A Great Wrong by J. H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 11, 1873

A Great Wrong.

By J. H. Waggoner

For some time I have thought of saying at least a few words concerning a remark which was conveyed to me soon after our last camp-meeting. It was to this effect, that it did not seem right for the members of the General Conference Committee to occupy the time so fully, while there was an individual (or more than one) on the ground of better education, who could interest the people. On this I wish to remark to several points.

1. It is far from being true that either of the ministers on the Committee is disqualified by want of natural ability or lack of education for effective ministerial labor.

2. It is far from being true that the best educated man is necessarily the best minister. A man may have the wisdom of Solomon, may “understand all mysteries,” and have “all knowledge,” and yet be only as “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”

3. It was a recommendation to the preaching of certain of the apostles that they were “unlearned men.” There was a power in their preaching which their enemies could not resist. Had they been men of great learning, they would have received credit for their abilities; but being unlearned men, their persecutors “took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.”

4. Paul did not regret that, in the eyes of some, his “bodily presence was weak, and his speech contemptible,” knowing, as he once said, that “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.”

And we must therefore judge that all who measure a man’s fitness for efficient work in the ministry by his natural ability or his education merely, take a worldly, and not a Christian or gospel, view of the matter. But

5. There was no other individual at the camp-meeting so well qualified to meet the demands of the time and the occasion as were those who had been in the work of the camp-meetings through the season, who had made the wants of the cause their special study and care, and had learned by observation and experience how to meet these wants, and best to serve the interests of the churches in these large assemblies. There is a fitness in all things in the cause of God, and this should be considered lest we judge “according to appearance,” and not “with righteous judgment.”

Now, having noticed these points, which should always be considered in forming decisions in regard to duty or qualifications for ministerial labor, I come to the main point; the one to which it was my intention especially to speak.

6. These men were intrusted with this work by the highest deliberative body of the Seventh-day Adventists. The General Conference elected them to their position; and while they are faithfully discharging the duties of the position, they should receive the confidence and support of all who have any interest in the success of the cause. But what order would there be, and what prospect of success, if those who are properly intrusted with certain responsibilities were obliged to give way and to let others occupy their positions at the suggestions of any who chose to criticize their work? Many in the United States firmly believe that there are men in the country who are better qualified to discharge the duties of President than is Gen. Grant; but what then? Shall Gen. Grant therefore be required to step aside and let these men try their skill? Were such a course to be pursued, confusion and anarchy would be the result, and our government would soon come to an end.

It may be said, in reply, that it was not intended that others should occupy the office or position of these. But if that is so,—if there was an entire willingness that they should occupy the position assigned them—then I ask, Why not accord to them the respect and support to which their position entitles them? This is a weighty matter, and it reaches to all parts of the work of God. And the teachings of the Scriptures are very plain upon the subject. Notice two examples.

When David was pursued by Saul, he well knew that Saul had no just cause to persecute him. Yet when Saul was in his power, he would not injure him, and even blamed himself for having cut off Saul’s skirt, because it might make some lose their respect for the king. Saul was “the Lord’s anointed,” chosen to occupy that position for the time being, and as a respecter of the order of Heaven, David would not rebel against God by rebelling against the order of his work on earth.

The apostle Paul was once struck upon the mouth by the order of the high priest. Upon this, Paul rebuked him in sharp terms, but immediately recalled his words when he understood the office that he held, quoting the Scripture where “it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”

If it would have been wrong in David to retaliate upon Saul, or to do anything to destroy respect for him as “the Lord’s anointed,” even when Saul was acting unjustly; and if it was wrong for Paul to rebuke the high priest when he abused his office, because he was “the ruler of the people,” how much greater must be the wrong in professed Christians to pursue a course calculated to destroy respect for the officers of the church, or for any who are appointed to occupy a responsible place in the work of God. If there is any light in the church, we have the fullest assurance that God will sanction the choice of the church in regard to its leading workers and officers; and they who lightly esteem the officers, despise the order of God’s house, and bring the work of God into contempt. And the strength or force of this truth is increased when we have the evidence that the workers are especially chosen of Heaven to occupy their positions.

Said the apostle, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine.” 1 Tim. 5:17.

Ruling, then, is an official duty in the church of God. This may grate on the feelings of the restlessness and independence of this degenerate age; but where is order without it? Where there are no officers there is no government, and without official authority, an office is a nullity.

The same is again taught in these words: “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow.” Heb. 13:7.

And still more impressive, if possible, are the words of verse 17: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you.”

It is objected that the democratic spirit of this age will not submit to such an order in the church; the idea of being inconsistent with the generally received ideas of personal liberty. But we do not find it inconsistent with the principles of liberty to have rulers in our government; on the contrary, it is the only way to preserve the government, and so to preserve our liberties, of which the government is our only safeguard and guarantee.

While professed Christians of this age are quite willing to submit to properly constituted authority in the civil government, they will submit to no rule in the church, though the Scriptures in both Testaments explicitly teach that rulers or governments are set in the church as well as in the State. And in this they have exactly reversed the order as held by Paul. He strongly rebuked the officer who acted as a judge, he knowing him to be such; but he immediately retracted his words when he learned that he was high priest, thus readily yielding to him a respect as an ecclesiastical ruler which he would not grant to him as a civil ruler.

There is, indeed, this noteworthy difference between the church and our civil government. In the latter, all power is derived from the people; and officers are chosen to legislate, to frame and administer laws, only according to the wishes of the people. But so far as legislation is concerned, the church is not republican. It has no law-making power within itself; the laws are all prepared by our Lord, and the office of the ruler extends only to exposition and discipline—as the Scripture says, to “rule well,” and to “labor in word and doctrine.” They may devise the best methods of carrying into effect the divine injunctions, but not a jot or tittle have they the right to add to or take from those injunctions.

Now it is the truth beyond dispute that in any government whatever, a refusal to yield obedience and honor to the properly constituted officers is rebellion against the government; and is never to be tolerated except as a last resort when the officers persistently usurp authority not granted to them in the government.

The Catholic church has gone to the very extreme of arbitrary power. It assumes legislative powers to the fullest extent—powers which were never conferred upon the church; and to these it attaches the most rigid methods of execution. Thus it is an absolutism within itself. The Protestant churches, in the effort to avoid her errors, are running to the other extreme. The true order of the gospel lies between the tyranny of the former, and the anarchy and confusion of the latter.

In our efforts to correct this anarchy and confusion, we are frequently met with the assertion that the spirit of the nineteenth century will not submit to such restraint as we think is provided for in the word of God. But to this we reply that the “spirit of the nineteenth century” is the great opposing power which the church of Christ has to meet in “the last days.” In describing the perils of these days, Paul says men—even those who have a “form of godliness”—will be “truce breakers,” “fierce,” “traitors, heady, high-minded.” And Jude, who also speaks of the last times and the coming of the Lord, describes certain professors as “spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear,” and says they “despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.” God set “governments” in the church; 1 Cor. 12:28; but they are despised by the “heady” irreverence of this restless and reckless age.

All observant and thoughtful men will confess that this is an age of great lawlessness. Children are not trained to reverence their superiors, the aged, nor the worship of God. Men of all classes are restive under just restraint, and as a consequence, “iniquity abounds.” These feelings are carried into the church, and the grace of meekness or submission is scarcely known or recognized as a grace. Did not this restless, irreverent spirit prevail, that system of lawlessness, spiritualism, could not flourish as it does. And it belongs to us, who plead for the law of God, who profess to labor to restore the order of Heaven, to go back to first principles, to dig deep and lay a good foundation, and illustrate in our lives the spirituality of the law of God, which can be fulfilled only by love, and by cultivating the graces of the Spirit of Christ. May God help us to confess and correct the errors of the past; and if we thereby meet the scorn of the heady and high-minded, we shall win the approbation of our Saviour, who was “meek and lowly in heart.” J. H. WAGGONER.