The years 1902 and 1903 will be remembered by Seventh-day Adventists as a period of controversy. Men who had for years been regarded as strong, trusty leaders in the cause of Seventh-day Adventism were divided on fundamental issues by seemingly irreconcilable differences of opinion. They were at variance, not only on questions involving administrative policies, but what was far more serious, upon matters of basic doctrinal belief. Many times when committees were called together for counsel regarding advance moves to be made, their purpose was frustrated because the time was consumed in controversial discussions.
Under these circumstances, it was inevitable that there should be among church members generally, a degree of perplexity and bewilderment. The spirit of disunity, due oftentimes to misunderstandings and misinformation, spread to many of the local churches. And as in olden times when one would say, "I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos," the church members were tempted to take their stand with individual leaders. There were some who even talked of a cleavage in the church which would result in two sets of leaders and two denominational headquarters.
The threatened cleavage did not come. When the voice of the Spirit of prophecy was heard, it brought courage and fortitude to those leaders who had stood firmly for fundamental principles and doctrines, and their hands were strengthened. Most of those who had become confused in judgment and had erred in their conclusions also rejoiced to know that God had spoken. With humility they acknowledged their mistake and once more joined heartily with their brethren. A few, sad to note, disregarded the instruction that came through the "Testimonies," and eventually separated from the movement.
This general statement explains why there appears in Volume VIII, the sections entitled "Counsels Often Repeated," "Letters to Physicians," "Be On Guard," and "The Essential Knowledge." Each section deals particularly with principles regarding which there were wide differences of opinion among strong men standing in leading positions.
Issues Over Centralization
In a letter to G. I. Butler, president of the General Conference, as early as March 1, 1886, Mrs. White had said:
"The evils of centering so many responsibilities in Battle Creek have not been small. The dangers are great. There are unconsecrated elements that only wait for circumstances to put all their Influence on the side of wrong. I can never feel exactly safe in regard to Battle Creek or Battle Creek College. I cannot at this time state all my reasons."—E. White
Letter 4, 1886.
From this time forward for more than sixteen years, most solemn warnings were sent to headquarters regarding the duty of limiting the interests centering in Battle Creek. On October 18, 1890, Mrs. White wrote to the managers of the Battle Creek Sanitarium:
"A limit must be set to the expansion of our institutions in Battle Creek. The field is the world, and God has an interest in other parts of Ills great vineyard."—E. G. White Letter 18, 1890 ("Testimonies," Vol. VIII, pp. 135, 136).
The Battle Creek Sanitarium—which was even then the largest institution of its kind in the world—the college, and the Review and Herald office, were greatly prospering financially, and from a purely business standpoint there seemed to be ample justification for their continued increase in size and facilities. But there were grave perils of a spiritual nature which threatened the true prosperity of the work. There moved into Battle Creek not only families in which members were employed in the work of these institutions, but hundreds of Seventh-day Adventists whose primary purpose in moving was to be associated with the large church there.
With no adequate outlet for missionary activity, the zeal of many became cold, and their backslidden spiritual apathy was a serious detriment to the church. They had abundant opportunity to criticize and find fault with the lives and policies of church and institutional leaders. They turned a deaf ear to most earnest entreaties through the Spirit of prophecy to move out of Battle Creek. In September, 1895, Mrs. White explained the matter as it had been revealed to her:
"The efforts made to induce our people to move away from Battle Creek have not succeeded. And why ?—Because the enlargements constantly going forward have been encouraging people to move in there. There was represented to me a mammoth vineyard requiring much labor to tend and care for it. Men were working in one part of the vineyard, while other parts were left unworked, to grow thorns and briers. One of dignified bearing said, 'Why are you setting out so many plants in this part of the field? Take some of the plants to other portions of God's vineyard. More ground will be brought under cultivation. Thus the work will be greatly extended and new elements will be brought in'
"When people are congregated together as they are in Battle Creek, it requires more labor to keep the church in O right condition than would be required to minister to the same number were they scattered; as they should be, in different parts of the field."—E. G. White Letter 4, 1695.
From time to time there were intimations that if the institutions failed to heed the warnings, and unless there was a scattering out from Battle Creek of those who were not needed there, God would manifest Himself in judgment. A knowledge of this tended to bring to the heart of Sister White an earnestness of appeal that seemed incomprehensible to some. Thus we find in our files the following note, like the lamentations of the prophet Jeremiah:
"We are afraid the lessons of education obtained in mixing the silver with the dross in practice, the wine with the water, will be in its effects similar to the wine of Babylon. 0, I see, I sense the danger. I am weighed down with sorrow. And yet, if our people have crowded patronage, I fear that they will interpret this as the evidence that they must keep on enlarging, adding building to building. God will, just as surely as they continue in this way, do to Battle Creek as He did to the yews, let a scourge come upon them in Battle Creek that will drive them out. and send them humbled in spirit to work and walk in humble paths, that as they shall draw nigh to God, the light shall not be confined largely to one location ; but the standard of truth shall be lifted in many places, nigh and afar off."—E. G. White Letter 49, 1893 (Oct. 2),
In another letter forcefully setting forth the unheeded warnings and stating that "large and expensive buildings have been erected in Battle Creek," whereas the believers there should "go into the field and let the light shine to others," Mrs. White says:
"I have little hope that I shall be understood. I have thought that Satan helps minds to misconstrue, misinterpret, and misjudge everything I say, and I have less hope today of being understood than I have had at any time in my life labor."—E. G. White Manuscript 108, 1897 (Sept. 1).
God's Sobering Judgments
In the early morning of February 18, 1901, the great Battle Creek Sanitarium and the adjoining hospital building were totally destroyed by fire. The management was at once faced with the problem of rebuilding. The businessmen and other citizens of Battle Creek held mass meetings expressing their sympathy with the sanitarium, and did everything they could to encourage rebuilding in that city. A committee was appointed to make a public report, and liberal donations were pledged to the enterprise. Before a meeting of this committee, the medical superintendent gave the assurance that if certain conditions should be met—
"The sanitarium management will proceed to erect in this city a new sanitarium building to cost not less than two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, exclusive of furniture, and far surpassing the structures destroyed by fire, in capacity. adaptation to its uses, convenience, architectural design and beauty, and the general attractiveness of its surroundings ; and that this new sanitarium shall remain the center of their system of sanitariums."—Review and Herald, March 18, Do.
On March 17, a joint meeting of conference and medical workers met in Battle Creek and advised that the sanitarium be rebuilt in Battle Creek. of fireproof material, and that it "should be five stories in height, not to exceed 450 feet in length."—Review and Herald, March 25, 1902. The estimated cost was between $250,000 and $300,000. There had been pledged by the citizens of Battle Creek, between $80,000 and $90,000, and this, with $154,000 insurance money, was regarded as nearly sufficient to erect the buildings needed.
The Lesson Unlearned
Work was immediately begun, but it was not long before it was seen that the structure far exceeded in size that which had been recommended by the afore-mentioned council. From a brief description of the building, accompanying a cut showing the front elevation of the new sanitarium, we quote:
"It is about five hundred fifty feet in length. The rear extensions aggregate five hundred feet more, or one thousand feet in all. Five and six stories high. In conjunction with the various other structures comprising the sanitarium, it will furnish accommodations for the treatment of more than one thousand invalids. . . . When finished, it will be the most complete, thoroughly equipped, and perfect establishment of the sort in the world."—The Battle Creek Sanitarium, Food Idea, Nov. 15, 1902 (Vol. I, No. 1).
The grandeur of the new building, as well as its monumental size, is indicated by the following statement by the auditor-general of Michigan, who acted as chairman of the dedicatory service:
"The floors of the great structure make up an area of five acres of marble mosaic, the construction of which was superintended by the Italian artist in that line of work, who had charge of the beautiful mosaic work of the Congressional Library building at Washington, D.C. In no respect has convenience or any desirable purpose been sacrificed to ornament or effect, and yet when fully completed, it will stand as one of the beautiful buildings of Michigan, creditable to the city and to the State in which it is located and a permanent monument to heroic effort on the part of those who represent the 'Battle Creek Idea.' "—"Elms-haven Document File" No. 289.
There is more than local significance to these facts regarding the rebuilding of the Battle Creek Sanitarium. Such planning might plausibly be defended as good business policy, even though it represents a departure from plain instruction given through the Spirit of prophecy. It was defended, moreover, by a group of leaders who were molding the denominational medical missionary work,—a group who were not in accord with the principles underlying the reorganization called for in the General Conference of 1901. The General Conference administration was seeking to encourage the ownership and control of institutions by the union or local conferences in which they were situated. But there was decided opposition to the application of this principle to medical missionary institutions by some who insisted that the central association at Battle Creek should have a decided controlling voice in the establishment and management of such institutions.
Regarding these issues, the Spirit of prophecy bore clear, plain testimony to the effect that "medical missionary work is not to be drawn apart and made separate from church organization."—"Testinionies." Vol. VIII, p. 164. And it was also stated that the plan to fasten every medical institution to the central organization at Battle Creek must be relinquished."—Id., p. 232.
(To be continued)
