A.T. Jones' Letter to A.G. Daniels -- Parts 2 and 3
This is part 2 and 3 to A.T. Jonesí
letter to A.G. Daniels:
Some History, Experience, and Facts... Part 2
Letter of A.T. Jones to A.G. Daniells, continues.
Second, as to the campaign against Dr. Kellogg:
I told you in the very beginning of it, that I would never take any part in it. You can remember that in the month of November, 1902, in Battle Creek, in the same room where you and Brother Irwin met the Church Board and others of us when you were here last month --as you and I and several others of the General Conference Committee were sitting around a table, I told you all, that, admitting all to be the truth that was then being said about Dr. Kellogg, I would take no part in pursuing him, nor in making any kind of war upon him --not even with the Testimonies.
I told you of the experience of a previous General Conference Committee when I was a member of it --that Testimonies had come reproving Brother A. R. Henry: that the Committee had used the Testimonies in a way, and had taken such a course toward him, that he was offended: that then Testimonies came reproving the Committee for treating him so, and telling the Committee to "go and confess to Brother Henry." "Shall the soul of A. R. Henry be lost?" --and, upon this I told you that I never would take any course toward Dr. Kellogg or any other man that would make it possible for any Testimony to tell me to go and confess to him the wrong way that I had treated him, even with the Testimonies; and, because of anything that I had done, appeal to me "shall the soul of" that man "be lost?"
I told you then that whatever Dr. Kellogg's wrong-doing might be, I never would treat him, nor take any part with others in treating him in any other way than the way that I would choose to be treated if I were in a like situation. All that, I told you then, and I tell it to you now. That is where I stood then, that is where I have stood ever since, and that is where I shall stand forever with respect to Dr. Kellogg and everybody else in the world.
I was at that time ready to stand with you, and did stand with you, in working for him, to get him to see where mistakes had been made, and to correct them. On the eighteenth day of that same month of November, 1902, in the General Conference Committee room in Battle Creek, with Dr. Kellogg and a number of other brethren present, I, on the part of the General Conference Committee, and at your request, read some Testimonies concerning kingship in the medical work and a "species" of bondage or slavery of minds in the matter of written contracts for the medical missionary workers. And even while I was reading it, Dr. Kellogg spoke out and said: "I see that. I see it now: I never saw it before. I could not see how that was; but I see it now. And I will stop it immediately. We will abolish all those contracts."
In the same meeting he also made other changes and concessions; so that the only thing that I expected to see, was that you would reach out your hand to him and say: All right, Brother, here is my hand. Let us go on together, working to find out whatever else may be wrong, and to put it away.
But lo! instead of that or anything of that nature, I was surprised and humiliated and hurt, at your standing up, and planting yourself on your heels, and, in a decisive tone, saying "I'm not satisfied. Dr. Kellogg has an imperious will, that's got to be broken ------- with God."
From that moment I have not had any sympathy with you, nor any support for you, in that campaign. The thing there said, and tone and manner of saying it, all showed that there was such an element of personal domination, of personal triumph, of a man ruling man, that I would have no part in it. I know that you have since explained that you meant only what is always meant when it is said that a man's will is to be surrendered to God, etc.
Whatever you meant, the words as given above are what you said. And said in the tone and manner in which you said it, and said openly in a company of men, in a time of tension; the only possible effect of the words was certain to be just what the words said. Surely the effect, or at least the danger of the effect, of such a statement would be bad enough if spoken only to a man in perfect privacy.
How much more when spoken about a man, openly to a company of other men, with the man himself present. To this day I feel the impression that the words made upon me. And I know that if in such circumstances such a thing were said about me, I have not the meekness to take it in any way near as quietly as Dr. Kellogg did at that moment. Surely, Brother Daniells, if you had thought only as far as a b c, you would have known that God never breaks any man's will; nor does he ask that any man's will shall be broken; and you would not have said what you did.
THE ISSUE WITH Dr KELLOGG
That day when we went direct from that meeting into the full meeting of the General Conference Council in the north vestry of the Tabernacle, I wrote on the fiftieth leaf of my railroad permit book, the following:
On this fiftieth leaf of this book, on this eighteenth day of November, 1902, after the meeting of General Conference Committee from 8:00 o'clock a.m. to 1:15 p.m., I am obliged to say that it is impossible for me to see any basis for harmonious co-operation between the General Conference and Medical Missionary Association so far as Brethren Daniells and Prescott are concerned. And if the next General Conference finds no entanglement it will surely have to be because of Brethren Daniells and Prescott changing their attitude in mind and spirit in meeting Brother Kellogg's allowances and concessions.
And when the next General Conference did come, even before the Conference was actually opened, the first great question was whether the first thing done in the Conference should not be to turn the whole Conference upon the issue with Dr. Kellogg, and get that out of the way, and then take up the regular business of the Conference?
Brother Prescott knows that I was called to the house where Sister White was staying, to meet with him and W. C. White and her, to counsel upon this very question --at any rate, I was called there, possibly he was taken and that was the only matter considered. And Brother Prescott knows that I advised that instead of beginning Conference with the issue about Dr. Kellogg, we leave it out entirely -- and if it must come in, let it be the very last thing, and then only because it could not fairly be avoided: that the Conference was not assembled for any such business, but only for the consideration of the work of the Third Angel's Message in the world; and the time should be spent in studying the leading features of this great work.
Possibly Brother Prescott may remember that I was the only one present, who did thus advise. And when the Conference was formally opened, the expectation of certain ones was that the issue with or about Dr. Kellogg would be the first matter of importance taken up. For I was chairman of the general committee: and either shortly before or at our very first meeting Brother Prescott asked me to delay the appointment of the committees, because if we should proceed just then, a certain man -- Dr. Kellogg --might be nominated on some committee, and he would have to object to it, which, without explanation might be considered only personal. Whereas if there were delay of a day or two the whole matter would be exposed in the Conference, and then there would be no danger of anybody's nominating Dr. Kellogg on any committee.
I told him that the Committee itself would have to decide the question of delay, but that I would present his request. I did so in a general way without any particulars. The Committee conformed to the request, and did adjourn to the call of the chair. But that expected thing did not get into the open Conference. And after sufficient --or rather too much --delay, I called the Committee together and we went on with the business.
You may remember that one day in the Conference I referred to this fact: when Brother Knox, sitting by you, arose and objected to "the whole Committee being involved." However, I had not knowingly involved the whole Committee: I had only stated a fact. That was as far as I knew: and if the whole Committee was involved, it could only be by the whole Committee's knowing more of the matter than I did.
Before I left for California -- or rather at the depot just as I was leaving --to come to the Sanitarium to work, I told W. C. White that I was not coming here as a partisan of Dr. Kellogg's nor as an opponent of you and Brother Prescott. But that I was coming solely to help the medical students and others here by teaching the Bible to them. I told the same thing to you and the others in the Council at Washington before I came here in November, 1903. And that is true, yet, so far as I am concerned. But in this matter it seems that whoever does not make open and direct war on Dr. Kellogg, is held necessarily to be a partisan of his and an opponent of you: that there is no space between. But I know that if today I were to leave the Sanitarium because of total disagreement with Dr. Kellogg, there would still be a space wider than the world for me to stand in, without standing with you in the campaign against him and without endorsing the course that you have pursued since 1902. And this space would be simply because of the plain a b c principles of the gospel, that I can, and therefore will, never abandon.
LOYALTY TO THE TESTIMONIES
Thirdly, the Testimonies: --
a. I know that you and others with you are making much of "loyalty to the Testimonies": and are not slow to convey the impression that any who do not openly endorse your course in the use of some of the Testimonies is not "loyal to the Testimonies," "does not believe the Testimonies," etc., etc., but all of that proves nothing at all as to anybody's loyalty or disloyalty to the Testimonies.
Besides, facts within my personal knowledge demonstrate that the "loyalty to the Testimonies" that is just now being made so conspicuous, is a very uncertain thing: it is merely "loyalty" to some of the Testimonies -- that can be used to special advantage for a purpose.
For instance: During the General Conference council in Washington in October, 1903, a Testimony came concerning the Battle Creek College debt, and the Acre Fund to pay that debt. That Testimony said:
How pleasing to God it would be for all our people -- led and encouraged by the General Conference Committee -- to share in lifting this obligation of the old Battle Creek College!
"The creditors of Battle Creek College must all be paid. The officers of the General Conference should lend a hand in this work."
I was in a position to know full well that the General Conference Committee neither led nor encouraged the people in that thing at all. Indeed, their leading and encouraging was against it rather than for it. Also I personally know that "the officers of the General Conference" did not lend any hand in that work. Indeed they were not at all ready even to print that Testimony in the Review.
They did by special request, if not persuasion, promise in the Review of October 29 to publish it "next week": but in fact did not publish it till five weeks afterward, December 3: and then with changes, showing that it had either been sent to California for these changes and back again, or else another copy was received from California to be published in place of the one that they promised October 29 to publish "next week." Any or all of which shows that loyalty to that Testimony was not at all conspicuous on the part of the General Conference officers.
Again: At Berrien springs in May, 1904, a written testimony was given to you personally addressed,
"Dear Brethren Daniells and Prescott," in which were the following words: -- Last night I saw a hand stretched out to clasp his [Dr. Kellogg's] hand, and the words were spoken: 'Let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with Me, and he shall make peace with Me. Satan is striving for the victory. I will help Dr. Kellogg to stand on vantage ground, and every soul who loves Me must work with me. As he sees Me do, so he must do.'"
You received that Testimony on Friday. Yet as late as Monday following, Dr. Kellogg knew nothing of it -- at least so far as you were concerned -- and he was there the most of the time. And when on Monday morning I read the Testimony openly in the morning meeting, you said that you had received it on Friday, but "did not know what to do with it."
It would seem that loyalty to the Testimonies would have given you plainly to know what to do yourself, whether you knew what to do with it or not. It would seem that loyalty to the Testimonies would have caused you to go straight to Dr. Kellogg and stretch out your hand to him, as the Testimony told you to do. But you did not do it then: and when I asked you in Battle Creek last month whether you had ever done it, you were obliged to say "No." Is that loyalty to the Testimonies, or is it merely "loyalty to the Testimonies!!!"
Again: Sister White says that in the time of the General Conference of 1905, at Takoma Park, Washington, she was shown in the night the needs of the South and that five thousand dollars must be given immediately to the brethren -- Butler and Haskell -- for it. So plain was this and so urgent, that she said to Brother Haskell the next morning, "Have faith in God. You will carry five thousand dollars from this meeting" for the work in the South.
Then the Testimony proceeds: "But Willie said" that Brother Daniells was very much perplexed with the conditions in Battle Creek, and the money could not be sent just then: and, "I said no more about it." This Testimony you have there in Washington.
Now, did she see, that night, as she says that she did, the needs of the South, and so urgent that five thousand dollars should be carried from that very meeting for it? If she did, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies was there in "Willie's" setting it all aside so effectually that for full two months nothing at all was done in that direction and when after full two months something was done, it was only because Testimonies were sent to the South as well as to Washington, that would brook no more delay. And one of these said: --
"This matter has been presented to me three times, and I was instructed that five thousand dollars ought to have been placed in Elder Haskell's hands before he left the Conference grounds."
That is exactly the instruction that she says that she had on the Conference grounds, in the time of the Conference. She gave the "instruction" at least to Brother Haskell and to "Willie." But "Willie" simply and promptly set it aside. Now was that instruction from the Lord, or was it not? If it was, how much did "Willie" care for it? Allowing what he said about conditions in Battle Creek, is it not possible that the Lord knew of this, and knew as much of it as "Willie" did? Or is it true that "Willie" is the supreme source of knowledge and understanding in the work of the Lord -- even above and against the instruction of the Lord? Or did "Willie" believe a particle in that instruction's having come from the Lord? If it was from the Lord, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies had "Willie" when he set it aside? If it was from the Lord, and yet he did not believe that it was from the Lord, then how much loyalty to the Testimonies was there in what he did? Or shall it be said that it was not from the Lord, and was not Testimony, till it came out in writing on July 19, 20, full two months afterward?
But if it was from the Lord when it was written out two months afterward, then was it not equally from the Lord when it was spoken to "Willie" at the time? And in any case where in "Willie's" course in that matter does there appear any faintest suggestion of any real loyalty to the Testimonies?
By the way, Brother, why haven't you printed those two Testimonies of July 19, 20, 1905, in full, full names and all, in the Review and Herald or in some "Series A, B, or Z, No." something? For all the people to have those Testimonies, just as they are, would do a lot of good to the work in the South: why not print them?
Now please, Brother Daniells, I am not involving you in "Willie's" course in the foregoing matter. I am perfectly willing to believe that he did not allow that word to get to you, as to the five thousand dollars going with Brother Haskell from that General Conference. The point that I make upon it is this: That is the course which "Willie" took on that. The Testimony says so. Now since he can do such things as that, and at the same time is heartily and companionably fellowshipped by you as "loyal to the Testimonies," how is it that you can not just as heartily fellowship men who have far more respect for the Testimonies than that; but who possibly can not near as loudly urge upon other people "loyalty to the Testimonies!!"
Again: At the time of your late visit to Battle Creek, after urging upon the Battle Creek church for about two weeks or more "loyalty to the Testimonies!!" there was brought about the annual election in the church, two weeks before the regular time. In the proceedings there were read Testimonies that were strictly pertinent and applicable to the matter before the meeting: and were plainly against what was being put through. Yet these Testimonies were deliberately explained away, with "a broad view" and other like things; and you yourself took part in explaining them away. After what you had been for two weeks or more saying and doing as to loyalty to the Testimonies, this was rather a sweeping, but in truth, in view of the many facts of the matter, a very fitting, anticlimax.
And in view of all these facts, and many others of the same sort, you seem actually to be perplexed that I have taken no part with you in your campaign with "the Testimonies," and of this kind of "loyalty to the Testimonies!"
Why, brother, I never did, I never can, and I never will, use the Testimonies that way; nor will I take part in it with those who use them that way. The long straightforward series of facts in the case make it so plain to me that this conspicuous "loyalty to the Testimonies" is for campaign purposes only, that I simply will not take part in it. I can afford to be suspected of heresy, and of other things that are now so trippingly told; but I will not run a false issue, nor will I make a false pretense.
You speak of a time when I "took a strong position regarding the Testimonies, and used them with great force to wheel men and policies into line." Yes, that is so; but with it, every soul knows that I never was partial in them; that I never used some with pile-driver force, while utterly ignoring or explaining away others just as plain and definite. The brethren, and the people, know well that whenever I was advocating a matter and some one produced a Testimony to the contrary, instead of explaining it away I stopped instantly and changed my course accordingly. And that was because of my loyalty to the Testimonies.
In the original address in the chapel, additional remarks and illustrations were interspersed as the foregoing matter was read. In printing it, it seems best to print the letter unbroken: and then insert here the additional remarks and illustration.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY BUREAU
In 1901 the General Conference was turned away from a centralized power, a "one-man or two men, or three men, or four men, or a few men" power, a kingship, a monarchy: because the instruction was, in very words, "the principle is wrong." It will not do to say that in 1902-1903 circumstances had changed. For whatever change may ever occur in circumstances, principles never change.
I stated that the present order of General Conference affairs is "a thoroughly bureaucratic government." Not every section of it is called a bureau; but that is what in practice every section is, whatever it may be called; and the title of the "Religious Liberty Bureau" is expressive of the whole.
I stated that the phrase "Religious Liberty Bureau" is "a contradiction in terms." On every principle that is the truth. There are many words of our language that are the result and expression of invariable human experience through ages. The result of human experience through ages has in certain things been so invariable that a word tells it, and tells it so truly when that word is used, that a certain order of things is described.; and when that word is espoused you have there in certainty the situation and order of things which the word expresses. "Bureaucracy" -- government by bureaus -- is one of these words: and the definition, which is but the expression of ages of invariable experience, is as follows: --
Bureaucracy: Government by bureaus; specifically, excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus. The principle of bureaucracy tends to official interference in many of the properly private affairs of life, and to the inefficient and obtrusive performance of duty through minute subdivision of function, inflexible formality, and pride of place. -- Century Dictionary.
A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to augment official power, official business, or official numbers, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind. -- Standard Dictionary.
Republicanism and bureaucracy are incompatible existences. -- Century Dictionary.
All that is what bureaucracy has been found by ages of invariable experience to be. All that is what it is, and what it does. And when bureaucracy and republicanism are incompatible existences, how much more are bureaucracy and Christianity incompatible existences! Therefore, a Religious Liberty Bureau is a palpably impossible thing. Indeed, any true liberty is impossible in a bureau or a bureaucracy, and this is why it is that, as I said in the letter, the plain simple preaching of the plain gospel as it is in the Bible, will be considered "disloyal to the General Conference," "disloyal to the organized work, etc."
The gospel and bureaucracy, Christianity and bureaucracy, are incompatible existences. I knew this at the time of the Oakland Conference in 1903. I knew then what would be at least some of the results of the action there taken, and spoke of it at the time; and when that action was finally taken by the Conference, I knew that it would stop my preaching under General Conference auspices the truth that I had been preaching all these years.
Before that action was taken in that Conference, even three months before the conference met, I had decided to come to the Sanitarium to teach. And when that action was taken in and by that conference, I was glad that there was thus a place where in comparative retirement, I could teach and preach the same truths that I have all these years been teaching, without interfering with, or embarrassing, in any way, any conference or General Conference management or administration. I have no disposition to interfere with or to embarrass any conference or General Conference management or administration. I have no objection to the General Conference, or any conference, or any persons, having a bureaucracy or whatever else they may choose. I only object to having it myself. I object also to being required to have it, and compelled to take it, when I do not want it. I have no disposition to take away from anybody what he chooses to have, nor have I any disposition to break down anything. My commission is to build up Christianity and Christians, and Christianity in Christians in the world; and whatsoever is not Christian will fall of itself.
THE REVIEW AND HERALD WON'T PRINT
There is another thing that illustrates the truth of what I have said as to what I have always taught not being acceptable to General Conference administration; and which at the same time answers a question that is in the minds of many people. I have received letters from people in many parts of the land, asking why they can not read anything from me any more in the Review and Herald. I will now tell to you, and to all the others, why this is: It is only because the "Review & Herald" will not print anything from me. And for me that is sufficient why the people can not read anything from me in that paper.
When I went to Washington a year ago, I went with good heart to help in the Religious Liberty work there. And I did help, with good heart. And yet all the people know that not a line of anything that I preached there, ever got into print in any Seventh-day Adventist publication issued from Washington. And the Religious Liberty truth that I preached there was the same that I have been preaching all these years; only intensified by study and by the fulfillment of prophecy in the development of the things which all these years we have been expecting.
Afterward I sent to the Southern Watchman some of what I preached in Washington at that time. The Watchman published it; and both the editors and readers said that it was the best that I had ever given on the subject. One sermon which I preached in Washington at that time was so plain, so straight, and so clear on the subject that Brother Colcord, Brother George B. Thompson, and Brother Kit Russell, who all head it, all three asked that I write it out for the Review, so that all our people might have it.
I had had some experience before, so I said to them, "I can write it out, brethren; but its getting into the Review will be another thing." Of course they could not think that; and still asked that I should write it out, so that it could be published in the Review. Accordingly, I wrote it out. Brother Colcord, I believe, handed it in. It got as far as the type, and then the middle of last summer it was returned to me without any of the people ever having a chance to get it. When it was returned, the reason stated for not printing it was the having been "so crowded with special matter" of the General Conference, and "the special issue which called it out is now so far in the past."
But the fact is that the matter was handed in nearly if not quite a full month before the General Conference began; and the truth is that the issue which called out that sermon will never be to any degree or in any sense in the past, until probation itself shall be in the past.
Today the issue that called out that sermon is even more urgent than it was the day the sermon was preached. In one way or another the issue is being urged everywhere throughout the land. But in one special way it is being so urged, and in such words, that if that sermon had been published in the Review & Herald a year ago, when it was handed in, our people everywhere would be far better prepared than they are to meet that which is being more and more urged upon the people in our very presence.
I have the manuscript yet. It ought indeed to be published so that all our people could have it. I may have to publish it myself. But in that case, I may be charged with "starting a new work," with "creating divisions," etc. but how long shall it be right to let the people go without matter that they greatly need, that they ought to have just now, and that he cause of the Third Angel's Message needs just now, simply because the denominational people will not print it? How much longer shall things go on thus before it will be right for the people to have what is now urgently needed, and what the cause of the Third Angel's Message itself greatly needs, even if I must print it myself?
I said that it was some experience that caused me to say when the brethren asked me to write out that sermon for the Review that "I could write it out, but its getting into the Review would be another thing." That experience was this:
ORDERS NOT TO PUBLISH
In the summer of 1903, I was regularly a member of the educational convention that was held at College View in the month of June.
By the program I was appointed to preach on Christian Education. On Sabbath I preached the sermon. The editor of the Review said that he would print it. I prepared it and sent it in about the first of July, 1903. It is there yet, if it has not been destroyed. I have been told that that matter also got so far as to be set up in type. And I know that it never got into print. These facts tell why it is that nothing has been read from me in the Review & Herald for the past three years. Those who have had a chance to read the Signs of the Times or the Southern Watchman have been able to read considerable from me.
However, please bear in mind that I am not in any sense laying any complaint against the Review and Herald or its editor. Every editor has always the unquestionable right to exclude anything. I am stating these things as illustration of the truth that the very same truths which I have been teaching all these years, and which are vital truths to the people and to our message as the issues of that message now are, are not acceptable to the General Conference administration; and secondly, in order that the many inquiring people may know truly and exactly why they do not read anything from me in the Review & Herald.
C. L. Taylor: Brother Jones, may I say just a word. I received a letter from one of our leading editors stating that he had received orders not to publish anything from you and some others whose names were given.
Voice: Louder. We didn't hear that.
C. L. Taylor: I say that I received a letter from one of our leading editors stating that he had received orders not to publish any articles received from Dr. Paulson, Dr. Kellogg, or A. T. Jones.
A. T. Jones: Possibly these "orders" have now been given to all of the denominational papers.
Also now as in 1901 "the conferences are weaving after the same pattern." Here is an instance that actually occurred not a great while ago: A certain Seventh-day Adventist is only a private individual in every respect. He has his private individual business, strictly legitimate and honorable, that he has built up wholly by his own efforts. And yet the president of the conference in which he is, gave that brother to understand that if he does not quit that business in the place where he is and leave the place where he is, "the denomination will withdraw its support from him."
But not in any sense is the denomination supporting him. Therefore, the kernel of this procedure is that that conference president proposes to dominate that private individual in his private business, or else work a denominational boycott against him.
And when denominational management has reached that point, it is time that somebody was speaking in behalf of the common liberty as well as the religious liberty of the people; and in behalf of the common liberty as well as the religious liberty of the individual. And that is why I am speaking openly tonight. I owe it to this brother, and to every other Seventh-day Adventist in the world to stand in behalf of his right to be himself, and to conduct his own private and honorable business in his own way wherever he pleases, without any reference to conference, General Conference, or any other thing under heaven.
TWO ABUSES OF MAN IN MATTERS OF FAITH
The Sabbath-school lesson for March 17, 1906, present D'Aubigne's excellent statement of the vital principle of the protest of Spires as follows: --
This protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith: the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate; and the second, the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these abuses Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate; and the authority of the word of God above the visible church.
This denomination has most rightly and nobly spent a great deal of time the past fifteen or more years in opposing intrusion of the civil magistrate in the realm of religion. It is high time that at least somebody in this denomination should be Protestant enough to oppose the arbitrary authority of the church.
For please, bear in mind that the arbitrary authority of the church has always been only the arbitrary authority of a few men in place of authority in the church. And if some of the things that are today being done in the name of this denomination are not the exercise of arbitrary authority, then both the dictionary and history may well be revised.
For more than twenty years I have been preaching the same truths that I am now preaching. I preached them all over the United States and Europe, and in Canada. They were everywhere accepted by the denomination as the truth; and were published by the denomination as the truth. And when I have not changed in a single item of principle or of the truth, and yet I can not now preach these same things without being counted "disloyal to the General Conference," and "disloyal to the organized work," then is it not perfectly plain that the change has been somewhere else than in me or in my teaching?
But I am not the only one. There are other men, who are just as good Christians and just as true Seventh-day Adventists as they know how to be, men whom God has plainly called to the work in which they are engaged: but who have been driven out, and today can not do inside the "organized work" or under the General Conference administration, the work that God has given them to do. When certain ones of these were compelled to go, when I was present, I publicly protested, and asked this question:
"When men are just as true Seventh-day Adventists as anybody can be, and yet they can not do in the denomination the work that God has given them to do; but must do it outside the "organized work," then is it not plain enough that there is something wrong with the administration and the so-called "organized work"? and is there not enough that is wrong to justify some study and inquiry as to why men who are called of God to their work, can not do it inside, but are forced to do it outside the ranks of that which stands as the work of God to the world?" I ask that question yet. And if things must go on in this way till all who are called of God to the work that they are doing, shall be forced to do it outside of the "organized work," then how much of the real vital work of God will be found inside the "organized work"?
Is it possible that anybody is expecting me to abandon all these principles, and change or modify all my teaching, just to be "loyal to the General Conference," and "loyal to the organized work"? If so, all such expectation might as well be abandoned at once and forever; for I simply will never do it. Those principles and truths I shall hold forever, and will preach forever. They are the principles and the truths of the Bible. And I will never be loyal to any person or any thing but God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit through the Bible.
I will never believe that "the church must have a visible head." I will never conform to any system of things that makes it possible for the church to have anything that corresponds to "a visible head."
Excepting only those professed Protestant churches that are actually united with the State and so have the head of the State the visible head of the church -- excepting only these, it is today the sober but startling truth, that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is the only Protestant church in the world that has one man at the head and center of its organization. And in this one thing the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is more like the Catholic Church than is any other Protestant church in the world.
And this, too, is in spite of the Testimony that has been published and quoted over and over ever since the month of March, 1897, saying, "It is not wise to have one man president of the General Conference." However, as often as it has been quoted it has been "explained" instead of obeyed; and it will doubtless be so till the end. But Christ did not leave one man at the head and center of His organized work, when He ascended on high. He occupied and was allowed to occupy that place Himself as Head of His Church, and "Head over all things to the Church."
THE HEAD OF EVERY MAN IS CHRIST
Christ, Christ alone, is the only Head of the Church; and He is the Head of each individual in the Church: as it is written, "I would have you know that the Head of every man is Christ." And instead of going "back to 1844" and a creed "let us go on unto perfection" in Christ Jesus by the glorious truth that He has given us in 1844 and since, that we may be prepared to meet Him in His soon-coming glory. Instead of either defining or defending "the faith" of men, let us preach the faith of Christ.
There I will close for this time. And now, please, brethren and sisters, let us sober down and really think on what there is for us to do. There is no kind of danger of any one's being turned out of the Sanitarium for either believing or being loyal to the Testimonies. There is no one who thinks for a moment of saying that everything is all right here. There are many things that are wrong, and that need to be corrected. And we are endeavoring to the best of our ability to correct them. For some time we have been considering it: and now we are ready for it -- we are going to appoint a day of fasting and prayer [voices: "Amen, amen"]; and seek God with all our hearts, that He shall help us and show us the way out. [Many voices in loud "Amens."] We have not yet fixed the exact day. When we shall fix the day, we will let you all know; and we ask all who are here to join with us in that day of fasting and prayer for this purpose.
The Sanitarium needs help. There is help in God. [Voices: "Amen, amen."] That help is for us; and we are going to that Source of all help; and in fasting and prayer and the confession of sins, ask Him to help us. Please join with us in this, and in earnest study of the Bible that we may by the help of God get upon the higher ground to which He calls us. [Voices: "Amen, amen."]
Note. This day of fasting and prayer was held March 13. It was entered into with good heart by practically the whole family. Meetings were held in the chapel 6:30-8:00 a.m.; 12:00-1:30; 2:30-4:00; and 7:30-9:00 p.m. It was a good day
SOME HISTORY, EXPERIENCE, FACTS, PART 3
Another thing: In connection with the campaign against Dr. Kellogg there is an item that occurred in 1901, that to me, at the time and since, has had much meaning. This should now be stated.
From Sister White's address in the College Library just before General Conference of 1901, I have, in the letter, quoted considerable of what was said concerning the wrong principles of General Conference workings and the necessity of "a change" and "an entire new organization." But that same address was just as remarkable, and to the then General Conference administration was just as revolutionary, concerning General Conference attitude toward Dr. Kellogg, as it was concerning affairs of General Conference itself.
For it must be borne in mind that in 1901 there was expected, if not planned, by General Conference administration just such a move against Dr. Kellogg as has since been made; and it was then expected that the Testimonies should bear as large a part in the movement as since they have been made to bear: and I believe that there was valid ground for the expectation. But this expectation and all that was connected with it was simply annihilated by what was said on that subject by Sister White in her address that day in the College Library. On this subject, that day she said: --
"God has told me that my testimony must be borne straight to this conference, and that I am not to try to make a soul believe: that my work is to leave the truth with human minds, and these having found the truth in the Word of God will appreciate it, and will appreciate every ray of light that God has given for poor lame souls that they should not be turned out of the way. And I want you to make straight paths for your feet lest the lame be turned out of the way.
Now we want that in the conference we shall have the ability that God has given unto Dr. Kellogg -- I don't suppose he is here; I don't know that he is -- at any rate I want to say that the Lord want you to make the most of the capabilities that he is using in every part of the work. He does not mean the Medical Missionary work separated from the Gospel work, nor the Gospel work separated from the Medical Missionary work. He wants them to blend together. And he wants that this educating power of the Medical Missionary work shall be considered as the pioneer work, the breaking-up plow, for the breaking down of the prejudices that have existed, and that nothing will break down like it; and God wants every soul to stand shoulder to shoulder with Dr. Kellogg. He has become all but desperate, and came nearly losing his life because of the positions that have been taken, and every one throwing a stone right before the car so that it should not advance. Now God wants the Health and Missionary work to advance. He wants God's work to be carried on."
Really, when I came here I did not know what to do. Courteously Dr. Kellogg had asked me to come to his house and let them give me treatment a week or two before the conference, so that I should be able to attend the conference. Then came up the question, "Here, what about this? They will say that Dr. Kellogg has manipulated you." Let them say it if they want to, they have said it enough when there was not a particle of ground for it. But I was going to take all the difficulty out of the way, so I sent word: "Find me a place. Dr. Kellogg has kindly opened his house to me; but to remove all occasion for talk I decided that I would not go there. Now find me a place."
On Friday night I was knelt in prayer, saying "O, Lord, tell me where to go and what to do." -- There I had been sick, and was still sick, -- and why I didn't choose to come to Battle Creek to the conference was that I knew that it would be a terrible trial for me. I didn't want to sacrifice my life, and so I said that I couldn't come here. I couldn't come across the plains. Then they said they would have the conference in Oakland. But in the night season I was talking to you just as I am here today. I was bearing a message night after night and night after night; and then I would get up at 12 o'clock, and 1 o'clock, and 2 o'clock and write out the message that I had. And it was then while I was considering these things, came messages from London, that they had hoped that they could see me and meet me, but now they couldn't come so far and it cost so much -- and I heard it would cost from five to eight thousand dollars more; and then I said, "We have got so much money to spare, and if I sacrifice my life, I will try it anyway." Dr. Kellogg never persuaded me at all to come here. When I spoke of the particulars, the cold weather, he said, -- the only words he spoke to me -- "Would it make any difference if the conference could be changed to a few weeks later?" I said, "It would." Then I began to think on that plan after he had gone.
Well, we knelt down to pray; and I was asking the Lord where I should go and what I should do. I was for backing out and not going anywhere. Sadie says, "You are not fit to go anywhere." Well, while I was praying and was sending up my petition there was as on other times -- I saw a light circulating right round in the room, and a fragrance like the fragrance of flowers, and the beautiful scent of flowers, and then the Voice seemed to speak gently, and said that I was to "Accept the invitation of My servant, John Kellogg, and make his house your home." Then the word was, "I have appointed him as My physician. You can be an encouragement to him." That is why I am here, and that is why I am at his home. Now I want in every way possible, if I can, to treat Dr. Kellogg as God's appointed physician, and I am going to do it.
Now in addition to this that I tell you, the next night -- that night I slept happy, very happy. The whole family was melted and broken down. They knew nothing of what I had in my mind at all: nothing at all that I had seen: but the Spirit of God was there. They were all weeping and broken, and the blessing of God was flowing through that room like a tidal wave. The Spirit of God had taken hold upon us and Sister Druillard was just weeping and praising God, and Brother Druillard was praising God, and we all there had an outpouring of the Spirit of God. Such things are more precious to me than the gold of Ophir.
Now God has not blessed us as he would have blessed us had there been an appreciation of the work that He is carrying on. I thank God that Dr. Kellogg has not sunk into despondency and infidelity. I have been afraid of it, and I have written some very straight things to him, and it may be, Dr. Kellogg -- if he is here -- that I have written too strong; for I felt as though I must get hold of you and hold you by the power of all the might I had.
But I have seen the work that has been carried on: and how can anybody see it and not see that God is at work? That is the mystery to me. I can not understand it. I can not explain it. Those that shall have any knowledge of the work wrought here, should be the men that should represent it; they should stand to give character to the work, and to the higher classes that they may be reached. And every soul of you ought to feel honored before God that He has given you instrumentalities that the higher classes may be reached, and that the wealthy should be reached. You should feel to thank God for the honor that he has bestowed. And I want to say that I want to take hold to the utmost of my ability.
Nor is it to be in any sense supposed that the foregoing was merely private matter; for the very next day as soon as the president of the General Conference had announced that "the conference is now formally opened" Sister White delivered an address in which she said: --
WHAT WE WANT IS A RE-ORGANIZATION
Sister White delivered an address in which she said:
"What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle.
The institution under the management of Dr. Kellogg has done a great work for the education of the youth. It has sent forth more workers in the cause in medical missionary gospel lines than any other agency I know of among our people throughout the world. And I ask, How have you treated the matter? Have you felt that you were to honor God by respecting and honoring the work that has been done in His name for the upbuilding of His cause?
The principles of health reform have been proclaimed by us as a people for thirty years. And yet there are among us ministers of the gospel and members of the church who have no respect for the light that God has given upon health reform.
The Word of God is to be our guide. Have you given heed to the Word? The Testimonies are not by any means to take the place of the Word. They are to bring you to that neglected Word, that you may eat the words of Christ, that you may feed upon them, that by living faith you may be built up from that upon which you feed." -- General Conference Bulletin, 1901, page 25.
Thus it is demonstrated, not only that in every respect I stand today exactly as I did before and in 1897, in 1899, and in 1901, but also that the principles and attitude that I then held were in every respect confirmed in that address in the College Library, April 1, 1901, and in the one at the opening of the General Conference, April 2, 1901.
I do not say that even then, either Dr. Kellogg or the Medical Missionary and Sanitarium work was without fault or flaw. I do not say so now. I simply say that a person of whom, and a work of which, God could so speak as was then spoken, is worth earnest effort to save. And the word given to me of God was and is "Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it."