Adventism Confronts Modernity

An Account of the Advent Christian Controversy over the Bible's Inspiration

Mayer

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781498295277
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Many restorationist-oriented associations like the Advent Christian Church often embrace two conflicting principles. First, they understand the Bible's inspiration and authority in a way that minimizes the importance and value of church tradition. Second, they give high value to individual autonomy both in biblical interpretation and in church governance. Adventism Confronts Modernity describes what can happen when these principles conflict and make it difficult to resolve theological conflict.This work begins by exploring the nineteenth-century historical and theological roots of early Adventism with special attention to William Miller and the theological impact of the Great Disappointment, the failed prediction of the early Adventists that Jesus Christ would return visibly in 1843 or 1844. Subsequent chapters explore the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies of the early twentieth century and focus on the impact of those events on the two colleges that trained Advent Christian clergy--Aurora College (now Aurora University) and New England School of Theology (later Berkshire Christian College). After discussing theological reform efforts within the Protestant mainline and fundamentalist coalitions, this book describes the conflicting views regarding the Bible's inspiration that emerged in the early twentieth century and their impact on the Advent Christian Church during the 1950s and 1960s. It concludes that further reflection is needed on both the doctrine of Holy Scripture and how restorationist movements balance Christian theology with individual and congregational autonomy.

Chapter One

Restorationists, Modernists, and Adventists

The roots of the Advent Christian conflict over the inspiration of Holy Scripture lie in two important areas: the unique theological foundations of Adventism as one of several powerful restorationist movements that swept through the United States between 1790 and 1850, and the collision between evangelical orthodoxy and the modernist impulse that began with Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 and reached its crescendo with the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the early twentieth century. The early foundations of Adventism were anti-modern and restorationist. William Miller and his early followers had one essential desire: to overturn the postmillennial consensus that dominated much of early nineteenth century American evangelicalism and replace it with a premillennial belief in the almost immediate return of Jesus Christ. The United States, in the view of Miller and the early Adventists, was not the vehicle that God would use to usher in his millennial kingdom. No human being or nation, according to Miller and his followers, could accomplish that. Instead, in their view, the Bible clearly taught that Jesus Christ would return to earth suddenly, visibly, and personally before the inauguration of the millennium.1

The Restorationist Impulse in Early American Christianity

The American War of Independence ushered in a half-century of democratic revolution (1790–1840) that altered the shape of major institutions and the lives of people in the young nation. With independence from Great Britain came widespread rejection of the British cultural notions of class, culture, and hierarchy in favor of a growing egalitarianism that allowed common people to independently forge their identities and destinies. Nowhere was this democratic impulse felt more profoundly than in the churches of the early American republic.

In England, as in other European nations, church and government were fused in ways that tied both to the preservation of political and cultural heritage. While the fusion of church and state meant that clergy of the established church were socially and culturally part of the ruling class, it also meant that individuals and congregations who dissented from the theological and doctrinal positions of the state church were in many cases denied civil liberties and even persecuted for their convictions. During the two centuries before the American Revolution, England (and much of Europe) had been rocked by one religious controversy after another. Because the British colonies in North America had become home to thousands of men and women from a variety of denominations and traditions fleeing religious tyranny, those who inhabited the colonies were forced to wrestle with how to live peaceably together despite their different convictions.

After independence from Great Britain had been won, American politicians such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the only way to guarantee religious freedom and avoid the type of bloodshed that had plagued Europe was to separate the functions of church and state. All citizens should be allowed to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. The federal government should not favor one Christian church or communion over another and moreover should not adjudicate church disputes nor support monetarily or otherwise the work of the church.2

The impact of this new approach to the relationship between church and state was immediate and dramatic. Christianity in its American context began to move away from centralized ecclesiastical structures and comfortable associations with high culture. In the aftermath of the Revolution, the European state churches that enjoyed the privileges of establishment in their home countries now struggled to compete both with each other and with a host of new Christian movements indigenous to American soil. Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics in the new United States found themselves forced to adjust to a new situation where they could no longer depend upon privileged status. Americans who found themselves dissatisfied with their present religious traditions were free to join another or to start their own.

That is what many chose to do. American Christianity was now wrapped up in the democratic convulsions that swept the new nation from 1790 to 1840. During this period, common people began to play significant roles in American religious life.3 While Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans found themselves struggling to maintain their once dominant roles, people outside the upper classes of American life like Francis Asbury, Elias Smith, Barton Stone, Alexander Campbell, Joseph Smith, and William Miller were establishing new religious movements (or, in the case of Asbury, Americanizing an eighteenth-century British movement) independent of established elites and in tune with the currents of American democracy. These new leaders derived their authority not from education, status within society, or state support but from their ability to persuade people and retain their confidence.

At the heart of these popular expressions of Christianity stood a desire to bypass the received traditions of European church history in an effort to recover or “restore” the purity of New Testament church life. While each of these movements expressed a distinctive theological tone, they gave common expression to what is best termed the “restorationist impulse” within American Christianity.4 Most of these indigenous American denominations shared several important restorationist tendencies. First, they believed that after the apostolic age, a massive falling away from true Christianity had taken place and that the church had become hopelessly corrupt. Even the Protestant Reformation had not brought full and true reform.5 Second, recovery of first-century biblical Christianity would mean the outright rejection of all creeds and traditions. While some restorationist movements, most notably the Mormons, argued that God had revealed new scripture in the American context, for others, “No creed but the Bible,” was the operative watchword for the formulation of doctrine and theology.6

On the surface, this catchy phrase appears to be a crude, but accurate way of expressing the Reformation notion of sola scriptura. However, restorationists like Campbell, Elias Smith, and Miller had something much different in mind. Interpretation of Scripture was not to be left to theologians or to clergy with academic degrees. For restorationists, the Bible was seen as a “self-interpreting” book and common people had an obligation to interpret the Bible for themselves using the principles of reason and common sense.7 Moreover, the ultimate authority in all matters of religious belief and practice was not found in traditions, creeds, or hierarchical church structures but in the private interpretation and judgments of the individual Christian. In the restorationist vision, interpreting the Bible was a democratic task and the individual was the final authority both in church and society.8

Finally, the majority of restorationist movements practiced a democratic form of congregationalism.9 Local churches conducted their business by democratic means and were to be independent of any outside ecclesiastical co...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Restorationists, Modernists, and Adventists
• Chapter 2: Setting the Stage
• Chapter 3: Advent Christian Responses to the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy
• Chapter 4: A Divided Protestantism Competes for America’s Soul
• Chapter 5: Advent Christians Engage a Divided Protestantism
• Chapter 6: Cleveland and Montreat
• Chapter 7: Aftermath and Impact
• Appendix 1: William Miller’s Fourteen Rules of Interpretation
• Appendix 2: The 1881 Advent Christian Declaration of Principles
• Appendix 3: The 1900 Advent Christian Declaration of Principles
• Appendix 4: Advent Christian Curriculum Materials
• Bibliography