. Crossing, “Christian World Communions: Five Overviews of Global Christianity, AD 1800–2025,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 33.1 (2009), 25–32. The authors estimate that by 2000 the CCWC represented 90 % of all Christians worldwide. 1182 The history of these bodies – and their ecumenical importance – is a subject in its own right and cannot be discussed here. When Beach first attended, they were still called “World Confessional Families.” The Seventh-day Adventist General Conference, founded in 1863, may be considered the oldest among them except the Roman Catholic Church (although admittedly this SDA entity did not have a global outlook at the beginning). Other global bodies, which largely retained a purely consultative character, were initiated from 1867 onwards (1867: Anglican Communion; 1875 World Alliance of the Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian System; 1881 Ecumenical Methodist Conferences; 1889 Old Catholic Union of Utrecht; 1891 International Congregational Council; 1905 Baptist World Alliance; 1923 Lutheran World Convention). Cf. Reinhard Frieling, Der Weg des ökumenischen Gedankens: Eine Ökumenekunde, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, 40. 1183 Barrett, Johnson, and Crossing, “Christian World Communions, 26. For the early history of the CCWC, see Edmond Perret, “The Conference of World Confessional Families: 1957–1977,” in The History and Theological Concerns of World Confessional Families, by Yoshiro Ishida, Harding Meyer and Edmond Perret, LWF Report 5, Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1979, 43–72 and 73–80 (appendices). 1184 Earlier meetings were also regular, but in a few years (1960, 1961, 1975) they did not take place.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

325

had begun activities in the CCWC by advocating “the advisability of having an observer attend” the 1968 meeting;1185 after this was supported by General Conference leaders, he continued to attend and soon accepted the responsibility as the CCWC secretary without further specific consultation.1186 Much later, Adventist leaders would realize how important these friendly contacts were for the denomination.1187 It appears that initially Beach’s participation in the CCWC was of an experimental nature – like the WCC-SDA meetings. But soon this changed. Some of the themes discussed in these encounters were of greatest interest to Adventists, and here they had a forum in which they could contribute at eye level. Religious liberty, for instance – one of the major SDA concerns in the realm of interchurch relations – was on the agenda annually from 1969 to 1976; an Adventist specialist in the field, Pierre Lanarès, was invited to report on the question each year from 1971 onward. Other subjects of interest to Adventists were the relationship of Bible Societies to CWCs (1972), bilateral dialogues (several times in the 1970s) and the relationship of CWCs to the WCC (several times in the 1970s).1188 In later years, the presentation of CWC profiles catalysed a deeper mutual understanding, which may be interpreted as constituting a preliminary stage of dialogue. What, then, was the main function of the CCWC in the ecumenical sphere? Its consultative nature, as well as the absence of both public resolutions and formalized decision-making processes, implied that here Christian leaders could approach issues in a very candid and tranquil manner. They could share their point of view without the obligation of fitting in with ecumenical political correctness. In this realm, denominational traditions and confessional emphasis were not viewed as a contradiction to ecumenicity; rather, Christian World 1185 “WCC Report – B B Beach,” GCOM, August 12, 1968, GCA. Beach was present at the General Conference Officers’ meeting, mentioned that the CCWC meeting was going to discuss the following topics: “Religious Liberty, Proselytizing, Relations of Protestants to the Church of Rome” – all being issues of great interest to Seventh-day Adventists. Moreover, Beach advised that an observer be sent to the WCC Central Committee. 1186 A 1970 committee mentioned that Beach had various invitations, including one to the CCWC meeting, but finally did not comment on it (“Dialogues with Religious Bodies,” GCOM, July 8, 1970, GCA). In the following year, the same committee noted an invitation to Beach to make a presentation to the CCWC on religious liberty and supported this plan; see “Religious Liberty – Philosophy Statement,” GCOM, June 7, 1971, GCA. 1187 Cf. Rex D. Edwards – Robert S. Folkenberg, November 27, 1995, CCWC File 1995, GC PARL. Edwards, who worked for the Ministerial Association of the SDA General Conference, had attended a CCWC meeting and reported to the then General Conference president. For a general evaluation of Beach’s friendly contacts with leaders of other Christian denominations, see Roy Adams, “Bert B. Beach: Adventist Statesman,” AR, November 8, 2001, 8–12. 1188 Perret, “The Conference of World Confessional Families,” 75–77 (= appendix 3).

326

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Communions were considered ecumenisms in their own right because of their global and multicultural nature.1189 Such an orientation largely corresponded to Adventist sentiments. This implied, of course, that some degree of tension with the WCC and, thus, with the ecumenical mainstream was felt at times, particularly in the 1960s.1190 Proponents of the conciliar approach to ecumenism naturally felt that confessionality and confessionalism were close. After considerable debates, the CCWC reacted to such feelings by changing its former name “World Confessional Families” to “Christian World Communions” in 1979,1191 expressing that their orientation was to unite rather than to cement the confessional divide. At the same time, the importance of the CCWC was never questioned by its participants, and with the other participants Beach sensed the importance of this vehicle in bringing together those whose denominations would not join the WCC anyway.1192 Beach’s ministry to the CCWC assumed a more official nature in 1980, when he was elected to serve the Religious Liberty department at the Adventist world headquarters. This appointment coincided with the establishment of the denomination’s Council on Interchurch Relations – an entity conceived at his

1189 Cf. Richard V. Pierard, “The Christian World Communions: Denominational Ecumenism on a Global Scale,” in Anthony R. Cross (ed.), Ecumenism and History: Studies in Honour of John H. Y. Briggs, Carslile: Paternoster: 2002, 106–119, and Harding Meyer, “Die Weltweiten Christlichen Gemeinschaften und ihr Beitrag zur sichtbaren Einheit der Kirche,” in Peter Neuner and Birgitta Kleinschwärzer-Meister (eds.), Ökumene zwischen “postmoderner Beliebigkeit” und “Rekonfessionalisierung,” Berlin: Lit, 2006, 93– 104. 1190 For discussions of the role of CWCs in the Ecumenical Movement, see Paul C. Empie, “Dilemmas of World Confessional Groups with Respect to Engagement in Mission and Unity,” International Review of Mission 55 (1966), 158–170; Lukas Vischer, “Stellung und Aufgabe ‘konfessioneller Familien’ in der ökumenischen Bewegung,” in idem, Ökumenische Skizzen, Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 1972, 194–215; Günther Gassmann, “Die Bedeutung der bilateralen Konfessionsgespräche und ihr Einfluss auf die Rolle der konfessionellen Weltbünde innerhalb der ökumenischen Bewegung,” in Darstellung und Grenzen der sichtbaren Einheit der Kirche, Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag, 1982, 79–89; and Konrad Raiser, “The Common Understanding of the Ecumenical Movement and the Relationship between Christian World Communions and the WCC,” paper presented to the CCWC annual meeting, Geneva, October 26–28, 1993, GC PARL. 1191 Alternative earlier terms had been “World Confessional Groups” and “World Confessional Bodies.” 1192 The importance of Beach’s ministry is also visible in the fact that he was honoured with a festschrift in later years: John Graz and Carol E. Rasmussen, Building Bridges of Faith and Freedom: A Festschrift Written in Honor of Bert B. Beach, Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005. Contributors included Walter Kasper, Gunnar Stålsett, Sven Oppegaard, and Denton Lotz, in addition to several leading religious liberty experts.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

327

initiative.1193 Beach continued to serve the CCWC because he was convinced that this was the right approach to ecumenism for Adventists.1194 It is logical, therefore, that his successor in his General Conference office, John Graz, also continued to serve as the CCWC secretary, as would later do Graz’s successor, Ganoune Diop.1195 The continued SDA commitment to this type of interchurch relationships is of importance because the ecumenical scene changed considerably in the 1990s. Internal tensions in the WCC, a crisis feeling1196 and the realization that some churches would probably never seek membership in the World Council led to an increasing search for alternative models and styles of multilateral ecumenism. The CCWC was, of course, a very small entity and an approach unknown to the majority of activists. However, it provided space for a “forum” approach on an “ecumenism of profiles” basis with a strong potential for “spiritual unity” and “ecumenism of life” elements. These communicative and experiential types1197 embodied an ecumenicity that represented the very opposite of the approaches that dominated the ecumenical discourse: juridical (organic union; mutual recognition) and cooperative (cooperative-federal and alliance) models.1198 In an atmosphere where the future of the WCC seemed increasingly unsure, the CCWC approach to interchurch relationships naturally represented an attractive option. In fact, from the mid-1990s onward, the notion of a necessary reconfiguration of both the WCC and the Ecumenical Movement at large gained increasing importance.1199 The context was renewed reflection on the purpose of 1193 Interview Beach. 1194 He actually reasoned about his CCWC activities (which filled a substantial part of his working time) that “this is our contribution” (interview Beach). 1195 Graz, a French/Swiss theologian and sociologist of religion, was elected GC PARL director in 2000 and served as CCWC secretary from 2002 to 2014. Diop (Senegalese), originally an Old Testament scholar, began to serve in the latter capacity in 2014. 1196 Cf. Konrad Raiser, Ecumenism in Transition: A Paradigm Shift in the Ecumenical Movement?, Geneva: WCC, 1991; Kurt Koch, Gelähmte Ökumene: Was jetzt noch zu tun ist, Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1991; Michael Weinrich, Ökumene am Ende? Plädoyer für einen neuen Realismus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1994. 1197 They correspond to Fiske’s Market Pricing and Communal Sharing relational models: “ecumenism of profiles” and “forum” are the radical and moderate versions of the communicative MP model, respectively; “spiritual unity” and “ecumenism of life” are the radical and moderate types of CS relationships. 1198 The juridical approach (radical: organic union; moderate: mutual recognition) corresponds to Fiske’s Authority Ranking relationship; the cooperative approach (radical: cooperative-federal; moderate: alliance) to his Equality Matching model. 1199 Cf. Reformed World 55.2 (2005) with contributions by Konrad Raiser, “Towards a New Ecumenical Configuration for the 21st Century,” 77–95; Hubert van Beek, “The Reconfiguration of the Ecumenical Movement: An Overview of the Discussion so Far,” 96– 103; and Catholicos Aram I of Cilicia, “Towards a People-Centered Ecumenical Configuration,” 104–110.

328

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

the World Council of Churches and the concomitant process leading to the document A Common Understanding and Vision (CUV). WCC General Secretary Konrad Raiser advocated a larger framework for the interaction of denominations and proposed that a “forum” be established for this purpose – a forum that was to be more attractive to Pentecostals/Charismatics, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics than the WCC. Ultimately this idea led to the initiation of what is today the Global Christian Forum (GCF),1200 but initially it was not clear how its relationship to the World Council of Churches would look. It is here that the CCWC comes into the picture – a fact that has not been highlighted in the publications on the GCF so far.1201 In May 1997, Konrad Raiser had a meeting with the CCWC and discussed his “Forum” ideas, which were then still rather tentative. His suggestion at that time was that it “would be a forum for national councils, regional councils, the Roman Catholic Church, Pentecostals and other CWCs”;1202 initially the idea was called “Forum of Christian Churches and Ecumenical Organizations” or “Forum of the Ecumenical Movement.”1203 While it was envisioned either as an “ad hoc meeting or a more regular event,” the CCWC evidently supported such a move.1204 When a consultation “to consider the possible creation of a broad-based Forum of Christian churches and ecumenical organisations” took place in Bossey in August 1998, representatives from the Christian World Communions were present together with WCC staff and individuals representing regional and national ecumenical organizations. While the ultimate name was chosen only in a subsequent consultation in the year 2000, this initial meeting defined the crucial parameters of the forum-to-be, many of which closely resembled the CCWC. With its (1) open space style, (2) minimum organization, (3) relational approach 1200 For general accounts and analyses of the GCF, see Stefan Höschele, “Das Global Christian Forum: ‘Forum’ als Paradigma für die Zukunft der Ökumene?,” in Stephen Lakkis, Stefan Höschele, and Steffi Schardien (eds.), Ökumene der Zukunft: Hermeneutische Perspektiven und die Suche nach Identität, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 81, Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2008, 117–133; Huibert van Beek (ed.), Revisioning Christian Unity: The Global Christian Forum, Oxford: Regnum, 2009, Huub Vogelaar, “Das Global Christian Forum – Ein realistischer Weg der Ökumene?,” in Thomas Bremer and Maria Wernsmann (eds.), Ökumene – überdacht: Reflexionen und Realitäten im Umbruch, Freiburg: Herder, 2014, 317–333; and Robert Gribben and Larry Miller, “Global Christian Forum,” in Geoffrey Wainwright and Paul McPartlan, The Oxford Handbook of Ecumenical Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, 477–486. 1201 Cf. Sarah Rowland Jones, “The Global Christian Forum – A Narrative History,” in van Beek (ed.), Revisioning Christian Unity, 5. 1202 Aide-Mémoire, Meeting between CWCs’ Conference Working Group and the General Secretary of the WCC, Geneva, May 5, 1997, 3, File CS/CWC 1997, GC PARL. 1203 Ibid. 1204 Ibid., 4: “The idea of a Forum … should be examined.” The report on details on Raiser’s idea also appears very positive; see ibid., 3.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

329

and (4) maximum participation,1205 it emphasized elements and attitudes that had been cultivated in the annual meeting of Christian World Communion leaders over decades. The Global Christian Forum may actually be interpreted as the outcome of an eclectic synthesis of the WCC and CCWC approaches. After decades of parallel existence with both some degree of friction and constructive mutual consultation, it is the cross-fertilization of these two entities that brought forth the new GCF way of providing interchurch relations space. As a 1999 memorandum on the CCWC and its relationship to the WCC formulated, “[i]n many ways, the Conference of Secretaries of CWCs can be seen to pre-figure the proposed forum.”1206 In fact, in 1999 it was not entirely clear whether the CCWC would continue to exist or could be incorporated into the Forum.1207 It is here that the Adventist input – in the person of Bert Beach – was significant. At the CWC-Forum Continuation Committee Joint Meeting in 1999, the exchange of ideas included an emphasis by WCC representatives that the Ecumenical Movement is a “polycentric movement” rather than a “WCC-centered movement.”1208 While some critical questions were raised regarding the envisioned Forum by those who feared that the WCC could be weakened by it,1209 it was Beach who spelled out in the clearest way what such a Forum should look like – even though he formulated almost all of the suggested “principles” in the negative: The Forum should not be called by the WCC as such. The Forum should not make decisions for the churches. The Forum should not take the place of the WCC. The Forum should not meet too often (perhaps once every three years). The Forum should not be another organization, but a meeting.

1205 Cf. Höschele, “Das Global Christian Forum.” 1206 Canon David Hamid, “The Conference of Secretaries of CWCs and Its Relationship to the WCC,” Memorandum, 1999, File CS/CWC 1999, December 1–5, Jerusalem, GC PARL. The same memorandum also reminded CWC and WCC representatives, “when preliminary discussions about the Forum were beginning, the conference of secretaries of the CWC was a place where the idea could be discussed.” 1207 Hamid, “The Conference of Secretaries of CWCs”: “Indeed, many would raise questions about whether we need both a Forum and the Conference of CWCs.” Cf. also Minutes, CWC-Forum Continuation Committee Joint Meeting, Geneva, May 10, 1999, CS/CWC File 1998, GC PARL, which note that “the CWCs will be incorporated in some way” in the Forum. The CCWC Minutes, October 20–22, 1998, also state, “The future of the Conference of CWCs is to some extent related to the issue of the Forum.” See CCWC Minutes, GC PARL. 1208 Ibid. 1209 Such concerns were voiced by Ishmael Noko and Sven Oppegaard, both from the Lutheran World Federation, Georges Tsetsis (Orthodox), and David Hamid (Anglican). See ibid., 4.

330

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Participating churches should be churches of international significance or, at least, very important national churches.1210

Part of the success of the Global Christian Forum would indeed develop from following these principles. The fact that it organized global gatherings in 2007, 2011, and 2018 (in addition to several regional meetings) indicates that the issues of frequency, constituency and style addressed by Beach were all significant. It is interesting that much of Beach’s activity in connection with the CCWC remained unknown to the larger Adventist public.1211 Of course this annual meeting was not of the same importance as national councils of churches or the WCC. However, one major reason for this course of action is that Beach wanted to contribute to improved interchurch relationships without raising too many concerns among Adventist leaders and members. In fact, he had reasons to downplay his ecumenical commitment: in 1977, the CCWC took place in Rome – the second time that such a meeting convened outside of Geneva. Beach had advocated changing venues, which implied more work for him as a secretary but enabled the group to feel more independent of the WCC and enhance their common experience of Christianity in different regions.1212 During this meeting, a short audience with the pope also took place. Beach presented an Adventist medallion to him, as is often done in such encounters, but when this was later reported, independent Adventist “ministries” strongly criticized this as compromising the traditional SDA distance from Roman Catholicism. So much was this opposition felt that the denominational Public Affairs department felt the need to issue a statement to explain this occurrence.1213 Apart from this incident, participation in the CCWC was an utterly successful undertaking in almost every respect. Here Beach was at his best, and as he gradually became the hub of this loose organization, he could exert significant influence without applying any pressure – a fitting setup for a free church representative whose tradition continued to cultivate apprehensions regarding potential intra-Christian oppression. The forum setup (type 6), combined with ecumenism of life (type 8) flavouring, might represent the lowest possible intensity of interorganizational relations, but this was precisely what Beach and the other CWC representatives intended. Unlike truly separatist sects, their regular interaction did aim at relating in a Christian manner, but in contrast to the most broad-based, nationally organized ecclesial bodies, especially those in 1210 Ibid., 3. 1211 A short explanation of the matter is included for instance in Bert B. Beach and John Graz, 101 Questions Adventists Ask, Nampa: Pacific Press, 2000, 94–95. 1212 Interview Beach. 1213 “Statement Regarding the Papal Visit and the Medallion,” n.d., GC PARL. The incident is also reported in Beach, Ambassador for Liberty, 113–114 (published in 2012, when the issue no longer stirred controversy).

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

331

the folk-church category, they desired to do this without forming a coalition that would bind them in a permanent manner. As global denominational bodies, they had chosen the name “Christian World Communions”; however, the former name “World Confessional Families” continued to express their ecumenical approach in a fitting manner.

5.2.2 Enduring Ambivalence, Maturing Positions The distinct Adventist interactions with the WCC and the CCWC indicate that the denominational leaders’ perspective of ecumenical phenomena and their attitude to interchurch activities was not at all uniform. The marked ambivalence regarding other Christian churches expressed itself in an emerging position that implied a yes-but strategy in some cases and an overall “thus far and no further” approach. Which relational spaces and involvements they were to support was actually not much discussed; it appears that a tradition simply evolved and was then taken for granted, starting from an ecumenical minimalism and advancing as Adventism entered new fields of ministry and phases of history. Yet at some point this process needed reflection and interpretation. In the developing Adventist discourse on ecumenism, Bert B. Beach played a pivotal role again. In addition to his career in steering SDA interchurch relations, Bert Beach became the major ecumenical theorist of the denomination when he published Ecumenism: Boon or Bane? in 1974.1214 After interactions with other denominations and ecumenical bodies had reached a new stage in the 1960s and early 1970s, this book both expressed the perspective developed in those years and set the tone for the Adventist thinking in the decades to come. The importance of this publication is also visible in the fact that it was translated into several other languages.1215 Like his Vatican II book, Ecumenism: Boon or Bane? is certainly not an enthusiastic celebration of other Christian traditions and their contemporary activities. In fact, while the presentation aims at fairness and precision, it represents an essentially sceptical appraisal of the Ecumenical Movement and, particularly, the WCC. The pithy question in the title is not answered in a straightforward manner, but the tendency is clear – although an SDA outlook could detect negative aspects and positive elements in ecumenism, reservations prevailed. The book addressed a wide array of issues, ranging from the history of the Ecu1214 Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1974. 1215 It was published in Dutch, Finnish, and German (Één kerk voor alle christenen?, Den Haag: Veritas, 1976; Ekumenia: siunaus vai kirous?, Tampere: Kirjatoimi, 1974; Eine Kirche für alle Christen?, Der Christ in der Welt 2, Hamburg: Advent-Verlag, 1975, and … auf daß sie alle eins seien, Berlin: Gemeinschaft der STA, 1977).

332

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

menical Movement through questions of mission and public matters in ecumenism to Adventist and general theological concerns.1216 Curiously, reflection on the relationship of Adventists to ecumenical bodies is missing almost entirely; thus both the Adventist tradition of interchurch relationships and Beach’s own interactions with the WCC do not appear. Yet altogether the host of material utilized by the author and his critical and typically Adventist assessment of the ecumenical developments made it a lasting influence in the denomination. In fact, no other monograph on ecumenism has ever been issued since by the church’s publishing houses.1217 As important as Beach’s book was and remains, it is also clearly a witness to the time in which it was released. With mainly an Adventist audience in mind, it aimed at informing the church public on the background and recent developments of the ecumenical scene; thus much of the content begins with introductory knowledge. On this basis, the author proceeds to evaluations that mirror concerns very similar to Evangelicals’ criticism of the WCC in the period: questions regarding spirituality, syncretism, politics, Roman Catholicism, mission theology, soteriology and eschatology. These concerns can be found in most of the pertinent Adventist publications in the subsequent decades as well.1218 A considerable portion of texts addressing ecumenical matters follows the line visible in Beach’s book. In fact, dozens of items throughout this period aim at presenting a general Adventist view of ecumenism, most likely because the topic remained terra incognita to most of the denomination’s members. The main author of this genre was, again, Beach,1219 1216 The overall outline of the book follows a logical structure; section headings are not mentioned, but it contains the following parts: (A) history – 6 chapters, (B) issues of syncretism – 5 chapters, (C) ecumenism and mission – 3 chapters, (D) theology – 2 chapters, (E) ecumenism and public matters – 3 chapters, (F) various other Adventist concerns – 5 chapters. Added are a few interspersed theological chapters. 1217 Manfred Böttcher, Dialog und Zeugnis: Interkonfessionelle Kontakte und Konflikte einer Freikirche in der DDR, Frankfurt: Lang, 2001 (on Adventist interchurch relations and conflicts in the GDR), was issued by an academic publisher, and a popular version of the same book, Wagnis des Glaubens: Dialog und Zeugnis der Adventgemeinden in der DDR, Hannover: Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten, Norddeutscher Verband, 2001, essentially contained the report of Böttcher as a contemporary witness; other books on Adventists and ecumenism were written and published in the context of independent Adventist groups critical of the denominational leaders’ course. 1218 Cf. section 5.1, especially footnotes 1159 to 1163. 1219 Some examples from different decades: Bert B. Beach, “Warum sind die Adventisten nicht in der Ökumene?,” Jugendleitstern, April 1972, 8–11; idem, “Die Stellung der Gemeinschaft der S.T.A.,” in Lothar E. Träder (ed.), Ökumene: Verpflichtung oder Versuchung?, Die Adventgemeinde in Geschichte und Gegenwart 20, Seeheim: Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, 1983, 89–106; idem, “Ecumenism Today,” AR, June 23, 1994, 8–10; idem, “Ecumenism in the New Millennium,” College and University Dialogue 13.2 (2001), 30–31. For a discussion of ecumenical issues in a question-and-answer format,

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

333

followed later by his successor as secretary of the Council on Interchurch Relations, John Graz.1220 Other pointed discussions of the theme came from Germany, where the subject of ecumenism was of great public interest because of the general religious setup with two major churches and peculiar experiences of friendly relationships in the GDR.1221 Altogether there is significant stability in this enfolding discourse even though one can also find some development. After a number of rather negative comments on ecumenical phenomena in the 1960s and 1970s,1222 these subside in later years. While references to a possible oppressive outcome of ecumenism continued to appear, they became less conspicuous.1223 The special Adventist interest in Roman Catholic attitudes to ecumenism remained but appeared in a less

1220

1221

1222

1223

see Bert B. Beach and John Graz, 101 Questions Adventists Ask, Nampa: Pacific Press, 2000, 91–110. See, e. g., John Graz, “[Interview:] ‘L’esprit de courtoisie chrétienne en toute occasion’,” Revue Adventiste, January–February 2001, 6–7; idem, “Should Adventist Elders Talk with other Religious Leaders?” Elder’s Digest, October–December 2007, 6–7; idem, “Ecumenism or Good Relations?” Elder’s Digest, July–September 2008, 24–25; idem, “Avoiding Misunderstanding and Friction,” in John Graz, Issues of Faith and Freedom: Defending the Right to Profess, Practice, and Promote One’s Belief, Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2008, 104–111; idem, “Ecumenism and the Adventist Church,” Reflections – The BRI Newsletter, July 2015, 3–4. Gerhard Rempel, “Unser Verhältnis zur Ökumene,” AD, no. 3 (1972), 9–13; Dieter Leutert, “Die Adventgemeinde in der DDR und ihr Verständnis zur Ökumenischen Bewegung,” in Lothar E. Träder (ed.), Ökumene: Verpflichtung oder Versuchung?, Seeheim: Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, 1983, 57–70; Hans Heinz, “Ökumenismus: Chance oder Versuchung der Christenheit?,” AE, April 1, (1974), 1, 8–10; idem, “Ist die Einigung der Kirchen in Sicht?,” AD, no. 3 (1987), 23–28. Heinz was Austrian but taught at the Adventist theological seminary in Germany for many years. Cf. also his later general discussion on “The Ecumenical Movement and the Adventist Church”: idem, “Ökumenische Bewegung und Adventgemeinde,” in Johannes Mager (ed.), Die Gemeinde und ihr Auftrag, Studien zur adventistischen Ekklesiologie 2, Hamburg: Saatkorn, 1994, 103–126. See Ruth J. Buntain, “Ecumenism and the Adventist Church,” RH, October 11, 1973, 4–6, and two entire magazines: Special Ecumenical Issue: Signs of the Times (Australia), October 1968; and The Relevance of the Church Today and the Move toward One United Church, Special issue of Signs of the Times (Australia), November 1975. In fact, shortly afterwards, reports on ecumenical lethargy and decline began to appear as well: Don F. Neufeld, “Ecumenicity in Decline,” RH, April 21, 1977, 17; and Gerhard Rempel, “Die Ökumene tritt auf der Stelle,” AE, January 15, 1980, 2. Cf. Herbert E. Douglass, “International Co-Op Will Unify World,” RH, May 9, 1974, 13; [Frank B. Holbrook,] “Religious Trends,” Lesson 9 in The Time of the End. Adult Sabbath School Lessons, no. 330, October–December 1977, 73–79; Don F. Neufeld, “Gesture at Healing 400-Year-Old Breach,” RH, October 20, 1977, 17; Carlos Medley, “Behind the Call to Unity,” AR, January 31, 1991, 5.

334

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

pronounced way,1224 and altogether reporting on ecumenical history and events indicate a will to portray matters in an accurate manner.1225 New tendencies became visible after Adventists had experienced some formal dialogues. The first positive published statements on interchurch relationships and conversations with other denominations by a General Conference president, Jan Paulsen, appeared in the early 21st century.1226 In the same period, first noteworthy reports and reflections on the history of Adventist interchurch relationships began to appear in denominational publications1227 (previously only very few texts of this kind had been published by scholars outside the denominational sphere).1228 It is also in this phase that an increasing number of SDA authors expressed what may be interpreted as a call for more interdenominational openness and a rethinking of what they viewed as traditional Adventist exclusiveness.1229 1224 See, e. g., Thomas Domanyi, “Das Verhältnis der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche zur Ökumenischen Bewegung seit dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil,” AD, no. 3–4 (1984), 89– 102, and Bert B. Beach, “Catholicism: 25 Years after Vatican II,” AR, December 27, 1990, 16–18. 1225 Among the many articles on these themes see, e. g., Pierre Lanarès, “Geschichte der Ökumene,” AD, no. 3–4 (1984), 3–6. 1226 Jan Paulsen, “The Theological Landscape,” AR, June 13, 2002, insert pages 1–8, section 3 (“Interchurch Relations”). Later he followed up on this in the chapter “The Church and Other Churches,” in Jan Paulsen, Where Are We Going?, Nampa: Pacific Press, 2011, 62– 72. 1227 See George R. Knight, “Another Look at Babylon: Cooperating with Other Christians?,” Ministry 75.4 (2002), 5–9; Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland, “Geschichtliche Entwicklung in den Beziehungen,” n.d. [ca. 2008], online: http://www.adventi sten.de/ueber-uns/beziehungen-zu-anderen-kirchen/geschichtliche-entwicklung, accessed September 3, 2009; Holger Teubert, “Die Beziehungen der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten zu anderen Kirchen und christlichen Organisationen,” in Daniel Heinz and Werner Lange (eds.), Adventhoffnung für Deutschland: Die Mission der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten von Conradi bis heute, Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2014, 237–248. 1228 Cosmas Rubencamp, “The Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 6.4 (1969), 534–548, was written by a Roman Catholic; Wayne Judd, “From Ecumenists to Come-Outers: The Millerites, 1831–1845,” Adventist Heritage 11.1 (1984), 3–12, was essentially a historical study which paid little attention to ecumenical questions as such. One of the earliest in-depth historical studies of Adventist interchurch relations is Francis, “Ecumenism or Distinctiveness?” (1996). 1229 See the whole special issue Relations interconfessionnelles of Revue Adventiste, January– February 2001; Reinder Bruinsma, “Christ’s Other Sheep,” Lesson 8, Adult Bible Study Guide – Standard Edition, 3rd quarter 2004, 64–70; Johannes Scheel, “Gemeinsam sind wir stark: Suchet der Stadt Bestes … Mit anderen Christen,” in Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten, Lesungen zur Gebetswoche, Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2006, 21–22; Titus Müller, “Neue Offenheit,” Adventisten heute, January 2010, 7; and the conference “Ökumene 2012 – Hoffnung oder Resignation?” of the Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, Frankfurt a. M., November 16–18, 2012 (published partly in Stufen 39–42 [2010–2013]). Earlier publications of this kind are Dieter Leutert, “Ökumene am Ort: Auf der Suche nach dem Bruder,” AE, July 1, 1979, 4–6; idem, “Die Ent-

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

335

At the same time, there is a strong line of continuity between the Adventist majority view on interchurch relationships in the 1970s and in the present. When analysing the type of ecumenical activities that were advocated and rejected, the unity concepts which authors referred to, and the ecclesiological motifs to which they appealed, the difference between recent statements and those produced one and a half generations ago is not wide. This can be illustrated with a comparative analysis of two key texts: one was authored in 1975 by Beach and the other in 2013 by William Johnsson, a retired Adventist Review editor. Beach’s article “Evangelicals in Critical Discussion with WCC”1230 (see appendix II) may be considered a short summary of the positions presented in his Ecumenism book, especially of those parts where he presents critical views of the Ecumenical Movement. Although the article title aims at enlarging the horizon of discussion to concerns that Adventism’s closest theological relatives shared, it is also an appropriate sketch of his personal position after the WCC-SDA dialogue and of the general Adventist stance in the period.1231 Johnsson wrote after Adventists had experienced many more dialogues; he had participated in most of those interchurch conversations that occurred from the 1980s onward. His article (which is also included in appendix II) was entitled “Seventh-day Adventists and Other Churches: The Never-Ending Quest for Understanding.”1232 The following short analysis is based on the typology of unity concepts presented in chapter 2; for this purpose, a shortened version of this typology is included in Table 9. The following two tables summarize the themes and views that the two authors address. Among these eight types of interchurch relationships viz. approaches to unity, Beach’s article features four that he clearly supports (see the column with positive references in Table 10). Unsurprisingly, deckung des Bruders,” Adventgemeinde, May 1981, 2–3; and Manfred Böttcher, “Ökumenisch Denken?,” Adventgemeinde, May 1981, 1–2. 1230 This article was published in different versions: a German version and a slightly shorter one in English; see Bert B. Beach, “Nichtmitgliedskirchen im kritischen Gespräch mit dem Weltrat der Kirchen,” Ökumenische Rundschau 23 (1974), 205–213, and idem, “Evangelicals in Critical Discussion with WCC,” Ministry 48.7 (1975), 7–9. It is the English version that is discussed here. 1231 In fact, part of the structure, some of the arguments and even several formulations reappear in Beach’s 1985 pronouncement entitled “Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement,” which became an unofficial but representative statement for the denomination – it was included in the collection of SDA declarations compiled by Ray Dabrowski (ed.), Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents, 3rd ed., Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 186–196 (and in earlier editions of this book). Original publication: [Bert B. Beach,] “Adventism and Ecumenism,” chapter 16 of Walter Raymond Beach and Bert B. Beach, Pattern for Progress: The Role and Function of Church Organization, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1985, 100–109. 1232 AR, June 20, 2013, 16–19.

336

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

these are the models which Adventism had already experienced: the two communicative types (5 and 6), which fit best with the denomination’s rational and word-oriented penchant for “present truth” to be proclaimed, the spiritual unity view (7), which related to the Adventist movement’s holiness heritage, and the alliance type of cooperation (4). The latter corresponds to the American Protestant tradition of activism, particularly in the realm of social reform inspired by Christian moral conventions. As for the other models, Beach essentially rejected them. These were, of course, the types of interaction that mainstream ecumenism accentuated, particularly the cooperative-federal type (3) embodied in the WCC and ecumenical councils on other levels, and mutual recognition (2), which signified to Adventists a compromise attitude that ran counter to their emphasis on dogmatic correctness. The approach that was later called ecumenism of life (8), which emphasized common Christian experience in the world (rather than shared spiritual experience of a particular kind) seemed to Adventists like a denial of their deeply entrenched revivalism. And regarding organic unity (1), one of the main slogans among the chief advocates of ecumenism, Adventists reasoned that it could only work when the authority of the Bible was the centre of such endeavours – which implied, of course, that for such an approach the acceptance of their own biblical interpretation was necessary: like Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church, Adventists viewed themselves as an ecumenical movement of its own, the true Church, which called together all the faithful from the entire globe.1233 All in all, Beach’s unequivocal rejection of some views of Christian unity coupled with his advocacy of four types of positive and active interchurch relationships reflects a stance that both built on earlier Adventist thinking and expanded the denominational horizon. Some of the motifs that he utilized already had their place in the SDA discourse (emphasizing the missional dimension of the church viz. type 6, its ministry of restoring the image of God in people or type 4, and a strongly revivalist ecclesiology, i. e. type 7). The experience of interchurch conversation, however (type 5), was new, and it is probably not an over-interpretation that its ethos also spilled over into those other types that he advocated. About forty years later, William Johnsson presented a picture that painted Adventist interchurch relations with much brighter colours but a similar overall thrust, in spite of the fact that Beach’s text was essentially problemoriented. Johnsson’s article (Table 11) is probably the most optimistic discussion on SDA interactions with other denominations ever to appear in an official church journal; this is visible in the high numbers of positive references 1233 Cf. Beach, “Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement” [1985 version], 109.

337

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

Table 9. Unity concepts (shortened version) Types

RMT models

Typical activities

Relational issues in view: lack of …

A. Juridical

Authority Ranking

(1) organic union

radical

unification negotiations

unified organization

(2) mutual recognition

moderate

consensus dialogue

(ecclesial) recognition

B. Cooperative

Equality Matching

(3) cooperativefederal

radical

council resolutions

coordination

(4) alliance model

moderate

service strategizing

cooperation

C. Communicative

Market Pricing

(5) “ecum. of profiles”

radical

debate

clarification

conversation

communication

(6) forum

moderate

D. Experiential

Communal Sharing

(7) “spiritual unity”

radical

prayer, worship

unity experience

(8) “ecumenism of life”

moderate

everyday activities

faith lived in common

Nature of unity

institutional, formal

diaconicalmissional

interactive, processual

natural, given, spontaneous

to models 4 to 7. The advocacy of unity concepts that his deliberations contain is, therefore, largely similar to the varieties of denominational interaction that Beach’s text portrays – with the main difference that Johnsson also supports a very convivial notion of interchurch relations, which points to an “ecumenism of life” concept. In spite of this broad-minded and affirmative approach to other Christians and churches, Johnsson’s rejection of the classic ways of doing ecumenism should not be overlooked. He mentions elements of organic union and cooperative-federal unity only a few times and almost in passing, but these concepts are options he clearly dismisses. With regard to mutual recognition, two statements at the end of his reflections may be interpreted as pointing in this direction, but Johnsson is not talking about official recognition of any kind. He clearly remains, therefore, in the tradition of the negative Adventist perspective on the WCC and the kind of visible unity promoted by the ecumenical mainstream.

338

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Table 10. Beach 1975: Unity concepts – references and themes1234 Beach 1975

Positive references

Negative references

(1) Organic union

[4] Obedience to the normative authority of the Bible (37f; 61; 73f) with its unity and harmony (65)

4 Churches’ complete organic unity (41); “jumbo-church” (47); “division is sin” (83ff); avoiding misuse of biblical authority (80)

(2) Mutual recognition

–

–

1 Declining churches’ unity schemes (138ff)

(3) Cooperativefederal

–

–

2 WCC (3); emphasis on structures (159)

(4) Alliance model

3

Socio-political responsibility (153f); restoration of image of God (178f); doing “what the Church is called to do” (185ff)

1 Church becoming Red Cross-like (157f)

(5) Ecumenism of profiles”

8

Judgement regarding truth (32); 2 Emphasis on biblical diversity (67); excesses of denominationalism denominationalism supporting (95ff) religious liberty (97); necessity of proclamation mission (122ff; 134ff; 174f); unity and mission pulling in opposite directions (148f); heralding God’s kingdom viz. the parousia (180f; 190ff)

(6) Forum

3

Bilateral theological discussion (8ff; 15ff, 25ff)

(7) “Spiritual unity”

6

Unity given in Christ (5; 36f; 53f); – – “remnant” (48); against stifling spiritual awakening (90ff)

(8) “Ecumenism of life”

–

–

– –

6 Experiential, contemporary context approach (67; 71ff); cocktail Christianity (102ff); “wider ecumenism” (109f); syncretistic mixing (118); worldliness (169ff)

1234 “Evangelicals in Critical Discussion with WCC,” Ministry 48.7, 1975, 7–9. The numbers in parentheses refer to line numbers in the full text (included in appendix II); numbers in the second and fourth columns indicate the quantity of references to the particular concept of unity. The references listed were collected as follows: (1) only one reference to a particular concept was counted per text paragraph; (2) the length of references was not differentiated. The same principles were followed in Table 11.

339

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

Table 11. Johnsson 2013: Unity concepts – references and themes1235 Johnsson 2013

Positive references

Negative references

(1) Organic union

–

3 Uniting with other churches (7ff); goal of organic unity (15f); avoiding restrictive unions (51f)

(2) Mutual recognition

[2] [Mennonites share much with – – Adventists (145ff); church leaders no longer see SDA as a sect (155f)]

(3) Cooperativefederal

–

–

(4) Alliance model

9

No exclusiveness but participation, practical cooperation (18ff); biblical basis for coopera- – – tion (22f); E. G. White’s temperance alliance (33ff); growth of non-ecumenically minded Evangelicals (53f); exploring areas of cooperation (65f); participation in Edinburgh 1910 (71f); SDA input to Edinburgh 2010 (73ff); religious liberty (99f); openness to work with other agencies of God (157)

(5) “Ecumenism of profiles”

11

– – Proclaiming distinct message (3ff); no restriction of mission (13f; 51f); witnessing faith 1 Peter 3:15 (26ff; 64f); esteeming Christians who win souls to Christ (47ff); Adventist growth and enthusiasm (57f); official conversations – honest, no compromise (114ff; 121ff; 125ff; 135ff)

(6) Forum

12

Between union and distance (12f); – – gently sharing hope (29f); interacting with other churches / leaders (50f; 69f); Christians interested in Adventist values and identity (61ff); engaging in conversation (66); CCWC (76ff; 83ff; 92ff); clarifying misconceptions (104ff); GCF (110ff); result: less exclusiveness, learning from others (156f)

–

3 No WCC membership (16f); avoiding restrictive connections (51f); WCC churches numerically declined (56f)

1235 “Seventh-day Adventists and Other Churches,” Adventist Review, June 20, 2013, 16–19.

340

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Table 11 (Continued) Johnsson 2013 (7) “Spiritual unity”

(8) “Ecumenism of life”

Positive references Negative references 8 Preaching in other churches (20f); – – cultivating fraternal feelings (39f); other Christians as part of God’s mission in the world (46f); Evangelicals, Pentecostals, indigenous churches (53f); sincere Bible-focused brothers/sisters (107f); worship, fellowship (111); Lutherans view SDA as a free church (132f); deeply spiritual time with Mennonites (150) 4 Jesus associated with people from – – all backgrounds (24f); maintaining friendly relations (40f); interaction with religious leaders (69f); sharing vegetarianism (102f)

Nevertheless, Johnsson’s deliberations must be interpreted as the summary of a maturing denominational position on interchurch relationships. According to his view, Adventists were right in having embraced all but the most radical types of institutionalized ecumenism (i. e. those which were associated with the Ecumenical Movement in the public mind). All moderate approaches now seemed defensible – with the exception of full official recognition; individual or even semi-official partial recognition, however, appeared acceptable in some cases. Adventists could be ecumenical in their own way although they shunned the word “ecumenism”; even without merger attempts and membership in the classic organizations of the Ecumenical Movement, they could enjoy constructive relationships and brotherly fellowship with other Christians. In terms of Interorganizational Relations and with regard to ecclesiology, this position corresponds to the Adventist tradition that had been established in the 19th century. Having moved from an anti-organization “spiritual unity” stance (remnant / model no. 7) to a quasi-monopoly view regarding the true end-time church (Remnant Church / model 1), any attempt to review or restructure this radical ecclesial setup was doomed because it suggested a break with established doctrine. The developing friendship with the Seventh Day Baptists in the 1870s could have led to a cluster of like-minded believers in a “Sabbath cartel” with mutually recognized ministers (model 2) or a stable division of labour and of fields (model 3), but the abortive attempt to uphold amity indicates that organizational interests (and, implied in this, theological justifications for separatism) were stronger. At the same time, Beach’s orientation and Johnsson’s panorama of Adventist interchurch activities options demonstrate that the denomination had come a long way. From their hesitant conversations with Evangelicals in the

341

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

1950s, from apprehension vis-à-vis most other Christian movements in the late 19th century, their earlier anti-church rhetoric and the shut door sentiments in their initial years, Adventists were now open to meeting other Christians not only as individuals but also as representatives of particular traditions. While they had relaxed their early sectarianism from the 1860s onward, the will to relate to other denominations at eye level is the result of a development that took place imperceptibly throughout the 20th century, and reached a peak in the early years of the new millennium.

5.2.3 Intentional Interaction, International Differentiation The decades since the 1970s constitute a new phase of Adventist interchurch relationships also because of an overall trend of differentiation. As the denomination grew from an America-centred tradition to a truly global movement, a diversity of patterns in interactions with other churches evolved even if commonalities remained strong. Moreover, as the world around Adventism changed and as this church encountered new developments in Christianity, its leadership had to decide how to react to various challenges arising from outside their organization. The fact that Adventism reached a membership of 2 million in the 1970s (with only one-fifth of the members living in the USA) also implied that the denomination inevitably faced an increasing number of interchurch contacts and began to engage in such interactions more and more intentionally. The patterns that can be observed in this interaction neatly correspond to the preferences identified in the denominational discourse. For each of the four Adventist favourite unity concepts,1236 various fields of constructive relationships or positive exchange with other denominations can be found. In contrast, the other four areas appear in issues of conflict and hesitant experimentation; here successful application appears to have taken place almost exclusively inside the Adventist tradition in cases of groups that had split off the denomination in the past. This section will illustrate all of these eight types and the Adventist way of dealing with them with pertinent examples.1237 1236 Type 4: alliance; 5: “ecumenism of profiles”; 6: forum; 7: “spiritual unity.” 1237 An overview of the examples presented below: Type (1) organic union (2) mutual recognition (3) cooperative-federal (4) alliance (5) ecumenism of profiles

Typical activity unification negotiations consensus dialogue council resolution service strategizing debate

Example Hungary Sabbatarian dialogues Germany; France Bible Societies Responses e. g. to BEM

342

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

A case in point for the intentional interaction that Adventists sought is interdenominational cooperation with Bible Societies (type 4 / “alliance”). Since a comprehensive study does not exist yet,1238 a few observations must suffice here. After initial reservations regarding the American Bible Society (ABS) – because a well-known slaveholder was its vice president1239 – positive reporting on this organization and on the British and Foreign Bible Society appeared from the 1860s onward.1240 In the early 20th century, an Adventist working for the American Bible Society in Mexico was encouraged to continue with this ministry when he wanted to become an employee of the SDA Church because thus he was deemed as having “prestige and avenues of work difficult to secure if disconnected from them.”1241 It appears, therefore, that at the very least his work for this organization was not viewed in any way as being contradictory to the Adventist ethos. This positive attitude soon led the way to actual support. From 1918 onward, the General Conference voted funding for the American Bible Society,1242 and positive interaction of various kinds was henceforth the rule: ABS representatives at General Conference meetings and other gatherings,1243 special offerings for Bible Societies at camp meetings,1244 and articles promoting Bible Society work in Adventist magazines.1245 In later years, the denomination’s leadership rejected independent attempts at publishing an “Adventist Bible,” thus indicating the

(6) forum conversation Interaction with non-SDA theology (7) spiritual unity prayer, worship Open communion (8) ecumenism of life everyday activities Interchurch marriages 1238 The only significant publication so far is Tor Tjeransen, “Adventists and Cooperation with Other Denominations in the Bible Societies,” in Reinder Bruinsma (ed.), Faith in Search of Depth and Relevancy: Festschrift in Honour of Dr. Bertil Wiklander, n.p.: TransEuropean Division of Seventh-day Adventists, 2014, 497–506. Beyond presenting a few general observations on interchurch relationships, this text essentially contains a report of Tjeransen’s own experience with the Norwegian Bible Society, which he served as board member since 2000 and head since 2009. 1239 “How to Make Infidels,” RH, May 21, 1857, 19. The article refers to “Judge O’Neill, a wicked, cruel, inveterate slaveholder.” 1240 In an automated search, 99 references to “Bible Society” have been found in RH for the 1860s, of which many are neutral but some are positive. 1241 “Mexico – R. B. Blachly’s Work,” GC Minutes, April 2, 1905, GCA. 1242 GCC Minutes, February 19, 1918; January 13, 1920, GCA. An abundance of later references to Bible Society work is found in the GCOM minutes, GCA (from their beginnings in 1930 until their end in the 1970s). 1243 See, e. g., “Proceedings of the General Conference,” RH, June 10, 1930, 166–168, and June 11, 1930, 181–182. 1244 GCC Minutes, July 15, 1918, GCA. 1245 Mary Alicia Steward, “The Holy Scriptures and Their Distribution,” RH, February 16, 1922, 16–20.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

343

importance of cooperating with other Christians in this matter,1246 and from the 1990s onward, SDA scholars participated in translation teams.1247 In the third millennium, finally, some Seventh-day Adventists began to serve in Bible Society leadership positions.1248 Cooperation with Bible Societies represents a well-nigh ideal case in terms of the general Adventist approach to other denominations and Christian organizations. A common goal that hardly invites any dispute, an interest that is crucial for the Seventh-day Adventist tradition and a minimum of institutional interlocking all combine in this prototypical alliance. These factors explain the unproblematic way in which the denomination participated in such organizations and Adventists ultimately even assumed administrative responsibilities. Although such a near-perfect setup existed in this case only, it is for the same reasons that in a number of structurally analogous cases similar cooperations were established: religious liberty associations,1249 disaster relief and development cooperation,1250 medical ministry,1251 and local initiatives of various kinds.1252

1246 “Bible with Notes Containing S.D.A. Doctrines,” GCC Minutes, October 26, 1936, GCA. In 1994, a paraphrase version of the Bible was published by an Adventist theologian for devotional purposes (i. e. in a very different context), printed by the major denominational publishing house; see Jack Blanco, The Clear Word: A Paraphrase to Nurture Faith and Growth, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1994. 1247 Marcos Paseggi, “Babel Undone: How Adventist Translators Help to Advance the Mission of the Church,” Adventist World, January 2010, 16–19, mentions individuals from Spain and Romania. Others participated in translations in France and Russia. Actually such contributeons continued experiences that had started much earlier in the context of African mission projects, where Adventists had been involved in, or even leaders of, Bible translation projects. For examples from Tanzania and Kenya, see Höschele, Christian Remnant – African Folk Church, 84–87 and 149. 1248 In addition to Tor Tjeransen in Norway (see footnote 1238), Reto Mayer was also elected president of a national Bible Society (Switzerland) in 2013; see “Vorstand der Schweizerischen Bibelgesellschaft,” online: http://www.die-bibel.ch/mainpages/ueber-un s/vorstand, accessed June 1, 2016. 1249 Seventh-day Adventists sponsor the International Religious Liberty Association, which publishes the journal Fides et Libertas and organizes international congresses; while an Adventist is always ex officio General Secretary, other positions are taken by religious leaders, scholars and activists. See “The International Religious Liberty Association,” online: www.irla.org, accessed July 1, 2016. 1250 The denominational development agency, ADRA (Adventist Development and Relief Agency) cooperates with similar organizations of diverse backgrounds in fulfilling its mission. 1251 Linda Andrews, “Centura Health: Two Faiths, One Mission,” Spectrum 27.3 (Summer 1999), 53–57, reports on an Adventist-Catholic cooperation – an exceptional case given the traditional SDA uneasiness about Roman Catholicism. 1252 In the Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index (online: http://jewel.andrews.edu:82, accessed July 1, 2016), many of the reports in denominational papers tagged with the subject

344

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Of course intentional interaction was not limited to association-type activities. Another relevant heritage was revivalist spirituality. It had been largely domesticated and confined to the denomination’s interior; nevertheless, its non-institutional impulse remained part of the Adventist DNA. This impulse surfaced in the fact that SDA churches switched from their early closed communion practice1253 to open communion in the late 19th century,1254 thus moving back in the direction of the interdenominational communion experience of their Millerite forebears.1255 Significantly, they also opened their associated footwashing ceremony to all believers in Christ in this way, thus providing an expression of ecumenical hospitality in a way that is rare among Christian churches. Together with continued and large-scale importing of hymns from other Christian traditions,1256 these practices indicate that the “spiritual unity” (type 7) approach continued to play a role as a part of Adventist perspective on the Christian world at large. The two communicative unity concepts (types 5 and 6, “ecumenism of profiles” and the forum approach) both represent the centre of contemporary Adventist views on appropriate interchurch relationships. Here Adventists are at their best; the heart of their self-understanding – being ambassadors with a message1257 – presupposes spoken interaction as the crucial element of Christian unity. This explains their activities in the CCWC and the Global Christian Forum and their intense internal ecumenism as a Christian World Communion. Beyond

1253

1254 1255 1256

1257

“interdenominational cooperation” actually refer to local activities. A July 18, 2016, search found 380 such entries. Cf. George I. Butler, “Open and Close Communion,” RH, May 27, 1873, 185–186 (he argues against open communion) and “Results of Open Communion,” RH, November 4, 1873, 163, an article from the Seventh Day Baptist Sabbath Recorder, which also argues against this practice. Among Adventists, open communion became plausible when Ellen White argued that “Christ’s example forbids exclusiveness at the Lord’s supper.” See her book The Desire of Ages, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1898, 656. The most thorough study of early Adventist communion practice so far is unpublished: Michael Campbell, “ ‘A Holy Spell’: The Development of the Communion Service among Seventh-day Adventists,” research paper, Andrews University, 2004. See “The General Conference,” Signs of the Times, Nov. 1, 1840, 115, and section 3.1.2 of this study. Just one example illustrates this: the voluminous Companion to the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal by Wayne Hooper and Edward E. White, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1988, provides the historical background of each song in the American SDA hymnal of 1985. Cf. the Adventist “Mission Statement,” which originally stresses “Preaching,” “Teaching” and “Healing” as the implementation of the divine task given to the SDA Church. In 2014, the statement was revised and since then emphasizes “Christ-like living, … communicating, … discipling, … teaching, … healing, [and] … serving.” See “Mission Statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” online: https://www.adventist.org/en/information/of ficial-statements/statements/article/go/-/mission-statement-of-the-seventh-day-adventis t-church, accessed July 1, 2016.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

345

this, Adventists were active in this realm in bilateral dialogues of a type that fitted in with this communicative approach. For them, these theological discussions were not so much instances of seeking common ground for the sake of recognizing each other’s full ecclesiality but of being better understood and understanding the other better as well.1258 Adventist bilateral dialogues will be explored in more detail below; therefore, at this point it is sufficient to refer to another activity which indicates the denominational will to engage in an “ecumenism of profiles” that implied a dislike for anything smacking of compromise but, at the same time, a commitment to keep the conversation going. Most significant are a number of instances in which Adventists produced responses to significant ecumenical statements.1259 This in itself may not seem very noteworthy, but the fact that denominational leaders began to draft such texts only from the 1970s onwards1260 indicates that the inherited strong awareness of their own profile ultimately did not deter them from recognizing the importance of discussion.1261 The responses to various ecumenical texts prepared by Adventists diverged significantly – a fact indicating that their determination to discuss was genuine. Two examples will illustrate this.1262 Beach’s reaction to the WCC study document “Common Witness and Proselytism” (1971) was overwhelmingly positive. It is significant that it was published in the Ecumenical Review together with the original document and other reactions from Lebanon, Argentina and two Or-

1258 A similar positive attitude and perspective can be seen in a book written by an Adventist evangelist in the mid-1980s: George E. Vandeman, What I Like About… The Lutherans, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Charismatics, the Catholics, Our Jewish Friends, the Adventists: Rescuers of Neglected Truth, Boise: Pacific Press, 1986. 1259 As on various other areas of ecumenical interest, a study of its own should be made on these statements. The overview presented here is merely intended to serve the purpose of this section. 1260 One exception is the 1932 “Reply of Seventh-day Adventists to the Encyclical Lux Veritatis,” RH, March 31, 1932, 3– 4 [291–292], a somewhat polemical response to what was mainly a text on Nestorius and his teachings. This text did not discuss much of the encyclical, but it is the first instance of a public Adventist reply to a Roman Catholic statement of this kind. 1261 A similar case in point is the series “An Hour with …” in the Signs of the Times magazine in the 1960s (interviews by Daniel Walther), e. g. Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Albert Schweitzer, Hans Küng, and Henry van Dusen (ST, February 1960; June 1960; February 1962; December 1963; and January 1966, respectively). 1262 A later instance is the Charta Oecumenica. For responses, see “ ‘Charta Oecumenica’: A Statement by the Euro-Africa Division of Seventh-day Adventists [2003],” in Stefan Höschele, Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents, Adventistica 10, Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 93–94. A more comprehensive response was published in German by the leadership of Seventh-day Adventists in Germany; see ibid., 94–97 (English version) and Rolf J. Pöhler and Günther Machel, “ ‘Wir verpflichten uns …’!? Eine adventistische Stellungnahme zur Charta Oecumenica,” AE, April 2003, 13–14.

346

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

thodox theologians.1263 In this concert, therefore, Beach represented both an Evangelical North America voice and a European free church/minority church position in addition to speaking for his own denomination.1264 His criticism mainly concerned the assumption that united mission would always fulfil Christ’s command better than individuals’ or individual churches’ initiatives, and an overly normative ecumenical tone of the document at a time when many Christians were doing mission without sharing the ecumenical orientation displayed in the text. Yet altogether Beach congratulated the authors and viewed it as “probably one of the best ever produced on the issue,”1265 thus demonstrating that Adventists’ orientation was not a fault-finding mission but constructive discourse. Like many other churches, Adventists also responded to “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (BEM/1982), one of the major statements that the Faith and Order Commission produced.1266 Compared with the 1971 reaction mentioned above, the SDA response to BEM is much more unfavourable. While it lists points of both agreement and disagreement, the overall picture is one of distance and disapprobation. The bulk of positive assertions are found in the section on baptism,1267 but because of the strong Adventist believer’s baptism tradition,

1263 Bert B. Beach, “An Adventist Reaction,” Ecumenical Review 32.1 (1971), 38–43; “Common Witness and Proselytism: A Study Document,” Ecumenical Review 32.1 (1971), 9–20. The Document had been prepared by the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC. 1264 Proselytism and its definition remained a much-debated issue for Adventists; cf. Bert B. Beach, “Ecumenism and Evangelization,” in Richard Lehmann, Jack Mahon, and Børge Schantz (eds.), Cast the Net on the Right Side …: Seventh-day Adventists Face the “Isms”, Bracknell: European Institute of World Mission, 1993, 23–32; Norman K. Miles, “Proselytism and Religious Freedom in the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” in John Witte and Richard C. Martin (eds.), Sharing the Book: Religious Perspectives on the Rights and Wrongs of Proselytism, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999, 305–319, 405–406; and “Religious Liberty, Evangelism, and Proselytism,” in Ray Dabrowski (ed.), Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents, 3rd ed., Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 86–87. 1265 Beach, “An Adventist Reaction,” 38. 1266 The Adventist response was voted in 1985 and published as “Seventh-day Adventists,” in Max Thurian (ed.), Churches Respond to BEM, vol. 2, Faith and Order Paper 132, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986, 337–348. A German version was also published: “Darstellung der STA zu den Aussagen des Ökumenischen Rates der Kirchen und der Kommission für ‘Glaube und Kirchenverfassung’ über Taufe, Eucharistie und Amt,” Aller Diener, no. 3 (1987), 3–18. Three authors were involved in drafting the statement: William G. Johnsson (on baptism), Herbert Kiesler (on the Eucharist) and Raoul Dederen, who was also a member of Faith and Order at the time (on ministry). See S 514 Beach, Bert B. 1985, GCA. 1267 “Seventh-day Adventists,” in Churches Respond to BEM, 338, lists 17 short points of agreement.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

347

crucial content is dismissed as unacceptable.1268 Regarding the Eucharist, the BEM text is deemed too liturgy-oriented and as disregarding the importance of the individual’s salvation experience; the statements on ministry are considered “too Catholic” for the perspective of this essentially non-sacramental church.1269 It is not surprising, therefore, that all three sections of the response statement end in a critical note.1270 Nevertheless, the fact that Adventists prepared such a statement at all suggests that they were interested in genuine theological discussion and were willing to contribute their share to it, thus exhibiting commitment to a common search for truth. A significant awareness of the beneficial nature of a forum approach to relating with other Christian traditions developed from the 1950s onward. Initiatives such as the consultations leading to Questions on Doctrine, the WCC-SDA conversations, Adventist observers in the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, and Beach’s interaction with leaders of other Christian world communions in the CCWC all indicate that such a communicative but low-level type of relationship corresponded well to the growing Adventist self-understanding as a unique global denominational body among other such bodies. This semi-official and official engagement with other churches was part of a trend that characterizes this entire period; a parallel development is visible in Adventist theology. The denomination’s seminary was founded in 1937, but developed into a university-type institution only in the 1950s. After it became part of Andrews University in 1960,1271 the denomination’s theological training for pastors reached a level similar to that of other North American Protestant Churches. This enabled Adventists, for the first time, to interact with non-Adventist theological thinking in a systematic manner. While it may seem, from an outside perspective, quite natural that such interaction took place, this way of theologizing also implied a new paradigm: in this realm the Christian other would have to be taken seriously not only on a personal level but also in terms of arguments. Admittedly, Adventist theologians have been generally more interested in biblical studies and practical theology as well as in exploring their own heritage.1272 However, a growing body of research on non-SDA theologians and

1268 Ibid., 338–340. 1269 Ibid., 348. 1270 Ibid., 340–341, 343–344, 348. A slightly more positive evaluation is found in a discussion by an Adventist church historian in the GDR, Dieter Leutert, “Ablehnende Zustimmung: Gedanken zum Limapapier,” AdventGemeinde, May 1986, 3–5. 1271 It moved from Washington, D.C., where it was part of the short-lived Potomac University, to Berrien Springs, Michigan, in 1960; there it has been part of Andrews University until today. 1272 For numerous references to such studies, see Martin F. Hanna, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Bibliography (1851–1994), Berrien Springs: SDA Theological Seminary, 1995.

348

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

traditions1273 (with a recent trend of comparative studies of Adventist and nonAdventist authors)1274 indicates that the forum approach to interdenominational contact – which is indispensable in university-style discourse – is firmly anchored in their theological practice two generations after their first experiences of interchurch conversations. The four approaches to Christian unity that Beach did not advocate1275 were all fields of friction from the 1970s onward. For instance, “ecumenism of life” notions (type 8) – a grassroots approach to Christian unity as is found in noninstitutional initiatives, informal networks and interchurch families – were not part of the Adventist preference in much of that phase. A good illustration is the question of marriage with persons who are not members of the denomination. From the early days of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, church leaders advised against such unions,1276 and officially the same attitude exists today.1277 Yet the fact that such admonitions occurred time and again suggests that the practice

1273 For two early examples, see Norman Gulley, “Eschatology of Karl Barth,” Ph.D. diss., Edinburgh University, 1970, and Fritz Guy, “Man and His Time: Three Contemporary Theological Interpretations,” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1971 (on Tillich, Barth, and Pannenberg). Later studies also include analyses of Roman Catholic theologians’ thought; see Carlos E. Espinosa, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Hans Küng: An Analysis and Critique of His Criteria and Norms of Christian Truth and Error,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1988, and Carlos A. Steger, “Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and Oscar Cullmann,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1993. 1274 See, e. g., Martha O. Duah, “A Study of Warfare Theodicy in the Writings of Ellen G. White and Gregory A. Boyd,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2012; Wendy Jackson, “The Unity of the Church and the Role of Church Authority in Maintaining that Unity in the Writings of Alexander Campbell and Ellen G. White,” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2015. 1275 Types 1 (organic union), 2 (mutual recognition), 3 (cooperative-federal unity), and 8 (“ecumenism of life”). 1276 A few random examples from the 19th century, all from RH: B. F. Snook, “Marriage with Unbelievers,” November 11, 1862, 189; James Sawyer, “Marrying Unbelievers,” June 4, 1867, 296; “Is It Right for Believers to Marry Unbelievers?,” July 14, 1868, 54–55; A. C. Spicer, “Marrying ‘Only in the Lord’,” August 24, 1876, 69; C. J. Lamson, “Unequally Yoked,” September 15, 1885, 581; Ellen G. White, “Unwise Marriages,” February 2, 1886, 65–66; Lula K. Matlack, “Be Not Unequally Yoked,” November 17, 1891, 709. It is to be noted that the term “unbelievers” was generally understood as including Christians of other denominations. 1277 Cf. Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Konfessionsverschiedene Ehen: Eine Studie über 2. Korinther 6,14,” in Roberto Badenas and Stefan Höschele (eds.), Die Ehe: Biblische, theologische und pastorale Aspekte, Studien zur adventistischen Ethik 1, Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2010, 201–226; and Aroldo Ferreira de Andrade, “O casamento entre Adventistas e nãoAdventistas: Análise do problema e proposta de procedimentos,” M.A. thesis, Centro Universitário Adventista de São Paulo, 2009. For a study that discusses the issue in a differentiated manner, see Andrée Rigole, “Les mariages mixtes: Le problème au sein de l’oecuménisme et de l’église Adventiste,” Licentiate thesis, Faculté adventiste de théologie, Collonges-sous-Salève, 1976.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

349

could not be stopped, and actually it is not linked with disciplinary sanctions for ordinary church members. “Mixed marriages,” therefore, were a reality with which the denomination was confronted for all of its history. Evidently the strong convictions of most Adventists contribute to strain in such marriages;1278 nevertheless, the fact that female members typically outnumber men by a margin of more than 10 %1279 made this practice almost inevitable. In spite of this situation, even today an Adventist pastor is not permitted to conduct the wedding of a “mixed” couple or to participate in an ecumenical wedding ceremony.1280 Moreover, for pastors and employees at a certain level marrying outside the Adventist fold was deemed completely unacceptable and a reason to terminate employment even after World War II.1281 More recently, however, there were instances when pastors with supporting Christian partners were accepted and even ordained.1282

1278 Cf. Barbara C. Hernandez and Colwick M. Wilson, “Another Kind of Ambiguous Loss: Seventh-day Adventist Women in Mixed-Orientation Marriages,” Family Relations 56.2 (2007), 184–195. This article interprets such the breakup of such “mixed” marriages as “ambiguous loss,” relying on the accounts of several women who experienced divorce in such setup. 1279 Tadaomi Shinmyo, for instance, in his dissertation “A History in Missiological Perspective of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Japan from 1945 to 1985,” D.Min. diss., Andrews University, 1987, 638, reports that at the time of writing among the young Adventists surveyed two thirds were female. For figures from the USA, where the ratio is altogether about 60 % female and 40% male (while Protestants in general apparently have a general ratio of 55 %/45 %), see Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-Day Adventism and the American Dream, 2d ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007, 147. 1280 J. David Newman, “Marrying Non-Adventists,” Ministry 67.2 (1994), 5, 30, commenting on the question of Adventist pastors officiating in “mixed” marriage ceremonies discusses this “prohibition” which “has long been church practice” (5) but observes that until the 1990s this was a tradition without a basis in official church regulations such as the Church Manual. He proposed that pastors should in fact not conduct such weddings in general; however, he suggested allowing for exceptions because of cultural contexts. 1281 A 1931 General Conference action reads, “Voted, That in order to maintain the denominational standards on the question of marriage, we adopt it as our policy that any member of the General Conference office staff who marries an unbeliever or one of another faith, automatically disconnects from the work of the office.” See GCC Minutes, September 1931, GCA; this policy was confirmed in 1955; see GCOM 1955, June 13, GCA. In 1972, the same question was discussed in the GC Officers Meeting, which advised, “Agreed, To counsel the Personnel Committee to advise any General Conference staff member contemplating marriage to a non-Adventist that he/she should quietly withdraw from denominational employment if such marriage were effected.” See GCOM, October 30, 1972, GCA. It would appear that today such guidelines are no longer followed and could not be sustained with regard to employment laws. 1282 The Ethics Commission of the Northern German Union produced a short paper outlining cases in which this is deemed acceptable ([Konfessionsverschiedene Pastorenehen,] Ethikkommission, Hannover, November 16, 2004).

350

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

On the whole, the denomination appears to be handling this question in a peculiarly pragmatic manner. This pragmatism combines general theological strictness and theoretical clarity with a large degree of individual freedom as long as the question does not involve leaders. No sanctioning of cross-denominational marriages (such as dropping from membership or putting members under censure) must be applied1283 – somewhat similar to the practice of tithing, which is expected but not inspected except for those elected to prominent offices in congregations. An analogous case is dual membership, which occurs very rarely, is strongly advised against, but does not automatically lead to excommunication or other sanctions.1284 The Seventh-day Adventist approach to organic union, mutual recognition and the cooperative-federal concept of Christian unity (types 1, 2, and 3) can be best illuminated by occurrences in different countries. The manners in which denominational leaders sought relationships with other Christian churches naturally depended on local factors, and from the 1970s onward, a significant degree of international differentiation can be observed. The experimentation that ensued in some contexts, the limited diversity that evolved in the subsequent decades, and the conflicts that arose were mostly related to forms of interchurch relationships which the denomination had hitherto avoided. In general, Adventists shunned involvement in the major ecumenical organizations (i. e. national councils of churches). If participation was an option for the respective church leaders, consultant or observer status was their choice in most cases.1285 Until the end of the 20th century, full membership occurred only in two very small countries – the Bahamas and Belize.1286 In one case, however, active involvement in an entity that was generally regarded as ecumenical caused considerable tension. While the situation was rather complex and arose within a context of state pressure, infiltration by the secret service and isolation from the global denomination, the 1975 schism in Hungary was directly linked to the 1283 An interesting case in point is a 1933 inquiry from Romania, where “the question of mixed marriages” was “agitated … very strongly” (GCOM, October 8, 1933, GCA). The General Conference leaders recommended to the respective regional leadership a statement that included the passage, “[T]he church has never adopted the policy, nor does it now advise the adoption of the policy of disfellowshipping members for entering upon such marriages, but we recommend that such persons be not disfellowshipped.” See GCOM, October 9, 1933, GCA. 1284 “Adventists and Dual Church Membership,” TMs, BRI, 2011. 1285 In 1985, Adventists were “Fraternal Associates” of the National Council in Kenya (a lower status than “Associate Members”); in Rwanda and the Solomon Islands, they were an “Associate Member”; in England the status was status that of a “consultant-observer”; cf. the respective pages in Directory: Christian Councils, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1985. 1286 Ibid. Full membership in the Swedish Mission Council was different from membership in organizations that mainly represented an ecumenical agenda.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

351

authorities’ attempts to control Christians by uniting free churches in a common council. The Hungarian Council of Free Churches had been initiated by Christian leaders themselves but soon came under the influence of the government office of church affairs. Adventists were strongly involved in the leadership of this organization,1287 and in 1975 some denominational leaders and about 10 % of a total membership of 6,000 left their church, mainly with reference to “ecumenical involvement.” Attempts at reconciliation failed due to hardened positions and power issues on both sides until in 1984 the schismatic “Egervari group”1288 formed an organization of their own.1289 This church, the Christian Advent Community (KERAK), grew beyond 1,600 members in the post-1989 era.1290 After the peaceful revolution, attempts at reunion failed,1291 and by the year 2000, communication ceased. In 2011, new conversations began, and in 2015, the leaders of both churches signed a “Joint Declaration on Settling the Past and Building a Common Future,” a kind of “healing of memories” agreement.1292 Although a full reunion (e. g. by forming a new conference under the Hungarian Union leadership) seemed impractical for leaders of the regional Trans-European Division, a partial reunion was achieved in that almost all KERAK leaders became pastors of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and about half of the KERAK members had joined the denomination individually by mid-2016 – the others preferred to uphold their own organization.1293 1287 Cf. Sándor Palotay, “Les Églises libres,” in József Lukács (ed.), Ensemble pour une bonne cause: L’État socialiste et les Églises en Hongrie. Études, déclarations, documents, Budapest: Corvina, 1978, 179–189. 1288 It was named after Oszkár Egervári, a former conference president, who became the group’s leader. 1289 For different perspectives on what happened in those years, see Edwin Ludescher, G. Ralph Thompson, and Neal C. Wilson, “The Hungarian Situation,” Ministry 58.4 (1985), 11, 21; and Sidney Reiners, “Betrayal in Budapest,” Adventist Currents, September 1986, 10–15. 1290 On the history of Hungarian Adventists after World War II, see the dissertation by Zoltán Rajki, A H. N. Adventista Egyház története 1945 és 1989 között Magyarországon [The History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Hungary between 1945 and 1989], Societas et Ecclesia 6, Budapest: Advent, 2003; on the schism, see Zoltán Rajki, Az Egervárimozgalom: A Keresztény Advent Közösség kialakulása és vallásszabadsági küzdelmei a Kádár-korszak második felében (1975–1990) [The Egervári Movement: The Formation and Religious Liberty Struggles of the Christian Advent Community in the Second Half of the Kádár Era (1975–1990)], Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 2012. 1291 A significant attempt, with meetings, a joint declaration signed, and committees to work out details, was made in October 1989; see “Hungarian Church – Report,” GC Minutes, October 9, 1989, GCA. 1292 “Adventist Church in Hungary Reconciles with Breakaway Group after 40 Years,” Adventist News Network, May 1, 2015. 1293 Information provided by Csaba Simon, SDA pastor in Békés, and László Szabó, Hungarian lecturer of mission studies, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, Germany.

352

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

While this reconciliation meant no true merger, it is one of the few cases in which Adventist interchurch relationships yielded a result that can be classified as belonging to the organic union (type 1) category. The fact that this was possible reveals that this concept of Christian unity was indeed dear to Adventists but remained reserved, in their thinking, to unique situations. In this case, the reversal of a schism implied a common and well-remembered history, even if the previous 40 years had been a story of conflict and separation. Moreover, the almost identical doctrinal beliefs of both groups made an agreement on visible unity easy, even if there were a few differences in emphasis.1294 Without such large-scale accord, this radical version of a juridical approach to unity would not have produced any result. Experimentation with a more pronounced participation in conciliar types of ecumenism (i. e. type 3) took place in Germany. In a socialist context like that of Hungary, but in a different situation in terms of interchurch relationships and church-state interactions, Seventh-day Adventists in the GDR began to build on previous informal but positive interdenominational contacts1295 when they applied for a guest status in the then AGCK (Association of Christian Churches) in 1974. This organization was the GDR version of a national council of churches, and although there was no guest category, the “observer” status that was granted made Adventists effectively part of the association – like Roman Catholics, who were also observers. The subsequent cooperation appears to have been constructive and free of conflict.1296 In Western Germany, such positive contacts did not exist on the national level,1297 and it was only in 1993 that the denominational leaders decided to apply for guest status in the reunified German Association of Christian Churches (ACK). This status was granted in the same year.1298 In the ACK context, observer 1294 KERAK was more conservative in some regards but had obviously abandoned the traditional Adventist ecclesiological remnant interpretation. 1295 Manfred Böttcher, Dialog und Zeugnis, 19–72, mentions participation in the Association of Churches and Religious Communities in Berlin and in weeks of prayers of the Evangelical Alliance, the solidarity among construction soldiers (i. e. conscientious objectors) belonging to different denominations, Adventist employees in Protestant hospitals and similar institutions, and cooperation in the field of church music. Cf. also Dieter Leutert, “Die Adventgemeinde in der DDR und ihr Verständnis zur Ökumenischen Bewegung.” 1296 Böttcher, Dialog und Zeugnis, 86–87, 109–110. 1297 In a number of German towns, local Adventist congregations have been open to interchurch engagement to a much larger degree than on the federal state or national level. See, for instance, on one of the churches in the town of Darmstadt: Was wir tun, was uns eint. Lebendig Oekumene Sein in Darmstadt, Darmstadt: Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen Darmstadt, 2016, 26–28. 1298 For details of this event and the ensuing debate, see Stefan Höschele, “Gaststatus als Modell von Ökumenizität? Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten und die Arbeitsgemeinschaft

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

353

status implied potential non-agreement with its trinitarian basis, which is why the “guest” category seemed by far preferable. In the same year, Adventist leaders were surprised by vigorous protests of a vocal minority of members who claimed that this new status compromised Adventist beliefs.1299 This prompted several years of attempts at explaining this step to the members and a “test phase” until 1997,1300 i. e. until the status could be confirmed by constituency meetings. In later years, some conferences sought even closer alignment with regional ACKs.1301 As in France, where Adventists became members of the Protestant Federation (Fédération Protestante) in 2006,1302 this story indicates that a certain degree of cooperative-federal relations became possible for Seventh-day Adventists where peculiar configurations made this appear expedient. Thus a non-member category which recognized Adventists as being more than mere observers (Germany), membership in Protestant councils in unambiguous minority contexts (France, Spain1303), membership in the Finnish Free Church Council1304 and af-

1299

1300

1301

1302

1303

1304

christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland – Hintergründe, Entwicklungen und Einsichten,” Freikirchenforschung 18 (2009), 188–204. A comprehensive analysis of the debates in those years is presented by Thomas Spiegler, “Darstellung und Analyse der Diskussionen um die Gastmitgliedschaft der Gemeinschaft der STA in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland,” Diplom thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 1999. For a discussion of interchurch relationships and the ACK by the denominational leadership in Germany, see Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland, Unser Verhältnis zu anderen Kirchen, Freikirchen und Gemeinschaften, Adventgemeinde heute 1, Hannover: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland, 1993; Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland, Vierundfünfzig Fragen und Antworten zum Verhältnis der Gemeinschaft der SiebentenTags-Adventisten zu anderen Kirchen und zur Arbeitsgemeinschaft Christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland (ACK), Adventgemeinde heute 3, Hannover: Gemeinschaft der SiebentenTags-Adventisten in Deutschland, [1997]. In Eastern Germany, traditionally a more pro-ecumenical region, a 2020 vote led to the SDA Church joining the ACK in several federal states; see “Freikirche der STA in Sachsen: Aufnahme als Mitglied der Landes-ACK,” Miteinander, July–September 2021, 12, and “Segnungsgottesdienst zur Aufnahme in die ACK Sachsen-Anhalt,” Miteinander, July– September 2021, 12. See Fabrice Desplan and Regis Dericquebourg (eds.), Ces protestants que l’on dit adventistes, Paris: L’Harmattan, 2008, particularly the contributions by Sébastien Fath, “Les relations entre les adventistes et les autres protestants,” 19–27, Jean-Paul Willaime, “L’intégration des adventistes du septième jour à la Fédération Protestante de France,” 89– 99, and Richard Lehmann, “L’Église adventiste en France: Chemins d’ouverture,” 101– 119. Cf. Ley 24/1992 de 10 de noviembre [Law 24/1992 of November 10], November 12, 1992, no. 272 [on FEREDE (Federation of Evangelical Religious Entities of Spain)], Boletin Oficial del Estado, online: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1992/11/12/pdfs/A38209-38211.pdf, accessed February 1, 2016. This law actually provides for freedom from work and from exams on Saturdays for Adventist employees and students. See Pekka Pohjola – Bert B. Beach, October 13, 1997, CIR.

354

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

filiation with the Église du Christ au Zaire in the 1970s1305 all indicate that some degree of involvement in ecumenical flagship organizations was possible, but only in special cases where secularization, minority situations or state regulations made cooperation attractive or preferable.1306 Lastly, instances of church fellowship based on mutual recognition (type 2) seemed possible only on a sabbatarian basis. Several attempts at creating bonds with other Sabbath-keeping Christians suggest that Adventists were willing to engage in this type of relationships1307 – similar to the experiments in “sabbatarian ecumenism” with the Seventh Day Baptists in the 1870s.1308 In the late 1960s1309 some efforts were made to re-initiate dialogue with this older denomination of Sabbath-keepers, but apparently no action was taken beyond preliminary explorations.1310 Delegates were sent to attend each other’s General Conferences,1311 interest in non-Adventist sabbatarians was reported in the major SDA church paper,1312 and a very positive Adventist popular book on Seventh Day

1305 This “government imposed ecumenism” in the Zaire under dictator Mobutu united all Protestant denominations. With this measure the government aimed at curbing political activism in many independent churches. The Seventh-day Adventist Church affiliated with this organization and actually served as a pool for many non-Adventist Christians with a sabbatarian background who joined the SDA Church after their churches had been denied legal existence. See F. Duane McKey, “History and Analysis of the Relationship between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Several Independent Churches in the Kasai Province of Zaire, 1972 to 1985 (Congo),” D.Min. diss., Andrews University, 1989. 1306 Another special case was the Adventist inclusion in the Three-Self Patriotic Movement in China, a state-initiated organization that was to lead churches into a non-denominational age; see Steve Prouty, “The Three-Self Movement and the Adventist Church in Early Communist China,” M.A. thesis, University of Nebraska, 2009. 1307 The one instance in which efforts to initiate a process of rapprochement did not work out is the “Reformation Movement” viz. the two small denominations that resulted from the German Adventist split in World War I. 1308 See section 3.3.2. 1309 “Dialog with Seventh Day Baptists,” GCOM, November 11, 1968, and “Seventh Day Baptists – Further Contacts,” GCOM, September 14, 1970, GCA; see also “Dialogue with Seventh Day Baptists” [Committee Report], November 6, 1968, GCA/10621 (Seventh Day Baptists). This committee recommended “that the General Conference Officers look with favor on exploring the possibilities of mutually beneficial dialogue with the Seventh Day Baptists.” 1310 A committee action in 1977 (“Dialog w/7th Day Baptists, L van Dolson invited,” 1977–11, GCOM index cards, “Baptists”) actually refers to a symposium-like meeting on the question of Saturday in the public realm; cf. Leo R. Van Dolson, “ ‘Quiet Saturdays’,” Ministry 50.11 (1977), 16–17. 1311 GCOM, September 15, 1970, June 7, 1971, and June 21, 1972, GCA. 1312 Eugene Lincoln, “They also Remember,” RH, July 10, 1969, 5–7, and July 17, 1969, 11–13. This article reports on other Christian groups that honour the Saturday Sabbath – the Church of God (Seventh Day), Seventh Day Baptists, the Strangites (a tiny Latter-Day Saints group), William Crowdy’s Church of God and the Saints of Christ, Herbert Armstrong’s Radio Church of God (later to be renamed Worldwide Church of God), the Assemblies of Yahweh, and a few other minor groups.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

355

Baptists appeared in the same period.1313 However, the time had presumably not yet come for sufficient interest on both sides for a full-fledged dialogue,1314 even though later relationships generally remained friendly.1315 The longest intra-sabbatarian dialogue took place in the 1980s with the Church of God (Seventh Day) as a conversation partner.1316 After a preliminary meeting in 1980, further discussions were scheduled each year from 1984 to 1987. The proper dialogue sessions started with a constructive atmosphere1317 and positive expectations;1318 continuation was voted three times until 1986, when the group felt that the conversations had reached a “plateau,” thus necessitating the inclusion of “more personnel from the Churches’ administrative boards.”1319 At the same time, the dialogue partners agreed on purposes of further meetings being (1) “rapprochement,” (2) “cooperation in commonalities, e. g., Sabbath,” and (3) “comparison of hermeneutics.” One more meeting took place in 1987; areas of doctrinal agreement and disagreement were listed, potential dialogue topics were discussed, but the decision on future meetings was left to the committees of the two churches. Evidently the Church of God (Seventh Day) leadership pre1313 Russel J. Thomsen, Seventh-Day Baptists: Their Legacy to Adventists, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1971. Earlier publications had been rather polemical; see, e. g., the brochure of the Adventist-turned-Seventh Day Baptist Ludwig R. Conradi, Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists: How They Differ, Plainfield: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1934, and the response to Conradi’s exit and his writings in German, C. A. Motzer, Unterscheidungslehren der S.-T.-Baptisten und S.-T.-Adventisten, pamphlet, Hamburg: Advent-Verlag, 1933. 1314 It is unclear why the initial dialogue ideas were not pursued. Two factors seem to have played a role: (1) the lack of experience in dialogues on both sides (the WCC dialogue had just started and was an overwhelmingly European project) and (2) the Adventist commitment to this cause appears not to have been overwhelming; see “Seventh Day Baptists – Further Contacts,” GCOM, September 14, 1970, GCA (“Seventh Day Baptists expressed some disappointment because in the past there was no follow up on their contact with us”). 1315 Bert Beach continued positive contacts and even suggested a kind of dialogue in 1996, but apparently the suggestion did not lead to significant further steps. See Bert B. Beach – Calvin P. Babcock, July 11, 1996, Folder “Seventh-day Baptist Dialogue,” BRI. 1316 For details of this dialogue and the one with the Assemblies of Yahweh mentioned below, see Table 13. The Church of God (Seventh Day) is actually a group that split off the Seventhday Adventist movement in 1860; see section 3.3.1. 1317 According to the short report included in the minutes of the SDA Council on Interchurch Relations, “the conversations were open, kind, and friendly” and the “atmosphere was one of Christian brethren meeting together and discussing theological questions” (CIR Minutes, March 30, 1984, GC PARL). 1318 In 1986, the purposes of the dialogue were summarized as follows: (1) Comparison of similarities and dissimilarities; (2) Examination of possibilities for collaboration; (3) Efforts seeking to lessen hostilities between the respective bodies (of such hostilities, there were actually few traces if any in the 1980s). See “1986 Dialogical Conversations between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Church of God (Seventh Day),” Denver, Colorado, March 28–30, 1986, Folder “Church of God (Seventh Day) Dialogue,” BRI. 1319 “1986 Dialogical Conversations.”

356

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

ferred not to carry on with the conversations;1320 its delegates actually stated in 1987 that all the available energy would probably be invested in “efforts to secure reunification with the General Council of the Churches of God (7th Day),” a schismatic group.1321 The conversations with the Assemblies of Yahweh (AOY), as well as consultations with the United Church of God and the Worldwide Church of God,1322 may be considered instances in which the dynamics visible in the COG7D dialogues intensified. The AOY meetings were planned merely three months after the first proper COG7D dialogue round in 1984 on the initiative of Assemblies representatives.1323 While the Assemblies of Yahweh and Seventh-day Adventists share important ideas and practices such as the Sabbath, the encounter was evidently less than a success. So much did the AOY party stress their particular convictions – their teaching on “sacred names” and the pre-eminence of the Old Testament1324 – that SDA representatives could not even reach a common basis of discussion with them.1325 Perhaps because of such experiences, the meetings with groups from the recently splintered sabbatarian Worldwide Church of God in 19961326 and 19971327 were not even called “dialogue” but “consultation”; it appears that no tangible results ensued from these encounters. 1320 In 1998 and 2003, efforts were undertaken by Bert Beach and a counterpart from the COG7D, Whaid Rose, to re-initiate a three-year or four-year dialogue, but it appears that these did not produce any result in spite of the fact that eight topics had been suggested (ranging from mission and education to the doctrine of God and the pre-advent judgement). See CIR Minutes, September 17, 1998, GC PARL, and “Proposed Dialogue: Seventh Day [sic] Adventist Church – Church of God (Seventh Day),” July 2003, Folder “Church of God (Seventh Day) Dialogue,” BRI. 1321 “1987 Dialogical Conversations between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Church of God (Seventh Day),” Denver, Colorado, February 20–22, 1987, Folder “Church of God (Seventh Day) Dialogue,” BRI. For more information on these denominations, see Robert Coulter, The Journey: A History of the Church of God (Seventh Day), [Broomfield]: [Bible Advocate Press], 2014. 1322 All these groups are direct or indirect splinters of the Church of God (Seventh Day) and thus belong to the Seventh-day Adventist family tree. 1323 An Adventist participant’s personal two-part report on the meeting, which includes general reflections arising from the discussions, is W[illiam] G. J[ohnsson], “Should We Produce an Adventist Bible?,” AR, August 23, 1984, 12–13; and idem, “The Sufficiency of Scripture,” AR, August 30, 1984, 12–13. 1324 Ibid., 12. AOY theology emphasizes that terms and names such as “God” and “Jesus” are unacceptable; they use “Yahweh” and “Yahshua” (sic). Johnsson’s article mentions as “continuing source of frustration” the fact that AOY representatives did not even accept the Greek New Testament but insisted that the (unknown) Aramaic original is decisive (ibid.). 1325 J[ohnsson], “Should We Produce an Adventist Bible?,” 12, states, “we achieved no significant progress toward agreement on any point of difference.” 1326 Four United Church of God (UCG) representatives met with six SDA representatives from July 1 to 2, 1996. The UCG was the largest Sabbath keeping group that resulted from the shift of the Worldwide Church of God away from Saturday sabbatarianism. It experienced further splits in the following years.

Functioning as a Christian World Communion

357

The dynamics of these dialogues and meetings reveal some paradoxes inherent in Seventh-day Adventist conversations with other Christians, especially of the Sabbath-keeping and rigorous kind, and demonstrate the limits of convergence attempts even where there seems to be a shared foundation for reflection and exchange. In retrospect, one may even presume that these particular dialogue endeavours were doomed right from the outset: the size difference and implied power disparity – with Adventists being more than a hundred times larger in terms of membership – almost inevitably led to a situation in which the conversation partners did not meet at eye level. Moreover, the respective smaller denominations clung to their peculiar teachings in such a firm manner1328 that consensus was almost impossible1329 – a situation that would at times appear in a reversed manner in Adventist dialogues with more well-known churches. If bilateral sabbatarian theological conversations entailed the potential for a broader basis of Christian denominations mutually recognizing each other in a particular way – a kind of “Sabbath keepers’ Leuenberg” – this potential was certainly not used.1330 Part of the difficulty was that unlike in the early period of these denominations, there were no charismatic leaders like James White who could simply declare fellowship by fiat. Moreover, the lack of experience in formal dialoguing (which is visible in the extant documentation)1331 implies that the sessions were not driven by a clear sense of direction; in other words, Adventists were also still learning the basics of interchurch dialogue.

1327 After an initial meeting with Worldwide Church of God representatives in 1996, a three-day consultation took place in 1997, but this denomination had recently abandoned the Sabbath teaching, which made it more difficult for the conversation partners to find a common basis for drawing closer to each other. Efforts were made at continuing these conversations, but apparently to no avail; see CIR Minutes, September 17, 1998, GC PARL. 1328 It is likely that these smaller sabbatarian denominations actually aimed at “witnessing” to Seventh-day Adventists and had no real intention of drawing closer. A similar but reversed ambiguity is visible in some dialogues of Adventists with non-sabbatarian dialogue partners. 1329 The COG7D taught, for instance, that the name of the true Christian Church must be “Church of God,” that Israel will be gathered literally before the end of history, that the millennium will take place on the earth, and that the Lord’s Supper is to be observed annually; see “1987 Dialogical Conversations.” 1330 Sabbatarian Christian bodies with a size of the Adventist kind did not exist, except the True Jesus Church, which was little known outside of China and Taiwan at the time, and whose non-trinitarian and pentecostal teachings would constitute a barrier to mutual recognition even today. 1331 The COG7D dialogue minutes reveal the experimental nature of the meetings, the slow pace of discussions, and the minute details of exegesis that were discussed with reference to COG7D convictions such as the Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday resurrection dates. The AOY meetings left hardly any traces except William Johnsson’s articles mentioned above.

358

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Together with the other developments outlined in this section, this learning experience reveals that Seventh-day Adventists had reached a maturation stage of interchurch relations in the last quarter of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st century. They were now open to a certain variety of ecumenical activities and modes of unity even if some of these did not produce quick and tangible results of the kind expected either by mission-driven church administrators or by the ecumenical mainstream, which advocated “visible unity.” All eight types of interchurch relationships were advocated or at least experimented with in different contexts. Four of these modes – the alliance model (4), “ecumenism of profiles” (5), the “forum” style (6), and “spiritual unity” (7) remained distinct preferences, and the others were applied only in a limited manner. These Adventist preferences were derived from an organizational logic which located institutionalization at the denominational level and, thus, made organic unity an internal affair of a confessional body. In terms of interorganizational relations, this corresponded to favouring light ties in subject-specific partnerships and networks; organized unity beyond the denominational level, by way of contrast, continued to appear questionable. Even if Adventists toned down their scepticism regarding the Ecumenical Movement at large, they continued to clash (like many other Evangelical movements) with the major ecumenical paradigms of federation, union, and even recognition. The basis of this perspective on organization was, evidently, the SDA remnant ecclesiology connected with a general theology of order, which stressed a wellorganized God, who struggles to repair the confusion brought about by the dark forces active in the cosmic conflict. Oneness was viewed as essential, but only within the parameters of holiness; spiritual unity remained a condition for any more far-reaching expressions of being one. Catholicity, which Adventists rejoiced in discovering in their global spread, was viewed as subordinate to apostolicity – the communication of the gospel as they understood it. Yet the very sentiments of a spiritual bond between all believers and of the task to communicate their conception of the Christian faith also opened them up for more encounters of the dialogical kind. This is, therefore, the theme covered in the last section of this study.

5.3

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

The year 1980 marked the beginning of a new phase in Seventh-day Adventist interchurch relations. The denominational leaders recognized the need of creating an entity that would steer relationships with other churches: the Council on

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

359

Interchurch Relations (CIR).1332 Its main responsibilities were the supervision and management of church leaders’ interactions with representatives of other Christian groups, recommendations regarding interchurch cooperations, the study of “the SDA stance vis-à-vis the ecumenical movement,” and the development of “basic policy and philosophical concepts” for those “dealing with nonAdventist religious organizations.”1333 There was still one more point in the job description which became a prime characteristic of this new phase of Adventist interchurch relationships: the council was to “[a]uthorize ‘conversations’ or ‘dialogues’ with other churches or religious organizations where this could prove fruitful.” In other words, it was created to function as the bottleneck through which initiatives of such a kind had to pass.1334 Yet Bert Beach, the secretary of the CIR committee, knew well what kind of projects this twenty-member group1335 (which included the General Conference President, Secretary, and several other important denominational leaders) would support. Thus all of his plans materialized as far as the CIR was concerned; the majority of CIR committee meetings in the 1980s and 1990s included some dialogue item and invariably accepted the plans that were presented. Over the years, twelve such interchurch conversations were authorized and carried through, but with the exception of two instances of initial reflections on individual dialogues,1336 some general discussion,1337 and one Master’s thesis in

1332 This entity later changed its name; in 1990 it was called “Council on Interchurch/Faith Relations,” and several further small name adjustments followed. 1333 “Council on Interchurch Relations” [with Terms of Reference], GCC Minutes, December 18, 1980, GCA; this list contained nine points in total, which were partly overlapping. 1334 Ibid. In the 1980 “Terms of Reference,” the CIR had the “power to act” in terms of authorizing dialogues. In 1990, the “Terms of Reference” were changed in this regard; from then on the CIR had to “recommend to ADCOM,” i. e. the Administrative Committee of the General Conference, a much larger group. See CIR “Terms of Reference,” CIR Minutes, GC PARL. 1335 Most minutes indicate that the meetings were attended by only about 10 persons, at times even fewer. 1336 A first attempt at evaluating the Roman Catholic-Adventist discussions of 2000–2003 is Rolf J. Pöhler, “Der adventistisch-röm.-katholische Dialog. Erste Schritte: Adventisten und Katholiken im Gespräch,” Freikirchenforschung 16 (2007), 135–152. A short discussion of the Adventist-Lutheran conversations and the book containing the related report and papers is found in the book review by Rolf J. Pöhler, “Adventisten und Lutheraner im Gespräch: Eine Rezension,” Spes Christiana 12 (2001), 163–167. 1337 Stefan Höschele, “Adventistische interkonfessionelle Dialoge,” Spes Christiana 21 (2010), 139–154. This article does not aim at interpreting these dialogues; its purpose was to present a comparative overview and analysis with regard to developments, aims and character of the interchurch conversations with an Adventist participation. Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Adventists and Ecumenical Conversation: How Adventists May Choose to Relate to the Existing Models of Ecumenism,” Ministry 75.12 (2003), 5–10, 28, discusses

360

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Finnish,1338 no scholarly evaluation of any of these is available so far. Presumably this is connected to the lack of positive attention by the denomination’s leadership; in fact, dialogues had the potential for intra-Adventist conflict,1339 which is why it was not uncommon for them to be viewed as a “problem area.”1340 Hence Seventh-day Adventist bilateral dialogues still await an in-depth analysis.1341 In addition to reports, papers and documents, a few reports by participants are extant,1342 but there is not even a complete listing of all the meetings and the major sources,1343 which is why such an overview is provided in Table 13. While a detailed account and thorough theological exploration of each of the conversations cannot be provided here, the following deliberations aim at presenting the first overall interpretation of the dialogical activities in which Adventists were involved between 1980 and 2013.1344 All in all, Seventh-day Adventist dialogues with other churches were peculiar in several respects. Aiming mainly at mutual understanding, reducing potential friction and open theological discussion rather than at noticeable convergence or

1338

1339

1340 1341 1342

1343 1344

dialogue only in passing and focuses on other models of unity (mentioning types 1, 2, and 3). Johannes Väänänen, “Adventistien ja luterilaisten oppikeskustelu 1994–1998 – Adventistien erityispiirteiden näkökulmasta” [“The Adventist-Lutheran Doctrinal Debate 1994– 1998 – From the Perspective of Adventist Distinctives”], MA thesis, University of Helsinki, 2019. Väänänen observes that the “two denominations share a sufficiently common understanding of the doctrine of justification and the sacraments,” enabling them to “mutually recognise each other” as Christian churches (abstract). From the 1970s onward, intra-Adventist unity became an issue of increasing importance. In addition to a growing traditionalist-progressive divide that intensified around the 1980s, the global spread and massive growth of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and concomitant cultural diversity and ensuing theological tension has led to recurrent appeals regarding unity by SDA leaders. This is indirectly visible in the treatment of the topic of unity in denominational publications, which largely focuses on unity inside the denomination rather than among Christians at large. See, e. g., the 2018 (Oct.–Dec.) study guide for the Sabbath School used in congregations worldwide, Oneness in Christ. Cf. the polemical writings by Adventist radicals such as Ferrell, Kobialka, Rosner, Standish/Standish, and Wiggers (for publication details, see the bibliography, 8.1) Similar to e. g. Joseph A. Burgess (ed.), Lutherans in Ecumenical Dialogue: A Reappraisal, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990 – a book that appeared before the Lutheran-Adventist dialogue. William G. Johnsson, “Conversations with Other Churches,” chapter 13 of William G. Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2008, 180–193, and William G. Johnsson, “Global Interfaith Conversations [interview],” Spectrum 38 (2010), 11–12, 17. For a Lutheran voice reporting on the SDA-LWF dialogue, see Risto Saarinen, “Adventisten und Lutheraner im Gespräch: Ein Erfahrungsbericht,” Ökumenische Rundschau 50 (2001), 475–489. An earlier list of the dialogues as such (until 2010) is found in Höschele, “Adventistische interkonfessionelle Dialoge,” 142. From 2010 onward, the General Conference leadership apparently had little interest in initiating new dialogues (conversation with John Graz, April 4, 2011). Dialogues that had begun before continued a few years beyond the year 2010.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

361

even consensus,1345 they resembled the most common style of bilateral dialogues of other Christian churches in some regards but differed in important ways. Many of the questions regarding dialogue that have been discussed in ecumenics for decades have hardly begun to be applied to these Adventist conversations: the question of what exactly constitutes consensus,1346 the associated issue of “reception” of dialogue reports containing elements of consensus or convergence, and the complex question of recognition,1347 which commonly follows ecumenical statements produced by representatives of distinct Christian traditions. On the other hand, even non-convergence-oriented dialogues contain the seed of innovation, new expressions of convictions, and of lifting the discourse to hitherto unknown levels. Dialogue inevitably means listening to each other, asking questions that were either never discussed before or that produce reflections and answers not yet considered by either of the two parties or both. In this regard, some of the dialogues in which the SDA church participated strongly resembled the non-traditional format of the International Roman CatholicClassical Pentecostal Dialogue. With its unique style of consciously including elements of confrontation such as the “hard questions” element1348 and the ab-

1345 In the preparatory reflections on the WEF dialogue, the goal is defined as follows: “1. Increasing better understanding. 2. Giving a reason for the faith that is within us. 3. Achieving Christian fellowship in the joy of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. 4. Explaining the concept of the Kingdom of God, and its eschatological and religious liberty dimensions.” (CIR Minutes, August 24, 1984, GC PARL) The LWF conversations report states the following goals: “[1] achieve better mutual understanding, [2] break down false stereotypes, [3] discover the bases of belief, [4] discover points of real and imaginary friction” (LAC, 6). Similar points are stated in the final report of the WEA dialogue. 1346 Cf. Minna Hietamäki, Agreeable Agreement: An Examination of the Quest for Consensus in Ecumenical Dialogue, Ecclesiological Investigations 8, London: T & T Clark, 2010, and József Fuisz, Konsens, Kompromiss, Konvergenz in der ökumenischen Diskussion: Eine strukturanalytische Untersuchung der Logik ökumenischer Entscheidungsfindungsprozesse, Münster: Lit, 2001. Hietamäki distinguishes “consensus as commonality” (177) and “consensus as compatibility” (185), with several subtypes each, thus demonstrating that the language of consensus is often far from precise. 1347 See Dagmar Heller, “Anerkennung: Dimensionen eines Schlüsselbegriffs der Ökumene,” in Bremer and Wernsmann (eds.), Ökumene – überdacht, 262–275, and the comprehensive volume by Risto Saarinen, Recognition and Religion: A Historical and Systematic Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 1348 Cf. Jelle Creemers, Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals: Challenges and Opportunities, Ecclesiological Investigations 23, London: Bloomsbury, 2015, particularly pp. 270–274; on the “hard questions” method, see ibid., 99–192 (chapter 4). A definition of these questions follows: “A hard question is one which pushes hard (even too hard) on what the questioner sees as a deficiency, weakness, misreading of the scriptures, failure in theological method, attributing exaggerated importance to a given emphasis (it might be found in the scriptures but do they give it the same importance as one’s tradition does).” (Ibid., 121, quoting Kilian McDonnell to Basil Meeking, November 6, 1978, Sandidge Collection.)

362

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

sence of consensus as a dialogue goal,1349 the latter varied the classic dialogue approach (types 2, 3, and 6)1350 to suit situations in which spiritual unity (type 7), communicative approaches to interchurch relations (types 5 and 6), and the quest for forming alliances in selected fields of ministry (type 4) were the main points of reference. In other words, such a non-consensus-oriented dialogue style corresponded to Adventist preferences for defining Christian unity quite neatly, even if individual dialogues had differing emphases (cf. the overview in Table 12). Table 12. Dialogue types with some descriptors Dialogue type

Activity: … together

Importance of texts

“Agreement” equals:

A. Juridical

RMT reference model Authority Ranking

(1) Organic union

merger negotiations

… submitting …

very high

(2) Mutual recognition

bilateral dialogue

… agreeing … high

control consensus

B. Cooperative

radical moderate

Equality Matching

(3) Cooperativefederal

multilateral dialogue

… adjusting …

medium

(4) Alliance model

project discussion

… strategizing medium/low …

compromise

radical

commitment

moderate

C. Communicative

Market Pricing

(5) “Ecumenism of profiles”

doctrinal debate

… wrestling …

high

(6) Forum

open space conversation

… listening … medium

contrast

convergence

D. Experiential

radical

moderate Communal Sharing

(7) “Spiritual unity”

testimony of faith

… worshipping …

low

communion

radical

(8) “Ecumenism of life”

ad hoc discussion

… living …

very low

convivence

moderate

1349 Thus the “hard questions” approach can neatly be categorized as a type 5 (contrastiveconfrontational) dialogue; cf. Creemers, Theological Dialogue, 270, 272, where he identifies two of the crucial steps as “confrontation” and “comparison.” 1350 These three actually correspond to the three modes discussed by Fuisz, consensus (2), compromise (3), and convergence (6).

363

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

Table 13. Adventist bilateral dialogues and conversations1351 Dialogue Partner Salvation Army (I) Church of God (7th Day)

Theme

Year Date

Other Information (Publications, Reports) Abbreviation [No report]

SA I

[No report]

COG7D

[Unknown]

1980 March

[Unknown]

1985 October 21

[Unknown]

1980 December 12–14

Pre-Advent Judgement

1984 January 21–22

1985 January Crucifixion, 18–21 Homosexuality, Biblical Concept of the Remnant

Assemblies of Yahweh

Crucifixion; Resurrection

1986 March 28–30

[Unknown]

1987 February 20–22

[Scripture]

1984 May 14–15 [No official report]

No Theme World Evangelical Fellowship

Reformed Ecumenical Synod

[Unknown] [Inspiration, Revelation]

1985 April 8–9

AOY

WEF Unpublished Report: “Consultation between Representatives of the World Evangelical Fellowship and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, April 8, 9, 1985, Washington, D.C.” GCA/B38 (3481) Beach, Bert B. – General Files 1981–1989.

1985 June 10–11 [No report] 1987 June 30 (?)

RES

1351 Details collected from CIR Minutes, GC PARL, and the various dialogue reports (see the bibliography, 8.3).

364

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Table 13 (Continued) Dialogue Partner

Theme

Year Date

Lutheran World Federation

[Preliminary Meeting]

1994 November LWF 1–5 Reports and Papers: 1996 June 17–21 “Adventists and Lutherans in Conversation: Report of the Bilateral Conversation, 1994– 1997 June 1–7 1998.” In Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, and 1998 May 10–16 William G. Rusch (eds.). Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982–1998. Faith and Order Paper 187. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000, 295– 309. Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation: Report and Papers Presented 1994–1998. Silver Spring: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2000.

Justification by Faith; Law; Law and Gospel Ecclesiology and the Understanding of Church Authority Eschatology

Other Information (Publications, Reports) Abbreviation

Other Important Documents: Deutsches Nationalkomitee des Lutherischen Weltbundes. “Stellungnahme zum Bericht über bilaterale Gespräche zwischen dem Lutherischen Weltbund und der Generalkonferenz der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten.” Materialdienst des konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim 53.2 (2002), 35–37. Saarinen, Risto. “Adventisten und Lutheraner im Gespräch: Ein Erfahrungsbericht.” Ökumenische Rundschau 50 (2001), 475–489. Related Publications: See bibliography

365

Dialoguing with Other Denominations Table 13 (Continued) Dialogue Partner

Theme

World Alliance of Reformed Churches

The Church in the Setting of 2001 April 1–7 the Reformation Heritage: Its Mission in a World of Widespread Injustice and Ecological Destruction.

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

[Preliminary Meeting] Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists Sabbath / Sunday Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Adventist and Roman Catholic Hermeneutics)

Year Date

Other Information (Publications, Reports) Abbreviation WARC Report: “Report of the International Theological Dialogue between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.” In Jeffrey Gros, Thomas F. Best, and Lorelei F. Fuchs (eds.). Growth in Agreement III: International Dialogue Texts and Agreed Statements, 1998– 2005. Faith and Order Paper 204. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2007, 296–305.

2000 May 5–6

PCPCU Reports: “Recent Conversations between Adventists and 2002 May 20–22 Catholics.” Official Bulletin of 2003 May 19–21 the PCPCU / Information Service, no. 110 (2002), 177. “Informal Consultations with Seventh-day Adventists.” Official Bulletin of the PCPCU / Information Service, no. 115 (2004), 67–69. Rodríguez, Ángel M. “Conversations Between Adventists and Catholics.” Reflections – A BRI Newsletter, October 2003, 2–3. 2001 April 8–9

Related Publications: See bibliography

366

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Table 13 (Continued) Dialogue Partner

Theme

Salvation Army (II)

Various Themes

World Evangelical Alliance

Year Date

Other Information (Publications, Reports) Abbreviation

2004 January 5– SA II 8 Unpublished Reports: Various Themes 2005 March 7– “Report of the Bilateral 10 Dialogue: The Salvation Army International Headquarters/ 2008 February [Ecclesiology, The General Conference of 25–27 Religious Liberty, Seventh-day Adventists, Law and Gospel] January 5–8, 2004.” Folder “Salvation Army 2004,” BRI. “Joint Salvation Army/ Seventh-day Adventist Statement Arising from 2004– 2008 Bilateral Theological Dialogues.” CIR Minutes, January 17, 2008; reapproved, CIR Minutes, May, 5 2008. No Theme 2006 August WEA 8–11 Report: 2007 August 6– “Joint Statement of the World [Ellen G. White, Evangelical Alliance and the 9 Justification, Theological AnSeventh-day Adventist thropology] Church.” 2007. Online: http:// www.worldevangelicals.org/n ews/WEAAdventistDialogue2 0070809d.pdf, accessed February 1, 2010.

367

Dialoguing with Other Denominations Table 13 (Continued) Dialogue Partner

Theme

Year Date

Presbyterian Church in the USA

[Foundations of the SDA Church / Heritage of the PCUSA] [Sola Scriptura, Law and Gospel]

2006 November 1 2007 August 22–24

[Unknown]

2008 July 15–18

Biblical Hermeneutics

2010

Worship and Sacraments

2011 November 5–11

Vocation and Discipleship

2012

[Distinctive Doctrines; Nature 2013 of the Church]

Living the Christian Life in Mennonite World Confer- Today’s World ence Living the Christian Life in Today’s World

2011 June 28– July 1

Other Information (Publications, Reports) Abbreviation PCUSA (Informal Meetings)

(Beginning of Formal Meetings) Reports: “Reformed/Seventh-day Adventist Dialogue Meeting, November 5–7, 2011.” Online: https://www.pcusa.org/resou rce/dialogue-seventh-day-ad ventist-church, accessed June 23, 2016. “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Seventh-day Adventist Dialogue Report, 2010–2013.” Online: https:// www.pc-biz.org/#/search/487 1, accessed July 19, 2016.

MWC Reports and Papers: 2012 May 28–31 Mennonite World Conference and Seventhday Adventist Church. “Joint Statement.” 2011. Online: http://www.stanet.ch/ APD/pdf/2011/Dialogue_MW C_SDA_Joint_Statement_201 1%20%283%29.pdf, accessed July 20, 2011. Rasmussen, Carol E. (ed.). Living the Christian Life in Today’s World: A Conversation between Mennonite World Conference and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and Mennonite World Conference, 2014.

368

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

5.3.1 The Lutheran-Adventist Conversations and Their Epilogue After several dialogue encounters with other sabbatarian denominations ended in 1987, the next major dialogue1352 began only seven years later, in 1994. Little is known about how this gap originated,1353 but one must bear in mind that Bert B. Beach had to coordinate such activities largely on his own in addition to his various other responsibilities with a global impact, notably the religious liberty department of the Adventist General Conference. The preparation, staffing, content, and implementation of these 1994–1998 conversations were done in a much more careful and professional manner than the rather exploratory dialogue meetings in the 1980s;1354 thus these Lutheran-Adventist encounters may be viewed as the first substantial dialogue one generation after the WCC-SDA conversations. In other words, this is the moment Adventists took a leap to enter the larger bilateral dialogue scene. The length, scope, and approach of these conversations indicate that they invite major studies of their own;1355 after all, they received the most thorough covering in terms of publications among all the bilateral dialogues with Adventist participation.1356 The extensive final report alone1357 justifies an in-depth discussion with a systematic-theological orientation. Yet in the context of the present study, the aim is merely to present some major characteristics of the dialogue and to interpret this episode as part of the evolving Adventist paradigm 1352 Conversations with Reformed Ecumenical Synod representatives took place in 1985 and mid-1987, but neither a report nor other details of the meetings could be traced. 1353 For the period between 1988 and 1992, minutes from only three CIR committee meetings could be found; see CIR Minutes, GC PARL. It is not known whether additional meetings took place. 1354 The amount of extant correspondence alone suggests that significantly more time and effort was invested in preparations than in earlier dialogues; see GCA/52/PARL Files of Bert Beach. 1355 A recent thesis on the dialogue is only available in Finnish (Väänänen, “Adventistien ja luterilaisten oppikeskustelu 1994–1998”) and has not been published, although it can be downloaded from the internet (https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/300521, accessed October 15, 2021). 1356 Different from other dialogues, the full final report was published in the Adventist Review, as were three interim reports by the editor, who participated in the discussions; see AR, June 25, 1998, supplement; William G. Johnsson, “Children of Luther,” AR, January 1995, 4; idem, “The Justified,” AR, October 24, 1996, 5; idem, “Adventists and Lutherans: Round Three,” AR, September 11, 1997, 20–21. 1357 “Adventists and Lutherans in Conversation: Report of the Bilateral Conversation, 1994– 1998,” in Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, and William G. Rusch (eds.), Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982–1998, Faith and Order Paper 187, Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000, 295–309. For the dialogue papers, see Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation: Report and Papers Presented 1994–1998, Silver Spring: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2000 [abbreviated LAC].

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

369

of interchurch relations; therefore, a full study from an SDA point of view, like the dissertations on the Evangelical-Adventist conversations in the 1950s,1358 must be done at a later time. The very fact that Adventists sought the discussion with the Lutheran World Federation – for the initiative came, again, from Beach – is significant in several respects. (1) Among all the major Protestant denominations, Lutherans are the group farthest removed theologically from Seventh-day Adventists.1359 Adventists combine elements of Calvinism, Anabaptist theology, Arminianism, Restorationism, and the Holiness Movement; each of these is a far cry from Luther’s emphasis on justification as the centre of the gospel. (2) At the same time, in the Adventist perspective Lutherans are the most iconic heirs of the Reformation. In the common SDA interpretation of Christian history, Martin Luther plays such an important role1360 that to them the church named after him still represents the symbol of Luther’s protest ethos. (3) Although the conversations were defined as discussions for better understanding, not as a path to full mutual recognition,1361 Adventists evidently sought at least some degree of being recognized by these custodians of the Reformation. If Lutherans accepted Adventism as genuine Protestant Christians, who would dare to differ? The conversation began in a somewhat unusual manner because of the asymmetric interests of the two parties. The LWF representatives were to inquire whether Adventists could be considered Protestants according to their criteria; the SDA dialogue participants aimed at presenting their convictions while aiming at fitting them into a framework that appeared non-sectarian.1362 From the beginning, therefore, there was a tendency on the LWF side – at the time representing a membership six times larger – to assume the position of examiner, which is why the initial setup was not one of partners meeting at eye level. Yet judging from the overall documentation, this lack of symmetry ultimately did not impair the proceedings. In spite of considerable initial distance inherent in this 1358 Nam, “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences,” and McGraw, “Born in Zion.” 1359 The exception to this statement is Anglicanism, which, however, incorporates a strong element of Catholicism in its self-conceptualization. With its via media approach, many Adventists would therefore regard Anglicanism as not being fully “Protestant” but as a tradition of its own kind. 1360 Cf. Stefan Höschele, “Reform, Reformation – Protest, Protestant: Adventist Terminology and Rhetoric,” in Rolf Pöhler (ed.), Perceptions of the Protestant Reformation in Seventh-day Adventism, Adventistica: Studies in Adventist History and Theology – New Series 1. Friedensau: Institute of Adventist Studies, 2018, 13–29, and Denis Kaiser, “ ‘God Is Our Refuge and Strength’: Martin Luther in the Perception of Ellen G. White,” in Pöhler (ed.). Perceptions of the Protestant Reformation in Seventh-day Adventism, 49–65. 1361 LAC, 6; cf. footnote 1345. 1362 The first session actually formulated, “The SDA has [sic] frequently been designated as a ‘sect’. Where they fit in the spectrum of Christian churches needs to be explored” (LAC, 6).

370

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

distribution of roles, the conversations turned out to be an exemplary instance of respectful listening. For Adventists, the LWF-SDA conversations were a tremendous learning experience right from the outset. The Evangelical-Adventist discussions in the 1950s had been ground-breaking in their own way, but they lacked the official character of later dialogues, thus proceeding in a “freestyle” manner. The conversations with WCC representatives in the 1960s and 1970s were certainly an important exercise, but the WCC side was so pluriform that it could frequently not speak with one voice. Different from dialogue attempts with other sabbatarians, the LWF-SDA sessions opened a space in which Adventists met dialogue professionals; this was visible right from the outset, even in the fact that initial preparations were based on the template of the Baptist World Alliance-LWF dialogues (1986–1989).1363 Thus it is in these conversations that the denominational dialogue competency was brought to the level that is customary in such encounters.1364 The development of the sessions shows how this learning experience extended to the Lutheran side as well. The initial session in Darmstadt (1994) started with many of the LWF representatives knowing little about Seventh-day Adventism;1365 by the end of the 1994 meeting, most emphasized how their lack of familiarity had given way to an appreciation of common ground.1366 The same initial consultation completely changed the proposed topics of discussion for the following three meetings (1996, 1997, 1998). Beach and Eugene L. Brand, a senior Lutheran ecumenist working for the LWF Department of Ecumenical Affairs at the time, had suggested the Apostles’ Creed, Church and Society, and responses to Baptism, Eucharist, and the Ministry as topics of conversation.1367 1363 Eugene Brand and Beach took preparatory documentation from the earlier conversations between Baptists and Lutherans as a basis for formulating a strategy for the SDALWF encounters; see “Dialogue between the Baptist World Alliance and the Lutheran World Federation,” Minutes, LWF Executive Committee Meeting, Geneva, August 1985, GCA/52-PARL Files of Bert Beach. 1364 Beach even acknowledged that “Lutherans taught us how to do dialogue” (interview Beach). 1365 Aide-Mémoire, Consultation between the Seventh-day Adventists and the Lutheran World Federation, Darmstadt, Germany, 1–5 November 1994, 4–5, GCA/52-PARL Files of Bert Beach. 1366 Faith Rohrbough, the Lutheran co-chair, said, “I came with mixed emotions. Adventism was a mystery for me. I saw that it is a very living faith. The meeting was a splendid, living and powerful experience”; Ole Kvarme recognized “common ground”; Lester Wikström felt that “[t]he Holy Spirit has led us during this consultation”; and Jörg Rothermund felt the encounter “was a real ecumenical experience.” See ibid. 1367 “Conversations between SDAs (GC) and Lutherans (LWF) / (Preliminary Suggestions),” [January 1993], GCA/52-PARL Files of Bert Beach; “Proposal for Conversations: Lutherans-Seventh-day Adventists,” May 1993, GC PARL.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

371

Yet evidently the Lutherans wanted to explore Adventist distinctive teachings; therefore, the report on the Darmstadt meeting proposed that the ensuing sessions should treat three areas of theology: (1) “justification by faith; the law; law and gospel”; (2) “ecclesiology and the understanding of church authority,” and (3) “eschatology.”1368 In view of the complementary concerns of both sides – the question of whether Adventists should be recognized as a church rather than a sectarian body (LWF) and their recognition as belonging to the Protestant community (SDA) – the choice of these topics was expedient. Moreover, it had notable consequences: rather than focusing on areas in which there was little difference between the two churches (the Apostles’ Creed and its significance), where there might be a significant variety of ideas inside the two traditions (Church and Society), or on those that were somewhat controversial even among the ecumenically active (BEM), the three subjects chosen covered exactly the areas on which Adventists and Lutherans did not, or at least did not seem to, agree. The discussions, therefore, would centre on topics of major importance for the relationship between the two bodies of believers. The dialogue report contains, accordingly, a tour de force through almost all the key theological themes that distinguish Lutherans from Adventists and vice versa. All the three major areas of discussion (deliberated in one session each) resulted in statements of consensus and divergence: according to the report, (1) the respective understanding of justification is deemed largely analogous, even if there are differentiations in details. The importance of the Ten Commandments is stressed in both traditions, although Lutherans accentuate Christian freedom and the fundamental theological difference between Law and Gospel – whereas Adventists naturally put more emphasis on obedience, which is also visible in differing Sabbath theologies and practices.1369 (2) Regarding the question of authority, the final report declares that “[t]he Reformation principle of sola Scriptura lies at the heart of both communions” even if their “respective approaches to Scripture differ in significant aspects.”1370 Certainly the Adventist emphasis on the totality of Scripture is at odds with the Lutheran was Christum treibet principle. In ecclesiological matters, a basic agreement on “the Word of God, the Gospel message of Jesus Christ” as being “at the center of our understanding of the essence and tasks of the church”1371 is coupled with different views of baptism and the Lord’s Supper and divergent

1368 LAC, 6; cf. “Bericht der Konsultation zwischen den Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten und dem Lutherischen Weltbund, Darmstadt, Deutschland, 1.–5. November 1994,” GC PARL. 1369 LAC, 8–12. 1370 Ibid., 12, 13. 1371 Ibid., 15.

372

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

emphases in the portrayal of the true church, notably with regard to the SDA use of the remnant motif.1372 (3) There was agreement in several major aspects of eschatology, particularly that “[b]oth Lutherans and Adventists affirm that Jesus Christ is the center of eschatology” and that they have “similar understandings of salvation history” as well as individual eschatology, i. e. the interpretation of Scripture as pointing “to the resurrection of the body rather than the immortality of the soul.”1373 The most “significant areas of divergence” of the entire dialogue seemed to be the “respective understandings and exposition of biblical apocalyptic literature.”1374 Yet the two groups could conclude that “despite differences in emphasis and understanding of eschatology, [they] … affirm their common faith in Jesus as Savior, Justifier, and Lord of history. They await the full realization of Christ’s prayer for oneness among his people (John 17:23) when ‘the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign for ever and ever’ (Rev. 11:15).”1375 All in all, therefore, the dialogue and its report constitute a fine example of an attempt to be true to the traditional teachings of each church while accepting the other’s commitment to crucial Christian, Protestant, or Biblical ideas.1376 The fact that neither side felt it had to give up any cherished interpretation demonstrates that this was not a “compromise” type of dialogue, in which one or several parties seek the smallest common denominator at the expense of convictions held by their constituency (i. e. the kind of dialogue to be imagined as the ideal type 3). On the other hand, these conversations were more than merely an exercise of contrasting beliefs or confronting the other side with conflicting concepts of theological truth (type 5, corresponding to “ecumenism of profiles”). It is the willingness to open up and listen with the aim of at least partial convergence (i. e. the “forum” style dialogue of type 6) that mixed with mutually agreed doctrinal debate (type 5) and the potential of limited consensus and restricted mutual recognition that led to the peculiar results of this dialogue. While this approach did not aim at full recognition (type 2), it did contain some elements that went significantly beyond the dialogues of the 1980s, when no consensus texts were 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376

Ibid., 16–17. Ibid., 18. Ibid., 19. Ibid., 21. Johannes Väänänen, the author of the MA thesis that discusses the conversations (“Adventistien ja luterilaisten oppikeskustelu 1994–1998”), emphasizes that this was possible in spite of the fact that the objectives and general view of the dialogue of the two denominations were different (Lutherans: a generally “positive view towards ecumenical dialogue”; Adventists: the “wish to be recognized as a full Christian church as opposite to [other] restorationist churches ([such as] Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses).” See e-mail Väänänen – S. Höschele, December 14, 2021.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

373

formulated and the conversations essentially remained without further consequences. Dialogue reports, discovery of consensus, and convergence declarations embody the high art of casting the ecumenical spirit in letters, yet they also invite objections. Interestingly, it was not from the Adventist side that dissent arose when the report was published, although there might have been some occasions for disagreement: the affirmations that “both churches teach salvation in an essentially congruent manner” and that Adventists “can hear a truly biblical witness” in the proclamation of Lutherans1377 would not necessarily be shared by all currents inside Adventism. Even the characterization of Ellen White’s work as consisting “principally in counseling the church and providing spiritual nurture”1378 could have attracted debate, such as the distinction between a “historical remnant” and the “faithful remnant” that is not an entity yet.1379 However, no voices of criticism were heard from denominational representatives. By contrast, on the Lutheran side, an objecting response was drafted by the German National Committee (DNK) of the LWF. The DNK claimed that the report did not adequately represent the Lutheran side and recommended that the report should not be distributed.1380 Their point-for-point critique ultimately expresses disapproval of the spirit of amity that led to the Lutheran delegates’ recognition of Adventism’s character as a Protestant church. While details would have to be discussed in the context of a larger study, replies by a German representative of free churches,1381 an Adventist dialogue participant,1382 and a longtime department head of the leading ecumenical institute of the Evangelical Church in Germany1383 indicate that the DNK response represented a one-sided view based on a radically Lutheran and to some degree a peculiarly German 1377 LAC, 8, 9. 1378 Ibid., 14. 1379 Ibid., 17. This distinction corresponds to very early concepts among the sabbatarian Adventists, which faded when the denomination interpreted itself as the “Remnant Church”; see section 3.2.2. 1380 Deutsches Nationalkomitee des Lutherischen Weltbundes, “Stellungnahme zum Bericht über bilaterale Gespräche zwischen dem Lutherischen Weltbund und der Generalkonferenz der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten,” 2001, online: http://www.dnklwb.de/aktuell/meld ung.php3?id=35, accessed October 13, 2006; published also in Materialdienst des konfessionskundlichen Instituts 53.2 (2002), 35–37. For comments on the response in English, see “Critical Dialogue Required for Further Fellowship with Adventists: Statement from the LWF German National Committee,” Lutheran World Information, no. 4–5, 2002, 15. 1381 “Freikirchen von lutherischer Distanzierung gegenüber Adventisten betroffen,” Adventistischer Pressedienst, March 2002. 1382 Hans Heinz, “Lutheraner und Adventisten im Gespräch: Eine adventistische Antwort,” AE, June 2002, i–iii [Adventecho Extra pages]. 1383 Erich Geldbach, “LWB und STA im Gespräch und das Deutsche Nationalkomitee des LWB,” Materialdienst des konfessionskundlichen Instituts 53.3 (2002), 48–53.

374

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

theology.1384 One may even argue that these developments reflected the general ecumenical atmosphere during precisely the same period: the success of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and the discord it caused among Lutherans reveal similar dynamics. The aftermath of the LWF-SDA conversations, then, is an indication of how much difference is possible in the reading of dialogues during and after such events, both by participants and external observers, as well as by representatives of both sides. Different voices on whether there was convergence or not,1385 and on whether such convergence was desirable or not, added to the mosaic of mutual interpretations and re-interpretations. Whatever was successful in the dialogue could also be questioned; the fact that the final report recommended, e. g., “that Lutherans in their national and regional church contexts do not treat the Seventh-day Adventist church as a sect but as a free church and a Christian world communion” did not mean that such a view was adopted everywhere. Nevertheless, the conversations indicated that Adventists had reached a stage in which proficiency in dialoguing had become a necessity. Engaging with another major Christian World Communion in such a manner meant that retreat into a separatist minority existence was no longer an option for the leadership of the denomination. As it were, this type of interaction regularized what had happened to Adventism globally and particularly in some countries – that this church had become one of the major players of Christianity, at times (e. g. in the Philippines) even constituting the largest body of Protestantism in a nation.

5.3.2 Adventists and Roman Catholics: Open-Ended Exchange Dialoguing with Roman Catholics was considerably more difficult for Seventhday Adventists than conversations with Protestant partners. Although the latter had featured prominently as part of “Babylon” in Adventist 19th century publications, the decline of aggressive Sunday law advocacy in the 20th century led to 1384 Between 2017 and 2021, Lutherans and Adventists engaged in further conversations that clarified some of the issues addressed and opened the way for better mutual understanding on the German level. See “Bericht und Perspektiven: Sondierungsgespräche 2017–2021. Deutsches Nationalkomitee des Lutherischen Weltbundes – Freikirche der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten in Deutschland,” online: https://www.dnk-lwb.de/de/content/lutheraner-und -adventisten-146, accessed January 31, 2022. 1385 In his review of the book that contains the papers and the final report, Pöhler (“Adventisten und Lutheraner im Gespräch: Eine Rezension”) combines both ideas: he argues that there were “remarkable convergences” in the realms of soteriology, the authority of Scripture, the role of Christ, and belief in the judgement (165). Yet he also maintains that “in fact there is hardly any dialogue taking place in the eighteen presentations” and that “hardly any new perspectives are being opened” (166).

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

375

a feeling of general affinity at least with the conservative wing of Protestants. With regard to Roman Catholics, however, such sentiments were completely nonexistent all through Adventist history. If intra-Protestant relations seemed negotiable and malleable, until the present a relationship with Roman Catholicism has been largely absent – and, where it existed, it was characterized by sceptical distance.1386 To Adventists at large, Catholics were and remained persecutors of minorities in the past and in the prophetically predicted future.1387 Therefore, with the exception of Beach’s activities, rare opportunities of discussing with representatives of “Rome” were hardly utilized until the 1990s.1388 The very fact that Adventists entered theological conversations with Roman Catholics shortly after the LWF-SDA meetings must hence be interpreted as significant. These are the only bilateral talks so far on which another author has written a scholarly article which offers an interpretation in the context of Adventist theology.1389 The following account does not need to repeat the findings presented there in detail;1390 rather, it aims at providing an account and analysis of the immediate background of these conversations, of the dynamics during the few years when they were held,1391 and an evaluation in the larger context of Adventist interchurch relationships. The prelude to this new dialogue opportunity in the late 1990s is interesting in that it shows the complete change of atmosphere between churches in the USA when compared to earlier generations. Seventh-day Adventist colporteurs, who had been very successful in spreading denominational literature in past generations, continued the house-to-house sale of an SDA book that had been published since 1914 (with previous versions reaching back to 1890) – obviously 1386 Balanced assessments, not to mention positive portrayals, of Roman Catholic activities or doctrine are hardly ever found in Adventist literature. A rare example of an impartial discussion is Denis Fortin, “A Brief Survey of the Roman Catholic Church’s Involvement in the Ecumenical Movement,” paper presented at the 4th international Bible Conference, Biblical Research Institute of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Rome, June 11–21, 2018. 1387 Cf. the picture of Roman Catholicism as evaluated in Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 1844–1965. 1388 One such opportunity was an invitation to Beach in 1970. The Northern European Division “requested counsel regarding an invitation extended by a Vatican representative to Beverly B Beach [sic] for a private dialog on matters that affect Seventh-day Adventists and the Roman Catholic Church.” The denomination’s General Conference officers decided to recommend that this “is not advisable at this time.” See GCOM minutes, December 2, 1970, GCA. 1389 Pöhler, “Der adventistisch-röm.-katholische Dialog.” 1390 After commenting on Adventist interchurch relationships in general, Pöhler briefly discusses the theological content of these meetings and then suggests that there are three challenges for SDA-Roman Catholic encounters: (1) end-time determinism, (2) conspiracy theories, and (3) intra-denominational resistance. See ibid. 1391 In this regard, documentation available at BRI and GC PARL, which Pöhler was not able to access, was particularly helpful.

376

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

in a very different historical context. This book, God’s Answers to Your Questions,1392 linked the papacy with the apocalyptic antichrist. An Associated Press article on the book, its distribution, and its content (“typical anti-Catholic bigotry”) appeared in various newspapers and condemned the Adventists’ presentation of the pope (“ally of Satan”).1393 This article was printed or used in adapted version by various American newspapers, and when news of this bad press reached the Adventist General Conference president, Robert Folkenberg, he decided that something must be done. One of the denomination’s vice presidents, Philip S. Follet, was assigned to take care of the issue and gathered a team to write a statement “to address this subject.”1394 Several Adventist theologians and administrators were asked to contribute drafts, and eventually a seven-man committee was to mould these into a final text.1395 What started as a reaction to the book incident soon developed into a general Adventist statement on Roman Catholicism. Thus the SDA Church was to publish, for the first time, an official statement on another Christian church organization. It may seem somewhat odd that such an important text – at least with regard to interchurch relations – should be released as a response to a local incident, but the entire episode illustrates how little some Seventh-day Adventist leaders at the period were aware of how their pronouncements were read by the wider public. Apparently Adventists at large realized only slowly how much had changed in the Christian world since they had first released the book in question. On the other hand, the progress of the matter indicates that those in the denominational administration who were in charge of relations with non-Adventists knew what was at stake. When the initial drafts were discussed and sent to John Graz,1396 the director of the church’s Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department, he responded in a very prudent yet unambiguous manner.1397 None of the three texts apparently appealed to him; in fact, they were somewhat 1392 3rd ed., Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1989. 1393 See, e. g., Jan Cienski, “Catholics Protest Book Calling Pope Devil’s Ally,” Chattanooga Free Press, August 31, 1996; cf. also “Protestant Book Assailed for Linking People, Devil,” Daily News (Los Angeles), August 31, 1996. 1394 [Philip S. Follet] – Ray Dabrowski et al., e-mail, n.d. [October 1996], GC PARL. 1395 Ibid. The authors appointed to present drafts were Mark Finley, the denomination’s leading evangelist, Clifford Goldstein, a well-known Adventist writer, Gary Patterson, a general field secretary (i. e. senior administrator) of the General Conference, and Jon Paulien, a well-known New Testament scholar. 1396 Finley’s text could not be traced; it may be that he read the three drafts and was satisfied with the material found there. For the others, see Clifford Goldstein, “Statement Regarding Bible Readings”; Gary Patterson, “Revelation, Church History and Prophecy”; and Jon Paulien, “A Thoughtful Response to Media Charges of ‘Catholic-Bashing’ among SDAs,” GC PARL. 1397 John Graz – Philip S. Follet, e-mail, November 8, 1996, GC PARL.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

377

apologetic in tone and contained unnecessary explanations. Graz advised the authors to define precisely what the text was all about – “our relations with the RCC [Roman Catholic Church] or about the place of the RCC in our prophetic interpretation?”1398 – and emphasized that “[o]ur relations with the Catholics are much wider” than traditional interpretations of particular biblical passages. He advised including input from “experts … having a very broad knowledge of Catholicism” and a passage on “our concern about too many attacks coming from some SDAs against the RCC.”1399 Up to this point, these discussions seem to be only a very peculiar part of the pre-history of Adventist conversations with the Roman Catholic Church between 2001 and 2003, yet their significance lies in the double fact that (1) the denomination decided to express publicly its view on the largest Christian body and that (2) considerable discussion ensued on how they should go about this task. Graz’s role in the process was certainly crucial; he cautioned, “Let us be a little more humble. We are not perfect and have made mistakes. But in any case let us not forget that for public opinion we are the aggressors.” After his intervention, the process took another turn: Bert Beach drafted an entirely new text,1400 which was amended only slightly and then voted by the General Conference Administrative Committee. This 1997 statement, entitled “How Seventh-day Adventists View Roman Catholicism” (see appendix II)1401 is intriguing in several respects. It combines simple and clear language with some degree of diplomatic skill; it starts and ends in a very constructive manner, includes Roman Catholicism in the positive general picture of the present Christian world, but also contains the traditional Adventist scenario of a future persecution of Sabbath keepers. With regard to the past, Roman Catholic intolerance is mentioned, but also Protestant and Adventist prejudice and bigotry. Thus the contemporary situation is contrasted both with the past and the future. In an early interpretative comment, Adventist theologian Rolf Pöhler correctly recognizes that the text is more descriptive than prescriptive; he believes that it also betrays a lack of ecumenical interest and may actually become a “brake shoe for the capacity of mutual dialogue” even if “in view of its irenic language, it could turn out to be a guardrail rather than tollgate.”1402 1398 Ibid. 1399 Ibid. 1400 [Bert B. Beach (signed: B3),] “Seventh-day Adventists and Roman Catholicism,” November 22, 1997, GC PARL. 1401 It was later published in a collection of Adventist statements on a variety of themes: Dabrowski (ed.), Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents (2005), 90–91. 1402 Rolf J. Pöhler, “Leitplanke oder Schlagbaum? Kommentar zur Erklärung ‘Wie SiebentenTags-Adventisten den römischen Katholizismus sehen’,” APD-Informationen, June 1997.

378

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

At least with regard to initiating conversation, the statement turned out not to be a brake shoe but a door opener. By spring 1998, Beach could report to the Council of Interchurch/Interfaith Relations committee that a “letter was received … in which the Vatican expressed satisfaction regarding the tone of the 1997 Statement on the Catholic Church.” Unsurprisingly, the same letter contained a suggestion to discuss “some of the questions raised by the Statement, especially in regards to future developments of a persecuting nature.”1403 The committee then reached the consensus that such discussions could be connected with CCWC meetings;1404 evidently administrators did not want to exaggerate the importance of this issue at a time when the Lutheran-Adventist dialogue had not yet ended. In spite of this somewhat noncommittal beginning, the remaining steps toward actual conversations were relatively easy. As CCWC secretary, Beach had known a number of Roman Catholics active in ecumenical activities, and with his amiable personality, it was not difficult to build a positive relationship with them. In several cases, this relational approach had made it easy to deal with issues of concern to both sides in the past – e. g. anti-Catholic demonstrations by radical Adventists during the WCC assembly in Canberra (1991),1405 a fake document allegedly originating from John Paul II addressing “The Ecumenical movement and the adventists [sic],” which circulated in California and Brazil in 1993,1406 and apprehension among Adventists regarding some sections in the Apostolic Letter Dies Domini, where John Paul II referred to civil legislation regarding keeping Sunday holy.1407 In all these instances, the interactions led to clarification and, ultimately, the growth of trust and mutual appreciation. By late 1999, Beach and 1403 CIR Minutes, March 26, 1998, GC PARL. 1404 Ibid. 1405 John A. Radano – B. B. Beach, February 28, 1992, GC PARL. At the Canberra meeting, three Adventist protesters “held a banner tied to many helium-filled balloons. The banner proclaimed that ‘Seventh-day Adventists believe … this prophecied [sic] Romeward unity is the spirit of Antichrist!’ The balloons and banner drifted up to the ceiling, where they hung for the remainder of the plenary session.” Beach apologized and added, “Like other churches, we have our dissidents and people who use their liberty in inappropriate though somewhat comical ways” (“Protest at WCC Assembly Condemned,” Record, March 23, 1991, 10). 1406 The forged character of the document is obvious; the entire style is foreign to Roman Catholic documents, and even the designation of the Pope contains several spelling mistakes. See “Manifesto to the People,” n.d., GC PARL, and Pierre Duprey – Bert B. Beach, December 17, 1993, GCA/Beach, Bert B./PARL Topical Files, 1991–1998. 1407 Bert B. Beach – Bishop Pierre Duprey, PCPCU, November 2, 1998, and Pierre Duprey – Bert B. Beach, May 29, 1999, GC PARL. In this case Beach’s question was whether the Roman Catholic Church also promoted the rights of religious minorities with regard to days of rest. Duprey responded – after consulting with other representatives in the Holy See – that Roman Catholics consider it a “duty to ensure the widest possible recognition of the rights of religious minorities in this as in other issues.”

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

379

Graz hinted at the possibility of Adventist-Catholic conversations in the future.1408 While such encounters were a significant step on the global level, at least in one country, Poland, there had been regular meetings between Adventist and Roman Catholic representatives before.1409 After Cardinal Walter Kasper, then in charge of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, suggested in 1999 starting regular conversations, preparations were made for the first preliminary consultations in 2000,1410 and the annual CCWC meetings indeed seemed the appropriate occasion to connect with these plans. A two-day session in 2001 then discussed Seventh-day Adventist beliefs on the basis of an overview paper by George W. Reid, the Biblical Research Institute director.1411 No report was published because of the preliminary and sensitive nature of this encounter.1412 The 2002 meeting centred on the Sabbath-Sunday question on the basis of one paper from each side.1413 The extant notes from the discussions during this meeting1414 indicate that most of the common topics related to the larger theme 1408 In a book that Beach and Graz wrote together, they reported that after reading the 1997 statement and, particularly the passage on future persecution of Adventists, “[o]ne Monsignor suggested, ‘Why not have a discussion about this issue?’” See the section entitled “Will Seventh-day Adventists and Catholics ever have a dialogue?,” Bert B. Beach and John Graz, 101 Questions Adventists Ask, Nampa: Pacific Press, 2000, 116. 1409 Cf. “Statement of the Council of Ecumenism of the Conference of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland and the Leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Poland to Commemorate the 15th Anniversary of the Interchurch Dialogue [2000],” in Höschele, Interchurch and Interfaith Relations, 144–146 [Polish Original: “Katolicy i Adwentys´ci w Polsce. Os´wiadczenie Rady Konferencji Episkopatu do Spraw Ekumenizmu Kos´cioła Katolickiego w Polsce i Zwierzchnos´ci Kos´cioła Adwentystów Dnia Siódmego w Polsce z okazji 15-lecia mie˛dzywyznaniowego dialogu, Studia i dokumenty ekumeniczne 16.1 (2000), 149–151]. 1410 Beach, John Graz and Ángel Rodríguez visited the PCPCU in May 2000; see “Adventistes,” Irénikon 75.2–3 (2002), 252–254. 1411 Reid, “Seventh-day Adventists: A Brief Introduction to their Beliefs,” paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal consultation, Geneva, May 8–9, 2001, online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/adventist%20beliefs.htm, accessed January 2, 2011. Reid served as director of the Biblical Research Institute from 1984 to 2001; beyond its research function, this institute is roughly the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 1412 “Consultation with Roman Catholics,” CIR Minutes, April 22, 2002, GC PARL. These minutes call the meeting “informal discussions.” 1413 Ángel M. Rodríguez, “The Biblical Sabbath: The Adventist Perspective,” paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal consultation, Geneva, May 20–22, 2002, online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/sabbath-catholic2002.htm, accessed January 2, 2011; James F. Puglisi, “The Lord’s Day and Its Meaning in the Catholic Tradition,” paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal Consultation, Geneva, May 20–22, 2002, Folder “Catholic Church Dialogue,” BRI. 1414 Untitled handwritten manuscript with discussion notes, [May 21, 2002,] Folder “Catholic Church Dialogue,” BRI.

380

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

were deliberated: issues of biblical and theological hermeneutics, the role of the Old Testament for the Christian faith, the role and authority of the post-apostolic church for doctrine, the relationship between the resurrection and the Sabbath, Sabbath observance in Christian history, the Sunday as “Christian Sabbath,” and anti-Judaism as a factor in the Christian rejection of the Sabbath. The dynamics of this second thematic meeting already suggest that Roman Catholic-Seventh-day Adventist dialoguing had to overcome significant challenges: theologically, the two groups could be hardly further apart. In this light, it is remarkable that the final report from the Catholic side speaks of both “common ground and divergencies.” Agreement was noted in the convictions that (1) “a day of rest is a biblical injunction,” (2) “in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Sabbath was not abolished but fulfilled,” (3) Holy Scripture is the authoritative basis for these convictions, and (4) the Ten Commandments are “divine imperatives for human life.” Divergencies were observed in (1) Sabbath theology, (2) the “distinction in days (Saturday versus Sunday),” and (3) “approaches to Scripture.”1415 While the latter points could have been predicted, the fact that some agreement exists and was highlighted is significant. Yet it is also revealing that such reflections are missing in the final report from the Adventist side:1416 given their traditional distance from Catholicism, it was hard for them to admit that there were points of convergence. The third meeting largely confirmed the well-known cleavage between the two bodies. While the two papers focused on the interpretation of the Bible1417 and the first of the two days concentrated on different emphases in this process and the role of Scripture in the two churches, the second day shifted the attention to questions of tradition, dogma, the relationship between the canon and the Church, and, finally, the mutual perception of Adventists and Catholics. The discussion minutes1418 reveal the changing mood in the overall proceedings: they 1415 Informal Consultations with Seventh-day Adventists,” Official Bulletin of the PCPCU: Information Service, no. 115 (2004), 67–69, here 68. 1416 Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Conversations between Adventists and Catholics,” Reflections – A BRI Newsletter, October 2003, 2–3. The earlier, mutually agreed press release (“News Release on Recent Conversations between Adventists and Catholics,” GC PARL) reported on the content discussed in 2002 only very briefly; it was apparently not published by Adventists, only by the Catholic side: “Recent Conversations between Adventists and Catholics,” Official Bulletin of the PCPCU: Information Service, no. 110 (2002), 177. 1417 Richard M. Davidson, “Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures: Toward an Understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics,” paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal consultation, Geneva, May 19–21, 2003, online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/interp%20scripture%20davidson.pdf, accessed January 2, 2011; Gosbert Byamungu, “Principles for Biblical Interpretation: A Catholic Perspective,” paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal consultation, Geneva, May 19–21, 2003, Folder “Catholic Church Dialogue,” BRI. 1418 “Adventist-Catholic Discussion,” May 20 [–21], 2003, Geneva, Switzerland, GC PARL.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

381

started in a somewhat dispassionate manner, with a few attempts at building bridges on the first day.1419 On day two, such attempts were few and finally gave way to a rather confrontational approach: Adventist participants criticized Roman Catholic teachings on the saints, merits, indulgences, purgatory, and Mary, while Catholic participants observed that “Adventists are conservative Christians with some elements that appear to be sectarian” and inquired about SDA views on “the antichrist.”1420 This third round of conversations illustrates the obstacles that such encounters have to overcome when conversation partners are far apart in their ideology and have not yet established ways of permanently relating in a positive manner. In the case of Adventists, an added complication was that they struggled with the attempt of balancing their tradition on the one hand and expectations regarding constructive cooperation on the other. This is the reason why they agreed to these dialogical meetings – and, nevertheless, ultimately did not succeed in effecting rapprochement of any sort. Probably this goal was difficult to achieve also because both bodies strongly cherish doctrine – at least more than Charismatics or Pentecostals with their emphasis on experience. The ensuing contrastive-confrontational approach (at least on the Adventist side) was certainly honest and corresponded to the traditionally preferred SDA “profiles” (or type 5) interaction with other Christians.1421 Yet obviously such a style was not appreciated by everyone, particularly because it was not cushioned in a method that would take the sting out of discussions.1422 Compared to the well-established International Roman CatholicClassical Pentecostal Dialogue, where the “hard questions” approach made a virtue of necessity, the total duration of the Adventist-Roman Catholic encounters was too short as well; the arc of suspense was felt, but a well-ordered release was not planned. This can even be seen in the way the conversations ended: the mutually agreed report concluded with the note that “our views on Christian anthropology … will be addressed when we meet again in two

1419 Ibid., 1–3. Byamungu, for instance, explained that “[h]istorical criticism is useful but has limits” (1); John Radano brought up the question of “Adventist tradition” (which the SDA participants did not pick up). 1420 Ibid., 4–6; quotes on p. 6. 1421 Ángel M. Rodríguez argued Adventists should not be “less than honest” even with regard to their understanding of prophecies in Revelation 13, which they view as pointing to the papacy. See his report “Conversations between Adventists and Catholics,” Reflections – A BRI Newsletter, October 2003, 2–3, here 3. 1422 At the end of the 2002 meeting, John Radano suggested, “Why not formulate questions?” The meeting secretary noted, “Commonality vs. divergence?” – but it seems no further steps were taken. Untitled handwritten manuscript with discussion notes, [May 21, 2002,] Folder “Catholic Church Dialogue,” BRI.

382

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

years.”1423 The Roman Catholic side, however, published a slightly revised version in which the “two years” were not mentioned,1424 and the SDA report on the entire dialogue – which did not include the text agreed for informing the public about the 2003 meeting – merely stated that “[n]o conversation has been planned for 2004.”1425 This was the end of the first official Adventist-Catholic encounter on the world level. It was not administrative reasons such as the transition between Beach and Graz that caused the discussions to ebb away;1426 after some time there was apparently not enough motivation among the key leaders.1427 The status quo had been explored; ideas had been exchanged; but on either side a will to seek convergence was evidently not pronounced. Moreover, different from the setup of the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue, Adventists could hardly enhance the conversations by bringing diversity among themselves into play: representing only one denomination entailed a rather strict “party discipline,” even if each Adventist participant acted out a different part in the dialogue interactions.1428 All in all, the conversations with Roman Catholics were the acid test of Adventist interchurch relations. The fact that representatives of these two traditions met was an accomplishment in itself; the discussions as such were less successful. Certainly those Adventists who had most experience in interchurch encounters 1423 “Summary: Catholic/Seventh Day Adventist Consultation, May 2003,” Folder “Catholic Church Dialogue,” BRI. 1424 “Informal Consultations with Seventh-day Adventists,” Official Bulletin of the PCPCU: Information Service, no. 115 (2004), 67–69. 1425 Rodríguez, “Conversations between Adventists and Catholics,” 3. 1426 This is Pöhler’s explanation in “Der adventistisch-röm.-katholische Dialog,” 143. It is true that the plan was not to meet in 2004; the CIR committee had noted, “[t]he consensus of the committee members is to communicate tactfully our desire to avoid at this time having yearly conversations; however, any final decision should be made after the May meeting.” CIR Committee minutes, April 2, 2003, CG PARL. 1427 The CIR Committee noted in 2005, “Positive consideration was given to continuing conversations with the Roman Catholic Church regarding Seventh-day Adventist beliefs.” In 2007, another note in the minutes says, “Eugene Hsu will consult with Jan Paulsen as to whether the time is right to continue conversations between Adventist and Catholic theologians.” Later the same year, John Graz reported that he “has not yet received a response from members of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity as to whether they are interested in continuing conversations.” See CIR Committee minutes, November 23, 2005, March 14, 2007, and August 29, 2007, GC PARL. It appears that this was the last attempt to revive the encounters. 1428 In the 2003 discussions, Ángel Rodríguez, the BRI director, generally communicated as an authoritative voice of the SDA Church, Roland Meyer (a New Testament scholar from France) asked many critical questions regarding Roman Catholic doctrine, Richard Davidson (an Old Testament scholar from the USA) defended a rather conservative hermeneutical position, Beach chaired some sessions and tried to inject some moderation, and Graz tended to soften points of contention. See “Adventist-Catholic Discussion,” May 20 [–21], 2003, Geneva, Switzerland, GC PARL.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

383

preferred a “forum” (type 6) style as in the WCC conversations one generation earlier, where a variety of Christian groups or positions are represented; a bilateral dialogue setup invites either compromise or confrontation more easily. In this case, however, this would have meant spurning both Walter Kasper’s invitation and an opportunity to witness to SDA convictions. Adventists themselves did not seek and would not have sought this encounter: like the 1997 statement on Roman Catholicism, it arose as a reaction and, therefore, by analogy reflected a friendly but cautious and honest approach to the Christian other. The merely partial success that these encounters represent is a fitting reflection of the overall mosaic of Seventh-day Adventist interactions with other denominations in several respects. (1) With Adventists’ strong doctrinal core, full recognition of other Christian traditions remained difficult; attempts at effecting convergence were, therefore, easily felt to be a sell-out of principles.1429 (2) This did not obstruct the will to cooperate in selected fields. (3) Communicative models of interchurch relations, therefore, continued to constitute the heart of the Adventist ecumenical stance. (4) Linked with this heart was an essentially spiritual concept of unity, which was not addressed in the conversations with Roman Catholics – presumably because of the inherited reservations regarding this church. The fact, however, that the dialogue ended with the Lord’s Prayer1430 indicates that even where disagreement is stark, spiritual practice connects.

5.3.3 Family Reunion: Meeting the Reformed and Evangelicals In contrast to the tentative and fragile dialogue relationship with Catholics, Seventh-day Adventist conversations with Christians of traditions related to themselves were numerous and mostly rather productive. Both the earliest official dialogical attempts in the 1980s and the last four so far involved partners from the Evangelical sphere (Salvation Army I & II, WEF, WEA, MWC) and Reformed / Presbyterian bodies (REC, WARC, PCUSA). Although the length and topics of these encounters as well as the degree of publicity devoted to them differed considerably, the overall gain was generally similar: a realization of closeness, mutual appreciation, and the recognition of the dialogue partners as committed Protestant Christians, with whom fellowship and cooperation were possible in various ways. 1429 Cf. the book of one among the individuals who had submitted the initial drafts of the SDA statement on Roman Catholicism: Clifford Goldstein, The Great Compromise: How Catholics and Protestants are Undoing the Reformation and Fulfilling Prophecy, Nampa: Pacific Press, 2001. 1430 “Adventist-Catholic Discussion,” May 20 [–21], 2003, Geneva, Switzerland, GC PARL.

384

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

The meetings in the 1980s (SA I, WEF, RES) were largely short or one-time events, which did not produce official reports; thus the fact of the conversations was not known publicly at the time.1431 Probably the conversations with the Salvation Army and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod arose from Bert Beach’s interaction with other Christian leaders in the CCWC.1432 For the encounter with the World Evangelical Fellowship (later to be renamed World Evangelical Alliance), this connection is also established, for its General Director, David Howard, both attended the CCWC and prepared the dialogue together with Beach.1433 In spite of their “off the record” character, which the WEF side requested and to which the SDA side assented,1434 these two-day conversations in 1985 were a great success. They started with no agenda,1435 only with a fourfold purpose from the Adventist side, which can be summarized as aiming at the creation of mutual understanding and trust.1436 The dialogue partners, who were entertained by Adventists around their General Conference headquarters in Takoma Park, Washington, D.C., thoroughly enjoyed the time, appreciating Beach’s “warm hospitality in caring so graciously.”1437 But even the discussions themselves “were marked by goodwill and candor, fellowship and frankness” according to the final report, which went on to underscore that “[t]he tone was deeply spiritual, and we believe Christ is glorified by such displays of Christian unity.”1438 In other words, in spite of substantial disagreement at the beginning of the consultation, the meeting confirmed what the unofficial conversations in the 1950s had already 1431 It is only in later dialogues that references were repeatedly made to these earlier conversations; see, e. g., William Johnsson, “Seventh-day Adventists: A Profile,” Darmstadt, November 1–5, 1994, LAC, 40: he mentions the WEG, COG7D, RES, SA (I) and AOY conversations. 1432 The Reformed Ecumenical Synod, a conservative Presbyterian organization, joined the annual CCWC meeting in 1968, in the same year as Seventh-day Adventists. The available documentation on this dialogue is very meagre; it consists of factual notes only in few CIR Committee minutes: August 24, 1984; July 8, 1986; June 2, 1987. 1433 David M. Howard – B. B. Beach, July 26, 1984, GCA/B38 Beach, Bert B. General Files 1981–1989, and further correspondence between the same of September 4 and 25, 1984. 1434 Howard – Beach, July 26, 1984, and CIR Committee minutes, August 24, 1984. 1435 Beach prepared his fellow Adventists by telling them that “These conversations will be … exploratory in nature and we will let the Spirit lead us in the direction that seems most helpful.” See Bert B. Beach – SDA Participants in the Conversation/Dialogue with the World Evangelical Fellowship, December 21, 1984, GCA/B38 Beach, Bert B. General Files 1981–1989. 1436 For details, see footnote 1345. 1437 Harry W. Genet – Bert B. Beach, April 12, 1985, GCA/B38 Beach, Bert B. General Files 1981–1989. 1438 “Consultation between Representatives of the World Evangelical Fellowship and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, April 8, 9, 1985, Washington, D.C.,” GCA/B38 (3481) Beach, Bert B. – General Files 1981–1989, 1.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

385

demonstrated: that Seventh-day Adventists could be counted as being Evangelical enough to make Christian fellowship between believers of these different backgrounds natural. The way towards this conclusion was not entirely easy, for the WEF representatives wanted to “investigate Adventists,”1439 not vice versa – at least in the perspective of William Johnsson, the editor of the Adventist Review, who participated in almost all SDA dialogues, including this one. In fact, at the beginning of the two-day meeting, out of eleven items identified as “areas for discussion,” ten directly related to specific teachings in Adventist theology or their foundation (the eleventh read, “What SDA’s have to tell Evangelicals”).1440 Kenneth Kantzer, an influential evangelical theologian who served as the editor of Christianity Today at the time, and three others analysed some of the Adventist Fundamental Beliefs “word by word, phrase by phrase” and finally “declared that the time together had made clear to them that Seventh-day Adventists are indeed evangelical Christians.”1441 Yet probably even more important was that Adventists decided to share information on internal theological discussions, tensions, and their willingness to reflect on their own tradition with Christians from outside their denominational realm.1442 This was certainly a novelty, perhaps facilitated by the non-public format of the entire undertaking. From the “righteousness by faith” discussions in the 1970s,1443 the new statement of Fundamental Beliefs (FB) created in 1980, and the internal conflicts over the SDA sanctuary teaching, to the role of the writings of Ellen G. White and options in understanding Adventist remnant ecclesiology – none of the crucial questions in Adventist theological hermeneutics and the differentiation between Scripture, tradition, inspiration, revelation and illumination was left out in the dialogue. In each case the participants explained Adventist doctrine in ways that made it tolerable for their Evangelical counterparts, even though they continued to differ.1444

1439 William G. Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2008, 184 (the entire chapter 13 is entitled “Conversations with Other Churches”). 1440 “Consultation between Representatives of the WEF and the SDA Church,” 1–2. 1441 Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, 184. 1442 For a first major public discussion of internal Adventist tensions one decade later, see Raoul Dederen, “The Church: Authority and Unity. Part 2: Unity and Tensions within the Adventist Church,” Supplement to Ministry 68.5, May 1995. 1443 Theological debates and conflicts on the concepts of justification, faith, and sanctification in that decade led to a significant number of publications and involved several leading Adventist theologians. For a partial discussion by an Anglican observer, see Geoffrey Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977, particularly 105–145 (chapters 6 and 7). 1444 “Consultation between Representatives of the WEF and the SDA Church,” 2–5, 7–11.

386

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

Two examples will illustrate this. (1) The role of Ellen White’s writings: FB 17 (“The Gift of Prophecy”)1445 said that they “are a continuing and authoritative source of truth” – an assertion that caused “shock” among the representatives of the Evangelical side.1446 Adventists responded to their queries “that the doctrinal discussions of the past five years have shown clearly the direction in which the church is moving with regard to the authority of the Ellen White writings”; they argued that “[t]he tendency to elevate the writings of Ellen G. White to a position approaching canonical [status] is confined almost exclusively to North America. European Adventists are quite clear that the Bible is the sole authority for doctrine.”1447 In other words, the Adventist representatives were able to discuss both internal differences and build bridges to their Evangelical fellow believers by implying a critical stance towards narrow concepts in their own tradition. (2) The Adventist remnant understanding: interestingly the WEF representatives saw “no problem with the wording of Article No. 12” (The Remnant and Its Mission) nor with FB 11 and 13 (“The Church” and 13 “Unity in the Body of Christ”).1448 Number 12 asserted that in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14.

What the Evangelical delegation considered “bothersome,” however, because of suggesting “exclusivism” was one of the phrases in the Adventist baptismal vow: “Do you believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy …?”1449 Here the SDA side explained that early Adventists had a “strongly insular, exclusivistic view of the remnant” but that the “concept has undergone modification.” Adventist did “not hold that they alone are the people of God,” and remnant implied “a mission, a particular message” rather than a statement on who belongs to God and who doesn’t. Finally, they “pointed out

1445 From 1980 to 2005, the Fundamental Beliefs counted 27; in 2005, one section was added at position 11, thus changing the numbering of the former numbers 11 to 27. 1446 This is what one of the participants (a retired president of Westminster Theological Seminary) explained in a seven-page letter sent shortly after the meeting; see Edmund P. Clowney – Bert B. Beach, n.d. [stamped/received May 1, 1985], GCA/B38 (3481) Beach, Bert B. – General Files 1981–1989, 4. He insisted that the Adventist authority attribution to Ellen White equals similar views regarding “the Pope in Rome, Mary Baker Eddy, [or] Joseph Smith,” thus threatening “the principle of sola scriptura” (ibid., 5). 1447 “Consultation between Representatives of the WEF and the SDA Church,” 4. 1448 These three (including no. 12) were the ecclesiological articles in the narrow sense among the 27 FBs; numbers 11 and 13 painted an image of the church in very broad strokes and emphasized its christological foundation, tasks, and diversity. 1449 “Consultation between Representatives of the WEF and the SDA Church,” 7.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

387

that the baptismal vows of the Church Manual are under revision in order to bring them into line with the Statements of Fundamental Beliefs.”1450 These two examples indicate that this one-session dialogue produced at least some degree of genuine convergence, in spite of the fact that the word was not used. Since no final report was published, this enhanced mutual understanding and rapprochement in thinking naturally did not exert much influence. Nevertheless, the conversations were significant in that here representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church came to a conclusion that went beyond merely confirming the status quo in a process in which their denomination officially engaged with partners from another Christian background. One important aspect of this process was, presumably, that next to Beach another Adventist participant, William Johnsson, who became his long-term partner in these encounters, was himself quite evangelical in orientation in addition to his firm grounding in Adventism.1451 After this positive experience with the WEF and intervening short meetings with representatives of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod (1985, 1987) as well as the extensive dialogue with the Lutherans in the 1990s, it was not long before the CIR organized another dialogue meeting with a major church body. It was, again, one whose affinity to Adventism was somewhat pronounced.1452 In the late 1990s, therefore, friendly contacts of Beach1453 resulted in a proposal for conversations once more – this time with representatives from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. The implementation had to be rescheduled from 1998 to 2000 and,

1450 Ibid. Even though this was evidently attempted in the 1980s, a change was not effected. Only in 2005 was a much shorter alternative baptismal vow voted by the General Conference. 1451 Interestingly, Johnsson continued to wonder why Evangelicals tended to hold Adventists “at arm’s length” and at times were even “hostile”; he argued that SDA believers “heartily ascribe” to all core Evangelical beliefs and are actually “more evangelical than the evangelicals” (Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, 183). 1452 In his personal report, William G. Johnsson reflected, “Seventh-day Adventists have much in common with the Reformed tradition. We regard highly the work of such stalwarts as Calvin, Zwingli, and Knox, and hold to the foundation truths that they proclaimed – the Bible as the rule of faith and practice, belief in the triune God, and salvation by grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone” (“Mission in a Broken World,” AR, June 21, 2001, 5). 1453 One particularly positive voice referring to these interactions is filed in the BRI folder “Reformed Church Dialogue”: the WARC General Secretary wrote to Beach to thank him for cooperation during 25 years at “many occasions” (this evidently referred to activities of the Christian Peace Conference, in which both were involved) and to encourage Adventists to “fully join the ecumenical fellowship” because he felt WARC churches were “substantially united” with Adventists in spite of “some doctrinal difficulties” (Milan Opocˇenský – Bert B. Beach, December 1, 1997).

388

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

finally, to 2001,1454 and both sides agreed that a single session was sufficient for the beginning. In terms of content and dialogue approach, the Reformed-SDA conversations turned out to be almost the opposite of the encounter with the WEF delegation, even though the atmosphere was equally excellent. Distinctive doctrines and particular Adventist teachings were almost absent from the agenda; the WARC side had asked for the focus to be world-oriented. Its theology secretary, Odair P. Mateus, who headed the Reformed delegation, suggested the theme to be “The Church, Its Life and Mission in a Global Situation of Economic Injustice and Ecological Destruction.”1455 Although the Adventist side was definitely more interested in discussing doctrine, Beach suggested a compromise; thus the theme finally read “The Church in the Setting of the Reformation Heritage: Its Mission in a World of Widespread Injustice and Ecological Destruction.” Ten papers were presented and discussed during an entire week; four of the WARC papers and three of the SDA papers addressed issues of justice/injustice and ecology. The rest covered the fields of ecclesiology and mission, Adventism in general, and the denomination’s theological links with the Reformation.1456 This overall approach to dialoguing implied the opportunity for creating different dynamics of interaction as well as a new view of what dialogue aims at. Mateus, whose brainchild this approach apparently was, reasoned, I hope this can be seen as a useful alternative model for other dialogues. In the classical model of dialogue, the assumption is that if we overcome doctrinal difference, we will be able to work together. But maybe if we do mission together first, we will come to trust each other and develop an ecumenical spirituality, a way of living out our faith together beyond divisions.1457

Although Adventists would have mostly not applauded this idea of an “ecumenical spirituality” and in spite of the fact that this “alternative model” did not catch the attention of many other Christian leaders involved in designing dialogues, it should be noted that this type 4 approach actually corresponded to typical Adventist preferences. It may be summarized in the formula “cooperation rather than compromise” and largely reflected the Adventist reasoning on interchurch encounters since Beach’s activities opened a new era in the late 1960s. The fact that it did not exert much influence on the general dialogue scene 1454 CIR Committee Minutes, September 17, 1998, February 17, 2000, and November 17, 2000, GC PARL. According to the 1998 minutes, the delay was caused by problems in the WARC such as staffing. 1455 Odair P. Mateus – Bert B. Beach, August 10, 2000, Folder “Reformed–Adventist,” BRI. The words are not capitalized in the letter. 1456 For details, see the bibliography, section 8.3. 1457 Statement by Odair P. Mateus in Cynthia L. Rigby, “Tell the Old, New Story,” WARC Update, June 2001, 8–9, here 9.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

389

illustrates that classic bilateral theological discussions had a life and logic of their own, which was largely tied to three other models of Christian unity (types 2, 5, and 6). Nevertheless, interaction with the aim of clarifying commitment to common causes as experienced with WARC representatives made sense to Adventists, even if their particular doctrinal interests had to pause for a while in these talks. The only limitation to SDA interest in this kind of interface was the rather specific attention that the Reformed side paid to ecology and the economy.1458 The WARC-SDA dialogue was a valuable learning experience for Adventists in several respects. (1) The most evident element of learning was the experience that Christians could agree on some points, disagree on others, and yet focus on other issues altogether in their conversation – namely, questions of Christian ministry in the world and of challenges arising from outside the Christian sphere. (2) The overall topic of the dialogue forced Adventist presenters to think through aspects of their theology that were less developed. Social ethics, ecological concerns, considerations of economy – all these fields did not range very high on the Adventist agenda, although there were some genuinely theological reasons for them to be addressed, notably the eschatology and creation focus of the denomination. These were, consequently, the reference points for the two Adventist contributions on justice and ecology.1459 (3) Listening to what are perceived as unusual concerns of Christian others – whatever one’s stance on the issues discussed – was a genuine learning process in the sense that this listening spirit began to be cultivated among Adventists. A somewhat humorous episode illustrates this; Beach narrated that “in the GC committee, when the dialogue with World Reformed Alliance was discussed, … the treasurer said: why do we meet

1458 This can be seen in the internal review of papers before they were presented as well as the “Introductory Statement” to the report voted to explain the nature of this dialogue; it said, “The parameters of the conversations were largely set by the WARC, in harmony with their current emphasis on dealing with economic injustice and ecological issues … The nature of this document is a preliminary report of the conversations. It does not represent an official or definitive statement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with respect to the issues addressed” (“Introductory Statement to the Report on the International Dialogue between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches,” GCC Minutes, May 15, 2001, GCA). For rather critical review comments on first drafts of Adventist papers to be presented, see George W. Reid – Bert Beach, February 28, 2001 and March 21, 2001, Folder “Reformed–Adventist,” BRI. 1459 Cf. the papers by Roy Adams “The Apocalypse: God’s Answer to the Human Cry for Ultimate Justice,” paper presented at WARC / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jongny, April 2001, and John Baldwin, “Keepers of the Garden: Christians and the Environment – An Adventist Perspective,” paper presented at the WARC / Seventh-day Adventist Dialogue, Jongny, April 4, 2001, both in the folder “Reformed-Adventist,” BRI. A shortened version of the latter paper was published with the same title in Dialogue 14.1 (2002), 8–11.

390

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

with them – we can’t learn anything from them! [Then] some people in the committee laughed”1460 – and dialogues continued to be held. When the denomination’s representatives met with delegations from the Salvation Army in 2004, 2005, and 2008, these dialogue sessions stood out because of a strong sense of spiritual connectedness. William Johnsson called the meetings “[t]he most delightful dialogue in all my experience”1461 shortly after they ended, and a report highlighted the “warmth of Christian fellowship and sense of divine blessing”1462 felt in the meetings. The participants “seemed to feel at home with one another”1463 right from the beginning and realized they had very similar habits in praying, singing, and approaching the Bible.1464 This affinity, combined with a history of mutual non-interference, naturally made these encounters occasions to be enjoyed. While the two conversation meetings between the denominations in the 1980s were short and had evidently not been designed with effects on the public in mind, the SDA-Salvation Army dialogue occurred in a period when both denominations were eager to be perceived as being open to the Christian world around them. This time long-term preparations1465 enabled the two groups to experience a well-structured path of dialogue, and even after a hiatus ensued after the 2005 session – presumably due to new leadership in the Salvation Army1466 – the conversations were concluded in a very orderly manner, with the focus shifting from ministry questions to ecclesiology and the relationship between Law and Gospel. The overall emphasis of the dialogue was, however, practical and comparative. Mission, the Methodist roots and history of the two denominations, their profiles and priorities, discipleship and education, the sacraments, and leadership were the most important themes in the two first sessions.1467 With such topics, which focused on hands-on ministry (rather than the economy and ecology, as with the WARC delegation), Adventists were in their element. In spite of some obvious 1460 Interview Beach, emphasis supplied. 1461 Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, 191; this book was published in 2008, just around the end of these meetings. 1462 “Report of the Bilateral Dialogue: The Salvation Army International Headquarters/The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, January 5–8, 2004,” folder “Salvation Army 2004,” BRI. 1463 Ibid. 1464 Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, 191. 1465 CIR Minutes, April 22, 2002, and April 2, 2003, GC PARL. 1466 CIR Minutes, March 14, 2007, GC PARL. 1467 “Bilateral Dialogue: Salvation Army/General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,” Silver Spring, 2004, folder “Salvation Army 2004,” BRI, and “Salvation Army/Seventh-day Adventist Bilateral Theological Dialogue,” Jackson’s Point Conference Centre, March 7–10, 2005, folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI; cf. also the papers listed in the respective bibliography section (8.3).

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

391

differences in eschatology and Sabbath theology, Salvationists and Adventists emphasized their commonalities in the realms of “Bible-centred … preaching and theology, Christ-centred … mission and many elements … when it comes to both practicing holistic living and preaching a holistic gospel.”1468 All in all, the exchange between the two denominations indicated that a friendly, deeply spiritual, non-doctrinaire and yet thoughtful dialogue between Adventists and representatives of other traditions was possible. It was, of course, easiest when the other tradition resembled Adventism and when no conflicts had injured the relationship; in this case the 19th century SDA scepticism vis-à-vis Salvationists1469 had evidently been long forgotten.1470 Even if some space was devoted to comparative perspectives, the fact that the conversations did not focus on theological differences meant that agreement on what was the task of committed Christians was relatively easy to reach. Although the very positive final report was eventually not published – due to a decision of the Salvation Army General1471 – to the participants the entire dialogue felt like an extended-family encounter.1472

1468 “Joint Salvation Army/Seventh-day Adventist Statement Arising from 2004–2008 Bilateral Theological Dialogues,” CIR Minutes, January 17, 2008, GC PARL. 1469 Cf. section 3.3.3. 1470 Instead, Johnsson mentioned Ellen White’s positive references to the Salvation Army; see Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, 191. In reality, Ellen White wrote both positive words and critical remarks about Salvationists. The most comprehensive of her statements is this: “The Lord has marked out His way of working. As a people we are not to imitate and fall in with the Salvation Army methods. This is not the work the Lord has given us to do. Neither is it our work to condemn them and speak harsh words against them. There are precious, self-sacrificing souls in the Salvation Army. We are to treat them kindly. There are in the Army honest souls, sincerely serving the Lord, who will see greater light, and will advance to the acceptance of all truth. Those in the Salvation Army are trying to save the neglected downtrodden ones. Discourage them not. Let them do that class of work by their own methods and in their own way.” Ellen G. White – John H. Kellogg, January 12, 1900, included in Ellen G. White, Battle Creek Letters, Payson: Leaves-Of-Autumn Books, 1984 [1928], 29–36, here 36. 1471 William Francis – William G. Johnsson, e-mail, June 8, 2008, folder “Salvation Army 2004,” BRI. According to Francis, the decision of the General was to be applied to all dialogues; the three-page final report with Seventh-day Adventists was merely the first case of such a “Joint Statement” to be produced. Somewhat paradoxically, a few years later, an extensive report and statement from the Salvation Army dialogue with the World Methodist Council was published; see “Working Together in Mission: Witness, Education and Service,” Salvation Army – World Methodist Council Bilateral Dialogue Report, Series Two, 2011, online: http://worldmethodistcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Salvation-Ar my-Dialogue-Report.pdf, accessed August 1, 2016. This text reported on meetings that started earlier than the Salvationist-Adventist dialogue but extended beyond them (with sessions in 2003, 2005, 2009, and 2011). 1472 “Salvation Army, Adventist Theologians Meet in Dialogue,” Adventist News Network, January 12, 2004.

392

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

The remaining three dialogues do not need to be discussed at length; they display features very similar to those found in the conversations with the WEF, WARC, and Salvation Army. The Adventist dialogue with the Mennonite World Conference, for instance, resembled the experience with the Salvation Army in many ways:1473 the very positive atmosphere and constructive discussions,1474 the practical orientation and a large number of shared common emphases and concerns,1475 and a sense of historical connectedness,1476 i. e. their origin in the 16th century Anabaptist movement – a heritage which caused Adventists to hold Mennonites in high esteem.1477 The conversations with representatives of the World Evangelical Alliance demonstrate that Adventists were coming full circle. While they continued to remain distant from schemes of organic union and ecumenical organizations, they sought fellowship with all those Christians who would seek theirs, as did the earliest Advent believers in the 1840s, who were united by their common hope, irrespective of their denominational origin. Evangelicals, who shared many of their dearest concerns, were hence particularly important conversation partners to be approached anew once a generation had passed; after all, many Adventists felt that they actually belonged to the Evangelical sphere.1478 1473 Even the size of the two bodies was similar; at the time of the conversations, the MWC counted member churches with 1.3 million members, while the Salvation Army had 1.6 million members. 1474 Already after the first session, William G. Johnsson stated that “the consultation belongs to the most profitable that I have attended”; see “Grosse Offenheit bei Dialog zwischen Mennoniten und Adventisten,” APD Schweiz, July 8, 2011. 1475 Key terms from the 2011 “Joint Statement” referring to common concerns include “authenticity,” “passion,” “corporate witness,” “minority voice,” and “peace-making.” See Mennonite World Conference and General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, “Joint Statement,” 2011, online: http://www.stanet.ch/APD/pdf/2011/Dialogue_MWC_SDA_Join t_Statement_2011%20%283%29.pdf, accessed July 20, 2011. 1476 This also involves the historical reality of persecution, which Mennonites underwent and which Adventists included as a crucial element in their view of history; cf. the reference to “some of the most severe persecution of Christians” in “First Conversation between Adventists, Mennonites Focuses on Living Christian Life,” Adventist News Network, July 11, 2011. 1477 Different from most other non-sabbatarian Christian groups, Mennonites appear almost exclusively in a positive light in Adventist publications; cf. Cepha Ang’ira, “A Consistent Esteem: Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitudes towards the Mennonites,” research paper, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2011. 1478 The discourse on Adventism as part of Evangelicalism is visible especially from the 1990s onward; see, e. g., Russell L. Staples, “Adventism,” in Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston (eds.), The Variety of American Evangelicalism, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991, 57–71; Arthur N. Patrick, “Are Adventists Evangelical? The Case of Ellen White in the 1890s,” Ministry 68.2 (1995), 14–17; David R. Larson, “Are Seventhday Adventists Evangelicals?,” Spectrum 29.2 (2001), 79. An unusually early reflection on this theme is found in a small book by Morris Venden, Common Ground: A Look at the

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

393

Plans were under way by 2000, had to be postponed several times,1479 and the conversations finally began in 2006. The dynamics of the meetings resembled the experiences in earlier Adventist-Evangelical encounters: serious reservations at first on the Evangelical side, coupled with an “investigative” attitude,1480 but also an atmosphere in which spirituality played a role in creating a sense of unity among the participants.1481 The two sessions in 2006 and 2007 ended with a wellcrafted Joint Statement; in addition to listing a few points of disagreement and areas of cooperation, its main importance is that it confirmed that “Adventists can subscribe to the WEA Statement of Faith”;1482 at the same time, the Evangelical participants acknowledged “the significant and Christ-centered role of E. G. White,”1483 thus indirectly recognizing that Seventh-day Adventists constitute one variety of Evangelical Protestantism. Finally, the dialogue with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a 2.4 million member denomination, combined characteristics visible in all of the three dialogues mentioned above: a large variety of themes as in the Salvation Army conversations, some discussion on social issues akin to the emphasis in the meeting with WARC representatives, and a strong sense of Christian unity in spite of differences in practices and doctrine, as in the WEF consultation. With its three-year exploratory phase (2006, 2007, 2008) and four sessions from 2010 to 2013, this dialogue turned out to be the most extensive encounter between a Seventh-day Adventist delegation and a team from another Christian organization. Although there was no indication of Adventists changing their general separateness from the ecumenical mainstream, the relationship unfolding in these discussions indicates that SDA faith and practice no longer excluded a genuine appreciation of the Christian Other. Accordingly, the final report contains the strongest affirmation of each other’s ecclesiality found in all official texts arising from Adventist dialogues; it says, “we declare unreservedly that our respective churches are part of the one church of Jesus Christ.”1484 While acknowledging “real and significant differences” between

1479 1480 1481

1482 1483 1484

Beliefs Seventh-day Adventists Hold in Common with Other Evangelical Christians, Boise: Pacific Press, 1984. James Stamoolis – Bert Beach, October 4, 2000, Folder “World Evangelical Fellowship Dialogue,” BRI; CIR Minutes, April 22, 2002, GC PARL. Apparently leadership changes caused these deferrals. Johnsson, Embrace the Impossible, 192–193. I had the privilege of attending (as an observer) one and a half days of the first session in Prague, August 8–9, 2016. Cf. also “Joint Statement of the World Evangelical Alliance and the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” 2007, 1, online: http://www.worldevangelicals.org/ne ws/WEAAdventistDialogue20070809d.pdf, accessed February 1, 2010. Ibid. Ibid., 1–2. “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Seventh-day Adventist Dialogue Report, 2010–2013,” 3, online: https://www.pc-biz.org/#/search/4871, accessed July 19, 2016.

394

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

the two denominations,1485 the dialogue partners indicated several areas where they benefit and learn from the other. Finally, what the report says about the significance of the conversations is certainly an insight that extends to more than this particular dialogue: The discovery and engagement of genuine mutually-edifying fellowship in Christ is the most important outcome of the dialogue. Even as we profited much from our time together, we urge Seventh-day Adventists and Presbyterians everywhere to engage in the activities that brought us so much benefit: sharing our faith journeys and our primary faith commitments, discussing our respective hopes and challenges, seeking out that which we hold in common, being honest about our differences, praying together, worshiping in each other’s churches, and enjoying extended table fellowship.1486

*** The journey from the somewhat hesitant interactions with Evangelicals in the 1950s and experimental conversations with WCC representatives to the wellreflected and professionally managed dialogues in the early 21st century was not strategically planned. Adventists slipped into these kinds of interdenominational encounters; they had to experience and evaluate them before they could continue initiating some meetings of this type themselves. The plausibility of such activities and the professionalization of SDA interchurch relations in this field rested on a number of developments occurring at the same time; it went hand in hand with an upgrade of Adventist ministerial education, sophistication in theological self-expression,1487 organizational maturity, and massive research advance in the field of Adventist Studies, which implied the establishment of a basis for more differentiated self-conceptualizations in the denomination. While it appears that activities in this realm were largely the work of one man – Bert Beach – and, as time went by, a few others, notably John Graz and William Johnsson, one should not underestimate the growth potential of organizations and faith communities as a whole. Beach was only able to initiate dialogues because a will to be involved in such encounters was already present among the denominational leaders. Graz and Johnsson could continue this engagement because Beach’s ministry had led to the highest respect for him as a 1485 Ibid. The report lists 15 such differences and 13 “[c]ommonalities in practice and doctrine” (ibid., 5–6). 1486 Ibid., 6. 1487 The most important signal of this development is the statement of 27 Fundamental Beliefs, which were voted by the denomination’s quinquennial General Conference session in 1980. This implied a significant leap forward in terms of reflection on and articulation of Adventist doctrines. The earlier Fundamental Beliefs version (of 1931) had been drafted by a very small group of men, was voted in a committee, not a GC session, and lacked the rigour that the later text displayed.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

395

person both inside Adventism and among the Christian leaders with whom he interacted in the CCWC and beyond. This background does not mean that all was a success in the Adventist interaction with dialogue partners. Several attempts at entering conversations did not work out; both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox contacts remained precisely this – mere contacts, in spite of attempts by Beach to build on good relationships to initiate actual dialogue.1488 In other cases, there has been no dialogue yet in spite of generally positive relationships and similarities in theological orientation – e. g. Baptists and Methodists, two of the traditions that birthed Adventism. In some cases, dialogue may be difficult: Charismatics and Pentecostals, for instance, do not have a strong global organization. Even if the Pentecostal World Fellowship were interested in conversations, the deep-seated traditional Adventist scepticism regarding the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements1489 would make such encounters difficult. The acknowledgment that Christians of what some Adventists feel to be rival revivals are valuable conversation partners would certainly cause some degree of conflict among the SDA constituency.1490 The most positive results among the dialogues were achieved with those whose theology, spirituality and Christian lifestyle places them close to Adventists but with whom there has been little or no friction in history. While this may be an unsurprising insight, it is important because it also implies that the historical and theological next door neighbours and the nuclear family were often not those 1488 There had been a meeting between representatives of Adventists and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1996, but subsequent attempts did not work out; see “Adventistes,” Irénikon 69.4 (1996), 510, and CIR Minutes, March 26, 1998, GC PARL. Contacts with Oriental Orthodox church leaders differed, and it appears that the rather hostile attitude of Pope Shenouda III towards Adventists thwarted attempts at initiating conversations (he insisted that Adventists are non-trinitarians, possible confounding them with Jehovah’s Witnesses). Cf. Bert B. Beach – H. H. Pope Shenouda III, December 18, 1998, and Bert B. Beach – H. H. Catholicos Aram I, December 17, 1998, Folder “Orthodox Church Dialogue,” BRI. 1489 The denomination initiated a study group in the 1970s, which largely rejected the phenomena and theology among these movements; see The Charismatic Movement, A Report of the Special Committee Meeting in Camp Cumby-Gay, Georgia, January 4–9, 1973, [Washington, D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,] 1973. 1490 In the 1990s, the German Adventist leadership produced a well-balanced analysis of phenomena in the orbit of what was then called the “Toronto blessing,” which, however, caused considerable discussion among church members who believed these occurrences to be “from below”; see Stellungnahme zu “charismatischen” Auffassungen und Phänomenen als Orientierungshilfe, brochure, Adventgemeinde heute 2, Hannover: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland, 1996. The most extensive study so far on Adventism and the Charismatic Movement appears to be a Master’s thesis: Stephan Gäbel, “Adventgemeinde und Charismatische Bewegung in Deutschland,” M.A. thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2011.

396

Seeking Good Relations as the Parousia Delays: Developments after World War II

with whom dialogue brought forth lasting friendship and fellowship: other sabbatarians, some Evangelicals, certain revivalists. In such cases, dialogue was, presumably, hardly possible since it presupposes the willingness of both sides to listen and learn. Although Adventists may not have entered the sphere of bilateral dialogues with the genuine desire to learn and, consequently, change (but, rather, to find recognition and to witness), it is remarkable that their path towards authentic listening and mutuality eventually did produce insights and affirmations that clearly testify to the value of other Christian traditions. The Joint Statement with representatives from the Mennonite World Conference, for instance, expresses joy about the “diversity of the gifts they [the participating churches] each bring and contribute to the Body of Christ.”1491 The final report (2012) even declares: [W]e have achieved a deeper sense of the unity of the Body of Christ, woven together with “sinews” of peace (Eph 4:3, 16). This unity is not something we are called to create: God has already done that for us. But it is something we are called “maintain,” to guard, and to preserve (Eph 4:3).1492

Such words may be part of the standard discourse among WCC member churches, but for Seventh-day Adventists, they expressed that they were able to construct a careful dialectic between missionary self-consciousness and the recognition of divine activity among and through other Christians and their ecclesial bodies.1493 While this was no support for the aim of organic union – and full mutual recognition with a maximum of Christian communions – as the true interpretations of unity in Christ, the reasoning regarding Mennonite-Adventists conversations clearly broadened the spectrum of options with regard to dialogue modes and relational bonds that Adventists subscribed to.

1491 Mennonite World Conference and Seventh-day Adventist Church, “Joint Statement,” 2011, online: http://www.stanet.ch/APD/pdf/2011/Dialogue_MWC_SDA_Join t_Statement_2011%20%283%29.pdf, accessed July 20, 2011. 1492 “Living the Christian Life in Today’s World: Adventists and Mennonites in Conversation, 2011–2012,” in Carol E. Rasmussen (ed.), Living the Christian Life in Today’s World: A Conversation between Mennonite World Conference and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and Mennonite World Conference, 2014, 263–270, here 270. 1493 A similar thought is found in an interview in 2002 with Adventist General Conference President Jan Paulsen – one of the very few times that a GC President commented on Adventist interdenominational activities. He was asked, “why do we enter into conversations with representatives of other churches?” Paulsen answered, “For many years we have said, and published in our policy statement, that other churches that lift up the name of Christ and use the Word of God are instruments in God’s hand to acquaint people with salvation.” Here he referred to the 1919 statement (see appendix II), which actually did not talk about “churches” but “agencies.” See “In Times Like These: A Conversation with the President,” AR, July 11, 2002, 17.

Dialoguing with Other Denominations

397

One contribution to interchurch dialogue that Adventist conversations make is, then, a practice and an understanding of dialogue as a multi-faceted phenomenon. Beyond enriching bilateral conversations with their peculiar dogmatic interests such as the field of eschatology and their Sabbath teaching, these Adventist conversations demonstrate that dialogue may assume as many different forms as interchurch relationships and concepts of Christian unity in general.1494 In an ecumenical climate where the goals of consensus and convergence are at times fraught with seemingly insuperable obstacles, such a broad understanding of dialogue is certainly useful.

1494 Cf. Table 12.

6.

Conclusion

The history of Adventist interchurch relations continues, but this study ends here. There are some aspects which must be explored more fully in further studies. With regard to interpretation, complementary perspectives will certainly produce additional insights. Nevertheless, the walk through SDA history and the discoveries it has brought have produced a panorama that needs to be summarized at this point in order to offer concluding reflections. This last portion of the study will be presented in two sections. The first section discusses the findings regarding Seventh-day Adventist encounters with other Christians. The second deliberates interchurch relations in general, i. e. the importance of relational thinking for ecumenics, the question of factors to be considered in interpreting these relationships, and the deeper theological structure lying underneath this relational realm. In both sections, a few areas for future research will be suggested. *** On a first level of observation, the history of Seventh-day Adventist interactions with other Christians and churches may appear ambiguous. Their rhetoric and reasoning on ecumenical matters likewise create some impressions of ambivalence; Reinder Bruinsma, one of the most able interpreters of developments in contemporary European Adventism, even speaks of a “dilemma” that this ambivalence produces: for what is the meaning of willingness to dialogue that combines with a tradition of portraying other churches in a negative light (even if this portrayal refers to the future)?1495

1495 Reinder Bruinsma, “Seventh-day Adventists and Other Christians: An Appraisal of the Current Situation,” in David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.), Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries), Adventistica 9, Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 2010, 149.

400

Conclusion

On closer inspection, the Adventist encounter with the Christian world is full of surprises. In spite of roots in an interdenominational revival, Seventh-day Adventists started from an extremely separatist and virtually anti-ecumenical theological point of departure. Nonetheless, they succeeded in developing a variety of constructive interaction patterns with non-Adventists. After all, they built their theological edifice largely from material that American Protestantism had produced in the decades immediately preceding the 1830s and partly from elements borrowed from earlier movements. Subsequent to experimentation with “sabbatarian ecumenical relations” a few years after their formation as a denomination, the realms of temperance and mission provided space for encountering Christians and Christian movements in a manner that seemed nonthreatening for the self-conceptualization of the young church. All this was no necessary and automatic development. Adventists could have walked the route of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose theological hostility towards other churches, governments, and the world at large exceeds the adversarial potential in the Adventist version of interchurch relations by far. They could probably not have developed along the line of Mormons, whose prophet moved them into extra-Christian terrain by virtue of his charisma and peculiar millennialism. Nevertheless, Adventists were frequently mistaken for Mormons, and they could have continued to cherish their non-trinitarian doctrine of God combined with their earlier semipelagian soteriology, thus remaining at a distance from Christianity at large. Instead, they continued to interact with representatives of the Holiness Movement, supported the Bible Societies, thought of themselves as the spearhead (with a special task) of the Evangelical missionary movement to the world, and, finally, began to engage in several dialogue encounters on the global level. One important aspect in assessing the denomination’s ecumenical activities and reasoning is personnel. From the late 1960s onward, the SDA Church was blessed with an extraordinary individual whose influence in the realm of interchurch relations was overwhelming: Bert B. Beach. One can only speculate what would have happened without his ministry; at any rate, his organizational talent, his loyalty to the general perspective of denominational leaders, and his genius in building relationships exemplified the most positive Adventist attitude to other Christians and churches at his time, and indeed one that enjoyed majority appeal. Altogether, the historical progress of the denomination’s interface with other Christian movements and individuals is best understood as an evolving but relatively stable paradigm. When early Adventists had united and formed an organization in the early 1860s, they kept elements of their anti-institutional attitude and non-institutional ecclesiology but relativized both at the same time. As a result of this move away from a pure “spiritual unity” concept, questions of authority began to play a positive theological role. In the long run, this implied

Conclusion

401

that other organizations could no longer be dismissed as “Babylon” for the mere fact that they had institutionalized Christian community. The friendly interactions and high hopes regarding cooperation with Seventh Day Baptists indicated that in principle Adventists were able to compromise – if this did not touch their most treasured conviction, the Sabbath. Later contacts with congenial Christians in other Protestant movements led to situations in which Adventists had to admit that the Holy Spirit is active far beyond the boundaries of their organization. While recognition remained partial, an acknowledgement of spiritual value in their materials, activities, and movements implied that the Adventist horizon grew even if their core ideas regarding Christian unity remained the same – a fervently spiritual notion, complemented by a strong emphasis on the biblical text as source, authority, and reference of all faith. It is in the context of 19th century American Sunday Law agitation that these Adventist Sabbath keepers fortified boundaries between themselves and other Protestants. This distance made itself felt even generations later, when federal or conciliar approaches to ecumenism dominated the relationships between churches. The tradition of resistance to organizations potentially threatening religious liberty, established in the denomination’s second generation, thus shaped the Adventist perspective of the World Council of Churches, national Christian councils, and affiliated organizations to such an extent that a dispassionate analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of membership was hardly possible. Seen in this light, it is remarkable that Seventh-day Adventists ultimately engaged in theological dialogues to such an extent. While their bilateral conversations did not aim at convergence or consensus, the large number of encounters that were organized indicates that they did desire to create bonds of cooperation and some kind of recognition. Moreover, given the fact that Adventists have long considered themselves an essentially missionary church, these dialogues also added to their self-understanding in that they consciously decided to listen and learn, not only to preach. The evolving Adventist interchurch relations paradigm, then, can best be described as resting on a concept of non-institutional unity. With the exception of the most institutionally defined modes of unity, they ultimately practiced all the types of interaction visible in the realm between denominations: prayer with other Christians (type 7, “spiritual unity”), strategizing for Christian service (type 4, alliance), the two communicative approaches (debate-like and open space dialogue, i. e. types 5 and 6 viz. “ecumenism of profiles” and the forum model), and, more or less unwittingly, even an “ecumenism of life” (type 8) in their daily interactions with Christians of all backgrounds. The models most frequently invoked by the ecumenical mainstream are conspicuously absent from this list:

402

Conclusion

organic union (1), full mutual ecclesial recognition (2), and the cooperativefederal model (3). This one-sided preference is why Adventism appears ecumenically ambivalent and, in the eyes of some observers, even anti-ecumenical. Theirs is, in fact, an anti-establishment ecumenism: all but institutional ecumenism is deemed worthy of support. Like other movements with a congregationalist ecclesiology, such as Baptists or Pentecostals, unity is viewed as being essentially spiritual; and in the Adventist case, a heavy dose of ecclesial institutionalism is added by marrying remnant theology and ecclesiology, which makes the recognition of other churches as churches in the full sense quite challenging. At the same time, one should not overlook that precisely this is a major contribution that Adventism makes to the larger ecumenical approach to the interchurch relations sphere. With their support of the CCWC and the Global Christian Forum, Seventh-day Adventists exemplify an alternative approach to the interaction between denominations. Beyond classic dialogues, established organizations and perpetual calls for visible unity, free churches – including Adventists – start from the premise that unity already exists, and emphasize that it has to be expressed in some tangible way, usually in ministering to the world. A few years ago, Erich Geldbach, a leading German ecumenist at the time (with a Baptist background), asserted that Seventh-day Adventists actually have “ecumenical significance.”1496 This may sound surprising at first, but Geldbach produced a twelve-point list of arguments of which some are included here.1497 A few of these may actually be more of a wish list than an active contribution to ecumenism at large. However, each Christian church can also contribute to the whole of Christianity by simply doing what it does and being Christian the way it is, without telling others to do the same. Thus Geldbach identifies five realms of Adventist activity that he deems of ecumenical significance: (1) service to humanity on the basis of a strong (premillennial) eschatology; (2) health ministry with a special emphasis on care for the whole human being; (3) financial commitment (visible in the tithing practice); (4) active use of the Bible, even in

1496 This is his formulation in the title of his contribution “Die ökumenische Bedeutung der Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten,” in Dagmar Heller, Christina Kayales, Barbara Rudolph, Gert Rüppell, and Heinrich Schäfer (eds.), Mache dich auf und werde licht! Ökumenische Visionen in Zeiten des Umbruchs: Festschrift für Konrad Raiser, Frankfurt a.M.: Lembeck, 2008, 180–186. 1497 Geldbach’s first four points concern Adventist ecumenical activities and interpretations and will not be discussed further because they have been sufficiently discussed in this study: (1) carrying through bilateral dialogues, (2) the activities of the Council on Interchurch Relations, which also includes interfaith dialogue, (3) change in self-perception, and (4) change in apocalyptic interpretations early in SDA history – while holding on to an intense expectancy of the parousia. See ibid., 182–183.

Conclusion

403

worship meetings – particularly in the Adventist Sabbath School, which is part of the weekly service; and (5) the vigorous pursuit of religious liberty activities.1498 Why does Geldbach believe these items to be ecumenically significant? His argument is, interestingly, not the convergence potential in these activities or the doctrines behind them. (For in each case, one could find alternative paths of interpretation and logic in other movements, which would certainly claim that their tradition is more justified.) It is an “exemplary character”1499 that Geldbach finds in these traditions – a model from which other denominations can learn. What is interesting in this perspective is that Adventists do not think of themselves in this way; their pronounced inside/outside thinking traditionally assigns to their own church a quasi-sacramental (“remnant”) character1500 rather than a diffusing role in the sense of promoting parts of their doctrinal tradition among other denominations. The three remaining marks of significance that Geldbach identifies may contain ecumenical potential only if Adventists actively utilize these elements in the future. He mentions (1) the SDA Sabbath practice, where he finds “unearthed treasures for the Ecumenical Movement,” particularly for Jewish-Christian dialogue.1501 (2) The worldwide denominational structure, which relativizes cultural factors and national concerns and thus creates a sentiment and a reality of global cohesion and multi-cultural unity which is rare at least among Protestants. This emphasis on the ecumenical significance of Global Christian Communions is

1498 Ibid., 184–186. 1499 Ibid., 185. 1500 Recently Tihomir Lazic´ suggested that the Adventist emphasis on remnant ecclesiology can and should be supplemented with elements from communio ecclesiology. In addition to some strengths – such as biblical grounding, continuity with traditional Adventist reasoning, and integration with other Adventist doctrine, Lazic´ detects several weaknesses in remnant thinking: narrowness, lack of the ontological dimension of church, a root in a reductionist viz. purely propositional concept of Christian truth, and a pneumatological deficit. Yet he claims that in a larger communio setting, remnant ecclesiology can lead to Adventism’s being able to dialogue with other Christian traditions and thus exemplify how a peculiar denominational perspective can be widened ecclesiologically. See Lazic´, Towards an Adventist Version of Communio Ecclesiology: Remnant in Koinonia, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue series, Cham (Switzerland): Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. 1501 Geldbach, “Die ökumenische Bedeutung,” 185. The Adventist New Testament scholar Bernhard Oestreich observes that the communication between Christians of Jewish and non-Jewish origin deteriorated after Paul’s life, and this cleavage between these two led to the loss of a Christian appreciation for the law, the Old Testament and for apocalyptic. Oestreich suggests that it would be a rewarding task for Seventh-day Adventists to contribute the Jewish Christian heritage to Christianity at large by participating in the larger Christian discourse. See his article “Meinungsstreit und Einheit in der frühen Christenheit,” Spes Christiana 6 (1995), 14–25, here 25.

404

Conclusion

uncommon but indeed reflects the way Adventists feel their global organization to be of importance. (3) The last element is the question of sacraments. He argues that Adventists, with their less-pronounced theology of sacraments, could help other churches with an even weaker theology in this realm to rediscover what other traditions hold dear in this realm.1502 I would argue that the Adventist footwashing practice adds to this: as the open communion service that Seventh-day Adventists celebrate, the practice of washing each other’s feet constitutes a performance of unity that can be appreciated by Christians of both the most sacramental traditions and the most non-sacramental free churches. These three observations, therefore, relate to instances in which Adventist polity and practice can become bridges; they do not describe realities, but potentialities, and as such, point to the unfinished nature of all ecumenism and interchurch relationships. All in all, the Adventist case demonstrates that Christian movements can live in constructive relationships with other denominations in a very diverse manner. Those who appear to be ecumenical sceptics may in actual fact be less inclined to make positive public pronouncements or promises and yet might be involved in a variety of activities that build bridges between Christians of different backgrounds.1503 Partial involvement in the most common and visible ecumenical ventures also implies that ecumenical organizations do well not to establish new exclusivisms; the creation of intermediate categories such as a “guest” status, therefore, is useful in the building of bridges among the manifold Christian traditions. *** If this study seeks to make one contribution to ecumenics at large (i. e. beyond the Adventist case study presented), it is the insight that relationships between denominations occur in diverse ways, and that this is necessarily so. This diversity arises neither from arbitrariness in human nature nor from a chaotic swamp of undefinable forces. Human relationships, even of groups and churches, follow distinct models, and the theological concepts and historical patterns that Christian communities have brought forth connect with these in an unambiguous way. In other words, ecumenism is about theologizing relationships and “relationalizing” theology. Interchurch relationships are test cases for each tradition’s theology because the ultimate values that define them (which underlie the much debated “identities”) are mirrors of how believers imagine appropriate 1502 Geldbach, “Die ökumenische Bedeutung,” 186. 1503 Cf. also the findings of the research of Dean Boldon, “The Ecumenical Movement in America,” which was discussed at length at the end of section 2.2.

Conclusion

405

bonds with other believers of their own kind, with non-believers, and with those who believe or live their faith differently. Relational Models Theory has proved to be a useful tool in this exercise. All the common patterns of interactions between Christian churches can be associated with one of Fiske’s models. But more than serving as a mere heuristic tool, this metatheory of human sociality can also explain and predict where and why relationships between groups remain strained or distant. Similar to the incommensurable paradigms of science in Thomas Kuhn’s well-known interpretation of scientific revolutions, at times relationships do not work out well simply because very different assumptions about what is desirable or crucial are part of the DNA of particular movements or bodies. Theologically speaking, what is a mere footnote in Fundamental Theology for one tradition may amount to the level of unshakable doctrine in another. This does not mean that all attempts at dialoguing or cooperating between church organizations that consider themselves far apart are doomed. To the contrary – church bodies are able to grow collectively, and presumably most learning is possible with conversation partners who present unfamiliar points of view. The contribution of Relational Models thinking to the understanding of such encounters, however, is that at a deeper level, divergences are not only doctrinal. Theology is, at least in part, about profound differences in orientation, in what is valued, in fundamental attitudes that cannot simply be dispelled by a celebration of diversity. Whether preference is given to order viz. authority (AR), intimacy (CS), justice (EM) or individual freedom and responsibility (MP) by a community has a lot to do with the theological emphases that a group of believers develops, debates, or defends. Insofar as ecumenics is a specialized area of ecclesiology, Relational Models Theory has the potential to be utilized far beyond the issue of interchurch relations. Wherever human beings are, there is sociality; therefore, this social scientific metatheory will certainly find spheres of application in the study of the Christian Church at large and in other subdisciplines of dogmatics and ethics. In fact, it could serve as one device in bridging the gap between several fields of Practical Theology, in which the Social Sciences have been tapped for decades, and Systematic Theology, where conversation partners have broadened from the traditional dialogue with philosophy to discussion with the natural sciences and, to some extent, other religions – but the Social Sciences and, in particular, qualitative-empirical research, have not had much of an impact yet. The study of interchurch relationships with the support of a social scientific toolbox may be beneficial in several respects. It will assist in developing realistic ecumenics, i. e. a discipline which not only debates what ought to be (according to

406

Conclusion

some tradition) but one that also explains why matters are the way they are.1504 Similar to mission studies, where the aims of mission were debated afresh after the end of the colonial era, the study of ecumenism would benefit from approaches that do not take the final outcome of what is called “ecumenical” for granted. In other words, realistic ecumenics will also be helpful in supporting Christians to live realistic ecumenism. One element among the contours of such ecumenical research is a focus on the diversity of Christianity. The study of Christian unity presupposes that there is diversity; to be realistic, ecumenics must, therefore, develop an understanding of Christian diversity that takes into account all relevant factors. One important part of such diversity theorizing would be to focus on ecumenical outsiders, on the mavericks and misfits, on those who do not believe in the conventional wisdom. Systemically speaking, these groups fulfil an important function: they speak or live what the well-adapted may not be able to say or act out. Nevertheless, even these groups and their members do have interchurch relationships of some sort, and at times they are not entirely different from those whose public pronouncements are more politically correct. Beyond using Relational Models Theory to interpret the history of Adventist interchurch relations, this thesis has attempted to identify further factors to be considered in the analysis of this history. In chapter 2, Table 5 suggests that a religious movement’s relationship to other religious groups is the sum of ideological and social factors inside and outside. In other words, both the group ideology and the theologies (ecumenical and otherwise) in the context play an important role, as do the configuration of a denomination and its experience of the context. In the case of Seventh-day Adventists, the ideological kernel (Sabbath, parousia, remnant) evidently remained relatively stable; what changed, however, was the predominant ideology of the context, which moved from a competitive and anti-ecumenical mood in the first half of the 19th century to a general atmosphere of cooperation in the mid-20th century. Because of their inherited aloofness coagulated in theology, this contextual transformation did not translate into changing attitudes among Adventists until two generations later, and even then only in part. However, this case demonstrates that experiences change perceptions even in large organizations, and it would thus be a worthwhile undertaking to apply the study of Inter-Organizational Relations more fully to instances of Christian ecumenism. A similar issue is that of size and (the related question of) interaction opportunities. In the instance of Adventism, some of the developments were logical 1504 One recent dissertation with such an orientation is Maria Wernsmann, Praxis, Probleme und Perspektiven ökumenischer Prozesse: Ein Beitrag zur Theoriebildung, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 107, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016.

Conclusion

407

consequences of sheer expansion – i. e. geographical diffusion and numerical growth. Any organization deeming itself Christian and becoming large enough almost has to participate in certain ecumenical activities simply to gain or preserve the respect of surrounding populations. It is one of the key findings of the sociology of religious movements that the amount of tension that a religious movement creates or experiences within the larger religious economy varies significantly and plays an important role in its growth potential: too much tension with society is an impediment, as is no tension at all. The resulting observation that “a little bit of ecumenism is very functional”1505 (and too much of it may be dysfunctional for well-established churches and young movements alike) will have to be explored more deeply in future studies. With regard to the theological structures underneath the relational realm, this thesis offers a suggestion that will conclude its reflections. The Adventist example indicates that eschatology is of crucial importance for the relationship between churches, even if this is rarely recognized.1506 Although some believers tend to attach great importance to their churches: they are provisional;1507 it is God’s eternal kingdom for whose advent Christians of all traditions pray daily and that stands at the beginning of the Christian faith. Admittedly, churches seem to be the subjects of ecumenism; nevertheless, believers ultimately relate to each other on the basis of definitive principles and crucial convictions which they derive from their peculiar interpretations of what the βασιλεία means. Of course the Kingdom of God also translates into different ecclesiologies, which in turn produce contending ecumenisms, but these are as provisional as the churches to which they are attached. The “eschatological bureau” (Troeltsch) was re-opened a long time ago, and the Kingdom of God has been a frequent reference in ecumenical conferences.1508 Many concepts of ecumenism may ultimately be versions of eschatology: if the dream of a globally united church is not a utopia, it represents an eschatological construction. Whether readers find the apocalyptic-based Adventist version of 1505 James R. Kelly, “A Sociological Perspective on the Ecumenical Movement,” Ecumenical Trends, September 1983, 118–124, here 119. 1506 In bilateral dialogues, eschatology has rarely been debated except in conversations with Adventist participation. For a discussion, see Stefan Höschele, “Eschatology and Theological Dialogue: Insights from Adventist Interchurch Conversations,” One in Christ 47.1 (2013), 29–51, here 32–36. 1507 This is main thrust of the book by G. R. Evans, The Church and the Churches: Toward an Ecumenical Ecclesiology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 1508 Cf. Emmanuel G. Clapsis, “Eschatology and the Unity of the Church: The Impact of Eschatology in Ecumenical Thought,” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1987. This dissertation focuses on eschatology in the Faith and Order meetings, tries to derive some systematic-theological consequences from these and ends with a reflection on an Orthodox contribution to this theme.

408

Conclusion

eschatology – with its strong focus on the Second Coming, a dualistic but tortureless judgement, and the persistent sense of nearness – alluring or not: It has certainly illustrated what role the “last things” can play for the ecumenical attitudes in a particular tradition. A more comprehensive study of the role that eschatologies play is, therefore, certainly desirable. It would probably show how much our concepts of what is eternal, heavenly, and unshakable, relate to the way we imagine the shape of the bonds that ought to exist between those who follow Christ on this earth. Meanwhile, as we stand in the eschatological waiting hall, the conversation of the waiting will continue. And, most importantly, by turning our attention to the Coming One, we will respond to the very first words of Jesus’ preaching reported in the New Testament: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” (Matthew 4:17)

7.

Appendices

7.1

Appendix I: Chronology of Adventist Interchurch Relationships and General Ecumenical Development

Adventist Interchurch Relations

Ecumenical Movement and Activities

“Second Great Awakening” in Ca. Abner Jones founds the first 1790– America “Christian Connection” 1840 congregations (Restoration Movement – an “ecumenical” root of Adventism) 1804 British & Foreign Bible Society founded 1825 American Tract Society founded 1831 W. Miller begins his ministry 1833 American Antislavery Society founded 1841 Millerites turn into a significant North American interdenominational movement 1843 Charles Fitch’s sermon “Come Out of Her, My People” 1844 “Great Disappointment”: the Millerite Movement falls apart 1846 The Evangelical Alliance founded in London 1849 Sabbatarian Adventists publish their first magazine 1850ff Sabbatarian Adventists revise their “shut-door” ideas 1855 The World Alliance of YMCAs founded in Paris 1857– Urban Revival in the USA 1858 1860 Name “Seventh-day Adventists” is chosen 1801

410

Appendices

(Continued) Adventist Interchurch Relations Seventh-day Adventists establish a “General Conference” 1867– General Conference (GC) 1879 resolutions on Relationship with Seventh Day Baptists and delegate exchange

Ecumenical Movement and Activities

1863

1870

GC resolution to “cultivate fraternal feelings, and maintain friendly relations, with all who name the name of Christ” 1874 John Andrews, first SDA missionary (to Switzerland) 1880s Sunday Law agitation in the United States 1881 Death of James White 1888 Minneapolis GC session, with a stress on “righteousness by faith,” navigating Adventists back to a Protestant identity

1869– First Vatican Council 1870

1895 1900 1905

1908

Adventists do not join the is Federal 1908 Council 1908

1910

Adventist delegates at the World Missionary Conference

1915 1915 1919

Death of Ellen Gould White Beginning of the “Reformation Movement,” a conservative schismatic Adventist group Statement on “Our Relationship to Other Societies” is drafted

1910 1914

1920 1921

World Student Christian Federation founded in Sweden Ecumenical Missionary Conference, New York Protestant Federation of France is founded – the first national council of churches Federal Council of Churches is founded in the USA Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is conceived World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches is founded in Constance

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople calls for a “League of Churches” The International Missionary Council is founded

411

Appendix I: Chronology

(Continued) Adventist Interchurch Relations

Ecumenical Movement and Activities 1925 1927 1928

1930s SDA become member in the Foreign Missions Conference of North America (FMCNA) 1939

General Conference declines invitation to join WCC

1938

World Council of Churches (in process of formation) is conceived

1946

Establishment of the United Bible Societies Establishment of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCCCUSA) formed Establishment of the World Evangelical Alliance

1948 1950

SDA leave FMCNA because of its association with the NCCCUSA

1950 1952

1955– Unofficial Evangelical-Adventist 1956 Conversations in the USA, leading to the publication of Questions on Doctrine, 1957

1962– Bert B. Beach observes Second 1965 Vatican Council 1965– SDA-World Council of Churches 1972 Conversations 1967 SDA theologian is made (on a personal basis) a member of the Faith & Order commission 1968 Bert B. Beach’s book Vatican II: Bridging the Abyss

First World Conference of the Life and Work Movement First World Conference of the Faith and Order Movement Encyclical Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI, containing a rejection of the Ecumenical Movement

1957

First Conference of representatives of Christian World Communions, Geneva 1957 Establishment of the Christian Conference of Asia, the first continental ecumenical council 1958 First Christian Peace Conference, Prague 1961 Integration of IMC into WCC 1962– Second Vatican Council 1965 1964 Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio

412

Appendices

(Continued) Adventist Interchurch Relations 1970– Bert B. Beach serves as secretary at 2002 the annual meeting of Christian World Communions representatives, followed by John Graz (2002–14) B. B. Beach’s book Ecumenism: Boon or Bane? 1975 Schism of Adventist churches in Hungary connected with debates on interchurch relations 1980 The 27 Fundamental Beliefs are voted at a GC session 1980 The GC establishes a Council on Interchurch Relations with Bert Beach as director 1980s Initial SDA dialogue experiences

Ecumenical Movement and Activities

1971

Integration of the World Council of Christian Education into the WCC

1982

Faith and Order Commission publishes Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM)

1995

Encyclical Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II

1999

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification Global Christian Forum created

1974

1985 1985

Adventists respond to BEM B. B. Beach text on “Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement” 1994– Lutheran-Adventist conversations 1998 1997

GC statement: “How Seventh-day Adventists View Roman Catholicism”

2000ff Adventist participation in the Global 2000 Christian Forum 2001 Reformed-Adventist dialogue 2001– Roman Catholic-Adventist 2003 conversations 2004– Salvation Army-Adventist dialogue 2008 2006– World Evangelical Alliance2007 Adventist dialogue 2006– SDA dialogue with the Presbyterian 2013 Church (U.S.A.) 2011– Mennonite-Adventist dialogue 2012

Appendix II: Texts

7.2

413

Appendix II: Texts

A comprehensive collection of, and historical introduction to, official Adventist statements is available in my book Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventhday Adventist Statements and Documents.1 The following section supplements that collection with a number of lesser-known texts, some of which did not originate in committees, as well as a few that are discussed at length in the present book. These texts follow in a chronological manner.

1857: The Ecumenical Theory of URIAH SMITH2 It was Christ’s prayer for his disciples as he was about to depart to the work of his ministry above, and leave them in the world as sheep among wolves, that they might all be one, as he and the Father were one. If this point was of sufficient moment to be mentioned thrice in the Prayer of our Saviour as recorded in John xvii, we need not dwell upon its importance. The reason is also assigned: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Who can tell the power which christianity would have had, had its professors ever stood shoulder to shoulder in the unity of the faith? No form of error or unbelief could have stood before it. In unity is strength. This the enemy well knew, and, ever busy to sow tares among the wheat, he has not ceased through long centuries to poison the truth with baneful error, to sow discord in the ranks of the brethren, to introduce confusion into their creed, and lead them to turn the weapons of their warfare against each other. … Had men adhered to the truth, the truth would have made them adhere to each other. Had they not given place to the mystery of iniquity, and suffered its poisonous leaven to work in their midst, the disciples of Jesus might still have been one, and thus have answered the prayer of their Master, and given power to the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. When we consider the spirit of the gospel, and the plain teachings of Christ and his apostles, we wonder that it is not so; and that wonder is by no means abated, but is rather turned into a blush for mankind, as we look at the centuries that have succeeded the days of the apostles, and behold the frivolous and foolish pretexts upon which faction after faction has arisen to trouble and distract the church, and thus bring christianity into disrepute. But plain as is the truth, and foolish as are the questions from which divisions have sprung, the enemy has accomplished his purpose, discord 1 Adventistica 10, Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010. 2 [Uriah Smith,] “The Babel of Christendom,” RH, September 24, 1857, 164. Copyright: public domain.

414

Appendices

reigns over the religious world, confusion is branded upon its teachings, the inquirer after truth is bewildered, a stumbling block is laid in the way of the wicked, and the scoffer and the infidel point in triumph at the existing anarchy, whenever a Christian would present to them the claims of the gospel. A fearful responsibility rests somewhere for all this. … The apostles have everywhere exhorted them to unity, to be kindly affectioned [sic] one to another, and to mind and speak the same thing; and is it all the same to fall into discord, divisions and heresies? Is there anything lovely, is there anything pleasing to God, is there anything that calls for our sympathy or charity in all this? And yet they are ready to gnash upon us when we apply the term Babylon to all this mixture, notwithstanding its features are without controversy so unlovely, and its effects so pernicious. … Had that Spirit of truth which Christ promised his followers ever been cherished in the bosom of the church, and no departure made from the plain, literal teachings of Christ and the inspired writers no divisions nor heresies would ever have entered the church. This is a sufficient answer to those who would make the schisms of the professed church an argument against the merits of the gospel. Its whole genius and spirit and teaching, when followed, is to unite. Would the churches take it now, and laying aside their creeds, follow it, there would be a union speedily. Whatever church will do this will be the true church. Such a church we believe is coming forth – a church free from every denominational creed, planting itself upon the broad basis of the Bible, keeping the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus. Then let us, brethren, strive to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, endeavoring to progress in all knowledge of the truth, through the means which the Lord has appointed (Eph iv, 11–13), till we all come into the unity of the faith. But is not your church, says one, included among the sects of the day? We answer, If we are the true church, the people of God indeed, we are not to be reckoned among the supporters of a corrupt or degenerate religion, included in the general name of Babylon. Israel are not to be reckoned among the nations. Num xxiii, 9. In all the denunciations of God’s wrath against such, his people are, of course, excepted. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

Appendix II: Texts

415

1865: R. F. COTTRELL on Schism – and on Unity of the Basis of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy vs. Tradition and Creeds3 The Roman church, which claims the title of Catholic, has much to say in condemnation of schism and schismatics. With that church, schism, or a breach of unity, is a sin of great magnitude, and schismatics, heretics, factionists, those who separate themselves, are reckoned among the chief of sinners. All Protestants are condemned by her adherents, as schismatics, as those who have separated themselves from the only true, apostolical church; and this is the reason why Catholics look upon Protestants with such utter abhorrence – they think them guilty of a great sin. On the other hand, many have come to esteem it a very slight thing, a matter of indifference, to separate themselves from a body which professes to be the church of Jesus Christ, and uniting with another, making the same profession. All will admit that to leave a false church and unite with the true, instead of being a sin, would be praise-worthy. And since it is so difficult to find the true church, where all is division and discord, it is natural to come to the conclusion that there is but little difference, as to the claims of different sects to true Christianity, and consequently any one of them may be left at pleasure, and without incurring guilt in the slightest degree. … [Then follow lengthy discussions of biblical texts on unity and division.]

To divide the church of Christ was a sin, in the days of the apostles. When did it cease to be a sin? The answer must be, Never; that which was once a sin, is always a sin. There can be no excuse for separating from a church unless it be that it is not the church of Christ. If the Roman church was the church of Christ, the Protestants sinned in separating from her. If the Episcopalian church was the church of Christ, Methodists and all other dissenters from her, sinned in leaving her; and if the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Baptist, or any other church that has become divided, is the church of Christ, then the numerous sects, which are offshoots from these, were conceived in sin and born in iniquity. But if, on the other hand, these seceders have been real reformers, if their adherence to truth and righteousness, was the cause of their separation, then the churches they left, needed reformation and were not, as bodies, the pure churches of Christ; and being deserted by many of the best, living members, were in .a worse and more lifeless condition than before, if not wholly rejected of God for their corruptions, and unwillingness to reform. … [66] … To secede from apostate churches and human creeds has been, and is, no sin; but to attempt to draw away disciples from the work of the Lord, is as great 3 R. F. Cottrell, “Schism,” RH, January 24, 1865, 65–66. Copyright: public domain.

416

Appendices

a sin now as ever it was, Still men with hearts unsubdued by grace, will ostensibly embrace the truth. But soon their factious propensities crop out, and the disposition is manifest either to rule or ruin; and being baffled in their ambition, and disappointed of their hopes, they become the bitterest opposers of the work of God. And there are others of apparently mild and peaceable disposition, seemingly a very good sort of people, who nevertheless, are so void of judgment and of a just sense of their responsibility, that they appear to think it a very light matter to embrace the truth, or to forsake it. At one time they labor to promote the cause, at another, to disparage it. … [Then follow references to the paper entitled Messenger and Advocate, which started in 1856, produced a splinter movement of sabbatarian Adventists who rejected Ellen White’s prophetic ministry, but soon disappeared.]

In fulfillment of the third message of Rev. xiv, the church, called in prophecy the remnant of the seed of the woman, is being developed. It is folly and infidelity to deny it, for the word of God promised it, and we behold the fulfillment. The three advent messages have been announced in the order of the prophecy which is the promise of God, and the people are appearing, which are described as keeping “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” The dragon spirit is being aroused against them, not only because they keep the commandments of God, but because they “have the testimony of Jesus Christ,” which is “the spirit of prophecy.” … Schism, or secession from the church, in the primitive days of Christianity, was a sin; because God’s word and Spirit were her guide – she kept the commandments of God and had the testimony of Jesus Christ. Since the apostasy, and the entrance of the church into the wilderness, tradition has usurped the place of the word, and human creeds, the place of the Spirit; and it has been a virtue, to secede from these usurpers. But now the church has so far advanced from her wilderness seclusion, that the word and the Spirit – the commandments and the testimony – have been restored to their legitimate place in the church, and tradition and creeds are being rejected as worthless – as human and not divine. We lose nothing by rejecting these. The Lord gives us, in the place of tradition, his immutable word, and in the place of creeds, his unerring Spirit. To secede from the church that is being guided by these, is rebellion against God. …

Appendix II: Texts

417

1871: An Article on Interchurch Relations of Sabbatarians4 The following excellent remarks we copy from the Sabbath Recorder of Aug. 3, being part of an essay read before the S. D. B. Eastern Association, by Eld. James Summerbell. That our natural tendency is to extremes either side of the truth, none can deny. We are apt either to lack in courtesy or to compromise the truth, and while courtesy is commanded in the Scriptures, it becomes something else and deserves a harsher appellation when we please men to the extent of dishonoring God’s law. That law is a sacred trust committed to us in the midst of wide-spread worldliness in religion, and if we prove recreant to this trust, God will chose others in our place, and others will take our crowns. May the Lord strengthen us to the work assigned us in these last days. J. H. W[aggoner]. Seeing they are so many, and so wealthy, and so learned and devoted, what a pity it is they are on no better terms with God’s law, and that they do not seem to understand that “this is the love of God that we do his commandments.” That we should love them, and they us, is an ostensible duty. Denominational boundaries cannot limit the divine command to “love one another.” This paramount requirement neglected, renders the most perfect obedience to all the rest as “sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” In our Christian experience, we are so nearly alike that only a line divides us and keeps us apart; but it as effectually divides us as though it were the circle of the earth’s broad orbit. That line, so decisive in its character, is God’s holy law, by which is the knowledge of sin. On the hither and thither sides of it stand confronting each other, loyalty and disloyalty. The nearness of these opposing forces but makes their impending conflict the more certain and imminent. There is no discharge in this warfare. The long, arduous contest must continue, till it is forever settled whether man can have the power to alter or abrogate the law of God. This is the question between us; and only God, by his chosen instrumentalities, will settle it. Treaties, compromises, and temporizing, are good for nothing. To many, not comprehending the magnitude of the issue before us, as involving the authority and majesty of God, this appears overdrawn. There is, in the denominations around us, so much that is really commendable in other things, that they would overlook this, or at least extenuate it. They seem to forget the rich youth who eagerly ran to Christ, and having, as he supposed, done all that man could, asked for another good thing to do. Jesus loved him, but sent him sorrowing away, because he lacked one thing. It was a very fine point, but our Saviour made it. “Obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” They who can do so much, can, if they will, do this. Many of the de4 J. H. W[aggoner] and James Summerbell, “Relations of Sabbath-Keeping with SundayKeeping Denominations,” RH, August 15, 1871, 68. Copyright: public domain.

418

Appendices

nominations, in their church institutions and privileges, are very attractive. Numbers, wealth, and zeal in their work, make them so. They look with unfeigned wonder at our exclusiveness in restricting the privileges of the communion to those “who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” and generously set us an example, by making their table free. But why should they not? If we do as we profess, what law of God do we break? What command do we set aside? If we accept their invitation, is it not all the same as though we invited them to our table, and said to them, “You disregard the law of God, and we think you wrong, and would not venture to do it ourselves; but after all it is no matter; you are all right.” When once we reach this point, the transition is easy; yea, it is a logical consequence. If they are all right, then, just as far as we differ from them we are wrong, and we should at once unite with them. A compromising, trimming, half-and-half policy, is always sure to miss what it is fishing for, and gains the contempt of all honorable men.

1872: “Unity and Diversity” – ROSWELL COTTRELL’s Common Sense Approach to the Hermeneutics-Christian Unity Nexus5 There are many who look upon the almost endless diversity of faith among the professed believers of the Bible as a necessity, arising from want of clearness in the language of ’ revelation. Even professed Christians have compared the Bible to a musical instrument on which any tune can be played. If this is so, it must be by forcing an interpretation contrary to the tenor of revelation, or else the blame is justly chargeable to the Bible and its Author. We might as well deny that the Bible is a revelation of the will of God. It is evident that if it is such a revelation, it is consistent and harmonious in all its parts. The difficulty, we conclude, is in the errors of early education, and in the obdurate perversity of the human will. The Scriptures teach us that believers should be in “unity of faith”; that they should be of “one mind”; that they should “all speak the same thing”; and that there should be “no divisions among them”; but that they should be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” To say that God requires us to be perfectly united, without giving us the means, is to impeach his character. Therefore, the Bible being true and, consequently God such a being as is therein described, the blame of diversity, instead of unity, of faith, rests with men, and not with God and his word. But it is obvious that in order to have unity of faith, there must be unity in interpretation; and unity in any mystical or fanciful interpretation can never be 5 R[oswell] F. Cottrell, “Unity and Diversity,” RH, October 22, 1872, 148. Copyright: public domain.

Appendix II: Texts

419

hoped for. Therefore, the most obvious interpretation is always the true one. The Bible must be interpreted just like any other book.

1876: JAMES WHITE on “The Relation Which the S. D. Baptists and the S. D. Adventists Sustain to Each Other”6 On the broad platform of the divine law, and redemption from its transgression through the death and mediation of the divine Son, both the Seventh-day Baptists and the Seventh-day Adventists stand in general agreement. Here are the great tests of the Christian life, and a fitness for Heaven; and besides these there are no others. The principal difference between the two bodies is the immortality question. The S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the trinitarian, that we apprehend no trial here. And as the practical application of the subject of the Gifts of the Spirit to our people and to our work is better understood by our S. D. Baptist brethren, they manifest less concern for us on this account. But the views which both bodies entertain respecting free investigation and the right to personal opinion forbid any restriction whatever to be laid upon each other in the proper advocacy of the sentiments in which both cannot at present agree. We recommend, however, that there be no controversy between the two bodies. The differences between us are of such a nature, and we have in common so broad a field of labor with those who differ with us respecting the fundamentals, upon which hangs the destiny of a world lying in wickedness, that Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists cannot afford a controversy on doctrines which neither regard as tests of Christian character. Both bodies have a specific work to do. God bless them both in all their efforts for its accomplishment. The field is a wide one. And we further recommend that Seventh-day Adventists in their aggressive work avoid laboring to build up Seventh-day Adventist churches where Seventh-day Baptist churches are already established. If ministers or members from the Seventh-day Baptists regard it their duty to come with us, under the impression that they can serve the cause of God better, we shall give them a place with us. But we see no reasons why there should be any effort put forth on the part of our people to weaken the hands of our Seventh-day Baptist brethren in order to add to our numbers from those who were before us in revering the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. 6 J[ames] W[hite], “The Two Bodies: The Relation Which the S. D. Baptists and the S. D. Adventists Sustain to Each Other,” RH, October 12, 1876, 116. Reflections similar to this text were presented by the author at the General Conference meeting of Seventh Day Baptists September 27, 1876; he mentions this (but does not present the reflection themselves) in J[ames] W[hite], “Seventh-Day Baptists,” RH, 1876, October 5, 108. Copyright: public domain.

420

Appendices

If it please our Seventh-day Baptist brethren, let the interchange of courtesies in the appointment of delegates be continued, and be conducted in a manner to secure mutual benefit. The visits of the worthy delegates from the Seventh-day Baptists, Pres. Allen, Elders Wardner, Burdick, Rogers, Hull, and Prof. Whitford, have done our people good. And if the delegates from our people to that body, Elders Andrews, Smith, Canright, and others, have failed to do that people good, it has been from want of ability and a knowledge how to work out that good which was in their hearts to do. What God in his wise providence has marked out for these two bodies in their future labors and destiny, the future alone can unfold. But whatever that may be, it seems a certainty to us to-day, while looking with faith and hope toward that untried future, and cherishing a filial love for those whose history of loyalty to High Heaven stretches across long centuries, that no good can result to either from controversy and proselyting, and no harm can come to either from those courtesies and labors of love calculated to build each other up on our common faith.

1887: ELLEN G. WHITE on Relating to Non-Adventists7 It is important that all who design to labor in the cause of God should learn the very best manner of prosecuting their work. … When you enter a place to present the truth, seek first to become acquainted with the ministers of the various denominations. Do not give the impression that you are like a fox, stealing in to get sheep, but lay right open before the minister the fact that you want to call his attention to precious truths in the word of God. Ministers have been treated by some of our laborers very much as though they were heathen, and they feel it. Some of them who have rejected the light may be dishonest, critical, and sharp, and may look upon you as the Jews looked upon the apostles, as disturbers of the churches, but there are others who have lived up to the best light they had upon the Scriptures. We should not upon entering a place build up unnecessary barriers between us and other denominations, especially the Catholics, so that they shall think we are their avowed enemies. We should not create a prejudice in their minds unnecessarily, by making a raid upon them. There are many among the Catholics who live up to the light they have far better than many who claim to believe present truth, and God will just as surely test and prove them as He has tested and 7 Manuscript 14, 1887 [Address given March 7, 1887, before the Institute at Basel, Switzerland], EGWE; published much later in Ellen G. White, Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, Silver Spring: Ellen G. White Estate, 1994, 39–41.

Appendix II: Texts

421

proved us. And just according to their willingness to stand the testing, of whatever character it may be, will be their accountability before God. From that which God has shown me, a great number will be saved from among the Catholics. There has been but little done for them except to make them appear in the worst light. … You should be determined to dig for truth as for hid treasure, and you will have a treasurehouse to draw from constantly. More than this, in your very diligence to search the Scriptures in order to meet the sharp and critical objections that are raised, you are obtaining a better understanding of the truth. None need to feel that the Catholics are beyond their reach, because it is a duty we owe to God to sow the seed beside all waters. It is God who gives the increase, not man.

1917: “Statement on Comity,” India Union Mission8 With reference to the questions of mission comity, the India Union Mission Committee would express its convictions in the following terms: We recognise the great and excellent service rendered to the cause of Christ by the various missionary societies throughout the world. We hold in high esteem the consecrated, self-sacrificing men and women who are giving their lives to this soul-winning service, and it is our endeavour to at all times exercise toward them Christian courtesy, frankness, and fairness in conducting our mission work. Nevertheless, our conception of the great Gospel commission and the purpose and message of God for this generation prevents us from co-operation with others in any plan for dividing mission territory into denominational areas. We earnestly believe that the second coming of Christ is near at hand, and that it is the Church’s duty to preach the special gospel messages of Revelation 14:6–14 to the people of every nation. In the proclamation of these messages we gladly enter the most difficult and unpromising fields where Christ has not been named as our missions among the cannibals of the Pacific Islands, the inhabitants of tropical Africa, and in many places in Asia and other regions will testify, but we feel it to be our duty also to make known these truths to our fellow-Christians of whatsoever race in every mission field and in every Christian land. Consistent with this responsibility, we are ready to co-operate with the missionaries of other bodies in the maintenance of Church discipline, receiving into our communion only such persons as we believe give evidence of true conversion and who share our convictions concerning present truth.

8 “Statement on Comity,” November 17, 1917, GCA 21/1919/Comity.

422

Appendices

1917: Comity Declaration, Asiatic Division, 19179 In view of the perplexities and misunderstandings naturally attending the endeavours of the great missionary forces in the various missionary fields of the Far East, and in order to minimize these difficulties insofar as this may be possible, we earnestly counsel all our workers to give the following considerations their full weight: 1. That due recognition be given, as hitherto, to the great and excellent service rendered the cause of Christ by the pioneer missionary societies operating in these lands. 2. That thoughtful care be taken ever to hold in high esteem the consecrated, self-sacrificing men and women who are now giving their lives to soul-winning service in these mission fields. 3. That Christian courtesy, frankness, and fairness be pursued at all times in conducting gospel work. To the end that these principles may be uniformly recognized and followed, we recommend to both foreign and native workers the following suggestions: (a) Our chief concern in the mission fields should be for those who have not accepted Christ as their Saviour; therefore our great aim should be to reach the unsaved. (b) But in case persons connected with other missions wish to join our mission, consultation should be had with the officials of the mission with which they are connected before receiving them into our communion. (c) Persons under censure of one mission for clearly established fault in Christian morals or character should not be received into our church fellowship until they have given evidence of repentance and reformation. (d) Workers in the employ of other missions should not be taken into our employ without careful consultation with the leader of the mission with which they are connected, and never before they have definitely united with our mission. 4. That, while our conception of the great gospel commission, and of the purpose and message of God for this generation, prevents us from cooperating with others in any plan for dividing mission territory into denominational areas, yet we nevertheless counsel our workers to press into the dark places of the mission field where the gospel is not being preached by others.

9 “Revised Form, Comity Declaration,” revised by Arthur G. Daniells and enclosed in J. S. James – Dear Brethren, September 18, 1919, GCA 21/1919/Comity.

423

Appendix II: Texts

1919/2005: Synopsis: “Our Relationship to Other Societies” (1919) and “Relationships with Other Christian Churches and Religious Organizations” (2005) Our Relationship to Other Societies In the desire to avoid occasion for misunderstanding or friction in the matter of relationship to the work of other societies, we, the General Conference Committee of Seventh-day Adventists for the Far Eastern Division, submit the following statement for the guidance of workers in the division: 1. We recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ. 2. Wherever the prosecution of the gospel work brings us into touch with other societies and their work, the spirit of Christian courtesy, frankness, and fairness should at all times guide in dealing with mission problems; and in this matter we adopt the following principles and plan of operation: a. That we recognize that the essence of true religion is that religion is based upon conscience and conviction. It is therefore to be constantly our purpose that no selfish interest nor temporal advantages shall draw any person to our communion, and that no tie shall hold any member, save the belief and conviction that in this way he finds true connection with Christ. When change of conviction leads any member of our society to feel no longer in accord with us in faith and practice, we recognize not only his right but his duty to change his religious affiliation to accord with his belief. b. That before admitting to church membership any one who is a member of another church, every care be exercised to

Relationships with Other Christian Churches and Religious Organizations To avoid creating misunderstanding or friction in our relationships with other Christian churches and religious organizations, the following guidelines have been set forth: 1) We recognize those agencies that lift up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ. 2) When interdivision work brings us in contact with other Christian societies and religious bodies, the spirit of Christian courtesy, frankness, and fairness shall prevail at all times.

3) We recognize that true religion is based on conscience and conviction. It is therefore to be our constant purpose that no selfish interest or temporal advantage shall draw any person to our communion and that no tie shall hold any member save the belief and conviction that in this way the true connection with Christ is found. If a change of conviction leads a member of our church to feel no longer in harmony with Seventh-day Adventist faith and practice, we recognize not only the right but also the responsibility of that member to change, without opprobrium, religious affiliation in accord with belief. We expect other religious bodies to respond in the same spirit of religious liberty. 4) Before admitting to church membership

10 RH, August 19, 1920, 5–6 (1061–1062); Working Policy of the General Conference of Seventhday Adventists, 2005 (Section O 100).

424 ascertain that the candidate is moved to change his religious affiliation only by force of religious conviction and out of regard to his personal relationship to his God; and that wherever possible, consultation be had with those in charge of the church or mission with which the applicant is connected. c. That persons under censure of another mission for clearly established fault in Christian morals or character, shall not be considered eligible for membership in our mission until they have given evidence of repentance and reformation. d. That an agent employed or recently employed by another church or mission or other organization shall not be employed by our church or mission without preliminary consultation with the church or mission with which the agent is or was formerly connected. e. We advise that when setting salaries, the local mission auditing committees give consideration to the salaries paid by other missions operating in the same field. 3. As to the matter of territorial divisions and the restriction of operations to designated areas, our attitude must be shaped by these considerations:

a. As in generations past, in the providence of God and the historical development of his work for men, denominational bodies and religious movements have arisen

Appendices

members of other religious organizations, care shall be exercised to ascertain that the candidates are moved to change their religious affiliation by religious conviction and out of regard to their personal relationship with God. 5) A person under censure of another religious organization for clearly established fault in Christian morals or character shall not be considered eligible for membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church until there is evidence of repentance and reformation.

6) The Seventh-day Adventist Church is unable to confine its mission to restricted geographical areas because of its understanding of the gospel commission’s mandate. In the providence of God and the historical development of His work for men, denominational bodies and religious movements have arisen from time to time to give special emphasis to different phases of gospel truth. In the origin and rise of the Seventh-day Adventist people, the burden was laid upon us to emphasize the gospel of Christ’s second coming as an imminent event, calling for the proclamation of Biblical truths in the setting of the special message of preparation

to give special emphasis to different phases of gospel truth, so we find in the origin and rise of the Seventh-day Adventist people, the burden laid upon us to emphasize the gospel of Christ’s second coming as an event ‘even at the door,’ calling for the proclamation of the special message of preparation of the way of the Lord as revealed in Holy Scripture. b. As this advent proclamation as described in Bible prophecy, particularly is described in Scripture prophecy, particularly as the revelation of Christ sets it in

425

Appendix II: Texts

forth in the terms of Revelation 14:6–14, it is commissioned that this special message of the ‘everlasting gospel’ which is to precede the coming of the Saviour shall be preached ‘to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.’ While this commission makes it impossible for us to restrict our witness to this phase of the gospel to any limited area, and impels us to call it to the attention of all peoples everywhere, our policy is to make the great masses of the people our special aim in evangelistic work.

Revelation 14:6–14. This message commissions the preaching of the “everlasting gospel to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” bringing it to the attention of all peoples everywhere. Any restriction which limits witness to specified geographical areas therefore becomes an abridgment of the gospel commission. The Seventh-day Adventist Church also acknowledges the rights of other religious persuasions to operate without geographic restrictions.10

1975: BERT B. BEACH, “Evangelicals in Critical Discussion with WCC”11

1

It is a fact of recent church history that the churches controlled by conservative evangelicals have generally not joined the World Council of Churches. This abstention is because they do not believe that the WCC legitimately represents the church’s given unity in Christ. Furthermore, they have serious reservations regarding the deployment of the limited energies and means of the WCC and the churches it represents in dubious and, at times, divisive socio-political activities. In actuality the WCC, during the past twenty-five years of its existence, has not conducted many formal theological discussions with nonmember churches. From the WCC’s viewpoint, the discussions with the Roman Catholic Church have, no doubt, been most important. There have been some discussions, but no formalized conversations, with the Southern Baptists. Discussions have also taken place with representatives of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, but these have not been structured or progressed over a period of time. Of special significance, within the broad confines of a WCC-Conservative Evangelical dialog, have been the discussions with the Reformed Ecumenical Synod and with representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. WCC representatives have met twice with the Moderamen of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. From 1965 to 1972 regular yearly conversations were carried on between a

2

11 Ministry 48.7 (1975): 7–9. Copyright: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Used by permission.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

426 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Appendices

small group of Adventist scholars and representatives of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, which led to a clearer understanding on the part of these officials concerning Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, belief, and practice. Papers produced as a result of these discussions were jointly published under the title So Much in Common. What do we mean by the use of the words “critical discussion with the WCC” in the title? Certainly not that faultfinding has been the main theme of the conversations. Nor do we mean that these conversations have always been an exercise in high level theological criticism. Furthermore, the discussions have not been critical to the extent that they have already fed to a crisis that will decide their favorable or unfavorable outcome. Critical in the context of this article simply means that the discussions between the WCC and conservative evangelicals involve careful judgment regarding truth, and are, therefore, of decisive, even crucial, importance with respect to their outcome. Scriptural Concept of Unity A first basic problem is the WCC’s way of dealing with the scriptural concept of the “given unity in Christ.” In the New Testament this unity is presented as a qualified unity-in-truth characterized by holiness, faithfulness, and obedience to the apostolic word and the commandments of God. The NT indicates, however, that the given and visible unity in Christ is threatened by anti-Christian penetration. The establishment someday of complete organic unity of the churches is taken for granted in WCC documents (e. g., “Common Witness and Proselytism”). However, the NT speaks about final apostasy, about a “falling away.” It envisions anti-Christian elements within organized Christianity, “in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4, N.E.B.). The NTapocalyptic and eschatological picture of the people of God prior to the parousia is not one of a “jumbo-church” gathering all churches in organic union and drawing all mankind together, but of a comparatively small “remnant” keeping the “commandments of God and [having] the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17). WCC pronouncements often present the given unity without qualification (e. g., the 1950 Toronto statement on the church). The predicament in which unity-minded conservative evangelicals find themselves is how to join the WCC and lift up Christ the Divine Saviour before men by manifesting the given unity of the church, without at the same time denying that Saviour and unity by “fellowship” with the false, humanistic gospel that apparently has a wide berth in not a few World Council member churches.

Appendix II: Texts

427

Authority of Scriptures The ecumenical majority stance vis-a-vis the Bible, its authority and interpretation, is another critical problem that must be faced. Conservative evangelicals feel that the trend in ecumenical circles (as in contemporary church life in general) is toward devaluation of the normative authority of the Bible. The Bible by itself is not understood as inspired, normative, and authoritative. For many non-member churches, however, the Bible is not only a normative record of God’s revelation and dealings with men but it is a unity. While emphasis on Biblical harmony and unity can be found in the early days of the WCC1 the evolutionary ecumenical trend in Faith and Order, on the contrary, has been toward inspiration as experience, Biblical diversity, and even contradiction. Conservative evangelicals express concern regarding the current approach to the Bible in many ecumenical circles, based on such airy and elastic concepts as relativity, flexibility, fluidity, ongoing interpretation, contemporary situation, inspiration in immediate existential involvement. They fear that where the Bible is not accepted as normative in its direct meaning, the very basis of Biblical reliability and authority has been destroyed. This would tend to give the individual interpreter a theological carte blanche to select from the Biblical witness those aspects he wants to present as relevant for his own community. On the other hand, WCC participants in the discussions have pointed out that an “authoritative” or “proof text” use of the Scriptures may reveal a simplistic mind and alienates thinking people. The question addressed to conservative evangelicals is how to avoid the misuse of Biblical authority in an oppressive sense. A third issue that needs further ecumenical consideration and clarification is the problem of division. “Division is sin,” and the “scandal of our divisions” have become popular shibboleths in WCC circles. The WCC discussions with nonmember churches indicate that qualification and greater discrimination are needed in the use of such terminology. It should be clear that not all church unity is scriptural, nor all separatedness sinful. After all, separation in order to protect the purity of the gospel and the clear testimony of the Word of God, is a much lesser evil than unity in error and perversion. Is there, perhaps, not the danger of the ecumenical movement stifling spiritual awakening and reform, because these could bring the so-called “sin of division”? In fact, a feature of dynamic spiritual awakenings, such as the Reformation, the Evangelical Awakening (including Methodism and the Réveil in Switzerland) has been a tendency to create new denominations. Of course, denominationalism has been rife with self-deception and absurd excesses, but it has also been the fruit of vivid religious experience and renewal. It has played a role in support of human freedom and religious liberty. Ecumenists

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

428 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

Appendices

cannot overlook the fact that some of the most vital and dynamic elements of Christian history have resulted from uneasy dissidence rather than from comfortable agreement and status quo. Religious syncretism is a fourth issue that must be squarely faced. Some ecumenists appear to project the view that the various Christian traditions present distorted versions of Christianity and that the churches should be brought together in a sort of “cocktail” mixture, in order to offer the authentic and balanced flavor. The present dialog desired by the WCC with men of “living faiths” increases the danger of syncretism eating the heart out of Christianity, because religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are essentially syncretistic. Indeed, conservative evangelicals see syncretistic shoals ahead in what is now called “wider ecumenism,” that is, an ecumenical outreach to the radically different religions that exist today. The ecumenical movement began years ago by calling in question the age-old concept of heresy. Today it would seem that the term “paganism” is being brought into question. Does not the danger of syncretism lurk in the shadows of a dialog that implies a unifying parity between religions? The question that future discussion could usefully explore is whether or not, under these circumstances, dialog and world community risk becoming another savior, and ecumenism the syncretistic whirlpool of a general secularized mixing process. Mission and Evangelism A fifth important area that needs to be examined and discussed at greater length is mission and evangelism. Some ecumenists talk about evangelizing the impersonal structures of society. Conservative evangelicals fear that a major retreat from concentration on the proclamation of the gospel in order to carry out its unfinished mandate is being sounded in missionary strategy. It is becoming rather fashionable to label public evangelistic efforts as “ecclesiastical imperialism.” True, arrogant and sectarian insensitiveness has characterized some evangelistic campaigns. But there is a more serious problem today; the risk is that the world will not hear the good news, because the church either does not proclaim or else is busy with all kinds of other demanding tasks. Must Grow to Live Church growth as an explicit aim of mission is rather out of style in WCC circles. We are told that “adding men to the church” is not really the important question. Viewed from one angle, this is true, but in another vital sense “adding” is a sine qua non for the life of the church. A church that is not “adding” is destined to wither and vanish like old soldiers who “never die” but “only fade away.” It can be

Appendix II: Texts

429

affirmed, as a general rule, that the nonmember churches are more missionary growth-minded than are WCC member churches. Catholic Missiologist Adrian Hastings has recently written: “Unity schemes are in fact often more favorably received in churches which are declining rather than vigorously missionary.”2 The serious question that arises in this connection is whether WCC member churches find it more in their element to reach out for the lateral growth of ecumenism than to achieve the frontal growth of evangelism. In 1911 about 30 percent of Protestant missionaries came from North America. In 1968 the corresponding figure was around 70 per cent. Almost three quarters of this last number came from churches or societies that are not members of the WCC. There appears to be little doubt that the center of gravity of Protestant missionary outreach is shifting away from the WCC bodies to churches of a more conservative evangelical stamp. Are unity and mission pulling in opposite directions? It is doubtful whether the ecumenical movement can long endure without missionary urgency to actively spread the gospel message far and near. A final issue that has come to the fore is the socio-political responsibility of the church. That Christians and the church have a responsibility in this domain, few would deny. Conservative evangelicals fear, however, that the concept of redemption is being stretched to the breaking point by applying it to current politicoeconomic structures of society. There are signs pointing to the church’s becoming a mere sociological [sic] organization exerting a Red Cross-like moreor-less influence for good. The WCC seems to view “new structures” as an essential part of salvation today. Those ecumenists, preoccupied with ethical action programs in the world, seem to view conservative evangelical emphasis on the new birth as a pietistic vestige of old-time revivalism. There is a widening hiatus between the traditional view of salvation as personal reconciliation to God in Christ and salvation seen largely as liberation from oppressive evils of society. A useful bridging concept presented at the WCC’s recent Bangkok Conference, is that salvation from sin must somehow involve salvation for action to meet the world’s crying needs. Certainly, the church is both called out and sent into the world. However, when the overbearing stress is on the movement into the world, the danger is that the church will not only become this-worldly but actually worldly. The question conservative evangelicals ask the WCC, is whether in endeavoring to go out to the world it has not brought the secular world inside the ecumenical movement, to the extent that social ecumenism has now evolved toward secular ecumenism. Love has social significance and the gospel a political fallout. Having said this, we must insist, however, that the church is commissioned first and above all to prepare men for the heavenly city, not for the secular city. The church should set

136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

430 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

Appendices

before society reference points and goals. The first reference point must surely be that man was created in the image of God. The central reference point is the cross, which makes possible through Christ the restoration in man of the image of his Creator. The final reference point is the parousia of Christ, which will mark the doom of Babylon and herald the establishment of the eternal kingdom of God on the earth made new. Man must cooperate with the transforming Spirit of God. If man remains unchanged, the world will remain unchanged and continue to totter between Hiroshima and Armageddon. The central problem in discussions between the WCC and conservative evangelicals is not so much one regarding ecumenicity or even WCC membership. “The Church is ecumenical when it is busy doing what the Church is called to do. … Genuine ecumenicity must, therefore, be viewed primarily not as a matter of ecumenical affiliation, but as a matter of ecumenical bearing.”3 The real question is: What is the nature, task, and calling of the church in this climactic period of human history? The duty of the church is still to be the church. Her task is to prepare men and women to meet their soon-coming Lord. The only valid ecumenism is one with a distinctly Adventist point of departure – the first advent – and Adventist point of arrival – the Second Advent. Any other ecumenism is ephemeral. ________ 1 2 3

A. Richardson and W. Schweitzer, Biblical Authority for Today. One in Christ, No. 1, Mission and Unity from Edinburgh to Uppsala, 1972, p. 23. The Acts of Reformed Ecumenical Synod, 1968, Supplement No. 8, p. 277.

1996/1999: “Our Mission and Other Christians”12 The Church, as the community and sign of God’s kingdom, has been called to embody God’s love in the world through proclaiming God’s everlasting gospel and calling people to trust and follow Christ in sincere worship, honest fellowship, committed discipleship, and humble service and witness. 12 Bruce L. Bauer (ed.), Adventist Responses to Cross-Cultural Mission: Global Mission Issues Committee Papers, Vol. I: 1998–2001, Berrien Springs: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2006, 176–177. The text adds the following note: “This statement was prepared 14 November 1996 at Andrews University by Bruce Bauer, Erich Baumgartner, Jon Dybdahl, Rudi Maier, Bruce Moyer, Russell Staples, Nancy Vyhmeister, Werner Vyhmeister (all from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary), and Glen Wintermeyer (Adventist Frontier Missions), under the leadership of Mike Ryan, Global Mission. Recommended to the Administrative Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Ad-

Appendix II: Texts

431

Seventh-day Adventists believe it is God’s desire that the Good News be preached to all people, that none should perish. We value all Christians who proclaim Christ’s saving power and those agencies that are lifting up Christ as part of God’s plan for world evangelization. We consider all Christians to be our brothers and sisters in Christ, desire to treat them with love and respect, and seek opportunities to pray and fellowship with them. In his providence God has, throughout history, directed persons and movements to emphasize special aspects of the divine message. Seventh-day Adventists believe that their task is to proclaim biblical truth in the setting of a prophetic message, urging preparation for Christ’s second coming (Rev 14:6–12). The “everlasting gospel” is to be preached at this time “to every nation, and kindred, and tongue and people” (V. 6, see also Matt 28:18–20). Just as Christ did not limit the witness about himself to his immediate followers (Luke 9:49–50), Seventh-day Adventists assert that all Christian organizations should have freedom to carry out their special mission in every place. While our mission is to the whole world, we recognize the special urgency to reach those who have not yet heard or who live where Christ’s name may not be known. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that each member has a biblical responsibility to proclaim the everlasting gospel. While the general church structure provides strategies and policies for mission, it recognizes that church members, congregations, and institutions plan and implement local mission initiatives. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations and then the end will come (Matt 24:14).

1997: “How Seventh-day Adventists View Roman Catholicism”13 Seventh-day Adventists regard all men and women as equal in the sight of God. We reject bigotry against any person, regardless of race, nationality, or religious creed. Further, we gladly acknowledge that sincere Christians may be found in other denominations, including Roman Catholicism, and we work in concert with all agencies and bodies that seek to relieve human suffering and to uplift Christ before the world.

ventists by the Global Mission Issues Committee, 14 January 1999. No ADCOM action has been taken on this recommendation to date.” Copyright: Bruce L. Bauer, Andrews University. Used by permission. 13 A statement voted by the General Conference Administrative Committee on April 15, 1997, and published in Dabrowski, Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents [2005 version], 90–91.

432

Appendices

Seventh-day Adventists seek to take a positive approach to other faiths. Our primary task is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in the context of Christ’s soon return, not to point out flaws in other denominations. The beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists are rooted in the biblical apostolic teachings and thus share many essential tenets of Christianity in common with the followers of other Christian churches. However, we have a specific identity as a movement. Our compelling message for Christians and non-Christians alike is to communicate hope by focusing on the quality of life that is complete in Christ. As Adventists relate to Roman Catholicism in particular, both the past and the future enter into our thinking. We cannot erase or ignore the historical record of serious intolerance and even persecution on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic system of church governance, based on extrabiblical teachings such as papal primacy, resulted in severe abuses of religious freedom as the church was allied with the state. Seventh-day Adventists are convinced of the validity of our prophetic views, according to which humanity now lives close to the end of time. Adventists believe, on the basis of biblical predictions, that just prior to the second coming of Christ this earth will experience a period of unprecedented turmoil, with the seventh-day Sabbath as a focal point. In that context, we expect that world religions – including the major Christian bodies as key players – will align themselves with the forces in opposition to God and to the Sabbath. Once again the union of church and state will result in widespread religious oppression. To blame past violations of Christian principles on one specific denomination is not an accurate representation of either history or the concerns of Bible prophecy. We recognize that at times Protestants, including Seventh-day Adventists, have manifested prejudice and even bigotry. If, in expounding on what the Bible teaches, Seventh-day Adventists fail to express love to those addressed, we do not exhibit authentic Christianity. Adventists seek to be fair in dealing with others. Thus, while we remain aware of the historical record and continue to hold our views regarding end-time events, we recognize some positive changes in recent Catholicism, and stress the conviction that many Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Appendix II: Texts

433

2013: WILLIAM JOHNSSON, “Seventh-day Adventists and Other Churches: The 1 Never-Ending Quest for Understanding”14 2 From the earliest days of our movement Seventh-day Adventists have seen themselves as a special people raised up by God to proclaim a distinct message to the world. This warning message is to be sounded to all people in all churches and in all religions of the world. But how should we relate to the actual churches themselves – to the organized bodies of Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals, and so on? Should we keep them at a distance, declining all invitations to engage in fellowship or conversation? Or should we unite with them in an attempt to fulfill the prayer of Jesus that His followers might be one (John 17:11, 20–23)? Early on Adventist leaders decided upon a course of action that lies between these two poles. On one hand, we strenuously resist all arrangements that would bind us or restrict the scope of our worldwide mission. In the twentieth century as the ecumenical movement gained momentum with its goal of organic unity of all the churches, Adventists respectfully declined to be part of it. We have never had membership in the World Council of Churches, nor will we. On the other hand, we Adventists do not seek to be an exclusive church that shuns relations with other Christian bodies. On occasion we participate with clergy of other denominations in ministers’ fraternals, and so on. When invited to preach in their churches, we accept. We cooperate with them in selected areas such as defense of religious liberty and disaster relief. This position concerning relations with other churches finds support in both the Bible and the work and writings of Ellen White. Jesus, our example in all things, associated with people from all backgrounds, even with those who opposed Him. The apostle Peter counseled: “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). We Adventists certainly have a hope, so we take every opportunity to share this good news with anyone and everyone. We share, not aggressively but gently, not in the spirit of debate or superiority, but respectfully.

3

In Our Past Ellen White associated with other Christians and Christian organizations. A strong opponent of the liquor industry with its attendant social ills, she frequently accepted invitations to speak at public meetings advocating temperance. The pioneers of our movement shared this openness to other churches. As far

32

14 Adventist Review, June 20, 2013, 16–19. Copyright: Review & Herald Publishing Association, Hagerstown, Maryland, USA. Used by permission.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

33 34 35 36

434

Appendices

back as 1870 we find the following action voted by the Eighth Annual Session of 38 the General Conference: 37

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

“RESOLVED, that for the sake of our blessed Redeemer we desire to cultivate fraternal feelings, and maintain friendly relations, with all who name the name of Christ; and in particular with those who in common with us hold to the unpopular doctrine of the second advent of our Savior near.”

For almost 100 years Adventist relations with other churches have been officially defined and guided by a policy in the General Conference Working Policy, O 110, “Relationships With Other Christian Churches and Religious Organizations.” In part it states: “We recognize those agencies that lift up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ.” Time has shown the wisdom of the decision taken by our leaders long ago to interact with other Christian churches but to avoid any union or connection that restricts our mission. Worldwide, Christianity is growing fast, but the growth is among churches that are not part of the ecumenical movement – the Evangelicals numbering about 500 million, the Pentecostals with perhaps double that, and the newly emergent indigenous churches of Africa. Meanwhile, as the mainline churches of the World Council of Churches have declined in numbers, the Seventh-day Adventist growth, enthusiasm, and youth have become the envy of other bodies. Present Opportunities What changes a century has brought! We who were small and passed over as being insignificant and parochial have become the focus of attention by other Christians. More and more they want to know who we are, what values we hold, what lies behind our amazing growth and strength. These are days of unprecedented opportunity to share our faith with leaders of these churches. When they seek to know more about us and to explore possible areas of cooperation, shall we not joyfully engage them in conversation? To do so isn’t in any sense compromise; it is mission. Thus, at all levels of the church, from the local congregation to conference, union, division, and General Conference, Adventists today are interacting with leaders of other Christian churches and religious organizations. Way back in 1910, when the World Missionary Conference convened in Edinburgh, we were there. The more than 1,000 persons representing global Protestantism included six representatives from the General Conference. In 2010, at the 100-year anniversary of the historic event, also held in Edinburgh, Adventists were among the official guests and played a significant role in the conduct of the conference.

Appendix II: Texts

435

The Christian World Communions (CWC) especially demonstrates the manner in which Adventists engage with other Christian leaders without binding ourselves in message or mission. The CWC, a gathering of the secretaries of the major Christian bodies worldwide, represents some 2 billion Christians and meets annually for discussions and reports of developments of interest to Christians in general. The CWC is purely consultative – it does not pass resolutions. The CWC is loosely organized, with the chair serving for two years on a rotating basis among the various member communions. The organizing and functioning of the group depend upon the secretary, who is also elected for a twoyear term. This is the sort of meeting of Christians that Seventh-day Adventists have felt free to be part of. And we have indeed been made part of it! For 32 years without a break, Bert B. Beach, then director of the General Conference Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (PARL) Department, served as its secretary. Every two years the chair rotated, but every time the group asked the Adventist representative to continue as secretary. And that wasn’t all. When Beach retired, the CWC turned to his successor, John Graz, the current PARL director at the General Conference. He has now served as secretary the past 11 years. Thus, for the past 43 years the key person in the CWC has been a Seventh-day Adventist. The CWC most often meets in Geneva, Switzerland, but in 2011 it met in Silver Spring, Maryland, at the Seventh-day Adventist world headquarters. The work involved with the multiple arrangements, including a visit to Capitol Hill for discussions with representatives from the White House regarding religious liberty and other concerns, was huge. Everything went like clockwork; our guests were effusive in their appreciation of the Adventist hosts. And when the CWC met the next year, one leader revealed that as a result of the visit, he had adopted a vegetarian lifestyle! Meetings like this can have huge and lasting benefits. As Christian leaders interact with Adventists and come to understand us, misconceptions and prejudice disappear. They see us and appreciate us for our distinctive values, lifestyle, and beliefs; they welcome us as sincere, Bible-believing, and Bible-practicing brothers and sisters. A more recent development is the Global Christian Forum. It is not an organization; rather, it provides opportunities for Christians from many backgrounds and countries to meet for worship, fellowship, and discussion. Ganoune Diop, associate director of PARL, serves on its planning committee.

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

Official Conversations 113 With the growing desire by leaders of other churches to know more about us, the 114 Seventh-day Adventist Church has become involved in official conversations with 115

436 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155

Appendices

a series of churches and organizations. These conversations are approved by the Administrative Committee of the General Conference and reported to the same body at the conclusion of each discussion. Planning for the conversations comes through the General Conference PARL office, usually with involvement of the General Conference Biblical Research Institute. We select the finest scholars in our midst to represent our church. We aim to be open, honest, and forthright, stating the reasons for what we believe without compromise or equivocation. At the same time in our presentations and all interactions we endeavor to be gracious and winsome. Some of these conversations have been completed with just one round of several days; others have extended over two or more years. Some have had farreaching results, especially the meetings with representatives of the Lutheran World Federation. This conversation extended over four sessions from 1994 to 1998 and was of such value that all papers from both sides plus recommendations we had arrived at were published. The resulting book, Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation, 1994–1998, includes among the recommendations the following: “We recommend that Lutherans in their national and regional church contexts do not treat the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a sect but as a free church and a Christian world communion.” During the past quarter century, our church has also engaged in conversation with leaders from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, the Salvation Army, the World Evangelical Association, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Church of God (Seventh Day), and some other smaller churches. The most recent conversation involved representatives from the Mennonite World Conference. Adventists hosted the first round, held at General Conference headquarters in 2011. The following year the Mennonites reciprocated; we met at a retreat center near Basel, Switzerland. This conversation was perhaps the most rewarding of all those of the past 25 years. With roots in the Anabaptist reformation of the sixteenth century, the Mennonites share much in common with us, such as “believer” baptism by immersion. They strongly believe in separation of church and state and practice a simple lifestyle. Advocating peaceful means, they refrain from bearing arms. Because of their distinctive practices, the Mennonites suffered for their faith, even to martyrdom. Driven from place to place, many found refuge in the New World. The time together with the Mennonites was deeply spiritual. Excellent papers were prepared from both communions; they are to be gathered together and jointly published in book form. In my judgment, all the conversations with other churches have been of significant benefit to Seventh-day Adventists. Christian leaders have come to see us as we are, without the distortions and stereotypes that led us to be dubbed a sect

Appendix II: Texts

437

or a cult. And we ourselves have become less exclusive, more open to work with and learn from other agencies that the Lord is using. Truth can stand investigation; truth is still the best answer. That is why we can – why we should – engage other churches as part of the fulfillment of our divinely ordained mission.

156 157 158 159 160

8.

Bibliography

Sections 8.1 to 8.4 contain items directly addressing Adventists [SDA] and ecumenism viz. interchurch relations [ICR], thus presenting the most comprehensive bibliography on this theme to date. Section 8.5 lists further sources, while relevant literature that this study used is found in sections 8.6 and 8.7.

8.1

Books, Dissertations, and Theses on SDA and ICR

This section contains a few items that have not been referenced in the footnotes of the chapters above. They are marked with a hash sign (#) and have been included because this bibliography is the first comprehensive collection of literature on Adventist interchurch relations. The few pertinent publications from the 19th and early 20th centuries are included in section 8.5 below. Arthur, David T. “ ‘Come out of Babylon’: A Study of Millerite Separatism and Denominationalism, 1840–1865.” Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1970. # Bagatsch, Brita. “Adventistische Identität: Eine religionssoziologische und historische Betrachtung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung von Freund- und Feindbildern [Adventist Identity: A Religio-Sociological and Historical Consideration with Particular Reference to the Development of Friend and Enemy Stereotypes].” Diplom thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 1998. Balcar, Michal. “Conspiracy Theories in the [sic] Seventh-Day Adventism.” M.A. thesis, Newbold College, 2011. Ball, Bryan W. The English Connection: The Puritan Roots of Seventh-day Adventist Belief. Cambridge: Clarke, 1981. Beach, Bert B. Ambassador for Liberty: Building Bridges of Faith, Friendship, and Freedom. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2012. Beach, Bert B. Ecumenism: Boon or Bane? Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1974. Dutch edition: Één kerk voor alle christenen? Den Haag: Veritas, [1976]. Finnish edition: Ekumenia: siunaus vai kirous? Tampere: Kirjatoimi, 1974. German editions: Eine Kirche für alle Christen? Der Christ in der Welt 2. Hamburg: Advent-Verlag, 1975, and … auf daß sie alle eins seien. Berlin: Gemeinschaft der STA, 1977.

440

Bibliography

Beach, Bert B. Vatican II: Bridging the Abyss. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1968. Polish edition: Beach, Bert B. Vaticanum 2 most nad przepas´cia˛. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo “Znaki Czasu”, 1967. Beach, Bert B., and John Graz. 101 Questions Adventists Ask. Nampa: Pacific Press, 2000. Böttcher, Manfred. Dialog und Zeugnis: Interkonfessionelle Kontakte und Konflikte einer Freikirche in der DDR [Dialogue and Witness: Interdenominational Contacts and Conflicts of a Free Church in the GDR]. Frankfurt: Lang, 2001. Böttcher, Manfred. Wagnis des Glaubens: Dialog und Zeugnis der Adventgemeinden in der DDR [Venture of Faith: Dialogue and Witness of the Adventist Churches in the GDR]. Hannover: Norddeutscher Verband der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten, 2001. Bruinsma, Reinder. Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 1844– 1965. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1994. # Campall, George A. How Many Ways to Heaven? Why so Many Denominations? Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1953. The Charismatic Movement. A Report of the Special Committee Meeting in Camp CumbyGay, Georgia, January 4–9, 1973. [Washington, D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,] 1973. Chemurtoi, Samuel Kibungei. “James White and J. N. Andrews’ Debate on the Identity of Babylon, 1850–1868.” M.A. thesis, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2005. Cook, Edwin A. Roman Catholic Hegemony and Religious Freedom: A Seventh-day Adventist Assessment of Dignitatis Humanae. Waco: Liberty 21st Century, 2012 [= Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2012]. Conradi, Ludwig Richard. Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists: How They Differ. Brochure. Plainfield: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1934. Daggy, Carl Walter. “A Comparative Study of Certain Aspects of Fundamentalism with Seventh-Day Adventism.” M.A. thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1955. # Donkor, Kwabena. The Emerging Church and Adventist Ecclesiology. Brochure. Silver Spring: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2011. Dunfield, Timothy L. “The Role of Dissent in the Creation of Seventh-day Adventist Identity.” M.A. thesis, University of Alberta, 2009. # Emmerson, Walter L. The Reformation and the Advent Movement. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1983. Ferreira de Andrade, Aroldo. “O casamento entre Adventistas e não-Adventistas: Análise do problema e proposta de procedimentos [Marriage between Adventists and Non-Adventists: Problem Analysis and Proposal of Procedures].” M.A. thesis, Centro Universitário Adventista de São Paulo, 2009. Ferrell, Vance. Recent Adventist Ecumenical Involvement. Beersheba Springs: Pilgrims Books, 2002. Ferrell, Vance. Seventh-day Adventist/Vatican Ecumenical Involvement. Book 1: History. Beersheba Springs: Pilgrims Books, 1999. Ferrell, Vance. Seventh-day Adventist/Vatican Ecumenical Involvement. Book 2: Documents. Beersheba Springs: Pilgrims Books, 1999. # Finley, Mark, with Steven Mosley. Why so Many Denominations? Revelations’s Four Horsemen Provide an Answer. Nampa: Pacific Press, 1994.

Books, Dissertations, and Theses on SDA and ICR

441

Gäbel, Stephan. “Adventgemeinde und Charismatische Bewegung in Deutschland [The Adventist Church and the Charismatic Movement in Germany].” M.A. thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2011. Goldstein, Clifford. The Great Compromise: How Catholics and Protestants are Undoing the Reformation and Fulfilling Prophecy. Nampa: Pacific Press, 2001. Goldstein, Clifford. Hands across the Gulf: Catholics and Protestants Break Reformation Barriers. Brochure. Boise: Pacific Press, 1987. Handspicker, M. B., and Lukas Vischer (eds.). An Ecumenical Exercise: The Southern Baptist Convention, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Kimbanguist Church in the Congo, the Pentecostal Movement in Europe. Faith and Order Papers 49. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1967. # Hegstad, Roland R. Rattling the Gates. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1974. # Hoffmann, Michael. “Die Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten: Eine evangelische Freikirche oder eine Gemeinschaft neben den Kirchen? [The Seventh-day Adventist Church: A Protestant Free Church or a Community beside the Churches?]” Diplom thesis, Leipzig University, 2001. Höschele, Stefan. Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents. Adventistica 10. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010. Jackson, Wendy. “The Unity of the Church and the Role of Church Authority in Maintaining that Unity in the Writings of Alexander Campbell and Ellen G. White.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2015. Jones, Alonzo T. Church Federation and the Kingdom of God: Under Which King? N.p.: privately printed, 1910. Jones, Alonzo T. The Reformation, 14th–16th Century: What It Meant Then; What It Means Now. N. p.: privately printed, 1913. Kobialka, Martin. Ökumene und Weltregierung [Ecumenism and World Government]. Nürnberg: Tendenzen, 1994. Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation: Report and Papers Presented 1994–1998. Silver Spring: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2000. McGraw, Paul E. “Born in Zion? The Margins of Fundamentalism and the Definition of Seventh-Day Adventism (Walter Martin, Donald Gray Barnhouse).” Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 2004. McKey, F. Duane. “History and Analysis of the Relationship between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Several Independent Churches in the Kasai Province of Zaire, 1972 to 1985 (Congo).” D.Min. diss., Andrews University, 1989. Motzer, C. A. Unterscheidungslehren der S.-T.-Baptisten und S.-T.-Adventisten [Doctrinal Differences of S. D. Baptists and S. D. Adventists]. Pamphlet. Hamburg: Advent-Verlag, 1933. Müller, Konrad F. (compiler). Die Beziehung der STA zu anderen Gemeinschaften und Kirchen wie sie in den Schriften von Ellen G. White dargestellt wird: Eine Zitatensammlung. Nürnberg: Schosch, 1994 [Original: (Müller, Konrad F. [compiler].) “Seventh-day Adventists’ Relationship to Other Churches as Portrayed in the Writings of Ellen G. White.” Manuscript, n.d. E. G. White/SDA Research Centre Europe, Newbold College, England, DF 2002].

442

Bibliography

Müller, Konrad F. Die Frühgeschichte der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten bis zur Gemeindegründung 1863 und ihre Bedeutung für die moderne Irenik [The Early History of Seventh-day Adventists until the Establishment as a Denomination 1863 and Its Significance for Modern Irenics]. Marburg: Elwert, 1969. Müller, Richard. Adventisten – Sabbat – Reformation. Studia Theologica Lundensia 38. Lund: Gleerup, 1979. Mutamba, Laurent. “Interkonfessionelle Beziehungen: Eine Untersuchung adventistischer Pastoren in Deutschland [Interdenominational Relations: A Survey of Adventist Pastors in Germany].” B.A. thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2009. Mwangachuchu, Rudatinya M’shoza. “Seventh-day Adventists and the World Council of Churches.” M.A. thesis, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2000. Nam, Juhyeok. “Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and ‘Questions on Doctrine,’ 1955–1971.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2005. # Norman, Bruce R. “Ecclesiology in Dialogue: A Critique of the Understanding of the Nature of the Church in the Thought of G.C. Berkouwer.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1991. # Olsen, V. Norskov. Papal Supremacy and American Democracy. Loma Linda: Loma Linda University Press, 1987. Pasuhuk, Suryanica A. “An Assessment of the Ecclesiology Suggested by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches from the Conservative Christian Viewpoint.” Ph.D. diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2010. Prouty, Steve. “The Three-Self Movement and the Adventist Church in Early Communist China.” M.A. thesis, University of Nebraska, 2009. Rajki, Zoltán. Az Egervári-mozgalom: A Keresztény Advent Közösség kialakulása és vallásszabadsági küzdelmei a Kádár-korszak második felében (1975–1990) [The Egervári Movement: The Formation and Religious Liberty Struggles of the Christian Advent Community in the Second Half of the Kádár Era (1975–1990)]. Budapest: Gondolat, 2012. Rigole, Andrée. “Les mariages mixtes: Le probleme au sein de l’oecumenisme et de l’église Adventiste [Mixed Marriages: The Problem in the Context of Ecumenism and of the Adventist Church].” Lic. thesis, Faculté adventiste de théologie, Collonges-sousSalève, 1976. Robertson, John J. “The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America: Its Contact with Civic and Secular Affairs.” M.A. thesis, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1946. Rosner, Matthias. Eins sein oder Kains sein: Die Advengemeinde in Deutschland und der ökumenische Irrweg [Being One or Being Kain’s: The Adventist Church in Germany and the Wrong Track of Ecumenism]. Dresden: privately printed, 2014. # Rühling, Richard. Um des Glaubens willen [For Faith’s Sake]. Hamburg: AdventVerlag, 1930. Schwarzenau, Paul. Ein evangelischer Theologe spricht über die Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten [A Protestant Theologian Speaks about Seventh-day Adventists]. Laasphe: Wittgenstein, 1978. Seventh-day Adventist Conversations and Their Significance. Faith and Order Paper 55. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1970.

Books, Dissertations, and Theses on SDA and ICR

443

Seventh-day Adventist Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971, Switzerland. Faith and Order Paper 62. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1972. So Much in Common: Documents of Interest in the Conversations Between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1973. Spiegler, Thomas. “Darstellung und Analyse der Diskussionen um die Gastmitgliedschaft der Gemeinschaft der STA in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland [Description and Analysis of the Discussions on the Guest Membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the German National Council of Churches].” Diplom thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 1999. Standish, Colin D., and Russell R. Standish. The Perils of Ecumenism. Rapidan: Hartland, 2003. Standish, Colin D., and Russell R. Standish. The Pope’s Letter and Sunday Laws. Rapidan: Hartland, 1998. Standish, Colin D., and Russell R. Standish. The Road to Rome. Rapidan: Hartland, 1992. Stellungnahme zu “charismatischen” Auffassungen und Phänomenen als Orientierungshilfe. [Statement on “Charismatic” Positions and Phenomena: An Orientation]. Brochure. Adventgemeinde heute 2. Hannover: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland, 1996. Tarling, Lowell. The Edges of Seventh-Day Adventism: A Study of Separatist Groups Emerging from the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1844–1980). Barragga Bay: Galilee, 1981. Thomsen, Russel J. Seventh-Day Baptists: Their Legacy to Adventists. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1971. Träder, Lothar E. (ed.). Ökumene: Verpflichtung oder Versuchung? [Ecumenism: Obligation or Temptation?]. Die Adventgemeinde in Geschichte und Gegenwart 20. Seeheim: Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, 1983. Unser Verhältnis zu anderen Kirchen, Freikirchen und Gemeinschaften [Our Relationship to Other Churches, Free Churches, and Religious Communities]. Brochure. Adventgemeinde heute 1. Hannover: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland, 1993. Väänänen, Johannes. “Adventistien ja luterilaisten oppikeskustelu 1994–1998 – Adventistien erityispiirteiden näkökulmasta” [“The Adventist-Lutheran Doctrinal Debate 1994–1998 – From the Perspective of Adventist Distinctives”]. MA thesis, University of Helsinki, 2019. Also available online: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/300521, accessed October 15, 2021. Vandeman, George E. What I Like About… The Lutherans, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Charismatics, the Catholics, Our Jewish Friends, the Adventists: Rescuers of Neglected Truth. Boise: Pacific Press, 1986. Vierundfünfzig Fragen und Antworten zum Verhältnis der Gemeinschaft der SiebentenTags-Adventisten zu anderen Kirchen und zur Arbeitsgemeinschaft Christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland (ACK) [Fifty-Four Questions and Answers on the Relationship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to Other Churches and the Council of Christian Churches in Germany (ACK)]. Brochure. Adventgemeinde heute 3. Hannover: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland, [1997].

444

Bibliography

Was wir tun, was uns eint. Lebendig Oekumene sein in Darmstadt [What We Do, What Unites Us. Lively Being the Ecumene in Darmstadt]. Darmstadt: Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen Darmstadt, 2016. [Wiggers, Wim.] Die ökumenischen Verbindungen [The Ecumenical Connections]. Winterswijk: Inter-Euro Publishing, [1987]. Zywietz, René. “Taufanerkennung als Grundlage ökumenischer Zusammenarbeit? [Recognition of Baptism as Basis of Ecumenical Cooperation?]” M.A. thesis, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2010.

8.2

Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR

This section lists parts of books, articles in academic journals, articles in the Seventh-day Adventist professional journal for pastors, Ministry (listed separately because of their large number), and the names of magazines from which articles are referenced in this study. A comprehensive (30-page) bibliography of articles from these magazines is available at www.thh-friedensau.de/hoeschele and the publication house website: http://www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com/hoeschele_adventist (see downloads) Password: GR8bsB6uuQ For articles and other texts related to SDA interchurch dialogues, see the respective subsections of the following section (8.3). Not all items in this section 8.2 have been referenced in the footnotes, but an attempt has been made to include all relevant titles to make this collection comprehensive.

Parts of Books Bauer, Bruce, et al. “Our Mission and Other Christians.” In Bruce L. Bauer (ed.). Adventist Responses to Cross-Cultural Mission: Global Mission Issues Committee Papers. Vol. 1: 1998–2001. Berrien Springs: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2006, 176–177. [Beach, Bert B.] “Adventism and Ecumenism.” Chapter 16 of Walter Raymond Beach and Bert Beverly Beach. Pattern for Progress: The Role and Function of Church Organization. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1985, 100–109. [=“Ecumenical Movement.” In Ray Dabrowski (ed.). Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 186–196]. Beach, Bert B. “Die Geschichte der Ökumenischen Bewegung [The History of the Ecumenical Movement].” In Lothar E. Träder (ed.). Ökumene: Verpflichtung oder Versuchung? Die Adventgemeinde in Geschichte und Gegenwart 20. Seeheim: Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, 1983, 29–56.

Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR

445

Beach, Bert B. “Die Stellung der Gemeinschaft der S.T.A. [The Position of the Seventhday Adventist Church].” In Lothar E. Träder (ed.). Ökumene: Verpflichtung oder Versuchung? Die Adventgemeinde in Geschichte und Gegenwart 20. Seeheim: Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, 1983, 89–106. Beach, Bert B. “Ecumenism and Evangelization.” In Richard Lehmann, Jack Mahon, and Børge Schantz (eds.). Cast the Net on the Right Side …: Seventh-day Adventists Face the “Isms”. Bracknell: European Institute of World Mission, 1993, 23–32. Beach, Bert B. “Evangelism and Proselytism: Religious-Liberty, Ecumenical and Interfaith Challenges.” In David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.). Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries). Adventistica 9. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 157–168. Beach, Bert B. “Inter-Church/Faith Relations.” In Jonathan Gallagher and Viola Hughes (eds.). The Religious Liberty Leader’s Handbook. Silver Spring: Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2004, 14–17. Beach, Bert B. “Seventh-day Adventist Church.” In DEM, 1035–1036. Beach, Bert B., and George Reid. “Christian Baptism: A Seventh-day Adventist Appraisal.” Thomas F. Best (ed.). Baptism Today: Understanding, Practice, Ecumenical Implications. Faith and Order Paper 207. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2008, 169–172. Bruinsma, Reinder. “The 1834 Secession and Its Aftermath: Intolerance in a Mostly Tolerant Society.” In John Graz and Carol Rasmussen (eds.). Building Bridges of Faith and Freedom: A Festschrift Written in Honor of Bert B. Beach. Silver Spring, Maryland: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 76–89. Bruinsma, Reinder. “Seventh-day Adventists and Other Christians: An Appraisal of the Current Situation.” In David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.). Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries). Adventistica 9. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 137–149. Butscher, Josef. “Das 2. Vatikanische Konzil – eine Weichenstellung? [The Second Vatican Council: Setting the Course?]” In Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten (ed.). Weichenstellungen: Ein Gang durch die Kirchen- und Adventgeschichte. Hamburg: Saatkorn, 1989, 284–299. Campbell, Michael. “Developments in the Relationship between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists, 1844–1884.” AUSS 55.2 (2017), 195–212. “ ‘Charta Oecumenica’: A Statement by the Euro-Africa Division of Seventh-day Adventists [2003].” In Stefan Höschele. Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents. Adventistica 10. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 93–94. Diez-Prida, Elí. “Eine Kirche unter vielen? [One Church among Many?].” In Elí Diez (ed.). Glauben heute. Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 1998, 81–88 [= Elí Diez-Prida. “Eine Kirche unter vielen?” In Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten. Lesungen zur Gebetswoche. Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2008, 22–24]. “Ecumenism.” In Don F. Neufeld (ed.). Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. Commentary Reference Series 10. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1966, 361–363. Edwards, O. C. “Response.” [To Fortin, Denis. “Seventh-day Adventist Perspective on Eschatology and Mission.”] In Ted A. Campbell, Ann K. riggs, and Gilbert W.

446

Bibliography

Stafford (eds.). Ancient Faith and American-Born Churches: Dialogues between Christian Traditions. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2006, 305–308. Fath, Sébastien. “Les relations entre les adventistes et les autres protestants [The Relationship between Adventists and Other Protestants].” In Fabrice Desplan and Regis Dericquebourg (eds.). Ces protestants que l’on dit adventistes. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2008, 19–27. Fortin, Denis. “Response.” In Ted A. Campbell, Ann K. riggs, and Gilbert W. Stafford (eds.). Ancient Faith and American-Born Churches: Dialogues between Christian Traditions. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2006, 309–312. Fortin, Denis. “Seventh-day Adventist Perspective on Eschatology and Mission.” In Ted A. Campbell, Ann K. riggs, and Gilbert W. Stafford (eds.). Ancient Faith and American-Born Churches: Dialogues between Christian Traditions. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2006, 298–304. Fortin, Denis. “A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective on Worship.” In Thomas F. Best and Dagmar Heller (eds.). Worship Today: Understanding, Practice, Ecumenical Implications. Faith and Order Paper 194. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2004, 166–170. Francis, Keith A. “Ecumenism or Distinctiveness? Seventh-day Adventist Attitudes to the World Missionary Conference of 1910.” In Robert N. Swanson (ed.). Unity and Diversity in the Church. Studies in Church History 32. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, 477–487. Francis, Keith A. “Seventh-Day Adventism’s Reaction to Vatican II.” In David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.). Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries). Adventistica 9. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 127–136. Gallagher, Jonathan. “Differentiating Believers and Beliefs: Implications for Religious Freedom, Ecumenism, and the Right to Dissent.” In John Graz and Carol Rasmussen (eds.). Building Bridges of Faith and Freedom: A Festschrift Written in Honor of Bert B. Beach. Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 97–107. Geldbach, Erich. “Die ökumenische Bedeutung der Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten [The Ecumenical Significance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church].” In Dagmar Heller, Christina Kayales, Barbara Rudolph, Gert Rüppell, and Heinrich Schäfer (eds.). Mache dich auf und werde licht! Ökumenische Visionen in Zeiten des Umbruchs: Festschrift für Konrad Raiser. Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2008, 180–186. Global Mission Issues Committee. “Centrality of Christian Community to World Mission.” In Bruce L. Bauer (ed.). Adventist Responses to Cross-Cultural Mission: Global Mission Issues Committee Papers. Vol. 1: 1998–2001. Berrien Springs: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2006, 235–236. Graham, Roy. “Ellen G. White’s Influence on SDA Approaches to Ecumenism.” Chapter 8 of Roy Graham. Ellen G. White: Co-Founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. American University Studies (Series VII: Theology and Religion) 12. New York: Lang, 1985, 297–354. Graz, John. “Avoiding Misunderstanding and Friction.” In John Graz. Issues of Faith and Freedom: Defending the Right to Profess, Practice, and Promote One’s Belief. Silver

Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR

447

Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2008, 104–111. Graz, John. “Proselytism and Interfaith Relations.” Section II in John Graz. Issues of Faith and Freedom: Defending the Right to Profess, Practice, and Promote One’s Belief. Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2008, 77–115. Hartlapp, Johannes. “Der Wahrheitsanspruch im ökumenischen Gespräch [The Truth Claim in Ecumenical Conversation].” In Bernhard Oestreich (ed.). Wahrheitsansprüche in einer pluralistischen Gesellschaft. Spes Christiana Beiheft 6. Friedensau: Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2002, 77–90. Heinz, Daniel. “The Pietist Roots of Early German Adventism.” In David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.). Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries). Adventistica 9. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 83–92. Heinz, Hans. “Ökumenische Bewegung und Adventgemeinde [The Ecumenical Movement and the Adventist Church].” In Johannes Mager (ed.). Die Gemeinde und ihr Auftrag. Studien zur adventistischen Ekklesiologie 2. Hamburg: Saatkorn, 1994, 103– 126. Höschele, Stefan. “Chancen und Grenzen interkonfessioneller Zusammenarbeit [Opportunities and Limitations of interdenominational Cooperation].” In Elí Diez (ed.). Glauben heute. Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2012, 51–64. Höschele, Stefan. “Constructions of Catholicity and Denominational Particularity: Key Stations in the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrinal Journey.” In Leo J. Koffeman (ed.). Christliche Traditionen zwischen Katholizität und Partikularität / Christian Traditions between Catholicity and Particularity. Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2009, 131–147. Höschele, Stefan. “From Mission Comity to Interdenominational Relations: The Development of the Adventist Statement on Relationships with Other Christian Churches.” In Børge Schantz and Reinder Bruinsma (eds.). Exploring the Frontiers of Faith: Festschrift in Honour of Dr. Jan Paulsen. Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2010, 389– 404. Höschele, Stefan. “On the Ecumenical and Separating Potential of Revivals: A Case Study of the Millerite Movement.” In Peter de Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf (eds.). Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches? Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012, 337–355. “How Seventh-day Adventists View Roman Catholicism.” In Ray Dabrowski (ed.). Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 90–91. Johnsson, William G. “Conversations with Other Churches.” Chapter 13 of William G. Johnsson. Embrace the Impossible. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2008, 180–193. Knowles, George E. “Why So Many Denominations?” Chapter 16 of George E. Knowles. The Message Behind the Movement. Boise: Pacific Press, 1988, 110–112. Kulakov, Mikhail. “Seventh-day Adventists.” In Michael Bourdeaux and John Witte (eds.). Proselytism and Orthodoxy in Russia. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999, 151–162. Land, Gary. “Ecumenism.” In Gary Land. Historical Dictionary of Seventh-day Adventists. Lanham: Scarecrow, 2005, 84–85.

448

Bibliography

Land, Gary. “Evangelical-Adventist Dialogues.” In Gary Land. Historical Dictionary of Seventh-day Adventists. Lanham: Scarecrow, 2005, 93–94. Lehmann, Richard. “L’Église adventiste en France: Chemins d’ouverture [The Adventist Church in France: Opening Paths].” In Fabrice Desplan and Regis Dericquebourg (eds.). Ces protestants que l’on dit adventistes. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2008, 101–119. Leutert, Dieter. “Die Adventgemeinde in der DDR und ihr Verständnis zur Ökumenischen Bewegung [The Seventh-day Adventist Church in the GDR and its Understanding on the Ecumenical Movement].” In Lothar E. Träder (ed.). Ökumene: Verpflichtung oder Versuchung? Die Adventgemeinde in Geschichte und Gegenwart 20. Seeheim: Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, 1983, 57–70. Lindén, Ingemar. “Adventismen och ekumeniken [Adventism and Ecumenism.]” Chapter 6 of Ingemar Lindén. Adventismen vid skiljevägen [Adventism at a Crossroads]. Malmö: privately printed, 1983, 102–108. Miles, Norman K. “Proselytism and Religious Freedom in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” In John Witte and Richard C. Martin (eds.). Sharing the Book: Religious Perspectives on the Rights and Wrongs of Proselytism. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999, 305–319; 405–406. Nortey, Jacob J. “Sabbath (7th Day)-Keeping African Independent Churches and the Seventh-day Adventists in Ghana.” In Hugh I. Dunton, Baldur Pfeiffer, and Børge Schantz (eds.). Adventist Missions Facing the Twenty-First Century: A Reader. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1990, 180–192. “Ökumene [Ecumenism].” In Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten (ed.). Grundbegriffe von A–Z: Lehre und Leben der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten. Berlin: Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten, 1975, 184–195. Palotay, Sándor. “Les Églises libres [The Free Churches].” In József Lukács (ed.). Ensemble pour une bonne cause: L’État socialiste et les Églises en Hongrie. Études, declarations, documents. Budapest: Corvina, 1978, 179–189. Paulsen, Jan. “The Church and Other Churches.” Chapter 6 of Jan Paulsen. Where Are We Going? Nampa: Pacific Press, 2011, 62–72. Peake, Christopher. “Seventh-day Adventists in Britain in Relation to Their Host Community in the Early 20th Century.” In David Trim and Daniel Heinz (eds.). Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist Mission in Europe (19th–21st Centuries). Adventistica 9. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 93–116. “Relationships to Other Churches.” In Jonathan Gallagher and Viola Hughes (eds.). The Religious Liberty Leader’s Handbook. Silver Spring: Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2004, 42–45. “Relationships with Other Christian Churches and Religious Organizations.” Working Policy of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1988–1989. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1988, 372–373 [also in Ray Dabrowski (ed.). Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 219–220]. “Religious Liberty, Evangelism, and Proselytism.” In Ray Dabrowski (ed.). Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 86–87. “Religious Minorities and Religious Freedom: A Statement of Commitment and Concern.” In Ray Dabrowski (ed.). Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents. 3rd ed.

Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR

449

Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 88–89. Rodríguez, Ángel M. “Konfessionsverschiedene Ehen: Eine Studie über 2. Korinther 6,14 [Mixed-Confession Marriages: A Study on 2 Corinthians 6:14].” In Roberto Badenas and Stefan Höschele (eds.). Die Ehe: Biblische, theologische und pastorale Aspekte. Studien zur adventistischen Ethik 1. Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2010, 201–226. “Roman Catholicism.” In Ray Dabrowski (ed.). Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005, 90–91. Schantz, Børge. “The SDA Church and Ecumenism.” Chapter 5 of Børge Schantz. “The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought: Contemporary Appraisal.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983, 144–186. Schantz, Børge. “SDAs Face the Charge of Proselytizing.” Chapter 11, part D of Børge Schantz. “The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought: Contemporary Appraisal.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983, 412–419. Schwarz, Richard W., and Floyd Greenleaf. “Relationships with Other Christians.” Chapter 27 of Richard W. Schwarz and Floyd Greenleaf. Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Nampa: Pacific Press, 2000, 442–458. “Seventh-day Adventists.” In Max Thurian (ed.). Churches Respond to BEM. Vol. 2. Faith and Order Paper 132. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986, 337–348. Staples, Russell L. “Adventism.” In Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston (eds.). The Variety of American Evangelicalism. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991, 57–71. Teubert, Holger. “Die Beziehungen der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten zu anderen Kirchen und christlichen Organisationen [The Relationship of Seventh-day Adventists to Other Churches and Christian Organizations].” In Daniel Heinz and Werner Lange (eds.). Adventhoffnung für Deutschland: Die Mission der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten von Conradi bis heute. Lüneburg: Advent-Verlag, 2014, 237–248. Teubert, Holger. “Freikirchen – Pfingstgemeinden – Charismatiker [Free Churches – Pentecostal Churches – Charismatics].” In Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten (ed.). Weichenstellungen: Ein Gang durch die Kirchen- und Adventgeschichte. Hamburg: Saatkorn-Verlag, 1989, 300–308. Tjeransen, Tor. “Adventists and Cooperation with Other Denominations in the Bible Societies.” In Reinder Bruinsma (ed.). Faith in Search of Depth and Relevancy: Festschrift in Honour of Dr. Bertil Wiklander. N.p.: Trans-European Division of Seventh-day Adventists, 2014, 497–506. Verfaillie, Maurice. “Adventisme, dialogue et relations interconfessionelles [Adventism, Dialogue and Interchurch Relations].” Chapter 7 of Maurice Verfaillie. L’identité religieuse au sein de l’adventisme (1850–2006). Paris: L’Harmattan, 2011, 281– 332. Whitehouse, Jerald. “Who are We? Reflections on the Adventist Ideality in Relation to Mission.” In Rudi Maier (ed.). Encountering God in Life and Mission: A Festschrift Honoring Jon L. Dybdahl. Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2010, 341–355. Willaime, Jean-Paul “L’intégration des adventistes du septième jour à la Fédération Protestante de France [The Integration of Seventh-day Adventists into the French

450

Bibliography

Protestant Federation].” In Fabrice Desplan and Regis Dericquebourg (eds.). Ces protestants que l’on dit adventistes. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2008, 89–99. Zürcher, Jean. “Theologische Probleme im ökumenischen Gespräch aus der Sicht der S.T.A. [Theological Problems in Ecumenical Conversation from the Perspective of Seventh-day Adventists].” In Lothar E. Träder (ed.). Ökumene: Verpflichtung oder Versuchung? Die Adventgemeinde in Geschichte und Gegenwart 20. Seeheim: Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, 1983, 71–88.

Articles in Ministry [Anderson, Roy Allan]. “Coming – World Congress on Evangelism.” Ministry 39.5 (1966), 10–12, 40. Anderson, Roy Allan. “Progress of the World Council.” Ministry 27.10 (1954), 4–7. Anderson, Roy Allan. “Prophetic Fulfillment in Current Events.”Ministry 36.3 (1963), 4–8. Anderson, Roy Allan. “Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches.” Ministry 27.9 (1954), 2. Anderson, Roy Allan. “Theological Contrasts at Evanston.” Ministry 27.11 (1954), 4–7. Anderson, Roy Allan. “Tolerance from the Historically Intolerant.” Ministry 36.10 (1963), 4–5. B., J. A. “The National Council of Churches in Action.” Ministry 31.3 (1958), 24–27. Beach, Bert B. “Evangelicals in Critical Discussion with WCC.” Ministry 48.7 (1975), 7–9. Beach, Bert B. “Evangelism and Interfaith Relations.” Ministry 75.12 (2002), 18–21. Beach, Bert B. “Evangelism and the Ecumenical Movement.” Ministry 65.4 (1992), 15–18. Beach, Bert B. “Undiplomatic Relations.” Ministry 57.3 (1984), 4–6. Beach, Bert B. “The World Council of Churches: Seventh-day Adventist Conversations and Their Significance – Part 1.” Ministry 43.5 (1970), 13–15. Beach, Bert B. “The World Council of Churches: Seventh-day Adventist Conversations and Their Significance – 2.” Ministry 43.6 (1970), 59–61. Beaven, Winton H. “The Religious World of 1954.” Ministry 28.2 (1955), 4–8. Branson, William H. “Loyalty in an Age of Doubt.” Ministry 6.10 (1933), 3. Buckwalter, J. Arthur. “Ambassadors of Freedom.” Ministry 32.1 (1959), 4–6. Buckwalter, J. Arthur. “The Religious World of 1953.” Ministry 27.2 (1954), 4–7, 45. Coon, Roger W. “Watch Tower’s Debt to Seventh-Day Adventism: A Fascinating Footnote to History.” Ministry 42.10 (1969), 35–36. Cress, James A. “Renting Our Churches to Others.” Ministry 71.4 (1998), 28–29. Dalrymple, Gwynne. “World Council Plans.” Ministry 11.12 (1938), 36. Dederen, Raoul. “Catholic Pentecostalism: What Is It and Where Is It Going?” Ministry 46.3 (1974), 4–6. Dederen, Raoul. “Charismatics and Catholics.” Ministry 48. 5 (1976), 17–19. Dederen, Raoul. “Ecumenical Trends.” Ministry 46.6 (1973), 8–10. Dederen, Raoul. “Ecumenism – the Old and the New.” Ministry 46.10 (1973), 14–16. Dederen, Raoul. “Faith and Order and the New Ecumenical Approach.” Ministry 46.2 (1973), 14–16.

Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR

451

Dederen, Raoul. “John Paul II: The First Nine Years.” Ministry 61.3 (1988), 8–10. Dederen, Raoul. “The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: One Year Later.” Ministry 73.11 (2000), 10–13. Dederen, Raoul. “The Nature of the Church.” Ministry 46.7 (1973), 3–6, 32–35 [Paper presented at the World Council of Churches/Seventh-day Adventist Consultation, July 1971]. Dederen, Raoul. “Papal Primacy in a Reunited Church.” Ministry 51.11 (1978), 4–6. Dederen, Raoul. “Peter in the New Testament.” Ministry 47.7 (1974), 10–12. Dederen, Raoul. “The State of Ecumenism.” Ministry 48.9 (1975), 12–14. Devnich, Douglas. “WCC Meets in Vancouver.” Ministry 56.11 (1983), 22–24. Douglass, Herbert E. “Significant World Trends.” Ministry 35.8 (1962), 12–15, 18. [Dower, N. R.] “The Charismatic Movement.” Ministry 46.3 (1974), 2. Dusen, Henry P. Van. “Issues in Current Theological Education.”Ministry 30.4 (1957), 13–14. “Ecumenical Church Developing.” Ministry 13.2 (1940), 15. Emmerson, Walter L. “Significance of the 1948 Lambeth Conference.” Ministry 21.12 (1948), 3–5. Eva, Willmore. “Adventists and Ecumenism.” Ministry 76.12 (2003), 4. Eva, Willmore. “Relating to Ministers of Other Denominations.” Ministry 75.4 (2002), 4, 30. [Froom, LeRoy E.] “Let us Avoid Needless Opposition.” Ministry 6.6 (1933), 11, 22–23. Glasser, Arthur F. “A Friendly Outsider Looks at Seventh-day Adventists.” Ministry 62.1 (1989), 8–10. Graham, Billy. “The Evangelical Prospect [Interview with Billy Graham].” Ministry 32.5 (1959), 24–27. Gulley, Norman R. “The Impact of Justification by Faith to the Current Protestant and Catholic Relationship.” Ministry 83.1 (2010), 19–21. Hartwell, Mary. “The Unitarian Church.” Ministry 20.10 (1947), 10–12. Haynes, Carlyle B. “Can Protestantism Win America?” Ministry 19.9 (1946), 3–4. Haynes, Carlyle B. “The Church and Peace.” Ministry 16.7 (1943), 20. Haynes, Carlyle B. “Churchmen Make Pronouncement on World Order.” Ministry 18. 4 (1945), 5–6. Heinz, Hans. “A Review of the Joint Declaration on the Dogma of Justification.” Ministry 73.11 (2000), 14–18. “Interchurch Co-operation.” Ministry 15. 11 (1942), 37–38. Kaplan, S. A. “Breaching the Wall of Judaism.” Ministry 37.12 (1964), 15–17, 21. Kleuser, Louise C. “Our Friends the Baptists.” Ministry 34.6 (1961), 34–37. Kleuser, Louise C. “Our Friends the Congregationalists.” Ministry 34.10 (1961), 37–39. Kleuser, Louise C. “Our Friends the Disciples of Christ.” Ministry 34.8 (1961), 36–38. Kleuser, Louise C. “Our Friends the Lutherans.” Ministry 34.9 (1961), 36–38. Kleuser, Louise C. “Our Friends the Methodists.” Ministry 34.12 (1961), 32–34. Kleuser, Louise C. “Our Friends the Presbyterians.” Ministry 34.7 (1961), 39–41. Kleuser, Louise C. “Our Protestant Friends.” Ministry 34.5 (1961), 30–32. Kleuser, Louise C. “Protestant Episcopal Church – Anglican.” Ministry 34.11 (1961), 38– 40.

452

Bibliography

Knight, George R. “Another Look at Babylon: Cooperating with other Christians?” Ministry 75.4 (2002), 5–9. Lee, Frederick. “Call for Religious Unity and Revival.” Ministry 13.2 (1940), 13–15. Lowe, Harry W. “Ecumenical Movement – No. 2.” Ministry 11.7 (1938), 17, 42, 44, 46. Lowe, Harry W. “Ecumenical Movement Afterthoughts – No. 1.” Ministry 11.6 (1938), 20– 21. Ludescher, Edwin, G. Ralph Thompson, and Neal C. Wilson. “The Hungarian Situation.” Ministry 58.4 (1985), 11, 21. Markovic, John Jovan. “The Emergent Theology: Voices of Confusion.” Ministry 83.5 (2010), 10–12. “Menacing Federal Council Trends.” Ministry 12.5 (1939), 36–37. Michael, Thomas J. “Listening in the Cleveland Convention.” Ministry 16.3 (1943), 5–6. Michael, Thomas J. “Trends toward Union of Protestant Churches.” Ministry 18.4 (1945), 3, 4, 46. Miller, Nicholas. “Adventists and Ecumenism.” Ministry 86.4 (2013), 17–20. Müller, Richard. “Anabaptists: The Reformers’ Reformers.” Ministry 59.7 (1986), 11–13. Neufeld, Mary. “The Mennonite Bodies.” Ministry 21.7 (1948), 13–16. Neufeld, Mary. “The Mennonite Bodies.” Ministry 21.8 (1948), 33–35. Newman, J. David. “Marrying Non-Adventists.” Ministry 67.2 (1994), 5, 30. Nichol, Francis D. “Modernism’s Inadequacy Is Our Opportunity.” Ministry 9.2 (1936), 13–14, 22. Olsen, A. V. “Assuming the Role of Prophetc.” Ministry 11.2 (1938), 24–25. Olsen, V. Norskov. “The Essence of the Baptist Movement.” Ministry 51.11 (1978), 13–15. Olsen, V. Norskov. “The Recovery of Adult Baptism.” Ministry 51.9 (1978), 10–12. Oosterwal, Gottfried. “The Missionary Task of the Church.” Ministry 46.7 (1973), 7–10, 36–39 [Paper presented at the World Council of Churches/Seventh-day Adventist Consultation, July 1971]. Patrick, Arthur N. “Are Adventists Evangelical? The Case of Ellen White in the 1890s.” Ministry 68.2 (1995), 14–17. Pflaumer, Lucille. “The Eastern Orthodox Church.” Ministry 20.3 (1947), 7. Prescott, W. W. “Implications at Oxford – No. 2.” Ministry 11.2 (1938), 24–2. Prescott, W. W. “Momentous Implications at Oxford – No. 1.” Ministry 11.1 (1938), 14– 15. Prescott, W. W. “The Official Title of the Pope.” Ministry 12.3 (1939), 17–19. Prescott, W. W. “The Threefold Union Forming – No. 1.” Ministry 11.4 (1938), 16–17. Prescott, W. W. “The Threefold Union Forming – No. 2.” Ministry 11.5 (1938), 18–19. Rebok, D. E. “The Theme for the Assembly of the World Council of Churches.” Ministry 26.3 (1953), 8–9. Rodríguez, Ángel M. “Adventists and Ecumenical Conversation: How Adventists May Choose to Relate to the Existing Models of Ecumenism.” Ministry 75.12 (2003), 5–10, 28. Rudge, E. B. “Ecumenical Movement Defined.” Ministry 21.11 (1948), 47. Rudge, Edward B. “Significance of World Council at Amsterdam.” Ministry 21.11 (1948), 4–6, 52. Rudy, H. L. “Implications of Catholicity – No. 1.” Ministry 11.7 (1938), 5–6. Rudy, H. L. “Implications of Catholicity – No. 2.” Ministry 11.8 (1938), 8, 42.

Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR

453

Rydzewski, Ella M. “Struggling with Standards – We’re Not Alone.” Ministry 62.10 (1989), 26–29. “Scenes at Evanston.” Ministry 27.10 (1954), 26–27. Scharffenberg, W. A. “ ‘The Christian Century’ Quotes the ‘Signs’.”Ministry 27.2 (1954), 9, 10. Schwarzenau, P. “Seventh-day Adventists and the World Council: Doctrinal Agreements with Member Churches.” Ministry 46.2 (1973), 9–11. “The Second Assembly Medallion.” Ministry 27.11 (1954), 13–14. Sorenson, Donald. “Charles Haddon Spurgeon.” Ministry 27.10 (1954), 9, 10, 50. [Spangler, J. R.]. “Is Catholicism Changing Its Teachings?” Ministry 41.9 (1968), 24–26. Syme, Eric D. “Outstanding Religious Trends of 1955.” Ministry 29.2 (1956), 10–13. Travis, Patrick A. “The Environment: Created and Sustained by Whom?” Ministry 74.5 (2001), 24–26. Van Dolson, Leo R. “ ‘Quiet Saturdays’ Dialogue at Seventh Day Baptist General Conference.” Ministry 50.11 (1977), 16–17. Vandeman, George E. “World Council of Churches – Amsterdam, 1948.” Ministry 21.8 (1948), 11, 12, 21. Visigalli, Domenico. “A Light in Rome.” Ministry 38.3 (1965), 19–21. Walther, Daniel. “A Conversation with Karl Barth.” Ministry 27.5 (1954), 4–6. Walther, Daniel. “Interviews with Ecumenical Leaders.” Ministry 29.9 (1956), 4–7. Walther, Daniel. “Is there a Future in Protestant-Catholic Conversations?” Ministry 33.2 (1960), 16–19. Weston, Helen M. “The Seventh Day Baptists.” Ministry 22.1 (1949), 17–19. White, Edward E. “Union or Unity.” Ministry 33.2 (1960), 13–15. Yost, Frank H. “New Drive for Church Unity.” Ministry 21.6 (1948), 19–20. Yost, Frank H. “P.O.A.U.” Ministry 22.5 (1949), 23. Yost, Frank H. “Religious Regimentation Program.” Ministry 15.8 (1942), 17. Yost, Frank H. “The World Council of Churches – No. 1.” Ministry 22.1 (1949), 20–22. Yost, Frank H. “World Council of Churches – 2.” Ministry 22.2 (1949), 34–37. Zurcher, Jean. “Why Adventists Don’t Join the WCC: Part I.” Ministry 52.3 (1979), 10–12. Zurcher, Jean. “Why Adventists Don’t Join the WCC: Part II.” Ministry 52.5 (1979), 6–8.

Articles in Other Academic Journals For articles and other texts related to interchurch dialogues, see the respective subsections of 8.3. Andrews, Linda. “Centura Health: Two Faiths, One Mission.” Spectrum 27.3 (1999), 53– 57. Beach, Bert B. “An Adventist Reaction.” The Ecumenical Review 23.1 (1971), 38–43. Beach, Bert B. “Die Religionsfreiheit aus nichtkatholischer Sicht und unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechte und Probleme von Minderheitenkirchen [Religious Liberty from a Non-Catholic Perspective with Special Reference to the Rights and Problems of Minority Churches].” Gewissen und Freiheit 30, no. 58 (2002), 9–25.

454

Bibliography

Beach, Bert B. “Nichtmitgliedskirchen im kritischen Gespräch mit dem Weltrat der Kirchen [Non-Member Churches in Critical Conversation with the World Council of Churches].” Ökumenische Rundschau 23 (1974), 205–213. Beach, Bert B. “Ökumenischer Rat der Kirchen und Siebenten-Tages-Adventisten: Eine Gewissenssymbiose [The World Council of Churches and Seventh-day Adventists: A Symbiosis of Conscience].” Ökumenische Rundschau 21 (1972), 230–232. Beach, Bert B. “The World Council of Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Conversations and Their Significance.” Ecumenical Review 22.2 (1970), 163–167. Bruinsma, Reinder. “Adventists and Catholics: Prophetic Preview or Prejudice?” Spectrum 27.3 (1999), 45–52. Cottrell, Raymond F. “Seventh Day Baptists and Adventists: A Common Heritage.” Spectrum 9.1 (1977), 3–8. Cruz Huaranga, Saulo Caleb, and Gluder Quispe Huanca. “La Iglesia Adventista del Séptimo Día y el Movimiento Ecuménico: un estudio teológico-histórico desde el Concilio Vaticano II hasta el 2015.” Revista Muro de la Investigación 1.2 (2017), 33–53. Dederen, Raoul. “An Adventist Response to ‘The Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement’.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 7 (1970), 558–563. Dederen, Raoul. Review of Faith and Order, Louvain 1971: Study Reports and Documents. Faith and Order Paper 59. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1971. AUSS 11.1 (1973), 197–198. Dederen, Raoul. Review of One Baptism, one Eucharist, and a Mutually Recognized Ministry. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1975; and Uniting in Hope: Accra 1974. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1974. AUSS 14.2 (1976), 323–325. Dederen, Raoul. Review of Yves Congar. Ecumenism and the Future of the Church. Chicago: Priority Press, 1967. AUSS 8.2 (1970), 176–178. Fincke, Andreas. “Der Antichrist in der ACK [The Antichrist in the (German) National Council of Churches].” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 67.4 (2004), 147–149. Fortin, Denis. “Current Perspectives on Petrine Ministry and Papal Primacy.” AUSS 41.2 (2003), 199–214. Fortin, Denis. Review of Jon Nilson. Nothing Beyond the Necessary: Roman Catholicism and the Ecumenical Future. New York: Paulist Press, 1995. AUSS 35.1 (1997), 143–145. Garilva, Don Leo M. “The Development of Ellen G. White’s Concept of Babylon in The Great Controversy.” JATS 18.2 (2007), 223–242. Geldbach, Erich. “Auf dem Weg zur Freikirche? Die Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten [On the Way to a Free Church? The Seventh-day Adventist Church].” Evangelischer Bund, no. 3 (1995), 6–7 [part 1], and no. 4 (1995), 6–7 [part 2]. Geldbach, Erich. “Die Adventisten: Eine konfessionskundliche Einordnung [The Adventists: A Denominational Studies Classification].” Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim 43.2 (1992), 48–51. Geldbach, Erich. “Mission, Ökumene, Einheit [Mission, Ecumenism, Unity].” Stufen 25– 29 (1996–2000), 137–150. Gulley, Norman R. “Debate over Justification by Faith: Evangelicals and Catholics.” JATS 20.1–2 (2009), 112–146.

Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR

455

Hartlapp, Johannes. “Der Gebrauch des Begriffes ‘Babylon’ in der Kirchen- und STAGeschichte in kurzer Übersicht [The Use of the Term ‘Babylon’ in Church History and Adventist History: A Short Overview].” Spes Christiana 6 (1995), 33–50. Heinz, Daniel. “Exklusivität und Kontextualisierung: Geschichte und Selbstverständnis der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland [Exclusivism and Contextualization: History and Self-Understanding of Seventh-day Adventists in Germany].” Freikirchenforschung 10 (2001), 31–50. Heinz, Hans. “Nikolaus Ludwig Graf Zinzendorf: Wertschätzung und Auseinandersetzung aus adventistischer Sicht [Nikolaus Ludwig Count Zinzendorf: Appreciation and Debate from an Adventist Perspective].” Freikirchenforschung 3 (1993), 65–75. Hernandez, Barbara C., and Colwick M. Wilson. “Another Kind of Ambiguous Loss: Seventh-day Adventist Women in Mixed-Orientation Marriages.” Family Relations 56.2 (2007), 184–195. Höschele, Stefan. “Adventistische interkonfessionelle Dialoge [Adventist Interdenominational Dialogues].” Spes Christiana 21 (2010), 139–154. Höschele, Stefan. “Die Einheit der Kirche: Adventistische Perspektiven [Church Unity: Adventist Perspectives].” Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim 71.4 (2020), 75–79. Höschele, Stefan. “Eschatology and Theological Dialogue: Insights from Adventist Interchurch Conversations.” One in Christ 47.1 (2013), 29–51. Höschele, Stefan. “From Detachment to Conversation: Early Adventist Interactions with the World Council of Churches.” Spes Christiana 25–30 (2014–2019), 201–228. Höschele, Stefan. “Gaststatus als Modell von Ökumenizität? Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten und die Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland – Hintergründe, Entwicklungen und Einsichten [Guest Status as a Model of Ecumenicity? Seventh-day Adventists and the Council of Christian Churches in Germany – Background, Developments, and Insights].” Freikirchenforschung 18 (2009), 188–204. Höschele, Stefan. “Rediscovering Christian Tradition: Dialogue and the Development of Adventist Theology.” Communio Viatorum 60.1 (2018), 5–27. Holmes, C. Raymond. “Adventist Identity and Evangelical Criticism.” JATS 2.2 (1991), 81– 90. Johnsson, William G. “Global Interfaith Conversations [Interview].” Spectrum 38 (2010), 11–12, 17. Judd, Wayne. “From Ecumenists to Come-Outers: The Millerites, 1831–1845.” Adventist Heritage 11.1 (1984), 3–12. Klingbeil, Gerald A. “‘United We Stand’: A Biblical Perspective on Ecumenical Relations.” JATS 25.2 (2014), 104–131. Knight, George. Review of Edith L. Blumhofer, Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993. AUSS 33.1 (1995), 106–108. Knight, George. Review of Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee, and Alexander, Patrick H. (eds.). Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988. AUSS 27.1 (1989), 78–80. Land, Gary. “At the Edge of Holiness: Seventh-Day Adventism Receives the Holy Ghost, 1892–1900.” Fides et Historia 33.2 (2001), 13–30. Larson, David R. “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelicals?” Spectrum 29.2 (2001), 79.

456

Bibliography

Leonard, Harry H. “John N. Andrews and England’s Seventh Day Baptists: ‘We Are Brethren’.” Adventist Heritage 9.1 (1984), 50–56. Lowman, Marvin G. Review of Stanley C. Lowell. The Ecumenical Mirage. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967. AUSS 8.2 (1970), 189–191. Oestreich, Bernhard. “Meinungsstreit und Einheit in der frühen Christenheit [Quarreling on Opinions and Unity in Early Christianity].” Spes Christiana 6 (1995), 14–25. Pfandl, Gerhard. “Unity – But at What Cost?” JATS 10.1–2 (1999), 184–190. Pöhler, Rolf. “The ‘Remnant’ and the ‘Others’: A Reappraisal of Adventist Remnant Theology.” Spectrum 40.1 (2012), 29–36. Pöhler, Rolf. “Fundamentalismus in Geschichte und Gegenwart der Siebenten-TagsAdventisten [Fundamentalism in the History and Present of Seventh-Day Adventism].” Stufen 46 (1993), 54–57. Reimer, Hans-Diether. “Adventisten: Gemeinschaft mit der Kirche der Reformation [Adventists: Communion with the Reformation Church].” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 41 (1978), 164–165. Reimer, Hans-Diether. “Adventisten: Gemeinsam Vorurteile überwinden [Adventists: Overcoming Prejudices Together].” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 42 (1979), 156–157. Reimer, Hans-Diether. “Adventistische Theologie.” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 40 (1977), 236–244. Reimer, Hans-Diether. “Die Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten und das Problem zwischenkirchlicher Beziehungen [The Seventh-day Adventists and the Problem of Interchurch Relations].” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 49 (1986), 267–275. Reimer, Hans-Diether. “Endzeitgemeninde im Wandel: Wohin bewegt sich der Adventismus? [The Changing End-Time Church: Where Does Adventism Move?].” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 36 (1973), 218–224. Reimer, Hans-Diether. “Ökumenischer Rückschritt [Ecumenical Regression].” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 38 (1975), 186– 188. Reimer, Hans-Diether. “Zu einer Aussprache mit Adventisten [On a Talk with Adventists].” Materialdienst der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen 42 (1979), 148–150. Rubencamp, Cosmas. “The Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 6.4 (1969), 534–548. Rydzewski, Ella M. “The World Council of Churches and Seventh-day Adventists.” Spectrum 3 (1973), 33–41. Sapiets, Marite. “V. A. Shelkov and the True and Free Seventh-day Adventists of the USSR.” Religion in Communist Lands 8.3 (1980), 201–217. “The Seventh-day Adventist Church.” The Ecumenical Review 24.1 (1967), 17–28. Stefani, Wolfgang H. M. “Endnotes: Music as Ecumenical Force.” JATS 5.1 (1994), 216– 223. Unruh, Tobie E. “The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955–1956.” Adventist Heritage 4.2 (1977), 35–46. Whidden, Woodrow W. “Adventist Soteriology: The Wesleyan Connection.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 30.1 (1995), 173–186.

Articles and Parts of Books on SDA and ICR

457

“The World Council of Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971.” Ecumenical Review 24.2 (1972), 200–207 [German version: “Die Gespräche zwischen dem Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen und den Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten.” Ökumenische Rundschau 21 (1972), 232–245]. Worschech, Udo. “Ein Bethaus für alle Völker: Oikou-menische Aspekte des Jahwismus [A House of Prayer for all Peoples: Oikou-menical Aspects of Yahwism].” Spes Christiana 6 (1995), 4–13.

Adventist Magazines The most important magazines for this study were: AR (Adventist Review) PT (Present Truth) RH (Review and Herald) ST (Signs of the Times Further articles have been collected from the following magazines: Adult Bible Study Guide – Standard Edition Advent Herald Advent Mirror Adventbote Adventecho Adventgemeinde Adventist Currents Adventist Today Adventist World Adventisten heute Aller Diener Asiatic Division Outlook Atlantic Union Gleaner Australasian Record Australasian Record and Advent World Survey Bible Advocate British Advent Messenger Canadian Adventist Messenger Christlicher Hausfreund College and University Dialogue Day-Star Elder’s Digest Herold der Wahrheit Jugendleitstern L’Echo du Salève

458

Bibliography

Lesungen zur Gebetswoche Liberty Message Missionary Magazine Morning Watch Northern Light Perspective Digest The Protestant Magazine Record Reflections – The BRI Newsletter Revista Adventista Revue Adventiste Sentinel of Liberty Shabbat Shalom Southern Asia Tidings Southern Tidings Southwestern Union Record STAus (Australian Signs of the Times) These Times Visitor [Columbia Union] Youth’s Instructor The following special issues were dedicated to interchurch relations viz. ecumenism: Adventistische Identität und andere Christen [Adventist Identity and Other Christians]. Special issue of Adventisten heute, October 2010. Aller Diener. Special issue [on ecumenism] 3–4 (1984) [identical issue: Servir (in French)]. Church Federation and Religious Legislation. Special issue of Liberty, April 1906. Informationen [Advent-Mission, Basel]. Special issue [on ecumenism], June 1988. Relations interconfessionnelles [Interconfessional Relations]. Special issue of Revue Adventiste, January–February 2001. The Relevance of the Church Today and the Move toward One United Church. Special issue of Signs of the Times (Australia), November 1975. Special Ecumenical Issue. Signs of the Times (Australia), October 1968.

Non-Adventist Magazines The text also contains references to articles in the following magazines: The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal (Presbyterian) Eternity (Evangelical) Sabbath Recorder (Seventh Day Baptist) WARC Update (Reformed)

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

8.3

459

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

N.B.: All available documents related to Seventh-day Adventist theological dialogues have been collected here, irrespective of publication type or status. Dialogues appear in chronological sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

World Council of Churches Consultations, 1965–1972 World Council of Churches and National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA Consultations, 1969–1971 Salvation Army Conversations, 1980/1985 Church of God (7th Day) Conversations, 1980–1987 Assemblies of Yahweh Conversations, 1984 World Evangelical Fellowship Consultation, 1985 Reformed Ecumenical Synod Conversations, 1985, 1987 Lutheran World Federation Conversations, 1994–1998 World Alliance of Reformed Churches Dialogue, 2001 Consultations with Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, 2001–2003 Salvation Army Dialogue, 2004–2008 World Evangelical Alliance Dialogue, 2006–2007 Presbyterian Church in the USA Dialogue, 2006–2011 Mennonite World Conference Conversations, 2011–2013 Other Dialogues

World Council of Churches Consultations, 1965–1972 Reports and Related Texts Beach, Bert B. “Des jours nouveaux pour la proclamation de l’Évangile [New Days for the Proclamation of the Gospel].” Revue Adventiste, March 1971, 5. Beach, Bert B. “The World Council of Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Conversations and Their Significance.” Ecumenical Review 22.2 (1970), 163–167 [German version: “Die Bedeutung der Gespräche zwischen dem Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen und den Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten (1965–1969).” Deutsches Pfarrerblatt, August 1970, 476– 480]. Cooper, Victor H. “SDA Scholars Present Position on Prophecy.” RH, May 1, 1969, 39. C[(ottrell], R. F. “The World Council Looks at Seventh-day Adventists.” RH, March 23, 1967, 12–13; March, 30, 1967, 12; and April 6, 1967, 13–14. Handspicker, M. B. “Beziehungen zwischen dem Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen und den Siebenten-Tages-Adventisten [Relations between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventists].” Ökumenische Rundschau 17.1 (1968), 60–62. [Handspicker, M. B.] “The Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Ecumenical Review 19.1 (1967), 17–28. Schwantès, Siegfried J. “Les adventistes et le Conseil Oecuménique Mondial [Adventists and the World Council of Churches].” L’Echo du Salève, December 1972, 3.

460

Bibliography

Seventh-day Adventist Conversations and Their Significance. Faith and Order Paper 55. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1970. Seventh-day Adventist Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971, Switzerland. Faith and Order Paper 62. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1972. So Much in Common: Documents of Interest in the Conversations between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1973. Stéveny, G. “Entretiens avec le Conseil Oecuménique [Conversations with the Ecumenical Council].” L’Echo du Salève, February–March 1972. Vischer, Lukas. “Analysis of Discussion on ‘Apocalyptic Prophecy’.” Ecumenical Review 22.2 (April 1970), 167–169. “The World Council of Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971.” Ecumenical Review 24.2 (April 1972), 200 –207 [German version: “Die Gespräche zwischen dem Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen und den Siebenten-TagsAdventisten.” Ökumenische Rundschau 21 (1972), 232–245].

Adventist Papers N.B. Many of the papers presented in these consultations and other unpublished documents related to them could not be traced in spite of a thorough search by staff of the TransEuropean Division of Seventh-day Adventists (the organization through which Bert B. Beach had organized the conversations), at the Biblical Research Institute, in the WCC Archives, and through individuals involved in the conversations. Items known to have existed but not found so far are marked with an asterisk (*). These papers were mentioned in one of the reports listed here or in other, unpublished reports or correspondence found in the GCA or BRI. *Beach, Bert B. [Presentation on the Socio-Political Responsibility of the Church.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 1971. Dederen, Raoul. “Revelation and the Bible: A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective.” Paper presented at WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 23–25, 1970. Folder “WCC Consultation,” BRI. *Henning, Heinz. [Study on Luke 17:20–27.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 24, 1970. *Hilgert, Earle. [Presentation on the Sabbath.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva/Collonges-sous-Salève, March 30–April 1, 1966. *Hugedé, Norbert. [Study on Col 2:4, 2 Cor 3:4–6, and Gal 3:10–13.19–22.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 24, 1970. *McMillan, J. A. [Study on Inspiration, Revelation, and Illumination.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 24, 1970. *Olsen, V. Norskov. [Presentation on the Reformation.] Paper presented at the WCCSDA consultation, Geneva, probably 1966. *Paulsen, Jan. “An Ecclesiological Self-Understanding.” Paper presented at the WCCSDA consultation, Geneva, November 22–24, 1972. *Schwantès, Siegfried J. [Study on the Nature and the Mission of the Church.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 22–24, 1972.

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

461

*Seton, Bernard. [Study on Prophecy]. Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, Nov. 25–27, 1968. *Vick, Edward W. H. [Study on Prophecy]. Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, Nov. 25–27, 1968.

WCC Papers *Bovon, François. [Study on the Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15–19)]. Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 25, 1970. *Grayston, Kenneth. “The Word of God: Revelation and Inspiration.” Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 25, 1970. *Hofman, [N.N.]. [Study on the Nature and the Mission of the Church.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 22–24, 1972. *Klopfenstein, Martin. [Study on the Question of Prophecy.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, Nov. 25–27, 1968. *Nagy, Gyula. [Presentation on the Social Responsibility of the Church.] Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 1971. Schwarzenau, Paul. “Doctrinal Agreement between Seventh-day Adventists and Christian Churches Belonging to the World Council.” Paper presented at the WCC-SDA consultation, Geneva, November 1971 [edited version in published report: Seventh-day Adventist Conversations: Meetings in 1970 and 1971].

World Council of Churches and National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA Consultations, 1969–1971 No report is available on these meetings. The following meetings took place: 1969: No planned topic; March 4–5, 1970: Eschatology; July 1971: The Nature and Mission of the Church.

Adventist Papers Cottrell, Raymond. “The Eschaton: A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective.” Paper presented at the ecumenical consultation between select representatives of the World Council of Churches and Seventh-day Adventists, Berrien Springs, March 4–5, 1970 [with Responses by Paul S. Minear (10 pp.) and Eugene H. Maly (2 pp.)]. Folder “WCC Consultation,” BRI [published (shortened version): Spectrum 5.1 (1973), 7–40]. Dederen, Raoul. “The Nature of the Church.” Paper presented at the World Council of Churches/Seventh-day Adventist consultation, July 1971 [published: Ministry 45.7 (1972), 3–6, 32–35]. Oosterwal, Gottfried. “The Missionary Task of the Church.” Paper presented at the World Council of Churches/Seventh-day Adventist consultation, July 1971 [published: Ministry 45.7 (1972), 7–10, 36–39].

462

Bibliography

WCC/NCCCUSA Papers (unknown)

Salvation Army Conversations, 1980/1985 No sources are known at present other than short references in CIR Minutes to the fact that these conversations took place (CIR Minutes, December 18, 1980, and October 13, 1985, GC PARL).

Church of God (7th Day) Conversations, 1980–1987 Report (none)

Adventist Papers Bacchiocchi, Samuele. Paper similar to the content of his book The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Berrien Springs: Biblical Perspectives, 1985. Reid, George. “The Seventh-day Adventist Approach to NT Understanding of the Clean and Unclean Foods.” 1987.

Church of God (7th Day) Papers “Three Days and Three Nights: Position Paper.” Dialogue, Church of God (Seventh Day) – Seventh Day Adventist[s], Loma Linda University, January 18–21, 1985.

Assemblies of Yahweh Conversations, 1984 Related Texts J[ohnsson], W[illiam] G. “Should We Produce an Adventist Bible?” AR, August 23, 1984, 12–13 J[ohnsson], W[illiam] G. “The Sufficiency of Scripture.” AR, August 30, 1984, 12–13.

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

463

World Evangelical Fellowship Consultation, 1985 Report “Consultation between Representatives of the World Evangelical Fellowship and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, April 8, 9, 1985, Washington, D.C.” [Unpublished report.] GCA/B38 (3481) Beach, Bert B. – General Files 1981–1989.

Archival Material Correspondence and other papers. Folder World Evangelical Fellowhip Dialogue, BRI. Correspondence and other papers. GCA/B38 (3481) Beach, Bert B. – General Files 1981– 1989.

Reformed Ecumenical Synod Conversations, 1985, 1987 No sources are known at present other than short references in CIR Minutes to the fact that these conversations took place (CIR Minutes, August 24, 1984, July 8, 1986, and June 2, 1987, GC PARL).

Lutheran World Federation Conversations, 1994–1998 Report “Adventists and Lutherans in Conversation: Report of the Bilateral Conversation, 1994– 1998.” In Jeffrey Gros, Harding Meyer, and William G. Rusch (eds.). Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982–1998. Faith and Order Paper 187. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000, 295–309. Also included in: AR, June 25, 1998. Supplement. Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation: Report and Papers Presented 1994–1998. Silver Spring: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2000 [abbreviated LAC], 5–23.

Related Texts “Bericht und Perspektiven: Sondierungsgespräche 2017–2021. Deutsches Nationalkomitee des Lutherischen Weltbundes – Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland [Report and Perspectives: Exploratory Conversations 2017–2021. German National Committee of the Lutheran World Federation – Seventh-day Adventist Church in Germany.].” Online: https://www.dnk-lwb.de/de/content/lutheraner-und-adventist en-146, accessed January 31, 2022.

464

Bibliography

“Critical Dialogue Required for Further Fellowship with Adventists: Statement from the LWF German National Committee.” Lutheran World Information 4–5, 2002, 15. Deutsches Nationalkomittee des Lutherischen Weltbundes. “Stellungnahme zum Bericht über bilaterale Gespräche zwischen dem Lutherischen Weltbund und der Generalkonferenz der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten [Statement on the Report on Bilateral Conversations between the Lutheran World Federation and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists].” Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim 53.2 (2002), 35–37. Geldbach, Erich. “LWB und STA im Gespräch und das Deutsche Nationalkomitee des LWB [LWF and SDA in Conversation and the German National Committee of the LWF].” Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts Bensheim 53.3 (2002), 48– 53. Heinz, Hans. “Lutheraner und Adventisten im Gespräch: Eine adventistische Antwort [Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation: An Adventist Reply].” AE, June 2002, i–iii [Adventecho Extra pages]. Johnsson, William G. “Adventists and Lutherans: Round Three.” AR, September 11, 1997, 20–21. Johnsson, William G. “Children of Luther.” AR, January 1995, 4. Johnsson, William G. “The Justified.” AR, October 24, 1996, 5. Pöhler, Rolf J. “Adventisten und Lutheraner im Gespräch: Eine Rezension [Adventists and Lutherans in Conversation: A Review].” Spes Christiana 12 (2001), 163–167. Rohrbough, Faith E. “A Lutheran Understanding of Prayer.” AUSS 38.1 (2000), 69–75. Saarinen, Risto. “Adventisten und Lutheraner im Gespräch: Ein Erfahrungsbericht [Adventists and Lutherans in Conversation: An Experience Report].” Ökumenische Rundschau 50 (2001), 475–489.

Archival Material Correspondence and other papers. GCA/52-PARL Files of Bert Beach. Correspondence and other papers. GC PARL. Drafts and other papers. Folder Lutheran World Federation Dialogue, BRI.

Adventist Papers Heinz, Hans. “Eschatology in the Adventist Faith.” Cartigny, May 10–16, 1998. LAC, 216– 236. Heinz, Hans. “Seventh-day Adventists’ Approach to the Bible.” Darmstadt, November 1– 5, 1994. LAC, 42–57. Johnsson, William. “Seventh-day Adventists: A Profile.” Darmstadt, November 1–5, 1994. LAC, 26–41. LaRondelle, Hans K. “The Seventh-day Adventist View of the Relationship of Justification–Sanctification–the Final Judgment.” Mississauga, June 17–22, 1996. LAC, 122– 133. Paulien, Jon. “Eschatology and Adventist Self-Understanding.” Cartigny, May 10–16, 1998. LAC, 237–253.

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

465

Reid, George W. “The Seventh-day Adventist Understanding of Church Authority.” Jongny, June 1–6, 1997. LAC, 201–212. Rodriguez, Angel M. “The Adventist Church and the Christian World.” Jongny, June 1–6, 1997. LAC, 168–180. Rodriguez, Angel M. “The Adventist Understanding of the Law and the Sabbath.” Mississauga, June 17–21, 1996. LAC, 106–121. Shea, William H. “Seventh-day Adventist Teaching on the Judgment.” Cartigny, May 10– 16, 1998. LAC, 254–275.

Lutheran Papers Buck, Erwin. “How the Lutherans Read the Bible.” Darmstadt, November 1–5, 1994. LAC, 58–71. Buck, Erwin. “Interpretation of Biblical Apocalyptic Literature.” Cartigny, May 10–16. LAC, 291–305. Buck, Erwin. “The Role of the Law in the New Testament.” Mississauga, June 17–21, 1996, LAC, 134–148. Rothermundt, Jörg. “Eschatology in the Lutheran Perspective.” Cartigny, May 10–16, 1998 LAC, 276–290. Rothermundt, Jörg. “The Lutheran Church: A Profile.” Mississauga, June 17–21, 1996. LAC, 74–88. Kilpp, Nelson. “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in Lutheran Tradition and in Present Dialogue.” Jongny, June 1–6, 1997. LAC, 181–200. Kilpp, Nelson. “A Lutheran Interpretation of the Book of Daniel.” Cartigny May 10–16, 1998. LAC, 306–319. Kvarme, Ole C. M. “The Understanding of Church Authority in Lutheran Churches.” Jongny, June 1–6, 1997. LAC, 150–167. Saarinen, Risto. “ ‘Justification by Faith’ in the Ecumenical Dialogues of the Lutheran World Federation.” Mississauga, June 17–21, 1996. LAC, 89–104.

World Alliance of Reformed Churches Dialogue, 2001 Report “Report of the International Theological Dialogue between the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.” In Jeffrey Gros, Thomas F. Best, and Lorelei F. Fuchs (eds.). Growth in Agreement III: International Dialogue Texts and Agreed Statements, 1998–2005. Faith and Order Paper 204. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2007, 296–305.

Related Texts Johnsson, William G. “Mission in a Broken World.” AR, June 21, 2001, 5. Rigby, Cynthia L. “Tell the Old, New Story.” WARC Update, June 2001, 8–9.

466

Bibliography

Adventist Papers Adams, Roy. “The Apocalypse: God’s Answer to the Human Cry for Ultimate Justice”. Paper presented at Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny sur Vevey, April 1–7, 2001. Folder “Reformed-Adventist,” BRI. Baldwin, John. “Keepers of the Garden: Christians and the Environment – An Adventist Perspective.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 4, 2001. Folder “Reformed-Adventist,” BRI. A shortened version was published with the same title in Dialogue 14.1 (2002), 8–11. Graz, John. “Seventh-day Adventists and Religious Liberty: An Aspect of Justice.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 3, 2001. Folder “Reformed-Adventist,” BRI. Johnsson, William. “A Profile of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 2, 2001. Folder “Reformed-Adventist,” BRI. LaRondelle, Hans K. “Protestant Theological Heritage in Seventh-Day Adventism.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 3, 2001. Folder “Reformed-Adventist,” BRI.

Reformed Papers Arles, Nalini. “Asian Women’s Concerns.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 3, 2001. Hambira, Rupert. “South African Concerns.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 4, 2001. Piedra Arturo. “The Challenges of the Post-Cold War for Protestant Christianity in Latin America.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 3, 2001. Rigby, Cynthia. “The Doctrine of Forgiveness and its Implications for Justice: A Reformed, Feminist, North American Perspective.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 3, 2001. Sell, Alan. “Reformed Ecclesiology and Missiology.” Paper presented at the Reformed Churches / Seventh-day Adventist Church dialogue, Jongny, April 2, 2001.

Consultations with Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, 2001–2003 Reports and Related Text “Adventistes.” Irénikon 75.2–3 (2002), 252–254. “Informal Consultations with Seventh-day Adventists.” Official Bulletin of the PCPCU: Information Service, no. 115 (2004), 67–69. Pöhler, Rolf. “Der adventistisch-röm.-katholische Dialog. Erste Schritte: Adventisten und Katholiken im Gespräch [The Adventist-Roman Catholic Dialogue. First Steps: Adventists and Catholics in Conversation].” Freikirchenforschung 16 (2007), 135–152.

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

467

“Recent Conversations between Adventists and Catholics.” Official Bulletin of the PCPCU: Information Service, no. 110 (2002), 177. Rodríguez, Ángel M. “Conversations between Adventists and Catholics.” Reflections – A BRI Newsletter, October 2003, 2–3. “Summary: Catholic/Seventh Day Adventist Consultation, May 2003.” Folder “Catholic Church Dialogue,” BRI.

Adventist Papers Davidson, Richard M. “Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures: Toward an Understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics.” Paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal consultation, Geneva, May 19–21, 2003. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/interp%20scripture% 20davidson.pdf, accessed January 2, 2011. Reid, George W. “Seventh-day Adventists: A Brief Introduction to their Beliefs.” Paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal consultation, Geneva, May 8–9, 2001. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/ad ventist%20beliefs.htm, accessed January 2, 2011. Rodríguez, Ángel M. “The Biblical Sabbath: The Adventist Perspective.” Paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal consultation, Geneva, May 20– 22, 2002. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/sabbath-catholic2 002.htm, accessed January 2, 2011.

Roman Catholic Papers Byamungu, Gosbert. “Principles for Biblical Interpretation: A Catholic Perspective.” Paper presented at the Roman Catholic – Seventh-day Adventist informal Consultation, Geneva, May 19–21, 2003. Folder “Catholic Church Dialogue,” BRI. Puglisi, James F. “The Lord’s Day and Its Meaning in the Catholic Tradition.” Paper Presented at the Roman Catholic/Seventh – day Adventist informal Consultation, Geneva, May 20–22, 2002. Folder “Catholic Church Dialogue,” BRI.

Salvation Army Dialogue, 2004–2008 Report Unpublished Report. CIR Minutes, January 17, 2008.

Archival Material Drafts and other papers. Folder Salvation Army 2004, BRI. Drafts and other papers. Folder Salvation Army 2008, BRI.

468

Bibliography

Adventist Papers Andreasen, Niels-Erik. “Death: Origin, Nature, and Final Eradication.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jacksons Point, March 10, 2005 [no written paper; presented text similar to section authored by Andreasen in Raoul Dederen (ed.). Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Commentary Reference Series 12. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000, 314–346, according to information provided by Dalry Payne, assistant to Andreasen, e-mail, April 19, 2011]. Donkor, Kwabena. “Sacraments of the Church: Essentials or Adiaphora? A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jacksons Point, March, 7, 2005. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI. Fortin, Denis. “A Seventh-day Adventist Perspective on the Nature and Function of the Church.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, February 25, 2008. Folder “Salvation Army 2008,” BRI. Graz, John. “Seventh-day Adventists and Religious Freedom.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, February 25, 2008. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI. Johnsson, William. “A Profile of Seventh-day Adventists.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, February 25, 2008. Folder “Salvation Army 2008,” BRI. Johnsson, William. “Seventh-day Adventists: A Profile” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, January, 5, 2004 Folder “Salvation Army 2004,” BRI. Luxton, Andrea. “Seventh-day Adventist Education: The Ideal and the Reality.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jacksons Point, March 7, 2005. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI. Müller, Ekkehardt. “The Law and the Gospel.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, February 26, 2008. Folder “Salvation Army 2008,” BRI. Ochoa, Mario. “Seventh-day Adventist Philosophy of Humanitarian Development and Relief (Adventist Development and Relief Agency – ADRA).” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jacksons Point, March 8, 2005. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI. Reid, George. “Introductory Survey of the Seventh-day Adventist 27 Fundamental Beliefs.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, January 6, 2004. Folder “Salvation Army 2004,” BRI. Rodriguez, Ángel. “Adventist Biblical Interpretation.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, January 8, 2004. Folder “Salvation Army 2004,” BRI. Whidden, Woodrow. “The Methodist Roots of the Seventh-day Adventist Church – The Wesleyan Connection.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, January 7, 2004. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org /documents/wesleyan connectionSDA.htm; accessed January 2, 2011. Whidden, Woodrow. “The Adventist Mission to the World: The Success Factors.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jacksons Point, March 9, 2005. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI.

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

469

Salvation Army Papers Papers not extant in my files (but known to exist) are marked with an asterisk (*). Bond, Linda. “Individual Churches with the Universal Church.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, February 25, 2008. Ferguson, Lester, with Edwin Okorugo, and Varam Prathipati. “Salvationist Perspectives on Christian Education and Discipleship.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jacksons Point, March 7, 2005. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI. Green, Roger. “Wesleyan Foundations for Salvation Army Missiology: William and Catherine Booth and Methodism.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jacksons Point, March 8, 2005. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI. *Green, Roger, with Lester Ferguson, Edwin Okorougo, and Prathipaty Devavaram. “The Salvation Army’s Holistic Mission: The Whole Gospel of the Whole World.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, January, January 7, 2004. *Lydholm, Lars. “Introduction to Salvation Army Doctrine.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, January 6, 2004. Lydholm, Lars. “Reflections on Religious Freedom.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, February 26, 2008. Folder “Salvation Army 2008,” BRI. Lydholm, Lars. “A Salvation Army Perspective on the Doctrine of the Church and the Sacraments.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jackson Point, March 7–8, 2005. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI. Robinson, Barbara. “The Role and Spiritual Leadership of Women in the Salvation Army.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Jacksons Point, March 10, 2005. Folder “Salvation Army 2005,” BRI. *Robinson, Earl. “Salvation Army Polity, Administrative Structure and Governance.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, January 7, 2004. *Shakespeare, Karen, and Roger Green. “A Survey of the Army’s History since Our Beginnings.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, January 5, 2004. Sparks, Gordon. “The Law and the Gospel.” Paper presented at the Salvation Army / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Silver Spring, February 26, 2008. Folder “Salvation Army 2008,” BRI.

World Evangelical Alliance Dialogue, 2006–2007 Report “Joint Statement of the World Evangelical Alliance and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” 2007. Online: http://www.worldevangelicals.org/news/WEAAdventistDialogue2007080 9d.pdf, accessed February 1, 2010 [published also in Stefan Höschele. Interchurch

470

Bibliography

and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents. Adventistica 10. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 157–160].

Archival Material Drafts and other papers. Folder World Evangelical Alliance, BRI.

Adventist Papers Beach, Bert B. “Ecumenical Self-Understanding of the Adventist Church.” Paper presented at the Adventist / World Evangelical Alliance dialogue, Berrien Springs, August 5, 2007. Folder “World Evangelical Alliance,” BRI. Fortin, Denis. “Ellen G. White’s Ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Paper presented at the Adventist / World Evangelical Alliance dialogue, Berrien Springs, August 7, 2007. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/World%20Evangelical /Fortin,%20EGWhite%20Ministry%20in%20SDA%20church.pdf, accessed January 2, 2011. Gane, Roy E. “Christ at His Sanctuary: Toward Adventist-Evangelical Dialogue.” Paper presented at the Adventist / World Evangelical Alliance dialogue, Berrien Springs, August 6, 2007. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/World%20Evangelical /Gane,%20Christ%20at%20his%20sanctuary.pdf, accessed January 2, 2011. Kisˇ, Miroslav. “Human Nature and Destiny – A Seventh-day Adventist Reflection.” Paper presented at the Adventist / World Evangelical Alliance dialogue, Berrien Springs, August 9, 2007. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/World%20Evangelical /Kis,%20Human%20Nature%20&%20Destiny.pdf, accessed January 2, 2011. Van Bemmelen, Peter “Justification by Faith: An Adventist Understanding.” Paper presented at the Adventist / World Evangelical Alliance dialogue, Berrien Springs, August 8, 2007. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/World%20Evangelical /Bemmelen,%20Justification%20by%20faith.pdf, accessed January 2, 2011.

World Evangelical Alliance Papers “The Purpose and Objectives of the World Evangelical Alliance.” Paper presented at the Adventist / World Evangelical Alliance dialogue, Berrien Springs, August 6, 2007.

Presbyterian Church in the USA Dialogue, 2006–2013 Reports and Related Items “Presbyterians, Adventists Conclude 4-year Dialogue.” Online: https://www.pcusa.org/ne ws/2013/11/18/presbyterians-adventists-conclude-4-year-dialogue, accessed June 23, 2016.

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

471

“Convener of the Seventh-Day / Reformed Dialogue Reflects on the Importance of the Dialogue Process: Presbyterian / Seventh-day Adventist Dialogue Report.” Online: http://oga.pcusa.org/section/ecclesial-and-ecumenical-ministries/ecumenical-and-age ncy-relationships/convener-seventh-dayreformed-dialogue-reflects, accessed June 23, 2016. “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Seventh-day Adventist Dialogue Report, 2010–2013.” TMs. Unpublished. “Reformed/Seventh-day Adventist Dialogue Meeting, November 5–7, 2011.” January 26– 27, 2012. Online: https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/oga/pdf/dialogue -7day.pdf, accessed July 1, 2016.

Adventist Papers Burt, Merlin D. “Ellen G. White and Sola Scriptura.” Paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Presbyterian Church USA conversation, Louisville, August 23, 2007. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/conversations%20with%20presbyteria ns/Burt,%20Ellen%20White%20&%20Sola%20Scriptura.pdf, accessed January 2, 2011. Donkor, Kwabena. “Discovering the Center of Seventh-Day Adventism.” Paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church / Presbyterian Church USA conversation, Loma Linda, 2008. Folder “Presbyterian Dialogue 2008,” BRI. Donkor, Kwabena. “Exploring the Heart of Seventh-Day Adventism.” Paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church / Presbyterian Church USA conversation, Loma Linda, July 15–18, 2008. Folder “Presbyterian Dialogue,” BRI. Hart, Richard. “Adventists and Health.” Paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church / Presbyterian Church USA conversation, Loma Linda, July 15–18, 2008. Johnsson, William G. “Profile of Seventh-day Adventists.” Paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church / Presbyterian Church USA conversation, Silver Spring, November 1, 2006. Folder “Presbyterian Dialogue,” BRI. Müller, Ekkehardt. “The Law and the Gospel.” Paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church / Presbyterian Church USA conversation, Louisville, August 23, 2007. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/conversations%20with%20presbyteria ns/mueller,%20Law%20&%20the%20Gospel.pdf, accessed January 2, 2011.

Presbyterian Papers Cortes-Fuentes, David. “Presbyterians and Social Politics.” Paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church / Presbyterian Church USA conversation, Loma Linda, July 15–18, 2008. Folder “Presbyterian Dialogue 2008,” BRI. Sorge, Sheldon W. “History, Teachings, and Ethos of the Presbyterian Church of USA.” Paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church / Presbyterian Church of USA conversation, Silver Spring, November 1, 2006. Folder “Presbyterian Dialogue,” BRI. Sorge, Sheldon W. “Of Tulips, Daisies, and Lilies: The Garden of God’s Electing Grace.” Paper presented at the Presbyterian / Seventh-day Adventist dialogue, Loma Linda, July 2008. Folder “Presbyterian Dialogue 2008,” BRI.

472

Bibliography

Mennonite World Conference Conversations, 2011–2012 Reports Mennonite World Conference and General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. “Joint Statement.” 2011. Online: http://www.stanet.ch/APD/pdf/2011/Dialog ue_MWC_SDA_Joint_Statement_2011%20%283%29.pdf, accessed July 20, 2011. Rasmussen, Carol E. (ed.). Living the Christian Life in Today’s World: A Conversation between Mennonite World Conference and the Seventh-day Adventist Church [abbreviated: LCL]. Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and Mennonite World Conference, 2014, 263– 270. Published also in: Fernando Enns and Jonathan Seiling. Mennonites in Dialogue: Official Reports from International and National Ecumenical Encounters, 1975–2012. Eugene: Pickwick, 2015, 423–433. Published in German: “Als Christ in der heutigen Welt leben: Dialogbericht der Gespräche zwischen Adventisten und Mennoniten, 2011–2012.” In Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung: Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene. Vol. 5: 2011–2019. Ed. by Johannes Oeldemann, Friederike Nüssel, Uwe Swarat, and Athanasios Vletsis. Paderborn: Bonifatius; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2021, 29–35.

Adventist Papers 2011

Councell, Gary R. “Seventh-day Adventists and Military-Related Service.” LCL, 100–113. Fortin, Denis. “Adventist Concepts of Discipleship and Nonconformity.” LCL, 90–99. Graz, John. “From Symposiums to Stadiums: Promoting Religious Freedom.” LCL, 138– 152. Johnsson, William G. “A Profile of Seventh-day Adventists.” LCL, 27–43. Landless, Peter N. “The More Abundant Life: Some Adventist Views on Health, Healing and Wellness.” LCL, 61–68.

2012

Beach, Bert B. “Reflections on Seventh-day Adventist Ecclesiology and Church Organization.” LCL, 197–206. Fortin, Denis. “A Perspective on Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics.” LCL, 247–259. Johnsson, William G. “The Role of Eschatology in Seventh-day Adventist Thought and Practice.” LCL, 182–196. Reeve, Teresa. “Some Thoughts on Nonconformity in the Adventist Ethos.” LCL, 219– 230.

Adventist Theological Dialogue Documents

473

Mennonite Papers 2011

Barbosa, Patricia Urueña. “Anabaptist Overview.” LCL, 13–26. Barbosa, Patricia Urueña. “Ordinances of the Church.” LCL, 80–89. Rempel, Valerie G. “Reflections on Foundational Anabaptist Understandings of Discipleship, Non-Conformity and Ethics.” LCL, 69–80. Stenvers, Henk. “Reflections on Salvation, Healing, Health and Ecology.” LCL, 44–60. Suderman, Robert J. “Reflections on Anabaptist Ecclesiology.” LCL, 153–160. Yoder Neufeld, Thomas R. “Anabaptist Understandings of Peace, Non-violence, and Separation of Church and State.” LCL, 114–137.

2012

Rempel, Valerie G. “Early Anabaptist Eschatology.” LCL, 163–168. Stenvers, Henk. “Nonconformity.” LCL, 207–218. Suderman, Robert J. “Hermeneutics from an Anabaptist Perspective.” LCL, 231–246. Yoder Neufeld, Thomas R. “Eschatology as Understood by Mennonites Today.” LCL, 169–181.

Other Dialogues “Statement of the Council of Ecumenism of the Conference of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland and the Leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Poland to Commemorate the 15th Anniversary of the Interchurch Dialogue [2000].” In Stefan Höschele. Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents. Adventistica 10. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2010, 144–146 [Polish Original: “Katolicy i Adwentys´ci w Polsce. Os´wiadczenie Rady Konferencji Episkopatu do Spraw Ekumenizmu Kos´cioła Katolickiego w Polsce i Zwierzchnos´ci Kos´cioła Adwentystów Dnia Siódmego w Polsce z okazji 15-lecia mie˛dzywyznaniowego dialogu. Studia i dokumenty ekumeniczne 16.1 (2000), 149–151].

474

8.4

Bibliography

Unpublished and Digital Items on SDA and ICR

This section lists (in this sequence) archival documents, unpublished conference papers, internet documents, and other unpublished documents and manuscripts.

Archival Documents Archives [GCA], General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, USA. Correspondence. Foreign Mission Board [FMB] Minutes. General Conference Committee [GCC] Minutes. General Conference Officers’ Meeting [GCOM] Minutes (N.B. This consultative committee was called “General Conference Officers’ Council” from 1930 to August 1932 and thereafter existed until 1982. Its deliberations are of great importance because the official GCC meetings mostly followed what had been agreed in the GCOM). Biblical Research Institute [BRI], General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, USA. Theological Dialogues Folders. Council on Interchurch Relations [CIR], General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department [PARL], Silver Spring, USA. Correspondence. Minutes. Ellen G. White Estate [EGWE], General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, USA. Correspondence. Manuscripts. World Council of Churches Archives, Geneva. 23.6.041 Faith and Order – World Confessional Bodies, 1962–1971. 23.6.042 Faith and Order – World Confessional Families, Correspondence 1969–1977.

Conferences This section lists conferences with relevant unpublished papers or publications that are either difficult to access or are only available in digital format. The listing is chronological. Charismatic Movement Study Conference, Camp Cumby-Gay, January 4–9, 1973. Relevant papers presented and reports: The Charismatic Movement: Report of the Special Committee Meeting in Camp CumbyGay, January 4–9, 1973. N.p.: n.p., [1973].

Unpublished and Digital Items on SDA and ICR

475

“An Adventist Ecclesiology in the Making”: Second International Bible Conference for Bible Teachers and Theologians, I˙zmir, July 7–17, 2006. Relevant papers presented: Christo, Gordon. “The Remnant and Non-Christian Religions.” Hasel, Frank. “The Doctrine of (Re-)Baptism as an Ecumenical Controversy.” Müller, Ekkehardt. “The End Time Remnant and the Christian World.” Pfandl, Gerhard. “Unity and Diversity in the Adventist Church.” Rodríguez, Ángel M. “Toward an Adventist Ecclesiology: Theological Aspects.” Questions on Doctrine 50th Anniversary Conference, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, October 24–27, 2007. Relevant papers presented (also available online: http://qod.andre ws.edu/downloads.html, accessed August 27, 2009): Christoffel, Larry. “Evangelical Adventism: Questions on Doctrine’s Legacy.” Dayton, Donald. “Some Reflections on Adventist Identity by a ‘Sympathetic Outsider’ on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publication of Questions on Doctrine.” Douglass, Herbert. “The QOD Earthquake: Attempted Merger of Two Theological Tectonic Plates.” Knight, George. “Questions on Doctrine: Symbol of Adventist Theological Tension.” McGraw, Paul. “A View from Outside the Veil: The Evangelical Reaction to Questions on Doctrine.” Moore, Leroy. “That They May Be One.” Nam, Julius. “The Questions on Doctrine Saga: Contours and Lessons.” Patrick, Arthur. “The Questions on Doctrine Event: Contrasting Perceptions, Their Impact and Potential.” Paulien, Jon. “Questions on Doctrine and the Church: Present and Future.” Samples, Kenneth. “Evangelical Reflections on Seventh-Day Adventism: Yesterday and Today.” Sepulveda, Ciro. “The Tent and the Cathedral: White-Collar Adventists and Their Search for Respectability.” Standish, Colin. “Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: The U-Turn in Doctrine and Practice.” Standish, Russell. “A History of Questions on Doctrine: Fidelity or Compromise?” Timm, Alberto R. “Questions on Doctrine: History and Impact in the South American Division.” Whidden, Woodrow. “Questions on Doctrine: What Should Be the Enduring Theological Legacy?” “Gates and Walls: Inclusivity and Exclusivity and the People of God.” Annual Meeting of the Adventist Society for Religious Studies, San Francisco, November 17–19, 2011. Fortin, Denis. “Coming out of Babylon and Christian Unity: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Adventist Discourse about Other Christians.” Online: http://www.lasie rra.edu/fileadmin/documents/religion/School_of_Religion_2011-12/ASRS_2011/01_Fort in-1.pdf, accessed March 16, 2012.

476

Bibliography

Rice, Richard. “Remnant Identity Past and Present: A Central Issue for Adventists Today.” Online: http://www.lasierra.edu/fileadmin/documents/religion/School_of_Re ligion_2011-12/ASRS_2011/04_Rice.pdf, accessed December 11, 2012. “Ökumene 2012 – Hoffnung oder Resignation? [Ecumenism 2012: Hope or Resignation?]. Conference of the Adventistischer Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis, Frankfurt a. M., November 16–18, 2012. Relevant papers presented: Mainka, Michael. “Ökumenische Erfahrungen vor Ort [Local Ecumenical Experiences].” Teubert, Holger. “Zwischenkirchliche Beziehungen der Freikirche der STA [Interchurch Relations of the Seventh-day Adventist Church].”

Internet Documents “Adventist Church in Hungary Reconciles with Breakaway Group after 40 Years,” Adventist News Network, May 1, 2015. Online: https://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2 015-05-04/adventist-church-in-hungary-reconciles-with-breakaway-group-after-40-ye ars, accessed June 23, 2016. Boletin Oficial del Estado. Ley 24/1992 de 10 de noviembre [Law 24/1992 of November 10]. November 12, 1992, no. 272 [on FEREDE (Federation of Evangelical Religious Entities of Spain]. Online: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1992/11/12/pdfs/A38209-38211.pdf, accessed February 24, 2012. Burdette, Matthew. “Ecumenical Unity as Adventist Mission.” August 4, 2010. Online: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/print/2567, accessed August 10, 2010. “Dialogue interreligieux de l’Église adventiste du septième jour [Interreligious Dialogue of the Seventh-day Adventist Church].” Online: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue _interreligieux_de_l%27%C3%89glise_adventiste_du_septi%C3%A8me_jour, accessed March 1, 2012. Graz, John. “Is the General Conference Involved in Ecumenism?” TMs, Biblical Research Institute, 2007. Online: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/is%20the% 20GC%20involved%20in%20ecumenism.pdf, accessed February 1, 2011. Klausewitz, Wolfgang. “Bringt die Ökumene ein vereinigtes Christentum? [Does Ecumenism Lead to a United Christianity?].” Online: http://adventgemeinde-ffm.de /oekumene-artikel.html, accessed March 4, 2014. Manoel, Marcel, and Bernhard Guillot. “Rapport de l’équipe de suivi de l’UFA: Évaluation de la Période Probatoire de l’UFA à la FPF [Follow-Up Team Report on the French Union of Seventh-day Adventists: Evaluation of the Probation Period of the French Union of Seventh-day Adventists in the French Protestant Federation].” Online: http://www.protestants.org/fpf/documen/eglises-probation-2006/ufa-apport-equipe. htm, accessed June 30, 2006. “Seventh-day Adventist Interfaith Relations.” Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven th-day_Adventist_Interfaith_Relations, accessed April 11, 2012.

Unpublished and Digital Items on SDA and ICR

477

[Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement.] “Seventh-Day Adventism and Ecumenism.” Online: http://www.sdarm.net/northwestfield/publications/way/gws-10.htm, accessed July 27, 2011. Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland. “Geschichtliche Entwicklung in den Beziehungen [Historical Developments in (interchurch) Relations].” N.d. [ca. 2008]. Online: http://www.adventisten.de/ueber-uns/beziehungen-zu-anderen-kirchen/gesch ichtliche-entwicklung, accessed September 3, 2009.

Other Unpublished Documents and Manuscripts All these documents are in my possession, either as original or as a photocopy. “Adventists and Dual Church Membership.” TMs, Biblical Research Institute, 2011. Ang’ira, Cepha. “A Consistent Esteem: Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitudes towards the Mennonites.” Research paper, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 2011. Beach, Bert B. Interview by the author, Silver Spring, June 1, 2008. Bendix, Helmut. “Das ekklesiologische Selbstverständnis der Gemeinschaft der STA: Die ‘Gemeinde der Übrigen’ und ihre Beziehungen zum Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen [The Ecclesiological Self-Understanding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church: The ‘Remnant Church and Its Relationship with the World Council of Churches’].” TMs, Konfessionskundliches Arbeits- und Forschungswerk (Evangelischer Bund) der Evangelischen Kirchen in der DDR, [1985]. Böttcher, Manfred. “Die Gemeinde und die Kirche: Anfragen zum Problem Ökumene [The [Adventist] Community and the Church: Inquiries regarding the Ecumenical Problem].” TMs, n.d. Campbell, Michael. “‘A Holy Spell’: The Development of the Communion Service among Seventh-day Adventists.” Research paper, Andrews University, 2004. “Co-operation with the W.C.T.U. and other Temperance Organizations: Selections from the Writings of Ellen White.” TMs, Elmshaven Office, 1934. Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring. “Das Limapapier in adventistischer Sicht [The Lima Paper in Adventist Perspective].” TMs, n.d. Fortin, Denis. “A Brief Survey of the Roman Catholic Church’s Involvement in the Ecumenical Movement.” Paper presented at the 4th international Bible Conference, Biblical Research Institute of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Rome, June 11–21, 2018. Heinz, Hans. “Ökumene.” Lecture notes, Theologische Hochschule Friedensau, 1995. Henning, Heinz. “Die Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten und der Ökumenische Rat der Kirchen [The Seventh-day Adventist Church and the World Council of Churches].” TMs, 1974. Hoilette, Newton W. “Ecumenism since 1910 and the Seventh-day Adventist Viewpoint.” Research paper, Andrews University, 1975. Johnston, Robert M. “Relationships between Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists.” Research paper, Andrews University, 1962. Center of Adventist Research, Andrews University, DF 398.

478

Bibliography

Kilian, Bernd. “Die Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten – Eine charismatische Erweckungsbewegung des 19. Jahrhunderts: Eine adventgeschichtliche Studie mit kritischen Anmerkungen [The Seventh-day Adventist Church – a Charismatic Reival Movement of the 19th Century: A Study of Adventist History with Critical Remarks].” TMs, 1995. Kobs, Hermann. “Die dreifache Engelsbotschaft und die Ökumenische Bewegung [The Three Angels’ Messages and the Ecumenical Movement].” TMs, [1948]. [“Konfessionsverschiedene Pastorenehen (Interdenominational Pastors’ Marriages).”] Recommendation of the Ethics Commission, Northern German Union of Seventh-day Adventists, November 16, 2004. “Kurzfassung von Themen zur religiös kirchlichen Lage nach dem Konzil zum Zweck der Belehrung in S. T. Adventistengemeinden [Short Overview of Themes on the ReligiousEcclesiastical Situation after the Council with the Goal of Teaching SDA Churches].” Printed Manuscript. Wien: Studienkommission der Österreichischen Union S. T. A., 1967. Leutert, Dieter. “Die Eucharistieaussagen des Limapapieres vor dem Hintergrund der Alten Kirche [The Statements on the Eucharist in the Lima Paper on the Background of the Old Church].” TMs, n.d. Leutert, Dieter. “Zur Ökumene [Regarding Ecumenism].” Manuscript printed by the Ministerial Association, Seventh-day Adventist Church in the GDR, 1986. Müller, Konrad F. (compiler). “Seventh-day Adventists’ Relationship to Other Churches as Portrayed in the Writings of Ellen G. White.” Manuscript, n.d. E. G. White/SDA Research Centre Europe, Newbold College, England, DF 2002. Österreichische Union, Abteilung Ehe und Familie. “Zur Frage der konfessionsverschiedenen Heirat: Biblische Richtlinien und Prinzipien [On the Question of CrossDenominational Marriage: Biblical Guidelines and Principles]. ” TMs, May 2003. Österreichischen Union der Kirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten. “Zur Frage der konfessionsverschiedenen Heirat: Empfehlungen an Prediger zur praktischen Umsetzung der biblischen Richtlinien und Prinzipien [On the Question of Cross-Denominational Marriage: Recommendations to Pastors regarding the Implication of the Biblical Guidelines and Principles].” TMs, November 12, 2003. Pöhler, Rolf J. “ ‘… and the Door was Shut’: Seventh-day Adventists and the Shut-Door Doctrine in the Decade After the Great Disappointment.” Research paper, Andrews University, 1978. Center of Adventist Research, Andrews University. “Some History and Some Information regarding the Church of God – Adventist and Seventh-Day.” TMs, Ellen G. White Publications, Washington, D.C., 1944. Steger, Carlos Alfredo. “The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Ecumenism.” Research paper, Andrews University, 1989. Center of Adventist Research, Andrews University. Teubert, Holger. “Adventisten und Ökumene [Adventists and Ecumenism].” TMs, [ca. 1984]. Walther, Daniel. “Ecumenical Trends.” TMs. Lecture, Andrews University, [1962].

Adventist Writings of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

8.5

479

Adventist Writings of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

This section also includes writings of non-Adventists published by denominational publishing houses or its precursors.

Magazines Various magazines and papers of the early Adventist period are listed in section 8.2. The most important of these are the Millerite Signs of the Times, the Seventh-day Adventist Review and Herald as well as its precursors (Present Truth; Advent Review), and the SDA Adventist Signs of the Times.

Books, Pamphlets, and Similar Publications This section includes significant writings by former Seventh-day Adventists and Millerite precursors of Seventh-day Adventism. The Advent Harp: Designed for Believers in the Speedy Coming of Christ. Boston: J. V. Himes, 1849. Andrews, John Nevins. History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week. Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1861. Andrews, John N. Thoughts on the Sabbath and Perpetuity of the Law of God. Paris: James White, 1851. Atkins, Robert. A True Picture, or, Description of the State of the Churches. Rochester: Advent Review Office, [1854]. Bates, Joseph. The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates. Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868. Bates, Joseph. An Explanation of the Typical and Antitypical Sanctuary by the Scriptures with a Chart. New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1850. Bates, Joseph. The Opening Heavens, or a Connected View of the Testimony of the Prophets and Apostles, Concerning the Opening Heavens, Compared with Astronomical Observations, and of the Present and Future Location of the New Jerusalem, the Paradise of God. New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1846. Bates, Joseph. A Seal of the Living God: A Hundred Forty-Four Thousand of the Servants of God Being Sealed in 1849. New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1849. Bates, Joseph. Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps, or, A Connected View of the Fulfillment of Prophecy, by God’s Peculiar People from the Year 1840 to 1847. New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1847. Bates, Joseph. The Seventh Day Sabbath: A Perpetual Sign, from the Beginning, to the Entering into the Gates of the Holy City. According to the Commandment. New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1846.

480

Bibliography

Bates, Joseph. The Seventh Day Sabbath: A Perpetual Sign, from the Beginning, to the Entering into the Gates of the Holy City. According to the Commandment. 2d, rev. and enl. ed. New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1847. Bates, Joseph. A Vindication of the Seventh-Day Sabbath, and the Commandments of God; With a Further History of God’s Peculiar People from 1847 to 1848. New Bedford: Benjamin Lindsey, 1848. Bible Readings for the Home Circle. Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1889. Bliss, Sylvester. Memoirs of William Miller. Boston: J. V. Himes, 1853. Butler, George I. The Law in the Book of Galatians: Is It the Moral Law, or Does It Refer to That System of Laws Peculiarly Jewish? Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1886. Canright, Dudley M. Adventism Refuted in a Nutshell. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1889. Canright, Dudley M. The Jewish Sabbath Abolished: The Commandments of God, What Are They? Des Moines: Oracle, 1887. Canright, Dudley M. Life of Mrs. E. G. White, Seventh-day Adventist Prophet: Her False Claims Refuted. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1919. Canright, Dudley M. The Lord’s Day, from neither Catholics nor Pagans: An Answer to Seventh-Day Adventism on This Subject. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1915. Canright, Dudley M. Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced after an Experience of TwentyEight Years by a Prominent Minister and Writer of that Faith. 14th ed. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1914 [1st ed. 1888]. Canright, Dudley M. Why I Gave up the Seventh Day. Oakland: Messiah’s Advocate, 1887. Christ in Song Hymnal. Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1899. Cornell, Merritt E. The Last Work of the True Church. Booklet. Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1855. Cornell, Merritt E. Miraculous Powers: The Scripture Testimony on the Perpetuity of Spiritual Gifts. Illustrated by Narratives of Incidents and Sentiments Carefully Compiled from the Eminently Pious and Learned of Various Denominations. 2nd ed. Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1875. Cornell, Merritt E. The State of the Churches. Brochure. Battle Creek: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, [ca. 1868]. Cottrell, R. F. Mark of the Beast, and Seal of the Living God. Pamphlet. Battle Creek: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1855. A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists. Battle Creek: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1872. Fitch, Charles. Come Out of Her, My People: A Sermon. Brochure. Rochester: J. V. Himes, 1843. Frisbie, Joseph B. Order of the Church of God. Brochure. Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Review and Herald Office, 1859. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Hymns and Tunes for Those Who Keep the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus. Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1869. General Conference [of Seventh-day Adventists.] The Seventh-day Adventist Hymn and Tune Book for Use in Divine Worship. Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1886. Harmon, Ellen. To the Little Remnant Scattered Abroad. Broadside. Portland: N.p., 1846.

Adventist Writings of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

481

Hastings, Horace Lorenzo. The Three Worlds, or, Earth’s Past, Present, and Future. Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1855. Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Celestial Railroad. Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1855. Himes, Joshua V. Millennial Harp: Designed for Meetings on the Second Coming of Christ. Boston: [J. V. Himes,] 1843. Hymns for Those Who Keep the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus. Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1855. Jones, Alonzo T. The National Sunday Law: Argument of Alonzo T. Jones before the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor, at Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 1888. Oakland: American Sentinel, 1889. Jones, Alonzo T. The Two Republics; Or, Rome and the United States of America. Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1891. Kellogg, John H. The Living Temple. Battle Creek: Good Health, 1903. Loughborough, John N. Rise and Progress of the Seventh-day Adventists. Battle Creek: General Conference Association of the Seventh-day Adventists, 1892. McLearn, Alexander. Seventh-Day Adventism: Some of Its Errors and Delusions. New York: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1888. Miller, William. Apology and Defence. Boston: J. V. Himes, 1845. Miller, William. Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ, about the Year 1843. Boston: J. V. Himes, 1842. Miller, W[illia]m. Evidences from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ about the Year A.D. 1843, and of His Personal Reign of 1000 Years. Brandon: Vermont Telegraph Office, 1833. Nichols, Otis. “Pictorial Illustration of the Visions of Daniel & John and Their Chronology.” Chart. Dorchester: Otis Nichols, [1850]. Preble, Thomas M. Tract, Showing that the Seventh Day Should Be Observed as the Sabbath, instead of the First Day, “According to the Commandment.” Nashua: Murray and Kimball, 1845. Proceedings of the Mutual Conference of Adventists. Held in the City of Albany, the 29th and 30th of April, and the 1st of May, 1845. New York: J. V. Himes, 1845. Seventh Day Baptist General Conference. An Appeal for the Restoration of the Bible Sabbath: In an Address to the Baptists. Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Review and Herald Office, 1860. Smith, Uriah. Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Books of Daniel and the Revelation. Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1881. Snook, B. F. The Nature, Subjects and Design of Christian Baptism. Battle Creek: Steam Press of the Review and Herald Office, 1861. Stephenson, James M. The Atonement. Rochester: Advent Review Office, 1854. Waggoner, Ellet J. Fathers of the Catholic Church: A Brief Examination of the “Falling away” of the Church in the First Three Centuries. San Francisco: Pacific Press, 1888. Wellcome, Isaac C. History of the Second Advent Message and Mission, Doctrine and People. Yarmouth: privately printed, 1874. White, Anna. Hymns for Youth and Children. Rochester: The Advent Review Office, 1854. White, Ellen G. Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene. Battle Creek: Good Health Publishing, 1890.

482

Bibliography

White, Ellen G. Counsels to Writers and Editors. [Compilation.] Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1946. White, Ellen G. Early Writings of Ellen G. White. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1945 (1st ed. 1882). White, Ellen G. Ellen G. White Writings: Comprehensive Research Edition [CD-ROM]. Silver Spring: Ellen G. White Estate, 2008. White, Ellen G. Gospel Workers. Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1892. White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan: The Conflict of the Ages in the Christian Dispensation. Oakland: Pacific Press, 1888. White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan: The Conflict of the Ages in the Christian Dispensation. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1911. White, Ellen G. Life Sketches of Ellen G. White. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1915. White, Ellen G. A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White. Saratoga Springs: James White, 1851. White, Ellen G. Special Testimonies to Ministers and Workers. No. 3. N.p.: n.p., 1895. White, Ellen G. The Spirit of Prophecy. Vol. 4: The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan from the Desctruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Controversy. Oakland: Pacific Press, 1884. White, Ellen G. Spiritual Gifts. Vol. 1: The Great Controversy between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels. Battle Creek: James White, 1858. White, Ellen G. Spiritual Gifts. Vol. 2: My Christian Experience, Views and Labors in Connection with the Rise and Progress of the Third Angel’s Message. Battle Creek: James White, 1860. White, Ellen G. Steps to Christ. Chicago: Revell, 1892. White, Ellen G. Supplement to the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White. Rochester: James White, 1854. White, Ellen G. Temperance. [Compilation.] Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1949. White, Ellen G. Testimonies for the Church. 9 vols. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1948 [1855–1909]. White, Ellen G. “To Those Who Are Receiving the Seal of the Living God.” Broadside. January 31, 1849. White, Ellen G. “A Vision.” Broadside. Topsham: Joseph Bates, April 7, 1846. White, James (ed.). Hymns, for God’s Peculiar People, That Keep the Commandments of God, and the Faith of Jesus. Oswego: Richard Oliphant, 1849. White, James (ed.). Hymns for Second Advent Believers Who Observe the Sabbath of the Lord. Rochester: by the editor, 1852. White, James. The Third Angel’s Message. N.p., [1850?]. White, James, Joseph Bates, and Ellen G. White. A Word to the “Little Flock”. Brunswick: [privately printed], 1847.

Adventist Theology and History

8.6

483

Adventist Theology and History

N.B. Wherever two or more chapters in an edited book are cited, they are listed in connection with the book rather than separately. Aamodt, Terrie D., Gary Land, and Ronald Numbers (eds.). Ellen Harmon White: American Prophet. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Chapters cited: Patrick, Arthur. “Author.” 91–109. Guy, Fritz. “Theology.” 144–159. Allen, Edward. “The Impact of the Student Volunteer Movement on the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Paper presented at the Triennial Conference of the Association for Seventh-day Adventist Historians, March 17–20, 2016, La Sierra University, Riverside. Online: http://www.sdahistorians.org/uploads/1/2/3/6/12365223/allene.pdf, accessed August 24, 2016. Anderson, Godfrey T. “Make Us a Name.” Adventist Heritage 1 (1974), 28–34. Anderson, Yvonne D. “The Bible, the Bottle and the Ballot: Seventh-day Adventist Political Activism, 1850–1900.” Adventist Heritage 7.2 (1982), 38–52. Andreasen, Milian L. Letters to the Churches. Baker [Oregon]: Hudson, 1959. Baker, Alonzo L. The Pope King Again: Is the “Deadly Wound” Healing? Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1929. Balbach, Alfons. The History of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement. Roanoke: Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, 1999. Ballenger, Albion F. Cast Out for the Cross of Christ. Tropico: privately printed, [1911]. Bauer, Bruce. “Congregational and Mission Structures and How the Seventh-day Adventist Church Has Related to Them.” D.Miss. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983. Beach, Walter R. The Creed That Changed the World. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1971. Beach, Walter Raymond, and Bert Beverly Beach. Pattern for Progress: The Role and Function of Church Organization. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1985. Biblisches Forschungskomitee, Euro-Afrika-Division der Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten (ed.). Abendmahl und Fußwaschung [The Lord’s Supper and Footwashing]. Studien zur adventistischen Ekklesiologie 1. Hamburg: Saatkorn, 1991. Bissell, Ronald D. “Reflections on the SDA Church as the Eschatological Remnant Church.” Asia Adventist Seminary Studies 4 (2001), 69–75. Blanco, Jack. The Clear Word: A Paraphrase to Nurture Faith and Growth. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1994. Bruinsma, Reinder. The Body of Christ: A Biblical Understanding of the Church. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2009. Buck, Eberhard. “Strukturen des adventistischen Selbstverständnisses: Eine Untersuchung zum Kausalnexus von Offenbarungsdenken, Hermeneutik und ekklesiologischer Identität im Adventismus [Structures of Seventh-day Adventist Self-Understanding: An Inquiry into the Causal Nexus of Revelation Conception, Hermeneutics and Ecclesiological Identity in Adventism].” Dr. theol. diss., Halle-Wittenberg, 1994. Bull, Malcolm, and Keith Lockhart. Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-Day Adventism and the American Dream. 2d ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007.

484

Bibliography

Burt, Merlin D. “The Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian Adventism from 1844 to 1849.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2002. Butler, Jonathan. “Seventh-Day Adventism’s Legacy of Modern Revivalism.” Spectrum 5.1 (1973), 89–99. Butler, Jonathan. “The World of E. G. White and the End of the World.” Spectrum 10.2 (1979), 2–13. Campbell, Michael W. “The 1919 Bible Conference and Its Significance for Seventh-day Adventist History and Theology.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2008. [Campbell, Michael W.] “Unsung Heroes: Joseph Clarke.” November 11, 2013. Online: http://www.adventisthistory.org/2013/11/11/unsung-heroes-joseph-clarke, accessed September 15, 2014. Casebolt, Donald. “Ellen White on Waldenses, Albigenses.” Spectrum 16.5 (1986), 62. Casebolt, Donald. “Ellen White, the Waldenses, and Historical Interpretation.” Spectrum 11.3 (1981), 37–43. Chism, Ashlee L., David J. B. Trim, and Michael F. Younker. “We Aim at Nothing Less than the Whole World”: The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Missionary Enterprise and the General Conference Secretariat, 1863–2019. General Conference Archives Monographs 1. Silver Spring: General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, 2021. The Church Hymnal: Official Hymnal of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1941. Church Manual. [Washington, D.C.]: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1932. Conradi, Ludwig Richard. The Founders of the Seventh Day Adventist Denomination. Plainfield: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1939. Coulter, Robert. The Journey: A History of the Church of God (Seventh Day). [Broomfield]: [Bible Advocate Press], 2014. Cross, Whitney R. The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800–1850. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1950. Dabrowski, R. L., and Bert B. Beach (eds.). Michael Belina Czechowski, 1818–1876. Warsaw: Znaki Czasu, 1979. Dabrowski, Ray (ed.). Statements, Guidelines and Other Documents. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Communication Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005. Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Dederen, Raoul. “The Church.” In Raoul Dederen (ed.). Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Commentary Reference Series 12. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000, 538–581. Dederen, Raoul. “The Church: Authority and Unity. Part 2: Unity and Tensions within the Adventist Church.” Supplement to Ministry, May 1995. Dederen, Raoul (ed.). Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Commentary Reference Series 12. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000. Desplan, Fabrice, and Regis Dericquebourg. Ces protestants que l’on dit adventistes [Those Protestant Called Adventists]. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2008.

Adventist Theology and History

485

Dick, Everett N. “The Cost of Discipleship: Seventh-day Adventists and Tennessee Sunday Laws in the 1890s.” Adventist Heritage 11.1 (1986), 26–32. Dick, Everett N. William Miller and the Advent Crisis, 1831–1844. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1994. Doan, Ruth A. The Miller Heresy, Millennialism and American Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987. Duah, Martha O. “A Study of Warfare Theodicy in the Writings of Ellen G. White and Gregory A. Boyd.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2012. Evans, Paul M. “A Historical-Contextual Analysis of the Final-Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2010. Faris, Tommy L. “William Miller: A Common Sense Life.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2007. Foster, David Bernard. “Reconciling Remnancy, Organizational Culture, and Change: A Seventh-day Adventist Ecclesiological Dilemma.” D.Min. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1994. Freikirche der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Deutschland. “Welche Kirche? [Which Church?].” Online: http://www.adventisten.de/glauben-beginnen/welche-kirc he, accessed September 3, 2009. Froom, LeRoy E. The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1966. Froom, LeRoy E. Movement of Destiny. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1971. Froom, LeRoy E. The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation. 4 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1950. “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists – Church Manual Revision.” AR, May 1, 1980, 23–27. “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists.” In Yearbook of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination: The Official Directories. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1931, 377–380. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Manual for Ministers. Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1925. General Conference Working Policy. Washington, D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1926. González, Ricardo A. “The Making of a Church: Ellen G. White’s Views on Church Government 1844–1888.” Ph.D. diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2008. Graz, John, and Carol E. Rasmussen. Building Bridges of Faith and Freedom: A Festschrift Written in Honor of Bert B. Beach. Silver Spring: Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005. Graybill, Ronald. “The Abolitionist-Millerite Connection.” In Ronald L. Numbers and Jonathan M. Butler (eds.). The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century. 2d ed. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993, 139–152. Greenleaf, Floyd. The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Latin America and the Caribbean. 2 vols. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1992. Gulley, Norman. Systematic Theology. Vol. 4: The Church and the Last Things. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2016.

486

Bibliography

Haloviak, Bert. “A Heritage of Freedom: The Christian Connection Roots to Seventhday Adventism.” TMs, 1995. Online: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/conferen ces/Docs/UnspecifiedConferences/AHeritageOfFreedom.pdf, accessed January 6, 2015. Haloviak, Bert. “Some Great Connexions: Our Seventh-day Adventist Heritage from the Christian Church.” TMs, 1994. Online: http://documents.adventistarchives.org/confe rences/Docs/UnspecifiedConferences/SomeGreatConnexions.pdf, accessed January 6, 2015. Hanna, Martin F. Seventh-day Adventist Theological Bibliography (1851–1994). Berrien Springs: SDA Theological Seminary, 1995. Hartlapp, Johannes. “Eine vergessene Liebe: Ludwig Richard Conradi und die Adventgemeinde [A Forgotten Love: Ludwig Richard Conradi and the Adventist Church].” Spes Christiana 17 (2006), 69–83. Hartlapp, Johannes. Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten im Nationalsozialismus: Unter Berücksichtigung der geschichtlichen und theologischen Entwicklung in Deutschland von 1875 bis 1950 [Seventh-day Adventist during National Socialism: Taking into Account the Historical and Theological Development in Germany from 1875 to 1950]. Kirche – Konfession – Religion 53. Göttingen: V & R unipress, 2008. Hasel, Frank M. “Was Ellen G. White a Fundamentalist?” In Martin Pröbstle, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Martin Klingbeil (ed.). “For You Have Strengthened Me”: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. St. Peter am Hart: Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007, 347–359. Haynes, Carlyle B. Christianity at the Crossroads. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1924. Haynes, Carlyle B. Marks of the True Church. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1951. Heinz, Daniel. Ludwig Richard Conradi: Missionar, Evangelist und Organisator der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Europa [Ludwig Richard Conrady: Missionary, Evangelist and Organizer of Seventh-day Adventists in Europe]. Frankfurt: Lang, 1998. Herndon, Booton. The Seventh Day: The Story of the Seventh-day Adventists. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Hooper, Wayne, and Edward E. White. Companion to the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1988. Höschele, Stefan. “The 1872 Declaration of Fundamental Principles: On the ContextualTheological Significance of Adventism’s First Statement of Beliefs.” Spes Christiana 31.2 (2020), 25–46. Höschele, Stefan. “Adventist Orthodoxy Codified: The Fundamental Beliefs of 1931.” Spes Christiana 32.2, 2021, 107–134. Höschele, Stefan. Christian Remnant – African Folk Church: Seventh-Day Adventism in Tanzania, 1903–1980. Studies in Christian Mission 34. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Höschele, Stefan. “The Emerging Adventist Theology of Religions Discourse: Participants, Positions, Particularities.” In Bruce Bauer (ed.). Passionate Reflection: Festschrift in Honor of Jerald Whitehouse. Andrews University Mission Studies 8. Berrien Springs: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2011, 355–376. Höschele, Stefan. From the End of the World to the Ends of the Earth: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missiology. Nürnberg: Verlag für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, 2004.

Adventist Theology and History

487

Höschele, Stefan. “Reform, Reformation – Protest, Protestant: Adventist Terminology and Rhetoric.” In Rolf Pöhler (ed.). Perceptions of the Protestant Reformation in Seventh-day Adventism. Adventistica: Studies in Adventist History and Theology – New Series 1. Friedensau: Institute of Adventist Studies, 2018, 13–29. Höschele, Stefan. “The Remnant Concept in Early Adventism: From Apocalyptic Antisectarianism to an Eschatological Denominational Ecclesiology.” AUSS 51.2 (2013), 267–300. Höschele, Stefan. “What’s in a Name? Identity Construction and Denominational Designations: A Case Study of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 15.1 (2012), 87–103. Johnson, Edgar. “Aspects of the Remnant Concept in the Gospel of Matthew.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1984. Kaiser, Denis. “‘God Is Our Refuge and Strength’: Martin Luther in the Perception of Ellen G. White.” In Rolf Pöhler (ed.). Perceptions of the Protestant Reformation in Seventh-day Adventism. Adventistica: Studies in Adventist History and Theology – New Series 1. Friedensau: Institute of Adventist Studies, 2018, 49–65. Klingbeil, Gerald A. “Ecclesiology in Seventh-day Adventist Theological Research, 1995–2004: A Brief Introduction and Bibliographical Guide.” AUSS 43.1 (2005), 11–29. Klingbeil, Gerald A., Martin G. Klingbeil, and Miguel Ángel Núñez (eds.). Pensar la Iglesia Hoy: Hacia una Eclesiología Adventista [Thinking the Church Today: Towards an Adventist Ecclesiology]. Libertador San Martín: Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata, 2002. Knight, George R. Joseph Bates: The Real Founder of Seventh-Day Adventism. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2004. Knight, George R. Millennial Fever and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism. Boise: Pacific Press, 1993. Knight, George R. Organizing to Beat the Devil: The Development of Adventist Church Structure. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2001. Knight, George R. A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000. Land, Gary (ed.). Adventism in America: A History. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Land, Gary (ed.). The World of Ellen G. White. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1987. Chapters cited: Clark, Jerome L. “The Crusade against Alcohol.” 131–140. Pettibone, Dennis. “The Sunday Law Movement.” 113–128. Larson, Ralph. The Word Was Made Flesh: One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology, 1852–1952. Cherry Valley: Cherrystone, 1986. Lazic´, Tihomir. Towards an Adventist Version of Communio Ecclesiology: Remnant in Koinonia. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue series. Cham (Switzerland): Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. Lee, Joseph Tse-Hei. “Co-optation and Its Discontents: Seventh-Day Adventism in 1950s China.” Frontiers of History in China 7.4 (2012), 582–607. Lindén, Ingemar. 1844 and the Shut Door Problem. Studia Historico-Ecclesiastica Upsaliensia 35. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1982.

488

Bibliography

Loughborough, John N. The Church, Its Organization, Order, and Discipline. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1907. Magan, Percy T. The Vatican and the War: A Retrospect and Forecast. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1915. Mager, Johannes (ed.). Die Gemeinde und ihr Auftrag [The Church and Its Commission]. Studien zur adventistischen Ekklesiologie 2. Hamburg: Saatkorn, 1994. Martin, Walter. The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960. Martines, Carmelo L. “El concepto de remanente in la Iglesia Adventista del Séptimo Día: Razones subyacentes en el debate contemporáneo [The Remnant Concept in the Seventh-day Adventist Church: Reasons in the Background of the Contemporary Debate].” Ph.D. diss., River Plate Adventist University, 2002. Maxwell, C. Mervyn. Tell It to the World: The Story of Seventh-day Adventists, Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1976. McGraw, Paul. “Without a Living Prophet.” Ministry 73.12 (2000), 11–15. Moon, Jerry A., and Denis Fortin (eds.). The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2014. Morgan, Douglas. “Adventism, Apocalyptic, and the Cause of Liberty.” Church History 63.2 (1994), 235–249. Morgan, Douglas. Adventism and the American Republic: The Public Involvement of a Major Apocalyptic Movement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2001. Mustard, Andrew G. James White and SDA Organization: Historical Development, 1844– 1881. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 12. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1988. Neufeld, Don F. (ed.). Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1966. Nickels, Richard C. History of the Seventh Day Church of God. 4th ed. Neck City: Giving & Sharing, 1996. Nix, James R. Early Advent Singing. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1994. Numbers, Ronald L. Prophetess of Health: Ellen G. White and the Origins of Seventh-day Adventist Health Reform. Rev. and enl. ed. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992. Numbers, Ronald L., and Jonathan M. Butler (eds.). The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century. 2d ed. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993. Oliver, Barry D. SDA Organizational Structure: Past, Present, and Future. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 15. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1989. Olson, Robert W. “The ‘Shut Door’ Documents.” TMs, Ellen G. White Estate, 1982. Ondap, Gideon Duran. “Diversity in the Remnant Concept in the History of the Seventhday Adventist Church (1841–1931).” M.A. thesis, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2003. Oneness in Christ. Oct.–Dec. 2018 issue of the Sabbath School Study Guide. Osei-Bonsu, Robert. “The Nature of the Church and Ministry in the Theology of John Calvin and John Wesley, and Its Implications for the Adventist Church.” Ph.D. diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2009.

Adventist Theology and History

489

Paulsen, Jan. “The Theological Landscape.” AR, June 13, 2002, insert pages 1–8. Paxton, Geoffrey. The Shaking of Adventism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. Pedersen, Gunnar. “The Soteriology of Ellen G. White Compared with the Lutheran Formula of Concord: A Study of the Adventist Doctrine of the Final Judgment of the Saints and Their Justification before God.” Th.D. diss., Andrews University, 1995. Perry, Milton Lee. “The Role of the Camp Meeting in Millerite Revivalism, 1842–1844.” Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1994. Pierce, Charles. “A History of Music and of Music Education of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” D.M.A. diss., Catholic University of America, 1976. Pöhler, Rolf J. “Adventisten, Ellen White und das Sola-Scriptura-Prinzip [Adventists, Ellen White, and the Sola Scriptura Principle].” Spes Christiana 17 (2006), 45–68. Pöhler, Rolf. “Are Seventh-day Adventists ‘Heirs of the Reformation’? Between Aspiration and Reality.” In Rolf Pöhler (ed.). Perceptions of the Protestant Reformation in Seventh-day Adventism. Adventistica: Studies in Adventist History and Theology – New Series 1. Friedensau: Institute of Adventist Studies, 2018, 311–318. Pöhler, Rolf J. “Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development.” Th.D. diss., Andrews University, 1995. Published (2nd ed.): Dynamic Truth: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development, Adventistica: Studies in Adventist History and Theology – New Series 3, Friedensau: Institute of Adventist Studies, 2020. Quispe, Gluder. “The Five Stages of Charles Fitch’s Life (1805–1844).” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 12.2 (2009), 167–191. Rajki, Zoltán. A H. N. Adventista Egyház története 1945 és 1989 között Magyarországon [The History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Hungary between 1945 and 1989]. Societas et Ecclesia 6. Budapest: Advent, 2003. Reid, G. Edward. Sunday’s Coming: Eye-Opening Evidence that these are the Very Last Days. Fulton: Omega, 1994 (2d ed. 2005). Rodríguez, Ángel M. “The Remnant in Contemporary Adventist Thinking.” In Gerald A. Klingbeil, Martin G. Klingbeil, and Miguel Ángel Núñez (eds.). Pensar la Iglesia Hoy: Hacia una Eclesiología Adventista. Libertador San Martín: Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata, 2002, 269–279. Rodríguez, Ángel M. (ed.). Toward a Theology of the Remnant. Silver Spring: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2009. Roeske, Siegfried. “A Comparative Study of the Sabbath Theologies of A. H. Lewis and J. N. Andrews.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1997. Rowe, David L. God’s Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Rowe, David L. Thunder and Trumpets: Millerites and Dissenting Religion in Upstate New York, 1800–1850. AAR Studies in Religion 38. Chico: Scholars, 1985. Rubencamp, Cosmas. “Immortality and Seventh-day Adventist Eschatology.” Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 1968. Ruttmann, Herrmann. Die adventistische Reformationsbewegung, 1914–2001: Die Internationale Missionsgesellschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten Reformationsbewegung in Deutschland [The Adventist Reformation Movement, 1914–2001: The International Missionary Society of Seventh-day Adventists, Reformation Movement in Germany]. Köln: Teiresias, 2002.

490

Bibliography

Schantz, Børge F. “The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Thought: Contemporary Appraisal.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1983. Schwarz, Richard W. “John Harvey Kellogg: American Health Reformer.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1964. Schwarz, Richard W., and Floyd Greenleaf. Light Bearers: A History of the Seventhday Adventist Church. Nampa: Pacific Press, 2000. Schwarz, Richard W. Light Bearers to the Remnant. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1979. Sears, Clara Endicott. Days of Delusion: A Strange Bit of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1924. Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual. 18th (rev.) ed. [Silver Spring]: Secretariat, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2010. Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. Commentary Reference Series, Bd. 10. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1976. Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1985. Seventh-day Adventist Minister’s Handbook. Silver Spring: Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1997. Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: An Explanation of Certain Major Aspects of Seventh-day Adventist Belief. Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventhday Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers, and Editors. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1957 [abbreviated QOD]. Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: Annotated Edition. Ed. by George R. Knight. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2003. Seventh-day Adventists Believe …: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines. 2nd ed. Silver Spring: Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005. Shearer, Gary. “The Remnant: Bibliography by Gary Shearer.” Online: http://library.p uc.edu/heritage/bib-RemCh.html, accessed March 27, 2008. Shinmyo, Tadaomi. “A History in Missiological Perspective of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Japan from 1945 to 1985.” D.Min. diss., Andrews University, 1987. Stefánsson, Jón H. “Luther’s Antichrist in Seventh-day Adventist Perspective.” In Rolf Pöhler (ed.). Perceptions of the Protestant Reformation in Seventh-day Adventism. Adventistica: Studies in Adventist History and Theology – New Series 1. Friedensau: Institute of Adventist Studies, 2018, 79–97. Steley, Dennis. “Unfinished: The Seventh-day Adventist Mission in the South Pacific, Excluding Papua New Guinea, 1886–1986.” Ph.D. diss., University of Auckland, 1990. Stevens, Jesse C. The Papacy in Bible Prophecy. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1928. Strand, Kenneth A. (ed.). The Sabbath in Scripture and History. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982. Tarling, Lowell. The Edges of Seventh-Day Adventism: A Study of Separatist Groups Emerging from the Seventh-day Adventist Church (1844–1980). Barragga Bay: Galilee, 1981. Timm, Alberto R. “The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages, 1844–1863: Integrating Factors in the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1995.

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

491

Valentine, Gilbert. “Learning and Unlearning: A Context for Important Developments in the Seventh-day Adventist Understanding of the Trinity, 1888–1898.” AUSS 55.2 (2017), 213–236. Walsh, Mary. The Wine of Roman Babylon. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1945. Wellcome, Isaac C., and Gary Land. Second Advent History. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 2008. Wheeler, Gerald. James White: Innovator and Overcomer. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2003. White, Arthur L. “Ellen G. White and the Shut Door Question: A Review of the Experience of Early Seventh-day Adventist Believers in Its Historical Context.” TMs, 1982, Ellen G. White Estate. White, Arthur L. Ellen G. White. 6 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981– 1986. White, Ellen G. The Remnant Church. Compilation from the writings of Ellen G. White. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1950. Wilkinson, Benjamin G. Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Washington, D.C.: [privately printed], 1930. Wilson, Brian C. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and the Religion of Biologic Living. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014. Wilson, Bryan. “Sect or Denomination: Can Adventism Maintain Its Identity?” Spectrum 6.4 (1975), 34–43. Wirth, W. G. The Battle of the Churches: Modernism or Fundamentalism, Which? Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1924. Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve. The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2002. Xi, Lian. “A Messianic Deliverance for Post-Dynastic China: The Launch of the True Jesus Church in the Early Twentieth Century.” Modern China 34.4 (2008), 407–441. Zaitsev, Eugene. “An Analysis and Evaluation of Vladimir Lossky’s Doctrine of Theosis.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1998. Zurcher, Jean. “A Vindication of Ellen White as Historian.” Spectrum 16.3 (1985), 21–31.

8.7

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

N.B. Wherever two or more chapters in an edited book are cited, they are listed in connection with the book rather than separately. “About Our Church: Facts and History.” [On the True Jesus Church.] Online: http://www. tjc.org/about/factsHistory.aspx, accessed July 2, 2015. Alexeev, Anatoly A., Christos Karakolis, Ulrich Luz, and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (eds.). Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament: Dritte europäische orthodoxwestliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg, 24.–31. August 2005 [Unity of the Church in the New Testament: Third European Orthodox-Western Exegetes’ Conference in Saint Petersburg, August 24–31, 2005]. WUNT I 218. Tübingen: Mohr, 2008.

492

Bibliography

Allport, Gordon W., and Henry S. Odbert. “Trait-Names: A Psycho-Lexical Study.” Psychological Monographs 47.1 (1936), 1–171. Aloisi, Michael F. “Vatican II, Ecumenism and a Parsonian Analysis of Change.” Sociological Analysis 49.1 (1988), 17–28. Alter, Catherine, and Jerald Hage. Organizations Working Together. Sage Library of Social Research 191. Newbury Park: Sage, 1993. American Congress of Churches. Proceedings of the Hartford Meeting, 1885. Hartford: Case, Lockwood & Brainard, 1885. Arjakovsky, Antoine, and Marie-Aude Tardivo (eds.). Friendship as an Ecumenical Value: Proceedings of the International Conference Held on the Inauguration of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies, Lviv, 11–15 June 2005. Lviv: UCU-IES, 2006. Bainbridge, William Sims. The Sociology of Religious Movements. New York: Routledge, 1997. Ball, Bryan W. The Seventh-Day Men: Sabbatarians and Sabbatarianism in England and Wales, 1600–1800. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Clarke, 2009. Ball, Bryan W. The Soul Sleepers: Christian Mortalism from Wycliffe to Priestley. Cambridge: Clarke, 2008. Baranowski, Shelley. “Carl McIntire.” In Charles H. Lippy (ed.). Twentieth-Century Shapers of American Popular Religion. Westport: Greenwood, 1989, 256–263. Barnes, Michael H. (ed.). Theology and the Social Sciences. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001. Barrett, David B. “Missiometrics 2006: Goals, Resources, Doctrines of the 350 Christian World Communions.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 30.1 (2006), 27–30. Barrett, David B. Schism and Renewal in Africa: An Analysis of Six Thousand Contemporary Religious Movements. Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1968. Barrett, David B. “Status of Global Mission, 2012, in the Context of AD 1800–2025.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 36.1 (2012), 29. Barrett, David B., Todd M. Johnson, and Peter F. Crossing. “Christian World Communions: Five Overviews of Global Christianity, AD 1800–2025.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 33.1 (2009), 25–32. Beaver, R. Pierce. Ecumenical Beginnings in Protestant World Mission: A History of Comity. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1962. Berger, Peter L. “A Market Model for the Analysis of Ecumenicity.” Social Research 30.1 (1963), 77–93. Biber, Pascal, Jörg Hupfeld, and Laurenz L. Meier. “Personal Values and Relational Models.” European Journal of Personality 22.7 (2008), 609–628. Black, Alan W. “Ironies of Ecumenism.” Ecumenical Review 45.4 (1993), 469–481. Black, Alan W. “A Marriage Model of Church Mergers.” Sociological Analysis 49 (1988), 281–302. Black, Alan W. “Organizational Imagery and Interdenominational Mergers.” British Journal of Sociology 41.1 (1990), 105–127. Boldon, Dean A. “The Ecumenical Movement in America: Protestant Conciliarism as Interorganizational Relations.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1975. Boldon, Dean A. “Formal Church Polity and Ecumenical Activity.” Sociological Analysis 49.3 (1988), 293–303. Boldon, Dean A. “Organizational Characteristics of Ecumenically Active Denominations.” Sociological Analysis 46.3 (1985), 261–273.

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

493

Bolender, John. Digital Social Mind. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2011. Bolender, John. The Self-Organizing Social Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010. Bordin, Ruth. Woman and Temperance: The Quest for Power and Liberty, 1873–1900. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981. Bowman, Carl F. Brethren Society: The Cultural Transformation of a Peculiar People. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. Brandon, Ruth. The Spiritualists: The Passion for the Occult in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: Knopf, 1983. Bremer, Thomas, and Maria Wernsmann (eds.). Ökumene – überdacht: Reflexionen und Realitäten im Umbruch [Ecumenism – Reflected / Roofed: Reflections and Realities in Transformation]. Freiburg: Herder, 2014. Chapters cited: Bremer, Thomas. “Ökumene und ökumenische Theologie im Umbruch [Ecumenism and Ecumenical Theology in Transformation].” 18–36. Heller, Dagmar. “Anerkennung: Dimensionen eines Schlüsselbegriffs der Ökumene [Recognition: Dimensions of a Key Term of Ecumenism].” 262–275. Stobbe, Heinz-Günter. “Einheit der Kirche, ökumenische Forschung und Systemtheorie [The Unity of the Church, Ecumenical Research and Systems Theory].” 37–73. Vogelaar, Huub. “Das Global Christian Forum – Ein realistischer Weg der Ökumene? [The Global Christian Forum – A Realistic Path of Ecumenism?]” 317–333. Wernsmann, Maria. “Identität und Macht in der Ökumene: Die römisch-katholisch/ orthodoxen Beziehungen in systemtheoretischer Perspektive [Identity and Power in Ecumenism: Roman Catholic-Orthodox Relations in Systems Theory Perspective].” 180–206. Briggs, John, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, and Georges Tsetsis (eds.). A History of the Ecumenical Movement. Vol. 3: 1968–2000. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2004. Brown, Stephen. “Changing Paradigms of Ecumenical Communication.” Media Development, no. 1 (2012), 33–39. Brown, Stewart J. Providence and Empire: Religion, Politics and Society in the United Kingdom, 1815–1914. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2008. Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1937 [German original: 1923]. Burgess, Joseph A. (ed.). Lutherans in Ecumenical Dialogue: A Reappraisal. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990. Burgess, Stanley M., and Eduard M. van der Maas (eds.). New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Campbell, Thomas. Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington. Washington (Pa.): Brown & Sample, 1809. Caralis, Dionyssios, and Nick Haslam. “Relational Tendencies Associated with Broad Personality Dimensions.” Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 77.3 (2004), 397–402. Carroll, Bret E. Spiritualism in Antebellum America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Chamlee, Roy Z. “The Sabbath Crusade, 1810–1920.” Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 1968.

494

Bibliography

Chaves, Mark, and John R. Sutton. “Organizational Consolidation in American Protestant Denominations, 1890–1990.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43 (2004), 51–66. “Church of God (Seventh Day), Denver, Colorado.” Online: http://www.thearda.com/De noms/D_1232.asp, accessed September 22, 2014. “The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches: The Ecclesiological Significance of the World Council of Churches.” Statement by the WCC Central Committee (commonly called “Toronto Statement”), 1950. Reprinted in: Michael Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope (eds.). The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997, 463–468. Clapsis, Emmanuel G. “Eschatology and the Unity of the Church: The Impact of Eschatology in Ecumenical Thought.” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1987. Coleman, John A. “Every Theology Implies a Sociology and Vice Versa.” In Michael H. Barnes (ed.). Theology and the Social Sciences. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001, 12–33. Conradie, Ernst M. (ed.). South African Perspectives on Notions and Forms of Ecumenicity. Stellenbosch: Sun, 2013. Chapters cited: Conradie, Ernst M. “Notions and Forms of Ecumenicity: Some South African Perspectives.” 13–76. Niemandt, Nelus. “Relational Ecumenicity.” 147–153. Coote, Robert T. “Twentieth-Century Shifts in the North American Protestant Missionary Community.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 22.4 (1998), 152– 153. Coser, Lewis A. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe: Free Press, 1956. Creemers, Jelle. “Can Hard Questions Soften Relations? Some Observations on Dialogical Method in the International Roman Catholic-Classical Pentecostal Dialogue.” In Mark D. Chapman and Miriam Haar (eds.). Pathways for Ecclesial Dialogue in the Twenty-First Century: Revisiting Ecumenical Method. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, 43–55. Creemers, Jelle. Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals: Challenges and Opportunities. Ecclesiological Investigations 23. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Cropper, Steve, Mark Ebers, Christ Huxham, and Peter Smith Ring. “Introducing Inter-Organizational Relations.” In Steve Cropper, Mark Ebers, Christ Huxham, and Peter Smith Ring (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 3–21. Crow, Paul A. “Ecumenics as Reflections on Models of Christian Unity.” Ecumenical Review 39.4 (1987), 389–403. Currie, Robert. Methodism Divided: A Study in the Sociology of Ecumenicalism. London: Faber & Faber, 1968. Dahling-Sander, Christoph, and Thomas Kratzert (eds.). Leitfaden Ökumenische Theologie [Compendium of Ecumenical Theology]. Wuppertal: Foedus, 1998. Descioli, Peter, and Siddhi Krishna. “Giving to Whom? Altruism in Different Types of Relationships.” Journal of Economic Psychology 34 (2013), 218–228. Diedrich, Hans-Christian. Siedler, Sektierer und Stundisten: Die Entstehung des russischen Freikirchentums [Settlers, Sectarians and Shtundists: The Genesis of the Russian Free Church Movement]. Berlin: Evangelische Verlags-Anstalt, 1985.

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

495

Dodd, C. H., Gerald Cragg, and Jacques Ellul. Social Factors in Church Divisions. Faith and Order Commission Paper 10. Geneva: WCC, 1952. Dunn, James D. G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1990. Earley, P. Christopher. Face, Harmony, and Social Structure: An Analysis of Organizational Behavior across Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Ehrenström, Nils, and Walter G. Muelder (eds.). Institutionalism and Church Unity. London: SCM, 1963. Ellis, Ian M. Vision and Reality: A Survey of Twentieth Century Irish Inter-Church Relations. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University of Belfast, 1992. Empie, Paul C. “Dilemmas of World Confessional Groups with Respect to Engagement in Mission and Unity.” International Review of Mission 55 (1966), 158–170. Evans, Gillian R. The Church and the Churches: Toward an Ecumenical Ecclesiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Evans, Gillian R. Method in Ecumenical Theology: The Lessons So Far. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Fey, Harold E. (ed.). A History of the Ecumenical Movement. Vol. 2: 1948–1968. London: SPCK, 1970. Fiedler, Klaus. The Story of Faith Missions. Oxford: Regnum, 1994. Finke, Roger, and Christopher P. Scheitle. “Understanding Schisms: Theoretical Explanations for Their Origin.” In James R. Lewis and Sarah M. Lewis (eds.). Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 11–33. Finke, Roger, and Rodney Stark. The Churching of America, 1776–2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005. Fiske, Alan P. “The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations.” Psychological Review 99 (1992), 689–723. Fiske, Alan P. “Relativity within Moose (‘Mossi’) Culture: Four Incommensurable Models for Social Relationships.” Ethos 18 (1990), 180–204. Fiske, Alan P. Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations. New York: Free Press, 1991. Fiske, Alan P., and Tage Shakti Rai. Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Flachsbarth, Maria, Regina Heder, and Ute Leimgruber (eds.). Ökumene, die das Leben schreibt: Konfessionelle Identität und ökumenisches Engagement in Zeitzeugenberichten [Ecumenism Written by Life: Denominational Identity and Ecumenical Commitment in Reports of Witnesses of the Past]. Münster: Aschendorff, 2017. Forman, Charles W. “The Definition of Ecumenics.” Theology Today 22.1 (April 1965), 1–10. Foster, Douglas A., Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams (eds.). The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Frey, Harald. “Critiques of Conciliar Ecumenism by Conservative Evangelicals in the United States.” Th.D. diss., Boston University School of Theology, 1961.

496

Bibliography

Frieling, Reinhard. Der Weg des ökumenischen Gedankens: Eine Ökumenekunde [The Path of Ecumenical Thought: A Study of Ecumenism]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Fuess, Ute. “Die Organisation von Kooperationen: Rahmen, Parameter und Modelle der Gestaltung von Interorganizational Relations [The Organization of Cooperations: Frameworks, Parameters and Models of the Design of Interorganizational Relations].” Dr. oec. diss., Universität St. Gallen, 1997. Fuisz, József. Konsens, Kompromiss, Konvergenz in der ökumenischen Diskussion: Eine strukturanalytische Untersuchung der Logik ökumenischer Entscheidungsfindungsprozesse [Consensus, Compromise, Convergence in Ecumenical Discussion: A Structural Analytical Inquiry into the Logic of Ecumenical Decision Making Processes]. Studien zur systematischen Theologie und Ethik 29. Münster: Lit, 2001. Garrison, Winfred E. “Interdenominational Relations in America before 1837.” Papers of the American Society of Church History 9 (1934), 57–93. Garton, Nancy. George Mu¨ller and His Orphans. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1963. Gassmann, Günther. “Die Bedeutung der bilateralen Konfessionsgespräche und ihr Einfluss auf die Rolle der konfessionellen Weltbünde innerhalb der ökumenischen Bewegung [The Significance of the Bilateral Confessional Conversations and Their Influence on the Role of the Christian World Communions in the Context of the Ecumenical Movement].” In Darstellung und Grenzen der sichtbaren Einheit der Kirche. Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag, 1982, 79–89. Gassmann, Günther. Konzeptionen der Einheit in der Bewegung für Glauben und Kirchenverfassung 1910–1937 [Concepts of Unity in the Faith and Order Movement, 1910–1937]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Gaustad, Edwing, and Leigh Schmidt. The Religious History of America. New York: HarperOne, 2004. Geldbach, Erich. Freikirchen – Erbe, Gestalt und Wirkung [Free Churches – Heritage, Shape, and Effects]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Geldbach, Erich. Ökumene in Gegensätzen [Ecumenism in Contrasts]. Bensheimer Hefte 66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Geller, Helmut, Eckart Pankoke, and Karl Gabriel. Ökumene und Gemeinde: Untersuchungen zum Alltag in Kirchengemeinden [Ecumenism and Congregation: Studies on Every Day Life in Local Churches]. Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 2002. Goffin, Alvin M. “Protestantism in Ecuador: A Case Study in Latin American Church History, 1895–1980s.” Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 1990. Goranson, Stephen. “The Text of Revelation 22.14.” NTS 43 (1997), 154–157. Groves, Charles P. The Planting of Christianity in Africa. Vol. 4: 1914–1954. London: Lutterworth, 1958. Gulley, Norman. “Eschatology of Karl Barth.” Ph.D. diss., Edinburgh University, 1970. Guy, Fritz. “Man and His Time: Three Contemporary Theological Interpretations.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1971. Haers, Jacques, and Peter de Mey (eds.). Theology and Conversation: Towards a Relational Theology. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Handy, Robert T. A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

497

Hangen, Tona J. Redeeming the Dial: Radio, Religion and Popular Culture in America. Raleigh: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. Organizational Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Harding, James. Babylon and the Brethren: The Use and Influence of the Whore of Babylon Motif in the Christian Brethren Movement, 1829–1900. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2015. Harlow, Ralph V. Gerrit Smith: Philanthropist and Reformer. New York: Holt, 1939. Harrison, Simon. Conceptions of Unity in Recent Ecumenical Discussion: A Philosophical Analysis. Religions and discourse 7. Oxford: Lang, 2000. Haslam, Nick. “Categories of Social Relationship.” Cognition 53 (1994), 59–90. Haslam, Nick (ed.). Relational Models Theory: A Contemporary Overview. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2004. Chapters cited: Fiske, Alan P. “Four Modes of Constituting Relationships: Consubstantial Assimilation; Space, Magnitude, Time and Force; Concrete Procedures; Abstract Symbolism.” 61–146. Fiske, Alan P. “Relational Models Theory 2.0.” 3–25. Haslam, Nick. “Research on the Relational Models: An Overview.” 27–57. Houde, Leah D., Dana M. Sherman, Tiffany B. White, and Blair H Sheppard. “The Four Faces of Trust: An Empirical Study of the Nature of Trust in Relational Forms.” 287–306. Roccas, Sonia, and Clark McCauley. “Values and Emotions in the Relational Models.” 263–285. Hassall, Graham H. “Religion and Nation-State Formation in Melanesia: 1945 to Independence.” Ph.D. diss., Australian National University, 1990. Hatch, Nathan O. The Democratization of American Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hickock, Laurens P. The Complete Idea of the World’s Conversion to Jesus Christ. Boston: T. R. Marvin & Son, 1866. Hietamäki, Minna. Agreeable Agreement: An Examination of the Quest for Consensus in Ecumenical Dialogue. Ecclesiological Investigations 8. London: T & T Clark, 2010. Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1955. Hilberath, Bernd J. “Ökumene des Lebens als kommunikative Theologie – Erste Vorblicke auf ein Programm [Ecumenism of Life as Communicative Theology – First Glimpses on a Programme].” In Bernd J. Hilberath, Ivana Noble, Johannes Oeldemann, and Peter de Mey (eds.). Ökumene des Lebens als Herausforderung der wissenschaftlichen Theologie – Ecumenism of Life as a Challenge for Academic Theology. Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2008, 17–32. Hilberath, Bernd J., Ivana Noble, Johannes Oeldemann, and Peter de Mey (eds.). Ökumene des Lebens als Herausforderung der wissenschaftlichen Theologie – Ecumenism of Life as a Challenge for Academic Theology. Beiheft zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 82. Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2008. Hocken, Peter. “An Emerging Pentecostal Ecumenism?” One in Christ 46.1 (2012), 264– 278.

498

Bibliography

Hodgson, Leonard. Convictions: A Selection from the Responses of the Churches to the Report of the World Conference on Faith and Order, Held at Lausanne in 1927. London: SCM Press, 1934 Hogg, William R. Ecumenical Foundations: A History of the International Missionary Council and Its Nineteenth-Century Background. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952. Höschele, Stefan. “Das Global Christian Forum: ‘Forum’ als Paradigma für die Zukunft der Ökumene? [The Global Christian Forum: ‘Forum’ as a Paradigm for the Future of Ecumenism?]” In Stephen Lakkis, Stefan Höschele, and Steffi Schardien (eds.). Ökumene der Zukunft: Hermeneutische Perspektiven und die Suche nach Identität. Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 81. Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 2008, 117–133. Höschele, Stefan. “Defining Ecumenics Fifty Years after Mackay.” Communio Viatorum 55.2 (2013), 105–136. Höschele, Stefan. “Sola Experientia Facit Theologum? The Role of Empirical Study in Systematic Theology.” Spes Christiana 20 (2009), 141–152. Huber, Wolfgang. Im Geist der Freiheit: Für eine Ökumene der Profile [In the Spirit of Freedom: For an Ecumenism of Profiles]. Freiburg: Herder, 2007. Hurley, Michael. “Ecumenism, Ecumenical Theology and Ecumenics.” Irish Theological Quarterly 45.2 (1978), 132–139. Hutchinson, John A. We Are Not Divided: A Critical and Historical Study of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. New York: Round Table Press, 1941. Jahnel, Claudia. “Ökumenegeschichtsschreibung [Historiography of Ecumenism].” Interkulturelle Theologie 40.4 (2014), 324–345. Johnson, Benton. “On Church and Sect.” American Sociological Review 28.4 (1963), 539– 549. Johnson, Robert E. Partnerships: Studies in the History of American Baptist Interchurch Relationships. Special issue, American Baptist Quarterly 20.1 (2001). Jones, Tudur R. “Foreword.” In Noel A. Davies. A History of Ecumenism in Wales, 1956– 1990. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2008, xi–xiv. Kasper, Walter. “Ökumene des Lebens und Eucharistiegemeinschaft – Perspektiven für die Zukunft [Ecumenism of Life and Eucharistic Communion – Perspectives for the Future].” In Walter Kasper. Sakrament der Einheit: Eucharistie und Kirche. Freiburg: Herder, 2004, 55–79. Kelley, Dean M. Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Kelly, James R. “Spirals Not Cycles: Towards an Analytic Approach to the Sources and Stages of Ecumenism.” Review of Religious Research, 32.1 (1990), 5–15. Kenis, Patrick, and Leon Oerlemans, “The Social Network Perspective: Understanding the Structure of Cooperation.” In Steve Cropper, Mark Ebers, Christ Huxham, and Peter Smith Ring (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 289–312. Kessler, Diane. “‘Receive One Another…’: Honoring the Relationship between Hospitality and Christian Unity.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 47.3 (2012), 376–384. Kessler, Diane (ed.). Receive One Another: Hospitality in Ecumenical Perspective. Risk Book 110. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005. King, Andrew J. “Sunday Law in the Nineteenth Century.” Albany Law Review 64 (2000), 675–772.

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

499

Kinnamon, Michael, and Brian E. Cope (eds.). The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997. Knight, Allan Runyon. “Basic Factors Underlying Interchurch Relations of the Period to 140 A.D.” Th.D. diss., Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1946. Koch, Kurt. Gelähmte Ökumene: Was jetzt noch zu tun ist [Ecumenism Paralysed: What Still Needs to Be Done Now]. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1991. Köger, Michaela. “Die Koptische Orthodoxe Kirche mit ihren interkonfessionellen Beziehungen [The Coptic Orthodox Church and Its Interconfessional Relationships].” Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift 91 (2001), 101–136. Kohlbrugge, Hanna. “Tawhid: Das Herz der islamischen Theologie [Tawhid: The Heart of Islamic Theology].” Evangelische Theologie 51.3 (1991), 271–295. Koslicki, Kathrin. The Structure of Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Koslowski, Jutta. Die Einheit der Kirche in der ökumenischen Diskussion: Zielvorstellungen kirchlicher Einheit im katholisch-evangelischen Dialog [The Unity of the Church in Ecumenical Discussion: Objectives of Ecclesial Unity in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue]. Münster: Lit, 2008 Kottje, Raymund, and Bernd Moeller (eds.). Ökumenische Kirchengeschichte [Ecumenical Church History]. 3 vols. Mainz: Grünewald; München: Kaiser, 1970–1989. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Lambert, Bernard. Ecumenism: Theology and History. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967 [Translation of Le problem oecuménique. 2 vols. Paris: Centurion, 1962]. Lapp, James M. Principles and Guidelines for Interchurch Relations. Scottdale: Mennonite General Conference, Interchurch Relations Committee, 1971. Leary, Timothy. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: Ronald, 1957. Lee, Robert. The Social Sources of Church Unity: An Interpretation of Unitive Movements in American Protestantism. New York: Abingdon, 1960. Lewis, James R., and Sarah M. Lewis (eds.). Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Liebman, Robert C., John R. Sutton, and Robert Wuthnow. “Exploring the Social Sources of Denominationalism: Schisms in American Protestant Denominations, 1890– 1980.” American Sociological Review 53.3 (1988), 343–352. Liechty, Daniel. Sabbatarianism in the Sixteenth Century: A Page in the History of the Radical Reformation. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1993. Lindbeck, George. “Two Kinds of Ecumenism: Unitive and Interdenominational.” Gregorianum 70 (1989), 647–660. Long, Kathryn T. The Revival of 1857–58: Interpreting an American Religious Awakening. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Lossky, Nicholas, et al. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. 2d ed. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002. Loya, Joseph A. “Interchurch Relations in Post-Perestroika Eastern Europe: A Short History of an Ecumenical Meltdown.” Religion in Eastern Europe 14.1 (1994), 1–17. Luz, Ulrich. “On the Way to Unity: The Community of the Church in the New Testament.” In Lukas Vischer, Lukas, Ulrich Luz, and Christian Link (eds.). Unity of the Church in the New Testament and Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, 29–161 [original German edition: 1988].

500

Bibliography

MacClenny, Wilbur E. The Life of Rev James O’Kelly and the Early History of the Christian Church in the South. Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton, 1910. Mackay, John A. Ecumenics: The Science of the Church Universal. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Main, A. E. “The Seventh-Day Baptist General Conference, 1802 to 1902.” In Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America. Plainfield: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1910, 149– 233. Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of TwentiethCentury Evangelicalism, 1870–1925. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. Martin, Walter. The Errors of Romanism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957. May, John D. “From Ecumenical Theology to Fundamental Ecumenics: A Proposal for the Future of Ecumenical Theory from the Catholic Ecumenical Institute, University of Münster, West Germany.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 14.2 (1977), 304–312. McCrossen, Alexis. Holy Day, Holiday: The American Sunday. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Meyer, Harding. “Christian World Communions.” In John Briggs, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, and Georges Tsetsis (eds.). A History of the Ecumenical Movement. Vol. 3: 1968–2000. Geneva: WCC Publications, 2004, 103–122. Meyer, Harding. “Die Weltweiten Christlichen Gemeinschaften und ihr Beitrag zur sichtbaren Einheit der Kirche [The Christian World Communions and Their Contribution to the Visible Unity of the Church].” In Peter Neuner and Birgitta Kleinschwärzer-Meister (eds.). Ökumene zwischen “postmoderner Beliebigkeit” und “Rekonfessionalisierung.” Berlin: Lit, 2006, 93–104. Meyer, Harding. That All May Be One: Perceptions and Models of Ecumenicity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Michael, Franz. The Taiping Rebellion: History and Documents. Vol. 2: Documents and Comments, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1971. Millar, Frank E., and L. Edna Rogers. “Relational Dimensions of Interpersonal Dynamics.” In Michael E. Roloff and Gerald R. Miller (eds.). Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research. Newbury Park: Sage, 1987, 117–139. Minear, Paul S. Images of the Church in the New Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004 [1st ed. 1960]. Mirbt, Carl. Das Mischehenrecht des Codex juris canonici und die interkonfessionellen Beziehungen in Deutschland [The Mixed Marriages Law of the Codex Iuris Canonici and Interconfessional Relations in Germany]. Tübingen: Mohr, 1922. Muelder, Walter G. “Problems of Church Bureaucracy.” In Nils Ehrenström and Walter G. Muelder (eds.). Institutionalism and Church Unity. London: SCM, 1963, 145–168. Nauta, André. “ ‘That They All May Be One’: Can Denominationalism Die?” Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 6 (1994), 35–51. Nichols, Larry, and George Mather. Discovering the Plain Truth: How the Worldwide Church of God Encountered the Gospel of Grace. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. Niebuhr, H. Richard. The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: Holt, 1929. “Non-Theological Factors that May Hinder or Accelerate the Church’s Unity.” Ecumenical Review 4.2 (1952), 174–180.

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

501

Norris, Frederick W. “The Arian Heresy?” In Timothy J. Wengert and Charles W. Brockwell (eds.). Telling the Churches’ Story: Ecumenical Perspectives on Writing Christian History. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, 55–71. Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. New York: Knopf, 1992. Nüssel, Friederike, and Dorothea Sattler. Einführung in die ökumenische Theologie [Introduction to Ecumenical Theology]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Obst, Helmut. Neuapostolische Kirche – die exklusive Endzeitkirche? [The New Apostolic Church – the Exclusive End Time Church?] Neukirchen-Vluyn: Bahn, 1996. O’Leary, Stephen D. Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Olson, David H. “Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems.” Journal of Family Therapy 22 (2000), 144–167. O’Malley, John W. What Happened at Vatican II. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008. Parker, Michael. The Kingdom of Character: The Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1886–1926. Lanham: University Press of America, 1998. Penton, M. James. Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 2d ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Perret, Edmond. “The Conference of World Confessional Families: 1957–1977.” In Yoshiro Ishida, Harding Meyer and Edmond Perret. The History and Theological Concerns of World Confessional Families. LWF Report 5. Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1979, 43–72 and 73–80 (appendices). Pettibone, Dennis L. “Caesar’s Sabbath: The Sunday-Law Controversy in the United States, 1879–1892.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Riverside, 1979. Petzoldt, Matthias (ed.). Theologie im Gespräch mit empirischen Wissenschaften [Theology in Conversation with Empirical Sciences]. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Pierard, Richard V. “The Christian World Communions: Denominational Ecumenism on a Global Scale.” In Anthony R. Cross (ed.). Ecumenism and History: Studies in Honour of John H. Y. Briggs. Carslile: Paternoster, 2002, 106–119. Poulson, Barton. “Discord in Relational Models as a Source of Interpersonal Conflict.” Ph.D. diss., City University of New York, 1999. Power, Maria. From Ecumenism to Community Relations: Inter-Church Relationships in Northern Ireland, 1980–2005. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2007. Radmer, Ephraim. A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012. Raedel, Christoph. “Unity to the Greater Glory of God: Promising Paradigms in Current Ecumenism.” Review of Ecumenical Studies 8.2 (2016), 169–186. Rai, Tage Shakti, and Alan P. Fiske. “Moral Psychology is Relationship Regulation: Moral Motives for Unity, Hierarchy, Equality, and Proportionality.” Psychological Review 118.1 (2011), 57–75. Raiser, Konrad. “Towards a New Ecumenical Configuration for the 21st Century.” Reformed World 55.2 (2005), 77–95.

502

Bibliography

Raiser, Konrad. Ecumenism in Transition: A Paradigm Shift in the Ecumenical Movement? Geneva: WCC, 1991. Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Interchurch Committee. A Manual of Interchurch Relations for the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. Pittsburgh: Interchurch Committee, 1999. Reynolds, Thomas E. “Improvising Together: Christian Solidarity and Hospitality as Jazz Performance.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 43.1 (2008), 45–66. Robeck, Cecil M. “The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Cooperation, 1920–1965.” In Wonsuk Ma and Robert Menzies (eds.). Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997, 110–112. Root, Michael. “The Unity of the Church and the Reality of the Denominations.” Modern Theology 9.4 (1993), 385–401. Rouse, Ruth, and Stephen C. Neill (eds.). A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517– 1948. London: SPCK, 1954. Chapters cited: Rouse, Ruth. “Voluntary Movements and the Changing Ecumenical Climate.” 309– 349. Visser ’t Hooft, Willem Adolf. “The Word ‘Ecumenical’ – Its History and Use.” 735–740. Yoder, Donald H. “Christian Unity in Nineteenth-Century America.” 221–259. Rowland Jones, Sarah. “The Global Christian Forum – A Narrative History.” In Huibert van Beek (ed.). Revisioning Christian Unity: Journeying with Jesus Christ, the Reconciler at the Global Christian Forum, Limuru, November 2007. Oxford: Regnum, 2009, 3–36. Ryland, Raymond Olin. “A Study in Ecumenical Isolation: The Southern Baptist Convention.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1969. Saarinen, Risto. Recognition and Religion: A Historical and Systematic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Sattler, Dorothea. Beziehungsdenken in der Erlösungslehre: Bedeutung und Grenzen [Relational Thinking in Soteriology: Significance and Limits]. Freiburg: Herder, 1997. Schaff, Philip, and S. Irenaeus Prime (eds.). Evangelical Alliance Conference 1873, New York: History, Essays, Orations, and Other Documents of the Sixth General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, Held in New York, October 2–12, 1873. New York: Harper, 1874. Séguy, Jean. “Thèses et hypothèses en oecuménologie [Theses and Hypotheses in Ecumenology].” Social Compass 15.6 (1968), 433–442. Séguy, Jean. Les conflits du dialogue. Paris: Cerf, 1973. Sheppard, Blair H., and Maria Tuchinsky. “Interfirm Relationships: A Grammar of Pairs.” In Barry M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 18. Greenwich: JAI Press, 1996, 331–373. Sing Praises to Jehovah. New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1984. Smith, Edwin W. The Christian Mission in Africa: A Study Based on the Work of the International Conference at Le Zoute, Belgium, September 14th to 2lst, 1926. London: International Missionary Council, 1926. Sperry, Willard L. (ed.). The Non-Theological Factors in the Making and Unmaking of Church Union. Faith and Order Paper 3. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1937.

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

503

St. John, Burton (ed.). Foreign Missions Year Book of North America, 1919. New York: Committee of Reference and Counsel, FMCNA, 1919. Stanley, Brian. The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Staples, Peter. “Theory and Method in Ecumenical Science.” In Sigurd Bergmann, Per Frostin, Christopher Meakin, and Per Erik Persson (eds.). Ekumeniken och forskningen. Uppsala: Nordiska Ekumeniska Rådet, 1992, 139–173. Staples, Peter. “Towards an Explanation of Ecumenism.” Modern Theology 5.1 (1988), 23–44. Stark, Rodney, and William S. Bainbridge. A Theory of Religion. New York: Lang, 1987. Stark, Rodney, and William S. Bainbridge. The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Stark, Rodney, and Roger Finke. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Stark, Rodney, and Charles Y. Glock. “The New Denominationalism.” Review of Religious Research 7 (1965), 17–28. Stobbe, Heinz-Günther. “Konflikte um Identität: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung von Macht in interkonfessionellen Beziehungen und im ökumenischen Prozeß [Conflicts over Identity: A Study on the Significance of Power in Interdenominational Relations and the Ecumenical Process].” In Peter Lengsfeld (ed.). Ökumenische Theologie: Ein Arbeitsbuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980, 190–237. Thomas, Winburn T. “Ecumenics in the Curriculum.” Journal of Bible and Religion 11.4 (1946), 210. Thuesen, Peter J. In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Tiedemann, R. G. “Comity Agreements and Sheep Stealers: The Elusive Search for Christian Unity among Protestants in China.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 36.1 (2012), 3–8. Timberlake, James H. Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900–1920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. Towler, Robert. “Inter-Church Relations: A Sociological Comment.” In John Kent and Robert Murray (eds.). Church Membership and Intercommunion. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973, 203–225. Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. New York: Macmillan, 1931 [German original: 1912]. Turner, Bryan S. “The Sociological Explanation of Ecumenicalism.” The Expository Times 82.12 (1971), 356–361. Turner, John Munsey. Conflict and Reconciliation: Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England, 1740–1982. London: Epworth, 1985. Tyrrell, Ian. Woman’s World – Woman’s Empire: The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in International Perspective, 1880–1930. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. Valeske, Ulrich. Hierarchia Veritatum: Theologiegeschichtliche Hintergründe und mögliche Konsequenzen eines Hinweises im Ökumenismusdekret des II. Vatikanischen Konzils zum zwischenkirchlichen Gespräch [Hierarchia Veritatum: Backgrounds in the

504

Bibliography

History of Theology and Possible Consequences of a Reference in the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council on Interchurch Conversation]. München: Claudius, 1968. van Beek, Hubert. “The Reconfiguration of the Ecumenical Movement: An Overview of the Discussion so Far.” Reformed World 55.2 (2005), 96–103. van Beek, Huibert (ed.). Revisioning Christian Unity: Journeying with Jesus Christ, the Reconciler at the Global Christian Forum, Limuru, November 2007. Oxford: Regnum, 2009. Vischer, Lukas. “Stellung und Aufgabe ‘konfessioneller Familien’ in der ökumenischen Bewegung [Position and Task of ‘Confessional Families’ in the Ecumenical Movement].” In Lukas Vischer. Ökumenische Skizzen. Frankfurt a. M.: Lembeck, 1972, 194– 215. Volk, Kyle G. Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Vondey, Wolfgang. “Presuppositions for Pentecostal Engagement in Ecumenical Dialogue.” Exchange 4 (2001), 344–358. Vouga, François. “Einheit und Vielfalt des frühen Christentums [Unity and Diversity of Early Christianity].” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 3.6 (2000), 47–53. Wallmann, Johannes. Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock: Gesammelte Aufsätze [Theology and Spirituality in the Age of Baroque. Collected Essays]. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995. Wainwright, Geoffrey, and Paul McPartlan (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ecumenical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Ward, Jimmie Don. “A Critical Evaluation of the Ecumenical Movement in Light of Southern Baptist Perceptions.” Th.D. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1987. Warwick, Donald. “Organizational Politics and Ecumenism.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11 (1974), 293–308. Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Donald D. Jackson. Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: Norton, 1967. “WCC Constitution and Rules.” Online: http://wcc2013.info/en/resources/document s/2012_WCC_ConstitutionandRules_EN_23_October.pdf, accessed March 21, 2014. Webb, Stephen H. Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-Day Saints. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Weber, Max. “ ‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy.” In Max Weber. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Glencoe: Free Press, 1949 [German original: 1904], 93–94. Weinrich, Michael. Ökumene am Ende? Plädoyer für einen neuen Realismus [Ecumenism at the End? Plea for a New Realism]. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1994. Welbourn, F. B. “The Impact of Christianity on East Africa.” In D. A. Low and A. Smith (eds.). History of East Africa. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976, 383–422. Wengert, Timothy J., and Charles W. Brockwell (eds.). Telling the Churches’ Story: Ecumenical Perspectives on Writing Christian History. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Wernsmann, Maria. Praxis, Probleme und Perspektiven ökumenischer Prozesse: Ein Beitrag zur Theoriebildung [Practice, Problems, and Prospects of Ecumenical Pro-

Other Literature (Ecumenism, Sociology, Theology, etc.)

505

cesses: A Contribution to Theory Building]. Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 107. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016. West, Charles C. “Ecumenics, Church and Society: The Tradition of Life and Work.” Ecumenical Review 39.4 (1987), 462–469. Westerfield Tucker, Karen B. “‘Through the Church the Song Goes On’: Ecumenical Implications of Singing Together.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 53.2 (2018), 245–261. Wharton, Amy S. The Sociology of Organizations: An Anthology of Contemporary Theory and Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. White, Charles E. The Beauty of Holiness: Phoebe Palmer as Theologian, Revivalist, Feminist, and Humanitarian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Wiese, Leopold von. System der Allgemeinen Soziologie als Lehre von den sozialen Prozessen und den sozialen Gebilden der Menschen (Beziehungslehre) [System of General Sociology as the Sciene of Social Processes and Social Shapes of Humans (Relations Science)]. 4th ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1966 [= 2d ed. 1933]. Wiese, Leopold von, and Howard P. Becker. Systematic Sociology: On the Basis of the Beziehungslehre and Gebildelehre. New York: Wiley, 1932. Willaime, Jean-Paul. “L’oecuménisme écartelé: Quelques hypothèses en sociologie de l’œcuménisme [The Quartered Ecumenism: Some Hypotheses in the Sociology of Ecumenism].” In Jean-Paul Willaime (ed.). Vers de nouveaux oecuménismes. LatourMaubourg: Cerf, 1989, 15–38. Willaime, Jean-Paul. “L’ultramodernité sonne-t-elle la fin de l’oecuménisme? [Does Postmodernity Ring in the End of Ecumenism?]” Revue des sciences religieuses 89.2 (2001), 177–204. Wilson, Bryan. Religion in Secular Society. London: Watts, 1966. Work, Telford. “Pentecostal and Charismatic.” In Geoffrey Wainwright and Paul McPartlan (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ecumenical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, 187–205. World Missionary Conference, 1910. Vol. 9: The History and Records of the Conference. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson, and Ferrier, 1910. Wu, Dongsheng John. Understanding Watchman Nee: Spirituality, Knowledge, and Formation. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012. Ziefle, Joshua R. David du Plessis and the Assemblies of God: The Struggle for the Soul of a Movement. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Index

1888 (General Conference at Minneapolis) 194, 226–228, 291, 410 Activities, ecumenical / interchurch see Practices, ecumenical / interchurch Alliance ecumenism – general 66, 90–92, 101–105 Alliance ecumenism and Adventists 215, 221, 264, 296, 323, 327, 336–339, 343, 358, 401 Amsterdam 1948 273, 411 Andreasen, M. L. [Milian Lauritz] 289f., 293 Andrews, John N. 177–181, 410 Antichrist 122, 151, 189, 204, 210, 376, 378, 381 Apocalypticism 116–134, 145, 160–162, 165, 203f., 217, 225, 279f., 301f., 312, 407, 426 Apostolicity 105f., 153, 358 Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen in Deutschland (ACK) 35f., 145, 352f. Assemblies of Yahweh 356 Authority Ranking (AR) 81–84, 86f., 90– 92, 100–102, 106–109, 115, 162, 215, 282, 296, 323, 362, 405 “Babylon” motif 122, 134, 141, 150–155, 162, 164, 167f., 171f., 184, 187, 201, 233, 241, 279, 281, 374, 401, 414, 430 Baptism 62, 92, 346, 371 Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM) 346f., 370f., 412

Bates, Joseph 131, 133, 135, 140, 142, 158, 160f. Beach, Bert B. 17, 299–313, 323–332, 335– 338, 345–348 Bible 115f., 147, 185, 274, 277f., 315f., 336, 386, 402, 427 Bible Societies 66, 90, 102, 296, 325, 342f., 400, 409 Canright, Dudley 193, 276f., 288, 292, 420 Catholicity 105, 153, 358 Charismatics see Pentecostals and Charismatics China 196f., 247–251, 354 Christian World Communions (CWC) 30, 39, 323–326, 374, 411f. Christology 53, 62, 289f., 292f., 296 Church divisions see Divisions of the Church Church of God (Seventh day) 172f., 355f. Comity 90, 95, 105, 179, 249–256, 421–425 Communal Sharing (CS) 81–84, 87, 90–92, 100–102, 106f., 109f., 121, 142, 145, 150, 157, 162, 215, 282, 296, 307, 327, 362, 405 Communio ecclesiology 403 Communion (Eucharist, Lord’s Supper) 82, 87, 90, 180, 347, 371 Communion, open 86, 91, 188, 344, 404 Conciliar ecumenism see Cooperativefederal ecumenism Conference of Secretaries of Christian World Communions (CCWC) 323– 331, 339, 344, 402, 435 Congo (Zaire) 354

508 Conradi, Ludwig Richard 184, 240 Convergence 317, 357, 360–362, 372–374, 380, 383, 387, 397, 401 Cooperative-federal ecumenism 66, 90– 92, 101–105, 109, 362 Cooperative-federal ecumenism and Adventists 268, 274, 287, 327, 336–339, 353, 401f. Cottrell, Roswell F. 149, 158, 169, 173, 175– 177, 207, 212, 415f., 418 Council on Interchurch Relations (CIR), General Conference of SDA 34, 308, 326f., 333, 358f., 387, 412 Cranmer, Gilbert 172f. Creed / creeds 43, 114f., 118, 144, 147, 150, 167f., 289, 316, 413–416 Daniells, Arthur G. 255, 278 Denominationalism 34, 51f., 75, 80, 118, 168, 338, 427 Dialogue 39f., 45, 66f., 73, 88–90, 103, 303 Dialogues, Adventist 13f., 33f., 183, 227f., 256, 283–297, 308–323, 342, 345, 354– 398, 399–402, 412 Diop, Ganoune 327, 435 Disciples of Christ 102, 119, 244, 268 Disestablishment 112 Diversity, Christian 46f., 56, 58, 71, 106f., 149, 207f., 338, 396, 405f. Diversity and unity 37, 104, 108, 296, 406, 418 Division of Foreign Mission (DFM; of the NCCCUSA) 260–264 Divisions of the Church 57, 61, 75, 94, 107f., 114, 119, 146, 415f., 427 East Africa 246f. Ecclesiology 35f., 42f., 52f., 60–63, 99, 105f., 290, 405, 407 Ecclesiology – Adventist (general) 118, 124, 133–145, 150f., 162–171, 225, 251– 254, 313f., 335f., 371, 400–403 Ecclesiology – Remnant ecclesiology 105, 134–139, 142f., 148, 163–166, 197f., 203f., 217f., 306, 340, 358, 372f., 385f., 402f.

Index

Ecumenical rhetoric 36, 71, 80, 89, 106, 303, 399 Ecumenical scepticism 29f., 71, 210, 220, 263, 265f., 273, 305, 318, 331, 358, 404 Ecumenics 29, 31, 34f., 37f., 41, 46–56, 60, 69–77, 87, 89, 91, 97, 108–110, 183, 324, 361, 399, 404–406 Ecumenism, Definition of 41–44, 47f. Ecumenism of life – general 18, 65, 68, 90– 92, 102–106 Ecumenism of life and Adventists 327, 330, 336–342, 348, 401 Ecumenism of profiles – general 65f., 90– 92, 101–105 Ecumenism of profiles and Adventists 322, 327, 337–339, 344f., 358, 381, 401 Edinburgh 1910 see World Missionary Conference 1910 Equality Matching (EM) 81–84, 86f., 90– 92, 100–102, 106–110, 115, 125, 183, 215, 282, 296, 322f., 362, 405 Eschatology, Adventist 36, 116–119, 124– 134, 145–150, 163–166, 171f., 200–204, 227, 239, 291–293, 316, 371f. Eschatology and Ecumenism 13, 56, 145f., 177, 207, 247, 268, 407f. Eucharist see Communion Evangelicals, -ism 28, 50, 79f., 104, 202, 210, 212, 215, 219, 221f., 238f., 243f., 261–264, 274–280, 283–298, 304, 322, 328, 332, 335, 339–340, 358, 363, 366, 383–387, 392–394, 396, 409 Exclusiveness, exclusivism 145, 159, 282, 334, 339, 386, 404, 418, 433 Faith and Order Movement / Commission 268–270, 309, 315, 317, 346, 411 Federal Council of Churches (FCC), USA 265–267, 410 Finland 353 Finney, Charles G. 113–121, 141 Fiske, Alan P. 84 Fitch, Charles 121f., 409 Footwashing 126, 131, 344, 404 Foreign Missions Conference of North America (FMCNA) 256–263, 272, 411

Index

Forum ecumenism – general 67, 90–92, 101–105 Forum ecumenism and Adventists 296f., 307, 322, 327–330, 337–339, 344, 347ff., 358, 401 France 353, 410 Fundamental Beliefs (SDA) 228, 283, 289, 292, 365, 385f., 394, 412 Fundamentalism (Protestant) 79, 257, 261, 264, 274–280, 284, 295 Geldbach, Erich 402f. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 171, 177–182, 186, 209, 226f., 272, 325, 334, 342, 377, 410 Germany 333, 352f. Global Christian Forum 67, 102, 327–330, 344, 402, 412, 435 Graz, John 327, 333, 376f., 394, 412 Great Disappointment 120–127, 132, 135, 162, 317, 409 Guest status 35, 67, 352f., 404 “Hand(s) across the gulf” quote (Ellen White) 218, 267f. Harmon, Ellen Gould see White, Ellen G. Hermeneutics; interpretation 147, 172, 183, 228f., 278, 293, 296, 314f., 322, 367, 371, 380, 385, 418f. Himes, Joshua V. 118–120, 125, 141, 187 Holiness 105, 113, 121, 153f., 191, 201f., 336, 358, 426 Hospitality 67, 344 Hungary 196, 350–352, 412 Hymns and ecumenism 90, 200f., 344 India 237, 243, 250, 255, 259, 421 Interchurch relations models 41f., 53f., 60, 63–68, 86, 100–108, 295f., 322, 327, 336f., 383, 401f. International Missionary Council 262f., 410f. Inter-organizational relations (IOR) 44, 72–74, 77–81, 98–102, 108, 121, 295, 406 Interpretation see Hermeneutics

509 Jehovah’s Witnesses 43, 46, 126, 194, 201, 372, 395, 400 John Paul II 378, 412 Johnsson, William 320, 335–337, 385, 387, 390, 433–437 Jones, Alonzo T. 220, 223, 226, 266, 301 Justification (theology) 291, 364, 366, 369, 371 Kasper, Walter 379, 383 Kellogg, John Harvey 184, 229f. KERAK (Hungarian Adventist split) 351f. Kingdom of God 25f., 56f., 61, 108, 127, 216, 372, 407f., 430f. Laodicea motif 163–166 Latter-day Saints see Mormons Law and Gospel 312, 364, 366f., 371 Liberty, religious 52, 93, 112, 199, 220f., 254, 269, 306, 312, 315, 325f., 338f., 401, 423, 427 Life and Work Movement 269f., 411 Lord’s Supper see Communion Luther, Martin 197f., 225 Lutherans 13f., 246, 248, 345, 359, 364, 368–374, 412, 436 Mackay, John A. 47–49, 324 Market Pricing (MP) 81–84, 86f., 90–92, 100–102, 106–110, 115, 184, 215, 282, 322, 362, 405 Marriage metaphor 65, 103 Marriage, interchurch 91, 348–350 Martin, Walter 283–294 Mennonites 244f., 339f., 367, 392, 396, 412, 436 Metaphors for interchurch relations 65, 95–97, 103, 105 Methodists/-ism 57, 112f., 116, 119, 159, 183, 191f., 204, 225, 228f, 231, 243f., 415, 433 Miller, William 116–123, 134f., 409 Millerite Movement 115–164, 170, 175, 188, 191, 200f., 204, 213, 237, 344, 409

510 Mission and ecumenism 91, 102, 133, 146, 158–162, 235–264, 280, 338–340, 346, 400, 421–425, 428–431 Moody, Dwight 201f. Mormons (Latter-day Saints) 32, 122, 153, 190f., 203f., 400 Müller, Georg 201f. Mutual recognition – general 56, 64f., 90– 92, 100–105, 109, 183 Mutual recognition and Adventists 183, 287, 296, 323, 327, 337–339, 354, 372, 396 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCCCUSA) 260, 267, 347, 411 Non-theological factors of ecumenism 49f., 98; see also: Social Sciences and Ecumenics Orchestra metaphor 67, 97, 103 Organic union – general 57, 64f., 90–92, 100–105, 109, 362 Organic union and Adventists 150, 180, 264, 287, 295, 323, 327, 336, 339, 352, 358, 396, 402, 426, 433 Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) 57, 104, 192f., 305, 315f., 336, 395 Palmer, Phoebe 121, 201f. Papacy 151, 189, 210, 212, 300, 376, 411f. Pentecostals and Charismatics 28f., 65, 104, 113, 116, 148, 193, 249, 257, 286, 308, 328, 395, 402 Politeness 233 Pope see Papacy Practices, ecumenical / interchurch; activities, ecumenical / interchurch 42, 68, 71, 79f., 88–93, 259, 264, 402–405 Presbyterians 113, 119, 192, 216, 243, 247, 268, 274, 367, 383, 393f., 412 Proselytism 179, 186, 249, 312, 314f., 345f. Protestantism 51, 192, 219, 230, 245, 257, 274, 288, 400 Puritan(s) 151, 166, 202, 219f., 225

Index

Questions on Doctrine (QOD) 288–297, 411

256, 285,

Reconciled diversity 102 Reform Movement, Adventist 279f., 282 Reformation 221, 241, 369, 388, 427, 436 Reformed Ecumenical Synod 363, 384 Relational Models Theory (RMT) 72, 74, 81–89, 99–110, 115, 121, 157, 215, 282, 296, 307, 327, 405f. Religious economy 27, 73, 75f., 114f., 122, 407 Religious liberty see Liberty, religious Restorationism 111–113, 118–122, 132, 147–149, 166–173 Revivalism 58, 68, 92, 102, 111–123, 145, 155–158, 193, 225, 232, 336, 395f., 429 Roman Catholic Church 122, 141, 151, 189–191, 210, 214, 219f., 233f., 238, 245f., 249, 267f., 281, 286, 318–320, 328, 333, 336, 352, 365, 374–383, 412 Sabbatarians 124–138, 160–162, 173–175, 195–197, 204, 216, 249, 354–357, 417f. Sabbath 131–133, 145–148, 159–162, 173, 195f., 227, 379f., 403 Sacraments 347, 367, 404 Salvation Army 193–195, 363, 366, 383f., 390–392 Schism(s) – general 51f., 57f. 74–76, 97, 102, 147, 279, 414–416 Schisms, Adventist 171–174, 279f., 350– 352, 356, 410 Scripture see Bible Sect / Sectarianism 58, 74–76, 109, 118f., 153, 158, 213f., 341, 414f. Separatism 117–123, 141, 171, 204, 227, 231f., 261, 264, 279, 400 Seventh Day Baptists 131, 134, 149, 152, 170–187, 195, 212, 215, 217, 225, 282, 340, 354f. Seventh-day Adventists – denominational name 168–174 “Shut Door” concept 127–130, 133, 156, 158–162, 206, 341, 409

511

Index

Smith, Uriah 146f., 157, 161f., 211, 213f., 292, 413 Social Sciences and Ecumenics 38, 49–56, 69–80, 87f., 93, 99 Sociology of ecumenism 51f., 65, 69–72, 74f., 80, 407 South America 244f. Spain 353 Spicer, William A. 183, 240f. Spiritual unity – general 68, 90–92, 102– 106, 157 Spiritual unity and Adventists 142, 204, 233, 242, 264, 264, 270, 280, 282, 295, 327, 336–344, 358, 362, 400f. Spirituality 68, 91, 186, 193, 195, 202, 204, 270, 332, 344, 388, 393, 395 Staples, Peter 52, 70 Student Volunteer Movement 238f. Sunday 172, 174, 315, 378–380; see also: Sunday Laws Sunday Laws 192, 197, 211, 216–224, 227, 260, 265, 280, 375, 401, 410 Temperance Movement 114, 120, 221–224, 232, 339, 400, 433 Tradition 87, 99, 114f., 143f., 202, 294, 302, 385f., 415f. Trinitarianism 42f., 213, 228–230, 249, 277, 289, 353, 400, 419 True Jesus Church 249, 357 Uniformity 97, 207f., 213f., 322 Union Movements 211, 220 Unity, models of see Interchurch relations models Unity, notions of passim; especially 27–29, 40–42, 53–58, 60–69, 86–92, 100–109, 139, 145–150, 207–216, 264f., 335–341, 401–404, 413–415, 426f.

Unity, spiritual see Spiritual unity Unity, visible 28, 37, 54, 68, 72, 101, 104, 150, 212, 337, 352, 358, 402, 426 Unity and Diversity see Diversity and Unity Vatican II 28, 31, 297–310, 411 Vischer, Lukas 307, 309, 317, 323 Visser ’t Hooft, Willem A. 41, 307, 324 Waggoner, Ellet J. 194, 226f. Wesley, John 191, 197f. White, Ellen G. 131, 137f., 149, 172f., 206, 224–235, 278, 294, 304, 373, 386 White, James S. 131, 136–139, 159f., 169, 172, 178, 182 Woman’s Christian Temperance Union 218, 221–224 World Alliance of Reformed Churches 324, 365, 387–390 World Council of Churches 28, 42f., 66, 73, 101f., 267–274, 308–332, 335–339, 401, 411–412, 425–430 World Evangelical Alliance 366, 392f., 411f. World Evangelical Fellowship 363, 383– 388 World Missionary Conference 1910 240– 243 Worldwide Church of God 174, 356 Worship 42, 91, 103, 200, 306, 340, 367, 394, 435 Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) 192, 203, 409 Zinzendorf, Nikolaus Ludwig von

201