|
XIX - 11(86)
"Watchman,
what of the night?"
"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
1888 MESSAGE CONFERENCE
BENEATH the SURFACE BEHIND the FACADE
- + -
To all outward appearances, the "Second" National 1888 Message Conference was a tremendous success. In attendance, it tripled the Mohaven meeting in Ohio last year. On Sabbath, 500 people filled the Chapel in Lamson Hall where all the meetings were held. David Newman, Executive Editor of Ministry was sent as an official observer from Washington. A minister from the Florida Conference was sent by his president to observe and report back. Dr. R. W. Schwarz, Vice President for Academic Administration at Andrews University attended most of the major presentations. The frequency of his attendance could have signaled a personal interest in the message of 1888 as well as observing for the University. His impression must have been favorable in every respect as the University invited the Planning Committee to consider Andrews University for the "Third" National 1888 Message Conference in 1987, which the committee did. It means money for Andrews at an "off-season."
This editor did not attend every meeting. The meetings were scheduled with such frequency that they were exhausting to both body and spirit. Sufficient time was not given to think through carefully what was being presented, thus those in attendance could only hear, and be swept along by the emotional appeal generated by the speakers. Feeling predominated over truth.
This Andrews University meeting propels the 1888 Message Planning Committee and the organization which it represents to the forefront of the periphery movements in the Adventist Community. It has all the earmarks of another "Brinsmead-type" of movement, except it appears to be more highly organized. An organizational input type of meeting was held on Sunday following the regular conference. The chairman, Dr. Miroslav Kavur of Ohio, called for the raising of $100,000 for a permanent office building and staff.
Since 1988 will mark the 100th anniversary of the Minneapolis Conference, the present upsurge will have the advantage of incorporating within it the enthusiasm generated in anniversary celebrations. The General Conference administration is very much aware of this factor. The question is - Will they treat this movement on the periphery of Adventism as they did the Brinsmead wave from Australia, or will they seek to capitalize on it as a means to restore their lost credibility resulting from the Davenport scandal! Such a restoration is asked for by the Associate Editor of the Adventist Review. (Sept. 25, 1986, p. 5, col . 1) Here is a ready-made situation for the hierarchy to cloak themselves in a "robe" of righteousness without altering the core of the organization.
Couple with this, the Adventist Satellite Television Network which is to begin telecasting in November of this year, and you have all the ingredients of a false latter rain, which, if possible, could deceive the very elect. Let the hierarchy in an encircling embrace take both of these "movements" into its bosom, and one could then see such an external enthusiasm that the apostasy and scandal which has marked the past three
Page 2
decades of Adventist history would be covered by a "frosting" so tasty and eye appealing that it would rival most "wedding cakes." Thus the objective which God intended to accomplish in the call of Wieland and Short in 1950 would not be far different than the end realized in the call to Jones and Waggoner, except instead of being rejected, there would be an appearance of acceptance which is more deadly! For unless the issues are addressed as given in "An Open Letter to Elder R. J. Wieland" (WWN, XIX-9)
(SEP 1986), the 1888 Message Conferences serve only as a facade giving a false spiritual hope to concerned and devout Seventh-day Adventists.
The Composition of the Conference
One of the first comments to come from the desk as the Conference opened - and the comment was repeated by others following - was the fact that so many young people were present. Sitting up front so as to hear and take accurate notes, I was unable to see the group to which the speakers alluded. However, I sat in the lobby of Lamson Hall and carefully analyzed those coming and going. The core of the regular delegates fell roughly into two major groups. (This is not saying these were the only types in Adventism who attended.) The "youthful" category was made up of second generation leadership personnel from the Wildwood (Frazee) outposts and institutions. Some of these assumed lead roles in the conduct of the meetings. The other "core" of delegates appeared to be Adventist lay retirees with a sprinkling of retired or soon to be retired ministers. This latter group constituted concerned men and women who are disturbed about what they see in the Takoma Park based church, and hope that in these 1888 Message Conferences to find a way to avoid facing the reality of what they see.
However, the "core" from the Wildwood outposts presents another problem. These are folk who eschew the ways and the manners of the world - it was evident in their dress which contrasted to the majority present. They also strongly believe that righteousness is developed through good works. How this can be reconciled to the pure 1888 Message as presented by Jones and Waggoner remains to be seen. Waggoner taught -
"Being made righteous freely." How else could it be? Since the best efforts of a sinful man have not the least effect toward producing righteousness, it is evident that the only way it can come to him is as a gift. That righteousness is a gift is plainly stated by Paul in Rom. 5:17: "For if by one man's offense death reigneth by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ." It is because righteousness is a gift that eternal life, which is the reward of righteousness, is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Christ and His Righteousness, p. 60)
A. T. Jones at the Ottawa, Kansas, Institute and Campmeeting, the next year taught the same thing. The report of what he said was carried in the local newspaper. It makes for good reading and spiritual growth. [We plan to reproduce these articles in future Thought Papers]
This brings Wieland and Short to another fork in the road. Will they now compromise the heart of the message of righteousness by faith to hold this group of the Adventist community, as they have compromised the original force of the message God gave them in 1950 so as to be able to speak from the pulpits of the Takoma Park based church? [For any who doubt this assertion need only to read carefully the Wieland and Short letter to the officers of the General Conference in 1950. They charged that the "Christ-centered preaching" urge upon the ministry was "in reality merely anti-christ centered preaching." (emphasis theirs; see WWN, XIX-9, p.1)
(SEP 1986),Their resulting manuscript - 1888 Re-Examined - was written in support of this contention. It further documented "Baal" worship in the midst of Modern Israel. Has there been a change? Not according to the Associate Editor of the Adventist Review. He wrote "Good, strong, biblical preaching is getting harder to find each year." (Review, op-cit. p. 4, col 2) Perhaps all the enthusiasts of the present 1888 Message Conferences should obtain a copy of A Warning and Its Reception, and review a little church history.
Both Elders R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short have been strong in emphasizing the necessity to understand our Church history. It was from them that I was first made aware of Cicero's 34th Oration in which he stated that "not to know what has been transacted in former times is to continue always a child." This is true; however, today Wieland and Short would limit the laity of the Church in their development and maturity. Only certain sections of our history are open to study: 1888 to 1901, but stop just before the General Conference session. And nothing
Page 3
more till 1950, and just only a peep then, and, -- by all means do not consider what has transpired since 1950! To limit one's understanding to only this select area of our Church history is to make a compromise with truth and remain immature.
Problems in the 1888 Re-Emphasis
There are questions which those who are heading the 1888 Message re-emphasis must face. It is true and cannot be controverted that God did send "a most precious message" to the Seventh-day Adventist Church in general session through chosen "messengers" - Jones and Waggoner. In the end, Waggoner rejected outright, the uniqueness of the Adventist message - the final atonement. [See The "Confession of Faith" of Dr. E. J. Waggoner. I obtained my copy from Wieland himself. A note "To the Reader" states - "The manuscript of the following letter was the last thing written by Dr. , E. J. Waggoner, and was found on his desk after his death, which took place suddenly, May 28, 1916." To my knowledge, I have never heard a single advocate of the Message Conferences address this issue.
As for A. T. Jones, his break was concerning organization because this was his forte. His deviation doctrinally, though questionable, could be described as "cosmetic" and nothing vital to saving truth. [However, during this present conference at Andrews, one speaker, as we shall note, did accuse A. T. Jones of serious departure from truth.] But here again some major problems arise for Wieland and Short. Jones wrote two books which were published about the same time -The Consecrated Way and Individuality in Religion. They want to use the first book, but the second book, they want to believe that it was written by Jones the apostate. So far, they have not had much success in making this division. The explanation for accepting The Consecrated Way is that Jones was merely bringing together his studies on the book of Hebrews he had given in the 1890's. However, a careful comparison reveals that his presentation in Individuality in Religion coincides with concepts found in his Two Republics published in 1891!
At the Andrews conference another attempt was made to separate Jones "the messenger" from Jones "the apostate." The assignment fell to David Grams of Hartland Institute. But in using him to serve a multiple purpose, the Planning Committee got more than they bargained for. Grams placed two "albatrosses" around the neck of the 1888 Message Conference, not only for this time, but for some time to come.
Some background is necessary for the reader to perceive a full picture of what transpired. In the Program Bulletin, the second meeting of the Conference was on "The Role of Organization in the 1888 Message." Its structure was to be different from all other announced meetings. David Grams 1 who was assigned the presentation was to have "A Lay member's Response." No other speaker was to have such an inter-reacting meeting. But this was a deviously contrived arrangement. A youthful and successful business man from Florida had been assigned the hour, but he was told that he had to share the time with Grams, and his presentation would be listed as a "response." He did not even know what Grams was going to talk about till he heard him with the rest of us.
From information gathered by certain ones on the Planning Committee had heard Grams give this presentation elsewhere and concluded he was the man to accomplish the two-fold purpose no one else wanted to undertake: 1) Mark any who might promote Individuality in Religion 2 as "bitter," and 2) Explain the A. T. Jones conduct following 1903 as apostate. Grams' approach to this Jones "apostasy" at the time he wrote Individuality in Religion was through a formulation of a Doctrine on Inspiration. He said - "I want to share with you something about the nature of inspiration." 3 He quoted from an article in the Review & Herald, March 25, 1890. Using an answer to a question asked Ellen G. White about our pioneer writers, Grams paraphrased Ellen G. White's response - "I wouldn't dare say they weren't inspired of God, but 'if they are not,' (I'm quoting now) 'fully consecrated to God at all times, they will weave self and their peculiar traits of character into what they are doing.'" 4 This, Grams thinks, is what happened to Jones. He urged:
Folks, we need to explore the nature of how God works, the nature of inspiration and how, how dangerous it is to have a fallen human nature which I dare say over 99% of us have. And how that danger, E. J. Waggoner puts it so clearly, is a threat that we carry with us until the twinkling of an eye when we're changed. And that is the problem that Jones had, not that he was all confused on his basic message, but that he allowed the old traits to come in and dominate,
...
Page 4
Note carefully two things Grams said: 1) One called as an inspired messenger for God so speaks until such time as the fallen human nature asserts itself; and 2) This fallen human nature is possessed by "over 99% of humanity." After the meeting, I asked to have a meeting with him to discuss these and other positions. I told him in setting up the appointment that I considered his presentation the most deceptive to which I had ever listened. The time was arranged, and after prayer, I asked him - "Would the Doctrine of Inspiration as he formulated it, and applied it to A. T. Jones, not also apply to any prophet or messenger including Ellen G. White?" His answer was an emphatic, "No!" I asked him why, and the response was "She was impeccable." I was stunned and asked the question over again to be sure he was hearing my question aright, and each time the answer was the same - "She was impeccable."
[Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definitions:
IMPECCABLE - "1: not capable of sinning or liable to sin. 2: free from fault or blame."
IMMACULATE - "1 : having no stain or blemish: PURE 2: containing no flaw or error."]
Grams has added to the 1888 Message Conferences an "Adventist Madonna" in his attempt to discredit Jones after 1903.
Before the Andrews University Conference ended, Wieland, wittingly, or unwittingly, retrieved a part of this most unfortunate presentation. He prefaced the Friday evening study with the following comments:
We've got ourselves into the place where I fear that a number of us are unwilling to believe anything that the Bible says unless first of all Ellen White gives us permission to believe it. And that is exactly contrary to the intent of the gift of prophecy. Ellen White was consistent throughout her lifetime. Her work was only a lesser light to guide to the greater light. On one occasion in 1901, the evening before the opening of the General Conference session, she said to our dear brethren - "Don't you quote Sister White" unless you can quote the words of the Bible. When Jones and Waggoner presented their message, they did not quote Ellen White. And Ellen White loved it because they did not quote her. You can read Waggoner's first book, Christ and His Righteousness. Not a line there from Ellen White that I remember. His book, The Glad Tidings, a beautiful book on Galatians, nothing from Ellen White. A. T. Jones' Consecrated Way, nothing from Ellen White. They based their message on Holy Scriptures and Ellen White was delighted. We cannot take a wheelbarrow load of Ellen White books and go door to door, even if our faces are shining with holy consecration. We cannot tell our neighbors, "Thus saith Ellen White." But we must take an open Bible and go door to door. The sad thing I have found is that some of our dear people who are very sincere, and I believe very consecrated, cannot bring themselves to believe what the Lord Jesus Christ says unless Ellen White gives them permission to believe what He says. (From a transcription)
The second "albatross" Grams placed on the neck of the 1888 Message Conferences was the Papal concept of organization. It was not organization per se which was the issue involving Jones according to Grams, but he charged that when Jones and Waggoner "disassociated [themselves] with the organization" this "constitute[d] falling off the platform." In other words, "organization" in and of itself is exalted to the same level of truth as the teaching of the Sabbath and the Sanctuary doctrine. In discussing this whole issue in the private conference with Grams, I asked him if he believed that "organization was only a vehicle by which truth is proclaimed." His reply was - "No!" - for to disassociate one's self from an organization, even though in apostasy is to depart from truth. This is the basis for the papal position that they are the true church - apostolic succession - no matter how corrupt they may become, nor how much error may be taught.
From Grams' papal concept of organization, Luther was a pure "off-shoot." He should have encouraged a "Council of Trent" from the very start, and endeavored to work from within to turn the Papal Church around so that it would be accepted by God. One has historical precedence for this in the attitude of Staupitz who pointed Luther to the concept of divine grace.
If we would but take careful note of the "roots" of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we would find that few of the main Millerite Movement actually accepted the typology of the sanctuary as revealing the "open door" into the most holy place of the Heavenly Sanctuary. The main organization through a series of conferences beginning in Albany, N. Y., in 1845 and chaired by William Miller with J. V. Himes as secretary brought about what was declared to be a harmonious working together "with few exceptions" - these being
Page 5
Joseph Bates and James White. But according to Grams' perception of organization Bates and White stepped off the platform - for was not the Millerite Movement led of God? - and became apostate! Would it not have been better for Bates and White to have joined in the conferences of the Millerite Movement from 1845 and onward seeking to direct their thinking to the "open door" promised to the Church of Philadelphia? (See Bates' article in the first publication of The Review & Herald, Paris, ME, 1850)
Meeting Apart on Sabbath
Throughout the 1888 Message Conference, there was heavy emphasis on loyalty to the church organization, but interestingly when Sabbath came, the Message Conference group met apart from the main body which assembled for worship in the Pioneer Memorial Church on the campus. Besides, there are several other churches in the Berrien Springs area to which the Conference delegates could have gone. I personally attended one of the worship services in the Pioneer Memorial Church to see if there would have been room to seat all of the 1888 Message conferees. Since there was no school in session, there would have been room for twice the number that met separately in Lamson Hall Chapel.
The thing that surprised and interested me at the worship service in the Church was the message given by the senior pastor Elder Dwight K. Nelson. His message was one that the sponsors of the 1888 Message Conferences desperately needed to hear. It was a message in due season for them, but they were meeting apart and did not hear it! Elder Nelson, on the parable of "The Patient Farmer" (Luke 3:6-9) climaxed his message with these words:
Patience - the question is (this business of waiting, this business of holding on a little longer, this business of suffering long, I ask you the question again) Is God a patient Farmer or an impatient Farmer? Which would you say? I don't know about you, but the moment you put God into the question, suddenly it almost seems blasphemous to ask a question that might even suggest that God is anything but patient. I suppose you are right. Maybe, the question is not - Is this a patient farmer or an impatient farmer? Maybe the question we ought to ask is this one: Is patience probationary? Does patience have eventually a cut-off point? Does it?
...
You think about the word, patience - it can't be forever, can it? If patience has within it, if its very definition means to suffer long, then patience contains the element of duration, and duration carries the connotation of eventual termination. ... Patience cannot and does not postpone eventual accountability. Patience is probationary. ...
I ask you the question, Is Divine patience probationary? Does there come a cut-off for God the Farmer? I don't think we can come to this parable and ask the question, Is God the Farmer patient, or is God the Farmer impatient? That is not the query to be brought to this parable; rather this parable answers the question, Is Divine patience probationary? Does there come a time of cut-off in Divine patience? Clearly Jesus answers; clearly He says, "Yes!" Divine patience is probationary! (From a Taped Recording; Ellipses are Illustrations)
True, the message of 1888 - free from error and side issues as mingled at the Andrews conference - was needed by every member of the Pioneer Memorial Church. (The Pastor was in attendance at one or two of the meetings.) But the irony of the whole picture was that each group met separately on Sabbath, and each missed the message of the other.
Beyond this, offerings were taken at both the Sabbath School and Worship service in the Lamson Hall Chapel. On Sunday at the "discussion" meeting, Don Cate, one of the key sponsors reported that over $300 was received in Sabbath School offerings which would be turned over to the Church. But thousands of dollars in offerings and pledges (approx. $15,000) made at the Worship hour would be kept for the Program Committee's work. It was suggested that they did not want tithe, but one would have to be awfully naive to believe that the thousands of dollars either given or pledged contained no tithe, nor will contain none. The bottom line is simply that the 1888 Message Conference organization is in reality is no different than other groups that meet separately in the community of Adventism. This conference at Andrews University exposed this facade. The delegates present at this Sunday meeting were counseled - "Don't antagonize the brethren" - but get into the churches and promote the 1888 Message Conferences.
Control
According to the Program of the 1888 Message Conference there were scheduled three "Question Periods" and two Panels for questions and answers. All opportunities to question
Page 6
in public meeting were carefully managed. The questions had to be written out, and then were screened for discussion by a hand picked panel. The "hierarchical" control at these meetings was greater than at the pre-session seminars of the New Orleans Conference. There following the seminar presentations - at least in the seminars I observed - questions were taken from the floor. Managed control as exhibited at the Andrews University conference evidences one of two things - possibly both: Those in charge are not certain that what has been presented is really the truth and can be defended, or are not willing to consider the possibility there is more light that can be focused on the issues raised. Either way or both, the control mechanisms are generated by fear. But does not the Scripture teach - "Perfect agape casteth out all fear"? (I John 4:18)
1888 Message Newsletter
As God's commandment-keeping people, we are being weighed in the "balances of the sanctuary," and are called to have an experience corresponding to the advantages bestowed upon us. We will be judged by the light we have been given (8T 247). We are warned "Many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.... The heavenly Teacher inquired: 'What stronger delusion can beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right foundation, and that God accepts your works when in reality you are working out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah?"' (8T 249).
Vol. 2. #4, p. 6
Elder D. K. Short - Sabbath, 4:30
And so we are God's commandment keeping people. We are being weighed in the balances too, at the same time. We're called to have an experience corresponding with the advantages God has given to us as His people. We will be judged by the light we have been given. Well, the True Witness measures our situation and this is the appraisal we get. Sister White in 8T:249 says, "What stronger delusion could beguile the mind than the pretense that you're building on a right foundation, and that God accepts your works when in reality you're working out many things according to worldly policy."
From Tape Recording
Testimonies, Vol. 8
In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence, "Found wanting." By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged.
(p. 247)
Omitting and Mitigating
On Sabbath afternoon, Elder D. K. Short presented a message noted as "Our Church and the Year 2000." The importance attached to this study is verified by the fact that it is the only message to appear in abbreviated form in the eight-page 1888 Message Newsletter telling of the Andrews University conference. (Vol. 2 #4, pp. 4-7) In this Newsletter, it is captioned - "The Year 2000 - Here or in Heaven?" Though not named, the presentation was clearly in response to a series of articles and interviews appearing the Adventist Review beginning with the January 2, 1986 issue.
Besides dealing with the question of whether the Church will be here in 2000 A.D., and if so, why; it was almost paradoxical that Short wove into his message what could be construed as an answer to the Sabbath morning message in the Pioneer Memorial Church. He would tell, Elder Dwight K. Nelson - "You are wrong! - Divine patience knows no probationary cut-off when it comes to Laodicea." In this Short sadly denies the revelation of God in sacred history. God says, "My Spirit shall not always strive with men," (Gen. 6:3) whether in corporate bodies, or as individuals. But in so seeking to prove that the God who ruled before the Flood is not the same God who "knows" Laodicea, Short is willing to omit, and thus mitigate one of the clearest statements in the Writings that the God of the Bible is the same God with whom Laodicea has to do.
At the top of this page are two reports what Elder Short said, one as it appeared in the Newsletter, and the other from a taped transcription.
Page 7
The third column is the exact quotation from the Writings which was mitigated. In other presentations during the conference when Elder Short wished to emphasize a key sentence in the quotes, he would say, "Now here is the 'punch line.'" But on Sabbath afternoon, he omitted the "punch line" from 8T:247, thus mitigating the force of what the Lord's messenger wrote. The reference states plainly that the Seventh-day Adventist church as a corporate body is to be weighed in the balances of the sanctuary. "God the Farmer" will look over the "tree"! Then "if" she has not produced "figs" corresponding "to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessing conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence, "Found want." In the parable, the "farmer" says, literally in the Greek, "cut it out" (ek kopto) of the vineyard. [Could the "vineyard" represent the "seven churches" collectively? Short stated - "Though spanning history from the cross to the second coming yet it [the Seven Churches] is one church, one corporate body built by Jesus." (Newsletter, op.cit., p. 4) But Short (and Wieland) do not believe what Jesus says. To them Divine patience is not probationary.
Here is another irony of history. This chapter from Testimonies, Vol. VIII was the one on which these men based their call for "denominational repentance." On p. 250, this testimony reads:
Unless the church, which is now [1903] being leavened with her own backsliding shall repent and be converted,
...
Notice the use made of this statement in 1888 Re-Examined (p. 203, in A Warning and Its Reception, p. 242) The response of the church to this call is also given in A Warning and Its Reception:
The solution proposed ... of a denominational repentance, is not possible nor would an attempt to do so be of value. (p. 259)
Two other things are of interest in Elder Short's Sabbath afternoon message. One is a quote from this same chapter in Vol. VIII as given in the Newsletter, but was not read to those listening. 5 The Lord's messenger wrote, quoting Paul (I Tim. 4:1) - "Many will depart from the faith." Short (and Wieland) failed to differentiate between the true "faith" entrusted to the church and the "church." The "many" do not necessarily leave the church - they are the very ones controlling the corporate church. In fact, the Writings indicate that after "the glory of the Lord had departed from Israel" the "many still continued the forms of religion" but God's "power and presence were lacking." (5T:210) To equate "depart from the faith" as synonymous with "depart from the church as a corporate body" is a deception.
Also in the abridgment as given in the Newsletter, Short quotes "the heavenly Teacher," but he fails to quote in the same context this divine "Instructor" who asked the question - "'How is the faithful city become an harlot?'" (8T:250) But what Elder Short did quote comes back - sadly - on his own head. It speaks of the delusion that will beguile the human mind - a pretense of building on the right foundation. The True Witness, Jesus Christ, the firm Foundation, says of Laodicea - "I will spue thee out of my mouth." But Short (and Wieland) reject this pronouncement and build upon some other foundation which is a delusion.
________________________________________________________
1 This message by David Grams was perhaps the most deceptive message I have ever heard presented in Adventist circles in recent years. In his presentation, he used every technique of public speaking to carry his audience emotionally with his theme, and played to the hilt the added atmosphere which a sound system can give the voice. It was real showmanship using the arts of public address to manipulate minds. Since returning home, I have had the taped presentation transcribed. In reading it with all the sound effects removed, it revealed the absolute bareness of real substance, and came across as the "east wind" from the Arabian desert. (See Jer. 5:13; Hosea 12:1)
2 The attack on this book, and Wieland's attack on Ron Spear's position on Righteousness by Faith as set forth in the publication, Our Firm Foundation were the only two open attacks I heard during this conference. Wieland was correct in so doing because Spears knows nothing about the message of Righteousness by Faith either from a theoretical nor a practical standpoint. He is a decoy of the enemy of all righteousness. (See II Cor. 11:15)
3 All direct quotes from Grams have been taken from the taped recording of his presentation, Thursday morning, August 21.
4 The full statement in context from the R&H, March 25, 1890 reads:
"'Sister White ... do you think that these men who have brought out the truth in the past were inspired of God?' I dare not say they were not led of God, for Christ leads into all truth; but when it comes to inspiration in the fullest extent, I answer, No. I believe that God has given them a work to do, but if they are not fully consecrated to God at all times, they will weave self and their peculiar traits of character into what they are doing, and will put their mold upon the work, and fashion men in religious experience after their own pattern."
5 1n all of Elder Short's presentations, it appeared that he was reading from a prepared text. The difference, therefore, between the taped transcription and the Newsletter could be attributed to ad-libbing. In both, however, it was obvious, he sought to mitigate the force of 8T:247.
Page 8
THE "FIRST" 1888 MESSAGE CONFERENCE
Following the 1888 Message Conference at Andrews University, A. L. Hudson wrote a letter to Wieland, Short, Sequeria, the Cates and this editor. He enclosed the picture reproduced on the right
(above) which he had taken on the front lawn of our home in Indiana. In the letter - dated September 13, 1986 - he indicated this picture, "of some historical significance," was a record of "the first 1888 Conference" which was held in the Marion Seventh-day Adventist Church of which this editor was pastor at the time. It was held just after the General Conference session in Cleveland in 1958. Of this meeting, Hudson wrote:
At this meeting, I played for the small group my recorded conversation with Dr. Barnhouse. It was at Cleveland, Barnhouse secured permission of Figuhr to sue me for recording the conversation. The meeting was cordial and enjoyable, I thought. It's consensus was to my recollection: An independent journal is needed to deal with the developments in Adventism, but the time in 1958 was not quite ripe. In 1960 I started the Church Triumphant with Grotheer writing under the pen name of Ben Ezra II. Bob [Wieland] would never write at all.
This was almost thirty years ago. There is no point in trying to cover the history of these years. Today, we all know the immediate situation as pertains to these principals and to quite an extent the situation in the world and in Adventism. The only question of significance is: Where do we go from here, or do "we" go anywhere from here?
Unless God does something "we" aren't going to go anywhere together, and God won't and can't do anything unless we want Him to.
When we got together in 1958 had God given us a picture of the situation in 1986, what would we have done? What about ten years down the line? I am saying God has given us a picture not in terms of years but in terms of developments, but Bob and Don, you are saying "taint true. Our theories are truth." Bob and Don, I can't go with you any longer on your program. Had I attended your meeting I would have had to attend as Grotheer did. I think you men are crying peace and safety when God is saying something quite different. God will not forever wait on the organized Seventh-day Adventist church to experience "corporate repentance."
What is the "true Christ" saying to Adventism today?
In the first part of his letter, he tells of the reports he had heard of the "success" of the meeting, and that God had "been gracious." Then Hudson comments - "He was gracious to the meeting, because He is a gracious God." He then raises some probing questions which dare not be set aside lightly. The questions and comments are:
But the next meeting, will He again be gracious? If He is a gracious God, how can He be anything but gracious; but history has some very perplexing problems about God's graciousness
Page 9
I would still have my hands "washed" of the situation but one of my publications was distributed at the meeting, and I was invited to the meeting specifically by Bob, Don, and Helen [Cate] while Grotheer was asked not to come and I advised him not to go. If Christ decided to come today, whom of us would He pick up and whom would He leave dead on this earth? [Emphasis Hudson's]
If this question is not serious, this letter is not serious. If you friends do not consider it serious, then another meeting at Andrews next year is pure hypocrisy. But I believe all of you do consider it serious, or I would not be writing.
A word of explanation is in order at this point. Prior to the Andrews University 1888 Message Conference, Mrs. Helen Cate had requested Brother Hudson to print 500 copies of the booklet - Union with Christ - which he did. However, there is a background to this booklet about which those attending the conference were not told when the "sales pitch" was made by Mr. Cate. "This booklet is only two chapters from a large EGW compilation published in 1971 under the title, Seventh-day Adventism at the Crossroads. A year or so later this was followed by another compilation Shall We Be Found Wanting?" (Letter dated Sept. 13, 1986)
With this background, I am sure the reader can better understand the thrust and concern expressed in Brother Hudson's letter quoted throughout this article, and what now follows:
I am saying that the true Christ of Adventism [here he alludes to the motif found in 1888 Re-Examined] is speaking to His church today in these "whole chapters" from the "published works" of His prophet.
Bob [Wieland] and Jack [Sequeria], you were both at the meeting in the Conference president's office in Boise some months ago when I brought out these three compilations. None of the Adventist preachers present were even interested enough in what was in them, to say nothing of studying them.
I know of no Adventist preacher brave enough and honest enough to make an open, organized effort to put Ellen White together! ...
So what is a layman supposed to do? (Ibid.)
Hudson in this letter on behalf of The Adventist Council on Attachment is extending "a specific invitation" to the 1888 Message organization and those addressed in the letter to "a meeting to study how to study the material in these two E. G. White compilations and comprising the testimony of the true Witness to Laodicea emanating from the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary."
This editor has advised Brother Hudson that he will make every effort to be present when the time has been agreed upon. Elder Wieland has not as yet responded to the "Open Letter" sent to him, and so it will be of great interest to learn of his reaction to this invitation. The reason is very simple. Wieland is the "hold-out" in this present situation, and the "king-pin" in what attitude the 1888 Message organization takes. In simple language, how much longer can the facade of the 1888 Message Conferences be maintained?
THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE CONFERENCE
The unique and the outstanding presentations above all as given at the 1888 Message Conference at Andrews University were the messages brought. by Elder E. H. Sequeira, pastor of the Pacific Press Adventist church in Idaho. His sermons were thought provoking, Biblically centered, and spiritually insightful in the development of the "in Christ" motif found in the gospel of John and the letters of Paul. They are worthy of continued research and deep study. Elder Sequeira indicated that he did not speak about the 1888 message, he endeavored to preach that message. And he did!
In grasping the "in Christ" concept of the Bible, Elder Sequeira has caught the "corporate" concept revealed in the gospel for men's cleansing in the final atonement. In Christ the individual faces the judgment, and passes from death unto life. This "corporate" concept needs to be expanded to all areas of discussion of the 1888 message - not merely "corporate repentance" but also "corporate accountability" with its ultimate outcome in "corporate judgment." (5T:211)
Elder Sequeira was born in Goa, a former Portuguese colony on the West coast in India to devout Roman Catholic parents. His contact with the truth came when in Nairobi, Kenya, he lived across the road from Elder and Mrs. R. J. Wieland. He observed the agape spirit manifest by Elder Wieland in meeting the needs of the native workers. This opened his heart to the Advent message. After attending Newbold College and Andrews University, he returned in missionary service to Kenya and Ethiopia.
Page 10
"AS MANY AS I LOVE"
Christ's Call to Laodicea
A New Book by Elder R. J. Wieland
Each conferee attending the 1888 Message Conference was given a copy of Elder R. J. Wieland's latest book - "As Many As I Love." This book did pass through a book committee of the denomination but was printed by the Eusey Press at Leominster, MA, for Adventist Realities located in Uniontown, OH. Since this was not published under the official imprimatur of the Church, does it mean that it is an "off-shoot" publication? Certainly not! A publication can either stand or fall on its own merits. The validity of any publication is determined by checking its positions against a "Thus saith the Lord."
The title of the book indicates that it is an analysis of the message to Laodicea. (Rev. 3:14-21 ) Wieland indicates -
that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is in an unique sense Laodicea. It follows that the "angel of the church the Laodiceans" is primarily the responsible leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist church on all levels, each segment appropriately responsible. (p. 59)
(In this he is setting forth his basic concept for "corporate repentance".) He continues:
God "intends that the 'angel of the church' shall repent first, and then minister the experience to the world-wide church. The Laodicean message is evidence that this is His plan." (p. 60)
Then at this point, he himself interjects a parenthesis in his thesis:
(Suppose the leadership fails, or rejects the Lord's appeal? Israel's history demonstrates that "the people" can intervene and demand repentance; see Jeremiah 26).
In this he gives a clue as to the objective of the 1888 Message Conferences. In other words, incite the laity "'to demand" of the hierarchy a statement of repentance. Wieland knows how the hierarchy have already answered 1888 Re-Examined and declared that such a repentance "is not possible nor would an attempt to do so be of value. " (See p. 9, col. 1) But let us suppose that Wieland and Short with the Cates are able to generate enough pressure on the leadership in Washington so that the "demand" is assented to. Would this then be a genuine repentance?
Let us suppose again that the "brethren" in Washington become convinced that this development in Adventism can be used to bring their "90" numbers game to a successful conclusion. So they give lip service repentance to accomplish their objective. How will Wieland be able to tell whether this is genuine or not? He will not come face to face with the events in our history - 1901-1903 - at the point where the Lord's messenger indicated the church "was being leavened with its own backsliding." (8T:250) But unless he does, he has no basis upon which to judge the genuineness of a repentance on the part of the hierarchy. John the Baptist declared: "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance." (Luke 3:8)
In the book, Wieland proceeds to ask the question - "Will Christ Reject Laodicea?" (p. 60) He takes cognizance of the fact that in the Laodicean message, the true Witness declares plainly - "I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16) Then he writes:
The original language does not say unconditionally that Christ will reject His lukewarm church. What He said was, "I am about to spue thee out of my mouth."
In another part of the book, he states:
The expression, "I will spue thee out of my mouth " is not an accurate translation of the Greek. Christ did not say that Laodicea must suffer His final rejection, without hope. The Greek is mello se emesai, which means literally, "You make Me sick with nausea," or "I am so nauseated that I am on the point of vomiting." But the verb mello does not require final action. (p. 98)
To seek to illustrate the force of the word, mello, in the Greek, he appeals to an illustration in John's gospel concerning the son of a nobleman. He concludes that because the word, mello, is used there and the son did not die, this means that Laodicea is not to be spued out. The reason that the son did not die is that Jesus intervened. But where in Rev. 3:14-21 is Christ pictured as intervening for Laodicea? The only picture is of Christ standing at the door, asking the individual - anyone (tis) - who hears His voice to open the door. Christ is never pictured as coming into Laodicea!
Wieland could have found illustrations of the use of mello right in the messages of the Seven Churches. Note these uses:
Rev. 2:10 - Fear none of those things which thou shalt (mello) suffer: behold the devil shall (mello) cast some of you into prison.
Page 11
Rev. 3: 10 - Because thou has kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall (mello) come upon all the world.
Do these uses of the word, mello, suggest the meaning of "about" which carries the connotation of "perhaps"?
Consider the close parallel sentence structure and thought pattern between verses 10 and 16 of Revelation 3. In verse 10 - "Because" Philadelphia kept the word of Christ's patience, He would keep them from the hour of trial which "shall" come upon all the world. Will this "hour" come - perhaps? No, it will come! Now note verse 16 - "Because" Laodicea is lukewarm, the true Witness declares - "I will (mello) spue thee out." Perhaps? Thayer in his Lexicon indicates that the general use of mello signifies "what is sure to happen."
Wieland knew better than to appeal to similar uses of mello in the book of Revelation. Several years ago while still in Africa, Wieland and this editor exchanged a number of letters over this very point. He finally pled, nolo contendere as he said he was not a student of the Greek.
To know that one's position is questionable, and then to put out a book with the concept emphasized avoiding a clear comparison in Revelation itself is hardly in line with the Message of 1888. The Righteousness of Christ is declared to be "pure unadulterated truth." (TM, p. 65) This is adulterating truth to sustain a cherished position. When I sent to Elder Wieland a copy of "The Open Letter" before publishing it, I sent in the cover letter a suggestion that he might wish to add to the topics suggested a discussion of Revelation 3:14-21. So far no response!
In Appendix B of his book, Wieland takes note of the position "that Philadelphia, not Laodicea, represents the true church that will be ready for Christ's coming. Joseph Bates is cited as a venerable authority for this view. But the dear pioneer was mistaken on this, as he was on some other points." (p. 96) Space does not permit a discussion of this accusation against Bates. However, if one wishes to study Bates' position on this point as found in the first issue of Review and Herald published in 1850, from Paris, Maine, send a self-addressed stamped envelope indicating this article, and we will send it free of charge.
"Error is never harmless. It never sanctifies, but always brings confusion and dissension. It is always dangerous." (5T: 292)
|