Spring 1971. When "Movement of Destiny" came from the press early in 1971, it professed even more than the prepublication brochure had predicted. Its author stated that “Few books have ever had so many invaluable helping hands.” It was “commissioned by former General Conference President A. G. Daniells back in 1930, … [and] approved by five General Conference presidents in succession, and many consultants.” The book was made possible by “the contribution of hundreds of priceless source documents from individual and institutional donors, archivists, librarians, and collectors, as well as by the afidavits of the actual participants in the 1888 Minneapolis Conference.”
And then in manuscript form “it was read critically by some sixty of our ablest scholars— specialists in denominational history and Adventist theology. … By key Bible teachers, editors, mass communication men, scientists, physicians. And by veteran leaders with vivid memories and extensive backgrounds. … Doubtless no volume in our history has ever had such magnificent pre-publication support.”
The thrust of the book is brought into view in chapter twenty-two. Here the author states: “There is one contention that, regrettably, has periodically been brought forward that needs to be considered frankly in our quest for historic truth. Ever since the 1888 tensions there have been recurrent harpers on the note that the Church, and primarily its leaders, actually rejected the Message of 1888—at and following that fateful hour of trial. … Echoers still persist, maintaining that the leadership of the Movement at that time, ‘rejected’ the message of Righteousness by Faith.” “If the charge be not true, an explicit confession is due the Church today by promulgators of a misleading charge.” In view of our extended correspondence, these authors knew immediately who the writer had in mind.
Notwithstanding their deep convictions, the authors of the manuscript had by this time decided they would never say another word to the General Conference about 1888 or repentance. The leadership had rejected their appeals as false and unfounded, and publicly labeled the authors as dishonest in their use of Ellen White quotations. Their continued pleas for consideration of the manuscript content and to publish the 1888 message itself had been refused. Correspondence over the years had proved fruitless. Why say another word?
But then comes "Movement of Destiny". Here is a published demand that they now have a duty to the world church: “An explicit confession is due the Church” from them. Not one but two General Conference presidents endorsed this demand publicly.
Anyone who knew anything about our 1888 history knew who the accused “harpers” and “echoers” were. Leaders who were on the original reading committee remember that Dr. Froom’s original manuscript mentioned these authors by name. One reader pleaded successfully with the Review and Herald book editors at least to delete their actual names.
November 1972. When one of the authors read the newly published book, he communicated to the General Conference officers specific information detailing reasons why the publication of this book would entail embarrassment for the leadership of this church. Toughtful readers would find their confidence in leadership integrity shaken. Why precipitate a breakdown of confidence? Why provide ammunition to critics?
No response came. The answer was obvious: there was supreme confidence that "Movement of Destiny" had at last put the 1888 issues to rest. Nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of this book.
The authors waited for a year before responding to its public demand, certain that the officers who had endorsed the book would come to realize what a liability it was and withdraw it from circulation. Finally they decided it was duty to respond to such a public demand for a “confession.”
The booklet of 65 pages was entitled "An Explicit Confession … Due the Church". The authors go back to 1950 and rehearse a series of facts, detailing how abundant Spirit of prophecy testimony declares that the opposition to the 1888 message was enmity against Christ of the same nature as the enmity the Jewish leaders manifested against Him at the crucifixion. The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary can never be complete until both Calvary and the 1888 incident of our history are fully understood by the responsible leadership of the church today and the tragic mistake in our own history is rectified by this generation.
They pointed out that although "Destiny" more than forty times asserts that there was “no rejection,” not one vital Ellen White documentation is given in support of this claim, whereas scores of her plainest statements contradict it. When in sacred history had the leadership of God’s people so contradicted the testimony of an inspired prophet as in this book with its “unprecedented” leadership support?
"Destiny" claimed to have “afidavits” from “twenty-six living participants at the 1888 Minneapolis Conference,” all of which afirm: “There was no denomination-wide, or leadership-wide rejection, these witnesses insisted.” However, not one of these “afidavits” is quoted in support of this assertion; further, not one human being has seen them, because not one has ever surfaced to be seen. But how could even a thousand “afidavits” from uninspired “witnesses” affirming “acceptance” refute the inspired witness of a true prophet affirming “rejection”? Is Laodicea the “true witness,” or is it Christ Himself?
In direct response to the demand of "Destiny", the authors of “1888 Re-examined” made their “specific confession”:
November 1972:
July 12, 1973. A committee was to be called for discussion with both Wieland and Short (Exhibit 58). Wieland had since returned from Africa to the United States because of family considerations. The author of "Destiny" had assured him that he should be put out of the ministry, but by General Conference kindness he was allowed to serve on probation as pastor of a tiny isolated church in the desert. Short happened to be on furlough. The General Conference called the meeting for September 5-9, 1973, in the White Estate office. The notice invited the manuscript authors “to read carefully all the sources which our researchers have found to be relevant and have pursued.” They did so, but saw nothing that was not already known.
The meeting was to be a “Study Committee,” with certain committee members having been assigned to do research and present reports. It is a disheartening experience after twenty years to re-read those reports. They were contained in a “black book” distributed in advance to General Conference committee members, a three ring binder of over 300 pages gathered from many sources. They included: unpublished Ellen White statements; pages from "General Conference Bulletin", 1893; "Review and Herald;" "Signs of the Times" G. I. Butler’s, "The Law in the Book of Galatians;" the Bible texts which Jones and Waggoner read at the session in answer to J. H. Morrison’s concern that righteousness by faith would overshadow the law; 18 pages from "Movement of Destiny;" plus quotations from standard books; and comments from some workers of the era.
This main report contains 72 pages of comments in a scholastic format as shown in Exhibit 59. A wealth of extraneous material sidesteps the thesis of the original manuscript. The conclusion of this overview of the manuscript merely reiterates all the previous reports, thus: ‘To acknowledge our failure in 1888 is therefore quite unnecessary” (p. 52).
The author gives evidence that he fails to comprehend the content of the manuscript, even to have read it accurately. This is shown by his frequent use of the term “corporate confession,” whereas the manuscript never uses that term. It speaks of “corporate repentance.” This confusion leads to erroneous postulations such as: “How many of the present day leaders should be involved in this corporate confession? All? But since it is possible for just a ‘fiew’ to impede the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, would it be possible that another [A. R.] Henry and [Harmon] Lindsay could cause the corporate confession to malfunction? If so, who would decide who these Spirit-less men were?” (p. 53). “Likewise, if corporate confessions are essential, how many should there be? At what points in the Christian dispensation should they occur? Is 1888 the only time since Christ that this corporate confession is needed?” (p. 56). These awkward misunder standings lead to false conclusions and create tragic theological distortions. The issue of corporate and denominational repentance was not addressed.
Sadly, the authors were forced to conclude that the past twenty years of on-going discussions had only deepened the confusion and prejudice. Te official historians, Spalding, Christian, Pease, Olson, and Froom, had not settled the matter, nor had the author of the “black book.” The "ad hoc" committee by and large gave evidence of a growing impatient attitude toward the authors of “1888 Re-examined,” and at the same time revealed unaltered support for "Movement of Destiny". Two members of the committee however, Mervyn Maxwell and Herbert Douglass, firmly supported these two authors.
Nevertheless, the committee met through the week, and even into the Sabbath hours. There were sober discussions. At this and subsequent meetings of these various committees one conclusion always emerged: the authors of "An Explicit Confession … Due the Church" were advised and counseled not to release it. "Movement of Destiny" was to remain the officially endorsed version of our 1888 denominational history, and the authors must not make a public response to it, even though the officers had endorsed its demand that they do so.
In due time the General Conference republished "Movement of Destiny" with the demand for “an explicit confession” deleted, but with no change in its thesis. The committees that met over a period of years had accomplished nothing except to silence the authors.
However, the General Conference president during this time was keenly interested in spiritual revival and reformation. This accounts for the very serious calls to the world church which came out of the Annual Councils of 1973 and 1974. Those appeals were unprecedented in their earnestness.
The chairman of the ad hoc committee assigned papers to be prepared for further committee study.
April 1974, Cape Town. The General Conference set up a study group called “Righteousness by Faith Committee.” Although neither Wieland nor Short were allowed to be members of this committee, yet they were invited to come and wait in the hall for their deliberations (Exhibit 60). Another group, as a kind of sub-committee, was to function as “Historical Background of the 1888 Experience Committee.” This committee of ten members included Short who was to prepare a paper in Cape Town for the coming meeting in February 1975. This paper of 104 pages came to be known as, “The Mystery of 1888” with a sub-title, “A Study of Seventh-day Adventist History in the Light of the Minneapolis General Conference of 1888.”
The “Introduction” sets out its purpose: “The focal point of the entire study is the Minneapolis Conference of 1888. This event in ‘our’ church history demands a correct understanding. For too long there has been uncertainty and lack of unity. The great importance of this session is not based on the acceptance or rejection of a ‘doctrine’ by few, some, or many, but on the question whether the Latter Rain and Loud Cry was recognized and received or spurned and rejected. … Really what did ‘we see’ in 1888 and what do ‘we see’ now? There are two diametrically opposed views. Either it was ‘a glorious victory and the beginning of larger and better things for the advent church’ or it was [as Ellen White says] ‘one of the saddest chapters in the history of the believers in present truth’?” (Christian, "The Fruitage of Spiritual Gifts", p. 219; E.G.W. letter 179, 1902.)
The nine chapters and three appendices in this compilation present an alarming documented account of how we have attempted to re-write and distort our denominational history (Exhibit 61). The extent of this endeavor is manifested repeatedly in well-known denominational publications. In this study of the seven books published up to that time, "Movement of Destiny" receives the closest scrutiny, for it is this book that makes the greatest claims to “exalt truth.”
Example: of the claimed 26 “eyewitnesses” only 13 were in attendance at Minneapolis in 1888; the “afidavits” of these so-called “eyewitnesses” were made 42 years after the session but not a single complete sentence is quoted from these “afidavits” in support of the claim that “there was no rejection.” This kind of pseudo evidence would not stand in any law court. (Two authentic “eyewitness” reports by R. T. Nash and C. C. McReynolds have been in general circulation for decades; both clearly afirm leadership rejection).
January 9, 19, 28, 1976. “The Mystery of 1888” was soon known in the field. Individuals quoted it and in due course some wanted to publish it (Exhibits 62, 63, 64). The General Conference did not want it to be published. The author wished to cooperate with them, and so did not grant permission.
At the urging of an interested reader, in April 1984, ten years after it was compiled, it was printed by the author and a few thousand copies went into the field. It is now out of print.
Wieland was appointed a member of one of the other "ad hoc" sub-committees. He wrote a paper for the committee setting forth his convictions entitled “The Knocking at the Door.” When the General Conference called him in 1979 to return to Africa for further mission service, interested friends and lay members in America published it in book form.
Growing out of these special committees came a heightened General Conference interest in righteousness by faith. The Annual Council Appeals of 1973 and 1974 gave eloquent voice to it. In 1975 the president expressed to the authors serious interest in making the actual 1888 message available to the world church. At last the church would be permitted to know what was that “most precious message” that Ellen White said was the “beginning” of the loud cry of Revelation 18.
The authors of “1888 Re-examined” had believed for decades they were not “harping” on a personal agenda nor “riding a hobby horse” in their appeals to leadership. It was the True Witness of Revelation 3:14-21, not they, who declared that we need help in understanding and believing the true message of Christ’s righteousness. In that "respect" we were “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” The General Conference position had been the opposite: in that "respect" we are “rich and increased with goods, in need of nothing.” But now at last the president himself expressed a need for the world church to hear the message. All that the authors had ever requested was that the actual 1888-96 message be published as an anthology. We were nobody; we could drop out of sight. Now there was a bright hope that the authentic “most precious message” itself could be set free from its prison in the archives.
Then came the Palmdale Conference of 1976 where Dr. Desmond Ford presented convincing arguments to overthrow every unique 1888 concept. The president thereupon reversed his former decision to promulgate the 1888 concepts. Dr. Ford was invited to America where he was given a tall pulpit for the widespread promotion of his views in our denominational periodicals, workers’ gatherings, and camp meetings.
Keen interest and enthusiasm for righteousness by faith had been aroused by the official 1888 study committees by the “Explicit Confession” episode. All that spiritual energy was now to be re-channeled and diverted into promotion of “Reformationist,” Evangelical, Calvinist theology. The popular theology which the 1888 message had opposed a century ago was now to be set forth before the church as its true essence.