The Background of the 1888 Message
For those who have not had time to
read deeply into the history of the 1888 message, here is a brief
outline:
-
The Seventh-day Adventist church
was "born" in an experience of true love for Jesus which
was evident in the 1844 movement."36
-
Although our people had become
aware as early as 1856 that the Laodicean message applied uniquely
to the remnant church, the message had not done its work. By the
1880's the church had settled into a generally lukewarm condition.37
-
In the 1880's, Ellen White wrote
burning messages of appeal to the church at large to accept the
counsel of the True Witness.38 She often said that we had
"left [our] first love."39
-
While the church was
retrograding spiritually, it was advancing financially, in number
of adherents, and in the prestige of its institutions. A
heart-preparation for the coming of Christ receded into the
background.
-
Our ministers and evangelists
enjoyed almost uninterrupted success in arguing and debating the
doctrines of "present truth" before the people. Pride
and self-esteem flourished in the ministers and leadership.
-
As early as 1882, the Lord began
to prepare two messengers who in His providence would be ready by
1888 to call the church to repentance and revival, and thus to
present a clearer understanding of "the third angel’s
message in verity."40 Passing by those whom He could not use,
He gave these young men "heavenly credentials."41
-
The Lord educated and
disciplined them so that they were able to honor His name at the
time of the 1888 Conference.42 Ellen White supported them
unequivocally.43 Their message was pure, beautiful gospel
truth.44
-
Although most of the
"leading men" rejected their message45 Ellen White’s
support made it possible for Jones and Waggoner to visit
institutes and camp meetings with her after the 1888 Conference,
where the message demonstrated its "credentials" in
phenomenal revivals and reformation.46 "Like a wave of glory,
the blessings of God swept over us," she said. "We felt
the deep movings of His Spirit."47 Never since the
"Midnight Cry" of 1844 had the Holy Spirit so
wonderfully endorsed a message among us.48
This created a new problem
concerning the message. A spirit of "jealousy" came in
among the "leading men" and now "they hated it the
more, because it was a testimony against them. They would not
humble their hearts to repent, to give God the glory, and
vindicate the right."49 They "stood to bar the way
against all evidence."50 In the midst of these stirring
revivals, Ellen White wrote plaintively in the Review &
Herald, "How long will those at the head of the work keep
themselves aloof from the message of God?"51 Due to their
opposing influence, "the people … do not know whether to
come and take hold of this precious truth or not."52
-
Although "many" of the
leading brethren in fact rejected the message and only a
"few" in heart accepted it,53 some later confessed how
mistaken they were.54 These "confessions" are the basis
for most of the historians’ insistence on a "glorious
victory."55 However, many previously unknown Ellen White
statements now disclose how leaders who "confessed"
later returned to their spirit of unbelief and rejection, or
failed to help in the crisis.56 As the nineteenth century at last
turned into the twentieth, "not one" of the initial
rejectors was helping to proclaim the message effectively!57
-
Ministers who lived through
that era generally reminisced their personal assumptions that the
1888 message was well accepted.58 Their "affidavits"
allegedly prove that "there was no denomination-wide or
leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted."59
But these brethren did not have the discernment of the gift of
prophecy, and could not rightly discern the significance of what
was happening.
We wish to afford the honored
brethren of that era the utmost respect and deference which they
are due. But do we dare accept their assumption in clear
contradiction to the testimony of the Lord’s messenger who
exercised the gift of prophecy? To doubt or contradict Ellen White’s
judgment here is to discredit her life ministry, for never was she
so emphatic about any stand she ever took as she was regarding the
1888 message and history.
The
Reaction Against the Message
NOTES:
-
See GC
369-373; EW 238; SR 369-374, GC 398, 400,
402. [Return
to text]
-
See
A.G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness, pp. 27-40 (not
to be confused with Waggoner’s Christ and His
Righteousness). [Return
to text]
-
For
example, RH Nov. 2, 1886; July 24,1888; Oct. 28,1884;
Aug. 31,1886; Jan 31,1888; July 3,1888. [Return
to text]
-
For
example, TM 167-173; RH Sept. 3,1889; Dec.
9,1890. [Return
to text]
-
Compare
E.J. Waggoner’s account of his "vision" of
"Christ crucified" in 1882 ("Last Confession of
Faith," written before his death May 28,1916) with 5T 81,
82 (also 1882) and Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia,
article on Jones. [Return
to text]
-
Ellen
White, RH Mar. 18, 1890; May 27, 1890; Sept. 3, 1889, TM
413. [Return
to text]
-
Jones’
diligent study pre-1888 is described in SDA Encyclopedia,
article on A.T. Jones, also in Spalding, op. cit., p.
291. Both Jones and Waggoner received reproof from Ellen White
(cf. CWE 75-82, Letter Feb. 18, 1887) and apparently
accepted it in humble spirit.
[Return to
text]
-
It is
as yet impossible to document all the Ellen White endorsements
of their message which keep coming to light. The total is now
nearly three hundred. [Return
to text]
-
See
the following, "What Was the 1888 Message?" After
1890, and even through 1896, we do not find any Ellen White
statement questioning the basic theological understanding
shared by Jones and Waggoner. [Return
to text]
-
See TCV
290, 291, 292 (MS 9,1888), 301 ["At this meeting . . .
opposition, rather than investigation, is the order of the
day,"] (MS 15,l888); Letter B-21,1888 ["The spirit
and influence of the ministers generally who have come to this
meeting is to discard light"], (Oct. 14); 1SM 234, 235. [Return
to text]
-
See
Olson, pp. 56-81. [Return
to text]
-
RH
Mar. 18, 1890. [Return
to text]
-
Some
examples of the intensity of this revival can be found in RH
Feb. 12,1889, and following issues of Feb. 19, March 5, July
23, Sept. 3. Nothing like it was known before nor has been
known since in the Seventh-day Adventist church. [Return
to text]
-
Letter
S-24,1892, "Some of our brethren … are full of
jealousy … and are ever ready to show in just what way
they differ with Elder Jones or Waggoner"; compare TM
80. [Return
to text]
-
Letter
O-10, 1892. [Return
to text]
-
RH
Mar. 18, 1890. [Return
to text]
-
RH
Mar. 11,1890. [Return
to text]
-
No
statement exists in which EGW refers to those who accepted the
message as "many"; invariably they are
"few." The rejectors are always "many."
("Some" is indefinite and can "mean either
unless context is clear.) See TM 64, 65, 76, 77, 89-97;
her diary for Jan. 29, 31, Feb. 1, 8, 1890; Daniells, The
Abiding Gift of Prophecy, p. 369, "The Lord’s
messenger took her stand almost alone [with Jones and
Waggoner] . . .amid either hesitancy or active opposition on
the part of many." The fact that "some"
accepted must not be minimized; but the "many" who
rejected overwhelmed them (see TM 80, 89-97; RH
Mar. 18, 1890; MS 2,1890, p. 3).
[Return to
text]
-
See
Olson, pp. 82-114. [Return
to text]
-
See
Froom, op. cit., pp. 367-370; Spalding, p. 297.
Christian does not even mention the "confessions,"
as he assumes Minneapolis to be a "glorious
victory." [Return
to text]
-
All
of these EGW statements have now been released and published
in the four-volume set of 1888 Materials (1,812 pages).
Statements cited here can be readily located using the Index
in Volume One. See Letter S-24,1892, addressed to Uriah Smith,
and RH, May 10, 1892, for evidence that he was still
opposing the message after his confession; EGW Letter of Jan.
9, 1893, "This blind warfare [against Jones and Waggoner]
is continued," speaking of Smith. See Letter S-256-1892
which mentions "Elder Smith, Elder Van Horn and Elder
Butler" as still opposing and who "will meet with
eternal loss; for though they should repent and be saved at
last, they can never regain that which they have lost"
(Aug. 30, 1892). [Return
to text]
-
See
Letter B-2a, 1892, where she says that "not one" of
those who opposed the light at Minneapolis had to date come to
the light. This was after most of the confessions. Pease says
"no Elishas were in evidence by 1900 ready to assume the
mantle in case something should happen to the three principal
champions . . ." (By Faith Alone, p. 164). This is
true. [Return
to text]
-
See
C. McReynolds, "Experiences While at the General
Conference in Minneapolis … " D. File 189; Froom, pp.
255-268. R.T. Nash in his "Eyewitness Report" is an
exception, "The speakers [Jones and Waggoner] met a
united opposition from nearly all the senior ministers,"
and says nothing about later confessions. [Return
to text]
-
Froom,
p. 256. (No one except Froom has ever seen those
"affidavits.") [Return
to text]
|