Birth of a Reformation; Or, The Life and Labors of Daniel S. Warner

by A. L. Byers

Holiness, it must be remembered, is Scriptural, a part of God's will to his children, and the movement must not be regarded as being something new, but as a revival of truth intended for man. Since the attainment of this distinct higher experience requires a perfect consecration, an entire abandonment, to God, it was but natural that the doctrine should be opposed by the pleasure-loving church members, those who were Christians only in name and did not care for any advancement or improvement of their spiritual status. These, of course, were greatly in the majority. The holiness advocates were at once opposed and often persecuted; but silently and surely, as leaven works in the meal, the holiness agitation increased and spread throughout the country. It was a very unwelcome and disturbing element among the cold professors. They said that sinlessness was not to be attained in this life; that we could not be sanctified till death; etc. But when shown by the Scriptures that it is indeed God's will for Christians in this life, they would declare that it is attained by growth, or perhaps would say they had received it in conversion. They were opposed to having any further spiritual obligation placed upon them.

But it was not alone the advocacy of an advanced Christian attainment that might well make the holiness movement distasteful to sect devotees. Holiness is unifying. It makes Christians one, in accordance with our Savior's prayer: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21). True holiness is destructive of divisional elements. That is why the advocates of holiness in the different denominations lost to a great extent their sectarian bigotry and could join together in holiness associations independent of their denominations. As a general thing the holiness editors and teachers spoke against sectarian divisions.

This brings us to the critical point. Would those espousing holiness dissolve their sect relations? Here is where many in the holiness movement compromised and would not follow in the onward march of truth out of all denominational confusion and into complete oneness in Christ. Instead, holiness associations urged and even required their members to maintain also a sect membership. They seemed to believe sects were a necessary evil and they opposed the idea of coming out of sects. This is as far as the majority in the holiness movement would go. They deplored sects, but seemed to think that to be outside of all sects would be to have no church relation at all. Had they walked in the light they would have comprehended the true body of Christ and been led out of sectarian entanglements; but failing to follow the true leading of God, they receded, and their holiness degenerated into what was mere sect holiness. To this day they have their holiness associations and their conventions, but fellowshiping as they do the sects and factions of almost every description, they are left to grope in their own darkness and confusion, still making an effort but accomplishing nothing toward Christian unity.

Their confusion on the church question is illustrated by the following quotation from the salutary address adopted by the General Holiness Assembly held in Chicago in May, 1901:

In respect to the matter of church fellowship we observe that the church is the institution of Christ, having many members in one body, himself being the living Head. He has redeemed it with his blood, and engraven it upon the palms of his hands. Membership therein is a precious privilege, and always to be highly esteemed. Wherever practical, every saved man and woman should be connected with some church.

The first two statements are clear in their reference to the true Christian church as the one body of saved people everywhere, redeemed by Christ's blood. But when in the next breath they urge that "every saved man and woman should be connected with some church," as if such were not already in the church through redemption by Christ's blood, they are talking about something else, not the body of Christ. They perhaps do not realize their own blindness; but to the one who spiritually discerns the true church and its sufficiency for all the people of God, their confusion is very apparent.

The writer had an interview not long since with one of the holiness leaders who used to know D. S. Warner and who still labors to bring about the unity of Christians through a holiness that respects sectarian divisions. This man was asked about the prospects for unity after so many years of effort. His reply, in which he complained of the bigotry existing among the denominations, was anything but encouraging. He seemed to have no knowledge of a way out of the trouble, and regarded the present true church movement as only a sect, or faction, saying that "a sect is any body of Christians joined together in the same belief," etc. "But suppose a number of persons come out from and leave the sects with which they have been connected, and stand only on the Bible, independent of sects—suppose they assemble together in a body; would they be a sect?" he was asked. "Yes," was his reply. "Then what about the body of Christ itself, the whole, of which sects are regarded as cut-off factions—is that a sect?" "Yes," was his answer. And then, as if he could know nothing but sects, he referred to Paul as calling the Christians in his day a sect, and assumed to quote him thus: "For as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Acts 28:22). He was told that these words were not spoken by Paul, but by his opposers. "Well," said he, "I will look that up."

Thus his conception of the subject makes the true church impossible. When men have been forty years in the ministry and in the holiness movement, and are just as far from discerning the church as when they started, and even suppose that Paul called the Christians a sect, how blinding and confusing must be the darkness in which they grope! Having failed to follow in God's way when came the call, "Come out of her, my people," they have been building with wood, hay, and stubble a structure that only awaits the consumption at the last day.

But not so all who were engaged in the holiness movement. God had a remnant whom he was leading entirely out of spiritual Babylon, who were returning to Zion over the highway of holiness, with singing and everlasting joy in their hearts. Holiness led them to the threshold of a brighter day, and they did not stop, but passed over. Keeping in the light they retained true holiness and all that God had given them. Thus, coming out of the holiness movement and embodying its true elements, is a movement that not only upholds holiness, but repudiates sectarianism and represents the true Christian unity that Christ prayed for. It holds and knows Christ as the only head of the body, and as complete, in all things, to the church.

It was through the workers in the holiness movement that Bro. D. S. Warner was made to face squarely the issue of holiness. His rejection of holiness in his earlier ministry may have been because of its poor representation on the part of professors; or, in other words, because his introduction to it was not such as would cause him to think seriously of its claims. When he comprehended that it was the line on which God was particularly working, he was not slow in being led into the light and experience and becoming an ardent advocate of the doctrine. Meeting with opposition from the so-called church of God, to which he belonged, and finally being expelled from the West Ohio Eldership, his associations were to a great extent with the holiness bands and societies. Among these he stood prominent.