Another look at Babylon

To what extent should Seventh-day Adventists cooperate with other Christian denominations? Should Adventist ministers be active in community ministerial associations? On what basis? After all, hasn't the denomination taught that all other churches are part of the fallen Babylon of Revelation 14:8 and 18:1-4?

These are important questions in them selves. But they have added importance because Adventism has historically experienced some tension over them as different individuals and groups have set forth varying interpretations. Fortunately, Adventist history throws a great deal of light on both the issues and the tensions they have generated.

Early understandings

The earliest Adventist interpretations of Babylon were well in place before the rise of Seventh-day Adventism. The course was set by Charles Fitch, a Millerite of Congregational/ Presbyterian background.

By the summer of 1843 many Millerite Adventist laypersons and pastors were being expelled from their denominational churches because they refused to be silent regarding their firm conviction about the nearness of the Advent.¹ This situation inspired Fitch to preach a sermon in July 1843 entitled "Come Out of Her, My People." In it Fitch broadened the interpretation of apocalyptic Babylon from the generally accepted idea among his Protestant contemporaries that Babylon was Roman Catholicism, to include all those who resisted "the PERSONAL REIGN of Jesus Christ over this world." Thus all Christians who resisted Millerism's central teaching were included as being both "ANTICHRIST" and "BABYLON." The only hope for them was to "come out of Babylon or perish."²

That interpretation would be perpetuated by the early Sabbatarian Adventists. Thus James White could write in 1850 that "the second angel's message [of Revelation 14:8] called us out from the fallen churches [to] where we are now free to think, and act for ourselves in the fear of God."

From White's perspective it was the coming out of the "fallen churches" that had prepared the way for the discovery and preaching of the Sabbath truth. "It is an exceedingly interesting fact," he wrote, "that the Sabbath question began to be agitated among second advent believers immediately after they were called out of the churches by the angel's message. God's work moves in order. The Sabbath truth came up in just the right time to fulfill [the] prophecy"³ of Revelation 14:12, with its implications for the restoration of all God's commandments before the Second Advent.

The early Sabbatarians not only adopted Fitch's understanding of Babylon as being completely fallen by late 1844, they also fol lowed Miller in believing that the door of salvation had been closed in October 1844. Miller had developed the "shut door" doctrine in the 1830s, when he argued the idea that probation would be closed before the completion of the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14 "about the year 1843." Since he interpreted the cleansing of the sanctuary as the Second Advent, his logic had led him to the conclusion that every person would have to make a decision for or against Christ by that time.⁴

With that understanding in mind, the 1842 Boston general conference of Millerite Adventists had resolved "that the notion of a probation after Christ's coming, is a lure to destruction, entirely contradictory to the word of God, which positively teaches that when Christ comes the door is shut, and such as are not ready can never enter in."⁵

After Millerism's "Great Disappointment" at the nonadvent of Christ on October 22, 1844, the major point of contention became whether anything had happened on that date. Those who said nothing had happened became "open-door" Adventists. Those who said some thing had happened belonged to the "shut-door" faction.

With that latter view in mind, Miller wrote on November 18, 1844, that those proclaiming the second advent of Christ were finished in their "work in warning sinners, and in try ing to awake a proud church." A separation between "the righteous and wicked" had taken place and Adventism's mission was now to encourage one another until Jesus comes.⁶

By the end of 1844 the "shut door" had come to mean two things in the eyes of its advocates: (1) that some thing had happened on October 22, and (2) that the door of probation had been shut.

The emerging Sabbatarians under the leadership of Joseph Bates and James and Ellen White adopted the shut-door teaching with all of its implications.⁷ Coupling that belief with their interpretation of Babylon obviously put them beyond the possibility of cooperating with other Christian groups.

A modified understanding

Although they didn't realize it for some time, the Sabbatarian Adventists had a problem in their all-other-churches-are-a-totally-fallen-Babylon theology. The first aspect of the problem to come to their consciousness was their interpretation of the shut door.

After all, Christ hadn't returned in October 1844. As a result, probation hadn't closed then. But it was only after they had reinterpreted the meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 that they could begin to see that because of their error involving the Second Advent, they had also been wrong on the close of probation aspect of their shut-door teaching.

While a new understanding of the sanctuary's cleansing was in place by 1848, it would be another few years before they realized that their new understanding demanded a reinterpretation of their position on the shut door. That reinterpretation was forced upon them by converts to their mes sage who hadn't been in the Millerite movement before 1844 and thus, theoretically, couldn't be saved under their traditional shut door position.

By the early 1850s such converts led the Sabbatarians to revise their understanding of the shut door.8 As a result, they still held that something had happened in 1844 and that human probation would close before the Second Advent, but they had finally come to the place where they were willing to admit that probation had not yet closed.

That conclusion would have vast implications for the meaning of their everyone-else-is-a-totally-fallen-Babylon teaching. James White would set forth those implications in 1859.

In an article in the Review and Herald he noted that the term "Babylon" signified the doctrinal con fusion of the various sects. He then went on to "unhesitatingly" apply the "Babylon of the Apocalypse to all corrupt Christianity." But, significantly, he interpreted the fall of Babylon as being progressive, rather than as something that had been completed in the 1840s, as held by the Sabbatarians in the earliest years.⁹

While Fitch had viewed Revelation 14:8 and 18:1-5 as one event, White asserted that whereas the fall of Babylon in 14:8 "is in the past," the fall set forth in 18:1-4 is present and "especially" future. As he put it in 1859: "First she falls [14:8]; second, she becomes the habitation of devils, and 'the hold of every foul spirit;' third, God's people are called out of her; and, fourth, her plagues are poured out upon her."¹⁰

Ellen White agreed with her husband's reinterpretation of the fall of Babylon as being progressive, but she would move beyond his understanding. To her "the perfect fulfillment of Revelation 14:8 is yet future." As a result, "the great body of Christ's true followers are still" to be found in those churches outside of Adventism. Thus Babylon is confused but not totally fallen. Beyond that, the call to come out of Babylon will not reach its full force until right before the Advent, when Babylon's progressive fall will have been completed. As a result, she claimed, the cry to '"Come out of her, My people'" of Revelation 18:1-4 will "constitute the final warning to be given to the inhabitants of the earth."¹¹

A theological foundation for association

With their reinterpretations of the shut door and the fall of Babylon, James and Ellen White had created a theological foundation to guide the understanding and practice of Seventh-day Adventists when it came to their relationship with other Christian bodies. That cooperation became increasingly more of an issue as Adventists came to realize that the Second Advent wasn't as close as they had at first expected.

Cooperation with "outsiders," however, would bring its own tensions into the denomination. Those tensions would divide Adventist thinking into what might be thought of as "moderate" and "hardline" orientations. The moderates would come to favor association or cooperation that did not compromise the theological and ethical integrity of the movement, while the hardliners would have a difficult time cooperating with any group that did not see things just as they did.

A case in point is Adventism's relation to the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). The movement obviously had some good ideas (i.e., "truth"). After all, it was advocating temperance a topic in line with Adventism's concerns. As a result, as early as 1877 Adventists were uniting their efforts with those of the WCTU.

So far, so good, in terms of the WCTU. They seemed to be nice Christian ladies. But in 1887 they muddied the waters by aligning themselves with the National Reform Association in its drive to gain national legislation for Sunday sacredness. That same year the WCTU added a Sabbath (Sunday) Observance Department to its own organization. The next year it would support Senator Blair's national Sunday bill.¹²

Such moves definitely made the WCTU look more like it was rapidly moving toward a fully-developed Babylon in the eyes of some Adventists. While having "the truth" on temperance, at the same time it supported "error" on the Sabbath. If that isn't confusion or Babylon, what is? some Adventists concluded. Such developments continued to cause tension in the Adventist ranks through out the 1890s.

Despite the problems, Ellen White and others sought to cooperate as much as possible with the temperance forces throughout the 1890s. Other Adventists weren't so sure about personally cooperating.

Something of a turning point came in 1899 and 1900 when the WCTU put itself on record as being opposed to lending its support to the persecution of those who had a different day of rest. The new tolerance, of course, had not changed the organization's advocacy of Sunday.

It was in that climate that Review and Herald editor Alonzo T. Jones published a string of pointed editorials suggesting that the WCTU was apostate and hadn't gone far enough and was thus still logically aligned with the forces of persecution.¹³

In response to Jones's black-and-white, hardline mentality, Ellen White wrote him a series of letters. As one who was willing to work within a certain amount of tension, she counseled the impetuous Jones not to be so hard on those who didn't see things through Adventist eyes. "There are," she wrote, "vital truths upon which they have had very little light." As a result, "they should be dealt with in tenderness, in love, and with respect for their good work. You ought not to handle them as you do."¹⁴

She noted that she was not arguing with the "real truth" of the position he had taken, but rather with his lack of vision, tact, and kindness. His approach, she claimed, would lead the WCTU members to conclude: "'You see, it is impossible to have any union with Seventh-day Adventists; for they will give us no chance to connect with them unless we believe just as they believe.'"¹⁵

Ellen White was distinctly opposed to such either-or intolerance. Rather, she noted, "we should seek to gain the confidence of the workers of the W.C.T.U., by harmonizing with them as far as possible." Thus they should be invited to teach in Adventist camp meetings, even if they did have some error. Such an arrangement, Ellen White suggested, could have some very positive results. The Adventists would learn more effective methods of temperance evangelism while at the same time the WCTU workers might pick up a more balanced understanding of the Sabbath and other truths dear to the heart of Adventism.¹⁶

Mrs. White deplored the approach of Jones to the WCTU. She counseled him to not represent "truth and the situation of things as so formidable that those belonging to the W.C.T.U. will turn away in despair." She pled with him, as she often did, to let the Lord give him a "sanctified pen," "discretion," and "Christlike tenderness" toward those who didn't see things as he did.¹⁷

Such counsel was hard to take by those who saw everything in black or white terms. They saw the more moderate position simply as one of unacceptable compromise.

Several years later Ellen White would write that "while I was in Australia, Elder A. T. Jones, by an unwise course of action, nearly cut off all opportunity for us to work" for the WCTU people. She went on to say that her husband had always sought to give temperance workers "an opportunity to speak" at his meetings and always readily accepted invitations to their gatherings.¹⁸

A few months later she wrote that "the Women's Christian Temperance Union is an organization with whose efforts for the spread of temperance principles we can heartily unite. The light has been given me that we are not to stand aloof from them, but, while there is to be no sacrifice of principle on our part, as far as possible we are to unite with them in laboring for temperance reforms. . . .

I have been shown we are not to shun the W.C.T.U. workers. By uniting with them in behalf of total abstinence we do not change our position regarding the observance of the seventh day, and we can show our appreciation of their position regarding the subject of temperance. By opening the door, and inviting them to unite with us on the temperance question, we secure their help along temperance lines; and they, by uniting with us, will hear new truths which the Holy Spirit is waiting to impress upon hearts."¹⁹

It was that same irenic spirit that led Ellen White to suggest that Adventist pastors should become acquainted with other pastors in their district, letting them know that Adventists "are reformers, but not bigots." Her advice was to focus on the "common ground" that Adventism shared with others and "to present the truth as it is in Jesus" rather than to run down other churches. Using such techniques, Adventist pastors could "come near to the ministers of other denominations."²⁰

There will probably always be hardliners and moderates in Adventism when it comes to how we view, associate, and cooperate with other Christians. There will probably be those who stand ready to fire their "Babylon gun" at everyone who dis agrees with them on any point. Clearly, however, Adventist history has a great deal of light, wisdom, and guidance to give to us when it comes to this important issue.