This study will focus on the most important five years in the history of Adventism. During this time we were closer to the gates of heaven than at any time before or since. We were closer to a national Sunday law than we are today. The image of the beast was forming piece by piece, as Christian reform groups were forming. The United States was in a major recession/depression, banks were closing, and it was spreading throughout the world. These five years were between 1888 and 1893, over 120 years ago.
We have inspired confirmation of how important those years were in these words written in 1898. "Had the purpose of God been carried out by His people in giving the message of mercy to the world, Christ would have come to the earth, and the saints would ere this have received their welcome into the city of God." (Australasian Record, Oct. 15, 1898)
In this study we are going to break down this five year period. It is my hope, that if we can learn its lessons, the gates of heaven will open to us. I will be very specific and direct in this presentation, and will name the individuals who play a part in this most important five year period in the history of Adventism.
1888--The Beginning
At the 1893 General Conference W. W. Prescott identified the beginning point of this crucial period.
"How long has it been since God in a special manner began to send this light and this instruction and this reproof for you and me? Reckon it up. Four years. It is the fourth year since Minneapolis, and going on the fifth....God has waited and sent reproof, and waited and sent reproof--four years." (General Conference Daily Bulletin, Feb. 2, 1893, pp. 104,105)
A. T. Jones tied this time to the beginning of the latter rain. "Well then, the latter rain--the loud cry--...is 'the teaching of righteousness.'...Now brethren, when did that message of the righteousness of Christ, begin with us as a people?...Yes, four. Where was it? What then did the brethren reject at Minneapolis?...The loud cry--the latter rain....I know that some there accepted it; others rejected it entirely....Others tried to stand halfway between....They thought to take a middle course, and although they did not exactly receive it, or exactly commit themselves to it, yet they were willing to go whichever way the tide turned at the last; whichever way the body turned they were willing to go....Instead of standing nobly, in the fear of God, and declaring in the face of that attack, 'it is the truth of God, and I believe it in my soul,' they would begin to yield and in an apologetic way, offer excuses for those who were preaching it....Brethren, the truth of God needs no apology....All that the truth of God needs is that you and I shall believe it,...and stand by it in the face of all the attacks that can be made upon it; and let it be known that you do stand by the messengers whom God sends to preach,...because God sends them with a message." (General Conference Daily Bulletin, February 7, 1893, pp. 183-185) So many today are trying to take a safe middle course, apologizing for the mistakes of those who are putting their necks on the line for truth. Fence-sitting is very dangerous because the devil owns the fence!
We need to keep in mind the attitudes prevalent in 1888. Meade MacGuire relates G. B. Starr's remembrance of these events in a letter. "The basement under a large building was rented and a number of delegates roomed there at night. A large curtain was hung across the room and Eld. Starr and wife slept in one end, while four or five ministers occupied the other end. One night Eld. Jones had given a powerful discourse, which Eld. Starr and wife appreciated very much. They came to their room deeply impressed and after prayer went to bed. After a while the men came to their apartment, talking and laughing, and rather ridiculing Eld. Jones' statements. One of the men, Eld. C., called Eld. Jones by some unfavorable name...but it shocked the Starrs....The next morning Sister White spoke....She said an angel took her from room to room. Anyway, she finally pointed her finger at Eld. C. and said, 'Eld. C. I am ashamed of you, to call one who is giving a message from the Lord, by such a name.' It was the name that Eld. Starr had heard the man use the night before." (Meade MacGuire to L. E. Froom, Sept. 7, 1961)
In a letter written in 1893, Ellen White confirmed this recollection. "I was led from room to room occupied by our brethren at that meeting, and heard that of which everyone will one day be terribly ashamed, if it is not until the judgment, when every work will appear in its true light....In the rooms...there was a Witness to every remark made, the ungodly jest, the satire, the sarcasm, the wit; the Lord God of heaven was displeased with you, and with everyone who shared in the merriment, and in the hard, unimpressible spirit. An influence was exerted that was Satanic. Some souls will be lost in consequence." (1888 Materials, pp. 1138,1139)
Obviously there was a very serious attitude problem in 1888, which was perhaps the most important failing at that meeting. We need to learn the lesson that ridiculing accomplishes nothing. We need to listen with a Christlike spirit to all serious points of view.
This spirit didn't die out in the 1890's. In 1945 Norval Pease said about Jones, "In 1893 he was pointed, vehement, almost vitriolic in his utterances. Just a few months after the General Conference session, Jones received a letter from Mrs. White warning him in a very kindly manner against the danger of extreme statements." (By Faith Alone, pp. 157,158)
In 1926 A. G. Daniells looked back 38 years to Minneapolis. "How sad, how deeply regrettable, it is that this message of righteousness in Christ should, at the time of its coming, have met with such opposition on the part of earnest, well-meaning men in the cause of God! The message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course as it should had been in order to convey to the church the measureless blessings that were wrapped within it." (Christ Our Righteousness, p. 47) This analysis repudiates the idea of some that by 1900 most had accepted the 1888 message.
In 1937 Taylor Bunch wrote, "Just before the end the Advent people will review their past history and see it in a new light....We must acknowledge and confess the mistakes of our fathers and see to it that we do not repeat them and thus further delay the final triumph of the Advent Movement. The history of the past must be reviewed and studied in the light of these mistakes and their consequences in a long delay of the coming of Christ." (The Exodus and Advent Movement in Type and Antitype, p. 168) In spite of this appeal, a number of leading men made major efforts to deny that there was a rejection of the 1888 message. Following are some samples of authors who denied such a rejection.
A. T. Robinson, "Did the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination Reject the Doctrine of Righteousness by Faith?" Jan. 30, 1931; C. McReynolds, "Experience While at the General Conference in Minneapolis, Minn. in 1888" 1931 (Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis 1888, pp. 333-342)
Norval Pease, By Faith Alone, 1962; L. H. Christian, The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts, 1947; A W. Spalding, Captains of the Host, 1949; General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, The Story of Our Church, 1956; A. V. Olson, Through Crisis to Victory 1888-1901, 1966
Leroy Froom, Movement of Destiny, 1971; Desmond Ford, "The Doctrinal Decline of Dr. E. J. Waggoner: Its Relationship to the Omega Apostasy" 1970s; Bert Haloviak, "Ellen White and A. T. Jones at Ottawa, 1889: Diverging Paths from Minneapolis" 1981; Arthur White, Ellen White: The Lonely Years, 1984; George Knight, From 1888 to Apostasy: The Case of A. T. Jones, 1987
Those who have suggested that there has been an ongoing rejection of the 1888 message have been portrayed as negative and critical, trying to derail the marvelous progress of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 20th century.
The confusion about whether we accepted or rejected the message is best explained in a letter Waggoner wrote in 1903. "While, after much opposition, the denomination had officially accepted the advance truth of the message, they had not taken it in practically. They took it in as one of the things that 'we as a people believe,' but not as a thing by which to conduct business, teach the sciences, etc.
They did not see in the light that the Lord sent, a principle that was to solve every problem, and reorganize, or rather, organize, put life into it, the entire work." (E. J. Waggoner, to A. G. Daniells, July 24, 1903)
At the 1901 General Conference W. W. Prescott said, "Where do we stand now with reference to this message? How far has that truth been received--not simply assented to, but actually received?--Not far, I tell you. How far has the ministry of this denomination been baptized into that Spirit?--Not far, I tell you. For the past thirteen years this light has been rejected and turned against by many, and they are rejecting it and turning from it today." (General Conference Bulletin, April 18, 1901, p. 321) We have accepted righteousness by faith as a doctrine of the church, but how much has it changed our practical lives? Are we more compassionate now? Are we less judgmental? Are we more courteous?
Are we more faithful to God's Word? We have officially said "Yes," but as we will see, we continue to deny the message and denigrate the messengers.
1901 and Reorganization
In 1901 the General Conference was considering major organizational changes. W. W. Prescott spoke to these changes. "The change that is needed is a complete change of heart. When a complete change of heart comes to God's ministry, the power that is in that will sweep away all these extraneous things....It is not in this outward form and plan of operation. That is all right, it ought to be changed; but if our minds are resting upon that, the work will not be accomplished that way." (General Conference Bulletin, April 18, 1901, pp. 321,322)
Prescott's concern about outward organizational changes being made without a heart change should be well noted. Although such changes would be beneficial to the church for years to come, they would not answer the underlying conditions which were holding back the promises of God. We have always found it easier to substitute organizational changes for heart surrender.
Although Ellen White fully supported the organizational changes that were made in 1901, notice what she said in December of that year, in what had to be one of the most heartbreaking predictions she ever had to make. "We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel, but for Christ's sake, His people should not add sin to sin by charging God with the consequence of their own wrong course of action." (10 MR 277,278)
Remember that she was planning to be translated before 1900, but now she realized that she would have to die along with the pioneers before her. We are discussing these issues today as a direct fulfillment of this prediction, and instead of confessing our responsibility for the delay, we are charging God with the delay whenever we say that Jesus will come at His own predetermined time.
In 1902, Ellen White wrote to the General Conference Committee, "But the work that all heaven was waiting to do as soon as men prepared the way, was not done; for the leaders in the work closed and bolted the door against the Spirit's entrance. There was a stopping short of entire surrender to God.
Hearts that might have been purified from error were strengthened in wrong doing. The doors were barred against the heavenly current that would have swept away all evil. Men left their sins unconfessed. They built themselves up in their wrong doing, and said to the Spirit of God, 'Go thy way for this time; when I have a more convenient season, I will call for thee.' The Lord calls for the close selfexamination to be made now, that was not made at the last General Conference. (Kress Collection, p.95)
In 1903 Ellen White wrote to a friend, "The result of the last General Conference has been the greatest, the most terrible sorrow of my life. No change was made. The spirit that should have been brought into the whole work as the result of that meeting was not brought in." (13 MR 122,123) Clearly, organizational changes which are still a blessing for us today were not really what God was looking for, and what would have allowed Jesus to come to that generation. For us today, all that really matters is entire surrender, hearts purified, sins confessed, and close self-examination if this generation has any hope to see Jesus return.
In 1902 the Review and Herald office burned to the ground. A short time after the fire had destroyed the office building, an article by Ellen White was printed in the Review "in which it was plainly stated that the destruction of the Sanitarium and the Review Office by fire was a visitation from God on account of the persistent departure from His ways, and the failure to act upon the warning and instruction which had been given for many years through the spirit of prophecy." (Editorial note, May 19, 1903)
Ellen White pled with those in Battle Creek who had "resisted light and evidence, refusing to listen to God's warnings," that they would see in the "destruction of the Review and Herald Office an appeal to them from God to turn to Him with full purpose of heart." (RH Jan. 27, 1903) Yet, a short time after the 1903 General Conference session, at a "meeting of the stockholders of the Review and Herald, the statement was reiterated before a public audience that these fires were not the judgments of God."
(Editorial note, May 19, 1903) Our leaders were in denial then just as we continue to be in denial today.
God was doing everything He could to shock the remnant church to repentance so that Christ's coming would not have to be delayed for one hundred years. How many warnings will it take for us to get serious about God's purpose for us?
Warnings and Appeals
Of course, all these warnings and judgments were for the purpose of bringing us to genuine repentance.
A. T. Jones made this point at the 1893 General Conference. He said that the latter rain and the loud cry would only be given when they were "of one heart and mind." Therefore he said, "If there are any differences at all between you and any of the people on this earth--whether they are at this institute or not--it is time for you and me to get them out of the way." (General Conference Bulletin, Feb. 6, 1893, p. 165)
O. A. Olson, the General Conference president, spoke at the same conference. "It is sin that is in the way of God's blessings. The sin must be removed before God's Spirit can come in. It don't care where it is, not who it is, whether you have been a minister for a score of years, or whether you are the sinner just being awakened to the first sense of guilt. Sin is sin everywhere; and it is sin that must be taken away before God can come in....But if we fail at one time, the Lord will take us over the ground again; and if we fail a third time, the Lord will take us over the same ground again. Why is He thus taking us over the ground again and again?...It is that we may lay hold of His grace and overcome." (General Conference Bulletin, Feb. 8,1893, p. 188)
Is there any doubt that God is taking us over the same ground again, hoping that some generation will surrender in genuine lasting repentance?
W. W. Prescott spoke to the same conference. "Now I am perfectly aware that I am speaking with great plainness, and I do not speak this without thought and prayer....I say that it is time for us to be zealous and repent that God's special outpouring of His Spirit may come upon us without destroying us. If we don't make this matter a matter of earnest prayer, I say it simply means death to you and to me....We cannot come to this assembly, this institute and Conference and go day after day in an easy-going manner. It is time for every one to be trembling in earnest for his own soul's salvation....I tell you, we might come and go here, week in and week out, year in and year out, and yet not meet the mind of God concerning this time." (General Conference Bulletin, Jan. 31, 1893, pp. 65-67)
Ellen White wrote in 1895, "How long will you hate and despise the messengers of God's righteousness?
God has given them His message. They bear the word of the Lord....But there are those who despised the men and the message they bore. They have taunted them with being fanatics, extremists, and enthusiasts. Let me prophesy unto you: Unless you speedily humble your hearts before God, and confess your sins which are many, you will, when it is too late, see that you have been fighting against God....You will see that these men whom you have spoken against have been as signs in the world, as witnesses for God. Then you would give the whole world if you could redeem the past....Go on a little longer as you have gone in rejection of the light from heaven, and you are lost....If you reject Christ's delegated messengers, you reject Christ....Despise this glorious offer of justification through the blood of Christ and sanctification through the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, and there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation." (1888 Materials, pp. 1341,1342)
No stronger warning could have been given from the Lord. No clearer statement could have been made that Jones and Waggoner were sent by God to give a translation-fitting-up message. Unfortunately, we are facing the same opposition to that message today.
Opposition to Ellen White
As a result of Ellen White's strong reproofs directed at the leaders of the church, it was inevitable that the arrows of criticism would be turned against her. In 1896 M. L. Andreasen, a new convert, was invited to sit in on discussions of some leading men at Union College. "It was only a matter of eight years since the famous 1888 Conference in Minneapolis, and the conference was frequently the subject of discussion....I was astonished at the freedom with which they discussed personalities....A few of the leaders were waiting for the day when there would be a change in the way the church was run....They did not consider the message of Jones and Waggoner to be the real issue. The real issue...was whether Sister White was to be permitted to overrule the men who carried the responsibility of the work. It was an attempt to overthrow the position of the Spirit of Prophecy. And it seemed the men in opposition carried the day....As interpreted by some, the Minneapolis conference was a revolt against Sister White." (Virginia Steinweg, Without Fear or Favor: The Life of M. L. Andreasen, pp. 42-44) This became the real issue. Would Ellen White be allowed to overrule the leading men? Did she have prophetic authority or were her reproofs just her opinions? This seems identical to the way the Jews treated Jeremiah and John the Baptist.
Ellen White recognized what was happening in 1902. "I shall not appear before you again in our general gatherings unless I am impressed by the Spirit of God that I should. The last General Conference that I attended gave you all the evidence that you will ever have in any meeting that shall be convened. If that meeting did not convince you that God is working by His Spirit through His humble servant, it is because the candlestick has been removed out of its place." (18 MR 195,196)
In 1903 she wrote this poignant appeal. "Physically, I have always been as a broken vessel; and yet in my old age the Lord continues to move upon me by His Holy Spirit to write the most important books that have ever come before the churches and the world....The life that He spares I will use to His glory.
And when He may see fit to let me rest, His messages shall be of even more vital force than when the frail instrumentality through whom they were delivered, was living." (8 MR 428)
Today the same challenge faces us. Do we really have a prophetic voice speaking to our consciences, or just an outdated strong-headed woman who wanted to run the church her way?
Present Opposition to Jones and Waggoner
As mentioned earlier, the attacks against Jones and Waggoner and their message are as strong or stronger than during the 1890's. In late November, 1892, a two-part article from Ellen White was published in the Review. "The time of test is just upon us, for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ....This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth." (RH Nov. 22, 1892)
Writing in response to Ellen White's declaration, O. A. Tait reported, "The message is rising, brethren and sisters, and the last week's Review informs us in no uncertain language that the 'loud cry' is already begun. We are told, also, in recent testimonies, that the Holy Spirit 'awaits our demand and reception.'
Who cannot see that the latter rain is about to be poured out upon us in great measure? Are we ready to receive it? (Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1892)
This was very logical. There is no way that the loud cry can do its work without the Holy Spirit's power in the latter rain. Both must function together. But listen to this attempt to discredit this obvious conclusion.
George Knight asks the question, "Is there in Ellen White's writings...a strong connection between righteousness by faith and final events? No!...Some of Ellen White's interpreters with an interest in the 1888 message, influenced by the presentations of the misled Jones and Prescott...have developed emphases not present in her writings but quite in harmony with their own agenda." (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, pp. 164,165) "It is true that A. T. Jones did read a great deal into the loud cry statement, but that does not mean he was correct." (Angry Saints, p. 59) "Ellen White did not say that the latter rain had begun with the preaching of Christ's righteousness at Minneapolis. She plainly said it was the loud cry. Such men as Jones, Prescott, and G. B. Starr drew the latter rain conclusion."
(Angry Saints, pp. 126-128) I guess that we are not to assume that this was the only logical conclusion possible! Knight continues, "Several preachers, including A. T. Jones, G. B. Starr, and W. W. Prescott, transformed her claim in November 1892 that the loud cry had begun....We must emphasize again that neither Jones nor Prescott were entirely reliable guides in matters of the Holy Spirit by the time of the 1893 meetings." (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, pp. 112, 128)
Another attack on Jones is based on a mistake he made by endorsing some supposed visions by Anna Rice. When Ellen White reproved him for doing this, he read her reproof in church and said, "I am wrong." Again, this mistake is portrayed by George Knight as evidence that Jones was untrustworthy.
Scattered throughout his many books on the history of 1888 are allusions to the Anna Rice incident, but with few or distorted details. The purpose of using this episode is, of course, to discredit Jones. Knight summarizes this incident: "Adventists can be thankful that Jones did not receive a free hand at the 1893 session [by being allowed to read Anna Rice's letter], since by that time he was not a totally reliable guide. His 'latter rain revival' might have led Adventism down strange paths indeed, and it could have changed the nature of the Seventh-day Adventist Church by moving it closer to the then-developing Pentecostalism." (A User-Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message, p. 127)
Often when A. T. Jones is mentioned in modern times, it is only with a passing derogatory comment, thanks in part to years of depicting him negatively by some Adventist historians. George Knight has made these charges for more than twenty-five years, claiming that the 1892-1893 revival movement was based on fanatical excitement. "It was Jones and Prescott, rather than Mrs. White, who built the 1893 excitement into grand proportions....The ever-excitable Jones was not altogether a safe leader in 1893....We should never forget that he had the perennial problem of extremism." (From 1888 to Apostasy, pp. 100,101)
Perhaps it is relevant to note here that George Knight is the same person who believes that Eve sinned before eating the forbidden fruit. He has been described by his supporters as a revisionist historian. He has described our denomination's origins in fanatical Adventism.
The 1893 General Conference
Of all the tactics Satan used to derail the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry, his inciting of those in responsible positions to identify the 1892 week of prayer and the 1893 General Conference session revivals as merely the results of fanatical excitement, extremism, and fanaticism brought his devilish plans the most success. Identifying the work of the Holy Spirit with fanaticism at Minneapolis in 1888 had brought four years of struggle, conflict, rebellion, and delay. Now the call for Laodicean repentance had been visited with manifestations of the Holy Spirit, especially during 1892 and 1893. To respond to such manifestations with the same accusations of excitement, extremism, and fanaticism would prove detrimental to God's remnant movement. Uriah Smith, J. H. Kellogg, and many others leveled such charges against the revivals.
In 1894 Ellen White gave a strong warning to those doing just what we have reviewed. "Let not those who have neglected to receive light and truth take advantage of the mistake of their brethren, and put forth their finger, and speak words of vanity, because the chosen of God have been too ardent in their ideas, and have carried certain matters in too strong a manner. We have need of these ardent elements; for our work is not a passive work; our work is aggressive....The chosen agents of God would have been rejoiced to link up with the men who held aloof from them, questioning, criticizing, and opposing....But if the men who should have used their experience in furthering the work, have labored to hinder it, and mistakes have occurred that would not have occurred if they had stood in their allotted place, whom will God hold accountable for these late errors? He will hold the very men accountable who should have been gathering light and united with the faithful watchmen in these days of peril. But where were they?--They were holding themselves in the position of those who were non-receivers of the light for themselves, and intercepting the light that God would send to others." (1888 Materials, pp. 1246-1248)
Thus the blame was laid at the feet of those who had been fighting against the truth for so long, who otherwise would have been able to benefit Jones and Prescott with their past experience. Notice the phrases she used to describe the messengers--"chosen of God," "faithful watchmen." The only ones attacking Jones and Waggoner in the early 1890's were those who consistently opposed the 1888 message, and the only ones attacking them today are those who have consistently opposed the same message.
Now we must examine the 1893 General Conference carefully. I will admit that I have always had a negative impression of this conference because of the allegations made by our historians. It is very important to take a second look when prejudice rears its head.
This report was printed in the Review following the second Sabbath of the meetings. "As the climax was reached, and the blessed results of Christ's work for us were pictured before us, the sermon [by Jones] ceased, and the vast congregation, crowding every available space in the Tabernacle, involuntarily resolved itself into a praise meeting. The ministers scattered through the congregation to the number of thirty or forty, rose up and took charge of groups in their respective localities, and hundreds of testimonies of praise to God for His goodness and salvation were borne all over the house. It was such a meeting as has never been seen before in Battle Creek." (Editorial note, Feb. 28, 1893) Following is a letter by O. A. Olsen, the General Conference president: "The Spirit of the Lord wrought marvelously, and the convicting and converting power of God was manifested in a wonderful measure."
For Olsen the most interesting and the most memorable case of all was the confession of J. H. Morrison.
"I have listened to many confessions, but this I must say, that I never listened to one like his. While it was cool and deliberate, as is the nature of his temperament, it was a most thorough-going, and most deep in its work, that I have ever witnessed. And I never saw any congregation so affected by a confession as on this occasion." Morrison was one of the most vocal opponents of Jones and Waggoner in 1888. "The institute and the Conference from first to last was a most remarkable season. I never before attended a meeting anywhere like it. The Lord's presence seemed to be realized in a very large measure. And at different times the power of God rested down upon the people in a very marked manner. Everything passed off with remarkable harmony and unity....I think I never attended a Conference where there seemed to be such perfect freedom, no human restraint, yet I never saw any meeting where every speaker seemed to have such regard for the feelings and sentiments of others....On leaving, the brethren all felt greatly encouraged, and never have delegates left any of our Conferences with the same feeling and spirit with which they left the one just past." (Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, pp. 242,243)
W. W. Prescott wrote to Ellen White, "The Lord came very near by His Spirit during our Conference, and we feel that great good was accomplished for all whose hearts were open to receive the light and blessing from God." Prescott stated that he had "never known the laborers to go forth with such a degree of hope in the Lord." (March 23, 1893) This hardly sounds like fanaticism and extremism.
O. A. Olsen said that "it had been the best meeting over which he had ever presided." (General Conference Bulletin, March 7, 1893, p. 493) W. A. Spicer said it "was the greatest meeting that has been held." (Spicer to W. C. White, March 24, 1893) C. H. Jones affirmed that the "Conference was the best meeting I ever attended, without any exception....As we studied the Bible, rays of light shone in upon the sacred page, and many souls were made to rejoice in the Lord." (Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis, p. 248)
Ellen White declared that she had "found a rich feast in reading" the daily sermons. (1888 Materials, p.1184) Years later, she was "instructed to use those discourses," specifically of A. T. Jones, "printed in the General Conference Bulletins of 1893 and 1897." (9 MR 278) Does this really sound like Jones was vehement, vitriolic, and extreme?
In an 1893 letter, Ellen White addressed the genuineness of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the 1893 General Conference. "All the revelations of God at the Conference, I acknowledge as from Him. I dare not say that work was excitement, and unwarranted enthusiasm. No, no. God drew near to you, and His Holy Spirit revealed to you that He had a heaven full of blessings, even light to lighten the world."
(10 MR 346) Yet, "in the minds of many there was left a feeling of contempt, an impression that they might have been deceived, that they were too ardent....It is even questioned whether it was the work of God, or a wave of fanaticism. And O how Satan exults!" (E. G. White Estate Shelf Documents, No. 249a, pp. 3-7)
Writing to Uriah Smith a short time later, who himself had been instrumental in laying the charge of fanaticism against the 1892-1893 revivals, Ellen White strictly cautioned him from taking such a stance: "That which was light from heaven has been called excitement. I have been made sad to have this matter viewed in this light. We must be very careful not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in pronouncing the ministration of His Holy Spirit a species of fanaticism....God had wrought in a marked manner" and no one should "venture to say this is not the Spirit of God." Ellen White explained to Smith that Satan had led many to fall to temptation, that he "could make his suggestions to many minds, that the light sent from heaven was only fanaticism, excitement....They will call light darkness, and darkness will be chosen rather than light....I have been afraid, terribly afraid that those who felt the bright beams of the Sun of righteousness--for I have not one doubt but that they did receive the Holy Spirit--will come to the conclusion that God's heaven-sent blessings are a delusion." (1888 Materials, pp. 1210-1213) In 1894 she wrote, "He who charges the work of God to undue excitement, and calls it fanaticism, is certainly standing on dangerous ground....They are sinning against the Holy Ghost; and as a result of their resistance, they place themselves where they cannot recognize the Spirit of God." (RH Feb. 13, 1894) Ellen White warned those who might question the good work of the Holy Spirit in Battle Creek over the past year and attribute it to fanaticism. (RH Feb. 6, 1894) "I know that the Lord has wrought by His own power in Battle Creek. Let no one attempt to deny this; for in so doing they will sin against the Holy Ghost." (1888 Materials, pp. 1254,1255)
It is crystal clear that Ellen White supported the genuine revival of the Holy Spirit during 1893, in decided contrast to the prejudice of critics, then and now.
During the ministerial meetings before the 1893 General Conference, S. N. Haskell made the obvious connection between the loud cry and the latter rain. "This is the outpouring of the Spirit of God. It is the loud cry of the third angel's message." (General Conference Bulletin, Feb. 5, 1893, p. 136) A. T.
Jones added, "Prayers are ascending daily....Now the day is going to come when the last prayer that will be necessary to bring that blessing will have ascended. Then what? It will come. The flood will burst, and out will pour the Holy Spirit [like] the day of Pentecost." (General Conference Bulletin, Feb. 5, 1893, p. 149)
1893 was an all-out attempt to see the fulfillment of the latter rain promises to propel the loud cry to all the world. G. C. Tenney reported to those in Australia and New Zealand that "it was the wonderful manifestation of God's blessing manifested from the first and increasing in power to the close. Never has it been our privilege to attend such meetings as these. The Comforter came to convince of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." Tenney reported that the Bible studies by Haskell, Jones, and Prescott brought out "much light on the sacred Word," and the reception of that light "increased the joy in the hearts of those uniting in the study....With deep humility wrong feelings were confessed, and hearts that had been somewhat estranged were drawn together and united in the closest of bonds." Tenney could now unapologetically state, "We have reached the time of the latter rain, and the time when the Lord says to His people, 'Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.'" (The Bible Echo, May 1, 1893, p. 152)
None of this sounds remotely like extremism or fanaticism, but like the beginning of the fulfillment of the final prophetic predictions. With this in mind, let us review Ellen White's clear 1898 statement in DA 633,634. "Had the church of Christ done her appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would before this have been warned, and the Lord Jesus would have come to our earth in power and great glory."
Conclusion
So my conclusion is quite simple. The five year period between 1888 and 1893 marked the highest point in the 150 year history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We were closer then to the gates of heaven than at any time before or since. The latter rain/loud cry experience almost happened, with the inevitable fulfillment of predictions of the Sunday law, the close of probation, and the seven last plagues.
So what happened? Why are we still here? 1893 was followed by opposition, criticism, disunity, and very quickly slipping back into Laodicean apathy, doing the best we could, which will never be good enough. The following century brought compromise and outright disobedience in our medical work, in our educational institutions, and in our publishing work. Halfway through the century we reached out to evangelical Christians to gain respectability, and we compromised the most basic foundation of the Christian faith--the gospel. A few years later we were questioning the sanctuary truth, and our unique understanding of how end-time events would vindicate God in the great controversy struggle.
When some began to recognize what had really happened between 1888 and 1893 and urged a careful restudy of the translation-preparation message of that time, full-blown opposition and character assassination of the men of that time came from our leading historians and theologians in books, campmeeting presentations and seminars, putting us back into the Laodicean sleep-mode.
Now we are reduced to proclaiming loudly our growth in the Southern Hemisphere, praying for revival, and watching what the pope is doing, while doing our best to ignore the messages that were to prepare us to receive the latter rain in 1893.
If we have any hope of seeing the gates of heaven open to us any time soon, we must humble our hearts and receive those messages into our hearts, no matter what ridicule and rejection we will face. May God give us the courage to be the last generation to live under Satan's plan to ruin this planet and our lives.
[This presentation was adapted from very thorough research done by Ron Duffield in his landmark book, Wounded In the House of His Friends. It is available from Amazon Books and Orion Publishing.]
Heresy is often less destructive than disunity. Disunity can do what heresy cannot. Disunity does not necessarily require false doctrine. Only a little intemperance of spirit. Disunity, for the devil, can be better than heresy. We were told in 9T 221, "If Christians were to act in concert, moving forward as one, under the direction of one Power, for the accomplishment of one purpose, they would move the world." Much of what we remember of the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference session is a history lesson on what happens when personal vindication—administrative, theological, or otherwise— triumphs over meek submission to counsel. It is not so much false doctrine the devil needs as disunity. The great tragedy of 1888 is the disunity that fractured God's purpose for His people to move forward as one to the soon coming of Jesus. But the greater tragedy is that we have failed to learn from this experience. We are continuing in disunity with no serious attempt to change.
Recent Reflections
On October 10, 2013, the Adventist Review published a special edition reflecting on the messages that came to Adventism through Elders Jones and Waggoner. A very thoughtful and accurate analysis of these messages was presented by Bill and Shawn Brace.
Nearly 125 years ago Ellen White...boldly proclaimed, "One interest will prevail, one subject will swallow up every other—Christ our righteousness." (RH 12-23- 1890) This was Ellen White's singular focus....This is why, when she heard that same message proclaimed by two young upstart preachers, Alonzo T. Jones and Ellet J. Waggoner, she recounted that "every fiber of my heart said, Amen." (1888 Materials, p. 349) What they heralded she called a "most precious message." (Ibid, p. 1336)...In fact, she proposed, it was the "loud cry" of Revelation 18 that was to "lighten the whole earth with its glory." (Ibid. p. 1575)...
"This message," she wrote, "was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Savior, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world....It invited people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God." (RH 3-11-1890)...Waggoner declared that one of the "most encouraging things in the Bible" was to realize that "Christ took on Him the nature of man" in its sinful condition. (Christ and His Righteousness, p. 61)...
Ellen White passionately highlighted a critical component of this message: "There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more earnestly, repeated more frequent- ly, or established more firmly in the minds of all, than the impossibility of fallen man meriting anything by his own best good works." (1888 Materials, p. 811)... Souls were invited to receive by faith Christ's righteousness—both its imputed And imparted aspects....White, Jones, and Waggoner appreciated the ability of the gospel...to change one's heart and save him or her from sin, not in sin....
"The Lord has raised up Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner," Ellen White declared..."to proclaim a message to the world to prepare a people to stand in the day of God." (1888 Materials, p. 1814)...Waggoner and Jones both grasped this, with the former writing in 1890, "And so we find when Christ cover us with the robe of His own righteousness, He does not furnish a cloak for sin but takes the sin away. And this shows that the forgiveness of sins is something more than a mere form, something more than a mere entry in the books of record in heaven.... And if [a person] is cleared from guilt, is justified, made righteous, he has certain- ly undergone a radical change." Indeed, "the new heart is a heart that loves righteousness and hates sin." (Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 65, 66)..."When the Lord comes there will be a company who will be found 'complete in him.' (ST 12-28-1888)...
Their message...was a much fuller explanation of the gospel than existed both within and without Adventism. This message has still not been given the fullest expression it deserves.
Now keep these points in mind as we summarize another article in the same issue, written by Woodrow W. Whidden. Waggoner "died in 1916, leaving behind a distressing personal and theological legacy....Waggoner's teaching came to involve extremely mystical and excessively subjective interpretations. He adopted an explicit 'post-Fall' view of the humanity of Christ in early 1889....His adoption of the mystical view of the atonement led him to understand justification as a subjectively 'effective' experience. A believer is declared justified because the mystically indwelling Christ makes them truly righteous in character. This is similar to the Roman Catholic view....Waggoner's heretical and morally compromising theology issued from this decline into subjectivity. He came to an extreme view of perfection."
Another article in the same issue was written by Alberto Timm. "Correcting the assumption that 'Christ's nature is precisely our nature,'...White...warned,...'Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.'" (5BC p. 1128) Of course this statement is being used widely today to prove that Christ did not take our fallen nature, but was exempt from parts of it. This is another clear point of opposition to the 1888 message.
These articles moved me to write a letter to the Adventist Review.
The recent issue on the 1888 period and message was very puzzling. In one article the authors stated correctly that Jones and Waggoner taught the post-fall nature of Christ, the effective nature of justification (justification = making righteous), and the reality of character perfection before the second coming. The article stated that this was "a much fuller explanation of the gospel," and appealed to "all to proclaim this powerful message that has been ordained to 'lighten the whole earth with its glory'"
Two other articles stated that the post-fall nature of Christ, the effective nature of justification, and character perfection were "extremely mystical" as well as "heretical and morally compromising theology," which led Jones and Waggoner into apostasy.
What exactly do the editors of the Adventist Review want us to understand? Is the 1888 message crucial to the latter rain/loud cry aspect of what we have always called "finishing the work"? Or is the 1888 message a heretical teaching which will lead us into legalism and apostasy?
I find it strange and distressing that our official church magazine would present these opposite views as if they were simply differences of opinion over which we might flip a coin to decide. These issues are critical to understanding the mission and message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
And so the disunity continues to this day, with opposite view on the gospel being presented in churches, schools, and even in the same issue of the Adventist Review. It is a simple reality that Christ cannot return until the loud cry has done its work in giving the final warning to the world. In turn, the loud cry can never come until the Lord's people receive from Him the loud cry message, both in theory and in actual living experience.
A Brief History
Tragically, the sins of our fathers have become our sins. When they rejected that light, they took a stand which they taught to their children and their children's children. In this way their sin has become our sin because we have not corrected their teaching. Consequently, we are participants in their rejection of that message back then.
Over 60 years ago two Seventh-day Adventist ministers, Elder R. J. Wieland and Elder D. K. Short approached the leaders in the General Conference and presented to them the plea that they turn to the study of the message sent by God in 1888 and make it fully available to the people.
The General Conference officers responded in a letter (December 4, 1951) to this appeal. "Throughout your manuscript it is evident that you feel the denomination should rectify certain things pertaining to 1888....The following extracts are quoted from your manuscript: 'Every failure of God's people to follow the light shining upon their pathway for the past century must be completely rectified by the present generation before the remnant church can be granted any divine vindication before the world.'" (p. 2)
"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 bygone generation.... We have no need to go back to 1888; those days are past, decades in the past....We need to think in terms of today." (p. 9)
Present Results
Following is an ongoing legacy of our refusal to understand and teach the message which was designed to prepare us for the seal of God and ultimate translation.
In the April 17, 2014 issue of the Adventist Review was a column written by Cliff Goldstein.
The person I was 35 years ago would not recognize the person I am today. But not totally. Clinging fiercely, some of the old me remains, as close as breath. And if I were to live another 35 years, or another 135 years, it's hard to see all of this being purged. If every speck of sin, self, and character defect must be gone in this life in order for me to have life in the next, then however good the news, it's just not good enough for me.
I know the Ellen White quotes. I know the Bible texts....If they mean that before I die I have to have a character as selfless, as loving, and as giving as Jesus; if they mean that I must have perfect motives in all I do; if they mean that I must never harbor a wrong, covetous, or evil thought; and if they mean that before I die every trace of self and sinfulness must be purged from me, then my end is assured: "the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."...
How interesting that Ellen White wrote to John Harvey Kellogg: "I have a most earnest desire that you shall enter the city of God, not as a culprit barely pardoned, but as a conqueror." (8T 125) I long to enter the city of God as a conqueror. I really do. But as "a culprit barely pardoned"? I'll take it, for even that's more than I deserve.
Here we have a perfect example of placing inspired statements in contrast with personal experience, and allowing personal experience to trump some inconvenient truths from God's spokespersons. Following are just two inconvenient truths of many that could be listed. "The truth of God...removes from us every imperfection and sin, of whatever nature." (2T 356) "Before (Christ) shall come, everything that is imperfect in us will have been seen and put away." (3SM 427)
A subsequent letter to the editor put it this way. "The 'Truth' is Jesus, and not man. Jesus tells me I can be perfect. Jesus tells me I can live without sin....'How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?' (Rom. 6:1,2) Ellen White writes,...'Almost but not wholly saved means to be not almost but wholly lost.' (1SM 399) And here's what it says in 1 Corinthians 2:14: 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.'" But another letter writer said, "I identify with Goldstein's words because they resonate with my own experience." Once again, personal experience seems to be the final authority, superseding inconvenient truths.
A thought question in a Sabbath School Bible Study Guide went like this. "Many well-meaning individuals stress the need for us to attain 'perfection.'...Unfortunately, those who embrace this doctrine not only promote self-sufficiency as a key to salvation, but they also ignore the reality of sinful human nature....How, then, can we be careful that while seeking to live godly, faithful lives, we do not get caught up in any theology that puts the hope of our salvation in anything other than the righteousness of Christ covering us?" Two tragic conclusions are drawn in this thought question. First, those who believe that what God promises He will produce, actually promote self-sufficiency and deny Christ's righteousness. Second, sinful human nature is ultimately stronger than God's promises and His power.
In the October 10, 2013 issue of the Adventist Review, Angel Manuel Rodriguez wrote "Theology of the Last Generation."
The theology of the last generation was developed and popularized in the Adven- tist Church by M. L. Andreasen (The Sanctuary Service). Andreasen was build- ing on insights from A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner. This theology introduced a strong element of legalism in some sectors of the church by claiming that the character of God, maligned by Satan in the cosmic conflict, will be vindicated through the holy and perfect life of obedience of the last generation of believers. ...Once this happens, the Lord will return....It is based primarily on a particular reading of the writings of Ellen G. White....In the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White the cosmic vindication of God is the exclusive result of the sacrificial death of Christ....Christian perfection is a constant growth in grace accompanied by a constant reliance on God's forgiving grace....We will perfectly reproduce the character of Christ in our lives through growth in grace and by absolutely relying every day in Christ's forgiving grace.
First, this is a direct attack on Waggoner and Jones as well as Andreasen, stating that their theology produces legalism. Second, he refers to "a particular reading" of Ellen White's writings. It would have been much more accurate if he would have said, "a straightforward reading of very clear statements" in her writings. Third, he claims that the vindication of God exclusively refers to the death of Christ. But what about RH April 16, 1901: "All heaven is waiting to hear us vindicate God's law"? Clearly some aspect of God's vindication will be seen in the final generation. Fourth, he states twice that we will always need forgiving grace. What happens when forgiving grace ends for all eternity when Christ steps out of the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary and closes human probation?
In the August 2014 issue of Ministry Norman R. Gulley stated, "God does not ask us to be preoccupied with our own perfection but with His." This sentence makes perfection very distasteful by the words "preoccupied" and "our own perfection." If perfection means anything at all, it is the ultimate gift of God's grace to weak and helpless human beings.
A letter writer, in the October 17 issue of the Adventist Review, made this point. "Regarding the article by Andrew Kerbs, 'A Memorial to Salvation: Do Works Matter?':
I came from reading the article with the perception that works do matter, but because they do not save, they do not matter that much when it comes to salvation....Ellen White writes, 'Our good works alone will not save any of us, but we cannot be saved without good works.' (God' s Amazing Grace, p. 309) If we cannot be saved without good works, they must matter very much to our salvation. Kerbs writes, 'The Lord saved them not by works,but by faith in the blood of the Passover Lamb.' If they had not killed the lamb, put the blood on the doorposts and stayed in the house, works all done in answer to belief and faith in the God who had instructed them, salvation would not have been theirs. The author continues, 'We live holy, consecrated lives not so that we may be saved, but because we are saved!' It might be better said, 'We can live holy, consecrated lives and will do good works,because we are saved!' Works, good works, ...are the result of living, walking, and working according to the faith we have in the One who is the source of our salvation." In the referenced article, we have another example of placing works in opposition to faith, instead of making it very clear that true faith always works, because the works are the fruit of the Holy Spirit controlling the life. This point was constantly stressed in the 1888 message.
The disunity, seen so tragically in the 1888 period, is still very much alive among us because we have refused to deal honestly with the 1888 message rejection. We are repeating their history and further delaying Christ's return. "O, Lord Jesus, How Long?"
Practical Issues
In the January 16, 2014 issue of the Adventist Review, Andy Nash wrote a very perceptive and important column.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight....For they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel." (Isa. 5:20-24) The people who do the most damage to the kingdom of God aren't sinners themselves. They're the people who tell sinners that what they're doing isn't really sin. These people are particularly dangerous when they reside within the community of faith itself. On the pretense of being the most loving, they are, in actuality, the least loving....There is no one more un- loving than those who encourage others—by word or by silence—to travel down the path of sin.
In Isaiah's day, as in ours, that's what was happening. In a weak-kneed bow to popular culture, some in the community of faith were calling "evil good and good evil."..."But the dangers from without," wrote Ellen White, "overwhelming though they seemed, were not so serious as the dangers from within. It was the perversity of his people that brought to the Lord's servant the greatest perplexity and the deepest depression." (PK 305, 306)...If we're struggling with sin, our worst possible enemies are those who call "evil good and good evil," who encour- age us to continue our lives of sin....Our best possible friends are those who call evil evil and good good—who invite us to receive the grace of God, and, as another young Prophet and King once said, to "leave your life of sin."(John 8:11)
Now let's be practical about the gospel and calling evil evil and good good. How does it impact our daily living. Jill Morikone wrote in the Adventist Review, October 17, 2013:
I pondered how often I had surrendered my all to Jesus, little realizing the greater part of my heart was still unconverted, full of undiscovered sins....He'd shown me my heart, bit by bit. First, there was some jealousy stuck over here. Ouch! I hadn't even realized it existed! Thankful, I asked Him to cleanse my heart, to grant me the spirit of contentment. Next, He showed me the bitterness that lurked just beneath the surface....In desperation I turned to Him for forgiveness and peace. Later He showed me where pride had taken root and had already begun reseeding itself with amazing rapidity. In shame I turned to Him for cleansing, for grace, for victory.
True humility is asking God to dig deeply into the part of me that are hidden to me, that I conveniently ignore. This means facing failure and learning from our mistakes. In fact, the humble believers who allow Jesus to confront their toxic (and possibly hidden) motives can best grasp the power of His love. Ellen White writes in SC 64-65, "No deep- seated love for Jesus can dwell in the heart that does not realize its own sinfulness....If we do not see our own moral deformity, it is unmistakable evidence that we have not had a view of the beauty and excellence of Christ."
We are often unaware of the power of our own selfishness. We want to have His help, even when it means that conviction of our hidden motives strikes us like a lightning bolt out of a clear blue sky. If we ignore the power of our own dark motives, then we ignore the power of temptation. A healthy fear of our selfishness can actually empower us. An honest, healthy fear of self-centeredness helps keep Jesus' love a first priority. It's humbling, but it draws me closer to Him.
If we allow the process of identifying our character flaws and turning them over to Christ to continue, then we can have the same experience that Paul had. "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness." (2 Tim. 4:6-8) He saw beyond what others thought was his end. His focus was on an imperishable prize. He was ready to die, and ready for triumph, coronation, and victory. Paul fought, crucified with Christ, yet living; living a miraculous new life in the flesh by faith in the self-sacrificing Son of God. The celebration of the cross is the celebration of victory in that struggle.
"Christians who live in the light of God's countenance are always accompanied by unseen angels, and these holy beings leave behind them a blessing in our homes." (AH 445)
The Final Generation
The five foolish bridesmaids represent the Bible-quoting church member who has not been transformed by the Holy Spirit into a Christ-reflecting exhibit of the power of God, and he is shutting himself out of the kingdom of God. But the five wise bridesmaids are advent-oriented Christians whose lifestyles have become a light to the honest in heart all over this planet. In this parable picture of the last days we learn that God is waiting for the character preparation of a significant number of mature Christians to rightly represent the character of Jesus.
Love in action is the phrase that sums up the lifestyle of the faithful and wise servant who is ready, day and night, with whatever his fellowmen need. "The completeness of Christian character is attained when the impulse to help and bless others springs constantly from within—when the sunshine of heaven fills the heart and is revealed in the countenance." (COL 384)
John the Revelator looked toward that day when faithful and wise latter-day Christians will help to settle the remaining questions in the great controversy once and for all. God has something more to say than words only; He has an exhibit ready. "Here they are," God says, "Take a good look at these people. These are My people. This is the way I have wanted everyone to live. Here they are—those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."
This remnant will have demonstrated that faith such as Jesus had, produces character such as Jesus had. This demonstration completes the vindication of God's character and government and settles the question of His justice and mercy forever. "The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of His people." (DA 671) Some generation of Christians will yet confirm in word and deed the "good news" announced by our Lord— that sin can be overcome, that sinners can be overcomers!
"Just as soon as the people of God are sealed in their foreheads—it is not any seal or mark that can be seen, but a settling into the truth, both intellectually and spiritually, so they cannot be moved—just as soon as God's people are sealed and prepared for the shaking, it will come." (4BC 1161) This "settling into the truth" experience is another way of describing the sealing work wherein the character of the faithful, empowered by the Holy Spirit is brought to that place where God can, without reservation, honor them with His seal of approval.
"Those who are uniting with the world, are receiving the worldly mold, and preparing for the mark of the beast. Those who are distrustful of self, who are humbling themselves before God and purifying their souls by obeying the truth, these are...preparing for the seal of God in their foreheads....Their characters will remain pure and spotless for eternity....The seal of God will never be placed upon the forehead of an impure man or woman. It will never be placed upon the forehead of an ambitious, world-loving man or woman....All who receive the seal must be without spot before God—candidates for heaven." (5T 216) It is very simple. Those who develop the character of Satan will receive his mark or seal, and those who develop the character of Christ will receive the mark or seal of His approval.
The question of Revelation 6:17 will be our question: "For the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" The wrath of God underscores the seriousness of sin. When the Bible speaks of God's wrath, it speaks of it as the absolute hostility of the holy God to every form of evil. It is not an unpredictable flare-up of personal animosity, but God's holy and unquenchable antagonism toward evil.
That Jesus delays His coming, waiting for a quality people to whom He may impart the immeasurable power of the latter rain, is historic Adventist theology. E. J. Waggoner, speaking at the 1897 General Conference, said: "But God has left the vindication of His character to His children. He has, as it were, risked His character with men....The time when we are judged is the time when God is judged. At that time all the dealings of God with His creatures will come up before the universe....The Lord still waits for us. He... bears with us because He has His character at stake. The only way in which He can demonstrate the perfection of His character, and take away His reproach, is in perfecting a people to His praise."
Only those who call Jesus Lord, as well as their Savior, and demonstrate their sincerity by doing what He says, here and now, only they will be safe to translate. They will have proved to the unfallen angels and to other worlds that in them sin would never arise again. They will have shown that stealing, hate and killing, disrespect and selfishness, no matter what form it takes, dishonesty wherever it is seen—these are not ineradicable habits of human nature. God is able!
They will have proven in an undeniable demonstration that "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control" (Gal. 5:22,23) are all possible, here and now. Predictably, unfailingly—a truly glorious vindication of God's decision to wait.
Seventh-day Adventists are a people with a special message for a special time. No other Christian church has had this message in the past and no other church has it today. To be the kind of people God is waiting for is the most exciting challenge ever given to man as well as the most sobering. To share this excitement with others, within and without our church, should be the greatest desire of an authentic Adventist.
We are living in the great antitypical Day of Atonement. The antitypical Yom Kippur was supposed to end a long time ago. As preposterous as it may sound—it is this movement, tiny and insignificant though it may seem, which in part holds the keys to the biggest event ever to take place. In the plan of salvation, God is dependent on the response of human beings and He works with them. This is the true raison d'etre for Adventism. Let's humble ourselves so it can be soon! Let's seek God's presence daily, hourly, always. We have the incredible privilege to be part of God's final mission to Planet Earth.
All Seventh-day Adventists agree that the years between 1888 and 1900 were very significant for the Adventist Church. But the analysis of how they were significant varies widely from interpreter to interpreter. I believe that the whole history of the Adventist Church has been different because of decisions made during this period. Most often we think of righteousness by faith as being the significant issue of these years. and indeed it was, but the real significance went far beyond theological issues to decisions regarding how the work of the church would be carried forward. We today live in a church which has been greatly altered because of the decisions made a hundred years ago.
This is a historical study of a few selected events of the past hundred years in Adventism. It is my hope that as we review some crucial aspects of our history, we will learn the lessons of history so that we can avoid repeating the mistakes that were made by well-meaning individuals. Mistakes made by godly men and women were faithfully recorded in Scripture in the hope that later generations would not repeat their mistakes. It is my hope that we can likewise learn from the mistakes made in Adventist history so that we make better decisions as we prepare for the imminent return of our Lord.
Inspired Analysis
Shortly after the events of 1888, Ellen White reflected on what had happened at Minneapolis. Manuscript 30, 1889, can be found in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials is, pp. 352-381. This was a very difficult time for Ellen White, and she expressed her frustration and disappointment very clearly. “I was passing through the most grievous trial of my life, for from this hour that confidence which I had hitherto had that God was leading and controlling the minds and hearts of my brethren, was not as heretofore. I had felt that when a call came to me, 'We want you at our meeting, Sister White; your influence is needed,' I should not consult my choice or my feelings but would arise by faith and try to act my part and leave the Lord to do the work that was essential to be done. Now a greater burden falls upon me. From this time I must look alone to God, for I dare not rely upon the wisdom of my brethren. I see they do not always take God for their counselor, but look in a large degree to the men they have set before them in the place of God.”
Can we empathize a bit with Ellen White in this experience? Before this time she had agreed to the requests of church leaders rather implicitly regarding where she should speak and work. But now she could no longer accept their decisions quite as easily, because they were following other men instead of God. "I tried at the meeting in Battle Creek (in 1889) to make my position plain, but not a word or response came from the men who should have stood with me. I stated that I stood nearly alone at Minneapolis. I stood alone before them in the conference, for the light that God had seen fit to give me was that they were not moving in the counsel of God. Not one ventured to say, 'I am with you, Sister White. I will stand by you.'"
Can we feel the pain that this messenger of God was feeling during this critical period of Adventism? Perhaps the most important aspect of 1888 was not what Jones and Waggoner did or said, but the attitudes of church leaders to the counsels given through inspiration. Skepticism and doubt always bear a bitter harvest, and the decisions of the next decade were made largely because of the wrong attitudes and spirit of church leaders during this time. "I felt deeply grieved that my brethren who had known me for years and had evidence of the character of my labor should continue to remain in the deception they were in and, rather than confess that they had been mistaken, hold on to the same false impressions as though they were truth."
"Stand out of the way, brethren. Do not interpose yourselves between God and His work. If you have no burden of the message yourselves, then prepare the way for those who have the burden of the message." If only this counsel had been heeded, how many decisions might have been made differently which have affected us to this day. Ellen White.. pinpointed what she saw to be the real problem of 1888. "There is pride of opinion, a stubbornness that shuts the soul away from good and from God. Warnings have been scorned, grace resisted, privileges abused, conviction smothered, and the pride of the human heart strengthened. The result is the same as with the Jews--fatal hardness of heart. It is not safe for the soul to rise up against the messages of God." The real problem of 1888 was human pride and the abuse of authority. Human beings will always make honest mistakes, but when God reproves them and they refuse to change, the resulting rebellion will always seriously damage the cause of God. It was this spirit of rebellion that altered crucial aspects of the work of the Adventist Church, which have never been fully restored in the hundred years following.
About a year later, Ellen White had further counsel for the General Conference delegates. Manuscript 30, 1890 can be found in The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 906--916. "In the fear and love of God I tell those before whom I stand today that there is increased light for us, and that great blessings come with the reception of this light. And when I see my brethren stirred with anger against God's messages and messengers, I think of similar scenes in the life of Christ and the reformers. The reception given to God's servants in past ages is the same as the reception that those today receive through whom God is sending precious rays of light. The leaders of the people today pursue the same course of action that the Jews pursued. They criticize and ply question after question, and refuse to admit evidence, treating the light sent them in the very same way that the Jews treated the light Christ brought them."
"The evil heart of unbelief will make falsehood appear as truth and truth as falsehood, and will adhere to this position, whatever evidence may be produced." Notice that the problem here is not believing error, but refusing to respond to contrary evidence, preferring to hold their own opinions in the face of light sent by God. The problem is always human pride and self-righteousness. "They enter upon a path that leads to the darkness of midnight. They think they are following sound reason, but they are following another leader. They have placed themselves under the control of a power which in their blindness they are wholly ignorant of. They have resisted the only Spirit that could lead them, enlighten them, save them."
"In rejecting the message given at Minneapolis, men committed sin. They have committed far greater sin by retaining for years the same hatred against God's messengers, by rejecting the truth that the Holy Spirit has been urging home." Notice carefully the effects caused by this wrong spirit held by God's leaders. "These rejectors of light cease to recognize light... It has been regarded as darkness and spoken of as fanaticism, as something dangerous, to be shunned. Thus men have become guideposts pointing in the wrong direction." In the years following 1888, pride of opinion and abuse of authority caused leaders of the church to change leaders from Christ to Satan without knowing it. The result of all this was that they pointed the church in the wrong direction. The real problem of 1888 boiled down to pride and authoritarianism.
Of some relevance here is the little book written by A. C. Daniells in 1926, entitled Christ Our Righteousness. Elder Daniells, retired president of the General Conference, was reflecting back to events 38 years in the past. "In 1888 there came to the Seventh-day Adventist Church a very definite awakening message... All these long years they have held a firm conviction, and cherished a fond hope, that someday this message would be given great prominence among us, and that it would do the cleansing, regenerating work in the church which they believed it was sent by the Lord to accomplish... It is difficult to conceive how there could be any misunderstanding or uncertainty regarding the heavenly endorsement of this message... It is evident that the application of this message was not limited to the time of the Minneapolis Conference, but that its application extends to the close of time; and consequently it is of greater significance to the church at the present time than it could have been in 1888. The nearer we approach the great day of God, the more imperative will be the need of the soul cleansing work which that message was sent to do. Surely we have every reason for a new, more wholehearted study and proclamation of that message... It must be expected that the message of Righteousness by Faith, which came so definitely to the church in 1888, will be accorded a dominant place in the closing period of the great movement with which we are connected." (pp. 23-26, emphasis supplied) From Elder Daniells' perspective, the 1888 message had not yet done the work it was intended to do. During the 1890's and 1900's the message had not taken hold. This could only mean that decisions made during that time were not made because of a heartfelt response to that message. We did not make decisions based on that message, but because of opposition to the message. Elder Daniells also voiced the hope that as we near the end of time the 1888 message would have a dominant place -in our study and experience. The soul-cleansing work of this message will be absolutely essential if the remnant church is to complete its work in triumph. We cannot "finish the work" by ignoring or opposing the key points of this message. Just as there was open and hidden opposition to the message during the 1890's, there is the same opposition to the message during the 1990's. It seems that we have a very hard time learning the lessons of history. The rejection of that message then cost the world a hundred more years of suffering. Will we, by our pride of opinion and stubbornness, doom the world to a hundred more years of sin, or will we humble our hearts and let God's message do the work in our hearts today that it could not do a hundred years ago?
Practical Results of Rejection
As with all messages sent by God, acceptance or rejection of those messages has ripple effects far beyond the original message itself. By turning away from the 1888 message, other mistakes were made which are still affecting us today. As we remember that the real problem was pride of opinion and the misuse of authority, it should not surprise us to see animosity and hurt feelings impacting other areas of our work.
It was God's intention that the medical work should be closely connected with the ministerial work. The work of health education and natural treatments was to be the entering wedge of the gospel message, preparing people's hearts to yield to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. God wanted ministers and physicians to work together in small clinics and restaurants throughout the world. But in the years between 1890 and 1900, friction began to develop between medical missionary work and ministerial leadership. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg was the leading medical missionary of that time, with a number of medically trained people associated with him. Gradually he became frustrated with church leaders. He felt that they did not really practice the principles of health reform and did not support the work that he was spearheading. As A. T. Jones continued to face open and covert opposition to the 1888 message, he too became frustrated with church leaders. Toward the end of the decade he linked himself with Dr. Kellogg in their joint disagreement with the way church leaders were running the church. Then Dr. Kellogg espoused a form of pantheism, and church leaders, urged on by Ellen White, took a strong stand against Dr. Kellogg's ideas. The bond between medical and ministerial workers was thoroughly broken, with strong feelings of suspicion and distrust on both sides. It is not unfair to state that we have had a hard time reestablishing that bond. Medical and ministerial work have gone their separate ways, with different goals, different methods, and different pay scales. God's plan for medical missionary work has never been fully realized in the Adventist Church, with only isolated examples here and there showing us what might have been throughout the entire church if we would have followed God's counsel carefully.
Another fallout of the 1888 rejection can be seen in our educational work. Within three years after 1888 the leaders of the church managed to separate the team of Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen White. Ellen White was asked to go to Australia, which she did. While there, she decided to implement educational reform in a way which had not yet been done in the United States. At Avondale, she did her best to institute the kind of education which God had given her as the model for all Adventist education. Elder Sutherland became convinced that this was the way education should be conducted in the United States also, and he was asked by church leaders to institute those reforms at Battle Creek, Michigan. Sutherland saw clearly that such reforms could not possibly be carried out in Battle Creek, and so the move was made to Berrien Springs, where Emmanuel Missionary College was born. For two years Sutherland and Magan attempted to follow the example of Avondale in educating young adults. But, for various reasons, they did not succeed, and in 1904 they resigned their posts. After a great deal of soul-searching, they established a new school in Tennessee at Madison, where they attempted to carry out the educational reforms which they had been unable to do in Michigan.
Ellen White had some extremely significant things to say about this new school. "The work that the laborers have accomplished at Madison has done more to give a correct knowledge of what an all--round education means than any other school that has been established by Seventh-day Adventists in America." (Ms. Rel., vol. 11, p. 182) "If many more in other schools were receiving a similar training, we as a people would become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. The message would quickly be carried to every country, and souls now in darkness would be brought to the light." (Ms. Rd., vol. 11, p. 193)
Indeed, the Madison school enjoyed a great deal of success in the years following, and many were hoping that this school would be the model for all Adventist education, allowing the church to regain some of the losses it had sustained from 1890 to 1910. If the church would have been willing to reorganize its regular schools, based on the Madison model, we today would be enjoying the rich benefits of education done fully God's way. But instead church leaders held Madison at arm's length, giving them little help and a fair amount of opposition. Instead of changing our educational program churchwide, the church finally recognized Madison as a "self-supporting" school, which meant that it would be allowed to carry on its work unopposed, but it would never become the model for Adventist education. As a result, we have never had the opportunity of watching God make Adventist education the head rather than the tail of all educational efforts.
The 1952 Bible Conference
A church-wide Bible Conference was convened in 1952 in Washington, D.C. Many excellent messages were presented in that conference, which were recorded in a two-volume set of books entitled Our Firm Foundation. The General Conference President closed the conference with a challenge. "The message of righteousness by faith given in the 1888 Conference has been repeated here… And this great truth has been given here in the 1952 Bible Conference with far greater power than it was given in the 1888 Conference… The light of justification and righteousness by faith shines upon us today more clearly than it ever shone before upon any people. No longer will the question be 'What was the attitude of our workers and people toward the message of righteousness by faith that was given in 1888? What did they do about it?' From now on the great question must be, 'What did we do with the light on righteousness by faith as proclaimed in the 1952 Bible Conference?'" (Vol. 2, p. 617)
Clearly Elder Branson was tying this conference to the 1888 message. He was challenging those attending to do something very meaningful in response to the messages on righteousness by faith which had been given in the 1952 conference. He was suggesting that rather than casting blame on those in the past, we need to ask ourselves what we will do to turn things around. And that is the real purpose of this article. The only reason for reviewing the failures of the past is to understand how we can avoid repeating them. If the Seventh-day Adventist Church lost some very important ground in the years following 1888, our focus must be on how we can regain that ground. What can we do that will undo some of the damage done then, and prepare the way for God to make His final demonstration to the world and to angels? How can we respond to the 1888 message in such a way that God's full blessing can rest on His remnant church, with the inevitable result being the latter rain and loud cry?
Now what did Elder Branson see as the proper response to the messages of the 1952 conference? "We are engaged in an effort to double our church membership in a four-year period from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1953." It is an admirable goal to double church membership, but is that what the 1888 message is all about? Is doubling church membership the way to undo the damage of 1888? Or is the 1888 message about humility of heart and obedience to God in every way? Is it about letting the righteousness of Christ fill us so that it must overflow to the world?
Well, what did happen in the years following 1952? Were new programs advanced for the success of the church throughout the world? Yes. Did we double our membership? Yes. Did the Holy Spirit fall in the latter rain? No. Did we take the gospel to the world? No. In fact, just four years later, in some major discussions with Evangelical church leaders, we sacrificed some very important aspects of righteousness by faith in an effort to be conciliatory and avoid the "cult" label. Instead of moving ahead in the full light of the 1888 message, we publicly abandoned some of the central points of the 1888 message. Elder Branson's appeal was correct, but the solution suggested--doubling membership--did not address the root causes of the failure in 1888. The problem of 1888 was a heart problem, which is never solved by programs and numbers. Perhaps it is as difficult for us to learn hard lessons from history as it was for the Hebrew nation in the time of Christ. Human pride and public image seems to be an all-consuming threat to heart-surrender and loving obedience. During the 1950's we definitely did not come close to understanding the meaning of the 1888 message or undoing the damage done by rejection and opposition.
The 1973-74 Annual Councils
The Annual Council is the most important yearly business meeting of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Two very significant councils were held in 1973 and 1974. For a short period at each council, business matters were laid aside and the leaders of the church addressed spiritual issues. I believe that every Adventist needs to hear the appeals of our church leaders during those councils.
At the beginning of the 1974 Annual Council, Elder Robert Pierson, President of the General Conference, made the following appeal to the delegates:
The Lord came preciously near to His people during the 1973 Annual Council... It was a period of deep heart searching, not only during Council sessions, but also in our homes and in our hotel rooms. As leaders we recognized that as a church we had come far short of our Master's desires and expectations, and we searched our souls in an effort to discover what could be done to end our Saviour's delay and hasten the coming of Christ. Becoming like Jesus and achieving victory over sin in our lives was the preoccupation of church leaders during the week or ten days we were together... There was a call for a change of direction, for a change of emphasis, for a change of priorities--personally, as well as in the church...
During the 12 months that have elapsed have our priorities changed or have they continued much the same as they were before the Lord visited us? What about our committee and board agendas--have they been that much different? Has business as usual been the order of the day?.. .Some have declared the 1973 Annual Council to be the most significant meeting the Adventist Church has held since 1888. Did the Lord truly speak to us in a special manner? Did He call us to continuing repentance and renewal or was it just a passing emphasis? Did we respond to a lasting victory over sin or did we leave Takoma Park and return home in the same Laodicean experience as formerly? To make it practical--did our fellow workers and church members note any difference in us when we returned from the past Annual Council? Did our wives, our husbands, our children, notice a change? Are you nearer God's ideal this year because you attended the Annual Council last year? Is your character nearer that of Christ our Pattern? Are you kinder, more thoughtful now? Have you gained victory over impurity, over that temper, that unruly tongue of yours? Did the 1973 Annual Council really make a difference?
Perhaps the most probing question of all: if the church membership and its leadership on every level of administration and in every field, entered into the same experience you and I enjoy, could we expect the falling of the latter rain, the resumption of the loud cry soon--very soon?... I want to get this work finished! I want to see Jesus! I want to follow on to know the Lord so that this great controversy can be finished once and for all! We made a start--a good start---12 months ago. Thank God for that beginning. But a good beginning is not enough. Revival once a year at Annual Council time, blessed as it is, simply is not enough. Our revival must grow into a lasting reformation! (Review and Herald, January 30, 1975)
This powerful appeal emphasized several points. First, we have a part to play in ending the delay in Christ's return. Second, this was a conscious attempt to deal with the unresolved issues of 1888. It is of considerable importance to note that not once during these two councils was the subject of doubling membership or baptizing large numbers mentioned. The focus was on spiritual heart reformation, just as it was in the 1888 message. Third, this was a call for a change of direction in personal lives and in the church at large. There was a clear understanding that we could not "finish the work" by better programs or more refined technology. A change of priorities was seen to be the only hope of receiving the latter rain of the Holy Spirit.
As a result of this appeal, a statement was prepared and voted by the 1974 Annual Council. It was printed on the front page of the Review under the title, "World Leaders in Annual Council Speak to the Church."
As church leaders we feel deeply that "the image of Jesus" must be reflected clearly not only in the personal lives of church members hut in Adventist sermons, Adventist literature, and Adventist institutions--schools, hospitals, and publishing houses. The answer to the query What is different about the Adventist way? should be obvious to all who come into contact with any aspect of the remnant church. The Adventist goal is primarily quality rather than quantity… The question Why do we keep Him waiting? should hover over every Adventist home, over every church meeting, large or small. We believe that God is willing to do through this generation what He has wanted to do for many decades. We believe that He ought to be given the opportunity to show through His people today that His grace is sufficient to keep men from falling (see Jude 24), that men and women living amidst temptation and sin can conquer even as Jesus conquered (see Rev. 3:21), and that His way of life produces the happiest, kindest, most trustworthy people on earth... When a generation of Seventh-day Adventists is truly serious about becoming exhibits of what God's grace can do, the moment of final decision by the whole world for or against God will not be long delayed. (Review and Herald, November 14. 1974)
What a remarkable and unusual statement! The delay in Christ's coming will be ended, not by new programs or more energetic evangelistic activity or doubling church membership, but by Seventh-day Adventists "becoming exhibits of what God's grace can do" in overcoming sin and temptation. Satan will be defeated in his war against God when a generation of Adventists get serious about their religion!
Kenneth Wood, editor of the Review, commented on this appeal one week later:
To ignore the message is tantamount to voting for a further delay in the coming of Christ. To heed it is to cast a vote for hastening the coming of Christ. The message was issued as a follow-up to the appeal from the 1973 council. It built upon that appeal, accepting these presuppositions: (1) Christ could have come decades ago, (2) the blame for the delay rests with man, not God, and (3) the delay will continue until the harvest of the earth is ripe--until God has a people who through the faith of Jesus develop the character of Jesus, and thus forever refute Satan's charge that God was unjust in asking man to obey His law perfectly... We believe that at the 1973 Annual Council His Spirit began a work that could lead to the coming of Christ in our day. He began to make needed changes in the church. The church, however, is large, hence changes take time. As someone has pointed out, a rowboat can be turned around quickly, but it takes time to turn an ocean liner. But it can be turned! If God is seeking to turn this church toward repentance, revival, reformation, and world- enlightening witnessing, and if God's people, starting with the leaders, are willing to cooperate, the changes can be effected and the work can be finished! (Review and Herald, November 21, 1974)
Once again, note the focus on changing the direction of the church. The great ocean liner known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church must be turned in a different direction before there can he any hope of a soon return of Christ. In the same editorial, Elder Wood issued a strong warning:
But if leaders and people are unconcerned about what God is attempting, if they are content to stay in this world, if they are satisfied with "business as usual," then, as the president of the General Conference pointed out at the recent Annual Council, "[1973 and perhaps 1974] may be known as the 1888 of our generation. We cannot think of anything sadder. How tragic if we should fail God, and if decades hence Adventist theologians and historians should look back upon our time as an opportunity missed, a time when the Advent Movement and its leaders disappointed God. It must not happen!
Do you know what really happened in the years following 1888? We locked and barred the door to the Holy Spirit. If Christ would have come to us then, we would have treated Him as the Jews treated Christ. We gave Satan the opportunity to go on in his work of tormenting people in this world. We told God that He could not end the great controversy just yet. Why? Because of pride of opinion, pride of position, and refusal to admit error. This is what Elder Pierson meant when he said that we could have another 1888 in our generation. Elder Wood and Elder Pierson were appealing to the church to learn the lessons of 1888, so that we would not make the same mistakes again.
In another editorial, Elder Wood referred back to the 1973 Annual Council:
We believe that the appeal was of unusual importance and that God is using it to create a holy discontent within the church--discontent with the church's spiritual achievements, discontent with its progress, discontent with some of its policies, goals, and priorities. This discontent will, we believe, provide motivation for self-examination; it will lead to deeper study of God's Word, to a closer walk with God, to an understanding of righteousness by faith both as a doc- trifle and as an experience, to an earnest desire for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the latter rain, to drastic changes in many denominational institutions, and to a sharpening and strengthening of the church's evangelistic thrust. But few, if any, results will be seen if church leaders and members fail to understand and accept one of the basic premises upon which the appeal was based, namely, that it is possible either to hasten or delay Christ's second advent. (Review and Herald, February 28, 1974)
His point here is crucially important--we must accept the truth that the time of the return of Christ is affected positively or negatively by our actions as a church, or none of this makes any sense at all. Just as the time of the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land was affected by their decisions, so the time of the entrance of the remnant into the Promised Land is affected by their decisions. We have abundant inspired evidence on this point, and if we refuse to believe it, then we will continue to wait in vain for God to do His final work. The painful reality is that God has been waiting for us to catch up with Him for well over a hundred years. Elder Wood also stressed the point that we must not be overconfident about the good work we are doing, especially when we look at our increasing numbers. We need "a holy discontent" with our progress so far, since it clearly has not led us into the latter rain experience. He also suggested that "drastic changes" will have to be made in our institutions. Should we not look back at God's plans and purposes for these institutions, and see where they have strayed off course--largely as a result of the 1888 rejection? If we are really serious about being the remnant church of prophecy, we need to take "drastic" action to move into genuine revival and reformation while the door of mercy is still open.
In 1973, the appeal from the Annual Council was titled "An Earnest Appeal," and appeared on the front page of the Review. It was perhaps the most direct and specific statement which has been printed in our journals in recent years.
God is waiting for a generation of Adventists who will demonstrate that His way of life can truly be lived on earth, that Jesus did not set an example beyond the reach of His followers, that His grace is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish." Jude 24, RSV. Each member of the Laodicean church needs... a genuine and complete surrender of the life and will to the divine authority of the Bible and of the Spirit of Prophecy--a surrender that may well call for revolutionary changes in personal lifestyles and in denominational policies and practices. Every member must recognize that he has a part in either hastening or delaying the coming of Christ… As church leaders at this Annual Council we have faced honestly the fact that there are inconsistencies between the church’s preaching and it’s practices, and to allow these inconsistencies to continue will automatically delay the completion of the church’s mission and the coming of Christ… If we ignore or reject God’s counsels, this may well be defined as an act of insubordination, which will affect our relation to the coming of the Lord.
Notice the dramatic words and concepts in this appeal. We need "revolutionary changes" in our lifestyles and in church practices. This is not just fine-tuning what we are already doing, so that we can eliminate problem spots. Our church leaders suggested that major changes need to be made in the way we conduct business as a church. Our inconsistencies, because we have not heeded God's counsels, are “insubordination,” and if left uncorrected, will further delay the return of Christ. These are strong words from the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Those who use exactly the same words today are called divisive and disloyal. Is it possible that pride of opinion and public image have taken center stage once again in the heart of Adventism?
In their appeal, church leaders, in a very unusual and courageous step, pointed to specific areas in which we stand in insubordination to God.
They have pointed up the need for greater care in Sabbath observance, in stewardship of God's gifts, in guarding the avenues of the soul, and in practicing the broad and specific principles of healthful living… These study groups also have pointed to evidences of sagging morality, including a more casual attitude toward divorce and remarriage. Concern has been expressed over the increasing tendency to imitate the world in dress and ornamentation. These study groups have examined the whole spectrum of Seventh-day Adventist institutional work and have pointed to evidences that some institutions in various respects are losing their distinctive character as instrumentalities for the furtherance of God's work on earth. ...It is recognized that in an age of growing social consciousness and change, Adventist institutions may become involved in worthy endeavors in which the world also participates, while neglecting that work which only the church of the remnant can do... One of the greatest threats to our institutions of higher learning is seen in the counterfeit philosophies and theologies that may be unconsciously absorbed in worldly institutions by our future teachers and brought back as the "wine" of Babylon to Adventist schools (Revelation 14:8-10; 18:1-4) It is recognized that a constant threat to spirituality grows out of increasing creature comforts, rising standards of living, and a desire for remuneration equal to that offered by the world...
As the Annual Council has reviewed these and other aspects of the lives of God's people and the institutions of the church, it has raised the question as to whether much of this represents insubordination to the authority and will of God so clearly expressed through His Word and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Without attempting to pinpoint areas of insubordination, the council pleads with God's people everywhere to respond to the appeal for revival and reformation--to make whatever changes may be necessary to enable the church to represent Christ adequately and fulfill its unique mission... The delegates at this 1973 Annual Council extend the following appeal to all workers and members throughout the world... Forsake the spirit of insubordination that too long has influenced individual and church decisions. (Review and Herald, December 6, 1973)
One concern of this Annual Council was the increasing tendency of our institutions to participate in worthy endeavors in which worldly institutions excel (war against drugs, etc.), while neglecting those areas which only the remnant can do effectively (natural remedies, medical missionary work, etc.). It is always popular to jump on a politically correct bandwagon, and the temptation will always be strong to focus our energies on these worthy endeavors. We must remember who we are and what we are really trying to accomplish by our "good deeds." The remnant church has a different purpose and mission from any other organization on earth, and we must stay focused on our primary reasons for existence.
In pleading for an end to insubordination among us, the Annual Council said that we must "make whatever changes may be necessary" to get back to obedience to God's counsels. This again is a call for a turnaround in many of our activities and programs, so that we can enjoy the blessing of God on our work. It is too easy to mistake numerical increases for God's approval. It must be our constant concern to be right with God, to he obedient to His will, and then we can bask in the sunshine of God's blessings.
Lessons From Our History
We must always remember that revival never comes without reformation. If revival is really to transform our lives and our church, then we are going to have to change a good number of things we are doing today. God will never send the fullest measure of His grace (the Holy Spirit in the latter rain) while we remain disobedient in many areas. Our church leaders in 1973-74 saw this clearly, but I wonder if our vision is as sharp today. Numerical growth and prestige seem to dominate our thinking, while appeals for reformation and obedience are often perceived as disloyalty and divisiveness. Any appeals for genuine revival must also appeal for reformation in specific areas of disobedience.
Revival, especially the greatest revival of all history--the latter rain--will be grounded in truth, never a mixture of truth and error. Error always destroys and divides. This is the single most important reason for our pluralism and fragmentation today. God is never vindicated by error. Only truth will place the throne of God and the destiny of the remnant church on a secure foundation, one that cannot be shaken by Satan's attacks. We must focus all our efforts on understanding the truth as God gave it, not as human minds have tried to deduce it. And we must be honest enough to admit that we have not upheld and lived that truth very well up to this point. Unless we humble our proud hearts and repent of our pride of opinion, we-this generation- can never receive the latter rain.
I am very fearful that over one hundred years after the 1888 rejection, we still have not learned the lessons God wanted us to learn from that experience. Our pride of opinion and pride of position seems to be as strong as it ever was in the days of Butler and Smith. On January 7, 1988, the Adventist Review published an 1888 commemorative edition. On page 21 was a guide to centennial events and materials. Within one and a half columns the word "celebration" occurred nine times. What are we celebrating? Normally we celebrate victories and great events. We celebrate those things which give us joy and which we would like to repeat. Is that what 1888 was all about? Did the Israelites wandering in the wilderness for forty years celebrate Kadesh-barnea, where, because of disobedience, all but two were sentenced to die in the wilderness? Kadesh-barnea and 1888 are exactly the same thing. If we are to learn the first lesson from history, it is that we must be on our knees in repentance because of 1888. Our repentance is not primarily for the sins of a hundred years ago, but because we today are continuing in the same sins of stubbornness and pride, and we are delaying God's plan even more. As of yet, we have not repented. When we are genuinely sorry for our Laodicean satisfaction and pride, and our eyes see clearly what might have been, we will see radical changes in our personal lives and in our church. We will never be the same again.
Isn't there a tragic significance in the fact that in the commemorative edition of the Review there was not one recommendation to read the messages of Jones and Waggoner. Not one! In the November, 1984 edition of Ministry, this statement appeared: "In 1888 the direction of the Adventist Church took an upward turn at the Minneapolis Ministerial Pre-session. And the church has not been the same since. The 1985 Ministerial Council follows in the tradition of 1888." If we truly believe that our church took an upward turn in 1888, then we have not learned the first lesson from our history. How can we repent for something which we perceive as a great victory?
In a commemorative edition of Ministry (February, 1988) were the following observations:
The church has surely grown in size. There were fewer than 100 delegates to that [1888] General Conference session. Today delegations are so large we can no longer meet in a little church, but seek out the world's largest arenas for our General Conference sessions. In 1890 there were fewer than 30,000 Seventh-day Adventists in the world. Today there are more than 5 million. The church is praying that God will lead us into baptizing 2 million precious souls between 1985 and 1990, and I invite those who say the church is failing to become a part of that success. (p. 62)
This sounds exactly like the appeal in the 1952 Bible Conference, and exactly opposite to the appeals in the 1973 and 1974 Annual Councils. To focus on soulwinning and numerical growth is much more popular than to change our policies and practices from insubordination to obedience. When we really get serious about receiving the latter rain, we will not be talking about doubling our church membership. Our only concern will be the vindication of God's name in the great controversy with Satan. We will want to stop every accusation of Satan against God which he is able to use because of our personal and corporate disobedience. Our concern for God's vindication will take priority over our own desire to be saved. All that will matter to God's people is that Satan's reign on this planet will come to a speedy end. Whatever we do and say will have significance only as it contributes to that goal.
The solutions that are being suggested today for reversing the problems in the church have one thing in common with the attitudes of 1888. They are human methods based on human pride, with corresponding unwillingness to admit major mistakes. There is only one suggestion that has any hope of success, and that lies in the counsels of our church leaders in 1973 and 1974. They pointed the way as they called for character surrender, victory over sin, discontent with the progress of the church to date, and whatever "revolutionary changes" may be necessary to bring us back into full compliance with God's expressed will. These are serious and straightforward challenges, with no human pride getting in the way to protest how good we really are doing throughout the world. Our leaders asked us to be brutally honest with ourselves, and then let God take complete control for once.
It will not do much good for us to start pointing fingers at those who are doing wrong. We have plenty to take care of within our own spheres of influence. We have been content to let others do our thinking for us. We have been content with our affluence. We have been content with God's promises that He will bring the ship through to port. In so many ways we have kept God waiting. It is time for us to say, "How have I delayed your return? Lord, what do you want me to do? I repent of my careless, sleepy attitudes. I will sacrifice my personal pride of opinion to your will." Then righteousness by faith will change from a doctrine to a personal experience. Only then can we be sure that 1974 and onward to our day will not be another 1888 in the experience of God's people. These years that we are living in could be the most dismal failure in Adventist history or the most glorious success that we have ever known. It is possible that this generation can reverse the failures of one hundred years and prepare the way for our King to return in triumph. The decision lies squarely in our hands. What will it be?