Some 700 pages had by now been published in attempts to deny the need of
denominational repentance for 1888. Another 700 pages came in 1971, Movement of
Destiny, by L. E. Froom. According to the author, “no volume in our history has ever had
such magnificent pre-publication support” (p. 8). When first published, 1500 copies were
sent out as gifts to church leaders around the world. The acclaim accorded it make it
obviously the most authoritative word on 1888:
Initiated and commissioned by former General Conference president A. G.
Daniells back in 1930, as the search went on it was approved by five General
Conference presidents in succession, and many consultants.... It was read
critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars-specialists in denominational
history and Adventist theology. By experts in the Spirit of prophecy. By key
Bible teachers, editors, mass communication men, scientists, physicians (p. 8).
Thus it is evident that Movement of Destiny represents the summum bonum
pronouncement of the General Conference and responsible church leadership on the issue
of 1888. The author assures his readers of his utmost fidelity in response to A. G. Daniells’
charge,
with special emphasis upon the developments of “1888” and its sequel. He
urged that I set forth the results in a comprehensive portrayal—one that
would honor God and exalt truth, ... both complete and forthright, and
documented for serious worldwide worker study.... Daniells admonished me to
be fair and faithful to fact, comprehensive and impartial in treatment, and to
present the full picture in balance ... [and] avoid any superficial type of
treatment.... A true and trustworthy picture was imperative. Truth, he insisted,
is never honored by shading or shielding.... Plumb the depths, ... record
faithfully (p. 17, 18).
Other “veteran leaders” urged him
to answer certain puzzling questions ... And above all to be faithful to fact
and unswerving in fidelity to the full truth, ... to get to the bottom of the fads, to
reveal the resultant findings, and to be candid and undeviating in my
presentations (p. 22).
Movement of Destiny represents a vast amount of labor, written by the most prestigious
historical scholar in the church. He was blessed by God with many rich talents. His
monumental volumes on the history of prophetic interpretation and conditionalism are
awesome contributions to the literature of the Adventist movement. However, according to
at least one reviewer, his last book is not “dependable history” (Seminary Studies, Andrews
University, January 1972, p. 121).
There are serious problems:
(a) It takes the opposite view of the 1888 history from that of Daniells’ book, Christ Our
Righteousness, and yet it was Daniells who commissioned it. The contrast is readily seen in
the two following excerpts:
The epochal Minneapolis Session stands out like a mountain peak,
towering above all other sessions in uniqueness and importance. It was a
distinct turning point.... It introduced a new epoch.... 1888 therefore came to
mark the beginning of a new note and new day.... 1888 was not a point of
defeat but a turn in the tide for ultimate victory.... The 1888 ... battle [was] hard
fought and the victory dearly won (Froom, pp. 187, 191).
The message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free
course as it should have been in order to convey to the church the measureless
blessings that were wrapped within it.... Back of the opposition is revealed the
shrewd plotting of that master mind of evil, the enemy of all righteousness, ... to
neutralize the message.... How terrible must be the results of any victory of his
in defeating it (Daniells, pp. 47, 53, 54).
(b) No one has been able to see any of Froom’s collected “affidavits” supposedly
attesting leadership acceptance of the message, for to date they are still unavailable for
study. Our author tells us that they were provided by the “actual participants in the 1888
Minneapolis Conference,” “recitals [that] have been held in trust since 1930,” “signed
declarations, written out in the spring of 1930” (pp. 8, 237, 238).
But in the two chapters featuring these “affirmations” (pp. 237-268), not once is the
reader permitted to see even one of them. And three “eyewitness” reports that are in
existence are not quoted. They contradict his thesis. Thus we are told on the authority of
invisible witnesses that the 1888 message was accepted by the church leadership, while
three visible eyewitnesses say the opposite. (We, will cite them in a moment.)
The “affirmations” were provided by “some twenty-six able and representative men
and women who were actual participants, observers, or recorders at the crucial
Minneapolis Session of ‘88” (p. 239). Of the total number provided, only 13 were by
persons actually in attendance, so that there could only be 13 “eyewitnesses.” Careful count
indicates that 64 references are made to these 26 persons and their letters or interviews.
One is mentioned 14 times.
But the inscrutable mystery is why the author, after making such impressive claims,
does not allow them to speak. With one exception, not a single sentence is quoted from any
of the entire 64 references, eyewitnesses or otherwise.
Reason demands that testimonies said to prove so much be made visible in support of
the claim. Froom states categorically in his italics, “There was no denomination-wide, or
leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted” (p. 256). And then we are left without a
single sentence from any one of them that supports that statement.
There is not a court or jury in the free world that would accept this kind of inference
without evidence. And when supposed evidence so obviously contradicts the testimony of
Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventist church members should very earnestly demand that
they be permitted to see such evidence.
One of the 26 letters referred to (p. 248) had always existed in the White Estate files.
The five- page letter written by C. C. McReynolds (1853-1937) entitled “Experiences While
at the General Conference in Minneapolis, Minn. in 1888” is indexed as “D File 189.” The
letter closes with these two sentences:
I am sorry for anyone at the Conference in Minneapolis in 1888 who does
not recognize that there was opposition and rejection of the message that the
Lord sent to His people at that time. It is not too late yet to repent and receive a
great blessing.
R. T. Nash’s “Eyewitness Report of the 1888 General Conference” is also available.
Likewise, it presents evidence in rather straight-forward language:
The writer of this tract, then a young man, was present at that conference
meeting [1888], and saw and heard many of the various things that were done
and said in opposition to the message then presented.... When Christ was lifted
up as the only hope of the church, and of all men, the speakers met a united
opposition from nearly all the senior ministers. They tried to put a stop to this
teaching by Elders Waggoner and Jones. They wanted the discussion of this
subject to cease.
A third “eyewitness” report is also in the Ellen White Vault, written by A. T. Jones: “All
the time in the General Conference Committee and amongst others there was a secret
antagonism always carried on, and which ... finally gained the day in the denomination, and
gave to the Minneapolis spirit and contention and men the supremacy” (Letter to Claude
Holmes, May 12, 1921).
None of these eyewitness statements found its way into Movement of Destiny. Instead,
the reader is constantly assured that invisible “affidavits” say the opposite.
The “Peerless Witness”
(c) Froom devotes two chapters to the idea that Ellen White stands supreme in
assessing 1888 (pp. 443-464). Her writings “particularly since 1888” should settle “for
every reasonable mind” questions concerning this history (p. 444, emphasis original). This
is eminently true. But in eleven pages devoted to her witness (443-453) there is not one
quotation from her pen to support his premise.
(d) In the next chapter (pp. 454-464) is a list of over 200 items taken from her writings
of 1888- 1901, which he says “forms the undergirding for the over-all presentation of this
volume” (p. 456). But careful reading of the “titles” year by year yields a surprise. They
have no specific connection with captions of published articles, but are solely the
comments of the author to suit his thesis.
(e) Beginning on page 221 and continuing for 12 pages, there is an array of isolated
words and phrases from Ellen White, again with no source given. Over 100 fragmentary
words or phrases and half-sentences leave out vital meaningful portions, omitting
contextual information which would give quite a different meaning and would nullify the
“victory” theory. Words and phrases from her Minneapolis sermons are surrounded and
smothered with the author’s interjections, leaving Ellen White’s real message indiscernible.
(f) Of the “hundreds of priceless source documents” said to have been obtained from an
array of sterling contributors, not one is used to support the thesis. And yet the book
contains 700 pages.
(g) Even if the “affidavits” were available (which they are not), to cite the opinions of
sincere brethren who say they thought that the 1888 message was accepted does not prove
that it was. A century of history indicates that the latter rain was not accepted, in spite of
these supposed claims that it was. But Froom and the other authors cited would pit
uninspired observers against the inspired testimony of one who exercised the gift of
prophecy. Even a thousand uninspired “acceptance” testimonials can not successfully
negate one inspired testimony from the Lord’s messenger.
(h) As with Olson’s book, Froom exonerates the ministers and the post-1888
leadership and blames the laity for delaying the finishing of the gospel commission: “The
Holy Spirit—ready, willing, and able—could not do His allotted work because of the
unpreparedness of the membership” (p. 582). “What now remains is entrance of His people
into full provision of God for the finishing of the Great Commission” (p. 613).
In fact, what now remains is a leadership acceptance of the message, for it was
leadership rejection of the message of the loud cry, says Ellen White, that was the initial
cause of the long delay (cf. 1 SM 234, 235).
(i) The reader is told that she “rejoiced in the growing acceptance” of the 1888 message
(p. 605), and that “the nineties were marked by a succession of powerful revivals,” and
“tremendous gains” (p. 264). We must look at an interesting example of the contrast
between what she actually said and Froom’s portrayal of the post-1888 General Conference
leadership.
He rightly says that “the leading post-1888 mold on the Movement was, of course,
largely given by the incoming General Conference president. We must consequently look
chiefly to him for determinative evidence.” In other words, the attitude of Elder O. A. Olsen
as General Conference president will “chiefly” determine the truth of the message being
accepted or rejected by the church leadership. This is true. We continue with Froom:
Now, the record of [O. A.] Olsen’s spiritual leadership is clear and loyal....
Olsen seemed to sense the spiritual bearings of the question at issue, and gave
quiet but effective leadership to their solution....
The years of Olsen’s administration saw a real revival and reformation, ... a
time of awakening from Laodicean self-satisfaction ... through the growing
acceptance of the message of Righteousness by Faith....
So it cannot, with any show of right, be said that Olsen personally rejected
or subdued the message of Righteousness by Faith, or led or aided or abetted in
such a direction....
Clearly, Olsen did not reject the message (pp. 354-358).
Froom offers no Ellen White evidence to support these statements. The reader merely
assumes that such emphatic statements are backed up somewhere by inspired evidence.
Such is totally lacking in his book, the reason being that such does not exist in her writings.
This is something that the “sixty of our ablest scholars” who endorsed the book did not
notice.
Ellen White’s View of the Post-1888 Leadership
We must now consider in contrast what Ellen White said in retrospect, eight years after
president Olsen took office:
I feel very sorry for Brother Olsen.... He has not acted upon the light given.
The case is a mysterious one.... Notwithstanding the light which has been
placed before him for years in regard to this matter, he has ventured on,
directly contrary to the light which the Lord has been giving him. All this
confuses his spiritual discernment, and places him in a relation to the general
interest, and wholesome, healthy advancement of the work, as an unfaithful
watchman. He is pursuing a course which is detrimental to his spiritual
discernment, and he is leading other minds to view matters in a perverted
light. He has given unmistakable evidence that he does not regard the
testimonies which the Lord has seen fit to give His people, as worthy of respect,
or as of sufficient weight to influence his course of action (Letter, August 27,
1896, to A. O. Tait).
Froom’s contradiction of her is alarming, especially in light of the official support that
his book enjoys. Ellen White’s context is crystal clear:
I am distressed beyond any words my pen can trace. Unmistakably Elder
Olsen has acted as did Aaron, in regard to these men who have been opposed to
the work of God ever since the Minneapolis meeting. They have not repented of
their course of action in resisting light and evidence....
The disease at the heart of the work poisons the blood, and thus the disease
is communicated to the bodies they [General Conference leadership] visit (
ibid.).
Ellen White did not go behind Elder Olsen’s back; she had earlier written him the same
things on November 26, 1894. Again she wrote him on May 31, 1896:
I have communications which have been written for one and two years, but
I have felt that for your sake they ought to be withheld until some one could
stand by your side who could clearly distinguish Bible principles from
principles of human manufacture, and who, with sharp discernment could
separate the strangely perverted, human imaginations, which have been
working for years, from things of divine origin....
Brother Olsen, you speak of my return to America. For three years I stood
in Battle Geek as a witness for the truth [1888-1891]. Those who then refused
to receive the testimony given me by God for them, and rejected the evidences
attending these testimonies, would not be benefited should I return....
To a large degree the General Conference Association has lost its sacred
character, because some connected with it have not changed their sentiments
in any particular since the Conference held at Minneapolis....
I have been shown that the people at large do not know that the heart of
the work is being diseased and corrupted at Battle Creek.
Ellen White later wrote to I. H. Evans saying that her only regret was that she had
entrusted vital communications to president Olsen instead of sending out testimonies to
the field that the people themselves might know what was going on in Battle Creek. Elder
Olsen had “rejected” the trust placed with him, according to the autographed copy of the
letter in the White Estate file (Letter E51, 1897). In another autographed carbon copy in a
private collection, she crossed out the word “rejected” and wrote in her own handwriting,
“neglected.” What was the mysterious reason that motivated this continued official
resistance/neglect of the Holy Spirit?
It will be recalled that Froom sets forth the high ethical standard he was to follow,
mandated by Daniells. His book was to be “one that would honor God and exalt truth” (p.
17):
Regrettable Ploy of Reconstructed History.—History has sometimes been
reconstructed by attempted selectivity—that is, by using out of context or
intent such citations as suit an objective— in an attempt to sustain a particular
assumption or theory. But such a practice is neither ethical nor honest.... As
men of integrity, we must have no part in such manipulation of historical
episodes. Servants of the God of truth must ever use quotations, evidence, and
lines of argument in such a way as to honor Truth and its Author (pp. 364,
365).
This of course is beyond dispute. Nothing is gained by expressing criticism of Dr.
Froom’s work. But we can all learn a lesson in contrition. Multitudes of Christians in
popular churches place undue reliance on preconceived judgments that cannot endure the
test of truth. How can we Seventh-day Adventists help them unless we ourselves are loyal
to truth, even at the cost of personal sacrifice or reputation?
1972
Dr. Froom had charged the authors of this manuscript to retract publicly their
insistence that the leadership rejected the 1888 message. His demand was openly
recognized as directed specifically to these present authors (Seminary Studies, Andrews
University, January, 1972, p. 121). It reads as follows:
An explicit confession is due the Church today by promulgators of a
misleading charge, first of all against the names of the post-1888 leadership,
now all sleeping. Moreover, it is likewise due those in the Church today who
have been confused and misled by such an allegation. In the ultimate, then, it
actually constitutes an impeachment of the dead. That is a gravely serious
matter (p. 358).
The authors were duty-bound to respond to such an official demand from Adventism’s
most noted scholar, especially when endorsed by the General Conference officers. In late
1972 they prepared their essay entitled, “An Explicit Confession ... Due the Church. “ They
reiterated their conviction that the facts of our history constitute a clarion call to corporate
and denominational repentance. Copies were personally delivered to General Conference
officers, who urged that it not be published, and called a series of special committee
hearings in Takoma Park to consider the evidence, which meetings took place over a period
of several years. The officers and the committees considered the Ellen White evidence and
were impressed by it, but again urged that Explicit Confession not be published. Then after
suppressing Explicit Confession they republished Movement of Destiny with no change in its
basic thesis.
Two significant developments in particular grew out of this aroused interest in the
1888 history.
1973-1974
For two years following these special committees, the Annual Councils issued very
serious appeals to the world church, calling for revival, reformation, and repentance. There
was an unusual earnestness and solemnity evident in them. However, candor requires us to
recognize that the results have been disappointing.
Committee appeals have seldom been effective in producing revival or reformation
among either the ministry or the laity, because administrative policy can never effect
reconciliation with Christ. However, in these Annual Council appeals there was a serious
misreading of the fads of our denominational history, which logically defeated the
objectives of the appeals. The problem appears on the surface to be minor, but it is
significant. We quote from the 1973 Appeal:
In the four years following the historic Minneapolis General Conference,
the fresh, compelling emphasis on “righteousness by faith” had aroused the
Adventist Church in such a way that Ellen White could say that the “loud cry”
had begun! (emphasis added).
The error here is not one of semantics. Ellen White never said that the 1888 message
“aroused the Adventist Church.” She said the opposite: “Satan succeeded in shutting away
from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy Spirit” (1 SM 234, 235).
The message was never allowed to arouse the church.
But that is not the most serious problem of logic in this Appeal. There is a failure to
identify correctly what was the “loud cry.” We mention this, not to find fault with sincere
and earnest endeavors, but because the hour is too late to afford the same error again.
The “beginning” of the latter rain and the loud cry was not a subjective revival that
supposedly “aroused the Adventist Church;” it was the objective message itself. This is
evident even in the Ellen White statement quoted in the Appeal:
The loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the
righteousness of Christ, the sin-pardoning Redeemer. This is the beginning of
the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth. (RH November 22,
1892; emphasis added).
Why this is so important can be readily seen:
(a) If the beginning of the loud cry was the “arousal” of the church, its dying out so soon
becomes very bad news. It implies that a genuine revival is more elusive than a cure for
cancer, and that when the Holy Spirit is allowed to work (as is supposed in the 1890's), He
Himself gets tired and abandons the revival. Why should an “aroused church fail to give the
loud cry and finish the Lord’s commission?
(b) But if the “beginning” of the loud cry is faithfully recognized for what it was in fact,
the 1888 message itself, immediately we have hope, for we can recover and proclaim the
objective message as it is recorded in the existent sources. The power of the Holy Spirit is
manifested in “the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2: 14; Romans 1:16).
However, the Annual Councils of 1973 and 1974 did nothing practical and effective to
recover and promulgate the 1888 message itself. Rather, they inadvertently ensured that
the vacuum would be filled with an infusion of Calvinist “Reformationism.” The 1888
message has never been freely and clearly proclaimed to the world church with full General
Conference support.
The second outgrowth of this 1973-74 interest in 1888 was in consequence of the
misunderstanding evident above. Recognizing that the church needs “righteousness by
faith,” the General Conference convened the Palmdale Conference in 1976 where certain
theologians dominated the discussions and demanded support for their “Reformationist,”
Calvinist views of “justification by faith.”
They claimed that their views were a true revival of the 1888 message content, when in
fact they were a denial of every basic essential of that “most precious message.” But their
prominence in Australia and North America gave them wide influence throughout the
world field. The general ignorance of the 1888 essentials plus an antipathy for “legalism”
created the vacuum into which these “Reformationist” ideas rushed.
Time soon demonstrated how these views are incompatible with the Adventist truth of
the cleansing of the sanctuary. If the General Conference and our publishing houses had
appreciated the unique content of the 1888 message itself and faithfully published and
upheld it, these views could never have taken deep root in North America, Europe, Africa,
the Far East, and the South Pacific. Misreading the history of the 1890’s resulted in
repeating that history, with even more tragic consequences. We can document the loss of
hundreds of ministers, and no one knows how many laity and youth.
There is a root from which these Calvinist views of righteousness by faith can be
traced: the General Conference and White Estate insistence for decades that the 1888
message was only a re- emphasis of popular Protestant views. Our theologians in the
1970’s were only building on a foundation laid for them beginning in the 1920’s.
1984
Yet another publication was to deal with 1888, the biography of Ellen White, The
Lonely Years, 1876-1891, by Arthur L. White. Elder White’s contribution to the Seventh-day
Adventist Church is beyond an adequate estimate. During a long and distinguished career
he has been an agent of the Lord in building confidence in the world-wide church in the
Spirit of Prophecy. As the grandson of Ellen White he enjoys a unique distinction as the
foremost authority on her writings. He is respected world-wide.
In three chapters of this volume he discusses the 1888 history. But first “certain points
of background and developments should be considered” (p. 394). Then follow 14 points,
some of which probe to the foundation of our denominational mission (pp. 394-397). We
will note briefly a few miscellaneous points from this section of the book:
“(1) The subject of righteousness by faith ... was but one of many pressing matters that
called for attention of the delegates.” Point (10) continues: “It would seem that
disproportionate emphasis has come to be given to the experience of the Minneapolis
General Conference session. “We would inquire: What is the true eschatalogical significance
of the 1888 message? Is not the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry the one matter
of paramount importance?
“(4) While the business of the conference ... was broad and significant, the feelings and
attitudes of those present were molded by the theological discussions.” Need we point out
that in this lies the significance of the session then, and its abiding importance for the
church now? Unless our “theological discussions” are sound, our business administration
cannot accomplish the gospel commission and cannot be blessed.
“(6) Information concerning just what took place at Minneapolis ... has come largely
from the E. G. White documents and the memory statements of a few who were present.”
Our present dilemma as a people stems from a failure to give due weight to that inspired
perspective communicated through her ministry, and a disproportionate reliance on the
uninspired opinions of others.
“(7) No official action was taken in regard to the theological questions discussed.” Thus
the oft- repeated statement implies that no actual responsible rejection took place. As we
have previously noted, such votes were taken “with uplifted hand” (GCB 1893, pp.
244,265)—but not recorded solely due to Ellen White’s veto.
We note the next statement in full:
(8) The concept that the General Conference, and thus the denomination,
rejected the message of righteousness by faith in 1888 is without foundation
and was not projected until forty years after the Minneapolis meeting, and
thirteen years after Ellen White’s death. Contemporary records yield no
suggestion of denominational rejection. There is no E. G. White statement
anywhere that says this was so. The concept of such rejection has been put
forward by individuals, none of whom where present at Minneapolis, and in the
face of the witness of responsible men who were there (p. 396).
Objective evidence indicates that:
(a) The real issue is the acceptance or rejection of the latter rain and the loud cry, not
the Protestant “doctrine” that the 1888 rejectors professed to believe.
(b) Ellen White herself at Minneapolis said the message was being rejected by “the
ministers generally who have come to this meeting;” they “have come to this meeting to
discard light;” “opposition ... is the order of the day” (Letter B21, 1888; Mss. 9, 15, 1888).
(c) The 1893 Bulletin contains a number of statements of “contemporaries” who
confessed that the message had been rejected and was being resisted still by the
responsible leadership of the church—this was a mere four years later. No one raised his
voice at the 1893 session to protest that the message had been accepted or was being
accepted. The 1901 Bulletin contains similar statements.
But this is not all. The latest edition of Testimonies to Ministers has an addition that
previous editions lacked—an “Historical Foreword” and “Appendix Notes” designed to help
the reader avoid the clear conviction that reading Ellen White’s text brings: “These notes
will aid the reader in ascertaining correctly the intent of the author in the messages here
presented.”
How this works will be seen by an example. On page 468 occurs this clear 1890
statement: “It is the fashion to depart from Christ.... With many the cry of the heart has
been, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ ... Righteousness by the faith of the Son of
God, has been slighted, spoken against, ridiculed, and rejected.” The Appendix note
cautions the reader to be careful. Apparently he should not too readily believe what the
text says: “While some took the attitude here referred to there were many who received the
message and gained a great blessing in their own personal experience” (p. 533). This
directly counters many statements in the text.
This can only breed dismay among thoughtful church members who have a right to
expect literary integrity, for they can read the contradicting evidence for themselves in the
full context of Ellen White’s words.
There is another denial of a straightforward Ellen White statement about the 1888
history. On March 16,1890 she said, “Christ ... has a blessing for us. He had it at Minneapolis,
and He had it for us at the time of the General Conference here [1889]. But there was no
reception” (emphasis added). This statement is made available in Release No. 253, but a
footnote counters it: “The wording of this sentence is clearly faulty for, isolated, it is out of
harmony with what follows and other of her statements relating to the General Conference
of 1889.”
However, the entire document in context clearly supports this statement as it reads.
The context indicates that its wording cannot be faulty. Always the “some” who accepted
were a few of lesser influence, while those who rejected were the “many” of influence.
But the matter does not end here. In 1980, Selected Messages, Book Three, was
published with a 33-page chapter on “The Minneapolis Conference.” Seven pages are again
taken up with additional inserted “Historical Backgrounds.” Although there was a “tragic
setback,” a “gradual change for the better ... ensued in the five or six years after
Minneapolis” (p. 162). Yet Ellen White’s strongest testimonies of reproof for post-1888
unbelief are dated seven or eight years after Minneapolis. (Ellen White’s clear reference to
a negative “vote” taken at Minneapolis is deleted from her Ms. 24,1888 document that
forms the bulk of the chapter; cf. p. 176).
Again we are reminded that we must all seek the Lord’s guidance in our search for vital
truth. It would seem that 1888 presents a problem unique in the long history of God’s
confrontations with His people. There is a precious truth involved therein that seems more
elusive than any in the history of past ages. How else could it be possible that scholars and
leaders who possess the most outstanding opportunities for knowledge in all time should
fail to recognize the obvious evidence? Repentance is incumbent on all of us; we should all
inquire, “Lord, is it I?”
Incidentally, those who are confused about reports of Ellen White’s occasional literary
borrowing would find the true 1888 history helpful in resolving their doubts. Her integrity
and qualifications as an agent of the gift of prophecy are uniquely demonstrated in her role
in that history. Without any human help whatever, she threaded her way unerringly
through the theological pitfalls inherent in that difficult controversy. Her courage in
standing alone against “nearly all the senior ministers” in a General Conference session is
fantastic.
Her extemporaneous sermons were taken down in shorthand and transcribed for us
today. Who else could preach ten sermons without notes in the emotional heat of
theological battle with every word recorded, plus writing scores of extant letters and diary
entries, and stand clear of the slightest embarrassment a hundred years later? There is not
an unfortunate word in any of them. Her enthusiastic endorsement of the message, against
great odds, is miraculously in harmony with the keenest, most competent theology of
today. Never does that little lady stand so tall as in this 1888 history.
1888 An End-Time Test
How can we explain the almost superhuman official efforts since 1950 to contradict the
inspired Ellen White evidence about 1888? Could it be that the enemy of the plan of
salvation has a vested interest in covering up this significant truth? Could it be that
knowing the real truth has a definite bearing on our personal and corporate relationship to
Jesus Christ, and Satan knows this?
Our mishandling of the evidence is more serious than financial fiascoes. Were our
enemies to research this history, we would be embarrassed. Our poor relation to truth
keeps us in an unrepentant, lukewarm Laodicean state. The simple solution is an honest
faith that includes a belief of truth and an open, contrite recognition of it. The hour is late,
but thank God it is not too late for a new spirit of fidelity.
We have been told that the unfallen universe is watching. The honor of the Lord
Himself is at stake. We know that someday there must be a people in whose “mouth [is]
found no guile” (Revelation 14:5).
To consider “righteousness by faith” as merely the Protestant doctrine is to miss the
point. Yet this has been the constant official approach to 1888. An example of far-reaching
spiritual blindness is a quotation from A. W. Spalding (Origin and History, Vol. 2, p. 281).
Note how this position contradicts the heart of the 1888 message itself:
Justification by faith, the foundation truth of salvation through Christ, is
the most difficult of all truths to keep in the experience of the Christian. It is
easy of profession, but elusive in application (quoted in The Lonely Years, p.
415).
No one who understands the 1888 message could possibly express such a thought, for
it contradicts our Lord’s words that His “yoke is easy, and [His] burden is light” (Matthew
11:30). If Spalding’s statement is in any way true, we face a terrible problem. The message
of “justification by faith ... is the third angel’s message in verity” (RH April 1, 1890). So we
have the awesome task of proclaiming to the world “the most difficult of all truths,” the
most “elusive in application’‘—bad news! Yet the third angel’s message is first of all “the
everlasting gospel,” good news which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).
It is this distorted understanding of the 1888 message which makes us “modern
ancient Israel.”
“For Our Admonition”
Our history is as much a part of the great sacred record of the battle between truth and
error as is the crossing of the Red Sea by Israel, and their descendants’ stoning of Stephen
many centuries later. The root fads of our last century’s history are now beginning to filter
through to the world-wide church. The question now is, Will we accept our history, or will
we also “stone Stephen”?
After a century of delay, it is time to see how the cause of God is imperiled. We have
already witnessed the first-fruit of the 1888 rejection in the “alpha” pantheistic crisis of the
early 1900's. Now we are in the time when the “omega” is due. The “alpha” was “received
even by men who ... had long experience in the truth, ... those whom we thought sound in
the faith” (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p. 37). “The omega will follow, and will be
received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given” (No. 2, p. 50).
The great controversy continues and the dragon is wroth with the “woman” and will spare
no efforts to win.
We were told in the “alpha” days that the truth would be discarded; books of a new
order would be written; a system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced; the
Sabbath would be lightly regarded; the leaders would concede that virtue is better than
vice, but they would place their dependence on human power (cf. Series B, No. 2, pp. 54,
55).
We see these words fulfilled today.
“Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it” (Psalm 127:1). He
has told us, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the
Lord” (Isaiah 55:8). The beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry was not Madison
Avenue strategy and demographics; it was a clear understanding of good news, an actual
message itself, something which every believer however humble could employ efficiently.
Inherent in that beautiful, heart-appealing “good news” message is the experience of
the final atonement. The blood of Christ is to purge the conscience from dead works. The
message is not merely to prepare a people for death, but for translation, and the power is in
the objective message itself. Billions of dollars spent on the latest electronic and graphics
communications will never lighten the earth with glory until “the light of the angel whose
glory shall fill the whole earth” is wholeheartedly, humbly received and appreciated.
The Lord’s method of true and lasting church growth is simplicity itself. Note how a
true message of righteousness by faith will be the “light” that will do the work:
We shall all come together to that oneness in our faith and in our
knowledge of the Son of God; we shall become mature people, reaching to the
very height of Christ’s full stature. Then we shall no longer be children, carried
by the waves and blown about by every shifting wind of the teaching of
deceitful men, who lead others into error by the tricks they invent. Instead, by
speaking the truth in a spirit of love [agape], we must grow up in every way to
Christ, who is the head. Under his control all the different parts of the body fit
together, and the whole body is held together by every joint with which it is
provided. So when each separate part works as it should, the whole body grows
and builds itself up through love [agape] (Ephesians 4:14-16, TEV).
Meanwhile, good angels are commissioned to restrain the terrible winds of strife that
will someday soon break loose. They are straining their powers to hold back the impending
ruin that comes with drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual immorality and infidelity, crime,
idolatrous materialism, corruption, and fearful pestilences. The most important work in the
world is the work of that angel who seals the servants of God preparatory to the coming of
Christ (Revelation 7:14). What little time of peace and prosperity we still have left is
borrowed time, ours only for finishing His work. And world stability depends on the fidelity
of God’s people to the truth, to their message and their mission.
Something must happen in the end-time that has never happened before. Millenniums
of defeat must be reversed. This is the only way the cleansing of the sanctuary can be
completed. Daniel’s prophecy declares that it “shall” be done (8:14). The Lord will purify
His church so that it may give the last message to lighten the earth.
God’s work can be finished in an incredibly short time. But it will require the
repentance of the ages, an understanding of truth for which, in our imagined prosperity
and success, we have not felt a hunger and thirst. It will require the correction of
theological confusion and a humbling of hearts. It will require the abandonment of worldly
policies and their man-made strategies. It will produce a true and lasting unity and
harmony among believers. Discordant “pluralism” will vanish. Every species of legalism
will die. Fanaticism will discredit itself and die away.
Finally, the ultimate experience awaiting the church is like that which Jesus went
through at Gethsemane. Only His very own will be willing to accept it, but He has staked the
honor of His throne on His confidence that they will.
Facing the cross is what Peter would not accept, until he was converted. He denied his
Lord; only a similar modern denial of Christ can account for the supreme self-centered
motivation that continually expresses the concern that “I get to heaven.” It was heaven that
Christ forsook with no assurance that He would ever return—so that sin and death might
be eradicated from the universe. True faith in Him is not centered on our receiving a
reward.
Now the last, the seventh church, is on the scene, and we are surely in the last moments
that can be allotted to her. There is no eighth.
When His people gladly accept all the truth that He has for them, they will fulfill the
same role that Christ filled when He was on earth. That “short period of three years was as
long as the world could endure the presence of the Redeemer” (DA 541).
When the power of Satan is broken among the Lord’s people, the unbelieving world
will not be able longer to endure their presence. They will have demonstrated true
righteousness by faith, that closer intimacy with the world’s Saviour that He still offers as
He continues knocking at our door.
How much longer will He knock?