The file contains very little correspondence during the next decade, in fact it virtually ceased. The Ford views of righteousness by faith had virtually won the day.
However, church members in various places did not lose their interest in Adventist history. They sent copies to the authors of letters they had written to church leaders with the replies they received. Church officials in high position continued to have serious misunderstanding. Many church members and pastors were delighted to receive the “reformationist” theology which appeared to offer a credible alternative to the legalism which they thought had for so long confused and discouraged them. But some began to discern in this “reformationist” doctrine some inevitable tendencies toward antinomianism, and questioned if it was a true reformation and revival. However, it was widely heralded as the authentic 1888 message.
A letter in 1987 from a prominent leader in reply to a church member in the South states: “Enough of the principal leaders did accept so that Jones, Waggoner, and Ellen White were sent to campmeetings to preach righteousness by faith. Messengers opposed by leadership seldom get invitations from those leaders to take camp-meeting time. Also, Jones and Waggoner were given very responsible positions within the church for the next several years. Not only did Olsen accept righteousness by faith, but so did Morrison, Butler and, gradually, even Smith.” This comment represents the typical syndrome— the message was accepted, everything came out fine.
But the truth of our history was beginning to emerge in new ways.
October, 1986. After nearly forty years since church leadership was urged to re-examine our 1888 history, another significant event was pending. The plan to hold a 1988 Centennial, voted by the Annual Council held in Rio de Janeiro, was reported in the "Review", October 30, 1986. This “celebration” of the Minneapolis event was to take place in the same city, even from the same pulpit that had been used 100 years before. Church publications throughout the year were programmed to make reference repeatedly to this historic conference. Yet the message itself was destined once more to be suppressed and kept from the people.
Nevertheless, in the providence of the Lord, the denomination was at last to get a chance to know the full truth about the 1888 "history". The Ellen G. White Estate chose to release and publish the four volume set, "The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials". These four volumes with 1,821 pages settled forever what is “the testimony of Jesus” regarding this episode in Seventh-day Adventist history. It was not a great “victory,” as "From Crisis to Victory 1888-1901" had said, neither was there acceptance of the message as "Movement of Destiny" had asserted. From now until the second advent these four Spirit of Prophecy volumes will speak clearly to the church, confirming that we have in our history an unbelief comparable to the Jews’ history of Calvary.
Yet another happening in 1987 culminated nearly forty years of dialogue. With the pending centennial, the authors of the original 1950 manuscript, in response to urgent appeals from some pastors and laymembers, decided to make it available to anyone who wanted a copy. Could they be faithful “under God” to the cause of truth and not do so? "1888 Re-examined" was published as a revised and updated version with added appendices, and 9000 copies were printed. It was not long before there was need for another 5000. The sub-title of the book stated frankly:—”1888-1988—The story of a century of confrontation between God and His people.”
The February 1988 issue of "Ministry" magazine carried a book review by C. Mervyn Maxwell that was twenty-three column inches long. But this was only a portion of the original draft—which thee ditors deemed too favorable and therefore cut. But even so the review was very generous and insightful beyond anything officially published during the past forty years. It closed with history and prophecy combined: “At the 1893 General Conference session an Ellen White statement promised that the 1888 experience will ‘sometime’ ‘be seen in its true bearing with all the burden of woe that has resulted from it.’ Wieland and Short hope that that ‘sometime’ is near at hand. They hope that the revised "1888 Re-examined" will prove to be a contribution in due season.”
That indeed expressed their hope, combined with the conviction that when God’s people will come to sense the truth of their history, they will respond to the convictions of the Holy Spirit, Laodicea is honest in heart, and will therefore overcome.
1987, Continued. With the centennial but a few months away, the Review and Herald published a 288-page book with a thesis obviously in sharp contradiction to the White Estate’s four-volume publication, "The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials". The title of this new book was geared to condition the reader to believe there was apostasy inherent in the message and messengers the Lord sent to His people. The cover jacket title proclaimed: "From 1888 to Apostasy, The Case of A. T. Jones". Added to this was a blurb: “A fatal faw in his character turned him against the church.”
This biography is strangely biased toward painting Jones in as poor a light as possible. Like a blast of Arctic tempest, chilling derogatory comments abound: he was “egotistic,” “self-confident,” “abrasive,” “harsh,” “cocksure,” “sensational,” “extreme.” Subsequently the author stated clearly in another periodical his avowed purpose of destroying Jones’ credibility: “I was doing my best to demonstrate that Jones was aberrant from beginning to end” ("Adventist Currents", April 1988, p. 43).
Such a cherished goal is unique for a biographer, doubly so in a centennial year appointed to honor his memory. Ellen White’s appraisal of Jones was decidedly different. Te Adventist conscience cannot disregard it (Exhibit 65). Vigorously advertised and endorsed by the General Conference, the "Adventist Review", and "Ministry" Magazine, this book set the tone for the centennial year and became the modern successor to "Movement of Destiny".
The 1988 Centennial. The year was launched with a special edition of the Review which contained seven articles by contemporary authors and one by Ellen White. But not a word was printed from the “messengers” which “the Lord in His great mercy sent” to this people in 1888.
The February "Ministry" centennial issue with 64 pages was double the normal size, containing thirteen scholarly articles with scores of citations. But again neither Jones nor Waggoner was allowed to contribute an article.
An official editorial policy seemed firmly set to destroy the credibility of the 1888 message and messengers. Readers of the "Review" were warned to beware of Jones and Waggoner as “fires of fanaticism and extremism … have fourished” with their roots in the 1888 message which they brought to this church (September 8, 1988, p. 8). Almost beyond belief, the church was called to celebrate a centennial by denigrating the principals and their message that gave cause for a centennial! As church membership noticed this and wrote to the "Review" “Letters” column, there came a slight respite. Finally in the last hours of the centennial year the editors relented in their policy enough to permit one brief page each from the 1888 messengers. Incredibly, in the year set aside for “commemoration” of the 1888 message, only two pages of the actual message were allowed to get into print out of 1,400 pages published during the year.
November 2-5, 1988, the Celebration. After two years of planning, the celebration of the 100 year old 1888 General Conference took place in Minneapolis itself. Those who came in order to learn of Adventist history and the “most precious message” the Lord sent to His people were keenly disappointed. Out of fourteen sessions listed in the program two were cancelled, four for the general public in the evening had no connection with Adventist history or the actual message; three were panel discussions; two were morning devotionals; leaving three study hours for the 1888 message. But again, the 1888 messengers themselves were silenced. A first-ever in world history had occurred: never before had a nation or a denomination professed to celebrate positively a “centennial,” yet silence and derogate the principals they ostensibly celebrated. (However, their photographs were displayed).
As the audio tapes of the meetings are reviewed, confusion and contradiction become evident. One speaker, had he known the message of 1888, could never have inferred that the “most precious message” of 1888 was a laughing-stock-theology in relation to the nature of Christ.
Another speaker, a highly placed official, courageously presented the opposite “laughing-stock” view that Christ did assume the liabilities of the human family (he even quoted Romans 8:3 to support this).
After 100 years, Minneapolis II has also now joined history. As the centennial year drew to a close it became evident that it was intended to be a grand funeral for the actual 1888 message. Must we now look forward to a bicentennial in the year 2088? Is the nature of the true Christ so elusive that the “seed of Abraham” can not know Him? Can the remnant church go through to the end perpetuating confusion about the Lord Jesus Christ Himself? When the Word says He was “made like unto His brethren,” must we continue to construe it to mean "unlike" His brethren? Back in the theological shadows looms the specter of Augustinian-Calvinist concepts which contradict the “third angel’s message in verity.”
As time goes on into our second century since the “beginning” of the latter rain and the loud cry, this issue will become increasingly important. The enemy of Christ is determined that His people shall not know the true Christ, for to know Him is to know God, and that is life eternal. Increasingly, the published uncertainty and even antagonism against the 1888 message of Christ’s righteousness make clear that it has either not been comprehended, or it is in process of a second major rejection more emphatic and determined than was that of a century ago.
1988, History Verified. In the centennial year a new book came to the church—unique in 100 years and defiantly contradictory of over a thousand previously published official pages intended to contradict “1888 Re-examined.” This new book, "What Every Adventist Should Know About 1888", reversed what the church had been told for decades, and largely supported these authors’ positions. Written by a former member of the authoritative Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference, this book denied that 1888 was a “victory.” It courageously presented an understanding of Adventist history parallel to the thesis of the manuscript. It clearly conforms to "The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials" and sets before the church a dramatic turn-around that verifies the truth of the 1888 "history". This was the contribution of the Review and Herald to the centennial.
Meanwhile, the Pacific Press tried to publish a book for the centennial year setting forth the actual content of the 1888 "message" itself, "Grace on Trial". Commissioned by the editors, this book (title chosen by the press editors) highlighted the reality that even though a message of much more abounding grace had been held on trial by church leadership for a century, it was in fact the heart-warming truth of the biblical gospel itself. Under pressure from the Union presidents of the North American Division, the General Conference officers forced the Pacific Press to abandon its publication. The General Conference told the book editor to inform the author that the real reason why they killed the book was that it would not sell. Urged to do so by the principal Pacific Press book editor, the author decided to publish it privately.
Lip service to overwhelming historical evidence shows prudence, but it does not confirm acceptance. The church is now being told we don’t need the 1888 message because our modern theologians can do better. ‘Jones and Waggoner posed a formidable threat to Adventist doctrine and leadership,” so that their message must again be rejected ("Adventist Review", September 8, 1988). The church’s highest priority is strangely declared to be a negative one— that of being ignorant of their “most precious message” which the Lord sent us, while somehow we must know Him: “Our greatest need today is not to know exactly what Jones and Waggoner said at the 1888 Minneapolis session” ("ibid"., January 18, 1990). There remains in many places an embargo on the message, and workers who promote it are frowned upon and even threatened. It is this anti-1888-message syndrome which has prepared the way for our present state of pluralism, schism, and loss of confidence.
But the concern of loyal church members is slowly on the rise, as expressed in occasional letters that get into the church press.
1989, History Magnified. Following the centennial these authors prepared a 63-page companion booklet to "1888 Re-examined", entitled "1988 Re-examined", which reviews our current history 100 years after Minneapolis I. This detailed the circumstances leading up to the plans for the 1988 Centennial; the publicity given to the celebration; the denial in the church press of the need to know the 1888 message, and the impact of the Minneapolis II centennial.
Minneapolis II could have brought into focus a message of abounding grace consistent with the unique Adventist truth of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, a work contingent on the full cleansing of the hearts of God’s people on earth. The 1888 truths will impart discernment to our publishing houses, and our schools; and the pure message printed and taught will produce the revival and reformation that we have needed for so long. Children and youth will love it.
The great “final atonement” will become a reality when the everlasting gospel in its end-time setting is understood and accepted in truth. Millenniums of defeat will be reversed. The prophecy of Daniel is certain, the sanctuary “shall” be cleansed. The blind lukewarmness of Laodicea will be cured by repentance, both individual and corporate.
The ultimate experience awaiting the church is a taste of that which Jesus went through in Gethsemane. Only His very own will be willing to accept it, but His faith and confidence are staked on a people who will take up His cross and follow after Him. As Christ forsook heaven with no assurance that He would return so that sin and death could be eradicated from the universe, so His Bride, out of faith and true love, will stand at His side without concern for receiving reward.
1989, History Continues. As the second century began following the centennial, yet another book appeared about the 1888 General Conference, declaring it to be a milestone in our history and a turning point in our theological development. History and theology are both the subject matter of "Angry Saints", by George Knight.
After nearly 40 years this is the first book from a denominational press that deals specifically with "1888 Re-examined" and in particular seeks to refute it. Repeatedly "Angry Saints" denies that the objective 1888 message as brought by Jones and Waggoner is what the church needs. What we need instead is a return to a concept labeled “basic Christianity,” meaning the general “pentecostal” “gospel” message of the evangelical, Sunday-keeping churches. This is repeated some sixteen times and comes to be defined as “evangelical Christianity.
”Now a new issue is posed for the world church. Did Ellen White advocate that our ministers borrow theology from Sunday-keeping churches? If “evangelical Christianity” is what Seventh-day Adventists need, how can the call of Revelation 14 and 18 become meaningful? Thus as we continue in our second century, an effort is being made to defect attention away from the specific, unique message of justification by faith which in 1888 Ellen White so clearly endorsed.
If we are merely a church among churches that has added some distinctive “doctrines” onto “evangelical Christianity,” we will never be able to cry “mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit.” If we are but a segment of “evangelical Christianity” we will never with conviction be able to sound the call, “Come out of her, My people.”
Because “evangelical Christianity” rejects the unique post-1844 ministry of our great High Priest, it considers that “substitution” to cover continued sinning must function until the second coming of Christ. This makes the cleansing of the sanctuary meaningless. It accommodates continual moral lapses, whereas sin was “condemned” by Christ in the fesh. It does not recognize how the High Priest’s ministry must enter a new phase on the antitypical Day of Atonement. He cannot forever minister His blood to cover the perpetual sinning of His people. He must accomplish something on the Day of Atonement that has never been accomplished previously. He must have a people who through His faith overcome “even as” He overcame. “Evangelical Christianity” has no use for these basics of Seventh-day Adventist justification by faith.
Furthermore, “evangelical Christianity” generally views the human nature of Christ in opposition to the “post-Adamic human nature” as Jones and Waggoner understood and proclaimed it. "Angry Saints" suggests (p. 129), that because the historical record of the 1888 session does not include a sermon on Christ’s human nature, therefore the subject was not a part of the actual 1888 message and is thus irrelevant. Such a stance ignores the fact that this subject was a vital part of their published message in this era. The increasing controversy over this gospel hallmark grows to a large degree out of the continuing resistance, conscious or unconscious, of the message and the messengers of 1888.
"Angry Saints" is unique in its purpose to contradict the documented history in 1888 Re-examined. Over 20 times the authors are referred to by name or in footnotes, plus inferences which cannot be mistaken. This published opposition may be good if it stimulates church members to study out the facts. One thing is certain, truth will eventually prevail.
The centennial is now past and "Angry Saints" is glad that it is gone and hopes that 1888 can be laid aside. But the truth of our history will not go away. It must be faced for what it is—a confrontation with Christ that cannot forever be evaded.
1989, Vortex Developing. "Angry Saints" is but one wayside marker along a road the church has traveled to reach its present state of disunity, but it helps to explain “how we got where we are.” More recently articles in denominational journals have promoted the pre-fall nature of Christ as now the accepted theology of the church.
In the same year that "Angry Saints" was published (1989), there was issued in the month of August an authoritative document from the General Conference Biblical Research Institute, entitled: “An Appeal for Church Unity.” This 10-page proposal offers solid guidance for the church. It also draws a sharp line between those who hold certain doctrinal positions in contrast to others with differing views. It affirms that church members who “hold certain positions on the human nature of Christ, the nature of sin, and the doctrine of righteousness by faith in an end-time setting” are divisive, dangerous, and thereby approaching apostasy.
“Appeal” makes this charge because: “Adventist people as a whole do not share these views. … The world church of Seventh-day Adventists has agreed on 27 fundamental beliefs, summarization of basic biblical teachings, and seeks to rally the church membership to the Saviour and this core of Bible truths. The specific topics alluded to above are not a part of these summarizations. The world church has never viewed these subjects as essential to salvation nor to the mission of the remnant church. The Scriptures do not make these subjects central; the data is sparse. … There can be no strong unity within the world church of God’s remnant people so long as segments who hold these views vocalize and agitate them both in North America and in overseas divisions. These topics need to be laid aside and not urged upon our people as necessary issues. We should not let Satan take advantage of God’s people at this point and allow such matters to divide us.”
This very serious official document clearly states its intent by repeating the same points in a later paragraph: “The world church of the remnant people have selected and summarized ‘the great truths of the word of God’ in the 27 Fundamental Beliefs. But although thousands of hours have been spent by our people on the subjects of the human nature of Christ, the nature of sin, certain aspects of character development in the end-time situation, … there is no general agreement.”
This Appealport ends a sinister end to the saga of the 1888 message, going far beyond the opposition of Smith and Butler of a century ago. It draws the comparison between the early church and their problems with persons causing “divisions and confusion” today, in that in past ages “the leadership was forced to separate them from the body.” Likewise today: “In a true communion of the church, motivated by love, such action would be taken reluctantly, and only as a last resort—for the sake of the unity and success of the mission of the church.”
Thus the opposition to the 1888 message now takes a turn unknown a century ago. Any situation that calls for disfellowshipping Seventh-day Adventists from the church must be considered serious in the extreme. As this proclamation is studied carefully, what does it say?
This “Appeal for Church Unity” tells the world church:
The “Appeal for Unity” is perplexing. To suggest that the church should “lay aside” the topics of “righteousness by faith in an end-time setting,” and the incarnation of Christ, is to cancel the agenda of the great controversy. Unless God’s people understand the “present truth” of “righteousness by faith” without compromise, what hope is there for the church to deal with the “nature of sin,” which is the very essence of the battle waged by God’s enemy who is dedicated to war against righteousness? And how can there be victory in this end-time battle unless sinners know how close Christ has come to us? He “was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” that He “should taste death for every man.” And “as the children are partakers of fesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same” because “he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed [spermatos] of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2:9-18).
But more than this—God’s regard for His people has caused Him to send specific counsel on this very point. It is instruction that cannot be misunderstood:
“The humanity of the Son of God is every thing to us. It is the golden linked chain which binds our souls to Christ and through Christ to God. This is to be our study. Christ was a real man, and He gave proof of His humility in becoming a man. And He was God in the fesh. … We must come to the study of this subject with the humility of a learner, with a contrite heart. And the study of the incarnation of Christ is a fruitful field, and will repay the searcher who digs deep for hidden truth” (MS 67, 1898 [7BC 904, 905]).
His humanity “is everything to us … This is to be our study … This study will repay the searcher”—and yet we are told to lay aside this topic as it is not “essential” for our people.
How did we get ourselves into such confusion? Does this grow out of our frantic attempt to support "Questions on Doctrine" and "Movement of Destiny" as these books tried to bring us into the fold of the evangelical world?
The Evangelicals know that we are confused and have told the world so in their publications (see "Christian Research Journal", summer 1988; "Christianity Today", Feb. 5, 1990). They know and they state plainly that it was "Questions on Doctrine" that “repudiated” the “traditional Adventist doctrines … that Christ had inherited a human nature affected by the Fall, and that the last-day believers would achieve sinless perfection.
”How can they see what we can’t see?
Winter 1990, “Model or Substitute? Does It Matter How We See Jesus?” The “Appeal” from the Biblical Research Institute has either been misunderstood or ignored, judging from articles in our denominational press. The “topics” expressly forbidden as “not essential” for our people have nevertheless been emphasized there. These articles support "Questions on Doctrine" which has created confusion in our ranks from the day it came of the press. Is this the road to “unity”?Beginning in January 1990, the "Review" ran a six-part series on the nature of Christ—over 15 pages, in direct violation of the “Appeal for Unity.” The thrust of the articles was discerned by some church members as they wrote to the editor. The “Letters” column expressed great concern. At least some of our members sense a constraint to speak about these topics. The letters indicate that the six-part series was “confusion.” Some comments: “Shades of the new theology! If Jesus’ ‘nature was unlike ours,’ may heaven have mercy on us, for we are all lost.” The author “made an excellent attempt to harmonize the errors of Roman Catholicism and Calvinism with Bibical truth, but it was just not good enough. … The ‘original sin’ dogma and the denial of the real humanity of Christ paraded as the gospel.”
“I breathe a sigh of relief that the juries of the land do not share [the author’s] theory of inherited guilt!” “No one would use this text [Philippians 2:7] to prove that Christ was unlike men, yet such poor logic has been applied in these articles. … The author creates confusion.” The author “paints a totally unscriptural picture of the nature of man that, in turn, forces him to come up with a Jesus who was not truly human, one who did not truly ‘come in the fesh’ as the Bible so clearly teaches. According to 1 John 4:1-3, this is a serious matter indeed.” ‘Try as he might do otherwise, [the author] painted himself into the same corner as Saint Augustine. … [This] position does violence to Scripture and, more important, to the character of God. … Away with the error of Calvinism, Arminianism, as well as universalism.”
But the "Review" must still promote this non-Adventist view. Because of the strong opposition to the series, the author was given a full column of rebuttal in the April 26 issue. The roots oh his ideas go back nearly seven years when the same author had a four-page presentation in the Review of June 30, 1983, “Behold the Man.” The reaction from our church members then as expressed in their letters to the editor indicate that many rejected the theology of this article by a ratio of four to one. Yet the "Review" editors evidence a determination to steam-roll the new theology on its way. Who can measure the confusion that "Questions on Doctrine" has sown in the remnant church?