Get your own Free Home Page ..To Ancient SDA's ............ To "What's New?"
A Little
NonConformist History
By S. J. Crafts.
With early thoughts relating to Uniformity in the Seventh-day Adventist church.
(An article by George Butler, General Conference president, 1883.)
SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
RELATING TO THE
NONCONFORMIST MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND.
[A Segment of the 1260 years]
—————————
A quote from “The Great Controversy” :
“Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines.
Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience.
An example of this is given in the long-continued persecution
of dissenters by the Church of England.
“During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thousands of
nonconformist ministers were forced to flee from their churches,
and many, both of pastors and people, were subjected to fine,
imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom.” (GC 443)
—————————
Some history
1543
Acts passed in English & Scottish
parliaments
making Bible reading LAWFUL.
1546 Luther dies in Germany.
1547 Henry VIII dies Catholic.
Edward VI (Protestant) becomes king of England.
Edward abolishes Henry’s VIII “Act of Six articles” which had promoted Catholic worship. (See notes on 1553.)
1548 Under Edward VI (Protestant,) the Book of Common Prayer is published, “to the intent [that] a uniform, quiet and godly order should be had”.
1549
The first ‘ACT OF UNIFORMITY’ is passed by the
British
Parliament.
Because “of late, new fashions of worship have been introduced by the ‘good zeal’ of innovators” (i.e. reformers).
Use of the Prayer-Book “in all public services, shall be obligatory on all ministers on pain of 6 months' imprisonment and forfeiture of a years' income for the first offence,
deprivation [of rank and ministerial credentials] and a year’s imprisonment for the second [offence],
and imprisonment for life for the third [offence].
Similar penalties are imposed for depraving [slandering] or preaching against the [Prayer] book.”
This attempt “to enforce UNIFORMITY was unsuccessful, [because] the book was a compromise which pleased neither the conservative nor the reforming party.”
The Prayer-Book is “drastically REVISED.” And then in
1552 The Second ACT OF UNIFORMITY is passed.
And, “whereas the former Act had applied only to the clergy, the laity were now brought within reach of its penalties.”
This second “Act is more stringent than its predecessor, in that it [also] makes attendance at church on Sundays and holy days compulsory on all who are not reasonably hindered, on pain of ecclesiastical censures,
and attendance at any other form of service [not in accordance with the Prayer-Book stipulations] is made punishable by imprisonment for 6 months, a year, or life, for the first, second, and third offences respectively.”
1553 Edward VI (Protestant) dies.
Mary (Catholic), called “Bloody Mary”, takes throne of England.
England is “reconciled with Rome”.
The first and second ACTS OF UNIFORMITY repealed.
Then it is enacted that, “from December 20, 1553, only the forms of service most commonly used in the last year of Henry VIII shall be allowed.”
[The last years of Henry’s reign are characterised by his returning to the Catholic faith, and by his “Act of Six Articles”. The Six Articles of law enacted :-
i.) the doctrine of Transubstantiation [i.e. that the communion bread is actually turned into the body of Christ],
ii.) withheld the Cup from the laity,
iii.) prohibited priests from marrying,
iv.) made obligatory the vow of celibacy [upon the priests],
v.) upheld private masses for souls in Purgatory, and
vi.) made the use of the confessional expedient and necessary. (See Wylie Vol. 2 p.404)] Return
1558 “Bloody Mary” (Catholic) dies.
Elizabeth I (Protestant) ascends throne.
1559 “Elizabeth’s ACT OF UNIFORMITY repeals [Mary’s 1553] provision, and revived the Act [of Uniformity] of 1552.”
Elizabeth “increased the penalties for depraving [the revised Prayer-Book], and made absence from church punishable by fine... as well as by ecclesiastical censures.”
(Formerly, absence from church was punishable by ecclesiastical censures only.)
1603 Elizabeth I (Protestant) dies.
James I (Protestant) becomes king of England.
1604 “Puritan ministers [are] ejected from livings in England.”
1611
State
“Authorised” Version of the Bible printed
(i.e. King James version).
1612 Last recorded burning of heretics in England.
1620 “Pilgrim
fathers leave England for America,” due to religious
intolerance.
1625 James I (Protestant) dies.
Charles I comes to English throne.
1645
The use of the
Prayer-Book forbidden “by an ordinance with
no penalties attached; but as this proved INEFFECTIVE…
penalties were prescribed…” “[for
making] use of the Prayer-
Book in public or in private."
? Prayer-Book re-instated.
1661 Prayer-Book REVISED.
1661 The Fourth ACT OF UNIFORMITY.
Two thousand ministers refused to subscribe to declarations of “unfeigned” assent to everything in the [new] PRAYER-BOOK which had just been adopted by Parliament for the Church of England.
These ministers lost their positions [credentials and houses also] and the support that went with the churches they had served.
To prevent their congregations from giving voluntary support [to those ministers] for the preaching of the Word,
1664 THE CONVENTICLE ACT was quickly passed.
It forbade that more than five persons be at a religious meeting
where
the State Church standard was not followed.
And the
next year,
1665 THE FIVE
MILE ACT prohibited any unauthorised minister
living within five
miles of a town.
These Acts were [also] applied to teachers and lecturers.
{All educational centres.}
“In those times grew up the Nonconformist, or Free Church movement, with its protest against State prescribed religion.” (Spicer pp. 495-497.)
Sources: “Dictionary of English Church History,”
“Book of Common Prayer”
“Nonconformity”
“Uniformity, Acts of”.
Wylie’s “The History of Protestantism” Vol. 2. Chronology.
W. A. Spicer’s “Our day in the Light of Prophecy and Providence” (1912) S.D.A. pp.495-497.
Great Controversy 443 (see also GC 362, 384).
——————————————————————
Early thoughts concerning
Uniformity in the
Seventh-day Adventist church.
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be [again];
and that which is done, is that which shall be done [again]:
and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there anything [of which] it may be said, “See, this is new”?
[No, for] it hath been already…[but people soon forget that fact!]”
(Ecclesiastes 1:9-11)
(An article by George Butler, General Conference president, 1883.)
The writer was requested by the recent General Conference to make a brief statement through the Review, of the action taken in reference to the proposed Church Manual.
For four or five years past, there has been with some of our brethren a desire to have some manual of directions for the use of young ministers and church officers, etc. It was thought that this would lead to uniformity in all parts of the field, and afford means of instruction to those who were inexperienced, and be very convenient in many respects.
Steps were taken several years ago to prepare a manual, but for a time it was left unfinished. Last year at the Rome [General] Conference, the matter came up for consideration, and three brethren were appointed [as] a committee to prepare a manual, and submit it to the Conference this year for its approval or rejection. During this past summer the matter they have prepared has appeared in the Review, and has doubtless been well considered by its readers.
At the recent conference a committee of 13 leading brethren were appointed to consider the whole subject, and report. They did so and unanimously recommended to the Conference that it was not advisable to have a church manual. The Conference acted upon this recommendation, and quite unanimously decided against having any manual. In doing so, they did not intend any disrespect to the worthy brethren who had labored diligently to prepare such a work. They had presented much excellent matter, and given many valuable directions concerning church ordinances, holding business meetings, and many other important questions, and had done as well no doubt, as any others would have done in their place. The reasons underlying this action of the Conference [in rejecting the manual] were of a broader character. They relate to the desirability of any manual whatever.
The Bible contains our creed and discipline. It thoroughly furnishes the man of God unto all good works. What it has not revealed relative to church organization and management, the duties of officers and ministers, and kindred subjects, should not be strictly defined and drawn out into minute specifications for the sake of uniformity, but rather be left to individual judgement under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Had it been best to have a book of directions of this sort, the Spirit would doubtless have gone further, and left one on record with the stamp of inspiration upon it. Man cannot safely supplement this matter [i.e. fill in the perceived shortfall] with his weak judgement. All attempts to do it in the past have proved lamentable failures.
A variation of circumstances requires variation in action. God requires us to study important principles which He reveals in His word, but the minutiae [i.e. small details] in carrying them out, He leaves to individual judgement, promising heavenly wisdom in times of need. His ministers are constantly placed where they must feel their helplessness, and their need of seeking God for light, rather than to go to any church manual for specific directions, placed therein by uninspired men. Minute specific directions tend to weakness, rather than power. They lead to dependence [on other people] rather than self-reliance [see Ed 287, 3T 81.1]. Better make some mistakes and learn profitable lessons thereby, than to have our way all marked out for us by others, and the judgement have but a small field in which to reason and consider.
While brethren who have favored a manual have ever contended that such a work was not to be anything like a creed or a discipline, or to have authority to settle disputed points, but was only to be considered as a book containing hints for the help of those of little experience, yet it must be evident that such a work, issued under the auspices of the General Conference, would at once carry with it much weight of authority, and would be consulted by most of our young ministers.
It would gradually shape and mold the whole body; and those that did not follow it would be considered out of harmony with established principles of church order. And, really, is this not the object of the manual? And what would be the use of one, if not to accomplish such a result? But would this result, on the whole, be a benefit? Would our ministers be broader, more original, more self-reliant men? Could they be better depended on in great emergencies? Would their spiritual experiences likely be deeper and their judgement more reliable? We think the tendency all the other way.
The religious movement in which we are engaged has the same influences to meet which all genuine reformations have had to cope with. After reaching a certain magnitude, they have seen the need of uniformity, and to attain to it they have tried to prepare directions to guide the inexperienced. These [directions] have grown in number and authority till, accepted by all [or perhaps a majority?], they really become authoritative. There seems to be no logical stopping place, when once started upon this road, till this result is reached. Their history is before us, we have no desire to follow it. Hence we stop without a church manual before we get started [with one].
Our brethren who have favored such a work, we presume never anticipated such a conclusion as we have indicated. Very likely those in other denominations did not at first. The Conference thought best not to give even the appearance of such a thing [to the other churches that were looking on with interest].
Thus far we have got along well with our simple organization without a manual. Union prevails throughout the body. The difficulties we have before us, so far as organization is concerned, are far less than those we have had in the past. We have preserved simplicity, and have prospered in so doing. It is best to let well enough alone. For these and other reasons, the church manual was rejected.
It is probable it will never be brought forward again.
——————––——–
(This article appeared in the Review & Herald, November 27, 1883.)
——————————
Nearly 50 years after the publication of this article , (sometime during the 1920’s – 1930’s) the General Conference published the first S.D.A. church manual, in the hope of bringing in uniformity.
But before that time Mrs. White (until her death in 1915), and a few others, warned against the development of "policy” led organisation.
——————————
The following quotes are taken from a letter written by Mrs. White to the then GC President, A.G. Daniells, (June 28 1901), concerning the “regular lines” (church procedures, routines, and policies) to which some of the people looked for guidance. Mrs. White writes,
“...Phariseeism in the Christian world today is not extinct."
"The Lord desires us [the Seventh day Adventist church] to break up the course of precision which has become so firmly established, which has hindered, instead of advancing, His work."
["There is danger of pharisaical exactitude, burdening minds with worldly forms and customs…" (TM 195) & compare TM 181.1]
"He desires His people to remember that there is a large space over which the light of present truth is to be shed."
"Divine wisdom must have abundant room in which to work. It is to advance without asking permission or support from those who have taken to themselves kingly power…"
["But men are so officious, they want to do so much, that they overdo the matter, leaving Christ no room to work." (1SM 178.2)
"We want God to have some room to work. We do not want man's ideas to bind Him about." (7BC 920.1)]
"For years the same routine, the same “regular way” of working has been followed, and God’s work has been greatly hindered…
"God calls for a revival and a reformation. The "regular lines" have not done the work which God desires to see accomplished. Let revival and reformation make constant changes [to those “regular lines”]…
"[With] God helping His people, the circle of kings [i.e. those people that had gained controlling power in church affairs] who dared to take such great responsibilities, shall never again exercise their unsanctified power in the so-called “regular lines”…
"Shall the “regular lines”, which say that every mind shall be controlled by two or three minds at Battle Creek, continue to bear sway? The Macedonian cry [“come over... and help us”] is coming from every quarter. Shall men go to the “regular lines” to see whether they will be permitted to labor, or shall they go out and work as best they can, depending on their own abilities and on the help of the Lord, beginning in a humble way and creating an interest in the truth...?"
(EG White, Letter 60, 1901. MR #1110.)
—————————————
An Object Lesson:
How the church proposed to equip David.
When David was about to go down to meet the Philistine champion, the leaders of Israel regarded David as terribly inferior to the task.
David knew nothing of the "proper procedures" for war. King Saul, in his pity, gave the young shepherd his own armour for protection, and his own sword with which to go down and fight Goliath.
But when David tried to move with these things, he was not free to do as he would. The very best of man’s provision was of no use to David, it served only to restrict and hinder the agile young man.
Let us see it:- the church's best implements at that time were impediments. David respectfully wore them, and tried them, but he could not move as he desired. David effectively asks permission from Saul to “put them off”. He could not contend for his faith while “armed” with such things.
He laid off the “helmet of brass” and went down with the “helmet of the hope of salvation”. David’s mind was fortified and exceedingly hopeful. Howbeit, all others counted him as foolish.
Yet he was not irritated or discouraged, and he harboured no doubts, for David had proven God in the field. God’s power was known to David, and he would go down to meet the Philistine champion with the assurance of his earlier experiences.
Now when we are called to face a defier of Israel, let us consider one another respectfully (not despising another’s counsel), but let us not hinder one another with church procedures and policies.
The Philistine champion was Goliath of Gath. In the last days, Satan will certainly raise up another champion. And whom will he send into the field to defy Israel? The Adversary will send an Image (a twin) to the old Papal Beast. (Not a single man this time, but a religious system.) That Image will, like his mentor, open his mouth “in blasphemy against God”, and many will ask, “Who is able to make war with him?” Who can withstand him, or match him?
Let our “shepherd’s bag” -our mind- be filled with Bible truth. Let the tongue be accustomed to wielding truth, and if we go forward in the name of the Lord, we will prevail. But let none of us boast, or insult, or posture, against those that oppose the Sabbath of God, for those that educate themselves as combatants, ready to argue and joust, and those that present themselves with jesting, in the hope of disarming an opponent, will suffer loss. (This is not the godly "contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3 & 9))
Let us conduct ourselves with gravity, and with sincerity, and with the simplicity that characterised David’s venture. May we move freely and quickly with the graces of God, not seeking to bind one another with convention and protocol.
Some, like Goliath, will be offended by the simple means God employs, and almost all will be surprised by it. Those that are great and “wise in their own eyes” (and highly esteemed in the sight of others), having long experience, armed with ecclesiastical prowess and doctorates, will be offended. But hearts will marvel nonetheless, at the clear, ringing words that come from the mouths of those who know the humble work of a shepherd.
—————————————
Notes:
“In the visible creation, divine wisdom is manifested in an endless variety of processes. Uniformity is not the rule that is followed in the kingdom of nature. Neither is it the rule that is followed in the kingdom of grace.
"In different ways God works to attain one purpose--the saving of souls. By different methods the gracious Redeemer deals with different minds. The change of heart is as truly wrought out by one process as by another. It is the Lord working upon minds and molding characters." {TDG 67.1}
"Though one of the most distinguished and beloved of preachers in the French language, Gaussen was after a time suspended from the ministry, his principal offense being that instead of the church's catechism — a tame and rationalistic manual, almost destitute of positive faith — he had used the Bible in giving instruction to the youth." (GC 366)
“The doctrine preached by Zwingli was not received from Luther. It was the doctrine of Christ. "If Luther preaches Christ," said the Swiss Reformer, "he does what I am doing. Those whom he has brought to Christ are more numerous than those whom I have led. But this matters not. I will bear no other name than that of Christ, whose soldier I am, and who alone is my Chief. Never has one single word been written by me to Luther, nor by Luther to me. And why? . . . That it might be shown how much the Spirit of God is in unison with itself, since both of us, without any collusion, teach the doctrine of Christ with such uniformity." --D'Aubigne, b. 8, ch. 9. {GC 174.2} [An example of true uniformity!]
& See also EGW index on “policy“, “creed”, etc.
To Ancient SDA's ............ To "What's New?"
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page