“What?” you may be asking. “The book is only one volume!”

What Remnant Publications has done is divide the 42-chapter book into four volumes that are each about 10 chapters long, more or less. The intent is to make the hefty volume more digestible. It’s an intriguing idea — one that I quite like, actually.

But I do have some concerns with their implementation. First, they are selling each book for $9.95. So you can get one-quarter of The Great Controversy for about what one might expect to pay for the entire volume. The whole series would set you back $40, what you might expect to pay for a really nice heirloom-quality hardcover edition. (They offer volume discounts, however. The cost goes down to less than $1 each if you buy enough of them. The volume pricing, and how it relates to the single unit price, is quite extreme in my opinion.)

Second, the cover designs of volumes three and four, and volume three especially, suggest that the book will cover certain recent developments in detail (such as the World Trade Center attack), which of course it does not, having been last edited nearly 100 years ago. 

Third, the cover designs seem to be from the “ransom note” school of typography. There are just too many fonts, and the fonts from one volume totally clash with the ones in the next volume. The font for “Out of Control” on the final volume is just ugly (besides the fact that the letter O’s are conspicuously identical, undermining the hand-scrawled look). Granted, most regular folk probably won’t notice or care about this, but anyone with more astute aesthetic taste will find this appalling.

Having said all that, I do like the overall color scheme of the series. Volume one is the most attractive of the set, in my opinion. If they had stuck with the classic look of that volume, the cover design would do more justice to the flavor of the book, and give a more honest representation of the contents.

All things considered, the split volumes are an interesting and well-thought marketing approach. And I applaud the effort to get this book before more people. For those making volume purchases, this could be an effective way to share the book with people who might not otherwise touch it.

At the time of my invite, there were only 8 or 10 members of the group. I had been reading The Great Controversy as part of my research for a series of articles I’ve been writing for 3ABN World, called “Our Heritage.” I thought joining Sandra’s group would be a great way to study the book more deeply, since I had not read it straight through since college. Being able to dialog with other readers would help me gain fresh insights, and would also provide a place to share what I’ve been learning. I thought maybe the group might grow as large as 20 or 30 participants, and we’d all have a great time sharing with each other.

Things have happened so quickly, it is hard for me to keep it all straight. But shortly after I joined, I decided to invite a bunch of my Facebook friends. Sandra and her friends were also continuing to invite people. The numbers were really growing fast. Sensing the momentum, Sandra suggested we invite church friends, and start making local announcements. (She’s such a go-getter!)

Sandra and I both felt impressed that this could grow far beyond Facebook. So I suggested starting a website to allow non-Facebook users to participate. Thus the website www.gcreadathon.com was created.

Sandra was calling conferences everywhere, in her home country of Australia, as well as here in the United States, trying to get announcements in church bulletins, etc. I posted a notice to the popular FIG list. Meanwhile, Facebook was working its own magic, as people continued joining, prompting their friends to join.

In one week we had more than 1000 Facebook members in our group, which is totally amazing. In fact, as of today the first full week of the Readathon has not ended yet (here in the USA), and now there are nearly 1700 members. Considering that the largest SDA group on Facebook, Seventh-day Adventists, has just over 10,000 members, our growth is quite impressive.

We’d love to have you join us! It’s not too late. In fact, we begin chapter 2 tomorrow. All you really need to do to participate is commit to read one chapter each week. If you’d like the additional blessing of interacting with others online, visit www.gcreadathon.com. You can sign up for e-mail notifications to help you stay on track.

Because my own answers would have been similar to these, I was nothing short of stunned when, about 10-12 years ago in college, I ran across a rather hefty, thick volume entitled, The Evils of Infant Baptism. I never read the book, but I wondered that someone could put so much thought into what might seem such an esoteric topic. Infant baptism may be unbiblical—but evil? Evil enough to write a whole book about it?

I never thought about it much after that, until yesterday when I was doing research for a series of articles entitled “Our Heritage” that I am writing for 3ABN.

In this series I am describing various movements and events, mostly since the 1700s, that helped shape Adventist thought and belief. As part of my research I’ve been reading the parallel chapters in The Great Controversy, picking up at chapter 16, “The Pilgrim Fathers.” If you have read that chapter, you know Ellen White has great things to say about the Puritans/Separatists/Pilgrims, as well as Roger Williams, a Baptist, who began the Rhode Island colony.

Adventists can trace spiritual ties to both the Puritans and the Baptists (the Baptists themselves are linked to the Puritan/Separatist movement). The name “Baptist” is derived historically from another group, the Anabaptists (“Rebaptizers”). This is because a central tenet of the Baptist faith is believer’s baptism, which was also a controversial teaching that the Anabaptists were persecuted for teaching.

Quoting form Wikipedia:

“Believer’s baptism and its variants … [were] anathema to the religious beliefs of most all other sects and deemed one of the worst sorts of heresy, for if infant baptism was in error, then all those practising other faiths were damned in the black-white world view and mindset of the age, for it was also strongly held that a second baptism was invalid and an offense against God—meaning the two beliefs were irreconcilably different and opposed without common ground. As one consequence, the Officials of the Holy Inquisition sought out and persecuted Anabaptists with the same vigor that they persecuted Jews, witches, in direct contrast to treatment given most other protestants.”

It is a fact that even Protestant leaders such as Zwingli persecuted (even to death) the Anabaptist faith. In a world where there were still many traces of sacramental theology, where grace and salvation comes through the rote act itself, it is not hard to imagine the outrage over the Anabaptists’ teaching that would nullify the supposedly essential infant baptism that had been practiced by an overwhelming majority on the European continent.

All of this reminded me of that book I had seen in that college library so long ago, so I did a quick Google search to see what I might find.

I don’t know if either of these men wrote the book I remembered, but they both give good summaries of the reasons why infant baptism is “evil.”

The Evils of Infant Baptism, by A. N. Arnold (you can get the general idea by reading the boldface section headings)

The Evils of Infant Baptism, by Robert Boyt C. Howell (a much fuller treatment of the subject)

When you realize people were killed for preaching against infant baptism, you can begin to understand how contentious this idea was.

I read a little of Arnold’s comments, and I must admit that he really has a solid case. It is clear from his presentation how the sacramental theology of infant baptism could destroy the spiritual significance of baptism and erode the meaning of Christianity altogether. There’s no exaggeration in that.

Moreover, many of his points apply equally well to all forms of modern “social club Christianity,” and it does not take much imagination to see how a “cheap grace” gospel message (as German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called that type) can have the same effect. You sweep people in, pin a “Christian” label on them, and soon you’re left with nothing but a hollow shell of what Christianity is meant to be.

Furthermore, the opening paragraphs of the chapter in The Great Controversy that I was reading apply equally well, not only to infant baptism, but also to many trends gaining ground in Protestant Christianity today:

“The English Reformers, while renouncing the doctrines of Romanism, had retained many of its forms. Thus though the authority and the creed of Rome were rejected, not a few of her customs and ceremonies were incorporated into the worship of the Church of England. It was claimed that these things were not matters of conscience; that though they were not commanded in Scripture, and hence were nonessential, yet not being forbidden, they were not intrinsically evil. Their observance tended to narrow the gulf which separated the reformed churches from Rome, and it was urged that they would promote the acceptance of the Protestant faith by Romanists.

“To the conservative and compromising, these arguments seemed conclusive. But there was another class that did not so judge. The fact that these customs “tended to bridge over the chasm between Rome and the Reformation” (Martyn, volume 5, page 22), was in their view a conclusive argument against retaining them. They looked upon them as badges of the slavery from which they had been delivered and to which they had no disposition to return.They reasoned that God has in His word established the regulations governing His worship, and that men are not at liberty to add to these or to detract from them. The very beginning of the great apostasy was in seeking to supplement the authority of God by that of the church. Rome began by enjoining what God had not forbidden, and she ended by forbidding what He had explicitly enjoined.”

Ellen White, The Great Controversy, 289

So the next time someone suggests an apparently harmless change to your church’s service, ask: Does its form draw the mind back to fallen religion? Is it adding something to worship that God has not requested?

When confronted with changes in standards, membership criteria, or theology, ask: Will this tend to convert unbelievers, or subvert the church? Will this draw people closer to God, or are we simply drawing a bigger circle to take more worldly people in?

And remember the evils of infant baptism.