Accepting, Assenting, or Rejecting —What were the Consequences?
One of the greatest points of controversy that still surrounds the 1888 General Conference session is whether or not the message the Lord sent over 120 years ago was accepted by those gathered in Minneapolis, and as a result heralded to the world. As N. F. Pease put it: “If a person studies the records of those years looking for evidence of acceptance, he can find such evidence. On the other hand, one who looks for evidence of rejection can also find what he seeks.” So what do we do with this apparently contradictory evidence? Was Minneapolis a great victory, or was the Holy Spirit turned away and Christ’s coming delayed? Does the Laodicean message still apply to us today, and does it have implications in regard to 1888? Did the Church have a fair chance to consider the message unopposed, or was it resisted by the leading brethren and in a large degree kept from our people, and therefore “in a great degree kept away from the world”? Although these questions will be addressed more fully throughout the remainder of this book, we will take an initial look in this chapter.Ever since the1888 experience, there has been a tendency among us as a people to credit ourselves with accepting and experiencing the message of righteousness by faith. Since the 1920s, however, when this acceptance idea began to be questioned by some of the leading brethren, there has been a more determined effort through the writings of various leaders and church historians, to portray the acceptance theory. Thus, Minneapolis is portrayed as a “glorious victory.” It was the “beginning of a great spiritual awakening” among Adventists that was due to the “after effect of the great Minneapolis revival.” It was the “greatest event of the [eighteen] eighties” when “the church was aroused by the revival message of justification by faith.” We have been asked to believe that “the rank and file of Seventh-day Adventist workers and laity accepted the presentations at Minneapolis and were blessed.”
As was noted earlier, much of the blame for the opposition to Jones and Waggoner at Minneapolis has been attributed to their problematic “personalities.” We are told that it was only “certain leading men there [who] resisted the teaching” of righteousness by faith. “The dissention was largely a conflict of personalities, caused not by irreconcilable differences in doctrine, but by selfishness, pride, and hardness of heart.” And, it is stated, “we perceive that it was the rancors aroused by personalities, much more than the differences in beliefs, which caused the difficulty.” “From the one side Waggoner was regarded as a conceited upstart, and Jones as a barbarian.” It is claimed that Jones and Waggoner were “the progressives, shouting ‘Christ is all’ … they gave evidence that they were not wholly sanctified.” They “failed to show humility and love which righteousness by faith imparts.” Furthermore, the “extreme teaching of Jones and Waggoner is observable still” today. Jones, it is asserted, “was aggressive, and at times obstreperous, and he gave just cause for resentment.” He was an “angular man, with a loping gait and uncouth posturings and gestures.” Not only that but he was “naturally abrupt” and “cultivated singularity of speech.” Waggoner, on the other hand, “loved contention” and along with Jones, “presented truth which disallowed the Holy Spirit to bring a convicting, converting presence in the meetings.”
As a church we have educated our young people to believe that “Ellen White did not take sides” in the conflict. Her “sermons had supported the views of Jones and Waggoner on righteousness by faith, but she took no stand with them. … Though the Minneapolis Conference seemed depressing and alarming, it turned out to be a great victory for the church. … A new experience came to the leaders, and the church made rapid progress in all branches of the work at home and abroad as there was a realization of the proper emphasis which must be given to righteousness by faith.” Overall, it is declared, “the thirteen years between Minneapolis, 1888, and the General Conference session of 1901 were … a period over which Providence could spell out the word victory.”
In response to more agitation about 1888 in the 1950s, there has been on the part of some an even greater tendency to proclaim that “the denomination as a whole, and its leadership in particular, did not reject the message and provisions of Righteousness by Faith in and following 1888.” Authors have told us that “the ‘some’ who rejected turns out to be less than twenty out of more than ninety [delegates]—less than one quarter … most of those twenty made confessions, hence ceased being ‘rejectors’ and thus becoming accepters.” Although there is a willingness to admit that some fought against the message at first, the question is asked: “Does this mean that the church as a whole, or even its leadership, rejected the 1888 message? Not at all. Some rejected it—a vocal minority.” After all, we are told, “contemporary records yield no suggestion of denominational rejection.” “‘Light’ was ‘despised by some,’ not all. … [I]t is false to state categorically that ‘the Seventh-day Adventist Church rejected the 1888 message.’”
“The denomination,” we are assured, “had received the loud cry message in 1888.” Waggoner, Jones and Ellen White were in “unity of opinion on the fact that the church had accepted the 1888 message of righteousness by faith,” on at least “the intellectual level.” Jones and Waggoner, it is maintained, “were anything but rejected by the post-1888 administration. … The most serious fallacy for the [rejection] theory is that there [is] no such thing as corporate or denominational rejection.” And besides, it is declared, “eventually most of those who opposed the message changed their attitude and accepted the message. … To understand what happened at Minneapolis is important because some people today claim that the church rejected the message of Minneapolis and call for corporate repentance. … Minneapolis 1888 was a turning point in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Through Waggoner and Jones, supported by Ellen White, the church was saved from an incomplete understanding of the gospel.”
After more than 120 years since the Minneapolis Conference, we must ask ourselves if the message sent by the Lord was really fully accepted in 1888, and if so, by whom? What did the participants in that great event have to say themselves about the matter? Is accepting the message on the “intellectual level” a genuine acceptance? And, perhaps most importantly, if that message was accepted, regardless of the numbers in each group, why are we still here waiting for the Lord to return?
Three Responses to the Message
Perhaps the statement that is most often referred to when attempting to prove the acceptance theory is one made by A. T. Jones at the 1893 General Conference Session: “By 1893 Jones claimed that ‘some there accepted it; others rejected it entirely,’ while ‘others tried to stand half way between’ (1893 GCB 185).” This partial statement, from one of Jones’ sermons, has been used to define three responses to the 1888 message. While on one hand, it has been suggested that “it is not possible to establish … the relative number in each of the three groups,” very decided opinions have been expressed as to their makeup. The idea has been freely published that “less than one quarter” really rejected the message outright and, of those who did so, most repented after a few short years. Thus, the idea is given that only a small percentage—around 10 to 15 percent—rejected the message at first, many of whom repented and became supporters.It has also been expressed that the rest of the brethren, who did not reject the message, either wholeheartedly accepted it or were undecided until becoming strong supporters. Thus the claim that both these groups can be classed together as accepting the message: “[Ellen White], her son, and Jones and Waggoner all agreed that the church had largely accepted the message on at least the intellectual level.”
Other statements often referred to, in seeking to establish the overall response to the message, are those statements made by Ellen White in which she uses the word “some” to identify those who were opposing the message. The conclusion expressed is the same; that the “some” who rejected or opposed the message represented only a small percentage. But did Ellen White clarify her statements and did any of the other participants give and indication as to the makeup of these three groups? Can we know for a fact today if that message was ever fully accepted?
First, we must remember that it was primarily the leadership of the church that gathered at Minneapolis; whose response would to a significant degree be replicated throughout the denomination. This point is substantiated by G. I. Butler, who two years before the 1888 General Conference, told Ellen White that the views Jones and Waggoner were presenting were “views not believed by two–thirds or three–fourths of the denomination.” In a long letter written just prior to the 1888 Conference, Butler explains why this was the case: The “position held by the majority of our ministers” was contrary to Jones’ and Waggoner’s position.
It would only make sense that those ministers holding Butler’s position were the ones who opposed the message of Jones and Waggoner. J. S. Washburn, who was at Minneapolis, supported this conclusion, stating that “three-fourths of the workers stood against the new light.”
A. G. Daniells agreed that the message was rejected by the majority: “The message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course as it should have been. … The division and conflict which arose among the leaders because of the opposition to the message of righteousness in Christ, produced a very unfavorable reaction. The rank and file of the people were confused, and did not know what to do.” Likewise, R. T. Nash who attended the Minneapolis meetings maintained this view as well: “Many who attended the meetings at that conference know of what took place at that conference meeting. When Christ was lifted up as the only hope of the church, and of all men, the speakers met an [sic] united opposition from nearly all the senior ministers. They tried to put a stop to this teaching by Elders Waggoner and Jones.”
C. McReynolds recalled that “the spirit of debate and controversy ran high and … the conference closed with a dark shadow over many minds. … I am sorry for any one who was at the Conference in Minneapolis in 1888 who does not recognize that there was opposition and rejection of the Message that the Lord sent to His people at that time.” Taylor G. Bunch expressed the same view: “According to some who attended the Minneapolis meeting fully two thirds of those present either opposed the message of righteousness by faith or were afraid of it.” A. T. Jones himself defined the proportion of those who initially rejected the message at Minneapolis: “I cannot now name anyone who definitely and openly accepted there the truth of righteousness by faith.”
While it is true that several times Ellen White used the word “some” to describe the group of leaders who actively rejected the message, she clarifies her meaning as well. For example, in 1890 she stated that “some who ought to have stood in the clear light on this subject [justification by faith] were working on the enemy’s side of the question.” In the very next paragraph, she clarifies her statement, exclaiming that the position of Jones and Waggoner “is seen to be wrong by very many, and they cry, ‘Danger, fanaticism,’ when there is no heresy and fanaticism.”
Writing about the conditions in the church right before the 1888 General Conference, Ellen White made it clear that “a strong, firm, resistance was manifested by many against anything that should interfere with their own personal ideas, their own course of action. … [N]ot many were standing in a position before God where they could discern their own soul’s needs.”
During the conference itself, she expressed her concern that “the spirit and influence of the ministers generally who have come to this meeting is to discard light.” She realized that there were “many ministers who [had] never been converted.” She told the delegates plainly: “From the light that God has given me, I can say that not half of those who profess to believe the present truth have a thorough understanding of the Third Angel’s Message.”
Ellen White’s statements were not based on her own personal assessment of the Conference. A messenger from heaven had told her that “‘there are but few, even of those who claim to believe it, that comprehend the third angel’s message.’” Thus she could echo to those gathered at the meetings: “But how few take up this message in its true bearing, and present it to the people in its power! With many it has but little force.” She had pleaded with the young leaders not to commit themselves to a vote in a Conference “where opposition, rather than investigation, [was] the order of the day.” She could see that “envy, evil surmisings, jealousies [had] been working like leaven until the whole lump seemed to be leavened.” Just following the Conference, she stated similar thoughts: “What pages of history were being made by the recording angel! The leaven had indeed done its sharp work, and nearly leavened the lump.”
When speaking of the way her testimony had been rejected at Minneapolis, Ellen White again spoke of a majority: “I told them plainly [that] the position and work God gave me at that conference was disregarded by nearly all. Rebellion was popular.” A heavenly messenger had told her that she would “stand almost alone.” When afterwards she bore her testimony in Battle Creek, the response was the same: “There was not one of my brethren who had the moral courage to stand by my side and take back or confess that they had pursued a wrong course and misjudged their brethren and misjudged me.” It was not just a few leaders who were doing a work to “unsettle the faith of the people of God,” it was “Elders Butler, Farnsworth, Smith and numerous others.” Thus, as a result of opposition, Ellen White could plainly state: “There is not one in one hundred who understands for himself the Bible truth on this subject [the plan of salvation] that is so necessary to our present and eternal welfare.”
Mental Assent—the Same as Rejection
As mentioned previously, much has been made of Jones’ statements in regard to the three different responses to the 1888 message. A User–Friendly Guide to the 1888 Message suggests that in seeking to find the answer as to whether or not the message was accepted, we should “let the proponents of the message give their own opinion.” This is excellent advice. Rather than decide on our own that those who “tried to stand half way between” and accepted the message only on an “intellectual level” were in fact “accepters of the message,” we should allow the proponents of the message to give their own opinion. The fact is that Jones clarified his own often misused statement as to which side the “intellectual” accepters were really on:I know that some there accepted it; others rejected it entirely. … Others tried to stand half way between, and get it that way; but that is not the way it is to be had, brethren, that is not the way it is received. They thought to take a middle course … they were willing to go whichever way the tide turned at the last; whichever way the body turned they were willing to go. … [They] would speak favorably of it when everything was that way; but when in the fierceness of this spirit—this spirit described there as the persecuting spirit—when that spirit would rise up in its fierceness and make war upon the message of righteousness by faith, instead of standing nobly, in the fear of God, and declaring in the face of that attack, ‘it is the truth of God, and I believe it in my soul,’ they would begin to yield and in an apologetic way, offer excuses for those who were preaching it.
[W]hen it was presented four years ago, and all along since, some accepted it just as it was given, and were glad of the news that God had righteousness that would pass the judgment. … Others would not have anything to do with it at all but rejected the whole thing. Others seemed to take a middle position. They did not fully accept it, neither did they openly reject it. They thought to … go along with the crowd, if the crowd went that way. And that is the way they hoped to receive the righteousness of Christ and the message of the righteousness of God. Others deliberately discounted the message about fifty percent, and counted that the righteousness of God. And so, all the way between open and free deliberate surrender and acceptance of it, to open, deliberate, and positive rejection of it—all the way between—the compromisers have been scattered ever since; and those who have taken that compromising position are no better prepared tonight to discern what is the message of the righteousness of Christ than they were four years ago.
Beyond a doubt, Jones saw those who tried to “stand half way between” as “compromisers” who in the end were no different than those who openly rejected the message of justification by faith. Waggoner himself spoke about the claim that everyone believed in justification by faith, stating several years later: “We say we believe in justification by faith. Of course we do. Why, we all believe that, now. But do we? Oh, we have that written down, and we would resent any imputation of our disbelief in it. … [But] what use for me to say, I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, when I am doing exactly contrary to what he says? … What is the use for me to say I believe in justification by faith, when I am not letting righteousness and its fruits manifest themselves in my life? Here is the trouble with a good deal of our conception of justification by faith.”
Ellen White was even more emphatic that there was little difference between those who openly rejected the light and those who made a mere assent. She had warned the delegates at Minneapolis, that “a mere assent to … this truth will not save us. … We are losing a great deal of the blessing we might have at this meeting because we do not take advance steps in the Christian life.” She also stated what the result would be: “Some will turn away from light and others will come to a standstill in spiritual growth.” Again she told them plainly: “If you are not advancing you are retrograding.”
Many of the delegates admitted that what Waggoner and Jones were presenting was “light and truth,” yet they had not presented it in the same light before. This led Ellen White to conclude: “There is a larger number who profess to believe the truth for this time, who are represented [in the Bible] as hearing the sayings of Christ and doing them not, than of those who diligently hear and are doers of His words.” The “faith of Jesus” had been “overlooked and treated in an indifferent careless manner. … But very few had responded except by assent to the testimonies borne upon this subject.”
A mere mental assent to the message presented by Jones and Waggoner also resulted in the Testimonies of Ellen White being treated with almost total disregard: “In many hearts the messages I bear find no response. In some hearts they arouse a determined resistance, like … that … of the Jews.” Yet, she declared:
Decided opposition would have done me less harm. A lack of faith in the messages God has given me to bear of the order represented is decided unbelief to all intents and purposes … and many give a bare assent to truth when they are not sanctified through the truth. They do not represent Christ. … So effectually does this delusion take possession of heart and mind that the sharp arrows of the Lord fail to penetrate the armor of self righteousness in which they are encased. … This is the class our Saviour found most difficult to arouse. … Thus it is with many in this generation.
It should be clear that a mental assent to the truth is little better, if not worse, than open rebellion. Much more evidence could be given on this point. Notwithstanding, if we classify those who assented to the message presented by Jones and Waggoner as accepters of the message, are we not misrepresenting what really took place in our church’s history? According to Ellen White, those who assented to the truth were in the same camp with those who openly rebelled. Therefore, when we allow Ellen White to speak for herself, it is clear that the majority of those in leadership positions rejected the 1888 message at Minneapolis. How much would that change in the days that followed?
The same morning the Lord revealed to Ellen White what was really taking place in Minneapolis, He also charged her not to leave, but to stand by her post. Being faithful to that charge, she declared to the leading brethren later that morning: “If the ministers will not receive the light, I want to give the people a chance; perhaps they may receive it.” The showers from heaven would not be shut off without first giving the people a chance to receive the message sent from heaven. The time had come for the message to go to the people, and what would be the result? We will find out in the following chapters.