    |
 |
    |
28 November 2002 Editorial:
Pastor, Please Help Us Understand Church Discipline, Part 3
Larry Kirkpatrick
Editorial #118
Did Ellen G. White Advocate Removal from Membership for Teaching Error?
Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 3, pp. 242-343:
"Here we are at Brother [E. P.] Butler's. Oh, how changed everything is here! God had wrought for us mightily; praise His holy name. At Washington the Lord took the rule of the meeting Himself. Stephen Smith and Brother Butler were present. There were about seventy-five present, all in the faith. Brother Stephen Smith was filled with a wrong spirit. J. Hart and he had filled the minds of many with prejudice against us. False reports had been circulated, and the band had been sinking and had lost the power of the third angel's message. They were sickly, but knew not the cause. The reason was that there as an accursed thing in the camp, and by the assistance of God we were trying to get it out of the camp."
"Brother Butler was dark. The time [1851] had passed and left those who believed in it very low and dark, and the influence of those who believed the time has been very distracting. Brother Holt talked on the gifts of the Spirit. S. Smith did not confess his wrongs at all; such a self confident person, who felt so perfectly whole, we have seldom seen. God wrought for us; there was a mighty breaking down before God."
"You remember I was not very well when we parted. I continued to grow feeble and all day Sabbath was very weak, not able to sit up; in the eve I fainted quite away. The brethren prayed over me and I was healed and taken off in vision. I had a deep plunge in the glory, and the state of things in Washington was revealed to me which I declared plainly to them. The vision had a powerful effect. All acknowledged their faith in the visions except Brother Butler and S. Smith. We all felt it duty to act, and by a unanimous vote of the brethren, S. Smith was disfellowshipped by the church until he should forever lay down his erroneous views. His wife then broke down and said she knew that her husband was not right."
"The work of God went right on in the meeting. Sunday eve, after we had disfellowshipped Brother Smith (in the afternoon), we had a glorious season. Many confessed that they had been prejudiced against us by different individuals such as S. Smith and J. Hart, but they praised God that they had seen us and were convinced that the visions were of God. The brethren and sisters generally arose and expressed their opinions and feelings; it was a good time. Monday forenoon we held another meeting and it was the best meeting of the whole; sweet union and love prevailed in the meeting. We then sang the farewell hymn and with sad yet joyful hearts parted sad that we must part with those we love so well and had taken such sweet counsel with; but joyful that our hearts had been strengthened and comforted together, that the clear light of truth had shone upon us, and that we were soon to meet to part no more, where no discord or disunion reigns. . . ."
Religious Liberty
In Maranatha, p. 149, Ellen G. White says the following regarding religious liberty:
"God is bringing out a people and preparing them to stand as one, united, to speak the same things, and carry out the prayer of Christ for his disciples. . . . "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us. . . ."
"There are little companies continually arising who believe that God is only with the very few, the very scattered, and their influence is to tear down and scatter that which God's servants build up. . . . The people who are putting forth every effort in accordance with God's word to be one, who are established in the message of the third angel, they look upon with suspicion, for the reason that they are extending their labor, and are gathering souls into the truth. They look upon them as being worldly, because they have influence in the world. . . ."
"One man arises, claiming to be led of God, who advocates the heresy of the non-resurrection of the wicked. . . . Another cherishes erroneous views in regard to the future age. . . . They all want full religious liberty, and each one goes independent of the others, and yet claims that God is especially at work among them. . . . These people are not sane; they are carried away with a false excitement, and we know that they do not have the truth. . . . Would to God they would be reformed or give up the Sabbath. They would not then stand in the way of unbelievers. . . ."
"God is angry with those who pursue a course to make the world hate them. If a Christian is hated because of his good works, and for following Christ, he will have a reward. But if he is hated because he does not take a course to be loved, hated because of his uncultivated manners, and because he makes the truth a matter of quarrel with his neighbors, and because he has taken a course to make the Sabbath as annoying as possible to them, he is a stumbling-block to sinners, a reproach to the sacred truth, and unless he repents it were better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck, and he cast into the sea."
Two Domains
Religious liberty is granted us. What this means within the domain of a secular government that observes such principles is that when it comes to one's personal religious convictions, that secular government voluntarily limits itself and permits the individual to hold his own conscientious convictions in regard to what he believes. However, the same secular government limits the behavior one may engage in in connection with those beliefs.
For example, you would be free under the Constitution of the United States to hold personal convictions that it is right to offer human sacrifice. This could from a part of your personal religious principles. However, the Constitution does not grant you the right to practice that belief. The laws of this land prohibit suicide and murder.
In other words, there is essential liberty but not absolute liberty, the essence of religious liberty but not the right to take away the life of another individual or to force them to believe as you do. Each individual has God-given rights to believe as they will, but this does not grant a person the right to force or destroy another.
Thus from the beginning we recognize the existence of the separation of domains. Again, if you wish to, you may exercise your religious freedoms to become a member of the Roman Catholic Church -- if they will accept you into membership. But if a part of your personal conviction is that you, although not yourself a Roman Catholic priest recognized as such by the Roman Catholic Church, wish to officiate at Mass, you may not. Or if part of your belief system is that you should be able to sneak up behind the back of the priest and rabbit-punch him, you cannot. Those may be your personal beliefs, but if you have voluntarily joined yourself to the Roman Catholic Church, then you are operating under their domain. Their domain does not permit church members other than priests to officiate at Mass or for anyone to randomly engage in physical violence toward other Roman Catholic clergy or members.
If you want to join the Mormons, you can. But the Mormons may prohibit you from quoting Ellen G. White. And you can't say or do a thing about it. If you voluntarily join yourself in covenant with a specific church organization, you have voluntarily placed yourself within their domain. You are bound by their practices and restrictions to the degree that they wish to enforce them. However, if you wish, after a time to leave that organization, you can leave it and they cannot force you to stay, because the Constitution has guaranteed your religious liberty. If you wish to quote Ellen G. White, and after becoming a Mormon you found you were not permitted to, then you are free to leave the LDS organization and they cannot do a thing about it.
Thus, joining a church organization is no mere matter of personal choice on your part only; because that religious organization also has rights of religious liberty, to determine what it will and will not sanction in its midst, the organization itself must also agree in order for you to obtain membership in it. And any organization that wishes to may revoke the membership of a person or persons in itself if it chooses to do so. When one joins himself to a church he voluntarily consents to function within its domain. It is on this basis that the SDA church reserves itself the right to remove from membership members who refuse to adhere to its expectations regarding dietary practices (for example, the use of alcohol or eating of pork) or behavioral practices (for example, immoral sexual behaviors). The church may also prohibit teachings which are not found to be in harmony with those teachings it has chosen to advocate.
It has been said that your rights stop at the end of my nose. That is, you can think whatever you want to about me, but if you invade my personal domain by punching me in the nose, you have violated my rights. But somehow we tend to forget that this holds true for the church also. Your personal rights stop at the end of the churches nose, and the churches own rights begin at the end of its nose.
Some of the examples given above were fairly arbitrary, which is not necessarily the case in real life. A church organization will generally have what it feels are very compelling reasons for its provisions and strictures. If we disagree with those, we may leave, or (in the SDA church) endeavor to find another local SDA church in which our teachings or beliefs may be permitted even if they contradict the accepted worldwide teachings of the church. Again, there may be a difference between the church's standards and whether a given local church upholds and enforces them. All such matters are handled at the local church level.
It is clearly God's purpose for today that Christians be members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church organization that He has set up and given authority on earth. Church membership is no light matter. We need the counsel of godly men and women who voluntarily join themselves together to submit to God and to one another in the fear of God. At no time should the critically important structure God has set up degenerate into practical anarchy because of a refusal by members to live-out their responsibility before God because someone's feelings might be hurt. While preferring mercy we must also be just; while we prefer peace we must also be determined to fight for truth; while some may prefer anarchy and independence, these preferences must be surrendered in favor of the organization and dependence upon one another that our Father in heaven has mandated. Anything less than this is not be biblical Christianity and will result in loss of souls.
To summarize then, religious liberty is guaranteed in the United States under its Constitution. This guarantee extends not only to the individual but to church organizations. I may voluntarily join a church organization if that organization also consents to the joining. Within the domain of a given church organization I am subject to their standards of behavior and their agreed upon ways of dealing with the various matters that may arise.
Next week: Part 4 (of 4?)
