Adventism's Regrettable Divorce

Note: In retelling our history, I claim no original insights based upon primary sources; I have depended throughout on the accounts told by the Advent Christian historians cited in this post.

Sixteen years stand between the Great Disappointment (1844) and the formation of the Advent Christian denomination (1860). During those years, the proponents of the Second Advent movement began to splinter into various groups. Among these was included the notorious Seventh Day Adventists. The SDA’s reinterpreted the significance of the predicted date of Christ’s return, maintaining it represented the occasion of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, even arguing for some time that the door was shut for sinners to repent. At the same time, they also introduced the novel requirements of Sabbath day worship and adherence to the dietary law of the old covenant. Though dominant today, these Adventists were a minor faction at the time. The vast majority of Adventists rejected their views, sharing in common their full admission of William Miller’s error even while they continued to anticipate Christ’s soon return.

The Albany Conference of 1845 represented a significant Adventist consensus apart from the Seventh-Day Adventists; it might have been reasonable to suppose some united denominational organization would eventually emerge from this cohort. However, this was not to be as throughout the 1850s, fissures began to emerge. A significant portion, even a majority, of these Adventists became persuaded of the doctrine of conditional immortality even while most of Miller’s closest companions adhered to traditionalist convictions. Accordingly, the flagship Adventist publication, Advent Herald, under the editorial hand of Joshua V. Himes refused to publish anything regarding conditionalism. Because of this and because of a resurgence in date-setting (particularly fixed upon 1854) which was also repudiated by the Advent Herald, the World’s Crisis newspaper publication was formed to advocate these positions.

Whilst the 1854 date came and went with repeated embarrassment and the Crisis was temporarily shuttered, the conditionalist divide persisted. Advent Christian histories have tended to imply that this division was mostly caused by the Advent Herald’s discriminatory policy. It is said the paper belittled conditionalist advocates as they insisted the discussion was a distraction even while they hypocritically welcomed traditionalist advocates in their pages. However, there are indications the conditionalists were not so conciliatory themselves. Dwight Banks supplies evidence of this from the year 1855 when the Herald Adventists seemed to extend an olive branch.

Consequently, though urged by the larger body to rejoin them, the "Crisis" folks decided to maintain a separate existence, giving special emphasis to their decision by appointing a Conference at Worcester, Mass., on the same day as the General Conference of Adventists, to which they had been invited, had been scheduled to meet in Boston. (Banks, p. 92)

These conditionalists were dogmatic in insisting that their views were essential to the Adventist cause. Joseph Turner’s outlook in 1848 is representative for those thereafter,

Let us never be deceived with the stale notion, that, to talk about preaching or writing the evidences of the coming of the Lord...is the great Advent doctrine. No! No!! The Advent doctrine embraces all the items of doctrine that are to be realized in connection with the Second Advent of the Son of Man.

All that will then and there be fulfilled, are parts of the Advent doctrine, and if there are those will not search out and teach the connected truth, then they are not Adventists.” (Hewitt p.232)

David A. Dean tells of another branch that was extended in 1855, only to be rejected,

At the 1855 Wilbraham campmeeting, it was proposed that the Advent Herald would strictly limit itself to Adventism while World’s Crisis would welcome conditionalist discussion in it pages. This division of labor was unacceptable to the conditionalist Adventists. (Dean, pp.66-67).

A.C. Johnson offers a report of a convention and resolution that followed a year later, produced in an attempt to achieve harmony:

As late as 1856 strenuous efforts were made to preserve the unity of the Advent body and to prevent a general separation over the immortality question. To this end a general convention was called and the same assembled in Providence, R.I., November 12, and following....

“Whereas, Unity of labor, and as far as may be, unity of faith are necessary to the successful prosecution of the work of God; and as there is a diversity of sentiment among us as a people; producing to some extent dis-similar interests; and as we believe, that a candid Christian interchange of view would remove in a great measure the conflicting interests, if not harmonize discordant views: therefore, ‘Resolved, That as laborers in the promulgation of the doctrines immediately connected with the near coming of Christ, they hereafter avoid preaching .on the subjects relating to the state of the dead, the final destiny of the wicked, in a manner calculated to give offense to those holding opposing sentiments: and that they as far as practicable, express themselves in the language of Scripture.’” (Johnson, pp. 173-174)

These words fell short of their purpose and in 1858 lines were drawn as the traditionalists formed their own denomination, “The Evangelical Adventists” – a name rich with accusation against their conditionalist brethren (Wellcome, p. 604). Miles Grant, editor of the World’s Crisis, threw down the gauntlet shortly after, publicly debating the erudite Evangelical Adventist Dr. Josiah Litch in defense of conditionalism; Grant would sally forth in debate after debate making this defense for years to come. Consequently, with reluctance, the conditionalist Adventists formed their own denomination in 1860 (even if unacknowledged as such at the time) – the Christian Association, known shortly thereafter as the Advent Christian Association. And the rest is history.

I offer this brief synopsis (see sources below) so that we might consider our present position today as Advent Christians. Looking back, we can comprehend why things played out as they did and can even appreciate God’s providential purpose. And yet, even so, can we truly commend the fallout? I can see very little that was commendable in it. On both sides, I see very little manifestation of Christ’s prayer for his disciples in John 17. Rather than rallying around the essential cause of preparing the world for Christ’s return, Adventists on both sides insisted upon their own way in matters of tertiary concern.

I make no apologies for my conditionalist convictions, but it appears to me that the history of this denomination has been dominated by an unhealthy preoccupation with this doctrine to the neglect of more essential doctrines and matters (e.g. Dwight Banks observes that the 1900 DOP is more strenuously conditionalist than the original 1881 version, compare for yourself here, source below). Frankly, a review of our history reveals that this denomination has displayed greater vigor in defending the doctrine of conditional immortality than the deity of Jesus Christ. That aside (and what an aside!), any return to the fountainhead of our denominational existence ultimately goes beyond conditional immortality to the cause we once held in common with traditionalists – the cause of Adventism.

I contend that this split between Evangelical Adventists and Advent Christians was a regrettable divorce. As with many divorces, both sides thought life might be so much better without the other. Instead, the Evangelical Adventists eventually evaporated into nonexistence and the Advent Christians lost their Adventist thrust. In this vacuum, Seventh Day Adventism became ascendant, becoming so predominant that when someone now hears the word “Adventism” they simply think of the SDAs and their false teachings. While the personalities of that time made it unlikely, one can imagine that together the Evangelical Adventists and Advent Christians might have been able to strike a balance that would have brought forth a united denomination to advance the cause of Adventism to much greater effect (namely, reaching the lost and establishing more churches).

What we now see to be a regrettable divorce can be walked back in our time by restoring the primary cause of Adventism which can have the effect of setting everything in its proper place. Anticipating Christ’s return, it becomes imperative that we be found ready. Readiness means zealously engaging in global and domestic mission; resolutely upholding the essential truths of the Gospel message; thoughtfully cultivating Christian unity and charity on controversial matters of secondary/tertiary concern; and responsibly instituting sufficient church order so that on the whole we are found to be faithful, obedient servants when our Master returns..

Walking back is not easy. For many, it will feel like betrayal to become open-handed in some matters that were vigorously staked out by our forefathers (in some cases, literal family members). However, I urge you to consider: Where should our true allegiance be found? What is God’s purpose for this denomination is at this time? I will share further considerations along these lines in my next post.

Sources:
Dwight Banks, “The Rise and Growth of the Advent Christian Denomination from the Point of View of its Doctrinal Development”, Thesis, Gordon College of Theology and Missions, 1939
David A. Dean, The Origin and Development of the Advent Christian Denomination, Henceforth, Winter 1982, Vol. X, No. 2
Clyde E. Hewitt, Midnight and Morning, ACGC 1983
A.C. Johnson, Advent Christian History, ACPS 1918
1881/1900 DOP link courtesy of Robert Mayer’s book, Adventism Confronts Modernity…