|
| |
Conflicting Viewpoints About 1888
| |
|
|
1. Introduction
|
2. Early Viewpoints
Ellen White
A.G. Daniels
Taylor Bunch |
3. Changing Viewpoints
L.H. Christian
A.W. Spalding
Weiland and Short |
4. Modern Viewpoints
Norval F. Pease
A.V. Olson
LeRoy Froom |
5. Righteousness by Faith Debates
G. Paxton
D. McMahon/ Robert Brismead
The Review's Position
Arthur White |
6. Present Conflict
George Knight
Conservatives Repudiated |
7. Summary
Table 1- Summary of Viewpoints |
8. References
|
The most famous and controversial meeting in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination took place in the year 1888 at the General Conference session held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This meeting marked the beginning of a heated theological debate that continued publicly for three years without resolution. By 1891, however, the three individuals most responsible for the doctrinal innovations introduced at the Conference found themselves separated by distant continents. And as the denomination stumbled through the last decade of the nineteenth century, the original controversy became buried under the successive stages of crisis, survival and institutional growth.
During the decades following the turn of the century, a few individuals began to vocalize their views of the 1888 conflict. But as the Century wore on, many more people joined in and it soon became clear that the unresolved debate was not going to lay idle. By the 1970s, the 1888 controversy swelled into a complex, divisive issue that seemed to once again defy resolution and threaten crisis.
Although a full century has gone by, mystery and controversy continues to plague this event unlike any other in Adventist history. Since that famous meeting, numerous lectures, sermons, books and articles have been produced in an effort to meaningfully explain this unsettling, yet intriguing time period. But notwithstanding such scrutiny, the 1888 debate still remains unresolved and continues to be a source of conflict and disunity within the Adventist community.
What actually happened in 1888? What were Waggoner and Jones really saying? Was the "loud cry" of the Fourth Angel of Revelation introduced as Ellen White claimed and, if so, why wasn't the prophetic mission of the Church completed at that time? With regard to the more sensitive issue involving the Denomination's role in this nineteenth-century event, did the Church actually reject the 1888 message or was this conference a "victory" and "revival" as some have claimed? If these questions could finally be answered, what truths would be revealed and more importantly, is the Adventist community prepared to honestly face its history and make the necessary corrective action?
This chapter will attempt to answer some of these difficult questions by examining the viewpoints of various individuals with regard to the historic debate. Ellen White's general assessment of the 1888 General Conference will be reviewed first followed by an overview of the positions taken by various twentieth century scholars, theologians, and denominational workers. Surprisingly, many of the Twentieth Century scholars dramatically challenged Ellen White's earlier position. Thus, differences arose between her original eyewitness account of the 1888 era and the revisionists' viewpoints, which emerged much later. This inconsistency actually sets the stage for the twentieth-century debate concerning the Church's acceptance of the 1888 doctrine of Christ's righteousness, which later became known as "righteousness by faith."
In the 1970s, the debate over the Church's acceptance of the 1888 message advanced into a more serious and profound discussion regarding the specific nature and theological meaning of the doctrine of righteousness by faith supposedly introduced in Minneapolis. This new discussion focused directly on the Church's definition of righteousness by faith--did it include the Protestant understanding of "justification by faith alone", or was obedience to the moral law (known as sanctification) also included. This currently unresolved conflict has left the Church both confused and divided. And unless this issue is seriously addressed and resolved in the near future, the possibility exists that the Denomination--as we know it today--will not survive much past the turn of the next century.
However, before we can ever hope to resolve this theological dilemma that continues to divide and weaken the Adventist community, the true history of the complex, long standing Minneapolis debate must first be better understood.
|
|
Undoubtedly, Ellen G. White was the most reliable, prominent, and authoritative person to witness the Minneapolis debate. Her knowledge, experience, and ability to write descriptively far surpassed that of any other person in attendance. In addition, as the only surviving pioneer of the Third Angel's Message, Mrs. White played an active role in the Minneapolis meetings and the many events that followed. Moreover, because she possessed the unique spiritual gift of divine revelation, her insights and assessments are even more valuable. Without Mrs. White's written account of this period, the historical significance of this critical era in Adventist history most probably would have been lost forever.
Ellen White witnessed the events of Minneapolis firsthand, and she spoke and wrote much during the 1888 period. As a result, ample documentation exists to clearly understand her viewpoint and to determine the great significance that she attached to this time period. In fact, shortly after the Minneapolis meeting, Mrs. White wrote a 26-page manuscript entitled, "Looking Back at Minneapolis"[1] to ensure that the actions of the Denominational leaders would be preserved accurately.
As always, Ellen White perceived historical events within the context of the great controversy and the 1888 Minneapolis Conference was no exception. From the onset of the Conference, she perceived that a battle over truth was erupting within the denomination and she did not hesitate to state her viewpoint. At first, Ellen White rejoiced that the spirit of God was at the meeting and commented that the leaders "heard as it were God speaking to them through his Son. They saw, they felt the divine influence of the Spirit of God and all witnessed to the gracious words that proceeded from His mouth [2]." Much to her dismay, however, she soon discovered that Satan was also at the meeting, sowing seeds of doubt and unbelief in a deliberate effort to silence the message of the third angel.
Keenly aware of the prophetic implication of the national Sunday legislation pending in Congress at the time the 1888 meetings were being held, Ellen White wrote, "There was a power from beneath moving agencies to bring about a change in the [U.S.] constitution." She believed that the denomination must quickly rise to the occasion by "unselfishly considering how the Lord's work could be done to the best advantage." In a clear reference to the unfolding eschatological drama associated with the Sunday crisis, Ellen White declared that, "If ever there was a time when, as a [general] conference, we needed the special grace and enlightenment of the spirit of God, it was at this meeting [3]."
Ellen White soon discovered, however, that the church was not the only entity to hold meetings--other forces were deliberately at work planning to disrupt and confuse the mission and message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In fact, she concluded that Satan had already conducted his own meeting "as to how he should keep pen and voice of Seventh-day Adventists silent. If he could only engage their attention and divert their powers in a direction to weaken and divide them, his prospect would be fair."
In spite of Satan's influence, Ellen White was convinced that God had "raised up" two young ministers, E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones, to prepare the church to engage the forces of evil relative to the present eschatological battle that was fast breaking upon the denomination. However, it soon became evident that Waggoner and Jones failed to successfully promote their theological message as the delegates at the conference rallied around the G.C. President, George Butler, and the long-time Review Editor, Uriah Smith.
As far as Ellen White was concerned, the debate over the book of Galatians was minor in comparison with "the great question of the nation's religious liberty, now involving so much [4]." Although her understanding would later become more expansive, she initially saw the conflict as a diversionary topic that was counter-productive to the real issue of the fulfillment of Adventist prophecy and she tried valiantly to resolve the uncomfortable situation.
Notwithstanding Ellen White's considerable influence to assist Waggoner and Jones, the debate over the law in Galatians soon became heated and quickly flamed out of control. Even Ellen White could not stay the negative tide that had enveloped the Conference, and she concluded, "it is evident that a delusion was upon our brethren." Although she supported and protected Waggoner and Jones as much as possible, Ellen White realized that their theological positions were never given serious consideration by the church's leaders.
Faced with the mounting evidence that major prophetic fulfillment was imminent, the Denomination had stumbled over and rejected--without due consideration--the progressive concepts of Waggoner regarding the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law as well as the historical adjustments that Jones was teaching concerning the prophetic interpretation of Daniel. According to Ellen White, Satan had won a decided victory at Minneapolis as an unholy influence now controlled the church leadership--an influence that she had "never met in them before [5]." Ellen White believed that the immediate significance of the 1888 meeting was that God had been "testing and proving His people who had great light, whether they would walk in it or turn from it under temptation...[6]"
The personal price Ellen White paid for publicly supporting Waggoner and Jones was enormous. As a direct result of the Minneapolis meeting, her voice was no longer appreciated nor accepted by many of the denomination's leaders. She lamented this fact by writing: "They had lost confidence in Sister White, not because Sister White had changed but because another spirit had taken possession and control of them [7]."
Over the years, Ellen White's statements regarding the significance of the 1888 meeting continued in both her private and public communications. The Minneapolis meeting and the subsequent events had been indelibly imprinted upon her mind and she referred to this period often. By the Spring of 1890, she was still actively supporting the "fresh light" that had been delivered at Minneapolis by Waggoner and Jones, and she even went so far as to publicly connect Waggoner's 1888 message with the loud cry of the fourth angel of Revelation 18 in an article in the Review [8]. In this article, Ellen White openly challenged the church to receive the new message that would empower the denomination to break out of their Laodician condition. But the leaders were defiant. "They appear to be anxious," she wrote, "that none of our ministers shall depart from their former manner of teaching the good old doctrines. We inquire, is it not time that fresh light should come to the people of God, to awaken them to greater earnestness and zeal [9]?"
Because of Ellen White's support of Waggoner and Jones, those in power at Battle Creek conspired to send her and Waggoner out of the country in an attempt to resolve the divisive situation [10]. Thus, in 1891, Ellen White was transferred to Australia and Waggoner to Great Britain.
In spite of this successful political maneuver, Ellen White's voice would not be silenced. In a two-part article appearing in the Review entitled, "The Perils and Privileges of the Last Days," she earnestly warned the Denomination to beware of Satan's deceptions and to prepare for the time of trouble that seemed to be so visibly approaching. She implored the church to "awake out of sleep" because "events are to come to pass that will be of a more terrible character than any the world has yet witnessed." Again she linked the Minneapolis message of Christ's righteousness with the loud cry, but in doing so she now made the strong statement that the loud cry of the fourth angel had already begun with Waggoner's 1888 message. "The time of test is just upon us," she wrote, "for the loud cry of the third angel has already begun in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ, the sin pardoning redeemer. This is the beginning of the light of the angel whose glory shall fill the whole earth [11] ."
In Ellen White's opinion, the great controversy was about to close and with the Minneapolis message as the foundation, the latter rain was near. "Many will be converted in a day," she wrote, "for the message will go with power." The world would be warned and the "Savior of men will be glorified, and the earth will be lightened with the bright shining of the beams of his righteousness [12]." Clearly, Ellen White connected the new message of Waggoner and Jones with the fourth angel of Revelation 18 and she linked the 1888 message directly to the prophetic events of the last days. Notwithstanding, the denomination's leadership stubbornly refused Ellen White's plea to openly embrace the new 1888 theology.
By the mid 1890s, Ellen White, who was still in Australia, directed sharp remarks about the Minneapolis conflict to the floundering church leadership in Battle Creek. She boldly warned the leaders that grave consequences would ensue if they continued to reject the 1888 message. In a special testimony to the Battle Creek church, Ellen White asked the question:
"I inquire of those in responsible positions in Battle Creek, What are you doing? You have turned your back and not your face to the Lord. There needs to be a cleansing of the heart, the feelings, the sympathies, the words, in reference to the most momentous subjects--the Lord God, eternity, truth. What is the message to be given at this time? It is the third angel's message. But that light which is to fill the whole earth with its glory has been despised by some who claim to believe present truth. Be careful how you treat it.... I know not but some have even now gone too far to return and to repent [13]."
Ellen White was referring to the 1888 message.
Ellen White then upbraided the leadership for refusing to accept the message of 1888 and accused them of actually hating the Minneapolis theology. In reference to those in charge of the work at Battle Creek, she wrote: "These men are parties to the ruin of souls, they have interposed themselves between the heaven sent light and the people. They have trampled upon the word of God and are doing despite to his Holy Spirit."
To avoid any misunderstanding, Ellen White then plainly stated:
"The Lord in his great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Savior, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It presented justification through faith in the surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person, His merits, and His changeless love for the human family.... This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. It is the third angel's message, which is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, and attended with the outpouring of his Spirit in a large measure [14]."
Ellen White publicly warned the church leaders in no uncertain terms that those who had stood their ground ever since 1888 and had "for years" resisted the light of the Minneapolis theology were in grave danger. She had "no smooth message" for those who had confused the theological issues in an attempt to protect their previous positions, refusing to admit error [15]. She decried the fact that the Minneapolis reformers had been taunted and accused of being "fanatics, extremist, and enthusiasts." "Let me prophecy unto you," she publicly wrote, "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...Your turning things upside down is known of the Lord. Go on a little longer as you have gone, in rejection of the light from heaven and you are lost [16]."
In 1896, Ellen White wrote another communication to Battle Creek entitled, "The Danger of Rejecting Truth." She was very concerned about the denomination for she knew they were in great "peril." "The church needs to be converted," she wrote, again making reference to the denomination's refusal to accept the 1888 message. She reminded them about the history of the Jewish nation and compared their rejection of Christ with the denomination's recent rejection of the new light from Minneapolis [17]. In a reference to Waggoner and Jones' unauthorized promotion of their theological views throughout the denomination against the expressed wishes of the hierarchy, Ellen White drew the parallel of how the chief priests and rabbis thought they, too, were competent to instruct the apostles as to how they should teach. She then defended Waggoner and Jones by making the point that "men in authority are not always to be obeyed, even though they may profess to be teachers of the Bible [18]."
According to Ellen White, the religious leaders in Battle Creek refused to "open their eyes to discern the fact that they have misinterpreted and misapplied the scriptures, and have built up false theories, calling them fundamental doctrines of the faith [19]." In a reference to the Galatian controversy, she scolded the church by saying, Seventh-day Adventists "are in danger" of rejecting truth "because it contradicts something which they have taken for granted" but which is not really truth at all. At the close of the epistle, Ellen White could not refrain from speaking even more to the point. Because she knew that the Review had been the largest and most influential antagonist against the Minneapolis message, she felt it her duty to warn this great, beloved institution that it was in serious danger. "That men should keep alive the spirit which ran riot at Minneapolis," she wrote, "is an offense to God. All heaven is indignant at the spirit that for years has been revealed in our publishing institution at Battle Creek. Unrighteousness is practiced that God will not tolerate. He will visit for these things [20]."
Because the vast majority of the Battle Creek hierarchy continued to reject the original Minneapolis message, numerous evils resulted. This in turn lead to the fulfillment of Ellen White's predictions that the judgments of God would be poured out upon the denomination's revered institutions. These monuments to the third angel that had been built at such great cost and sacrifice were to be totally destroyed and the Church's headquarters in Battle Creek forever abandoned. This, according to Ellen White, was the direct result of the denomination's rejection of the Minneapolis message.
By February, 1902, the world-famous sanitarium burned to the ground and ten months later, the Review and Herald building was also completely destroyed. The Review especially had been the proudest and most visible symbol of the rise and progress of Seventh-day Adventism, and its sudden and total loss was a staggering blow to the work of the third angel. Within one hour, the flames of judgment had reduced the Review's four-story, 80,000-square foot building to a heap of smoldering ruins [21], never again to be rebuilt in Battle Creek [22].
Ellen White was not surprised by these events. "When this news [about the destruction of the Review by fire] came," she said, "I felt no surprise, and I had no words to speak. What I have had to say from time to time in warnings has had no effect except to harden those who heard, and now I can only say: I am sorry, so very sorry, that it was necessary for this stroke to come. Light has been given. If it were acted upon, further light would not be needed [23]." Ellen White was sadly convinced that, "God's people have departed from Him; they have not followed His instruction, and He has come near them in correction [24]."
It was Ellen White's position that the denomination's 14-year history from 1888 through 1902 culminated in tragic loss as a direct result of not accepting the original 1888 message delivered by Waggoner and Jones. Her interpretation of this time period makes the events of the 1888 era assume a more solemn and ominous tone than many have previously realized. Although more than a century has passed since the 1888 Minneapolis Conference, there can be no mistake about Ellen White's assessment. Her famous statement in 1902 summarizes her viewpoint of this episode quite succinctly: "I have been instructed," she wrote, "that the terrible experience at the Minneapolis conference is one of the saddest chapters in the history of the believers in present truth [25]."
Following the "fiery indignation," as Ellen White called it, the church leadership, under her direction, fled Battle Creek in humiliation and disgrace--never to return. |
At the turn of the Twentieth Century, Ellen White's exile from Australia ended and a new generation of denominational leaders emerged led primarily by Arthur G. Daniells, the youthful, 43-year old G.C. president. The new leadership now listened to Ellen White much more closely and, under her guidance and counsel, the church's headquarters and what little was left of the Review & Herald moved to Washington D. C. in 1903.
During the first decade of the new century, the church not only struggled with a much needed administrative reorganization, it also had to address the greatest apostasy of its history as Kellogg, Waggoner, and many others rejected the literal eschatological interpretation of the Third Angel's Message and embraced a more subjective philosophy known as pantheism [26]. With the departure of these once-renowned leaders, the rebuilding of the shattered Third Angel's Message was the new order of the day and because survival was the major priority, the Minneapolis controversy received little or no attention. However, the remarkable chain of events that surrounded the notorious 1888 General Conference and led to the Battle Creek dispersion were never totally forgotten or neglected. In 1927, almost forty years later, the now retired General Conference president, A.G. Daniells, published a book concerning the denomination's 1888 experience. This book, entitled Christ Our Righteousness, consisted primarily of quotations from the late Ellen G. White and was the first official study to address the 1888 history.
In fact, Daniell's book was responsible for popularizing the phrase, "Righteousness by Faith", within the Adventist community. However, this now familiar term would not have been recognized by Waggoner, Jones, Butler, Smith or even Ellen White [27]. In fact, if one searches for this term in the three-volume index to Ellen White's writings, they will be surprised to note that almost no entries exist [28]! This signifies that many of the facts surrounding the 1888 conflict were not sufficiently understood, nor properly interpreted in the post-Battle-Creek era. Today, informed scholars know that the term righteousness by faith is a misleading and inaccurate when used in reference to the historical conflict of 1888 [29]. This important fact, and its significance, will become more evident in subsequent chapters.
The youthful A. G. Daniells was a loyal supporter of Ellen White and therefore it should come as no surprise that he agreed with her general viewpoint of the 1888 period. Like Ellen White, he knew all too well that the 1888 message had not been accepted. He bluntly wrote: "This message of righteousness in Christ...met with 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 have been in order to convey to the church the measureless blessings that were wrapped within" it [30]. He echoed Ellen White's position that Satan himself was the mastermind behind the denomination's Minneapolis defeat.
Although Daniells could have explained many of the unsavory details of the conflict and disclosed much more information in his book, he feared that the church had not sufficiently recovered from either the 1888 debate or the Battle Creek debacle. However, realizing that one day the church would have to face up to its Minneapolis past, he hand-picked a young man, LeRoy Froom, and assigned to him the task of preparing a manuscript that would one day finally explain to the Adventist community the true facts surrounding the Minneapolis conflict [31]. The church, however, would have to wait 40 years for this specially-commissioned, life-long work, which did not appear until 1971. |
The aging Daniells was not the only one in the post Battle Creek era to focus on the 1888 conflict. A young pastor, Taylor Grant Bunch, of the once famous and powerful Battle Creek Tabernacle, also analyzed this period, reflecting primarily on the reason for the denomination's recent, sudden demise. He concluded that the great pantheistic apostasy at the turn of the century was the result of "the rejection of the message of righteousness by faith [32]." Moreover, he proclaimed that the church had failed to move forward during the 1888 period and that, in his opinion, the Denomination had in fact repeated the mistake of Israel at Kadesh Barnea when they stubbornly refused to enter the promised land [33].
Bunch was one of the first in the post-Battle Creek era to publicly connect the delay of the second advent with the 1888 Minneapolis conflict. To support his point, he used numerous Ellen White quotations including the famous 1901 quotation, "We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel [34];" and a 1903 quotation, "Brethren and sisters, from the light given me, I know that if the people of God had preserved a living connection with Him, if they had obeyed his word, they could today be in the heavenly Canaan [35]. "
As far as Bunch was concerned, he clearly saw Waggoner and Jones as the nineteenth-century equivalent of the two faithful Israelite spies, Caleb and Joshua, and declared that "fully two thirds" of the Adventist delegates rejected the Minneapolis message [36]. In vivid detail, Bunch quoted numerous citations from scripture as well as Ellen White and declared that because of 1888, the Adventist church, like Israel of old, had turned back into the wilderness and had re-entered the "tarrying time [37]."
|
|
However, there were others who had quite a different perspective on the matter. In 1947, twenty years after Daniells' book and ten years after Bunch had published his lectures, L.H. Christian wrote a book entitled, The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts, which was printed by the Review & Herald. Christian's publication primarily focused on Ellen White's contribution to the church. Ironically, he took a divergent position from Ellen White's original 1888 stance as well as Daniells' and Bunch's supporting viewpoints. Thus, at mid-century, the denomination once again found itself debating the 1888 history and, as a result, the dangerous polemical rhetoric would soon begin to heat up.
In the chapter entitled, "The Minneapolis Conference and the Great Revival," Christian categorically denied that the 1888 event had been a defeat for the church, instead he labeled it "a glorious victory." In his book, Christian wrote, "At no other gathering in our entire history has the Lord in so marked a manner brought such light and victory to his people through Bible study and the Spirit of Prophecy." Although he conceded that "the Minneapolis session was a stormy one," Christian staunchly maintained that the "final outcome was good [38]."
Such glowing and unrealistic historic assessments would not go unchallenged for there were some who knew better and their voices would not silenced [39]. In fact, Christian's attempt to revise the denomination's 1888 history would eventually provide the necessary spark that would re-ignite and expand the Minneapolis agitation. |
In an effort to diffuse the smoldering controversy, A. W. Spalding, a church historian, was the next to address the 1888 topic. In his work entitled, Captains of the Host, which was published in 1949, Spalding essentially supported Christian's thesis but augmented it with a new interpretation of the historical conflict. Spalding concluded that the Minneapolis debate was primarily over personalities rather than doctrine. He took the position that, "it was the rancors aroused by personalities, much more than the differences in beliefs, which caused the difficulty [40]."
This innovative, compromising viewpoint, which differed significantly from the previous positions of Ellen White, A. G. Daniells, and Taylor Bunch, received a wide following in the years to come. Although Spalding obviously tried to downplay the theological nature of the conflict, he could not totally ignore the doctrinal issues that actually lay at the heart of the debate for he knew that the real issues focused on the formula of personal salvation and the delicate balance between faith and works.
As Spalding analyzed the history of the 1888 era, he labeled the forces of George Butler, Uriah Smith, and J. H. Morrison as the "conservatives" who defended the law to a fault. In Spalding's opinion, they waged a righteous battle against the "progressives," led by Waggoner and Jones, who emphasized "almost exclusively, upon faith as the factor in salvation." Spalding concluded that "both" parties were at fault [41]." The conservatives because they "failed to make clear the proper relationship between faith and works, thus seeming to elevate works into a cause rather than a result" and the progressives because they fought too hard on the "faith side of the equation and seemed to ignore the law [42]." Although Spalding thought that the conservatives basically "kept the law of God [43]," he admitted that the progressives had a valid point of contention because the "theological trend" within the denomination at that time "was to legalism [44]."
In spite of the fact that the denomination met with unprecedented destruction, apostasy and schism approximately 14 years after the Minneapolis conflict, Spalding, like Christian, concluded that "the last decade of the century saw the church developing" because of the 1888 message "into a company prepared to fulfill the mission of God [45]." |
In the 1940s, two young Adventist missionaries, Robert J. Weiland and Donald K. Short, began analyzing the original statements of Ellen White relative to the 1888 episode. Realizing that she was in agreement with Daniells' and Bunch's earlier positions, Weiland and Short publicly challenged the recent viewpoints that Christian and Spalding were promoting throughout the denomination [46]. Not only did Weiland and Short come to the unalterable conclusion that the nineteenth-century church committed a grave error at Minneapolis, they also went on to say that the denomination must publicly repent for rejecting the 1888 message of Waggoner and Jones.
In order to make their position clear, they wrote a 204-page manuscript entitled, 1888 Re-Examined. Like Daniells' earlier 1927 book, their work also consisted of a collection of statements from Ellen White's writings relative to the history of the 1888 conflict. Armed with Danniel's primary source material, Weiland and Short boldly proclaimed that the twentieth-century church was grossly missing the point about Minneapolis.
Hoping that the Denomination would re-evaluate the history of 1888, Weiland and Short naively submitted their manuscript to the General Conference in 1950 for an official analysis and evaluation [47]. Good intentions notwithstanding, their thesis was not well received by the General Conference leadership. Instead, the church hierarchy ordered these denominational employees to cease and desist from circulating their unauthorized views. In spite of the official prohibition, however, their 1888 manuscript circulated within the Adventist community and, once again, many members began questioning the 1888 conflict and the church's official position on the matter [48].
Thanks, no doubt, to Weiland and Short's activities, the Minneapolis history was on the minds of many in the early 1950s. In 1952, this topic was publicly featured at a Bible Conference held in the Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church, in Takoma Park, Maryland. In fact, "Practically every speaker from the first day onward" laid "great stress" upon righteousness by faith [49]. It was even reported that this emphasis on 1888 was "spontaneous" and unplanned, "impelled by the spirit of God." Undoubtedly, this turn of events must have come as a pleasant surprise to Weiland and Short, especially since the conference speakers publicly admitted that the church had "failed to build on the foundation laid at the 1888 General Conference." The church leaders went on to say, "We are years behind where we should have been in spiritual growth. Long ere this we should have been in the promised land [50]." Not only did the conference apparently support the viewpoints of both Daniells' and Bunch, it also publicly tied the success of the twentieth century church with the 1888 doctrine and the loud cry of the fourth angel. The leaders now claimed that, "The holy spirit will come in the fullness of power when the church of God lays hold by faith of the righteousness of Christ as a personal living experience [51]. "
Surprisingly, Weiland and Short, were not impressed with the conference because the leaders refused to allow the specific theology of Jones and Waggoner to be studied or discussed [52]. To make matters even more confusing, the leadership thought that they had faithfully presented the Minneapolis message even more accurately than the original 1888 version. "No longer will the question be," they stated, "'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 [53]?'"
As the decade of the 1950s rolled on, the agitation over 1888 increased. Consequently, in 1958, the General Conference publicly responded a second time to the original thesis of Weiland and Short with a negative reply, entitled, "A Further Appraisal of the Manuscript '1888 Re-Examined.'" In this document, the denomination's leaders strongly condemned the authors' positions and accused them of "considerable amateurishness in both research and use of facts" and charged them with working against the best interests of the church [54]. Clearly, Weiland and Short's crusade was becoming annoying and the Takoma Park hierarchy was in no mood to admit any wrongdoing in the 1888 matter, much less discuss a public apology.
|
|
In 1962, another book dealing with the 1888 history emerged: By Faith Alone. This was in fact the first academic study of the Minneapolis era. Authored by Norval F. Pease who originally began his research in 1945. This book was intended to "set the record straight" by publicly refuting the charges of Weiland and Short that the denomination had rejected the 1888 message.
Pease focused on justification by faith from a historical perspective and traced its development in both the old and new testaments, through the Reformation, and finally into the Seventh-day Adventist community. He concluded that the 1888 theological debate was essentially over the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. However, he saw no merit in the denomination republishing the actual writings of Waggoner or Jones for he was convinced "that they said nothing that was not said better in Steps to Christ, The Desire of Ages, and other writings of Mrs. White [55]." He also warned that we should not confuse the 1888 message with the unscriptural teaching of perfection that Weiland and Short were espousing [56].
Seen as a "timely volume," By Faith Alone was recommended to Adventists everywhere by the General Conference President, Reuben R. Figuhr. In a veiled reference to the two troublesome missionaries, Figuhr defended the denomination's understanding of justification by faith by stating that, "It has even been suggested by a few--entirely erroneously--that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has gone astray in failing to grasp this great fundamental Christian teaching. This book sets the record straight [57]."
A few years later, in 1969, Norval Pease published a sequel to By Faith Alone entitled, The Faith that Saves. In this book, Pease surprisingly takes the novel position that the 1926 General Conference held in Milwaukee was more significant than the 1888 Minneapolis meeting. "It is my firm conviction that it would be well to give less importance to 1888 and more emphasis to 1926." "In fact," he wrote, "the General Conference of 1926 was what 1888 might have been, had there been greater unanimity on the meaning of the gospel [58]." |
Apparently the record was still not "straight" for in 1966 another book on the history of 1888 was released. The General Conference Vice President, A. V. Olson, authored this 320-page volume entitled, Through Crisis to Victory, 1888-1901, but due to his sudden death in the Spring of 1963, the White Estate essentially became responsible for its completion and publication. Through Crisis to Victory essentially supported L.H. Christian's "victory" thesis of 1947. Although the White Estate actually hoped that this new work would lay to rest the "misleading conclusions" about 1888 that Weiland and Short were still promoting, the book did little to quiet the debate [59].
In fact, this widely circulated work drew attention to the 1888 conflict and exposed the Adventist community more than ever to Ellen White's previously unavailable material relating to the conflict. In addition, Through Crisis to Victory only covered the period 1888 to 1901, and it was obvious to any Adventist who was familiar with church history that if Olson and the White Estate had extended the scope of this historical survey by one year to 1902--the year of unprecedented denominational tragedy which Ellen White clearly connected to the 1888 crisis--the thesis of "victory" could not have been sustained. This official version of 1888 could not silence the critics. |
By 1970, the history of Minneapolis was still far from being settled and a number of contradictory accounts of the 1888 period circulated within the Adventist community. Moreover, Weiland and Short, still on their quest to arouse the church to repent for the denomination's supposed rejection of the 1888 message, would not be silenced. Then, in 1971, one of the most comprehensive books ever written on the subject of 1888 appeared on the Adventist bookshelves: Movement of Destiny. This 700-page tome was by far the most exhaustive on the 1888 issue and the author, LeRoy Edwin Froom, was one of the denomination's most prestigious and well-known scholars. Froom had been personally commissioned by A. G. Daniells in 1930 to write out the entire story starting from 1844 to the present, "with special emphasis upon the developments of '1888', and its sequel [60]." This book was intended to be the last and final word on the subject of 1888, "complete and forthright." It would tower above all the rest and finally solve the mystery and contradictions of the 1888 period.
After relinquishing his position as General Conference president in 1922, Daniells developed a close, "father-son" relationship with Froom and perceived him as the "connecting link between the past leaders and the present." He personally passed on to Froom all of his research material from his earlier work, Christ Our Righteousness, as well as his deep conviction that the blessings of 1888 were still in the future [61]. In addition, Daniells warned Froom that this critical work must not be attempted too soon for he feared that the denomination was not yet mature enough to deal with this sensitive subject. There was still the very real possibility that the church could easily be plunged into a repeat of another tragic Minneapolis conflict if the truth about this era surfaced prematurely for Daniells "knew that time would be required for certain theological wounds to heal and for attitudes to modify on the part of some [62]."
Although Daniells' caution to Froom was indeed wise, the debate over 1888, which seemed to have a life of its own, had been heating up for years. Could Froom bring the smoldering controversy to a halt and unite the church behind his interpretation of 1888? The answer was absolutely not. In fact, Froom succeeded in fanning the smoldering debate into a flaming inferno as the conflict moved into a strange and innovative direction that actually complicated the original 1888 problem.
As a mature, seasoned Adventist scholar, Froom's work on 1888 seemed unparalleled. "It was read critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars--specialists in denominational history and Adventist theology. By experts in the Spirit of Prophecy. By key Bible teachers, editors, mass communication men, scientists, physicians," etc. [63]. It was intended to be the best, last and final word on the history of 1888.
Froom's long association with denominational leaders and church historians gave him a unique advantage as he took up the challenge to solve the nagging problem of the 1888 era. Not only did he have a mandate from the legendary A. G. Daniells, but church historian, Arthur Spalding, personally encouraged him to settle the intriguing questions and puzzling complexities of this period as did A. V. Olson who challenged him to "get to the bottom of the facts" and provide a work that would allow the church to complete the "final advances [64]."
The highest officials in the denomination also supported Froom's work. Robert H. Pierson, the General Conference President, wrote the Forward to the book and quoted from an Ellen White letter written in 1903, which stated that the 1888 history was destined to repeat itself. Pierson made it clear that he thought the time was "near, very near." He recommended Movement of Destiny to the entire church without reservation.
Aside from Pierson, the book was also publicly endorsed by Neil Wilson, who was then the Vice President of the North American Division and Chairman of the Guiding Committee for the manuscript. Wilson was also enthusiastic about Froom's work and was confident that the "facts" as well as the "whole story" would now be told. It was his personal hope that this providential work could be used to unify the church and facilitate the loud cry [65].
Surprisingly, Froom's comprehensive work shed little light on the 1888 controversy. In fact, he deviated from all previous positions on the subject and took a novel viewpoint that has never been corroborated by any previous or subsequent research. He stated that the "inner heart of Waggoner's epochal message" was primarily about the nature of Christ, which caused a debate about the Godhead [66]. Unfortunately, like L. E. Christian, Froom proposed a unique thesis about the 1888 period that was totally without merit or documentation. And in his quest to resolve this embarrassing nineteenth century episode, he incorrectly added yet another theological component--the nature of Christ--into the 1888 debate that was a "non-issue" during the entire Minneapolis era [67]. Although we know today that the nature of Christ had nothing to do with the 1888 conflict, Froom's incorrect thesis, along with other historical inaccuracies, became absorbed into the contemporary debate [68]. Once again, the church would have to wait for a solution to what could well be referred to as the unsolvable mystery of Minneapolis [69].
Although Froom was confused about the 1888 conflict, he lost no time in condemning Weiland and Short for their views on Minneapolis. He seemed to be convinced that the church leaders did not reject the 1888 message as Weiland and Short had claimed, and proceeded to turn the tables on them by demanding that they--not the church--repent and confess. "It is my considered view," he wrote, "that such a charge of 'leadership rejection' stands as invalid and unproved, and is deeply regrettable [70]." As if personally defending his denominational colleagues, Froom lashed out at Weiland and Short and demanded an "explicit confession" from them for their supposedly unfounded charges. He boldly and ironically accused them of impeaching the dead and relying upon their own "personal opinion or impression or conjecture," rather than the historical record [71].
Weiland and Short were not impressed. The next year they met Froom's demand with a 64-page document sarcastically entitled, "An Explicit Confession...Due the Church." Not surprisingly, this document strongly disagreed with Froom's position and this matter has remained at an impasse to this day [72].
|
In April, 1974, Weiland and Short went public with their views in a book entitled, The Mystery of 1888. The details of the denomination's varied and contradictory positions relative to the Minneapolis theology were now becoming more visible within the Adventist community. It would not be long before the church would once again become embroiled in a fractious and vocal debate that seemed to parallel many aspects of the Minneapolis conflict [73].
In fact, by the late 1970s, the debate over righteousness by faith became so turbulent that the new G.C. President, Neil Wilson, tried to control the volatile situation by calling "for an end to public discussion of the 'fine points' of righteousness by faith. He then proceeded to appoint a committee to study the problem [74]." The conflict, however, was not to be quieted by administrative fiat, and the divisive debates continued until the conservative faction within the church finally maneuvered for a decisive advantage.
Although it would have been helpful during the 1970s to have an accurate and complete assessment of the 1888 history, none existed. Since the contemporary debate was essentially over an 1888 topic, it would seem that more effort would have been put forth to understand the historical nature of the Minneapolis conflict. The ironic fact, however, was that during this critical time period when the church was trying to better understand the 1888 doctrine referred to as righteousness by faith, the authentic history of the Minneapolis era was still shrouded in mystery and confusion with many of the key 1888 documents resting untouched in the basement vault of the General Conference.
Notwithstanding the lack of reliable information concerning 1888, the conflict surged into issues touching the more distant--and no doubt even more unfamiliar--history of the 1844 era. The very pillars of Adventism were indeed shaking and for many the cracks were becoming quite noticeable.
In essence, the contemporary 1888 conflict revolved not around the earlier simplistic question of denominational "acceptance" or "rejection," but rather the focus had now shifted to the theological definition of righteousness by faith. Dr. Desmond Ford, an Adventist theologian from Australia, championed the position that the term "righteousness by faith" must be limited to include only the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is imputed to the believer's account. However, Kenneth Wood, the editor of the Review at that time, insisted on a more traditional Adventist perspective that included acceptable personal obedience (referred to as sanctification) which must be included within the salvific formula of righteousness by faith [75].The fervor of the growing debate became so widespread that even non-Adventists were joining the fray. In 1977, Geoffrey J. Paxton, an Anglican theologian from Australia, wrote a controversial book entitled, The Shaking of Adventism. This 172-page work, which was widely circulated and discussed within the Adventist community, soon became a lightning rod for the debate. Because of his affinity for Luther and the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, Paxton made no efforts to disguise his support for Ford, and in fact did his best to encourage Ford's promotion of the doctrine of justification by faith within the denomination.
As Paxton surveyed Adventism's historical landscape, he, too, could not avoid dealing with the 1888 period where he discovered that "the doctrine of justification by faith hit the Adventist church with unexpected fury” [76]. Although Paxton did not have the benefit of the recently discovered source material that is now available, he doubted Froom's unique assessment of the debate and claimed "the real bone of contention" was "the law in Galatians and its relation to the gospel." Although Paxton saw "great light" in the 1888 message, which taught that "no amount of mere human obedience can satisfy the divine law...," he noted that the denomination opposed the 1888 message and claimed that Waggoner and Jones were never really clear on the doctrine of justification by faith anyway. For this latter reason, Paxton concluded, Waggoner and Jones "soon lost their way." According to Paxton, the history of Adventism could have been quite different if the church leadership had investigated the 1888 message more honestly instead of ostracizing the two famous ministers [77]. Realizing how important the 1888 history had become to the current righteousness by faith conflict, another book entitled, Elliot Joseph Waggoner: The Myth and the Man, entered the debate. In an attempt to counter Weiland and Short as well as the Review, the author, David P. McMahon and the publisher, Robert Brimsmead, maintained that Waggoner actually introduced a forensic version of justification by faith. He claimed that "just before the conference of 1888, Waggoner clearly taught a purely forensic justification" that relied heavily on Martin Luther's interpretation of justification by faith. As far as the analysis of the historical debate was concerned, McMahon thought, "The great issue at the conference was the law in Galatians. It involved Waggoner's recovery of the reformation heritage on the second use of the law” [78].As the contemporary righteousness by faith debate spread throughout the church, many laypersons and students supported Ford's position, while many of the denomination’s conservative theologians and General Conference leaders lined up behind the Review. As Ford continued to promote the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith, he innocently disclosed his belief that the denomination's position relating to the "investigative judgment" of Daniel 8:14 was erroneous. Because of his strong emphasis on the substitutional role of Christ's Righteousness, Ford saw no theological basis for an "investigative judgment" that examined the individuals behavior in order to see how successfully they obeyed the moral law. In his opinion, such a doctrine warred against the Protestant teaching of justification by faith by denying the assurance of salvation to the believer. However well intended Ford's sanctuary position seemed, this public disclosure gave his conservative opponents the opportunity they needed to exploit the situation. Consequently, a special meeting was held in the summer of 1980 at the denomination's Glacier View campground in Colorado to consider Ford's sanctuary position.
Although it appeared that theological compromise and progress could be achieved, the conservatives successfully appealed to Ellen White's writings in order to sustain their viewpoint. The Review especially took advantage of the situation and declared that the "landmark doctrines" must be "held fast" [79]. Ford and his progressive ideas were apparently no match for the institutionalized church and lacking the political strength to orchestrate a favorable outcome, he was essentially forced to recant his position on the gospel or face exile from the Adventist community. In August of 1980, the church's most vociferous twentieth century champion of righteousness by faith lost his ministerial and teaching credentials and was dismissed as an employee of the denomination [80].
While the battle over righteousness by faith was moving into forbidden theological waters, the Review published and promoted Weiland's version of righteousness by faith in 1980 entitled, The 1888 Message--An Introduction [81]. In this 116-page book, Weiland emphasizes his long-held view that Waggoner and Jones' theology actually "makes a believer righteous in the sense that it makes him to be an obedient doer of the law” [82]. In fact, Weiland went so far as to claim that Jones and Waggoner had actually developed a more advanced doctrine of justification by faith than the Protestant reformers [83].
Weiland's mature 1888 formula, while certainly not unique to Adventist thought, is based upon the incorrect assumption that the nature of Christ and the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary were major factors in the original Minneapolis debate [84]. From these two cardinal doctrines supposedly involved in the 1888 conflict, Weiland and Short--as well as the Advent Review--promoted the acceptance of a perfectionistic gospel that Dr. Ford and his supporters were avidly against. Unlike Ford who never claimed to be an authority on the subject of 1888, Weiland and Short maintained that "sinless living" is possible if the church accepted their interpretation of the 1888 message [85]. Weiland's perfectionist publication was followed the next year by The White Estate. In 1981, against the strong objections of some, the trustees were determined to re-issue A. V. Olson's 1966 work, Through Crisis to Victory [86]. However, because new research in the White Estate had failed to sustain Christian's victory, this thesis could no longer be promoted. Thus, the White Estate reluctantly changed the title to Thirteen Crisis Years, admitting that this new title, "now replaced the less accurate title." However, only the title was orrected--the text remained unchanged including the many inaccuracies, omissions, and contradictions about 1888 [87].
Three years later, in 1984, Arthur White produced a work entitled, The Lonely Years, 1876-1891, Volume 3, which was the biography of Ellen White during the 1888 period. Unfortunately, this work, which was produced by such a venerable church elder and grandson of Ellen White, broke no new ground and also failed to resolve the righteousness by faith deadlock. Surprisingly, no attempt was made to incorporate the recently discovered primary sources that had been discovered in both the White Estate and the G.C. Archives. Predictably, Arthur White took the position that essentially followed Spalding's 1949 thesis. In addition, he makes the same point that Froom and others had been so zealous of highlighting: the church did not reject the 1888 message.
In a direct reference to Taylor Bunch, Author White wrote, "The concept that the General Conference and thus the denomination rejected the message of righteousness by faith in 1888 is without foundation and was not projected until forty years after the Minneapolis meeting...." Arthur White was also convinced that following the Minneapolis conference, "general" support for the theology of Waggoner and Jones materialized [88]. Although he connects the 1888 era with the "loud cry," Arthur White has nonetheless maintained his long-held position that the famous 1888 General Conference was but "one event" among many that the church has had to deal with, and he has taken great pains to present Minneapolis in the most positive and insignificant light possible [89].
|
As the 1888 centennial approached, the church was faced with the fact that not only had the denomination's best scholars and theologians failed to settle the nineteenth century debate, they also failed to resolve the present twentieth century conflict which was in fact based upon the original Minneapolis debate. Although Ford's new theology had been officially discounted almost a decade earlier, many of those who remained in the church seemed to be leaning towards his Protestant interpretation of righteousness by faith. Even the conservatives who had triumphed at the beginning of the decade now found themselves out of step with many in the Adventist community during this "perplexing time."[90] In fact, to those who were attempting to protect the traditional doctrines, it was becoming clear that the denomination was experiencing the wholesale abandonment of the truth. Adventism is "a divided house. No longer can it be seen as one unified body established upon the pure truth of God. We must recognize that we are in a civil war” [91].
In spite of the Church's inability to solve the Minneapolis conflict, the leadership determined to "celebrate" the Minneapolis history anyway. Although the Adventist community, for the most part, appeared weary and disinterested by the long and apparently unresolvable debate, a few authors dared to promote their viewpoints on the subject. Not surprisingly, one of the first to publish was Weiland and Short. Their "revised and updated" work, entitled 1888 Re-Examined, was reissued in 1987. This 200-page book was widely circulated throughout the denomination and surprisingly met with little resistance or theological criticism. Realizing that Dr. Ford and many of his reformation-minded followers were no longer in a position to check their perfectionistic enthusiasm, Weiland and Short seized the opportunity in a well-organized attempt to indoctrinate the North American Division with their 1888 theology. To this end they unleashed a strategic campaign, which included National conferences, seminars, and magazines along with books, pamphlets, and cassettes all promoting their 40-year position relating to 1888.Meanwhile, in 1989, Professor George Knight of Andrews University, waded deep into the debate with his book appropriately entitled, Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith. Knight had previously completed a much needed biography on A. T. Jones in time for the 1888 centennial entitled, From 1888 to Apostasy, and, unlike Weiland and Short, Knight was not convinced that the conflicting issues of the Minneapolis period were theologically driven. In fact, he supported Spalding's earlier thesis by declaring that "the main issues in the 1888 righteousness by faith meetings were not doctrinal but experiential."
In his book, From 1888 to Apostasy, Knight even went so far as to insist that it was futile for anyone today to attempt to resolve the 1888 conflict because "the exact message of Waggoner probably has been lost forever” [92]. Moreover, Knight thought that it was "high time" for the Adventist community to stop "bickering about 1888" and start applying its central message--a message that he interpreted as primarily about "living the caring Christian life now” [93]. A year after the 1888 centennial, however, as dramatic primary source material became available, Knight was forced to question his recently published view and reversed his position. In fact, in the preface to Angry Saints, Knight apologetically stated, "In retrospect, I have concluded that I over-emphasized the experience to the detriment of the content of the 1888 message [94].
Although Knight's Angry Saints was a worthy contribution to the growing body of 1888 material--especially as it dealt with the background and historical context of the period--he failed to resolve the nineteenth century debate or the present parallel conflict. While Knight believed that understanding 1888 was "the key to the future, [95] " he could not bring himself to take a position on either side of the present discussion. On the one hand, he refuted Weiland and Short's perfectionistic claim that the 1888 message was an improved version of justification by faith and declared that "the 1888 message was not some special Adventist contribution to theology, [96]" Yet, on the other hand, he sniped at Dr. Ford's righteousness by faith position and labeled it a "false dichotomy [97]." He also took Paxton to task for his supposed "misconception" of connecting Adventism too closely to the Protestant reformers and their chief doctrine, justification by faith. Besides, Knight thought that "those holding the 'forensic only' view," were making a mistake by failing to include "Wesley's emphasis on sanctification” [98]. After rejecting both sides of the current debate, Knight essentially retreated to Spalding's earlier viewpoint and claimed that the personal "experience of salvation" was the only safe position.
Quite predictably, Knight was also undecided about whether the church had accepted or rejected the 1888 message and proclaimed that the "genius of 1888 is that Christ is everything in our salvation. He is both our Justification and our Sanctification” [99]. Such a viewpoint in the context of the righteousness by faith debate was of no real value and once again highlighted the inability of the denomination's scholars to resolve the mystery of 1888.
Failing to find a historical solution to the Minneapolis mystery, Knight followed in the footsteps of the innovative Froom and invented a new and unique Minneapolis thesis that he hoped would quiet the debate. Like many others, Knight admitted that there was a connection between 1888 and the loud cry of the fourth angel. However, he now claimed that the church has "had the loud cry message [ever] since 1888" and declared that "since Minneapolis" we have "had access to both 'the commandments of God' and 'the faith of Jesus....'" If only the denomination would avoid "the spirit of Minneapolis" with its wrangling and debate and emphasize the power of personal transformation instead, the church could move forward [100].As the Advent community entered the last decade of the twentieth century it was clear that the church was still confused and disoriented about both it's history and theology. Although many North American members were reduced to apathy, or cynicism, there was an increasingly loud and desperate cry from the conservatives for a return to the basic teachings of historic 19th century Adventism. Such a call appeared necessary because during the 1980's many had ignored their pleas to reject Ford's now widespread "new theology" which they considered "a masterpiece of Satan". Moreover the frustrated leaders within the traditionalist camp began to charge the denomination with supporting and encouraging this "deadly infiltration of the 'new theology'" [101]. A charge that soon evolved into "apostasy" and heresy [102].
As the conservatives battled on, Robert Weiland pressed the issue of denominational repentance to the front as he revised his earlier work entitled “As Many As I Love” and renamed it “Corporate Repentance-Plea of the True Witness”. Weiland wrote that although the 1888 subject "has been surpressed for decades" the topic was now "beginning to attract serious attention." After all, who today would dare suggest that the church had accepted Wagner and Jones' Minneapolis message. To Weiland and the conservatives, the fate of the church hinged not upon the reinterpretation of historic Adventist doctrines as suggested by the evangelical faction, but rather on the reception and implementation of the supposedly authentic 1888 message of righteousness by faith along with its corollary Nineteenth century doctrines [103].
Without hesitation, Weiland charged that the real reason the church had so many "doubters on many sides" who were questioning the prophetic destiny of the Advent movement is because "there has been a failure to comprehend the grand dimensions of God's grace, one dimension of which is the 1888 idea of justification by faith. It has not only been misunderstood, but denied" [104]. For many Traditionalists, the time had now come for the denomination to officially repent for the rejecting of the 1888 message so that the church could return to the true Adventist doctrine of the nineteenth century before it became too late.
By 1993, the still unresolved debate over 1888 and Righteousness by Faith had once again escalated to confrontational proportions--but this time the Traditionalists would be publicly rebuked by the Denomination through a large and well-exhibited document entitled, "Issues: The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries". Unable to tolerate the growing public attacks that were now coming from a variety of conservative ministries and no doubt hoping to short-circuit a possible schism, the North American leaders ironically moved against the very factions that had so zealously supported Dr. Ford's expulsion and exile twelve years earlier [105].
Although the Righteousness by Faith debate had always involved strong personalities as Spaulding had been so quick to point out, it was refreshing to hear today’s leadership admit that the heart of the present conflict was "grounded in theology". And there was no doubt that this specific theology revolved around the same issues that were so hotly debated back in the 1970s and early 1980s: the nature of Christ versus our nature, the proper definition of Righteousness by Faith, the sanctuary doctrine, and the authority and role of Ellen White. However, as far as the conservatives were concerned, Ford's influence had so eroded the teaching and practice of historic Adventism that they felt there was only a small step left to the wholesale abandonment of the Sabbath doctrine itself. "Thus, 'heresy follows heresy in a steady march into the church... in the great Adventist apostasy'" [106].
However, the Denominational leaders contended that while the Traditionalists had some valid points, "the issues of the conflict over the nature of Christ and Righteousness by Faith are not nearly as straightforward" as imagined. "Both scripture and Ellen White contain statements that seem to support varying viewpoints, and these must be held in tension with each other." Consequently the authors thought that no one should be dogmatic about these complex issues, which the church has deliberately "chosen" to leave "open because general agreement on specifics does not exist" [107].
|
From our survey of the various viewpoints of the Minneapolis conflict, it is apparent that the 1888 episode has never been adequately addressed or resolved. Ellen White identified the theological message of the 1888 era with the law in Galatians, justification by faith, and the righteousness of Christ. Moreover, she connected the Minneapolis message with the "loud cry" of the fourth angel and strongly maintained that the 1888 message was never fully accepted by the denominational leadership at either the Review or the General Conference. In fact, it is Ellen White's clear position that rather than "lighten the earth with its glory," the rejection of the 1888 message brought disaster and judgment to the denomination. In addition, she directly connected the tragic dispersion from Battle Creek with the church's refusal to accept the Minneapolis message.
Although A. G. Daniells and Taylor Bunch publicly supported Ellen White's 1888 viewpoint, a diametrically opposing position emerged in 1947 when L.H. Christian claimed that the Minneapolis message had been a "victory." This new position, combined with Spalding's interpretation that personalities rather than theology was the true source of the conflict, proved too tempting for some to resist. These revisionists' views gained ground quickly and soon became a useful denominational position that was sustained by such prominent church leaders as Arthur White, Norval Pease, R.R. Figuhr, O.A. Olson, LeRoy Froom, Robert Pierson, and many others.
In spite of the Denomination's attempts to downplay the historical conflict, Weiland and Short lined up behind the earlier viewpoints of Ellen White, Daniells, and Bunch. They vigorously challenged the church leaders to reconsider the "victory" thesis of Christian and called for the Church to publicly confess for rejecting the original1888 message. These two missionaries strongly maintained that the denomination was making a serious error regarding 1888, and they have diligently pursued their conscience on the issue by making certain that the history of Minneapolis was not brushed aside or forgotten.
During the 1970s, the unresolved debate over the acceptance or rejection of the 1888 message evolved into a more complex issue of defining in detail the theological components of the supposed Minneapolis theology. Weiland and Short as well as the Review claimed that Waggoner's original message of righteousness by faith encompassed both the nature of Christ and the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. In their opinion, specific obedience to the moral law--known as sanctification--was required on the part of the believer in order to obtain salvation.
Desmond Ford and many others rejected this formula and maintained that personal salvation was derived solely by the substitutionary obedience of Christ's imputed righteousness. This shift in the 1888 discussion only escalated the conflict and resulted in the dismissal of Dr. Ford who declared that the pioneers' "investigative judgment" position was incompatible with the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. He claimed that the investigative judgment doctrine was unscriptural and only useful to support the perfectionistic theology of the church's right wing. Although Dr. Ford's surprising dismissal in 1980 resulted in a short-term victory for the conservatives, the Adventist body failed to enthusiastically embrace the Traditional position. And as the decade wore on, many concluded that Dr. Ford's position might actually be preferable to that of the traditionalist. However, with no resolution in sight, many members have become increasingly frustrated and apathetic with the direction of the church.
More than a century has passed since the famous 1888 General Conference, and the denomination is still reaping the bitter harvest of this unresolved conflict. The Adventist community today is understandably confused about their historical identity and seriously divided over the correct definition of the gospel. Consequently, the church is unable to move forward in a united effort to finish its prophetic work. The solution to this debilitating impasse lies hidden in the history of the Minneapolis conflict--a history that the church can no longer afford to avoid.
|
|
Table 1- Summary of Viewpoints
Table 1 summarizes the various positions regarding 1888 during the last 100 years. The table begins with Ellen White’s viewpoint and concludes with George Knight’s interpetation. The Table highlights the various positions as they relate to Weiland’s thesis of denominational rejection. Click here to view table.
|
Thomas A. Norris wrote this unpublished book chapter in 1989. It was updated in 1992. © Copyright 1989. |
|
[1] Ellen White, Manuscript 24, 1888.
[2] Ibid., page 5.
[3[ Ibid., page 7.
[4] Ibid., page 8.
[5] Ibid., p. 20.
[6]Ibid., p. 23
[7] Ibid., p. 22.
[8] Ellen G. White, "Repentence, the Gift of God," Review & Herald (April 1890).
[9] Ellen G. White, Review & Herald (November 22, 1892 and November 29, 1892).
[10] George Knight, Angry Saints (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald Publishing Association, 1989), pp. 94-95.
[11] Ellen G. White, Review & Herald, volume 69, No. 46, p. 615.
[12]Ellen G. White, Review & Herald, November 29, 1892, pp. 617-618., vol. 69, No. 47.
[13] Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 89-90
[14] Ibid., pp. 91,92
[15] Ibid., p. 97.
[16] Ibid., p. 97.
[17] Ibid., p. 64.
[18] Ibid., p. 69.
[19] Ibid., pp. 70-71.
[20] Ibid., pp. 76-77.
[21] SDA Bible Commentary, p. 213.
[22] R. W. Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant, p. 306.
[23] 8T pp. 99
[24] 8T p. 102
[25] EGW letter 179, 1902
[26] LB p 288
[27] Ron Greybill, "The Editor's Stump," Adventist Heritage (Winter 1988; Volume 13, Number 1), p. 2.
[28] E. G. White Index, p. 309-313. Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen White, Topical Index, V. 3, p. 2281, "Righteousness" and Quotation Index, p. 3158, RBFIC.
[29] Adventist Heritage,...., Ron Greybill.
[30] 1888 Re-Examined, pp. 29-30; and A. G. Daniels, Christ Our Righteousness, 1926, pp. 47, 50, 53, 54.
[31] Movement of destiny, pp. 17-18.
[32] Taylor Grant Bunch, "The Exodous and Advent Movement in Type and Anti-Type," Unpublished collection of 36 vesper sermons presented at the Battle Creek Tabernacle, Battle Creek, Michigan, 1937, p. 108.
[33] Ibid., p. 96. See also chapters 13 and 14 in the book of Numbers.
[34] Ibid., p. 101.
[35] Ibid., p. 96, General Conference Bulletin, March 30, 1903.
[36] Ibid., p. 90.
[37] ibid., p 100.
[38] Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts, p. 225.
[39] Chapter 17, pp. 219-245.
[40] Ibid., p. 599.
[41] Ibid., p. 593.
[42] Captains of the Host, p.599
[43] Captains of the Host, p. 585
[44] Ibid., p. 587.
[45] Ibid., p. 602.
[46] The 1888 message, 1980, page 8 intro.
[47] 1888 Re examined, 1987, p. 165.
[48] ibid
[49] Our Firm Foundation, volume II, pp. 616-617.
[50] Our Firm Foundation, volume II, p.p 616,617.
[51] Our Firm foundation p. 606
[52] 1888-Re-examined pp. 165-167
[53] W. H. Branson, V. 2, pp. 616, 617.
[54] 1888-Re-examined p 167 1987
[55] By faith alone p. 239
[56] ibid 239-240
[57] Forward pvii By Faith Alone
[58] The Faith that Saves p. 59
[59] 1888-Re-Examined 1987 pp. 169-70
[60] Movement of Destiny p. 17; "sequel" meaning either Daniells 1927 book or the actual "1888" debate that took place in 1890 in Battle Creek.
[61] Movement Of Destiny, p403
[62] Movement of Destiny, p. 17 & p.403. Daniells was quite fearful about 1888 for he believed that this subject had the potential to once again shake the church to its very foundation. Therefore, he actually told Froom that certain powerful leaders would have to drop "out of action" before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth."
[63] MOD p. 8
[64] ibid p. 22
[65] ibid p. 13,15, 16 Wilson thought that God had prepared Froom for this work and stated his beleif that it's timming was of God.
[66] Movement p.272
[67] 1888-A. T. Jones Knight p. 133
[68] ibid pp. 188-201
[69] The Mystery of 1888, April 1974, Weiland and Short., p. 14.
[70] Movement of Destiny p. 685-86
[71] ibid 358
[72] 1888-re examined p. 179-180 (1987)
[73] The mystery of 1888, 116 pages
[74] Adventism in America p 215, 217,218-225
[75] Adventists in America, p. 217.
[76] ibid p.64
[77] ibid p.67
[78] p. 77
[79] Adventism in America, pp. 224-225.
[80] Ibid., p. #. Ford, however, remained a member of the Pacific Union College SDA church.
[81] Robert J. Weiland, The 1888 Message--An Introduction, Edited by Donald Short (1980: Southern Publishing; also published by Reivew & Herald, Washington, D. C.), pp. 7-8.
[82] The 1888 message p. 77
[83] ibid p38, 88
[84] ibid see chapter 10. and p. 142
[85] ibid chapter 4,8
[86] A. V. Olson, "From the Minneapolis Meeting to the Reorganization of the General Conference," Thirteen Crisis Years, 1888-1901 (Washington, D. C.: The Review & Herald Publishing Association, 1966, 1981), pp. ##.
[87] p. 10, forward to second edition by Arthur L. White.
[88] The Lonely Years, p. 396.
[89] p. 397.
[90] Colin D. Standish and Russell R. Standish, Keepers of the Faith (Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 1988), p. 230.
[91] Ibid., p. 251.
[92] George Knight, From 1888 To Apostasy, p. 65
[93] Ibid., p. 73
[94] AS p12
[95] AS, p11
[96] AS, pp. 53 and 57.
[97] Ibid p. 133.
[98] Ibid, p. 133.
[99] AS134
[100] AS, p.150.
[101] Colin D. Standish & Russell R. Standish; Deceptions of the New Theology; Hartline Publications, 1989; p.159
[102] Ralph Larson, "Herisies Will Come In ", Our Firm Foundation 6, No. 2 , Feb 1991; pp.
[103] Robert J. Weiland, "Corporate Repentance-Plea of the True Witness"1992 Glad Tidings Publishers; introduction; p. 123
[104] Ibid p. 99
[105] Surprisingly, Dr. Ford's Good News Unlimited was also listed in the Issues document as one of the private orginizations that "have displayed an unwillngness to operate in harmony with denominational procedures and protocol."
[106] Issues-(small version), p.4.
[107] Ibid p. 8
|
|
|
|
