Faith on Trial

June 10, 1951. Because rumors have a way of traveling in our church, even to Africa, questions came up among the missionaries in East Africa. The authors brought this problem into focus by a letter to a General Conference departmental secretary (Exhibit 16), requesting that if the authors needed to be “straightened out in general, that the brethren convey to us their criticisms.” They were waiting on an oficial reply to the manuscript.

December 6, 1951. After they had waited more than fourteen months, an undated eleven-page letter came to Africa, postmarked December 6, 1951 (Exhibit 17). The delay was due in part to some of the committee members being on overseas appointments for long periods of time. The committee’s negative report on the document highlighted their concerns:

“The manuscript gives every evidence of earnest, diligent, and painstaking effort; but we feel concerned over what appears to us to be a very critical attitude concerning the leadership, the ministry, and the plans of work in God’s cause.”

• (The manuscript states in more than one place: “The message of 1888 was neither a reemphasis of the views of the pioneers of the advent movement on justifcation by faith, Wesleyan or whatever they were; nor was it ‘the same doctrine that Luther, Wesley, and many other servants of God had been teaching’” [p. 46]. It was the “third angel’s message in verity”). To this the committee replied: “Such a conclusion, we believe, is not in harmony with Scriptural teaching, nor is it in accord with the writings and counsels of the Spirit of prophecy.”

• Tree and a half pages occupy quotes from an “older, experienced, and highly honored” worker who was eleven years old at the time of the 1888 conference. His conclusion: “It is my belief that the doctrine and the [1888] truth of justifcation by faith took hold of our people to a marked degree. … I am convinced that the message of justifcation by faith took hold of our people at that time, and served to rescue them from the doldrums which had set in the 1880’s, and prepared them to receive and participate in the mighty forward movement throughout the world which began with the great Conference of 1901.”

• The reply cites numerous publications in subsequent years by E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones as proof that the message was proclaimed; but more important, what they expounded is now available “in more effective form, in the writings of the Spirit of prophecy and in other of our publications.” (This last point is a long-standing issue that is as yet unresolved).

• The reply notes that the manuscript afirms that “there is before the remnant church a heavy account to settle. The sooner the issue is faced squarely and candidly the better (p. 2). … A recognition of the significance of our denominational history in the light of Spirit of Prophecy declarations, is essential before the loud cry can be recognized, and received. Could any other kind of ‘loud cry’ than that which would follow a denominational repentance lighten the earth with glory’? What glory for God would there be in it?” (p. 137). But this concept of corporate and denominational repentance is rejected emphatically: “We do not believe that it is according to God’s plan and purpose for the present leadership of the movement to make acknowledgement or confession, either private or public, concerning any of the mistakes made by the leadership of a by-gone generation. … Your proposal is not according to God’s plan in His dealings with His people.”

• The manuscript noted Ellen White’s prediction of Baal worship as a result of rejecting the 1888 message (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 467, 468), and asserted that we face that danger of confusion with a false christ and Baal worship in our books and presentations. This is also stoutly denied: “Such a charge that the ministry is in any sense of the word, following the pattern of Baal worship, is entirely false and unfounded. It is our conviction that this charge is not only without foundation, but that in making it, you have done a gross injustice to many of our trusted, honored, and Spirit-filled workers. Such charges remind us of those who, in the days of the Saviour, charged Him with casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Our earnest counsel to you is not to stand as critics of your brethren.”

• The report urged that our need was not to consider “the mistakes of a previous generation” but rather, “Can we not recognize in the call made at the recent General Conference the call of God to His people today? This appeal went around the earth, and from both leaders and people there has been a remarkable response from all over the world. … Out of this has grown a strong and determined resolve under God to finish quickly the work He has committed to His people.”

• The call that went out from this session was two-fold:

(1) claim the reception of the latter rain of the Holy Spirit by simply assuming that we have it irrespective of a lack of repentance or preparation, and

(2) double our church membership: “[If] we will reach out today, and every day, and lay hold of this promised blessing and receive the Holy Spirit according to God’s promise, we ought to go back from this meeting with a cry to our churches to double our membership between now and the next session. … If we can only enter into that experience where we have tongues of fire as we preach to men, thousands will come in a day” (Review and Herald, July 17, 1950, p. 117)].

• The Defense Literature Committee report closed their reply with a finality that perplexed the authors and seemed to defy history and all that Ellen White had said about 1888. Their assessment: “We see nothing new in your manuscript. … ? Two years after the General Conference in 1888 God was working on the hearts of men, and … many of the leaders and of the people happily responded to the appeals that were made. … If you accept this counsel … you will not wish to press your rather critical views nor to circulate them any further.”

February 27, 1952. This Defense Literature Committee reportun equivocally decided that “1888 Re-examined” was error and that at least part of the paper was “false and unfounded.” What shall we do? More study, more prayer, more seeking the Lord for guidance as to duty, more surrender.

The authors wrote a four-page response (Exhibit 18): “We acknowledge the General Conference to be the highest body God has placed on earth and therefore the matter is now their responsibility—being the properly constituted watchmen upon the walls of Zion. … While we make this statement of submission to the General Conference we also wish to be frank in saying that we do not believe the reply as given to us will bear analysis. Therefore to go into your file before it is closed on this matter we submit the following and quite needless to say time will soon prove how ‘false and unfounded’ or how dreadfully true our convictions are.”

Nine specific points are covered in the letter. Number 2, one of the more lengthy, points out that “it is not wrong to believe that the last generation of mankind will have a ‘more mature concept of the everlasting gospel than has been perceived by any previous generation of human beings’,” just as surely as Paul preached a more mature understanding of the gospel than Abraham. “Certainly Paul or Luther or Wesley did not preach the ‘third angel’s message in verity’.”

Point number 6, with over one page of considerations, deals with the biblical record supporting the need to recognize and profit from mistakes of past generations. This has come to be known as “corporate repentance.” Twelve different texts are cited as proof that this is true. The biblical accounts indicate that true repentance and confession brought blessing to Israel.

As far as the authors could know at the time, this was the end of the dialogue: “In closing we would say … surely God will soon give judgment in His own way according to His will and we shall be proven terribly wrong or dreadfully right. We leave the case in His hands.”

March 13, 1952. In the spring of 1950 Elder W. A. Spicer had encouraged the authors with hearty support for their unpopular convictions. Early in 1952 came some interesting word from the Spirit of Prophecy that amounted to confrmation beyond question.

The Review and Herald, March 13, page 6, published a manuscript release never before seen in public. Originally when this letter had been written in Australia, June 6, 1896, Ellen White’s secretary had made a notation addressed to Uriah Smith: “The enclosed pages present a few points which were opened to Sister White last night, and which she wished sent to you.”

This statement written more than seven years after the Minneapolis Conference settles forever that there was “in a great measure” determinative rejection at and after the 1888 Session; it was the work of Satan; and “in a great degree” it had kept the message away from our people and “prevented them from obtaining the special power of the Holy Spirit that God longed to impart.” Furthermore: “The light that is to lighten the whole world with its glory was resisted, and by the action of our own brethren has been kept away from the world.” This, during that period of seven years which the General Conference had just assured us saw genuine official acceptance and powerful proclamation of the 1888 message!

This confirmation of church leadership rejection of “most precious” light was published later in 1958 in Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 234, 235. The two missionaries were assured now that there was nothing in the writings of Ellen White that took a different position about our denominational history than had been stated in “1888 Re-examined.” But this was only 1952 and years of dialogue awaited them yet in the future.

As time went on the 1888 manuscript with no title page, no date, no authors listed, spread around the world. To stop it seemed impossible. Lay members who saw it viewed official attempts to suppress it as an exercise of “kingly power” and a denial of the principles of Christian liberty. Official condemnation of the manuscript unsupported by convincing evidence precipitated among them an unprecedented loss of confidence in the leadership of the church. The more readers were convinced that the basic thesis of the manuscript was supported by Ellen White and historical evidence, the more astounded they were by persistent General Conference rejection of it. This breakdown of leadership credibility became especially evident in the Australasian Division.

In 1956 a Seventh-day Adventist couple in the American West, without any permission, duplicated 90 copies of the manuscript. For many, this obviously increased the awareness of Adventist history. The authors wrote to individuals asking them to please leave the manuscript alone and not circulate it; it was written for the attention of the General Conference whose task it is to lead out in denominational repentance. But by 1957 church members were sending inquiries to the General Conference. What was wrong with the manuscript? Why had they rejected it?

The authors had to give assurance to the brethren that the agitation was not of their making. They expressed the firm conviction that a denominational repentance and humbling of heart before the Lord should be initiated by the world leadership of the church and not be neglected by them so that only the laity could take the lead. They maintained that the break down of confidence in leadership was not the result of telling the truth about our history, but of leadership suppressing that truth.

If there was any truth in the manuscript, it would “be recognized in due time. Conversely, if there was indeed nothing in it of real value as the reply of the Defense Literature Committee in 1951 pointed out, it would be expected to die a natural death, as anything without the Lord’s blessing usually does.”

Before the year 1957 was over, readers were pressuring the General Conference to make a reasonable and credible reply to the manuscript. A letter from one of the General Field Secretaries, September 24, makes this plain.

September 24 and September 9, 1957. The authors received a three-page letter from a Seventh-day Adventist local church elder in the West, A. L. Hudson (Exhibit 19 and 20). This church elder was concerned that the General Conference refused to reply to his questions. His opinion was that the manuscript had started something that was now out of theirs as well as the authors’ control. This church elder considered the official opposition taken by the General Conference to be against “the purposes of God.” He proposed to bring the matter before the church at large in an official way, which he tried to do subsequently, February 3, 1959.

In the meantime other considerations were coming into focus.

Forty-eighth Session
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Cleveland Public Auditorium,
Cleveland, Ohio
June 19 - 28, 1958


Eight years had gone by and now the same two missionaries from Africa were once more delegates to a Session. They had heard rumors in Africa that a second General Conference condemnation of their manuscript was in preparation. Very early in the Session one of the general vice-presidents showed them a draft copy of an official report that was to be released subsequently. As it turned out, this document of 49 pages would later be published in September. It was produced under the authority of “a committee appointed by the officers” and was entitled, “Further Appraisal of the Manuscript ‘1888 Re-examined’.”

When the authors read the draft at the Session they informed the vice-president that in its present form the document would bring embarrassment to the General Conference. This conversation was followed by a letter dated June 23, 1958 in which the authors detailed the points that were so obviously false that they would humiliate leadership if made public (Exhibit 21). However as the officers had planned, at the end of the summer “Appraisal” was published with none of the corrections which the authors suggested were necessary in order to avoid the tragedy of General Conference embarrassment.

“Further Appraisal of the Manuscript
‘1888 Re-examined’”
September, 1958


This document states that prior to the Defense Literature Committee considering the manuscript, the original Special Committee had found the authors’ manuscript to be faulted by:

1. “inadequate sources of information,”
2. “total lack of Biblical background or sources,”
3. “sets forth no positive teaching of righteousness by faith and contains a number of contradictions,”
4. “conclusions set forth in the document could not be accepted,” and
5. it should have “deliberate checking and study” by the Defense Literature Committee.

Now after more than seven years, “Appraisal” had concluded that:

1. “the authors have revealed considerable amateurishness in both research and use of facts;”
2. there is “a consistent pattern throughout the manuscript of using quotations out of their setting;”
3. “’1888 Re-examined’ is a serious reflection upon the literary ethics of its authors;”
4. “Chapter XIII … is honeycombed with so much fallacious reasoning that the reader utterly fails to discover what the authors are attempting to prove;”
5. “there is no justification for the sweeping charges set forth in the thesis of this manuscript.

Had the authors succeeded in substantiating their charges, their work might have been worthy of serious consideration. Having not only failed to substantiate such charges, but having proved themselves guilty of distortion of facts and misapplication of statements from the Spirit of prophecy, the authors of ‘1888 Re-examined’ have produced a manuscript that is detrimental to the church, derogatory to the leaders of the church, and to uninformed individuals who may happen to read it.”

There is no way to know just how far the infuence of the manuscript had gone in the English-speaking church. People copied and distributed portions at random. Someone in Australia reproduced sections which turned up in East Africa as attributed to “an unknown teacher.” The November 1958 issue of the denomination’s missionary journal THESE TIMES carried an article about Baal worship under the regular monthly heading, “Pageant of Prophecy” which included on page 33 a lengthy verbatim quote from 1888 Re-examined from the chapter, “The True Christ vs. the False Christ,” without attributing the source. Some editor considered the material to be truth suficiently clear to be worthy of publication in one of the church’s leading missionary journals.

“An Answer to
‘Further Appraisal of the Manuscript
“1888 Re-examined’”
October, 1958


The charges made by “Appraisal” were very serious. But they failed to deal with the content of the manuscript, deeming it sufficient to discredit the authors’ integrity. “Appraisal” rested its case on a charge not even mentioned in the first Report, that is, alleged unethical use of Ellen G. White statements, which it was assumed discredits the manuscript. The Defense Literature Committee report of 1951 had condemned the manuscript because it was too “critical” and would lead to unsettling confidence in the church leadership; but it too did not deal with the subject matter as such. Now again in 1958 no specific consideration was given to its subject matter beyond rejecting it, this rejection being considered sufficient once the charge of misusing Ellen White’s writings is established.

Again, more prayer, more study, more seeking the Lord for guidance. Should the authors keep silent? What was duty? Should not the actual subject matter be given attention? Is it the Lord’s will that they accept condemnation without consideration?

They decided to explore sixteen specific charges in a 70-page response. They respectfully submitted that there is no question but that they had used Ellen G. White statements honestly, reasonably, and in harmony with her expressed intent. “The more research is continued, the more completely is this vindication evident in statements hitherto unknown.”

When the authors’ “An Answer” became available in October 1958 to anyone interested, the General Conference suddenly withdrew “A Further Appraisal” from circulation, and it has never been available since.

A church member who had been in correspondence with the General Conference over a period of time wrote to the officers and pointed out their untenable position. He addressed his letter to the Secretary but also sent copies to two other General Conference personnel and to the manuscript authors. The authors set forth their convictions to this member, with copies to the same brethren. In this letter of October 24, 1958, the following paragraph had to set out their stand:

“We are therefore faced today with making our position clear. It is this. For eight years we have made every endeavor to respect the positions of our brethren in the General Conference. When we requested individuals not to reproduce the manuscript, it was because of this respect and deference. We have never desired to enter into controversy with the General Conference or to appeal the discussion to the church at large. We do not relish even the thought of controversy. But God forbid, that out of respect or deference to certain leaders or their leadership, we should deny truth. Actually we do not believe a very large segment of the General Conference is even acquainted with the manuscript ‘1888 Re-examined,’ hence ‘Appraisal’ represents the reply of a very small group of men. Nonetheless it is issued under the name of the General Conference and must be accepted as such. For this we are very sorry, but thus history is being made. As the record will show, our brethren have had repeated requests over the past eight years to face up to the issue, all of which has been to no avail. We can therefore no longer endeavor to shield our brethren in this matter, come what may.”

This paragraph the brethren received with grave concern. They considered it to be a “declaration of war.” Consequently they called for another meeting for November 17, 1958. The next day after the meeting the authors sent a letter of summary to the committee, lest they leave any misunderstanding.

November 18, 1958. This letter of summary is (Exhibit 22). The issues of eight years are still pending, and concern a correct theological understanding. Meanwhile, church members continue to wonder why the General Conference persistently repudiate the manuscript.

November 18, Letter No. 2. The content of “Appraisal” continues to be under discussion. Again the authors point out that thoughtful readers will sense that the official attitude toward the manuscript is untenable and will bring embarrassment to the General Conference. They are concerned that the brethren not break down leadership credibility with the laity (Exhibit 23).

January 21, 1959. As the time for return to Africa drew near, the authors sent a further statement to the General Conference which assured them that they would refrain from agitation and “resign the whole matter to the disposition of Providence” (Exhibit 24).

January 22, 1959. Transportation back to Africa was approved, and the Southern African Division was so informed. The General Conference expressed confdence that “these matters” were now in the past and “permanent good will accrue to the cause” if no further discussions take place and if the authors keep quiet about their convictions (Exhibit 25). The officers were pleased for they understood the phrase “the disposition of Providence” to mean exclusive General Conference control. The authors understood that it could conceivably mean more than that, but time must tell. How can we be sure which way the Holy Spirit may choose to lead?

May 1, 1959. Both missionaries were back to their assignments in Kenya by the month of June. The East African Union Committee later voted the one who had been in Uganda to be president of the field in Central Kenya, and returned the other worker to continue as manager of the East African Publishing House. “1888” was in the Lord’s hands now, and the authors could devote their full attention to African matters.

But peace was not to come so easily. Upon their arrival in East Africa they found a letter from the General Conference president (Exhibit 26). This was perhaps the first specifically expressed concern from the highest officer of the church. He saw a problem in the free circulation of the manuscript in whole or in part “to create issues.” The president requested a letter to “give definite instructions that you do not authorize any one to circulate the manuscript or quote from it, and that you have left the matter in the hands of the General Conference brethren.”

How could the authors respond honestly? Conscientious, loyal church members were concerned, for they saw the obvious import of seventy years of history since 1888. Further, they saw what the inspired agent of the gift of prophecy had said in her available writings about the 1888 history. Lay members who loved the church, and were loyal to it through and through, recognized truth. But they were sadly convinced there were agencies in the General Confeerence that suppressed and denied it.

In the months of correspondence that were to follow, the president, in writing to us, made frequent reference to Ellen White’s counsel regarding brethren of experience” in Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 293: “The only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment…” Many times the authors re-read and pondered the entire testimony to “Brother D” (pp. 289-297).

The crucial question was, Who are the “brethren of experience”? Are they exclusively General Conference personnel, as the president insisted? Or could they include other experienced, thoughtful, consecrated ministers and laity?

Elder W. A. Spicer had encouraged the authors in the beginning, and since then scores, yes hundreds, of “experienced” people in all walks of Adventist life had endorsed the basic thesis of the manuscript, some of them professors in Potomac University (the seminary). Where was the truth?

Again, the date of Ellen White’s testimony to “Brother D” was 1884. If Ellen White had applied that particular counsel to silence Jones and Waggoner four years later, they would have been crushed, for “in a great degree” the General Conference “brethren of experience” had condemned their message.

Someone had written,

“The man who once so wisely said,
‘Be sure you’re right, then go ahead,’
Could well have added this, to wit,
‘Be sure you’re wrong before you quit.’”

The authors felt driven to study and re-study the evidence, seeking a humble spirit to respect the counsel of the church’s highest officers while also praying for the grace of guidance from the “Wonderful Counselor.”