The year was 1950. The place was the Civic Auditorium in San Francisco, where the forty-sixth session of the General Conference convened from July 10 to 22. Among the more than 850 delegates to “this great world conference” came these two missionaries from the Southern African Division who were home on their first furlough after serving for a number of years in the East African Union Mission.
One was a mission director in Kenya at a station which at the time professed the largest membership in Africa, while the other served as mission held president in Uganda. Both were deeply concerned with the spiritual needs of the church in Africa. Although they had known each other from college days at Southern Junior and Washington Missionary College, they had had no special association over the years, having seen each other but once at a workers’ meeting in their Union.
As a coincidence they went on furlough together traveling with their families from Mombasa on the S.S. Llandovery Castle, through the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, and finally on to England. In due course they arrived at the Theological Seminary in Washington where they were to spend the winter and spring months of their furlough time in study, ending with attendance at the General Conference session just before returning to Africa.
Their experience at the Seminary in 1949 was unique. While the missionary from Kenya took courses in church history, the one from Uganda attended classes in theology where he heard some (to him) troubling concepts. When he discussed the matter with the Seminary president, he was told he must forthwith leave—being perhaps the only ordained minister ever so expelled from the seminary. This traumatic experience became an occasion for sleepless nights of earnest prayer, study, and surrender. (He spent the winter months of his furlough time in research into the 1888 history and message, and in writing a book manuscript which seventeen years later found publication as "In Search of the Cross".
Forbidden at the White Estate to delve into Ellen White’s unpublished writings on the subject of 1888, he made efforts to contact surviving retired ministers who had known Ellen White personally, to ask permission to read what unpublished material from her pen that they might have. In due course he amassed a considerable file of then-unknown material on the subject.
A book review in the February 1950 Ministry aroused his interest for he was convicted that it evidenced serious confusion regarding the gospel of righteousness by faith. He wrote to the Ministerial Association leaders and then to the General Conference president expressing concern that we as Adventists not lose the uniqueness of the “third angel’s message in verity.” In general, his letters were not well received, although the president did respond with what seemed to be genuine appreciation. But several letters from Elder W. A. Spicer expressed warm support for his concern encouragement which was crucial in a time of agonizing perplexity.
When they arrived in San Francisco the first meeting the two delegates attended was the Ministerial Association in Polk Hall, west of the main auditorium, July 6 to 10—four days prior to the regular Session. The platform for this meeting had a royal blue curtain backdrop with a motto in letters of gold, “A fame for God.” During these ministerial meetings the theme, “Christ-centered preaching,” was promoted. The two missionaries from East Africa were impressed with the vast array of activities, booths, placards and massive arrangements for the meetings. This was their first General Conference session to attend. It would not be the last.
Elder J. L. McElhany, president of the General Conference for fourteen years, withdrew. Because of illness on the way to the conference, his opening address on Monday evening, July 10, was read by his secretary, Elder A. W. Cormack.
One-fourth of his sermon was direct quotation from Ellen White. His own concern was evident as he used a portion from Life Sketches, pp. 323, 324: “Those who believe the truth must be as faithful sentinels on the watchtower, or Satan will suggest specious reasoning to them, and they will give utterance to opinions that will betray sacred, holy trusts. The enmity of Satan against good, will be manifested more and more, as he brings his forces into activity in his last work of rebellion; and every soul that is not fully surrendered to God, and kept by divine power, will form an alliance with Satan against heaven, and join in battle against the Ruler of the universe.”
Before using this part of a much longer quotation he stated his own conviction in these words: “The greatest dangers we face today are not from without but from changing emphasis and shifting attitudes from within.” He followed his Ellen White quotation with the solemn question to the conference: “Is it too much to expect that all those who stand as leaders in this movement shall, in the way they teach and in the manner in which they live out the principles of this message, clearly reveal that they are sanctified by the truth?”
He went on to quote from his address at the 1946 General Conference: “I lift my voice today in solemn warning against any attempt from whatsoever source to set aside, to modify, or to compromise these great principles of truth that have made this movement what it is.”
As Elder McElhany laid down his responsibilities, the session voted Elder W. H. Branson to be the next General Conference president.
July 11, 1950. It was in this context at the Session that the two young missionaries from Africa wrote their letter to the members of the General Conference Committee. They wrote in response to an urgency voiced in a public announcement that if any delegate had a burden on his heart, express it. Elder L. K. Dickson had declared in the Sabbath worship service preceding the session that “we must make a right turn at this session where we took a wrong turn in 1888.” These two authors sensed that world conditions were in crisis; the new atomic age might usher in another world war; it’s time to get serious.
That letter, over four pages long, set in motion a dialogue and precipitated issues that have remained unresolved for over forty years. The letter is quoted in full as Exhibit 1. It challenged the General Conference Committee with sober considerations. Some major points:
• There is great confusion in our ranks today because much so-called “Christ-centered preaching” is in reality anti-christ centered preaching.
• Through the three-fold union of apostate Protestantism, Romanism, and Spiritualism, Satan will take the religious world captive and modern evangelists will present a “Christ” that is identifiable with the God of modern Spiritualism.
• Lip service is paid to our distinctive doctrines but they are repeatedly disparaged as secondary, this “Christ” being considered primary; thus a vague mysticism is permeating Adventism calculated to deceive the very elect.
• The incident of Dr. Kellogg’s apostasy involving “deadly heresies,” “doctrines of devils,” and “spiritualistic sentiments” confirms that Seventh-day Adventists can be deceived.
• The spiritualistic sophistries which deceived Dr. Kellogg and a great proportion of the leaders then were a forerunner of the almost overmastering attempt of Satan to lead us into Spiritualism as we near the end.
• The peril of this deception is confirmed by numerous statements from Ellen White.
• This refined Spiritualism constitutes a species of virtual Baal worship that has been gradual and unconscious.
• This departure into Baal worship is the consequence of not discerning the light of righteousness by faith revealed in 1888 (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 467, 468).
• Highly refined Spiritualism is a counterfeit species of righteousness by faith in opposition to the true revival such as Jones and Waggoner and Sister White brought in 1888.
• This modern Spiritualism is not discerned by our people and can set up a false god, a false “Christ,” and a false “Holy Spirit.”
• The type of Christian experience being preached among us today is practically that advocated by popular evangelists and is a manifest departure from the truths taught in the Bible and "Steps to Christ".
• Our dear people need to have this important matter clarified and nothing before this gathering can possibly be as weighty with serious import.
July 18, 1950. After one week with no answer they wrote another letter on July 18 (Exhibit 2). The “unofficial” sentiment suggested that they not be allowed to return to Africa until the matter was “cleared up.” Their second letter pointed out that they had not challenged a tenet of Adventist doctrine but were only appealing for a return to the faith endorsed by divine leading in our history: “We freely confess that it may not be impossible that we are indeed the most stupid fools ever to attend a General Conference session. But, if we are, it should be most easily possible for you to show us wherein, logically and rationally and truthfully, our conclusions are utterly erroneous. This matter is very serious; either we are terribly right, or we are terribly wrong.”
Nearly two pages of their four page letter are quoted from Manuscript 15, 1888, written in November at the time of the 1888 conference and addressed to: “Dear Brethren Assembled at General Conference.” In this, Ellen White made a plea to exercise “the spirit of Christians” and not to let “strong feelings of prejudice arise.” She supports the message that was given at this session by declaring: “Dr. Waggoner has spoken to us in a straightforward manner. There is precious light in what he has said.”
This second letter closes with an appeal: “Let the Cross be restored to the everlasting gospel. Let Israel behold the Lamb of God, rather than this false Christ, this Babylonian Baal, held up before them at the present time.”
July 20, 1950. On the last day of the conference a letter came to these two missionary delegates (Exhibit 3). The officers acknowledged the letters of July 11 and 18. With a “sympathetic spirit” they suggested that “it seems that both of you are passing through a spiritual conflict in relation to this movement of which you are a part.” The officers could not fathom the possibility “that, as Israel of old, we are today worshipping at the altars of Baal instead of the true God of Israel.” They acknowledged that “we have not had time, in the busy hours of this session, to give the matter any consideration. But we believe that before either of you should plan to return to Africa that we must have an understanding with you.”
Their letter closed with a solemn declaration: “Brethren, you are on dangerous ground. You are on the path that Satan trod in your spirit of accusation which led to his being cast out of heaven. … We cannot see that God has placed you in His church as a critic of your brethren, but we want to help you and save you to your work in Africa.” Solemn words, to drive us to our knees!
August 3, 1950. Because the missionary from Uganda had been expelled from the seminary he was staying in Florida. The other from Kenya was in the seminary apartments in Washington. This meant that two separate replies were sent to the General Conference. The letter from the Florida address is dated August 3, 1950 (Exhibit 4). This two and one-half page letter is frank. It raises the question, “Can you point out statements that were either unkind, un-Christian, or evidencing irrelevant personal thrusts? If, doctrinally and historically, we should eventually be shown to be right, do not the exigencies of the present crisis require forthright, frank, honest treatment?” Their return sailing date to Africa was in limbo—awaiting directions from the brethren.
August 6, 1950. The reply from the missionary in Washington was one and one-half pages (Exhibit 5). The reason for their letters was stated: “We were convinced that to continue to be silent was to be dishonest to our convictions. We have not spread this matter abroad but placed it before the highest body we know so that the proper consideration could be given to it. The brethren will have to judge if this is ‘not cooperation’. We stand ready to counsel with the brethren. We respect our experienced leaders but it should be remembered that age has never made error into truth. … Awaiting your directions.”
September 5, 1950. A letter from the same General Conference associate secretary under date of September 5 set out the immediate plan (Exhibit 6). The General Conference officers suggested that a small committee have an interview with the two missionaries. This was set for September 13, at 3 p.m.
September 13, 1950. After more than forty years it is not certain who was present except the two missionaries and among others, one vice-president and one associate secretary of the General Conference, one associate secretary of the Ministerial Association, and the secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate. A three-page “Outline of Procedure” was to guide the interview (Exhibit 7). There was more in the “Outline” than could be covered in one interview; to try to make the matter clear the two missionaries requested that they be allowed to present written evidence of confusion in contemporary concepts. They were convinced that much precious light had been lost since Minneapolis—honest deceptions had crept into the church. During the meeting the secretary of the White Estate affirmed positively that the presentation of righteousness by faith at the 1888 General Conference “was accepted.” Those who had initially opposed the message made their confessions within five years and the opposition ceased.
September 14, 1950. The day after the interview a further paper was presented to the Special Committee (Exhibit 8). This laid the ground for the manuscript that was to be discussed over the next several decades.
Why “1888 Re-examined”?
The authors knew they must explain themselves as clearly as possible or face dismissal from the ministry. In that sense, the manuscript was written in self-defence, as a follow-up to the original letter of July 11. They voiced their convictions with documentation from Adventist history. Their manuscript in two parts delivered to the Special Committee contained some five hundred Ellen White exhibits, and in its finished form ran to 204 pages legal size. It was outlined, written, and typed over a period of six weeks, yet contained far more than the committee had anticipated. It had been written in Florida and Takoma Park, was typed by paid stenographers and duplicated commercially, partly in Washington and partly at Southern Missionary College. It had no title page, no date, and no authors listed. The presentation was specifically written for this Special Committee of the General Conference, who were given fifteen mimeographed copies. The authors wanted them to have clear, full evidence of their deepest convictions.September 29, 1950. There is no way to know what transpired in private discussions of the Special Committee as they considered “1888 Re-examined.” However, under date of September 29, the associate secretary sent a letter indicating that a booking had been made for the Kenya family to sail back to Mombasa on October 27 (Exhibit 9). Although the manuscript was not fully completed at this time and the “official action” of the committee was still in the future, it was “definitely” planned that this booking be accepted, and so it was. Exhibit 10 is the letter of acceptance for the October 27 booking. There were unknown factors pending, but these would be cared for in due time.
October 5, 1950. The associate secretary confirmed that the booking was in order. Also even though the last portion of the manuscript was not in their hands they considered there was no need for another interview. This meant that both families could go back to Africa (Exhibit 11).
“To the Members of the Special Committee”
October 5, 1950. As the committee was considering the manuscript, certain other facts needed consideration. An accompanying statement was submitted on October 5 (Exhibit 12). This four-page letter delineated serious problems that were evident at the Session just past, pointing out dangers then which have become rather operational procedures in our ranks at the present time.October 17, 1950. The associate secretary of the General Conference sent a joint letter to the two missionaries now officially cleared to return to Africa (Exhibit 13). But the manuscript required more time for study. Consequently: “We feel that because of the content of the manuscript and the nature of the problems involved that the manuscript should have wider study than we have thus far been able to give it. We are, therefore, recommending that your manuscript be referred to the Defense Literature Committee of the General Conference for further study and investigation. … In saying this we do not in any sense agree with your conclusions, but we believe when any of our brethren have made such a thorough study on the question as you have, that the matter should not be passed by lightly.” Of concern was the possibility of “agitation among the workers,” but assurances had been given to the leaders in Africa that this would not happen. This letter was received in New York the day before the S.S. African Planet sailed for Africa. A reply from the Kenya missionary was written onboard ship en route to Walvis Bay.
November 3, 1950. The reply to the question of “agitation” is given in this letter (Exhibit 14). The two workers would have discussion with fellow missionaries only in reply to their direct questions, and in cooperation with the leaders.
Their concern was clear: “Indeed if the General Conference Committee after careful study considers the premise and conclusion of the paper to be erroneous, there remains no place in this world for us to take the matter and no amount of agitation would avail anything.”
November 29, 1950. This cordial letter from the associate secretary was the beginning of relations as usual (see Exhibit 15). It closed with: “There is a great work to be done, and we are living in solemn times.”
In the meantime both missionaries arrived back in East Africa. By some unforeseen providence they were assigned to the same mission station in Uganda. One continued to serve as the president of the field and the other was to serve as acting treasurer during the regular treasurer’s furlough. As the weeks and months went by they felt a growing concern as to what the brethren would finally say about the manuscript for the General Conference was “the highest authority on earth.”
Could it be possible that buried in the Ellen G. White vault were some statements that contradicted or superseded the many statements these authors had cited in the manuscript about the 1888 rejection? They had written it without access to the Ellen White vault, in fact access had been denied. They had used many published statements such as Testimonies to Ministers, etc., but all the citations from unpublished Ellen White materials had come from various unofficial sources, retired workers, and duplicate copies of original typings that she had placed in the hands of trusted workers in her lifetime. (All of these documents are of course now freely available in "The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials". Our using these unpublished materials had even evoked from the White Estate a threat of possible legal action against us.)
The two missionaries went about their work in Africa sensing that a sword was dangling over their heads.